Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
H1. Resos 6048A, 6048B, or 6048C - Amend GP - Transportation Plan
City of Kalispell post Office Box 1997 -Kalispell, Montana 59903 KALISPELL Telephone: (406) 758-7701 Fax: (406) 758-7758-7758 To: Doug Russell, City Manager From: Susie Turner, Public Work Director Re: Resolution 6048A,B,C —Adoption of the Move 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan as an amendment to the Kalispell Growth Policy Plan It — 2035 Meeting Date: September 7, 2021 A comprehensive update to the 2008 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan was finalized in July of 2021. The Move 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan (Plan) will be utilized as the foundation of the transportation planning process that considers all modes of transportation including roadways, transit, bicycles, pedestrians, trails, and freight. A summary of the updated plan per chapter is as follows: kvo_"'W_� " MOVE 2040 Naiispell Transportation Area Plan •Background, Study Area, Policy Frame Work •Stakeholders Groups, Public Involvement Events *Existing Demographics and 2017 Base Year Model Transportation Conditions •Growth Projections Kalispell, Evergreen, Remainder County Areas 92040 E + C Model Transportation Conditions •Alternate Replication of Improvements to Evaluate Benefit *Recommended Transportation System Management (TSM) and Major Street Network (MSN) Projects •Prioritization Results for TSM and MSN Projects •Existing and Proposed Multi -modal Routes •Overview of Funding Relevant to Study Area The Plan development was a partnership between the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) and the City of Kalispell. The study area boundary for the Plan was established in collaboration with the Urban Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC). It includes the urban boundary determined through census data and is set by the MDT in coordination with local officials. The development of the Plan is based on an extensive participatory process which drew input from partners, stakeholders, and the public during individual development stages of the Plan including the goals and strategies, rankings for the TSM and MSN Projects, and multi -modal considerations. All said and done, since 2019 outreach efforts involved: • Development of Website: www.kalispellmove2O4O.com - 2020 o Updated regularly with support material and public involvement summaries • Phase 1 Public Input Session - 2020 o Two public engagement meetings, social media posts — Instagram, Facebook, web survey, tv media (5x/day) o Three listening sessions at the Chamber of Commerce • Video presentations discussing Draft Plan - 2020 & 2021 • Radio Interviews (3) - 2020 & 2021 • Direct updates to local stakeholder groups including Mountain Climber, Chamber of Commerce, County Commissioners, Economic Development groups • Planning Board Work Session and Public Hearing -Spring 2021 • TAC Presentations — 2020 & 2021 • Open House at Council Chambers — May 2021 (2) • City Council Work Sessions (2) and a Public Hearing 2020 & 2021 As with all Urban Area Transportation Planning efforts in the State, MDT staff built the model and provided modeling services incorporated in the Plan. The Move 2040 Plan describes the status of the Kalispell area transportation system, projects population and employment growth, estimates changes in travel demand, and evaluates the future transportation system across a range of scenarios. Additionally, alternative analyses were performed and summarized in the plan to aid in identifying local and system wide benefits for a range of potential improvements. The Plan identifies a list of Major Street Network (MSN) and Transportation System Management (TSM) project recommendations. These fundamental recommendations incorporate the technical analysis completed throughout the planning process, as well as the results of community engagement, to identify and prioritize investments that will help the community realize its transportation goals and vision. Recognizing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure are a critical component of moving people to and through the Flathead Valley. Chapter 9 within the Plan focused on closing multi -modal gaps and improving access to safe bike and pedestrian facilities. Additional attention was centered around 12 elementary/middle school zones in an effort to identify and prioritize segments to support Safe Routes to Schools. Multiple public venues, as outlined below, were held to review the Draft Final Plan, and receive comments. • Technical Advisory Committee Meeting was held on June 23, 2021 • Planning Board Public Hearing was held on July 13, 2021 • City Council Work Session was held on July 26, 2021 • City Council Public Hearing was held on August 16, 2021 The City received multiple comments as part the work session and public hearing process. Attached for Council's review are the comments and responses from City Staff. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Kalispell City Council make a motion to approve Resolution 6048A, a resolution adopting the MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan as an amendment to the current Kalispell Growth Policy Plan It-2035. Fiscal Effects: There are no fiscal impacts at this time. Alternatives: As suggested by Council. Attachments: Resolution 6048A, B, C July 2021 Move 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan Comment and Response Log RESOLUTION NO. 6048A A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE KALISPELL GROWTH POLICY -- PLAN IT 2035 BY ADOPTING THE MOVE 2040 KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN. WHEREAS, pursuant to MCA 76-1-601 the Kalispell Growth Policy —Plan It 2035 was adopted by the Kalispell City Council on July 3, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Plan It 2035 Amendment calls for updating the 2008 Kalispell Transportation Plan as a key project to help guide the development of the urban transportation system in a comprehensive and methodical fashion; and WHEREAS, the MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan has been developed through significant public outreach and response from the Kalispell residents and stakeholders and is described and set forth within Planning Board Resolution #KGPA-21-02; and WHEREAS, on July 13, 2021, the Kalispell City Planning Board held a public hearing, after due and proper notice, received written and oral public comment, and reviewed the MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan, which evaluated the proposal based upon the goals and objectives of the Growth Policy, the purpose of zoning and current circumstances in the planning jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing and after consideration of the proposed amendment, the Kalispell City Planning Board adopted report #KGPA-21-02 as findings of fact and recommended approval of the proposed Growth Policy amendment; and WHEREAS, on August 2, 2021 the Kalispell City Council responded to the Planning Board recommendation by passing Resolution 6033, a Resolution of Intention to Adopt, Revise or Reject a Proposed Amendment to the Kalispell Growth Policy — Plan It 2035 and called for a public hearing to be held on August 16, 2021; and WHEREAS, on August 16, 2021 the Kalispell City Council, after due and proper notice, held a public hearing on the Kalispell City Planning Department request and received further written and oral public comment regarding the application of the Kalispell Planning Department report #KGPA-21-02; and WHEREAS, upon consideration of the recommendation of the Kalispell Planning Board and all other evidence in the public record, the Kalispell City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City to amend the Kalispell Growth Policy — Plan It 2035 by adopting, as its findings, Kalispell Planning Department report #KGPA-21-02, and to adopt the MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to Section 76-1-604, MCA, the Kalispell City Council hereby adopts as an amendment to the Kalispell Growth Policy — Plan It 2035, the MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION 2. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage by the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL, THIS 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021. Mark Johnson Mayor ATTEST: Aimee Brunckhorst, CMC City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 6048B A RESOLUTION REVISING AN AMENDMENT TO THE KALISPELL GROWTH POLICY -- PLAN IT 2035 BY AMENDING AND ADOPTING THE MOVE 2040 KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN. WHEREAS, pursuant to MCA 76-1-601 the Kalispell Growth Policy —Plan It 2035 was adopted by the Kalispell City Council on July 3, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Plan It 2035 Amendment calls for updating the 2008 Kalispell Transportation Plan as a key project to help guide the development of the urban transportation system in a comprehensive and methodical fashion; and WHEREAS, the MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan has been developed through significant public outreach and response from the Kalispell residents and stakeholders and is described and set forth within Planning Board Resolution #KGPA-21-02; and WHEREAS, on July 13, 2021, the Kalispell City Planning Board held a public hearing, after due and proper notice, received written and oral public comment, and reviewed the MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan, which evaluated the proposal based upon the goals and objectives of the Growth Policy, the purpose of zoning and current circumstances in the planning jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing and after consideration of the proposed amendment, the Kalispell City Planning Board adopted report #KGPA-21-02 as findings of fact and recommended approval of the proposed Growth Policy amendment; and WHEREAS, on August 2, 2021 the Kalispell City Council responded to the Planning Board recommendation by passing Resolution 6033, a Resolution of Intention to Adopt, Revise or Reject a Proposed Amendment to the Kalispell Growth Policy — Plan It 2035 and called for a public hearing to be held on August 16, 2021; and WHEREAS, on August 16, 2021 the Kalispell City Council, after due and proper notice, held a public hearing on the Kalispell City Planning Department request and received further written and oral public comment regarding the application of the Kalispell Planning Department report #KGPA-21-02; and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City to amend the Kalispell Growth Policy — Plan It 2035, and revise the recommendations of the City Planning Board by adopting as its findings the following: WHEREAS, in all other respects, not inconsistent with the above, the Council adopts the Kalispell Planning Department report #KGPA-21-02 as its findings of fact, and further finds that it is in the best interests of the City to adopt said revised amendment to the Kalispell Growth Policy — Plan It 2035 consisting of amending and adopting the MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to Section 76-1-604, MCA, the Kalispell City Council hereby adopts as an amendment to the Kalispell Growth Policy — Plan It 2035, the amended MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan hereto attached as Exhibit A. SECTION 2. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage by the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL, THIS 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021. Mark Johnson Mayor ATTEST: Aimee Brunckhorst, CMC City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 6048C A RESOLUTION REJECTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE KALISPELL GROWTH POLICY -- PLAN IT 2035. WHEREAS, pursuant to MCA 76-1-601 the Kalispell Growth Policy —Plan It 2035 was adopted by the Kalispell City Council on July 3, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Plan It 2035 Amendment calls for updating the 2008 Kalispell Transportation Plan as a key project to help guide the development of the urban transportation system in a comprehensive and methodical fashion; and WHEREAS, the MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan has been developed through significant public outreach and response from the Kalispell residents and stakeholders and is described and set forth within Planning Board Resolution #KGPA-21-02; and WHEREAS, on July 13, 2021, the Kalispell City Planning Board held a public hearing, after due and proper notice, received written and oral public comment, and reviewed the MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan, which evaluated the proposal based upon the goals and objectives of the Growth Policy, the purpose of zoning and current circumstances in the planning jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing and after consideration of the proposed amendment, the Kalispell City Planning Board adopted report #KGPA-21-02 as findings of fact and recommended approval of the proposed Growth Policy amendment; and WHEREAS, on August 2, 2021 the Kalispell City Council responded to the Planning Board recommendation by passing Resolution 6033, a Resolution of Intention to Adopt, Revise or Reject a Proposed Amendment to the Kalispell Growth Policy — Plan It 2035 and called for a public hearing to be held on August 16, 2021; and WHEREAS, on August 16, 2021 the Kalispell City Council, after due and proper notice, held a public hearing on the Kalispell City Planning Department request and received further written and oral public comment regarding the application of the Kalispell Planning Department report #KGPA-21-02; and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Council finds that it is not in the best interest of the City to amend the Kalispell Growth Policy — Plan It 2035, as recommended by the Kalispell City Planning Board, said proposed amendment consisting of adopting the MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan as set forth in Exhibit "A", for the following reasons: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to Section 76-1-604, MCA, the Kalispell City Council hereby rejects the amendment that was the subject of the Kalispell Planning Department report #KGPA-21-02 and recommended by the City Planning Board to the Kalispell Growth Policy — Plan It 2035. