HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 - Transportation Plans - Transportation PlanGREATER BOZEMAN AREA
TRANSPORTATION PLAN (2007 UPDATE)
prepared by
Helena, MT
Robert Peccia & Associates
April 2009
and
Portland, OR
ALTA Planning + Design
Cambridge, MA
Cambridge Systematics
APR
GREATER BOZEMAN AREA
TRANSPORTATION PLAN (2007 UPDATE)
prepared for
in cooperation with
Bozeman Transportation Coordinating Committee, Bozeman, MT
City of Bozeman, MT
Gallatin County, MT
Montana Department of Transportation
prepared by
P.O. Box 5653
825 Custer Avenue
Helena, MT 59601
www.rpa-hln.com
Robert Peccia & Associates
and
711 SE Grand Avenue
Portland, OR 97214
www.altaplanning.com
ALTA Planning + Design
100 Cambridge Park Drive, Suite 400
Cambridge, MA 02140
www.camsys.com
Cambridge Systematics
APR
Adopted By:
Bozeman Transportation Coordinating Committee, 12/17/2008
Bozeman City Commission, 01/20/2009
Gallatin County Commission, 02/10/2009
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Acknowledgments
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page i
The Transportation
Coordinating Committee
(TCC) is comprised of a
multitude of individuals
representing various
departments of Gallatin
County, the city of
Bozeman, and the
Montana Department of
Transportation and a
standing committee in the
community that is
generally responsible for
overseeing transportation
planning efforts.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The successful completion of this project was made possible through the cooperation and
assistance of many individuals. The following people provided guidance and support
throughout the course of this study:
Bozeman Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) Members
Jeff Krauss, Representative, Bozeman City Commission
Bill Murdock, Representative ,Board of County Commissioners
JP Pomnichowski, President, City of Bozeman Planning Board
Erik Henyon, Alternate
Kerry White, President, Gallatin County Planning Board
Jeff Ebert, District Engineer, Butte District Montana Department of Transportation
Lee Provance, Road Superintendent, Gallatin County
George Durkin, Alternate
Debbie Arkell, Director of Public Service, City of Bozeman
John VanDelinder, Alternate
Chris Kukulski, City Manager, City of Bozeman
Andy Epple, TCC Chair, Director, City of Bozeman Planning and
Community Development
Chris Scott, Representative for Director, Gallitin County
Planning
Ralph Zimmer, Representative, Bozeman Pedestrian and Traffic
Safety Committee
Taylor Lonsdale, Alternate 1
Gary Vodenhal, Alternate 2
Dick Turner, Chief, Multimodel Planning Bureau, Montana
Department of Transportation
Carol Strizich, Alternate 1
Al Vander Wey, Alternate 2
Joe Olsen, Engineering Services Supervisor, Butte District
Montana Department of Transportation
David Smith, Citizen Member, City of Bozeman Resident
Pat Abelin, Citizen Member, Gallatin County Resident
Bob Lashaway, Representative, Montana State University
Walt Banziger, Alternate
Jon Henderson, Chair, Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board
Dave Baumbauer, Alternate
Joseph Menicucci, City Manager, City of Belgrade
Bob Burkhardt, Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration
Jeff Patten, Alternate
Ross Gammon, Maintenance Chief, Montana Department of Transportation, Bozeman
Division
Robert Bukvich, Utility Agent, Bozeman Division
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Acknowledgments
Page ii Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
City of Bozeman Planning Board Members
JP Pomnichowski, Chair, City of Bozeman
Donna Swarthout, City of Bozeman
Cathy Costakis, City of Bozeman
Chris Mehl, City of Bozeman
Erik Henyon, City of Bozeman
Brian Caldwell, City of Bozeman
Randy Carpenter, City of Bozeman
Sean Becker, City of Bozeman
Commission
Willian Quinn, Gallatin County
Bozeman City Commission
Kaaren Jacobson, Mayor, City of Bozeman
Jeff Krauss, Deputy Mayor /
Commissioner, City of Bozeman
Sean Becker, Commissioner, City of
Bozeman
Eric Bryson, Commissioner, City of
Bozeman
Jeffrey K. Rupp, Commissioner, City of
Bozeman
Gallatin County Planning Board Members
Kerry White, Chairman, Gallatin County
Gail Richardson, Vice Chair, Gallatin
Byron Anderson, Gallatin County
C.B. Dormire, Gallatin County
Donald Seifert, Gallatin County
Matt Flikkema, Gallatin County
Deb Kimball Robinson, Gallatin County
Mike McKenna, Gallatin County
Marianne Jackson Amsdem, Gallatin
County
Patti Davis, Gallatin County
Susan Kozub, Gallatin County
Gallatin County Commission
Joe Skinner, Chairman
Steve White, County Commissioner
Bill Murdock, County Commissioner
Gallatin County
Chris Scott, County Planner Lee Provance, Director of Public Works
George Durkin, County Engineer
City of Bozeman
Andy Epple, City Planner
Debbie Arkel, Director of Public Service
Rick Hixson, City Engineer
Bob Murray, Jr., Project Engineer
Chris Saunders, Asst. Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager, City of
Bozeman
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Acknowledgments
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page iii
Montana Department of Transportation
Carol Strizich, Safety Planner, Statewide
and Urban Planning Section
Al Vander Wey, Transportation Planner /
Modeler
Lynn Zanto, Statewide and Urban
Planning Section
List of Preparers
The Traffic & Transportation Division of the consulting firm of Robert Peccia & Associates,
Inc., Helena, Montana prepared this study. The following members of our firm were major
contributors to this study or helped prepare the document:
Keith Jensen, P.E., President
Jeffrey A. Key, P.E., Project
Manager/Senior Traffic Engineer
Brian Wacker, P.E., Vice President, Streets
& Highways Division Manager
Dan Norderud, AICP, Transportation
Planner
Nicholas L. Ladas, Graphics Designer
Scott Randall, E.I., Transportation
Planner/Designer
Trisha Jensen, Transportation Planning
Technician
Kelly P. Quinn, Computer System
Manager
Gary Lesofski, CADD Division Manager
Jennifer Looby, Production Manager
Community Stakeholder Groups
Montana State University
Candace Mastel
Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee
Gary Vodenhall
Taylor Lonsdale
John VanDelinder
Frank Manseau
Vicki Jones
Gallatin Valley Land Trust
Ted Lange
Gary Vodenhal
Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board
Jon Henderson
David Baumbauer
Jeff Ball
Chad Bailey
Jason Delmue
Matt Rognlie
Colleen Helm
Safe Trails Coalition
Doug McSpadden
Mary VantHull
Jeanne Eggert
Jon Henderson
Subconsultants
Alta Planning + Design
Mia Birk, Principal in Charge
Jessica Roberts, Project Manager
Joe Gilpin, Transportation Planner
Cambridge Systematics
George Mazur, P.E., Project Manager
Tracy Clymer, Transportation Modeler
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Executive Summary
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Transportation Plan Update is intended to document changes and progress since the
last Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2001 Update) was completed in the year 2001.
This Plan Update strives to elevate non-motorized transportation planning in the community
from both a mobility, and a liveability, perspective. The Plan attempts to address motorized
and non-motorized transportation needs by placing both on equal playing fields. This has
been accomplished through meaningful dialogue with the public and dozens of
stakeholders, along with the analysis of the Consultant team and the transportation
coordinating committee (TCC). The TCC is the advisory committee which oversaw the
development of this update to the Transportation Plan.
The Greater Bozeman Area has seen and continues to experience substantial growth. The
desire for growth in the community is sometimes met with mixed emotions: many long-time
existing residents would like growth to subside and/or at least slow, while many new
residents and business entities desire additonal services and economic benefits found in a
growth oriented community. Almost all recognize, however, that the impacts of growth are
being felt in the Gallatin Valley. A Transportation Plan is often in the position of responding
to the existing impacts of this growth, while at the same time planning for the future needs to
accommodate growth. This plan recognized this dichotomy and strives to achieve a balance
in addressing existing deficiences while at the same time planning for the future. Growth
within the Bozeman area was projected using a computer traffic model. The model used
current socio-economic data and growth trends to project traffic volumes, as presented in
Chapter 3 of the Plan. These projected traffic volumes identified future traffic problems
within the area. The projections indicate that many sections of the current street network
will be insufficient to meet the traffic demands generated by future growth. The anticipated
traffic demand in the year 2030 will produce unacceptable traffic congestion, and excessive
vehicle delays at many major intersections. Several major corridors will need to be expanded
to handle the additional traffic including South 19th Avenue, College Street, and Rouse
Avenue.
Numerous new roads will also be required in the next 20 years to provide access to the new
growth areas of the community. Without the recommended system upgrades, the
anticipated increase in traffic volumes will overload these arterials. Even with the
recommended road improvements contained in this Plan, traffic volumes on some arterials
will grow to the point that some traffic congestion will still occur.
The analysis of the future traffic conditions indicated a need for numerous improvements in
the area. These infrastructure improvements are contained in Chapter 5 of this plan and are
broken down into four categories:
Transportation System Management (TSM) Improvements,
Major Street Network (MSN) Improvements,
Pedestrian Facility Improvements, and
Bicycle Facility Improvements.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Executive Summary
Page vi Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
TSM projects focus mainly on intersection improvements, such as the addition of turning
lanes and signalization. A total of thirty-seven (37) TSM projects are recommended. Major
Street Network (MSN) Improvement projects focus on upgrading entire road corridors and
the construction of new roadways. Thirty (30) MSN projects are recommended.
The Plan also strives to strengthen and/or reinforce policy and procedural actions for both
non-motorized and motorized travel. Chapter 6 of the plan presents concepts and guidelines
for complete streets, context sensitive design (CSD) principles, transportation level of service,
and a variety of pedestrian and bicycle programs and policies.
One of the most important pieces of information that is provided in this Plan is a projection
of the major street network. A map showing this projection is presented in Chapter 9, and
identifies where the arterial and collector routes of the community should be located as the
area develops. This map, along with recommended street standards, is an important
planning tool. This projection of the future road system is essential for the city and county
planners. It provides a blueprint of how the arterial network should be developed. It
enables the planners to locate future arterial corridors, and to request appropriate amounts
of rights-of-way and new road sections throughout the development process. This will allow
the community to create a logical and functional road network for the future. It is important
to note that identifying the desired general alignment of future road corridors is significantly
different from building roads to encourage development. The socio-economic trends
indicate that substantial development will occur within the 20-year planning horizon of this
transportation plan. This map of the future road system will insure that anticipated
development also produces an appropriate road system.
The cost of the recommended improvement projects far exceeds the funds available through
the federal-aid programs that are traditionally used to finance transportation improvements
as defined in Chapter 11. Many projects will need to be financed by the private sector
during the development process. The TSM projects should be completed as needed and as
funding allows. Implementation of the TSM projects will keep most of the transportation
system functioning at a satisfactory level during the 20-year planning period. However, a
select group of Major Improvement projects must be implemented in order for the system to
function effectively.
The "top ten” recommended Major Improvement projects are listed below:
Top Ten Major Improvement Projects
(Not listed in order of importance to the community)
1. MSN-1: N. 19th Avenue (I-90 to Springhill Road) – Upgrade to 5-lane urban arterial.
2. MSN-2: Kagy Boulevard (S. 19th Avenue to Willson Avenue) – Upgrade to 3-lane
urban arterial.
3. MSN-4: Rouse Avenue (Main Street to Story Mill Road) – Upgrade to 3-lane urban
arterial.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Executive Summary
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page vii
4. MSN-5: College Street (Main Street to 19th Avenue) – Upgrade to 5-lane urban
arterial.
5. MSN-14: W. Babcock Street (11th Avenue to 19th Avenue) – Upgrade to 2-lane
collector.
6. MSN-17: Frontage Road (N. 7th Avenue to Belgrage) – Upgrade to 3-lane rural
arterial.
7. MSN-20: East Belgrade Interchange – Construct a new I-90 interchange to serve the
airport and Belgrade areas.
8. MSN-21: Gallatin Road (Gallatin Gateway to Four Corners) – Upgrade to 3-lane
rural arterial.
9. MSN-22: Jackrabbit Lane (Four Corners to Frank Road) – Upgrade to 5-lane arterial.
10. MSN-26: Highland Boulevard (Main Street to Kagy Bouleverd) – Upgrade to 5-lane
urban arterial north of Ellis Street, upgrade to 3-lane urban arterial south of Ellis
Street.
It needs to be expressed that this plan has a primary focus on non-motorized as well as
vehicular projects. Although the “top ten” projects listed earlier are vehicular projects, every
effort needs to be made to implement non-motorized projects whenever possible.
Lastly, although this Transportation Plan is a tool that can be used to guide development of
the transportation system in the future, local and state planners must continually re-evaluate
the findings and recommendations in this document as growth is realized and development
occurs. If higher than anticipated growth is realized in the community, or if growth occurs
in areas not originally planned for, transportation needs may be different from those
analyzed in this plan. An update and re-evaluation of this document should occur every five
years, at a minimum, for at least a cursory review to determine how implementation of the
community’s transportation system is progressing.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Table of Contents
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................... i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... v
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................... ix
DEFINITIONS / ACRONYMS ......................................................................................... xxi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ......................................... 1-4
1.4 PREVIOUS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING EFFORTS ................................................... 1-7
1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT................................................................................................... 1-8
1.6 COORDINATION SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 1-11
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 MOTORIZED .................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.1 Existing Functional Classifications & Study Roadways .................................................. 2-1
2.2.2 Existing Traffic Volumes and Corridor Facility Size ........................................................ 2-6
2.2.3 Existing Traffic Signal System ............................................................................................. 2-7
2.2.4 Existing Levels of Service ................................................................................................... 2-14
2.2.4.1 Signalized Intersections ................................................................................................................. 2-15
2.2.4.2 Unsignalized Intersections ............................................................................................................. 2-18
2.2.5 Crash Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 2-23
2.3 NON-MOTORIZED ........................................................................................................ 2-31
2.3.1 Overview of Bozeman Demographics .............................................................................. 2-31
2.3.2 Study Area Land Use .......................................................................................................... 2-33
2.3.3 Major Activity Generators and Attractors ....................................................................... 2-33
2.3.4 Existing Policies and Goals ................................................................................................ 2-35
2.3.5 Existing Bicycle Facilities and Programs .......................................................................... 2-40
2.3.6 Existing Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................... 2-45
2.3.7 Bikeway Signage ................................................................................................................. 2-49
2.3.8 Bicycle Detection at Intersections ...................................................................................... 2-50
2.3.9 Bicycle Parking .................................................................................................................... 2-51
2.3.10 Bikeway Maintenance ......................................................................................................... 2-53
2.3.11 System Deficiencies ............................................................................................................. 2-54
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Table of Contents
Page x Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
2.3.12 Encouragement and Education Programs ....................................................................... 2-56
2.3.13 Bicycles and Transit ............................................................................................................ 2-57
2.3.14 Bicycle Collision History .................................................................................................... 2-57
2.3.15 Existing Pedestrian Facilities and Programs ................................................................... 2-61
2.3.16 Existing Pedestrian Gaps in Arterials and Major Collectors ......................................... 2-61
2.3.17 Pedestrian Collision History .............................................................................................. 2-65
2.3.18 Pedestrian Facility Maintenance ....................................................................................... 2-65
2.3.19 System Deficiencies ............................................................................................................. 2-68
2.3.20 Bicycle and Pedestrian Enforcement ................................................................................ 2-71
2.3.21 Public Involvement ............................................................................................................. 2-71
2.3.22 Equestrian Issues ................................................................................................................. 2-77
CHAPTER 3: TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING
3.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC TRENDS .......................................................................................... 3-1
3.3 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS ........................................................ 3-8
3.4 FUTURE DWELLING UNITS .......................................................................................... 3-10
3.5 FUTURE EMPLOYMENT ................................................................................................. 3-11
3.6 ALLOCATION OF GROWTH .......................................................................................... 3-11
3.7 TRAFFIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................ 3-17
3.8 TRAFFIC VOLUME PROJECTIONS ................................................................................ 3-19
3.9 NETWORK ALTERNATIVES TEST RUN ANALYSIS ..................................................... 3-28
3.10 TRAFFIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT CONCLUSIONS ..................................................... 3-46
CHAPTER 4: PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
4.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE (MOTORIZED) .................................................... 4-1
4.3 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS (MOTORIZED) ............................................................. 4-7
4.4 CORRIDOR VOLUMES, CAPACITY AND LEVELS OF SERVICE (MOTORIZED) .......... 4-10
4.4.1 Speed-Density-Flow Relationship ..................................................................................... 4-14
4.5 VEHICLE CRASH ANALYSIS (MOTORIZED) ............................................................... 4-16
4.6 PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM ................................................................................................... 4-17
4.6.1 Problem Themes .................................................................................................................. 4-17
4.6.2 Pedestrian Collision Analysis ............................................................................................ 4-17
4.6.3 Problem Areas ..................................................................................................................... 4-17
4.7 BICYCLE SYSTEM ........................................................................................................... 4-18
4.7.1 Problem Themes & Areas ................................................................................................... 4-18
4.7.2 Bicycle Collision Analysis .................................................................................................. 4-20
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Table of Contents
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page xi
4.8 TRANSIT SYSTEM .......................................................................................................... 4-21
4.8.1 Needs Identified in the “Bozeman Area Transportation Coordination Plan” ............ 4-21
4.8.2 Additional Identified Needs .............................................................................................. 4-22
4.9 EQUESTRIAN ISSUES ..................................................................................................... 4-22
CHAPTER 5: FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 RECOMMENDED MAJOR STREET NETWORK (MSN) IMPROVEMENTS .................... 5-1
5.1.1 MSN Projects from the 2001 Transportation Plan ............................................................. 5-1
5.1.2 Committed Major Street Network (CMSN) Projects ........................................................ 5-3
5.1.3 Recommended Major Street Network (MSN) Projects .................................................... 5-5
5.2 RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM) ................... 5-15
5.2.1 TSM Projects from the 2001 Transportation Plan ........................................................... 5-15
5.2.2 Committed Transportation System Management (CTSM) Improvements ................. 5-18
5.2.3 Recommended Transportation System Management (TSM) Improvements ............. 5-19
5.3 RECOMMENDED PEDESTRIAN FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS....................................... 5-29
5.3.1 Bozeman Specific Safe Routes to School Projects ............................................................ 5-29
5.3.2 Sidewalks .............................................................................................................................. 5-29
5.3.3 Intersections/Crossings ..................................................................................................... 5-30
5.4 RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS .............................................. 5-32
5.4.1 Bike Lanes ............................................................................................................................. 5-32
5.4.2 Shared Roadways ................................................................................................................ 5-34
5.4.3 Shoulder Bikeways .............................................................................................................. 5-35
5.4.4 Shared-Use Paths ................................................................................................................. 5-36
5.4.5 Bicycle Parking Recommendations ................................................................................... 5-38
5.5 RECOMMENDED EQUESTRIAN FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS ...................................... 5-42
CHAPTER 6: PROGRAMS, POLICIES & PROCEDURAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 COMPLETE STREET GUIDELINES ................................................................................... 6-1
6.1.1 Elements of Complete Streets .............................................................................................. 6-1
6.1.2 Recommendation .................................................................................................................. 6-2
6.1.3 Next Steps ............................................................................................................................... 6-3
6.2 CONTEXT SENSITIVE DESIGN/CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS GUIDANCE ......... 6-3
6.2.1 History and Definition .......................................................................................................... 6-3
6.2.2 The Makeup of CSS ............................................................................................................... 6-4
6.2.3 Recommendation .................................................................................................................. 6-5
6.3 MDT CURRENT PRACTICES .......................................................................................... 6-5
6.3.1 Examples of Montana Based CSS Projects ......................................................................... 6-6
6.3.2 Other Programs and Policies ............................................................................................... 6-8
6.4 LEVEL OF SERVICE GUIDELINES .................................................................................... 6-9
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Table of Contents
Page xii Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
6.4.1 Roadway LOS vs. Intersection LOS .................................................................................... 6-9
6.4.2 User Perceived LOS ............................................................................................................ 6-12
6.4.3 Bozeman’s Current LOS Standard .................................................................................... 6-13
6.4.4 Recommended Revised LOS Standard ............................................................................ 6-14
6.4.5 Bicycle Level of Service ...................................................................................................... 6-14
6.5 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM & POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS .............. 6-17
6.5.1 Education Program Recommendations............................................................................ 6-17
6.5.2 Commuting Program Recommendations ........................................................................ 6-23
6.5.3 Enforcement Program Recommendations ....................................................................... 6-25
6.5.4 Encouragement Program Recommendations .................................................................. 6-26
6.5.5 Policy Recommendations ................................................................................................... 6-27
6.6 NON-MOTORIZED MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS ........................................... 6-30
6.6.1 Overlay / Resurfacing Projects ......................................................................................... 6-30
6.6.2 Utility Cuts ........................................................................................................................... 6-31
6.6.3 Snow Removal ..................................................................................................................... 6-31
6.6.4 Bikeway and Walkway Maintenance During Construction Activities ........................ 6-31
CHAPTER 7: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
7.1 NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND PREVIOUS PLANS .............................................................. 7-1
7.2 BUS STOP INTERACTION WITH DEVELOPMENT .......................................................... 7-3
7.3 BUS STOP PLACEMENT ................................................................................................... 7-3
7.4 BUS STOP ELEMENTS ...................................................................................................... 7-6
7.5 PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 7-8
7.5.1 Fixed Route Systems ............................................................................................................. 7-8
7.5.2 Demand Responsive Systems ............................................................................................ 7-13
7.6 ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES / FUEL CONSIDERATIONS ....................................... 7-16
7.6.1 Alternative Fuel Vehicles ................................................................................................... 7-16
7.6.2 Alternative Fuels in Transit Vehicles ................................................................................ 7-17
7.7 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION CONCLUSION ................................................................. 7-18
7.8 LAND USE PLANNING & IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES .............................. 7-19
CHAPTER 8: TRAFFIC CALMING
8.1 PURPOSE OF TRAFFIC CALMING ................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 HISTORY OF TRAFFIC CALMING ................................................................................... 8-1
8.3 TYPES OF TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES .................................................................... 8-2
8.3.1 Passive Measures ................................................................................................................... 8-2
8.3.2 Deflection, Narrowing, Diversion, and Restriction .......................................................... 8-2
8.3.3 Education and Enforcement ................................................................................................ 8-3
8.3.4 Signage and Pavement Markings ........................................................................................ 8-3
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Table of Contents
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page xiii
8.4 VERTICAL DEFLECTION METHODS .............................................................................. 8-4
8.4.1 Speed Bumps, Humps, Tables, and Cushions ................................................................... 8-4
8.4.2 Raised Intersections .............................................................................................................. 8-6
8.4.3 Raised Crosswalks ................................................................................................................ 8-7
8.4.4 Textured Pavement ............................................................................................................... 8-8
8.4.5 Rumble Strips and Jiggle Bumps ......................................................................................... 8-9
8.5 HORIZONTAL DEFLECTION METHODS ...................................................................... 8-10
8.5.1 Chicane ................................................................................................................................. 8-10
8.5.2 Traffic Circles and Roundabouts ....................................................................................... 8-11
8.5.3 Intersection Realignment ................................................................................................... 8-12
8.6 HORIZONTAL NARROWING METHODS ..................................................................... 8-13
8.6.1 Neckdown ............................................................................................................................ 8-13
8.6.2 Choker ................................................................................................................................... 8-14
8.6.3 Center Island Narrowing and Pedestrian Islands .......................................................... 8-15
8.6.4 Angle Point ........................................................................................................................... 8-16
8.7 DIVERSION AND RESTRICTION METHODS................................................................ 8-17
8.7.1 Half Closures ....................................................................................................................... 8-17
8.7.2 Full Closures ........................................................................................................................ 8-18
8.7.3 Diagonal Diverters .............................................................................................................. 8-19
8.7.4 Median Barriers ................................................................................................................... 8-20
8.7.5 Forced Turn Islands ............................................................................................................ 8-21
8.7.6 Gateway ................................................................................................................................ 8-22
8.8 OTHER CALMING METHODS ...................................................................................... 8-23
8.8.1 Police Enforcement .............................................................................................................. 8-23
8.8.2 Decreased Speed Limits ..................................................................................................... 8-24
8.8.3 Variable Speed Display Board ........................................................................................... 8-25
8.8.4 Pavement Markings ............................................................................................................ 8-26
8.9 COUNTY SPECIFIC TRAFFIC CALMING ....................................................................... 8-27
8.10 INCORPORATING TRAFFIC CALMING IN NEW STREET DESIGNS ........................... 8-28
8.10.1 Multi-Jurisdictional Cooperation ...................................................................................... 8-28
8.11 TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM SUMMARY ................................................................. 8-29
8.12 TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM FOR EXISTING STREETS ........................................... 8-30
8.12.1 Phase I ................................................................................................................................... 8-30
8.12.2 Phase II .................................................................................................................................. 8-31
8.12.3 Phase III ................................................................................................................................ 8-31
8.12.4 Project Costs ......................................................................................................................... 8-32
8.12.5 Removal of Permanent Traffic Calming Devices ............................................................ 8-32
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Table of Contents
Page xiv Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
CHAPTER 9: RECOMMENDED MAJOR STREET NETWORK & ROADWAY
TYPICAL SECTIONS
9.1 FUNCTIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEMS IN URBANIZED AREAS ........................................ 9-1
9.1.1 Principal Arterial - Interstate ............................................................................................... 9-1
9.1.2 Principal Arterial – Non-Interstate ..................................................................................... 9-1
9.1.3 Minor Arterial Street System ............................................................................................... 9-2
9.1.4 Collector Street System ......................................................................................................... 9-2
9.1.5 Urban Local Street System ................................................................................................... 9-2
9.2 FACILITY SIZE VERSUS TRAFFIC VOLUME ................................................................... 9-3
9.3 RECOMMENDED MAJOR STREET NETWORK ............................................................... 9-4
9.4 RIGHT-OF-WAY NEEDS ................................................................................................ 9-11
9.5 ROUNDABOUT CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS ..................................................................... 9-12
9.5.1 Pedestrian Challenges ........................................................................................................ 9-13
9.6 RECOMMENDED ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTIONS ...................................................... 9-20
9.7 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES .................................................... 9-27
9.7.1 Pedestrian Facilities ............................................................................................................ 9-27
9.7.2 Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................................... 9-31
CHAPTER 10: MISCELLANEOUS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
CONSIDERATIONS
10.1 URBAN AND SECONDARY HIGHWAY DESIGNATIONS ............................................. 10-1
10.2 CORRIDOR PRESERVATION MEASURES ..................................................................... 10-3
10.3 ACCESS MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES ........................................................................ 10-4
10.3.1 Corridor Preservation Measures ....................................................................................... 10-5
10.4 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT ........................................................... 10-5
10.4.1 Role of TDM in the Transportation Plan .......................................................................... 10-5
10.4.2 List of TDM Strategies ........................................................................................................ 10-7
10.4.3 Effectiveness of TDM Strategies ...................................................................................... 10-13
10.4.4 Conclusions Based on Preliminary TDM evaluation for the Bozeman Area ............ 10-17
10.4.5 Recommended TDM Program ........................................................................................ 10-18
10.5 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY (TIS) PREPARATION GUIDELINES ................................. 10-22
CHAPTER 11: FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
11.1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 11-1
11.2 FUNDING SOURCES ...................................................................................................... 11-1
11.3 FEDERAL AID FUNDING SOURCES .............................................................................. 11-2
11.4 STATE FUNDING SOURCES ........................................................................................ 11-13
11.5 LOCAL FUNDING SOURCES ....................................................................................... 11-14
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Table of Contents
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page xv
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1-1: SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION COORDINATING (TCC) ACTIVITIES ................ 1-11
TABLE 1-2: SUMMARY OF “FORMAL” LOCAL GOVERNMENT OUTREACH ACTIVITIES .......... 1-11
TABLE 1-3: SUMMARY OF “OTHER” OUTREACH ACTIVITIES .................................................. 1-12
TABLE 2-1: LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS) ............................... 2-15
TABLE 2-2: 2007 AM PEAK HOUR LOS (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS) ................................. 2-16
TABLE 2-3: 2007 PM PEAK HOUR LOS (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS) ................................. 2-17
TABLE 2-4: LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA (STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS) ................... 2-18
TABLE 2-5: 2007 LOS (STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS) ................................................. 2-19
TABLE 2-6: EXISTING INTERSECTIONS FUNCTIONING AT LOS D OR LOWER ......................... 2-20
TABLE 2-7: INTERSECTIONS WITH 12 OR MORE CRASHES IN THE THREE-YEAR PERIOD
(JANUARY 1, 2004 – DECEMBER 31, 2006) .............................................................. 2-24
TABLE 2-8: INTERSECTION CRASH ANALYSIS – MDT SEVERITY INDEX RATING ................... 2-25
TABLE 2-9: INTERSECTION CRASH ANALYSIS CRASH RATE .................................................... 2-26
TABLE 2-10 INTERSECTION CRASH ANALYSIS COMPOSITE RATING ........................................ 2-27
TABLE 2-11: EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES: BIKE LANES .......................................................... 2-46
TABLE 2-12: EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES: SIGNED BIKE ROUTES .......................................... 2-47
TABLE 2-13: EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES: SHARED USE PATHS ............................................ 2-48
TABLE 2-14: BIKEWAY MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES & FREQUENCY .......................................... 2-54
TABLE 2-15: PEDESTRIAN MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES & FREQUENCY .................................... 2-65
TABLE 2-16: POTENTIAL PROJECT RANKING FROM QUESTION 11 ........................................... 2-75
TABLE 3-1: GALLATIN COUNTY POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT TRENDS (1970-2005)....... 3-1
TABLE 3-2: INCORPORATED CITIES IN GALLATIN COUNTY HISTORIC POPULATION
TRENDS (1970-2005) ................................................................................................. 3-2
TABLE 3-3: GALLATIN COUNTY AGE DISTRIBUTION (1970-2000) ............................................ 3-4
TABLE 3-4: GALLATIN COUNTY EMPLOYMENT TRENDS BY ECONOMIC SECTOR (1970-
2000) .......................................................................................................................... 3-5
TABLE 3-5: GALLATIN COUNTY POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS (2005-
2030) .......................................................................................................................... 3-8
TABLE 3-6: GALLATIN COUNTY PROJECTED DWELLING UNITS ............................................. 3-10
TABLE 3-7: GALLATIN COUNTY PROJECTED ADDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT ............................. 3-11
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Table of Contents
Page xvi Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
TABLE 3-8: ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO 1 – EAST BELGRADE INTERCHANGE ............................ 3-32
TABLE 3-9: ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO 2 – NORTHEAST ARTERIAL LINKS ............................... 3-33
TABLE 3-10: ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO 3 – ACCESS MANAGEMENT SCENARIO ....................... 3-34
TABLE 3-11: ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO 4 – ARTERIAL CONNECTIONS / CROSS REGIONAL
GRID SYSTEM ........................................................................................................... 3-37
TABLE 3-12: ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO 5 – INTERSTATE 90 OVERPASS AT DAVIS / NELSON
ALIGNMENT ............................................................................................................. 3-38
TABLE 3-13: ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO 6 – INTERSTATE 90 OVERPASS AT BAXTER /
MANDEVILLE ALIGNMENT ..................................................................................... 3-39
TABLE 3-14: ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO 7 – SOUTHWEST GRID MODIFICATIONS ...................... 3-40
TABLE 3-15: ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO 8 – KAGY BOULEVARD EXPANSION ............................ 3-40
TABLE 3-16: ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO 9 – FOWLER LANE EXTENSION .................................... 3-41
TABLE 3-17: ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO 10 – NORTHWEST GRID MODIFICATIONS ................... 3-43
TABLE 3-18: ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO 11 – AMSTERDAM ON-RAMP ....................................... 3-43
TABLE 3-19: ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO 12 – SOUTHERN GRID MODIFICATIONS ...................... 3-45
TABLE 3-20: ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO 13 – INTERSTATE 90 INTERCHANGE (HARPER
PUCKETT ROAD) ...................................................................................................... 3-46
TABLE 4-1: EXISTING (2007) LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ................. 4-2
TABLE 4-2: EXISTING (2007) LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS............ 4-2
TABLE 4-3: EXISTING (2007) LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
(INDIVIDUAL TURNING MOVEMENTS) .................................................................... 4-3
TABLE 4-4: SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS (EXISTING UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS) ......... 4-9
TABLE 4-5: APPROXIMATE VOLUMES FOR PLANNING OF FUTURE ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENTS ....................................................................................................... 4-11
TABLE 4-6: V/C RATIOS & LOS DESIGNATIONS ..................................................................... 4-13
TABLE 4-7: PEDESTRIAN PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION ............................................................... 4-18
TABLE 5-1: MSN PROJECTS FROM 2001 TRANSPORTATION PLAN & STATUS FOR 2007
PLAN .......................................................................................................................... 5-1
TABLE 5-2: TSM PROJECTS FROM 2001 TRANSPORTATION PLAN & STATUS FOR 2007
PLAN ........................................................................................................................ 5-15
TABLE 5-3: RECOMMENDED SIDEWALKS .................................................................................. 5-29
TABLE 5-4: PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ..................................... 5-31
TABLE 5-5: RECOMMENDED BIKE LANES ................................................................................. 5-32
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Table of Contents
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page xvii
TABLE 5-6: DESIGNATE AS BIKE ROUTES .................................................................................. 5-35
TABLE 5-7: RECOMMENDED EXPANDED SHOULDER (MINIMUM OF 4-FEET) ......................... 5-35
TABLE 5-8: RECOMMENDED SHARED-USE PATHS ................................................................... 5-37
TABLE 5-9: BICYCLE PARKING NEEDED .................................................................................... 5-40
TABLE 5-10: SHORT TERM BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS ................................................. 5-41
TABLE 5-11: LONG TERM BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS .................................................. 5-41
TABLE 6-1: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CRITERIA .............................................. 6-12
TABLE 7-1: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF STOP PLACEMENT RELATIVE TO
THE NEAREST INTERSECTION ................................................................................... 7-4
TABLE 7-2: SERVICE FREQUENCY LOS ........................................................................................ 7-9
TABLE 7-3: HOURS OF SERVICE LOS ........................................................................................... 7-9
TABLE 7-4: SERVICE COVERAGE AREA LOS ............................................................................. 7-10
TABLE 7-5: BUS LOAD FACTOR LOS ......................................................................................... 7-11
TABLE 7-6: ON-TIME SERVICE LOS ........................................................................................... 7-12
TABLE 7-7: TRAVEL TIME LOS .................................................................................................. 7-12
TABLE 7-8: RESPONSE TIME QOS .............................................................................................. 7-13
TABLE 7-9: SERVICE SPAN QOS ................................................................................................ 7-14
TABLE 7-10: ON-TIME SERVICE QOS .......................................................................................... 7-14
TABLE 7-11: TRIPS NOT SERVED QOS ......................................................................................... 7-15
TABLE 7-12: TRAVEL TIME QOS .................................................................................................. 7-15
TABLE 9-1: APPROXIMATE VOLUMES FOR PLANNING OF FUTURE ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENTS ......................................................................................................... 9-3
TABLE 10-1: URBAN ROUTES IN THE GREATER BOZEMAN AREA ............................................. 10-1
TABLE 10-2: SECONDARY ROUTES IN THE GREATER BOZEMAN AREA ..................................... 10-2
TABLE 10-3: TDM MEASURES RANKED BY ANTICIPATED USABILITY .................................... 10-14
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Table of Contents
Page xviii Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1: STUDY AREA BOUNDARY ......................................................................................... 1-3
FIGURE 2-1: EXISTING FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM .................................................. 2-4
FIGURE 2-2: EXISTING FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (DETAIL AREA) ....................... 2-5
FIGURE 2-3: EXISTING (2005) ADT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................................... 2-8
FIGURE 2-4: EXISTING (2005) ADT TRAFFIC VOLUMES (DETAIL AREA) .................................... 2-9
FIGURE 2-5: EXISTING CORRIDOR SIZE ....................................................................................... 2-10
FIGURE 2-6: EXISTING CORRIDOR SIZE (DETAIL AREA) ............................................................ 2-11
FIGURE 2-7: EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM MAP .............................................................. 2-12
FIGURE 2-8: EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM MAP (DETAIL AREA) .................................... 2-13
FIGURE 2-9: EXISTING (2005) LEVEL OF SERVICE ....................................................................... 2-21
FIGURE 2-10: EXISTING (2005) LEVEL OF SERVICE (DETAIL AREA) ............................................ 2-22
FIGURE 2-11: CRASH LOCATIONS ................................................................................................. 2-29
FIGURE 2-12: CRASH LOCATIONS (DETAIL AREA) ...................................................................... 2-30
FIGURE 2-13: EXISTING STUDY AREA BICYCLE NETWORK .......................................................... 2-43
FIGURE 2-14: EXISTING BOZEMAN CITY BICYCLE NETWORK ..................................................... 2-44
FIGURE 2-15: STUDY AREA REPORTED BICYCLE/MOTORCYCLE COLLISIONS, 2002-2007 ........ 2-59
FIGURE 2-16: BOZEMAN REPORTED BICYCLE/MOTORCYCLE COLLISIONS, 2002-2007 ............ 2-60
FIGURE 2-17: EXISTING STUDY AREA PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES .................................................. 2-63
FIGURE 2-18: EXISTING BOZEMAN ARTERIAL PEDESTRIAN GAPS .............................................. 2-64
FIGURE 2-19: STUDY AREA REPORTED PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS, 2002-2007 ........................... 2-66
FIGURE 2-20: BOZEMAN REPORTED PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS, 2002-2007 ............................... 2-67
FIGURE 3-1: GALLATIN COUNTY POPULATION & EMPLOYMENT TRENDS ................................ 3-2
FIGURE 3-2: INCORPORATED CITIES IN GALLATIN COUNTY HISTORIC POPULATION
TRENDS (1970-2005) ................................................................................................. 3-3
FIGURE 3-3: GALLATIN COUNTY AGE DISTRIBUTION (1970-2000) ............................................ 3-4
FIGURE 3-4: GALLATIN COUNTY AGE DISTRIBUTION (2000) ..................................................... 3-5
FIGURE 3-5: GALLATIN COUNTY EMPLOYMENT TRENDS BY ECONOMIC SECTOR (1970-
2000) .......................................................................................................................... 3-6
FIGURE 3-6: GALLATIN COUNTY EMPLOYMENT TRENDS BY NAICS (2005) ............................. 3-7
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Table of Contents
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page xix
FIGURE 3-7: GALLATIN COUNTY POPULATION PROJECTIONS .................................................... 3-9
FIGURE 3-8: GALLATIN COUNTY EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS .................................................. 3-9
FIGURE 3-9: GALLATIN COUNTY ADDITIONAL FUTURE (2030) DWELLING UNITS ................. 3-12
FIGURE 3-10: GALLATIN COUNTY ADDITIONAL FUTURE (2030) DWELLING UNITS
(DETAIL AREA) ........................................................................................................ 3-13
FIGURE 3-11: GALLATIN COUNTY ADDITIONAL FUTURE (2030) EMPLOYMENT ....................... 3-14
FIGURE 3-12: GALLATIN COUNTY ADDITIONAL FUTURE (2030) EMPLOYMENT (DETAIL
AREA 1) .................................................................................................................... 3-15
FIGURE 3-13: GALLATIN COUNTY ADDITIONAL FUTURE (2030) EMPLOYMENT (DETAIL
AREA 2) .................................................................................................................... 3-16
FIGURE 3-14: EXISTING (2005) ADT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................................. 3-20
FIGURE 3-15: EXISTING (2005) ADT TRAFFIC VOLUMES (DETAIL AREA) .................................. 3-21
FIGURE 3-16: FUTURE (2030) ADT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................................... 3-22
FIGURE 3-17: FUTURE (2030) ADT TRAFFIC VOLUMES (DETAIL AREA) .................................... 3-23
FIGURE 3-18: EXISTING (2005) V/C VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO .......................................... 3-24
FIGURE 3-19: EXISTING (2005) V/C VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (DETAIL AREA) ................ 3-25
FIGURE 3-20: FUTURE (2030) V/C VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO ............................................. 3-26
FIGURE 3-21: FUTURE (2030) V/C VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (DETAIL AREA) .................. 3-27
FIGURE 3-22: TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS ......................................... 3-29
FIGURE 3-23: TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS (DETAIL AREA) .............. 3-30
FIGURE 4-1: FUNDAMENTAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPEED-DENSITY-FLOW ..................... 4-15
FIGURE 5-1: MAJOR STREET NETWORK (MSN) RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ................. 5-13
FIGURE 5-2: MAJOR STREET NETWORK (MSN) RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS (DETAIL
AREA ........................................................................................................................ 5-14
FIGURE 5-3: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM) RECOMMENDED
IMPROVEMENTS ....................................................................................................... 5-27
FIGURE 5-4: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM) RECOMMENDED
IMPROVEMENTS (DETAIL AREA) ............................................................................ 5-28
FIGURE 5-5: RECOMMENDED STUDY AREA BICYCLE NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS .................. 5-43
FIGURE 5-6: RECOMMENDED BOZEMAN BICYCLE NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS ....................... 5-44
FIGURE 5-7: RECOMMENDED BOZEMAN PEDESTRIAN NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS ................ 5-45
FIGURE 6-1: DRIVER PERCEIVED INTERSECTION IMPORTANCE LEVELS ................................... 6-13
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Table of Contents
Page xx Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
FIGURE 7-1: SUGGESTED BUS STOP DISTANCE ............................................................................. 7-5
FIGURE 7-2: TYPICAL SHELTER LAYOUT ...................................................................................... 7-6
FIGURE 7-3: SHELTER PLACEMENT ............................................................................................... 7-7
FIGURE 9-1: EXISTING MAJOR STREET NETWORK AND FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY
CORRIDOR NEEDS ..................................................................................................... 9-5
FIGURE 9-2: EXISTING MAJOR STREET NETWORK AND FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY
CORRIDOR NEEDS (DETAIL AREA) .......................................................................... 9-6
FIGURE 9-3: FUTURE (2030) MSN ADT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ....................................................... 9-7
FIGURE 9-4: FUTURE (2030) MSN ADT TRAFFIC VOLUMES (DETAIL AREA) ............................ 9-8
FIGURE 9-5: FUTURE (2030) MSN V/C RATIOS........................................................................... 9-9
FIGURE 9-6: FUTURE (2030) MSN V/C RATIOS (DETAIL AREA) .............................................. 9-10
FIGURE 9-7: MINI-ROUNDABOUT CONCEPTUAL PLAN VIEW .................................................. 9-14
FIGURE 9-8: URBAN COMPACT ROUNDABOUT CONCEPTUAL PLAN VIEW ............................. 9-15
FIGURE 9-9: URBAN SINGLE-LANE ROUNDABOUT CONCEPTUAL PLAN VIEW ....................... 9-16
FIGURE 9-10: URBAN DOUBLE-LANE ROUNDABOUT CONCEPTUAL PLAN VIEW ..................... 9-17
FIGURE 9-11: RURAL SINGLE-LANE ROUNDABOUT CONCEPTUAL PLAN VIEW ....................... 9-18
FIGURE 9-12: RURAL DOUBLE-LANE ROUNDABOUT CONCEPTUAL PLAN VIEW ...................... 9-19
FIGURE 9-13: SUGGESTED LOCAL STREET STANDARDS ............................................................... 9-22
FIGURE 9-14: RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR STREET STANDARDS .............................................. 9-23
FIGURE 9-15: RECOMMENDED MINOR ARTERIAL STREET STANDARDS ..................................... 9-24
FIGURE 9-16: RECOMMENDED PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL STREET STANDARDS ............................... 9-25
FIGURE 9-17: RECOMMENDED RURAL STREET STANDARDS ....................................................... 9-26
FIGURE 9-18: MID-BLOCK TRAIL CROSSING – LOCAL STREETS .................................................. 9-30
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Definitions / Acronyms
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page xxi
DEFINITIONS
Access Management/Control – Controlling or limiting the types of access or the locations of
access on major roadways to help improve the carrying capacity of a roadway, reduce
potential conflicts, and facilitate proper land usage.
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) – The total amount of traffic observed, counted or estimated
during a single, 24-hour period.
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) – The average daily traffic averaged over a full year.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) – The Federal regulations which govern minimum
requirements for ensuring that transportation facilities and buildings are accessible to
individuals with disabilities.
Bikeway – Any road, path, or way which in some manner is specifically designated as being
open to bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive
use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes.
Bike Path – A bikeway physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open
space or barrier and either within the highway right of way or within an independent right
of way.
Bike Lane – A portion of a roadway which has been designated by striping, signing and
pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists.
Bike Route – A segment of a system of bikeways designated by the jurisdiction having
authority with appropriate directional and informational markers, with or without a specific
bicycle route number.
Capacity – The maximum sustainable flow rate at which vehicles can be expected to traverse
a roadway during a specific time period given roadway, geometric, traffic, environmental,
and control conditions. Capacity is usually expressed in vehicles per day (vpd) or vehicles
per hour (vph).
Collector Street – Provides for land access and traffic circulation within and between
residential neighborhoods, and commercial and industrial areas. It provides for the equal
priority of the movement of traffic, coupled with access to residential, business and
industrial areas. A collector roadway may at times traverse residential neighborhoods.
Posted speed limits on collectors typically range from 25 mph to 45 mph and can carry
between 2,000 and 10,000 vehicles per day.
Congested Flow – A traffic flow condition caused by a downstream bottleneck.
Context Sensitive Design (CSD) – A fairly new concept in transportation planning and
highway design that integrates transportation infrastructure improvements to the context of
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Definitions / Acronyms
Page xxii Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
the adjacent land uses and functions, with a greater sensitivity to transportation impacts on
the environment and communities being realized.
Delay – The additional travel time experienced by a driver, passenger, or pedestrian.
Facility – A length of highway composed of connected section, segments, and points.
Level of Service (LOS) – A qualitative measure of how well an intersection or road segment
is operating based on traffic volume and geometric conditions. The level of service “scale”
represents the full range of operating conditions. The scale is based on the ability of an
intersection or street segment to accommodate the amount of traffic using it, and can be used
for both existing and projected conditions. The scale ranges from “A” which indicates little,
if any, vehicle delay, to “F” which indicates significant vehicle delay and traffic congestion.
Local Street – Comprises all facilities not included in a higher system. Its primary purpose is
to permit direct access to abutting lands and connections to higher systems. Usually
through-traffic movements are intentionally discouraged. Posted speed limits on local roads
typically range from 25 mph to 35 mph and designed for less than 3000 vehicles per day.
Major Street Network (MSN) – The network of roadways defined for the Transportation
Plan effort that include the interstate, principal arterials, minor arterials, collectors and some
local streets.
Minor Arterial Street – Interconnects with and augments the Principal Arterial system. It
also provides access to lower classifications of roads on the system and may allow for traffic
to directly access destinations. They provide for movement within sub-areas of the city,
whose boundaries are largely defined by the Principal Arterial road system. They serve
through traffic, while at the same time providing direct access for commercial, industrial,
office and multifamily development but, generally, not for single-family residential
properties. The purpose of this classification of road is to increase traffic mobility by
connecting to both the Principal Arterial system and also providing access to adjacent land
uses. Posted speed limits on minor arterials typically range from 25 mph to 55 mph and can
carry between 5,000 and 15,000 vehicles per day.
Multi-modal – A transportation facility for different types of users or vehicles, including
passenger cars and trucks, transit vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.
Oversaturation – A traffic condition in which the arrival flow rate exceeds capacity on a
roadway lane or segment.
Peak Hour – The hour of greatest traffic flow at an intersection or on a road segment.
Typically broken down into AM and PM peak hours.
Road Failure – A condition by which a road has reached maximum capacity or has
experienced structural failure.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Definitions / Acronyms
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page xxiii
Principal Arterial Street – Is the basic element of a city’s road system. All other functional
classifications supplement the Principal Arterial network. Direct access is minimal and
controlled. The purpose of a principal arterial is to serve the major centers of activity, the
highest traffic volume corridors, and the longest trip distances in an urbanized area. This
classification of roads carries a high proportion of the total traffic within an urban area. The
major purpose is to provide for the expedient movement of traffic. Posted speed limits on
principal arterials typically range from 25 mph to 70 mph and typically carry between 10,000
vehicles per day and 35,000 vehicles per day.
Running speed – The actual vehicle speed while the vehicle is in motion (travel speed minus
delay).
Service Life – The design life span of roadway based on capacity or physical characteristics.
Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) – The oversight committee that guided the
development of this Transportation Plan Update. The committee is comprised of a
multitude of individuals representing various departments of Gallatin County, the city of
Bozeman, and the Montana Department of Transportation. The committee is a standing
committee in the community that is generally responsible for overseeing transportation
planning efforts.
Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) – Geographical zones identified throughout the study
area based on land use characteristics and natural physical features for use in the traffic
model developed for this project.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) - Programs designed to maximize the people-
moving capability of the transportation system by increasing the number of persons in a
vehicle, or by influencing the time of, or need to, travel.
Travel speed – The speed at which a vehicle travels between two points including all
intersection delay.
Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio – A qualitative measure comparing a roads theoretical
maximum capacity to the existing (or future) volumes. Commonly described as the result of
the flow rate of a roadway lane divided by the capacity of the roadway lane.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Definitions / Acronyms
Page xxiv Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
ACRONYMS
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CIP Capital Improvement Program
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HCS Highway Capacity Software
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MDT Montana Department of Transportation
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
TEA-21 Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users
TIP Transportation Improvement Program
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics 1-1
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The city of Bozeman and the surrounding area is experiencing tremendous growth that
includes a mixture of commercial, residential, industrial, retail and office. This growth,
coupled with the existing transportation system constraints, has necessitated the update of
the community’s current Transportation Plan. The existing Plan was completed in 2001, is
commonly referred to as the “2001 Update” and provides a blueprint for guiding
transportation infrastructure and associated decision making principles. Because of steadily
increasing growth, and the community’s increasing interest in transportation related matters,
the governmental entities have decided to update their regional Transportation Plan. To that
end, the consulting firm of Robert Peccia & Associates was retained to assist in developing
the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) project.
This update is intended to offer guidance for the decision-makers in the greater Bozeman
community. It contains a multi-modal analysis of the transportation system in the Bozeman
area. This Plan includes an examination of the traffic operations, road network, transit
services, non-motorized transportation system, trip reduction strategies, and growth
management techniques. This document also identifies the problems with the various
transportation systems and offers recommendations in the form of improvement projects
and progressive programs that will help relieve existing problems and/or meet future needs.
A word of caution is appropriate. The previous focus of much of the transportation across
the United States has been to move cars. This has necessitated more and larger roadways at
extensive costs. The time is right in the Bozeman community, and the rest of western
Montana, to begin to focus on moving people. Although the roadway needs will be well
defined and will be the standard by which community transportation infrastructure is
measured, the decision makers and community at large must recognize the need for
alternatives. These alternatives include more and better bicycle and pedestrian facilities, a
focus on transit service, a desire to explore alternative transportation, and the willingness to
forge partnerships with adjacent jurisdictions. Growth in the Bozeman Area is well
documented and explained later in Chapter 3 of this document. Impacts to the
transportation system resulting from this growth are a measurable and identifiable quantity,
and the community must be prepared to deal with it accordingly.
1.2 STUDY AREA
All transportation plans begin by defining the study area. Sometimes this study area follows
governmental boundaries such as city limits, but most often they include land outside city
limits in which future growth is seen as likely to occur. As part of the 2007 update to the
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, an evaluation of the past Transportation Plan’s
Study Area Boundary was undertaken in consultation with the City of Bozeman and Gallatin
County, the Montana Department of Transportation, and the Bozeman Area Transportation
Coordinating Committee (TCC). Subsequently, adjustments were deemed necessary and
made to the Study Area Boundary in an effort to capture those areas likely to see future
growth that may impact the community’s transportation system.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
1-2 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
For the purposes of this Plan, the study area boundary includes the entire city limits of
Bozeman, as well as a substantial portion of unincorporated lands surrounding the City.
These lands are generally located to the north and south of the City proper, and extend from
an eastern limit of the Bridger Mountains to a western limit of the Gallatin River.
The study area boundary was developed for two primary reasons. First, to include land
where recent growth has occurred or is anticipated to occur in the foreseeable future and
second, to include the 2001 Transportation Plan’s study area.
It should be recognized that there are many other areas that are not formally included in the
study area boundary that will exhibit development patterns affecting the area transportation
system. These areas include, but are not limited to, the City of Belgrade, the Gallatin
Gateway area and east along Interstate 90. These are not included in the study area due to
both funding and jurisdictional constraints, however, cursory attempts and land use
forecasting will be made to evaluate overall transportation impacts through the travel
demand modeling process. The new study boundary includes everything in the previous
study area, along with additional areas that are developing and/or forecast to develop over
the planning horizon of the study (i.e. the year 2030). Therefore, no land was removed from
the study area.
The study boundary is shown on Figure 1-1 and was used for all aspects of the Greater
Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update). This study boundary includes all of the
major employers in the area, and includes all of the land that may be used for employment
centers in the next twenty years. It also includes developing residential land uses in the area,
and those areas likely to increase the housing supply in the future and subsequently add
traffic onto the transportation network.
It is important to recognize that areas outside of the formal study area boundary will still
have an effect on the transportation system within the study area boundary. To that end,
land use changes outside of the “formal” boundary are still accounted for and incorporated
into the travel demand model; however, precise transportation system impacts are not
identified for facilities outside of the “formal” study area boundary.
Study Area BoundaryFigure 1-1
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)Legend
City Boundary
Urban Boundary
Study Area Boundary
0 10,0005,000
Feet
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
1-4 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
1.3 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The overall goal of this project is to update the existing 2001 community Transportation Plan.
This existing plan was originally developed by Robert Peccia and Associates. The intent of
this project is to take an entirely fresh look at the condition of transportation issues in the
Greater Bozeman area.
This Transportation Plan Update is intended to facilitate community goals and improve the
transportation infrastructure and services within the Greater Bozeman area to meet the needs
of existing and future land use. The Plan will address regional transportation issues, overall
travel convenience, traffic safety, property access, and potential special issues such as traffic
calming and multi-modal connections. The Plan will include recommendations for short-
term Transportation System Management (TSM) improvements as well as recommended
modifications and capital improvements to the “Major Street Network (MSN)”. The Plan
will address all modes of transportation in a balanced attempt to meet the current and future
transportation needs of the Greater Bozeman area while keeping in compliance with state
and federal requirements.
With this background in mind, it is important to recognize that “Goals and Objectives” have
been developed to guide this Transportation Plan Update. These are presented later in this
section. It is also appropriate, however, to present the existing goals that are found in the
various planning level documents found within the community.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2001) and the Bozeman 2020
Community Plan Goals
1. Maintain and enhance the functionality of the transportation system.
2. Ensure that a variety of travel options exist which allow safe, logical, and
balanced transportation choices.
3. Encourage transportation options that reduce resource consumption, increase
social interaction, support safe neighborhoods, and increase the ability of the
existing transportation facilities to accommodate a growing city.
4. Establish and maintain an integrated system of transportation and recreational
pathways, including bicycle and pedestrian trails, neighborhood parks, green
belts, and open space.
In response to issues and concerns raised during the development of this transportation
planning process, it is suggested that transportation related goals and objectives be refined to
reflect the diversity of competing transportation interests and the inherent limitations of just
focusing on automobile traffic. To that end, the “Goals and Objectives” found on the
following page are presented for consideration by the community as transportation system
development is considered over the planning horizon of this document.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics 1-5
“Goals and Objectives” for the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007
Update)
Goal #1: Provide a safe, efficient, accessible, and cost-effective transportation system that
offers viable choices for moving people and goods throughout the community.
Objectives:
Plan and implement a logical, efficient, long-range arterial and collector
transportation system to ensure that public and private investments in transportation
infrastructure support other land use decisions of the community.
Plan a logical, efficient long-range arterial system that can be systematically
implemented by right-of-way reservations and advance acquisition procedures.
Meet the current and future needs of the greater Bozeman area that can be
maintained with available resources.
Provide adequate emergency service access to all residents inside and outside of the
Study Area Boundary.
Develop a “Major Street Network” classifying existing roadways by functional usage
(as well as future corridors) within the Study Area Boundary.
Address the needs of business and commerce both locally and regionally.
Plan for adequate access to high volume traffic generation points.
Conduct a comprehensive data collection effort that will include vehicular counts,
truck counts, bicycle movements and pedestrian usage at the intersections identified
for the study.
Review the most recent three-year accident history and crash statistics to evaluate
potential safety problems and possible mitigation efforts that can improve and/or
resolve identified concerns on the existing transportation system.
Examine population and employment growth trends to assess demographic changes
and how those changes may affect transportation system users over the twenty year
planning horizon.
Develop a 20-year traffic model that can be used to predict future transportation
system needs as growth occurs within the Study Area Boundary limits.
Identify current and foreseeable traffic problems.
Goal #2: Make transit and non-motorized modes of transportation viable alternatives to the
private automobile for travel in and around the community.
Objectives:
Support alternatives to single occupancy vehicles.
Establish safe pedestrian and bicycle access in designated areas by:
o Considering pedestrian/bicycle needs when planning and designing new roads.
o Considering improvement and dedication of bikeways and pedestrian paths though
developing area.
o Providing widened shoulders where possible to accommodate pedestrians/bicycles
on existing roadways, with a preference for physical separation between motorized
and non-motorized traffic.
Encourage mixed-use development that integrates compatible residential, office, and
commercial uses to reduce the need for automobile trips.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
1-6 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Encourage walkable neighborhoods, both within existing developed areas and new
residential and commercial subdivisions.
Recommend policies and decisions to ensure bicyclists and pedestrians can access
and conveniently cross all major roadways and highways.
Identify and incorporate, as applicable, Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
strategies to provide alternatives to private vehicle travel.
Consider equestrian needs, where appropriate, when planning and designing new
roads.
Goal #3: Provide an open public involvement process in the development of the
transportation system and in the implementation of transportation improvements, and
assure that community standards and values, such as aesthetics and neighborhood
protection, are incorporated.
Objectives:
Provide for citizen involvement in the planning and implementation of
transportation plans and projects.
Respect and ensure the areas natural and historic context and minimize adverse
impacts to the environment and existing neighborhoods.
Minimize negative transportation effects upon residential neighborhoods.
Encourage transportation improvements that preserve the natural panorama of
skylines and sightlines, and are compatible with historic resources.
Evaluate and identify transportation system needs of area schools, and address
existing and future transportation issues as appropriate.
Provide for connecting streets among neighborhoods.
Meet the unique transportation needs of the areas elderly, disabled and
disadvantaged populations
Goal #4: Provide a financially sustainable Transportation Plan that is actively used to guide
the transportation decision-making process throughout the course of the next 20 years.
Objectives:
Review all existing and on-going planning reports and studies for compatibility.
Conduct a financial analysis to ensure the Plan is financially feasible and sustainable.
Identify funding mechanisms that may be viable alternatives to the traditional
funding programs currently used to fund transportation system improvements.
Goal #5: Identify and protect future road corridors to serve future developments and public
lands.
Objectives:
Develop a Plan to address forecasted transportation growth needs.
Identify future corridors and future connections to existing roadways in order to
secure appropriate right of way and improvements.
Identify road construction needs to serve developing areas, and encourage
development in identified urban areas.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics 1-7
1.4 PREVIOUS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING EFFORTS
In the course of data collection, past plans and studies were obtained. From the review of
these documents, applicable issues were incorporated into this Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan (2007 Update). The contributing documents are as follows:
Gallatin County Growth Policy;
Gallatin County Neighborhood Plans;
Gallatin County Subdivision Regulations;
Gallatin County Trails Plan;
Gallatin County Transportation Infrastructure and Recommendations;
Streamline Bus Routes;
Gallatin County Transportation Needs (Phase I and Phase II);
Gallatin County Road Impact Fee Study (currently underway);
Bozeman 2020 Community Plan;
Design and Connectivity Plan for North 7th Avenue Corridor;
North 19th Avenue / Oak Street Corridor Master Plan;
Gallatin County Regional Sewer Feasibility Study;
Montana Department of Transportation Access Management Plans;
City of Bozeman National Citizen Survey;
Bozeman Creek Neighborhood Plan;
Bozeman Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan;
Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance;
Bozeman Impact Fee Update;
Montana State University Long Range Plan (i.e. Campus Plan);
Bicycle Facility Planning Map (developed by the Bike Board);
Western Transportation Institute (WTI) Bozeman Bicycle Network Plan;
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2001 Update);
Greater Bozeman Area 2001 Transportation (Transit) Development Plan Update;
Downtown Bozeman Traffic Studies;
Miscellaneous Traffic Impact Studies (Gallatin County & City of Bozeman);
City of Bozeman Engineering Standards;
Gallatin County Road Standards;
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (1993 Update);
School Bus Routes;
Postal Routes;
Fire District Maps;
Bozeman Deaconess Hospital “Sub-area” Plan;
Locally adopted master plans, public facility plans, and related development regulations;
Official Code of the City of Bozeman;
Montana Department of Transportation STIP and other Local Planning Documents;
U.S. Bureau of Census data;
City building permits, County location and conformance permits, and utility records; and
Socioeconomic data and projections complied by the Planning Board, Montana
Department of Commerce and/or University of Montana.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
1-8 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The primary goal of the communications program for the Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan (2007 Update) was to keep the public informed and involved in the
project. A second goal of the process was to integrate the opinions and issues identified by
the public, as a result of the program, into the project approach and methodology, wherever
feasible. The methods that were used to achieve these goals included: guidance from the
TCC; outreach to key constituencies (i.e. special interest groups and the general public);
education of decision-makers (i.e. Gallatin County Commission and Bozeman City
Commission); project newsletters; news releases; and public events.
An initial step in developing the project public outreach campaign was the development of a
detailed Public Participation Plan to guide public opportunities and input as the project
developed. The Public Participation Plan was structured around the developed scope of work
for this Transportation Plan Update, and utilized several traditional and non-traditional
public participation strategies. Furthermore, the Public Participation Plan defined the
appropriate strategies to be used, defined the sequencing within which the various strategies
to be implemented, and charted out a course of action to be followed as the project
commenced.
The purpose of the Public Participation Plan was to insure a proactive public involvement
process that assured the opportunity for the public to be involved in all phases of the
planning process. This was accomplished by providing complete information, timely public
notice, and opportunities for making comments and full access to key decisions.
The goal of the TCC and the Consultant team was to have significant and ongoing public
involvement for this transportation planning process. Education and public outreach were
an essential part of fulfilling the local entities responsibility to successfully inform the public
about the transportation planning process. All three contracting entities (i.e. Gallatin
County, the city of Bozeman and MDT) strove to empower the public to voice their ideas and
values regarding transportation issues. The entities also strove to ensure early and
continuous public involvement in all major actions and decisions.
The Consultant team understood that the interest of the public in transportation issues has
increased with the community’s rate of growth, and that updating the Plan provided public
outreach opportunities that served to:
Educate the public on the critical elements of planning and engineering the
community’s transportation system;
Respond to the increasing interest of the general public to participate in planning of
the community; and
Increase the public’s investment in our Transportation Plan.
A brief summary of some of the project outreach activities utilized during the projects
development is contained in the following pages.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics 1-9
Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC)
The Bozeman Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) provided project oversight for
this project to serve in an advisory capacity and to review and comment on materials over
the projects duration. Meetings were generally held every month (on the fourth Wednesday
of the month). Membership was composed of individuals as noted on the
acknowledgements page of this document, and generally included representatives from the
Montana Department of Transportation, Gallatin County, the City of Bozeman, and local
business and citizen interests. The TCC was the principal guiding force behind this
Transportation Plan. In addition, a full-day workshop was held on October 1st, 2008 to
discuss the information contained in the “Administrative Draft” of the Transportation Plan
Update. From that exercise, several projects were modified and/or removed from
consideration.
Public Meetings
Three formal public meetings were held during the study process. The first meeting was held
at a time when the data collection process was nearing completion. This meeting focused on
informing the public about the current transportation problems that had been identified to
date, and receiving public comment on which issues should be addressed in the Plan. A
variety of key issues were identified. The issues generally fell within four categories: 1) the
need to plan for future growth; 2) to relieve traffic congestion; 3) to improve traffic safety;
and 4) to provide alternatives to the automobile. Specific problem intersections and roadway
corridors were identified and presented at this first meeting.
The second public meeting was held after the analysis of the existing transportation system
was completed. Additionally, the effects of population growth on traffic volumes and
transportation infrastructure were discussed. Where and potentially when future land use
changes (i.e. growth) were also defined and discussed. Again, the public had the
opportunity to give their opinions on transportation system issues in the study area, as well
as any other concerns they might have.
The third public meeting was held after the preliminary project recommendations were
completed and prior to release of an “official” Public draft document. This meeting gave the
public the opportunity to review the preliminary project recommendations in their entirety,
including a thorough review of recommended projects that not only offered mitigation
measures to solve existing transportation issues, but also measures to accommodate future
growth issues.
All three public opportunities described above were held at the Bozeman High School
cafeteria.
Other Public Outreach Activities
Formal and informal meeting and presentations occurred many times over the course of the
project. These are specifically listed in Table 1-3 later in this chapter.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
1-10 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Public Hearing
One public hearing was conducted near the completion of this planning process to obtain
formal public comment on the public draft document before the Gallatin County
Commission and separately before the Bozeman City Commission. The public hearing
covered all elements of the draft and significant additional time for public comment was
provided after the public hearing closed. After reviewing the comments received at the
public hearing, the TCC met with the consultant to provide comments and direction in
revising the draft document, and developing the final version of the Plan.
News Releases
Television and newspaper articles were used several times during the planning process to
help keep the public informed. These news releases generally were issued prior to public
meetings (and the public hearing), to generate interest in the process, and to encourage
participation by the public.
Internet Access
The results of the traffic studies and analyses conducted during the study process were made
available to the public on the Internet website. As sections of the report and graphic displays
became available, they were posted on the web site for public review and comment. This
enabled the public to stay abreast of the developments occurring during the planning
process. It also provided an opportunity for the public to submit comments.
Project Newsletters
Several project newsletters were created and distributed via email to a project email list.
Towards the end of the project, there were approximately 915 people on the project e-mailing
list.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics 1-11
1.6 COORDINATION SUMMARY
The following tables (Table 1-1 thru Table 1-3) summarize all of the coordination that
occurred over the course of this planning project. They encompass all formal and informal
meetings, including but not limited to Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC)
meetings and workshops, formal public meetings, and others.
Table 1-1
Summary of Transportation Coordinating (TCC) Activities
Date Agency or Individual
03/28/2007 Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) Meeting No. 1
04/25/2007 Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) Meeting No. 2
05/23/2007 Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) Meeting No. 3
06/27/2007 Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) Meeting No. 4
07/25/2007 Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) Meeting No. 5
08/22/2007 Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) Meeting No. 6
09/26/2007 Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) Meeting No. 7
10/24/2007 Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) Meeting No. 8
11/28/2007 Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) Meeting No. 9
12/19/2007 Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) Meeting No. 10
02/27/2008 Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) Meeting No. 11
03/26/2008 Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) Meeting No. 12
04/23/2008 Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) Meeting No. 13
05/21/2008 Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) Meeting No. 14
07/23/2008 Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) Meeting No. 15
08/27/2008 Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) Meeting No. 16
10/01/2008 Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) Meeting Workshop
10/29/2008 Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) Meeting No. 17
12/17/2008 Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) Meeting No. 18
Table 1-2
Summary of "Formal" Local Government Outreach Activities
Date Agency or Individual
08/20/2007 Bozeman City Commission Meeting No. 1
08/21/2007 Gallatin County Commission Meeting No. 1
02/06/2008 Gallatin County Commission Meeting No. 2
02/11/2008 Bozeman City Commission Meeting No. 2
12/17/2008 Gallatin County Commission Meeting No. 3
01/20/2009 Bozeman City Commission – Public Hearing
02/10/2009 Gallatin County Commission – Public Hearing
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
1-12 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Table 1-3
Summary of "Other" Outreach Activities
Date Agency or Individual
04/12/2007 Gallatin County Staff Meeting – Planning & Public Works
04/12/2007 Bozeman City Commission – Roadway Design Best Practices Meeting
04/27/2007 City of Bozeman Staff Meeting - Planning & Public Works
05/08/2007 Inter-Neighborhood Council (INC) Project Outreach
06/14/2007 Gallatin County Staff Meeting – Planning & Public Works
06/14/2007 City of Bozeman Staff Meeting - Planning & Public Works
06/15/2007 Bozeman Chamber of Commerce – Eggs & Issues Meeting
06/26/2007 Streamline Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) Presentation
06/27/2007 Transit Outreach Meeting – Lisa Ballard (Current Transportation Solutions)
06/27/2007 Public Information Meeting #1 (held at Bozeman High School)
07/25/2007 Four Corners Neighborhood Group Meeting
07/25/2007 MDT Director Jim Lynch & Gallatin Gateway Neighborhood Group Meeting
08/09/2007 City of Bozeman/Engineering Inc./PC Development Meeting - Highland
08/21/2007 City of Bozeman Planning Board Presentation
10/17/2007 South Central Association of Neighbors (SCAN) Project Outreach
11/28/2007 Public Information Meeting #2 (held at Bozeman High School)
04/07/2008 Montana State University – Engineering Students/Faculty Presentation
08/12/2008 Gallatin County Planning Board
08/20/2008 Public Information Meeting #3 (held at Bozeman High School)
08/26/2008 Streamline Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) Presentation
10/07/2008 Northeast Neighborhood (NENA) - Neighborhood Fall Meeting
11/12/2008 Inter-Neighborhood Council (INC) Project Outreach
CHAPTER 2
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION
In an effort to clearly understand the existing traffic conditions, it was necessary to gather
current information about different aspects of the transportation system. Existing traffic
volume data from 2005 was used to determine weighted annual average daily traffic (AADT)
volumes on major road segments within the community. Additional traffic data was
collected during the summer/fall of 2007. The data was used to determine current
operational characteristics, and to identify any traffic problems that may exist or are likely to
occur within the foreseeable future. A variety of information was gathered to help evaluate
the system including:
Existing functional classifications & study roadways;
Existing machine traffic volume counts (2005);
Existing roadway corridor size;
Intersection turning movement counts;
Current traffic signal operation information;
Intersection data required to conduct level of service analyses;
Traffic crash records.
2.2 MOTORIZED
2.2.1 Existing Functional Classifications & Study Roadways
One of the initial steps in trying to understand a community’s existing transportation system
is to first identify what roadways will be evaluated as part of the larger planning process. A
community’s transportation system is made up of a hierarchy of roadways, with each
roadway being classified according to certain parameters. Some of these parameters are
geometric configuration, traffic volumes, spacing in the community transportation grid,
speeds, etc. It is standard practice to examine roadways that are functionally classified as a
collector, minor arterial, or principal arterial in a regional transportation plan project. These
functional classifications can be encountered in both the “urban” and “rural” setting. The
reasoning for examining the collector, minor arterial and principal arterial roadways, and not
local roadways, is that when the major roadway system (i.e. collectors or above) is
functioning to an acceptable level, then the local roadways are not used beyond their
intended function. When problems begin to occur on the major roadway system, then
vehicles and resulting issues begin to infiltrate neighborhood routes (i.e. local routes). As
such, the overall health of a regional transportation system can be typically characterized by
the health of the major roadway network. The roadways being studied under this
Transportation Plan update, along with the appropriate functional classifications, are shown
on Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2. It should be noted that the functional classifications shown on
these figures are recommended as part of the Transportation Plan and do not reflect the
“federally approved” functional classification criteria which is based on current conditions
rather than anticipated future conditions.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-2 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
The “Federally Approved Functional Classification” system can be seen graphically via maps
available at the Montana Department of Transportation’s (MDT’s) website at the following
addresses:
www.mdt.mt.gov/other/urban_maps/fc_internet/BOZEMANFUNC.pdf (Urban Area)
www.mdt.mt.gov/travinfo/docs/funct-classification.pdf (Statewide Area)
Roadway functional classifications within the city of Bozeman include principal arterials;
minor arterials; collector routes; and local streets. The rural areas of Gallatin County are also
served by a similar hierarchy of streets. However, due to their rural nature the volumes on
these streets are generally smaller than in urban areas. Although volumes may differ on
urban and rural sections of a street, it is important to maintain coordinated right-of-way
standards to allow for efficient operation of urban development. A description of these
classifications is provided in the following sections.
Principal Arterial System – The purpose of the principal arterial is to serve the major centers
of activity, the highest traffic volume corridors, and the longest trip distances in an urban
area. This group of roads carries a high proportion of the total traffic within the urban area.
Most of the vehicles entering and leaving the urban area, as well as most of the through
traffic bypassing the central business district, utilize principal arterials. Significant intra-area
travel, such as between central business districts and outlying residential areas, and between
major suburban centers, is served by principal arterials.
The spacing between principal arterials may vary from less than one mile in highly
developed areas (e.g., the central business district), to five miles or more on the urban
fringes.
The major purpose of the principal arterial is to provide for the expedient movement of
traffic. Service to abutting land is a secondary concern. It is desirable to restrict on-street
parking along principal arterial corridors. The speed limit on a principal arterial could range
from 25 to 70 mph depending on the area setting.
Minor Arterial Street System – The minor arterial street system interconnects with and
augments the urban principal arterial system. It accommodates trips of moderate length at a
somewhat lower level of travel mobility than principal arterials, and it distributes travel to
smaller geographic areas. With an emphasis on traffic mobility, this street network includes
all arterials not classified as principal arterials while providing access to adjacent lands.
The spacing of minor arterial streets may vary from several blocks to a half-mile in the highly
developed areas of town, to several miles in the suburban fringes. They are not normally
spaced more than one mile apart in fully developed areas.
On-street parking may be allowed on minor arterials if space is available. In many areas on-
street parking along minor arterials is prohibited during peak travel periods. Posted speed
limits on minor arterials would typically range between 25 and 55 mph, depending on the
setting.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-3
Collector Street System – The urban collector street network serves a joint purpose. It
provides equal priority to the movement of traffic, and to the access of residential, business,
and industrial areas. This type of roadway differs from those of the arterial system in that
collector roadways may traverse residential neighborhoods. The collector system distributes
trips from the arterials to ultimate destinations. The collector streets also collect traffic from
local streets in the residential neighborhoods, channeling it into the arterial system. On-
street parking is usually allowed on most collector streets if space is available. Posted speed
limits on collectors typically range between 25 and 45 mph.
The rural collector street network serves the same access and movement functions as the
urban collector street network – a link between the arterial system and local access roads.
Collectors penetrate but should not have continuity through residential neighborhoods. The
actual location of collectors should be flexible to best serve developing areas and the public.
Several design guidelines should be kept in mind as new subdivisions are designed and
reviewed. The most important concept is that long segments of continuous collector streets
are not compatible with a good functional classification of streets. Long, continuous
collectors will encourage through traffic, essentially turning them into arterials. This, in turn,
results in the undesirable interface of local streets with arterials, causing safety problems and
increased costs of construction and maintenance. The collector street system should intersect
arterial streets at a uniform spacing of one-half to one-quarter mile in order to maintain good
progression on the arterial network. Ideally, collectors should be no longer than one to two
miles and should be continuous. Opportunities need to be identified through good design
and review of subdivisions to create appropriate collector streets in developing areas.
Local Street System – The local street network comprises all facilities not included in the
higher systems. Its primary purpose is to permit direct access to abutting lands and
connections to higher systems. Usually service to through-traffic movements is intentionally
discouraged. On-street parking is usually allowed on the local street system. The speed
limit on local streets is usually 25 mph.
SEE
D
E
T
A
I
L
(FIG
U
R
E
2
-
2
)
Existing FunctionalClassification SystemFigure 2-1
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)Legend
InterstatePrincipal ArterialMinor Arterial
CollectorLocal
Detail Area
City Boundary
Urban Boundary
Study Area Boundary
Note:The functional classifications shown are recommended aspart of the Transportation Plan and do not reflect the federallyapproved functional classification criteria which is based oncurrent conditions rather than anticipated future conditions.
0 10,0005,000
Feet
Existing FunctionalClassification SystemFigure 2-2
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)Legend
Local
InterstatePrincipal ArterialMinor ArterialCollector
Detail Area
Urban Boundary
City Boundary
Note:The functional classifications shown are recommended aspart of the Transportation Plan and do not reflect the federallyapproved functional classification criteria which is based oncurrent conditions rather than anticipated future conditions.
0 5,0002,500
Feet
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-6 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
2.2.2 Existing Traffic Volumes and Corridor Facility Size
When evaluating a street system it is good practice to compare the traffic volumes to the
approximate capacity of each road. Traffic volumes collected by the Montana Department of
Transportation (MDT) were used to determine current traffic conditions, and to provide
reliable data on historic traffic volumes.
Existing traffic volume data from 2005 was used to determine annual average daily traffic
(AADT) volumes on major road segments within the community. This information is shown
on Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4. These figures show that the most highly traveled corridors are
Main Street, 19th Avenue, Huffine Lane and Jackrabbit Lane. Traffic volumes on these
corridors range between 10,000 vehicles per day (vpd) and 25,000 vpd.
After identifying the current traffic volumes, the existing road network was examined to
determine the current size of the major routes. This information is presented on the
“Corridor Size” graphics on Figure 2-5 and Figure 2-6. The information shows the
following:
Existing five-lane corridors – Five-lane road corridors are generally defined as two
travel lanes in each direction with a continuous center two-way turn lane or a raised
median with left-turn bays at the major intersections. The five lane corridors found in the
Greater Bozeman Area include:
Huffine Lane (from Jackrabbit Lane to Main Street)
Main Street (from Huffine Lane to 7th Avenue)
Main Street (from Cypress Avenue to I-90)
19th Avenue (from Main Street to I-90)
7th Avenue (from Main Street to Griffin Drive)
Valley Center Road (from 19th Street to 27th Avenue)
Oak Street (from 7th Avenue to Davis Lane)
Jackrabbit Lane (from Frank Road to W Madison Avenue)
Existing four-lane corridors – Four-lane road corridors have two travel lanes in each
direction, with or without left-turn bays at major intersections. The four lane corridors
found in the Greater Bozeman Area include:
Main Street (from 7th Avenue to Cypress Avenue)
Existing three-lane corridors – Three-lane roads are one travel lane in each direction
with a continuous center two-way turn lane, or any combination of three-lanes (i.e. two
travel lanes in one direction with one lane in the opposite direction). The three lane
corridors found in the Greater Bozeman Area include:
7th Avenue (from Flora Lane to Griffin Drive)
Oak Street (from 7th Street to Wal-Mart entrance)
Baxter Lane (East of 19th Avenue)
Durston Road (from 7th Avenue to Fowler Road)
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-7
Durston Road (from Ferguson Road to Flanders Mill Road)
Babcock Street (from Main Street to Ferguson Road)
19th Avenue (from Main Street to Kagy Boulevard)
Kagy Boulevard (from S Willson Avenue to Highland Boulevard)
Laurel Parkway (from Durston Road to Oak Street)
Roadways not listed above are all two-lane corridors for the major street network with either
two-way or one-way flow characteristics.
2.2.3 Existing Traffic Signal System
When analyzing the operation of an entire road network it is best to examine the existing
signalized intersections. Forty-one (41) existing signalized intersections in the Greater
Bozeman Area were evaluated as part of this Transportation Plan 2007 Update. Most of the
signals are located along Main Street, 19th Avenue, 7th Avenue, or located in the downtown
central business district (CBD). Figure 2-7 and Figure 2-8 shows all of the current signalized
intersections and the coordinated signal system. It should be noted that the Montana
Department of Transportation (MDT) is currently revising the signal timings for all of the
signals located within the City of Bozeman. This effort is expected to be completed in the
winter of 2007 and may change the current coordinated signal operations.
41
0
0
2190
0
15100
300
2000
130
0
0
2400
39
0
0
3500
10
0
0
3100
78
0
0
92
0
0
6500
10
2
0
0
11
0
0
0
8500
13
4
0
0
19400
10
2
0
0
13
0
0
0
200
30
0
500
90
0
10
0
25
0
0
600
1500 1100
800
1200
1400
17
0
0
2200
70
0
10
0
0
2000
1300
21
0
0
1600
500
50
0
200
13
0
0
2200
15
0
0
1700
1300 500
1300
200
100
10
0
1000
1200
16
0
0
11
0
0
50
0
SEE
D
E
T
A
I
L
(FIG
U
R
E
2
-
4
)
Existing (2005) ADTTraffic VolumesFigure 2-3
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)
*Note:Traffic volumes determined through the traffic model wereused in locations where current ADT counts do not exist.The functional classifications shown are recommended aspart of the Transportation Plan and do not reflect the federallyapproved functional classification criteria which is based oncurrent conditions rather than anticipated future conditions.
0 10,0005,000
Feet
Legend
Detail Area
City Boundary
Urban Boundary
Study Area Boundary
2005 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)1200 2004 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)1200 2005 Traffic Model Volume*1200
InterstatePrincipal ArterialMinor ArterialCollectorLocal
69
0
0
43
0
0
17100
20
0
0
0
22300
22
0
0
3600
9600
79
0
0
340
0
23800
73
0
0
2600
81
0
0
18
3
0
0
21900
21200
83
0
0
5200
14900
2500
24
1
0
0
1620
0
5100
1120013300
69
0
0
3000
5
8
0
0
8800
3
3
0
0
8800
8200
3
5
0
0
2
5
0
0
39
0
0
23
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
11200
159
0
0
25100 12200
22
2
0
0
60
0
0
6000 4800
92
0
0
9200
50
0
0
29
0
0
15
1
0
0
11
3
0
0
84
0
0
3000 15500
58
0
0
10700
12300
7500
44
0
0
8800
16
7
0
0
19
0
0
0
3800
6100
7
4
0
0
18
0
0
89
0
0
2200
5800 30009800
90
0
40
0
600
25
0
0
1800
13
0
0
200
50
0
5300
17
0
0
1100
12
0
0
10
0
2100
70
0
3800
57
0
0
4400
3200
2
0
0
40
0
500
6300
Existing (2005) ADTTraffic VolumesFigure 2-4
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)
*Note:Traffic volumes determined through the traffic model wereused in locations where current ADT counts do not exist.The functional classifications shown are recommended aspart of the Transportation Plan and do not reflect the federallyapproved functional classification criteria which is based oncurrent conditions rather than anticipated future conditions.
0 5,0002,500
Feet
Legend
Detail Area
Urban BoundaryCity Boundary
2005 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)1200 2004 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)1200 2005 Traffic Model Volume*1200
Interstate
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Local
SEE
D
E
T
A
I
L
(FIG
U
R
E
2
-
6
)
Existing Corridor SizeFigure 2-5
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)
0 10,0005,000
Feet
Legend
2-Lane3-Lane4-Lane5-Lane
Corridor Size
Interstate
Detail Area
City Boundary
Urban Boundary
Study Area Boundary
Existing Corridor SizeFigure 2-6
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)Legend
Detail Area
City Boundary
Urban Boundary
2-Lane3-Lane
4-Lane5-Lane
Corridor Size
Interstate
0 5,0002,500
Feet
SEE
D
E
T
A
I
L
(FIG
U
R
E
2
-
8
)
Existing Traffic SignalSystem MapFigure 2-7
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)
Note:The functional classifications shown are recommended aspart of the Transportation Plan and do not reflect the federallyapproved functional classification criteria which is based oncurrent conditions rather than anticipated future conditions.
Legend
Flashing LightTraffic SignalCoordinated Signal
Detail AreaCity Boundary
Urban Boundary
Study Area BoundaryInterstate
Principal ArterialMinor Arterial
Collector
Local
0 10,0005,000
Feet
Existing Traffic SignalSystem MapFigure 2-8
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)
Note:The functional classifications shown are recommended aspart of the Transportation Plan and do not reflect the federallyapproved functional classification criteria which is based oncurrent conditions rather than anticipated future conditions.
Legend
Detail Area
Urban Boundary
City Boundary
Flashing Light
Traffic SignalCoordinated Signal
InterstatePrincipal ArterialMinor ArterialCollectorLocal
0 5,0002,500
Feet
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-14 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
2.2.4 Existing Levels of Service
Urban road systems are ultimately controlled by the function of the major intersections.
Intersection failure directly reduces the number of vehicles that can be accommodated
during the peak hours that have the highest demand and the total daily capacity of a
corridor. As a result of this strong impact on corridor function, intersection improvements
can be a very cost-effective means of increasing a corridor’s traffic volume capacity. In some
circumstances, corridor expansion projects may be able to be delayed with correct
intersection improvements. Due to the significant portion of total expense for road
construction projects used for project design, construction, mobilization, and adjacent area
rehabilitation, a careful analysis must be made of the expected service life from intersection-
only improvements. If adequate design life can be achieved with only improvements to the
intersection, then a corridor expansion may not be the most efficient solution. With that in
mind, it is important to determine how well the major intersections are functioning by
determining their Level of Service (LOS).
LOS is a qualitative measure developed by the transportation profession to quantify driver
perception for such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay,
and impediments caused by other vehicles. It provides a scale that is intended to match the
perception by motorists of the operation of the intersection. LOS provides a means for
identifying intersections that are experiencing operational difficulties, as well as providing a
scale to compare intersections with each other. The LOS scale represents the full range of
operating conditions. This scale is based on the ability of an intersection or street segment to
accommodate the amount of traffic using it. The scale ranges from “A” which indicates little,
if any, vehicle delay, to “F” which indicates significant vehicle delay and traffic congestion.
The LOS analysis was conducted according to the procedures outlined in the Transportation
Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual – Special Report 209 using the Highway Capacity
Software, version 4.1f.
In order to calculate the LOS, 74 intersections on the major street network were counted
during the summer/fall of 2007. These intersections included 41 signalized intersections and
33 high-volume unsignalized intersections in the Greater Bozeman area (noting that eight
signalized intersections could not be counted due to construction activities and that two
intersections that were counted while unsignalized were recently signalized). Each
intersection was counted between 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., to ensure
that the intersection’s peak volumes were represented. Based upon this data, the operational
characteristics of each intersection were obtained.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-15
2.2.4.1 Signalized Intersections
For signalized intersections, recent research has determined that average control delay per
vehicle is the best available measure of level of service. Control delay takes into account
uniform delay, incremental delay, and initial queue delay. The amount of control delay that
a vehicle experiences is approximately equal to the time elapsed from when a vehicle joins a
queue at the intersection (or arrives at the stop line when there is no queue) until the vehicle
departs from the stopped position at the head of the queue. The control delay is primarily a
function of volume, capacity, cycle length, green ratio, and the pattern of vehicle arrivals.
The following table identifies the relationship between LOS and average control delay per
vehicle. The procedures used to evaluate signalized intersections use detailed information
on geometry, lane use, signal timing, peak hour volumes, arrival types and other parameters.
This information is then used to calculate delays and determine the capacity of each
intersection. Generally, an intersection is determined to be functioning adequately if
operating at LOS C or better. However, for the City of Bozeman, an intersection operating at
a LOS D or better is considered to be functioning adequately. Table 2-1 shows the LOS by
control delay for signalized intersections.
Table 2-1
Level of Service Criteria (Signalized Intersections)
Level of Service Control Delay per Vehicle (sec)
A < 10
B 10 to 20
C 20 to 35
D 35 to 50
E 50 to 80
F > 80
Source: The Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual
Using these techniques and the data collected in the summer/fall of 2007, the LOS for the
signalized intersections was calculated. Tables 2-2 & 2-3 show the AM and PM peak hour
LOS for each individual leg of the intersections, as well as the intersections as a whole. The
intersection LOS is shown graphically in Figure 2-9 and Figure 2-10.