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL, THIS 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021. Mark Johnson Mayor ATTEST: Aimee Brunckhorst, CMC City Clerk 0 rim w low CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................... 1 Chapter 2: Public Engagement Summary ................... 9 Chapter 3: Existing Conditions................................13 Chapter 4: Growth and Forecasts ........................... 79 Chapter 5: Projected Conditions ............................. 95 Chapter 6: Alternatives Analysis ...........................107 Chapter 7: Project Development and Identification ..157 Chapter 8: Project Prioritization ............................ 171 Chapter 9: Bicycle and Pedestrian System Analysis & Recommendations............................................... 181 Chapter 10: Funding Programs..............................215 Chapter 11: Policy Plan.........................................225 KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN i_ Figure 3.41: Passenger Volumes at Kalispell -Glacier Park Table of Figures Figure 1.1: Study Area.......................................................A Figure 3.1: Historical Unemployment Rates in Flathead County .............................................. 17 Figure 3.2: Functional Class Access and Mobility ................18 Figure 3.3: Functionally Classified Roadways in the StudyArea......................................................21 Figure 3.4: Functionally Classified Roadways Inset..............22 Figure 3.5: Highway Systems in the Study Area...................24 Figure 3.6: Roadway Maintenance Responsibility ...............25 Figure 3.7: Modes of Transportation to Workplaces ............26 Figure 3.8: Average Travel Time to Work by Mode ..............26 Figure 3.9: Level of Service Descriptions ............................27 Figure 3.10: 2017 Modeled Volumes in Study Area .............28 Figure 3.11: 2017 Modeled Volumes Inset ..........................29 Figure 3.12: 2017 Households per Acre .............................30 Figure 3.13: 2017 Jobs per Acre........................................31 Figure 3.14: Volume -to -Capacity Ratios in Study Area ........32 Figure 3.15: Volume -to -Capacity Ratios Inset .....................33 Figure 3.16: 2017 Actual Versus Modeled VMT...................34 Figure 3.17: Seasonal Traffic by Zone................................34 Figure 3.18: Streetlight Daily Destination Zone Volumes ......35 Figure 3.19: Total Daily Traffic by Origin Zone ....................36 Figure 3.20: Total Daily Traffic by Destination Zone.............36 Figure 3.21: Willow Glen Drive Zone Analysis ....................37 Figure 3.22: Rose Crossing Zone Analysis ..........................38 Figure 3.23: Meridian Road Zone Analysis .........................38 Figure 3.24: West Reserve Drive Zone Analysis ..................39 Figure 3.25: Three Mile Drive Zone Analysis ......................39 Figure 3.26: Commercial Traffic Travel Trends.....................40 Figure 3.27. US 93 South to US 93 North Trip Duration Comparison....................................................40 Figure 3.28: US 93 South to US 93 North Average Speed Comparison....................................................41 Figure 3.29: AM Peak Hour Congestion .............................42 Figure 3.30: PM Peak Hour Congestion..............................42 Figure 3.31: Multimodal Traffic by Zone .............................43 Figure 3.32: AM Peak Hour Traffic Operations ...................46 Figure 3.33: PM Peak Hour Traffic Operations ....................47 Figure 3.34: Injury and Non -Injury Crashes Since 2014 ......48 Figure 3.35: Crashes by Crash Type..................................48 Figure 3.36: Crash Hotspots.............................................51 Figure 3.37. Severe Crash Locations..................................52 Figure 3.38: Wild Animal Crashes.....................................53 Figure 3.39: Severe Crash Locations..................................54 Figure 3.40: Truck Routes and Generators ..........................56 _ii MOVE 2040 International Airport........................................57 Figure 3.42: Railroad Crossing Control Devices ..................58 Figure 3.43: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Examples from Kalispell..........................................................59 Figure 3.44: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities in the StudyArea ...................................................... 61 Figure 3.45: Pedestrian Crash Locations ............................62 Figure 3.46: Bicycle Crash Locations.................................63 Figure 3.47. K-8 School Analysis Zones in the Study Area ...64 Figure 3.48: Elrod Elementary School................................65 Figure 3.49: Edgerton Elementary School ..........................66 Figure 3.50: Hedges Elementary School ............................67 Figure 3.51: Kalispell Middle School.................................68 Figure 3.52: Russell Elementary School..............................69 Figure 3.53: Peterson Elementary School ...........................70 Figure 3.54: Jeanette Rankin Elementary School .................71 Figure 3.55: Helena FlatsSchool.......................................72 Figure 3.56: Evergreen Junior HighSchool .........................73 Figure 3.57: East Evergreen Elementary School .................. 74 Figure 3.58: Kalispell Fixed Transit Routes and Stops ...........77 Figure 4.1: TDM TAZ Structure..........................................82 Figure 4.2: TDM TAZ Structure Inset..................................83 Figure 4.3: Baseline TAZ Household Allocations .................84 Figure 4.4: Baseline TAZ Employment Allocations ...............85 Figure 4.5: Geographic Development Areas.......................86 Figure 4.6: 2040 Household Allocations ............................87 Figure 4.7: Projected Household Growth 2018 - 2040 ........88 Figure 4.8: 2040 Household per Acre...............................89 Figure 4.9: 2040 Projected Employment Growth 2018 - 2040...................................................91 Figure 4.10: 2040 Employment Allocations ........................92 Figure 4.11: 2040 Jobs per Acre.......................................93 Figure 5.1: 2040 LOS..................................................... 101 Figure 5.2: 2040 LOS (Inset)..........................................102 Figure 5.3: Traffic Volume Changes from 2017 to 2040 ..... 103 Figure 5.4: 2040 AM Peak LOS......................................105 Figure 5.5: 2040 PM Peak LOS.......................................106 Figure 6.1: Alternative 1 ADT Change on Select Corridors . 112 Figure 6.2: Alternative 2 ADT Change on Select Corridors. 115 Figure 6.3: Alternative 2A ADT Change on Select Corridors ............................................. 118 Figure 6.4: Alternative 3 ADT Change on Select Corridors. 121 Figure 6.5: Alternative 3A ADT Change on Select Corridors ............................................. 123 Figure 6.6: Alternative 4 ADT Change on Select Corridors. 126 Figure 6.7: Alternative 5 ADT Change on Select Corridors. 129 Figure 6.8: Alternative 5A ADT Change on Select Corridors Figure 9.6: On -Street Bike Routes Project Priority Map ......207 132 Figure 6.9: Alternative 6 ADT Change on Select Corridors . 135 Figure 6.10: Alternative 6A ADT Change on Select Corridors ............................................. 138 Figure 6.11: Alternative 7 ADT Change on Select Corridors ............................................. 142 Figure 6.12: Alternative 8 ADT Change on Select Corridors ............................................. 145 Figure 6.13: Alternative 9 ADT Change on Select Corridors ............................................. 148 Figure 6.14: Alternative 10 ADT Change on Select Corridors ............................................. 152 Figure 6.15: 2040 Alternative 10 LOS ............................. 153 Figure 6.16: Volumes Comparison 2017 to 2040 E+C to 2040 Full Build .............................................. 154 Figure 6.17: Volumes Comparison 2017 to 2040 E+C to 2040 Inset .................................................... 155 Figure 7.1: Recommendations Identification ...................... 160 Figure 7.2: Recommendations Identification (Inset) ............ 161 Figure 7.3: Transportation System Management Recommendations .......................................... 164 Figure 7.4: Transportation System Management Recommendations (Inset) ................................ 165 Figure 7.5: Major Street Network Recommendations ......... 169 Figure 7.6: Major Street Network Recommendations (Inset)........................................................... 170 Figure 8.1: TSM Project Prioritization ............................... 176 Figure 8.2: TSM Project Prioritization (Inset) ..................... 177 Figure 8.3: MSN Project Prioritization .............................. 179 Figure 8.4: MSN Project Prioritization (inset) .................... 180 Figure 9.1: Potential Project Identifier Map ....................... 185 Figure 9.2: Potential Project Identifier Map (Inset) ............. 186 Figure 9.3: Shared Use Paths Project Priority Map ............. 199 Figure 9.4: Sidewalks Project Priority Map .......................201 Figure 9.5: Bike Lanes Project Priority Map.......................203 Figure 9.7: Bicycle Facilities ............................................ 210 Figure 11.1: View of Downtown Kalispell in 1940 ..............227 Figure 11.2: View of Downtown Kalispell Today ................227 Figure 11.3: Recommended City of Kalispell Functional Classification Map.........................................232 Figure 11.4: Recommended City of Kalispell Functional Classification Map (Inset)...............................233 Figure 11.5: Principal Arterial Cross Section .....................23A Figure 11.6: Minor Arterial Cross Section .........................23A Figure 11.7: Major Collector Cross Section .......................235 Figure 11.8: Minor Collector Cross Section .......................235 Figure 11.9: Local Road CrossSection..............................236 Figure 11.10: Access and Mobility...................................237 Figure 11.11: Four Mile Corridor from Farm to Market Road to U.S. Highway 93 ....................240 Figure 11.12: Four Mile Drive Corridor from Farm to Market Road to U.S. Highway 93 ....................240 Figure 11.13: Traffic Impact Analysis Categories Example (Peoria, Arizona)...........................................244 Figure 11.14: Speed/Pedestrian Injury Severity Correlation...................................................246 Figure 11.15: Multi -Lane Roundabout — King Avenue and 40th Street, Billings, MT ............................249 Figure 11.16: Hybrid Multi -lane Roundabout (2x1) — E North Pacific Avenue and Airway Boulevard, Belgrade, MT.................................................249 Figure 11.17: Single -lane Roundabout — Smelter Avenue and Division Road, Great Falls, MT ..................249 Figure 11.18: Mini Roundabout — Toole Avenue and Scott Street, Missoula, MT.......................................249 Figure 11.19: Types of Roundabouts in the U.S. (NCHRP) ...250 Figure 11.20: Roundabouts by State................................250 Figure 11.21: Roundabouts by Year Constructed ...............250 Figure 11.22: Vehicle Conflict Point Comparison ...............252 Figure 11.23: Pedestrian Conflict Point Comparison ...........252 KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN aim Table of Tables Table 1.1: Kalispell Goal Areas by Order of Importance .......6 Table 3.1: Historical Population in Study Area.....................15 Table 3.2: Population Dynamics ........................................ 15 Table 3.3: Housing Trends in Study Area ............................16 Table 3.4: Largest Industries in Flathead County .................16 Table 3.5: Largest Private Employers in Flathead County ...... 16 Table 3.6: Functional Classification Definitions .................... 