It should be noted that the LOS shown in the following tables for the intersections along
Rouse Avenue may not be identical to those shown in the recently published Rouse Avenue
Environmental Assessment. Variations to the LOS at these intersections may be the result of
variations in the peak hour factor, type of analysis software, the amount of truck traffic
observed, construction activities in the area, or the time of year and day of the week that the
intersection traffic counts were made.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-16 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
Table 2-2
2007 AM Peak Hour LOS (Signalized Intersections)
INTERSECTION EB WB NB SB INT INTERSECTION EB WB NB SB INT
Huffine Lane & Ferguson
Road¹ F B - C E North 19th Avenue & Beall
Street² D C A A B
Huffine Lane &
Cottonwood Road² B A D D B North 19th Avenue &
Durston Road¹ B B C C B
Huffine Lane & Jackrabbit
Lane C B C C C North 19th Avenue & Oak
Street¹ E C B B C
Huffine Lane & Fowler
Lane² B B C D B North 19th Avenue & Baxter
Lane² C C B B B
Main Street & West College
Street¹ C C D B C North 19th Avenue & Valley
Center Road² B B A B B
Main Street & West
Babcock Street¹ C C C C C Springhill Road & Frontage
Road² A A - C B
Main Street & South 19th
Avenue¹ C C D E D North 7th Avenue & Griffin
Drive² B C A A A
Main Street & North 15th
Avenue¹ B C C C B North 7th Avenue & I-90
Interchange Ramp (north)¹ - C B C B
Main Street & 11th Avenue¹ D C C C C North 7th Avenue & I-90
Interchange Ramp (south)¹ B - C B C
Main Street & South 8th
Avenue¹ B A D - B North 7th Avenue & Oak
Street¹ D D C C C
Main Street & North 7th
Avenue¹ B C C C C North 7th Avenue &
Tamarack Street¹ - C C B B
Main Street & 5th Avenue¹ A A B B A North 7th Avenue & Durston
Road¹ D D C D D
Main Street & Rouse Avenue B B B B B North Rouse Avenue & Tamarack Street¹ B B B B B
Main Street & Wallace
Avenue B B B B B North 19th Avenue &
Deadman’s Gulch² D D A A B
Main Street & Highland Boulevard C C D C C North 19th Avenue & Tschache Lane² D D A A A
Mendenhall Street & North
7th Avenue¹ - C B B B North 19th Avenue &
Springhill Road² - C A A A
Mendenhall Street & North Willson Avenue¹ - A C B B North 19th Avenue & I-90 Interchange (north)² - D A A A
Babcock Street & South
Willson Avenue¹ A - B B B North 19th Avenue &
Babcock Street² C C A A A
Kagy Boulevard & South Willson Avenue C E D C D North 19th Avenue & Stucky Road² C - A A A
Kagy Boulevard & South 19th Avenue² C B B C B Durston Road & 15th Avenue² B A C B B
West College Street & South 19th Avenue¹ D D F F E
(Abbreviations used in the table are as follows: EB = eastbound; WB = westbound; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; INT = intersection as a whole)
¹ Signal timing and phasing from the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan – 2001 Update.
² Signal timing and phasing optimized under pretimed conditions.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-17
Table 2-3
2007 PM Peak Hour LOS (Signalized Intersections)
INTERSECTION EB WB NB SB INT INTERSECTION EB WB NB SB INT
Huffine Lane & Ferguson Road¹ F B - C E North 19th Avenue & Beall Street² D C A A B
Huffine Lane & Cottonwood Road² B B C D B North 19th Avenue & Durston Road¹ B B D C C
Huffine Lane & Jackrabbit
Lane C D D C C North 19th Avenue & Oak
Street¹ E C C C C
Huffine Lane & Fowler Lane² B B D C B North 19th Avenue & Baxter Lane² C C C B C
Main Street & West College Street¹ C C C B C North 19th Avenue & Valley Center Road² C B A B B
Main Street & West Babcock Street¹ D F C C D Springhill Road & Frontage Road² A A - C B
Main Street & South 19th
Avenue¹ C D D E D North 7th Avenue & Griffin
Drive² A B B B B
Main Street & North 15th Avenue¹ B C C D C North 7th Avenue & I-90 Interchange Ramp (north)¹ - C B B B
Main Street & 11th
Avenue¹ C C C C C North 7th Avenue & I-90
Interchange Ramp (south)¹ C - C B C
Main Street & South 8th Avenue¹ B A D - B North 7th Avenue & Oak Street¹ E D C C D
Main Street & North 7th
Avenue¹ F D C C E North 7th Avenue &
Tamarack Street¹ - C C B C
Main Street & 5th Avenue¹ A A B B A North 7th Avenue & Durston
Road¹ D D D D D
Main Street & Rouse
Avenue B B B B B North Rouse Avenue &
Tamarack Street¹ B B B C C
Main Street & Wallace
Avenue B C B B B North 19th Avenue &
Deadman’s Gulch² D C C B C
Main Street & Highland
Boulevard D C F C F North 19th Avenue &
Tschache Lane² C D B A B
Mendenhall Street &
North 7th Avenue¹ - D B B C North 19th Avenue &
Springhill Road² - C B B B
Mendenhall Street &
North Willson Avenue¹ - A C B B North 19th Avenue & I-90
Interchange (north)² - D C B C
Babcock Street & South
Willson Avenue¹ A - B C B North 19th Avenue &
Babcock Street² C C A A B
Kagy Boulevard & South
Willson Avenue D D C D D North 19th Avenue & Stucky
Road² B - A A B
Kagy Boulevard & South
19th Avenue² B C B B B Durston Road & 15th
Avenue² A B C C B
West College Street &
South 19th Avenue¹ D F F E F
(Abbreviations used in the table are as follows: EB = eastbound; WB = westbound; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; INT = intersection as a whole)
¹ Signal timing and phasing from the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan – 2001 Update.
² Signal timing and phasing optimized under pretimed conditions.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-18 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
2.2.4.2 Unsignalized Intersections
Level of service for unsignalized intersections is based on the delay experienced by each
movement within the intersection, rather than on the overall stopped delay per vehicle at the
intersection. This difference from the method used for signalized intersections is necessary
since the operating characteristics of a stop-controlled intersection are substantially different.
Driver expectations and perceptions are also entirely different. For two-way stop controlled
intersections, the through traffic on the major (uncontrolled) street experiences no delay at
the intersection. Conversely, vehicles turning left from the minor street experience more
delay than other movements and at times can experience significant delay. Vehicles on the
minor street, which are turning right or going across the major street, experience less delay
than those turning left from the same approach. Due to this situation, the LOS assigned to a
two-way stop controlled intersection is based on the average delay for vehicles on the minor
street approach.
Levels of service for all-way stop controlled intersections are also based on delay
experienced by the vehicles at the intersection. Since there is no major street, the highest
delay could be experienced by any of the approaching streets. Therefore, the level of service
is based on the approach with the highest delay as shown in Table 2-4. This table shows the
LOS criteria for both the all-way and two-way stop controlled intersections.
Table 2-4
Level of Service Criteria (Stop Controlled Intersections)
LEVEL OF SERVICE DELAY (SEC/VEH)
A < 10
B 10 to 15
C 15 to 25
D 25 to 35
E 35 to 50
F > 50
Source: The Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual
Using the above guidelines, the data collected in the summer/fall of 2007, and calculation
techniques for two-way stop controls and all-way stop controls, the LOS was calculated for
33 intersections. The results of these calculations are shown in Table 2-5. The intersection
LOS is shown graphically in Figure 2-9 and Figure 2-10.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-19
Table 2-5
2007 LOS (Stop-Controlled Intersections)
INTERSECTION AM PM INTERSECTION AM PM
Frontage Road & Nelson Road C C Jackrabbit Lane & Valley Center Road D E
Frontage Road & Valley Center Underpass C E Jackrabbit Lane & Hulbert Road C D
Highland Boulevard & Ellis Street C E Jackrabbit Lane & Baxter Lane C D
Highland Boulevard & Kagy Boulevard E C Jackrabbit Lane & Durston Road C D
East Main Street & Haggerty Lane C E Jackrabbit Lane & Ramshorn Drive D C
Haggerty Lane & Bozeman Trail Road A A Jackrabbit Lane & Forkhorn Trail E E
Kagy Boulevard & Bozeman Trail Road B B Jackrabbit Lane & Shedhorn Trail C E
Kagy Boulevard & Sourdough Road F F Jackrabbit Lane & Spanish Peak Drive C C
Main Street & I-90 Off-Ramp C B Huffine Lane & Monforton School Road B C
Main Street & I-90 On-Ramp B B Huffine Lane & Love Lane C C
Story Mill Road & Bridger Canyon Drive B C Huffine Lane & Gooch Hill Road B C
North Rouse Avenue & Peach Street C C Valley Center Road & Harper Puckett Road B B
South 11th Avenue & College Street D F 8th Avenue & College Street C D
College Street & Willson Avenue E F U.S. 191 & Gooch Hill Road B C
South 11th Avenue & Kagy Boulevard D F U.S. 191 & Mill Street C C
South 19th Avenue & Goldenstein Road B B U.S. 191 & Cottonwood Road B C
Jackrabbit Lane & Cameron Bridge Road D F
The LOS analyses of the existing conditions in the Greater Bozeman Area reveals that several
signalized and unsignalized intersections are currently functioning at LOS D or lower. These
intersections are shown in Table 2-6 and are ideal candidates for closer examination and
potential intersection improvements measures. Refer to Table 4-3 in Chapter 4 for a detailed
performance level turning movement breakout for each unsignalized intersection.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-20 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
Table 2-6
Existing Intersections Functioning at LOS D or Lower
INTERSECTION AM PEAK PM PEAK
8tth Avenue & College Street U C D
College Street & Willson Avenue U E F
East Main Street & Haggerty Lane U C E
Frontage Road & Valley Center Underpass U C E
Highland Boulevard & Ellis Street U C E
Highland Boulevard & Kagy Boulevard U E C
Huffine Lane & Ferguson Road S E E
Jackrabbit Lane & Cameron Bridge Road U D F
Jackrabbit Lane & Valley Center Road U D E
Jackrabbit Lane & Hulbert Road U C D
Jackrabbit Lane & Baxter Lane U C D
Jackrabbit Lane & Durston Road U C D
Jackrabbit Lane & Ramshorn Drive U D C
Jackrabbit Lane & Forkhorn Trail U E E
Jackrabbit Lane & Shedhorn Trail U C E
Kagy Boulevard & South Willson Avenue S D D
Kagy Boulevard & Sourdough Road U F F
Main Street & 7th Avenue S C E
Main Street & Babcock Street S C D
Main Street & Haggerty Lane U C E
Main Street & Highland Boulevard S C F
Main Street & South 19th Avenue S D D
North 7th Avenue & Durston Road S D D
North 7th Avenue & Oak Street S C D
South 11th Avenue & College Street U D F
South 11th Avenue & Kagy Boulevard U D F
West College Street & South 19th Avenue S E F
(S)ignalized
(U)nsignalized
SEE
D
E
T
A
I
L
(FIG
U
R
E
2
-
1
0
)
Existing (2005) LOSLevel of ServiceFigure 2-9
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)
B C
C C
B C
B C B C
C CCCCC
C EEE
C D D C
C D
C D
B B
D E
D F
C E
Signalized Intersection
Unsignalized Intersection
A, B, C, , , = Level of ServiceD E F
A.M.P.M.FC
A AA.M.P.M.
Note:The functional classifications shown are recommended aspart of the Transportation Plan and do not reflect the federallyapproved functional classification criteria which is based oncurrent conditions rather than anticipated future conditions.
Legend
Detail Area
City Boundary
Urban Boundary
Study Area BoundaryInterstate
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Local
0 10,0005,000
Feet
0 5,0002,500
Feet
Existing (2005) LOSLevel of ServiceFigure 2-10
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)Signalized Intersection
Unsignalized Intersection
A, B, C, , , = Level of ServiceD E F
A.M.P.M.FC
A AA.M.P.M.
BB
BA
BB
FD
FF CE BB
AA
EC
DD
EC
BB
BC
FECC
BBEE FD FEDC
BB
FC
BB
BB
CB
BB
CC
DD
BA
CB
CB
CCDD CB
CBBABB
CC
DC
BA
CB
CB
B
BB CA
BA
CC
EC
BC
C D
BB
CC A ACE
BB
BB
B
BB
Note:The functional classifications shown are recommended aspart of the Transportation Plan and do not reflect the federallyapproved functional classification criteria which is based oncurrent conditions rather than anticipated future conditions.
Legend
Interstate
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Local
Detail Area
Urban Boundary
City Boundary
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-23
2.2.5 Crash Analysis
The MDT Traffic and Safety Bureau provided crash information and data for use in the
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan – 2007 Update. The crash information was analyzed
to identify intersections with crash characteristics that may warrant further study. General
crash characteristics were determined along with probable roadway deficiencies and
solutions. The crash information covers the three-year time period from January 1st, 2004 to
December 31st, 2006.
Three analyses were performed to rank the intersections based on different crash
characteristics. First, the intersections were ranked by number of crashes. For this analysis,
intersections with 12 or more crashes in the three-year period were included. If an
intersection did not have 12 crashes in the three-year period the data was available, it was
not included at all in this analysis. A summary of these intersections, along with the number
of crashes at each intersection, is shown in Table 2-7.
The second analysis involved a more detailed look at the crashes to determine the MDT
“severity index rating”. Crashes were broken into three categories of severity: property
damage only (PDO), non-incapacitating injury crash, and fatality or incapacitating injury.
Each of these three types is given a different rating: one (1) for a property damage only crash;
three (3) for an injury crash; and eight (8) for a crash that resulted in a fatality.
The MDT severity index rating for the intersections in the analysis is shown in Table 2-8. The
calculation used to arrive at the severity index rating is as follows:
The third analysis ranked the number of crashes against the annual average daily traffic
(AADT) at each intersection, expressed in crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV). A
summary of the intersections in the analysis is shown in Table 2-9. The calculation used to
arrive at the crash rates, expressed in crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV), as shown
in Table 2-9, is as follows:
[(# PDO) x (1)] + [(# Non-Incapacitating Crashes) x (3)]
+ [(# Fatalities or Incapacitating Crashes) x (8)]
= (MDT Severity Index Rating) Total Number of Crashes in a Three-Year Period
Total Number of Crashes in a Three-Year Period
= (Crash Rate)
(AADT for Intersection) x (3 years) x (365 days/year) / (1,000,000 vehicles)
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-24 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
Table 2-7
Intersections with 12 or More Crashes in the
Three-Year Period (January 1, 2004-December 31, 2006)
INTERSECTION # CRASHES
Intersections with 42 - 47 crashes
I-90 & 7th Avenue* S 43
Huffine Lane & Jackrabbit Lane S 42
Intersections with 30 - 35 crashes
Main Street & 19th Avenue S 34
Intersections with 24 - 29 crashes
7th Avenue & Oak Street S 28
19th Avenue & Oak Street S 27
19th Avenue & College Street S 25
Intersections with 18 – 23 crashes
Main Street & 7th Avenue S 23
Main Street & 11th Avenue S 23
I-90 & 19th Avenue* S 19
19th Avenue & Baxter Lane S 18
Intersections with 12 - 17 crashes
Main Street & Babcock Street S 17
Main Street & College Street S 17
7th Avenue & Koch Street* U-2W 16
19th Avenue & Durston Road S 16
Huffine Lane & Shedhorn Lane* U-2W 16
Huffine Lane & Ferguson S 15
Jackrabbit Lane & Valley Center Road U-2W 15
Main Street & 15th Avenue S 15
19th Avenue & Tschache Lane S 14
19th Avenue & Valley Center Road S 14
Huffine Lane & Fowler Avenue S 13
Main Street & 3rd Avenue* S 13
Main Street & 5th Avenue S 13
Willson Avenue & Babcock Street S 13
* Intersections not identified in the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan – 2007 Update
** "S" = Signalized intersection, "U-2W" = Unsignalized two-way stop controlled, "U-3W" =
Unsignalized three-way stop controlled, "U-4W" = Unsignalized four-way stop controlled.
Note that there are some intersections listed in Table 2-7 that are not specifically being
studied as part of the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan – 2007 Update. The
intersections at I-90 & 7th Avenue and I-90 & 19th Avenue included above are the on and off-
ramps on Interstate 90 and were not studied as part of this Plan due to budget limitations as
defined in the project scoping plans.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-25
Table 2-8
Intersection Crash Analysis - MDT Severity Index Rating
Intersection PDO Injury Fatality/
Incapacitating Injury
Severity
Index
Intersections with 2.75 – 2.50 Severity Index
Jackrabbit Lane & Valley Center Road U-2w 8 5 2 2.6
Intersections with 2.49 – 2.25 Severity Index
Huffine Lane & Ferguson S 8 6 1 2.27
Intersections with 1.99 – 1.75 Severity Index
Main Street & 15th Avenue S 11 3 1 1.87
19th Avenue & Baxter Lane S 13 4 1 1.83
19th Avenue & Durston Road S 12 3 1 1.81
Huffine Lane & Fowler Road S 8 5 0 1.77
Intersections with 1.74 – 1.50 Severity Index
Main Street & 7th Avenue U-2W 15 8 0 1.7
19th Avenue & Oak Street S 18 9 0 1.67
19th Avenue & College Street S 17 8 0 1.64
7th Avenue & Oak Street S 23 4 1 1.54
Main Street & 19th Avenue S 25 9 0 1.53
Intersections with 1.49 – 1.25 Severity Index
Main Street & Babcock Street S 13 4 0 1.47
Main Street & 11th Avenue S 18 5 0 1.43
19th Avenue & Tschache Lane S 11 3 0 1.43
19th Avenue & Valley Center Road S 11 3 0 1.43
Huffine Lane & Jackrabbit Lane S 36 5 1 1.4
Main Street & 5th Avenue S 11 2 0 1.31
Intersections with 1.24 – 1.00 Severity Index
Willson Avenue & Babcock Street S 12 1 0 1.15
Main Street & College Street S 16 1 0 1.12
** "S" = Signalized intersection, "U-2W" = Unsignalized two-way stop controlled, "U-3W" = Unsignalized three-way stop
controlled, "U-4W" = Unsignalized four-way stop controlled.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-26 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
Table 2-9
Intersection Crash Analysis Crash Rate
Intersection Number of Crashes Volume Rate
Intersections with 2.0 – 1.50 Crash Rate
Huffine Lane & Jackrabbit Lane S 42 21,124 1.82
Intersections with 1.49 – 1.0 Crash Rate
19th Avenue & College Street S 25 18,488 1.23
Jackrabbit Lane & Valley Center Road U-2W 15 12,256 1.12
7th Avenue & Oak Street S 28 24,281 1.05
19th Avenue & Oak Street S 27 24,545 1
Intersections with 0.99 – 0.50 Crash Rate
Main Street & 7th Avenue S 23 21,306* 0.99
Main Street & 15th Avenue S 15 14,231 0.96
Main Street & 19th Avenue S 34 33,347 0.93
Willson Avenue & Babcock Street S 13 13,818* 0.86
Main Street & College Street S 17 18,107 0.86
Main Street & 5th Avenue S 13 14,124* 0.84
Main Street & 11th Avenue S 23 26,331* 0.8
19th Avenue & Baxter Lane S 18 21,322 0.77
19th Avenue & Valley Center Road S 14 18,190 0.7
19th Avenue & Tschache Lane S 14 19,107 0.67
19th Avenue & Durston S 16 23,421 0.62
Main Street & Babcock Street S 17 24,950* 0.62
Huffine Lane & Fowler Lane S 13 19,083 0.62
Huffine Lane & Ferguson S 15 22,264 0.62
*Volume determined using Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 turning movement counts
** "S" = Signalized intersection, "U-2W" = Unsignalized two-way stop controlled, "U-3W" = Unsignalized three-way stop
controlled, "U-4W" = Unsignalized four-way stop controlled.
In order to give the intersections included in the crash analysis an even rating, a composite
rating score was developed based on the three analyses presented above. This composite
rating score has the following criteria: First, the intersection had to have a minimum crash
rate of 1.0 crash per million entering vehicles (MEV). Second it had to have 12 or more
crashes in the three years combined. Third, it had to rate in the top 10 of one of the three
previous categories. Using these criteria, the intersections were then rated based on their
position on each of the three previous tables, giving each equal weight. For example, the
intersection of Huffine Lane and Jackrabbit Lane was given a ranking of 2 for its position in
Table 2-7, another ranking of 16 for its position in Table 2-8, and a ranking of 1 for its
location in Table 2-9. Thus its composite rating is 19. Refer to Table 2-10 for the composite
rating of each intersection.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-27
Table 2-10
Intersection Crash Analysis Composite Rating
Intersection Crash no. Severity No. Rate No. Composite Rating
Jackrabbit Lane & Valley Center Road 12 1 3 16
19th Avenue & College Street 5 9 2 16
19th Avenue & Oak Street 4 8 5 17
7th Avenue & Oak Street 3 10 4 17
Huffine Lane & Jackrabbit Lane 1 16 1 18
Main Street & 7th Avenue 7 7 6 20
Main Street & 19th Avenue 2 11 8 21
Main Street & 15th Avenue 14 3 7 24
19th Avenue & Baxter Lane 8 4 13 25
Main Street & 11th Avenue 6 13 12 31
19th Avenue & Durston Road 11 5 16 32
Huffine Lane & Ferguson 13 2 19 34
Main Street & College Street 9 19 10 38
Main Street & Babcock Street 10 12 17 39
Huffine Lane & Fowler 18 6 18 42
19th Avenue & Tschache Lane 15 14 15 44
Willson Avenue & Babcock Street 17 18 9 44
19th Avenue & Valley Center Road 16 15 14 45
Main Street & 5th Avenue 19 17 11 47
Intersections that were identified through the composite rating score method, as described
previously, which warrant further study and may be in need of mitigation to specifically
address crash trends are listed below. The locations of these intersections are shown on
Figure 2-11 and Figure 2-12. Note that the fourteen intersections listed below are in
alphabetical order, and there is no significance to the order of their listing.
7th Avenue & Oak Street
19th Avenue & Baxter Lane
19th Avenue & College Street
19th Avenue & Durston Road
19th Avenue & Oak Street
Huffine Lane & Ferguson Road
Huffine Lane & Fowler Road
Huffine Lane & Jackrabbit Lane
Jackrabbit Lane & Valley Center Road
Main Street & 7th Avenue
Main Street & 15th Avenue
Main Street & 19th Avenue
Main Street & College Street
Willson Avenue & Babcock Street
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-28 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
The identified intersections will be evaluated further to determine what type of mitigation
measures may be possible to reduce specific crash trends (if any) and/or severity. These
mitigation measures will be evaluated in the overall context of recommended improvements
being evaluated via the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan – 2007 Update development.
It should be noted that several of the intersections have undergone significant reconstruction
during the analysis period of January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2006 including the
intersections of 7th Avenue & Oak Street, 19th Avenue & Baxter Lane, 19th Avenue &
Durston Road, 19th Avenue & Oak Street, Huffine Lane & Ferguson Road, and Huffine Lane
& Fowler Road that are listed earlier.
0 10,0005,000
Feet
SEE
D
E
T
A
I
L
(FIG
U
R
E
2
-
1
2
)
Crash LocationsFigure 2-11
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)
Note:The functional classifications shown are recommended aspart of the Transportation Plan and do not reflect the federallyapproved functional classification criteria which is based oncurrent conditions rather than anticipated future conditions.
Legend
Detail Area
City Boundary
Urban Boundary
Study Area Boundary
Crash Location
Interstate
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Local
0 5,0002,500
Feet
Crash LocationsFigure 2-12
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)
Note:The functional classifications shown are recommended aspart of the Transportation Plan and do not reflect the federallyapproved functional classification criteria which is based oncurrent conditions rather than anticipated future conditions.
Legend
Detail Area
Urban Boundary
City Boundary
Crash Location
Interstate
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Local
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-31
2.3 NON-MOTORIZED
2.3.1 Overview of Bozeman Demographics
The residents of the Bozeman area are by nature active and sturdy individuals who take
year-round advantage of the area’s natural beauty and nearly limitless outdoor recreational
opportunities. Even on some of the coldest days in the winter the sidewalks will still be filled
with pedestrians, and bicyclists can still be seen riding in the snow. Because the Bozeman
area’s relatively level topography and generally good weather, walking and bicycling play a
significant role in the Bozeman area’s transportation system and have sizable upward
potential. This chapter of the Plan provides an analysis of the Bozeman area’s existing
conditions for pedestrian and bicycle policy, infrastructure, and programs. This analysis was
performed using field work, information gathered though the public involvement process,
and technical data provided by the City of Bozeman, Gallatin County and MDT.
Local data sources related to walking and bicycling within the study area are limited.
Intersection counts done as part of the Transportation Plan to create a snapshot can be
misleading, as many pedestrians and bicyclists prefer less-congested minor roads. The mood
of Bozeman residents can perhaps be summarized by the 2007 National Citizen Survey
commissioned by the City of Bozeman, which received 500 responses. Overall, residents
seemed happy with the quality of life (83 percent) and amenities; however a serious concern
about future growth and its potential to change quality of life was apparent. These concerns
of residents included 82 percent feeling that the rate of growth in the area was “too fast” and
that 48 percent listed concerns that the greatest challenge to the area was “growth, planning,
and sprawl” as the biggest worry. As the Bozeman area grows, traffic congestion will likely
worsen, and the area’s roadway capacity may not be able to keep pace. Mode choice in the
region’s transportation system and the provision of safe and plentiful facilities for walking
and bicycling will become more important as residents seek alternatives for some of their
trips.
The results from the walking and bicycling survey as part of this Plan show that the primary
reason given for not biking are the lack of bike lanes or paths. The lack of sidewalks or paths
was also listed as the third most common reason for not walking. Other relevant data that
supports this finding and illustrates the upward potential of walking and bicycling if
improved facilities are provided includes the “2005-2006 West Babcock Street Pedestrian and
Bicyclist Monitoring Project”, which found a 256 percent increase in bicycling and walking
along the corridor after the addition of sidewalks and bike lanes.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-32 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
Photo 1: Sidewalks and bike lanes installed on West Babcock Street have resulted in more than three times as
much bicycle and pedestrian traffic.
Despite it being over seven years since the last census, the 2000 US Census Journey to Work
data provides the best dataset to compare Bozeman to the state of Montana and to the nation
as a whole. Data for Gallatin County would not be meaningful because the study area
composes only a fraction of the County. The census shows that the City of Bozeman had a
walking mode share of 10.7 percent, while traveling by ‘other means’, which includes
bicycling, composed 4.7 percent of all trips. The statewide mode share for walking was 5.5
percent while ‘other means’ was 1.7 percent. Nationally, the walking mode share was 2.9
percent with ‘other means’ combining to 1.2 percent. From this data it is apparent that
Bozeman has a much higher mode share of walking and bicycling than both the state and
national averages. This data only covers ‘journey to work’ data and does not include
information on other utility or recreational trips. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates the 2007
population of Bozeman to be just under 38,000 people. Based on the data provided by the
2000 census, the transient student population of over 12,000 is somewhat, but not fully
accounted for, in the total population estimate meaning that the overall population within
the City limits is likely higher. Also important is the daytime population of Bozeman, which
can swell to upwards of 50,000 people due to Bozeman’s status as a regional employment
center and shopping destination.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-33
2.3.2 Study Area Land Use
Development patterns within the Study Area consist of low to medium suburban density in
the communities of Bozeman, Four Corners, and Gallatin Gateway, surrounded by low-
density rural development and agriculture. The study area has experienced a period of rapid
growth in recent years with Bozeman in the process of rapid expansion with numerous
annexations composing new residential and commercial development opportunities.
Concurrently, Bozeman is enjoying some success with urban infill development adding
higher densities and mixed-use projects in some of the older areas of the City. Most
commercial and industrial areas line the major transportation corridors within the Study
Area such as Huffine Lane, Gallatin Road (Hwy 191), Jackrabbit Lane, (Hwy 85), 19th
Avenue, N. 7th Avenue, and Main Street. Parks are scattered throughout the city of Bozeman
with substantial surrounding open space composed of private, State and Federal lands.
The City of Bozeman has all lands within the City Limits subject to zoning. Bozeman has
undertaken the 2020 Community Plan, which develops land-use strategies to accommodate
an expected population of 46,600 by 2020, a 45 percent increase with a 64 percent increase in
employment. This underscores Bozeman’s position as a regional employer within the
Gallatin Valley and stresses the need for a balanced and efficient transportation system. The
2020 Community Plan outlines a future land-use scenario that encourages and supports
compact development patterns and infill development, enhances community vitality and
increases transportation choices for residents.
The majority of private lands within Gallatin County are unzoned. In 2003 the County
adopted a Growth Policy in a comprehensive plan, which established goals and objectives
for handling future growth in the County. Supplementing the Growth Policy, there are
numerous zoning districts that establish guidelines for development within their boundaries.
These zoning districts apply specific restrictions on uses and new development. The
subdivision regulations within the Growth Policy and existing zoning districts are a major
tool for regulating land use. With these, the County can require infrastructure improvements
as a condition of new development.
2.3.3 Major Activity Generators and Attractors
Educational Facilities – From higher education facilities, such as Montana State University,
to the elementary schools located throughout the county, providing safe facilities for
students and staff to bike and walk is important.
Montana State University has an enrollment of approximately 12,000 and employs almost
3,500 people. The university has a sizable impact on local transportation and serves as one of
the major destinations for area cyclists. With a dispersed student population and limited
parking on campus, transportation to the campus is a major issue in Bozeman.
There are 30 public and private K – 12 schools within the project study area, 20 of which are
in Bozeman. Each of these schools is a nexus of transportation activity concentrated during
commute hours. A comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian network that connects the schools
and neighborhoods provides alternative transportation options for students and teachers.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-34 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
Schools can account for one quarter of morning vehicular traffic. Providing safe routes for
students and staff to get to school has not only physical activity benefits, but can have a
tangible effect on traffic.
Bozeman Deaconess Hospital – Bozeman Deaconess Hospital employs approximately 800
people and is a large generator of trips both local and throughout the Gallatin Valley and
beyond. The Hospital is located on the East side of Bozeman off Highland Blvd and is well
connected by popular trails via Burke Park and shared-use paths.
Downtown Bozeman – Downtown
Bozeman serves as the cultural and
entertainment heart of the region. The
streets are busy day and night due to the
complementary mix of businesses,
restaurants, and bars. Scarcity of convenient
vehicle parking, combined with the human
scale streetscape, draws many pedestrian
and bicycle trips. There are no dedicated
bike lanes on Main Street, Mendenhall or
East Babcock Ave, but bicycle racks are
provided on the street frontage. Bicycles
and skateboards are prohibited from
downtown sidewalks. In the summer of
2007, Main St. underwent a refurbishment
process that saw the addition of new
streetlights with pedestrian countdown
timers, new red concrete crosswalks and
fully compliant ADA sidewalk ramps.
Government/Civic – All of the public
administration in the Gallatin Valley occurs
within downtown Bozeman. Together the
City and County employ approximately 700 people. A new public library was built in 2006.
Commercial Corridors – The study area has many commercial corridors with concentrated
activity. The areas of Four Corners, the I-90 Frontage Road near Gallatin Field, and the North
19th, North 7th and Main Street/Huffine corridors all generate many automobile, walking,
and bicycling trips. It is important that these corridors all be accessible by a variety of modes
of transportation including bicycling.
Parks – The Bozeman Area has a large number and variety of neighborhood parks with
varying facilities. Tennis courts, basketball courts, sports fields, winter ice skating rinks,
skate parks, and dog parks can all be found sprinkled around the Study Area. Other public
amenities include the Lindley center and Bogert pavilion. All recreational areas generate a
significant amount of travel, and given the outdoor nature of this activity, a large percentage
of that travel could be non-motorized if the proper facilities are provided. A new regional
Photo 2: Bicyclists are often seen traveling along Main
Street in downtown Bozeman.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-35
park is being developed at the intersection of Davis Lane and W. Oak Street. This will be a
heavily used hub of activity in the future.
2.3.4 Existing Policies and Goals
This section summarizes past planning efforts and establishes a policy framework to guide
future transportation decisions and capital improvement programming for both
unincorporated Gallatin County and the City of Bozeman. This undertaking is intended to
promote regional planning, offer opportunities to coordinate infrastructure improvements
and to incorporate past planning efforts into the current Plan. It is recommended that
Gallatin County and the City of Bozeman adopt the recommended policies in this Plan to
ensure their effective and consistent implementation throughout the greater Bozeman area.
Bozeman 2020 Community Plan (2001) – Adopted in 2001, the Bozeman Community Plan is
a comprehensive planning document setting goals and policies for all aspects of community
life, including transportation, housing, land use, and the environment. Chapters 9 (Parks and
Open Spaces) and 10 (Transportation) contain specific policies relevant to walkers and
cyclists.
Chapter 9: Parks, Recreation, Pathways, and Open Space – The Community Plan
incorporates a previously-adopted PROST (Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails)
plan from 1997 that inventories existing parks; discusses the maintenance of existing
parks; discusses future park, trail, and open space needs; provides park development
Photo 3: Newly reconstructed sidewalks in downtown Bozeman have ADA-compliant ramps.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-36 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
and land acquisition recommendations; and provides a synopsis of responsible
parties and a timeline. Parks form an important destination for walking and
bicycling, while linear parks and pathways are essential facilities used by walkers
and bicyclists. Chapter 9 defines a network of parks facilities including linear parks
and pathways, defines trail facility types, and discusses strategies for trails
acquisition, development and maintenance, and risk management.
Chapter 9 sets forth objectives and supporting implementation policies, including the
explicit provision that the City “provide for pedestrian and bicycle networks, and
related improvements such as bridges and crosswalks, to connect employment
centers; public spaces and services, such as parks, schools, libraries; and other
destinations.” The Plan also recommends an update of the Parks, Recreation, Open
Space, and Trails Plan.
Chapter 10: Transportation – Chapter 10 contains policies to create a “true multi-
modal and cost-effective transportation system.” One sub-chapter covers basic
definitions of “pathways,” including bike lanes, bike routes, bike and pedestrian
paths, and sidewalks. The entire chapter envisions a connected street network and a
multimodal system, paired with transportation demand management programs.
Notable objectives and policies related to bicycling and walking include:
o Provide for pedestrian and bicycle networks, and related improvements such
as bridges and crosswalks, to connect employment centers; public spaces and
services, such as parks, schools, libraries; and other destinations.
o Ensure that a variety of travel options exist which allow safe, logical, and
balanced transportation choices.
o For the purposes of transportation and land use planning and development,
non-motorized travel options and networks shall be of equal importance and
consideration as motorized travel options.
o Develop and implement reliable and adequate funding mechanisms for the
acquisition, development, and maintenance of urban parks, recreation trails,
and public open spaces, including, but not limited to, a park maintenance
district, general funds, and parkland dedications.
o Provide for non-motorized transportation facility maintenance through the
City’s normal budgeting and programming for transportation system
maintenance.
o Continue the existing sidewalk and curb ramp installation, repair, and
replacement program.
o Develop City-sponsored trail maps and information, and provide signage for
trail parking and trail facilities to encourage trail usage.
o Reduce the impact of the automobile by supporting land use decisions that
can decrease trip length of automobile travel and encourage trip
consolidation.
o Promote pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-37
o Encourage transportation options that reduce resource consumption, increase
social interaction, support safe neighborhoods, and increase the ability of the
existing transportation facilities to accommodate a growing city.
o Create and maintain an interconnected and convenient pedestrian and bicycle
network for commuting and recreation as discussed and described in the
transportation facility plan and in coordination with the design standards of
the transportation facility plan and the Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and
Trails Plan.
o Prepare and adopt clear criteria to determine when pedestrian and bicycle
facilities are transportation improvements or recreational facilities.
o Prepare and adopt design, construction, and maintenance standards for
pedestrian and bicycle transportation improvements versus recreational
facilities.
o Work with neighboring jurisdictions to create and connect trails and
corridors.
o Review, revise, and update trail/pathway standards to reflect the various
types and uses of trails and other non-motorized travel ways.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update (2001) – The Transportation Plan
Update (TPU), adopted in 2001, recommends a street network and street design standards
for current and future conditions in Bozeman, and sets priorities and funding needs for
projects to expand the street network. Chapter 6 analyzes bicycle and pedestrian facilities
and needs, and includes an inventory of existing sidewalks, ADA curb ramps, and bikeways
on major streets. The TPU includes bicycle and pedestrian facilities in street design
guidelines, but did not make specific cross-section recommendations for primary bicycle
corridors.
The TPU also discusses traffic calming measures and recommends a process for citizen
request of traffic calming. The implementation plan focuses primarily on street widening
projects, which typically have bicycle and pedestrian accommodation when adhering to the
design standards.
Gallatin County Trails Report and Plan (2001) – This adopted report defines a trail network
that connects residential neighborhoods with schools, parks, shopping and longer distance
commuter trails in Gallatin County. High priority trails corridors include:
Belgrade to Bozeman
Valley Center Drive
Bozeman to “M” Trailhead
Springhill to Bozeman
Four Corners to Bozeman
Four Corners to Gallatin Gateway
Three Forks to Trident.
While no enforceable language has been included, the Report does specify that “those who
regulate development in Gallatin County should incorporate non-motorized commuter
corridors whenever open lands are first developed.” In addition to defining a network, the
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-38 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
Report includes information on trail development and sighting guidelines, as well as
potential trail funding sources.
Gallatin County Growth Policy (2003) – The Gallatin County Growth Policy, adopted in
2003, contains a number of goals and policies related to managing growth in Gallatin
County, focusing in part on limiting residential development in rural areas and encouraging
new development in existing developed areas. Managed growth is known to create safer,
more convenient, more appealing environments for walking and bicycling, so the Growth
Policy generally supports walking and bicycling. Specific policies related to walking and
bicycling includes:
Requirements that subdivision review include analysis of the location and provision
of multi-modal transportation facilities; including pedestrian and bicycle safety
measures, and interconnectivity.
Encouragement of compact development patterns that allow the “good accessibility
to basic activities (neighbors, schools, activity centers) allowing use of alternative
transportation forms (walking, bike) to satisfy needs.”
Promotion of multi-modal transportation opportunities.
Encouragement that development be consistent with countywide trails plan.
Gallatin County/Bozeman Area Plan (2005) – The Bozeman Area Plan is a refinement of the
Gallatin County Growth Policy specific to the Bozeman Area. It is organized around the
same Goals as the Gallatin County Growth Policy, and like that policy, its fundamental goals
of managing growth, maintaining compact development, and discouraging development in
rural and agricultural areas will contribute to the creation of walking- and biking-friendly
communities if implemented. The bulk of the policy language is identical to that of the
Gallatin County Growth Policy. It explicitly states that “through the subdivision review
process require development to comply with adopted plans for parks, recreation (including
biking), open space, and trails.
US Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement (endorsed 2006) – This national resolution,
endorsed by the City Commission in 2006, includes the following policy commitments to
improve bicycling and walking conditions:
Adopt and enforce land-use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and
create compact, walkable urban communities;
Promote transportation options such as bicycle trails, commute trip reduction
programs, incentives for car pooling and public transit.
Design and Connectivity Plan for North 7th Avenue Corridor – The purpose of this plan
was to provide a design framework plan for improvement projects along the corridor that
will enhance connectivity for the pedestrian, bicyclist and automobile, to illustrate the vision
for the plan, and to provide implementation strategies and funding mechanisms. This plan
provides recommendations for enhancements along the corridor in addition to suggesting
various implementation methods.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-39
Revised Draft Bozeman Environmental Action Plan (2007) – The Draft Bozeman
Environmental Action Plan expands on the goals set forward in the US Mayors’ Climate
Protection Agreement. Those specific to walking and bicycling are below:
Adopt and enforce land-use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and
create compact, walkable urban communities.
o During the 2020 Community Growth Plan Update, consider any objectives and
policies not already in place that would help reduce carbon emissions as the
community grows;
o Promote mixed use.
Promote transportation options such as bicycle trails, commute trip reduction
programs, incentives for car pooling and public transit.
o During the Transportation Plan Update, consider any objectives not already in
place to help reduce carbon emissions as the community grows;
o Continue improving walkability and bikeability of community through
completing networks of walking and biking lanes/routes/paths, completing safe
routes for children to walk and bike to all schools, and improve intersection and
arterial crossing safety for pedestrians;
o Ask Bike Board, Pedestrian Traffic Safety Committee, Transportation
Coordinating Committee, and interested community groups to participate in
developing recommendations.
PROST (Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails) Plan (2007) – The PROST Plan
proposes a plan to improve and build a system of parks, recreation facilities, open space, and
trails in the City of Bozeman. It includes policy, a prioritized project list, a planning
framework, and likely funding sources. Where the 2020 Plan provides the overarching goals
and vision for parks, recreation, open space and trails, the PROST Plan provides the detailed
background information, inventories, analysis and recommendations to support that vision.
The trails element of this plan is most relevant to walking and bicycling conditions in the
community, though parks remain a popular walking and bicycling destination. In the PROST
Plan, development is seen as the primary source of trail funding and implementation, while
maintenance is a City-funded activity. Chapter 8 sets policies for Shared Use Paths, while
Chapter 10 includes specific recommendations for trail acquisition, development, and
maintenance. The PROST Plan includes a current and planned trails map, but the
recommendations made in the current Transportation Plan Update shall take precedence
once this plan is adopted. The PROST Plan was adopted in 2007.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-40 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
2.3.5 Existing Bicycle Facilities and Programs
Definition of Bikeways
There are five basic types of bikeways:
1. Shared Use Path – Sometimes called a “bike path,” a shared use path provides
bicycle travel on a paved right-of-way completely separated from any street or
highway.
2. Wide Unpaved Trails – In Bozeman, there are a number of unpaved linear trails that
are long, wide and smooth enough to serve longer bicycle trips.
3. Bike Lane – A bike lane provides a striped and stenciled lane for one-way travel on a
street or highway.
4. Signed bike routes – Signed bike routes, also known as shared roadways, provide for
shared use with motor vehicle traffic and are usually identified only by signing.
5. Shoulder Bikeways – Typically found in rural areas, shoulder bikeways are paved
roadways with striped shoulders wide enough for bicycle travel. Shoulder bikeways
often include signage alerting motorists to expect bicycle travel along the roadway. If
a rumble strip is present or found to be necessary it should be as close to the white
line as possible with ample room for bicyclists to the right, and have regular breaks to
facilitate bicycle entry and exit to the shoulder.
Photo 4: The popular Galligator Trail is a wide unpaved trail that serves many bicycle
and pedestrian trips each day.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-41
It is important to note that bicycles are permitted on all public roads in the State of Montana
and in Gallatin County and the City of Bozeman. As such, the Bozeman area’s entire street
network is effectively the region’s bicycle network, regardless of whether or not a bikeway
stripe, stencil, or sign is present on a given street. The designation of certain roads as having
bike lanes or shared roadway signage is not intended to imply that these are the only
roadways intended for bicycle use, or that bicyclists should not be riding on other streets.
Rather, the designation of a network of bike lane and shared roadway on-street bikeways
recognizes that certain roadways are optimal bicycle routes, for reasons such as directness or
access to significant destinations, and allows the City of Bozeman and Gallatin County to
then focus resources on building out this primary network.
Shared use paths are an important type of facility in any bikeway network provided they are
located and designed properly. Nationally, there is some difference of opinion between those
who feel paved shared use paths, separated from roadways, should be constructed wherever
physically possible, versus those who feel more comfortable riding on streets on lanes or
routes. This preference is usually based on “personal feelings” regarding comfort and safety.
In general, shared use paths are desirable for transportation and cycling by slower cyclists,
families and children, or anyone who prefers physical separation from the roadway.
Although sometimes referred to as “bike paths,” shared use facilities are multi-use facilities
that will likely see use by a wide mix of non-motorized uses, including pedestrians, joggers,
rollerbladers, dog walkers, wheelchairs, and other personal mobility devices. Given this mix
of uses, there is the potential for conflicts on heavily-used shared use facilities, necessitating
lower bicycle speeds on these paths. Shared use paths are ideally suited for corridors along
waterways, rail corridors, or utility corridors where there are few intersections or crossings,
to reduce the potential for conflicts with motor vehicles.
Photo 5: This cyclist chooses to ride along the shoulder of Highland Blvd. rather than on the adjacent shared
use path.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-42 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
Shared use facilities located immediately adjacent to roadways are often referred to as
“sidepaths”. Sidepaths are sometimes less desirable due to the numerous potential conflicts
with motor vehicles turning on or off of side streets and driveways, and due to the fact that
they act as two-way facilities that are typically situated on only one side of a roadway. Due
to their linear off-street nature, opportunities for developing shared use paths in an urban
setting are typically much more limited. As such, shared use paths will normally comprise a
much smaller fraction of the total designated bikeway network than on-street bike lanes and
routes.
Most commuter bicyclists would argue that on-street facilities are the safest and most
functional facilities for bicycle transportation. Bicyclists have stated their preference for
marked on-street bicycle lanes in numerous surveys. Many bicyclists, particularly less
experienced riders, are far more comfortable riding on a busy street if it has a striped and
signed bike lane. Part of the goal of this Plan is to encourage new riders, and providing
marked facilities such as bike lanes is one way of helping to persuade residents to give
bicycling a try.
This Plan takes the approach that a connected, comprehensive network of shared-use paths,
bike lanes, and shared roadways is the best approach to increasing bicycle use.
Bike lanes help to define the road space for bicyclists and motorists, reduce the chance that
motorists will stray into the cyclists’ path, discourage bicyclists from riding on the sidewalk,
and remind motorists that cyclists have a right to the road. In addition to the considerable
benefits to bicyclists, bike lanes have some important safety benefits to vehicles. Bike lanes
create a visibly narrower roadway for drivers (even though the driving lane width is
standard) creating a traffic calming effect by causing slower average speeds. One key
consideration in designing bike lanes in an urban setting is to ensure that bike lane and
adjacent parking lane are wide enough so that cyclists have enough room to avoid a
suddenly opened vehicle door.
On streets with low traffic volumes and speeds (usually defined as under 5,000 vehicles per
day and under 30 mph vehicle speeds), striped bike lanes may not be needed at all for
cyclists to comfortably share the road with low risk of conflicts. On these types of low-traffic
neighborhood streets, designated and signed bike routes can serve as important connectors
to schools and recreational areas such as parks. Signed bike routes may also be desirable on
certain commute routes where installing bike lanes is not possible, provided that appropriate
signage is installed to alert motorists to the presence of bicycles on the roadway. Bike route
signing should also include “Share the Road” signs.
There are no designated shoulder bikeways in the City of Bozeman or Gallatin County at the
time of writing. However, there are roads in the City of Bozeman and Gallatin County that
do have shoulders wide enough for bicycle travel. These facilities are typically inconsistent in
width, can have rumble strips that render them ineffective, and can become mired in road
debris. Because of this, many cyclists prefer to travel in the vehicle lane.
n
n
n
nn
n
nnnn n
HA
R
P
E
R
PU
C
K
E
T
T
GA
L
L
A
T
I
N
19TH
PATTERSON
GOOCH HILL
COTTONWOOD
INT
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
19
T
H
3R
D
BAXTERLO
V
E
JA
C
K
R
A
B
B
I
T
FR
O
N
T
A
G
E
CO
T
T
O
N
W
O
O
D
GO
O
C
H
H
I
L
L
HUFFINE
FO
W
L
E
R
SP
R
I
N
G
H
I
L
L
NASH
NE
L
S
O
N
BLACKWOOD
STUCKY
CAMERON BRIDGE
L
VALLEY CENTER
BRIDGER
C
A
N
Y
O
N
JOHNSON
HULBERT
SO
U
R
D
O
U
G
H
DA
V
I
S
BOZEMAN
TRAIL
M
C
I
L
H
A
T
T
A
N
TOOHEY
MA
N
L
E
Y
FS
7
1
2
PO
R
T
N
E
L
L
EN
D
E
R
S
ZO
O
T
FO
R
T
E
L
L
I
S
BE
A
T
T
Y
BASELINE HA
M
M
SP
A
I
N
B
R
I
D
G
E
LY
N
X
MO
U
N
T
E
L
L
I
S
PASHA
MO
N
F
O
R
T
O
N
S
C
H
O
O
L
KENT SPUR
ELK RIDG
E
DEER
HAWK HILL
JAGAR
LUDWIG
GOLDENSTEIN
BASELINE
R
I
V
E
R
FS
9
7
9
Existing Study Area
Bicycle Network
§¨¦90
£¤191
Park
Park
Madison
Gallatin
Jefferson
Beaverhead Teton
Meagher
Sweet
Grass
MONTANA
IDAHO WYOMING
Greater Bozeman AreaTransportation Plan
FIGURE 2-13Existing Study Area Bicycle NetworkJanuary 2009Data Provided by: City of Bozeman, Alta Planning & DesignMap Prepared by: Alta Planning+Design
See Figure 2-14 for details
Schools
I
Existing Bikeways
0 3Mile
Shared-Use Path
Bike Lane
Signed Bike Route
n
Bozeman City Limits
Study Area Boundary
Urban Boundary
January, 2009
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nn
n
n
n
n
n
n
nnn
BO
Z
E
M
A
N
T
R
A
I
L
3R
D
3R
D
19
T
H
B
L
A
C
K
HUFFINE
ST
O
R
Y
M
I
L
L
MENDENHALL
CH
U
R
C
H
VALLEY CENTER
CATT
A
I
L
DURSTON
19
T
H
INTE
R
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
FO
W
L
E
R
LOAK
FR
O
N
T
A
G
E
DA
V
I
S
11
T
H
5T
H
KOCH
GR
A
N
D
15
T
H
M
C
I
L
H
A
T
T
A
N
PATTERSON
CH
U
R
C
H
MAIN
MA
N
L
E
Y
WE
S
T
E
R
N
WI
L
L
S
O
N
ST
O
R
Y
M
I
L
L
T
HA
R
P
E
R
P
U
C
K
E
T
T
KAGY
AP
M
A
N
BOZEMAN TRAIL
FO
R
T
E
L
L
I
S
SO
U
R
D
O
U
G
H
7T
H
GRIFFIN
NE
L
S
O
N
ANNIE
GARFIELD
FALLON
BRIDGER
TRIPLE TREE
TA
Y
A
B
E
S
H
O
C
K
U
P
WA
L
L
A
C
E
HU
N
T
E
R
S
7T
H
FE
R
G
U
S
O
N
YE
L
L
O
W
S
T
O
N
E
GRANT
BABCOCK
GRAF
SP
R
I
N
G
H
I
L
L
22
N
D
TAMARACK
F
R
O
N
T
BECK
STAR
R
LAMME
LINCOLN
JAGAR
BUELL
HI
D
D
E
N
V
A
L
L
E
Y
RE
S
O
R
T
JA
C
K
L
E
G
ABAGAIL RANCH
L
AR
E
T
E
R
O
L
L
I
N
G
H
I
L
L
S
BIGELOW
SYPE
S
C
A
N
Y
O
N
11
T
H
23
R
D
PEACH
MAIN
PARK VIEW
SI
R
A
R
T
H
U
R
CO
T
T
O
N
W
O
O
D
DRIFTWOOD
D
27
T
H
8T
H
CATAMOUNT
ST
O
R
Y
H
I
L
L
HEATHER
HAYRAKE
BROOKDALE
LUC
I
L
L
E
WI
LA
U
R
E
L
COBBLE C
R
E
E
K
HI
G
H
L
A
N
D
HARDIN
SA
C
A
J
A
W
E
A
P
E
A
K
BE
D
I
V
E
R
E
KAGY
GO
L
D
D
U
S
T
BL
A
C
K
TEA
LI
N
D
V
I
G
GOLDENSTEIN
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
VEWAY
DRIVEWAY
DRI
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWA
Y
DRIVEWAY
DRIVEWAY
BAXTER
RO
U
S
E
DRIVEWAY
27
T
H
27
T
H
DRIVEWAY
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWAY
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWAY
FO
W
L
E
R
AR
P
E
R
P
U
C
K
E
T
T
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
WAY
Existing Bozeman City
Bicycle Network
§¨¦90
£¤191
Park
Park
Madison
Gallatin
Jefferson
Beaverhead Teton
Meagher
Sweet
Grass
MONTANA
IDAHO WYOMING
Greater Bozeman AreaTransportation Plan
FIGURE 2-14Existing Bozeman City Bicycle NetworkJanuary 2009Data Provided by: City of Bozeman, Alta Planning & DesignMap Prepared by: Alta Planning+Design January, 2009
IExisting Bikeways
0 1Mile
Shared-Use Path
Bike Lane
Signed Bike Route
Schoolsn
Urban Boundary
Bozeman City Limits
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-45
2.3.6 Existing Bicycle Facilities
As shown in Figure 2-13, Bozeman’s existing on-street bikeway network is composed of a
mix of on-street bike lanes (15.6 total miles) and signed bike routes (20.9 total miles). A
number of shared use paths (8.3 total miles) also complement the on-street facilities. Tables
2-11, 2-12, and 2-13 show the limits and lengths of existing bike lanes, signed bike routes, and
shared use paths, respectively.
In addition to the total mileage of a bikeway system, it is important to consider the quality
and completeness of the system. A high-quality bicycle facility provides treatments that result
in a comfortable, welcoming experience for users.
Bike lane quality includes factors such as lane width, number of adjacent vehicle lanes, speed
and volume of vehicular traffic, number of turning conflicts with driveways and parking,
completeness of the system (few or no gaps), maintenance (pavement quality, sweeping, etc.)
and signal detection that senses bicycles. Signed bike route quality includes factors such as
wayfinding signs and markings, maintenance (pavement quality, sweeping, etc), traffic
calming measures, crossing treatments at higher-order streets, speed and volume of
vehicular traffic, and completeness of the system (few or no gaps).
Photo 6: Opportunities exist for new bicycle facilities through roadway reconstruction such as
Durston Road where a new bike lane and bike pocket were built at the intersection with South
19th Avenue.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-46 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
It should be noted that in Bozeman, two-way shared-use paths have largely been constructed
parallel to major roadways in lieu of sidewalks and bike lanes. In some places the path is on
one side of the street only. There are some safety concerns related to replacing sidewalks and
bike lanes with two-way parallel paths due to conflicts caused by limited visibility and
unexpected vehicle patterns at driveways and intersections. These shared-use paths have
also been constructed in many cases when the adjacent property develops instead of when
the roadway is constructed or reconstructed, leading to a fragmented network that can be
difficult for users.
There are no bike lanes or signed bike routes in the rural study area (beyond the Bozeman
city limits). There are shoulder bikeways on some rural arterials and collectors and some
shared use paths, primarily near schools in Gallatin Gateway and Four Corners (see Figure
2-13).
Table 2-11
Existing Bicycle Facilities: Bike Lanes1
Street From To Length
Annie Street Saxon Way Laurel Parkway 0.2 mi
Baxter Lane N 19th Avenue East of Sacco 0.4 mi
Catamount Street Davis Lane N. 27th Avenue 0.4 mi
Durston Road Springbrook Avenue N. 7th Avenue 1.6 mi
E Baxter Lane Ferguson Avenue Gallatin Green Road 0.1 mi
Fallon Street Cottonwood Road Ferguson Avenue 0.5 mi
Ferguson Avenue Diamond Street Valley Commons Drive 1.0 mi
Fowler Avenue W Main Street W Garfield Street 0.3 mi
Kagy Road Eastern city boundary S 19th Avenue 0.2 mi
Laurel Parkway W Oak Street Durston Road 0.3 mi
Manley Road North of Gallatin Park Griffin Drive 0.7 mi
N 15th Avenue W Oak Street Durston Road 0.5 mi
N 27th Avenue Catmount Street Catron Street 0.2 mi
Oak Street New Holland Drive N. 19th Avenue 0.9 mi
Oak Street N 7th Avenue N Rouse Avenue 0.7 mi
Resort Drive W Babcock Street Huffine Lane 0.5 mi
S 11th Avenue W College Street W Grant Street 0.4 mi
S 11th Avenue North of Brookdale Drive South of Alder Creek Drive 0.2 mi
S 3rd Avenue Kagy Boulevard W Graf Street 0.8 mi
S 3rd Avenue W Graf Street Dartmouth Drive 0.5 mi
W Babcock Street Cottonwood Road W Main Street 1.3 mi
W Garfield Street Fowler Avenue Research Drive 0.8 mi
W Graf Street Westridge Drive S 3rd Avenue 0.2 mi
W Grant Street S 11th Avenue S 6th Avenue 0.4 mi
1Source: City of Bozeman 2007 GIS data
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-47
Table 2-12
Existing Bicycle Facilities: Signed Bike Routes2
Street From To Length
Annie Street N Hunters Way N 22nd Avenue 0.6 mi
Black Avenue E Tamarack Street E College Street 1.2 mi
Carol Place S Black Avenue E Kagy Road 0.03 mi
College Street S 6th Avenue S Black Avenue 0.5 mi
E Garfield Street S Tracy Avenue S Black Avenue 0.1 mi
E Olive Street S Church Avenue S Wallace Avenue 0.1 mi
E Story Street S Tracy Avenue S Church Avenue 0.3 mi
Fallon Street Ferguson Avenue Fowler Avenue 0.5 mi
Grand Avenue W Tamarack Street S 3rd Avenue 1.8 mi
Grant Street S 6th Avenue Galligator Trail 0.3 mi
Kagy Road S 19th Avenue Highland Road 2.1 mi
Koch Street S 23rd Avenue S Tracy Avenue 1.5 mi
Lamme Street N 11th Avenue N Broadway Avenue 1.3 mi
N 11th Avenue Durston Road W College Street 1.0 mi
N 15th Avenue Durston Road W Main Street 0.4 mi
N 22nd Avenue Annie Street W Beall Street 0.4 mi
N Hunters Way W Oak Street W Babcock Street 1.0 mi
N Yellowstone Avenue Durston Road Fallon Street 0.9 mi
Peach Street N 7th Avenue N Wallace Avenue 0.9 mi
S 11th Avenue W Grant Street W Kagy Road 0.3 mi
S 23rd Avenue W Koch Street W College Avenue 0.2 mi
S 3rdAvenue S Grand Avenue W Kagy Road 0.1 mi
S Black Avenue E Garfield Street Carol Place 0.6 mi
S Church Avenue E Olive Street E Story Avenue 0.2 mi
S Tracy Avenue E Koch Street E Story Street 0.1 mi
S Tracy Avenue E College Street E Garfield Avenue 0.3 mi
Virginia Way W Babcock Street Donna Avenue 0.2 mi
W Beall Street N 22nd Avenue N 15th Avenue 0.4 mi
W Oak Street N 19th Avenue N 7th Avenue 0.8 mi
W Tamarack Street N Grand Avenue N Wallace Avenue 0.6 mi
Wallace Avenue Front Street E Olive Street 0.9 mi
2Source: City of Bozeman 2007 GIS data
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-48 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
Table 2-13
Existing Bicycle Facilities: Shared Use Paths3
Street/trail name From To Length Notes
Cambridge Drive West of Hidden
Springs S 3rd Avenue 0.2 mi South side of street only
E Kagy Road S 3rd Avenue Highland Road 1.0 mi On sidewalk; south side of street only
Ellis Street Highland Road Old Highland 0.2 mi South side of street only
Ferguson Avenue Ravalli Street Huffine Lane 0.3 mi West side of street only
Galligator Trail Corner of Church &
Story Graf Street 2.0 mi
Trail is treated as shared-use
because of its characteristics
and transportation value.
Highland Road E Main Street E Kagy Road 1.5 mi West side of street only
Huffine Lane Fowler Avenue 0.2 mi Extends west from Fowler to
mid-block
Main Street to the Mountains –
Library Extension E Main Street Corner of Church &
Story 0.4 mi
Paved shared-use path,
currently under construction.
Not in roadway right of way.
N 19th Avenue E Valley Center Road W Oak Street 1.5 mi Fragmented construction
Oak Street N 19th Avenue N 7th Avenue 0.7 mi Fragmented construction
Old Highland Road Ellis Street Burke Park 0.5 mi One side of street only;
switches sides
S 11th Avenue Kagy Road Opportunity Way 0.3 mi East side of street only
S 11th Avenue North of Brookdale South of Alder Creek 0.2 mi Both sides of street
S 3rd Avenue Graf Street Cambridge Drive 0.3 mi West side of street only
Simmental Baxter Lane Tschache 0.2 mi
Unnamed trail 0.1 mi Northeast from intersection of
27th & Cattail
Unnamed trail Equestrian Lane E Baxter Lane 0.1 mi Mid-block greenway trail between Gallatin Green and Vaquero
3Source: City of Bozeman 2007 GIS data
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-49
2.3.7 Bikeway Signage
Well-designed roads usually require very little signing,
because they are built so all users understand how to
proceed. Conversely, an overabundance of warning and
regulatory signs may indicate a failure to have addressed
problems. The attention of drivers, bicyclists and
pedestrians should be on the road and other users, not on
signs along the side of the road.
Over-signing of roadways is ineffective and can degrade
their usefulness to users. Too many signs are distracting
and a visual blight, they create a cluttered effect and waste
resources.
The message conveyed by the sign should be easily
understandable by all roadway users. The use of symbols is
preferred over the use of text.
Bikeway signage includes wayfinding signs (e.g. trailhead
signage or bike route numbering), facility type signs (e.g. “Bike
Lane” signs posted along a roadway with a bike lane), regulatory
signs (e.g. “Bike Xing” warning signs or bicycle-sized “Stop”
signs), or etiquette signs (such as trail signs). All traffic control
signage and markings should conform to the Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD
Part 9 – Traffic Controls for Bicycle
Facilities).
The City of Bozeman has experienced a dramatic increase in
bicycle-related signage in recent years. In 2002 a project
funded through the Bozeman City Commission provided
unique signs to designate a City-wide network of bike routes.
Complementing the bicycle route signs are an expanding
network of bike lanes stemming both from new development
and reconstruction of some of Bozeman’s major arterials such
as Durston Road, West Babcock, and Baxter Lane. All of these
new bike lanes use the MUTCD standard signage and
markings. In addition to bike lanes
and bike routes the City has
provided “Share the Road” signs in some areas where space is
limited along popular cycling routes such as W. College Street, S.
Church Avenue, and N. 7th Avenue. Shared-use paths in both the
City and County typically lack signage such as stop signs for
cyclists or warning signs for motorists. Some of the newer shared-
use paths being constructed, such as the path along Bridger Drive,
do offer basic signage.
Photo 7: Example of a bike route
sign installed in Bozeman in 2002
Photo 8: Main Street to the
Mountains Trail Sign
Photo 9: Share the Road signs have been installed in Bozeman
on streets like W. College Street
Photo 10: Bike Lane Sign
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-50 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
The trail network in and surrounding Bozeman has flourished with assistance from the
Gallatin Valley Land Trust, and much of this system has wayfinding signage and trail kiosks.
Outside the Bozeman City limits, bicycle facilities and accompanying signage are scarcer.
The County has installed Caution signs on some of its roadways such as Sourdough Road
and Bridger Drive. The County currently has no designated bicycle routes or bike lanes,
however there are shared use paths along the east side of Highway 191 from Gallatin
Gateway north, the south side of Norris Rd (Hwy 84) from the Gallatin river to Four Corners,
and from Four Corners towards Bozeman on Huffine Lane (see Figure 2-13).
Photo 12: Rural roads in the Bozeman area frequently have no bicycle facilities.
2.3.8 Bicycle Detection at Intersections
Traffic signal actuation in Bozeman involves a variety of technologies and is changing
rapidly. Older signalized intersections in and around Bozeman rely on timers that allow
cyclists the same opportunities for crossing as vehicles. While there is no priority or detection
given to cyclists, delay is not usually long as the light will change according to its timing.
The majority of signals in the study area use embedded inductive loops to detect vehicles.
Loops can be sensitive enough to detect bicycles provided they are located and calibrated
properly. Detection performance also depends on the material composition of the bicycle. If a
bicycle is not detected by the embedded loop, the cyclists can still press the crosswalk button
if one is available. If the cyclist is not detected by the signal and there are no pedestrian
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-51
crossings, cyclists are forced to either make an unsafe movement through the intersection, or
wait for a vehicle to trigger the signal.
Newer signals recently installed in the City, such as some on N. 19th Avenue, W. Main Street
and Durston Road, have video detection technology that is sensitive enough to detect a
bicycle waiting by itself at an intersection. This method of actuation is the most reliable and
user-friendly for bicyclists.
2.3.9 Bicycle Parking
Bicycle parking is an important component in planning bicycle facilities and encouraging
people to use their bicycles for everyday transportation. Bicycles are one of the top stolen
items in most communities, with components often being stolen even when the bicycle frame
is securely locked to a rack. Because today’s bicycles are often high-cost and valuable items,
many people will not use a bicycle for transportation unless they are sure that there is secure
parking available at their destinations.
Cyclists’ needs for bicycle parking range from simply a convenient piece of street furniture,
to storage in a bicycle locker that affords weather, theft and vandalism protection, gear
storage space, and 24-hour personal access. Where a cyclist’s need falls on this spectrum is
determined by several factors:
Type of trip being made: whether or not the bicycle will be left unattended all day or
just for a few minutes.
Weather conditions: covered bicycle parking is apt to be of greater importance during
the wetter months.
Value of the bicycle: the more a cyclist has invested in a bicycle, the more concern she
or he will show for theft protection. Most new bicycles cost $400-500, and often
considerably more.
Bicycle parking can be broadly defined as either short-term or long-term parking:
Short-term parking: Bicycle parking meant to accommodate visitors, customers,
messengers and others expected to depart within two hours; requires approved
standard rack, and appropriate location and placement. Racks are relatively low-cost
devices that typically hold between two and eight bicycles, allow bicyclists to
securely lock their frames and wheels, are secured to the ground, and are located in
highly visible areas. Racks should not be designed to damage the wheels by causing
them to bend. Bike racks should be located at schools, commercial locations, and
activity centers such as parks, libraries, retail locations, post offices, churches, and
civic centers, or anywhere personal or professional business takes place.
Long-term parking: Bicycle parking meant to accommodate employees, students,
residents, commuters, and others expected to park more than two hours. This
parking is to be provided in a secure, weather-protected manner and location.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-52 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
(a) (b)
Bozeman Unified Development Ordinances related to bicycle parking
Ordinance 18.46.040.E
Bicycle Racks Required. All site development, exclusive of those qualifying for sketch plan
review per Chapter 18.34, BMC, shall provide adequate bicycle parking facilities to
accommodate bicycle-riding residents and/or employees and customers of the proposed
development. Bicycle parking facilities will be in conformance with standards recommended
by the Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board.
Ordinance 18.19.070.E.3
In Urban Mixed Use Zoning Districts, covered bicycle parking shall be provided. The
covered spaces shall be at least one-half of the total minimum bicycle parking. The minimum
number of covered spaces shall be the greater of either 10 bicycle parking spaces or 5 percent
of motor vehicle parking provided on-site.
Existing Bicycle Parking Facilities
Currently there are bike racks provided in downtown, on the MSU campus, at Bozeman area
schools, at grocery stores, commercial centers, and at parks and community centers.
However, many of the racks are outdated designs such as “wheelbender” racks and comb
racks that only allow a wheel, not the bicycle frame, to be locked. The main rack at the MSU
campus appears to be the “coat hanger” rack made by Cora. For a bicycle rack to be the most
functional it should require low maintenance, meet the bicycle parking requirements of it, it
should complement its surroundings, and support the frame of the bicycle and not just the
wheel.
In general, the quantity of bike racks is usually adequate, but some of the outdated designs
provide a lower quality of experience compared to modern racks (making them harder to
use and less secure).
Photo 13: (a) Short-term bicycle parking – “Inverted-U”. (b) Long-term bicycle parking.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-53
Recent suburban commercial development has been providing bicycle parking as required
by City ordinance. Bozeman also has many examples of temporary bicycle parking of the
“comb” variety that have been sponsored by and contain advertising for local bicycle shops.
Racks such as these can be found chained near many businesses in downtown Bozeman. On
Main Street and at the recently-completed Bozeman Public Library, the number of bikes
often exceeds the number of racks, indicating a need for more racks.
No bike parking, short- or long-term, was observed in the study area outside of the city of
Bozeman. No long-term bike parking facilities were observed in the Bozeman area.
2.3.10 Bikeway Maintenance
Currently, the City of Bozeman includes bikeway maintenance such as sweeping, striping,
vegetation trimming, and snow removal in routine street maintenance, as well as providing
residents with opportunities to request service through the pothole hotline and the City Shop
phone number, which is publicized in water bills, online, and through the Bike Board.
Vegetation trimming and snow removal on sidewalks fronting residences is the
homeowner’s responsibility. See Table 2-14 for a list of maintenance activities and their
frequency.
Gallatin County does not have any on-street bikeways at this time, so maintenance is not
directly relevant. However, it should be noted that the County does not own a sweeper
Photo 14: Bike racks are provided along Main Street,
but the presence of bikes locked to street trees and
railings may indicate that additional bike racks are
needed.
Photo 15: These outdated “comb” type bike
racks at a local restaurant are considered a
less desirable rack design because it is difficult to lock the frame to the rack.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-54 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
truck, but does attempt to coordinate with the City for sweeping services as possible. Local
cyclists note that riding in the spring can be rough going until rains and traffic begin to
naturally clear the roads and shoulders. It is worth noting that the FY ’09 budget includes
money for a street sweeper and employee time specifically to sweep bike lanes.
Table 2-14
Bikeway Maintenance Activities & Frequency4
Activity Bikeway type Frequency Agency
Sweeping City bike lanes Weekly as weather permits; focus on bike lanes City of Bozeman
Sweeping City bike route
streets
At least twice yearly during Fall and Spring Clean-up; more as
weather and staffing permit City of Bozeman
Sweeping On-demand; any
city street Per citizen request via call to City Shop City of Bozeman
Sweeping County facilities N/A (no County bike facilities; County does not own sweeper truck) Gallatin County
Striping City bike lanes Annually for painted lanes and markings; as needed/requested for thermoplastic lanes and markings City of Bozeman
Pothole patching Any city street As requested through City’s pothole hotline; response time is within 7 days City of Bozeman
Vegetation
trimming Any city street
If sight triangle is blocked, City Forester will trim. Other streets are
per citizen complaint; City will fix these as staffing permits and/or
send letter to homeowner explaining their responsibility.
City of Bozeman
Snow removal City bike lanes
and bike routes
City removes snow from curb to curb (working around parked cars
as possible). Removal starts on collectors when 2” of snow has
accumulated, and after 4” on residential streets.
City of Bozeman
Snow removal County facilities N/A (no County bike facilities) Gallatin County
4Source: Conversation with John Van Delinder (Bozeman Street Superintendent, on 9-25-07)
2.3.11 System Deficiencies
Bicyclists face various issues, including:
Maintenance Issues – Gravel, glass and other
debris are routinely present on the bikeway
system. This typically occurs when passing
motor vehicles blow debris into the adjacent
bicycle lane or shoulder. Gravel from snow
removal on shoulders and in bike lanes is
common during the winter and spring months.
Lack of Signage – Bozeman’s bikeway system
lacks wayfinding signage and other tools to
orient riders and direct them to and through
major bicycling destinations like MSU and
downtown.
Photo 16: Some bike facilities have yet to be completed and present gaps in the bikeway network.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-55
Conflicts Between Cyclists and Other Transportation Users – Cyclist safety and comfort
issues arise on higher volume roadways lacking dedicated bicycle facilities or traffic-calming
treatments. These roadways are most commonly high-volume 5- to 7-lane suburban arterials
with frequent driveway access. For example, Huffine Lane and 7th Avenue are major north-
south thoroughfares that connect to major commercial districts as well as schools and parks.
However, these high-volume, high-speed streets lack bike lanes and have a relatively high
number of driveways associated with commercial development, creating an uncomfortable
bicycling environment. While S. 19th Avenue currently lacks bike lanes, a contract to
reconstruct the roadway with full-fledged bicycle facilities has been awarded and will be
constructed beginning summer 2009.
Main Street is also a major destination
for all residents, including bicyclists,
but a lack of bike lanes on this street
forces bicyclists to share the lane with
high volumes of motor vehicles (or, in
most cases, ride on the sidewalk
despite a sidewalk riding
prohibition). Similarly, the one-way
couplet of Mendenhall Street and
Babcock Street also lack bicycle
facilities.
Bozeman’s historic downtown street
grid provides numerous lower-
volume street and crossing choices for
bicyclists. Lower-density, less-connective street patterns in newer areas of the city force
cyclists onto higher-order streets. When these streets do not have bicycle facilities, it
discourages bicycle use.
Rural roads in the greater Bozeman
area are generally low-volume,
high-speed facilities with no
shoulder bikeways and in some
cases rumble strips. Bicyclists have
nowhere to go when cars approach
from behind, creating a facility
where cyclists feel both
uncomfortable and unsafe.
Examples of uncomfortable rural
facilities include Valley Center
Drive and Sourdough Road and
Bridger Drive.
Difficult Intersections – When
signed bike routes or shared-use
paths cross a major roadway with
Photo 17: Bridger Drive has a variable shoulder along much
of its length.
Photo 18: Opportunities exist to make Kagy Boulevard, a
designated bike route, a more comfortable bicycling
environment.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-56 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
no crossing accommodation, it makes crossing difficult, especially for less-confident users, or
especially during peak vehicle traffic periods. These major roadways then act as barriers to
bicycle travel for many users. For example, it can be very difficult for bicyclists using Lamme
Street (a signed bicycle route) to cross N. 7th Avenue. Likewise, users of the new Main Street
to the Mountains shared-use path near the library may find it difficult to cross Main Street.
Cyclist Behavior – Local bicyclists were observed riding in an unsafe manner throughout the
study area. Such behavior includes riding on sidewalks, riding against traffic, running red
lights and stop signs, and riding without lights at night. This behavior may indicate the need
for education efforts concerning safe bicycling techniques.
2.3.12 Encouragement and Education Programs
Bicycle Encouragement and Education programs in the Gallatin Valley are mainly organized
at the grassroots level by local bicycle and health related groups. Momentum in this area is
growing with more community involvement and interest. As part of National Bike Month,
Bike to Work/School week during the third week of May is the region’s signature event. Bike
to Work/School week is sponsored each year by the Bozeman Bicycle Advisory Board. 2007
Activities included a free breakfast at a different location each day of the week, a bicycle
repair clinic and a bike rodeo at Bozeman Deaconess Hospital. The rodeo, organized by the
Bozeman Police Department, included helmet fits, free helmets to needy individuals and
safety lessons.
The Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board has published a bicycle map for the City of
Bozeman. The first version was published in 2005 with a second printing with updated
facilities in 2007.
In 2007, a newly organized Safe Routes to School task force was developed. The new
National Safe Routes to School program provided funding through the State program
administered by MDT for educational and encouragement materials for Emily Dickinson
School. The program also funds educational and encouragement materials, and the purchase
of several radar equipped speed signs adjacent to the school. This group also publicized
National Walk to School Day in October.
In addition to the Bike to Work/School rodeo at Deaconess Hospital, the Bozeman Police
Department organizes 3-4 bicycle safety events (by request) at Bozeman elementary and
middle schools. These rodeos are voluntary in attendance and typically occur after school
hours. These events teach safe riding through obstacle courses, stopping drills, helmet safety,
and visibility awareness. Children are also quizzed on road signs and rules of the road.
These events typically draw over 200 children and can last up to four hours.
The Bozeman Police Department also acknowledges the need for better bicyclist and driver
education and participates in periodic local radio and television talk shows to discuss road
safety as well as contributes editorials to the Bozeman Daily Chronicle. Representatives from
the Police Department also serve on the Pedestrian Safety Committee and the Safe Routes to
School Taskforce.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-57
2.3.13 Bicycles and Transit
Linking bicycles with Streamline
mass transit effectively increases
the distance cyclists can travel,
provides options in the event of a
bicycle breakdown, and gives
cyclists alternatives to riding at
night or in hot, cold or rainy
weather. In August of 2006
Streamline began serving the
Gallatin Valley with free service
over four lines that serve Belgrade,
Four Corners and Bozeman.
In August of 2007 Streamline
unveiled its new fleet of 23
passenger yellow ‘bustle-back’
buses, which closely resemble
older Yellowstone National Park
tour buses. Each of the 6 buses has
a rack that can hold up to three bicycles on the front of the vehicle. The system is still quite
new and supporting infrastructure such as bus pullouts and shelters are following slowly.
Bozeman is in the process of building a new parking garage and intermodal facility on
Mendenhall Avenue between Black Avenue and Tracy Avenue. This facility will serve as a
formalized transfer point with a protected bus pullout. Bicycle parking will be installed
within the parking garage and at street frontage.
2.3.14 Bicycle Collision History
Crash data was analyzed from January 2002 through June 2007 and was provided by
Gallatin County 911 and the Bozeman Police Department (see Figure 2-15 and Figure 2-16).
Gallatin County 911 codes bicycle accidents as ‘bicycle/motorcycle’ thus reported accidents
outside the Bozeman city limits may not in fact involve a bicycle. Despite this concern, these
crashes were treated as bicycle accidents as no determination could be made. City of
Bozeman accident data does specify data as bicycles only.
Since 2002, 83 bicycle/vehicle or bicycle/pedestrian accidents were reported in the greater
Bozeman study area with 69 occurring within the Bozeman City limits. This number is likely
lower than the actual number of collisions that have occurred, as many may have not been
reported. In addition, the Police Department reports that accident tracking methods have
improved in the last few years causing the years 2002-2005 likely being under represented in
the number of collisions. Due to these factors trends between years cannot be ascertained.
Data collected from the Bozeman Police Department does show that of the 69 recorded
incidents 43 percent of the collisions were the fault of the bicycle, 14 percent were the fault of
the vehicle and 42 percent undetermined.
Photo 19: New Streamline buses can carry three bicycles.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-58 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
Main reasons for bicycle rider fault involved riding on sidewalk or riding the wrong
direction against traffic. Several accidents at night involved no lights or reflectors and in
several cases the bicyclist lost control while braking. There were several instances where the
bicycle rider ignored stop signs or red signals and swerving into or through traffic. A few
cases involved intoxicated bicycle riders.
With vehicles at fault, there were several cases of opening doors on a rider and several cases
of not yielding to the bicycle when turning or in a crosswalk.
Generally, rural crashes are concentrated on higher-order streets such as Huffine Lane and
Cameron Bridge Road. Within Bozeman, crashes are likewise clustered along high-volume
corridors such as 7th Avenue, 19th Avenue, and Main Street, but a smaller number of crashes
were reported on lower-volume streets as well, including College Street, Garfield Street, and
11th Avenue. One thing nearly all the crash locations have in common are that they are
principal arterials and collectors – almost none had dedicated bicycle facilities.
k
k
kk k
k
k
k kk
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
kk
k
k
k kk
k
k
k
kk
k
k
k
k
k
k
k n
n
n
nn
n
nnnn n
H
A
R
P
E
R
PU
C
K
E
T
T
GA
L
L
A
T
I
N
19TH
PATTERSON
GOOCH HILL
COTTONWOOD
INT
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
19
T
H
3R
D
BAXTERLO
V
E
JA
C
K
R
A
B
B
I
T
FR
O
N
T
A
G
E
CO
T
T
O
N
W
O
O
D
GO
O
C
H
H
I
L
L
HUFFINE
FO
W
L
E
R
SP
R
I
N
G
H
I
L
L
NASH
NE
L
S
O
N
BLACKWOOD
STUCKY
CAMERON BRIDGE
L
VALLEY CENTER
BRIDGER C
A
N
Y
O
N
JOHNSON
HULBERT
SO
U
R
D
O
U
G
H
DA
V
I
S
BOZEMAN
TRAIL
M
C
I
L
H
A
T
T
A
N
TOOHEY
MA
N
L
E
Y
FS
7
1
2
PO
R
T
N
E
L
L
EN
D
E
R
S
ZO
O
T
FO
R
T
E
L
L
I
S
BE
A
T
T
Y
BASELINE HA
M
M
SP
A
I
N
B
R
I
D
G
E
LY
N
X
MO
U
N
T
E
L
L
I
S
PASHA
MO
N
F
O
R
T
O
N
S
C
H
O
O
L
KENT SPUR
ELK RIDG
E
DEER
HAWK HILL
JAGAR
LUDWIG
GOLDENSTEIN
BASELINE
R
I
V
E
R
FS 9
7
9
Study Area Reported Bicycle/
Motorcycle Collisions, 2002-2007
§¨¦90
£¤191
Park
Park
Madison
Gallatin
Jefferson
Beaverhead Teton
Meagher
Sweet
Grass
MONTANA
IDAHO WYOMING
Greater Bozeman AreaTransportation Plan
FIGURE 2-15Study Area Reported Bicycle/Motorcycle Collisions,2002-2007January 2009Data Provided by: City of Bozeman, Alta Planning & DesignMap Prepared by: Alta Planning+DesignJanuary, 2009
See Figure 2-16 for details
I
0 3Mile
Existing Bikeways
Shared-Use Path
Bike Lane
Signed Bike Route
Urban Boundary
Reported Bicycle/Motorcycle Crashk
Schoolsn
Note: Source data outside city limits does not distinguish between motorcycle and bicycle crashes.
Bozeman City Limits
Study Area Boundary
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nn
n
n
n
n
n
n
nnn
k
k
k kk
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k k
k
k
k
k
kk
k
k
k
k
k
k
BO
Z
E
M
A
N
T
R
A
I
L
3R
D
3R
D
19
T
H
B
L
A
C
K
HUFFINE
ST
O
R
Y
M
I
L
L
MENDENHALL
CH
U
R
C
H
VALLEY CENTER
CATT
A
I
L
DURSTON
19
T
H
INTE
R
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
FO
W
L
E
R
LOAK
FR
O
N
T
A
G
E
DA
V
I
S
11
T
H
5T
H
KOCH
GR
A
N
D
15
T
H
M
C
I
L
H
A
T
T
A
N
PATTERSON
CH
U
R
C
H
MAIN
MA
N
L
E
Y
WE
S
T
E
R
N
WI
L
L
S
O
N
ST
O
R
Y
M
I
L
L
T
HA
R
P
E
R
P
U
C
K
E
T
T
KAGY
AP
M
A
N
BOZEMAN TRAIL
FO
R
T
E
L
L
I
S
SO
U
R
D
O
U
G
H
7T
H
GRIFFIN
NE
L
S
O
N
ANNIE
GARFIELD
FALLON
BRIDGER
TRIPLE TREE
TA
Y
A
B
E
S
H
O
C
K
U
P
WA
L
L
A
C
E
HU
N
T
E
R
S
7T
H
FE
R
G
U
S
O
N
YE
L
L
O
W
S
T
O
N
E
GRANT
BABCOCK
GRAF
SP
R
I
N
G
H
I
L
L
22
N
D
TAMARACK
F
R
O
N
T
BECK
STA
R
R
LAMME
LINCOLN
JAGAR
BUELL
HI
D
D
E
N
V
A
L
L
E
Y
RE
S
O
R
T
JA
C
K
L
E
G
ABAGAIL RANCH
L
AR
E
T
E
R
O
L
L
I
N
G
H
I
L
L
S
BIGELOW
SYPE
S
C
A
N
Y
O
N
11
T
H
23
R
D
PEACH
MAIN
PARK VIEW
SI
R
A
R
T
H
U
R
CO
T
T
O
N
W
O
O
D
DRIFTWOOD
D
27
T
H
8T
H
CATAMOUNT
ST
O
R
Y
H
I
L
L
HEATHER
HAYRAKE
BROOKDALE
LUC
I
L
L
E
WI
LA
U
R
E
L
COBBLE C
R
E
E
K
HI
G
H
L
A
N
D
HARDIN
SA
C
A
J
A
W
E
A
P
E
A
K
BE
D
I
V
E
R
E
KAGY
GO
L
D
D
U
S
T
BL
A
C
K
TE
LI
N
D
V
I
G
GOLDENSTEIN
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWAY
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWA
Y
DRIVEWAY
DRIVEWAY
BAXTER
RO
U
S
E
DRIVEWAY
27
T
H
27
T
H
DRIVEWAY
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWAY
FO
W
L
E
R
AR
P
E
R
P
U
C
K
E
T
T
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
WAY
Bozeman Reported Bicycle/
Motorcycle Collisions, 2002-2007
§¨¦90
£¤191
Park
Park
Madison
Gallatin
Jefferson
Beaverhead Teton
Meagher
Sweet
Grass
MONTANA
IDAHO WYOMING
Greater Bozeman AreaTransportation Plan
FIGURE 2-16Bozeman Reported Bicycle Collisions, 2007-2007January 2009Data Provided by: City of Bozeman, Alta Planning & DesignMap Prepared by: Alta Planning+Design January, 2009
IExisting Bikeways
0 1Mile
Shared-Use Path
Bike LaneSigned Bike Route
Reported Bicycle Crashk
Urban Boundary
Schoolsn
Note: Source data outside city limits does not distinguish between motorcycle and bicycle crashes.
Bozeman City Limits
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-61
2.3.15 Existing Pedestrian Facilities and Programs
Overview of Pedestrian Facilities
The most basic elements of the
pedestrian network are sidewalks,
pathways, crosswalks, and curb
ramps. Sidewalks provide a space for
pedestrian activity completely
separated from motor vehicle traffic.
Pathways (most commonly shared-
use paths) also provide a separation
from motor vehicle traffic, although
pedestrians may have to share
pathways with bicyclists and other
non-motorized users. Crosswalks
provide a legal extension of the
sidewalk across a roadway, and curb
ramps provide a transition between
the raised sidewalk and the crosswalk for persons using mobility assistance devices. These
elements should form a connected network to be functional, safe, and encourage people to
walk.
2.3.16 Existing Pedestrian Gaps in Arterials and Major Collectors
The City of Bozeman requires that as development occurs, sidewalks be provided on both
sides of public streets frontages. This requirement has resulted in a city that is generally very
well equipped with sidewalk facilities. Areas still lacking pedestrian facilities include older
arterials that have not undergone refurbishment, and some subdivisions constructed in the
1970s (some of which were originally part of the County).
The City has been reconstructing many of its older roadways such as Durston Road, and
West Babcock Street. The results have been popular with residents and the “2005-2006 West
Babcock Street Pedestrian and Bicyclist Monitoring Project” found a 256 percent increase in
bicycling and walking along the corridor with the addition of sidewalks and bike lanes.
Figure 2-18 details arterials and collectors in the City of Bozeman with no sidewalk facilities.
Main Street has also been reconstructed recently, and has wide, smooth sidewalks with fully
ADA-accessible curb ramps and attractive street furniture, such as bike racks and street trees.
Gallatin County experiences a more spread out and less dense development pattern than the
City of Bozeman. Distances are typically greater and the availability of adequate pedestrian
facilities is sparse. Along major roadways within the study area, Gallatin County has few
dedicated pedestrian facilities with the exception of a few short sidewalks in Four Corners
and some shared use paths in Gallatin Gateway and Four Corners. Currently, the County
addresses the issue of sidewalks and other pedestrian circulation facilities on a subdivision
by subdivision basis. County planners have been working to improve opportunities for
Photo 20: A shared-use path has been installed on Oak Street.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-62 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
inter-modal transportation within subdivisions by encouraging the County Commission to
require trail systems, sidewalks, and bike lanes where appropriate. Figure 2-17 details the
existing pedestrian network within the unincorporated study area.
Photo 21: Main Street’s wide sidewalks with features such as trees, awnings, decorative lampposts, and benches are comfortable and welcoming to pedestrians.
n
n
n
nn
n
nnnn n
H
A
R
P
E
R
PU
C
K
E
T
T
GA
L
L
A
T
I
N
19TH
PATTERSON
GOOCH HILL
COTTONWOOD
INT
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
19
T
H
3R
D
BAXTERLO
V
E
JA
C
K
R
A
B
B
I
T
FR
O
N
T
A
G
E
CO
T
T
O
N
W
O
O
D
GO
O
C
H
H
I
L
L
HUFFINE
FO
W
L
E
R
SP
R
I
N
G
H
I
L
L
NASH
NE
L
S
O
N
BLACKWOOD
STUCKY
CAMERON BRIDGE
L
VALLEY CENTER
BRIDGER C
A
N
Y
O
N
JOHNSON
HULBERT
SO
U
R
D
O
U
G
H
DA
V
I
S
BOZEMAN
TRAIL
M
C
I
L
H
A
T
T
A
N
TOOHEY
MA
N
L
E
Y
FS
7
1
2
PO
R
T
N
E
L
L
EN
D
E
R
S
ZO
O
T
FO
R
T
E
L
L
I
S
BE
A
T
T
Y
BASELINE HA
M
M
SP
A
I
N
B
R
I
D
G
E
LY
N
X
MO
U
N
T
E
L
L
I
S
PASHA
MO
N
F
O
R
T
O
N
S
C
H
O
O
L
KENT SPUR
ELK RIDG
E
DEER
HAWK HILL
JAGAR
LUDWIG
GOLDENSTEIN
BASELINE
R
I
V
E
R
FS 9
7
9
Existing Study Area
Pedestrian Facilities
§¨¦90
£¤191
Park
Park
Madison
Gallatin
Jefferson
Beaverhead Teton
Meagher
Sweet
Grass
MONTANA
IDAHO WYOMING
Greater Bozeman AreaTransportation Plan
FIGURE 2-17Existing Study Area Pedestrian FacilitiesJanuary 2009Data Provided by: City of Bozeman, Alta Planning & DesignMap Prepared by: Alta Planning+Design January, 2009
See Figure 2-18 for details
I
0 3Mile
Urban Boundary
Reported Bicycle/Motorcycle Crashk
Schoolsn
Shared-Use Path
Bozeman City Limits
Study Area Boundary
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nn
n
n
n
n
n
n
nnn
BO
Z
E
M
A
N
T
R
A
I
L
3R
D
3R
D
19
T
H
B
L
A
C
K
HUFFINE
ST
O
R
Y
M
I
L
L
MENDENHALL
CH
U
R
C
H
VALLEY CENTER
CATT
A
I
L
DURSTON
19
T
H
INTE
R
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
FO
W
L
E
R
LOAK
FR
O
N
T
A
G
E
DA
V
I
S
11
T
H
CO
T
T
O
N
W
O
O
D
5T
H
KOCH
GR
A
N
D
15
T
H
M
C
I
L
H
A
T
T
A
N
PATTERSON
CH
U
R
C
H
MAIN
MA
N
L
E
Y
WE
S
T
E
R
N
WI
L
L
S
O
N
ST
O
R
Y
M
I
L
L
T
HA
R
P
E
R
P
U
C
K
E
T
T
KAGY
AP
M
A
N
BOZEMAN TRAIL
FO
R
T
E
L
L
I
S
SO
U
R
D
O
U
G
H
7T
H
GRIFFIN
NE
L
S
O
N
ANNIE
GARFIELD
FALLON
BRIDGER
TRIPLE TREE
TA
Y
A
B
E
S
H
O
C
K
U
P
WA
L
L
A
C
E
HU
N
T
E
R
S
7T
H
FE
R
G
U
S
O
N
YE
L
L
O
W
S
T
O
N
E
GRANT
BABCOCK
GRAF
SP
R
I
N
G
H
I
L
L
22
N
D
TAMARACK
F
R
O
N
T
BECK
STAR
R
LAMME
LINCOLN
JAGAR
BUELL
HI
D
D
E
N
V
A
L
L
E
Y
RE
S
O
R
T
JA
C
K
L
E
G
ABAGAIL RANCH
AR
E
T
E
R
O
L
L
I
N
G
H
I
L
L
S
BIGELOW
SYPE
S
C
A
N
Y
O
N
11
T
H
23
R
D
PEACH
MAIN
PARK VIEW
SI
R
A
R
T
H
U
R
CO
T
T
O
N
W
O
O
D
DRIFTWOOD
D
27
T
H
8T
H
CATAMOUNT
ST
O
R
Y
H
I
L
L
HEATHER
HAYRAKE
BROOKDALE
LUC
I
L
L
E
WI
LA
U
R
E
L
COBBLE C
R
E
E
K
HI
G
H
L
A
N
D
HARDIN
SA
C
A
J
A
W
E
A
P
E
A
K
BE
D
I
V
E
R
E
KAGY
GO
L
D
D
U
S
T
BL
A
C
K
TEA
LI
N
D
V
I
G
GOLDENSTEIN
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWAY
DRIVEWAY
DRI
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWA
Y
DRIVEWAY
DRIVEWAY
BAXTER
RO
U
S
E
DRIVEWAY
27
T
H
27
T
H
DRIVEWAY
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWAY
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWAY
FO
W
L
E
R
AR
P
E
R
P
U
C
K
E
T
T
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
WAY
Existing Bozeman Arterial
Pedestrian Gaps
§¨¦90
£¤191
Park
Park
Madison
Gallatin
Jefferson
Beaverhead Teton
Meagher
Sweet
Grass
MONTANA
IDAHO WYOMING
Greater Bozeman AreaTransportation Plan
FIGURE 2-18Existing Bozeman Arterial Pedestrian GapsJanuary 2009Data Provided by: City of Bozeman, Alta Planning & DesignMap Prepared by: Alta Planning+Design January, 2009
0 1Mile
I
Pedestrian Facility GapShared-Use Path
Bozeman City Limits
Urban Boundary
Schoolsn
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-65
2.3.17 Pedestrian Collision History
Crash data from January 2002 through June 2007 provided by the Bozeman Police
Department were analyzed (see Figure 2-19 and Figure 2-20). Fifteen crashes involving a
pedestrian were reported in the greater Bozeman study area since 2002, all of which were
within the Bozeman city limits. Seven of these crashes were on Main Street, two were on 7th
Avenue, two were on Durston/Peach, and others were distributed throughout the city.
These numbers, like the bicycle collision data, are likely underreported. The Bozeman Police
Department reported that about half of the time the pedestrian was at fault, crossing mid
block (jaywalking), or crossing against the signal. There were also several instances of riding
on cars or jumping out into traffic.
2.3.18 Pedestrian Facility Maintenance
The City of Bozeman assumes maintenance responsibilities for sidewalks that run adjacent to
parks that are adjacent to arterials in residential areas, and where residential lots are double
fronted. Currently, all sidewalk maintenance in the City of Bozeman for sidewalks fronting
residences is the responsibility of the homeowner. However, the City seeks to provide some
level of maintenance support, in large part because there are few contractors willing to take
on small concrete jobs, so residents are often unable to find a professional to undertake
patching. Table 2-15 lists pedestrian facility maintenance activities and their frequency.
Gallatin County does not have any sidewalks at this time, so maintenance is not directly
relevant.
Table 2-15
Pedestrian Maintenance Activities & Frequency5
Activity Frequency Agency
Sidewalk patching/ root removal
Is homeowner responsibility but City will patch as staffing
permits and/or send letter to homeowner explaining their
responsibility
City of Bozeman
Vegetation trimming If sight triangle is blocked, City Forester will trim. Other streets are per citizen complaint; City will fix these as staffing permits and/or send letter to homeowner explaining their responsibility. City of Bozeman
Snow removal
Is property owner responsibility; City removes snow on sidewalks
in front of City facilities, along arterials, and in residential areas
with double fronted lots.
City of Bozeman
5Source: conversation with John Van Delinder, Bozeman Street Superintendent, on 9-25-07
kk
kk
k
k
k
kkkkkkkk
k
k n
n
n
nn
n
nnnn n
H
A
R
P
E
R
PU
C
K
E
T
T
GA
L
L
A
T
I
N
19TH
PATTERSON
GOOCH HILL
COTTONWOOD
INT
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
19
T
H
3R
D
BAXTERLO
V
E
JA
C
K
R
A
B
B
I
T
FR
O
N
T
A
G
E
CO
T
T
O
N
W
O
O
D
GO
O
C
H
H
I
L
L
HUFFINE
FO
W
L
E
R
SP
R
I
N
G
H
I
L
L
NASH
NE
L
S
O
N
BLACKWOOD
STUCKY
CAMERON BRIDGE
L
VALLEY CENTER
BRIDGER C
A
N
Y
O
N
JOHNSON
HULBERT
SO
U
R
D
O
U
G
H
DA
V
I
S
BOZEMAN
TRAIL
M
C
I
L
H
A
T
T
A
N
TOOHEY
MA
N
L
E
Y
FS
7
1
2
PO
R
T
N
E
L
L
EN
D
E
R
S
ZO
O
T
FO
R
T
E
L
L
I
S
BE
A
T
T
Y
BASELINE HA
M
M
SP
A
I
N
B
R
I
D
G
E
LY
N
X
MO
U
N
T
E
L
L
I
S
PASHA
MO
N
F
O
R
T
O
N
S
C
H
O
O
L
KENT SPUR
ELK RIDG
E
DEER
HAWK HILL
JAGAR
LUDWIG
GOLDENSTEIN
BASELINE
R
I
V
E
R
FS 9
7
9
Study Area Reported
Pedestrian Collisions, 2002-2007
§¨¦90
£¤191
Park
Park
Madison
Gallatin
Jefferson
Beaverhead Teton
Meagher
Sweet
Grass
MONTANA
IDAHO WYOMING
Greater Bozeman AreaTransportation Plan
FIGURE 2-19Study Area Reported Pedestrian Collisions, 2002-2007January 2009Data Provided by: City of Bozeman, Alta Planning & DesignMap Prepared by: Alta Planning+Design January, 2009
See Figure 2-20 for details
I
0 3Mile
Urban Boundary
Schoolsn
Reported Pedestrian Crashk
Shared-Use Path
Bozeman City Limits
Study Area Boundary
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nn
n
n
n
n
n
n
nnn
k
k
k
k k
k kkkkkkk
k
k
BO
Z
E
M
A
N
T
R
A
I
L
3R
D
3R
D
19
T
H
BL
A
C
K
HUFFINE
ST
O
R
Y
M
I
L
L
MENDENHALL
CH
U
R
C
H
VALLEY CENTER
CATTA
I
L
DURSTON
19
T
H
INTE
R
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
FO
W
L
E
R
LOAK
FR
O
N
T
A
G
E
DA
V
I
S
11
T
H
5T
H
KOCH
GR
A
N
D
15
T
H
M
C
I
L
H
A
T
T
A
N
PATTERSON
CH
U
R
C
H
MAI
N
MA
N
L
E
Y
WE
S
T
E
R
N
WI
L
L
S
O
N
ST
O
R
Y
M
I
L
L
T
HA
R
P
E
R
P
U
C
K
E
T
T
KAGY
AP
M
A
N
BOZEMAN TRAIL
FO
R
T
E
L
L
I
S
SO
U
R
D
O
U
G
H
7T
H
GRIFFIN
NE
L
S
O
N
ANNIE
GARFIELD
FALLON
BRIDGER
RIPLE TREE
TA
Y
A
B
E
S
H
O
C
K
U
P
WA
L
L
A
C
E
HU
N
T
E
R
S
7T
H
FE
R
G
U
S
O
N
YE
L
L
O
W
S
T
O
N
E
GRANT
BABCOCK
GRAF
SP
R
I
N
G
H
I
L
L
22
N
D
TAMARACK
FR
O
N
T
BECK
STA
R
R
LAMME
LINCOLN
JAGAR
BUELL
HI
D
D
E
N
V
A
L
L
E
Y
RE
S
O
R
T
JA
C
K
L
E
G
ABAGAIL RANCH
AR
E
T
E
R
O
L
L
I
N
G
H
I
L
L
S
BIGELOW
SYPE
S
C
A
N
Y
O
N
11
T
H
23
R
D
PEACH
MAIN
PARK VIEW
SI
R
A
R
T
H
U
R
CO
T
T
O
N
W
O
O
D
DRIFTWOOD
27
T
H
8T
H
CATAMOUNT
ST
O
R
Y
H
I
L
L
HEATHER
HAYRAKE
BROOKDALE
LUC
I
L
L
E
WI
LA
U
R
E
L
COBBLE C
R
E
E
K
HI
G
H
L
A
N
D
HARDIN
SA
C
A
J
A
W
E
A
P
E
A
K
BE
D
I
V
E
R
E
KAGY
GO
L
D
D
U
S
T
BL
A
C
K
TEA
LI
N
D
V
I
G
GOLDENSTEIN
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWAY
DRI
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWA
Y
DRIVEWAY
DRIVEWAY
BAXTER
RO
U
S
E
DRIVEWAY
27
T
H
27
T
H
DRIVEWAY
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWAY
FO
W
L
E
R
AR
P
E
R
P
U
C
K
E
T
T
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
WAY
Bozeman Reported Pedestrian
Collisions, 2002-2007
§¨¦90
£¤191
Park
Park
Madison
Gallatin
Jefferson
Beaverhead Teton
Meagher
Sweet
Grass
MONTANA
IDAHO WYOMING
Greater Bozeman AreaTransportation Plan
FIGURE 2-20Bozeman Reported Pedestrian Collisions, 2002-2007. January 2009Data Provided by: City of Bozeman, Alta Planning & DesignMap Prepared by: Alta Planning+Design January, 2009
I
0 1Mile
Pedestrian Facility Gap
Bozeman City Limits
Schoolsn
k Reported Pedestrian Crash
Urban Boundary
Shared-Use Path
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-68 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
2.3.19 System Deficiencies
Pedestrians face daily obstacles in Bozeman, as described below.
Maintenance Issues
Existing sidewalks in many parts of Bozeman (e.g., older portions of N. 7th Avenue) suffer
from cracking or heaving. Additionally, overgrown vegetation obstructs the sidewalk in
some places, forcing pedestrians to walk in the adjacent boulevard strip (if one exists) or
road. Construction gravel and debris is not always removed from sidewalks promptly, and
during the winter, not all residents remove snow as well as the law requires.
Photo 22: Opportunities exist to improve the conditions of older sidewalks such as this located along Main Street.
Lack of Transit Stop Amenities
The Streamline transit system is relatively new, and designated stops lack shelters, benches,
and posted schedules. Walkways providing access to some stops are also in substandard
condition.
Lack of Signage
Bozeman’s pedestrian system would benefit from signage and other wayfinding tools to
orient pedestrians and direct them to and through major destinations like MSU and
downtown.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-69
Fragmented Sidewalk Network
Although a relatively complete sidewalk network exists in downtown Bozeman and adjacent
neighborhoods, the system is fragmented in other areas. Several major streets (e.g., Huffine
Lane and S. 19th Avenue) lack sidewalks altogether while others (e.g. Rouse Avenue and N.
7th Avenue) have partial sidewalks.
While a complete sidewalk inventory was not performed on non-arterial streets, multiple
field visits, resident comments in surveys, public meetings, and stakeholder interviews
indicated that the residential sidewalk network has numerous gaps and fragments. Sidewalk
installation is required on a lot-by-lot basis when the lot is developed, as opposed to when a
subdivision is developed; if a lot remains undeveloped for any length of time, the sidewalk
system remains incomplete. The City of Bozeman ordinance 18.74.030 addresses this issue by
requiring the developer to construct unfinished sidewalks regardless of any other
improvements to the lot on the 3rd anniversary of plat recordation.
Rural roadways in the greater Bozeman area generally lack any pedestrian accommodation
(though some sidewalks were observed near Four Corners). Some unpaved trails have been
provided as development occurs.
Photo 23: Sidewalk gaps in new development areas can exist for up to 3 years. At the end of 3 years the
developer is required to finish any undeveloped sidewalk sections.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-70 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
Photo 24: West Babcock Street (S. 19th to S. 11th Ave) acts as a major pedestrian corridor. Opportunities exist for
expanded pedestrian facilities.
Difficult Crossings
Pedestrians face a variety of difficult street crossing conditions:
Crossing Main Street west of 7th Avenue is challenging due to the street width (5
lanes) and due to relatively long distances between signalized intersections and
marked crossings. This discourages pedestrians from walking to services along the
roadway. Many chose to dart across the roadway to reach their desired destinations.
Many pedestrians are students and families trying to cross between residential
neighborhoods south of Main Street and Bozeman High School to the north of Main
Street. Likewise, crossing Main Street east of downtown is challenging due to higher
vehicle speeds and a lack of crossing treatments.
Similarly, major arterials throughout the city can be difficult to cross (including 7th
Avenue, 19th Avenue, Rouse Avenue, and Kagy Boulevard), with minimal or no
crossing treatments. For example, pedestrians encounter relatively high vehicle
traffic volumes when crossing Rouse Avenue from Hawthorne School to the north.
Additional treatments beyond an existing crosswalk may be necessary to facilitate
safe and convenient crossings.
Pedestrians with disabilities experience crossing difficulties in Bozeman. Main Street
has been retrofitted with an accessible sidewalk including curb ramps at every
intersection, but curb ramps at intersections in other parts of the city are in poor
condition or disrepair, while some intersections lack curb ramps altogether. This can
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-71
make traveling by wheelchair or motorized mobility device challenging, if not
impossible. Visually and mobility impaired pedestrians experience difficulty
navigating through intersections with curb ramps oriented diagonally toward the
intersection’s center rather than perpendicular toward a crosswalk. Signalized
intersections also lack audible pedestrian signals to facilitate safe crossings for the
visually impaired.
2.3.20 Bicycle and Pedestrian Enforcement
The Bozeman Police Department does enforce vehicle code by stopping and citing
pedestrians, bicycles and the vehicles that endanger them. It is typically more difficult to
enforce the laws to pedestrians and bicyclists without foot and bicycle units on the streets.
The Police Department is frequently understaffed and unable to commit such resources.
Generally, enforcement is left to officer discretion. If not responding to a call, officers are
encouraged to patrol school zones during student arrival or departure times, stopping
vehicles that speed or behave dangerously. Typically citations are made about half the time
when a vehicle is stopped; officers also use these stops as an opportunity for driver
education. Pedestrian infractions are also enforced, although these rarely end up as citations.
The Police Department does also engage in periodic focused enforcement in certain areas.
For example, between 50 and 60 citations were issued to drivers and pedestrians in
Downtown Bozeman crosswalks over a two-day operation in 2006. In addition, parking
officers are encouraged to stop people to correct behavior even though they have no
authority to cite.
2.3.21 Public Involvement
The Gallatin Valley and its proximity to a wealth of outdoor activity has in all regards
created an active resident base. Trails, bicycle facilities and sidewalks are not typically
considered as fringe amenities, but essential components of the lifestyles of area residents.
As such, analysis done on the bicycle and pedestrian network within the study area should
Photo 25 and 26: This intersection along Main Street has a recently installed crosswalk to accommodate crossing
pedestrians. The above photos show a before and after of the intersection.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-72 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
include the input of stakeholder groups as well as members of the general public. The
information collected through the following activities has been included in this analysis of
the existing conditions.
Stakeholder Interviews – Five stakeholder groups were interviewed in June of 2007. The
groups were selected based on their influence and proximity to local bicycle and pedestrian
issues. The meetings gave the stakeholder groups an in-depth opportunity to share their
concerns, plans, questions, and hopes for the bicycle/pedestrian element of the
transportation planning process. The stakeholder groups included:
Montana State University
The Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee
The Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board
The Safe Trails Coalition
The Gallatin Valley Land Trust
Each stakeholder group provided the project team with a history of their organization, goals
for the bicycle and pedestrian element of the transportation plan, perceived problems and
problem areas. A detailed summary of these stakeholder group interviews can be found in
the Appendix.
Public Workshop #1 – The first of three public workshops was held on June 27th, 2007 at
Bozeman High. This workshop drew over 60 members of the public and was held as part of
the Transportation Plan update. After a primer, attendees were allowed to participate in
smaller workshop groups. The non-motorized workshop was focused on bicycle and
pedestrian issues within the study area. The workshop gave attendees the opportunity to
provide open-ended input about problem areas, gaps in the network, or ideas for new
facilities. Blank large format maps and comment sheets were provided for attendees to mark
up.
Greater Bozeman Area Bicycling and Walking Survey – The public involvement process
was expanded further with the launching of the Greater Bozeman Area Bicycling and
Walking Survey in August of 2007. The survey was created for online participation with
supplemental paper versions being made available at various places around Bozeman
including the Senior Center and Library. In addition, the survey was sent out via hard copy
to 9,000 households with the September 2007 City of Bozeman water bill. The response to the
survey was tremendous, with over 3,200 responses received. Of these responses
approximately 1,700 responses were submitted electronically with minimal advertising. Of
the 9,000 paper copies distributed though the water bills, 1,581 were returned for a 17.6
percent response rate.
Because of the large response brought by the City of Bozeman water bills the number of
responses by location within the Study Area cannot be considered representative, however
the responses of certain groups have been analyzed separately where needed.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-73
Question 1 – Where do you live?
Of the participants, 89 percent lived within the City of Bozeman, 8 percent lived in
unincorporated Gallatin County, 1.5 percent lived in Four Corners and 1 percent lived in
Gallatin Gateway.
Question 2 – What age group do you belong to?
Of the survey respondents, 6 percent were under 25 years old, 7 percent were over 70
and 86 percent fell into the 26-69 age group. Of the aged responses, 4.5 percent of
respondents were a student of some kind and 4.8 percent were retired.
Question 3 – Do you have children under 16 at home?
This question helps to identify trends and views of parents with children in school. Of
the total responses, nearly 28 percent could be classified as ‘parents’.
Questions about walking
Question 4 – How often do you walk (transportation or recreation)?
This question shows that the vast majority of respondents are pedestrians and do use
pedestrian facilities very frequently. Fully 84 percent of respondents walked at least
weekly with almost 60 percent walking daily or almost daily.
Question 5 – If you walk, why do you walk?
This question distinguishes motives for walking. From a utility point of view, almost 47
percent of respondents walk for errands or other transportation. 32 percent of
respondents walk as a means of commuting to work or school. Recreationally, 79 percent
of respondents walk for exercise or fitness, of these 62 percent walk for fun. Pets and
children had a very large impact on walking with over 55 percent of respondents stating
this as a reason for walking – more than for errands or transportation.
Question 6 – What are the reasons you don’t walk or don’t walk more frequently?
Eleven choices greeted respondents in this question. Of these the top five reasons were
distance, the need to carry items, lack of sidewalks or paths, lack of time, and perceived
danger from the number and speed of vehicles. The third most stated response (33
percent of respondents) was the lack of sidewalks or paths.
Questions about bicycling
Question 7 – How often do you ride a bicycle?
While nearly all the respondents are pedestrians, fewer rode bicycles frequently. Fully 52
percent of respondents road a bicycle at least weekly with 67 percent several times a
month. Of these respondents 30 percent or almost 900 ride a bicycle daily or almost daily.
This figure alone means there are a significant amount of bicycles on the roads each day.
17 percent of respondents rode a bicycle rarely, with the final 15 percent not riding a
bicycle at all.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-74 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
Question 8 – If you ride a bike, why do you ride?
This question distinguishes motives for bicycling. From a utility point of view, 57 percent
of respondents ride a bike for errands or other transportation with 53 percent riding as a
means for commuting to work or to school. Unlike walking, cyclists do not seem to make
a distinction between exercise/fitness and recreation or fun. Both choices were even at
almost 77 percent. People view riding bikes for fitness as fun.
Question 9 – What are the reasons you don’t ride a bike or don’t ride more
frequently?
The two primary concerns respondents had with cycling were the lack of facilities (bike
lanes or paths) (57 percent) and the number of cars/motorists and speed of traffic on the
roads (53 percent). These reasons were given almost twice as often as the need to carry
things (33 percent), far away destinations (30 percent), poor conditions of existing bicycle
facilities (26 percent) and the weather (26 percent).
Question 10 – Where would you like to walk and/or bicycle from your home?
Responses for each of the categories given were high. Transportation related destinations
such as neighborhood stores (70 percent), place of work (61 percent) and shopping
centers (52 percent) all rated high. Recreational destinations also ranked very high. Parks,
swimming pools and recreation areas were cited by 55 percent of respondents while off-
road paths garnered the most responses of all destinations with 71 percent. Of interest
here is that survey respondents regarded good off-road paths as being not only a facility
to make it easier to get places, but they view these facilities as destinations in their own
right.
Question 11 – Please rate the following potential projects for improving walking
and/or biking according to their priority to you.
This question was the most extensive and perhaps the most important of the survey.
Respondents were asked to rate types of projects by importance ranging from high,
moderate, neutral, low priority, and an oppose option. Respondents were also given the
opportunity to provide their own projects and 558 chose to participate.
Because of the large amount of data generated though this question a system was
developed to weight each type of response to produce a score out of a possible 150
points. Positive feedback contributed to this score while negative feedback detracted
from it. Table 2-16 on the following page summarizes the information from this
question.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-75
Table 2-16
Potential Project Ranking From Question 11
Ranking Score/150 Projects
1 117 On-road bike lanes or paved shoulders
2 109 New/improved unpaved trails
3 104 New/improved paved shared-use paths
4 102 Safe Routes to School programs and improvements
5 102 Increased maintenance (sweeping/plowing of bike lanes, sidewalks,
and trails, hedge trimming, etc.)
6 101 Increased enforcement for traffic violations (e.g. speeding, red light running, parking violations)
7 99 Traffic calming projects to slow/reduce vehicles
8 96 Education or promotional programs for children
9 94 Signed on-road bike routes
10 92 Intersection/crossing improvements
11 91 Improved pedestrian/bicycle connection to MSU
12 87 New/improved marked crosswalks
13 86 Education or promotional programs for cyclists
14 86 Improve sidewalks for disability access
15 82 Education or promotional programs for drivers
16 77 New/improved sidewalks
17 69 Access to transit (bike racks on buses, sidewalks leading to stops, etc.)
18 66 More/better bicycle parking
From the above analysis it is apparent that new on and off-street bicycle facilities ranked
consistently the highest in desire by survey respondents. Safe Routes to School related
programs and improvements ranked fourth among respondents. Also of high importance
was increased maintenance and enforcement of bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Educational programs received a moderate amount of importance and surprisingly,
bicycle parking ranked lowest. This may indicate that finding a place to park a bicycle is
not a significant deterrent to bicycling in the Bozeman Area and that for the most part
bicycle parking is adequate.
Question 12 – Please provide the specific locations and a description of up to three
high-priority projects identified in question 11.
Responses related to bicycling had high instances of new bike lane projects around
problem streets. The most numerous responses, based on the response of 2005 separate
written comments, were received and included the following:
o Connections to Belgrade and Four Corners
o More trails and shared-use paths
o Better connections to many local trailheads
“M” Trail
Bozeman Creek Trail
Sourdough Trail
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2-76 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design
o Bike Lanes
Main Street
Willson Street
Babcock Street
Durston Road
Rouse Avenue
Mendenhall Street
Sourdough Road
19th Street – Access to shopping
Kagy Boulevard
College Street
11th Avenue
N. 7th Ave
S. 8th Ave
Highland Boulevard
Garfield Street
Bridger Drive
o More bike racks on Main Street (and downtown) and at the Library
o Shoulders on rural roadways
Goldstein Lane
Bridger Drive
Sourdough Road
Frontage Roads
Church Street
o High Speeds of cars
o Red light enforcement
o Driver awareness
Responses related to pedestrian conditions focused primarily on the following areas:
o Winter snow removal
o Sidewalk maintenance (including vegetation)
o New sidewalks where there aren’t any currently
o Disability access
o Difficult crossings – new crosswalks
o High speeds of cars
o Driver awareness
o Red light enforcement
o More trails that connect to places
Additional areas that exhibited high instances of responses were calls for traffic calming
on residential streets that have high speeds.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-77
Question 13 – Is there anything else you’d like to tell us about walking and/or
bicycling in the Bozeman area?
This question produced 1,647 almost totally unique responses. The responses were
reviewed, however many of the conclusions that can be made mirror those from question
12.
Question 14 – Would you like to receive information about future public meeting
for the Transportation Plan?
This question provided the project team with 1,043 new email addresses for project
related newsletter and information distribution.
2.3.22 Equestrian Issues
There are no public trail systems in the City of Bozeman that allow for equine travel.
Historically, equestrians have used the rural road network of unpaved roads to travel
between the many equestrian facilities within the planning boundary, as well as to MSU and
the Fairgrounds. As Bozeman grows, it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to access
these sites.
Photo 27: A group of equestrians traveling along a rural roadway in Gallatin County.
CHAPTER 3
TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 3-1
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The method and process used to predict growth in the Bozeman area up to the year 2030 is
contained in this chapter of the Transportation Plan. By using population, employment and
other socioeconomic trends as aids, the future transportation requirements for the Bozeman
area were defined. A model of the transportation system for the Bozeman area was built
with the additions and changes to the system that are projected to occur up to the year 2030
being applied to the model to forecast the future transportation conditions. From this model,
various scenarios were developed to test a range of transportation improvements to
determine what affects they would have on the transportation system.
3.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC TRENDS
There is a direct correlation between motor vehicle travel growth and population and
economic growth. The influx of traffic relating to the MSU campus being located in
Bozeman is also of significant concern. The population in Gallatin County has seen
significant increases since 1990 and has nearly doubled since 1980. There has been a 55
percent increase in population in Gallatin County between 1990 and 2005 alone. The
employment numbers have also seen significant growth; between 1990 and 2005 the
employment in Gallatin County has doubled. Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1 show the population
and employment numbers for Gallatin County between 1970 and 2005.
Table 3-1
Gallatin County Population and Employment Trends (1970-2005)
Year Population* Employment**
1970 32,505 13,396
1980 42,865 21,797
1990 50,463 31,978
2000 67,831 51,586
2005 78,262 63,379
*Source: Us Bureau of the Census, Census of Population
**Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, REIS Data Series
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Page 3-2 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
The population trends within Gallatin County in relation to the incorporated cities and the
rural area are shown in Table 3-2 and Figure 3-2. The incorporated cities in Gallatin County
are Bozeman, Belgrade, Three Forks, Manhattan, and West Yellowstone. The population has
increased significantly in each incorporated city as well as the rural areas since 1980.
Bozeman has had a population increase of 44.6 percent between 1990 and 2005, while
Belgrade has more than doubled in population in the same time period.
Table 3-2
Incorporated Cities in Gallatin County Historic Population Trends (1970-2005)
Year County Rural Bozeman Belgrade
Three
Forks Manhattan
West
Yellowstone
1970 32,505 13,835 18,670 1,307 1,188 816 756
1980 42,865 21,220 21,645 2,336 1,247 988 735
1990 50,463 24,392 22,660 3,411 1,203 1,059 905
2000 67,831 29,371 27,509 5,728 1,728 1,396 1,177
2005* 78,262 35,943 33,535 7,033 1,845 1,465 1,223
Source: US Bureau of the Census, Census of Population
*Population data are estimates
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
1970 1980 1990 2000 2005
Figure 3-1
Gallatin County Population & Employment Trends
Population*Employment*
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 3-3
In recent decades there were other notable changes in Gallatin County’s population. In
Gallatin County, and elsewhere in Montana and the nation, the population’s age profile got
older. Between 1970 and 2000, the number of county residents under the age of 18 increased
by 5,232 persons, residents age 18 to 64 increased by 26,942 persons, and residents 65 and
older increased by 3,152 persons. As “Baby Boomers” got older, they simply had fewer
children than their parents. The change in age can be seen in Table 3-3. The percentage of
each age group is shown graphically in Figure 3-3. From this figure, it is apparent that there
has been an increase in the age group of 18-64 and a decrease in people less than 18 years of
age. A more detailed age distribution for Gallatin County for the year 2000 is shown in
Figure 3-4.
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
County Rural BozemanBelgrade Three Forks Manhattan West
Yellowstone
Figure 3-2
Incorporated Cities in Gallatin County
Historic Population Trends (1970-2005)
1970 1980 1990 2000 2005*
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Page 3-4 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Table 3-3
Gallatin County Age Distribution (1970-2000)
Year
Age
Total <18 18-64 65+
1970 9,667 20,220 2,618 32,505
1980 10,202 29,448 3,215 42,865
1990 12,263 33,709 4,491 50,463
2000 14,899 47,162 5,770 67,831
Change (1970-2000) 5,232 26,942 3,152 35,326
Source: US Bureau of the Census, Census of Population
29.7%
62.2%
8.1%
23.8%
68.7%
7.5%
24.3%
66.8%
8.9%
22.0%
69.5%
8.5%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
1970 1980 1990 2000Year
Figure 3-3
Gallatin County Age Distribution (1970-2000)
<18 18-64 65+
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 3-5
In 2000, there were 51,586 jobs in Gallatin County. This number is almost four times the
amount of 13,396 jobs that existed in 1970. Every sector has seen an increase in jobs since
1970 except for farming. Table 3-4 displays countywide employment by economic sector
from 1970 through 2000. This information is shown graphically in Figure 3-5.
Table 3-4
Gallatin County Employment Trends by Economic Sector (1970-2000)
Economic Sector 1970 1980 1990 2000
Change
(1970-2000)
Farm 1,212 1,075 1,128 1,193 -19
Agricultural Services & Forestry 106 172 370 882 776
Mining 30 105 174 173 143
Construction 656 1,227 1,805 4,801 4,145
Manufacturing 1,002 1,328 2,030 3,164 2,162
Transportation & Public Utilities 420 772 1,025 1,519 1,099
Wholesale Trade 247 555 1,101 1,692 1,445
Retail Trade 2,394 4,355 6,334 10,733 8,339
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 812 1,622 2,315 3,562 2,750
Services 2,598 4,491 8,527 15,360 12,762
Federal & Civilian Government 454 567 610 580 126
Military 293 279 404 374 81
State & Local Government 3,172 5,249 6,155 7,553 4,381
Total Employment 13,396 21,797 31,978 51,586 38,190
Figure 3-4
Gallatin County Age Distribution (2000)
55 to 59
4.0%
60 to 64
2.9%
65 to 74
4.4%
75 to 84
3.1%
85+
1.0%
35 to 44
15.6%
45 to 54
13.7%
<5
5.8%5 to 17
16.2%
18 to 20
8.2%
21 to 24
10.3%25 to 34
14.8%
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Page 3-6 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
An employment breakdown for Gallatin County in 2005 is shown in Figure 3-6. The
employment in this graphic is broken out by economic sector based on classification by the
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). This type of classification is the
standard for all employment figures after 2000. NAICS classification is a more detailed
approach to show employment figures than the economic sector approach. The highest
employment sector for Gallatin County based on NAICS is retail. Construction is close
behind retail for the second highest employment sector, followed by accommodation and
food services.
0246810121416
Number of Jobs (Thousands)
Farm
Agricultural Services & Forestry
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation & Public
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate
Services
Federal & Civilian Government
Military
State & Local Government
Figure 3-5
Gallatin County Employment Trends
by Economic Sector (1970-2000)
1970 1980 1990 2000 Change (1970-2000)
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 3-7
The economic trend data presented in Figure 3-5 and Figure 3-6 is not surprising, given the
amount of growth in Gallatin County. There has been a large increase in the amount of part-
time jobs, many of which are in the retail and food service industry. The increase in
population to Gallatin County has also sparked a large increase in construction and real
estate related jobs. The increase in the number of jobs in technical and high end jobs can be
partially attributed to an increase in the number of people with college educations. With
MSU being located in Bozeman, there are a large number of college graduates that elect to
stay in the Bozeman area after they graduate. The fundamental importance of
understanding economic trends is that eventually, the numbers and types of jobs correlate to
vehicle travel on our transportation system.
8,382
7,817
6,326
5,587
4,823
4,532
3,402
3,272
2,645
2,514
2,443
2,164
1,900
1,581
1,166
1,152
886
825
646
590
404
178
99
45
0 1,000 2,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,000
Number of Jobs
Retail Trade
Construction
Accommodation & Food
State Government
Professional & Technical Services
Health Care & Social Assistance
Real Estate, Rental & Leasing
Other Services, Except Public
Manufacturing
Local Government
Arts, Entertainment & Recreation
Adminsitrateive & Wast Servises
Finance and Insurance
Wholesale Trade
Taransportation & Warehousing
Farm Employment
Information
Educational Services
Federal & Civilian Government
Forestry, Fishing & Related
Military
Mining
Utilities
Management of Companies &
Figure 3-6
Gallatin County Employment Trends by NAICS (2005)
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Page 3-8 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
3.3 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
Population and economic projections are used to predict future travel patterns, and to
analyze the potential performance capabilities of the Bozeman area transportation system.
Projections of the study area’s future population and employment are developed from
Gallatin County trends (regression line projections), ongoing Growth Policy discussions, and
estimates presented by Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. Three projection scenarios are
provided through the year 2030 (the planning horizon) and are discussed below.
The first scenario that is presented is referred to as the “Moderate Growth” scenario. This is
the scenario that is most likely to occur, based on past trends and what has happened in
other Montana community’s over the past thirty years. This scenario was selected as the
basis for the transportation modeling. It represents a continuation of the current population
and growth trends already observed as presented in Section 3.1, such that adequate services
and infrastructure will be planned for if the current levels of development continue. It
assumes that the Gallatin County population and economy will grow to the numbers
specified by Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. If this growth rate pattern does not develop
further, or is not sustained, then demand will not occur as planned for in this Transportation
Plan, and projects may be delayed or avoided.
A second scenario was also developed, and is referred to as the “Low Growth” scenario. It
builds from much of the population and employment trends that were realized in the 1980’s,
where growth was fairly flat due to many different circumstances.
Lastly, a third growth scenario, referred to as a “High Growth” situation, was developed to
reflect a more aggressive growth pattern in both population and employment. This growth
trend is patterned after population and employment trends that were realized between 1990
and 2005, where growth was higher than in past years. A breakdown of the population and
employment projections produced in each scenario are presented in Table 3-5 and shown
graphically in Figure 3-7 and Figure 3-8.
Table 3-5
Gallatin County Population and Employment Projections (2005-2030)
Year
Low Growth Moderate Growth High Growth
Population Employment Population Employment Population Employment
2005 78,262 63,379 78,262 63,379 78,262 63,379
2010 84,935 68,277 87,406 69,680 90,727 73,474
2015 92,177 73,554 97,618 76,607 105,187 85,176
2020 100,037 79,238 109,023 84,223 121,930 98,742
2025 108,567 85,362 121,760 92,596 141,350 114,470
2030 117,824 91,959 135,986 101,802 163,863 132,702
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 3-9
Figure 3-7
Gallatin County Population Projections
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Year
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
(
T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
)
Low Growth Moderate Growth High Growth Historical
Figure 3-8
Gallatin County Employment Projections
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Year
Jo
b
s
(
T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
)
Low Growth Moderate Growth High Growth Historical
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Page 3-10 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
3.4 FUTURE DWELLING UNITS
The number of dwelling units is a key component in the traffic model. Dwelling units
distribute people throughout the network to given locations. They represent the population
and act as a hub for traffic within the network. Having an accurate value for the number of
people per dwelling unit helps distribute the traffic more accurately. However, it is often
quite difficult to accurately represent the population through dwelling units. This is in part
because the number of people per dwelling units varies based on location and can change at
any time. The best that can be done is to take an average for the entire network and apply
that value to the model.
In the year 2005, the population in Gallatin County was 78,262 people according to the 2005
census. The traffic model developed for the greater Bozeman area uses 32,495 dwelling units
for Gallatin County. This works out to be approximately 2.41 people per dwelling unit. A
recent road impact fee study for Gallatin County showed that there was expected to be 2.41
people per dwelling unit in the year 2030. The City of Bozeman Water Facility Plan shows
that, “in 1990 the average number of people per dwelling unit was 2.5, while in 2000 the
average number declined to 2.3 people per dwelling unit.” Based on this information, an
average of 2.41 people per dwelling unit was used in this plan.
It is expected that the average number of people per dwelling unit for the entire Gallatin
County will be slightly higher than that of the city of Bozeman alone. It is also expected that
the average number of people per dwelling unit for the study area would more accurately
reflect the county wide ratio. Based on a value of 2.41 people per dwelling unit, there will be
approximately 56,462 total dwelling units in the year 2030. This works out to be 23,967
additional units compared to 2005 numbers. The results up to the year 2030 can be found in
Table 3-6. This table represents the estimated projected dwelling units based on 2.41 people
per dwelling unit using the previously estimated population from Table 3-5.
Table 3-6
Gallatin County Projected Dwelling Units
Year Population
Dwelling Units*
Total Additional
2005 78,262 32,495 0
2010 87,406 36,291 3,797
2015 97,618 40,531 8,037
2020 109,023 45,267 12,772
2025 121,760 50,555 18,061
2030 135,986 56,462 23,967
*Dwelling unit projection based on 2.41 people per dwelling unit
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 3-11
3.5 FUTURE EMPLOYMENT
Employment numbers are used in the traffic model to help distribute vehicle traffic as
accurately as possible. Places with high levels of employment will tend to generate high
levels of vehicle traffic. The traffic generated is based in part on the employment type: either
retail or non-retail jobs. Non-retail jobs consist of all types of jobs broken out by the NAICS
classifications shown in Figure 3-5 excluding “retail trade.”
The “Moderate Growth” scenario presented in Table 3-5 shows an estimated 101,802 total
jobs available in the year 2030. This works out to be 38,423 new jobs between 2005 and 2030.
Of the 38,423 new jobs in the year 2030, 12,203 (or 32%) are expected to be retail and 26,220
(or 68%) are expected to be non-retail. A summary of the number of projected additional
employment can be found in Table 3-7 below.
Table 3-7
Gallatin County Projected Additional Employment
Year
Jobs
Retail Non-Retail Total
2005 0 0 0
2010 2,001 4,300 6,301
2015 4,201 9,027 13,228
2020 6,620 14,224 20,844
2025 9,279 19,938 29,217
2030 12,203 26,220 38,423
3.6 ALLOCATION OF GROWTH
Montana Department of Transportation’s modeling of future traveling patterns out to the
year 2030 planning horizon required identification of future socioeconomic characteristics
within each census tract and census block. County population and employment projections
were translated to predictions of increases in housing and employment within Gallatin
County. To accomplish this task, a “Land Use Advisory Committee” (LUAC) was formed to
discuss and reach consensus on the distribution of future housing and employment growth
in the planning area. The committee’s membership was comprised of staff from public
agencies and utilities familiar with ongoing development trends in Gallatin County. A
LUAC meeting was held on August 20th, 2007 to discuss the future development in the
planning area.
The committee’s work considered recent land use trends, land availability and development
capabilities, land use regulations, planned public improvements, and known development
proposals. It also included a review of the previous land use assumptions associated with
the Belgrade Interchange. Figures 3-9 and 3-10 show where potential dwelling units are
expected to be developed up to the year 2030 in Gallatin County. Figures 3-11 thru 3-13
show the projected employment values throughout Gallatin County for the year 2030.
200
300
800
244
75
389 124
5 32
8
32
2
2
1
2
2
5
2
1
2
2
5
171
373
82 217
96191
6
1
2
5
3
2
2
5
22
0 25,00012,500
Feet
SEE
D
E
T
A
I
L
(FIG
U
R
E
3
-
1
0
)
Gallatin County AdditionalFuture (2030) Dwelling UnitsFigure 3-9
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)
Note:The values and boundaries shown are estimatesbased on forecasting techniques only. Actual futurevalues and boundaries may differ from those shown.
Legend
Detail Area
City Boundary
Urban Boundary
County Boundary
Census Block
Currently ProposedAdditional Dwelling Units(as of 10/07)
Additional ForecastedResidential Dwelling Units100
86
2
2
2
124
24
85
28
2
2
2
9 1
2
2
5
2
3
5
5
2
408
218445
262
2
500
38
177
91
321 80
3
2
2
2
3
4
26
62
31
4
5
2
53
2
24
4
9
223
300
15130
132
75
48
400
15
132
132
60
300
244
60
10025
200
500
300
16
400 400
400400
400
600
50
190
1213
20
20001210 30
10
135
19 445120
15
320
129
700
26
280
600
192
230
125 75
150
75
100200
2000
440
847 430
300 617
15
0 10,0005,000
Feet
Gallatin County AdditionalFuture (2030) Dwelling UnitsFigure 3-10
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)Legend
Detail Area
City Boundary
Urban Boundary
County Boundary
Census Block
Currently ProposedAdditional Dwelling Units(as of 10/07)
Additional ForecastedResidential Dwelling Units100
86
Note:The values and boundaries shown are estimatesbased on forecasting techniques only. Actual futurevalues and boundaries may differ from those shown.
5050
100
150
50200
300
400 0 25,00012,500
Feet
Gallatin County AdditionalFuture (2030) EmploymentFigure 3-11
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)
SEE
D
E
T
A
I
L
(FIG
U
R
E
3
-
1
2
)
SEE
D
E
T
A
I
L
(FIG
U
R
E
3
-
1
3
)
Legend
Detail Area
City Boundary
Urban Boundary
County Boundary
Census Block
Additional ForecastedRetail Jobs
Additional ForecastedNon-Retail Jobs100
86
Note:The values and boundaries shown are estimatesbased on forecasting techniques only. Actual futurevalues and boundaries may differ from those shown.
566 2338
630
185
53
918
484
75
30
50
30
30
120
15
3270 3500
188
150
225
250
400
200
100
600
600
300 200
25
25
25 25
25
25
25 25
434
1532
389
626
776 66
1482
63
50
75
1180
75
50
25
50
75
200
200
100 75
15
15
15
15 15
15
1515
7575
803
0 10,0005,000
Feet
Gallatin County AdditionalFuture (2030) EmploymentFigure 3-12
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)Legend
Detail Area
City Boundary
Urban Boundary
County Boundary
Census Block
Additional ForecastedRetail Jobs
Additional ForecastedNon-Retail Jobs100
86
Note:The values and boundaries shown are estimatesbased on forecasting techniques only. Actual futurevalues and boundaries may differ from those shown.
66
5
480
27
225
119
21
33
159
159
78
159
159
203
210
159
30
399
159
54
81
54
51 42
159 159
372
18
78
75
1011
37
308
150
30
156
155
156
90
150
150
150
212
6
30 30
0 3,0001,500
Feet
Gallatin County AdditionalFuture (2030) EmploymentFigure 3-13
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)Legend
Detail Area
City Boundary
Urban Boundary
County Boundary
Census Block
Additional ForecastedRetail Jobs
Additional ForecastedNon-Retail Jobs100
86
Note:The values and boundaries shown are estimatesbased on forecasting techniques only. Actual futurevalues and boundaries may differ from those shown.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 3-17
3.7 TRAFFIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT
All of the characteristics of the various areas of the greater Bozeman area combine to create
the traffic patterns present in the community today. To build a model to represent this
condition, the population information was collected from the 2000 census, and employment
information was gathered from the Montana Department of Labor and Industry, second
quarter of 2006, and was carefully scrutinized by local agency planners and MDT modeling
staff.
The roadway network / centerline information was provided by the Gallatin County GIS
office. This information was supplemented by input from staff at the City of Bozeman,
Gallatin County, and the Montana Department of Transportation who have substantial local
knowledge and were able to increase the accuracy of the base model.
The GIS files, population census information, and employment information are readily
available. The TransCAD software is designed to use this information as input data.
TransCAD has been developed by the Caliper Corporation of Newton, Massachusetts, and
version 4.0 was used as the transportation modeling software for this project. TransCAD
performs a normal modeling process of generating, distributing and assigning traffic in
order to generate traffic volumes. These traffic volumes are then compared to actual ground
counts and adjustments are made to “calibrate”, or ensure the accuracy of, the model. This is
further explained below:
Trip Generation - Trip Generation consists of applying nationally developed trip
rates to land use quantities by the type of land use in the area. The trip generation
step actually consists of two individual steps: trip production and trip attraction.
Trip production and trip attraction helps to “explain” why the trip is made. Trip
production is based on relating trips to various household characteristics. Trip
attraction considers activities that might attract trip makers, such as offices, shopping
centers, schools, hospitals and other households. The number of productions and
attractions in the area is determined and is then used in the distribution phase.
Trip Distribution - Trip distribution is the process in which a trip from one area is
connected with a trip from another area. These trips are referred to as trip exchanges.
Mode Split - Mode choice is the process by which the amount of travel will be made
by each available mode of transportation. There are two major types: automobile and
transit. The automobile mode is generally split into drive alone and shared ride
modes. For the Bozeman travel demand model, there were no “mode split”
assignments (i.e. all trips are assumed to be automobile mode).
Trip Assignment - Once the trip distribution element is completed, the trip
assignment tags those trips to the Major Street Network (MSN). The variable that
influence this are travel time, length, and capacity.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Page 3-18 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Due to the inherent characteristics of a traffic model, it is easy to add a road segment, or
“link”, where none exists now or widen an existing road and see what affect these changes
will have on the transportation system. Additional housing and employment centers can be
added to the system to model future conditions, and moved to different parts of the model
area to see what affect different growth scenarios have on the transportation system. Thus
the land use changes anticipated between now and 2030 can be added to the transportation
system, and the needed additions to the transportation system can then be identified.
Additionally, different scenarios for how the Greater Bozeman area may grow between now
and 2030 can be examined to determine the need for additional infrastructure depending
upon which one most accurately represents actual growth.
Also necessary in the development of a transportation model is the establishment of the
modeling area. The modeling area is, by necessity, much larger than the Study Area. Traffic
generated from outlying communities or areas contributes to the traffic load within the
Study Area, and is therefore important to the accuracy of the model. Additionally, it is
desirable to have a large model area for use in future projects.
The future year model was developed specifically for the year 2030 planning horizon. The
2030 model is used in this document to evaluate future traffic volumes, since 2030 is the
horizon year for this document. The information contained earlier in this Chapter was used
to determine the additions and changes to the traffic volumes in 2030.
The modeling area was subdivided by using census tracts and census blocks, as previously
described in this chapter. Census blocks are typically small in the downtown and existing
neighborhood areas, and grow geographically larger in the less densely developed areas.
The census blocks & census tracts were used to divide the population and employment
growth that is anticipated to occur between now and 2030.
Built into the traffic model are assumptions about traffic characteristics. The model assumes
that traffic characteristics in the future will be similar to those seen today. Changing factors
such as fuel costs, technological advances, and other unknown issues may affect the amount
and type of traffic on the road network in the future. The model also assumes that the socio-
economic information contained earlier in this chapter will be realized in the year 2030.
While this may be a conservative assumption, it does give an indication of potential problem
areas within the transportation system that may need to be addressed in the future. The
future 2030 model is a useful planning tool to help predict how traffic might behave in the
future.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 3-19
3.8 TRAFFIC VOLUME PROJECTIONS
The traffic model was used to produce traffic forecasts for the planning horizon year of 2030.
For comparison purpose, traffic model results for the calibration year of 2005 are presented
herein on Figure 3-14 and Figure 3-15. Year 2030 traffic volume projections are presented in
Figure 3-16 and Figure 3-17. These projections indicate that the traffic volumes on some of
the major corridors will increase significantly over the next 25 years.
In addition to traffic volumes, the model was used to determine volume to capacity (v/c)
ratios. Figure 3-18 and Figure 3-19 show the v/c ratios for the calibration year of 2005;
future 2030 v/c ratios are shown on Figure 3-20 and Figure 3-21. A discussion of v/c ratios
can be found in Chapter 4.
It is important to recognize that the volumes shown on Figure 3-16 and Figure 3-17 and v/c
ratios shown on Figure 3-20 and Figure 3-21 are based on the “Existing plus Committed”
roadway network. In other words, these are the volumes and v/c ratios if no changes to the
transportation system are made other than those currently committed to. Similar graphics
are presented in Chapter 9 that show future values based on a “recommended”
transportation system network.
41
0
0
2190
0
15100
300
2000
130
0
0
2400
39
0
0
3500
10
0
0
3100
78
0
0
92
0
0
6500
10
2
0
0
11
0
0
0
8500
13
4
0
0
19400
10
2
0
0
13
0
0
0
200
30
0
500
90
0
10
0
25
0
0
600
1500 1100
800
1200
1400
17
0
0
2200
70
0
10
0
0
2000
1300
21
0
0
1600
500
50
0
200
13
0
0
2200
15
0
0
1700
1300 500
1300
200
100
10
0
1000
1200
16
0
0
11
0
0
50
0
SEE
D
E
T
A
I
L
(FIG
U
R
E
3
-
1
5
)
Existing (2005) ADTTraffic VolumesFigure 3-14
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)
Note:Traffic volumes determined through thetraffic model were used in locationswhere current ADT counts do not exist.
Legend
Detail Area
City Boundary
Urban Boundary
Study Area Boundary
2005 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)1200 2004 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)1200 2005 Traffic Model Volume*1200
> 12,00012,000 - 18,00018,000 - 24,00024,000 - 35,000> 35,000
0 10,0005,000
Feet
69
0
0
17100
20
0
0
0
22300
22
0
0
3600
9600
79
0
0
340
0
23800
73
0
0
2600
81
0
0
18
3
0
0
21900
21200
83
0
0
5200
14900
2500
24
1
0
0
1620
0
5100
1120013300
69
0
0
3000
5
8
0
0
8800
3
3
0
0
8800
8200
3
5
0
0
2
5
0
0
39
0
0
23
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
11200
159
0
0
25100 12200
22
2
0
0
60
0
0
6000 4800
92
0
0
9200
50
0
0
29
0
0
15
1
0
0
11
3
0
0
84
0
0
3000 15500
58
0
0
10700
12300
7500
44
0
0
8800
16
7
0
0
19
0
0
0
3800
43
0
0
6100
74
0
0
18
0
0
89
0
0
2200
5800 30009800
90
0
40
0
600
25
0
0
1800
13
0
0
200
50
0
5300
17
0
0
1100
12
0
0
10
0
2100
70
0
3800
57
0
0
4400
3200
2
0
0
40
0
500
6300
0 5,0002,500
Feet
Existing (2005) ADTTraffic VolumesFigure 3-15
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)
Note:Traffic volumes determined through thetraffic model were used in locationswhere current ADT counts do not exist.
Legend
Detail Area
Urban BoundaryCity Boundary
2005 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)1200 2004 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)1200 2005 Traffic Model Volume*1200
< 12,000
12,000 - 18,000
18,000 - 24,000
24,000 - 35,000
> 35,000
2600
4720
0
41200
32
1
0
0
2100
335
0
0
65
0
0
9000
35
5
0
0
15
0
0
9200
134
0
0
13
8
0
0
14100
3100
8500
1430
0
23
4
0
0
50400
36
5
0
0
30
3
0
0
40
0
1000
100
38
0
0
460
0
12
0
0
2000
75
0
0
2500
1400
700
2300
9900
1500
45
0
0
4900
3300
2700
28
0
0
73
0
0
34
0
0
5000
5900
61
0
0
3000
29
0
0
3300
32
0
0
14
0
0
1500
3300
10
0
1200
800
24
0
0
30
0
0
44
0
0
3900
0 10,0005,000
Feet
SEE
D
E
T
A
I
L
(FIG
U
R
E
3
-
1
7
)
Future (2030) ADTTraffic VolumesFigure 3-16
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)
Note:2030 Anticipated ADT volumes determined by applyinga growth rate to existing ADT count locations. Trafficvolumes determined through the traffic model were usedin locations where current ADT counts do not exist.
Legend
2030 AnticipatedAverage Daily Traffic (ADT)*1200
2030 Model Traffic Volume*1200
< 12,00012,000 - 18,00018,000 - 24,00024,000 - 35,000> 35,000
Detail Area
City Boundary
Urban Boundary
Study Area Boundary
3
9
9
0
0
43100
41200
54200
8
7
0
0
50
0
0
23300
4
9
0
0
45400
67
0
0
1090
0
6300
40
1
0
0
35200
28
6
0
0
41
4
0
0
21100
133
0
0
50000
18000
9400
25200
48
5
0
0
4
7
9
0
0
1460
0
14
0
0
0
34
2
0
0
27000
9700
373
0
0
19
8
0
0
18300
69
0
0
13
0
0
0
6700
3
8
0
0
3
8
0
0
23000 41
0
0
15
0
0
0
20800
41700 35300
99
0
0
760
0
9100
7100
53
0
0
53
0
0
27
8
0
0
16
0
0
0
8800
4600 24400
470
0
17900
12
8
0
0
25900
17
5
0
0
9600
13400
66
0
0
6600
24
6
0
0
49
3
0
0
6100
5100
11400
12000
31
0
0
16600 6900 69
0
0
21
0
0
600
18
0
0
5300
6800
4800
26
0
0
63
0
0
2900
3200 16
0
0
5700
8700
14
0
0
2
4
0
0
97
0
0
9200
9500
18
0
0
32
0
0
18
0
0
26
0
0
1200
4700
10000
12
0
0
0 5,0002,500
Feet
Future (2030) ADTTraffic VolumesFigure 3-17
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)Legend
Detail Area
Urban Boundary
City Boundary
2030 AnticipatedAverage Daily Traffic (ADT)*1200
2030 Traffic Model Volume*1200
< 12,000
12,000 - 18,000
18,000 - 24,000
24,000 - 35,000
> 35,000
Note:2030 Anticipated ADT volumes determined by applyinga growth rate to existing ADT count locations. Trafficvolumes determined through the traffic model were usedin locations where current ADT counts do not exist.
0.32
0.22
0.02
0.
0
3
0.04
0.0
8
0.0
1
0.1
9
0.11
0.
8
5
0.10
0.15
1.
0
8
0.17
0.3
4
0.20
0.13
0.12 0.09
0.
9
2
0.
3
3
0.29
0.
1
4
0.26
0.65
0.7
6
0.54
0.18
0.
1
3
0.02
0.
0
8
0.04
0.
2
1
0.10
0.17
0.02
0.
1
4
0.11
0.
1
1
0.
0
1
0.07
0.
1
7
0.08
0.
0
5
0.10
0.12
0.0
9
0.04
0.0
6
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.71
1.
1
2
0.
3
7
0.55
0.0
9
0.
0
4
0.8
5
SEE
D
E
T
A
I
L
(FIG
U
R
E
3
-
1
9
)
Existing (2005) V/CVolume to Capacity RatioFigure 3-18
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)Legend
Detail Area
City Boundary
Urban Boundary
Study Area Boundary
Volume / Capacity Ratio0.25
<0.250.25-0.49
0.50-0.740.75-1.00>1.00
Volume to CapacityRatio (V/C)
0 10,0005,000
Feet
0.25
0.0
7
0.
2
9
0.2
1
0.15
0.64
0.0
5
0.44
0.1
8
0.30
0.53
0.
6
6
0.68 0
.
2
8
0.04
0.5
2
0.6
1
0.68
0.63
0.74
0.38
1.24
0.
6
9
0.
6
7
0.48
0.43
0.93
0.4
6
0.
4
8
0.42
1.1
2
0.5
7
0.7
7
0.2
4
0.32
0.
0
4
0
.
0
2
0.6
8
0.61
0.
0
1
0.32
0.25
0.5
8
0.
1
7
0.13
0.2
0
0.
1
5
0.2
8
0.09
0.21
0.
1
0
0.0
6
0.02
0.17
0.5
0
0.4
2
0.22
0.26
0.
0
4
0.1
1
0.
7
4
0.
6
3
0.51
0.72
0.8
4
0.400.40
0.4
7
0.
3
5
0.35
0.49
1.0
5
0.3
6
0.62
0.3
2
0.46
0.5
2
0.
2
9
0.73
0.18
1.02
0.59
0.1
5
0.25
0
.
6
1
0.
2
1
0.51
0.73
0.54
0.25 0.65
0.4
8
0.6
6
0.32
0.6
9
0.0
3
0 5,0002,500
Feet
Existing (2005) V/CVolume to Capacity RatioFigure 3-19
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)Legend
Detail Area
Volume / Capacity Ratio0.25
Urban Boundary
City Boundary<0.250.25-0.49
0.50-0.74
0.75-1.00>1.00
Volume to CapacityRatio (V/C)
0.69
0.08
0.
0
4
0.1
0.21
0.3
9
0.01
2.6
8
2.
7
9
0.17
0.71
0.6
2
0.4
0.07
0.11
0.19
0.82
0.13
0.
3
8
2.9
6
0.
5
4
0.06
0.75
0.28
0.
1
2
1.1
1
0.77
0.22
0.
6
1
1.1
5
0.2
1.17
0.49
0.
5
1
0.
3
1
0.25
0.2
6
0.1
0.130.21
0.25
0.28
0.
2
4
0.
1
2
0.170.
2
4
0.
2
8
0.61
0.27
0.42
0.0
1
0.32
1.19
0.2
5
1.
9
5
1.44
0.
3
7
1.0
4
2.
5
2
0 10,0005,000
Feet
SEE
D
E
T
A
I
L
(FIG
U
R
E
3
-
2
1
)
Future (2030) V/CVolume to Capacity RatioFigure 3-20
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)Legend
Detail Area
City Boundary
Urban Boundary
Study Area Boundary
Volume / Capacity Ratio0.25
<0.250.25-0.49
0.50-0.740.75-1.00>1.00
Volume to CapacityRatio (V/C)
0.1
7
1.00
0.
1
5
1.55
0.0
5
0.4
0.57
0
.
2
5
0.
4
2
0.
2
2
0.
5
2
0.24
1.3
1.29
0.27
1.
0
8
0.91
0.1
3
0.
4
1
0.6
1.
1
5
1.01
2.
3
8
1.1
8
1.1
7
2.1
1.11
1.43
0.48
0
.
2
0.73
1.
3
9
1.
3
7
1.22
0.1
1
0.9
8
0.77
0.78
0.3
9
0.
3
4
2.0
7
1.53
0.
8
1
0.79
0.5
8
1.3
3
0.8
3
0.6
3
0.76
0.59
0.4
4
1.02
0.
5
6
0.26
0.
2
6
0.52
0.56
0.63
0.1
0.52
0.61
0.1
5
0.
1
5
0.1
0.81
0.
5
9
0.
2
2
0.2
7
1.01
0.5
8
0.44
1.92
0
.
3
2
1.
2
5
0.39
0.
3
1
1.73
1.
6
5
0.7
0.8
0.
7
1
2.16
1.
4
5
1.12
1.4
1
0.5
5
0.55
0.95 0.51
0.56
0.430.92
0.2
6
0.4
4
1.00
1.19
0.39
0.7
9
0.73
0.58
0 5,0002,500
Feet
Future (2030) V/CVolume to Capacity RatioFigure 3-21
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)Legend
Detail Area
Volume / Capacity Ratio0.25
Urban Boundary
City Boundary<0.25
0.25-0.49
0.50-0.740.75-1.00>1.00
Volume to CapacityRatio (V/C)
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Page 3-28 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
3.9 NETWORK ALTERNATIVES TEST RUN ANALYSIS
Thirteen (13) scenarios were developed for model alternative test run analysis. Each of the
13 scenarios that were developed involve roadway capacity additions in areas where
transportation needs presently exist, or in areas where future investment may be needed as a
result of expected population/employment growth. Most scenarios are localized, creating
new links or expanding existing facilities in a particular study subarea, with investment
effects impacting only a small portion of the study area network, i.e., larger system-wide
impacts would not be expected. Because all scenarios involve roadway capacity additions,
with the exception of Alternative Scenario (AS-3) – Access Management, scenario analysis is
focused on how traffic volume and travel times are shifted on key facilities throughout the
area of investment (i.e., no multimodal, land use, or other demand management investment
options to reduce the number of trips or traffic volume were directly modeled).
The alternatives presented in this section are for modeling purposes only and do not
represent actual project recommendations at this time. The analysis of these alternatives was
made to give a theoretical idea of how certain network modifications made to the
transportation system affect the overall network and surrounding area. Should projects arise
in the future along these corridors, design alternatives to those discussed in this section will
need to be analyzed to determine the appropriate configuration of the roadways.
To complete the scenario analysis, the 2030 Existing plus Committed (E+C) network was
compared to 2030 scenario results for each alternative. The 2030 E+C model run consisted of
the 2005 base travel model network with the addition of one committed project, a widening
on South 19th street, and 2030 socio-economic projections. For each of the 13 alternatives,
link-level model output (in GIS format) generated by MDT for the entire model domain was
clipped to the Bozeman study area only. Individual links on key roadways were then
selected and extracted into a new GIS layer to focus analysis; this was done for each of the 13
scenarios individually. Corresponding link-level data was grouped by roadway facility, and
converted to Excel platform for calculation of performance measures which included:
Link-level percent-difference in AADT between 2030 E+C and 2030 Scenario,
Link-level percent-difference travel time between 2030 E+C and 2030 Scenario,
Average AADT by roadway facility,
Average travel time by roadway facility,
Volume-weighted percent-difference AADT by roadway facility, and
Volume-weighted percent-difference travel time by roadway facility.
Percent AADT and travel time differences were first calculated for each roadway link,
weighted by link traffic volume, and averaged over the length of the roadway. For models
as large as the Bozeman travel model being used for the plan update, fluctuations in traffic
conditions are often seen at a very refined (link) level with oscillations between positive and
negative increases occurring over a small area. In order to normalize this effect and get a
sense for overall performance at the facility level, percentage differences were weighted by
traffic volume (to provide greater weight to links with the greatest volume and least weight
to links with the least volume) and averaged over the facility.
AS
-
4
AS-10
AS-13AS
-
1
(
a
)
AS
-
4
AS-10
AS
-
4
AS
-
1
0
AS-4
A
S
-
1
(
c
)
AS-1 (b)
AS-11
0 10,0005,000
Feet
SEE
D
E
T
A
I
L
(FIG
U
R
E
3
-
2
3
)
Travel Demand ModelAlternative ScenariosFigure 3-22
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)
Note:AS-4, AS-10, and AS-13 scenarios include all aspects of AS-1in additon to the links shown.The functional classifications shown are recommended aspart of the Transportation Plan and do not reflect the federallyapproved functional classification criteria which is based oncurrent conditions rather than anticipated future conditions.
Legend
InterstatePrincipal ArterialMinor ArterialCollectorLocal
Detail Area
City Boundary
Urban Boundary
Study Area Boundary
Alternative Scenario*
*The colors shown are for designationof modeling alternatives and do notrepresent any sort of classification.
AS-8
AS-10
AS-7
AS-12
AS
-
2
AS
-
9
AS-6
AS
-
5
AS
-
4
AS
-
1
2
AS
-
1
0
AS
-
7
AS-7
AS-4
AS
-
1
2
0 5,0002,500
Feet
Travel Demand ModelAlternative ScenariosFigure 3-23
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)
*The colors shown are for designationof modeling alternatives and do notrepresent any sort of classification.
Legend
Local
InterstatePrincipal ArterialMinor ArterialCollector
Detail Area
Urban Boundary
City Boundary
Alternative Scenario*
Note:AS-4, AS-10, and AS-13 scenarios include all aspects of AS-1in additon to the links shown.The functional classifications shown are recommended aspart of the Transportation Plan and do not reflect the federallyapproved functional classification criteria which is based oncurrent conditions rather than anticipated future conditions.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 3-31
Alternative Scenario 1 – East Belgrade Interchange
The northwest portion of the Bozeman study area shows the highest expected growth in
population by 2030, in particular towards Belgrade. Between 2005 and 2030, the north-south
principal arterials Jackrabbit and Love both show greater than 200% increase in traffic
volume, with east-west facilities between Cameron Bridge and Huffine also showing greater
than 200% increase. I-90 west shows a greater than 50% increase in volume closer to the city,
with increasing growth in volume towards Belgrade (greater than 200% increase outside of
the study area towards Belgrade). New interstate access points must serve a regional
purpose in accordance with Federal Highway Administration requirements. The purpose of
the proposed East Belgrade Interchange is to facilitate greater intermodal connectivity with
the Gallatin Field Airport, not to accommodate local traffic. In addition to serving a regional
need, the East Belgrade Interchange project is intended to accommodate the projected
volume increase in the north-west portion of the study area. Travel demand modeling
completed for this analysis includes the following:
Interchange footprint with a connection to Alaska Road (to the south) and the
Gallatin Airport entrance (to the north),
Connection to Northern Pacific Avenue and also a connection to Frank Road,
North Dry Creek Road Bypass which connects to the airport road entrance, and
Extension of Love Lane from its terminus at the south to connect to Cameron Bridge
Road.
Scenario analysis results indicate:
Alaska Road, Cameron Bridge, and Love Lane all experience an increase in traffic
volume between the 2030 E+C and 2030 AS-1, as indicated in Table 3-8, as trips shift
from parallel routes to access I-90 at the new interchange. While Alaska Road
experiences a slight increase in travel time of 1.24% due to the volume increase,
Cameron Bridge experiences a much greater increase in average weighted travel time
of 1081%, from an average travel time of 15 minutes to 51 minutes. It is
recommended that an additional capacity connection between the new northern
terminus of Love Lane and the new interchange be tested, with the intent of the new
capacity connection to draw some of the additional traffic off of Cameron Bridge.
Note that Valley Center, which runs parallel to Cameron Bridge, shows a drop in
traffic volume of 28% with a corresponding decrease in travel time of 46%. A possible
upgrade of Valley Center from a 2-lane collector to a minor arterial could also be
tested to divert a portion of trips off of Cameron Bridge, while still providing a direct
connection to Alaska and the new interchange.
Overall, the average weighted travel time on Love Lane between Huffine and
Cameron Bridge drops by almost 100%, despite the 22% increase in traffic volume, as
a result of the additional capacity being added at its northern terminus (i.e.,
additional volume that is shifted to the upgraded facility is not enough to cause total
volume to exceed available new capacity, therefore volume/capacity ratios decrease
between the 2030 E+C and 2030 AS-1, and travel times decrease).
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Page 3-32 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Key parallel facility, Jackrabbit, benefits from a 14% decrease in volume and 7%
decrease in travel time, and Harper Puckett benefits from a 26% decrease in volume
and 50% decrease in travel time.
Both Frontage Road and I-90 show a decrease in traffic volume and travel time with
Frontage decreasing in volume and travel time by 21% and 25%, respectively, and I-
90 decreasing in volume and travel time by 8% and 3% respectively. This is likely a
result of the new interchange facilitating additional trip routing between I-90 and the
City of Bozeman onto upgraded, non-interstate (principal arterial) facilities, namely
Alaska to Cameron Bridge to Love.
Table 3-8
Alternative Scenario 1 - East Belgrade Interchange
Roadway Termini AADT % Change Travel Time % Change
Alaska Alaska southern termini /I-90 198.45 1.24
Baxter Jackrabbit/Harper Puckett 4.17 14.96
Cameron Bridge Thorpe/Harper Puckett 41.99 1081.39
Frontage Belgrade Interchange/Springhill -21.37 -25.4
Harper Puckett Baxter/Cameron Bridge -26.01 -50.48
Hulbert Jackrabbit/Love -5.67 -0.34
I-90 Gallatin Field/Springhill -7.8 -2.94
Jackrabbit Huffine/Amsterdam -14.09 -6.85
Love Huffine/Cameron Bridge 22.47 -97.86
Valley Center Jackrabbit/Harper Puckett -28.44 -46.09
Alternative Scenario 2 – Northeast Arterial Link
The purpose of this model scenario is to assess the traffic related impacts of creating an
arterial link in the northeast portion of the City of Bozeman. This scenario includes the
following:
Extend Highland Boulevard from its current terminus at Main Street north to connect
with Cedar Street. This extension is envisioned as a minor arterial link.
Extend Oak Street east of Rouse Avenue to connect with Cedar Street. This extension
is also envisioned as a minor arterial link.
For purposes of continuity in the traffic model, upgrade Cedar Street to a minor
arterial link.
These three modifications are intended to provide a new important connection to reduce
traffic along Main Street, Rouse Avenue and within the Northeast Neighborhood.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 3-33
Scenario analysis results indicate:
Main Street, between 19th and Haggerty, benefits from a 3% decrease in AADT, and a
7% decrease in travel time. Rouse also benefits from a 5% decrease in AADT and a
5% decrease in travel time.
Almost all roadways evaluated in the northeast neighborhood see a benefit as
indicated in Table 3-9 below. Note Highland experiences a slight increase in AADT
of 2% and travel time of 0.5% due to the new capacity connection causing a shift in
trips from parallel collectors, Church and Bozeman Trail, to the upgraded, minor
arterial Highland.
This scenario provides a good example of dispersion of traffic due to well-made
capacity connections in an area of expected growth; in this case with the growth
occurring in the portion of the City of Bozeman bounded by Kagy, Highland, I-90
and Bozeman Trail, where redevelopment is already occurring to support increased
residential development. Traffic is able to be dispersed due to the creation of a
gridded system, with several key north-south facilities able to provide comparable
level of service and access to I-90; therefore, no disproportionate shift of traffic to one
facility over another.
Table 3-9
Alternative Scenario 2 - Northeast Arterial Links
Roadway Termini AADT % Change Travel Time % Change
7th I-90/Main 0.11 -1.77
Babcock 19th/Wallace -7.96 -2.23
Bozeman Trail Kagy/Haggerty -8.68 -15.1
Broadway Main/Avocado -23.57 -11.29
Church Sourdough/Babcock -8.98 -40.18
Durston 19th/Avocado -2.14 -3.33
Highland Kagy/Cedar 1.55 0.46
Main 19th/Haggerty -3.3 -6.61
Oak 19th/Rouse 18.8 0
Peach 7th/Rouse -19.09 -0.7
Rouse Griffin/Peach -4.6 -4.97
Sourdough Kagy/Church -2.86 -12.08
Tamarack 19th/Wallace -12.16 -16.57
Wallace L/Babcock -23.67 -61.33
Alternative Scenario 3 – Access Management Scenario
This scenario involves modeling existing access management plans for Jackrabbit and
Huffine. The purpose of this scenario is to define what access management principles can
accomplish in providing excess capacity and congestion relief along existing corridors,
potentially delaying major capacity upgrades.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Page 3-34 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
A 5% increase in capacity was modeled for both Jackrabbit and Huffine with turn
prohibitions implemented to local roads without signalized intersections (reference May 27,
2008, Access Management memo). This provides a “surrogate” modeling approach to show
the benefit of reducing conflict points between vehicles entering/exiting a roadway and
channeling vehicle traffic in a manner that supports smoother traffic flow and increased
travel speeds.
Scenario analysis results indicate:
Huffine benefits from an 11% decrease in traffic volume and a 35% decrease in travel
time, while Jackrabbit sees a 6% increase in volume and a corresponding 6% increase
in travel time. While it is not unusual to expect a volume increase under this scenario
as a result of added capacity improving the function of a facility (thereby pulling
more trips to it), an overall decrease in travel time should be expected due to the
addition of turn prohibitions that mimic reduced conflict points.
As noted in the Access Management modeling memo, when reviewing the network
along the two subject corridors for network detail, it was found that the centroid for
traffic analysis zone (TAZ) 9595 is located inside the loop ramp in the southwest
quadrant of the interchange at Interstate 90 and Jackrabbit Lane. Since no land use
activity is located inside this loop ramp, it was recommended that the centroid be
moved to more accurately represent the center of activity and loading of trips onto
the network.
Because there may be an issue with loading of trips in this area, it is recommended
that the centroid connector issue be addressed, and that the scenario be re-modeled in
the future. It may be beneficial to also model this scenario with the inclusion of the
East Belgrade Interchange so that the additional trips drawn to the area as a result of
the improved facility can directly access I-90 in another location of close proximity.
Table 3-10
Alternative Scenario 3 - Access Management Scenario
Roadway Termini AADT % Change Travel Time % Change
Alaska Alaska southern termini/I-90 -5.28 -0.13
Baxter Jackrabbit/Harper Puckett -1.23 -3.26
Cameron Bridge Thorpe/Harper Puckett 33.53 953.48
Durston Love/Cottonwood 0.46 24.81
Huffine Zoot/Fowler -10.87 -34.94
Hulbert Jackrabbit/Love -14.46 -1.74
Jackrabbit Huffine/I-90 5.85 6.23
Love Huffine/Valley Center -3.75 -11.12
Valley Center Jackrabbit/Hidden Valley 2.64 18.99
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 3-35
Alternative Scenario 4 – Arterial Connections / Cross Regional Grid System
This scenario involves modifying and/or widening existing roads, and constructing key new
roadway segments for facilities that support critical cross-region movement. Upgrades
would be to principal arterials only (four-lane and/or five-lane cross sections). This will
serve to create a strong grid arterial system. The focus for this would be on the western and
southern portions of the study area where there are greatest increases in traffic volumes as a
result of expected long-term population and employment growth.
Recommended modeling assignments build off of existing key principal arterial corridors
(e.g., Jackrabbit/Gallatin between I-90 and Cottonwood, 19th between Nash and I-90,
Cottonwood between Johnson and Oak). Modeling included the following upgrades:
Upgrade 1 – North/South Connection
o Extend existing principal arterial, Love Lane, south to connect to Gooch
Hill/Johnson
o Upgrade Gooch Hill/Enders south to Cottonwood from Minor Arterial to
Principal Arterial
o Include all aspects of Alternative Scenario 1 – East Belgrade Interchange
Upgrade 2 – East/West Connection
o Upgrade existing minor arterial, Cottonwood, between Gallatin and Enders to
Principal Arterial
o New principal arterial capacity connecting Cottonwood/Enders to Kent Spur
o Upgrade Kent Spur from minor to principal arterial
Upgrade 3 – North South/Connection
o Upgrade Cottonwood/Kent Spur north to Johnson from minor arterial to
principal arterial.
o Connect Cottonwood between Oak and Harper Puckett – principal arterial
o Extension of Cottonwood Road from its current terminus to Valley Center
Road (as a principal arterial).
Upgrade 4 – North South Connection
o Upgrade Gooch Hill and Chapman between Johnson and Durston from minor
to principal arterial
Scenario analysis results indicate:
All key north-south, newly upgraded principal arterial facilities – Jackrabbit /
Gallatin, Love / Gooch Hill, Cottonwood / Harper Puckett, and north 19th experience
significant travel time benefits, as indicated in Table 3-11. Similar to AS2, but on a
larger scale, traffic is able to be evenly dispersed due to the creation of a connected
system, with several key north-south facilities able to provide comparable level of
service and access to I-90; therefore, no disproportionate shift of traffic to one facility
over another.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Page 3-36 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
I-90 and Frontage between the new East Belgrade Interchange and 19th also show
traffic improvements with 19th showing a 4% decrease in traffic volume and a 3%
decrease in travel time, and Frontage Road showing a 19% decrease in volume and
17% decrease in travel time.
Similar to the other alternatives where the East Belgrade Interchange in modeled,
Alaska sees a significant increase in volume of 219% as trips are shifted to the facility
to access I-90 at the new location, and a corresponding increase in travel time of 4%.
Cameron Bridge experiences deterioration in level of service of 85% increase in
volume and greater than 2500% increase in travel time (from an average travel time
of 2 minutes to 23 minutes) as trips are shifted to the area. It is recommended that
additional improvements be tested in the area to relieve the induced traffic created on
Cameron Bridge, e.g., an additional capacity connection between the new northern
terminus of Love Lane and the new interchange, or an upgrade of Valley Center from
a 2-lane collector to a minor arterial facility. Valley Center shows a 22% drop in
volume and 39% drop in travel time and can likely accommodate shift in additional
volume to the facility if it is upgraded. There is an active Environmental Assessment
(EA) for Valley Center that calls for the roadway to be widened and turn lanes to be
added.
Harper Puckett shows an increase in traffic volume of 58% and greater than 2500%
increase in travel time (from an average travel time of 2 minutes to 52 minutes), also
due to the significant shift in trips to the area. The improvements suggested above,
may also serve to alleviate the increase in volume and travel time on Harper Puckett
if they reduce the volume increase (bottleneck which is likely occurring) on Cameron
Bridge.
Key east-west facilities extending between the upgraded north-south principal
arterials show both traffic improvements and deterioration, with the majority
showing improvement. Durston shows a 17% increase in volume and 9% increase in
travel time, while Huffine shows a 6% decrease in volume and 20% decrease in travel
time, Main with a 6% decrease in volume and 14% decrease in travel time, and
Johnson a 26% and 79% decrease in volume and travel time, respectively. Oak shows
a 93% increase in volume, but 90% decrease in travel time as the addition of new
capacity causes trips and volume to shift to the upgraded facility; however this
volume increase is not enough to exceed available (new) capacity allowing the
volume/capacity ratio to drop and average travel times to decrease.
In general, significant volume and travel time reductions are seen on the entire
western side of the study area as a result of the interconnected principal arterial
system created in an area of expected population and employment growth.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 3-37
Table 3-11
Alternative Scenario 4 - Arterial Connections / Cross Regional Grid System
Roadway Termini AADT % Change Travel Time % Change
19th Valley Center/Main -4.2 -2.58
I-90 East Belgrade Interchange/19th -10.17 -5.34
Alaska Alaska southern termini/I-90 218.68 4.08
Cameron Bridge Jackrabbit/Harper Puckett 84.79 2784.17
Cottonwood Kent Spur/Harper Puckett 39.98 -66.39
Durston Love/19th 17.47 8.59
Frontage East Belgrade Interchange/19th -19.38 -16.64
Gallatin Cottonwood/Jackrabbit -2.3 -14.07
Gooch Hill/Enders Cottonwood-Kent Spur/Love -10.76 -48.22
Harper Puckett Valley Center/Baxter 57.89 2843.66
Huffine Jackrabbit/Main -5.78 -20.35
Jackrabbit Huffine/I-90 -16.07 -6.98
Love Gooch Hill/Cameron Bridge 42.67 -97.78
Main Fowler/19th -6.34 -14.33
Oak Cottonwood/19th 92.87 -89.67
Valley Center Jackrabbit/19th -22.08 -39.37
Alternative Scenario 5 – Interstate 90 Overpass at Davis / Nelson Alignment
The scenario is created to assess the benefits of providing a grade separated overpass of I-90
and the existing railroad tracks along the north-south alignment of Fowler/Davis and
Nelson roads. This is not envisioned as an interchange; however it may serve to reduce
traffic along the Frontage Road entering Bozeman, North 19th Avenue, and Valley Center
Road.
Scenario analysis results indicate:
Frontage Road entering Bozeman experiences a 7% decrease in AADT and 10%
decrease in travel time. North 7th experiences a 3% decrease in AADT and 12%
decrease in travel time.
North 19th and Valley Center both experience an increase in traffic volume and travel
time, with North 19th seeing a 15% increase in AADT and 12% increase in travel time,
and Valley Center experiencing an 18% increase in AADT and greater than 300%
increase in travel time (from an average travel time of 3.3 minutes to 10.2 minutes).
Davis is impacted by a 76% increase in traffic volume, but a 67% decrease in travel
time, indicating that the increased capacity is enough to accommodate the shift in
traffic volume (volume/capacity ratio drops allowing travel times to decrease).
The intended goal to reduce traffic along the Frontage Road was addressed as a
portion of trips are shifted from accessing Frontage Road at Springhill, to enter
Bozeman. Instead, trips are shifted to the new capacity connection at Davis/Nelson
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Page 3-38 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
to enter northeast Bozeman from Davis and North 19th. This shift in trips, however,
causes the increase in traffic volume on these two facilities. Baxter also sees an
increase in AADT of 15% and travel time of 56% as a result of a large number of trips
shifting to the area.
Recommend testing additional improvements to Valley Center and/or North 19th if
1-90 Overpass is constructed at Davis/Nelson.
Table 3-12
Alternative Scenario 5 - Interstate 90 Overpass at Davis / Nelson Alignment
Roadway Termini AADT % Change Travel Time % Change
North 19th Valley Center/Oak 15.09 11.84
7th Frontage/Oak -3.01 -12.03
Baxter Harper Puckett/7th 14.72 55.66
Davis Baxter/Nelson 76.47 -66.51
Frontage Sacajawea Peak/7th -7.39 -9.61
Hidden Valley Valley Center/Harper Puckett -10.8 -6.13
Oak New Holland/7th -1.18 -9.9
Valley Center Harper Puckett/19th 18.78 304.42
Alternative Scenario 6 – Interstate 90 Overpass at Baxter / Mandeville Alignment
The scenario is created to assess the benefits of providing a grade separated overpass of
Interstate 90 along the west-east alignment of Baxter/Mandeville Lane. This is not
envisioned as an interchange; however it may serve to reduce traffic along the Frontage Road
entering Bozeman, North 7th Avenue, and Griffin Drive.
Scenario analysis results indicate:
North 7th experiences a 5% decrease in AADT, and a 19% decrease in travel time.
Frontage Road entering Bozeman benefits from a 5% decrease in AADT and 14%
decrease in travel time.
Griffin experiences a 4% increase in AADT and 9% increase in travel time resulting
from its proximity to the new capacity connection at Baxter/Mandeville, which
causes additional trips to load onto Griffin heading to/from Baxter. For the same
reason (proximity to new capacity connection), Mandeville sees a 233% increase in
traffic volume, but a 56% decrease in travel time.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 3-39
Table 3-13
Alternative Scenario 6 - Interstate 90 Overpass at Baxter / Mandeville Alignment
Roadway Termini AADT % Change Travel Time % Change
7th Oak/Frontage -5.43 -19.21
Baxter Davis/Mandeville 9.08 -2.14
Davis Baxter/Valley Center 0.51 2.27
Frontage Nelson/7th -5.13 -13.83
Griffin Mandeville/Rouse 4.27 8.51
Mandeville Baxter/Griffin 232.57 -55.7
Oak New Holland/Rouse 0.92 0.01
Rouse Oak/Griffin -3.84 -20.02
Alternative Scenario 7 – Southwest Grid Modifications
The scenario will expand and strengthen the southwest grid in an existing and forecasted
growth area. It includes the following:
College Street upgrade to a five-lane principal arterial between Main Street and S.
19th Ave.
College Street upgrade to a three-lane minor arterial between S. 8th Ave. and S. 19th
Ave.
Extending Kagy Boulevard from S. 19th Avenue to Cottonwood near the Stucky Road
intersection (as a three-lane principal arterial)
Completing the Fowler Lane connection from Garfield Street south to Stucky (as a
minor arterial).
Scenario analysis results indicate:
Parallel facilities to the new Kagy Boulevard capacity extension, Babcock and Stucky,
show significant travel time benefits as trips shift to the new capacity; Babcock sees a
4% decrease in AADT and 10% decrease in travel time, Stucky sees a 62% decrease in
AADT and almost 100% decrease in travel time.
Overall, Kagy experiences a 48% increase in AADT as a result of trips shifting to the
upgraded and expanded facility, but only a slight 3% increase in travel time.
College Avenue between Cottonwood and 11th benefits from a 5% decrease in AADT
and a 27% decrease in travel time.
Extension of Fowler lane from Stucky to Garfield Street is causing an increase in
traffic volume on Fowler of 41% and a significant increase in travel time of 359%.
While you would expect an increase in volume on the facility as trips are shifted to
the new capacity, the increase in travel time may not warrant the new capacity
addition, in particular as the parallel facilities Cottonwood and 19th are not showing
significant traffic improvements as trips are shifted from these facilities to the new
capacity; Cottonwood shows a 4% increase in travel time and 19th shows a 5%
increase in travel time.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Page 3-40 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Table 3-14
Alternative Scenario 7 - Southwest Grid Modifications
Roadway Termini AADT % Change Travel Time % Change
19th Babcock/Patterson -0.97 4.64
Babcock Cottonwood/11th -3.66 -10.1
College Cottonwood/11th -5.15 -27.42
Cottonwood Patterson/Babcock 0.17 3.73
Fowler Patterson/Babcock 40.98 359.43
Huffine Cottonwood/11th -2.24 -11.13
Kagy Cottonwood/7th 48.34 3.03
Stucky Cottonwood/19th -62.53 -98.5
Alternative Scenario 8 – Kagy Boulevard Expansion
This scenario involves expanding the existing Kagy Boulevard from its current two-lane
configuration (with left-turn bays) to a widened five-lane principal arterial. This would
create a high capacity principal arterial corridor.
Scenario analysis results indicate:
Kagy Boulevard benefits from a decrease in travel time of 4%, despite a slight
increase in AADT of 1%, with the AADT increase expected due to the improvement
of the facility. Adjacent Bozeman Trail also benefits from a 5% decrease in AADT
and 2% decrease in travel time.
Other impacts in the area of improvement are minimal/negligible (see Table 3-15
below), with the most significant change occurring on Sourdough which shows a 16%
decrease in AADT and 36% decrease in travel time.
Table 3-15
Alternative Scenario 8 - Kagy Boulevard Expansion
Roadway Termini AADT % Change Travel Time % Change
19th Goldenstein/Main 4.38 8.46
3rd Goldenstein/Westridge 0.09 -2.14
Babcock 19th/Church -0.63 1.43
Bozeman Trail Haggerty/Tayabeshockup -4.53 -1.56
Church Main/Sourdough -0.58 -1.15
Highland Bozeman Trail/Main -0.01 0
Kagy 19th/Tayabeshockup 1.07 -4.07
Main 19th/Haggerty 0.8 3.43
Sourdough Goldenstein/Church -16.06 -35.97
Willson Bozeman Trail/Main -1.13 -0.92
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 3-41
Alternative Scenario 9 – Fowler Lane Extension
This scenario involves completing the Fowler Lane corridor north of Main Street, specifically
between Babcock and Oak Street, in hopes of providing additional north-south travel
mobility. This is envisioned as a minor arterial facility.
Scenario analysis results indicate:
Fowler experiences a significant increase of 285% AADT due to the shift in trips to
the newly upgraded north-south arterial facility, but a 72% decrease in travel time;
indicating that the increase in additional capacity between Babcock and Oak is able to
accommodate the shift in travel to the upgraded corridor (i.e., volume/capacity ratio
is reduced allowing travel times to decrease).
Adjacent Davis Street, at the north end of Fowler, benefits from a 12% decrease in
AADT and a 35% decrease in travel time.
Parallel facility, Cottonwood, benefits from a 5% decrease in volume and 14%
decrease in travel time, as trips are shifted to Fowler; however parallel 19th shows in
a increase in volume and travel time of 6% and 8%, respectively.
Surrounding key facilities show largely improved travel conditions as indicated in
Table 3-16 below.
Table 3-16
Alternative Scenario 9 - Fowler Lane Extension
Roadway Termini AADT % Change Travel Time % Change
19th Babcock/Valley Center 5.98 7.84
Babcock 19th/Cottonwood -0.98 -42.69
Cottonwood Huffine/Durston -4.57 -13.93
Davis Valley Center/Baxter -11.89 -34.71
Durston Cottonwood/19th 15.4 7.93
Fowler Huffine/Davis 284.7 -72.01
Huffine Cottonwood/Main -4.78 -18.73
Main Huffine/19th -8.4 -17.76
Oak Fowler/19th -12.54 -50.1
Valley Center Hidden Valley/19th -7.52 -14.78
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Page 3-42 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Alternative Scenario 10 – Northwest Grid Modifications
As with AS 1 – East Belgrade Interchange, the northwest grid system modification have been
developed to address the growth occurring in the north-west portion of the study area. This
scenario has been modeled to complete the principal arterial system in the “triangle” area.