19 Table 3.7: Existing Functional Classification Mileage and FHWA Recommended Ranges ...........................20 Table 3.8: Level of Service Thresholds by Volume -to -Capacity Ratio................................27 Table 3.9: LOS Thresholds by Intersection Delay .................44 Table 3.10: AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS ..........45 Table 3.11: High Crash Locations.......................................50 Table 3.12: High Truck Traffic Locations..............................55 Table 3.13: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Types andMileage...................................................59 Table 3.14: Fixed Route Service Indicators .........................75 Table 3.15: Paratransit Service Indicators ...........................76 Table 3.16: Mountain Climber Vehicle Inventory and Condition ............................................... 76 Table 4.1: Existing and Projected Household Growth ...........90 Table 4.2: Existing and Projected Employment Growth ........90 Table 5.1: 2017 and 2040 VMT and VHT ............................97 Table 5.3: 2017 and 2040 E+C Model, LOS, and Miles .......98 Table 5.2: LOS Thresholds byV/C Ratio .............................98 Table 5.4: LOS Thresholds by Intersection Delay .................99 Table 5.5: 2040 AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS ..104 Table 6.1: Summary System -Wide VMT and VHT Changes..109 Table 6.2: Alternative 1 Area -Wide Impacts ..................... 110 Table 6.3: Alternative 1 Change on Select Corridors ......... 111 Table 6.4: Alternative 2 Area -Wide Impacts ..................... 113 Table 6.5: Alt 2 Change on Select Corridors ..................... 114 Table 6.6: Alternative 2A Area -Wide Impacts .................. 116 Table 6.7: Alternative 2A Change on Select Corridors....... 117 Table 6.8: Alternative 3 Area -Wide Impacts ..................... 119 Table 6.9: Alternative 3 Change on Select Corridors ......... 120 Table 6.10: Alt 3 Area -Wide Impacts ............................... 122 Table 6.11: Alternative 3A Change on Select Corridors...... 122 Table 6.12: Alternative 4 Area -Wide Impacts ................... 124 Table 6.13: Alternative 4 Change on Select Corridors........ 124 Table 6.14: Alternative 5 Area -Wide Impacts ................... 127 Table 6.15: Alternative 5 Change on Select Corridors........ 128 Table 6.16: Alternative 5A Area -Wide Impacts ................. 130 Table 6.17. Alternative 5A Change on Select Corridors ..... 131 Table 6.18: Alternative 6 Area -Wide Impacts ...................133 Table 6.19: Alternative 6 Change on Select Corridors .......134 Table 6.20: Alternative 6A Area -Wide Impacts ................ 136 Table 6.21: Alternative 6A Change on Select Corridors ..... 137 Table 6.22: Alternative 7 Area -Wide Impacts ................... 139 Table 6.23: Alternative 7 Change on Select Corridors .......140 Table 6.24: Alternative 8 Area -Wide Impacts...................143 Table 6.25: Alternative 8 Change on Select Corridors .......144 Table 6.26: Alternative 9 Area -Wide Impacts ...................146 Table 6.27. Alternative 9 Change on Select Corridors .......147 Table 6.28: Alt 10 Area -Wide Impacts ............................. 149 Table 6.29: Alt 10 Change on Select Corridors ................. 150 Table 71: Transportation System Management Recommendations .......................................... 162 Table 7.2: Major Street Network Recommendations ..........166 Table 8.1: Top Three Move 2040 Goals by Rank of Importance ................................................ 173 Table 8.2: Move 2040 Project Prioritization Criteria.......... 174 Table 8.3: TSM Projects .................................................. 175 Table 8.4: MSN Projects ................................................. 178 Table 9.1: Shared Use Paths Analysis...............................193 Table 9.2: Sidewalks Analysis.........................................200 Table 9.3: Bike Lanes Analysis.........................................202 Table 9.4: Bike Routes Analysis.......................................204 Table 9.5: Project Priorities.............................................208 Table 10.1: Montana's Urban Areas..............................218 Table 10.2: BaRSAA Increases........................................224 Table 11.1: Comparison of 2040 TDM Alternatives for U.S. Highway 93 and U.S. Highway 93A.................230 Table 11.2: Total Mileage by Functional Classification - Existing and Recommended Functional Classification Maps........................................231 Table 11.3: Characteristics of Good and Poor Access Management.................................................237 Table 11.4: Access Spacing Guidelines ............................239 Table 11.5: Traffic Calming Toolbox.................................247 Table 11.6: Roundabout Type Comparison .......................248 Table 11.7: Montana Roundabouts by Location .................250 Table 11.8: Comparison of Roundabouts to Other Traffic Control Types................................................251 _iv MOVE 2040 Abbreviations & Acronyms A AADT: annual average daily traffic 241 ACS: American Community Survey 15 ADT: annual daily traffic 109 ASCT: Adaptive Signal Control Technology 253 AVL: Automatic Vehicle Location 254 B BaRSAA: Bridge and Road Safety and Accountability Act 223 BL: bike lanes 183 BR: bike routes 183 C CDP: census designated place 81 CMAQ: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program 220 CO: carbon monoxide 220 E E+C: Existing plus Committed (referring to a future travel demand model scenario which incorporates only existing facilities and committed projects) 97 F FAST Act: Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act 217 FBO: full build -out 94 FHWA: Federal Highway Administration 20 FLAP: Federal Lands Access Program 221 FTA: Federal Transit Administration 222 FVCC: Flathead Valley Community College 188 G GPI: Glacier Park International 90 H HAWK: High -intensity Activated Crosswalk 211 HSSRA: Highway State Special Revenue Account 218 IRWL: In -Road Warning Lights 212 ITS: Intelligent Transportation System 6 K KRMC: Kalispell Regional Medical Center 188 L LOS: level of service 27 M MACI: Montana Air and Congestion Initiative 220 MAP-21: Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act 221 MCA: Montana Code Annotated 217 MDT: Montana Department of Transportation 3 MRFL: Montana Rail Freight Loan Program 223 MSN: Major Street Network 159 MT CEIC: Montana Census and Economic Information Center 90 MTDLI: Montana Department of Labor & Industry 90 N NCHRP: National Cooperative Highway Research Program 250 NHFP: National Highway Freight Program 220 NHPP: National Highway Performance Program 217 NHS: National Highway System 23 O O-D: origin -destination 39 P PA: preferred alternative 209 PM10: particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter 220 R RLC: Red Light Cameras 253 RM: Ramp Meters 253 RRFBs: Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons 211 RT: Recreational Trails 218 S SF: suggested facility 209 SLMs: Shared Lane Markings 211 SRC: Study Review Committee 3 SRTS: Safe Routes to Schools 183 KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN v_ S: sidewalks and paths 183 STBG: Surface Transportation Block Grant Program 217 STIP: State Transportation Improvement Program 217 STPB: Surface Transportation Program — Bridge Program 217 STPP: Surface Transportation Program Primary Highways 217 STPS: Surface Transportation Program Secondary Highways 217 STPU: Surface Transportation Program Urban Highways 217 SUP: shared use paths 183 T TAC: Transportation Advisory Committee 3 TA: Transportation Alternatives 218 TAZ: Traffic Analysis Zones 26 TCP: Transportation Coordination Plan 75 TDM: travel demand model 81 TID: tax increment district 228 TIFIA: Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act 221 TIS: Traffic Impact Study 227 TPP: Transportation Policy Plan 5 TSM: Transportation System Management 159 TSP: Transit Signal Priority 253 V UPP: Urban Pavement Preservation Program 6 V V/C ratios: volume -to -capacity ratios 27 VHT: vehicle hours traveled 27 VMT: vehicle miles traveled 27 _Vi MOVE 2040 • rim 1\ 9 �= M �_ - �- INTRODUCTION The Kalispell Area Transportation Plan, titled Move 2040, will help guide the development of the City's trans- portation system in a comprehensive and methodical fashion. Move 2040 was developed utilizing a collabo- rative approach with City and Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) staff, elected officials, and local residents. This plan is designed to help realize the goals and objectives to meet current and future transportation needs. BAC II(GRO U N r The city of Kalispell is a growing community that is nation- ally known as a tourist destination due to its proximity to Glacier National Park, Flathead Lake, the local ski industry at Whitefish Mountain Resort and Blacktail Mountain Ski Area, and the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex. The City of Kalispell intends to create a long-range transportation plan that will address the present needs of the community and to plan and direct future growth. This plan continues from the previous transportation plan adopted in 2008. Move 2040 was guided by a Study Review Committee (SRC) and the community. Throughout the process, a series of SRC meetings and community workshops were held to influence the decision -making process. This input shapes the core of the transportation plan. More informa- tion on the SRC and public engagement efforts is detailed in ,-hapter . STUDY AREA The study area for the project was established in collabo- ration with the Urban Transportation Advisory Committee JAC). It includes the urban boundary determined through census data and is set by MDT in coordination with local officials. The study area is bounded by West Valley Drive to the west, Birch Grove Road to the north, Flathead River to the east, and Auction Road to the south. The study area is larger than the city boundary and its ur- ban boundaryto account for areas already developing and those areas that could see growth over the twenty-year study horizon. The larger study area allows Move 2040 to understand the impact of commuter traffic generated from developing areas such as Evergreen and outlying residential areas in Flathead County. Understanding the traffic impacts from both within and outside of the Kalispell city boundaries will allow for better planning of the future road network. :figure 1 .1 shows the study area. KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 3_ Figure 1.1: Study Area FOUR MILE DR Legend Study Area Kalispell Urban Boundary Evergreen Kalispell City Boundary w I . fF0IVFi 1RO�i • 1 Ij kr� A4 NW60 *0 Kalispell Transportation Area Plan 0 0.5 1 Miles _4 MOVE 2 POLICY FRAMEWORK The Move 2040 policy framework serves as the plan's pol- icy foundation and charts a course for future transporta- tion investment within the Kalispell area. The framework is designed to be long-range and comprehensive, reflecting the transportation system as a whole and incorporating the community's priorities in order to support current res- idents and accommodate future growth. The framework champions local needs while placing the City's transpor- tation vision within a larger regional context. The framework was developed in close coordination with the Kalispell SRC and neighboring local governments. It incorporates input collected through the community en- gagement process, as well as the policy direction put forth in local and regional planning documents. The Policy Framework consists of three elements: Vision, Goals, and Strategies. Vision: The transportation vision communicates the aspirations and priorities that will guide the City's transportation investments in order to achieve its de- sired future. Goals: Goals are broad statements that describe a desired end state. The Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) goals represent key priorities for desired outcomes for the transportation system, and for the wellbeing and prosperity of the community. Goals are visionary statements that reflect key priority areas. Strategies: Strategies are specific statements that support the achievement of goals. Strategies "oper- ationalize" the goals: they refine goals into discrete, policy -based actions that are used to guide decision making towards achievement of the vision. There are multiple strategies for each goal. Transportation Vision The Move 2040 transportation vision will serve as an an- chor for future development of the Kalispell area trans- portation system. The transportation vision is as follows: Move 2040 is focused on preserving Kalispell's unique character while encouraging and ac- commodating future growth. Kalispell is the commercial and governmental center of the Flathead Valley with a diverse economy, robust employment, and vibrant neighborhoods. The plan celebrates this identity, and presents a transportation investment approach that will enhance the community's cherished qualities by preserving community, addressing congestion, increasing connectivity, and supporting a revival of Highway 93/Main Street through downtown. Move 2040 looks to harness the opportunities of the future by advancing projects that support desired growth. The plan embraces the devel- opment of key corridors, including the Kalispell Bypass, West Reserve Drive, Four Mile Drive, and Rose Crossing, as key to improving regional mobility, supporting economic development, and optimizing existing transportation infrastructure. Goals and Strategies The project team defined six goal areas in collaboration with the SRC, stakeholders, and the public. In addition, the goal areas presented in MDT's TranPlanMT served as a basis for the Move 2040 goal areas. The goal areas were used to develop the final set of six Move 2040 goals. Input collected through the public involvement process allowed for the plan to prioritize goal areas that the com- munity felt were most important. During outreach events, community members were asked to provide input on the goal areas that they felt were most critical to achieving the plan's vision. The project team assigned a priority to each goal area based on the feedback that it received. The plan's public engagement process is detailed in Chapter 2. The six Move 2040 goal areas are shown in , where they are presented in order of priority based on the input collected through the public involvement pro- cess. The table also shows how the Move 2040 goal ar- eas and MDT TranPlanMT goals relate to one another. The TranPlanMT goals are not presented here in order of priority.' See: https://www.mdt.mt.gov/tranl2lan/ KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 5_ Table 1. 