This model scenario includes the following:
All aspects of AS 1 - East Belgrade Interchange.
Extension of Oak Street from its current western terminus all the way to the west to
intersect Love Lane (as a principal arterial).
Extension of Love Lane to the north to connect with Cameron Bridge Road, as a
principal arterial.
Extension of Cottonwood Road from its current terminus to Valley Center Road (as a
principal arterial).
Re-classification of Monforton School Road to a collector with attributes adjusted
accordingly.
Extension of Hulbert Road from its eastern terminus to the east to connect with an
extended Harper Puckett Road (as a collector).
Scenario analysis results indicate:
Similar to AS 1, traffic is being pulled onto Alaska, Cameron Bridge, and Love Lane
to access the new interchange. Each of these roadways experiences an increase in
traffic volume with Alaska seeing a 217% increase, Cameron Bridge a 45% increase,
and Love Lane a 25% increase in AADT. Note that despite the volume increase on
Love, average travel time drops by almost 100% from 28 minutes to less than 1
minute.
Huffine experiences a 6% decrease in AADT and 21% decrease in travel time, and
Valley Center shows a 30% decrease in AADT and 60% decrease in travel time.
Jackrabbit, between Huffine and Amsterdam, also shows travel benefits, with a 14%
decrease in AADT and 6% decrease in travel time.
There is a significant shift in traffic from Hidden Valley Road (66% decrease in AADT
and 13% decrease in travel time), a collector street, to Harper Puckett/Cottonwood,
due to the Cottonwood extension as a higher functional class principal arterial.
Oak shows a 31% increase in volume, but a 120% decrease in travel time. This is a
result of new capacity connections causing a shift in traffic volume to the upgraded
facility. The volume increase is not enough, however, to exceed available (new)
capacity allowing average travel times to decrease. Similarly, Harper Puckett shows
an 11% increase in AADT, but a 41% decrease in travel time.
In general, grid modifications in connection with the new interchange appear to
support reductions in traffic volume and travel times on key facilities in the north-
west portion of the study area as traffic is dispersed on to a completed grid system to
the south and west of the new interchange. Some locations (e.g., Cameron Bridge
and the southern portion of Cottonwood at Huffine) are showing more localized, but
fairly significant increases in travel time, however, and may require additional
analysis.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 3-43
Table 3-17
Alternative Scenario 10 - Northwest Grid Modifications
Roadway Termini AADT % Change Travel Time % Change
Alaska Alaska southern termini/I-90 217.45 3.61
Baxter Jackrabbit/19th -23.88 54.62
Cameron Bridge Thorpe/Harper Puckett 44.9 1177.57
Cottonwood Huffine/Valley Center 47.34 583.19
Durston Love/19th 8.73 4.41
Harper Puckett Cameron Bridge/Hulbert 11 -41.47
Hidden Valley Valley Center/Hulbert -65.85 -12.63
Huffine Jackrabbit/Main -5.77 -21.13
Jackrabbit Huffine/Frank -13.99 -5.74
Love Huffine/Cameron Bridge 25.31 -97.94
Oak Love/19th 31.01 -119.59
Valley Center Jackrabbit/Harper Puckett -30.47 -60.35
Alternative Scenario 11 – Amsterdam On-Ramp
This scenario added an interchange on-ramp from Amsterdam Road onto Interstate 90 to
reduce congestion at Amsterdam Road and Jackrabbit Lane (just south of Belgrade).
Scenario analysis results indicate:
A reduction in 25% AADT and 89% travel time on Amsterdam, and a reduction of
1.32% AADT and 1.89% travel time on Jackrabbit.
Impacts in the surrounding area are minimal. Reference Table 3-18 below.
Table 3-18
Alternative Scenario 11 - Amsterdam On-Ramp
Roadway Termini AADT % Change Travel Time % Change
Alaska Cameron Bridge/I-90 -1.3 0
Amsterdam Jackrabbit/ -25.01 -88.93
Cameron Bridge Thorpe/Alaska 0.58 6.43
Jackrabbit Hulbert/Amsterdam -1.32 -1.89
Frank Thorpe/Jackrabbit -1.26 -7.23
Thorpe Cameron Bridge/ -3.99 -3.05
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Page 3-44 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Alternative Scenario 12 – Southern Grid Modifications
The southern grid modifications include the following:
Extend 11th Ave. from Kagy Boulevard to Goldenstein (as a collector).
Extend 15th Ave. from Main Street to Babcock (as a collector).
Extend Blackwood Road from S. 19th Ave. west to Cottonwood Road (as a minor
arterial).
Scenario analysis results indicate:
11th Street AADT increases 16% with a slight 1.24% increase in travel time. 15th
Street AADT increases by 111% with a 17% increase in travel time. These increases
are a result of the new capacity connections causing a shift in trips and traffic volume
to the expanded facilities, with most significant volume increases occurring on links
immediately adjacent to new capacity. The fairly large travel time increase on 15th is
likely because the capacity addition is very short in length; trips are shifted to the
newly connected facility causing volume to increase, but the slight capacity addition
is not enough to accommodate this increase, therefore volume/capacity ratio
increases and travel time increases.
19th and Wilson/3rd, both of which run parallel to the upgraded 11th and 15th street
facilities, experience a reduction in AADT and travel time due to the shift in trips to
11th and 15th.
Cottonwood benefits from a significant decrease in AADT of 27% and travel time
decrease of 54%, as new capacity connections on Blackwood and 11th create more
direct access to downtown Bozeman.
Kagy Boulevard shows a 4% decrease in AADT and less than 1% decrease in travel
time.
Patterson and Stucky, which run parallel to the Blackwood extension, see significant
benefit due to the grid modifications in the area which allow traffic to more evenly
disperse onto other facilities. Patterson shows a 14% decrease in AADT and 43%
decrease in travel time and Stucky shows a 9% decrease in AADT and 48% decrease
in travel time.
Sourdough benefits from a 25% decrease in AADT and 52% decrease in travel time.
In general, grid modifications appear to support reductions in traffic volume and
travel times on key facilities in the southern portion of the study area as traffic is
dispersed on to a completed grid system.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 3-45
Table 3-19
Alternative Scenario 12 - Southern Grid Modifications
Roadway Termini AADT % Change Travel Time % Change
11th Goldenstein/Durston 15.93 1.24
15th College/Durston 111.53 16.95
19th Cottonwood/Durston -0.57 -1.82
3rd Goldenstein/Kagy -21.56 -4.96
College 19th/Willson -0.19 1.89
Cottonwood 19th/Stucky -26.95 -53.54
Durston 19th/Rouse -26.95 0.13
Goldenstein 19th/Sourdough -13.74 -18.02
Kagy 19th/Sourdough -4.07 -0.63
Patterson Cottonwood/19th -14.37 -42.88
Sourdough Goldenstein/Kagy -24.5 -51.94
Stucky Cottonwood/19th -8.7 -48.3
Willson Kagy/Peach -3.74 -2.2
Alternative Scenario 13 – Interstate 90 Interchange (Harper Puckett Road)
The purpose of AS-13 is to model the effects of a future interchange approximately half way
between the proposed East Belgrade interchange and the 19th Avenue interchange. This
scenario includes all aspects of AS-1 as well.
It should be noted that the Federal Highway Administration requires that new interstate
access points must serve a regional purpose. At this time this scenario would not serve a
regional need and as such would not meet Federal Highway Administration requirements.
Scenario analysis results indicate:
Similar to AS 1 and AS 10, traffic is being pulled onto Alaska, Cameron Bridge, and
Love Lane, to access the new East Belgrade interchange. Each of these roadways
experiences an increase in traffic volume with Alaska seeing a 170% increase,
Cameron Bridge a 103% increase, and Love Lane a 24% increase in AADT. Note that
Cameron Bridge is seeing a much greater increase in AADT compared to Alternatives
1 and 10 because of the additional interchange directly to the north of the roadway,
causing even more trips and traffic volume to shift to this facility. The very
significant increase in travel time on Cameron Bridge resulting from this shift in
traffic volume (average-weighted travel time increase greater than 4500%; or in
absolute terms, an increase in average travel time from 9-87 minutes), may preclude
this as an alternative to consider, unless additional improvements are made in the
area.
Most roadways in the area are experiencing a general increase in AADT and travel
time as a significant number of trips shift to access I-90 at one of the two proposed
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting
Page 3-46 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
interchanges. I-90 does show improvement, with a 13% decrease in AADT and 32%
decrease in travel time, as a result of some traffic shifting off of the interstate onto the
arterial system to access the City of Bozeman. Jackrabbit also sees a decrease in 15%
AADT and 6% travel time, similar to AS 1 and AS 10.
There is no apparent benefit to this scenario over Alternative 1 which includes only
the East Belgrade Interchange (with the exception of greater travel benefits on I-90 in
the area of improvement). This is possibly because the proposed interchanges are
located too closely together, drawing too much traffic into the north west portion of
the study area to access I-90 in the same general location.
Table 3-20
Alternative Scenario 13 - Interstate 90 Interchange (Harper Puckett Road)
Roadway Termini AADT % Change Travel Time % Change
19th Goldenstein/Main 4.38 8.46
3rd Goldenstein/Westridge 0.09 -2.14
Babcock 19th/Church -0.63 1.43
Bozeman Trail Haggerty/Tayabeshockup -4.53 -1.56
Church Main/Sourdough -0.58 -1.15
Highland Bozeman Trail/Main -0.01 0
Kagy 19th/Tayabeshockup 1.07 -4.07
Main 19th/Haggerty 0.8 3.43
Sourdough Goldenstein/Church -16.06 -35.97
Willson Bozeman Trail/Main -1.13 -0.92
3.10 TRAFFIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT CONCLUSIONS
The alternative scenarios modeled, and described above, are reflective of major street
network (MSN) projects that may or may not have considerable value to the transportation
conditions in the community. Some of the alternative scenarios modeled will be carried
forward later in the Plan in the form of specific recommendations. These are primarily
found in Chapter 5. A few of the scenarios do not appear to have substantial value, so will
not be considered further. Ultimately, the recommended projects defined in Chapter 5 will
transform into what is known as the community’s “Recommended Major Street Network”.
This network is shown graphically in Chapter 9, along with travel demand model volume
outputs. The “Recommended Major Street Network” is the future transportation system
network that the community should be planning towards as land use changes occur over the
planning horizon (year 2030).
CHAPTER 4
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 4: Problem Identification
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 4-1
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter identifies areas of the transportation system that do not meet the typical
industry standards of traffic engineering and transportation planning, and also the
expectations and/or perceptions of the community. In general, it is important to identify
issues and problems before a series of mitigation strategies can be developed. The
identification of “problems” is the result of intensive data collection, analysis, field
observation, and public input. Over the development of this Transportation Plan Update,
these tools have been used to assess all of the collected data to develop an understanding of
the “problems” with the existing transportation system. This becomes a necessary step and
forms the basis for developing mitigation strategies. The development of mitigation (i.e.
preliminary recommendations) will be the follow-up step to plan for correction of the
identified deficiencies. Identified deficiencies may fall into one or more of the following
categories:
Intersection levels of service
Signal warrant analysis
Corridor levels of service
Safety (i.e. crash analyses)
Pedestrian facilities
Bicycle facilities
Transit system
Each of these areas is expanded upon in this chapter.
4.2 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE (MOTORIZED)
Urban road systems are ultimately controlled by the function of the major intersections.
Intersection failure directly reduces the number of vehicles that can be accommodated
during the peak hours that have the highest demand and the total daily capacity of a
corridor. As a result of this strong impact on corridor function, intersection improvements
can be a very cost-effective means of increasing a corridor’s traffic volume capacity. In some
circumstances, corridor expansion projects may be able to be delayed with correct
intersection improvements. Due to the significant portion of total expense for road
construction projects used for project design, construction, mobilization, and adjacent area
rehabilitation, a careful analysis must be made of the expected service life from intersection-
only improvements. If adequate design life can be achieved with only improvements to the
intersection, then a corridor expansion may not be the most efficient solution. With that in
mind, it is important to determine how well the major intersections are functioning by
determining their Level of Service (LOS).
LOS is a qualitative measure developed by the transportation profession to quantify driver
perception for such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay,
and impediments caused by other vehicles. It provides a scale that is intended to match the
perception by motorists of the operation of the intersection. LOS provides a means for
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 4: Problem Identification
Page 4-2 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
identifying intersections that are experiencing operational difficulties, as well as providing a
scale to compare intersections with each other. The LOS scale represents the full range of
operating conditions. The scale is based on the ability of an intersection or street segment to
accommodate the amount of traffic using it. The scale ranges from “A” which indicates little,
if any, vehicle delay, to “F” which indicates significant vehicle delay and traffic congestion.
The LOS analysis was conducted according to the procedures outlined in the Transportation
Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual – Special Report 209 using the Highway
Capacity Software, version 4.1c.
Of the 74 intersections that were studied as part of this project (41 signalized intersections
and 33 unsignalized intersections), 22 had a level of service of D, E or F during the AM or PM
peak hours of the day (6 signalized intersections as shown in Table 4-1 and 16 unsignalized
intersections as shown in Table 4-2).
It should be noted that the LOS shown in the following tables for the intersections along
Rouse Avenue may not be identical to those shown in the recently published Rouse Avenue
Environmental Assessment. Variations to the LOS at these intersections may be the result of
variations in the peak hour factor, type of analysis software, the amount of truck traffic
observed, construction activities in the area, or the time of year and day of the week that the
intersection traffic counts were made.
Table 4-1
Existing (2007) Level of Service for Signalized Intersections
Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
EB WB NB SB INT EB WB NB SB INT
Huffine Lane & Ferguson Road B B - C B F B - C D
Kagy Boulevard & South Willson Avenue C E D C D D D C D D
Main Street & South 19th Avenue D E C D D D C C C D
North 7th Avenue & Durston Road D D C D D B B D C C
North 7th Avenue & Oak Street D D C C C E D C C D
West College Street & South 19th Avenue F D D D D D F F E F
Table 4-2
Existing (2007) Level of Service for Unsignalized Intersections
Unsignalized Intersection AM PM Unsignalized Intersection AM PM
8tth Avenue & College Street C D Jackrabbit Lane & Baxter Lane C D
College Street & Willson Avenue E F Jackrabbit Lane & Durston Road C D
East Main Street & Haggerty Lane C E Jackrabbit Lane & Ramshorn Drive D C
Frontage Road & Valley Center Road C E Jackrabbit Lane & Forkhorn Trail E E
Highland Boulevard & Ellis Street C E Jackrabbit Lane & Shedhorn Trail C E
Highland Boulevard & Kagy Boulevard E C Kagy Boulevard & Sourdough Road F F
Jackrabbit Lane & Cameron Bridge Road D F South 11th Avenue & College Street D F
Jackrabbit Lane & Hulbert Road C D South 11th Avenue & Kagy Boulevard D F
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 4: Problem Identification
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 4-3
Note that for the unsignalized intersections, it is more relevant to present operational
characteristics of each individual turning movement associated with the individual
intersection legs. This data is reflected in Table 4-3 for all of the unsignalized intersections
studied as part of this Transportation Plan.
Table 4-3
Existing (2007) Level of Service for Unsignalized Intersections
(Individual Turning Movements)
Unsignalized Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS V/C
Frontage Road & Nelson Road 17.2 C - 18.3 C -
Eastbound Left/Thru 7.8 A 0.02 9.3 A 0.02
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 17.2 C 0.2 18.3 C 0.16
Frontage Road & Valley Center Road 15.7 C - 35.3 E -
Westbound Left 9.1 A 0.06 8.5 A 0.14
Northbound Left/Right 15.7 C 0.33 35.3 E 0.59
Highland Boulevard & Ellis Street 20.75 C - 31.15 E -
Eastbound Left 24.1 C 0.09 43.7 E 0.52
Eastbound Thru/Right 20.4 C 0.01 14.9 B 0.02
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 17.6 C 0.18 21 C 0.35
Northbound Left 8.5 A 0 8.1 A 0
Southbound Left 8.1 A 0.05 8.6 A 0.02
Highland Boulevard & Kagy Boulevard 42.3 E - 18.85 C -
Eastbound Left 9.1 A 0.25 8 A 0.2
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 7.4 A 0 7.6 A 0
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 66.8 F 0.17 23.5 C 0.03
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 17.8 C 0.56 14.2 B 0.51
Main Street & Haggerty Lane 21.2 C - 39.9 E -
Westbound Left 8.4 A 0.06 9.7 A 0.04
Northbound Left/Right 21.2 C 0.32 39.9 E 0.67
Bozeman Trail Road & Haggerty Lane 9 A - 8.7 A -
Westbound Left/Right 9 A 0.07 8.7 A 0.05
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 7.3 A 0 7.3 A 0.03
Kagy Boulevard & Bozeman Trail Road 10.1 B - 10.6 B -
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 7.6 A 0.01 7.4 A 0.02
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 7.3 A 0 7.5 A 0
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 10.7 B 0.04 10.7 B 0.01
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 9.5 A 0.06 10.5 B 0.1
Kagy Boulevard & Church Avenue 120.5 F - 67.9 F -
Eastbound Left 8.9 A 0.02 8.1 A 0.03
Westbound Left 8 A 0.02 8.8 A 0.06
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 210.9 F 1.29 81.5 F 0.75
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 30.1 D 0.42 54.3 F 0.77
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 4: Problem Identification
Page 4-4 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Unsignalized Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS V/C
Main Street & I-90 Off-Ramp 16.5 C - 12.3 B -
Southbound Left/Thru 16.7 C 0.26 23.4 C 0.14
Southbound Right 16.5 C 0.63 10 A 0.17
Main Street & I-90 On-Ramp 10.5 B - 10.7 B -
Eastbound Left 8.2 A 0.15 8.6 A 0.28
Southbound Left/Right 10.5 B 0.21 10.7 B 0.15
Story Mill & Bridger Canyon 12.85 B - 15.4 C -
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 7.9 A 0.06 7.9 A 0.11
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 7.5 A 0 7.7 A 0
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 14.6 B 0.09 18.6 C 0.21
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 11.1 B 0.17 12.2 B 0.2
N. Rouse Avenue & Peach Street 20.4 C - 28.6 C -
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 25 C 0.34 35.9 E 0.45
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 15.4 C 0.2 21.3 C 0.41
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 8.3 A 0.02 8.4 A 0.04
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 8.2 A 0.08 8.3 A 0.07
11th Avenue & College Street 33.25 D - 67.52 F -
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 39.12 E - 67.92 F -
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 35.69 E - 83.5 F -
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 21.01 C - 67.91 F -
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 32.14 D - 46.12 E -
College Street & Willson Avenue 44.6 E - 74.5 F -
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 46.4 E 0.57 100.5 F 0.94
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 42.8 E 0.43 48.5 E 0.51
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 8.4 A 0.12 9 A 0.12
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 8.6 A 0.03 8.4 A 0.03
Kagy Boulevard & 11th Avenue 26.85 D - 92.95 F -
Eastbound Left 9.2 A 0.1 9.6 A 0.05
Westbound Left 8.6 A 0.01 8.6 A 0
Northbound Left 38.6 E 0.02 57.8 F 0.14
Northbound Thru/Right 11.7 B 0.01 19.5 C 0.1
Southbound Left 52.9 F 0.42 261.2 F 1.28
Southbound Thru/Right 15.6 C 0.13 16.9 C 0.25
19th Avenue & Goldenstein Road 10.9 B - 11.1 B -
Westbound Left/Right 10.9 B 0.13 11.1 B 0.11
Southbound Left/Thru 8 A 0.03 7.7 A 0.06
Jackrabbit Lane & Cameron Bridge Road 29.75 D - 54 F -
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 38.1 E 0.66 72.3 F 0.63
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 21.4 C 0.12 35.7 E 0.2
Northbound Left 9.3 A 0.02 8.7 A 0.11
Southbound Left 8.1 A 0.01 9.7 A 0.02
Jackrabbit Lane & Hulbert 22.6 C - 34.6 D -
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 4: Problem Identification
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 4-5
Unsignalized Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS V/C
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 20.2 C 0.12 38.9 E 0.18
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 25 C 0.04 30.3 D 0.1
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 9.3 A 0 8.3 A 0
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 8.2 A 0.01 9.8 A 0.01
Jackrabbit Lane & Baxter Lane 23 C - 34.95 D -
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 29.5 D 0.05 42.1 E 0.11
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 16.5 C 0.07 27.8 D 0.09
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 9.3 A 0 8.2 A 0
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 8.1 A 0.01 10 B 0.02
Jackrabbit Lane & Durston Road 23.15 C - 29.45 D -
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 26.2 D 0.02 38 E 0.04
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 20.1 C 0.02 20.9 C 0.06
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 9.3 A 0 8.3 A 0
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 8.1 A 0.01 13 B 0
Jackrabbit Lane & Ramshorn Drive 28.9 D - 22.3 C -
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 27.5 D 0.02 22.2 C 0.01
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 30.3 D 0.1 22.4 C 0.21
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 9.6 A 0 8.4 A 0
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 8 A 0.01 10.1 B 0.01
Jackrabbit Lane & Forkhorn Trail 40.7 E - 38.25 E -
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 35.1 E 0.38 53.3 F 0.55
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 46.3 E 0.11 23.2 C 0.2
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 10.1 B 0.06 8.3 A 0.03
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 8.1 A 0.02 9.7 A 0.01
Jackrabbit Lane & Shedhorn Trail 19.7 C - 49.15 E -
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 20.8 C 0.16 62.4 F 0.56
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 18.6 C 0.08 35.9 E 0.36
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 9.5 A 0.03 8.6 A 0.02
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 8.1 A 0.01 9.5 A 0.01
Jackrabbit Lane & Spanish Peak 17.8 C - 24.9 C -
Westbound Left/Right 17.8 C 0.05 24.9 C 0.23
Southbound Left/Thru 8.5 A 0.03 9.3 A 0.02
Huffine Lane & Monforton School Road 14.2 B - 24.2 C -
Eastbound Left 9.4 A 0.02 11.6 B 0.01
Southbound Left/Right 14.2 B 0.05 24.2 C 0.16
Huffine Lane & Love Lane 17.7 C - 20.4 C -
Eastbound Left 9.1 A 0.03 10.7 B 0.08
Southbound Left/Right 17.7 C 0.36 20.4 C 0.29
Huffine Lane & Gooch Hill Road 14.75 B - 15.75 C -
Eastbound Left 9.1 A 0 9.4 A 0.02
Westbound Left 9.6 A 0.05 10.3 B 0.14
Northbound Left/Thru 23.5 C 0.19 27.5 D 0.09
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 4: Problem Identification
Page 4-6 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Unsignalized Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS V/C
Northbound Right 13.1 B 0.25 12.1 B 0.13
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 14 B 0.03 16.7 C 0.02
Valley Center Road & Harper Pucket 10.35 B - 11.05 B -
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 7.4 A 0 7.7 A 0
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 7.7 A 0 7.5 A 0
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 10.1 B 0.01 11.1 B 0.03
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 10.6 B 0.05 11 B 0.02
College Street & 8th Avenue 17.31 C - 25.6 D -
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 14.63 B - 30.49 D -
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 21.4 C - 22.33 C -
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 12.54 B - 27.91 D -
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 16.25 C - 18.61 C -
U.S. 191 & Gooch Hill 11.4 B - 15.1 C -
Westbound Left/Right 11.4 B 0.06 15.1 C 0.08
Southbound Left 7.7 A 0.01 8.6 A 0.02
U.S. 191 & Mill Street 15.9 C - 19.85 C -
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 17.8 C 0.19 23.6 C 0.23
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 14 B 0.05 16.1 C 0.2
Northbound Left/Thru 8.1 A 0.01 7.8 A 0.02
Southbound Left/Thru 8.1 A 0.04 8.6 A 0.04
U.S. 191 & Cottonwood Road 12 B - 18.85 C -
Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 12.7 B 0.02 22.9 C 0.22
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 11.3 B 0.08 14.8 B 0.13
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 8 A 0 7.8 A 0
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 7.5 A 0.02 8.8 A 0.04
Signalized Intersections
Huffine Lane & Ferguson Road – This intersection experiences poor LOS during the
PM peak hour. The eastbound left-turn movement has a LOS of F and is the main
cause for the intersection to fail. This intersection lacks a protected eastbound left-
turn movement but does have a designated turn lane.
Kagy Boulevard & South Willson Avenue – This intersection has a poor LOS for
both the AM and PM peak hours. The westbound leg of the intersection has the
lowest LOS during both peak hours. This intersection has protected left-turn phasing
and dedicated left-turn lanes at all legs of the intersection.
Main Street & South 19th – This intersection has a LOS of D for the AM and PM peak
hours. Problems with this intersection are caused by the heavy amounts of traffic
that pass through it. Additional lanes will be added to this intersection in the near
future to accommodate additional traffic.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 4: Problem Identification
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 4-7
North 7th Avenue & Durston Road – This intersection has a LOS of D during the AM
peak hour. The signal timing and phasing of this intersection are not optimized to
properly handle the amount of traffic passing through.
North 7th Avenue & Oak Street – This intersection has a poor LOS during the PM
peak hour. This failure is due to poor performance on the eastbound and westbound
legs of the intersection. This intersection has designated and protected phasing for
the left-turn movements at each leg.
West College Street & South 19th Avenue – This intersection experiences poor LOS
during the AM and PM peak hours. Every leg of the intersection during the AM and
PM peak hours has a LOS of D or lower. This intersection is not equipped to handle
the high amounts of traffic passing through. Additional lanes will be added to this
intersection in the near future to accommodate additional traffic.
Unsignalized Intersections
The unsignalized intersections experiencing a LOS of D or lower for the AM or PM peak
hours fail generally due to the inability of traffic on the minor approach to enter the
intersection. High traffic volumes on the major approach make turning movements from the
minor approach difficult. A signal warrant analysis was conducted for each of the
unsignalized intersections that have a LOS of D or lower for either the AM or PM peak
hours. The signal warrant analysis is found in the next section.
4.3 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS (MOTORIZED)
A signal warrant analysis was conducted to determine if any of the existing unsignalized
intersections with unacceptable Levels of Service (LOS) met signal warrants. The subject
intersections are listed in Table 4-2 in the previous section.
According to the 2003 Edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD),
there are eight (8) signal warrants that must be analyzed for the installation of a traffic
control signal. The MUTCD states that a traffic signal should not be installed unless one or
more warrants are satisfied.
The eight (8) signal warrants that must be analyzed are as follows:
1. EIGHT-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME
This warrant is intended for application at locations where a large volume of intersection
traffic is the principal reason to consider the installation of a traffic signal (Condition A)
or where the traffic volume on the major street is so heavy that traffic on the minor street
experiences excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street (Condition
B) during any eight (8) hours of an average day. The criteria for Warrant 1 may be met if
either Condition A or Condition B is met. The combination of Condition A and B are not
required. This warrant was not analyzed due to insufficient project data.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 4: Problem Identification
Page 4-8 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
2. FOUR- HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME
This warrant is intended for locations where the volume of intersecting traffic is the
principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. This warrant requires that
the combination of the major-street traffic (total of both approaches) and the higher-
volume minor-street traffic (one direction only) reach the designated minimum volume
during any four (4) hours of an average day. This warrant was based upon a
combination of AM and PM peak hour volumes to account for the four-hour period. This
warrant was met for six (6) of the intersections analyzed as shown in Table 4-4.
3. PEAK HOUR
This warrant is intended for use at a location where during any one (1) hour of an
average day, the minor-street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the
major street. This warrant also requires that the combination of the major-street traffic
(total of both approaches) and the higher-volume minor-street traffic (one direction only)
reach the designated minimum volume. The peak hour warrant was conducted
assuming that this peak hour would fall within the peak periods. This warrant was met
for twelve (12) of the intersections analyzed as shown in Table 4-4.
4. PEDESTRIAN VOLUME
The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant is intended for application where the traffic
volume on a major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in
crossing the major street. This warrant was not analyzed due to insufficient project data.
5. SCHOOL CROSSING
This warrant addresses the unique characteristics that a nearby school may have on the
roadways. It requires that the major roadway be unsafe to cross and that there are no
other feasible crossings in the area. This warrant was not analyzed due to insufficient
project data.
6. COORDINATED SIGNAL SYSTEM
Progressive movement in a coordinated signal system sometimes necessitates installing
traffic control signals at intersections where they would not otherwise be needed in order
to maintain proper platooning of vehicles. This warrant was not met for any of the
intersections under consideration.
7. CRASH EXPERIENCE
The Crash Experience signal warrant conditions are intended for application where the
severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reasons to consider installing a traffic
control signal. This warrant was not analyzed due to insufficient project data.
8. ROADWAY NETWORK
This warrant is intended for locations where the installation of a traffic signal may
encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network. This
warrant was not met for any of the intersections under consideration.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 4: Problem Identification
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 4-9
Table 4-4 shows which warrants are met for each intersection under existing traffic
conditions.
Ideally, before considering a signal for traffic control at an intersection, it is desirable to meet
more than one signal warrant. All of the intersections identified that meet one warrant (i.e.
the Peak Hour warrant) will be further evaluated to determine if less restrictive traffic
controls, or possible geometric modifications, will benefit the operational characteristics of
the intersection. Intersections meeting two or three signal warrants are ideal candidates for
signalization, but must be analyzed carefully to consider the major street traffic movements
and volumes.
Table 4-4
Signal Warrant Analysis (Existing Unsignalized Intersections)
Intersection
LOS Signal Warrant
AM PM #2 #3 #6 #8
Frontage Road & Valley Center Road C E X X
Highland Boulevard & Ellis Street C E
Highland Boulevard & Kagy Boulevard E C
East Main Street & Haggerty Lane C E
Kagy Boulevard & Sourdough Road F F X
South 11th Avenue & College Street D F X X
College Street & Willson Avenue E F X
South 11th Avenue & Kagy Boulevard D F X
Jackrabbit Lane & Cameron Bridge Road D F X X
Jackrabbit Lane & Hulbert Road C D
Jackrabbit Lane & Baxter Lane C D
Jackrabbit Lane & Durston Road C D
Jackrabbit Lane & Ramshorn Drive D C
Jackrabbit Lane & Forkhorn Trail E E X
Jackrabbit Lane & Shedhorn Trail C E X
8th Avenue & College Street C D X
Based upon the preliminary signal warrant analysis for this planning project, the following
intersections appear to meet one or more traffic signal warrants and could be considered for
traffic signal control going forward based on traffic volumes alone:
Frontage Road & Valley Center Road
Kagy Boulevard & Sourdough Road
South 11th Avenue & College Street
College Street & Willson Avenue
South 11th Avenue & Kagy Boulevard
Jackrabbit Lane & Cameron Bridge Road
Jackrabbit Lane & Forkhorn Trail
Jackrabbit Lane & Shedhorn Trail
8th Avenue & College Street
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 4: Problem Identification
Page 4-10 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
While the previously mentioned intersections may meet one or more traffic signal warrants,
it may not be appropriate in every case to install a traffic signal. Alternatives to traffic
signals, such as roundabouts, reduced access, revised intersection geometrics, etc, may be
analyzed as other potential traffic control measures. Chapter 9 provides a discussion on
conceptual roundabout design while Chapter 8 discusses roundabouts and other traffic
calming measures.
In order to determine the optimal intersection control strategy, the overall design of the
intersection must be considered. Some general objectives for good intersection design that
should be considered are:
Provide adequate sight distance
Minimize points of conflict
Simplify conflict areas
Limit conflict frequency
Minimize the severity of conflicts
Minimize delay
Provide acceptable capacity
4.4 CORRIDOR VOLUMES, CAPACITY AND LEVELS OF SERVICE (MOTORIZED)
The corridors shown on Figure 2-5 and Figure 2-6 in Chapter 2 were evaluated for volume to
capacity (v/c) ratios under existing traffic conditions (year 2005 due to calibrated travel
demand model) and future year traffic projections (year 2030). These variables are shown on
Figure 3-15 and Figure 3-16 (existing year 2005 v/c ratios) and Figure 3-17 and Figure 3-18
(projected year 2030 v/c ratios) located in Chapter 3. The preparation and analysis of these
figures assisted in determining potential capacity deficiencies under the future traffic
conditions.
Roadway capacity is of critical importance when looking at the growth of a community. As
traffic volume increases, the vehicle flow deteriorates. When traffic volumes approach and
exceed the available capacity, the road begins to “fail”. For this reason it is important to look
at the size and configuration of the current roadways and determine if these roads need to be
expanded to accommodate the existing or future traffic needs. The capacity of a road is a
function of a number of factors including intersection function, land use adjacent to the road,
access and intersection spacing, road alignment and grade, speed, turning movements,
vehicle fleet mix, adequate road design, land use controls, street network management, and
good planning and maintenance. Proper use of all of these tools will increase the number of
vehicles that a specific lane segment may carry. However, the number of lanes is the
primary factor in evaluating road capacity since any lane configuration has an upper volume
limit regardless of how carefully it has been designed.
The size of a roadway is based upon the anticipated traffic demand. It is desirable to size the
arterial network to comfortably accommodate the traffic demand that is anticipated to occur
20 years from the time it is constructed. The selection of a 20-year design period represents a
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 4: Problem Identification
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 4-11
desire to receive the most benefit from an individual construction project’s service life within
reasonable planning limits. The design, bidding, mobilization, and repair to affected
adjacent properties can consume a significant portion of an individual project’s budget.
Frequent projects to make minor adjustments to a roadway can therefore be prohibitively
expensive. As roadway capacity generally is provided in large increments, a long term
horizon is necessary. The collector and local street network are often sized to meet the local
needs of the adjacent properties.
There are two measurements of a street’s capacity, Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)
and Peak Hour. AADT measures the average number of vehicles a given street carries over a
24- hour period. Since traffic does not usually flow continuously at the maximum rate,
AADT is not a statement of maximum capacity. Peak Hour measures the number of vehicles
that a street can physically accommodate during the busiest hour of the day. It is therefore
more of a maximum traffic flow rate measurement than AADT. When the Peak Hour is
exceeded, the traveling public will often perceive the street as “broken” even though the
street’s AADT is within the expected volume. Therefore, it is important to consider both
elements during design of corridors and intersections.
Street size of the roadway and the required right-of-way is a function of the land use that
will occur along the street corridor. These uses will dictate the vehicular traffic
characteristics, travel by pedestrians and bicyclists, and need for on-street parking. The
right-of-way required should always be based upon the ultimate facility size.
The actual amount of traffic that can be handled by a roadway is dependent upon the
presence of parking, number of driveways and intersections, intersection traffic control, and
roadway alignment. The data presented in Table 4-5 and Table 4-6 indicates the
approximate volumes that can be accommodated by a particular roadway. As indicated in
the differences between the two tables, the actual traffic that a road can handle will vary
based upon a variety of elements including: road grade; alignment; pavement condition;
number of intersections and driveways; the amount of turning movements; and the vehicle
fleet mix.
Roadway capacities can be increased under “ideal management conditions” (Column 2 in
Table 4-5) that take into account such factors as limiting direct access points to a facility,
adequate roadway geometrics and improvements to sight distance. By implementing these
control features, vehicles can be expected to operate under an improved Level of Service and
potentially safer operating conditions.
Table 4-5
Approximate Volumes for Planning of Future Roadway Improvements
Road Segment Volumes¹ Volumes²
Two Lane Road Up to 12,000 VPD Up to 15,000 VPD*
Three Lane Road Up to 18,000 VPD Up to 22,500 VPD*
Four Lane Road Up to 24,000 VPD Up to 30,000 VPD*
Five Lane Road Up to 35,000 VPD Up to 43,750 VPD*
¹Historical management conditions
²Ideal management conditions
*Additional volumes may be obtained in some locations with adequate road design, access control, and other capacity enhancing methods.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 4: Problem Identification
Page 4-12 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Table 4-5 shows capacity levels which are appropriate for planning purposes in developing
areas within the study area. In newly developing areas, there are opportunities to achieve
additional lane capacity improvements. The careful, appropriate, and consistent use of the
capacity guidelines listed above can provide for long-term cost savings and help maintain
roads at a scale comfortable to the community.
Two important factors to consider in achieving additional capacity are peak hour demand
and access control. Traffic volumes shown in Table 4-5 are 24-hour averages; however,
traffic is not smoothly distributed during the day. The major street network shows
significant peaks of demand, especially the work “rush” hour. These limited times create the
greatest periods of stress on the transportation system. By concentrating large volumes in a
brief period of time, a road’s short-term capacity may be exceeded and a road user’s
perception of congestion is strongly influenced. The use of pedestrian and bicycle programs
as discussed in Chapter 6 and TDM measures can help to smooth out the peaks and thereby
extend the adequate service life of a specific road configuration. The Transportation Plan
strongly recommends the pursuit of such measures as low-cost means of meeting a portion
of expected transportation demand.
Each time a roadway is intersected by a driveway or another street it raises the potential for
conflicts between transportation users. The resulting conflicts can substantially reduce the
roadway’s ability to carry traffic if conflicts occur frequently. This basic principle is the
design basis for the interstate highway system, which carefully restricts access to designated
entrance and exit points. Arterial streets are intended to serve the longest trip distances in an
urbanized area and the highest traffic volume corridors. Access control is therefore very
important on the higher volume elements of a community’s transportation system. Collector
streets, and especially local streets, do provide higher levels of immediate property access
required for transportation users to enter and exit the roadway network. In order to achieve
volumes in excess of that shown in Column 4 of Table 4-5, access controls should be put in
place by the appropriate governing body. It is strongly recommended that access control
standards appropriate to each classification of street be incorporated into the subdivision and
zoning regulations of the City of Bozeman. Follow up monitoring of the effects of access
control will aid in future transportation planning efforts.
Using the traffic model developed for this project, it was possible to project the traffic
volumes on all major roads within the study area. These roads were analyzed for the current
year (2005), and future year (2030) conditions to determine if the roads have an adequate
number of lanes for the traffic volume. Figure 3-16 and Figure 3-17 presented in Chapter 3
show the projected traffic volumes for the planning year horizon of year 2030 within the
study area. The best tool generated by the traffic model for comparing the current traffic
volumes to the existing number of travel lanes on the major corridors is the volume to
capacity ratio (v/c ratio). By definition, the “v/c ratio” is the result of the flow rate of a
roadway lane divided by the capacity of the roadway lane. Table 4-6 shows “v/c ratios”
and their corresponding roadway corridor “Level of Service” designations.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 4: Problem Identification
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 4-13
Table 4-6
V/C Ratios & LOS Designations
V/C Ratio Description Corridor LOS
< 0.59 Well Under Capacity LOS A and B
> 0.60 – 0.79 Under Capacity LOS C
> 0.80 – 0.99 Nearing Capacity LOS D
> 1.00 – 1.19 At Capacity LOS E
> 1.20 Over Capacity LOS F
An examination of the “v/c ratios” computed by the traffic model, and as shown graphically
on Figures 3-18 thru 3-21, shows the facilities that either over capacity or are at or nearing
capacity, and consequently are roadways that may be currently undersized:
Roadways at or above capacity for existing (2005) conditions
Amsterdam Road – Jackrabbit Lane to the study area boundary
Jackrabbit Lane – Baxter Lane to 0.5 miles north
Gallatin Road – Huffine Lane to 0.12 miles south
College Street – Main Street to 11th Avenue
19th Avenue – Lincoln Street to Main Street
North 7th Avenue –Griffin Drive to Frontage Road
Frontage Road – North 7th Avenue to Springhill Road
Willson Avenue – Garfield to Main Street
Roadways at or above capacity for future (2030) conditions
Amsterdam Road – Jackrabbit Lane to the study area boundary
Jackrabbit Lane – Huffine Lane to the study area boundary
Gallatin Road – Huffine Lane to Axtell Anceney Road
Huffine Lane – Jackrabbit Lane to Main Street
Norris Road – Jackrabbit Lane to Zoot Way
Gooch Hill Road – Huffine Lane to Blackwood Road
College Street – Main Street to 8th Avenue
Main Street – Babcock Street to 15th Avenue and 8th Avenue to Interstate 90
19th Avenue – Patterson Road to Interstate 90
North 7th Avenue – Aspen Street to Frontage Road
Frontage Road – North 7th Avenue to Sacajawea Peak Drive and Airport Road to
study area boundary
Springhill Road – 19th Avenue to Sypes Canyon Road
Willson Avenue – Main Street to Kagy Boulevard
South 3rd Street – Kagy Boulevard to Henderson Street
Kagy Boulevard – 19th Street to Highland Boulevard
Highland Boulevard – Kagy Street to Main Street
Rouse Avenue – Lamme Street to Griffin Drive
Bridger Drive – Griffin Drive to Bucks Run Court
Griffin Drive – Rouse Avenue to North 7th Avenue
Durston Road – 19th Avenue to 25th Avenue and Hanson Lane to Yellowstone
Avenue
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 4: Problem Identification
Page 4-14 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
4.4.1 Speed-Density-Flow Relationship
The following section discusses the relationship between speed, density, and flow rate as
defined by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000. These three basic variables can be used
to describe traffic on a roadway, and can ultimately be used to determine the LOS and
capacity of the facility.
Speed is defined as the average travel speed for purposes of this discussion. The
average travel speed is computed by dividing the length of the roadway under
consideration by the average travel time of the vehicles traversing it. For capacity
analysis, speeds are best measured by observing travel times over a known length of
highway. As measures of effectiveness, speed criteria must recognize driver
expectations and roadway function.
Flow rate is defined as the equivalent hourly rate at which vehicles pass over a given
point or section of a lane or roadway during a given time interval of less than one (1)
hour. Flow rate represents the demand of a given facility during a specific time
period. Congestion can influence demand, and observed volumes sometimes reflect
capacity constraints rather than true demand.
Density is the number of vehicles occupying a given length of a lane or roadway at a
particular instant. Measuring density in the field is difficult; it can, however, be
calculated from the average travel speed and flow rate. Density is a critical
parameter for uninterrupted-flow facilities because it characterizes the quality of
traffic operations. It describes the proximity of vehicles to one another and reflects
the freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream.
The equation found below shows the relationship between density, flow rate, and average
travel speed:
where
v = flow rate (veh/h),
S = average travel speed (mi/h), and
D = density (veh/mi).
Figure 4-1 shows a generalized relationship between these three variables (as defined by the
above equation). The form of these functions depends on the prevailing traffic and roadway
conditions on the segment under study and on its length in determining density. Although
these diagrams show continuous curves, it is unlikely that the full range of the functions
would appear at any particular location.
From the curves shown in Figure 4-1, it can be seen that there are two points at which a zero
flow rate is reached: 1) when there are no vehicles on the roadway, and 2) when the density
becomes so high that all vehicles must stop.
S
vD
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 4: Problem Identification
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 4-15
Between these two points, the dynamics of traffic flow produce a maximizing effect. As flow
increases from zero, density also increases, since more vehicles are on the roadway. When
this happens, speed declines because of the interaction of vehicles. This decline is negligible
at low and medium densities and flow rates. As density increases, these generalized curves
suggest that speed decreases significantly before capacity is achieved. Capacity is reached
when the product of density and speed results in the maximum flow rate. This condition is
shown as optimum speed, optimum density, and maximum flow.
Any flow other than capacity can occur under two different conditions, one with a high
speed and low density and the other with high density and low speed. LOS A through E are
defined on the low-density, high-speed side of the curves, with the maximum-flow
boundary of LOS E placed at capacity. LOS F describes oversaturated flow and is
represented by the high-density, low-speed part of the functions.
Figure 4-1
Fundamental Relationships between Speed-Density-Flow (May 1990)
Sf
S0
0D0Dj
Density(veh/mi/ln)
Sp
e
e
d
(
m
i
/
h
)
Sf
S0
0
Dj
Vm
Flow(veh/h/ln)
Sp
e
e
d
(
m
i
/
h
)
Vm
S0
0D0Dj
Density(veh/mi/ln)
Fl
o
w
(
v
e
h
/
h
/
l
n
)
D0
Sf
Legend
Oversaturated flow
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 4: Problem Identification
Page 4-16 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
4.5 VEHICLE CRASH ANALYSIS (MOTORIZED)
The MDT Traffic and Safety Bureau provided crash information and data for use in this
Transportation Plan. The crash information was analyzed to find high crash locations.
General crash characteristics were determined along with probable roadway deficiencies and
solutions. The crash information covers the three-year time period from January 1st, 2004 to
December 31st, 2006. Section 2.1.5 in Chapter 2 contains detailed information concerning the
crash analysis prepared for this planning project.
Intersections that were identified through the composite rating score method, as described in
Chapter 2, that warrant further study and may be in need of mitigation to specifically
address crash trends. These intersections are as listed below. The locations of these
intersections are shown on Figure 2-11 and Figure 2-12.
7th Avenue & Oak Street
19th Avenue & Baxter Lane
18th Avenue & College Street
19th Avenue & Durston Road
19th Avenue & Oak Street
Huffine Lane & Ferguson Road
Huffine Lane & Fowler Road
Huffine Lane & Jackrabbit Lane
Jackrabbit Lane & Valley Center Road
Main Street & 7th Avenue
Main Street & 15th Avenue
Main Street & 19th Avenue
Main Street & College Street
Willson Avenue & Babcock Street
Note that the fourteen intersections listed above are in alphabetical order, and there is no
significance to the order of their listing. The identified intersections will be evaluated further
to determine what type of mitigation measures may be possible to reduce specific crash
trends (if any) and/or severity. These mitigation measures will be evaluated in the overall
context of recommended improvements being evaluated via the Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan – 2007 Update development. It should be noted that several of the
intersections have undergone significant reconstruction during the analysis period of
January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2006 including the intersections of 7th Avenue & Oak Street,
19th Avenue & Baxter Lane, 19th Avenue & Durston Road, 19th Avenue & Oak Street,
Huffine Lane & Ferguson Road, and Huffine Lane & Fowler Road that are listed above.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 4: Problem Identification
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 4-17
4.6 PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM
4.6.1 Problem Themes
Gallatin County residents within the study area face a largely undeveloped pedestrian
system with major challenges including vast distances between homes and services, high
vehicle speeds on rural roadways, low density development patterns, and roadways with no
pedestrian facilities. See Figure 2-17 Study Area Pedestrian Facilities to see existing pedestrian
facilities in the study area.
Bozeman City residents have a much more developed pedestrian system, but there are still
many problems that can be corrected. Through the existing conditions analysis and public
involvement the main themes of pedestrian problems are summarized below:
Lack of ADA compatible curb ramps throughout much of the city
Old, deteriorating sections of sidewalk
Lack of vegetation maintenance
Lack of consistent snow removal in winter
Longstanding gaps in the pedestrian network. See Figure 2-18 Bozeman Pedestrian
Gaps.
Short-term gaps in the pedestrian network in new development areas.
Difficult crossing locations of major streets.
Large distances between legal crossings of major streets
Lack of full integration with transit – sidewalk connections, shelters.
4.6.2 Pedestrian Collision Analysis
Crash data from January 2002 through June 2007 provided by the Bozeman Police
Department were analyzed (see Figure 2-19 and Figure 2-20). Fifteen crashes involving a
pedestrian were reported in the greater Bozeman study area since 2002, all of which were
within the Bozeman city limits. Seven of these crashes were on Main Street, two were on 7th
Avenue, two were on Durston/Peach, one on North 19th, one on Mendenhall Street and one
on Babcock Street. All reported crashes occurred on minor or principal arterials. These
numbers, like the bicycle collision data, are likely underreported. The Bozeman Police
Department reported that about half of the time the pedestrian was at fault, crossing mid
block (jaywalking), or crossing against the signal. There were also several instances of riding
on cars or jumping out into traffic.
4.6.3 Problem Areas
Few smaller, lower traffic streets including local streets and collectors present great difficulty
for most pedestrians. Crossings are plentiful and short. Sidewalks are generally present with
some needing maintenance. Table 4-7 shown below focuses on major problems and barriers
for pedestrian travel in Bozeman.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 4: Problem Identification
Page 4-18 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Table 4-7
Pedestrian Problem Identification
Street From To Problem Description
Baxter Road Fowler Avenue N. 19th Avenue Most of this roadway has no pedestrian facilities.
Cottonwood Road Durston Road Huffine Lane No pedestrian facilities built.
Durston Road Valley Drive Flathead Avenue No pedestrian facilities – This portion of the road has
not been upgraded
Durston Road Cottonwood Road Westgate Avenue No sidewalks on south side of roadway, south side is
developed as soccer fields.
Griffin Drive N. 7th Avenue N. Rouse Avenue No pedestrian facilities.
Kagy Boulevard S. 19th Avenue S. 11th Avenue Several sections without pedestrian facilities. No
pedestrian connection between housing and University.
Kagy Boulevard Highland Boulevard Bozeman Trail Road
No pedestrian facilities currently. The north side will be
upgraded with development, but south side has been
developed.
N. 7th Ave Main Street I-90
Sidewalk system is fragmented and generally of poor
quality. Most sidewalks are curb-tight. Crossings occur
at major intersections only. Jaywalking is prevalent.
N. Rouse Avenue E. Lamme Street Story Mill Road Roadway is mostly lacking pedestrian facilities.
Oak Street N. Rouse Avenue Meagher Avenue
Some small sections near North 7th have no pedestrian
facilities. Other problems stem from lack of pedestrian
crossings combined with a wide street section.
S. 19th Avenue W. Babcock Street Stucky Road Roadway has no pedestrian facilities.
S. 3rd Avenue /
Graf Street Kagy Boulevard Teslow Drive
Sole pedestrian facility is a 4 foot paved shoulder with a
rumble strip to buffer from traffic. Not adequate to
connect large amount of housing to commercial area.
S. Church Avenue Kagy Boulevard E. Story Street
Most of route lacks pedestrian facilities. Where
sidewalks exist they are poorly maintained and
overgrown.
W. Main Street S. 8th Avenue Cottonwood Road
Long distances between crossing opportunities.
Crossings themselves are very long with 6 or more
lanes common for a pedestrian to cross.
4.7 BICYCLE SYSTEM
Bicyclists are a diverse group with widely varying needs and preferences. A solution for
some will still leave others unserved. For example, the construction of bike lanes will be a
boon to confident cyclists and those that prefer direct routes with few interruptions, however
less confident cyclists will not feel comfortable next to vehicle traffic and will prefer a
separated pathway or a parallel lower traffic route. Conversely, a shared-use path will
encourage less confident cyclists and other recreational users, but if it is the sole bicycle
facility confident cyclists will prefer to ride in the unimproved roadway, away from slow
moving pedestrians and complicated crossings of roads and driveways. To meet the needs of
all cyclists, a balanced approach to solving bicycle facility problems is required.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 4: Problem Identification
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 4-19
4.7.1 Problem Themes & Areas
With a few notable exceptions of shared use paths and undercrossings in Gallatin Gateway,
Four Corners, and Huffine just east of Four Corners, Gallatin County lacks bicycle facilities.
Many of the problems that exist for pedestrians also exist for cyclists. Long distances, high
traffic speeds, narrow or non-existent shoulders, rumble strips, road debris, and even
recently maintained roads which have been chip sealed become significant obstacles to
cyclists.
The City of Bozeman has seen a rapid increase in bicycle facilities in recent years. Many of
the east-west arterials to the north side of Main Street have undergone reconstruction with
the addition of bicycle lanes including Durston Road, Oak Street, Babcock Street, Baxter
Lane, and others. North-south corridors to see reconstruction, many of which are only half
built through new development include, Ferguson Avenue, Fowler Avenue, Cottonwood
Road, and North 27th Avenue. Shared use path corridors have also been developed and
expanded including the North 19th Ave corridor, and the Highland Blvd corridor. In 2002 a
series of bicycle routes were installed involving signage only within many of the older
neighborhoods in the city.
Through the existing conditions analysis and public involvement the main themes of bicycle
problems are summarized below:
Continuous bike lanes not available on all arterial routes including:
o North Rouse Avenue
o Kagy Boulevard
o Huffine/Main Street
o North 7th Avenue
o North & South 19th Avenue
o Cottonwood Road
o Davis Lane
o Willson Avenue
o College Street
o South 8th Avenue
o Valley Center Drive
Existing bike lane network is fragmented with numerous gaps
Many unimproved roadways have no shoulder
Bike lanes and shoulders covered in debris
Pavement quality including potholes and cracking on many bike routes
Difficult crossings of major roadways at unsignalized intersections along high desire
corridors including:
o W Garfield St and S 19th Ave
o W Kagy Blvd and S 11th Ave
o W Koch St and S 19th Ave
o W Koch St and S 11th Ave
o W Lamme St and N 7th Ave
o W Lamme St and N Rouse Ave
o W College St and S Willson Ave
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 4: Problem Identification
Page 4-20 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Inadequate bicycle detection at signalized intersections
If available, bike lanes not adequately plowed in winter;
Inadequate or no bicycle parking at bicyclists’ destination
No bicycle parking at transit stops
Lack of wayfinding signage on bicycle routes to major destinations
Lack of bicycle lanes to Downtown Bozeman (Main Street, Mendenhall Street and
Babcock Street)
Lack of bicycle lanes to Montana State University
Lack of shoulder bikeways on rural roadways
Lack of dedicated bicycle facilities along high profile routes such as Bozeman-
Belgrade, and Bozeman-Four Corners
General perception of lack of safety for adults and children.
General perception of lack of adequate bicycle connections from new residential areas
to commercial areas.
Need for better education for bicyclists and motorists
4.7.2 Bicycle Collision Analysis
Crash data from January 2002 through June 2007 provided by the Bozeman Police
Department were analyzed (see Figure 2-15 and Figure 2-16). Since 2002, 83 bicycle/vehicle
or bicycle/pedestrian accidents were reported in the greater Bozeman study area with 69
occurring within the Bozeman City limits. This number is actually lower than the actual
number of collisions that likely have occurred, as many may have not been reported. In
addition, the Police Department reports that accident tracking methods have improved in the
last few years causing the years 2002-2005 likely being under represented in the number of
collisions. Due to these factors trends between years cannot be ascertained. Data collected
from the Bozeman Police Department does show that of the 69 recorded incidents 43 percent
of the collisions were the fault of the bicycle, 14 percent were the fault of the vehicle and 42
percent undetermined.
Main reasons for bicycle rider fault involved riding on sidewalk or riding the wrong
direction against traffic. Several accidents at night involved no lights or reflectors and in
several cases the bicyclist lost control while braking. There were several instances where the
bicycle rider ignored stop signs or red signals and swerving into or through traffic. A few
cases involved intoxicated bicycle riders. Adequate and properly designed bicycle facilities
can encourage proper behavior by cyclists and potentially reduce this category of accidents
in the future. With vehicles at fault, there were several cases of opening doors on a rider and
several cases of not yielding to the bicycle when turning or in a crosswalk.
Generally, rural crashes are concentrated on higher-order streets such as Huffine Lane,
Valley Center Road, and Cameron Bridge Road. Within Bozeman, crashes are likewise
clustered along principal arterials such as 7th Avenue, 19th Avenue, and Main Street. In
addition, a smaller number of crashes were reported on minor arterials and collector streets
as well, including College Street, Garfield Street, and 11th Avenue. One thing nearly all the
crash locations have in common is that almost none had dedicated bicycle facilities.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 4: Problem Identification
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 4-21
4.8 TRANSIT SYSTEM
4.8.1 Needs Identified in the “Bozeman Area Transportation Coordination Plan”
The following were identified as needs in the Bozeman Area Transportation Coordination Plan –
FY 2009 (utilized as provided, with permission, from Lisa Ballard, P.E., Current Transportation
Solutions). It is also stated that at this time, adequate resources are not available to meet all
the needs identified in the plan.
Service Gaps
Bus schedules do not facilitate commuter transportation from Bozeman to Belgrade
Northeast trailer parks
South of campus
Business park southwest of campus hosting RightNow Technologies, one of the largest
employers
New growth areas in northwest
Reach, Inc. Work Center
Hospital – one-way loop
Northwest Bozeman between Babcock and Durston
East Main / new library is poorly connected to west side
Higher service frequency
Bridger Bowl
Livingston-Bozeman commuter service
Evening service
Weekend service
Information Gaps
Lack of coordinated communication between the service providers. Streamline and
Skyline drivers communicate well. Schedules and web pages have been updated to
provide adequate information regarding the other service. Coordination with Angel
Line, Madison County, and West Yellowstone has been minimal in the last year.
Lack of knowledge in the community regarding Streamline.
Difficulty among some potential users in understanding time tables and planning
trips.
Resource Gaps
There exists no central place of storage and maintenance for vehicles
There is no set standard for training of drivers and no specific place to train them.
Sharing of drivers is thus not possible without universal requirements for training.
Lack of benches and bus shelters
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 4: Problem Identification
Page 4-22 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
4.8.2 Additional Identified Needs
Below is a list of additional needs not identified in the Bozeman Area Transportation
Coordination Plan – FY 2009.
Information and Resource Needs
There is currently no 5-year plan or 10-year plan that considers the expected growth
of the community and where bus routes should be to meet these needs.
Work with Bozeman Planning Department to determine where bus bays need to be
included in new development areas.
Establish a relationship with the county planning department or with Belgrade
planning.
The standard street design of 3 lanes plus bike lanes requires a bus bay to avoid bus-
bike conflicts. Responsibility for these bus bays needs to be determined.
Determine a standard design for street furniture.
Infrastructure Needs
College (the entire road) – The westbound location at 23rd street has no sidewalk and
has a ditch right next to the road.
Highland (at Ellis) – This location is at the bottom of a hill and there is no pull out
away from traffic.
S. 19th Avenue – The sidewalk is separated from the road by a ditch, and there are
no pedestrian connections to the road, even at driveways.
Highland – There is only a sidewalk on one side of the street and there is no
connection between the sidewalk and the road.
Huffine (out to Four Corners) – Inadequate pedestrian facilities
Jackrabbit – Inadequate pedestrian facilities.
Oak Street (eastbound just west of 7th) – There is no sidewalk
Oak Street (at 15th right next to an accessible apartment complex) – Inadequate
pedestrian facilities.
Durston and Babcock – Have the bike lanes without a place to pull over. Durston
lacks sidewalks in places.
4.9 EQUESTRIAN ISSUES
The planning boundary for the Update includes areas currently and historically used by
equine riders and drivers. They and other non-motorized residents have used the unpaved
roads as a trail system. If these roads are paved with no shoulder and no trail, and traffic
volumes and speeds increase, these roads may become less safe for both motorized and non-
motorized users. Future improvements need to take into consideration all of these users.
CHAPTER 5
FACILITY RECOMMMENDATIONS
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 5-1
5.1 RECOMMENDED MAJOR STREET NETWORK (MSN) IMPROVEMENTS
This Plan includes a variety of recommended major street network improvement projects.
These projects are needed to meet the anticipated traffic demands for the year 2030. This
section summarizes these projects.
5.1.1 MSN Projects from the 2001 Transportation Plan
A list of recommended major street network (MSN) projects that were recommended as part
of the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan – 2001 Update and their status as of this plan
update are listed in this section. The 2001 update of the Transportation Plan included 40
recommended MSN projects. Of these projects, 4 were completed, 6 are partially completed,
and 30 have not been completed. Of the either partially completed or not completed projects
from the previous plan, 32 projects have been included in this update of the plan (either as
committed or as recommended projects). The various 40 projects recommended from the
previous plan and their resultant status is shown below in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1
MSN Projects from 2001 Transportation Plan & Status for 2007 Plan
MSN Location No. Location of Past MSN Project Past Recommendation Status for this Plan Update
1 N. 19th Ave. – Baxter Ave.
to Springhill Rd.
Widen to a 5-lane urban arterial
(includes widening overpass)
Partially Completed, modified and
included herein as MSN-1
2 S. 19th Ave. – College St. to
W. Main St. Widen to a 5-lane urban arterial. Not Completed, modified and
included herein as CMSN-1
3 S. 19th Ave. – Kagy Blvd. to
College St. Widen to 5-lane urban arterial. Not Completed, modified and
included herein as CMSN-1
4 Kagy Blvd. – S. 19th Ave. to Willson Ave. Widen to 3-lane urban arterial. Not Completed, modified and included herein as MSN-2
5 S. 3rd Ave. – Graf to Kagy
Blvd. Widen to 3-lane urban arterial. Not Completed, modified and
included herein as MSN-3
6 Rouse Ave. – Main St. to
Story Mill Rd. Widen to 3-lane urban arterial Not Completed, modified and
included herein as MSN-4
7 College St. – Main St. to S.
19th Ave. Widen to 5-lane urban arterial. Not Completed, modified and
included herein as MSN-5
8 College St. – S. 19th Ave. to S. 8th Ave. Widen to 3-lane urban arterial. Not Completed, modified and included herein as CMSN-2
9 Cottonwood Rd. – Stucky Rd. to Valley Center Rd. Construct 3-lane urban arterial. Not Completed, modified and included herein as MSN-6
10 Fowler/ Davis – Stucky Rd.
to Valley Center Rd. Construct 2-lane urban arterial. Partially Completed, modified and
included herein as MSN-7
11 Hulbert – Valley Center Rd.
to Cottonwood Rd. Construct 2-lane urban collector. Not Completed, modified and
included herein as CMSN-3
12 Deadman’s Gulch / Cattail Street – N. 19th to Cottonwood Rd. Construct 2-lane urban collector. Not Completed, modified and included herein as MSN-8
13 Kagy/Stucky – S. 19th to
Cottonwood Rd. Construct 2-lane urban arterial. Not Completed, modified and
included herein as MSN-9
14 Durston Rd. – N. 19th Ave.
to Cottonwood Rd. Widen to 3-lane urban arterial. Partially Completed, modified and
included herein as CMSN-4
15 Oak St. – N. 19th Ave. to
Cottonwood Rd. Construct 3-lane urban arterial. Partially Completed, modified and
included herein as MSN-10
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Page 5-2 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
MSN
Location No.
Location of Past MSN
Project Past Recommendation Status for this Plan Update
16 Graf – S. 3rd Ave. to S. 19th
Ave.
Connect with paved 2-lane urban
collector.
Not Completed, modified and
included herein as MSN-11
17 S. 11th Ave. – Kagy Blvd. to
Graf Connect with 2-lane urban collector. Not Completed, modified and
included herein as MSN-12
18 N. 11th Ave. – Durston Rd.
to Baxter Lane Connect with a 2-lane urban collector. Not Completed, modified and
included herein as MSN-13
19 N. 15th Ave. – Durston Rd. to Baxter Ln. Connect with a 2-lane urban collector. Partially Completed, will now only extend to Tschache Lane
20 N. 27th Ave. – Durston Rd.
to Valley Center Rd. Connect with 2-lane urban collector. Partially Completed
21 Kagy/Bozeman Trail –
Highland Blvd. to I-90
Upgrade to 2-lane rural arterial and
realign. Completed
22 W. Babcock St. – Main St. to Ferguson Rd. Widen to 3-lane urban collector. Completed
23 W. Babcock St. – 11th Ave.
to 19th Ave. Upgrade to 2-lane urban collector. Not Completed, modified and
included herein as MSN-14
24 Lincoln Rd. – S. 11th Ave. to
S. 19th Ave. Upgrade to 2-lane urban collector. Completed
25 Sourdough Rd. – Kagy
Blvd. to Goldstein Rd. Upgrade to a 2-lane rural collector. Completed
26 South Church Upgrade to 2-lane urban collector. Not Completed, modified and included herein as MSN-15
27 W. Main St. – 7th Ave. to
19th Ave.
Install raised median, landscape median
where possible.
Not Completed, modified and
included herein as MSN-16
28 Frontage Rd. – N. 7th Ave.
to Belgrade.
Widen to 3-lane rural arterial, with right
turn lanes at major intersections.
Not Completed, modified and
included herein as MSN-17
29 Springhill Rd. – Frontage
Rd. to Sypes Canyon Rd. Widen to 3-lane rural arterial. Not Completed, modified and
included herein as MSN-18
30 Baxter Lane – N. 11th Ave. to 19th Ave. Upgrade to 2-lane urban collector. Not Completed, modified and included herein as CMSN-5
31 Baxter Lane – N. 19th Ave. to Cottonwood Rd. Upgrade to 2-lane urban arterial. Not Completed, modified and included herein as CMSN-6
32 Haggerty Ln. – Main St. to
Kagy Blvd. Upgrade to 2-lane urban collector. Not Completed, modified and
included herein as MSN-19
33 Airport Interchange
Create a new interstate interchange to
serve the airport and connect the
interchange to the Frontage Rd. with 2-
lane rural arterial.
Not Completed, modified and
included herein as MSN-20
34 Jackrabbit Ln. – Gallatin Gateway to Four Corners. Widen to 3-lane rural arterial. Not Completed, modified and included herein as MSN-21
35 Jackrabbit Ln. – Four Corners to I-90 Widen to 3-lane rural arterial with right turn lanes at the major intersections. Not Completed, modified and included herein as MSN-22
36 I-90 Underpass – U.S. 10 to
Valley Center Rd.
Upgrade underpass to rural collector
standard. Not Completed
37 Griffin Dr. Railroad
Underpass Construct a railroad underpass. Not Completed, modified and
included herein as MSN-23
38 Cedar St. Upgrade Cedar St. to a 2-lane urban collector standard and connect to Rouse Ave.
Not Completed, modified and included herein as MSN-24
39 Ferguson Ave. – Main St. to Valley Center Rd. Connect with a 2-lane urban collector. Not Completed, modified and included herein as MSN-25
40
Highland Trail
Improvements – S. Kagy
Blvd.
Construct a trail from Kagy along the
Highland Ridge and connects to
Goldenstein Rd.
Not Completed
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 5-3
5.1.2 Committed Major Street Network (CMSN) Projects
Committed projects are only listed if the project will affect capacity and/or delay
characteristics of a roadway facility and/or intersection. This distinction is necessary since
some committed improvement projects, likely to occur within the next five years, are not
listed here since they will not have an effect on the traffic model. Committed improvements
listed are only considered if they are likely to be constructed within a five-year timeframe
(i.e. year 2007 through the year 2012), and a funding source has been identified and is
assigned to the specific project.
CMSN-1: 19th Avenue (Babcock Street to Kagy Boulevard):
This project consists of reconstructing 19th Avenue from the intersection with
Babcock Street south to the intersection with Kagy Boulevard to meet 5-lane
principal arterial standards. This project comes from the high traffic volumes
found on this roadway and the expected growth in the Bozeman area. This
segment is approximately 1.25 miles long.
CMSN-2: College Street (19th Avenue to 8th Avenue):
This project consists of reconstructing College Street from the intersection
with 19th Avenue east to the intersection with 8th Avenue to meet minor
arterial standards. This section of West College has already exceeded the
volume of traffic it was projected to carry in 2020. Planned improvements to
South 19th Avenue and increased development in the South 19th Avenue
corridor will only further increase traffic demand on this facility. This facility
also lacks bicycle and pedestrian facilities, therefore, this project will improve
not only safety and capacity for motorized vehicle but for bicycle and
pedestrians as well.
CMSN-3: Hulbert Road (Love Lane to Jackrabbit Lane):
Hulbert Road will be paved from the intersection with Love Lane west to the
intersection with Jackrabbit Lane. This segment is approximately 2 miles long
and is classified as a collector roadway. This project also consists of paving
Hulbert Road west from the intersection with Jackrabbit Lane to the Gallatin
Heights Major property boundary. This segment is approximately 0.5 miles
long and is a local roadway.
CMSN-4: Durston Road (Fowler Road to Ferguson Road):
This project consists of constructing a new roadway between Fowler Road
and Ferguson Road. It is apparent from recent development activity that the
areas served by this minor arterial roadway may cause the predicted volumes
to be exceeded along this corridor. This project will improve the safety and
capacity for motorized vehicles as well as bicycles and pedestrians.
CMSN-5: Baxter Lane (7th Avenue to 19th Avenue):
This project consists of reconstructing Baxter Lane from the intersection with
19th Avenue east to the intersection with 7th Avenue to meet minor arterial
standards. Baxter Lane is positioned to become a major commercial route due
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Page 5-4 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
to zoning on the south side of the road from 19th Avenue to 7th Avenue. By
2020 it has been projected that this roadway will carry more than double the
vehicles per day than what it currently carries. This project will improve the
safety and capacity for motorized vehicles as well as bicycles and pedestrians.
CMSN-6: Baxter Lane (19th Avenue to Harper Puckett Road):
This project consists of reconstructing Baxter Lane from the intersection with
Harper Puckett Road east to the intersection with 19th Avenue to meet minor
arterial standards. Continued development in the northwest quadrant of the
City insures that this improvement will be needed. This project will improve
the capacity and safety of this corridor.
CMSN-7: Baxter Lane (Harper Puckett Road to Jackrabbit Lane):
Baxter Lane will be paved from the intersection with Harper Puckett Road
west to the intersection with Jackrabbit Lane. This segment of Baxter lane is
classified as a minor arterial roadway.
CMSN-8: Harper Pucket Road:
Harper Pucket Road will be paved from the intersection with Cameron Bridge
Road south to the approximately 0.5 miles south of Valley Center Road. This
segment is approximately 1.5 miles long and is classified as a minor arterial
roadway.
CMSN-9: Durston Road:
Durston Road will be extended approximately one mile from the current
western termination point through Black Bull Run Subdivision and Middle
Creek Parklands Subdivision to intersect with Jackrabbit Lane. Durston Road
will also be paved from the current western end of asphalt location at the
Bozeman City limits to the end of its extension. This segment of Durston
Road is classified as a minor arterial roadway.
CMSN-10: Valley Center Road:
This project consists of paving Valley Center Road from the intersection with
Jackrabbit Lane west to the Gallatin Heights Major property boundary. This
segment is approximately 0.5 miles long and is a local roadway.
CMSN-11: Cameron Bridge Road:
Cameron Bridge Road will be paved from the intersection with Jackrabbit
Lane east to the intersection with Harper Puckett Road. This segment is
approximately 3 miles long and is classified as a collector roadway.
CMSN-12: Monforton School Road:
Monforton School Road will be abandoned at the campus of Monforton
School via a new cul-de-sac, and a new road will be re-routed to line up across
from Cobb Hill Road at Huffine Lane. It is recommended herein that the
relocated Monforton School Road be changed to a collector road functional
classification (see Figure 9-1).
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 5-5
CMSN-13: Spain Bridge Road:
Spain Bridge Road will be paved from the intersection with Penwell Bridge
Road south to the intersection with Airport Road. This segment is
approximately 2 miles long and is classified as a minor arterial roadway.
CMSN-14: Penwell Bridge Road:
This project consists of paving a one mile stretch of Penwell Bridge Road east
from the intersection with Dry Creek Road. Another stretch of Penwell
Bridge Road will also be paved from the intersection with Spain Bridge Road
to East Gallatin River. Penwell Bridge Road is a local roadway.
CMSN-15: Tayabeshockup Road:
Tayabeshockup Road will be paved south from the intersection with Bozeman
Trail Road. This segment is approximately 2 miles long and is classified as a
collector roadway.
CMSN-16: Valley Center Drive:
This project consists of upgrading Valley Center Drive from the intersection
with Jackrabbit Lane to the intersection with Love Lane to a two-lane urban
arterial standard. This section will consist of one travel lane in each direction,
6-foot shoulders on each side, curb and gutter, turn-lanes at major
intersections, and sidewalks. This project is approximately 2 miles long.
5.1.3 Recommended Major Street Network (MSN) Projects
During the preparation of this Plan, a number of MSN projects were identified. Estimated
project costs are included for each recommended project. These costs are “planning level”
estimates and do not include possible right of way, utility, traffic management, or other
heavily variable costs.
The following list of MSN projects are not in any particular order with respect to priority:
MSN-1: N. 19th Avenue (Interstate 90 to Springhill Road)
This project consists of widening N. 19th Avenue from Interstate 90 to the
intersection with Springhill Road to a 5-lane urban arterial standard. This
project includes widening the I-90 overpass along N. 19th Avenue. This
roadway is currently a principal arterial roadway south of I-90 and a minor
arterial roadway north of I-90. This project serves as a long-term need that
will be necessary to accommodate future development patterns in the region
and serve north-south traffic flow. It is expected that a minimum of two
travel lanes in each direction, bike lanes on each side, curb and gutter,
boulevard, sidewalk, and raised median will be required.
Estimated Cost: $9,500,000
MSN-2: Kagy Boulevard (S. 19th Avenue to Willson Avenue)
This project consists of widening Kagy Boulevard from the intersection with
S. 19th Avenue to the intersection with Willson Avenue to a three-lane urban
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Page 5-6 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
arterial. This includes one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes on each
side, curb and gutter, boulevard, sidewalks, and a raised median. This project
serves as a long-term need that will be necessary to accommodate future
development patterns in the region and serve east-west traffic flow around
the southern portions of the city. Currently this section of Kagy Boulevard is
a two-lane roadway with few left-turn bays.
Estimated Cost: $4,700,000
MSN-3: S. 3rd Avenue (Graf Street to Kagy Boulevard)
This project consists of widening S. 3rd Avenue from the intersection with
Graf Street to the intersection with Kagy Boulevard to a three-lane urban
arterial roadway. This includes one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes on
each side, curb and gutter, sidewalks, and a raised median. This project
serves to accommodate development in the region and serve north-south
traffic flow around the southern portions of the city.
Estimated Cost: $3,300,000
MSN-4: Rouse Avenue (Main Street to Story Mill Road)
This project consists of widening Rouse Avenue from the intersection with
Main Street to the intersection with Story Mill Road to a three-lane urban
arterial. This includes one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes on each
side, curb and gutter, boulevard, sidewalks, and a raised median. This project
serves to accommodate increasing traffic volumes along Rouse Avenue and
serve traffic flow around the northern portions of the city. Currently Rouse
Avenue is a two-lane roadway with few left-turn bays. An Environmental
Assessment (EA) has been prepared for this recommended project that
identifies specific constraints and known design issues.
Estimated Cost: $10,000,000
MSN-5: College Street (Main Street to 19th Avenue):
This project consists of reconstructing College Street from the intersection
with Main Street east to the intersection with 19th Avenue to a five-lane urban
arterial roadway. It is expected that a minimum of two travel lanes in each
direction, bike lanes on each side, curb and gutter, boulevard, sidewalk , and a
raised median will be required. This section of West College has exceeded the
volume of traffic it was projected to carry. During peak hours, traffic is
backed up from 19th Avenue to Huffine Lane and beyond. This project will
improve the safety and capacity for motorized vehicles as well as bicycles and
pedestrians.
Estimated Cost: $3,300,000
MSN-6: Cottonwood Road / Harper Puckett Road (Stucky Road to Valley Center)
This project consists of widening Cottonwood Road from the intersection with
Stucky Road north to its current termini and constructing an extension to
Cottonwood Road from its current northern termini to Baxter Lane. It is also
recommended that Harper Puckett Road be widened from the intersection
with Baxter Lane north to the intersection with Hidden Valley Road and that
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 5-7
an extension be constructed north to intersect with Valley Center Road. This
project should be constructed to a five-lane urban arterial standard. This
includes two travel lanes in each direction, bike lanes on each side, curb and
gutter, boulevard, sidewalks, and a raised median. This project is necessitated
by the future development patterns in the region and will serve north-south
traffic flow around the western edge of the city.
Estimated Cost: $24,300,000
MSN-7: Fowler/Davis Road (Stucky Road to Valley Center Road)
This project consists of upgrading Fowler Road and Davis Road from the
intersection with Stucky Road to the intersection with Valley Center Road to a
three-lane urban arterial standard. This includes one travel lane in each
direction, bike lanes on each side, curb and gutter, boulevard, sidewalks, and
a raised median. New links will have to be constructed along this corridor
between Oak Street and Babcock Street and between Garfield Street and
Stucky Road. This project is necessitated by the future development patterns
in the region and will serve north-south traffic flow around the western
portion of the city.
Estimated Cost: $21,100,000
MSN-8: Deadman’s Gulch / Cattail Street (27th Avenue to Cottonwood Road)
This project consists of upgrading Cattail Street from the intersection with 27th
Avenue west to its current termini point to a two-lane urban collector
roadway. A new link between the current western termini point of Cattail
Street and Cottonwood Road should be created to two-lane collector
standards complete with one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes on each
side, curb and gutter, boulevard, parking, and sidewalks. This project is
necessitated by the future development patterns in the region and will serve
east-west traffic flow around the northern portion of the city.
Estimated Cost: $4,100,000
MSN-9: Stucky Road (S. 19th Avenue to Gooch Hill Road)
This project consists of upgrading Stucky road from the intersection with S.
19th Avenue west to the intersection with Gooch Hill Road to a two-lane urban
collector roadway. This includes one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes
on each side, curb and gutter, boulevard, parking, and sidewalks. This project
is necessitated by the future development patterns in the region and will serve
east-west traffic flow around the southern edge of the city. Estimated Cost: $8,400,000
MSN-10: Oak Street (Fowler Lane to Cottonwood Road)
This project consists of constructing a new link along Oak Street from the
intersection with Fowler Lane west to Cottonwood Road. This section should
be built to a five-lane urban arterial standard and should include two travel
lanes in each direction, bike lanes on each side, curb and gutter, boulevard,
sidewalks, and a raised median. This project is necessitated by the future
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Page 5-8 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
development patterns in the region and will serve east-west traffic flow
around the northwestern portion of the city.
Estimated Cost: $4,900,000
MSN-11: Graf Street:
Graf Street is to be extended from its current western termini to connect to 19th
Avenue. This extension would be approximately 0.6 miles long and should be
built to meet two-lane collector standards. This extension is an important
connection for public safety purposes, allowing fire service to meet their
response time requirements in areas where they currently cannot.
Estimated Cost: $1,800,000
MSN-12: S. 11th Avenue (Kagy Boulevard to Graf Street extension)
This project would connect S. 11th Avenue between Kagy Boulevard and the
future extension of Graf Street as described in MSN-11. This roadway should
be built to a two-lane urban collector standard which should include one
travel lane in each direction, bike lanes on each side, curb and gutter,
boulevard, parking, and sidewalks. A new link between Opportunity Way
and the Graf Street extension would need to be constructed under this project.
This project will serve to create a north-south link for the southern portion of
the city.
Estimated Cost: $2,000,000
MSN-13: N. 11th Avenue (Durston Road to Baxter Lane)
This project consists of upgrading N. 11th Avenue from the intersection with
Durston Road to the intersection with Baxter Lane. A new link between
Durston Road and Oak Street would need to be constructed under this
project. This roadway should be built to a two-lane urban collector standard
which should include one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes on each
side, curb and gutter, boulevard, parking, and sidewalks. This project will
serve to create an additional north-south link along the north-central part of
the city.
Estimated Cost: $2,300,000
MSN-14: W. Babcock Street (11th Avenue to 19th Avenue)
W. Babcock Street should be upgraded to a two-lane urban collector standard
between the intersection with 11th Avenue and the intersection with 19th
Avenue. This would include one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes on
each side, curb and gutter, boulevards, parking, and sidewalks.
Estimated Cost: $1,400,000
MSN-15: Church Street (Main Street to Kagy Boulevard):
This project consists of reconstructing Church Street from the intersection
with Main Street south to the intersection with Kagy Boulevard to a two-lane
urban collector standard. This would include one travel lane in each
direction, bike lanes on each side, curb and gutter, boulevards, parking, and
sidewalks. The need for this project comes from increased traffic due to
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 5-9
growth in the South Bozeman area as well as the county area south of
Bozeman. This project will improve the safety and capacity for motorized
vehicles as well as bicycles and pedestrians.
Estimated Cost: $4,300,000
MSN-16: W. Main Street (7th Avenue to 19th Avenue)
This project consists of installing a raised or landscaped median at
appropriate locations along W. Main Street between the intersection with 7th
Avenue and the intersection with 19th Avenue. This project will help to
increase traffic flow via access control and improve safety along this corridor.
Estimated Cost: $600,000
MSN-17: Frontage Road (N. 7th Avenue to Belgrade)
The Frontage Road between N. 7th Avenue to Belgrade should be upgraded
to a three-lane rural arterial roadway. This includes one travel lane in each
direction and a two-way center turn lane. This project is necessitated by the
future development patterns in the region and will serve as a link between the
Belgrade and Bozeman areas. Roadway shoulders should be included to
facilitate bicycle travel.
Estimated Cost: $21,100,000
MSN-18: Springhill Road (Frontage Road to Sypes Canyon Road)
Springhill Road from the intersection with the Frontage Road to the
intersection with Sypes Canyon Road should be widened to a three-lane rural
arterial roadway. This includes one travel lane in each direction and a two-
way center turn lane. This project is necessitated by the development on the
western side of the city and north of the interstate. This project will serve to
provide a north-south connection along the northwest side of the city.
Estimated Cost: $4,400,000
MSN-19: Bozeman Trail/Haggerty Lane (Main Street to Kagy Boulevard)
Bozeman Trail should be upgraded to a two-lane urban collector roadway
from the intersection with Kagy Boulevard north to the intersection with
Haggerty Lane. Haggerty Lane should also be upgraded to a two-lane urban
collector roadway from the intersection with Bozeman Trail northwest to the
intersection with Main Street. A two-lane urban collector roadway includes
one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes on each side, curb and gutter,
boulevard, parking, and sidewalks. This project is necessitated by the future
development in the region and will serve as a north-south link along the
southeastern portion of the city. Estimated Cost: $5,000,000
MSN-20: East Belgrade Interchange
This project consists of constructing a new I-90 interchange to serve the
airport and Belgrade areas. A northern interchange connection is to be made
to connect with the Frontage Road. A southern connection to the interchange
should be made to connect to Alaska Road. The interchange connections
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Page 5-10 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
should be constructed to two-lane rural arterial standards complete with one
travel lane in each direction. This project is necessitated by the future
development in the region and the need for more adequate connection to the
airport. Non-motorized facilities should be developed in association with this
project as this interchange will serve important cross connectivity north and
south of Interstate 90.
Estimated Cost: $34,400,000
MSN-21: Gallatin Road (Gallatin Gateway to Four Corners)
It is recommended that Gallatin Road be widened to a three-lane rural arterial
between Gallatin Gateway and Four Corners complete with one travel lane in
each direction and a two-way center turn lane. This project is necessitated by
the development in the region and the increasing traffic volumes along this
corridor. This project will serve as a vital north-south link for the area and
will increase the overall safety of the roadway.
Estimated Cost: $12,300,000
MSN-22: Jackrabbit Lane (Four Corners to Frank Road)
It is recommended that Jackrabbit Lane be widened to a five-lane arterial
between Four Corners and Frank Road, complete with two travel lanes in
each direction and a two-way center turn lane or raised median. This project
is necessitated by the development in the region and the increasing traffic
volumes along this corridor. This project will serve as a vital north-south link
for the area and will increase the overall safety of the roadway.
Estimated Cost: $29,200,000
MSN-23: Griffin Drive Railroad Underpass
This project consists of constructing a railroad underpass along Griffin Drive.
The railroad crossing separates the northeastern portion of the city and creates
a problem for emergency vehicle access and traffic congestion when the train
blocks the current at-grade crossings.
Estimated Cost: $7,800,000
MSN-24: Cedar Street / Oak Street
This project consists of upgrading Cedar Street to a three-lane urban arterial.
An eastern extension of Oak Street from its intersection with Rouse Avenue to
connect to Cedar Street and a southern extension of Cedar Street connecting to
Main Street at the intersection with Highland Boulevard should also be
constructed under this project. This project would also require two grade
separated railroad crossings. A three-lane urban arterial includes one travel
lane in each direction, bike lanes on each side, curb and gutter, boulevard,
sidewalks, and a raised median. This project in necessitated by the future
development patterns in the region and will serve to access development area
on the eastern side of the city and relieve neighborhood “cut-thru” traffic
issues in the northeast neighborhood area.
Estimated Cost: $13,700,000
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 5-11
MSN-25: Ferguson Avenue (Durston Road to Valley Center Road)
This project consists of extending Ferguson Avenue from its current northern
termini point north to intersect with Valley Center Road. This roadway
should be constructed to a two-lane urban collector standard which includes
one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes on each side, curb and gutter,
boulevard, parking, and sidewalks. This project is necessitated by the future
development patterns in the region and will serve north-west traffic flow
around the western portion of the city.
Estimated Cost: $7,800,000
MSN-26: Highland Boulevard (Main Street to Kagy Boulevard)
This project consists of widening Highland Boulevard from the intersection
with Main Street to the intersection with Ellis Street to a five-lane urban
arterial standard, and from the intersection with Ellis Street south to the
intersection with Kagy Boulevard to a three-lane urban arterial standard. This
roadway is currently a minor arterial roadway with one travel lane in each
direction. This project serves as a long-term need that will be necessary to
accommodate future development patterns in the region and serve north-
south traffic flow. It is expected that a minimum of two travel lanes in each
direction from Main Street to Ellis Street, one travel lane in each direction
from Ellis Street to Kagy Boulevard, bike lanes on each side, curb and gutter,
boulevard, sidewalk, and a raised median will be required.
Estimated Cost: $7,600,000
MSN-27: Kagy Boulevard (Highland Avenue to Bozeman Trail)
This project consists of widening Kagy Boulevard from the intersection with
Highland Avenue to the intersection with Bozeman Trail to a three-lane urban
arterial standard complete with one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes on
each side, curb and gutter, boulevard, sidewalk, and a raised median. This
roadway is a two-lane roadway and is classified as a principal arterial. This
project serves as a long-term need that will be necessary to accommodate
future development patterns in the region and serve east-west traffic flow.
Estimated Cost: $4,600,000
MSN-28: Stucky Road / Elk Lane Extension
This project consists of constructing an extension of Stucky Road west from
the intersection with Gooch Hill Road to the future intersection of Elk Lane
and Love Lane. This segment should be constructed to a two-lane collector
standard complete with one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes on each
side, curb and gutter, boulevard, parking, and sidewalks. This project is
necessitated by the future development patterns in the region and will serve
east-west traffic flow around the southwestern edge of the city.
Estimated Cost: $2,900,000
MSN-29: Valley Center Drive (Love Lane to Valley Center Underpass)
This project consists of upgrading Valley Center Drive from the intersection
with Love Lane to the intersection with the Valley Center Underpass to a two-
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Page 5-12 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
lane urban arterial standard. This section will consist of one travel lane in
each direction, 6-foot shoulders on each side, curb and gutter, turn-lanes at
major intersections, and sidewalks. This project in necessitated by the future
development patterns in the region and will serve to access development area
on the northwestern side of the city.
Estimated Cost: $7,300,000
MSN-30: Valley Center Drive (Valley Center Underpass to N. 27th Ave)
This project consists of upgrading Valley Center Drive from the intersection
with the Valley Center Underpass to the intersection with N. 27th Avenue to a
three-lane urban arterial standard complete with one travel lane in each
direction, bike lanes on each side, curb and gutter, boulevard, sidewalk, and a
raised median. This roadway is a two-lane roadway and is classified as a
principal arterial. This project in necessitated by the future development
patterns in the region and will serve to access development area on the
northwestern side of the city.
Estimated Cost: $3,900,000
MSN
-
1
7
MS
N
-
2
2
MS
N
-
2
1
CMSN-7
MSN-29
CMSN-11
CMSN-9
CMSN-3
CM
S
N
-
1
3
CMSN-16
MS
N
-
1
8
CM
S
N
-
8
MSN
-
2
0
MSN
-
2
8
CM
S
N
-
1
5
CM
S
N
-
1
2
CMSN-14
CMSN-10
0 10,0005,000
Feet
SEE
D
E
T
A
I
L
(FIG
U
R
E
5
-
2
)
Major Street Network (MSN)Recommended ImprovementsFigure 5-1
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)Legend Local Roadway
Detail Area
City Boundary
Urban Boundary
Study Area BoundaryInterstatePrincipal ArterialMinor ArterialCollectorFuture Principal ArterialFuture Minor ArterialFuture Collector
NOTE:A CMSN Project is shown only if the project will affect capacityand/or delay characteristics of a roadway facility and/orintersection. CMSN projects are likely to occur within the nextfive years.The colors shown for CMSN and MSN projects are for referencepurposes only and do not represent functional classification.
The functional classifications shown are recommened aspart of the Transportation Plan and do not reflect the federallyapproved functional classification criteria which is based oncurrent conditions rather than anticipated future conditions.
Committed Major Street Network(CMSN) Project
Major Street Network(MSN) Project
CMSN-1
MSN-1
MS
N
-
6
MS
N
-
7
MSN
-
1
7
MSN-9
CMSN-7
MS
N
-
2
5
MSN-29
MS
N
-
4
CMSN-6
MSN-8
MS
N
-
1
9
CM
S
N
-
1
6
MS
N
-
1
5
MS
N
-
2
6
MS
N
-
1
8
MSN-2
CM
S
N
-
1
MSN
-
3
0
MSN-27
MSN-10
CMSN-4
CMS
N
-
5
MS
N
-
2
4
MS
N
-
3
MS
N
-
1
3
MSN-16
MSN-5
MS
N
-
1
2
CMSN-2
MSN-11
MSN
-
1
MSN-14
MSN-23
Major Street Network (MSN)Recommended ImprovementsFigure 5-2
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)Legend
Local Roadway
Detail Area
City Boundary
Urban Boundary
InterstatePrincipal ArterialMinor ArterialCollectorFuture Principal ArterialFuture Minor ArterialFuture Collector
NOTE:A CMSN Project is shown only if the project will affect capacityand/or delay characteristics of a roadway facility and/orintersection. CMSN projects are likely to occur within the nextfive years.The colors shown for CMSN and MSN projects are for referencepurposes only and do not represent functional classification.
The functional classifications shown are recommened aspart of the Transportation Plan and do not reflect the federallyapproved functional classification criteria which is based oncurrent conditions rather than anticipated future conditions.
Committed Major Street Network(CMSN) Project
Major Street Network(MSN) Project
CMSN-1
MSN-1
0 5,0002,500
Feet
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 5-15
5.2 RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM) IMPROVEMENTS
In addition to MSN project recommendations this plan includes a variety of smaller
transportation system management (TSM) projects. For the purposes of this Plan, an
improvement project was classified as a TSM project if the estimated cost of the project was
less than $500,000. This section summarizes these projects.
It should be noted that the Montana Department of Transportation are currently
reconfiguring the signal timings for all traffic signals within the City of Bozeman. This effort
will improve the level of service for several intersections that are currently operating at an
unacceptable level.
5.2.1 TSM Projects from the 2001 Transportation Plan
A total of 49 TSM projects were recommended in the 2001 update of the Transportation Plan.
The status of these projects were reviewed to determine which have been completed, which
are no longer valid, and which projects should be included as part of this plan update. Of the
49 projects, 24 were completed, 7 are partially completed, and 18 were not completed. The
complete listing of the 49 projects, and their subsequent status for this 2007 Update to the
Transportation Plan, are listed in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2
TSM Projects from 2001 Transportation Plan & Status for 2007 Plan
TSM
Location No.
Location of Past
TSM Project Past Recommendation Status for this Plan
Update
1 North 7th Ave. & Oak
St.
Modify the traffic signal to include protected left turns for the
north and south approaches. Completed
2 3rd Ave. & Villard St. Install stop signs on the north and south approaches to the
intersection and trim limbs to improve the sight distance. Completed
3 7th Ave. &
Mendenhall St.
Restripe the east approach to include a designated right-turn
lane.
Not Completed,
modified and included
herein as TSM-1
4 Wilson Ave., Olive St.
to Main St.
Remove parking from the east side of the street and stripe
two northbound lanes.
Not Completed,
modified and included
herein as TSM-2
5 Main St. & Rouse
Ave.
Add a designated right-turn lane on the south approach by
restricting parking along the east side of Rouse within a half
block of the intersection.
Completed
6 Rouse Ave. &
Babcock Street
Install an 8-inch wide solid white line between two travel
lanes or install a raised channelization between the two travel
lanes. Bulb-out the curb on the northeast corner to create a
single eastbound traffic lane.
Completed
7 Grand Ave. & Koch
St. Install stop signs on the north and south approaches. Completed
8 Kagy Blvd. &
Fairway Remove vegetation on the northeast and southwest corners. Completed
9 Kagy Blvd. &
Sourdough Rd. Remove the vegetation along Kagy. Completed
10 Kagy Blvd. &
Highland Blvd. Remove vegetation on the south side of Kagy. Completed
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Page 5-16 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
TSM
Location No.
Location of Past
TSM Project Past Recommendation Status for this Plan
Update
11 Frontage Rd.,
Bozeman to Belgrade
Conduct a speed limit study and modify the speed limit
accordingly. Not Completed
12 Frontage Rd.,
Bozeman to Belgrade
Eliminate the passing zones on the Frontage Rd. that are in
the vicinity of driveways and all intersections. Partially Completed
13 Jackrabbit Lane Conduct a speed study and modify the speed limit
accordingly. Not Completed
14 S. 3rd Ave. & Goldenstein Rd. Install a right turn lane or ramp on south approach. Completed
15 Main St. & 11th Ave. Increase the radius on the southwest corner to improve
intersection geometrics.
Not Completed,
modified and included
herein as TSM-3
16 Galligator Corridor. Acquire this old railroad bed on the southeast side of town
for use as a portion of the ped/bike trail system. Completed
17 N. 19th Ave. &
Springhill Rd.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the
growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or
other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Completed
18 N. 19th Ave. & Deadman's Gulch Ct.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or other adequate traffic control when warrants are met. Completed
19 N. 19th Ave. &
Tschache Ln.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the
growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or
other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Completed
20 N. 19th Ave. & Beall
St.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the
growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or
other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Completed
21 S. 19th Ave. & Koch St.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Not Completed, modified and included herein as CTSM-1
22 S. 19th Ave. & Kagy Blvd.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the
growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or
other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Completed
23 S. 19th Ave. & Stucky
Rd.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the
growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or
other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Completed
24 Highway 191 & Cottonwood Road
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the
growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or other adequate traffic control when warrants are met. Completed
25 Highway 191 & Fowler Lane
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or other adequate traffic control when warrants are met. Completed
26 Rouse Ave. & Griffin
Dr.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the
growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or
other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Completed
27 Rouse Ave. & Oak St.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the
growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or
other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Completed
28 Rouse Ave. & Peach St.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Not Completed, modified and included herein as TSM-4
29 Main St. & Wallace
Ave.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the
growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or
other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Completed
30 Main St. & Haggerty
Ln.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the
growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or
other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Partially Completed,
modified and included
herein as TSM-5
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 5-17
TSM
Location No.
Location of Past
TSM Project Past Recommendation Status for this Plan
Update
31 College St. & 23rd
Ave.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the
growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or
other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Not Completed,
modified and included
herein as TSM-6
32 College St. & S. 11th
Ave.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the
growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or
other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Not Completed,
modified and included
herein as CTSM-2
33 College St. & Willson Ave.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Not Completed, modified and included herein as CTSM-3
34 Willson Ave. &
Garfield St.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or
other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Not Completed, modified and included
herein as TSM-7
35 Kagy Blvd. & S. 11th
Ave.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the
growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or
other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Not Completed,
modified and included
herein as CTSM-4
36 Kagy Blvd. &
Sourdough Rd.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the
growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Partially Completed,
modified and included herein as TSM-8
37 Kagy Blvd. & Highland Blvd.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Partially Completed, modified and included herein as TSM-9
38 Oak St. & Ferguson
Rd.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the
growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or
other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Not Completed,
modified and included
herein as TSM-10
39 Oak St. &
Cottonwood Rd.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the
growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or
other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Not Completed,
modified and included
herein as TSM-11
40 Baxter Ln. & Ferguson Rd.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or other adequate traffic control when warrants are met. Completed
41 Baxter Ln. &
Cottonwood Rd.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or
other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Not Completed, modified and included
herein as TSM-12
42 27th Ave. & Valley
Center Rd.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the
growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or
other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Partially Completed
43 Durston Rd. & 27th Ave.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the
growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Partially Completed,
modified and included herein as TSM-13
44 Hulbert & Valley Center Rd.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Not Completed, not carried forward in Plan update
45 N. 19th Ave. & I-90
South Ramps
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the
growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or
other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Completed
46 N. 19th Ave. & I-90
North Ramps
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the
growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or
other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Completed
47 Nelson Road & Frontage Rd.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Not Completed, modified and included herein as TSM-15
48 Sacajawea Peak &
Frontage Rd.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the
growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or
other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Not Completed,
modified and included
herein as TSM-16
49 Gallatin Field &
Frontage Rd.
Add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the
growing traffic demand. Install traffic signal, roundabout, or
other adequate traffic control when warrants are met.
Partially Completed,
modified and included
herein as TSM-17
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Page 5-18 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
5.2.2 Committed Transportation System Management (CTSM) Improvements
Committed projects are typically only listed if the project will affect capacity and/or delay
characteristics of a roadway facility and/or intersection. This distinction is necessary since
some committed improvement projects, likely to occur within the next five years, are not
necessarily listed here since they will not have an effect on the traffic model. Those
committed improvement projects not included in the traffic model, as well as those
extending out beyond the five-year timeframe, are listed elsewhere in this Transportation
Plan.
CTSM-1: S. 19th Avenue / Koch Street
This project includes the installation of a traffic signal, roundabout, or other
adequate traffic control device to the intersection of S. 19th Avenue and Koch
Street. S. 19th Avenue is currently a 3-lane principal arterial roadway at this
location. Koch Street is a two-lane collector roadway east of the intersection
and a two-lane local roadway west of the roadway. This intersection
currently has stop control along Koch Street. This project will improve traffic
flow and safety at this intersection.
CTSM-2: College Street / 11th Avenue
This project includes the installation of a traffic signal, roundabout, or other
adequate traffic control device to the intersection of 11th Avenue and College
Street. Both College Street and 11th Avenue are two-lane collector roadways
at this location. This intersection is currently a 4-way stop control and backs
up at peak hours significantly. Volumes for this intersection area approaching
those predicted for 2020, and with increasing development to the immediate
west and south of the City, warrants will likely be met in the very near future.
This project would improve the traffic flow and safety at this intersection.
CTSM-3: College Street / Willson Avenue
This project includes the installation of a traffic signal, roundabout, or other
adequate traffic control device to the intersection of College Street and
Willson Avenue. College Street is a two-lane collector roadway west of the
intersection and a two-lane local roadway east of the roadway. Willson
Avenue is a two-lane minor arterial roadway at this location. This
intersection currently has stop control along College Street. This project will
improve traffic flow and safety at this intersection.
CTSM-4: 11th Avenue / Kagy Boulevard
This project includes the installation of a traffic signal, roundabout, or other
adequate traffic control device to the intersection of 11th Avenue and Kagy
Boulevard. Kagy Boulevard is a three-lane roadway west of 11th Avenue and
a 2-lane roadway east of 11th Avenue and is classified as a principal arterial.
11th Avenue is a 2-lane roadway classified as a collector. This intersection
currently has stop control along 11th Avenue. Recent development proposals
(primarily south of Kagy Boulevard as well as the hospital) and increasing
traffic volumes indicate that the need for this signal improvement will soon be
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 5-19
warranted. This intersection is a major access point for the MSU campus.
This project will improve traffic flow and safety at this intersection.
CTSM-5: 27th Avenue / Oak Street
This project includes the installation of a traffic signal, roundabout, or other
adequate traffic control device to the intersection of 27th Avenue and Oak
Street. Oak Street is a three-lane principal arterial at this location; 27th Avenue
is a two-lane collector roadway. This intersection currently has stop control
along 27th Avenue. Recent development proposals and increasing traffic
volumes indicate that the need for this signal improvement will soon be
warranted. This project will improve traffic flow and safety at this
intersection.
CTSM-6: College Street / 19th Avenue
This project is consists of constructing additional northbound and
southbound thru lanes. It is expected that this project will be completed in
conjunction with CMSN-1 which calls for 19th Avenue to be upgraded to a
five-lane corridor at this location. This intersection is a signalized intersection
and has a LOS failure during both AM and PM peak hours. The poor
performance of this intersection is a result of the intersection and 19th Avenue
corridor being undersized to adequately handle the large amounts of traffic
that pass through.
Estimated Cost: $350,000
5.2.3 Recommended Transportation System Management (TSM) Improvements
During the preparation of this Plan, a number of TSM projects were identified. Estimated
project costs are included for each recommended project. These costs are “planning level”
estimates and do not include possible right of way, utility, traffic management, or other
heavily variable costs.
The following list of TSM projects are not in any particular order with respect to priority:
TSM-1: 7th Avenue / Mendenhall Street
It is recommended that the intersection of 7th Avenue and Mendenhall Street
be re-striped to include a designated westbound right-turn lane. This is a
signalized three-legged signalized intersection that current analysis shows has
a poor LOS along the east approach. A designated right-turn lane on this
approach will help improve the traffic flow characteristics of this intersection.
Estimated Cost: $15,000
TSM-2: Willson Avenue (Olive Street to Main Street)
It is recommended that parking be removed from the east side of Willson
Avenue at the intersection with Olive Street. It is also recommended that two
northbound lanes be striped from this intersection to the intersection with
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Page 5-20 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Main Street. This intersection experiences stacking problems that cause
increased delay and poor LOS.
Estimated Cost: $30,000
TSM-3: Main Street / 11th Avenue
It is recommended that the radius on the southwest corner be increased to
improve the intersection geometrics. This corner causes maneuvering
difficulties for larger vehicles turning right off of Main Street to travel south
on 11th Avenue.
Estimated Cost: $50,000
TSM-4: Rouse Avenue / Peach Street
This project includes the installation of a traffic signal, roundabout, or other
adequate traffic control device when warrants are met to the intersection of
Rouse Avenue and Peach Street. The intersection is a skewed four-legged
intersection with stop control on Peach Street. This intersection currently has
a failing LOS on the eastbound leg during the PM peak hour. It should be
noted that the Rouse Avenue Environmental Assessment recommends that a
traffic signal be installed at this location.
Estimated Cost: $330,000
TSM-5: Main Street / Haggerty Lane
It is recommended that the intersection of Main Street and Haggerty Lane be
modified to include a designated northbound right-turn lane, a northbound
left-turn lane, and an eastbound right-turn lane. This intersection currently
has stop control on Haggerty Lane. A designated westbound left-turn lane
exists at this intersection. Current analysis of this intersection shows a LOS
failure due to the northbound movement.
Estimated Cost: $475,000
TSM-6: College Street / 23rd Avenue / Technology Boulevard
It is recommended that left-turn lanes be added to the intersection of College
Street and 23rd Avenue / Technology Boulevard as necessitated by the
growing traffic demand. The intersection is a four-legged intersection with
stop control on 23rd Avenue / Technology Boulevard. This intersection
frequently has delay problems during peak traffic periods due to the inability
of vehicles to make left-hand turns, particularly southbound left-turns. A
traffic signal, roundabout, or other traffic control device should be added to
this intersection when warrants are met.
Estimated Cost: $350,000
TSM-7: Willson Avenue / Garfield Street
It is recommended that left-turn lanes be added to the intersection of Wilson
Avenue and Garfield Street as necessitated by the growing traffic demand.
The intersection is a four-legged intersection with stop control on Garfield
Street. This intersection frequently has delay problems during peak traffic
periods due to the inability of vehicles to make left-hand turns. A traffic
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 5-21
signal, roundabout, or other traffic control device should be added to this
intersection when warrants are met.
Estimated Cost: $350,000
TSM-8: Kagy Boulevard / Sourdough Road / Church Street
This project includes the installation of a traffic signal, roundabout, or other
adequate traffic control device when warrants are met to the intersection of
Kagy Boulevard and Sourdough Road / Church Street. This intersection
currently has stop control on Sourdough Road and Church Street. Current
LOS analysis shows that this intersection fails during AM and PM peak hours
due to excessive delay along the northbound and southbound approaches.
Estimated Cost: $330,000
TSM-9: Highland Boulevard / Kagy Boulevard
This project includes the installation of a traffic signal, roundabout, or other
adequate traffic control device when warrants are met to the intersection of
Highland Boulevard and Kagy Boulevard. Highland Boulevard is currently a
two-lane minor arterial roadway and Kagy Boulevard is a two-lane principal
arterial. This intersection currently has stop control along Highland
Boulevard. A modern roundabout will help to improve traffic flow and safety
at this intersection.
Estimated Cost: $330,000
TSM-10: Oak Street / Ferguson Road
It is recommended that left-turn lanes be added to the intersection of Oak
Street and Ferguson Road as necessitated by the growing traffic demand. The
intersection will become a four-legged intersection with stop control on
Ferguson Road. A traffic signal, roundabout, or other traffic control device
should be added to this intersection when warrants are met. This project is
expected to serve future need in the area and should be completed in
conjunction with MSN-10 and MSN-25.
Estimated Cost: $350,000
TSM-11: Oak Street / Cottonwood Road
It is recommended that left-turn lanes be added to the intersection of Oak
Street and Cottonwood Road as necessitated by the growing traffic demand.
The intersection will become a four-legged intersection with stop control on
Cottonwood Road. A traffic signal, roundabout, or other traffic control device
should be added to this intersection when warrants are met. This project is
expected to serve future need in the area and should be completed in
conjunction with MSN-6 and MSN-10.
Estimated Cost: $350,000
TSM-12: Baxter Lane / Cottonwood Road / Harper Puckett Road
It is recommended that left-turn lanes be added to the intersection of Baxter
Lane and Cottonwood Road / Harper Puckett Road as necessitated by the
growing traffic demand. The intersection will become a four-legged
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Page 5-22 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
intersection with stop control on Cottonwood Road / Harper Puckett Road.
A traffic signal, roundabout, or other traffic control device should be added to
this intersection when warrants are met. This project is expected to serve
future need in the area and should be completed in conjunction with MSN-6
and MSN-10.
Estimated Cost: $350,000
TSM-13: Durston Road / 27th Avenue
It is recommended that left-turn lanes be added to the intersection of Durston
Road and 27th Avenue as necessitated by the growing traffic demand. The
intersection is a three-legged intersection with stop control on 27th Avenue.
Durston Road is a minor arterial roadway and 27th Avenue is a collector
roadway. This intersection experiences delay problems associated with the
difficulty of vehicles being able to make left-turns during peak hours. A
traffic signal, roundabout, or other traffic control device should be added to
this intersection when warrants are met.
Estimated Cost: $350,000
TSM-14: Hulbert Road / Jackrabbit Lane
It is recommended that left-turn lanes be added to the intersection of Hulbert
Road and Jackrabbit Lane as necessitated by the growing traffic demand. The
intersection is a four-legged intersection with stop control on Hulbert Road.
A traffic signal, roundabout, or other traffic control device should be added to
this intersection when warrants are met.
Estimated Cost: $425,000
TSM-15: Nelson Road / Frontage Road
It is recommended that a left-turn lane be added to Nelson Road at the
intersection with the Frontage Road as necessitated by the growing traffic
demand. The intersection is a three-legged intersection with stop control on
Nelson Road. The Frontage Road is a minor arterial roadway and Nelson
Road is classified as a collector. A traffic signal, roundabout, or other traffic
control device should be added to this intersection when warrants are met.
Estimated Cost: $200,000
TSM-16: Sacajawea Peak / Frontage Road
It is recommended that left-turn lanes be added to the intersection of
Sacajawea Peak and Frontage Road as necessitated by the growing traffic
demand. The intersection is a three-legged intersection with stop control on
Sacajawea Peak. The Frontage Road is a minor arterial roadway and
Sacajawea Peak is classified as a local. A traffic signal, roundabout, or other
traffic control device should be added to this intersection when warrants are
met.
Estimated Cost: $425,000
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 5-23
TSM-17: Gallatin Field / Frontage Road
It is recommended that a traffic signal, roundabout, or other adequate traffic
control device be installed at the intersection of Gallatin Field and Frontage
Road when warrants are met. This is a three-legged intersection with stop
control on Gallatin Field. There currently are designated left-turn lanes on
each approach leg of this intersection.
Estimated Cost: $330,000
TSM-18: College Street / 8th Avenue
It is recommended that a traffic signal, roundabout, or other adequate traffic
control device be installed at this intersection when warrants are met. This
intersection is currently four-way stop controlled and analysis shows a failing
level of service due to excessive delay at the intersection.
Estimated Cost: $330,000
TSM-19: West Babcock/Main Street
It is recommended that the intersection signal timing/phasing be
reconfigured to provide a dedicated left-turn phase along the Babcock leg.
This intersection currently has a failing LOS due to the eastbound and
westbound movements. If the LOS does not improve to an acceptable level by
changing the signal timing/phasing, then this intersection should be
reevaluated to determine other possible traffic control measures.
Estimated Cost: $35,000
TSM-20: Highland Boulevard / Ellis Street
This project includes the installation of a traffic signal, roundabout, or other
adequate traffic control device when warrants are met to the intersection of
Highland Boulevard and Ellis Street. Highland Boulevard is currently a two-
lane minor arterial roadway and Ellis Street is a two-lane local roadway. This
intersection currently has stop control along Ellis Street.
Estimated Cost: $330,000
TSM-21: Kagy Boulevard / Willson Avenue
The existing intersection should be modified to add a designated southbound
right-turn lane. This intersection currently operates at a LOS of D or lower
during the AM and PM peak hours. If conditions do not improve at this
intersection, it should be reevaluated to determine other potential traffic
control solutions.
Estimated Cost: $140,000
TSM-22: Durston / 25th Avenue
It is recommended that left-turn lanes be added to the intersection of Durston
Road and 25th Avenue as necessitated by the growing traffic demand. The
intersection is a four-legged intersection with stop control on 25th Avenue.
Durston Road is a minor arterial roadway and 25th Avenue is a local roadway.
This intersection experiences delay problems associated with the difficulty of
vehicles being able to make left-turns during peak hours. A traffic signal,
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Page 5-24 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
roundabout, or other traffic control device should be added to this
intersection when warrants are met. This intersection serves as a major access
to Emily Dickinson School and as such, there are increases in traffic volumes
and pedestrian traffic at this location.
Estimated Cost: $350,000
TSM-23: Babcock Street / 11th Avenue
It is recommended that crosswalks be painted on all legs of the intersection of
Babcock Street and 11th Avenue. This intersection is a block south of Bozeman
High School and experiences high pedestrian traffic. This is a four-legged
intersection with stop control on Babcock Street.
Estimated Cost: $50,000
TSM-24: Highway 191 Speed Zone Study
It is recommended that a speed zone study be completed to determine if the
50 mph speed zone can be extended north to Axtell Anceney Road and south
to Cottonwood Road along Highway 191. It is also recommended that
signage be installed at both ends of the speed zone to indicate “congested area
next 2 miles” or “dangerous intersection ahead”. Also, determine if the speed
differential can be eliminated between cars and trucks along the remainder of
Highway 191 by posting a day speed of 65 mph and night speed of 60 mph.
Estimated Cost: $30,000
TSM-25: Highway 191 / Mill Street
It is recommended that a traffic signal with a pre-emptive traffic device be
installed at the intersection of Mill Street and Highway 191 to allow the
Gallatin Gateway Fire Department safer and speedier access to the highway.
The west side of this intersection serves an elementary school, fire station, the
Gallatin Gateway Community Center, and businesses and homes in town, as
well as the Gallatin River and a network of rural roads. To the east, it serves
the Post Office, and businesses and residences. Although the intersection is
currently at a LOS C for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, expected future
growth could diminish the LOS to a failing grade.
Estimated Cost: $330,000
TSM-26: Highway 191 / Axtell Anceney Road
It is recommended that designated turn lanes complete with appropriate
length turn bays be installed at the intersection of Highway 191 and Axtell
Anceney Road as necessitated by the growing traffic demand. This is a three-
legged intersection with stop control on Axtell Anceney Road. Designated
turn lanes will help increase the safety level and traffic flow at the
intersection.
Estimated Cost: $425,000
TSM-27: Highway 191 / Zachariah Lane
It is recommended that designated turn lanes complete with appropriate
length turn bays be installed at the intersection of Highway 191 and Zachariah
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 5-25
Lane as necessitated by the growing traffic demand. This is a four-legged
intersection with stop control on Zachariah Lane. Designated turn lanes will
help increase the safety level and traffic flow at the intersection.
Estimated Cost: $425,000
TSM-28: Highway 191 / Cottonwood Road
It is recommended that designated turn lanes complete with appropriate
length turn bays be installed at the intersection of Highway 191 and
Cottonwood Road as necessitated by the growing traffic demand. This is a
four-legged intersection with stop control on Cottonwood Road. Designated
turn lanes will help increase the safety level and traffic flow at the
intersection.
Estimated Cost: $425,000
TSM-29: Access Management Plan on Highway 191
Eliminate excessive curb cuts and access points on Highway 191 by restricting
access as much as possible to major intersections with turn lanes. Require
developers to provide frontage road access via intersections with turn lanes
instead of multiple curb cuts. It is further recommended that a formal access
control study be undertaken in hopes of preparing an access control
management plan for this corridor.
Estimated Cost: $250,000
TSM-30: Highway 191 / Huffine Lane
It is recommended that a pre-emptive traffic device be installed at the
intersection. A pre-emptive traffic device would allow for safer and speedier
access for the Gallatin Gateway Fire Department.
Estimated Cost: $25,000
TSM-31: 7th Avenue / Kagy Boulevard
This project includes the installation of a traffic signal, roundabout, or other
adequate traffic control device to the intersection of 7th Avenue and Kagy
Boulevard. 7th Avenue is a two-lane collector roadway north of the
intersection and a two-lane local roadway south of the intersection. Kagy
Boulevard is a two-lane principal arterial roadway at the intersection. This
intersection currently has stop control along 7th Avenue. Recent development
proposals and increasing traffic volumes indicate that the need for this signal
improvement will soon be warranted. This intersection is a major access point
for the MSU campus. This project will improve traffic flow and safety at this
intersection.
TSM-32: Truck Route Alternatives
Study possible routes that would allow commercial trucks to by-pass Mill
Street when accessing Highway 191. Possible routes include Gateway South,
Axtell Gateway, and /or Axtell Anceney.
Estimated Cost: $30,000
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Page 5-26 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
TSM-33: Mill Street Speed Zone Study
Conduct a Speed Zone study to determine if the 25 mph speed zone can be
extended to the west at the intersection with Cottonwood Road, Axtell
Gateway Road, and Gateway South Road. Also, determine if Gateway South
Road from the intersection with Mill Road should be a 35 mph speed zone for
3 miles.
Estimated Cost: $30,000
TSM-34: Implement Huffine Lane Access Control Plan
The MDT has an adopted Access Control Plan in place for Huffine Lane that
delineates allowed access spacing, frontage road locations, and future
signalization of intersections. As improvements and/or developments are
considered along this corridor, reference should be made to the Access
Control Plan for allowable traffic mitigation improvements.
Estimated Cost: N/A
TSM-35: Implement Jackrabbit Lane Access Control Plan
The MDT has an adopted Access Control Plan in place for Jackrabbit Lane
that delineates allowed access spacing, frontage road locations, and future
signalization of intersections. As improvements and/or developments are
considered along this corridor, reference should be made to the Access
Control Plan for allowable traffic mitigation improvements.
Estimated Cost: N/A
TSM-36: Development Review/Coordination Efforts
It is desirable to have a formal mechanism by which Streamline board and
staff can participate in the development revise process. This will allow for
continued coordination of proper bus stop location and identification of
appropriate bus bay design and locations. The goal is to be able to participate
in the formal review such that knowledge is disseminated to all affected
parties pertinent to transit growth opportunities (routes, destinations, etc) and
how those opportunities interface with private development infrastructure.
Estimated Cost: N/A
TSM-37: Formalize Transit Representation on TCC
It is recommended that a member of Streamline (board or staff) have a formal,
allocated seat on the Bozeman Transportation Coordinating Committee
(TCC).
Estimated Cost: N/A
TSM-14
TSM-25
TSM-30
TSM-28
TSM-27
TSM-26
TSM-17
TSM-16
0 10,0005,000
Feet
SEE
D
E
T
A
I
L
(FIG
U
R
E
5
-
4
)
Transportation System Management(TSM) Recommended ImprovementsFigure 5-3
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)Legend Local Roadway
Detail Area
City Boundary
Urban Boundary
Study Area BoundaryInterstatePrincipal ArterialMinor ArterialCollectorFuture Principal ArterialFuture Minor ArterialFuture Collector
NOTE:A CTSM Project is shown only if the project willaffect capacity and/or delay characteristics of a roadwayfacility and/or intersection. CTSM projects are likely tooccur within the next five years.
The functional classifications shown are recommended aspart of the Transportation Plan and do not reflect the federallyapproved functional classification criteria which is based oncurrent conditions rather than anticipated future conditions.
TSM Possible Roundabout Location
CTSM Possible Roundabout Location
Committed Transportation SystemManagement (CTSM)Transportation System Management (TSM)
TSM-3
TSM-7
TSM-6
TSM-4
TSM-2
TSM-1
TSM-8
TSM-5
TSM-9
TSM-19
TSM-12
TSM-10TSM-11
TSM-23
TSM-15
TSM-13
TSM-22
CTSM-6
TSM-21
TSM-18 TSM-20
CTSM-2
CTSM-3
CTSM-1
TSM-31
CTSM-5
CTSM-4
0 5,0002,500
Feet
Transportation System Management(TSM) Recommended ImprovementsFigure 5-4
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)Legend Local Roadway
Detail Area
City Boundary
Urban Boundary
InterstatePrincipal ArterialMinor ArterialCollectorFuture Principal ArterialFuture Minor ArterialFuture Collector
NOTE:A CTSM Project is shown only if the project willaffect capacity and/or delay characteristics of a roadwayfacility and/or intersection. CTSM projects are likely tooccur within the next five years.
The functional classifications shown are recommended aspart of the Transportation Plan and do not reflect the federallyapproved functional classification criteria which is based oncurrent conditions rather than anticipated future conditions.
TSM Possible Roundabout Location
CTSM Possible Roundabout Location
Committed Transportation SystemManagement (CTSM)Transportation System Management (TSM)
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 5-29
5.3 RECOMMENDED PEDESTRIAN FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
All residents within the Bozeman area are pedestrians whether walking the dog, walking to
the store or work, or from a vehicle to a final destination. The following recommended
pedestrian facility improvements were developed from the public involvement process and
observations on the major street network (collector and arterial streets). Each proposed
facility should be designed in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
design standards and with the dimensions found in the street standards in Chapter 9.
Planning level cost estimates have been provided for the recommended pedestrian facilities
in this section. More detailed engineering level cost estimates should be undertaken at the
time implementation for each project as individual challenges vary and material costs can
escalate significantly over time. The cost estimates included in this section only account for
the marginal cost of adding pedestrian facilities and do not include the cost of right-of-way
acquisition (if applicable), or for major grading associated with roadway widening. Estimates
assume a 5 foot wide sidewalk of 4 inch thickness for collector streets and a 6 foot wide
sidewalk of 6 inch thickness for sidewalks along arterials.
5.3.1 Bozeman Specific Safe Routes to School Projects
Technical Safe Routes to School assessments of six of Bozeman’s elementary schools were
completed in the spring of 2008. These schools were, Hawthorne, Emily Dickinson, Irving,
Longfellow, Morning Star, and Whittier Elementary Schools. The recommended
‘engineering’ related projects focused mainly on the local streets surrounding the schools
and some crossings of collectors and arterials. Where applicable, Safe Routes to School
(SRTS) projects that have been recommended on collectors or arterials have been identified
with a ‘SRTS’ tag in the notes field of the recommended bicycle and pedestrian facilities
tables. The School Improvement Plans for the six elementary schools are available within the
Bozeman Engineering and Planning Departments and online at the City of Bozeman’s
website. These documents should be reviewed prior to any construction activities on local
streets in Bozeman.
5.3.2 Sidewalks
The following streets within the Bozeman Area in Table 5-3 have no pedestrian facilities for
the identified segments. These corridors have been identified by their existing pedestrian
need or anticipated future need. Cost estimates are provided in Table 5-3 for sidewalk
construction only, but in most cases full street improvements will also be necessary.
Table 5-3
Recommended Sidewalks
Street From To Dist. Notes Cost
W. Babcock St. S. 19th Ave. S. 11th Ave. 2,800 ft Construct Sidewalks along entire segment. $150,000
Baxter Ln. N. 19th Ave. Davis Ln. 4,300 ft Most of the north side and part of south side
need construction. $300,000
Baxter Ln. N. 15th Ave. N. 7th Ave. 3,500 ft Construct sidewalks on both sides $200,000
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Page 5-30 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Street From To Dist. Notes Cost
L St. Story Mill Rd. Railroad
tracks 3,150 ft Construct sidewalks on both sides $175,000
Manley Rd. W. Griffin Dr. Existing
Sidewalk 1,800 ft Sidewalk recommended on both sides $100,000
Mcilhatten Rd. Story Mill Rd. Agusta Dr. 2,200 ft Construct sidewalk on south side $60,000
N. 7th Ave. Durston Rd. Hemlock St. 1,400 ft
Multiple missing pieces of sidewalk. Wide
driveways common. Short term: fill gaps
Long term: redevelop N. 7th Ave with new
streetscape, pedestrian lighting, boulevard
planting strips, street trees, 7-foot minimum
sidewalk.
$65,000
N. 7th Ave. Southern I-90
ramps Red Wing Dr. 2,700 ft
Multiple missing pieces of sidewalk. Only
western side of I-90 overpass has pedestrian
facilities. Crosswalks should be added across
all cross streets and freeway ramps.
$120,000
N. Cottonwood
Rd. Huffine Ln. W. Durston
Rd. 5,300 ft Construct sidewalks on both sides $475,000
N. Rouse /
Bridger Drive
E. Cottonwood
St. Griffin Dr. 4,700 ft Construct sidewalks on both sides $423,000
N. Rouse Ave. E. Lamme St. 700 feet south
of Peach St. 1,100 ft Construct sidewalks on both sides $100,000
S. 19th Ave. W. Babcock St. Patterson 5,300 ft
Construct Sidewalks along entire segment,
partially through S. 19th MDT project,
partially through new development.
$175,000
S. 3rd Ave.
(and Graf St.) W. Kagy Blvd.
Wagonwheel
Rd (south of
middle school)
5,000 ft
Road currently has an asphalt pedestrian
zone with rumble strip on one side only.
Sidewalk should be constructed to collector
standard. Construct Sidewalk on one side
minimum, both sides recommended. Two
schools and shopping center would be
connected to hundreds of homes.
$135,000-
$270,000
S. Church Ave
/ Sourdough
Rd.
E Story St. E. Kagy Blvd. 6,400 ft Roadway mostly without sidewalks, there
are a few segments that have them, but they
are overgrown and in need of maintenance.
$350,000
Story Mill Rd. L St. Boylan Rd. 3,700 ft Construct sidewalks on both sides $205,000
Story Mill Rd. Boylan Rd. Mcilhattan Rd. 850 ft Construct sidewalks on both sides $50,000
W. College St. Huffine Ln. S. 13th Ave. 5,600 ft Sidewalk recommended for north side of the
roadway. SRTS related. $250,000
W. Griffin Dr. N. 7th Ave. N. Rouse Ave. 3,900 ft Construct sidewalks on both sides $350,000
W. Kagy Blvd. S. 19th Ave. S. 11th Ave. 1,600 ft Construct sidewalks where missing along
both sides. Most of segment lacks sidewalks.
Only partially along vacant land.
$70,000
5.3.3 Intersections/Crossings
The following intersections and/or crossing locations in Table 5-4 have been identified to
provide for improved pedestrian crossing opportunities. In addition to the intersection
improvements shown in Table 5-4, the potential for mid-block crossings described as the
Durston Mid-Block Crossing on West Side Trail and the Oak Street/Regional Park Mid-Block
Crossings should be studied.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 5-31
Table 5-4
Proposed Pedestrian Intersection Improvements
Intersection Type Notes Cost
Downtown areas of Babcock and Mendenhall Streets Curb Extensions Install curb extensions on all/most intersections. Few traffic controls are present with many parked cars. Pedestrians have low visibility in a high pedestrian use area. $5,000 ea
E. Main St. &N. Broadway Ave
Dedicated pedestrian
signal, full traffic signal with pedestrian signal heads, or grade separated crossing.
The ‘Main Street to the Mountains’ trail ends here with major
destination such as the new Library, and Lindley Park
located across Main Street from other businesses and trail systems to the north. This crossing has high interest from non-motorized users and is currently not signalized. A grade separated crossing should consist of a 10-foot underpass beneath East Main Street with 10-foot paved shared-use path connecting to existing segment in Lindley Park. On north side, portions could be funded/constructed through development of vacant parcels.
Dedicated
pedestrian signal:
$75,000; Pedestrian signal heads: $2,500 (Signal heads only); Underpass: $250,000-$600,000 depending on design.
N. 7th Ave & W
Villard St
Dedicated Pedestrian
Signal
This is a long crossing with no intersection control. Students
will use it coming from the west side of 7th to Whittier School.
Pedestrian signal recommended when warrants are met,
H.A.W.K. variety recommended. SRTS related.
$75,000
S. 13th Ave & W.
College St
Dedicated Pedestrian
Signal or Pedestrian
Signal heads on full
signal
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) connection between MSU
student housing and Irving School. Also will assist MSU
Student access to campus. SRTS related.
$2,500 (Signal
heads only)
$75,000 for ped
signal
W. College St. & S. Willson Ave. Pedestrian Signal heads on full signal
Traffic Signal with pedestrian signal heads recommended
when warrants are met. All pedestrian phase for school students during school commute periods. SRTS related.
$2,500 (Signal heads only)
W. College St. &S.
23rd Ave.
Pedestrian Signal
heads on full signal
If traffic signal is installed then pedestrian signal heads
should be included. Will provide access to shared-use path
on the south side of W College St.
$2,500 (Signal
heads only)
W. College St. @ Intersections
between S. 8th Ave.
and S. 11th Ave.
ADA Curb Ramps, Driveway Aprons, & Crosswalk Striping
The north side of College Street is inadequate as a pedestrian facility. Its proximity to Irving School, local neighborhoods and MSU make improvements necessary. SRTS related. $70,000
W. Garfield St & S.
19th Ave
Dedicated Pedestrian
Signal or Pedestrian
Signal heads on full
signal short-term.
Grade Separation long-
term
Help is needed at this intersection for pedestrians and
bicycles trying to get to MSU from neighborhoods to the
north and west of campus. A traffic signal with pedestrian
signal heads would improve connectivity. Long-term campus
plans call for a pedestrian/bicycle overpass of S 19th Ave.
$2,500 (Signal
heads only)
W. Kagy Blvd & S. 11th Ave Pedestrian Signal heads on full signal
This intersection frequently has long delays for pedestrians and bicyclists. A traffic signal with pedestrian signal heads would improve connectivity.
$2,500 (Signal heads only)
W. Kagy Blvd. & S. 7th Ave. Pedestrian Signal heads on full signal
If intersection has access control then use pedestrian refuge island with crossing at the west side of the intersection to stay away from right turning traffic
$2,500 (Signal heads only)
W. Koch St & S. 11th
Ave Stripe Crossing Place Piano Key crossing with stop lines and accompanying
signage. $15,000
W. Koch St & S. 19th
Ave
Pedestrian Signal
heads on full signal Install pedestrian signal heads with Traffic signal $2,500 (Signal
heads only)
W. Oak St & N. Hunters Way Refuge Island Wide Crossing, Median exists, realign crossing or extend median. SRTS related. $1,500
W. Oak St. & N. 27th
Ave. Refuge Island Wide Crossing, Median exists, realign crossing or extend
median. SRTS related. $1,500
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Page 5-32 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
5.4 RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
Bicycle facilities vary dramatically from simply additional signage to separated paved
facilities along exclusive rights-of-way. The following projects in Table 5-5 through Table 5-
9 have been identified through public involvement, existing and anticipated future travel
demand, significant destinations for bicyclists, and the existing bicycle network. Planning
level cost estimates have been provided for the recommended bicycle facilities in this section.
More detailed engineering level cost estimates should be undertaken at the time
implementation for each project as individual challenges vary and material costs can escalate
significantly over time. The cost estimates included in this section only account for the
marginal cost of adding bicycle facilities and do not include the cost of right-of-way
acquisition (if applicable), or for major grading associated with roadway widening. Estimates
assume appropriate signage, thermoplastic striping and stenciling (paint is significantly
cheaper but less durable), additional paving (if applicable), curb and gutter, and other
concrete work. For Shared Use paths, a 10 foot wide, 3inch thick asphalt section is assumed
(city standard) if a 6 inch concrete section is used (also city standard) cost will roughly triple
from estimate.
5.4.1 Bike Lanes
A bike lane provides a striped and stenciled lane for one-way travel on a street or highway.
Many of the identified bike lanes will be completed through roadway improvements funded
by new development. Some of the identified projects will need to be completed by the City of
Bozeman, Gallatin County, or MDT through retrofit or as part of maintenance activities
(striping and signage only). Additionally, any roadway to be built within the City of
Bozeman that is a collector or arterial should have a bike lane constructed in accordance with
the recommended roadway standards in Chapter 9.
Table 5-5
Recommended Bike Lanes
Street From To Length (mi) Notes Cost
11th Ave. College St. Baxter Ln. 1.8
From Main to Durston width allows. Road missing between Durston Rd. and Oak St. Parking may need to be removed on one side of street from W. Curtiss to W. College or curb widening.
$40,000 not including unbuilt part.
Babcock St. W. Main St S. Wallace Ave. 1.83 May require removal of parking or lane
configuration changes. $65,000
Baxter Ln. N. 15th Ave. N. 7th Ave. 0.67 As new development occurs. Retrofit possible. $100,000
Baxter Ln. N. 19th Ave. Jackrabbit Ln. 5.69 Build BLs with any new construction. (Gallatin Green to Ferguson already exists) $900,000
Bozeman Trail Rd. E. Kagy Blvd. Haggerty Ln. 0.81 Adjoins new development. $320,000
Catamont St. Valley Center Rd. Harper Puckett Rd. 1.26 Build BLs with any new construction. (Davis to 27th already exists) $200,000
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 5-33
Street From To Length (mi) Notes Cost
Cattail St. S. 19th Ave. Western
extensions 1.29 Build BLs with any new construction. $200,000
Cottonwood Rd. Huffine Ln. Baxter Ln. 2 Add BLs when full width is constructed. $56,000
Cottonwood
Rd. Huffine Ln. Blackwood Rd. 2.02 As new development occurs $315,000
Davis Ln. Oak St. Valley Center
Dr. 2.2 Adjacent to Regional Park. Add bike lanes
when full width is constructed. $340,000
Durston Rd. Springbrook
Ave.
Western
Terminus 3.2 Build BLs with any new construction. $500,000
E. Main St. S. Wallace Virginia Dr. 2.17 Striping & Signage needed $15,000
Fowler Ln. W. Oak St. Blackwood Rd. 3.78
As new development occurs/ in
conjunction with road projects.
Improvements needed to E. side of St. only
between Main and Durston.
$425,000
Graf St. S. 3rd Ave. Cottonwood Rd. 2.79 Build BLs with all new segments $450,000
Griffin Dr. N. 7th Ave. Story Mill Rd. 1.24 As new development occurs $350,000
Haggerty Ln. Bozeman Trail
Rd. E. Main St. 1.04 Adjoins new development. $400,000
Harper Puckett Rd. Valley Center Rd Baxter Ln. 2.73 Build BLs with any new segment. Retrofit built segments. $435,000
Highland Blvd. Main St. E. Kagy Blvd. 1.63 Should be installed with work on Highland
& Hospital development $30,000
Huffine Ln. Cottonwood Rd. 11th Ave. 2.76 Shoulder width allows. Signage/Striping only. $20,000
Kagy Blvd. S. 22nd Ave. Cottonwood Rd. 1.77 Build BLs with any new construction. $280,000
Kagy Blvd. /
Bozeman Trail
Rd.
S. 19th Ave. I-90 Interchange 7.01
Mostly striping & signage only on Kagy,
full road reconstruction on Bozeman Trail
Road.
$80,000 from
19th to
Highland,
$650,000 to
I-90
L St. Story Mill Rd. N. Wallace Ave. 0.64 Build BLs with any new construction. $100,000
Manley Rd. Exist bike lane Mcilhatten Rd. 1.1 As new development occurs $150,000
Mendenhall St. N. 11th Ave. N. Wallace Ave. 1.11 May require removal of parking or lane configuration changes. $37,000
N. 15th Ave. Durston Rd. W. Main St. 0.44 Add BLs $12,000
N. 15th Ave. Oak St. Baxter Ln. 0.48 Build BLs with any new construction. 80,000
N. 19th Ave. W. Main St. Springhill Rd. 3 Retrofit possible from Main to Springhill.
Signage and stenciling only. $20,000
N. 27th Ave. /
Thomas Dr. Durston St. Valley Center
Dr. 2.23
Some parts complete. Challenge is between
Durston and Oak. St. is 40’ wide. Parking
on W. side of St. may need to be sacrificed.
Two 5’ BLs, two 11’ driving lanes, one 8’
parking lane
$70,000
N. 7th Ave. W. Griffin Dr. W. Main St. 1.43 Slight lane narrowing in some places,
mostly signage & Striping $40,000
N. Ferguson
Ave.
Valley Center
Rd. Durston Rd. 2.91 Build BLs with all new segments $650,000
N. Rouse Ave. Story Mill Rd. E. Main St. 0.84 Include as part of MDT reconstruction $330,000
Oak St. N. 7th Ave. N. 19th Ave. 0.78 Signage and stenciling needed only $5,000
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Page 5-34 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Street From To Length (mi) Notes Cost
Oak St. Davis Ln. Western
terminus 1.76 As new development occurs $275,000
Peach St. N. 7th Ave. N. Rouse Ave. 0.7 Remove parking on N. side install bike lanes. $33,000
S. 11th Ave. W. Grant St. W. Kagy Blvd. 0.34 Striping & Signage only $10,000
S. 11th Ave. W. Kagy Blvd. Goldstein Rd. 1.77 Build BLs with any new construction. $275,000
S. 23rd Ave. W. Main St. W. College St. 0.5 Resize lanes, prohibit parking $15,000
S. 27th Ave. College St. Southern
terminus 1.51 Build BLs with any new construction. $240,000
S. 3rd Ave. Sacajawea
School Goldenstein Ln. 0.52 Add BLs $60,000
S. 8th Ave. W. Main St. W. Cleveland St. 0.7 Narrow median and add bike lane $280,000
S. Church Ave. Kagy Blvd. E. Mendenhall
St. 1.67 Build BLs with roadway reconstruction. $700,000
S. Ferguson
Ave. Huffine Ln. Southern
terminus 2.02 Build BLs with all new segments unknown
S. Willson Ave. Kagy Blvd. Main St. 1.33 Narrow travel lanes to add Bike Lanes $90,000
Story Mill Rd. L St. Mcilhatten Rd. 0.97 As new development occurs $75,000
Tamarack St. N. 7th Ave. N. Wallace Ave. 0.86 Retrofit BLs. Possible
signage/striping/parking removal. $25,000
Valley Center
Rd. N. 19th Ave. Jackrabbit Ln. 6.35
Build BLs with any new construction,
retrofit existing improved roadway with
signage and striping.
$950,000
W. College St. Main St. Willson Ave. 1.84 Possible retrofit on some areas. College from main to S. 11th will have to be reconstructed at some point. $700,000
W. Garfield St. Research Dr. S. 19th Ave. 0.68 Mostly striping and signage $17,000
W. Garfield St. Cottonwood Rd. Fowler Ave. 1.04 Build BLs with any new construction. $160,000
W. Grant St. S. 6th Ave. S. Willson Ave. 0.32 Continue existing bike lane. May require removal of parking on one side of St. $8,500
W. Kagy Blvd. S. 22nd Ave Cottonwood Rd. 1.77 Build BLs with any new construction. $275,000
W. Lincoln St. S. 11th Ave Cottonwood Rd. 2.53 Build BLs with any new construction, retrofit existing improved roadway with signage and striping. $330,000
5.4.2 Shared Roadways
Shared roadways are any on-street facility where bicycles share the travel lanes with
automobiles. Typically, these facilities occur on local roadways or on roadways with low
traffic volumes and speeds. Currently, the City of Bozeman’s bike route network identified
in Chapter 2 makes up all of the shared roadways in the study area. Additional treatments to
these roadways constitute a ‘Bicycle Boulevard.’ Treatments include turning stop signs to
favor bicyclists, pavement markings, wayfinding signage, traffic diverters and other types of
traffic calming. The level of treatment varies between facilities and is dictated by traffic
conditions and safety. Proposed bicycle boulevards should be implemented with pavement
stenciling (shared lane markings), ‘City of Bozeman Bike Route’ signs, and appropriate
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 5-35
wayfinding signage (‘Downtown’, ‘Trails’, ‘MSU Campus’, etc.). Traffic calming should only
be applied to bicycle boulevards where traffic speeds or volumes are excessive.
It is recommended that pilot bicycle boulevards be implemented on the existing Bike Routes
of Lamme Street from North 11th Avenue to Broadway, on West Koch Street between South
23rd Avenue to South Tracy Avenue, and on a proposed bike routes on North Wallace
Avenue from end to end at the trailheads and on South 6th Avenue from West Babcock Street
to West Grant Street.
New bike routes are also identified in Table 5-6.
Table 5-6
Designate as Bike Routes
Street From To Length (mi) Notes Cost
Clifften Dr. W. Babcock St. Durston Rd. 0.53 Good Connection near park. $1,000
Lamme St. N. 11th Ave. N. Broadway Ave. 1.28 Bicycle Boulevard Test. Estimate is for signage and stenciling only $11,000
S. 6th Ave. W. Babcock St. W. Grant St. 1.24 Bicycle Boulevard Test. Estimate is for
signage and stenciling only $10,000
W. Koch St. S. 23rd Ave. S. Tracy Ave. 1.5 Bicycle Boulevard Test. Estimate is for
signage and stenciling only $13,000
Western Dr. Durston Rd. W. Babcock St. 0.51 Less traffic and no parking as compared to
North Hunters Way. $1,000
5.4.3 Shoulder Bikeways
Roadway shoulders can offer many of the benefits of bike lanes without the same level of
infrastructure cost associated with bike lane stencils and signage. Roadway shoulders are
ideal for rural roadways where bicyclists are present. Roadway shoulders should be a
minimum of 4 feet wide with 6 feet recommended. If a rumble strip is necessary it should be
as close to the white (fog) line as possible and have regular skips to allow bicyclists to leave
the shoulder to avoid obstructions or obstacles if necessary. Roads that are recommended for
shoulder bikeways are listed in Table 5-7.
Table 5-7
Recommended Expanded Shoulder (Minimum of 4-feet)
Street From To Length (mi) Notes Cost
Blackwood Rd. Cottonwood Rd. US 191 4.74 In conjunction with road improvements. $500,000
Cameron Bridge Rd. Jackrabbit Ln. Harper Puckett Rd. 2.97 In conjunction with road improvements. $315,000
Cottonwood
Rd. Blackwood Rd. Terminus 10.34 In conjunction with road improvements. $1,100,000
Enders Rd. S. Cottonwood Rd. Gooch Hill Rd. 1.51 In conjunction with road improvements. $160,000
Fort Ellis Rd. Bozeman Trail
Rd. Frontage Rd. 0.91 In conjunction with road improvements. $100,000
Fowler Ln. Blackwood Rd. S. 19th Ave. 3.53 In conjunction with road improvements. $370,000
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Page 5-36 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Street From To Length (mi) Notes Cost
Frontage Rd. N. 7th Ave. Study Boundary
(near Belgrade) 7.32 In conjunction with road improvements. $770,000
Frontage Rd. (N. Side of I-90) E. Main St. Bozeman Trail Rd. 1.97 In conjunction with road improvements. $200,000
Goldenstein Ln. S. 19th Ave. Sourdough Rd. 1.99 Area developed. County controlled.
Rural character. $200,000
Gooch Hill Rd. Durston Rd. US 191 7.65 In conjunction with road improvements. $800,000
Jackrabbit Ln. Huffine Ln. Study Area
Boundary 6.7
4-8 foot shoulders recommended.
Shoulder should go into Belgrade as bike
lane – not within Study Area.
$700,000
Johnson Rd. Fowler Rd. Gooch Hill Rd. 3.01 In conjunction with road improvements. $315,000
Love Ln. Valley Center
Dr. Huffine Ln. 4.02 In conjunction with road improvements. $425,000
Mcilhattan Rd. Story Mill Rd. Sypes Canyon
Rd. 3.02 In conjunction with road improvements. $315,000
Monforton School Rd. Huffine Baxter Ln. 2.01 In conjunction with road improvements. $200,000
Nash Rd. S. 19th Ave. Sourdough Rd. 1.97 In conjunction with road improvements. $200,000
Patterson Rd. S. 3rd. Ave. Cottonwood Rd. 2.51 In conjunction with road improvements. $260,000
S. 3rd Ave. Goldenstein
Ln. Bristol Ln. 2.92 In conjunction with road improvements. $315,000
Sourdough Rd. E. Kagy Blvd. Nash Rd. 3.59 Area Developed. County controlled. Rural Character $375,000
Springhill Rd. Frontage Rd. End of pavement 6.08
In conjunction with road improvements.
Do not re-install rumble strip. If rumble strip is to be kept, keep it as far left as possible and use bike-friendly design.
$640,000
Stucky Rd. S. 19th Ave. Gooch Hill Rd. 3.01 As new development occurs/with future
county road improvements $315,000
US 191 Huffine Ln. Study Area Boundary 8.29 Ensure 4-ft minimum shoulder (outside of rumble strip area) in conjunction with any road improvements. $870,000
5.4.4 Shared-Use Paths
A shared-use path provides bicycle travel on a paved right-of-way completely separated
from any street or highway. Many shared-use paths in the Bozeman Area follow roadway
rights-of-way with varying amounts of separation. Shared-use paths in the City of Bozeman
are designed to be ten feet wide. Table 5-8 lists the recommended shared-use paths to
complement the existing network. Long-term connectivity to trails outside the study area
boundary, specifically towards Three Forks and Manhattan, should be factored into future
planning efforts and design concepts as the Bozeman to Belgrade trail is realized. This need
is further discussed in the Gallatin County Interconnect Plan.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 5-37
Table 5-8
Recommended Shared-Use Paths
Street / Route From To Length (mi) Notes Cost
Arnold St. S. 19th Ave. Termination of existing St. 0.69 Elementary School Connection $87,000
Bridger Canyon
Dr. I-90 ‘M’ Trailhead 4.67 Access to popular trailhead. $1,000,000
Cambridge Dr. S. 19th Ave. Existing path 0.63 Middle School Connection $80,000
Cameron Bridge
Rd.
Harper Puckett
Rd. Jackrabbit Ln. 2.97 Bozeman to Belgrade trail
alternative $375,000
Catamont St. Harper Puckett Stream Corridor 0.61 Bozeman to Belgrade trail alternative $300,000
College St. Huffine Ln. S. 11th Ave. 1.2 Part of Existing CTEP funding request $280,000
E. Kagy Blvd. Highland Blvd. Bozeman Trail Rd. 1 Build as development occurs, both sides. $250,000
E. Valley Center Rd. Stream Corridor Jackrabbit Ln. 1.25 Bozeman to Belgrade trail alternative $150,000
Ford Court Stream Corridor Harper Puckett
Rd. 0.99 Connector for Chief Joseph
Middle School $125,000
Fowler Ave. Oak St. S. 19th Ave. 7.05 Goal of GVLT to reach Hyalite Rd. $1,500,000
Harper Puckett
Rd. Baxter Ln. Cameron Bridge 3.7 Bozeman to Belgrade trail
alternative $900,000
Huffine Ln. Ferguson Ave. W. College St. 0.24 Part of Existing CTEP funding
request $70,000
Huffine Ln. Four Corners Ferguson Ave. 3.71 Build as development occurs,
both sides. $800,000
Jackrabbit Ln. Huffine Ln. Study Area
Boundary 6.52 East side only $800,000
N. 19th Ave. Durston Rd. I-90 varies Fill in gaps. Varies.
Oak St. N. 7th Ave. N. Rouse Ave. 0.74
Improve or build to Shared Use
Path Standard. Links fairgrounds,
to points East and West.
$220,000
S. 11th Ave. Opportunity Way Southern terminus (future) 1.18 Parts already built. MSU connection from South. $240,000
S. 19th Ave. Goldenstein Ln. College St. 2.52 Connection to MSU. College St. to
Kagy Blvd. being built in 2009 $220,000
S. Alaska Rd. Cameron Bridge Rd. I-90 1.1
Bozeman to Belgrade trail alternative – to be integrated with proposed interchange (see MSN 20).
$130,000
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Page 5-38 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Street / Route From To Length (mi) Notes Cost
Story Hill Rail Trail Village Downtown Blvd. Big Gulch Dr. 1.2
8 to 10-foot Paved Shared-Use
trail connecting N. Broadway
Ave. to Big Gulch Dr. via abandoned rail corridor. Two missing bridge spans will need to be installed, the first consisting of 150 feet over three active rail lines, the second a 300 foot gap over I-90. Due to oversize load requirements on I-90 the trail bed
will need to be raised and new
abutments constructed at these
crossings. MDT’s “Adopt a
Bridge” program may be able to
supply period truss bridges
suitable for bike and pedestrian
traffic.
$350,000 for trail and abutments, $150,000 for “adopt a bridge” relocation and modifications, $800,000-
$2,000,000 for
new
manufactured
bridges.
Stream Corridor Vaquero Pky. E. Valley Center 1.74 Connects from future regional park to the North. $220,000
W. Garfield St. Cottonwood Rd. S. 11th Ave. 2.5
Identified in MSU campus plan as
future bicycle/pedestrian
corridor.
$600,000
W. Kagy Blvd. S. 19th Ave. S. 3rd Ave. 1 Connection to MSU/Stadium $250,000
5.4.5 Bicycle Parking Recommendations:
Adequate bicycle parking is as equally important as the quality of bicycle facilities on the
road. The recommendations for bicycle parking are separated into three categories. First, the
optimal type of bicycle rack is recommended, followed by locations that are deficient in
bicycle parking, and lastly by recommendations for the UDO and County subdivision
regulations to ensure future development is adequate with regard to bicycle parking.
Recommended Bicycle Rack Types
The Bozeman area has existing bicycle parking that varies dramatically in design and
usability. The following guidelines are intended to aid selection of an appropriate rack
design and still allow for more exotic or artistic rack designs provided they are designed
correctly.
Bicycle Racks must be of a design that meets the requirements below:
Rack Type
The intent of the rack standards section is to ensure that required bicycle racks are
designed so that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue
inconvenience and will be reasonably safeguarded from accidental damage.
Bicycle racks must hold bicycles securely, and meet the following criteria:
Support the frame of the bicycle and not just one wheel
Allow the frame and one wheel to be locked to the rack when both wheels are
left on the bike
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 5-39
Allow the frame and both wheels to be locked to the rack if the front wheel is
removed
Allow the use of either a cable or U-shaped lock
Be securely anchored
Be usable by bikes with no kickstand
Be usable by bikes with water bottle cages
Be usable by a wide variety of sizes and types of bicycle
Bicycle Parking Location
Bicycle parking must be located within 50 feet on an entrance to the building.
Bicycle parking should be permanently secured to a paved surface and be
located such that it will not become buried by snow removal operations.
Covered bicycle parking is recommended wherever possible.
Bicycle parking may be provided within a building, but the location must be
easily accessible.
Bicycle Rack Design and Installation
Bicycle racks and the area required for parking and maneuvering must meet
the following standards.
Bicycle parking spaces must be at least 6 feet long and 2 feet wide, and in
covered situations the overhead clearance must be at least 7 feet.
An aisle for bicycle maneuvering must be provided and maintained beside or
between each row of bicycle parking. This aisle must be at least 5 feet wide.
Each required bicycle parking space must be accessible without moving
another bicycle.
Areas set aside for bicycle parking must be clearly marked and reserved for
bicycle parking only.
Recommended Bicycle Racks:
“Inverted U” or “Staple” Rack – This type of rack is typically
secured to a concrete base and is very secure and easy to use.
Coat Hanger Rack – This rack if used properly can support a
bicycle at two points and can operate fixed to a concrete base
or can be moved where needed.
Post and Loop or ‘Lollypop’ Rack – This rack has many of the
same characteristics as the Inverted U rack, but is more
compact. This type of rack can be installed in series (shown) or
along a curb line in the sidewalk furnishing zone.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Page 5-40 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Discouraged Bicycle Racks
Wheelbender Rack – This rack only supports the wheel
of the bicycle and can cause serious damage to the
bicycle if twisted while secured in the rack. This rack
also does not work with all types of locks.
Comb Rack – This rack suffers from many of the same
shortcomings as the wheelbender type rack where only the front
or rear wheel of the bicycle is supported. Many users of this
rack type lift there bicycle over the top and rest the frame on the
rack to allow use of a bicycle lock.
Wave Rack – To properly use this rack the cyclist places
the bicycle through the ‘wave’ pattern where it is only
supported at one point. Bicycles parked in these racks
are unstable and frequently tip over. Many cyclists park
their bicycle sideways in this rack to gain stability,
thereby reducing the capacity by 60-80 percent.
Locations Deficient in Bicycle Parking
The following locations are high-use areas that lack adequate numbers of bicycle parking
spaces:
Table 5-9
Bicycle Parking Needed
Location Notes
New City Library Racks are constantly overflowing even in inclimate weather. Additional high-quality bicycle parking
needed near main entrance of structure.
County Courthouse Two racks available, additional short-term parking is needed for the public, long-term secure parking
is needed for employees.
Downtown Bozeman Overall numbers of racks are insufficient to meet demand. New racks of the existing design should be installed on Main Street and all cross-streets where space permits.
MSU Library A new bicycle parking area is recommended near the front entrance to the library.
Hawthorne School Upgraded bicycle parking is needed with additional racks and a concrete base
Irving School Upgraded bicycle parking is needed with additional racks and a concrete base
Longfellow School Upgraded bicycle parking is needed with additional racks and a concrete base
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 5-41
Recommended Bicycle Parking Ordinance (City of Bozeman)
It is proposed that the City of Bozeman incorporate the following into the Unified
Development Ordinance section 18.46.040 E. The existing Mixed-Use Zoning District should
also reference this section.
Bicycle Parking Required
Minimum Requirements – The number of spaces shown in the accompanying tables
shall be provided.
Short Term Bicycle Parking - Bicycle parking meant to accommodate visitors,
customers, and others expected to depart within two hours
Table 5-10
Short Term Bicycle Parking Requirements
Use Type Required Bicycle Parking Spaces
Bank, financial institutions 10 percent of required auto parking
Church 10 percent of required auto parking
Community or recreation center 15 percent of required auto parking
Medical and dental offices 15 percent of required auto parking
Manufacturing and industrial uses 1 per 5,000 sq ft of floor space
Motels, Hotels 1 per 10 rooms
Commercial Office The greater of 2 or 20 percent of required auto parking
Restaurants, cafes, bars and similar uses 10 percent of required auto parking
Retail store and service establishments 10 percent of required auto parking
Schools Elementary and/or Junior High 1 per 5 students
Schools
a. Senior High b. Business or similar school 1 per 10 students
Theater, Auditorium or similar The greater of 10 spaces or 5 percent of seating capacity
Long Term Bicycle Parking - Bicycle parking meant to accommodate employees,
students, residents, commuters, and others expected to park more than two hours.
This parking is to be provided in a secure, weather-protected manner and location.
Table 5-11
Long Term Bicycle Parking Requirements
Use Type Required Bicycle Parking Spaces
Residential Categories
Mulit-Family Single Family
The greater of 2, or 1 per unit (if no garage is available) None
Commercial Office The greater of 2 or 10 percent of required auto parking
Restaurants, cafes, bars and similar uses The greater of 2 or 5 percent of required auto parking
Retail store and service establishments The greater of 2 or 5 percent of required auto parking
The guidelines for bicycle rack type and location should be inserted in the UDO also to aid
developers in rack selection and sitting.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 5: Facility Recommendations
Page 5-42 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Recommended Bicycle Parking (Gallatin County)
It is proposed that Gallatin County incorporate the same bicycle parking requirements as
stated above into existing zoning districts where commercial uses are permitted.
Additionally, Gallatin County should incorporate bicycle parking requirements into any
proposed zoning districts or County-wide zoning efforts for commercial areas. Only those
bicycle parking requirements pertaining to allowed uses for each zoning district should be
included for that district.
5.5 RECOMMENDED EQUESTRIAN FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
The Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan acknowledges that equestrians are users of the
transportation system and does not make any recommendation to restrict equestrian access
on trails, paths, or roadways where governing body deems appropriate. Equestrian facilities,
similar to bicycle and pedestrian facilities, can serve both recreational and transportation
uses. This document acknowledges several key destinations for equestrians within the study
area including the Gallatin County Fairgrounds, parts of Montana State University, Equine
Boarding/Training Facilities, and several popular trailhead facilities.
Planning efforts and facility recommendations for equestrian users are expected to be
summarized in an update or addendum to the Bozeman Parks, Recreation, Open Space, &
Trails (PROST) Plan, and the Gallatin County Interconnect Plan. Equestrian facility
improvements shall complement, be consistent with, and implement equestrian facilities as
identified in any officially adopted recreation and/or trails plan.
n
n
n
nn
n
nnnn n
HA
R
P
E
R
PU
C
K
E
T
T
GA
L
L
A
T
I
N
19TH
PATTERSON
GOOCH HILL
COTTONWOOD
INT
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
19
T
H
3R
D
BAXTERLO
V
E
JA
C
K
R
A
B
B
I
T
FR
O
N
T
A
G
E
CO
T
T
O
N
W
O
O
D
GO
O
C
H
H
I
L
L
HUFFINE
FO
W
L
E
R
SP
R
I
N
G
H
I
L
L
NASH
NE
L
S
O
N
BLACKWOOD
STUCKY
CAMERON BRIDGE
L
VALLEY CENTER
BRIDGER CA
N
Y
O
N
JOHNSON
HULBERT
SO
U
R
D
O
U
G
H
DA
V
I
S
BOZEMAN TRAIL
M
C
I
L
H
A
T
T
A
N
TOOHEY
MA
N
L
E
Y
FS
7
1
2
PO
R
T
N
E
L
L
EN
D
E
R
S
ZO
O
T
FO
R
T
E
L
L
I
S
BE
A
T
T
Y
BASELINE HA
M
M
SP
A
I
N
B
R
I
D
G
E
LY
N
X
MO
U
N
T
E
L
L
I
S
PASHA
MO
N
F
O
R
T
O
N
S
C
H
O
O
L
KENT SPUR
ELK RIDG
E
DEER
HAWK HILL
JAGAR
LUDWIG
GOLDENSTEIN
BASELINE
R
I
V
E
R
JE
E
P
T
R
A
I
L
FS 9
7
9
Recommend Study Area Bicycle
Network Improvements
§¨¦90
£¤191
Park
Park
Madison
Gallatin
Jefferson
Beaverhead Teton
Meagher
Sweet
Grass
MONTANA
IDAHO WYOMING
Greater Bozeman AreaTransportation Plan
FIGURE 5-5
Recommend Study Area Bicycle Network ImprovementsJanuary 2009
Data Provided by: City of Bozeman, Alta Planning & Design
Map Prepared by: Alta Planning+Design January, 2009
See Figure 5-6 for details
Schools
Urban Boundary
IExisting Bikeways
0 3
Mile
Proposed Bikeways
Shared-Use Path
Bike Lane
Signed Bike Route
Wide Shoulder
Bike Lane
n
Signed Bike Route
Shared-Use Path
Bozeman City Limits
Study Area Boundary
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nn
n
n
n
n
n
nnn
BO
Z
E
M
A
N
T
R
A
I
L
3R
D
3R
D
19
T
H
B
L
A
C
K
HUFFINE
ST
O
R
Y
M
I
L
L
MENDENHALL
C
H
U
R
C
H
VALLEY CENTER
CATTA
I
L
DURSTON
19
T
H
RD
INTER
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
FO
W
L
E
R
NASH
LOAK
FR
O
N
T
A
G
E
STUCKY
DA
V
I
S
11
T
H
CO
T
T
O
N
W
O
O
D
JOHNSON
5T
H
KOCH
GR
A
N
D
15
T
H
M
C
I
L
H
A
T
T
A
N
PATTERSON
CH
U
R
C
H
MAIN
MA
N
L
E
Y
WE
S
T
E
R
N
WI
L
L
S
O
N
ST
O
R
Y
M
I
L
L
ANT
HA
R
P
E
R
P
U
C
K
E
T
T
KAGY
CH
A
P
M
A
N
BOZEMAN TRAIL
FO
R
T
E
L
L
I
S
SO
U
R
D
O
U
G
H
7T
H
GRIFFIN
NE
L
S
O
N
ANNIE
GARFIELD
FALLON
BRIDGER
TRIPLE TREE
TA
Y
A
B
E
S
H
O
C
K
U
P
WA
L
L
A
C
E
HU
N
T
E
R
S
7T
H
FE
R
G
U
S
O
N
YE
L
L
O
W
S
T
O
N
E
CA
Y
U
S
E
GRANT
BABCOCK
KE
N
GRAF
SP
R
I
N
G
H
I
L
L
22
N
D
TAMARACK
F
R
O
N
T
BECK
STAR
R
I
D
G
E
LAMME
LINCOLN
S
JAGAR
BUELL
HI
D
D
E
N
V
A
L
L
E
Y
RE
S
O
R
T
JA
C
K
L
E
G
ABAGAIL RANCH
LI
M
E
S
T
O
N
E
ROCKY
RAINBOW
AR
E
T
E
R
O
L
L
I
N
G
H
I
L
L
S
BIGELOW
SYPE
S
C
A
N
Y
O
N
11
T
H
23
R
D
PEACH
MAIN
PARK VIEW
SI
R
A
R
T
H
U
R
CO
T
T
O
N
W
O
O
D
DRIFTWOOD
BOULDER
BO
Y
D
27
T
H
8T
H
CATAMOUNT
T
ST
O
R
Y
H
I
L
L
HEATHER
HAYRAKE
BROOKDALE
LUC
I
L
L
E
WI
N
T
E
R
G
R
E
E
N
LA
U
R
E
L
COBBLE C
R
E
E
K
HI
G
H
L
A
N
D
AD
O
W
HARDIN
SO
U
R
D
O
U
G
H
SA
C
A
J
A
W
E
A
P
E
A
K
BE
D
I
V
E
R
E
KAGY
ST
A
F
F
A
N
S
O
N
GO
L
D
D
U
S
T
BL
A
C
K
TEAL
LI
N
D
V
I
G
BR
I
G
G
S
GOLDENSTEIN
DR
I
AC
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWAY
DRIVEWAY
DRI
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWAY
DRIVEWAY
DRIVEWAY
DRIVEWAY
BAXTER
RO
U
S
E
DRIVEWAY
27
T
H
27
T
H
DRIVEWAY
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
AD
O
W
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
F
DRIVEWAY
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWAY
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
FO
W
L
E
R
ER
P
U
C
K
E
T
T
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
VEW
A
Y
Recommended Bozeman Bicycle
Network Improvements
§¨¦90
£¤191
Park
Park
Madison
Gallatin
Jefferson
Beaverhead Teton
Meagher
Sweet
Grass
MONTANA
IDAHO WYOMING
Greater Bozeman AreaTransportation Plan
FIGURE 5-6
Recommended Bozeman Bicycle Network ImprovementsJanuary 2009
Data Provided by: City of Bozeman, Alta Planning & DesignMap Prepared by: Alta Planning+Design January, 2009
IExisting Bikeways
0 1Mile
Proposed Bikeways
Wide Shoulder
Bike Lane
Schoolsn
Signed Bike Route
Shared-Use Path
Shared-Use Path
Bike Lane
Signed Bike Route
Urban Boundary
Bozeman City Limits
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nn
n
n
n
n
n
nnn èé
èé
èé
89:m
89:m
èé
89:m
èé
èé
èé
(
((
BO
Z
E
M
A
N
T
R
A
I
L
3R
D
3R
D
19
T
H
B
L
A
C
K
HUFFINE
ST
O
R
Y
M
I
L
L
C
H
U
R
C
H
VALLEY CENTER
CATTA
I
L
DURSTON
19
T
H
INTER
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
FO
W
L
E
R
LOAK
FR
O
N
T
A
G
E
DA
V
I
S
11
T
H
CO
T
T
O
N
W
O
O
D
5T
H
KOCH
GR
A
N
D
15
T
H
M
C
I
L
H
A
T
T
A
N
PATTERSON
CH
U
R
C
H
MAI
N
MA
N
L
E
Y
WE
S
T
E
R
N
WI
L
L
S
O
N
ST
O
R
Y
M
I
L
L
HA
R
P
E
R
P
U
C
K
E
T
T
KAGY
AP
M
A
N
BOZEMAN TRAIL
FO
R
T
E
L
L
I
S
SO
U
R
D
O
U
G
H
7T
H
GRIFFIN
NE
L
S
O
N
ANNIE
GARFIELD
FALLON
BRIDGER
TRIPLE TREE
TA
Y
A
B
E
S
H
O
C
K
U
P
WA
L
L
A
C
E
HU
N
T
E
R
S
7T
H
FE
R
G
U
S
O
N
YE
L
L
O
W
S
T
O
N
E
GRANT
BABCOCK
GRAF
SP
R
I
N
G
H
I
L
L
22
N
D
TAMARACK
FR
O
N
T
BECK
STA
R
R
LAMME
LINCOLN
JAGAR
BUELL
HI
D
D
E
N
V
A
L
L
E
Y
RE
S
O
R
T
JA
C
K
L
E
G
ABAGAIL RANCH
L
AR
E
T
E
R
O
L
L
I
N
G
H
I
L
L
S
BIGELOW
SYPE
S
C
A
N
Y
O
N
11
T
H
23
R
D
PEACH
MAIN
PARK VIEW
SI
R
A
R
T
H
U
R
CO
T
T
O
N
W
O
O
D
DRIFTWOOD
D
27
T
H
8T
H
CATAMOUNT
ST
O
R
Y
H
I
L
L
HEATHER
HAYRAKE
BROOKDALE
LUCI
L
L
E
WI
N
LA
U
R
E
L
COBBLE CR
E
E
K
HI
G
H
L
A
N
D
HARDIN
SA
C
A
J
A
W
E
A
P
E
A
K
BE
D
I
V
E
R
E
KAGY
GO
L
D
D
U
S
T
BL
A
C
K
TEA
LI
N
D
V
I
G
GOLDENSTEIN
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWAY
DRIVEWAY
DRI
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWA
Y
DRIVEWAY
DRIVEWAY
BAXTER
RO
U
S
E
DRIVEWAY
27
T
H
27
T
H
DRIVEWAY
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWAY
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWAY
FO
W
L
E
R
ARP
E
R
P
U
C
K
E
T
T
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
AY
Recommended Bozeman Pedestrian
Network Improvements
§¨¦90
£¤191
Park
Park
Madison
Gallatin
Jefferson
Beaverhead Teton
Meagher
Sweet
Grass
MONTANA
IDAHO WYOMING
Greater Bozeman AreaTransportation Plan
FIGURE 5-7
Recommended Bozeman Pedestrian Network ImprovementsJanuary 2009
Data Provided by: City of Bozeman, Alta Planning & DesignMap Prepared by: Alta Planning+Design January, 2009
Curb Extensions are proposed
throughout the downtown area on Babcock and Mendenhall
0 1
Mile
I
Schoolsn
Proposed Shared-Use Trail
Grade Separated
Intersection Improvements
Existing Shared-Use Trail
Bozeman City Limits
Urban Boundary
(
èé Signalized
89:m Unsignalized
Proposed PedestrianFacility
èé
CHAPTER 6
PROGRAMS, POLICIES & PROCEDURAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 6-1
6.1 COMPLETE STREET GUIDELINES
A complete street is one that is designed and operated to safely accommodate all users,
including but not limited to: motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and people of all ages
and abilities. A complete streets philosophy causes transportation agencies to design and
operate the entire right of way to encompass users of all types and to promote safe access
and travel for the users. Complete streets ensure that the streets are safe for motorists,
transit, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, the elderly, people with disabilities, and all users.
A complete street is comprised of many different elements; these elements may include, but
are not limited to: sidewalks, bike lanes, crosswalks, wide shoulders, medians, bus pullouts,
special bus lanes, raised crosswalks, audible pedestrian signals, sidewalk bulb-outs, and
more. The elements that are used can vary from project to project, but the end result is still
to achieve a connected network that is safe and effective for all modes of travel. A Complete
Street accommodates the needs of all modes and users.
6.1.1 Elements of Complete Streets
Complete streets contain standard elements that together, create an effective and adoptable
facility that benefits all transportation system users. Complete street guidelines contribute to
a comprehensive, integrated, and connected network. A complete street concept also
recognizes the need for flexibility: that all streets are different and user needs should be
balanced. Any exceptions to complete street implementation must be clearly and
specifically stated within the guideline and require high-level approvals so that there is no
confusion what type of design is required. The design must fit in with the context of the
community while using the latest and best standards.
Standards within the guidelines must be put in place to ensure that an effective guideline is
created. The guideline must create a network that is complete and connected while still
allowing for flexibility within the design. All streets are unique and require different levels
of attention, so the guideline must be flexible enough to accommodate all types of roads and
be adoptable by every agency.
Major street improvements are not a requirement through maintenance activities and should
not be expected. Maintenance activities do present some opportunities that can improve the
environment for other roadway users. While the construction of a sidewalk is not
appropriate as part of maintenance activities, facilities such as improved crosswalks, or bike
lanes, or a shoulder stripe may be included in a routine re-stripe of a roadway if adequate
space exists and the facility is designated to have such facilities in the Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan. For additional examples of improvements that could be associated with
various roadway maintenance activities, see Section 6.6.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Page 6-2 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
6.1.2 Recommendation
It is recommended that the City of Bozeman and Gallatin County adopt the following
complete streets guidelines:
The City of Bozeman and Gallatin County will plan for, design, construct, operate,
and maintain appropriate facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit vehicles and
riders, children, the elderly, and people with disabilities in all new construction,
maintenance activities, and retrofit or reconstruction projects subject to the exceptions
contained herein.
These jurisdictions will incorporate Complete Streets principles into: The Greater
Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, the Parks
Recreation Open Space Trails (PROST) Plan, the Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO), Gallatin County Subdivision Regulations, the Gallatin County Trails Plan,
Gallatin County Growth Policy, Gallatin County Community/Neighborhood Plans
and other plans manuals, rules, regulations and programs as appropriate.
Complete Streets principles will be applied on single projects, privately funded
development, and incrementally through a series of smaller improvements,
operations and maintenance activities over time. All sources of transportation
funding, public and private, should be drawn upon to implement Complete Streets
within the Gallatin Valley. The City of Bozeman and Gallatin County believe that
maximum financial flexibility is important to implement Complete Streets principles.
Complete Streets principles will be applied in street construction, retrofit,
reconstruction and maintenance projects except in unusual or extraordinary
circumstances contained herein:
1. Bicyclists and pedestrians are prohibited by law from using the facility. In this case,
alternative facilities and accommodations shall be provided within the same
transportation corridor.
2. Where the existing right-of-way does not allow for the accommodation of all users. In
this case alternatives shall be explored such as the use of revised travel lane
configurations, paved shoulders, signage, traffic calming, education or enforcement to
accommodate pedestrians, cyclists, transit, and persons with disabilities.
3. The cost of establishing bikeways or walkways or other accommodations would be
disproportionate to the need, particularly if alternative facilities are available within a
reasonable walking and/or bicycling distance.
4. Where there is no need, including future need.
5. Where application of Complete Streets principles is unnecessary or inappropriate
because it would be contrary to public safety.
6. When routine maintenance is being performed.
Any project that does not include complete streets principles based on the above
exceptions should have said determination confirmed and filed with the City or
County Commission for review.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 6-3
6.1.3 Next Steps
After adoption, effective implementation of the complete streets guidelines requires
additional steps to ensure success. City of Bozeman and Gallatin County will need to review
their procedures and, if necessary, restructure them, to accommodate all users on every
project. In addition, applicable changes to design manuals or public works standards may
need to be made to fully encompass the safety and needs of all users by employing the latest
in design standards and innovation. Periodic education and training of planners and
engineers is also recommended to ensure the latest techniques in balancing the needs of
roadway users are being applied. Finally, existing data sources and projects can be tapped to
track how well the streets are serving all users.
6.2 CONTEXT SENSITIVE DESIGN / CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS GUIDANCE
6.2.1 History and Definition
The Institute of Transportation Engineers defines context sensitive solutions as a “…process
of balancing the competing needs of many stakeholders starting in the earliest stages of
project development. It is also flexible in the application of design controls, guidelines, and
standards to design a facility that is safe for all users regardless of the mode of travel they
choose.”
The initial principals of Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) came about in 1998 at the
“Thinking Beyond the Pavement Conference” in Maryland. The key component to CSS is
that it brings all of the stakeholders and the public together in the earliest phases of the
project. Context sensitive designs incorporate a multidisciplinary design team. Residents,
business owners, local institutions, city officials, and designers all have a part in the design
and implementation of CSS. Addressing these needs in the early stages can save valuable
time and money in the development process and can help to achieve a widely accepted
product.
A Context Sensitive Design (CSD) is one that balances safety, mobility, community, and
environmental goals. The idea is to achieve a design that works for all of the users and for
the area. A CSD focuses not only on moving traffic, but also on pedestrians, bicycles, transit,
and aesthetic issues. A properly constructed road will be safe for all users, regardless of their
mode of travel which allows flexibility for its users when choosing their travel type.
A CSD should also encourage “smart growth” within the area. This refers to a type of city
center growth that discourages urban sprawl by creating an area where pedestrians, bikes,
transit, and vehicles can function in harmony within the network. Mixed-use development
is also used in the area to allow for a variety of activities to take place. Another purpose of a
CSD is to give users flexibility in the design process of transportation elements. All projects
are different and should be treated as such. It is appropriate for some areas to incorporate
12’ travel lanes, for example, while others may benefit more from smaller 10’ lanes. Roads
cannot be designed simply based on their functional classification or traffic volumes.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Page 6-4 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
6.2.2 The Makeup of CSS
CSS designed roads are built with every user in mind. All users’ needs are balanced when
designing a road based on this approach. Moving traffic of all kinds safely and efficiently is
of primary concern. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic are of just as much concern as vehicular
traffic with this design. Walking and riding bikes is encouraged by using designated bike
lanes and sidewalks. Road lane widths are generally decreased to promote slower traveling
speeds for vehicles and to create safer crossings for pedestrians. Medians are also commonly
used to make protected turning lanes for motorists and to limit unregulated turning
movements.
CSS combines mixed land use with compact development to help create areas where mixed
activity can be used. Mixed activity areas create a greater need for more adequate and safer
pedestrian and bicycle networks. The networks should be created using a circular approach
which creates connectivity to all areas within the network.
Under CSS, projects would also be designed with the context of the area in mind. Areas with
historical value would see projects that utilize aesthetic touches to help preserve the historic
feel and look. Areas with dense foliage would have the same types of trees and bushes
planted in the area. Design flexibility is another key component to CSS designs. Road
designers are allowed to have flexibility in their design which can be tailored to the specific
context. CSS designs help blend roadways and networks into the area giving them a more
natural appeal.
Below is an example of CSS being applied to Lyndale Avenue on US Highway 12 in Helena.
The before photo shows a deteriorating roadway with a raised median, sidewalk, limited
shoulder space, and poor aesthetic appeal. The after photo shows a context sensitive
roadway that implements a landscaped raised median, larger shoulder area, sidewalk,
updated guardrail, bicycle and pedestrian underpass, and updated lighting. This roadway
now adds greater aesthetic value to the Great Northern Town Center area of Helena.
It should be noted that promoting slower traveling speeds, which is a common CSS attribute,
does have an effect on the capacity of the roadway. A discussion on the relationship
between speed and capacity can be found in Chapter 4.
Before After
Photos courtesy of MDT
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 6-5
6.2.3 Recommendation
It is recommended the CSS principles and procedures be considered in all transportation
projects. This complements the aforementioned concept of Complete Streets. Direct, honest,
and meaningful dialogue at the beginning of a transportation project can lead to a successful
end product and serve to build consensus going forward as the community grows.
6.3 MDT CURRENT PRACTICES
The following is MDT’s policy on context sensitive solutions:
Start early – Making context-sensitive solutions part of our culture means beginning
early in the project selection process and continuing on through design, construction
and maintenance with consideration for community and customer values and needs.
Involve local government and citizens – To help the process get off to the best
possible start, remember to include all affected parties (e.g. local government) and
those with a partnership interest (e.g. Federal Highway Administration.) In fact, to
make this concept work, local government and citizens must be a genuine part of the
process and feel they have been heard…otherwise we are just offering lip service.
Balance wants, needs, money and the law – Since the availability of transportation
funds will also continue to be a major factor affecting decision-making during the
project development process, balancing the needs of the community with
safety/mobility and multiple project needs will certainly challenge the transportation
designers of the future. And, of course, any context-sensitive solution must be
accomplished within the parameters of existing laws, rules and regulations.
Think “outside the box”– innovation is key – No “cookie cutter” approach is
available on exactly how to approach context-sensitive solutions.
Listen and keep an open mind – Be willing to listen to our customers – some of our
best solutions come from them. Individuals and communities will have different
ideas on what constitutes the ideal context sensitive solution in any given situation.
The fact that there are differences does not mean there is a “right” or “wrong”
outcome.
Support, teamwork and communication – To make this policy work at MDT, all staff
need to support context-sensitive solutions, recognize the physical and financial
limitations involved, and communicate as a team to make the best possible decision.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Page 6-6 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
6.3.1 Examples of Montana Based CSS Projects
The picture below shows North Main Street located in Helena. This road was previously a
two-lane country road with no median, no sidewalks, and limited shoulders. The context
sensitive design is complete with four travel lanes, a landscaped raised median, curb and
gutter, and sidewalks.
Photo courtesy of MDT
The following is an example located on Main Street in Boulder Montana. This context
sensitive design of the roadway included a raised landscaped median, sidewalks, curb and
gutter, and shoulder area.
Photo courtesy of MDT
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 6-7
The project shown below is located on Woodward Avenue in Absorkee and received an
award from the AASHTO Center for Environmental Excellence for “Best Practices in Context
Sensitive Solutions”. The award stated that, “…the Woodward Avenue Project represents an
absolutely remarkable example of a transportation agency going the extra mile to address the
needs of a small community…”
Photo courtesy of MDT
The following project is located on US Highway 92 between Evaro and Polson. The design
for the corridor was said to be a “hallmark of context sensitive design” by the Federal
Highway Administration and won a national award in June, 2008.
Photo courtesy of MDT
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Page 6-8 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Main Street in Bozeman is another example of a context sensitive design. In the beginning
phases of this project, a number of design features were proposed to help alleviate traffic
congestion and increase safety. MDT proposed a three-lane configuration with raised
median and limited left turns. At the request of the community and by vote of the Bozeman
City Commission, it was determined that this corridor would be left as a four-lane
configuration. A raised median and limited left turns were also not incorporated in this
project due to community response. Features that were included in this project were the
addition of count-down walk/don’t walk signs, the addition of colored pedestrian crossings,
and the replacement of traffic signals.
Photo courtesy of MDT
6.3.2 Other Programs and Policies
MDT has a number of other programs and policies that are in place to aid in the design and
funding process that helps to encourage multimodal transportation. One of these programs
is MDT’s Community Transportation Enhancement Program (CTEP). This program is
defined by MDT as “…a Montana program that funds transportation related projects
designed to strengthen the cultural, aesthetic, and environmental aspects of Montana's
intermodal transportation system.” CTEP funds are sub-allocated to local and tribal
governments based on population. Since CTEP was established in 1992, local and tribal
officials have directed about half of all CTEP funds have been directed to bicycle and
pedestrian projects.
Montana also has a multimodal transportation policy plan called TranPlan 21. TranPlan 21
was created in 1995 with an update occurring in 2002. A recent amendment occurred in
March 2008 to update the plan to meet current requirements. TranPlan 21 is a long-range
transportation policy plan intended to identify transportation issues, identify needs and
priorities (both of the public and stakeholder), and establish programs and policies. The plan
serves as a guide for MDT for the development and management of multimodal
transportation.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 6-9
In addition to CTEP funding and the multimodal transportation policy plan TransPlan 21,
MDT also manages several transit programs, the state Safe Routes to School Program, and
sponsors courses in bicyclist and pedestrian accommodation design.
Projects developed on routes under MDT’s jurisdiction within the City of Bozeman and
Gallatin County must comply with applicable National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) /
Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) provisions as a condition of receiving federal
and state funding. In short, the NEPA/MEPA process requires that proposed projects: be
developed in response to an identified purpose and need; give consideration to viable
alternatives where applicable; undergo an evaluation for potential environmental effects;
and be duly coordinated with the public and involved agencies. As part of the required
project coordination activities for these environmental compliance processes, local policies
and plans will be considered during the project development phase.
6.4 LEVEL OF SERVICE GUIDELINES
Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure developed by the transportation profession to
quantify driver perception for such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of
stopped delay, and impediments caused by other vehicles. It provides a scale that is
intended to match the perception by motorists of the operation of the intersection. LOS
provides a means for identifying intersections that are experiencing operational difficulties,
as well as providing a scale to compare intersections with each other. The LOS scale
represents the full range of operating conditions. The scale is based on the ability of an
intersection or street segment to accommodate the amount of traffic using it. LOS values
range from an “A” which is the best performing value and has free flow characteristics, to an
“F” which represents the worst performing value and has traffic that flows at extremely slow
speeds and is considered to be in a forced or breakdown state.