1: Kalispell Goal Areas by Order of Importance 1 I Safetv and Secu 2 Congestion Reduction Accessibility and Connectivity 3 Infrastructure System Preservation Condition Environmental and Maintenance 4 Environmental Sustainability Stewardship System Reliability for Mobility and 5 Freight Movement Economic Vitality and Economic Vitality 6 Reduce Project Business Operations Delays and Management The goal areas were used to define the final set of six Move 2040 goals. For each goal, various strategies are defined. 1. SAFETY AND SECURITY GOAL: Create a transportation system that incorporates safety and security throughout all modes and for all users. IA. Support Montana's State Highway Safety Plan "Vision Zero" as a goal to move toward zero deaths and zero serious injuries. 1 B. Reduce the incidence of all motor vehicle and non -motor vehicle (pedestrian and cyclist) crash- es, with an emphasis on serious injury and fatal crashes. 1 C. Leverage technology advancements in project de- velopment to improve safety. 1 D. Partner with Mountain Climber to ensure a safe and secure environment for transit system riders. 1 E. Regularly review and update Emergency Routes, coordinating as needed with Flathead County and the MDT to facilitate the rapid movement of first responders and support incident management during times of emergency. 1 F. Provide safety education programs for all transpor- tation users. 1 G. Target safety improvement projects to address the top 15 High Crash Locations, as identified in Move 2040. 1 H. Enhance crash data integration and analysis to support decision making and issue identification. 11. Improve education on bike safety and increase the awareness of both bicyclists and motorists regard- ing bike related laws, rules, and responsibilities. 2. CONGESTION REDUCTION GOAL: Create a transportation system that optimizes mobility and connectivity, allowing users to move from one place to another in a direct route with minimal travel times and delays. 2A. Modernize the transportation system and increase efficiency through the implementation of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) solutions, including improved signal coordination, timing, and active traffic management technologies. 2B. Work with Mountain Climber to improve route ef- ficiency, promote and continue service connecting to major employment centers, education facilities, medical offices, commercial developments, and tourist destinations. 2C. Improve system -wide bicycle and pedestrian con- nectivity by implementing transportation invest- ments identified within the Move 2040 Bike/Ped element. 2D. Implement a consistent approach for investment, design, connectivity, and maintenance of pedestri- an and bicycle facilities. 2E. Identify and consider accessibility and connectivity needs on improvement projects for roads, paths, and sidewalks. 2F. Utilize the development review process to require new developments to provide adequate roads, pe- destrian and bicycle access to essential services, amenities, and destinations. 3. INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITION GOAL: Proactively preserve and maintain existing trans- portation system infrastructure. 3A. Preserve and maintain transportation infrastruc- ture in a state of good repair, including pavement, street signage, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, traffic signals, lighting, and other ITS assets. 3B. Continue to support Mountain Climber to ensure it maintains its transit fleet, equipment, and facilities in a state of good repair. 3C. Continue to utilize a pavement management sys- tem to inventory pavement condition and assist in optimizing cost-effective strategies for maintaining pavements in serviceable condition, taking ad- vantage of MDT's Urban Pavement Preservation Program (UPP). 3D. Develop a capital improvement program that im- plements the prioritized Transportation System _6 MUVt Management and Major Street Network projects presented in Move 2040. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY GOAL: Prioritize environmental stewardship in the devel- opment, maintenance, and operation of the transporta- tion system. 4A. Minimize the transportation system's impacts on the natural and built environment. 413. Promote transportation investments that support infill, mixed -use development patterns. 4C. Provide transportation infrastructure design guidance that fits within the context of the built environment. 4D. Plan for and address multimodal transportation system impacts when planning new developments. 4E. Maintain a planning process that integrates and coordinates transportation planning with land use, water, and natural resource conservation. 4F. Foster positive working relationships with resource agencies and stakeholders through early coordi- nation and consultation. 4G. Minimize adverse impacts to established neighborhoods. 5. SYSTEM RELIABILITY FOR FREIGHT MOVEMENT AND ECONOMIC VITALITY GOAL: Create a transportation system that supports eco- nomic competitiveness, vitality, and prosperity by provid- inC for the efficient movement of ---le and goods. 5A. Enhance the efficient and safe movement of freight and goods by investing in congestion reduction and safety improvements on critical freight corridors. 513. Promote transportation investments that enhance the local economy. 5C. Support projects that decrease travel time between major activity centers. 5D. Encourage public/private partnerships to leverage funding from federal, state and other sources. 5E. Give priority to transportation projects that improve and provide access to area tourist destinations and amenities. 5F. Support projects that increase levels of private sec- tor investment in transportation improvements. 5G. Discourage routing commercial traffic and heavy through -traffic in residential areas by creating a more thorough grid system. 5H. Clarify need for preservation of right of way and access management to support function of arteri- als for through traffic movements. 51. Improve right-of-way preservation and access management standards to support the reliability of collector and arterial roadway systems to efficiently distribute and move traffic. 5.1. Support improved east -west access through Kalispell. 6. REDUCE PROJECT DELAYS GOAL: Provide efficient, cost-effective management and operation to accelerate transportation project delivery and ensure system reliability. 6A. Explore development of an arterial and collector special assessment district to support projected transportation infrastructure needs. 613. Leverage existing transportation systems by em- phasizing low-cost congestion management in- vestments such as signal timing, signal coordina- tion, and signal system upgrades. 6C. Develop policies to support consistent application of development -related improvement require- ments and streamlined project development. 6D. Use the Move 2040 list of prioritized projects to guide transportation investment and make effec- tive use of funding when it becomes available. 6E. Support the pursuit of grant funding to study and improve traffic system performance. 6F. Invest at the appropriate level to ensure adequate funding for system maintenance and operations. 6G. Enhance information technology products and ser- vices through modernization of legacy systems and implementation of new technologies to improve efficiency and cost-effectively meet customer and city needs. 6H. Seek out development of a formal venue to engage MDT, Flathead County, Whitefish and Columbia Falls in regional discussion on issues of transporta- tion planning and programming. KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 7_ • rim JI1: 1\ 9 �= M �_ - �- PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY Meaningful public engagement involves two-way commu- nication with diverse stakeholders. A successful planning process provides easy access to project information and addresses questions and concerns, raised by the public and key stakeholders. The objective of public engagement is to have a measurable effect on the plan's outcomes. The Move 2040 public engagement process was open and respectful. The objective was to educate and inform stakeholders on the importance of the planning process through multiple opportunities. The goal was to enable stakeholders to take an active role in shaping the plan outcomes and to actively incorporate stakeholder input into guide recommendations. Developing a sense of own- ership among stakeholders is vital for successful imple- mentation of the plan's recommendations over time. STAKEHOLDERS SRC Development of the Kalispell Urban Area Transportation Plan was guided by the SRC. The SRC was formally ap- pointed by the Kalispell Urban TAC at the onset of the planning process. The SRC included a variety of City, County, and MDT staff. The SRC played a fundamental role throughout the planning process by providing di- rection at key decision points and helping to ensure that the plan was reflective of the community's transportation vision. The SRC met on 10 occasions and included the following representatives: Susie Turner, Public Works Director, City of Kalispell Tom Tabler, Senior Traffic Engineer, City of Kalispell Keith Haskins, City Engineer, City of Kalispel Jarod Nygren, Planning Director, City of Kalispell Dave Prunty, Public Works Director, Flathead County Rory Young, Urban TAC Representative Vicki Crnich, Planner, MDT Statewide & Urban Planning Section Rebecca Goodman, MDT Statewide & Urban Planning Section James Freyholtz, MDT Missoula District COMMUNITY MEMBERS Members of the community were critical in providing input on goals, strategies, and priorities throughout the plan- ning process. The Move 2040 public engagement activi- ties aided the SRC in creating a transportation plan that reflects the needs and desires of the public. Community member input gives life and direction to the planning process, and the project team was careful to incorporate engagement every step of the way. METHODS AND ACTIVITIES Phase I: Listening Sessions OVERVIEW Phase 1 of public engagement for Move 2040 consist- ed of three public input meetings, which were held at the Kalispell Chamber of Commerce over two days on February 12th and 13th, 2020. These meetings, which were referred to as Listening Sessions, were designed to both educate community members on the planning pro- cess and gather open-ended input on transportation is- sues within the study area. The Listening Sessions were advertised through a variety of channels, including an advertisement in the Daily Inter Lake, the project web site, Cable Channel 190, and social media posts by the City of Kalispell. L s — ~s KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 11_ Each of the Listening Sessions had three components Phase III: Final Outreach and Input Brief presentation on the Move 2040 planning pro- cess and an overview of data used to support the transportation planning process. A tabletop exercise to identify existing and emerging issues and potential big ideas to support the transpor- tation system in the Kalispell area. Small group prioritization exercise for goals and per- formance areas to help support the transportation planning process. The full Phase 1 engagement results can be found in Appendix X. Phase II: Community Updates Over the summer of 2020, the project team reached out to the Kalispell community to provide a progress report on the Move 2040 planning process. The project team initiated a social media campaign through Instagram and Facebook to provide recently developed materials and information on the planning process. Project updates in- cluded the findings of Phase I of the public input process and updated documentation on existing and projected conditions driving the planning process. Updates were directly provided to the following groups: Kalispell Development