6.4.1 Roadway LOS vs. Intersection LOS
Roadway LOS:
In order to calculate the LOS of a roadway, a number of characteristics must be looked at.
Factors such as lane widths, lateral clearances, access frequency, terrain, heavy vehicle traffic,
and driver population characteristics are used to establish base conditions for a roadway.
Once these factors are determined, the free-flow speed can be determined. The free-flow
speed is the mean speed of traffic on the road when the flow rates are low. After the free-
flow speed is determined, the flow rate can be calculated. To determine the flow rate, the
highest volume in a 24-hour period (peak-hour volume) is used, with adjustments being
made for hourly variation, heavy vehicle traffic, and driver characteristics. Once these
parameters are defined, the LOS for the roadway can be calculated using an additional set of
calculated factors.
The primary factor for calculating roadway LOS is percent time delay. Percent time delay is
defined as the average percent of the total travel time that all motorists are delayed while
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Page 6-10 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
traveling in platoons due to the inability to pass. Multi-lane highways have a demand for
passing that increases as the traffic volume increases. However, the opportunities for
passing decrease as the traffic volume increases. This effect causes the LOS to decrease as the
traffic levels increase. The secondary factors that go into LOS calculations are average travel
speed and capacity utilization. Average travel speed is used to determine the mobility of the
roadway. Capacity utilization represents accessibility to the roadway and is defined as the
ratio of the demand flow rate to the capacity of the facility. Other factors that go into LOS
calculations include terrain type, lane and shoulder widths, heavy vehicle traffic, and the peak hour
factor. All of these parameters are used to calculate a single LOS that is used to represent the
overall characteristic of the roadway.
The Highway Capacity Manual – 2000 defines the LOS categories for roadways as follows:
LOS A represents free flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by the presence of others
in the traffic stream. Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic
stream is extremely high. The general level of comfort and convenience provided to the
motorist, passenger, or pedestrian is excellent. (Free flow)
LOS B is in the range of stable flow, but the presence of other users in the traffic stream begins
to be noticeable. Freedom to select desire speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight
decline in the freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream from LOS A. The level of comfort
and convenience provided is somewhat less than at LOS A, because the presence of others in
the traffic stream begins to affect individual behavior. (Reasonably free flow)
LOS C is in the range of stable flow, but marks the beginning of the range of flow in which the
operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with others in the
traffic stream. The selection of speed is now affected by the presence of others, and
maneuvering within the traffic stream requires substantial vigilance on the part of the user.
The general level of comfort and convenience declines noticeably at this level. (Stable flow)
LOS D represents high-density, but stable, flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely
restricted, and the driver or pedestrian experiences a generally poor level of comfort and
convenience. Small increases in traffic flow will generally cause operational problems at this
level. (Approaching unstable flow)
LOS E represents operating conditions at or near the capacity level. All speeds are reduced to
a low, but relatively uniform value. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is
extremely difficult, and it is generally accomplished by forcing a vehicle or pedestrian to “give
way” to accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience levels are extremely poor,
and driver or pedestrian frustration is generally high. Operations at this level are usually
unstable, because even small increases in flow or minor perturbations within the traffic stream
will cause breakdowns. (Unstable flow)
LOS F is used to define forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists wherever the amount
of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount which can traverse it and queues begin to
form. Operations within the queue are characterized by stopping and starting. Over and over,
vehicles may progress at reasonable speeds for several hundred feet or more, then be required
to stop. Level-of-service F is used to describe operating conditions within the queue, as well as
the point of the breakdown. It should be noted, however, that in many cases once free of the
queue, traffic may resume to normal conditions quite rapidly. (Forced or breakdown flow)
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 6-11
Intersection LOS:
The current practice to analyze intersection LOS is to use average vehicle delay to determine
the LOS of the intersection as a whole. Individual LOS values can also be determined for
each approach leg and turning lane for intersections based on the average vehicle delay on
that lane. There are multiple types of intersections, all of which receive a LOS value based
on vehicle delay.
Signalized intersections are considered to be ones that have a signal control for every leg of
the intersection. This type of intersection takes an average of the delay for each vehicle that
uses the intersection and determines the LOS based on that average vehicle delay. An
unsignalized intersection is one that does not have traffic signal control at the intersection.
These intersections use the average vehicle delay for the entire intersection to determine the
LOS (for four-way stop-controlled). Two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) intersections utilize
stop control on the minor legs of the intersection while allowing free flow characteristics on
the major legs. TWSC intersections take the average vehicle delay experienced on the most
constrained approach, rather than the average vehicle delay for the entire intersection, to
determine the LOS of the intersection. This can cause problems at intersections with high
volumes of traffic along the uncontrolled major legs. Left turns off of the minor approach
legs may be difficult at these intersections, which may cause high delay values and poor
levels of service. The LOS for this type of intersection is based on the LOS for the worst case
minor approach leg. Under these traffic conditions the worst case minor approach leg can
easily have a high delay from a low number of vehicles wanting to make a left-turn onto the
major approach; this may result in a poor LOS for the entire intersection.
A description and average delay range for each LOS value for signalized and unsignalized
intersections, as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000, is found in Table 6-1
on the following page.
An intersection that has a roundabout also has a LOS value associated with it. The LOS for
these types of intersections is more difficult to determine than that of a standard intersection.
While programs such as SIDRA, RODEL, and ARCADY exist to help analyze roundabouts,
the results from these programs can vary greatly. These programs generally use a form of
average vehicle delay as their main component for LOS determination. The variance
between the different programs lies in how each program calculates the capacity of the
intersection, which is a factor used in conjunction with others to determine the average
vehicle delay.
The average vehicle delay at a roundabout is comprised of two components: queuing delay
and geometric delay. Queuing delay is the delay a vehicle experiences while outside of the
roundabout waiting to enter. This type of delay is similar to the delay experienced by
vehicles in unsignalized and signalized intersections. Queuing delay represents the delay
experienced by the driver waiting to enter the intersection.
Geometric delay is the delay experienced while negotiating through the roundabout. This
type of delay is generally very small, especially at small roundabouts. However, the
geometric delay can play a big part in LOS determination at intersections with roundabouts
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Page 6-12 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
installed at locations with high speed approaches and a large center island. This type of
intersection requires a driver to drastically slow down to maneuver through the roundabout
resulting in increased geometric delay times. Combining queuing delay and geometric delay
gives a total average vehicle delay which is used to determine the LOS of the intersection.
Table 6-1
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Criteria
LOS
Unsignalized Intersections Signalized Intersections
Description
Average Delay
(sec/veh) Description
Average Delay
(sec/veh)
A Little or no conflicting traffic for
minor street approach. < 10 Uncongested operations; all
queues clear in a single cycle. < 10
B Minor street approach begins to
notice presence of available gaps. 10 – 15 Very light congestion; an
occasional phase is fully utilized. 10 – 20
C
Minor street approach begins
experiencing delay while waiting for
available gaps.
15 – 25 Light congestion; occasional
queues on approaches. 20 – 35
D
Minor street approach experiences
queuing due to a reduction in
available gaps.
25 – 35
Significant congestion on critical
approaches, but intersection is
functional.
35 – 55
E Extensive minor street queuing due
to insufficient gaps. 35 – 50
Severe congestion with some
longstanding queues on critical
approaches.
55 - 80
F
Insufficient gaps of sufficient size to
allow minor street traffic to safely
cross through major traffic stream.
> 50 Total breakdown, stop-and-go
operation. > 80
6.4.2 User Perceived LOS
The LOS of a roadway or intersection is intended to serve as a qualitative measure of the
performance level of a roadway or intersection that represents driver perception. LOS is
determined solely from the average vehicle delay at an intersection. While delay may be a
part of determining user perceived LOS, it may not be the primary factor for a driver’s
perception of the intersection’s performance. Multiple traffic and non-traffic related factors
may go into a drivers perceived LOS for an intersection. These factors include traffic signal
efficiency, pavement conditions, left-turn treatment, delay, and overall safety of the
intersection. A study done by the University of Hawaii at Manoa found that safety was
stated to be “three to six times more important than delay” when evaluating LOS. A ranking
of driver importance factors determined from this study can be found in Figure 6-1.
Under the current HCM, all intersections of the same type (i.e. signalized, unsignalized…)
that have the same average vehicle delay, would receive the same LOS ranking, independent
of other factors found to be important to driver perceived LOS. While LOS values are
intended to represent a driver’s perception of the intersection’s overall performance level,
delay is the only tool used to determine the LOS. Delay is, however, based on a number of
factors. Changes to intersection geometry, including addition or deletion of turn-lanes or
protected turn phases, can affect the average vehicle delay, and therefore the LOS of that
intersection. While protected left-turn signals and designated turn-lanes change average
vehicle delay values, these factors may affect driver perceived LOS values more
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 6-13
dramatically. Two intersections that have the same average vehicle delay, and therefore the
same LOS, associated with them may have a significantly different driver perceived LOS.
- “User Perceptions of Signalized Intersection Level of Service”, Zhang & Prevedouros
6.4.3 Bozeman’s Current LOS Standard
Bozeman’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) defines a basic set of rules for land
development and subdividing in Bozeman. The UDO specifies street improvement
standards that must be met by the developer. The level of service standard as defined by the
UDO is stated below:
“Streets and intersection level of service “C” shall be the design and operational
objective, and under no conditions will less than level of service “D” be accepted. All
arterial and collector streets, and movements on intersection approach legs designated
as arterial or collector streets, shall operate at a minimum level of service “C”. The
design year for necessary improvements shall be a minimum of fifteen years following
construction of said improvements.”
- Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance, Section 18.44.060.D
The current application of the Bozeman UDO has been subject to interpretation. In practice,
the UDO is interpreted by City staff under two different scenarios as described below:
Scenario 1: Existing intersection operation is a LOS D or better and development traffic
impact continues the LOS at a D or better, then no mitigation is being
required.
Scenario 2: Pre-development or post-development analysis shows intersection operations
below LOS D, then intersection mitigation (i.e. improvements) must achieve a
LOS of C over the next fifteen years.
Figure 6-1
Driver Perceived Intersection Importance Levels
3.03
3.38
3.83
4.05
4.13
4.13
4.2
4.2
4.21
4.27
0 12 34 5
Exclusive RT Lane
Fewer Heavy Vehicles
Less Waiting Time
Good Pavement Quality
Exclusive LT Lane
Exclusive LT Signal
Clear Pavement Marking
Exclusive LT Lane & Signal
Go Through within One Cycle
Quick Traffic Signal Response
Importance Level (1= Not Important; 5=Extremely Important)
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Page 6-14 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
6.4.4 Recommended Revised LOS Standard
A revised LOS standard for development in Bozeman is suggested and defined in this
section. These revised standards should be used to determine if there are sufficient
transportation improvements being made to meet the requirements for proposed
developments. LOS values shall be determined by using the methods defined by the
Highway Capacity Manual – 2000. A development shall be approved only if the LOS
requirements are met by the developer through mitigation measures. A list of revised LOS
standards is listed below:
Signalized intersections shall have a minimum acceptable LOS of “C” for the
intersection as a whole; individual movement and approach leg LOS lower than “C”
shall be allowed such that the total intersection LOS is a “C” or higher.
Unsignalized intersections shall have a minimum acceptable LOS of “C” for the
intersection as a whole for four-way stop controlled; individual movement and
approach leg LOS lower than “C” shall be allowed such that the total intersection
LOS is a “C” or higher.
Two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) intersections shall have a minimum acceptable
LOS of “C” or higher for the stop-controlled, minor legs.
An intersection with a roundabout shall have a minimum acceptable LOS of “C” or
higher for the intersection as a whole.
It is recommended that the entire intersection LOS be the controlling factor in determining if
an intersection performs at a proper level for all intersections except a “two-way, stop-
controlled (TWSC)” intersection. In the TWSC scenario, the intersection LOS should be for
the stop-controlled, minor legs.
It is recommended, however, that individual movement and approach LOS still be calculated
and presented in the various traffic impact studies to determine if the network as a whole
functions properly and if additional steps need be looked at.
6.4.5 Bicycle Level of Service
There are two established tools available for estimating the compatibility of roads for
bicycling: the first, developed by Alex Sorton and others at the Northwestern University’s
Traffic Institute in the 1980’s, is called the “Bicycle Stress Level” analysis (hereafter referred
to as “Sorton”). The second, called the “Bicycle Compatibility Index”, (BCI) was developed
for the FHWA by David Harkey and others at the University of North Carolina’s Highway
Safety Research Center, and became available in late 1998.
Both models are based on many years of careful research and surveying of bicyclists under
simulated bicycling conditions, and can produce worthwhile results. More often,
unfortunately, transportation planners are presented with at least two significant barriers to
implementation. First, both the Sorton and the BCI are expressly intended for urban and
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 6-15
suburban application, and are therefore of very limited utility for use in rural areas. Second,
many agencies that wish to estimate bicycle compatibility on their roads do not possess the
rather extensive data required for employing the BCI model.
Sorton
The Sorton model is significantly simpler than the BCI in that it measures only three
parameters: curb lane volume, curb lane width, and motor vehicle speed. The following table
relates each parameter’s measurement with a corresponding stress level, with 1 being low
stress (safe) and 5 being high stress (unsafe).
Variable Quantitative Value Stress Analysis
Curb Lane Volume
(vehicles/hr)
≤ 50 1
150 2
250 3
350 4
≥ 450 5
Curb Lane Width
(m)
≤ 4.6 1
4.3 2
4 3
3.7 4
≥ 3.3 5
Motor Vehicle Speed
(km/hr)
≤ 40 1
50 2
60 3
65 4
≥ 75 5
Source: University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center
Bicycle Compatibility Index
The BCI considers the following parameters:
1. Number of lanes (in one direction)
2. Width of the curb lane (ft)
3. Bicycle lane width (ft)
4. Paved shoulder width (ft)
5. Residential development (y/n)
6. Speed limit (mi/h)
7. 85th percentile speed (mi/h)
8. ADT
9. Large truck % (HV)
10. Right turn % (R)
11. Parking lane (y/n)
12. Occupancy (%)
13. Parking time limit (minutes)
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Page 6-16 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
These thirteen parameters are converted into data that are then entered into a formula. The
outputs of this formula, normally ranging from about 1 to 6, are converted to letter grades
ranging from level of service ‘A’ (extremely high compatibility; low output values) to ‘F’
(extremely low compatibility; high output values).
The Sorton method and the BCI are similar but differ in some important respects:
1. Number of parameters: The Sorton model requires fewer variables: volume,
width and speed are the primary ones, and driveways, percent trucks and
parking turnover are added in a non-mathematical fashion. The BCI treats nine
primary variables and allows for three additional (mathematical) adjustment
factors.
2. Weighting of variables: The Sorton model treats all variables equally; that is,
there is no weighting. The BCI weights each parameter in relation to the others.
3. Slope / Grade: A revision of the Sorton model allows for the inclusion of slope
(or grade) in the model, whereas the BCI discounts this variable.
Although the BCI provides a more sophisticated system for evaluating the compatibility of
roads for bicycling, its data requirements – as mentioned – are frequently beyond the bounds
of the average agency’s budget and time constraints. The Sorton method is far more practical
in this respect, but it is limited to urban and suburban applications.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 6-17
6.5 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM & POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
The following education and outreach programs are designed to raise awareness of walking
and bicycling; connect current and future cyclists to existing resources; educate them about
their rights and responsibilities; and encourage residents to walk and bicycle more often. Key
target audiences include drivers; current and potential (interested) cyclists; students,
children and families; school personnel; and employees (through employer programs).
The following education and outreach programs have basic cost estimates associated with
them. Since the cost to implement such programs can vary considerably depending on the
availability of volunteer (versus professional) resources and available funding, an estimated
range is provided according to the following ranges.
$ = Minimal to $500 Volunteer effort and low funding required
$$ = $500 to $2,500 Low amounts of funding required
$$$ = $2,500 to $10,000 Moderate amounts of funding required
$$$$ = $10,000 to $50,000 High amounts of funding required
$$$$$ = $50,000+ Very high amounts of funding required
6.5.1 Education Program Recommendations
Bike Buddy Campaign
Target New cyclists who are interested in using a bicycle for transportation
Primary agency City of Bozeman
Partners Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board, Gallatin County
Key elements Less-experienced cyclists are paired with a trained cycling mentor who assists them in route
selection, training rides, reading bike maps, and gear questions in order to lower the barriers to
using a bicycle for transportation.
Time frame Spring, on-going
Cost $ - $$ (depends on scope of program)
Potential funding sources Bike shops (in-kind donations); transit agencies and local news outlets (donated ad space);
traffic safety foundations and grant programs; businesses interested in increasing the number
of employees who ride bicycles
Sample programs http://www.bicyclealliance.org/commute/bikebuddy.html
http://www.sfbike.org/?bikebuddy
http://bicycling.511.org/buddy.htm
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Page 6-18 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Bike Rodeos
Target Children and youth
Primary agency City of Bozeman
Partners Bozeman Police and/or Fire Department, Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board, Safe Routes
to School Taskforce
Key elements Drop-in event aimed at teaching kids basic skills and safety rules. Often organized by Police
or Fire Bureaus. Can include free or low-cost helmet distribution.
Time frame Fall and spring, annually
Cost $$-$$$ (depending on size and organization)
Potential funding sources Bike shops (in-kind donations); transit agencies and local news outlets (donated ad space);
traffic safety foundations and grant programs; hospitals and insurance companies
Sample programs http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/BicycleRodeo.htm
http://www.saferoutestoschools.org/pdfs/lessonplans/RodeoManualJune2006.pdf
Guide to Bicycle Rodeos, by John Williams and Dan Burden. Available from the Adventure
Cycling Association, PO Box 8308-Z5, Missoula, MT 59807, 800-721-8719, M-F, 8-5 Mountain
time. Price $5.00.
Police Education Courses
Target Law enforcement agencies
Primary agency Bozeman Police Department, Gallatin County Sheriff’s Department, MSU Police Department
Partners Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board
Key elements Pedestrian and Bicycle Law Enforcement Training Course includes a How Pedestrian and
Bicycle Crashes Happen, Education on Pedestrian Laws and Bicycle Laws, and Crash
Investigation and Reporting. The course can be open to all law enforcement entities for a fee,
which covers instruction and materials.
Time frame Spring, annually
Cost $ - $$
Potential funding sources Federal and state safety grant funding
Sample programs http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/enforcement/training.cfm
http://www.massbike.org/police/
Women on Bikes Program
Target Women who ride bicycles
Primary agency City of Bozeman, Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board
Partners Local Bicycle Shops
Key elements Women-only clinics, workshops, and rides, designed to be welcoming and supportive for
participants at any stage of comfort. Topics may include maintenance basics, bike cleaning,
riding in the rain and dark, shopping by bike, or commute tips. Rides are themed (e.g. historic
houses, heritage trees, ice cream shops, rain gardens), and are low-mileage.
Time frame Spring and summer, annually
Cost $ - $$
Potential funding sources Bike shops (in-kind donations); transit agencies and local news outlets (donated ad space);
traffic safety foundations and grant programs;
Sample programs http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=44100
http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/canbike/canbike_cffw.htm
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 6-19
Technical/Professional Training
Target Planners and traffic engineers
Primary agency Gallatin County, City of Bozeman, Western Transportation Institute, MDT
Partners Montana Department of Transportation, Local Engineering, Architecture, and Planning Firms.
Key elements Agency planners and traffic engineers receive training on how to plan and build facilities to
accommodate bicycles and pedestrians. Courses can be taught by experts brought in or
electronically via webinars.
Time frame As needed, annually
Cost $-$$$ (ranging from webinar to visiting expert)
Potential funding sources Federal and state funding
Sample programs Federal Highway Administration’s Designing Streets for Pedestrian Safety:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/resourcecenter/teams/safety/0608pedsafety.pdf
Create Bike and Walking Maps
Target Current and potential cyclists and walkers
Primary agency City of Bozeman – Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board
Partners Gallatin County
Key elements Clear symbology, designations and services attractive for cyclists and walkers, good selection
of routes. Continue with current map production with periodic updates, Consider map
encompassing Gallatin County in the future.
Time frame regular updates; every 3 years, or as needed.
Cost $$ - $$$
Potential funding sources City of Bozeman, Bike shops (in-kind donations); transit agencies and local news outlets
(donated ad space); traffic safety foundations and grant programs; hospitals and insurance
companies
Sample programs http://www.sfbike.org/download/map.pdf
http://www.cityofchicago.org/Transportation/bikemap/keymap.html
http://www.nycbikemaps.com/
One of the most effective ways of encouraging people to bike and walk is through the use of
maps and guides showing that the infrastructure exists, to demonstrate how easy it is to
access different parts of the city by bike or on foot, and to highlight unique areas, shopping
districts or recreational areas. Bicycling and walking maps can be used to promote tourism,
encourage residents to walk, or promote local business districts. Maps can be citywide,
district-specific, or neighborhood/family-friendly maps.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Page 6-20 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Diversion Class
Target Motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians
Primary agency Bozeman Police Department, Gallatin County Sheriff’s Department, MSU Police Department
Partners Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board
Key elements A Share the Road class is tailored to first-time offenders of certain bicycle and pedestrian-
related traffic violations, including running a stop sign/light on a bike. In lieu of the citation,
cyclists, motorists and pedestrians can take the class instead. Interested citizens can take the
class even if they did not receive a ticket.
Time frame Anytime; on-going
Cost $$ -$$$
Potential funding sources Federal and state traffic safety funding
Sample programs http://www.marinbike.org/Campaigns/ShareTheRoad/Index.shtml#StreetSkills
http://www.legacyhealth.org/body.cfm?id=1928
Bozeman Bike Central Website
Target Current and potential cyclists
Primary agency City of Bozeman, Gallatin County
Partners Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board
Key elements Resources, maps and map orders, safety, events, groups. This website becomes the starting
point for any bicycling related query linking to other local cycling groups and activities. This
website becomes the informational clearinghouse for any bicycle or pedestrian related
program/activity and is essential for Bike Week activities in May.
Time frame Ongoing
Cost $ - $$ (depending on design and scope)
Potential funding sources Low cost; may not require outside funding
Sample programs Vėlo Quėbec website: http://www.velo.qc.ca/english/home.lasso
Bozeman already has numerous resources for cyclists, and more services and resources are
planned for the future. Many cyclists or potential cyclists do not know where to turn to find
out about laws, events, maps, tips, and biking groups. The City of Bozeman should develop
a “one stop shopping” website aimed at bicyclists. A potential name is Bozeman Bike
Central, though other names could be used.
The Bozeman Bike Central website should contain:
A list of all bicycling groups, including clubs, racing teams, and advocacy groups
Information about the Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board (how to get involved,
meeting times and dates, agendas and minutes)
Information about current projects and how to get involved (e.g. public meetings,
comment periods)
Maps and brochures (links to online maps and brochures, where to find in person,
and how to request mailed materials)
Links to laws and statutes relating to bicycling
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 6-21
Information about cycling events (rides, classes, volunteer opportunities)
A list of local bike shops, including phone number and address
Relevant phone numbers (hotlines for pothole repair, parking enforcement, bike rack
installation request, etc.)
The website may also feature:
Events calendar
Request form for route planning assistance
Message boards
Blog featuring stories and news
Photo galleries from events and submitted by readers
Popular ride routes
Maintenance requests for bicycle facilities
Note that these additional features may increase the cost to set up and maintain the website.
A one-stop bike website will not be difficult to set up, but it will only be successful if the site
is both easy to use and updated regularly. Corners should not be cut in either design or in
maintenance of the site and its information. All Bike Central website content should be
reviewed annually for accuracy.
The bicycle community can assist in keeping the site up to date. The Bozeman Area Bicycle
Advisory Board should consider adding a standing agenda item for the BAC to discuss the
Bike Central website in order to hear about new content that should be added or out-of-date
content that should be updated or removed.
“Lights On” Campaign
Target Cyclists (especially students and low-income bicycle commuters)
Primary agency Varies
Partners Area law enforcement, Montana State University, Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board,
Gallatin County
Key elements Media outreach, enforcement, bike light giveaways or subsidies
Time frame Fall, annually
Cost $$ - $$$ (depends on scope of program)
Potential funding sources Bike shops (in-kind donations); transit agencies and local news outlets (donated ad space);
traffic safety foundations and grant programs; hospitals and insurance companies
Sample programs Portland’s “See & Be Seen” campaign:
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?&c=deibb&a=bebfjh
Dutch “Lights On” campaign: http://www.fietslichtaan.nl/
While Montana state law requires bicyclists to use lights at night, cyclists riding without
lights are common in the Bozeman area. Many cyclists, especially students, are unaware that
lights are required by law, or they have simply not taken the trouble to purchase or repair
lights. Research shows that cyclists who do not use lights at night are at much greater risk of
being involved in bike-car crashes. For these reasons, increasing bicycle light usage is a top
priority for Bozeman, and a successful effort will reduce crash risk for bicyclists.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Page 6-22 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
- Every fall, Dutch cyclists receive many
messages to use lights, including these bike
hangers
Every fall in the Netherlands, as days get shorter, a
national “lights on” campaign reminds cyclists to use
bicycle lights. This “lights on” campaign focuses
several complementary strategies into a short time
frame for maximum impact, pairing media messages
(ads, posters, radio spots, and TV ads) with police
enforcement of ‘fix it’ tickets.
A similar Lights On campaign is recommended for
Bozeman. This multi-pronged outreach effort should
take place every September, as the days are getting
shorter and as kids and university students are
returning to school.
The Bozeman Lights On campaign should include the
following elements:
Well-designed graphic ads, to be placed on
transit benches, transit vehicles, and local newspapers, as well as around MSU. Ad
space may be purchased or donated. Small-format ads can be placed on bike
handlebars as well if desired.
Police enforcement of bike light laws. This enforcement will be most likely to result
in behavior change if the cyclist is able to avoid penalty if they obtain a bike light.
Ideally, the police would give a warning, explain the law, and then install a bike light
on the spot. If this is not possible, the cyclist should
receive a ‘fix it ticket’ along with a coupon for a
free or discounted light at a local bike shop; once
the cyclist shows proof that they have purchased a
bike light, their fine will be waived.
Partnership with local cycling groups to get the
word out to their members and partners. These
groups can be counted as campaign partners at no
cost to them, enhancing the campaign’s credibility
and community exposure. Groups should be
supplied with key campaign messages to distribute
with their constituents along with coupons for free
or discounted bike lights.
Earned media outreach: The City of Bozeman
should distribute media releases with statistics about the importance of using bike
lights, relevant legal statutes, and the campaign’s goal, timing, activities, and
partners. If possible, a meeting with local media editorial boards should be sought.
- This poster from Portland, OR uses simple
graphics to communicate the importance of
using bicycle lights
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 6-23
Depending on partners, volunteer capacity and interest, the Bozeman Lights On campaign
may also include the following:
In-school presentations about bike lights, including reflective material giveaways
A community bike light parade with prizes
Discounts on bike lights and reflective gear at local bike shops during September
(publicized through the campaign outreach)
Volunteers stationed at key intersections, trails, and on the MSU campus who thank
bicyclists using bike lights and reward them with a small gift
“Drive Less, Live More” Campaign
Target Drive-alone commuters
Primary agency City of Bozeman, Gallatin County
Partners Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board, Pedestrian Traffic Safety Committee
Key elements Media marketing campaign and website around commute options
Time frame On-going
Cost $$ - $$$$ (depending on advertising strategy)
Potential funding sources Bike shops (in-kind donations); transit agencies and local news outlets (donated ad space);
traffic safety foundations and grant programs; hospitals and insurance companies
Sample programs Drivelesslivemore.org
Drivelesslivemore.com
Drivelesssavemore.com
The “Drive Less, Live More” campaign website would include transit tips, facts and tools,
including a commute cost calculator, trip planning assistance, links to transit and bike maps,
transit schedules and updates, and bicycle trip planning information.
6.5.2 Commuting Program Recommendations
Bike to Work Week or Month
Target Current and potential cyclists
Primary agency City of Bozeman, Gallatin County
Partners Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board
Key elements Publicize Bike to Work Month in May. Offer classes, rides and events.
Time frame May, annually
Cost $$ - $$$ (depending on scope and length of program)
Potential funding sources Local businesses and bike shops (in-kind or cash support); hospitals and insurance companies;
City of Bozeman
Sample programs Bay Area Bike to Work Day: http://www.bayareabikes.org/btwd/index.php
Bike Commute Challenge (Oregon): http://www.bikecommutechallenge.com/
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Page 6-24 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Many local groups and agencies currently collaborate on the area Bike to Work Week in
May. Many of the programs and activities outlined in this section would be appropriate for
inclusion as an activity under the Bike to Work Week organization structure. Based on the
large number of potential activities it is recommended that Bike to Work Week transition to
Bike Month coinciding with ‘National Bike Month’ in May of each year. Spreading out the
activities keeps the focus on non-motorized transportation for an entire month and helps
spread out volunteer resources to avoid burnout.
MSU Bike Program
Target Montana State University students, faculty and staff
Primary agency MSU Planning
Partners Student groups
Key elements Tools and stands; mechanic services; clinics. Tie into ‘Bozeman Bike Central’ website.
Time frame Ongoing
Cost $$$
Potential funding sources MSU parking fees
Sample programs UC Davis Bicycle Program: http://www.taps.ucdavis.edu/bicycle/
Commuter Calculator
Target Commuters and Transportation Demand Management Organizations
Primary agency City of Bozeman, Gallatin County
Partners Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board
Key elements Cost calculator on monthly and annual commuting costs based on one’s mode of
transportation.
Time frame One-time with ongoing website maintenance
Cost $
Potential funding sources Health agencies, pollution mitigation funds
Sample programs Missoula In Motion commuter calculator:
http://missoulainmotion.com/commuter_calculator.php
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 6-25
6.5.3 Enforcement Program Recommendations
Speed Limit Enforcement
Target Speeding motorists
Primary agency City of Bozeman and Bozeman Police Department
Partners Schools and community organizations
Key elements Work with police to do targeted enforcement of speed limits on designated bikeways, near
schools, and in response to cyclist/pedestrian complaints
Time frame Anytime; on-going
Cost $-$$$$ (depending on scale or necessity of officer overtime pay)
Potential funding sources Federal and state traffic safety funding
Sample programs Federal Highway Administration “A Resident’s Guide for Creating Safe and Walkable
Communities:
http://transportation.stanford.edu/alt_transportation/BikingAtStanford.shtml
Radar Speed Sign Deployment
Target Speeding motorists
Primary agency Bozeman Police Department and the City of Bozeman
Partners Schools and community organizations
Key elements Schools and community organizations request a radar speed sign from the City of Bozeman.
The sign is deployed to key locations (schools, community centers, etc) and reminds motorists
to follow the designated speed limit.
Time frame Anytime, on-going
Cost $$
Potential funding sources Federal and state traffic safety funds and Safe Routes to School funding
Sample programs Issaquah, Washington:
http://www.ci.issaquah.wa.us/Page.asp?NavID=309
Bicycle Patrol Unit
Target N/A
Primary agency Bozeman Police Department, Gallatin County Sheriff’s Department
Partners Community organizations
Key elements On-bike officers are an excellent tool for community and neighborhood and special event
policing.
Time frame One-time setup, ongoing maintenance and training
Cost $-$$$ (depending on existing equipment inventory)
Potential funding sources Crime prevention funding
Sample programs Central Point, Oregon:
http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/2008/01/30/alice-award-nominee-chief-jon-zeliff/
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Page 6-26 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
6.5.4 Encouragement Program Recommendations
MSU Bike Orientation
Target MSU students, especially incoming freshmen
Primary agency City of Bozeman and MSU
Partners MSU Cycling Team
Key elements Bicycle safety & promotion orientation for incoming freshmen and returning students. Classes
& clinics, materials, social events, rides.
Time frame September, annually
Cost $-$$
Potential funding sources MSU parking fees, TDM funding sources
Sample programs Stanford University Bike Program:
http://transportation.stanford.edu/alt_transportation/BikingAtStanford.shtml
University students are ideal candidates for bicycling outreach programs; many students live
near campus and may not own a car or choose to drive. The City of Bozeman should partner
with Montana State University to promote bicycling to students at the beginning of the
school year.
The MSU Bike Orientation should include:
Bike maps and information provided to incoming and returning students at the
beginning of the year through school information packets
Flat clinics, bike legal clinics, and guided rides, advertised through flyers, email
and bulletin boards, and campus newspaper
Information tabling at campus events and prominent locations (e.g. bookstore, quad)
during the first few weeks of school
A Bikes at MSU web page with links and more information
At-cost or low-cost bike lights sold at tabling events and through the campus
bookstore
If desired, a “bike buddy” program may be implemented to match current cycling
students with interested students. This can be a simple program where bicyclists
wear a sticker that says “I bike to MSU, ask me how,” or a more elaborate program
that matches bike buddies with interested students who live in their neighborhood
for mentoring. A bike buddy program would increase the cost of the program. This
could be set up through the existing campus rideshare website.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 6-27
6.5.5 Policy Recommendations
Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board
Target Citizen advocates
Primary agency Continuation of Regular meetings of the Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board to advise the
City of Bozeman on bicycle technical issues.
Partners City of Bozeman, bicycle advocacy groups, health organizations, etc
Key elements Regular meetings of the Bicycle Advisory Committee to advice the City of Bozeman on
technical issues. Gallatin County may also explore the concept in the future if the need arises.
Time frame Ongoing
Cost $
Potential funding sources City of Bozeman
Sample programs UC Davis Bicycle Program: http://www.taps.ucdavis.edu/bicycle/
Complete Streets
Target Planners and engineers
Primary agency City of Bozeman, Gallatin County,
Partners Montana State University
Key elements Policy language that creates streets to work for all users, including drivers, freight, walkers,
cyclists and transit riders. Recommended Guidelines can be found in Section 6.1 of this Plan.
Time frame One-time; can happen at any time
Cost $
Potential funding sources N/A
Sample programs http://www.completestreets.org/ contains sample policies and real-life examples
Perform Annual Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts
Target N/A
Primary agency Gallatin County, City of Bozeman
Partners Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board
Key elements Annual bicycle user counts and surveys at set locations to provide for evaluation over time.
Time frame Annually
Cost $$-$$$
Potential funding sources General Funds, Private Donations
Sample programs National Bicycle & Pedestrian Documentation Project
(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/study/)
Many jurisdictions do not perform regular bicycle user counts. As a result, they do not have
a mechanism for tracking ridership trends over time, or for evaluating the impact of projects,
policies, and programs.
It is recommended that the City of Bozeman and Gallatin County perform and/or coordinate
annual counts of bicyclists (and pedestrians if desired) according to national practices. The
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Page 6-28 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project has developed a recommended
methodology, survey and count forms, and reporting forms, and can be modified to serve
the needs and interests of individual jurisdictions.
If desired, further bicycle and pedestrian data collection opportunities may be pursued as
well, including:
Include before-and-after bicycle/pedestrian/vehicle data collection on priority
roadway projects
Insert bicycle/pedestrian survey questions into any existing travel mode or city audit
survey instrument
Require counting of bicyclists/pedestrians in all traffic studies
Purchase National Household Travel Survey add-on
Bicycle Parking Guidelines
Target City & County planners and engineers
Primary agency City of Bozeman, Gallatin County
Partners Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board
Key elements Adopt Bicycle Parking Design Guidelines and parking requirements contained in the Bozeman
Area Transportation Plan (Chapter 5.4.5)
Time frame One-time
Cost $
Potential funding sources N/A
Sample programs Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals:
http://www.bfbc.org/issues/parking/apbp-bikeparking.pdf
Request a Bike Rack Program
Target City & County planners and engineers
Primary agency City of Bozeman, Gallatin County
Partners Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board, Downtown Bozeman Association
Key elements Provide a system by which a business can request additional bicycle parking be installed to
meet high demand by bicyclists
Time frame On-going
Cost $$-$$$ per year
Potential funding sources Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board. Private Donations
Sample programs City of Chicago:
http://www.chicagobikes.org/forms/bikerackrequest.php
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 6-29
Crash Reporting Methodology
Target Law enforcement agencies
Primary agency County 911, Bozeman Police Department
Partners Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board
Key elements Adopt a uniform methodology for reporting crash data for pedestrian and bicycle crashes.
Training for law enforcement agencies on crash reporting is incorporated in the police
education courses on pedestrian and bicycle awareness. Ensure accurate accounting of bicycle
and pedestrian crashes. Separate out bicycle crashes from motorcycle crashes
Time frame One-time with on-going training
Cost $
Potential funding sources Federal and state traffic safety funds
Sample programs Wisconsin Department of Transportation:
http://www.dot.state.wi.us/library/research/docs/finalreports/05-18bicycle-f.pdf
Fund and Staff a Pedestrian/Bicycle Coordinator Position
Target N/A
Primary agency City of Bozeman and/or Gallatin County
Partners Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board, health organizations, etc
Key elements Staff position charged with managing bicycle-related policies, programs, and projects. Could be
a shared position with Gallatin County.
Time frame Ongoing
Cost $-$$$
Potential funding sources General funds
Sample programs Portland Office of Transportation
Chicago Department of Transportation
To take full advantage of bicycle planning efforts in the Bozeman, and to assist with
implementation of the many projects and programs recommended in this Plan, the City of
Bozeman may wish to consider filling this position. The job duties for this staff person may
include:
Work with community partners
Monitor the design and construction of on-street bikeways and shared use paths,
including those constructed in conjunction with private development projects
Ensure bicycle facilities identified in planning documents, development applications
and/or as mitigation measures are designed appropriately and constructed
expediently
Coordinate implementation of the recommended projects and programs listed in this
Plan
Identify new projects that would improve the region’s access for bicyclists
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Page 6-30 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
6.6 NON-MOTORIZED MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Pedestrians and cyclists are more sensitive to conditions within the roadway right-of-way
than motorists. Any roadway maintenance activities to be undertaken should not degrade
the user experience of pedestrians and cyclists and should be seen as an opportunity to make
some simple changes that can enhance conditions usually at minimal, or no cost to the City
of Bozeman, Gallatin County or MDT. A healthy maintenance program is necessary to
ensure bikeway and walkway facilities are usable to the public to the greatest extent
possible.
6.6.1 Overlay / Resurfacing Projects
Roadway surfacing projects create an opportunity to make improvements for bicyclists or
pedestrians at minimal cost. If resurfacing activities are scheduled, the bikeway and
pedestrian project recommendations in Chapter 5 should be referenced to determine if some
projects might be completed as part of the job.
Rural Overlay Projects
On uncurbed roads with wide, stable gravel shoulders, there are often opportunities to
widen shoulders without major grading. If the shoulders are paved prior to a resurfacing
project, the ensuing overlay provides seamless shoulders and a roadway that is safer for all
users.
Some sections of roadway may require minor grading to provide additional width; this can
be justified on roads with high or potentially high bicycle use (see Chapter 5 for roads
recommended for shoulder expansion).
Other Areas
In areas where widening isn't possible because of existing curbs and sidewalks or a
constrained right-of-way by natural features such as ditches or other major changes in grade,
the most effective way to provide non-motorized facilities is by reconfiguring lanes after
paving if there is adequate width. This saves the expense and inconvenience of removing
existing stripes. In many cases no additional right-of-way is required for adding bicycle
facilities as adequate width may already exist.
Chip Sealing
Chip seals are useful maintenance tools for prolonging pavement life for vehicles, but
present significant obstacles to bicyclists. Chip seals typically leave the shoulder or pavement
edge covered in debris and present a rough riding surface that can increase the chance of flat
tires for bicyclists.
Chip Seal Recommendations:
Do not cover part of the shoulder or bike lane leaving a ‘lip’ for cyclists to contend
with.
Use a fine textured material: 3/8”-10 or ¼”-10 aggregate; and
After chip sealing, thoroughly sweep the shoulder area of debris
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 6-31
6.6.2 Utility Cuts
Utility cuts can leave rough transitions for cyclists if they are not filled properly.
Utility Cut Recommendations:
If possible, perform pavement cuts in locations that will not interfere with bicycle
travel;
When resurfacing, back fill cuts in bikeways flush with the surface as bicycles will not
carry sufficient force to pack down a hump;
Ensure that cuts parallel to bicycle traffic do not leave a ridge or groove in the bicycle
track; and
Back fill cuts in concrete sidewalks or shared use paths with concrete flush with the
finished sidewalk grade.
6.6.3 Snow Removal
In the Bozeman area, increasing numbers of cyclists and pedestrians are choosing to travel
by these modes year-round. Snow stored on bike lanes or sidewalks presents a significant
impediment and disincentive to bicycling and walking in the winter.
Snow Removal Recommendations:
Bike Lanes and roadway shoulders can offer additional snow storage capacity
following a large snow event. Snow plow operators should always attempt to clear
roadways from curb-to-curb barring prohibitive accumulations.
If roadway snow removal operations obstruct publicly maintained sidewalks the
sidewalks should be cleared following roadway clearing operations.
6.6.4 Bikeway and Walkway Maintenance During Construction Activities
The summer months constitute the bulk of roadway maintenance and construction activities
in the Bozeman area. Cyclists and pedestrians frequently have to contend with narrowed
roadways, temporary closures of bikeways and sidewalks, and debris on bikeways and
sidewalks. The following recommendations provide for improved conditions for bicyclists
and pedestrians during construction activities.
Construction Activity Recommendations:
Pedestrians do not have the patience to tolerate long detours around construction
sites and typically ignore signs or trespass on site. It is preferable to create passages
that allow pedestrians to proceed as close to their normal route as possible.
Barricades or traffic cones should be utilized within the travel way if space permits to
create temporary facilities. If possible, temporary ramps can be installed from wood
or steel that can provide access to the disabled;
Intersections and crosswalks should be kept open if possible. Temporary crosswalks
can be marked if they need to be relocated;
Bicycle access should also be maintained. Bicyclists can share the lane with vehicles
for a short distance, 15 mph construction zone speed limits can help keep vehicle
speeds down. For longer projects a wide outside lane or temporary bike lane is
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 6: Programs, Policies & Procedural Recommendations
Page 6-32 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
preferred. Bicyclists should not be directed to ride on sidewalks through construction
zones;
Construction debris in bike lanes and sidewalks can present an uncomfortable and
potentially dangerous situation and should be cleared routinely during construction
activities; and
A final sweeping of bicycle and pedestrian facilities should be undertaken following
completion of any construction activity.
CHAPTER 7
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 7: Public Transportation
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 7-1
7.1 NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND PREVIOUS PLANS
This section discusses previous planning efforts that have taken place in the greater Bozeman
area with regards to transit. Below is a list of past planning documents along with a brief
description of each.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan – 2001 Update
Robert Peccia and Associates, June, 2001
This transportation plan is the overall transportation guide for the Bozeman area.
This plan addresses all types of transportation, including transit. The transit chapter
(Chapter 7) serves as a summary for the more detailed Greater Bozeman Area Transit
Development Plan. The transit plan was prepared simultaneously with the
transportation plan.
Gallatin County Transportation Needs – Phase 1 and Phase 2
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., February, 2005 and September, 2006
Phase 1 of this study serves as an implementation plan for the development of a
transit system in the greater Bozeman area. The purpose of this phase is to
“determine the feasibility of and appropriate boundaries for an Urban Transportation
District (UTD), along with the types of service which are best suited to the different
areas within those boundaries.”
Phase 2 of this study “provides an assessment of the organizational options to
implement public transportation services.” This phase looks at three alternatives for
providing long-term organizational structure to the transit service in the Bozeman
Area. A recommendation is made to implement an Urban Transportation District
(UTD) concept to the new transit service.
Bozeman Area Transportation Coordination Plan – FY 2009
Bozeman Area Transportation Advisory Committee, January, 2008
The transportation coordination plan was produced as a requirement by the federal
2005 SAFETEA-LU legislation and the Montana Department of Transportation
(MDT). The plan serves as an analysis of the existing and future transportation
coordination efforts in the greater Bozeman area. This coordination plan will be
updated on a yearly basis.
Bus Stop Program – Guidance for Planners and Developers
Streamline Internal Working Draft – July 2008
This plan provides general guidance for the development of bus stops and street
furniture for the Streamline bus system. As of this writing, this plan is currently in an
“internal working draft” stage.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 7: Public Transportation
Page 7-2 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Additional Identified Needs
Below is a list of additional needs not identified in the Bozeman Area Transportation
Coordination Plan – FY 2009 (developed with assistance from Lisa Ballard, P.E., Current
Transportation Solutions).
Information and Resource Needs
There is currently no 5-year plan or 10-year plan that considers the expected
growth of the community and where bus routes should be to meet these
needs.
Work with Bozeman Planning Department to determine where bus bays need
to be included in new development areas.
Establish a relationship with the county planning department or with
Belgrade planning.
The standard street design of 3 lanes plus bike lanes requires a bus bay to
avoid bus-bike conflicts.
Determine a standard design for street furniture.
Infrastructure Needs
College – The westbound location at 23rd street has no sidewalk and has a
ditch right next to the road.
Highland (at Ellis) – This location is at the bottom of a hill and there is no pull
out away from traffic.
S. 19th Street – The sidewalk is separated from the road by a ditch, and there
are no pedestrian connections to the road, even at driveways.
Main Street (eastbound between 15th and downtown) – There are narrow
shoulders.
Highland – There is only a sidewalk on one side of the street and there is no
connection between the sidewalk and the road.
Huffine (out to Four Corners) – Inadequate pedestrian facilities
Jackrabbit – Inadequate pedestrian facilities.
Oak Street (eastbound just west of 7th) – There is no sidewalk
Oak Street (at 15th right next to an accessible apartment complex) –
Inadequate pedestrian facilities.
Durston and Babcock – Have the bike lanes without a place to pull over.
Durston lacks sidewalks in places.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 7: Public Transportation
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 7-3
7.2 BUS STOP INTERACTION WITH DEVELOPMENT
The use of a transit system is in part driven by the types and size of the development areas
that it serves. Density is the most significant demographic for determining transit demand.
High density residential and commercial areas generally have high transit demands.
Linking central business districts (CBD) and high density residential areas together with
transit can greatly improve the overall use and function of the transit system. It is important
to create a transit link between high trip generation areas.
Extra care should go into new high density development areas to account for future transit
links. Investing in transit systems in new developing areas can also influence the type of
development that will occur in the area. Transit investments can influence compact, mixed-
use, and transit-supportive development types.
It must be noted that when planning for a transit system, the trip to transit, the trip from
transit, and the transit trip itself must be properly planned for in order to achieve an
operationally effective system.
7.3 BUS STOP PLACEMENT
Bus stop placement is an important factor to achieving the best performing transit system
possible. Below is a list of factors that should be taken into consideration when deciding on
where to locate bus stops.
Spacing along the route
Location of passenger traffic generators
Operational effectiveness
Safety
Access to the stop including pathways leading to and from the stop
Right-of-way
Curb clearance
Table 7-1 gives a list of advantages and disadvantages for the location of the bus stop at
intersections. Figure 7-1 shows the minimum recommended distances required for a bus
stop based on the location relative to the intersection. These minimum recommended
distances assume that a 40-foot bus is being used.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 7: Public Transportation
Page 7-4 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Table 7-1
Advantages and Disadvantages of Stop Placement Relative to the Nearest Intersection
Bus Stop
Location
Advantages Disadvantages Recommended When the
Following Location Conditions
Exist
Nearside - Located
immediately before
an intersection
Less potential conflict with
traffic turning onto the bus
route street from a side street.
The bus boarding door is
close to the crosswalk.
Bus has intersection to merge
into traffic.
Bus Driver can see oncoming
buses with transfer
passengers.
Potential conflicts with right
turning traffic due to cars
cutting in front of the bus.
The stopped bus obscures the
sight distance of drivers and
pedestrians entering from the
right.
The stopped bus may block
visibility of the stop signs or
traffic signals.
At signalized intersections,
may result in schedule delays.
When traffic is heavier on the
farside than on the approaching
side of the intersection.
When pedestrian access and
existing landing area conditions
on the nearside are better than
on the farside.
When street crossings and other
pedestrian movements are safer
when the bus stops on the
nearside than the farside.
When the bus route goes straight
through the intersection.
When adequate sight distance
can be achieved at the
intersection.
Farside - Located
immediately after
an intersection
Does not conflict with
vehicles turning right.
Appropriate after the route
has made a turn.
The stopped bus does not
obscure sight distance to the
left for vehicles entering or
crossing from the side street.
At signalized intersections,
buses can more easily re-
enter traffic.
The stopped bus does not
obscure traffic control devices
or pedestrian movements at
the intersection.
The stopped bus obscures the
sight distance to the right of
drivers entering from the cross
street to the right of the bus.
If the bus stopping area is of
inadequate length, the rear of
the stopped bus will block the
cross street (especially an issue
for stops where more than one
bus may be stopped at a time).
If the bus stops in the travel
lane, it may result in queued
traffic behind it blocking the
intersection.
When traffic is heavier on the
nearside than on the farside of
the intersection.
At intersections where heavy left
or right turns occur.
When pedestrian access and
existing landing area conditions
on the farside are better than on
the nearside.
At intersections where traffic
conditions and signal patterns
may cause delays
At intersections with transit
signal priority treatments.
Mid-Block -
Located 300 feet or
more beyond or
before an
intersection
The stopped bus does not
obstruct sight distances at an
intersection.
May be closer to major
activity centers than the
nearest intersection.
Less conflicts between
waiting and walking
pedestrians.
Requires most curb clearance
of the three options (unless a
mid-block sidewalk extension
or bus bulb is built).
Encourages mid-block
jaywalking.
May increase customer
walking distances if the trip
generator is close to an
intersection. Length of mid-
block stops can vary due to
depth of a turn-out and a bus'
ability to maneuver in/out of
traffic lanes.
When traffic or street/sidewalk
conditions at the intersection are
not conducive to a near-side or
far-side stop.
When the passenger traffic
generator is located in the
middle of a long block.
When the interval between
adjacent stops exceeds stop
spacing standards for the area.
When a mid-block stop is
compatible with a corridor or
district plan.
Source: Omnitrans: Bus Stop Design Guidelines, October 2006
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 7: Public Transportation
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 7-5
Figure 7-1
Suggested Bus Stop Distance
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 7: Public Transportation
Page 7-6 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
7.4 BUS STOP ELEMENTS
It is expected that each bus stop should incorporate a number of elements. A list of the
minimum elements that each bus stop should have is listed below.
Landing Area – The landing area must allow for lifts or ramps to be deployed on a
suitable surface to permit a wheelchair to maneuver safely on and off the bus.
Pedestrian Connections – A landing area of 5-feet wide by 8-feet long must be
connected to a sidewalk of at least 4-feet wide.
Curb Ramps – These shall be designed to conform to state and federal ADA
standards.
Signage – Appropriate signage must be used to mark the location of the bus stop.
Route and schedule information should also be supplied at each bus stop.
Safety and Security – Bus stops should not have hazardous conditions that could be
potentially unsafe to users. The area should be well lit and free of obstacles.
Figure 7-2 and Figure 7-3 show typical shelter characteristics at bus stops.
Figure 7-2
Typical Shelter Layout
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 7: Public Transportation
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 7-7
Figure 7-3
Shelter Placement
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 7: Public Transportation
Page 7-8 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
7.5 PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
This section serves as a summary of TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP)
Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition. The “Quality of
Service” section in this report lists several performance factors for a transit system that can
be analyzed to determine the performance level for that factor. Recommendations are made
for how to grade each factor based on performance levels. These recommendations can be
tailored to fit into the characteristics for the community being served by the transit system.
A performance analysis for a transit system should reflect a traveler’s point-of-view.
Completing a performance analysis can be useful in identifying problems in the system that
need to be addressed. A transit system that has a poor performance level in the traveler’s
eye is less likely to be used than one that performs better. The following sections serve as
suggested areas where a performance analysis can be completed to determine how the
system performs. Fixed-route and demand responsive systems are analyzed separately due
to the inherent differences in how these systems operate.
7.5.1 Fixed Route Systems
The performance of a fixed-route transit system can be defined by a number of elements that
fall into two categories: (1) transit availability; (2) comfort and convenience. This section
discusses how to use the elements contained in each category to determine the performance
level of the transit system. A level of service (LOS) value can be applied to each element to
represent the performance level for individual elements. The LOS values determined for
these individual elements can be used to determine areas where the system performs well or
areas where improvements are needed. Individual LOS value does not provide a complete
picture of the performance of the transit system, and as such, they should be used together to
identify the performance level of the system as a whole.
Transit Availability – Service Frequency
Service frequency represents how many times per hour a user has access to their desired
transit service. This value can be expressed in terms of average headway, or as the number
of vehicles per hour that a user has access to. Service frequency is a part of the convenience
of the transit system and is a component in the determination of the overall trip time.
The service frequency must be determined by destination from a given transit stopping
point. There may be several routes that serve a particular destination, but they may serve
different transit stopping points. Special care must also be taken when analyzing transit
stops that have multiple buses arriving close to each other. Buses arriving within 3 minutes
of each other that serve the same destination should be counted as only one bus for the
purposes of determining the service frequency. Table 7-2 shows the service frequency LOS
based on average headway and the number of transit vehicles per hour.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 7: Public Transportation
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 7-9
Table 7-2
Service Frequency LOS
LOS Average Headway (min) veh/hr Comments
A <10 >6 Passengers do not need schedules
B 10-14 5-6 Frequent service, passengers consult schedules
C 15-20 3-4 Maximum desirable time to wait if bus/train missed
D 21-30 2 Service unattractive to choice riders
E 31-60 1 Service available during the hour
F >60 <1 Service unattractive to all riders
Source: TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service
Manual, 2nd Edition
Transit Availability – Hours of Service
Hours of service is defined as the number of hours when the transit service is provided. This
value is determined by taking the number of hours when the transit service is offered at a
minimum of one vehicle per hour frequency rate. Gaps in the system where at least one
vehicle per hour is not offered are not included in the hours of service calculation.
The hours of service can be calculated in two different ways: (1) by route; (2) by trip. The
“by route” method only takes into consideration the hours of service that a particular route is
offered. The “by trip” method used the hours of service that a given trip can be achieved
independently of the route use to make that trip. These two methods can result in different
values in some situations.
To calculate the hours of service for either method, subtract the departure time of the last
route in the day from the departure time of the first route of the day and add one to account
for the last hour when service is provided. This calculation should be done for each portion
of the day when at least one vehicle per hour is provided. Table 7-3 shows the LOS
associated with hours of service provided with the transit system.
Table 7-3
Hours of Service LOS
LOS Hours of Service Comments
A 19-24 Night or “owl” service provided
B 17-18 Late evening service provided
C 14-16 Early evening service provided
D 12-13 Daytime service provided
E 4-11 Peak hour service only or limited midday service
F 0-3 Very limited or no service
Source: TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 100: Transit Capacity and
Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 7: Public Transportation
Page 7-10 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Transit Availability – Service Coverage Area
The service coverage area of a transit system is defined as the area that is within walking
distance of an access point to the transit system. Walking distance is considered to be the
straight-line distance (or air distance) within 0.25 miles from an access point. Areas where
pedestrian access is not possible due to some type of barrier should not be included in the
service coverage area. Calculating the service coverage area can be a relatively simple task
through the implementation of GIS. If GIS software is not available, a more complex
calculation method can be used instead.
The service coverage area should be calculated by determining how much of the dense areas
that would typically produce the majority of users are being served. The Transit Capacity and
Quality of Service Manual suggests that a density of approximately three units per gross acre
be used as a minimum residential density for hourly transit service to be feasible, while a
minimum employment density of approximately four jobs per acre should be used. The
areas that meet these minimum density requirements are referred to as “transit-supportive
areas” (TSA). Table 7-4 shows the LOS value associated with percent of TSA coverage.
While increasing the coverage area of a transit route may produce a better LOS for service
coverage area, it may result in a decrease in the LOS of other factors such as travel time.
Increasing the number of stops will ultimately increase the delay in the system which could
have a negative effect on the transit service. A balance must be achieved between these
factors to ultimately achieve the highest LOS for the entire system.
Table 7-4
Service Coverage Area LOS
LOS % TSA Covered Comments
A 90.0-100 Virtually all major origins & destinations served
B 80.0-89.9 Most major origins & destinations served
C 70.0-79.9 About ¾ of higher-density areas served
D 60.0-69.9 About two-thirds of higher-density areas served
E 50.0-59.9 At least ½ of the higher-density areas served
F <50.0 Less than ½ of higher-density areas served
Transit-Supportive Area (TSA): The portion of the area being analyzed that has a household density of at least 3 units per
gross acre (7.5 units per gross hectare) or an employment density of at least 4 jobs per gross acre (10 jobs per gross hectare).
Covered Area: The area within 0.25 mile (400 m) of local bus service or 0.5 mile (800 m) of a busway or rail station, where
pedestrian connections to transit are available from the surrounding area.
Source: TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd
Edition
Comfort and Convenience – Bus Load Factor
The bus load factor is defined as the level of crowding within the vehicles. This reflects the
passenger’s comfort level while on-board the vehicle. A poor LOS may indicate
overcrowding on the bus which could be a result of poor system design or a need for larger
or more buses.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 7: Public Transportation
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 7-11
The bus load factor described in this section assumes that the bus allows for standing and
sitting room for passengers. Assumptions are also made for the space that a passenger
would occupy while on the bus. If a high number of passengers wear backpacks, for
example, the average space occupied by passengers would be higher than if they did not
have backpacks. Discretion must be taken into account for variables that could affect
passenger area.
Table 7-5
Bus Load Factor LOS
LOS
Load Factor
(p/seat)
Standing Passenger
Area (ft2/p) Comments
A 0.00-0.50 >10.8** No passenger need sit next to another
B 0.51-0.75 8.2-10.8** Passengers can choose where to sit
C 0.76-1.00 5.5-8.1** All passengers can sit
D 1.01-1.25* 3.9-5.4 Comfortable standee load for design
E 1.26-1.50* 2.2-3.8 Maximum schedule load
F >1.50* <2.2 Crush load
*Approximate value for comparison, for vehicles designed to have most passengers seated. LOS is based on area.
**Used for vehicles designed to have most passengers standing.
Source: TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition
The passenger area inside the vehicle is measured based on two parameters: (1) number of
seats; (2) standing room area. The number of seats in the vehicle is easy determined based
on the bus standards. The standing room area is considered to be the area inside the vehicle
that could be used for standing passengers; this area would not include any space taken up
by the seats, wheel wells, or interior steps. A 14-inch buffer in front of longitudinal seating
should also be discounted from the standing area to account for seated passenger leg room.
Table 7-5 shows the LOS values associated with the bus load factor.
Comfort and Convenience – On-Time Service
On-time service is defined as being 0 to 5 minutes late from the scheduled time. Early
departures at locations where passengers board are not considered to be on-time. Early
arrivals toward the end of the route, where no passengers are boarding, however, would still
be considered on-time.
Care should be taken when picking locations to measure on-time service. Locations
where there are a high number of passengers either entering or exiting the bus are
most important to users and should be picked as locations to perform this analysis.
On-time service can be measured either on a route-by-route basis or as a system-wide value.
Both methods should measure on-time service over a series of days or months. Table 7-6
shows LOS values based on the on-time service percentage.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 7: Public Transportation
Page 7-12 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Table 7-6
On-Time Service LOS
LOS On-Time Percentage Comments*
A 95.0-100.0% 1 late transit vehicle every 2 weeks (no transfer)
B 90.0-94.9% 1 late transit vehicle every week (no transfer)
C 85.0-89.9% 3 late transit vehicles every 2 weeks (no transfer)
D 80.0-84.9% 2 late transit vehicles every week (no transfer)
E 75.0-79.9% 1 late transit vehicle every day (with a transfer)
F <75.0% 1 late transit vehicle at least daily (with a transfer)
Note: Applies to routes with a published timetable, particularly to those with headways longer than 10 minutes.
“On-time” is 0 to 5 minutes late, and can be applied to either arrivals or departures, as appropriate for the situation being measured. Early
departures are considered on-time only in locations where no passengers would typically board (e.g., toward the end of a route).
*Individual’s perspective, based on 5 round trips per week.
Source: TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition
Comfort and Convenience – Travel Time
Travel time is an important factor for potential transit users. More specifically, the difference
in travel time between the trip being taken by automobile and the trip being taken by the
transit system is of importance to potential users. Trips that are significantly longer by
transit than by automobile may have less appeal to a potential user. It can be argued,
however, that the time aboard the transit system can be used for “additional free time” for
the user. This may be beneficial to some users.
The difference in travel time between transit and auto is found by taking the “door-to-door”
difference between these two modes. This takes into account any walking, waiting, parking,
or transfer times involved in each mode. The total travel time for transit includes walk time
to and from the transit station (assumed to be an average of 3 minutes each way), the travel
time while on-board the transit vehicle, and the amount of time spent waiting for the transit
vehicle (assumed to be 5 minutes). The travel time for an automobile includes the travel time
inside the vehicle in addition to the parking and walking time required (assumed to be an
average of 3 minutes).
High levels of service based on travel time may be difficult to achieve in smaller cities.
Generally in a small city, it is possible to drive most places within the city in about 10 to 15
minutes. The calculated travel time for transit is generally much higher than this, and as a
result LOS values may suffer. Table 7-7 shows the LOS associated with the travel time
difference between transit and automobile methods.
Table 7-7
Travel Time LOS
LOS Travel Time Difference (min) Comments
A ≤0 Faster by transit than by automobile
B 1-15 About as fast by transit as by automobile
C 16-30 Tolerable for choice riders
D 31-45 Round-trip at least an hour longer by transit
E 46-60 Tedious for all riders; may be best possible in small cities
F >60 Unacceptable to most riders
Source: TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 7: Public Transportation
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 7-13
7.5.2 Demand Responsive Systems
A performance analysis for demand responsive systems can be done in much the same
manner as a fixed-route system. A scale of “1” to “8” is used to define the quality of service
is used for this type of system instead of using the level of service scale used for a fixed-route
system. The quality of service method provides a broader range of performance levels than
does a LOS ranking.
As was done with a fixed-route system, the performance of a demand responsive system is
defined by a number of elements that fall into two categories: (1) transit availability; (2)
comfort and convenience. Applying a quality of service ranking to each individual element
in a demand responsive system provides an analysis of the system performance. This
analysis can be used to determine problematic areas in the system. Each element analysis
should be used together to determine the overall quality of service for the system.
Transit Availability – Response Time
Response time is defined as the minimum amount of time that a user needs to schedule a trip
or the minimum amount of time that a reservation must be made in advance. Table 7-8
shows the quality of service values associated with the response time of the transit system.
Table 7-8
Response Time QOS
QOS Response Time Comments
1 Up to ½ hour Very prompt response; similar to exclusive-ride taxi service
2 More than ½ hour, and up to 2 hours Prompt response; considered immediate response for DRT service
3 More than 2 hours, but still same day service Requires planning, but one can still travel the day the trip is
requested
4 24 hours in advance; next day service Requires some advance planning
5 48 hours in advance Requires more advance planning than next-day service
6 More than 48 hours in advance, and up to 1 week Requires advance planning
7 More than 1 week in advance, and up to 2 weeks Requires considerable advance planning, but may still work for
important trips needed soon
8 More than 2 weeks, or not able to accommodate
trip
Requires significant advance planning, or service is not available
at all
Source: TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition
Transit Availability – Service Span
The service span of a transit system refers to the number of hours per day and number of
days per week that the demand responsive system is available. Table 7-9 shows a quality of
service matrix based on the days per week and hours per day the system is in operation. To
use the matrix, determine the number of days per week that the service is available. From
that column, use the number of hours per day that the service is provided to determine the
quality of service value that represents these characteristics. A weighted average should be
used in situations where the system operates during different hours depending on the day of
week.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 7: Public Transportation
Page 7-14 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Table 7-9
Service Span QOS
Hours Per Day
Days Per Week
6-7 5 3 - 4 2 1 0.5* < 0.5
≥16.0 1 2 4 5 6 7 8
12.0-15.9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9.0-11.9 3 4 4 6 6 7 8
4.0-8.9 5 5 5 6 7 7 8
< 4.0 6 6 6 7 8 8 8
*Service at least twice per month
Source: TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition
Comfort and Convenience – On-Time Service
Demand responsive systems generally operate on a “window of time” system that gives the
user a time frame of when the vehicle can be expected to arrive. The variable nature of
demand response systems make it difficult to give users an exact time that the vehicle will
arrive. As with fixed-route systems, early arrivals can also be a problem. Early arrivals may
result in the user feeling compelled to hurry, or may result in an increase in no-shows. Table
7-10 shows the resulting quality of service with regards to the on-time percentage of the
demand responsive system.
Table 7-10
On-Time Service QOS
QOS On-Time Percentage Comments*
1 97.5-100.0% 1 late trip/month
2 95.0-97.4% 2 late trips/month
3 90.0-94.9% 3-4 late trips/month
4 85.0-89.9% 5-6 late trips/month
5 80.0-84.9% 7-8 late trips/month
6 75.0-79.9% 9-10 late trips/month
7 70.0-74.9% 11-12 late trips/month
8 <70.0% More than 12 late trips/month
Note: Based on 30-minute on-time window.
*Assumes user travels by DRT round trip each weekday for one month, with 20 weekdays/month.
Source: TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition
Comfort and Convenience – Trips not Served
The number of trips that are not served by a demand responsive system are a result of trips
either being booked but the vehicle doesn’t show up, or they are denied when requested for
a variety of reasons. Trips turned down by the demand responsive system may be a sign
that the system does not have enough capacity. Missed trips can be a result of a number of
factors, including: poor scheduling; inadequate driver time allotted; inexperienced drivers;
miscommunications; or a combination of factors. Table 7-11 shows the resulting quality of
service based on the percent of trips not served.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 7: Public Transportation
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 7-15
Table 7-11
Trips not Served QOS
QOS
Percent Trips Not
Served Comments*
1 0-1% No trip denials or missed trips within month
2 >1%-2% 1 denial or missed trip within month
3 >2%-4% 1-2 denials or missed trips within month
4 >4%-6% 2 denials or missed trips within month
5 >6%-8% 3 denials or missed trips within month
6 >8%-10% 4 denials or missed trips within month
7 >10%-12% 5 denials or missed trips within month
8 >12% More than 5 denials or missed trips within month
Note: Trips not served include trip requests denied due to insufficient capacity, and missed trips.
*Assumes user travels by DRT round trip each weekday for one month, with 20 weekdays/month.
Source: TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of
Service Manual, 2nd Edition
Comfort and Convenience – Travel Time
Travel time for a demand responsive system is measured in much the same way as a fixed-
route system. The “door-to-door” difference between the demand responsive system and
automobile travel times is used for this calculation. The travel time for a demand responsive
system does not include the time spent waiting for the vehicle to arrive. Table 7-12 shows
the quality of service value based on the travel time difference.
Table 7-12
Travel Time QOS
QOS Travel Time Difference (min) Comments
1 ≤0 The same or slightly faster by DRT as by automobile
2 1-10 Just about the same or slightly longer by DRT
3 11-20 Somewhat longer by DRT
4 21-30 Satisfactory service
5 31-40 Up to 40 minutes longer by DRT than by automobile
6 41-50 May be tolerable for users who are transit-dependent
7 51-60 May indicate a lot of shared riding or long dwell times
8 >60 From most users’ perspectives, this is “too lengthy”
Source: TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 7: Public Transportation
Page 7-16 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
7.6 ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES / FUEL CONSIDERATIONS
A list of alternative fuels designated by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (1992 EPAct) or the
Department of Energy after that date is found below:
Alternative diesel (biodiesel, Fisher-Tropsch and diesel blends)
Methanol, ethanol, and other alcohols
Liquefied petroleum gas (propane)
Blends of 85% or more of alcohol with gasoline
Coal-derived liquid fuels
Fuels (other than alcohol) derived from biological materials
Natural gas and liquid fuels domestically produced from natural gas
Hydrogen
Electricity
7.6.1 Alternative Fuel Vehicles
Alternative Fuel Vehicles (AFV) are becoming increasingly popular due to rapidly rising
gasoline prices and increased concern and awareness of environmental effects. An AFV runs
on an alternative fuel source derived from means other than petroleum. There are several
different types of AFV’s which are described below.
Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) – HEV’s combine the features of an internal combustion
engine with those of an electric motor. They are primarily powered by a gasoline powered
engine similar to those of a conventional vehicle. The engine is assisted by an electric motor
which uses energy stored in a battery. The assistance of the electric motor allows the engine
to operate more efficiently and waste less energy. HEV’s use energy dissipated during
braking to charge the battery that runs the electric motor. The split use between the gasoline
engine and electric motor combine to increase fuel economy and reduce emissions.
Biodiesel – Biodiesel is a form of eco-friendly diesel fuel manufactured from non-petro
based oils. Vegetable oils, recycled restaurant grease, and animal fat can all be used to create
biodiesel. Bio diesel can be created entirely from these non-petro based oils or can be
blended with standard petroleum diesel. Pure biodiesel is given the name B100 (100%
biodiesel). B5 (5% biodiesel) and B20 (20% biodiesel) are other common blends. Most diesel
vehicles can safely run biodiesel with grades up to B5 or B20. However, this may void some
vehicle warranties. It is not recommended that a vehicle run biodiesel unless it is intended to
do so. Higher grades of biodiesel typically require modifications to the vehicle’s engine.
Flexible Fuel Vehicle (FFV) – A flexible fuel vehicle is designed to run on standard gasoline
or gasoline blended with up to 85% ethanol (E85). These vehicles are basically identical to
standard gasoline ones, with a few changes being made to the fuel system and engine. FFV’s
typically get about 20-30% fewer miles per gallon off of E85 than off of standard gasoline.
However, this decrease in fuel economy is typically offset by the lower price of E85
compared to gasoline. E85 also emits fewer toxins into the air and is manufactured from a
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 7: Public Transportation
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 7-17
renewable resource. There are currently dozens of vehicle models that are able to run off of
E85.
Electric Vehicle (EV) – Unlike hybrid electric vehicles, electric vehicles are solely powered
by an electric motor. The motor is powered by a battery pack that must be recharged. These
battery packs need to be plugged in and can take anywhere from 4 to 8 hours to fully
recharge and generally only allow for around 150 miles of travel. The battery packs are
usually heavy, take up considerable space, and usually need to be replaced one or more
times. Electric vehicles do have several distinct advantages over typical combustion motors,
however: electric motors are up to 4 times more efficient than standard gasoline engines;
they emit no vehicle pollutants; they reduce the dependence on foreign petroleum; and they
are quiet, smooth, and generally powerful.
Fuel Cell Vehicle (FCV) – Fuel cell vehicles operate in much the same way as electric
vehicles. They have an electric motor that is used to power the vehicle. The difference
comes in how the electric motor is powered. While electric vehicles use bulky battery packs
that need to be continually recharges, fuel cell vehicles use fuel cells onboard the vehicle to
create electricity through the use of hydrogen fuel. A chemical process between hydrogen
and oxygen inside the fuel cell produces the energy used to power the electric motor.
7.6.2 Alternative Fuels in Transit Vehicles
The use of alternative fuels in transit vehicles is becoming more popular with increasing
emission regulations and awareness of the affects that pollution has on the environment.
Transit systems are well suited to alternative fuel use. They generally use high amounts of
fuel and operate using a centralized fueling station. These characteristics help transit
systems to sustain an alternative fueling infrastructure that supports private fueling. Transit
systems also are generally serviced by technicians who work on the entire fleet and are
required to be regularly trained. Transit systems generally operate in urban areas where air
quality is of greater concern. The use of alternative fuels in transit systems becomes more
and more important with the increase in miles traveled by the system.
The new yellow busses operated by Streamline Transit run off of B20 biodiesel. B20 biodiesel
is a blend of 80% petroleum diesel and 20% biodiesel. This type of fuel is a good balance of
emission benefits, cost, maintenance, and field problems. B20 is commonly used in diesel
engines with no modifications. A B20 fueling station is currently located at Story
Distributing Co. in Belgrade.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 7: Public Transportation
Page 7-18 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
7.7 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION CONCLUSION
It is evident that with the continued success of Streamline, transit as a travel choice will be
heightened in the coming years. To that end, the community should strive to hold transit on
par with vehicular and non-motorized travel modes. Several factors contained in this
chapter will by necessity be brought to the forefront as the transit system develops.
The most pressing types of discussions that should be addressed going forward are as
follows:
Should the system be governed by an Urban Transportation District (UTD)?
What “level of service’ standard should be the goal for operations, given limited
funding?
How can the future infrastructure needs for transit be better coordinated with private
development and the development process?
How can transit become ingrained in everyday life and be a part of overall
community planning efforts.
Along with these questions that must be addressed going forward, some basic
recommendations for transit have been made in Chapter 5 of this document. These are
reiterated herein as shown below:
TSM-36: Development Review/Coordination Efforts
It is desirable to have a formal mechanism by which Streamline board and
staff can participate in the development revise process. This will allow for
continued coordination of proper bus stop location and identification of
appropriate bus bay design and locations. The goal is to be able to participate
in the formal review such that knowledge is disseminated to all affected
parties pertinent to transit growth opportunities (routes, destinations, etc) and
how those opportunities interface with private development infrastructure.
TSM-37: Formalize Transit Representation on TCC
It is recommended that a member of Streamline (board or staff) have a formal,
allocated seat on the Bozeman Transportation Coordinating Committee
(TCC).
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 7: Public Transportation
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 7-19
7.8 LAND USE PLANNING & IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
Land use planning and development strategies are crucial in order to maximize the
efficiency of any transportation system. Proper planning can create a user friendly
environment that is eco-friendly and promotes multimodal use. It is important to develop a
vision, or goal, for the community and put development strategies in place to help achieve
that goal.
Current development patterns are showing a tendency to develop outwardly to
undeveloped land areas. This development pattern is sometimes called “sprawl”.
Characteristics of this type of development generally include single-family homes on the
outskirts of the city, low population densities, areas concentrated with specific development
types, and a majority of residents commuting by automobile.
Sprawl is a controversial topic that generally has a negative connotation to it. Opponents of
sprawl argue that this type of development strategy tends to negatively impact the
environment and that it creates higher pollution rates per person, increases traffic levels, and
decreases the walkability of the community. This general way of thinking comes from the
fact that sprawl consumes larger areas of land due to its low density nature. Lots are spaced
farther apart, and additional roadways are needed to connect outward developments
together. This type of development generally lumps land use types together which makes it
difficult to use non motorized modes of transportation. Sprawl has become popular due to
the generally lower priced land available outside of the city and the fact that there is a desire
for single-family homes in low density neighborhoods.
It may be desirable to for some cities to create in-fill development strategies that discourages
sprawl and encourages mixed use high density development types located inside the city.
This type of development strategy is often called “smart growth” and promotes compact
mixed-use development types complete with multimodal transportation facilities. Smart
growth’s ideals are based on town-centered developments that encourage multimodal travel
to create a compact environmentally friendly community. Open space is preserved and city
centers are restored under this development strategy.
The following is a list of smart growth principals as defined by the Smart Growth Network:
Create Range of Housing Opportunities and Choices – Providing quality housing for people of all
income levels is an integral component in any smart growth strategy.
Create Walkable Neighborhoods – Walkable communities are desirable places to live, work, learn,
worship and play, and therefore a key component of smart growth.
Encourage Community and Stakeholder Collaboration – Growth can create great places to live, work
and play -- if it responds to a community’s own sense of how and where it wants to grow.
Foster Distinctive, Attractive Communities with a Strong Sense of Place – Smart growth encourages
communities to craft a vision and set standards for development and construction which respond to
community values of architectural beauty and distinctiveness, as well as expanded choices in housing
and transportation.
Make Development Decisions Predictable, Fair and Cost Effective – For a community to be successful
in implementing smart growth, it must be embraced by the private sector.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 7: Public Transportation
Page 7-20 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Mix Land Uses – Smart growth supports the integration of mixed land uses into communities as a
critical component of achieving better places to live.
Preserve Open Space, Farmland, Natural Beauty and Critical Environmental Areas – Open space
preservation supports smart growth goals by bolstering local economies, preserving critical
environmental areas, improving our communities quality of life, and guiding new growth into existing
communities.
Provide a Variety of Transportation Choices – Providing people with more choices in housing,
shopping, communities, and transportation is a key aim of smart growth.
Strengthen and Direct Development Towards Existing Communities – Smart growth directs
development towards existing communities already served by infrastructure, seeking to utilize the
resources that existing neighborhoods offer, and conserve open space and irreplaceable natural
resources on the urban fringe.
Take Advantage of Compact Building Design – Smart growth provides a means for communities to
incorporate more compact building design as an alternative to conventional, land consumptive
development.
- Source: Smart Growth Network
It is important to take into consideration all of the positives and negatives of all development
strategies. There is no “one-size-fits-all” solution that works for every community. A vision
should be created to define what is important to the community and where they want to go
in the future. The development strategy for a community should reflect their desired vision.
CHAPTER 8
TRAFFIC CALMING
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 8-1
8.1 PURPOSE OF TRAFFIC CALMING
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) defines traffic calming as a “combination of
mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver
behavior, and improve conditions for non-motorized street users.” In simple terms, traffic-
calming techniques are typically aimed at lowering vehicle speeds, decreasing truck
volumes, and/or reducing the amount of cut-through traffic in a given area. If applied
properly, these techniques result in a more pleasant environment for pedestrians and
bicyclists.
Some of the most universal goals of traffic calming are as follows:
Reducing the frequency and severity of accidents.
Improving the quality of life in residential areas.
Reducing negative environmental impacts of traffic such as air and noise pollution.
Promoting walking and bicycling.
Traffic calming measures can also have the following beneficial side effects:
Reduced need for police enforcement.
Improved street environment (street scaping).
Improved water infiltration into the ground.
There are two forms of traffic calming, active and passive. Active measures are described in
some detail in the following sections and are usually applied after a street has been
constructed to correct a perceived problem with driver behavior. Passive measures are more
likely to be included during the initial design of a roadway and include such things as the
placement of street trees, medians, narrower lane widths, intersection design, pedestrian
bulbs and other safety features, and similar design elements. Active measures are not
appropriate for the arterial network as they interfere with the purpose of arterials to move
larger volumes of vehicles. However, appropriate use of passive measures may accomplish
the purpose of encouraging safer driver, cyclist, or pedestrian behavior without restricting
traffic flow. Arterials should be considered in any active traffic calming plan since speeding
and cut-through traffic on local streets can be an indicator that the arterial network is not
functioning properly. Therefore, improvements to the arterial network may be a more
effective solution than active traffic calming on smaller streets.
8.2 HISTORY OF TRAFFIC CALMING
Traffic calming originated in Europe in the 1960’s, specifically with the “pedestrianization”
of downtown shopping areas in Germany. In the 1970’s, the Dutch expanded the concept to
include residential streets when they integrated motorized and non-motorized traffic. On the
residential blocks, the street served as an extension of the residents’ yards, and pedestrians
were given priority over automobiles. Obstacles, bends, and bottlenecks were placed at
regular intervals to restrict vehicle speeds to a walking pace. Finally, the German philosophy
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Page 8-2 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
of area-wide traffic calming emerged, which considers the entire road system in order to
avoid merely shifting a problem to another location.
Over the past thirty years, a variety of traffic calming techniques have been applied in
numerous European countries. More recently, these strategies have been adopted in Japan,
Australia, and North America. In the United States, traffic-calming efforts have occurred
throughout the country. In the northwest region, several municipalities have actively
pioneered traffic calming, including the communities of Seattle and Bellevue, Washington
and Eugene, Oregon. As was the case in Europe, emphasis has shifted from alleviating
problems at specific locations to improving neighborhood street systems as a whole.
Consequently, traffic-calming programs in the U.S. are sometimes known as Local Area
Traffic Management Programs, Neighborhood Traffic Management Programs, or
Neighborhood Traffic Control Programs.
8.3 TYPES OF TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
Traffic calming measures typically fit into one of six categories: 1) passive measures; 2)
deflection; 3) narrowing; 4) diversion and restriction; 5) education and enforcement and 6)
signage and pavement markings. Many of the specific techniques within these categories are
described below.
8.3.1 Passive Measures
There are several passive techniques that produce a calming effect on traffic. These measures
are usually built into the design of the street. Examples of passive forms of traffic calming
include tree-lined streets, streets with boulevards separating the sidewalks, streets with
raised center medians, on-street parking, highly visible pedestrian crossings, and relatively
short building set-back distances. Each of these elements has the tendency to slow vehicle
speeds without actually restricting or interfering with the flow of traffic. The best results are
usually obtained when two or more of these techniques are used in combination.
8.3.2 Deflection, Narrowing, Diversion, and Restriction
Descriptions of a wide variety of physical traffic calming measures, as well as the advantages
and disadvantages of each are presented in the following pages. A general magnitude cost
range is shown for a basic installation of each measure. These costs can increase significantly
with the addition of irrigation systems and street lighting, or the acquisition of right-of-way.
Beautification amenities, such as brick pavers or extensive landscaping, can also dramatically
impact project costs.
When implementing these types of physical traffic calming measures, several guidelines
should be taken into consideration:
1) attempt less restrictive measures before resorting to road closures and other route
modifications;
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 8-3
2) space devices 300 to 500 feet apart in order to restrict speeds to a 20 to 25 mile per
hour range; and
3) make the appropriate accommodations for drainage and snow removal, as well as
considering the needs of emergency vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Road
closure or obstruction, for example, can often be achieved through the use of
traversable barriers that allow for the passage of bicycles, pedestrians, and emergency
vehicles.
8.3.3 Education and Enforcement
The following techniques are designed to raise public awareness of a traffic problem, and
change the behaviors that contribute to that problem:
Neighborhood Traffic Safety Campaign - An educational program consisting of
meetings, newsletters, etc., with the purpose of informing residents of the
neighborhoods’ particular traffic issues and outlining safety recommendations. (This
technique is not effective for traffic generated outside the neighborhood.)
Radar Speed Monitoring Trailer - A portable trailer equipped to measure and
digitally displays vehicle speeds.
Neighborhood Speed Watch Program - A speed-monitoring program in which
residents of a neighborhood measure vehicle speeds with a radar unit and record
license plate numbers of those exceeding the speed limit. The registered owners are
sent letters explaining the safety concerns in the neighborhood and asking them to
reduce their speeds.
Target Enforcement - Increased police enforcement of traffic regulations within a
designated area.
8.3.4 Signage and Pavement Markings
The installation of traffic control signs and placement of pavement markings constitute the
most passive category of traffic calming. Signs indicating speed limits, school crossings, and
dead ends can be used where appropriate to slow traffic. Pavement markings used to calm
traffic include school crossings and speed limits or other legends. Some specific traffic
calming techniques include:
Truck Route Signing - Signs placed along streets at appropriate intervals to
designate truck routes or restrict truck traffic.
Edge Lines - Lines painted along the side of the road to narrow traffic lanes and/or
provide shoulder space for bicycles.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Page 8-4 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
8.4 VERTICAL DEFLECTION METHODS
8.4.1 Speed Bumps, Humps, Tables, and Cushions:
Speed bumps, humps, tables, and cushions are all design features which are raised above the
roadway. The differences between the four types are in their geometry.
Speed bumps are the smallest and are generally 3 to 6
inches high and 1 to 3 feet long. They are typically used
in parking lots and low speed residential areas. Speed
bumps slow vehicles traveling at slow speeds down to
approximately 5 miles per hour. Vehicles traveling at higher speeds may be impacted less by
the bumps.
Speed humps are larger than speed bumps and range
from 3 to 4 inches high and 10 to 14 feet long. They can
be used on streets where a low speed limit is desired.
Speed humps generally can slow vehicles down to
approximately 15 miles per hour. If traveled over at
higher speeds the vehicle will experience a severe jolting
effect.
A speed table is a lengthened speed hump with a flat top.
Speed tables are typically long enough so that the entire
wheelbase of a car rests on the table. The design of speed
tables allows for higher speeds than those of speed
humps, but creates a smoother ride for larger vehicles.
The height of speed tables is similar to speed humps, but
the length can vary. A typical 22 foot long speed table has
a design speed of approximately 30 miles per hour.
Speed cushions are a series of speed humps installed
across the width of the roadway with spaces between
them. The spaces are spaced so that emergency vehicles
can pass between them without being affected by the
bumps. Ordinary cars have smaller axels and will
therefore need to travel over the bump with at least one
side of their car. Speed cushions have about the same
effect on slowing cars down as speed humps do while
still allowing emergency vehicles to be unaffected by
them.
These traffic calming measures can be placed at spaces ranging from 250 feet to 800 feet to
gain a continuous effect on slowing vehicle speeds. If they are placed at distances greater
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 8-5
than 800 feet, there is enough room between them for driver to speed up between the devices
which will limit their effectiveness.
It should be noted that speed bumps, as defined herein, should not be used on the public
street system, and are more applicable to private roadway facilities, accesses, and parking
lots.
Advantages:
Slows traffic down
Increases safety levels
Decreases traffic volume
Self-enforcing
Relatively inexpensive
Disadvantages:
May promote speeding between them
May increase volume on other streets
Difficult to properly construct
Special Considerations:
Emergency vehicles
Drainage
Signage
Snow Removal
Estimated Cost:
$1,000 to $8,000
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Page 8-6 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
8.4.2 Raised Intersections:
Raised intersections are flat raised areas around the
intersection with ramps attaching each approach to the
intersection. The ramps and/or the intersection can be made
out of a textured or painted material to make them stand out
visually. By raising the level of the intersection and the cross
walks, the area becomes more noticeable to the driver. This
creates a safer environment for pedestrians crossing at the
intersection. Raised intersections are ideal in areas with
heavy pedestrian traffic and on-street parking that doesn’t
allow for other measures to be taken.
Advantages:
Improved safety for vehicles and pedestrians
Can be visually appealing
They work for the entire intersection, not just one street
Better for emergency vehicles than speed humps
Disadvantages:
Increases turning difficulty
Increased maintenance
Requires additional signage
Less effective at reducing speeds than speed humps and speed tables
Can be expensive depending on the materials used
Special Considerations:
Emergency vehicles
Drainage
Signage
Snow Removal
Estimated Cost:
$4,000 to $12,500 depending on materials used and size of intersection
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 8-7
8.4.3 Raised Crosswalks:
Raised crosswalks are simply speed tables that have
crosswalk signage and markings to allow for pedestrians
to cross the roadway. The raised level of the crosswalk
makes it more visible to the driver and therefore safer for
the pedestrians. Raised crosswalks are ideal in locations
where there is heavy pedestrian traffic and high vehicle
speeds. Raised crosswalks have the advantage of slowing
vehicles down who drive over them and alerting vehicles
to possible pedestrian traffic in the area.
Advantages:
Improved safety for vehicles and pedestrians
Can be visually appealing
Effective at reducing vehicle speeds
Makes the crosswalk and pedestrians more visible
Disadvantages:
May promote speeding between them
Difficult to properly construct
May slow down emergency vehicles
Special Considerations:
Emergency vehicles
Drainage
Signage
Snow Removal
Estimated Cost:
$2,500 to $8,000
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Page 8-8 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
8.4.4 Textured Pavement:
Textured pavement can be created by either stamping
the pavement or by using an alternative material like
brick or cobblestone. The purpose of both methods is to
create a surface that is unpleasant to drive over at high
speeds due to the uneven texture of the surface. If
driven over at higher speeds the texture will cause a
noticeable vibration to the car, much like a rumble strip
does. The variation in the surface will also cause an
audible difference when driven over. Generally the
pavement area that is textured is either painted a different color or the materials used are of a
different color. The change in color makes the area standout visually and will alert the
driver that caution needs to be taken in the area. Textured pavement creates a space that acts
less as a roadway and more like a pedestrian zone causing drivers to take greater care.
Warning signs can also be used in conjunction with the textured pavement to increase their
effectiveness. Textured pavement can also be used to highlight crosswalks or other areas of
interest.
Advantages:
Can reduce vehicle speeds
Can increase driver awareness
Provide visual and physical warnings to the driver
Can be used to highlight most areas
Aesthetically pleasing if properly designed
Disadvantages:
May be difficult for pedestrians and bicyclists
Can be very expensive depending on material and area covered
Can add additional noise to the area
Maintenance issues may arise
Special Considerations:
Emergency vehicles
Snow Removal
Maintenance
Estimated Cost:
Varies by design
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 8-9
8.4.5 Rumble Strips:
Rumble strips are grooved patterns placed in the
pavement perpendicular to the direction of travel. When
a vehicle passes over a rumble strip the driver receives an
audible warning (rumbling sound) and feels a vibration.