Association Kalispell Chamber of Commerce Kalispell Business Improvement District Flathead County Economic Development Authority Evergreen Water & Sewer District Evergreen Chamber of Commerce Montana West Economic Development Phase III of the Plan's public outreach component in- cluded two in -person open houses held on May 26th at Kalispell City Hall/Council Chambers. The open houses were intended to present the finished plan to commu- nity members and provide attendees the opportunity to give feedback on project findings and recommendations. Open houses were offered in both midday and evening sessions, and each provided attendees an informational presentation, a series of graphic posters summarizing key findings and recommendations, and various opportunities to provide feedback. A virtual livestream option was made available for those unable to attend the in -person open houses. In addition, project manager Wade Kline gave an inter- view with KGEZ to aid in presenting the results of the final plan to the public. The Phase III open houses were advertised through a va- riety of media sources, including various social media and print media. _12 MOVE 2040 MOVE Kalispell Area r,iv%hkmmmm w - w -.4041,01ijo CHAPTER 3.0 0 0 Transportation Plan EXISTING CONDITIONS INTRODUCTION Population Dynamics An understanding of the existing conditions is required to plan for the long-range future transportation needs of a growing community and region. Kalispell is an economic center that relies on the regional transportation network to connect residents of Flathead County with employ- ment, shopping, and recreational opportunities. As such it is important to understand the demographics of not just Kalispell but the surrounding area of Flathead County, Evergreen and the urban area boundary. The existing conditions covers the following socioeconomic trends: population, housing, and economy. DEMOGRAPHICS OVERVIEW Flathead County is the second fastest growing county in Montana since 2000. The total population of Flathead County grew from 39,460 in 1970 to 90,928 in 2010, for an increase of 51,468 residents. Overall population trends during the last 30 years indicate steady growth in the County, punctuated by short periods of slow or no growth associated with regional and national economic downturns. Between 2000 and 2009, the County's population (as a whole) increased by 20 percent, due in large part to Kalispell's growth. During the same time period, Kalispell's population increased by 42.5 percent, while the unincor- porated areas of Flathead County increased by just 8.9 percent. Kalispell has grown 89.3 percent since 1970, with most of the growth occurring since 1990. The 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) estimates a 2017 population of 23,938. Evergreen has more than doubled since 1980. The 2017 ACS estimates a 2017 population of 7,552. Table 3.'1 shows the historical population in the study area. Table 3.1: Historical Population in Study Area 1970 Flathead City of County Kalispell 39,460 10,526 Evergreen - State of Montana 694,409 1980 51,966 10,648 3,746 786,690 1990 59,518 11,917 4,109 799,065 2000 74,471 14,223 6,215 902,195 2010 90,928 19,927 7,616 989,415 2017 ACS 1021106 23,938 3.38% 2.71 % 7,552 1,062,305 1.13% Annual Average Change 2.75% Kalispell, and the study area in general, has a younger population than the state of Montana. The majority of the study area continues to see growth in the portion of the population under 18 and a decline in the portion of the population older than 64. Since 2000, the median age of Kalispell has decreased from 37.7 to 34.9 in 2017. Evergreen's median age has continued to increase from 35.4 in 2000 to 42 in 2017. Its under 18 population has declined in the same time period. Table 3.� shows the population dynamics in the study area. Table 3.2: Population Dynamics Area 000 Flathead County Median Age 39 41.2 42.3 Younger than 25.9% 23.4% 22.4% 18 18 to 64 61.1 % 62.2% 60.1 % Older than 64 13.0% 14.4% 17.5% City of Kalispell Median Age 37.7 34.5 -1 34.9 Younger than 24.0% 25.1 % 25.5% 18 18 to 64 57.7% 59.5% 58.8% Older than 64 1 18.3% 1 15.4% 1 15.7% Evergreen Median Age 35.4 37.8 42 -1 Younger than 280% 26.3% 24.6% 18 18 to 64 61.8% 61.6% 60.5% Older than 64 10.2% 12.1 % 14.9% State of Montana Median Age 37.5 39.8 -1 39.8 Younger than 25.5% 22.6% 22.0% 18 18 to 64 61.1 % 62.6% 60.9% Older than 64 13.4% 14.8% 17.1 % Housing Housing is the bedrock of a community and can deter- mine transportation needs and social, political, and eco- nomic conditions. Housing type and variety are important considerations in local land use and transportation de- cision -making processes. Table 3.3 shows the estimated number of households and average household size. There are an estimated 12,579 households between Kalispell and Evergreen with an average household size of 2.50. KALISPELL AREA i RANSPORTATION PLAN 15_ Table 3.3: Housing Trends in Study Area 2000 34,773 6,532 2,532 2010 46,963 9,379 3,147 2017 48,154 9,386 3,193 Percent Change 38.5% 43.7% 26.1 % Persons per Household 2.12 2.55 2.37 Economic Trends Healthcare, retail trade, and accommodation and food services are the three largest industries in Flathead County, employing nearly 20,000 people. Table 3.4 shows the largest industries in the county as well as their average employment. Table 3.4: Largest Industries in Flathead County Industry Health Care and Social Assistance Average Employmen 10 7,157 Retail Trade 6,366 Accommodation and food Services 6,130 Government —All Levels 4,976 Food Services and Drinking Places 4,352 Construction 3,296 Manufacturing 2,837 Ambulatory Health Care Services 2,215 Professional and Technical Services 2,042 Specialty Trade Contractors 2,024 Finance and Insurance 1,839 The largest private employers in Flathead County are shown in Table 3.5. Table 3.5: Largest Private Employers in Flathead County Employer More than 000 Employees Kalispell Regional Medical Center 500-999 Employees Weyerhaeuser 250-499 Employees AON Service Corporation Applied Materials Inc. Glacier Bank Health Center Northwest Immanuel Lutheran Home North Valley Hospital Super 1 Foods Teletech Wal-Mart Whitefish Mountain Resort 100-249 Employees A Plus Healthcare Brendan House Costco L C Staffing Service Lodge at Whitefish Lake McDonalds Smith's Food and Drug Summit Medical Fitness Center _16 MOVE 2040 According to the Montana Department of Labor & Industry's Local Area Profile for Flathead County, the county represents a tourism hotspot in Montana due to Glacier National Park, Flathead Lake, the local ski indus- try at Whitefish Mountain Resort and Blacktail Mountain Ski Area and a proliferation of wilderness found in the Bob Marshall Wilderness. The tourism economy offers sig- nificant employment opportunities, although much of this sector of the County's economy is centered on service in- dustry jobs which typically represent lower wage earners. The county's labor force was estimated at 47,793 in 2018, according to local area unemployment statistics (this number has not been seasonally adjusted). While county unemployment rates have been on a steady de- cline since the 2008/2009 recession, the current unem- ployment rate sits at 4.8 percent, over a percentage point higher than the state average unemployment rate of 3.7 percent. Figure 3.' shows the historical unemployment rates of Flathead County. According to the 2017 ACS Community Profile narratives for both Kalispell and Flathead County: Flathead County's federal, state, and local govern- ment sector employment represents 13.4 percent of the workforce in the county. Nearly 80 percent of the workforce is in private industry. Key industries in Flathead County are educational services, health care and social assistance (23.5 percent); retail trade (13.8 percent); arts, entertainment and recreation (10.9 percent); and professional, scientific and tech services (9.8 percent). Kalispell's federal, state, and local government sector employment is around 13 percent of the workforce in the city. Nearly 83 percent of the workforce is in private industry. Key industries in Kalispell are educational services, health care and social assistance (26.2 percent); retail trade (19.7 percent); professional, scientific and tech services (9.6 percent); and finance and insurance, real estate, rental and leasing (9.3 percent). 5.00 i 9.00 6.00 3.00 Figure 3.1: Historical Unemployment Rates in Flathead County 12.00% 4.90 0.00 % 1 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 F-1 KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 17_ EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS Move 2040 analyzed the existing transportation system to establish baseline traffic conditions and evaluate existing and future issues. This data was provided by MDT, City of Kalispell, and Flathead County. The analysis includes all modes of transportation, including personal automobile, bicycle, pedestrian, transit, truck freight, rail, and air. Functional Class The operation of a community's road network is defined by functional classification of the roadway system. These classifications define the service each road segment plays in serving the flow of traffic through the street network. By utilizing this classification system, the operation of traffic can be designed to work in a logical and efficient man- ner. Roadways are grouped into a hierarchy of six general functional classifications. Figure 3.2 demonstrates the re- lationship between access and mobility for each function- al classification. Figure 3.2: Functional Class Access and Mobility Principal Arterial EXPLANATION Major Collector Minor Collector Local Street Most streets and highways have a predominant function: either to provide the motorist with access to abutting land or to allow movement through an area. Traffic that gains access to abutting land is considered "local" whereas all other traffic is considered "through." Through traffic nei- ther originates nor terminates within a designated area, but simply passes through. On the other hand, local traf- fic has origins or destinations within the designated area. Urban and rural areas have different characteristics as to density and types of land use, nature of travel patterns, density of street and highway networks, and the way in which all these elements are related to highway function. Federal regulations recognize these differences through separate urban and rural functional classification systems and associated criteria. Small Urban Areas have populations between 5,000 and 49,999. Urbanized Areas are areas with population over 50,000, as designated by Census Bureau. Rural Areas are areas outside the boundaries of small urban and urbanized areas. Montana has three urbanized areas (Billings, Great Falls, and Missoula) and 16 small urban areas. The Move 2040 study area is a small urban area, since its population base is less than 50,000, but greater than 5,000. FUNCTIONAL CLASS DEFINITIONS Below is a definition of each of the functional classifica- tions. These summaries are further defined in .rble 3.6. Functionally classified roadways in the study area are shown in rigure 3.3 and Principal Arterials Principle arterials provide the means of regional and in- terstate transportation of people and goods. This is done by having roads which have the highest speed and unin- terrupted trips and broken into principal and minor arte- rial routes. In urban areas principal arterials serve as cor- ridors with the highest traffic volume and carry the most trips through urban areas. Minor Arterials The minor arterial routes in the street system provide con- nections and support the principal arterial system. The trips are generally shorter in nature and spread out over a smaller geographic area. Major and Minor Collectors Major and minor collector streets are designed for lower speeds and shorter distances that collect and distribute traffic from the arterial streets and local streets. These are designed to provide traffic circulation within residential neighborhoods and commercial and industrial areas. The collectors connect to local streets to deliver the traffic to its destination. Local Streets Local streets are all streets not defined above in the hier- archy with the purpose to provide basic access between residential and commercial properties. These streets are generally slower and have the addition of traffic calming measures. These are the largest element in the American public road network in terms of mileage. Table 3.6: Functional Classification Definitions Principal Arterial » Serves major activity centers Corridors with highest traffic volumes Longest trip lengths Minor Arterial » Connects other Urban principal arterials Major Collector Serves both land access and traffic circulation in higher density resi- dential and commercial/industrial areas Distributes and channels trips between local streets and arterials usu- ally over a distance of greater than 3/4 mile Extends through residential neighborhoods, often for significant distances Minor Collector Serves both land access and traffic circulation in lower density residen- tial and commercial/industrial areas Distributes and channels trips between locals and arterials, usually over a distance of less than 3/4 mile Extends through residential neighborhoods, often only for a short distance Local » All remaining streets Direct land access and link to higher classifications Principal Arterial » Predominant route between major activity centers Interstate or intrastate significance Long trip lengths Heavy travel densities Provides service to most large urban areas Minor Arterial Links cities and larger towns (or major resorts) Spaced at intervals so that all developed areas are within a reasonable distance of an arterial Interconnects network of principal arterial Major Collector Service to travel of primarily intra county importance Serves important travel generators (i.e., County seats, consolidated schools, mining, or logging areas) Minor Collector » Land use access and spaced at intervals consistent with population density Local Access to adjacent land for short distances All remaining roads not classified under higher system KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 19_ EVALUATION OF EXISTING FUNCTIONAL CLASS WITHIN TI STUDY AREA Currently both the City and MDT have an approved func- tional class map for the study area. The functional class system used by MDT follows the guidelines developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as discussed in this section. Any reference to functional class in this document refers to the system established by FHWA. The system currently employed by the city is a loose interpre- tation of the FHWA guidelines and has been developed to respond to localized conditions and needs. Upon adop- tion of this plan, the City of Kalispell will default to a func- tional class map based on FHWA criteria as used by MDT. Therefore, no additional reference to a locally approved functional class will occur in this document. The total miles of functionally classified roads within the study area are shown in Table 3.7. Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4 show the current approved functionally classified road- ways for the study area based on FHWA criteria, as used by MDT. The functionally classified system within the study area was evaluated against current FHWA guidelines for recommended percentages for each functional classified roadway. These ranges are based on FHWA best practices for urban areas based on the 2013 Highway Functional Classification Concepts, Criteria and Procedures manual. Based on a comparison with FHWA guidelines for func- tionally classified roadways in small urban areas the study area has the following characteristics: Too few minor arterial and minor collector roadways. Excess number of roadways classified as local. The current conditions may result in local roadways func- tioning as minor collector roadways. The shortage of minor arterial roadways is likely putting additional traffic burden on collector roadways. Later stages of the planning process will allow for a framework of an update of both an existing and future functional class map for the Move 2040 study area. MDT is currently moving through a statewide functional class update. Initial direction will allow for an updated func- tional class map for the study area that follows FHWA guidelines and integrates with the MDT statewide update. Changing Functional Classification Local governments may request functional classification changes at any time significant changes in operating characteristics occur. After receiving a request, MDT staff analyzes the route in accordance with FHWA guidelines to determine if the proposed change is justified and makes a recommendation to the Montana Transportation Commission. If approved by the Commission, it goes to FHWA for final approval. Table 3.7. Existing Functional Classification Mileage and FHWA Recommended Ranges Functional Class Name Principal Arterial Miles 33.8 % of Total 6.5% FHWA Recommendation 4% to 9% Within Rang,;. Yes Minor Arterial 27.3 5.3% 7% to 14% No Major Collector 28.2 5.4% 3% to 16% Yes Minor Collector 10 1.9% 3% to 16% No Local 419 80.8% 62% to 74% No Total 518.5 100% Source: Highway Functional Classification Concepts, Criteria and Procedures, FHWA, 2013 Edition _20 MOVE 2040 Figure 3.3: Functionally Classified Roadways in the Study Area i n / � Legend Study Area 548 Functional Class Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector — Local Kalispell Transportation Area Plan (� 0 0.5 1 mmmE= Mill KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 21_ Figure 3.4: Functionally Classified Roadways Inset Legend Study Area Functional Class Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Local 4 Kalispell Transportation Area ( Plan 0 0.5 1 Miles _22 MOVE 2040 Highway Systems in Montana For the purpose of allocating state and federal highway funds, Montana's public highways and streets are placed on systems based in part on the functional classification system. "Upgrades" in functional classification and high- way system designation do not automatically lead to in- creased funding for improvements. Factors such as fund- ing availability, project eligibility, and project prioritization are equally important considerations. The following system designations are used in Montana to assist with programming and funding of roadways. Specific designa- tions of these roadways within the study area are shown in Figure 3.-'. FEDERALLY DESIGNATED HIGHWAY SYSTEMS National Highway System (NHS) A federal system of public highways as defined in Title 23, USC and designated by Congress or the Secretary of Transportation that includes the Interstate System as well as other roads important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility. Interstate NHS The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways consists of routes of highest im- portance to the nation, which connect, as directly as practicable, the principal metropolitan areas, cities, and industrial centers including important routes into, though, and around urban areas, serve the national defense and, to the greatest extent possible, connect at suitable border points with routes of continental importance in Canada and Mexico. Non -Interstate NHS Principal arterials other than the Interstate that serve major travel destinations and transportation needs, con- nectors to major transportation terminals, the Strategic Highway Network and connectors, and high priority corri- dors identified by law. I STATE DESIGNATED HIGHWAY SYSTEMS (MCA 60-2-126) Primary Highway System Highways functionally classified by MDT as either princi- pal or minor arterials and selected by the Transportation Commission to be placed on the Primary Highway System. Secondary Highway System Highways functionally classified by MDT as either mi- nor arterials or major collectors and selected by the Transportation Commission, in cooperation with the boards of county commissioners, to be placed on the Secondary Highway System. Urban Highway Systerr Highways and streets in and near incorporated cities with populations of over 5,000 and within urban boundaries established by the Department, functionally classified as either urban arterials or major collectors, and selected by the Transportation Commission, in cooperation with lo- cal government authorities, to be placed on the Urban Highway System. [MCA 60-2-125(6)]. State Highways State highways are a system of roads maintained by MDT, but not part of the NHS, Primary, Secondary or Urban Systems. Maintenance Responsibility Roadways in the study area are maintained by different agencies. MDT maintains US Highways such as Highway 93, Highway 2, and the Highway 93 Bypass. MDT is also responsible for State Highways and designated Primary and Secondary roadways such as Reserve Drive, Three Mile Drive, and Farm to Market. Flathead County main- tains several roads throughout the study area. The re- maining roads are maintained by the City of Kalispell. demonstrates identified roadway maintenance obligations based on functional classification of minor collector or higher. r,ALi�)rtLL AREA i PANS PORTATI0N PLAN 23_ I= rK MEN Figure 3.6: Roadway Maintenance Responsibility KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 25_ Travel Trends Figure 3.8: Average Travel Time to Work by Mode MODE Commuting data was gathered from the US Census Bureau which provides a readily available source of infor- mation on transportation choices. In the case of Kalispell, the five-year average from 2010 and 2017 was used to provide insight into the transportation choices in the community. Figure 3.7 shows the modes of transportation to work- places. The predominant means of commuting is the per- sonal automobile —nearly 83 percent of people used a personal automobile to travel to work in 2017. This mode of transportation increased between 2010 and 2017 by five and a half percent. The use of carpooling has de- clined by almost two and a half percent while transit has increased by 0.7 percent. Figure 3.7. Modes of Transportation to Workplaces 90.00 80.00 r 70.00 60.00 50.00% 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 r o o 00 O C1 00 o O O � o ME Drove Carpooled Alone TRAVEL TIME 0 0 0 0 O P O Transit Biked or Walked ■ 2010 ■ 201 7 o00 O o 0 111 Taxicab Worked at Home Since 2010, the average travel time has remained rel- atively unchanged at around 15 minutes per trip. The median time to travel on transit has decreased by nearly 63 percent, which is likely related to increased levels of service within the city of Kalispell. Travel time for people who drive alone increased slightly, while those carpooling saw a decrease in their average travel time between 2010 and 2017. r-igure 3.8 shows the average travel time to work by mode. 90 84.8 80 70 60 50 40 31.4 30 21.9 20 13.7 15 168 15.6 15.4 10 . 0 4t_ . 0 Drove Alone Carpooled Public Average Transportation ■ 2010 02017 Travel Demand Model Travel demand models are computer models that are often used in area -wide transportation planning. These models use spatially allocated demographic data like the number of households and number of jobs which will be used to estimate future traffic volumes and traffic patterns with expected demographic changes. The MDT - maintained model for the Kalispell area was developed using the TransCAD software. BASE YEAR (2017) MODELING To best ensure future year (2040) modeled volumes are accurate enough for transportation planning purposes, travel demand models are first developed and applied for existing conditions (commonly referred to as a base year model). Base year modeled volumes are then compared to field -collected traffic counts using FHWA-prescribed statistical analysis. For the 2017 base year, the Flathead County model results are within FHWA-accepted devia- tions, meaning the model is sufficiently calibrated and validated for use in future conditions travel demand modeling. A map showing 2017 base year daily modeled traffic vol- umes is shown in Figure 3.10 for the entire study area and .=igure 3.1 , for the urban area. Base Year Demographic Data Modeled traffic volumes are a function of the number of households and the number of jobs in the Kalispell area. Travel demand models segment the area into geogra- phies called Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ), with households and jobs being allocated to each TAZ. 2017 base year household and employment totals by TAZ are shown in Figure 3.12 and igure 3.13, respectively. More analysis of existing and projected demographic data to support Move 2040 is included in Chapter 4 _26 MOVE 2040 Base Year Volume -to -Capacity Ratios. Travel demand model results can be used to establish planning -level volume -to -capacity ratios (V/C ratios) for study area roadways. These V/C ratios are generally used to iden- tify locations with the most significant ca- pacity constraints that require more detailed and operations -based traffic analysis. At a planning -level, roadway capacities are a function of roadway functional classifica- tions, speed limits, and the number of travel lanes. For analysis purposes, V/C ratios have been translated to roadway level of service (LOS) based on federal research and guidelines. LOS is a letter grade used to de- scribe traffic operations where LOS A pro- vides travel with nearly no delay and LOS F represents gridlocked travel. Generally, LOS D or worse is considered deficient and in need of improvements. igure 3.9 demon- strates the level of service thresholds and operations, with the level of service thresholds by V/C ra- tios shown in Table 3.8. Based on planning -level capacity analysis, the following roadways experience significant congestion under current conditions: US 93 between 12th Street and 8th Street (Downtown Kalispell) operates at LOS F. US 93 between Wyoming Street and Four Mile Drive operates at LOS E/F. US 2 between West Valley Drive and US 93 Alternative (Kalispell Bypass) operates at LOS E. West Reserve Drive between US 93 and Whitefish Stage operates at LOS E. Figure 3.9: Level of Service Descriptions As shown in Figure 3.1,, and Figure 3.15, some other roadways have small segments operating at LOS D or worse, however these issues are mainly attributable to intersection operations. Vehicle Miles Traveled and Vehicle Hours. Traveled Area - wide traffic operations are often quantified in terms of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle hours traveled (VHT) throughout an entire study area. VMT and VHT be- come especially useful metrics when comparing an ex- panded/improved area -wide roadway network to a base condition to understand the overall community benefit experienced through a series of significant transportation investments. Table 3.8: Level of Service Thresholds by Volume -to -Capacity Ratio VIC Ratio Under 0.6 Level of Service LOS A Description Near free -flow traffic. 