Rumble strips are used to alert the driver to use caution in
the area or to alert them to changes in traffic
characteristics. They can be painted a different color or be
made of a different material than the road surface so that
they stand out to the driver. This method is commonly
used in high speed areas to give the driver advance warning to slow down or about an
upcoming intersection.
The FHWA classifies rumbles strips into three types:
Shoulder rumble strips (SRS) are the most common type and are located on the road
shoulder of expressways, interstates, parkways, and two-lane rural roadways. They
are intended to alert the drive when they encroach onto the shoulder.
Centerline rumble strips (CRS) are located along the centerline of the roadway and
are often used on two-lane rural roadways. They alert the driver that they are
encroaching into the centerline.
Transverse rumble strips (TRS) are installed on approaches to intersections, toll
plazas, horizontal curves, and work zones. They alert the driver that they are
approaching an area of concern and that they should use caution.
Advantages:
Can reduce vehicle speeds
Can increase driver awareness
Provide visual and physical warnings to the driver
Relatively inexpensive
Disadvantages:
May be difficult for pedestrians and bicyclists
Can add additional noise to the area
Maintenance issues may arise
Special Considerations:
Emergency vehicles
Snow Removal
Maintenance
Estimated Cost:
$1,000 to $5,000
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Page 8-10 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
8.5 HORIZONTAL DEFLECTION METHODS
8.5.1 Chicane:
Chicanes are offset curb extensions that form S-shaped
curves which cause a deviation in the vehicle’s path of
travel. They realign the road horizontally to force the
driver to alter their path causing them to slow down.
Chicanes can also be created by alternating parking
between each side of the road. Chicanes can be effective
at reducing vehicle speeds without the noise and
inconvenience of speed bumps or other methods.
Advantages:
Can reduce vehicle speeds
Easily negotiated by emergency vehicles
Imposes minimal inconvenience on local traffic
Reduces pedestrian crossing distance
Can be aesthetically pleasing
Disadvantages:
May create opportunities for head-on conflicts
Expensive
If not designed properly drivers may deviate from their lane
May lose some on-street parking
Special Considerations:
Lighting
Drainage
Maintenance
Estimated Cost:
$15,000 to $40,000
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 8-11
8.5.2 Traffic Circles and Roundabouts:
Traffic circles are raised circular islands placed in the
center of the intersection about which drivers must
navigate around. They cause vehicles to slow down
through the intersection because they are forced to make
turning movements. They are very effective at slowing
vehicle speeds down. Pedestrian safety is also increased
due to the decrease in speeds. Large vehicles may have
trouble navigating around the traffic circles, especially
when making left-hand turns. Traffic circles work well for low volume intersections where
speeding is a common problem.
Roundabouts are larger traffic circles with splitter islands
and yield signs at each entry way. They are intended for
larger intersections with higher traffic volumes.
Roundabouts provide refuge areas on the splitter islands
which allow crossing pedestrians a place of refuge so that
they only have to cross one direction of traffic at a time.
Large trucks may have problems navigating around
roundabouts, although the use of mountable islands or
aprons helps to accommodate larger vehicles.
Roundabouts and traffic circles both slow drivers down and decrease the number of conflict
points from the 32 present in a standard four-legged intersection to only 8 in a roundabout or
traffic circle. The decrease in speed and number of conflict points has resulted in a reduction
of 90% of fatal intersection crashes compared to signalized intersections.
Advantages:
Vehicle speed reduction
Increased vehicle and pedestrian safety
No traffic signals
Disadvantages:
May be difficult for large trucks to navigate around
May require additional right-of-way and/or loss of on-street parking
May cause difficulties for sight impaired pedestrians
Special Considerations:
Emergency vehicles
Maintenance
Large trucks
Signage
Estimated Cost:
Varies based on size and materials used
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Page 8-12 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
8.5.3 Intersection Realignment:
This method changes the alignment of a standard T-
intersection with a straight approach into curving streets
that connect at right angles. The previously straight
through movement through the intersection becomes a
turning movement. The straight through movement
through an intersection realignment is a sweeping turn
that causes the driver to slow down to take the corner.
Intersection realignment is one of the few traffic calming
methods available for T-intersections. This method forces
drivers to slow down through the intersection which makes for a safer environment for
drivers on the side street.
Advantages:
Good at reducing speeds at T-intersections
Increases safety for motorists at the intersection
May provide space for landscaping
Disadvantages:
Can cause confusion regarding priority movements
Curb realignment can be costly
May require additional right-of-way
Special Considerations:
Lighting
Signage
Drainage
Estimated Cost:
$5,000 to $20,000
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 8-13
8.6 HORIZONTAL NARROWING METHODS
8.6.1 Neckdown:
Neckdowns are curb extensions put in place at
intersections. They reduce pedestrian crossing distance
while drawing attention to crosswalks. Neckdowns cause
vehicles to slow down at intersections and around corners
due to the narrower lanes. The most common place for a
neckdown is in an area where there is substantial
pedestrian traffic and other traffic calming methods
would be unacceptable due to noise or other constraints.
Neckdowns also create additional area that can be used
for landscaping.
Advantages:
Reduces pedestrian travel distance
May be aesthetically pleasing
May slow vehicle speeds down, especially right turns
Increases awareness of pedestrians
Easily negotiated by large and emergency vehicles
Creates protected on-street parking bays
Disadvantages:
Unfriendly to bicyclists unless they are designed to accommodate them
Landscaping may cause sight problems
Doesn’t force vehicles to slow down
Special Considerations:
Lighting
Signage
Drainage
Maintenance
Bicyclist constraints
Estimated Cost:
$20,000 to $80,000 for all four corners
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Page 8-14 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
8.6.2 Choker:
Chokers are similar to neckdowns but are placed at
midblock locations rather than at intersections. They
narrow the travel lanes by increasing the length of the
sidewalks or by increasing landscape areas. This method
creates a narrower roadway section that may cause the
driver to slow down. Chokers can be installed so that
they only allow for one lane of traffic to pass through at a
time. Only allowing for one traffic lane on a two-lane
road works well for areas that are prone to significant
speeding problems; this method, however, can create problems with head-on conflicts.
Chokers also provide protected parking areas and can add additional area for landscaping.
Advantages:
If used at a crosswalk they can reduce pedestrian travel distances
May be aesthetically pleasing
Easily negotiated by large and emergency vehicles
Create protected on-street parking bays
Disadvantages:
Effect on vehicle speed is limited
Unfriendly to bicyclists unless designed to accommodate them
May need to eliminate some on-street parking
Special Considerations:
Lighting
Signage
Drainage
Maintenance
Bicyclist constraints
Estimated Cost:
$8,000 to $20,000
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 8-15
8.6.3 Center Island Narrowing and Pedestrian Islands:
A center island narrowing is a raised island in the center
of the street that narrows the overall width of the travel
lanes. When the islands have an opening and allow a
crosswalk to go through them they are called pedestrian
islands. The islands create a refuge for crossing
pedestrians which makes it so that they only have to cross
one direction of traffic at a time. This, combined with the
islands also increasing visual awareness to the area, can
create a safer environment for crossing pedestrians. The
installation of the islands may narrow the travel lanes and cause vehicles to deviate from a
straight path in order to travel around them. This may force the vehicles to slow down in the
area.
Advantages:
Increases pedestrian safety
May be aesthetically pleasing
Provide a refuge for pedestrians
Possible traffic and vehicle speed reduction
Disadvantages:
Limited reduction in vehicle speed
May need to eliminate some on-street parking
Special Considerations:
Lighting
Signage
Drainage
Maintenance
Estimated Cost:
$5,000 to $15,000
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Page 8-16 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
8.6.4 Angle Point:
Angle points are created by placing offset curb extensions
on the side of the road in order to narrow the street and
create angled deviations in the path of travel. Angle
points cause vehicles to take an S-shaped path through the
area in much the same way chicanes do. They are also
similar to chokers but are shorter and are offset if installed
on both sides of the street. Having to deviate from a
straight path causes the driver to slow down and be more
alert to the area. Angle points can require additional
attention to be paid to the area which allows for safer pedestrian travel. Some designs may
allow drivers to cut across and take a straight path through the angle point. This design is
advantageous for emergency vehicles as they do not generally need to slow down for these
zones.
Advantages:
Minor inconvenience to drivers
Shorter crossing distance for pedestrians
Provide additional spacing for landscaping
Effective at slowing vehicle speeds when used in series
Disadvantages:
Unfriendly to bicyclists unless designed to accommodate them
Causes conflict between opposing drivers arriving simultaneously
Drivers may deviate from their path to cut through in a straight line
Limited speed control if not designed properly
Special Considerations:
Lighting
Signage
Drainage
Maintenance
Estimated Cost:
$8,000 to $20,000
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 8-17
8.7 DIVERSION AND RESTRICTION METHODS
8.7.1 Half Closures:
Half closures are put in place to block a single lane of
traffic. They can be used to prevent vehicles from
entering a road but still allow vehicles to exit the road.
This is an effective means of limiting traffic on a roadway
and also limiting turns off of the intersecting roadway.
Half closures are generally made by extending the curb or
placing a barrier to block entry. Ample signage must be
put into place to alert drivers to the partial closure. Half
closures are commonly used in areas where a residential road is experiencing heavy amounts
of traffic due to its connection to a main road. Most of this traffic can be attributed to cut-
through traffic and can be significantly decreased through the use of half closures.
Advantages:
Reduces through traffic in one direction
Allows two-way traffic on the remainder of the street
Provides space for landscaping
Two-way bicycle access can be maintained
Emergency vehicles can drive around barrier if needed
Disadvantages:
Reduces access for residents or businesses
May increase trip length
Increases volumes on other streets
Drivers may be able to drive around the barrier
Special Considerations:
Emergency vehicle access
Signage
Maintenance
Estimated Cost:
$10,000 to $40,000
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Page 8-18 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
8.7.2 Full Closures:
Full street closures are created by placing barriers at an
existing intersection. The full closures can be done to
create a dead end or a cul-de-sac style road. An opening
or trail can be placed to connect pedestrians and bicycles
to the abutting road. The type of barrier used to create the
closures can range from a bollard style to a full
landscaped closure. A landscaped style is more
aesthetically pleasing to the area, but is also much more
expensive then placing bollards to stop vehicle traffic.
Another method commonly used to create road closures is installing curb extensions to the
roadway.
Road closures are very effective at lowering traffic
volumes on the roadway. Cut through traffic can be
greatly reduced through the use of full closure. It is
common to use full closures to limit the amount of traffic
on a residential street that was connected to a main street.
By closing the connection to the main street, the traffic that
previously used the residential street to connect to the
main street would diminish thereby decreasing the overall
traffic on that road. This does, however, create more traffic on other roads in the area since
those vehicles would still have to access the main street via another street.
Advantages:
Eliminates through traffic
Improves safety for all street users
Can still have pedestrian and bicycle access
Can be aesthetically pleasing
Disadvantages:
May inhibit emergency vehicles
Reduces access to properties
May increase trip lengths
Increases volumes on other streets
Can be expensive
Special Considerations:
Emergency vehicle access
Signage
Drainage
Maintenance
Estimated Cost:
$15,000 to much higher depending on design
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 8-19
8.7.3 Diagonal Diverters:
Diagonal Diverters consist of a barrier being placed
diagonally across a four-legged intersection which
interrupts the traffic flow across the intersection. The
traffic is diverted away from and is not allowed to drive
straight through the intersection. The diverter gets rid of
conflict points caused by thru traffic and turning
movements within the intersection. They also discourage
non-local traffic flow in the area, but still allow for local
traffic. This method is effective in areas where there are
problems with cut through traffic. The diverter needs to be visible enough to alert the driver
to slow down and make the turn.
Advantages:
Eliminates through traffic and reduces traffic volumes
Not a full road closure
Provides space for landscaping
Reduces traffic conflict points
Increases pedestrian safety
Can include bicycle path connection
Disadvantages:
May be an inconvenience to area businesses or residents
May inhibit emergency vehicles
Can be expensive if done as a retrofit
Cause circuitous routs
Special Considerations:
Emergency vehicle access
Lighting
Signage
Drainage
Maintenance
Estimated Cost:
$10,000 to $80,000
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Page 8-20 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
8.7.4 Median Barriers
Median barriers are put in place in the middle of
intersections to restrict cut-through movements at a cross
street. They also restrict left-turns onto the cross streets
from the main street. Putting a median barrier in place
will reduce the number of conflict points and therefore
increase the safety of the intersection. The barrier can be
used as a pedestrian refuge for people wanting to cross
the main street. This, along with the reduction in left-
turns, increases pedestrian safety at the intersection.
Median barriers also reduce traffic volumes on the side streets while increasing the traffic
flow on the major street since there will no longer be vehicles stopping to take left-turns at
the intersection. This type of barrier can work well in areas where the side street has turned
into a popular cut-through street or in areas where there are problems with people stopping
to make left-turns. The median barrier does restrict all vehicles, including emergency
vehicles. However, the barrier can be designed so that emergency vehicles can travel around
them if needed.
Advantages:
Lowers traffic volumes on the side street
Provides space for landscaping
Reduces traffic conflict points and increases safety
Increases pedestrian safety
Disadvantages:
May be an inconvenience to area businesses or residents
May inhibit emergency vehicles
Require additional street width on the major street
Special Considerations:
Emergency vehicle access
Lighting
Signage
Drainage
Maintenance
Estimated Cost:
$15,000 to $20,000 per 100 feet
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 8-21
8.7.5 Forced Turn Islands:
Forced turn islands are small traffic islands placed at
intersections to restrict and channelize turning
movements. They are generally put in place to block left-
turn and through movements while still allowing for
right-turn movements. This method is commonly used
where smaller side streets intersect with a larger major
street. Heavy left-turn or through traffic off of side streets
can cause safety and traffic problems for the area.
Restricting the movements from the side streets can
increase the safety and traffic levels of the intersection. Forced turn islands are common
place for parking lots or similar areas that have multiple entrances and exits. The islands
encourage people wanting to turn left or go straight out of the area to use the designated
intersections that don’t have the forced turn islands; the designated intersections are
generally larger safer intersections.
Advantages:
Provides space for landscaping
Reduces traffic conflict points and increases safety
May reduce cut through traffic
Causes vehicles to use designated intersections
Disadvantages:
May be an inconvenience to area businesses or residents
Driver may be able to maneuver around the island
Diverts traffic to other roads
May inhibit emergency vehicles
May increase cornering speeds
Special Considerations:
Emergency vehicle access
Lighting
Signage
Maintenance
Estimated Cost:
$4,000 to $8,000
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Page 8-22 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
8.7.6 Gateway:
A gateway is an entry treatment to the roadway or
surrounding area that creates a sense of passage or change
in traffic conditions to the area. Gateways can consist of
vertical elements such as posts, trees, bushes, signs, poles, or
columns. They can also be formed using curb extensions,
changes in pavement color or type, or any other method
that creates a sense of entry into an area. Gateways can
cause a small reduction in traffic volume because they can
make drivers feel uncomfortable about entering the area. A
slight speed reduction can also be achieved through the use
of narrowing the roadway at the gateway. Safety levels in the area may be increased as well
since attention would be drawn to the area.
Advantages:
May slow vehicle speeds
Highlights the intersection
Increased pedestrian safety
Aesthetically pleasing
Does not inhibit emergency vehicles
Possible small volume reduction
Disadvantages:
Increased maintenance
May have limited effect
Can increase the difficulty level to maneuver the area
Can be very expensive
Special Considerations:
Lighting
Signage
Drainage
Maintenance
Estimated Cost:
$4,000 to much higher depending on design
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 8-23
8.8 OTHER CALMING METHODS
8.8.1 Police Enforcement:
Increasing the level of police enforcement on streets that
are prone to speeding problems can be an effective way to
reduce the number of speeding vehicles. Additional
police enforcement can help to discourage drivers from
breaking speed limit laws in the area. The speed
reduction, however, usually is only reduced for a short
period of time or as long as the enforcement is
maintained. In order to have a long term effect on
speeding, police enforcement must be enforced on a
repetitive non-routine basis while having signage and/or
brochures in the area to indicate that enforcement will be increased in the area. There can be
significant budget and manpower constraints to having continual police enforcement. Using
police personnel to enforce speed limits is typically a low priority for police departments.
The cost of enforcing speed limits on a continual basis can be unjustifiable.
Advantages:
Effective at slowing vehicle speeds down
Widely accepted
Increases safety level of the area
Disadvantages:
Requires continual enforcement
Not of high priority to police departments
Expensive
Special Considerations:
Signs
Continual enforcement
Estimated Cost:
Varies
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Page 8-24 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
8.8.2 Decreased Speed Limits:
Decreasing speed limits in an area prone to speeding is a simple low
cost approach to trying to deter drivers from breaking the speed
limit. However, the posted speed limit is generally ignored by the
driver. Drivers generally travel at speeds they consider reasonable
and are often influenced by other drivers in the area. There is
usually little to no affect on vehicle speeds by simply lowering the
speed limit in the area. To have an effect on vehicles, the lower
speed limits must be accompanied by other means of speed control.
These other means could be increased law enforcement, speed
bumps, or any other method that would help promote lower speeds
in the area. Decreasing speed limits in areas such as school zones is
common and does tend to have some effect on speeding. The effect
can be much higher by using law enforcement to help monitor the
area. Outside of a school zone, a speed zone study may be required to make a decreased
speed limit enforceable.
Advantages:
Low cost
Useful when done in conjunction with other speed control methods
Useful in areas such as school zones
Disadvantages:
Little to no effect on vehicle speeds when done alone
Often times ignored
Requires additional measures
Special Considerations:
Signs
Enforcement
Maintenance
May require a speed zone study
Estimated Cost:
Minimal
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 8-25
8.8.3 Variable Speed Display Board:
Variable speed display boards are commonly placed in
areas that are prone to high levels of speeding. The
boards display the speed limit for the road to the driver
and also have built in speed sensors that detect and
display their actual speed. Their current speed is then
displayed on the board to alert the driver to how fast they
are going compared to the actual speed limit in hopes that
they will keep their speeds at or below the speed limit.
The board can have a computer on them that can be used
to detect what time of day the most number of people are speeding in an area so that
additional enforcement can be placed there if needed. The boards basically run themselves
and can be powered off of batteries or by solar power. The portable boards work well for
moving to different areas where speed is of concern. Permanent boards can also be installed
at problematic locations. One concern with these boards is that it may encourage certain
groups of drivers to speed if not monitored.
Advantages:
Widely accepted
Basically run themselves
Can save data and be used to determine problem areas and times
Works as a driver education method
Portable
Disadvantages:
May require additional enforcement
Can encourage speeding of some groups of drivers
Vandalism may occur
Limited effectiveness when not used in conjunction with additional enforcement
Special Considerations:
Signing
Enforcement level
Maintenance
Estimated Cost:
$10,000 to $20,000
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Page 8-26 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
8.8.4 Pavement Markings:
Pavement markings can be used for anything from on-
street parking, to accentuating already existing features,
to creating new features. Using pavement markings to
indicate areas where on-street parking would occur
creates a safer parking environment and also directs
traffic in the area. A slight speed reduction may occur if
the travel lanes are narrowed due to the markings. When
pavement markings are used to accentuate already
existing features, they can make the features look bigger and give advanced warning about
them. Pavement markings can also be used to create turning lanes and to direct traffic flow
without having to use expensive medians or curbs.
Pavement markings are generally not overly effective on vehicle speed reduction unless they
create the impression of a narrowed roadway. While pavement markings don’t force drivers
to act, they do give them guidance on how to act.
Advantages:
Inexpensive
Can accentuate already existing features
Can help create areas of caution
Gives guidance to the drives
Disadvantages:
Limited effect on vehicle speed reduction
Must be maintained
Not easily visible under snow or water
Special Considerations:
Maintenance
Signage
Visibility
Estimated Cost:
Varies
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 8-27
8.9 COUNTY SPECIFIC TRAFFIC CALMING
Implementing traffic calming measures along county roadways can be a challenging task.
Techniques that work along high-volume low-speed city roadways may not work along
rural routes. Special care must be given to the type of traffic calming measures installed
along rural routes. For instance, installing speed bumps along a straight road with a high
design speed may cause vehicles to slow down to cross the bumps, however they may also
cause an increase speeding between the bumps to make up for lost time.
A list of suggested traffic calming measures for rural routes along with a short description of
each is found below:
Transverse Rumble Strips are perpendicular groves cut into the roadway that
provide an audible sound and vibration that is felt inside the vehicle. They are used
to alert the driver to use caution in the area or to alert them of changes in the traffic
characteristics. Transverse rumble strips are often installed to warn the driver about
approaches to intersections or of an upcoming crosswalk. See Section 8.4.5 for more
detail on rumble strips.
Decreased Speed Limits are commonly used in areas such as school zones.
Decreasing speed limits in school zones is common and does tend to have some effect
on speeding. However, it is recommended that other speed control measures be used
in conjunction with decreased speed limits to have the maximum effect. Simply
reducing the speed limit, especially outside of school zones, may have little effect on
speeding vehicles when used alone. See Section 8.8.2 for more information on
decreased speed limits.
Variable Speed Display Boards can be used to help deter speeding. These boards
display the posted speed limit and the actual speed of the driver. The boards can be
equipped with computers that keep track of the speeds of vehicles so that it can be
determined what time of day there is the highest rate of speeding. These boards are
generally most effective when used with other speed control measures, such as
increased police enforcement. Using the variable speed display boards alone
generally has an initial effect on speeding vehicles; although this tends to diminish
the longer the signs are in place. See Section 8.8.3 for more information on variable
speed display boards.
Pavement Markings can be used to call attention to already existing features or can
be used to create new features. Pavement marking can be used to create on-street
parking or bike lanes or they can be used to make a visually narrower lane. They can
also be used to call attention to existing features making them look bigger or give
advanced warning about them. Pavement markings can also be used to alert the
driver to change their driving behavior. Messages such as “SLOW” or “SCHOOL
ZONE” can be placed on the roadway to let the driver know they are entering an area
with changing traffic characteristics. Generally pavement markings and signage are
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Page 8-28 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
used in conjunction to have the maximum effect. See Section 8.8.4 for more
information on pavement markings.
Signs indicating speed limits, school crossings, school zones, or ones warning about
curves or approaching intersections can be used where appropriate to help aid in
traffic calming. Signs can help provide warning to changes in the traffic
characteristics of the roadway. Installing signs, however, does not guarantee
compliance; they merely help aid the driver in their decision making process. They
should generally be used to call attention to existing features or changing conditions.
8.10 INCORPORATING TRAFFIC CALMING IN NEW STREET DESIGNS
Roadway designs for new development should be appropriate for the intended function of
each street or street segment. Those designed to function as part of the major street system
(major collectors and arterials), should be designed primarily to move traffic in as efficient,
convenient, and safe a manner as possible. Local streets and residential collectors, on the
other hand, should be designed to provide access to properties while discouraging through-
traffic and higher travel speeds that often accompany it. As a result, new developments
should include traffic calming strategies to reinforce the appropriate functions of local
streets. These would include layout and connectivity of street systems and
pedestrian/bicycle facilities, intersection treatments, and basic design standards for width,
curvature, parking, and landscaping. Specific traffic calming features which are easily
incorporated into the design phase include: gateway treatments; street narrowing; short
block lengths; small corner radii; surface valley gutters; “T” intersections; roundabouts; and
landscaping to create a “closed-in” environment.
Traffic calming design characteristics should be incorporated into the City’s development
review and annexation review processes. Proposed developments or requests to annex
would be reviewed by staff to determine whether or not traffic-calming improvements are
appropriate for any given location, what strategies are best suited, and what design details
are appropriate. The process should be designed to pro-actively assist developers in
utilizing traffic strategies to improve quality of life in their developments, while minimizing
or eliminating costs for retrofit efforts. Because of the long-term effects of original roadway
layout and construction, the City may wish to coordinate with the County to incorporate
traffic calming into its development review process.
8.10.1 Multi-Jurisdictional Cooperation
In some cases, traffic problems may be located near a City/County line, or may be caused by
conditions outside the City limits, such as on the State highway system or at the State
complex. For these reasons, it is desirable for the City to have cooperative agreements with
the County and the State government. Cooperative agreements would enable this process to
cross jurisdictional boundaries. Other agencies would take an active role in the traffic
calming process and participate in financing permanent solutions when deemed appropriate.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 8-29
8.11 TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM SUMMARY
The Traffic Calming Program for the greater Bozeman area should provide a regular and
ongoing opportunity for neighborhoods to nominate, test, and implement improvements to
address problems with the local street network. The process should be standardized to
minimize administrative effort and cost, while ensuring that improvements are necessary,
effective and safe. The process should be repeated as necessary to ensure that resident
concerns are addressed with reasonable timeliness, and that projects are advanced in an
orderly and efficient manner. Sample forms necessary throughout this procedure are
included in the Appendix for easy access by the public.
Traffic calming is a physical construction designed to reinforce the perceived need for
caution by the user of the transportation system. The primary responsibility for safe use of
the streets lies with the individual driver, cyclist, or pedestrian. The need for physical traffic
calming devices indicates a consistent occurrence of failure by the transportation user to
appropriately interact with their surroundings.
It is likely that the large majority of traffic calming issues will focus on traffic problems that
occur within the city limits. Therefore, this program has been developed with the City in
mind. It is also very possible that similar problems will arise within the County jurisdiction.
In those cases the same program should be implemented with the County, assuming the
same role applies as that described for the city.
Traffic calming projects depend on the strong support by residents in the immediate area.
Traffic calming methods should also be used only to address real, rather than perceived,
problems. For these and other related reasons, traffic calming projects should meet several
criteria before being considered for implementation.
The Traffic Calming Program is a three-phase process consisting of 12 individual steps. The
main activities of each of the phases are as follows: Phase I) identification and verification of
a traffic problem; Phase II) selection and implementation of educational activities and
enforcement techniques; and Phase III) selection and implementation of physical traffic
calming measures. Each phase requires the participation of the neighborhood residents, the
City, and the City Engineering Department.
In the first phase, the residents are responsible for contacting the City, identifying their
concerns, and submitting a project application. At this point the City Engineer will make
initial contacts with the residents, and conduct informal meetings to better understand the
nature of the problem. The City Engineer will then perform preliminary studies to validate
the perceived problem, and determine whether or not the process should advance.
During Phase II, the City Engineer will facilitate a neighborhood meeting at which the City
will present a range of appropriate educational activities and enforcement alternatives. The
City Engineer will work with the neighborhood residents to identify a preferred solution.
The residents will then be responsible for circulating a petition and fostering support for the
identified solution. Phase III responsibilities will be divided similarly to those in Phase II,
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Page 8-30 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
although the solutions being discussed at this point will be applicable physical devices.
When a permanent solution is selected, the City Engineer will determine the appropriate
funding sources based on the nature of the problem. Traffic calming projects will be
financed on a case-by-case basis. Residents should expect to pay some portion of the cost of
installing permanent traffic calming devices in their neighborhood.
8.12 TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM FOR EXISTING STREETS
The following is a sample three-phase procedure for implementing traffic calming measures
on existing facilities. In order to accommodate seasonal changes, special events or any other
irregular circumstances, the process may be altered or accelerated at the discretion of the
City Engineer. The City’s traffic calming program for existing streets is intended for
application to local streets only.
8.12.1 Phase I
Step 1: A Citizen contacts the City Engineering Department about a traffic problem. The
City Engineer responds by sending the Citizen information about the Traffic
Calming Program and an Investigation Request Form.
Step 2: The Citizen completes the “Investigation Request Form” and returns it to the City
Engineer. The form should include a description of the problem and location, as
well as the signatures of 10 other neighborhood residents from separate
households who agree that the problem exists. A Neighborhood Contact is also
identified on the form. After receipt of the form, the City Engineer contacts
neighborhood residents to discuss the nature of the perceived problem. The
information gathered in this step helps determine the types of studies needed to
be performed in Step 3.
Step 3: The City Engineer conducts a field review of the location, and collects the
appropriate data in order to determine whether or not the perceived problem
actually exists. In most cases, accident records should be reviewed, and traffic
volumes measured. Depending upon the nature of the complaint, a speed study,
truck count, or cut-through study may also be appropriate. In order to be
considered for a traffic calming project, the location must have traffic volumes of
at least 800 vehicles per day. It must meet at least one of the following criteria:
three or more accidents in a 12-month period; an 85th percentile speed that is at
least five (5) miles per hour over the posted speed limit; or truck volumes
exceeding 10 percent of the total traffic volume.
After the field data is collected and reviewed, the City Engineer informs the Neighborhood
Contact of the results. If the location does not meet the above criteria, the City Engineer
meets with neighborhood residents to review the study results and discuss other options. At
this point, the Traffic Calming Program is concluded. If the problem location meets the
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 8-31
required criteria, the City Engineer reviews the Phase II process with the Neighborhood
Contact.
8.12.2 Phase II
Step 4: The City Engineer determines the boundaries of the affected neighborhood.
Neighborhood boundaries will typically follow arterial streets or other natural
breaks. The City Engineer schedules a neighborhood meeting to discuss possible
Phase II solutions to the problem. The City Engineer gives the Neighborhood
Contact a map of the designated boundaries so he/she can inform area residents
of the meeting. At the meeting, the City Engineer presents a range of appropriate
measures. Potential Phase II measures will emphasize the least intrusive
measures, consisting of enforcement, educational activities, and/or minor
physical changes (brush trimming, and sign or pavement marking installation).
Step 5: The Neighborhood Contact circulates a Phase II Petition within the defined
boundaries. The petition identifies the proposed education and enforcement
techniques, and asks residents to indicate their approval. If the petition is not
signed by 40 percent of the property owners within the defined neighborhood,
the process is terminated. If the petition is signed by at least 40 percent of the
property owners, the City and/or Neighborhood will then implement the Phase
II measures.
Step 6: Approximately 90 days after implementation of the Phase II measures, the City
repeats the data collection efforts. (This 90-day period may be modified by the
City to accommodate seasonal conditions and other factors.) If the problem has
been resolved, the education and enforcement activities can be tapered off and the
process concluded. If the situation arises again at a later date, as confirmed by
data, the process can begin again at Step 6.
8.12.3 Phase III
Step 7: If the traffic problem has not been resolved by the Phase II measures, the City
Engineer conducts an engineering study to determine a range of appropriate
physical improvements to the location. Initially, less restrictive measures such as
vertical or horizontal deflection of the roadway are preferable to roadway
obstruction techniques.
Step 8: The City Engineer schedules a neighborhood meeting to review the Phase III
improvement options. The Neighborhood Contact is responsible for notifying
area residents about the meeting. The City Engineer facilitates the neighborhood
meeting. Based on resident input, a preferred solution is selected from the range
of possible solutions. If a temporary version of this traffic-calming device is not
practical, proceed to Step 11.
Step 9: If a temporary traffic-calming device is suitable, the Neighborhood Contact
circulates a Phase III Petition for Temporary Measures. The process ends if the
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 8: Traffic Calming
Page 8-32 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
petition is not signed by 50 percent of the property owners within the defined
boundaries. If at least 50 percent of the property owners sign the petition, the
City constructs a temporary version of the preferred traffic-calming device.
Step 10: After one year, the City repeats the data collection process to determine whether
or not the temporary device is effective. If it is found to not be effective, the City
Engineer notifies the Neighborhood Contact, and the device is removed. The
process can then be repeated from Step 7.
Step 11: If the temporary device is effective, the City Engineer develops a preliminary
design and cost estimate for a permanent traffic calming device(s), and
determines who will finance the permanent solution. The City then provides
Neighborhood Contact with this information and indicates that the area property
owners are receptive to a Petition for Permanent Measures.
Step 12: The Neighborhood Contact circulates a Phase III Petition for Permanent
Measures, which includes a copy of the preliminary design and cost estimate, as
well as an explanation of financial responsibility. If the petition is not signed by
70 percent of the area property owners, the process is terminated and any
temporary devices removed. If at least 70 percent of the property owners sign the
petition, the City Engineer performs a final design, and constructs a permanent
traffic-calming device.
There are numerous points at which the traffic calming implementation process can be
terminated due to lack of neighborhood support. Should neighborhood sentiment change at
a later date, the process may be resumed at the same step where it left off.
8.12.4 Project Costs
Traffic problems on existing streets are usually caused by one of the following situations:
poor initial street design; inadequacy of the major street network; or commercial and/or
residential development adjacent to the neighborhood. The cost of financing traffic calming
projects to resolve such problems should be distributed accordingly. As part of the initial
investigation, the nature and cause of the traffic problem will be identified. The City will use
this information to determine the appropriate division of project costs and identify who (the
City, neighborhood residents, developers, other parties) may be involved in paying for the
traffic calming measures.
The costs of Steps 1 through 11 will be borne by the City. Permanent Phase III construction
(Step 12) will be financed by some combination of neighborhood contributions, development
fees, and funds from other sources.
8.12.5 Removal of Permanent Traffic Calming Devices
Refer to the local policy for removal of a permanent traffic calming device. The
neighborhood residents will be responsible for paying the cost of removing traffic calming
devices.
CHAPTER 9
RECOMMENDED MAJOR STREET NETWORK & ROADWAY
TYPICAL SECTIONS
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 9: Recommended Major Street Network & Roadway Typical Sections
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 9-1
9.1 FUNCTIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEMS IN URBANIZED AREAS
The discussion in this Chapter relates to the recommended functional classification network
for the Greater Bozeman area, not the Federally approved classification system. Bozeman
has a local functional classification based on a future network that shows how the street
network should develop over time and is intended to be used as a planning tool for planning
future developments. The Federally approved functional classification is based on current
conditions and reflects how roads currently function within the network and is used to
determine federal funding eligibilities and design standards for federal-aid programs.
The roadways that make up the street network within a community can be subdivided into
categories based upon the function of the road. Roadway functional classifications include
interstate principal arterials; non-interstate principal arterials; minor arterials; collector
routes; and local streets, however, there are two classes of collectors, major and minor.
Figure 9-17 shows rural standards. Although volumes may differ on urban and rural
sections of a street it is important to maintain coordinated right-of-way standards. A
description of these classifications is provided in the following text.
9.1.1 Principal Arterial – Interstate
The sole purpose of the interstate is to provide for regional and interstate travel. Interstate
highways are access-controlled facilities with access provided only at a limited number of
interchanges. The interstate system has been designed as a high-speed facility with all road
intersections being grade separated. Interstate 90, which traverses the study area, is a four-
lane divided highway with a posted speed limit of 75 miles per hour (mph) for automobiles,
and 65 mph for trucks.
9.1.2 Principal Arterial – Non-Interstate
The purpose of the non-interstate principal arterial is to serve the major centers of activity,
the highest traffic volume corridors, and the longest trip distances in an urban area. This
group of roads carries a high proportion of the total traffic within the urban area. Most of
the vehicles entering and leaving the urban area, as well as most of the through traffic
bypassing the central business district, utilize principal arterials. Significant intra-area travel,
such as between central business districts and outlying residential areas, and between major
suburban centers, are served by principal arterials.
The spacing between non-interstate principal arterials may vary from less than one mile in
highly developed areas (e.g., the central business district), to five miles or more on the urban
fringes. The major purpose of the non-interstate principal arterial is to provide for the
expedient movement of traffic. Service to abutting land is a secondary concern. On-street
parking should not be allowed along this type of corridor.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 9: Recommended Major Street Network & Roadway Typical Sections
Page 9-2 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
9.1.3 Minor Arterial Street System
The minor arterial street system interconnects with and augments the urban principal
arterial system. It accommodates trips of moderate length at a somewhat lower level of
travel mobility than principal arterials, and it distributes travel to smaller geographic areas.
With an emphasis on traffic mobility, this street network includes all arterials not classified
as principal arterials while providing access to adjacent lands.
The spacing of minor arterial streets may vary from several blocks to a half-mile in the highly
developed areas of town, to several miles in the suburban fringes. They are not normally
spaced more than one mile apart in fully developed areas.
9.1.4 Collector Street System
The urban collector street network serves a joint purpose. It provides equal priority to the
movement of traffic, and to the access of residential, business, and industrial areas. This type
of roadway differs from those of the arterial system in that the facilities on the collector
system may traverse residential neighborhoods. The system distributes trips from the
arterials to ultimate destinations. The collector streets also collect traffic from local streets in
the residential neighborhoods, channeling it into the arterial system. On-street parking is
usually allowed on most collector streets if space is available.
The rural collector street network serves the same access and movement functions as the
urban collector street network – a link between the arterial system and local access roads.
Collectors penetrate but should not have continuity through residential neighborhoods.
Some potential collector locations have been shown in the fringe area. The actual location of
collectors should be flexible to best serve developing areas and the public. Several design
guidelines should be kept in mind as new subdivisions are designed and reviewed. The
most important concept is that long segments of continuous collector streets are not
compatible with a good functional classification of streets. Long, continuous collectors will
encourage through traffic, essentially turning them into arterials. This, in turn, results in the
undesirable interface of local streets with arterials, causing safety problems and increased
costs of construction and maintenance. The collector street system should intersect arterial
streets at a uniform spacing of one-half to one-quarter mile in order to maintain good
progression on the arterial network. Ideally, collectors should be no longer than one to two
miles without discontinuities. Opportunities need to be identified through good design and
review of subdivisions to create appropriate collector streets in developing areas.
9.1.5 Urban Local Street System
The local street network comprises all facilities not included in the higher systems. Its
primary purpose is to permit direct access to abutting lands and connections to higher
systems. Usually service to through-traffic movements is intentionally discouraged. On-
street parking is usually allowed on the local street system.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 9: Recommended Major Street Network & Roadway Typical Sections
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 9-3
9.2 FACILITY SIZE VERSUS TRAFFIC VOLUME
The size of a roadway is based upon the anticipated traffic demand. It is desirable to size the
roadways to comfortably accommodate the traffic demand that is anticipated to occur 20
years from the time it is constructed. The selection of a 20-year design period represents a
desire to receive the most benefit from an individual construction project’s service life within
reasonable planning limits. The design, bidding, mobilization, and repair of affected
adjacent properties can consume a significant portion of an individual project’s budget.
Frequent projects to make minor adjustments to a roadway can therefore be prohibitively
expensive. As roadway capacity generally is provided in large increments, a long term
horizon is necessary.
There are two measurements of a street’s capacity, Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)
and Peak Hour. AADT measures the average number of vehicles a given street carries over a
24- hour period. Since traffic does not usually flow continuously at the maximum rate,
AADT is not a statement of maximum capacity. Peak Hour measures the number of vehicles
that a street can physically accommodate during the busiest hour of the day. It is therefore
more of a maximum traffic flow rate measurement than AADT. When the Peak Hour is
exceeded, the traveling public will often perceive the street as “broken” even though the
street’s AADT is within the expected volume. Therefore, it is important to consider both
elements during design of corridors and intersections.
Physical size of the roadway and the required right-of-way is a function of the land use that
will occur along the street corridor. These uses will dictate the vehicular traffic
characteristics, travel by pedestrians and bicyclists, and need for on-street parking. The
right-of-way required should always be based upon the ultimate facility size.
The actual amount of traffic that can be handled by a roadway is dependent upon the
presence of parking, number of driveways and intersections, intersection traffic control,
speed of the roadway, and roadway alignment. The data presented in Table 9-1 indicates
the approximate volumes that can be accommodated by a particular roadway. As indicated
in the differences between the two tables, the actual traffic that a road can handle will vary
based upon a variety of elements including: road grade; alignment; pavement condition;
number of intersections and driveways; the amount of turning movements; and the vehicle
fleet mix.
Table 9-1
Approximate Volumes for Planning of Future Roadway Improvements
Road Segment Volumes¹ Volumes²
Two Lane Road Up to 12,000 VPD Up to 15,000 VPD*
Three Lane Road Up to 18,000 VPD Up to 22,500 VPD*
Four Lane Road Up to 24,000 VPD Up to 30,000 VPD*
Five Lane Road Up to 35,000 VPD Up to 43,750 VPD*
¹Historical management conditions
²Ideal management conditions
*Additional volumes may be obtained in some locations with adequate road design, access control, and other capacity enhancing methods.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 9: Recommended Major Street Network & Roadway Typical Sections
Page 9-4 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
9.3 RECOMMENDED MAJOR STREET NETWORK
The major street network consists of all interstate principal arterial, non-interstate principal
arterial, minor arterial, and collector routes. Local streets are not included on the major street
network. The major street network recommended in the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation
Plan – 2001 Update was used as a basis, or starting point, in developing the major street
network for this update.
Establishing a plan for a community’s future street layout is essential to proper land
development and community planning. It is important that planners, landowners, and
developers know where the future road network needs to be located. With an approved
major street network, everyone will know where the future arterials need to be located. This
will assist everyone involved in anticipating right-of-way needs, and appropriate land-uses.
The study area was examined to determine the most appropriate placement for the future
arterial network. The principal arterials were set in place first with two-mile spacing. The
minor arterials were then inserted on a one-mile spacing to fill in between the principals.
Some collector routes were also established. It is assumed that other collector routes would
be established when the development patterns in an area are defined.
The recommended existing and future major street networks are shown in Figure 9-1 and
Figure 9-2. The future alignments shown are conceptual in nature and may vary based on
factors such as topography, wetlands, land ownership, and other unforeseen factors. The
purpose of these figures is to illustrate the anticipated network at full build-out. It is likely
that many of the route corridors shown will not be developed into roads for many decades to
come. On the other hand, if development is proposed in a particular area, the recommended
major street network will insure that the arterial corridors will be established in a fashion
that produces an efficient and logical future road network. It is important to note that
presenting the major street network at this time is not intended to control or influence
development. It is presented in an effort to help plan for the future development of the road
system in the community.
The acquisition of right-of-ways for these future road corridors should be one of the
community’s highest priorities. It is essential that these corridors be dedicated for roadway
use before an area develops. This action will insure that the roadway corridors remain clear
and available for use when the future need arises.
In addition, a final “travel demand model” run of the recommended improvements has been
made. Figure 9-3 thru Figure 9-6 show the future year (2030) travel demand model
estimated traffic volumes and v/c ratios based on the recommended improvements
discussed in Chapter 5 and the Major Street Network.
0 10,0005,000
Feet
SEE
D
E
T
A
I
L
(FIG
U
R
E
9
-
2
)
Existing Major Street Network andFuture Right-Of-Way Corridor NeedsFigure 9-1
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)
Interpretation of MapThis map presents the Recommended Major Street Network. It shows how the street network should develop over time and is intended to be used as a planning tool. It will assist in theevaluation of long-term traffic needs when planning future developments. The route alignments shown are conceptual in nature.The actual alignments may vary based on development patterns, geographic features, and other issues unknown at this time. The community planners will strive to designthe roads to fit the character of the landscape and minimize impacts on natural features such as wetlands, mature trees, and riparian corridors.Most of these routes are not recommended for construction at this time. The development of these conceptual routes will take decades to become reality, and will only become roadsif traffic needs materialize as a result of development in the area. Many of the existing roads identified as arterial routes are currently functioning as collectors or local streets and will beupgraded as traffic needs increase.It is important to note that although this major street network is recommended as part of the Transportation Plan, it does not reflect the federally approved functional classification criteriawhich is based on current conditions rather than anticipated future conditions.
Legend Local Roadway
Detail Area
City Boundary
Urban Boundary
Study Area BoundaryInterstatePrincipal ArterialMinor ArterialCollectorFuture Principal Arterial*Future Minor Arterial*Future Collector*
Note:Future links identified where no roadcurrently exists will be constructed asthe surrounding are develops.
0 5,0002,500
Feet
Interpretation of MapThis map presents the Recommended Major Street Network. It shows how the street network should develop over time and is intended to be used as a planning tool. It will assist in theevaluation of long-term traffic needs when planning future developments. The route alignments shown are conceptual in nature.The actual alignments may vary based on development patterns, geographic features, and other issues unknown at this time. The community planners will strive to designthe roads to fit the character of the landscape and minimize impacts on natural features such as wetlands, mature trees, and riparian corridors.Most of these routes are not recommended for construction at this time. The development of these conceptual routes will take decades to become reality, and will only become roadsif traffic needs materialize as a result of development in the area. Many of the existing roads identified as arterial routes are currently functioning as collectors or local streets and will beupgraded as traffic needs increase.It is important to note that although this major street network is recommended as part of the Transportation Plan, it does not reflect the federally approved functional classification criteriawhich is based on current conditions rather than anticipated future conditions.
Existing Major Street Network andFuture Right-Of-Way Corridor NeedsFigure 9-2
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)Legend Local Roadway
Detail Area
Urban Boundary
City Boundary
InterstatePrincipal ArterialMinor ArterialCollectorFuture Principal Arterial*Future Minor Arterial*Future Collector*
Note:Future links identified where no roadcurrently exists will be constructed asthe surrounding are develops.
4560
0
35
0
0
0
28
8
0
0
2
7
0
0
12
9
0
0
34100
1100
10
0
60
0
32
0
0
200
1500
3300
15
3
0
0
2200
57
0
0
36
0
0
5500
4100
80
0
7700
84
0
0
24
0
0
1000
2700
4900
1700
10
3
0
0
8000
600
3000
22
0
0
600
200
80
0
500
200
77
0
0
2300
1600
11
0
0
500
17
0
0
18
0
0
13
0
0
600
1300
338
0
0
2800
30
0
33
0
0
3700
7100
154
0
0
15
8
0
0
15000
1010
0
25
8
0
0
41400
23
1
0
0
29
5
0
0
0 10,0005,000
Feet
SEE
D
E
T
A
I
L
(FIG
U
R
E
9
-
4
)
Future (2030) MSN ADTTraffic VolumesFigure 9-3
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)
Note:2030 Anticipated ADT volumes determined by applyinga growth rate to existing ADT count locations. Trafficvolumes determined through the traffic model were usedin locations where current ADT counts do not exist.
Legend
2030 AnticipatedAverage Daily Traffic (ADT)*1200
2030 Model Traffic Volume*1200
< 12,00012,000 - 18,00018,000 - 24,00024,000 - 35,000> 35,000
Detail Area
City Boundary
Urban Boundary
Study Area Boundary
15100
56
0
0
14
5
0
0
12
0
0
70
0
300
5800
13
9
0
0
6300
2100
16
0
0
52
0
0
24
0
0
13
0
0
8600
19
0
0
8900
5
0
0
6200
11
6
0
0
18500
8400
7700
32
0
0
50
0
8700
46300
50
0
2
3
0
0
7200
13700
21100
3
3
0
0
12
5
0
0
380
0
36600
78
0
0
1280
0
4800
19
8
0
0
30500
19600 100
0
0
29200
42500
26000
8300
26
4
0
0
29
8
0
0
215
0
0
79
0
0
3800
34
0
0
88
0
0
26
0
0
73
0
0
27
5
0
0
2
3
8
0
0
80
0
0
24900
12200
2
0
2
0
0
36400
232
0
0
87
0
0
6400
49
0
0
96
0
0
18
2
0
0
5200
38400
8100
9300
94
0
0
15200
3700
21800
17
2
0
0
8500
13300
56
0
0
22
5
0
0
23
9
0
0
9000
3000
12
0
0
10000
13
7
0
0
21100
4500
10100
0 5,0002,500
Feet
Future (2030) MSN ADTTraffic VolumesFigure 9-4
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)Legend
Detail Area
Urban Boundary
City Boundary
2030 AnticipatedAverage Daily Traffic (ADT)*1200
2030 Traffic Model Volume*1200
< 12,000
12,000 - 18,000
18,000 - 24,000
24,000 - 35,000
> 35,000
Note:2030 Anticipated ADT volumes determined by applyinga growth rate to existing ADT count locations. Trafficvolumes determined through the traffic model were usedin locations where current ADT counts do not exist.
0.67
0.09
0.8
8
1.
0
7
0
.
2
3
0.50
0.0
1
0.2
6
0.1
8
0.
0
5
0.13
0.28
1.2
7
0.19
2.
8
1
0.11
0.4
7
0.
3
0
1.
0
0
0.46
0.34
0.23
0.64
0.
7
0
0.090.0
7
0.25
0.
2
7
0.31
0.41
0.59
0.85
0.
8
6
0.8
8
1.25
0.67
0.
1
1
0.
0
7
0.05
0.02
0.05
0.23
0.14
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.
2
0
0.
0
2
0.6
4
0.
1
5
0.14
0.56
1.
4
3
1.18
0.6
6
0.8
8
0.19
0.1
4
0.02
0.04
0.
0
9
0 10,0005,000
Feet
SEE
D
E
T
A
I
L
(FIG
U
R
E
9
-
6
)
Future (2030) MSN V/CVolume to Capacity RatioFigure 9-5
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)Legend
Detail Area
City Boundary
Urban Boundary
Study Area Boundary
Volume / Capacity Ratio0.25
<0.250.25-0.49
0.50-0.74
0.75-1.00>1.00
Volume to CapacityRatio (V/C)
0.56
0.1
0
0.68
0.0
6
1.
1
6
0.49
1.32
0.0
2
0.53
0.17
0.
1
4
0
.
1
3
0.
0
3
0.
1
1
0.
2
9
0.72
0.60
1.14
1.17
0.
6
9
1.05
1.07
0.1
6
0
.
2
8
0.3
2
0.
5
7
0.6
5
0.87
1.09 0.83
1.22
0.74
0.75
1.26
0.2
7
0.8
5
0.71
0
.
0
4
0.6
1
0.
9
7
0.77
0.35
0.4
4
0.7
3
1.
2
0
0.56
0.26
0.
7
5
0.1
3
0.64
1.1
4
0.70
0.83
0.32
1.26
0.46
0.7
8
0.
6
8
1.21 0.
2
2
0.6
1
1.02
0.
5
8
1.04
0.6
6
0.5
2
0.52
0.5
2
0.4
1
0.38
0.88
0.9
5
1.11
0.9
4
0.4
70.4
7
0.48
0.
1
0
0.71 0.97
0.44
0.6
8
0.53
0.
5
3
0.4
9
0.75
0.44
0.25
0.
0
4
0.
2
9
0.56
0 5,0002,500
Feet
Future (2030) MSN V/CVolume to Capacity RatioFigure 9-6
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update)Legend
Detail Area
Volume / Capacity Ratio0.25
Urban Boundary
City Boundary<0.25
0.25-0.49
0.50-0.740.75-1.00>1.00
Volume to CapacityRatio (V/C)
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 9: Recommended Major Street Network & Roadway Typical Sections
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 9-11
9.4 RIGHT-OF-WAY NEEDS
The recommended road standards identify the amount of right-of-way that is necessary to
accommodate the full build-out of each type of facility. The desired right-of-way for
principal arterials is 120 feet, 100 feet for minor arterials, 90 feet for collectors, and 60 feet for
local roads.
Many existing roads within the community do not have the necessary right-of-way based on
these standards. Apparently there are also public roads within the study area that traverse
parcels of private property without any formal right-of-way agreements or easements.
It is recommended that both the city and county establish a policy to review all existing
roadways and identify roads that are located within right-of-way corridors that are less than
the desirable width. Additional right-of-way should be acquired in these areas where
possible. The city and county should attempt to acquire the right-of-way for both existing
and future roads where the opportunity exists. It is recommended that the right-of-way
necessary for all future road segments be acquired through the development process as
undeveloped areas develop. Even though the initial road may only be a two-lane or three-
lane facility, providing the full amount of right-of-way will enable the corridor to be
expanded at a later date while avoiding an expensive and disruptive land acquisition process
at some time in the future.
Nothing in the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan - 2007 Update should be read as an
encouragement of the use by the County of its power of eminent domain.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 9: Recommended Major Street Network & Roadway Typical Sections
Page 9-12 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
9.5 ROUNDABOUT CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS
The FHWA publication Roundabouts: An Informational Guide categorizes roundabouts into six
categories according to size, number of lanes, and environment. These categories, along with
design features specific to the design type, are listed below:
Mini-roundabouts
Low-speed urban environments
Environments with right-of-way constraints
Maximum recommended entry speed of 15 mph
Inscribed diameter of 45-80 feet
10,000 vpd volume for 4-legged intersection
Urban compact roundabouts
Pedestrian and bicyclist friendly compared to other types of roundabouts
Low vehicle speeds with maximum recommended entry speed of 15 mph
Inscribed diameter of 80-100 feet
Capacity should not be a critical issue
15,000 vpd volume for 4-legged intersection
Urban single-lane roundabouts
Consistent entering and exiting speeds
Slightly higher speeds and capacities than urban compact roundabouts
Less pedestrian friendly than other types of roundabouts due to the higher speeds
Maximum recommended entry speed of 20 mph
Inscribed diameter of 100-130 feet
20,000 vpd volume for 4-legged intersection
Urban double-lane roundabouts
At least one entry with two lanes
Require wider circulatory roadways with inscribed diameter of about 150-180 feet
Similar speeds to urban single-lane roundabouts with maximum recommended entry
speed of 25 mph
May need special design considerations for high volumes of bikes and pedestrians
Volume varies with design
Rural single-lane roundabouts
Higher approach speeds require additional attention
May have larger diameters than urban roundabouts to allow for higher speeds
Inscribed diameter of 115-130 feet with maximum recommended entry speed of 25
mph
20,000 vpd for 4-legged intersection
Rural double-lane roundabouts
Higher entry speeds and larger diameters than urban double-lane roundabouts
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 9: Recommended Major Street Network & Roadway Typical Sections
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 9-13
Inscribed diameter of 180-200 feet with maximum recommended entry speed of 30
mph
Recommended supplementary approach treatments
Volume varies with design
The FHWA guide does not discuss roundabouts with more than two lanes; however, they
are possible and have been constructed in numerous locations. The guide does discuss each
of the roundabout categories listed above and gives design principles and concepts that
relate to each category.
Conceptual plan view graphics for each of these design categories can be found in Figures 9-
7 thru 9-12.
9.5.1 Pedestrian Challenges
Roundabouts can present difficult challenges for blind and visually impaired pedestrians.
The design of the roundabout needs to go to great length to minimize the hazard to those
pedestrians. That includes having the roundabout itself and the approached to the
roundabout well lit both to enable the pedestrian to see as much as possible and so motorists
approaching a crosswalk can see the pedestrian.
Particularly for roundabouts in locations where relatively large numbers of teenage and/or
college-age pedestrians are anticipated, special care should be taken to incorporate design
features that discourage pedestrians from taking a shorter route right across the traffic lanes
instead of circling around the traffic lanes on the sidewalk.
It is critical that the width of the refuge islands in the middle of the pedestrian crosswalks be
wide enough to adequately protect both the front and rear ends of persons pushing long,
multi-child baby carriages, persons pushing wheelchairs, and cyclists walking their bicycle.
Little or No Additional
Pavement Required
Mini-Roundabout Examples
drawing1b_small.cdr
Fully Mountable
Central Island
Striped or Mountable
Splitter Island
Perpendicular
Pedestrian Crossing
Mini-Roundabout
Conceptual Plan View
Figure 9-7
Design Element
Recommended
maximum entry
design speed
Maximum number
of entering lanes
per approach
Typical inscribed
circle diameter*
Splitter island
treatment
Typical daily
Mini Roundabout
25 km/h
(15 mph)
1
13 to 25m
(45 ft to 80 ft)
Raised if possible,
crosswalk cut if
raised
Urban Compact
25 km/h
(15 mph)
1
25 to 30m
(80 ft to 100 ft)
Raised with,
crosswalk cut
15,000
*Assumes 90-degree entries and no more than four legs.
GREATER BOZEMAN AREA
TRANSPORTATION PLAN - 2007 UPDATE
Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Approach Leg 1
Approach Leg 3
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
L
e
g
2
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
L
e
g
4
R/W
R/
W
A
D2
D1
Potential additional
required right-of-way.
Additional Right-of-Way Area (A) = ½ D D12
D = additional R/W distance required for approach leg 11
D = additional R/W distance required for approach leg 22
Functional
Classification
Local
Mini
Roundabout
Urban
Compact
55’
–
90’
40’Collector
Notes:
>The additional right-of-way required for a roundabout located
along a local or collector roadway should be determined by the
largest potential roundabout at that location.
>These values assume a single unit truck/bus as the typical
design vehicle.
>This table applies to all 4 corners of the roundabout.
Example:
If approach leg 1 is defined as a Collector roadway and approach
leg 2 is defined as a Local roadway and the largest potential
roundabout at that location is an Urban Compact roundabout, then
D= 40’ and D= 90’.1 2
Additional Right-of-Way Distance (D,) Required12
GREATER BOZEMAN AREA
TRANSPORTATION PLAN - 2007 UPDATE
Design Element
Recommended
maximum entry
design speed
Maximum number
of entering lanes
per approach
Typical inscribed
circle diameter*
Splitter island
treatment
Typical daily
service volumes
on 4-leg roundabout
(veh/day)
Mini Roundabout
25 km/h
(15 mph)
1
13 to 25m
(45 ft to 80 ft)
Raised if possible,
crosswalk cut if raised
10,000
Urban Compact
25 km/h
(15 mph)
1
25 to 30m
(80 ft to 100 ft)
Raised with,
crosswalk cut
15,000
*Assumes 90-degree entries and no more than four legs.
Drawing1_small.cdr
Urban Compact Roundabout
Conceptual Plan View
Figure 9-8
Non-mountable
Central Island
Urban Compact Roundabout Example
Landscape Buffer
Entries Are More
Perpendicular to Promote
Lower Speeds
Mountable Apron
Typically Required
Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Additional Right-of-Way Area (A) = ½ D D12
D = additional R/W distance required for approach leg 11
D = additional R/W distance required for approach leg 22
Functional
Classification
Local
Mini
Roundabout
Urban
Compact
55’
–
90’
40’Collector
Notes:
>The additional right-of-way required for a roundabout located
along a local or collector roadway should be determined by the
largest potential roundabout at that location.
>These values assume a single unit truck/bus as the typical
design vehicle.
>This table applies to all 4 corners of the roundabout.
Example:
If approach leg 1 is defined as a Collector roadway and approach
leg 2 is defined as a Local roadway and the largest potential
roundabout at that location is an Urban Compact roundabout, then
D= 40’ and D= 90’.1 2
Additional Right-of-Way Distance (D,) Required12
R/W
R/
W
A
D2
D1
Design Element
Recommended maximum entry
design speed
Maximum number of entering lanes
per approach
Typical inscribed circle diameter*
Splitter island treatment
Typical daily service volumes
on 4-leg roundabout (veh/day)
Urban Single-Lane
35 km/h
(20 mph)
1
30 to 40m
(100 ft to 130 ft)
Raised with
crosswalk cut
20,000
Urban Double-Lane
40 km/h
(25 mph)
2
45 to 55m (150 ft to 180 ft)
Raised with, crosswalk cut
Based on design template used
*Assumes 90-degree entries and no more than four legs.
drawing2b_small.cdr
Urban Single-Lane
Roundabout
Conceptual Plan View
Figure 9-9
Urban Single-Lane
Roundabout Example
Landscape Buffer
Bike Treatment
Higher Vehicular Capacity
Than Urban Compact
Bike Escape Ramp
8’ to 10’ Shared Use Sidewalk
Mountable Apron
(If Required)
GREATER BOZEMAN AREA
TRANSPORTATION PLAN - 2007 UPDATE
Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
R/W
R/
W
Additional Right-of-Way Distance (D,) Required12
Approach Leg 1 Approach Leg 3
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
L
e
g
2
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
L
e
g
4
A
Additional Right-of-Way Area (A) = ½ D D12
D = additional R/W distance required for approach leg 11
D = additional R/W distance required for approach leg 22
D2
D1
Functional
Classification
Collector
Urban
Single-Lane
Urban
Double-Lane
75’
60’
–
140’
120’
85’
Minor Arterial
Principal Arterial
Potential additional
required right-of-way.
Notes:
>For Collector and Minor Arterial roadways, the additional right-of-way
required for an urban double-lane roundabout should be used in locations
where the potential for an urban double-lane roundabout exists.
>For Principal Arterial roadways,
>These values assume a WB-67 typical design vehicle.
>This table applies to all 4 corners of the roundabout.
Example:
If approach leg 1 is defined as a Collector roadway and approach leg 2 is
defined as a Minor Arterial roadway and the potential exists for an urban
double-lane roundabout, then D= 140’ and D= 120’.1 2
the additional right-of-way required for an
urban double-lane roundabout should always be used.
drawing2_small.cdr
Urban Double-Lane
Roundabout
Conceptual Plan View
Figure 9-10
Landscape Buffer
Wider Circulatory
Roadway
Two Entry Lanes On
One or More Approaches
Urban Double-Lane
Roundabout Example
Bike Escape Ramp
8’ to 10’ Shared Use Sidewalk
GREATER BOZEMAN AREA
TRANSPORTATION PLAN - 2007 UPDATE
Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Design Element
Recommended maximum entry
design speed
Maximum number of entering lanes
per approach
Typical inscribed circle diameter*
Splitter island treatment
Typical daily service volumes
on 4-leg roundabout (veh/day)
Urban Single-Lane
35 km/h
(20 mph)
1
30 to 40m
(100 ft to 130 ft)
Raised with
crosswalk cut
20,000
Urban Double-Lane
40 km/h
(25 mph)
2
45 to 55m (150 ft to 180 ft)
Raised with, crosswalk cut
Based on design template used
*Assumes 90-degree entries and no more than four legs.
Potential additional
required right-of-way.
A
D2
D1
R/W
R/
W
Additional Right-of-Way Distance (D,) Required12
Additional Right-of-Way Area (A) = ½ D D12
D = additional R/W distance required for approach leg 11
D = additional R/W distance required for approach leg 22
Functional
Classification
Collector
Urban
Single-Lane
Urban
Double-Lane
75’
60’
–
140’
120’
85’
Minor Arterial
Principal Arterial
Notes:
>For Collector and Minor Arterial roadways, the additional right-of-way
required for an urban double-lane roundabout should be used in locations
where the potential for an urban double-lane roundabout exists.
>For Principal Arterial roadways, the additional right-of-way required for an
urban double-lane roundabout should always be used.
>These values assume a WB-67 typical design vehicle.
>This table applies to all 4 corners of the roundabout.
Example:
If approach leg 1 is defined as a Collector roadway and approach leg 2 is
defined as a Minor Arterial roadway and the potential exists for an urban
double-lane roundabout, then D= 140’ and D= 120’.1 2
Approach Leg 1
Approach Leg 3
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
L
e
g
2
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
L
e
g
4
Design Element
Recommended
maximum entry
design speed
Maximum number
of entering lanes
per approach
Typical inscribed
circle diameter
Splitter island
treatment
Typical daily
service volumes
on 4-leg roundabout
(veh/day)
Rural Single-Lane
40 km/h
(25 mph)
1
35 to 40m
(115 ft to 130 ft)
Raised and extended
with crosswalk cut
20,000
Rural Double-Lane
50 km/h
(30 mph)
2
55 to 60m
(180 ft to 200 ft)
Raised and extended
with crosswalk cut
Based on design
template used
Rural Single-Lane
Roundabout
Conceptual Plan View
Figure 9-11
Rural Single-Lane
Roundabout Example
drawing3_small.cdr
Exit is Somewhat
More Tangential Than
Urban Forms
Apron
(If Required)
Larger Diameter
Than Urban Forms
Pedestrian
Accomodations
GREATER BOZEMAN AREA
TRANSPORTATION PLAN - 2007 UPDATE
Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
R/W
R/
W
A
D2
D1
Additional Right-of-Way Area (A) = ½ D D12
D = additional R/W distance required for approach leg 11
D = additional R/W distance required for approach leg 22
Functional
Classification
Rural
Single-lane
Rural
Double-lane
40’
25’
10’90’
125’
105’
Collector
Minor Arterial
Principal Arterial
Notes:
>The additional right-of-way required for a Rural Double-lane
roundabout should be used in locations where the potential for a
Rural Double-lane roundabout exists.
>
>This table applies to all 4 corners of the roundabout.
Example:
If approach leg 1 is defined as a Collector roadway and approach
leg 2 is defined as a Minor Arterial roadway and the largest
potential roundabout at that location is an Rural double-lane
roundabout, then D= 125’ and D= 105’.1 2
These values assume a WB-67 typical design vehicle.
Additional Right-of-Way Distance (D,) Required12
Approach Leg 1
Approach Leg 3
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
L
e
g
2
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
L
e
g
4
Design Element
Recommended
maximum entry
design speed
Maximum number
of entering lanes
per approach
Typical inscribed
circle diameter
Splitter island
treatment
Typical daily
service volumes
on 4-leg roundabout
(veh/day)
Rural Single-Lane
40 km/h
(25 mph)
1
35 to 40m
(115 ft to 130 ft)
Raised and extended
with crosswalk cut
20,000
Rural Double-Lane
50 km/h
(30 mph)
2
55 to 60m
(180 ft to 200 ft)
Raised and extended
with crosswalk cut
Based on design
template used
Rural Double-Lane
Roundabout
Conceptual Plan View
Figure 9-12
Rural Double-Lane
Roundabout Example
Extended Splitter Islands
and Supplemental Approach
Treatments
Exit is Somewhat
More Tangential Than
Urban Forms
Pedestrian
Accomodations
GREATER BOZEMAN AREA
TRANSPORTATION PLAN - 2007 UPDATE
Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
drawing3b_small.cdr
R/W
R/
W
A
D2
D1
Additional Right-of-Way Area (A) = ½ D D12
D = additional R/W distance required for approach leg 11
D = additional R/W distance required for approach leg 22
Functional
Classification
Rural
Single-lane
Rural
Double-lane
40’
25’
10’90’
125’
105’
Collector
Minor Arterial
Principal Arterial
Notes:
>The additional right-of-way required for a Rural Double-lane
roundabout should be used in locations where the potential for a
Rural Double-lane roundabout exists.
>
>This table applies to all 4 corners of the roundabout.
Example:
If approach leg 1 is defined as a Collector roadway and approach
leg 2 is defined as a Minor Arterial roadway and the largest
potential roundabout at that location is an Rural double-lane
roundabout, then D= 125’ and D= 105’.1 2
These values assume a WB-67 typical design vehicle.
Additional Right-of-Way Distance (D,) Required12
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 9: Recommended Major Street Network & Roadway Typical Sections
Page 9-20 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
9.6 RECOMMENDED ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTIONS
It is important to have established standards that identify the overall character of various
roads within a community. These standards should identify the anticipated amount of right-
of-way necessary at full build-out. They should also include all of the design elements
necessary such as sidewalks, bicycle facilities, landscaping, and space for utilities and snow
storage. The standards should reflect the uses for each type of road, and the applicable
traffic volumes anticipated.
There should be standards for both urban and rural street designs. Standards have been
developed for all of the categories of roads that are found within the Bozeman area including
local and collector roads, as well as minor and principal arterials. A variety of lane widths
have been included in the suggested road standards. Lane widths vary based on the volume
and expected type of traffic on each street. Generally, streets which will carry larger
numbers of vehicles and vehicles of larger sizes have been given wider travel lanes. Please
see Figures 9-13 thru 9-17.
Note that landscaped boulevards and sidewalks are required on both sides of all roads.
Boulevards are necessary throughout the community to provide space for snow storage and
separation of pedestrians and vehicles. The boulevards also provide space for trees and
other forms of corridor landscaping, which are considered an essential ingredient to
producing a livable community.
Bicycle facilities are required in all but the local road standards. Bicycle facilities are not
necessary on local streets due to the relatively low traffic volumes and low vehicle speeds. In
all other cases, five or six-foot-wide bicycle lanes are required on both sides of the street. A
ten-foot-wide combined ped/bike trail option is allowed if the necessary right-of-way is
available or provided for the primary arterial typical sections. The use of bicycle facilities
that are not in the roadway are a safety concern at cross-street intersections, therefore, this
option may be proposed only in cases where there are few minor intersections along the
corridor.
This plan has taken a multi-modal approach to the provision of transportation services.
Therefore, it is important that the pedestrian and bicycle facilities depicted on the street
standards illustrated in this chapter be constructed as a basic component of the initial facility
rather than being considered as an optional add-on.
Both flush and raised center medians are included in various road standards. The use of
raised versus flush medians will be determined on a case by case basis and depends on the
number of driveways. The recommended road standards are presented graphically in
Figures 9-13 thru 9-17.
The principal focus of this plan is the arterial and collector street network. A wide variety of
acceptable local street alternatives exist and may integrate well with the larger scale street
depicted in this Plan. For full information on local streets, interested parties are referred to
the City of Bozeman and Gallatin County subdivision regulations.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 9: Recommended Major Street Network & Roadway Typical Sections
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 9-21
It is appropriate to note that there will always be special circumstances that must be
considered as roadway improvements are contemplated. Context sensitive solutions and
designs, as initially described in Chapter 6, suggests that roadway improvements can be
done in harmony with local community objectives and public interest. The potential does
exist that deviation to the proposed typical sections may be warranted via reduced lane
widths, on-street parking, building placement and orientation and access control features.
These should be evaluated on a case by case basis by community leaders.
.5’
.5’
1’
1’
CL
CL
.5’
.5’
1’
1’
5’ Sidewalk
5’ Sidewalk
Not To Scale
8.5’ Boulevard
6.5’ Boulevard
8.5’ Boulevard
6.5’ Boulevard
7’ Parking
7’ Parking
7’ Parking
7’ Parking
5’ Sidewalk
5’ Sidewalk
8’ Driving Lane
10’ Driving Lane
R/W Requirements = 60’
2 Lanes
Sidewalks/Parking/Boulevard Both Sides
2 Lanes
Sidewalks/Parking/Boulevard Both Sides 3
8’ Driving Lane
10’ Driving Lane
31’ Back of Curb to Back of Curb
35’ Back of Curb to Back of Curb
NOTES:
Narrower or wider local street
configurations may be
acceptable depending on the character of the
neighborhood.
Please examine the City of Bozeman’s
Subdivision and
Zoning Regulations for details.
Local streets are not on the official “Urban
Aid System” and therefore jurisdiction for the
geometric layout falls exclusively under the
City of Bozeman regulations.
Use this street section as local road if
adjacent to park.
1
2
3
4 Sidewalks adjacent to parks on local
streets are required to be 6-feet in width. This
additional foot of width should be taken out of
the boulevard section.
Minimum Features:
- Two Driving Lanes
- Sidewalks - Both Sides
- Bike Lanes - Not Required
- Boulevards - Both Sides
- Parking - Both Sides
(Where Parking is Provided)
GREATER BOZEMAN AREA
TRANSPORTATION PLAN - 2007 UPDATE
Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Suggested Local
Street Standards
Figure 9-13
.5’
.5’
.5’
1’
1’
1’
CL
CL
.5’
.5’.5’.5’
.5’
1’
1’
1’
6’ Sidewalk
6’ Sidewalk
6’ Sidewalk
Not To Scale
14’ Boulevard
14’ Boulevard
14’ Boulevard
14’ Boulevard
8’ Parking
8’ Parking
5’ Bike
5’ Bike
5’ Bike
8’ Parking
8’ Parking
6’ Sidewalk
6’ Sidewalk7’ Boulevard7’ Boulevard
6’ Sidewalk
5’ Bike
5’ Bike
5’ Bike
10’ Driving Lane
10’ Driving Lane
10’ Driving Lane
14’ Turning Lane
Raised Median
15’ Double Left
Turning Lane
1’ Centerline Stripe
1’ Stripe 1’ Stripe
R/W Requirements = 90’
2 Lane Option
Sidewalks/Parking/Bike/Boulevard Both Sides
Maximum Road Section - 3 Lanes
Sidewalks/Parking/Bike/Boulevard Both Sides
3 Lane Option
Sidewalks/Bike/Boulevard Both Sides - No Parking
10’ Driving Lane
10’ Driving Lane
10’ Driving Lane
48’ Back of Curb to Back of Curb
48’ Back of Curb to Back of Curb
62’ Back of Curb to Back of Curb
NOTES:
Pedestrian crossing safety enhancement
is required for roads wider than 2-lanes.
Corridor lighting is required wherever
raised medians are used.
Grade separated ped/bike facilities should
be considered at major ped/bike crossings.
MDT routes will need to meet MDT Urban
Design Standards which may not be
represented in this graphic.
Minimum Features:
- Two Driving Lanes
- Sidewalks - Both Sides
- Bike Lanes - Both Sides
- Boulevards - Both Sides
- Parking - Both Sides
(Where Parking is Provided)
GREATER BOZEMAN AREA
TRANSPORTATION PLAN - 2007 UPDATE
Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Recommended Collector
Street Standards
Figure 9-14
.5’
.5’
.5’
1’
1’
1’
CL
CL
.5’
.5’.5’.5’
.5’.5’.5’
1’
1’
1’
6’ Sidewalk
6’ Sidewalk
6’ Sidewalk
18’ Boulevard
7.5’ Boulevard
6.5’ Boulevard
18’ Boulevard
7.5’ Boulevard
6.5’ Boulevard
8’
Parking/
Bike Lane
Emergency
8’
Parking/
Bike Lane
Emergency 8’
Parking/
Bike Lane
Emergency
8’
Parking/
Bike Lane
Emergency
5’ Bike
5’ Bike
5’ Bike
6’ Sidewalk
6’ Sidewalk
6’ Sidewalk
5’ Bike
5’ Bike
5’ Bike
11’ Driving Lane
50’ Back of Curb to Back of Curb
71’ Back of Curb to Back of Curb
71’ Back of Curb to Back of Curb
1’ Centerline Stripe
11’ Driving Lane 21’ Turning Lane/
Raised Median
11’ Driving Lane11’ Driving Lane
R/W Requirements = 100’
2 Lane Option
Sidewalks/Parking/Bike/Boulevard Both Sides/No Parking
3 Lanes Option
Sidewalks/Parking/Bike/Boulevard Both Sides/No Parking
(Double Fronting Lots)
Maximum Roadway Section - 5 Lanes
Sidewalks/Bike/Boulevard Both Sides - No Parking
11’ Driving Lane
11’ Driving Lane
11’ Driving Lane15’ Turning Lane/
Raised Median 11’ Driving Lane
Not To Scale
NOTES:
Pedestrian crossing safety enhancement
is required for roads wider than 2-lanes.
Corridor lighting is required wherever
raised medians are used.
Grade separated ped/bike facilities should
be considered at major ped/bike crossings.
MDT routes will need to meet MDT Urban
Design Standards which may not be
represented in this graphic.
Minimum Features:
- Two Driving Lanes
- Sidewalks - Both Sides
- Bike Lanes - Both Sides
- Boulevards - Both Sides
- Emergency Parking/
Bike Lane - Both Sides
GREATER BOZEMAN AREA
TRANSPORTATION PLAN - 2007 UPDATE
Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Recommended Minor Arterial
Street Standards
Figure 9-15
.5’.5’.5’1’
CL
.5’1’
6’
Sidewalk
Not To Scale
Not To Scale
12’ Boulevard 12’ Boulevard7’ Emergency
Parking/Bike Lane
7’ Emergency
Parking/Bike Lane
6’
Sidewalk20’ Turning Lane/
Raised Median11’ Driving Lane12’ Driving Lane
R/W Requirements = 120’
Maximum Roadway Section - 5 lanes
Sidewalks/Bike/Boulevard Both Sides - No Parking
82’ Back of Curb to Back of Curb
12’ Driving Lane11’ Driving Lane
NOTES:
Pedestrian crossing safety enhancement
is required for roads wider than 2-lanes.
Corridor lighting is required wherever
raised medians are used.
Grade separated ped/bike facilities should
be considered at major ped/bike crossings.
MDT routes will need to meet MDT Urban
Design Standards which may not be
represented in this graphic.
Minimum Features:
- Two Driving Lanes
- Sidewalks - Both Sides
- Bike Lanes - Both Sides
- Boulevards - Both Sides
- Emergency Parking/Bike Lanes -
Both Sides
R/W Requirements = 120’
.5’.5’.5’1’
CL
.5’1’
10’ Ped/Bike Trail 8’ Boulevard 8’ Boulevard7’ Emergency
Parking/Bike Lane
7’ Emergency
Parking/Bike Lane 10’ Ped/Bike Trail20’ Turning Lane/
Raised Median11’ Driving Lane12’ Driving Lane
Maximum Roadway Section - 5 lanes
Sidewalks/Bike/Boulevard Both Sides - No Parking
12’ Driving Lane11’ Driving Lane
82’ Back of Curb to Back of Curb
GREATER BOZEMAN AREA
TRANSPORTATION PLAN - 2007 UPDATE
Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Recommended Principal Arterial
Street Standards
Figure 9-16
1’ Stripe1’ Stripe
CL
5’
5’
5’
5’
Not To Scale
10’ Emergency Parking
/Bike Lane
10’ Emergency Parking
/Bike Lane 16’ Double Left Turning Lane12’ Driving Lane
6:1
6:1
6:1
6:1
Varia
b
l
e
Varia
b
l
e
Variabl
e
Variable
Rural Principal Arterial - 3 Lanes
12’ Driving Lane
5’
Vari
a
b
l
e Variable
6:1 6:1
5’
5’ Shoulder*Varies Varies
VariesVaries
Varies Varies
VariesVaries
Varies Varies
Varies Varies
VariesVaries
Varies Varies
8’ Shoulder
5’ Shoulder*
* Shoulder available to accommodate
pedestrians/bicycle travel.
8’ Shoulder
11’ Driving Lane
11’ Driving Lane
R/W Requirements = 90’
May Be More If Terrain Requires
R/W Requirements = 100’
May Be More If Terrain Requires
R/W Requirements = 110’
May Be More If Terrain Requires
Rural Collector - 2 Lanes
Rural Minor Arterial - 2 Lanes
11’ Driving Lane
1’ Centerline Stripe
1’ Centerline Stripe
11’ Driving Lane
NOTES:
Pedestrian crossing safety enhancement
is required for roads wider than 2-lanes.
Corridor lighting is required wherever
raised medians are used.
Grade separated ped/bike facilities should
be considered at major ped/bike crossings.
GREATER BOZEMAN AREA
TRANSPORTATION PLAN - 2007 UPDATE
Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Recommended Rural
Street Standards
Figure 9-17
NOTE: Recommended Rural
Street Standards are future
visions for the County’s rural
roadway system. They do
not match the currently
utilized roadway geometrics
as per the Gallatin County
Subdivision Regulations.
Minimum Paving & Street Width Standards *
ADT
8
16
24
32-99
100+
Major Collectors
& Arterials
8-40
41-99
100+
Major Collectors
& Arterials
24’
24’
24’
26’
26’
30’
24’
26’
24’
30’
22’
24’
24’
28’
22’
22’
22’
24’
24’
28’
Non-Mountainous Terrain
Mountainous Terrain
Finished
Gravel
Width
Minimum
Paving
Width
* As per Gallatin County Subdivision Regulations
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 9: Recommended Major Street Network & Roadway Typical Sections
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 9-27
9.7 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The design of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure is governed by many local, state, and
federal standard documents. In the Bozeman area, these documents include the Montana
Public Works Standard Specifications, the Bozeman Modifications to the Montana Public
Works Standard Specifications, the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities, the City of
Bozeman Design Standards and Specification Policy, and the Americans with Disabilities Act
Access Board (ADAAG) Guidelines. This section provides additional guidance that could
benefit the Bozeman area with some found in the above standards, and some experimental.
9.7.1 Pedestrian Facilities
The design of the pedestrian environment will directly affect the degree to which people
enjoy the walking experience. If designed appropriately, the walking environment will not
only serve the people who currently walk, but also be inviting for those who may consider
walking in the future. Therefore, when considering the appropriate design of a certain
location, designers should not just consider existing pedestrian use, but how the design will
influence and increase walking in the future. Additionally, designers must consider the
various levels of walking abilities and local, state, and federal accessibility requirements.
Although these types of requirements were specifically developed for people with walking
challenges, their use will result in pedestrian facilities that benefit all people.
Crosswalks
Crosswalks are a critical element of the pedestrian network. It is of little use to have a
complete sidewalk system if pedestrians cannot safely and conveniently cross intersecting
streets. Safe crosswalks support other transportation modes as well. Transit riders, motorists,
and bicyclists all may need to cross the street as pedestrians at some point in their trip.
Frequency
In general, whatever their mode, people will not travel out of direction unless it is necessary.
This behavior is observed in pedestrians, who will cross the street wherever they feel it is
convenient. The distance between comfortable opportunities to cross a street should be
related to the frequency of uses along the street that generate crossings (shops, high
pedestrian use areas, etc.). In areas with many such generators, like high pedestrian use
areas, opportunities to cross should be very frequent. In areas where generators are less
frequent, good crossing opportunities may also be provided with less frequency.
Where Generally not further apart than
Generally not closer
together than
High Pedestrian Use Areas 200 – 300 feet (60-90 m) Where blocks
are longer than 400 feet (120 m) 150 feet (45 m)
Local Street Walkways and Low
Pedestrian Use Areas
Varies, based on adjacent uses. Do not
prohibit crossing for more than 400
feet (120 m)
150 feet (45 m)
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 9: Recommended Major Street Network & Roadway Typical Sections
Page 9-28 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Crosswalk Pavement Markings
Marked crosswalks indicate to pedestrians the appropriate route across traffic, facilitate
crossing by the visually impaired, and remind turning drivers of potential conflicts with
pedestrians. Crosswalk pavement markings should generally be located to align with the
through pedestrian zone of the sidewalk corridor.
Marked crosswalks should be used:
At signalized intersections, all crosswalks should be marked.
At unsignalized intersections, crosswalks should be marked when they
o help orient pedestrians in finding their way across a complex intersection, or
o help show pedestrians the shortest route across traffic with the least exposure
to vehicular traffic and traffic conflicts, or
o help position pedestrians where they can best be seen by oncoming traffic.
There are three common types of crosswalk striping currently used in the United States
including the Piano Key, the Ladder, and the standard Transverse crosswalk. Of these, the
Piano Key and the Transverse Lines crossings are typically used in Montana. Other types of
textured or colored concrete surfacing may be used in appropriate locations where it helps
establish a sense of place such as shopping centers and downtown Bozeman.
Ladder or piano key crosswalk markings
are considered ‘high-visibility’ markings
and are recommended for most crosswalks
in the Bozeman area where heavy
pedestrian traffic exists, including school
crossings, across arterial streets at
pedestrian-only signals, at mid-block
crosswalks, and where the crosswalk
crosses a street not controlled by signals or
stop signs. A piano key pavement marking
consists of 2-ft (610 mm) wide bars spaced
2-ft apart and should be located such that
the wheels of vehicles pass between the
white stripes. A ladder pavement marking
consists of 2-ft (610 mm) wide bars spaced
2-ft apart and located between 1-ft wide
parallel stripes that are 10-ft apart.
Curb Extensions
Curb extensions (sometimes called curb bulbs or bulb-outs) have many benefits for
pedestrians. They shorten the crossing distance, provide additional space at the corner
(simplifying the placement of elements like curb ramps), and allow pedestrians to see and be
seen before entering the crosswalk. Curb extensions can also provide an area for accessible
transit stops and other pedestrian amenities and street furnishings.
Curb extensions may be useful for local or collector roadways and may be used at any corner
location, or at any mid-block location where there is a marked crosswalk, provided there is a
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 9: Recommended Major Street Network & Roadway Typical Sections
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 9-29
parking lane into which the curb may be extended. Curb extensions are not generally used
where there is no parking lane because of the potential hazard to bicycle travel. Under no
circumstances should a curb extension block a bike lane if one exists.
In high pedestrian use areas such as downtown Bozeman, curb extensions are a preferred
element for corner reconstruction except where there are extenuating design considerations
such as the turning radius of the design vehicle, or transit and on-street parking factors.
Curb extensions can be compatible with snow removal operations provided that they are
visibly marked for crews. Where drainage is an issue, curb extensions can be designed with
storm drain inlets, or pass through channels for water.
Refuge Islands
Refuge islands allow pedestrians to cross one segment of the street to a relatively safe
location out of the travel lanes, and then continue across the next segment in a separate gap.
At unsignalized crosswalks on a two-way street, a median refuge island allows the crossing
pedestrian to tackle each direction of traffic separately. This can significantly reduce the time
a pedestrian must wait for an adequate gap in the traffic stream.
Mid-Block Crossings
Mid-block crossings are installed where there is a significant demand for crossing and no
nearby existing crosswalks. Within the Study Area there are numerous stream corridors
traveling mainly south to north. These corridors have been well utilized by developers and
support numerous trail systems, which nearly always require mid-block crossings to be
continuous. Currently, the treatments employed for the existing crossings vary street to
street with varying levels of accommodation and visibility. This section will dictate design
of future mid-block crossings in the Bozeman area for consistency. In general, because these
crossings are not at existing intersections they should be designed for a high level of
visibility through appropriate signage, lighting, and high-contrast pavement markings and
treatments.
Local Streets
Local roadways are the most common location for midblock crossings currently found in the
Bozeman area. Mid-block crossings should use high visibility crosswalk markings either as a
concrete pad contrasting with the asphalt or as a ladder or piano key crossing using
thermoplastic markings for durability. Six-inch vehicle stop lines should be placed 20 feet in
advance of the crossing with MUTCD W11-2 signage at the crossing. Higher volume local
streets may need a second warning sign in advance of the crossing. On-street parking
should be prohibited within 40 feet of the crossing, and if being constructed as part of a new
roadway, curb extensions should be considered where parking is allowed to shorten the
crossing distance.
Mid-block crossings of collector and arterial streets are strongly discouraged, but may be
considered in unique situations where adequate warning and protection are provided.
W11-2
W16-7p
(Optional)
(Optional)Concrete CrossingWith Expension JointsHigh Contrast WithAsphalt
Chicane in trail slows bicyclists
Mid-Block Trail Crossing - Local Streets Figure 9-18
(Optional)
(Optional)
W16-7p
OR W11-1
W16-9p
W11-2
OR W11-1
W16-9p
R1-1
20’ - 50’6.1 m to 15 m
R1-1
200’60 m
W2-1(if no stop, yield, orsignal control on path)
R5-3
R5-3
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 9: Recommended Major Street Network & Roadway Typical Sections
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 9-31
9.7.2 Bicycle Facilities
Similar to pedestrian facilities, the overall safety and usability of the bicycle network lies in
the details of design. The following guidelines provide useful design considerations that fill
in the gaps from the standard manuals such as the MUTCD and the AASHTO Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities.
Shared-Use Paths / Bike Paths
Facilitates two-way off-street bicycle and pedestrian traffic, which also may be used by
skaters, wheelchair users, joggers and other non-motorized users. These facilities are
frequently found in parks, and in greenbelts, or along rivers, railroads, or utility corridors
where there are few conflicts with motorized vehicles. Shared use facilities can also include
amenities such as lighting, signage, and fencing (where appropriate). In Montana, design of
Shared use facilities should follow guidance in the AASHTO Guide for the Development of
Bicycle Facilities. For non-paved shared-use facilities, see trail standards in the Bozeman
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan (PROST) or the Gallatin Valley Trails Plan.
General Design Practices:
Shared-use paths can provide a good facility, particularly for novice riders, recreational trips,
and cyclists of all skill levels preferring separation from traffic. Shared-use paths should
generally provide directional travel opportunities not provided by existing roadways. Some
of the elements that enhance off-street path design include:
Implementing frequent access points from the local road network; if access points are
spaced too far apart, users will have to travel out of direction to enter or exit the path,
which will discourage use;
Placing adequate signage for cyclists including stop signs at trail crossings and
directional signs to direct users to and from the path;
Building to a standard high enough to allow heavy maintenance equipment to use
the path without causing it to deteriorate;
Limiting the number of at-grade crossings with streets or driveways;
Terminating the path where it is easily accessible to and from the street system,
preferably at a controlled intersection or at the beginning of a dead-end street. Poorly
designed paths can put pedestrians and cyclists in a position where motor vehicle
drivers do not expect them when the path joins the street system.
Both the Federal Highway Administration and the AASHTO Guide for the Development of
Bicycle Facilities generally recommend against the development of shared-use paths directly
adjacent to roadways. Also, known as “sidepaths” these facilities create a situation where a
portion of the bicycle traffic rides against the normal flow of motor vehicle traffic and can
result in bicyclists going against traffic when either entering or exiting the path. This can also
result in an unsafe situation where motorists entering or crossing the roadway at
intersections and driveways do not notice bicyclists coming from their right, as they are not
expecting traffic coming from that direction. Stopped cross-street motor vehicle traffic or
vehicles exiting side streets or driveways may frequently block path crossings. Even
bicyclists coming from the left may also go unnoticed, especially when sight distances are
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 9: Recommended Major Street Network & Roadway Typical Sections
Page 9-32 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
poor. Because of these operational challenges, sidepaths should be provided on both sides of
the roadway to reduce the numbers of bicyclists travelling against vehicle traffic.
Shared-use paths may be considered along roadways under the following conditions:
The path will generally be separated from all motor vehicle traffic.
Bicycle and pedestrian use is anticipated to be high.
In order to provide continue an existing path through a roadway corridor.
The path can be terminated at each end onto streets with good bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, or onto another safe, well-designed path.