0.6 to 0.7 LOS B Minor delays. 0.7 to 0.8 LOS C Some delays, but not resulting in significant traffic congestion. 0.8 to 0.9 LOS D Delays with some traffic congestion. 0.9 to 1.0 LOS E Significant delays with significant traffic congestion, approaching capacity. 1.0+ LOS F Breakdown of traffic flow, major traffic congestion. Source: NCHRP 387 — Planning Techniques to Estimate Speeds and Services Volumes for Planning Applications KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 27_ Figure 3.10: 2017 Modeled Volumes in Study Area 4500 O Lo I 1 1 4 o O C0 rn _ p^ 2 2s2 0 ID I 0 CO o 00 0 ROSE XINGN S 3100 N O 19300 16500 gZ 7,7-0,: O O �--- O------ _ ___,_=�-I LO ' 900�0 3600 ' 1700 i o� �1410p i M � i 113�0 i i y 0 35 i 33001 1 �p6 o � M W 1 O Lo J -moo, 93 - -se 1 g I °o 3A _ Legend 0 Study Area Modeled Volumes 2017 — 5,100 - 10,000 �10,100 - 15,000 Kalispell 0 - 500 Area 600 - 1,700—15,100 - 20,000 1,800 - 5,000 �20,400 - 34,400 Transportation Plan 0 0.5 1 mmmm== Miles _28 MOVE 2040 Figure 3.11: 2017 Modeled Volumes Inset 0 0 v v M lcnn 7 C', >� 1 � a.10p0 i�� l "all � ida 11 > Ir HSTE�� 00 7\' o o Op O ,tip > s O Legend ,� Study Area Modeled Volumes 2017 — 5,001 - 10,000 Jj 1,000 - 1,500 10,001 - 15,000 Kalispell Transportation 1,501 - 2,500 15,001 - 20,000 Area Plan —2,501 - 5,000 Volumes <1000 omitted �20,001 34,400 �`00 0 0.25 0.5 Miles KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 29_ Figure 3.12: 2017 Households per Acre LEI a _VelsiEJ ■ � � Im OIL * •L E 0 0 -LI Legend Households per acre Area �r 0.0 - 0.5 koomo%&�Study Evergreen 0.6 - 1.0 Kalispell Transportation Area Plan 12 Kalispell 1.1 - 10.0 10.1 - 50.0 0 * '%NNNw0 4F 50.1 - 117.1 0 0.5 1 � Miles _30 MOVE 2040 Figure 3.13: 2017 Jobs per Acre ml 11111111111MAR Legend Study Area Evergreen 43 Kalispell r Jobs per acre 0.0 - 0.5 0.6 - 1.0 1.1 - 10.0 10.1 - 50.0 50.1 - 74.8 x 0 3 0 Kalispell Transportation Area 41110 Plan 0 0.5 1 Miles KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 31_ Figure 3.14: Volume -to -Capacity Ratios in Study Area Legend iflStudyArea Volume to Capacity 2017 LOS A-C: 0.0 to .79 LOS D:.8 to .89 LOS E:.9 to 1.0 �LOS F: > 1.0 Kalispell Area ransportation Ian 0 0.5 1 mmmm== Miles _32 MOVE 2040 Figure 3.15: Volume -to -Capacity Ratios Inset Legend 0 Study Area Volume to Capacity 2017 LOS A-C: 0.0 to .79 LOS D:.8 to .89 LOS E:.9 to 1.0 LOS F: > 1.0 z Kalispell Transportation Area Plan 0 0.25 0.5 Miles KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 33_ Actual Versus Modeled VMT For the Kalispell urban area, the 2017 field -collected daily VMT was approximately 681,000 compared to the mod- eled daily VMT of 733,000, meaning the travel demand model estimated around 8% more daily VMT than actual conditions. A breakdown of actual VMT versus modeled VMT by functional classification is shown in Figure 3.16. Figure 3.16: 2017Actual Versus Modeled VMT 600,000 0 A (n A 500,000 o V 400,000 A' 300,000 w 0, �o 200,000 a a o 100,000 00 2 A A ■ . U N Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector ■ 2017 VMT ■ 2017 Modeled VMT Modeled VHT Actual VHT data is not available for comparison. However modeled VHT sums up to approximately 24,500 hours per day for the study area. Later in this study, potential future roadway networks and their associated VHT to- tals can be compared to a base condition to understand area -wide travel -time benefits gained through transpor- tation investments. STREETLIGHT DATA StreetLight data was used to supplement existing daily traf- fic volumes and travel demand model results to provide a better understanding of the existing system operations and travel patterns. StreetLight utilizes anonymized loca- tion records from smart phones and navigation devices in cars and trucks to analyze regional travel patterns. The StreetLight data analysis was conducted using the TAZ data exports from the MDT Travel Demand Model and was then combined into similar zone structures to meet data size minimums. Additional pass -through zones (re- ferred to here as "external zones") were added to quantify traffic entering or exiting on regional routes, and interior segment analysis zones were added to assess congestion along specific routes. StreetLight data results were not derived from base year data but were based off an av- erage of 2018 yearly data and then calibrated to 2018 daily traffic volumes published by MDT for external zones on regional roadways. The StreetLight data TAZ zone numbering and additional external and segment analysis zones are shown in Figure 3.18. Overall Travel Patterns There were an estimated 367,500 daily trips in the study area based on origin -destination (O-D) data from 33,000 unique devices. These daily trips decreased by as much as 26 percent during the fall -off peak season (November) to 272,000 daily trips and increased up to 10 percent during the summer months (June through August). The O-D data allowed for the analysis of regional and local trips. Figure 3.17, Figure 3.19 on page 36, and 3.20 on page 36 show the origin and destination anal- ysis of traffic for high -volume O-D zones, as well as the external zones. The high -volume O-D zones shown in the figures are those that saw the biggest variation in season- al volumes. Figure 3.17: Seasonal Traffic by Zone 30,000 27,500 25,000 22,500 - 20,000 - 17,500 15,000 12,500 10,000 - - 7,500 2°°° : �III�I �� „� III III IIIII� III o a` "Yoc�oc � c � a oc �r ■ November 2018 ■ AADT 2018 ■ Summer 2018 _34 MOVE 2040 Figure 3.18: StreetLight Daily Destination Zone Volumes US 93 North } ❑ US 2 North Whitefish Stage Rd North 3I 5 2 4 1 Reserve Dr West 8 ej 9 -10 11 12 13 14 15 � Montana Highway 17 18 19 20 424 West 93 35 30 24 21 3 16 2 9 27 28 2 5 34 33 ., 7 11 Montana Highway 35 East 11 US 2 West ED It3 37 93 US 93 South Legend ��� Study Area Streetlight Data Analysis Zones Kalispell Transportation El External Zone AreaQ� Plan ❑ Segment Analysis Zone'�� 0 0.5 1 mom= Miles KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 35_ Figure 3.19: Total Daily Traffic by Origin Zone Traffic Volume 0 5,000 10,000 15.000 2010W 25,000 30,000 27 US 93 South US 93 North US 2 North 28 li 14 c MTHwy35E v N c 33 � D 19 ! 34 22 ! 14 ■ 13 M 18 ■ 24 if 20 ■ Figure 3.20: Total Daily Traffic by Destination Zone Traffic Volume 0 SO)[) 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,H30 27 (is 2 North Jis 93 South US 93 North iI 1� 28 v 10 IM C H 33 C °m MTHwy35E c 19 v a 22 a 14 - 34 13 24 � - _ .._i 18 ! 20 WE Seasonal Traffic Changes Traffic using US 93 to the north and south of Kalispell saw a five percent increase (around 1,000 trips) in its daily traffic during the summer months (June through August). In comparison, regional summer trips on US 93 within Kalispell increased 35 percent, around 600 daily trips, during the same period. The overall trips to -and -from 35,000 3t7,000 35,000 Distancp Traveled IN 0.1 mi ■ 1.2 mi ■ 2-5 mi 5.10 mi ■ 10-20 mi ■20-30 mi ■ 30-40 mi ■40-50 mi ■ 50.60 mi ■50-70 mi a7o-SO mI ■80.90 mi ■ 90.100 mi ■ 100+ mi Distance Traveled a 0-1 mi ■ 1-2 mi ■ 2-5 mi + 5.10 mi ■ 10.20 mi ■ 20-30 mi ■30-40 mi ■ 40-50 m i s 50.60 m i * 60-70 mi ■ 70-80 rm ■M90 nii ■ 90.100 mi a 100w mi Kalispell on US 2 and US 93 saw a 15 percent increase, between 3,000 and 4,000 daily trips. figure 3.17 on page 34 shows the volume changes between off-season (November), yearly average daily traffic, and high -season (June through August) for select high -volume O-D zones and external zones. Origin and Destination Analysis Result, Six corridors were selected for a more detailed analysis of current operational dynamics based on the StreetLight data. US 93A (Kalispell Bypass). US 93A is impacting trips to -and -from Kalispell as well as regional trips traveling through Kalispell. The O-D data shows that regional trips over 10 miles in length utilize US 93A, instead of US 93, resulting in fewer trips through Downtown Kalispell. Sixteen percent, or 1,500 trips per day, of northbound US 93 traffic and eight percent, 800 trips per day, of southbound US 93 traffic is regional traffic trav- eling through Kalispell. Approximately two-thirds of this traffic uses the US 93A instead of US 93 through Downtown Kalispell. Thirteen percent of traffic using US 93 had trips great- er than 10 miles compared to 46 percent of traffic using US 93A had trips greater than 10 miles. Willow Glen Drive. Willow Glen Drive has long been dis- cussed as a future "bypass" on the east side of Kalispell. While it may never be designed or designated like US 93A, it has the potential to be a three -lane urban minor arterial providing an alternate route from US 93 to the south and US 2 to the north. 6,200 daily trips from US 93 south and zones in south- east Kalispell are destined to US 2 north or zones in northeast Kalispell. 25 percent of trips that may use a Willow Glen Drive connection are originated at or destined for US 2 north. 31 percent of trips that may use a Willow Glen Drive connection are originated at or destined for US 93 south. Although both major regional roadways represent a high percentage of traffic, only 510 daily trips, or nine percent, are specifically traveling between US 2 north and US 93 south. This means 91 percent of traffic ei- ther starts or ends in northeast or southeast Kalispell. Figure 3.21 shows the Willow Glen Drive travel patterns. Figure 3.21: Willow Glen Drive Zone Analysis 1 7 3 5 6 2 4 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 q�1.9 20 2 16 21 22 23 29 31 27 28 5 34 33 36 37 93 KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 37_ Rose Crossing. Rose Crossing is an existing east -west con- nection from US 2 to US 93. With congestion on West Reserve Drive increasing over the past several years, Rose Crossing has become a popular cut through between US 2 and US 93. Traffic from US 2 north and northeastern zones esti- mate westbound traffic at about 1,050 daily trips with 43 percent to zone 5 and 22 percent to northbound US 93. Traffic from US 93 north and northwestern zones esti- mate eastbound traffic at about 1,050 daily trips with 47 percent to northbound US 2 and 23 percent to zone 6. These traffic estimates match 2019 daily traffic vol- umes of 1,950 daily vehicles using Rose Crossing. Figure 3.11 shows the travel patterns for Rose Crossing. Figure 3.22: Rose Crossing Zone Analysis n Meridian Road. Meridian Road serves as a northwest Kalispell to downtown Kalispell connection for local traf- fic. A middle filter analysis (looking only at traffic using Meridian Road between Three Mile Drive and US 2) was conducted to understand the origins and destinations of traffic using this connection. The five highest traffic generator zones using the north - south section of Meridian Road is local traffic traveling between zones 10, 11, 18, 22, and 27, which represents 53 percent of total traffic (6,520 trips). 77 percent of traffic using Meridian Road has a trip length less than 10 miles. There is a clear northwest and southeast regional use of Meridian Road from MT 424 to downtown Kalispell, representing 600 trips. Figure 3.23 shows the travel patterns for Meridian Road. Figure 3.23: Meridian Road Zone Analysis West Reserve Drive. West Reserve Drive has seen an increase in traffic due to the US 93A completion, which creates a continuous east -west route from US 93A to US 2 on the east. About 8,250 daily vehicles are traveling on US 93A and West Reserve Drive between the zones highlighted in Figure 3.24. Only 1,100 daily trips were identified using a northwest to southeast and southeast to northwest route across West Reserve Drive. 62 percent of traffic using the west portion of West Reserve Drive has a trip length greater than 10 miles. For trips greater than 10 miles, 44 percent are between 10 and 20 miles and take more than 20 minutes. Less than two percent of traffic going to northeastern zones, Whitefish Road, or US 2 is coming from West Reserve Drive at MDT 424 or from zones one, two, or three. About 30 percent of traffic using West Reserve Drive is coming from US 93A, while nearly 50 percent is coming from zones 10 and 1 1 . Figure 3.24 shows the travel patterns for West Reserve Drive. Figure 3.24: West Reserve Drive Zone Analysis Commercial Traffic Three Mile Drive. Development to the west continues to impact Three Mile Drive, with most trips destined for Downtown Kalispell and surrounding areas. 