There is adequate access to local cross-streets and other facilities along the route.
Any needed grade separation structures do not add substantial out-of-direction
travel.
The total cost of providing the proposed path is proportionate to the need.
The paths are provided on both sides of the roadway.
As bicyclists gain experience and realize some of the advantages of riding on the roadway,
many stop riding on paths placed adjacent to roadways. Bicyclists may also tend to prefer
the roadway a pedestrian traffic on the Multi-use path increases due to its location next to an
urban roadway. When designing a bikeway network, the presence of a nearby or parallel
path should not be used as a reason to not provide adequate shoulder or bicycle lane width
on the roadway, as the on-street bicycle facility will generally be superior to the “sidepath”
for experienced cyclists and those who are cycling for transportation purposes. In fact,
bicycle lanes should be provided as an alternate (more transportation-oriented) facility
whenever possible.
At Grade Crossings
When a grade-separated crossing cannot be provided, the optimum at-grade crossing has
either light traffic or a traffic signal that trail users can activate. If a signal is provided, signal
loop detectors may be placed in the shared-use path pavement to detect bicycles. This feature
can be combined with or replaced by a pedestrian-actuated button provided (placed such
that cyclists can press it without dismounting.) At unsignalized crossings, a trail sized stop
sign (R1-1) or yield sign (R1-2) should be placed about 5 feet before the intersection with an
accompanying stop line. Direction flow should be treated either with physical separation or a
centerline approaching the intersection for the last 100 feet. Additional design considerations
can slow bicyclists as they approach the crossing include chicanes, bollards, and pavement
markings.
If the street is above four or more lanes or two/three lanes without adequate gaps, a median
refuge should be considered in the middle of the street crossed. The refuge should be 8 feet
at a minimum, 10 feet is desired. Another potential design option for street crossings is to
slow motor vehicle traffic approaching the crossing through such techniques as speed bumps
in advance of the crossing, or a painted or textured crosswalk.
Grade Separated Crossings
When the decision to construct an off-street multi-use path has been made, grade separation
should be considered for all crossings of major thoroughfares. At-grade crossings introduce
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 9: Recommended Major Street Network & Roadway Typical Sections
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 9-33
conflict points. The greatest conflicts occur where paths cross roadway driveways or
entrance and exit ramps. Motor vehicle drivers using these ramps are seeking opportunities
to merge with other motor vehicles; they are not expecting bicyclists and pedestrians to
appear at these locations. However, grade-separated crossings should minimize the burden
for the user, and not, for example, require a steep uphill and/or winding climb.
In the Bozeman Area, the preferred type of grade-separated crossing is an undercrossing due
to weather and visual considerations. Several currently exist in the area in Four Corners and
Gallatin Gateway. Undercrossings should be lighted if in high use areas or if longer than 75
feet in length. Groundwater infiltration may be a significant issue and should be considered
early in the decision making process when any undercrossing is considered.
Bike Lanes
Bike lanes are defined as a portion of the roadway that has been designated by striping,
signage, and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. Bicycle
lanes are generally found on major arterial and collector roadways and are 4-6 feet wide.
Bike lanes should be constructed in accordance with the recommended roadway typical
sections in this chapter and should be designed following AASHTO guidelines.
Additional Considerations
Drainage grates located within bike lanes can often be
hazardous to bicyclists. Drainage grates with large slits
can catch bicycle tires and cause a crash. Poorly placed
drainage grates may also be hazardous, and can cause
bicyclists to veer into the auto travel lane to avoid them.
Sometimes, resurfacing projects result in a vertical lip
surrounding a drainage grate. Such abrupt changes can
jar a cyclist and cause a crash. Resurfacing projects
should taper the pavement to the drainage grate or
other relevant utility access point.
Bicycle Friendly Rumble Strips
Rumble Strips can hamper bicycling by presenting obstacles through trapped debris on the
far right of the road shoulder and the rumble strip to the left. Consequently, special care
needs to be exercised for bicyclists when this treatment for motorist safety is planned and
built, with a robust maintenance schedule put into place. The rumble strip design and
placement are also important; placing the rumble strip as close to the fog line as possible
leave the maximum shoulder area available for cyclists. Certain rumble strip designs are
safer for bicyclists to cross, and still provide the desired warning effect for motorists.
The Federal Highway Administration performed a study on the design of rumble strips in
2000 reviewing different techniques of installation and studies performed by ten state DOTs
from the point of view of motorists and bicyclists. Based on the information provided in the
FHWA study, the recommended design for a rumble strip should be of a milled design
rather than rolled that is 1 foot (300mm) wide with 5/16 ± 1/16 in (8 ± 1.5 mm) in depth.
Rumble strips are recommended to be installed only on roadways with shoulders in excess
of 5 feet (1.5 m). A shallow depth of the milled portions of the rumble strips are preferred by
Bicycle-Friendly Drainage Grates
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 9: Recommended Major Street Network & Roadway Typical Sections
Page 9-34 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
bicyclists. Since the roadway shoulder can become cluttered with debris it is recommended
to include a skip (or gap) in the rumble strip to allow bicyclists to cross from the shoulder to
the travel lane when encountering debris. This skip pattern is recommended to be 12 feet (3.7
m) in length with intervals of 40 or 60 feet (12.2 or 18.3 m) between skips.
Shared Lane Markings (SLMs)
Recently, Shared Lane Marking stencils (also called
“Sharrows”) have been introduced for use in the
United States as an additional treatment for shared
roadway facilities. The stencil can serve a number of
purposes, such as making motorists aware of
bicycles potentially in their lane, showing bicyclists
the direction of travel, and, with proper placement,
reminding bicyclists to ride further from parked cars
to reduce the risk of “dooring” collisions. Shared
Lane Markings are expected to be included in the
2009 MUTCD and would be valuable additions to
the proposed bicycle boulevards in Chapter 5.
Recommended SLM placement.
CHAPTER 10
MISCELLANEOUS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CONSIDERATIONS
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 10: Miscellaneous Transportation System Considerations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 10-1
10.1 URBAN AND SECONDARY HIGHWAY DESIGNATIONS
It is appropriate when completing a regional Transportation Plan to discuss the state system
in place in the community. The formal system in place in the Greater Bozeman area consists
of both urban roadways and secondary roadways. These roadways are designated through
existing Montana statute, the Montana Transportation Commission, and MDT guidelines.
Because these roads are Montana systems, the Federal government has no direct
involvement in the designations.
Urban and secondary routes are designated by the Montana Transportation Commission, in
cooperation with local governing authorities. When revisions to the system are proposed,
the Transportation Commission may require when adding mileage that a reasonably equal
amount of mileage be removed. This is not an absolute, and situations do exist where
mileage is added without a corresponding reduction. With that in mind, to meet eligibility
requirements for placement on a system of urban and secondary highways, the following
criteria must be met:
Urban Highways
The route must be within a designated urban area and must be functionally classified by the
Transportation Commission and Federal Highway Administration as either an urban arterial
or collector. The route must also meet urban design standards in order to qualify as an
urban route. A list of the urban routes located in the Greater Bozeman area can be found in
Table 10-1.
Table 10-1
Urban Routes in the Greater Bozeman Area
Urban Route ID Roadway Common Designation
U-1201 19th Avenue
U-1202 Oak Street
U-1203 S. 11th Avenue
U-1204 Durston Road
U-1205 8th Street
U-1206 Mendenhall Street
U-1207 Frontage Road / N. 7th Avenue
U-1208 Babcock Street
U-1209 3rd Street / Graff Street / Willson Avenue
U-1210 College Street
U-1211 Valley Center Road
U-1212 Kagy Boulevard /Bozeman Trail
U-1213 Church Street
U-1215 Highland Boulevard
U-1216 S. 19th Avenue
U-1217 Griffin Drive
U-1218 Baxter Lane
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 10: Miscellaneous Transportation System Considerations
Page 10-2 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Secondary Highways
The route must be outside a designated urban area and must be functionally classified as
either a rural minor arterial or major collector. A list of the secondary routes located in the
Greater Bozeman area can be found in Table 10-2.
Table 10-2
Secondary Routes in the Greater Bozeman Area
Secondary Route ID Roadway Common Designation
S-235 Valley Center Road
S-205 Frontage Road
S-411 Springhill Road
S-412 N. 19th Avenue
S-345 S. 19th Avenue / Cottonwood Road
As conditions change in the community, driven by outlying growth and travel characteristic
shifts, it is advisable to revisit the urban and secondary highway classifications from time to
time. To add, or delete, a route from the system, a very specific “six-step” process is in place
and must be adhered to. This process is as follows:
Step 1 – Requests for new route designations or changes in existing designations are
initiated by the local government. Requests must have the support of local elected
officials and local transportation committees (if applicable).
Step 2 – MDT staff reviews the requests to determine whether the routes meet
eligibility requirements.
Step 3 – If a route does not meet functional classification eligibility requirements,
MDT staff advises the local government about the process for requesting a formal
review of the routes functional classification.
Step 4 – If necessary, MDT staff advises the local government about the Montana
Transportation Commission policy that requires no significant net changes in
secondary and urban highway mileage within the affected county or urban area as a
result of designation changes. Local governments may have to adjust their original
request to comply with this requirement.
Step 5 – If the proposal meets all eligibility requirements and complies with
Transportation Commission policy, MDT staff asks the Transportation Commission
to approve the request.
Step 6 – If the Transportation Commission approves the request, MDT staff notifies
the affected local governments and makes appropriate changes in MDT records.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 10: Miscellaneous Transportation System Considerations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 10-3
10.2 CORRIDOR PRESERVATION MEASURES
Corridor preservation is the application of measures to prevent or minimize development
within the right-of-way of a planned transportation facility or improvement within a defined
corridor. That includes corridors, both existing and future, in which a wide array of
transportation improvements may be constructed including roadways, bikeways, multi-use
trails, equestrian paths, high occupancy vehicle lanes, fixed-rail lines and more.
Corridor preservation is important because it helps to ensure that a transportation system
will effectively and efficiently serve existing and future development within a local
community, region or state, and prevent costly and difficult acquisitions after the fact.
Corridor preservation policies, programs and practices provide numerous benefits to
communities, taxpayers and the public at large. These include, but are not limited to, the
following:
Reducing transportation costs by preservation of future corridors in an
undeveloped state. By acquiring or setting aside right-of-way well in advance of
construction, the high cost to remove or relocate private homes or businesses is
eliminated or reduced.
Enhancing economic development by minimizing traffic congestion and
improving traffic flow, saving time and money. Low cost, efficient transportation
helps businesses contain final costs to customers and makes them more competitive
in the marketplace. Freight costs, for instance, accounts for ten percent of the value of
agricultural products, the highest for any industry.
Increasing information sharing so landowners, developers, engineers, utility
providers, and planners understand the future needs for developing corridors. An
effective corridor preservation program ensures that all involved parties understand
the future needs within a corridor and that state, local and private plans are
coordinated.
Preserving arterial capacity and right-of-way in growing corridors. Corridor
preservation includes the use of access management techniques to preserve the
existing capacity of corridors. When it is necessary, arterial capacity can be added
before it becomes cost prohibited by preserving right-of-way along growing
transportation corridors.
Minimizing disruption of private utilities and public works. Corridor preservation
planning allows utilities and public works providers to know future plans for their
transportation corridor and make their decisions accordingly.
Promoting urban and rural development compatible with local plans and
regulations. The state and local agencies must work closely together to coordinate
their efforts. Effective corridor preservation will result in development along a
transportation corridor that is consistent with local policies.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 10: Miscellaneous Transportation System Considerations
Page 10-4 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
To effectively achieve the policies and goals listed above, corridor management techniques
can be utilized. These techniques can involve the systematic application of actions that:
Preserve the safety and efficiency of transportation facilities through access
management; and,
Ensure that new development along planned transportation corridors is located and
designed to accommodate future transportation facilities (corridor preservation
measures).
10.3 ACCESS MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Access management techniques are increasingly fundamental to preserving the safety and
efficiency of a transportation facility. Access control can extend the carrying capacity of a
roadway, reducing potential conflicts. There are six basic principles of access management
that are used to achieve the desired outcome of safer and efficient roadways. These
principles are:
Limit the number of conflict points.
Separate the different conflict points.
Separate turning volumes from through movements.
Locate traffic signals to facilitate traffic movement.
Maintain a hierarchy of roadways by function.
Limit direct access on higher speed roads.
It is recommended that local government adopt a set of Access Management Regulations
through which the need for access management principles can be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis. For roadways on the State system and under the jurisdiction of the Montana
Department of Transportation (MDT), access control guidelines are available which define
minimum access point spacing, access geometrics, etc., for different roadway facilities. For
other roadways (non-State), the adoption of an access classification system based upon the
functional classification of the roadway (principal arterial, minor arterial or major collector)
is desirable. These local regulations should serve to govern minimum spacing of drive
approaches/connections and median openings along a given roadway in an effort to fit the
given roadway into the context of the adjacent land uses and the roadway purpose. The
preparation and adoption of a local Access Management Ordinance should be pursued that
can adequately document the local government’s desire for standard approach spacing,
widths, slopes and type for a given roadway classification.
Different types of treatment that can assist in access control techniques are:
Non-traversable raised medians.
Frontage roads
Consolidation and/or closure of existing accesses to the roadway.
Directional raised medians.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 10: Miscellaneous Transportation System Considerations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 10-5
Left-turn bay islands.
Redefinition of previously uncontrolled access.
Raised channelization islands to discourage turns.
Regulate number of driveways per property.
10.3.1 Corridor Preservation Measures
Another tool used to fulfill the policies and goals listed earlier in this chapter is that of
specific corridor preservation measures. As was stated earlier regarding developing a local
Access Management Ordinance, it is desirable to develop a Corridor Preservation Ordinance
as well. Such an ordinance would serve to accomplish the following:
Establish criteria for new corridor preservation policies to protect future
transportation corridors from development encroachment by structures, parking
areas, or drainage facilities (except as may be allowed on an interim basis). Some
possible criteria could include the on-site transfer of development rights and the
clustering of structures.
Establish criteria for providing right-of-way dedication and acquisition while
mitigating adverse impacts on affected property owners.
10.4 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
10.4.1 Role of TDM in the Transportation Plan
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures came into being during the 1970s
and 1980s in response to a desire to save energy, improve air quality, and reduce peak-
period congestion. TDM strategies focused on identifying alternates to single occupant
vehicle use during commuting hours. Therefore, such things as carpooling, vanpooling,
transit use, walking and bicycling for work purposes are most often associated with TDM.
Many of these methods were not well received by the commuting public and therefore,
provided limited improvement to the peak-period congestion problem. Due to the
experiences with these traditional TDM measures over the past few decades, it became clear
that the whole TDM concept needed to be changed. TDM measures that have been well
received by the commuting public include flextime, a compressed workweek and
telecommuting. In addition to addressing commute trip issues, managing demand on the
transportation system includes addressing traffic congestion associated with special events,
such as the Sweet Pea Festival, Christmas Stroll, Music on Main, and other large cultural or
sporting events. A definition of TDM follows:
TDM programs are designed to maximize the people-moving capability of the
transportation system by increasing the number of persons in a vehicle, or by
influencing the time of, or need to, travel. (FHWA, 1994)
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 10: Miscellaneous Transportation System Considerations
Page 10-6 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Since 1994, TDM has been expanded to also include route choice. A parallel arterial with
excess capacity near a congested arterial can be used to manage the transportation system to
decrease congestion for all transportation users. In Montana, an excellent model for TDM
strategies can be found by examining the Missoula Ravalli Transportation Management
Association (MRTMA).
The Bozeman area is projected to grow. The accompanying expansion of transportation
infrastructure is expensive and usually lags behind growth. Proper management of demand
now will maximize the existing infrastructure and delay the need to build more expensive
additional infrastructure. TDM is an important and useful tool to extend the useful life of a
transportation system. It must be recognized that TDM strategies aren’t always appropriate
for certain situations and may be difficult to implement.
As communities such as Bozeman grow, the growth in number of vehicles and travel
demand should be accommodated by a combination of road improvements; transit service
improvements; bicycle and pedestrian improvements; and a program to reduce travel
(vehicle trips and the vehicle miles traveled) via transportation demand management in
conjunction with appropriate land use planning. This section of the Transportation Plan
describes which TDM measures are appropriate and acceptable for the Bozeman community.
TDM strategies are an important part of the Transportation Plan due to their inherent ability
to provide the following benefits to the commuting public:
Better transportation accessibility;
Better transportation predictability;
More, and timelier, information;
A range of commute choices; and
Enhanced transportation system performance.
TDM measures can also be applied to non-commuter traffic and are especially easy to adapt
to tourism, special events, emergencies and construction. The benefits to these traffic users
are similar to those for commuters, and are listed as follows:
Better transportation accessibility;
More transportation reliability;
More, and timelier, information;
A range of route choices; and
Enhanced transportation system performance.
These changes allow the same amount of transportation infrastructure to effectively serve
more people. They acknowledge and work within the mode and route choices which
motorists are willing to make, and can encourage a sense of community. Certain measures
can also increase the physical activity of people getting from one place to another.
Such things as alerting the traveling public to disruptions in the transportation system
caused by construction or vehicle crashes can manage demand and provide a valuable
service to the traveling public.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 10: Miscellaneous Transportation System Considerations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 10-7
Overall, congestion can be avoided or managed on a long-term basis through the use of an
integrated system of TDM strategies.
10.4.2 List of TDM Strategies
TDM strategies, which are or have been used by other communities in the United States,
include:
Flextime
When provided by employers, flextime allows workers to adjust their commuting
time away from the peak periods. This means that employees are allowed some
flexibility in their daily work schedules. For example, rather than all employees
working 8:00 to 4:30, some might work 7:30 to 4:00, and others 9:00 to 5:30. This
provides the workers with a less stressful commute, allows flexibility for family
activities and lowers the number of vehicles using the transportation system during
peak times. This in turn can translate into reduced traffic congestion, support for
ridesharing and public transit use, and benefits to employees. Flextime allows
commuters to match their work schedules with transit and rideshare schedules,
which can significantly increase the feasibility of using these modes. Costs for
implementing this type of TDM strategy can include increased administrative and
management responsibilities for the employer, and more difficulty in evaluating an
employee’s productivity.
Alternate Work Schedule
A related but more expansive strategy is to provide an alternate work schedule. This
strategy involves using alternate work hours for all employees. It would entail
having the beginning of the normal workday start at a time other than 8:00 a.m. For
example, starting the workday at 7:30 a.m. would allow all employees to reach the
work site in advance of the peak commute time. Additionally, since they will be
leaving work at 4:30 p.m., they will be home before the peak commute time, and have
more time in the evening to participate in family or community activities. This can be
a very desirable side benefit for the employees. This has a similar effect on traffic as
flextime, but does not give individual employees as much control over their
schedules.
Compressed Work Week
A compressed work week is different from offering “flextime” or the “alternate work
schedule” in that the work week is actually reduced from the standard “five-days-a-
week” work schedule. A good example would be employers giving their workers the
opportunity to work four (4) ten-hour days a week. A compressed work week
reduces commute travel (although this reduction may be modest if employees take
additional car trips during non-work days or move farther from worksites). Costs for
implementing this type of TDM strategy may be a reduction in productivity
(employees become less productive at the end of a long day), a reduction in total
hours worked, and it may be perceived as wasteful by the public (for example, if
staffing at public agencies is low on Fridays).
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 10: Miscellaneous Transportation System Considerations
Page 10-8 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Telecommuting
Telecommuting in the work place offers a good chance to reduce the dependence to
travel to work via car or bus. This is especially true in technical positions and some
fields in the medical industry (such as medical transcription). Additionally,
opportunities for distance learning, shopping via computers, basic health care
services and recreation also exist and can serve to reduce vehicular travel on the
transportation system. Telecommuting is usually implemented in response to an
employee request, more so than instigated by the employer. Since telecommuting
reduces commute trips, it can significantly reduce congestion and parking costs. It is
highly valued by many employees and tends to increase their productivity and job
satisfaction. Costs associated with this TDM strategy include increased
administrative and management responsibilities, and more difficult evaluation of
employee productivity. Some employees find telecommuting difficult and isolating.
Telecommuting also may reduce staff coverage and interaction, and make meetings
difficult to schedule. Many employers in Montana have tried and currently allow
some form of telecommuting.
Ride Sharing (carpooling)
Carpooling is traditionally one of the most widely considered TDM strategies. The
idea is to consolidate drivers of single occupancy vehicles (SOV’s) into fewer vehicles,
with the result being a reduction in congestion. Carpooling is generally limited to
those persons whose schedules are rigid and not flexible in nature. Studies have
shown that carpooling is most effective for longer trips greater than ten miles in each
direction. Aside for the initial administrative cost of set-up and marketing,
ridesharing also may encourage urban sprawl by making longer-distance commutes
more affordable.
Transit agencies sometimes consider rideshare as competition that reduces transit
ridership. Ridesharing is a strategy that would work within the Bozeman area,
especially if set up through the larger employers. An extensive public awareness
campaign describing the benefits of this program would help in selling it to the
general public.
Vanpooling
Vanpooling is a strategy that encourages employees to utilize a larger vehicle than
the traditional standard automobile to arrive at work. Vans typically hold twelve or
more persons. Vanpooling generally does not require high levels of subsidy usually
associated with a fixed-route or demand-responsive transit service. They can often
times be designed to be self-sufficient. The van is typically provided by the
employer, or a vanpool brokerage agency, which provides the insurance. The costs of
a vanpooling program are very similar to those of ridesharing.
Bicycling
Bicycling can substitute directly for automobile trips. Communities that improve
cycling conditions often experience significant increases in bicycle travel and related
reductions in vehicle travel. Even a one percent shift in travel modes from vehicle
trips to bicycle trips can be viewed as a positive step in the Bozeman community.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 10: Miscellaneous Transportation System Considerations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 10-9
Although this may not be a measurable statistic pertinent to reducing congesting,
providing increased bicycling opportunities can help and can also contribute to
quality of life issues. Bicycling characteristics within the Bozeman area is primarily
recreational in nature, and by implementing the bikeway network improvements as
described in Chapter 5, a gradual shift to bicycling as a commuter mode of travel
should be realized. Incentives to increase bicycle usage as a TDM strategy include:
construction improvements to bike paths and bike lanes; correcting specific roadway
hazards (potholes, cracks, narrow lanes, etc.); development of a more connected
bikeway street network; development of safety education, law enforcement and
encouragement programs; and the solicitation and addressing of bicycling
security/safety concerns. Potential costs of this TDM strategy are expenses
associated with creating and maintaining the bikeway network, potential liability and
accident risks (in some cases), and increased stress to drivers.
Walking
Walking as a TDM strategy has the ability to substitute directly for automobile trips.
A relatively short non-motorized trip often substitutes for a longer car trip. For
example, a shopper might choose between walking to a small local store versus
driving a longer distance to shop at a supermarket. Incentives to encourage walking
in a community can include: making improvements to sidewalks, crosswalks and
paths by designing transportation systems that accommodate special needs
(including people using wheelchairs, walkers, strollers and hand carts); providing
covered walkways, loading and waiting areas; improving pedestrian accessibility by
creating location-efficient, clustered, mixed land use patterns; and soliciting and
addressing pedestrian security/safety concerns. Costs are similar to that of bicycling
and are generally associated with program expenses and facility improvements.
Park & Ride Lots
Park and ride lots are effective for communities with substantial suburb to downtown
commute patterns. Park and ride consists of parking facilities at transit stations, bus
stops and highway on ramps, particularly at the urban fringe, to facilitate transit and
rideshare use. Parking is generally free or significantly less expensive than in urban
centers. Costs are primarily associated with facility construction and operation.
Car Sharing
Car sharing is a demand reducing technique that allows families within a
neighborhood to reduce the number of cars they own and share a vehicle for the
limited times when an additional vehicle is absolutely essential. Costs are primarily
related to creation, startup and administrative costs of a car sharing organization.
Traditional Transit
Traditional transit service is an effective TDM strategy, especially in a highly urban
environment. Several methods to increase transit usage within the community are to
improve overall transit service (including more service, faster service and more
comfortable service), reduce fares and offer discounts (such as lower rates for off-
peak travel times, or for certain groups), and improved rider information and
marketing programs. The costs of providing transit depend on many factors,
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 10: Miscellaneous Transportation System Considerations
Page 10-10 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
including the type of transit service, traffic conditions and ridership. Transit service is
generally subsidized, but these subsidies decline with increased ridership because
transit services tend to experience economies of scale (a 10% increase in capacity
generally increases costs by less than 10%). TDM strategies that encourage increased
ridership can be very cost effective. These strategies may include offering bicycle
carrying components on the transit vehicle, changing schedules to complement
adjacent industries, etc.
Express Bus Service
Express bus service as a TDM strategy has been used by larger cities in the nation as a
means to change driver vehicle characteristics. The use of an express bus service is
founded on the idea that service between two points of travel can either be done
faster or equal to the private automobile (or a conventional bus service that is not
“express”).
Installing/Increasing Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
The use of ITS (Intelligent Transportation System) methods to alert motorists of
disruptions to the transportation system will be well received by the transportation
users, and are highly effective tools for managing transportation demands.
Ramp Metering
Ramp metering has been used by some communities and consists of providing a
modified traffic signal at on ramps to interstate highway facilities. The use of this
TDM strategy would not be applicable to the Bozeman area.
Traffic Calming
Traffic Calming (also called Traffic Management) refers to various design features
and strategies intended to reduce vehicle traffic speeds and volumes on a particular
roadway. Traffic Calming projects can range from minor modifications of an
individual street to comprehensive redesign of a road network. Traffic Calming can
be an effective TDM strategy in that its use can alter and/or deter driver
characteristics by forcing the driver to either use a different route or to use an
alternative type of transportation (such as transit, bicycling, walking, etc.). Costs of
this TDM strategy include construction expenses, problems for emergency and
service vehicles, potential increase in drivers’ effort and frustration, and potential
problems for bicyclists and visually impaired pedestrians. Refer to Chapter 8 for a
discussion on traffic calming measures.
Identifying and Using Special Routes and Detours for Emergencies or
Special Events
This type of TDM strategy centers around modifications to driver patterns during
special events or emergencies. They can typically be completed with intensive
temporary signing or traffic control personnel. Temporary traffic control via signs
and flaggers could be implemented to provide a swift and safe exit after applicable
events.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 10: Miscellaneous Transportation System Considerations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 10-11
Linked Trips
This strategy entails combining trips into a logical sequence that reduces the total
miles driven on the surrounding transportation system. These trips are generated by
associated facilities within a mixed-use development or within an area of the
community where adjacent land uses are varied and offer services that would limit
the need to travel large distances on the transportation system.
Pay for Parking at Work Sites (outside the downtown area)
TDM measures involving “paying for parking” outside the downtown area or at
employers or paying more for single occupant vehicles can be regarded by those
impacted as Draconian.
Higher Parking Costs for Single Occupant Vehicles (SOV)
Intuitively, free parking provided by employers is a tremendous incentive for driving
alone. If the driver of a SOV is not penalized in some form, there is no perceived
reason not to drive to the workplace. One way to counter this reality is to charge a
higher price for parking for the SOV user. This implementation is not likely to have
much of an impact to the frequency of SOV users on the transportation system.
Preferential Parking for Rideshare/Carpool/Vanpools
This concept ties into the discussion above regarding parking of the SOV user.
Preferential parking, such as delineating spaces closer to an office for riders sharing
their commute or reduced/free parking, can be an effective TDM strategy.
Subsidized Transit by Employers
A subsidized transit program, typically offered by employers to their employees,
consists of the employer either reimbursing or paying for transit services in full as a
benefit to the employee. This usually comes in the form of a monthly or annual
transit pass. Studies show that once a pass is received by an employee, the tendency
to use the system rises dramatically.
Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) Programs for Transit Riders
The guaranteeing of a ride home for transit users is a wise choice for all transit
systems, since it gives the users a measure of calm knowing that they will be able to
get home. A GRH program provides an occasional subsidized ride to commuters
who use alternative modes, for example, if a bus rider must return home in an
emergency, or a car pooler must stay at work later than expected. This addresses a
common objection to the use of alternative modes. GRH programs may use taxies,
company vehicles or rental cars. GRH trips may be free or they may require a modest
co-payment. The cost of offering this service tends to be low because it is seldom
actually used.
Mandatory TDM Measures for Large Employers
Some communities encourage large employers (typically with at least 50 to 100
employees) to mandate TDM strategies for their employees. This is a control that can
be required by local governments on developers, employers, or building managers.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 10: Miscellaneous Transportation System Considerations
Page 10-12 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
The regulatory agencies often times provide incentives for large employers to make
TDM strategies more appealing, such as reduced transit fares, preferred parking, etc.
Required Densification / Mixed Use Elements for New Developments
Requiring new developments to be dense and contain mixed-use elements will
ensure that these developments are urban in character and have some services that
can be reached by biking, walking or using other non-automobile methods. This also
relates to the concept of “linked” or “shared” trips presented later in this chapter. As
new developments are proposed, local and regional planners have the opportunity to
dictate responsible and effective land use to encourage “shared” trips and reduce
impacts to the surrounding transportation system.
Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) refers to residential and commercial areas
designed to maximize access by transit and non-motorized transportation, and with
other features to encourage transit ridership. A TOD usually consists of a
neighborhood with a rail or bus station, surrounded by relatively high-density
development, with progressively lower-density spreading outwards. Transit
Oriented Development generally requires about seven residential units per acre in
residential areas and twenty-five employees per acre in commercial centers to
adequately justify transit ridership. Transit ridership is also affected by factors such
as employment density and clustering, demographic mix (students, seniors and
lower-income people tend to be heavy transit users), transit pricing and rider
subsidies, and the quality of transit service. This type of development could
potentially work well within Bozeman and its outlying areas as development occurs.
Features could be built into a given development to encourage transit use from the
start, and at the same time could be incorporated into the funding source available to
Streamline to help offset costs associated with new service.
Alternating Directions of Travel Lanes
This method of TDM is similar to that of Traffic Calming in that it strives to change
driver characteristics and possibly enable users of the system to try different modes
of travel. It also can serve to relieve a corridor during particularly heavy times of the
day.
By capitalizing on the use of these options, the existing vehicular infrastructure can be made
to function at acceptable levels of service for a longer period of time. Ultimately, this will
result in lower per year costs for infrastructure replacement and expansion projects, not to
mention less disruption to the users of the transportation system.
While some of these options may work well in the Bozeman area, it is clear that some may be
inappropriate. Additionally, some of these options are more effective than others. To
provide a TDM system that is effective in managing demand, a combination of these
methods will be necessary.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 10: Miscellaneous Transportation System Considerations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 10-13
10.4.3 Effectiveness of TDM Strategies
The measure of effectiveness of TDM strategies can be done using several different methods
such as cost, usage, or those listed below:
Reduced traffic during commute times;
Reduced or stable peak hour traffic volumes;
Increased commuter traffic at off peak times;
Increased use of modes other than single occupant vehicles;
Increased use of designated routes during emergencies or special events;
Eased use of the transportation system by tourists or others unfamiliar with the
system;
Reduced travel time during peak hours; and/or
Fewer crashes during peak hours.
In order to provide a TDM system that will address the needs of the Bozeman area, the
elements of the system must be acceptable to the general population. If elements are
proposed which are not acceptable, the TDM system goals will not be reached. However, it
is also important to keep in mind the cost of implementing TDM measures.
Table 10-3 presents available TDM measures and ranks them by the likeliness of being
accepted and implemented within the Bozeman area. A rank of “3” indicates that the
measure has a high likelihood of being successfully implemented, a rank of “2” indicates that
the measure would have more difficulty being accepted or implemented and a rank of “1”
indicates that this measure would either be difficult to implement, or is inappropriate for the
community at this time. This ranking system is based on input from public meetings, as well
as consultant knowledge and experience. It is not survey based.
The measures which could best be adopted and accepted by area residents are those which
allow greater flexibility in work hours, changing modes of transportation, or address
specific, time-limited situations. Note that is envisioned that the most successful programs
are “employer based”, which necessitates a great deal of cooperation amongst the area
employers most affected by modified work schedules and other potential TDM programs.
Those measures that would not be used in the planning area generally address issues not
present in our community, such as significant commuting from a suburb. If such a problem
existed, park and ride lots could be installed to address it. Travel characteristics in Montana
are heavily dependent on population densities, distances to services (retail, medical, etc.),
and locations of major employment centers. Often times travel distances are longer than
what would be encountered in a larger urban area. Due to this nature of travel in Montana,
private automobiles are unlikely to be replaced by other modes of travel until a change in
technology occurs which allows travel by a mode that has the same flexibility of the
automobile.
TDM strategies can be applied to specific events. If an event occurs on a regular basis which
can be planned for, steps can be taken to manage the demands made on the transportation
system.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 10: Miscellaneous Transportation System Considerations
Page 10-14 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Table 10-3
TDM Measures Ranked by Anticipated Usability
Strategy Rank
Alternating directions of travel lanes 1
Alternate work schedule 3
Bicycling 2
Car sharing 1
Compressed work week 3
Express bus service 1
Flextime 3
Guaranteed ride home program 2
Higher parking costs for single occupant vehicles 1
Identifying routes for emergencies or special events 3
Installing / increasing Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) 2
Linked trips 3
Mandatory TDM measures for large employers 1
Park & Ride Lots 1
Pay for parking at work sites (outside the downtown area) 1
Preferential parking for rideshare/carpool/vanpools 1
Ramp metering 1
Required densification / mixed use elements for new developments 2
Ride sharing (carpooling) 2
Subsidized transit by employers 2
Telecommuting 2
Traffic Calming 3
Transit Oriented Development 2
Use of Streamline (Transit) 2
Vanpooling 1
Walking 2
A combination of methods is the most effective in reducing demand. The next step in the
process is to prioritize these strategies to determine community preferences, and begin to
develop packages of TDM strategies. These preferences and strategies can be analyzed to
determine their impact on reducing trips. In order to prioritize the strategies, several
questions must be answered relating to applicability, cost effectiveness, and community
support. Using national experience as a basis, the strategies are classified according to their
cost effectiveness as follows:
The Most Cost Effective TDM Strategies
Financial Incentives (commuter subsidies for not driving alone)
Financial Disincentives (e.g., parking tax or charges)
Bicycle and Walking Programs, Facilities and Subsidies
Parking Management (i.e., reducing the supply of available parking)
Thus, pricing, parking and provision of non-motorized options are among the most
cost effective (greatest trip reduction impact at the lowest cost) alternatives. Taxes
and/or charges for parking are among the least popular strategies, but most effective
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 10: Miscellaneous Transportation System Considerations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 10-15
and cost-effective because they can immediately change travel behavior, and can be
revenue neutral or even generate revenue to fund improved travel alternatives.
Moderately Cost Effective TDM Strategies
Compressed Work Weeks (e.g., 4/40 schedules)
Telecommuting
Car Pool and Van Pool Programs
Compressed workweeks and telecommuting are among the most popular strategies
with commuters because they offer employees more time at home. However, these
strategies can be costly to employers because they involve a change in the basic
operating policies of the work site. Car pool and van pool programs are also less cost
effective because they generally only involve improved information on these travel
alternatives (e.g., ride-matching computer systems, marketing campaigns, etc.).
These programs can be expensive to manage and produce limited impact without
supportive incentives or disincentives.
Cost Ineffective TDM Strategies
TDM Marketing Programs (without incentives)
Shuttles (for commuters, lunchtime travelers, etc.)
Transit Service Improvements (without incentives)
Shuttles that connect employment sites to retail areas are often cited as necessary to
allow ride sharers to get around midday without their cars. However, most shuttle
programs of this type exhibit very low ridership and very high per rider cost. That is
not to say all shuttles, such as student/campus shuttles, are ineffective. Likewise,
transit service improvements can be very expensive and ineffective if incentives are
not in place.
Cost Effectiveness Unknown
TDM Friendly Land Use Policies
TDM Strategies Applied to Non-Commute Travel
While some early evidence suggests that transit-oriented, bicycle-oriented, and
pedestrian-oriented developments are effective in increasing the use of these modes
at new residential, commercial and office sites, the cost effectiveness of these
strategies is still somewhat unknown. One study in southern California showed that
employers who combined financial incentives with an aesthetically pleasing work site
exhibited trip reduction results 10 percent higher than those without these two
critical strategies.
Finally, the application of TDM strategies to non-commute trips is somewhat problematic. In
the Bozeman area, commute (home-base work) trips account for most all of the travel in the
region. On the one hand, school, shopping, recreational and other trips most likely exhibit
higher auto occupancy rates. This makes sense when one considers the amount of natural car
pooling that occurs to schools, to the store, to restaurants, etc. However, many TDM
strategies cannot be applied to these other travel markets. For example, one cannot really
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 10: Miscellaneous Transportation System Considerations
Page 10-16 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
telecommute to the store. Other TDM strategies, such as parking taxes and bicycle
improvements, can influence all travel markets.
Employer and Area-wide TDM Strategies - A range of employer-based and area-wide
strategies can be considered. These strategies include the following:
Minimal Voluntary Ride-sharing Program: assuming voluntary participation among
employers (a low proportion of whom are implementing programs), this program
includes support of car pools, van pools and transit, as well as preferential parking
for car pools and van pools.
Maximum Voluntary Ride-sharing Program: still assuming low participation among
employers, this program includes additional support, such as significant alternative
work arrangements (compressed workweeks and telecommuting), preferential
parking, and direct financial subsidies to car poolers, van poolers, and transit riders
($0.50 per day).
Voluntary Alternative Work Arrangement Program: again assuming voluntary
participation among the region’s employers, this program involves offering 30
percent of all employees compressed work weeks and giving another 25 percent the
option of telecommuting (acknowledging that only about 20 percent of eligible
employees will choose to do so).
Trip Reduction Ordinance: this type of employer-based program would mandate all
employers to implement the maximum ride-sharing program outlined above.
Voluntary Ride-sharing plus Transit Service Improvements: a voluntary ride-
sharing program for employers with area-wide improvements to transit service such
as frequency and coverage increases, and preferential treatment to expedite bus run
times.
Voluntary Ride-sharing plus Transit Improvements and a Parking Tax: a voluntary
employer program and transit service improvements with a $1 per day parking tax
on all public and private parking spaces (non-residential).
Developer-based Ride-sharing Requirements: new developments would be
required to implement a moderate ride-sharing program (moderate support,
preferential parking, alternative work arrangements, and subsidies), and site design
improvements that are conducive to TDM (such as transit shelters, bicycle storage,
etc.).
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 10: Miscellaneous Transportation System Considerations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 10-17
10.4.4 Conclusions Based on Preliminary TDM evaluation for the Bozeman Area
The object of this analysis is to provide the planners and policy-makers in the greater
Bozeman area with a range of TDM programs, strategies and estimated impacts in terms of
reducing traffic. The intent of the information provided is to assist in facilitating a consensus
on the preferred TDM program to be included in the Plan update. The following overall
conclusions are offered:
Employer-based programs will have limited long-term impacts. Alone, these
programs do not sufficiently reduce regional traffic volumes. This is because the
Bozeman area is comprised of relatively small employers that are generally less
effective in facilitating commute alternatives. The exception to this is MSU, which
would likely realize a greater impact from employer-based strategies given its control
over key travel variables, notably parking.
Employer programs should be considered as an interim step. Even though
employer programs are less effective due to the employment composition of the
Bozeman area, a voluntary program, focused on the downtown and MSU should be
considered. A demonstration program would provide local planners and policy-
makers with valuable information on the specific strategies and marketing techniques
to encourage commute alternatives. Unlike efforts aimed at the general population,
the program should target large employers and work through appointed and
dedicated coordinators. The program should be launched by local government (City
and County) employers, and might involve the formation of a Transportation
Management Association (TMA). Flextime among large employers and MSU should
also be tested.
Transit service improvements would have limited impacts. The transit service
improvements (increased coverage and frequency, faster running times, etc.), will not
likely yield significant trip reduction impacts on a regional basis. However, when
applied to the downtown and MSU areas, with heavier concentrations of commuter
and student trips, the results may be more encouraging.
Land use and non-motorized TDM strategies can be effective. The implementation
of land use policies that are TDM-friendly, combined with improvements to bicycle
and pedestrian facilities, can impact all types of travel. The potential impact of these
strategies may be greater in the long run than traditional employer-based TDM
measures. These measures, considered alone, could reduce vehicle trips and vehicle
miles traveled (VMT), although the impacts may be somewhat weather-dependent.
Area-wide pricing strategies are the most effective strategy. While politically
among the least popular measures, the fact remains that financial incentives and
disincentives, especially area-wide parking pricing strategies, are the most effective
techniques for reducing trips and encouraging travelers to use alternative modes of
transportation and times of day. A regional parking tax could significantly reduce
trips and VMT.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 10: Miscellaneous Transportation System Considerations
Page 10-18 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
A range of regional impacts is possible from TDM. The impacts presented here
range from a low reduction in trips (for a voluntary ride-sharing program), to a
theoretical maximum trip reduction of 25 percent (for a combination of all strategies).
However, the results possible in the Bozeman area are highly dependent on the
community support for changing travel behavior. The maximum impact is based on
a combination of programs that has not, to date, been implemented anywhere in the
U.S.
The steps in incorporating TDM into the Transportation Plan involve the selection of a
preferred set of TDM strategies, and then the specification of a recommended short- and
long- run TDM program for the Bozeman area. The choices for the preferred TDM program
generally involved the following elements, alone or in combination:
developer requirements (new employment);
trip reduction ordinance (all employers);
transit service improvements;
voluntary employer program;
parking fees or taxes;
TDM-friendly land use policies; and
bicycle and pedestrian facility and program improvements.
It is recommended that the preferred TDM program consists of four principle TDM program
elements:
1) a voluntary employer program;
2) an enhanced bicycle and pedestrian program;
3) an improved transit system; and
4) modified land use policies to encourage TDM.
Each is discussed in more detail in the next subsection. It is believed that the non-motorized
strategies offer the potential for reducing a significant number of trips in a cost-effective
manner, and that a voluntary employer program is a good short-term objective. The belief is
that the land use policy initiative would address necessary long-term measures.
It is also believed that several TDM strategies should be rejected outright as being infeasible
or unacceptable. These include parking pricing and any type of mandatory requirements on
employers and developers. The Montana Department of Transportation has developed a
Montana specific “TDM Toolbox”. In evaluating local options for TDM it is suggested to
look for programs and alternatives that have been successfully implemented in Montana.
10.4.5 Recommended TDM Program
Based on the preferred TDM strategies described above, a short- and long-range TDM
program can be outlined for the Bozeman area. This program description is not intended as
a fully articulated plan for implementing TDM strategies over the next 20 years; rather it is
intended as a framework from which to develop such a plan. As mentioned above, the plan
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 10: Miscellaneous Transportation System Considerations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 10-19
should have at least two distinct time frames, or perhaps three: a short-range plan (1 to 3
years); a medium-range plan (5 to 10 years); and possibly a long-range plan (10 to 20 years).
Short-Range TDM Program: Maximize Volunteerism (1 to 3 years)
A program could be developed with the following components:
Voluntary Employer Cooperative Program: With the assistance of the City,
County, MSU, and a select group of other major employers, form a business
cooperative to explore the implementation of TDM programs within each
organization. This might involve a pilot program, whereby the City would
work with several existing and new employer programs to test and evaluate
employee acceptance and the effectiveness of various TDM strategies. The
impetus for business involvement should not only be traffic congestion and
air quality; rather TDM should be sold as a good business practice that
benefits participants by solving site access problems, assisting with employee
recruitment or retention, and providing additional employee benefits.
Small Employer TDM Program: The Bozeman area has a very large
proportion of employers with less than 50 employees, most of which with less
than ten employees. This clearly affects the ability to group employees into
car pools, but does not preclude the use of transit, bicycling, walking, or even
alternative work arrangements (e.g., 4/40 schedules and telecommuting).
While the small employer market has been a difficult one for the TDM
profession to tackle, some techniques, including multi-tenant-building
campaigns, can be effective.
Education on Smart Trip-making: Since the employer elements of the
program only effect commute trips and some student trips, an aggressive
educational campaign to combine or avoid other types of trips could be
implemented. This would be designed to reduce VMT and cold starts by
encouraging residents to combine trips (e.g., to drop off school children and
shop at the grocery store), or to avoid trips by using the telephone, computer
or televisions to access information and services.
Flex-time and Staggered Shifts at Largest Employment Sites: Changing the
arrival and departure times of commuters and students can be a very effective
way to alleviate peak period, localized traffic congestion. While these
strategies do not reduce trips or VMT (and therefore, do not have an air
quality benefit), they tend to be very effective in University communities.
While many employers in the greater Bozeman area already have informal
flexible schedules, the formalization of flex-time and staggered hours among
employers, at places like MSU, and the City and County, could go a long way
to reduce congestion around these sites and on heavily congested corridors.
Enhanced Bicycle/Pedestrian Program: Given that the greatest TDM impacts
are anticipated to be derived from the enhanced non-motorized program,
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 10: Miscellaneous Transportation System Considerations
Page 10-20 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
implementation of three related program elements should be initiated. First, a
bicycle and pedestrian system improvement program should be implemented
on an aggressive schedule. Second, non-motorized information should be
produced and distributed to reflect these new facilities on an ongoing basis.
As the bicycle and pedestrian systems are improved and connectivity
enhanced, marketing of the program should reflect the ease at which travelers
can get around on foot or by pedal. Finally, as part of the employer pilot
programs, financial subsidies for non-motorized modes should be
encouraged.
Medium-Range TDM Program: Land Use and Non-Motorized (5 to 10 years)
The TDM program for the medium-range future--five to ten years from now--should
build upon the short-range program, and initiate strategies that have a longer-range
impact, such as land use policies. These strategies include:
Expansion of Employer Cooperative Program into TMA: Based on the
experience of the trial period of the business cooperative program, additional
employers and organizations should be recruited to participate in the
program. If the cooperative program is successful (demonstrating the interest
and commitment of the involved organizations), the effort could be expanded
into a Transportation Management Association (TMA). The TMA could
relieve the City from the day-to-day responsibilities of operating the program,
and provide additional focus and resolve to the efforts.
Continued Implementation of the Bicycle/Pedestrian/Transit Program:
Those projects programmed for implementation in five to ten years should be
completed. Then the supporting information and incentive elements, as
developed, could be continued to assure that maximum use and benefits are
derived from the capital investment.
Land Use Policies and Practices Supportive of TDM: The relationship
between land use policies and travel behavior cannot be overstated.
Modifying existing land use policies and practices, to be more TDM-friendly,
could be very effective as a long-term solution. Supportive land use policies
include:
o Parking maximums - reduced parking requirements to encourage the
implementation of TDM measures and parking supply management.
o Shared parking - allowing two different and adjacent land uses (e.g.,
office building and movie theaters), to build and manage shared
parking that is less than that required of each site.
o Density bonuses - in certain areas, densification and mixed uses can
reduce overall trip generation rates, and make shared ride and transit
options more effective.
o In-filling - by allowing residential development close to downtown
and major employment areas, the ability of residents to bicycle, walk,
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 10: Miscellaneous Transportation System Considerations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 10-21
or use transit to commute is enhanced. Other growth management
techniques, as suggested in the new growth management plan, could
also be supportive of TDM.
o Site design guidelines - as described below, a number of TDM-
friendly site design practices can be incorporated into the development
review process, as either a comprehensive policy or on a case-by-case
basis for zoning variances.
TDM-friendly Site Design Features: As mentioned above, site design
features that are supportive of TDM programs can be incorporated into site
plans, and required or negotiated as part of the review process. This is a very
common practice throughout the U.S. and has already been used on a limited
basis in Montana. Such features should be considered for growing areas. An
illustrative list of some site design features includes:
o provision for bus shelters and information kiosks;
o allowance for van pools in any downtown or MSU parking lots;
o secure and safe bicycle storage at employment, school and retail
locations;
o showers and lockers for bicyclist and walkers at large employment
sites; and
o pedestrian system connectivity with adjacent sites and other paths.
Long-Range TDM Program: Contingency Measures (10 to 20 years)
The final element of the Bozeman area TDM program should be long-range
contingency measures to address traffic problems (e.g., congestion, accessibility,
mobility or air quality), become untenable. Should air quality or traffic congestion
levels reach intolerable levels, the Bozeman area could revisit the analyses made as
part of the 20-year plan. This would include investigating the need to implement
more stringent, but less popular measures, such as parking pricing and mandatory
TDM programs. While not a recommendation of this Plan, the possibility of needing
more aggressive TDM measures, should the short- and medium-range programs fall
short of expectations, should not be totally ignored.
Clearly TDM has an important place in the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007
Update). However, the voluntary employer programs, bicycle/pedestrian improvements,
transit system development and land use strategies are insufficient to completely avoid the
need for key roadway capacity expansion projects, but may help defer the need for
construction for a period of time. The highest priority should be the implementation of the
non-motorized improvements; but even a modest reduction in vehicle trips during certain
times of the year would avoid the need for certain capacity enhancements. Supportive of
congestion relief, air quality improvement and regional mobility goals, TDM should be
implemented on an incremental basis to test and evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability
of the strategies analyzed in this Plan. Several short-term TDM program elements have been
suggested that are relatively low-cost and readily available. The Bozeman area should strive
to build more local experience with TDM programs by developing a detailed short-range
plan and pilot program, and then revisiting that plan in three to five years.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 10: Miscellaneous Transportation System Considerations
Page 10-22 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
10.5 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY (TIS) PREPARATION GUIDELINES
The following guidelines describe the elements required (at a minimum) for preparing a
Traffic Impact Study and provide for the consistent preparation of these studies throughout
the community. The purpose of a Traffic Impact Study is to: ensure that the proposed
developments do not adversely affect the transportation network; identify any traffic
problems related to the development; to develop solutions to the potential problems; and
present improvements to be included in the proposed development.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This section of the Traffic Impact Study should include the location of the development site
and a detailed description of the proposed development. The description should include the
existing and proposed uses of the site, size of the proposed development, general terrain
features, access to the site, and anticipated completion date of the development (including
phasing). This will include the square footage of each use or number of units proposed.
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section of the Traffic Impact Study should include discussion about the existing
roadways, traffic data collected for the development, and a level of service analysis.
2.1 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
The Traffic Impact Study must identify existing conditions in the vicinity of the
proposed development. This should include the geometric data (number of lanes,
intersection configurations, etc.), traffic controls, and traffic volumes for the impacted
roadways. The study area should include all roadways that are expected to be
impacted by the development.
2.2 TRAFFIC DATA COLLECTION
In order to determine the existing traffic demands within the study area, average
daily traffic count data and manual turning movement count data should be
collected. If possible, speed data and vehicle classification data should be collected as
well.
Manual turning movement counts should be collected at the study area intersections
during peak hours (7:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.) on a Tuesday,
Wednesday, or Thursday during weeks which have no holidays. Off-peak time
periods may be analyzed based on the proposed development type (school, shopping
centers, theaters, etc.).
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 10: Miscellaneous Transportation System Considerations
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 10-23
2.3 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
Based on the traffic data collected, the level of service for these intersections should
be determined according to the procedures outlined in the Transportation Research
Boards’ Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and the Highway Capacity Software
(HCS). Level of Service provides a means for identifying intersections that are
experiencing operational difficulties, as well as providing a scale to compare
intersections with each other. The level of service scale represents the full range of
operating conditions. The scale is based on the ability of an intersection to
accommodate the amount of traffic using it. The scale ranges from “A” which
indicates little, if any, vehicle delay, to “F” which indicates significant vehicle delay
and traffic congestion.
This section should analyze the current traffic conditions in the study area and
should identify any mitigation measures necessary prior to the development to
achieve proper LOS and function of the transportation system.
Figures to be included in this section include:
Vicinity Map
Existing AM peak hour volumes
Existing PM peak hour volumes
Existing AADT traffic volumes
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
An analysis of the study area should be conducted using anticipated (future) traffic volumes
without the proposed development. Future daily and peak hour traffic volumes should be
developed for the study area. The method and assumptions should be documented clearly
so calculations are easy to follow and replicated if necessary. Any known future
developments expected to affect the study area should also be addressed in this section.
Figures to be included in this section include:
Development site plan
Future AM peak hour volumes (without development)
Future PM peak hour volumes (without development)
Future AADT traffic volumes (without development)
4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
This section discusses the proposed development characteristics and determines the number
of additional trips and distribution that are expected to occur as a result of the development.
4.1 TRIP GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS
A trip generation analysis should be performed to determine future traffic volumes
attributable to the proposed development in the study area using the Institute of
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 10: Miscellaneous Transportation System Considerations
Page 10-24 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. This analysis establishes the
number of trip rates generated by the proposed development.
4.2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
Traffic generated by the proposed development must be distributed and assigned to
the roadway network. This distribution will determine the extent of the
development’s impacts on the surrounding roadways.
Figures to be included in this section include:
Trip distribution percentages on the surrounding network
Estimated AM peak hour volumes generated by the development
Estimated PM peak hour volumes generated by the development
5.0 TRAFFIC IMPACTS WITH DEVELOPMENT
This section looks at the potential impact that the development will have on the
transportation system. Using the trip generation and distribution rates determined in
Section 4.0 and applying those trips to the future network discussed in Section 3.0, the
future conditions of the transportation system can be analyzed. An intersection and corridor
analysis should be completed to determine the future LOS and to determine if any mitigation
measure are necessary.
Any mitigation measures that may be required due to the additional trips from development
should be discussed. An analysis of the mitigated transportation system should then be
completed to show how the system is expected to perform after the mitigation measures
have been put in place.
Figures to be included in this section include:
Future AM peak hour volumes (with development)
Future PM peak hour volumes (with development)
Future AADT traffic volumes (with development)
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations for improvements needed to remedy deficiencies in the network caused
by the proposed development should be discussed in detail. These recommendations should
be provided to help ensure that the proposed development functions with the surrounding
area.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS
The conclusion of a Traffic Impact Study should be a clear description of the study findings
including a reiteration of any recommendations being made as part of the study.
CHAPTER 11
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 11: Financial Analysis
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 11-1
11.1 BACKGROUND
The previous chapters of this Plan identified problems with the transportation system and
recommended appropriate corrective measures. This chapter focuses on the financial
mechanisms that are traditionally used to finance transportation improvements.
Transportation improvements can be implemented using federal, state, local and private
funding sources. Considering the current funding limits of these traditional programs, and
the anticipated road development needs of the community, it is apparent that a greater
amount of the financing will be required from local and private sources if these needs are to
be met.
Much of the following information concerning the federal and state funding programs was
assembled with the assistance of the Statewide and Urban Planning Section of the Montana
Department of Transportation (MDT). The intent is to identify the traditional federal, state
and local sources of funds available for funding transportation related projects and programs
in the Greater Bozeman Area. A narrative description of each potential funding source is
provided including: the source of revenue; required match; purpose for which funds are
intended; means by which the funds are distributed; and the agency or jurisdiction
responsible for establishing priorities for the use of the funds.
11.2 FUNDING SOURCES
The following list includes federal and state funding sources developed for the distribution
of Federal and State transportation funding. This includes Federal funds the State receives
under Federal Transportation Legislation and State law.
Federal Funding Sources
Interstate Maintenance (IM)
National Highway System (NHS)
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
o Primary Highway System (STPP)*
o Secondary Highway System (STPS)*
o Urban Highway System (STPU)*
o Community Transportation Enhancement Program (CTEP)*
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
o High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRR)
Highway – Railway Crossing Program (RRX)
Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP)
o On-System Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program
o Off-System Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program
Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)
o CMAQ (formula)
o Montana Air & Congestion Initiative (MACI)–Guaranteed Program (flexible)*
o Montana Air & Congestion Initiative (MACI)–Discretionary Program (flexible)*
o Urban High Growth Adjustment (flexible)*
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 11: Financial Analysis
Page 11-2 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Urban Highway Preservation (UHP) (Equity Bonus)*
Safe Routes To School (SRTS)
Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP)
o Public Lands Highways (PLH)
o Parkways and Park Roads
o Indian Reservation Roads (IRR)
o Refuge Roads
Congressionally Directed Funds
o High Priority Projects (HPP)
o Transportation Improvements Projects
Transit Capital & Operating Assistance Funding
o Discretionary Grants (Section 5309)
o Capital Assistance for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities (Section 5310)
o Financial Assistance for Rural General Public Providers (Section 5311)
o New Freedoms Program (5317)
o Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) (5316)
State Funding Sources
State Funded Construction (SFC)
TransADE
11.3 FEDERAL AID FUNDING SOURCES
The following summary of major Federal transportation funding categories received by the
State through the Federal Transportation Legislation and State law includes state developed
implementation/sub-programs. In order to receive project funding under these programs,
projects must be included in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
Interstate Maintenance (IM)
Interstate Maintenance (IM) funds are Federally apportioned to Montana and allocated
based on system performance by the Montana Transportation Commission. The
Commission approves and awards projects for improvements on the Interstate Highway
System which are let through a competitive bidding process. The Federal share for IM
projects is 91.24% and the State is responsible for 8.76%.
National Highway System (NHS)
The purpose of the National Highway System (NHS) is to provide an interconnected system
of principal arterial routes which will serve major population centers, international border
crossings, intermodal transportation facilities and other major travel destinations; meet
national defense requirements; and serve interstate and interregional travel. The National
Highway System includes all Interstate routes, a large percentage of urban and rural
principal arterials, the defense strategic highway network, and strategic highway connectors.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 11: Financial Analysis
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 11-3
Allocations and Matching Requirements
NHS funds are Federally apportioned to Montana and allocated based on system
performance by the Montana Transportation Commission. The Federal share for NHS
projects is 86.58% and the State is responsible for the remaining 13.42%. The State share is
funded through the Highway State Special Revenue Account.
Eligibility and Planning Considerations
Activities eligible for the National Highway System funding include construction,
reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation of segments of the NHS.
Operational improvements as well as highway safety improvements are also eligible. Other
miscellaneous activities that may qualify for NHS funding include research, planning,
carpool projects, bikeways, and pedestrian walkways. The Transportation Commission
establishes priorities for the use of National Highway System funds and projects are let
through a competitive bidding process.
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds are Federally apportioned to Montana and
allocated by the Montana Transportation Commission to various programs including the
Surface Transportation Program Primary Highways (STPP), Surface Transportation Program
Secondary Highways (STPS), and the Surface Transportation Program Urban Highways
(STPU).
o Primary Highway System (STPP)*
The Federal and State funds available under this program are used to finance
transportation projects on the state-designated Primary Highway System. The
Primary Highway System includes highways that have been functionally classified
by the MDT as either principal or minor arterials and that have been selected by the
Transportation Commission to be placed on the Primary Highway System [MCA 60-
2-125(3)].
Allocations and Matching Requirements
Primary funds are distributed statewide [MCA 60-3-205] to each of five financial
districts, including the Butte District. The Commission distributes STPP funding
based on system performance. Of the total received, 86.58% is Federal and 13.42% is
State funds from the Highway State Special Revenue Account.
Eligibility and Planning Considerations
Eligible activities include construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing,
restoration and operational improvements. The Transportation Commission
establishes priorities for the use of Primary funds and projects are let through a
competitive bidding process.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 11: Financial Analysis
Page 11-4 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
o Secondary Highway System (STPS)*
The Federal and State funds available under this program are used to finance
transportation projects on the state-designated Secondary Highway System. The
Secondary Highway System highways that have been functionally classified by the
MDT as either rural minor arterials or rural major collectors and that have been
selected by the Montana Transportation Commission in cooperation with the boards
of county commissioners, to be placed on the secondary highway system [MCA 60-2-
125(4)].
Allocations and Matching Requirements
Secondary funds are distributed statewide (MCA 60-3-206) to each of five financial
districts, including the Butte District, based on a formula, which takes into account
the land area, population, road mileage and bridge square footage. Federal funds for
secondary highways must be matched by non-federal funds. Of the total received
86.58% is Federal and 13.42 % is non-federal match. Normally, the match on these
funds is from the Highway State Special Revenue Account.
Eligibility and Planning Considerations
Eligible activities for the use of Secondary funds fall under three major types of
improvements: Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, and Pavement Preservation. The
Reconstruction and Rehabilitation categories are allocated a minimum of 65% of the
program funds with the remaining 35% dedicated to Pavement Preservation.
Secondary funds can also be used for any project that is eligible for STP under Title
23, U.S.C.
MDT and county commissions determine Secondary capital construction priorities
for each district with final project approval by the Transportation Commission. By
state law the individual counties in a district and the state vote on Secondary funding
priorities presented to the Commission. The Counties and MDT take the input from
citizens, small cities, and tribal governments during the annual priorities process.
Projects are let through a competitive bidding process.
o Urban Highway System (STPU)*
The Federal and State funds available under this program are used to finance
transportation projects on the state-designated Urban Highway System. The Urban
Highway System is described under MCA 60-2-125(6), as those highways and streets
that are in and near incorporated cities with populations of over 5,000 and within
urban boundaries established by the MDT, that have been functionally classified as
either urban arterials or collectors, and that have been selected by the Montana
Transportation Commission, in cooperation with local government authorities, to be
placed on the Urban Highway System.
Allocations and Matching Requirements
State law [MCA 60-3-211] guides the allocation of Urban funds to projects on the
Urban Highway System in the fifteen urban areas through a statutory formula based
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 11: Financial Analysis
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 11-5
on each area’s population compared to the total population in all urban areas. Of the
total received, 86.58% is Federal and 13.42% is non-federal match typically provided
from the Special State Revenue Account for highway projects.
Eligibility and Planning Considerations
Urban funds are used primarily for major street construction, reconstruction, and
traffic operation projects on the 390 miles on the State-designated Urban Highway
System, but can also be used for any project that is eligible for STP under Title 23,
U.S. C. Priorities for the use of Urban funds are established at the local level through
local planning processes with final approval by the Transportation Commission.
Because the Urban Highway System includes transportation infrastructure that
crosses the line between incorporated and unincorporated areas, it is important that
city and county governments work together to identify and address urban highway
needs. Consideration of cooperative efforts between city and county governments to
address urban highways (roads and bridges) should be incorporated into the
planning and implementation of the county CIP as appropriate.
Bozeman’s FFY 2008 urban funding balance is currently $3,336,806. The annual
allocation of urban funds for Bozeman is $805,177(total dollars, Federal plus State
match). It is anticipated the City of Bozeman will have a positive Urban funding
balance and be able to program a new project in 2009.
o Community Transportation Enhancement Program (CTEP)*
Federal law requires that at least 10% of STP funds must be spent on transportation
enhancement projects. The Montana Transportation Commission created the
Community Transportation Enhancement Program in cooperation with the Montana
Association of Counties (MACO) and the League of Cities and Towns to comply with
this Federal requirement.
Allocations and Matching Requirements
CTEP is a unique program that distributes funding to local and tribal governments
based on a population formula and provides project selection authority to local and
tribal governments. The Transportation Commission provides final approval to
CTEP projects within the State’s right-of-way. The Federal share for CTEP projects is
86.58% and the Local and tribal governments are responsible for the remaining
13.42%.
Eligibility and Planning Considerations
Eligible CTEP categories include:
Pedestrian and bicycle facilities
Historic preservation
Acquisition of scenic easements and historic or scenic sites
Archeological planning and research
Mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff or reduce vehicle-caused
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 11: Financial Analysis
Page 11-6 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity
Scenic or historic highway programs including provisions of tourist and
welcome center facilities
Landscaping and other scenic beautification
Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and
use for bicycle or pedestrian trails)
Control and removal of outdoor advertising
Establishment of transportation museums
Provisions of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists
Projects addressing these categories and that are linked to the transportation system
by proximity, function or impact, and where required, meet the “historic” criteria,
may be eligible for enhancement funding.
Projects must be submitted by the local government to the MDT, even when the
project has been developed by another organization or interest group. Project
proposals must include evidence of public involvement in the identification and
ranking of enhancement projects. Local governments are encouraged to use their
planning boards, where they exist, for the facilitation of public participation; or a
special enhancement committee. The MDT staff reviews each project proposal for
completeness and eligibility and submits them to the Transportation Commission
and the federal Highway Administration for approval.
The City of Bozeman has a current balance $128,780 and the estimated 2008 allocation
is $136,165 (Federal). Gallatin County is allocated approximately $162,681 annually
(Federal). There is currently a balance of $170,499 for this program. The balances
represent funds not obligated towards a selected project.
*State funding programs developed to distribute Federal funding within Montana
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
Allocations and Matching Requirements
HSIP is a new core funding program established by SAFETEA-LU. HSIP funds are Federally
apportioned to Montana and allocated to safety improvement projects identified in the
strategic highway safety improvement plan by the Commission. Projects described in the
State strategic highway safety plan must correct or improve a hazardous road location or
feature, or address a highway safety problem. The Commission approves and awards the
projects which are let through a competitive bidding process. Generally, the Federal share for
the HSIP projects is 91.24% and the State is responsible for 8.76%.
Eligibility and Planning Considerations
There are two set aside programs that receive HSIP funding: the Highway – Railway
Crossing Program and the High Risk Rural Roads Program.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 11: Financial Analysis
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 11-7
High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRR)
Funds are set aside from the Highway Safety Improvement Program funds apportioned to
Montana for construction and operational improvements on high-risk rural roads. These
funds are allocated to HRRRP projects by the Commission. If Montana certifies that it has
met all of the needs on high risk rural roads, these set aside funds may be used on any safety
improvement project under the HSIP. Montana’s set aside requirement for HRRRP is
approximately $700,000 per year.
Highway – Railway Crossing Program (RRX)
Funds are Federally apportioned to Montana and allocated by the Commission for projects
that will reduce the number of fatalities and injuries at public highway-rail grade crossings;
through the elimination of hazards and/or the installation/upgrade of protective devices.
Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP)
Allocations and Matching Requirements
HBRRP funds are Federally apportioned to Montana and allocated to two programs by the
Montana Transportation Commission. In general, projects are funded with 86.58% Federal
and the State is responsible for the remaining 13.42%. The State share is funded through the
Highway State Special Revenue Account. The Montana Transportation Commission
approves projects which are then let to contract through a competitive bidding process.
o On-System Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program
The On-System Bridge Program receives 65% percent of the Federal HBRRP funds.
Projects eligible for funding under the On-System Bridge Program include all
highway bridges on the State system. The bridges are eligible for rehabilitation or
replacement. In addition, painting and seismic retrofitting are also eligible under this
program. MDT’s Bridge Bureau assigns a priority for replacement or rehabilitation of
structurally deficient and functionally obsolete structures based upon sufficiency
ratings assigned to each bridge. A structurally deficient bridge is eligible for
rehabilitating or replacement; a functionally obsolete bridge is eligible only for
rehabilitation; and a bridge rated as sufficient is not eligible for funding under this
program.
o Off-System Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program
The Off-System Bridge Program receives 35% percent of the Federal HBRRP funds.
Projects eligible for funding under the Off-System Bridge Program include all
highway bridges not on the State system. Procedures for selecting bridges for
inclusion into this program are based on a ranking system that weighs various
elements of a structures condition and considers local priorities. MDT Bridge Bureau
personnel conduct a field inventory of off-system bridges on a two-year cycle. The
field inventory provides information used to calculate the Sufficiency Rating (SR).
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 11: Financial Analysis
Page 11-8 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)
Federal funds available under this program are used to finance transportation projects and
programs to help improve air quality and meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
Montana’s air pollution problems are attributed to carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate
matter (PM10 and PM2.5).
Allocations and Matching Requirements
CMAQ funds are Federally apportioned to Montana and allocated to various eligible
programs by formula and by the Commission. As a minimum apportionment state a
Federally required distribution of CMAQ funds goes to projects in Missoula since it is
Montana’s only designated and classified air quality non-attainment area. The remaining,
non-formula funds, referred to as “flexible CMAQ” is directed to areas of the state with
emerging air quality issues through various state programs. The Transportation
Commission approves and awards both formula and non-formula projects on MDT right-of-
way. Infrastructure and capital equipment projects are let through a competitive bidding
process. Of the total funding received, 86.58% is Federal and 13.42% is non-federal match
provided by the state for projects on state highways and local governments for local projects.
Eligibility and Planning Considerations
In general, eligible activities include transit improvements, traffic signal synchronization,
bicycle pedestrian projects, intersection improvements, travel demand management
strategies, traffic flow improvements, and public fleet conversions to cleaner fuels. At the
project level, the use of CMAQ funds is not constrained to a particular system (i.e. Primary,
Urban, and NHS). A requirement for the use of these funds is the estimation of the reduction
in pollutants resulting from implementing the program/project. These estimates are
reported yearly to FHWA.
o CMAQ (formula)
Mandatory CMAQ funds that come to Montana based on a Federal formula and are
directed to Missoula, Montana’s only classified, moderate CO non-attainment area.
Not applicable to Whitefish.
o Montana Air & Congestion Initiative (MACI)–Guaranteed Program (flexible)*
This is state program funded with flexible CMAQ funds that the Commission
allocates annually to Billings and Great Falls to address carbon monoxide issues in
these designated, but “not classified”, CO non-attainment areas. The air quality in
these cities is roughly equivalent to Missoula, however, since these cities are “not
classified” so they do not get direct funding through the Federal formula.
o Montana Air & Congestion Initiative (MACI)–Discretionary Program (flexible)*
The MACI – Discretionary Program provides funding for projects in areas designated
non-attainment or recognized as being “high-risk” for becoming non-attainment.
Since 1998, MDT has used MACI-Discretionary funds to get ahead of the curve for
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 11: Financial Analysis
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 11-9
CO and PM10 problems in non-attainment and high-risk communities across
Montana. District Administrators and local governments nominate projects
cooperatively. Projects are prioritized and selected based on air quality benefits and
other factors. The most beneficial projects to address these pollutants have been
sweepers and flushers, intersection improvements and signal synchronization
projects.
o Urban High Growth Adjustment (flexible)*
Urban High Growth Adjustment funds are distributed to urban areas in Montana
where population increased by more than 15% between the 1990 and 2000 censuses.
Kalispell, Bozeman, and Missoula are the areas currently eligible for funding through
this source. The intent of this funding is to address backlogged needs in these very
rapidly growing cities. Nominations for the use of these funds are established at the
local level similar to STPU funds. These funds may be spent on the Urban Highway
System for projects eligible for either STPU or CMAQ funds.
*State funding programs developed to distribute Federal funding within Montana
Urban Pavement Preservation (UPP) (Equity Bonus)*
The Urban Pavement Preservation Program is a state program that addresses urban highway
system preservation needs. The program is funded from federal Equity Bonus funds that are
appropriated to each State to ensure that each State receives a specific share of the aggregate
funding for major highway programs. The program funds cost-effective treatments for the
preservation of the existing Urban Highway System to prevent deterioration while
maintaining or improving the functional condition of the system without increasing
structural capacity.
Allocations and Matching Requirements
The Transportation Commission determines the annual funding level for this program for
preservation projects in the fifteen urban areas. Projects are funded with 86.58% Federal and
the State is responsible for the remaining 13.42%. The State share is funded through the
Highway State Special Revenue Account. The Montana Transportation Commission
approves projects which are then let to contract through a competitive bidding process.
Eligibility and Planning Considerations
Activities eligible for this funding include pavement preservation treatments on the Urban
Highway System based on needs identified through a locally developed and maintained
pavement management system. Priorities are developed by MDT Districts based on the local
pavement management system outputs and consideration of local government nominations
with final approval by the Transportation Commission. Projects are let through a
competitive bidding process.
*State funding programs developed to distribute Federal funding within Montana
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 11: Financial Analysis
Page 11-10 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Safe Routes To School (SRTS)
Allocations and Matching Requirements
Safe Routes To School funds are Federally apportioned to Montana for programs to develop
and promote a safe environment that will encourage children to walk and bicycle to school.
Montana is a minimum apportionment state, and will receive $1-million per year, subject to
the obligation limitation. The Federal share of this program is 100%.
Eligibility and Planning Considerations
Eligible activities for the use of SRTS funds fall under two major categories with 70%
directed to infrastructure improvements, and the remaining 30% for behavioral (education)
programs. Funding may be used within a two mile radius of K-8 schools for improvements
or programs that make it safer for kids to walk or bike to school. SRTS is a reimbursable
grant program and project selection is done through an annual application process. Eligible
applicants for infrastructure improvements include local governments and school districts.
Eligible applicants for behavioral programs include state, local and regional agencies, school
districts, private schools, non-profit organizations. Recipients of the funds will front the cost
of the project and will be reimbursed during the course of the project. For grant cycle
information visit: http://www.mdt.mt.gov/pubinvolve/saferoutes/
Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP)
FLHP is a coordinated Federal program that includes several funding categories; Bozeman is
eligible for some of these categories.
o Public Lands Highways (PLH)
Discretionary
The PLH Discretionary Program provides funding for projects on highways that are
within, adjacent to, or provide access to Federal public lands. As a discretionary
program, the project selection authority rests with the Secretary of Transportation.
However, this program has been earmarked by Congress under SAFETEA-LU. There
are no matching fund requirements.
Forest Highway
The Forest Highway Program provides funding to projects on routes that have been
officially designated as Forest Highways. Projects are selected through a cooperative
process involving FHWA, the US Forest Service and MDT. Projects are developed by
FHWA’s Western Federal Lands Office. There are no matching fund requirements.
o Parkways and Park Roads
Parkways and Park Roads funding is for National Park transportation planning
activities and projects involving highways under the jurisdiction of the National Park
Service. Projects are prioritized by the National Park Service and approved and
developed by FHWA’s Western Federal Lands Office. There are no matching fund
requirements.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 11: Financial Analysis
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 11-11
o Indian Reservation Roads (IRR)
IRR funding is eligible for multiple activities including transportation planning and
projects on roads or highways designated as Indian Reservation Roads. Funds are
distributed to Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) area offices in accordance with a Federal
formula and are then distributed to projects on individual reservations. Projects are
usually constructed by BIA forces. There are no matching fund requirements. Any
public road within or leading to a reservation is eligible for the Indian Reservation
Road funding. In practice, IRR funds are only rarely expended on state designated
roads. MDT staff is aware of only two secondary routes that have received IRR
funding support. These are S-418, Pryor Road, in the Crow Reservation; and S-234,
Taylor Hill Road, that leads to the Rocky Boy’s Reservation.
o Refuge Roads
Refuge Roads funding is eligible for maintenance and improvements of refuge roads,
rest areas, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Allocations are based on a long-range
transportation improvement program developed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
There are no matching fund requirements.
Congressionally Directed Funds
o High Priority Projects (HPP)
High Priority Projects are specific projects named to receive Federal funding in
SAFETEA-LU Section 1702. HPP funding authority is available until expended and
projects named in this section are included in Montana’s percent share of the Federal
highway funding program. The Montana Transportation Commission approves
projects which are then let to contract through a competitive bidding process. In
Montana, the Federal share payable for these projects is 86.58% Federal and 13.42%
non-Federal. Montana receives 20% of the total project funding named in each year
2006 thru 2009. These funds are subject to the obligation limitation.
o Transportation Improvements Projects
Transportation Improvement Projects are specific projects named to receive Federal
funding in SAFETEA-LU Section 1934. Transportation Improvement Project funding
authority is available until expended and projects named in this section are not
included in Montana’s percent share of the Federal highway funding program. The
Montana Transportation Commission approves projects which are then let to contract
through a competitive bidding process. In Montana, the Federal share payable on
these projects is 86.58% Federal and 13.42% non-Federal. Montana receives a directed
percent of the total project funding named in each year as follows: 2005 – 10%, 2006-
20%, 2007-25%, 2008-25%, 2009-20%. These funds are subject to the obligation
limitation.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 11: Financial Analysis
Page 11-12 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Transit Capital & Operating Assistance Funding
The MDT Transit Section provides federal and state funding to eligible recipients through
federal and state programs. Federal funding is provided through the Section 5310 and
Section 5311 transit programs and state funding is provided through the TransADE program.
The new highway bill SAFETEA-LU brought new programs for transit “New Freedoms and
Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC). All projects funded must be derived from a locally
developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan (a “coordinated
plan”).
The coordinated plan must be developed through a process that includes representatives of
public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human service providers and participation
from the public.
o Discretionary Grants (Section 5309)
Provides capital assistance for fixed guide-way modernization, construction and
extension of new fixed guide-way systems, bus and bus-related equipment and
construction projects. Eligible applicants for these funds are state and local public
bodies.
o Capital Assistance for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities (Section 5310)
The Section 5310 Program provides capital assistance to providers that serve elderly
persons and persons with disabilities. Eligible recipients must have a locally
developed coordination plan. Federal funds provide 86% of the capital costs for
purchase of buses, vans, wheelchair lifts, communication, and computer equipment.
The remaining 14% is provided by the local recipient. Application for funding is
made on an annual basis.
o Financial Assistance for Rural General Public Providers (Section 5311)
The purpose of the Section 5311 Program is to assist in the maintenance,
development, improvement, and use of public transportation systems in rural areas
(areas under 50,000 population). Eligible recipients are local public bodies,
incorporated cities, towns, counties, private non-profit organizations, Indian Tribes,
and operators of public transportation services. A locally developed coordinate plan
is needed to receive funding assistance. Funding is available for operating and
capital assistance. Federal funds pay for 86% of capital costs, 54% for operating costs,
80% for administrative costs, and 80% for maintenance costs. The remainder, or
required match, (14% for capital, 46% for operating, 20% for administrative, and
maintenance) is provided by the local recipient. Application for funding is made on
an annual basis.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 11: Financial Analysis
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 11-13
o New Freedoms Program (5317)
The purpose of the New Freedom Program is to provide improved public
transportation services, and alternatives to public transportation, for people with
disabilities, beyond those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA). The program will provide additional tools to overcome barriers facing
Americans with disabilities who want to participate fully in society. Funds may be
used for capital expenses with Federal funds provided for up to 80 percent of the cost
of the project, or operating expenses with Federal funds provided for up to 50 percent
of the cost of the project. All projects funded must be derived from a locally
developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan (a
“coordinated plan”).
o Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) (5316)
The purpose of this grant program is to develop transportation services designed to
transport welfare recipients and low income individuals to and from jobs and to
develop transportation services for residents of urban centers and rural and suburban
areas to suburban employment opportunities. Funds may be used for capital and
operating expenses with Federal funds provided for up to 50 percent of the cost of the
project.
11.4 STATE FUNDING SOURCES
State Funded Construction (SFC)
Allocations and Matching Requirements
The State Funded Construction Program, which is funded entirely with state funds from the
Highway State Special Revenue Account, provides funding for projects that are not eligible
for Federal funds. This program is totally State funded, requiring no match.
Eligibility and Planning Considerations
This program funds projects to preserve the condition and extend the service life of
highways. Eligibility requirements are that the highways be maintained by the State. MDT
staff nominates the projects based on pavement preservation needs. The District’s establish
priorities and the Transportation Commission approves the program.
TransADE
The TransADE grant program offers operating assistance to eligible organizations providing
transportation to the elderly and persons with disabilities.
Allocations and Matching Requirements
This is a state funding program within Montana statute. State funds pay 50 percent of the
operating costs and the remaining 50 percent must come from the local recipient.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 11: Financial Analysis
Page 11-14 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Eligibility and Planning Considerations
Eligible recipients of this funding are counties, incorporated cities and towns, transportation
districts, or non-profit organizations. Applications are due to the MDT Transit Section by the
first working day of February each year. To receive this funding the applicant is required by
state law (MCA 7-14-112) to develop a strong, coordinated system in their community
and/or service area.
11.5 LOCAL FUNDING SOURCES
Local governments generate revenue through a variety of funding mechanisms. Typically,
several local programs related to transportation exist for budgeting purposes and to disperse
revenues. These programs are tailored to fulfill specific transportation functions or provide
particular services.
The following text summarizes programs that relate to transportation financing through the
city and county.
City of Bozeman
o General Fund
This fund provides revenue for most major city functions like the administration of
local government, and the departments of public services, including police, fire, and
parks. Revenues for the fund are generated through the general fund mill levy on
real and personal property and motor vehicles; licenses and permits; state and federal
intergovernmental revenues; intergovernmental fund transfers; and charges for
services.
Several transportation-related services are supported by this fund including public
services (engineering and streets) and the City of Bozeman Police Department. The
street department is responsible for maintaining the city streets and alleys including:
pavement repair, street cleaning, striping and signing, lighting and traffic signal
maintenance, and plowing and sanding during the winter. In addition to revenue
from the General Fund, some revenue used to operate the street department is
generated from gas tax funds and street maintenance district funds. The police
department is obviously responsible for enforcing traffic laws on the street system.
Although most of the highway-designated monies are oriented toward maintenance
activities, some new construction and street-widening projects may be financed
through the General Fund. This revenue source has been used in conjunction with
other resources to finance local street and highway projects.
The city is currently using the General Fund to provide some transit financing
assistance to Streamline. There is a dedicated mill levy for this purpose generating
about $15,000 annually.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 11: Financial Analysis
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 11-15
o Special Revenue Funds
These funds are used to budget and distribute revenues that are legally restricted for
a specific purpose. Several such funds that benefit the transportation system are
discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
o SID Revolving Fund
This fund provides financing to satisfy bond payments for special improvement
districts in need of additional funds. The city can establish street SID’s with bond
repayment to be made by the adjoining landowners receiving the benefit of the
improvement. The city has provided labor and equipment for past projects through
the General Fund, with an SID paying for materials.
o Gas Tax Apportionment
Revenues are generated through State gasoline taxes apportioned from the State of
Montana. Transfers are made from this fund to the General Fund to reimburse
expenditures for construction, reconstruction, repair and maintenance of streets. Half
of the City's allocation is based upon population, and half is based on the miles of
streets and alleys in the City. The City Gas Tax Fund received an allocation of
$630,724 for FY 2007.
o Development Impact Fees
These fees are paid by developers to help finance improvements to the Major Street
Network. The fee structure is based upon the number of residential units or square
footage of commercial buildings being constructed.
o Developer Exactions
Road construction or roadway improvements are performed by developers as a
condition of approval for their development project. Improvements are typically
limited to the local roads within, and the road system adjacent to, the proposed
development.
o Bozeman Parking Commission
Monthly lease rental payments and meter collections fund this program. Revenues
are used to fund parking improvements in the downtown area.
o Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
Downtown Bozeman is a current TIF-funded improvement district. The funds
generated from the TIF could be used to finance projects including street and parking
improvements; tree planting; installation of new bike racks; trash containers and
benches; and other streetscape beautification projects within the downtown area.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 11: Financial Analysis
Page 11-16 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Gallatin County
o Road Fund
The County Road Fund provides for the construction, maintenance, and repair of all
county roads outside the corporate limits of cities and towns in Gallatin County.
Revenue for this fund comes from intergovernmental transfers (i.e., State gas tax
apportionment and motor vehicle taxes), and a mill levy assessed against county
residents living outside cities and towns. The county mill levy has a ceiling limit of
15 mills. Gallatin County's FY 2007 state gas tax apportionment added $294,261 to
the Road Fund.
County Road Fund monies are primarily used for maintenance with little allocated
for new road construction. It should be noted that only a small percentage of the
total miles on the county road system are located in the study area. Projects eligible
for financing through this fund will be competing for available revenues on a county-
wide basis.
o Bridge Fund
The Bridge Fund provides financing for engineering services, capital outlays, and
necessary maintenance for bridges on all off-system and Secondary routes within the
county. These monies are generated through intergovernmental fund transfers (i.e.,
vehicle licenses and fees), and a county-wide mill levy. There is a taxable limit of
four mills for this fund.
o Special Revenue Funds
Special revenue funds may be used by the county to budget and distribute revenues
legally restricted to a specific purpose. Several such funds that benefit the
transportation system are discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
o Capital Improvements Fund
This fund is used to finance major capital improvements to county infrastructure.
Revenues are generated by loans from other county funds, and must be repaid within
ten years. Major road construction projects are eligible for this type of financing.
o Rural Special Improvement District (RSID) Revolving Fund
This fund is used to administer and distribute monies for specified RSID projects.
Revenue for this fund is generated primarily through a mill levy and through motor
vehicle taxes and fees. A mill levy is assessed only when delinquent bond payments
dictate such an action.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 11: Financial Analysis
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 11-17
o Special Bond Funds
A fund of this type may be established by the county on an as-needed basis for a
particularly expensive project. The voters must approve authorization for a special
bond fund. The county is not currently using this mechanism.
o Specialized Transportation Fund
This type of fund may be established to supplement the cost of transit service to
disabled or low-income county residents. The county is not currently using this
mechanism.
Private Funding Sources and Alternatives
Private financing of highway improvements, in the form of right-of-way donations and cash
contributions, has been successful for many years. In recent years, the private sector has
recognized that better access and improved facilities can be profitable due to increases in
land values and commercial development possibilities. Several forms of private financing
for transportation improvements used in other parts of the United States are described in this
section.
o Development Financing
The developer provides the land for a transportation project and in return, local
government provides the capital, construction, and necessary traffic control. Such a
financing measure can be made voluntary or mandatory for developers.
o Cost Sharing
The private sector pays some of the operating and capital costs for constructing
transportation facilities required by development actions.
o Transportation Corporations
These private entities are non-profit, tax exempt organizations under the control of
state or local government. They are created to stimulate private financing of highway
improvements.
o Road Districts
These are areas created by a petition of affected landowners, which allow for the
issuance of bonds for financing local transportation projects.
o Private Donations
The private donation of money, property, or services to mitigate identified
development impacts is the most common type of private transportation funding.
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 11: Financial Analysis
Page 11-18 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics
Private donations are very effective in areas where financial conditions do not permit
a local government to implement a transportation improvement itself.
o Private Ownership
This method of financing is an arrangement where a private enterprise constructs and
maintains a transportation facility, and the government agrees to pay for public use
of the facility. Payment for public use of the facility is often accomplished through
leasing agreements (wherein the facility is rented from the owner), or through access
fees whereby the owner is paid a specified sum depending upon the level of public
use.
o Privatization
Privatization is either the temporary or long-term transfer of a public property or
publicly owned rights belonging to a transportation agency to a private business.
This transfer is made in return for a payment that can be applied toward construction
or maintenance of transportation facilities.
o General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds
The sale of general obligation bonds could be used to finance a specific set of major
highway improvements. A G.O. bond sale, subject to voter approval, would provide
the financing initially required for major improvements to the transportation system.
The advantage of this funding method is that when the bond is retired, the obligation
of the taxpaying public is also retired. State statutes limiting the level of bonded
indebtedness for cities and counties restrict the use of G.O. bonds. Bozeman used
G.O. bonds to implement some of the improvements recommended in the 1993
Transportation Plan Update. The present property tax situation in Montana, and
recent adverse citizen responses to proposed tax increases by local government,
would suggest that the public may not be receptive to the use of this funding
alternative.
o Development Exactions/Impact Fees
As mentioned in the section on city funding sources, exaction of fees or other
considerations from developers in return for allowing development to occur can be
an excellent mechanism for improving the transportation infrastructure. The County
is currently using this funding mechanism. Developer exactions and fees allow
growth to pay for itself. The developers of new properties should be required to
provide at least a portion of the added transportation system capacity necessitated by
their development, or to make some cash contribution to the agency responsible for
implementing the needed system improvements.
Establishment of an equitable fee structure would be required to assess developers
based upon the level of impact to the transportation system expected from each
project. Such a fee structure could be based upon the number of additional vehicle
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)
Chapter 11: Financial Analysis
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 11-19
trips generated, or upon a fundamental measure such as square footage of floor
space. Once the mechanism is in place, all new development would be reviewed by
the local government and fees assessed accordingly.
o Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
Increment financing has been used in many municipalities to generate revenue for
public improvements projects. As improvements are made within the district, and as
property values increase, the incremental increases in property tax revenue are
earmarked for this fund. The fund is then used for improvements within the district.
Expenditures of revenue generated by this method are subject to certain spending
restrictions and must be spent within the district. Tax increment districts could be
established to accomplish transportation improvements in other areas of the
community where property values may be expected to increase. A TIF is currently
being utilized in downtown Bozeman. Additional TIF districts could be established
in other areas of the city and county to accomplish a variety of transportation-related
improvements.
o Multi-Jurisdictional Service District
This funding option was authorized in 1985 by the State Legislature. This procedure
requires the establishment of a special district, somewhat like an SID or RSID, which
has the flexibility to extend across city and county boundaries. Through this
mechanism, an urban transportation district could be established to fund a specific
highway improvement that crosses municipal boundaries (e.g., corporate limits,
urban limits, or county line). This type of fund is structured similar to an SID with
bonds backed by local government issued to cover the cost of a proposed
improvement. Revenue to pay for the bonds would be raised through assessments
against property owners in the service district.
o Local Improvement District
This funding option is only applicable to counties wishing to establish a local
improvement district for road improvements. While similar to an RSID, this funding
option has the benefit of allowing counties to initiate a local improvement district
through a more streamlined process than that associated with the development of an
RSID.