50 to 60 percent of traffic using Three Mile Drive has a destination in zones 18, 19, 22, 23, 27, and 28 in Downtown Kalispell. Four percent is destined for US 93 south, two percent for US 2 west, and 1.5 percent for US 93 north. The rest is spread throughout the outer zones. Figure 3.25 shows the travel patterns for Three Mile Drive Figure 3.25: Three Mile Drive Zone Analysis Commercial traffic in StreetLight was quantified to under- stand the major truck patterns in and through Kalispell. While commercial traffic includes all vehicles used for business activities, the metrics from this analysis did iden- tify important traffic trends between external zones and high commercial traffic zones in Kalispell. Regional results identified US 93 south is the highest truck traffic roadway entering Kalispell representing 33 percent of regional truck traffic in Kalispell. Both US 2 north and US 93 north represent around 22 percent of truck traf- fic entering Kalispell. East to west regional truck traffic is much less with only 10 percent using US 2 west and 11 percent using MT Highway 35 east. StreetLight origin -destination (O-D) zones identified as having a higher share of commercial traffic versus all traffic include zones 33, 34, and 37 on the south side of Kalispell which include the Kalispell Airport and many commercial type businesses along US 93. Zone 14 was also identified as having a large share of truck traffic comparatively due to several commercial and shipping companies (Fed Ex/USPS) being located along US 2 in Evergreen. .gure 3.2c shows the commercial traffic travel trends through the Kalispell area. Travel Time/Travel Speed Travel times along the US 93 and US 93A were quanti- fied to compare the travel time savings that the bypass has provided regional traffic through Kalispell. For south - bound traffic, US 93A provides a nearly 10 minute shorter trip for most traffic. Travel times on US 93A are under 20 minutes for 62 percent of the traffic compared to just 13 percent of traffic using US 93. Average travel speeds on US 93A are 53 miles per hour compared to 37 miles per hour on US 93. Average travel times and speeds on US 93 and US 93A are shown in Figure 3.27 and Figure o./_o, respectively. KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 39_ Figure 3.26: Commercial Traffic Travel Trends Traffic Volume 0 2,gp0 4000 biDW 81000 10,000 US 93 South 2F 77 3I US 7 North US 93 North 33 34 0 ry 11 G 0 m 14 10 13 6 22 MT HWy 3SE 20 US 2 West - So- {♦ Figure 3.27. US 93 South to US 93 North Trip Duration Comparison 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% US 93A North US 93 North Distance Tfaveled ■0.1 m1 ■I-2 mi ■ 2-S mi • 5.10 mi ■ 10-20 mI a 20-30 ml ■ 30-40 ml ■ 40-50 m I ■ 50-60 mI ■ GO-70 ml ■ 7D-80 ml ■ 80.90 m a 90-100 ml ■ 100+ m i ■ 0-10 min ■ 10-20 min ■ 20-30 min ■ 30-40 min ■ 40-50 min ■ 50-60 min ■ 60+ min _40 MOVE 2040 Figure 3.28: US 93 South to US 93 North Average Speed Comparison 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% U5 93A North U5 93 North Congestion StreetLight uses existing data to calculate congestion and level of delay. During the AM Peak (6 AM to 10 AM), US 2 and US 93 in downtown operate with 21 percent and 30 per- cent congestion, respectively. This means that US 2 is operating at LOS E or worse for 50 minutes while US 93 is deficient for 72 minutes. During the PM Peak (3 PM to 7 PM), US 2 and US 93 in downtown operate with 33 percent and 40 percent r33�%� ■ 0-10 mph w 10-20 mph w 20-30 mph ■ 30-40 mph ■ 40-50 mph ■ 50-60 mph ■ 60-70 mph ■ 70+ mph congestion, respectively. This means that US 2 is op- erating at LOS E or worse for 79 minutes while US 93 is deficient for 96 minutes. Meridian Road also ex- hibits more congestion in the PM Peak showing 22.8 percent congestion. Figure 3.29 and gure 3.30 shows the AM and PM peak hour levels of congestions. The maps included in these figures demonstrate the level of congestion at each loca- tion, with green indicating the lowest congestion and red indicating the highest congestion areas. Figure 3.29: AM Peak Hour Congestion Figure 3.30: PM Peak Hour Congestion US 93 North ■ US 93 South Whitefish Stage Rd North US 2 North M US 93 Bypass US 2 West Montana Highway 35 E Montana Highway 424 W US 93 Line Reserve Dr West Meridian Road US 2 US 93 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Li � r _ 93A' F z � `f 93 US 93 North ■ US 93 South Whitefish Stage Rd North US 2 North US 93 Bypass US 2 West Montana Highway 35 E Montana Highway 424 W US 93 Line Reserve Dr West Meridian Road US 2 US 93 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% _42 MOVE 2040 Multimodal Hotspot5 There are an estimated 367,500 daily trips in the study area. Nearly six percent of captured trips (7,300 trips) are between one and three miles per hour and less than one mile. Another nearly nine percent of trips (16,600 trips) are between three and five miles per hour and less than two miles. While these data sets overlap to some extent, they can still be used to identify trips that could be made by walking and biking, as shown in Figure 3.31. Zones 27 and 28 represented 18 percent of total multimodal trips in Kalispell and 27 percent of their respective total zone traffic for all modes. These two zones represent the majority of downtown destina- tions including the Kalispell Center Mall, Historic Downtown, and many other businesses. These zones show 15,960 daily trips that were less than five miles per hour and less than two miles. Zone 11 includes Flathead Valley Community College and major retailers. This zone showed 4,600 daily trips that were less than five miles per hour. The multimodal percentage from each zone was calcu- lated for each zone in quire 3.31 This chart takes into account the total trip count of each zone and allows zones that have low total trip counts to be identified as a high percentage of possible multimodal use. Zones 9, 10, 11, 22, 23, 24, 27, and 28 all show over 20 percent or more of total trips traveling less than five miles per hour. Most of these zones are either downtown or include major retailers where walking is common. Zone 9, which is a rural zone, shows 15 percent of trips under three miles per hour which can be attribut- ed to the lowest trip total (26 of 105 total trips) of all zones. Zones 1, 2, 6, 16, 25, 31, 32, 36, 37 and all exter- nal zones showed potential multimodal use under 10 percent. These zones are generally on the out- side of city boundaries and have limited multimodal infrastructure. Figure 3.31: Multimodal Traffic by Zone Traffic Volume 0 1,000 2,R00 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 27 9,062 (28.0%) 28 5,911 I27.5%) 11 4,984 (23.1%) 10 3,996 I21.4%} 33 2,954 (18.9%) 22 2,282 (21.4%) I9 2,211 (18.5%) 24 2,139 124,6%) 34 L,900 (18.8%) 23 1,768 (26.8%) 14 1,101(16.596} 18 1,539(17.7%) i3 � 1,462 (15.4%j 20 1,245 (17.6%1 30 991(162%1 29 871(19.2%1 12 631 (17.0%) a 4 � 572 (16.2°f.I 5 524 (12.5`K,I 0 25 d 438(12..1%) G A 388 (9,0%) 8 25 343 (11.6%) 15 319(13.5%) 15 308 (16.2%) 21 r 789 (I0.29ej 1 227 (9.7%) 37 p 207 (&M 17 1! 191(12.7%) MT Hwy 35 E 1 182 (1.2%) US2NWh 13910.69%1 3 137 (20.3%) u5 93 South it 11110.4%} 16 lab US 93 North 70 (0.3%) 75 I 54 (6.5%) ■ 1-3 mph . 3.5 mph 7 3 '` 2 4 5 8 11 9 F 13 12 14 15 17 18 19 20 b j55 i 15 30 24 23 — -Z� 22z 29 31 � 20 27 � as 26 3s 33 37 36 KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 43_ Traffic Operations TRAFFIC OPERATIONS RESULTS Existing traffic operations were evaluated at 32 study intersections using methodologies from the Highway Capacity Manual. The intersections were selected based upon the availability of recent turning movement data. Peak hour turning movement counts were sourced from counts provided by MDT and the City of Kalispell. Traffic operations are described in terms of LOS, with lev- els of service ranging from LOS A to LOS F, as described above. The LOS calculations incorporate traffic volumes, intersection geometry, signal timing, and other parame- ters to estimate the delay per vehicle at the intersection. LOS A indicates near free -flow traffic conditions with little delay and LOS F indicates breakdown of traffic flow with very high amounts of delay. At oversaturated intersections and approaches, the delay may only reflect the vehicles that can be processed in the analysis period and not the total delay for that intersection, thus underreporting the actual delay experienced by drivers. LOS C or better is considered acceptable. The LOS thresh- olds for intersection delay are shown in cable 3.y. Table 3.9: LOS Thresholds by Intersection Delay LOS A <10 <10 I Near free -flow traffic. LOS B 10-15 10-20 l Minor delays. 'Some delays, but LOS C 15-25 20-35 not resulting in significant traffic congestion. LOS D 25-35 35-55 1 Delays with some traffic conaestion. Significant delays with significant LOS E 35-50 55-80 traffic congestion, approaching capacity. Breakdown of LOS F > 50 > 80 traffic flow, major traffic congestion. Intersection LOS analysis was performed for 32 intersec- tions within the study area based on existing conditions. Most study intersections operate effectively at LOS C or better during both peak hours, as shown in Table 3.10 and Figure 3.32 and Figure 3.33. However, there are multiple locations with deficient operations under 2020 conditions: US 93 and W. Reserve Drive operates deficiently during the AM and PM peak hours. During the AM peak, the eastbound approach operates at LOS F, with overall intersection LOS D. US 2 and US 93 operates deficiently during the AM and PM peak hours at LOS D. US 93 and 13th Street operates deficiently during the AM and PM peak hour at LOS D. W. Reserve Drive and Whitefish Stage Road operates during the AM and PM peak hour at LOS D. Other locations experience acceptable overall inter- section levels of service but deficient approach levels of service during one or both peak hours. The eastbound and westbound approaches at US 93 and Grandview Drive are deficient at LOS D during both peak hours. The southbound approach at US 2 and 5th Avenue operates at LOS E during both peak hours. The eastbound approach at US 93 and Treeline Road operates at LOS D during the AM peak and LOS E during the PM peak hour. The westbound approaches at US 93 and Sunny View Lane and US 93 and Commons Way operates at LOS D during both peak hours. The eastbound approach at US 93 and 1 Oth Street operates at LOS D during the AM and PM peak hour. During the AM peak hour, the westbound approach is also deficient. The westbound approach at US 93 and 12th Street operates at LOS E during both peak hours. _44 MOVE 2040 Table 3.10: AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS 1 US 93 & Reserve Dr Signal g Signal Signal Signal AM PM F D C C D D D D C D 2 Reserve Dr & Whitefish Stage Rd AM C D D B D PM D D D C D US2& 3 Reserve Dr US 93 & Grandview 4 Dr/Four Mile Dr Helena 5 Flats Rd & MT 35 6 Meridian Rd & 3 Mile Dr 7 Meridian Rd & Liberty Meridian Rd 8 & 2 Mile Dr 9 Meridian Rd &US2 AM B C B C C PM C D C C C AM D D A A A PM D D B A B Signal AM A C C C C PM B C B C C Signal g AM B A A B B PM B C A B A Signal g AM C C A A A PM C C A A A Signal AM C C A A A PM C C A A B Signal g AM C B C C C PM C C D C C TOUS 2& 5th SignalAM Ave W US 2& US 93 Signal US 93 & Center St Signal B A D E C PM C B D C 11 AM D C D D D PM D D D D D 12 AM D C C B C PM C C C B C 13 1 st Ave EN & E Center St 1 st Ave W& 2nd Ave W Signal AM A A B B A PM B C B B B 14 Signal AM B A B B B PM B A B B B 15 Woodland Ave & 2nd St/Conrad Dr US 93 & 4th St 3-way Stop Signal AM B C B B C PM B C B C C 16 AM B B B A A �PM B C B A I B Woodland 17 Ave& 11 th TWSC StW US 93 & 18 1 1 th St Signal US 93 & 19 Treeline Rd Signal US 93 & 20 Wyoming St Signal US 93 & 21 Conway Dr Signal B — A A B rPM B — A A B AM C C B A B PM C D B C C AM D D A A B PM C B C C AM C B B A B PM C B A A A AM — C A A A PM — C B A B 22 US 93 & Sunny View Ln US 93 & � Commons Way US 93 & Meridian Rd Signal AM — D A A A PM — D A A B 23 Signal AM C D A B B PM C D C B C 24 Signal AM C — B B B PM D — B B B US 93 & Commercial 25 Access Signal (Flathead Va I I ey) W Reserve 26 Dr & Hutton Signal Ranch Rd AM B C A A A PM B C A A A AM B A B — A PM B A B — B 27 US2& Evergreen Signal Dr US 93 & 6th Signal St g US 93 & 13th St Signal AM C C B B B PM C C B B B 28 AM C C A A A PM D C A A A 29 AM C A A D PM F C A A D 30 US 93 & 7th TWSC St US 93 & I TWSC 1 Oth St US 93 & I TWSC 12th St AM — B A A B PM — B A A B 31 AM D D A A C PM D C A A C 32 AM C A A A PM C A A C KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 45_ Figure 3.32: AM Peak Hour Traffic Operations Z� DUR MILE DR Legend A.�1 LOS A-C A Kalispell Transportation U LOS D Area Plan LOS E LOS F 0 0.25 0.5 Miles _46 MOVE 2040 Figure 3.33: PM Peak Hour Traffic Operations M� W RESERVE Legend �1 � � O LOS A-C Kalispell Transportation O LOS D Area Plan O LOS E �LOS F 0 0.25 0.5 Miles KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 47_ Safety Analysis Transportation safety is an essential component of the transportation planning process supporting Move 2040. Improving transportation safety requires more than just fixing a road or increasing police patrols. In order to be most effective, safety improvements need to consider the "four Es" of transportation safety: Education, Enforcement, Engineering, and Emergency Services. The objective of Move 2040 is to improve the safety and well-being of all users of the transportation system and work towards achieving MDT's Vision Zero initiative to move towards zero deaths and zero injuries on Montana roads. STUDY AREA CRASH ANALYSIS Crash data between 2014 and 2018 data was provided by MDT Traffic and Safety Bureau to investigate the traffic crash trends in the study area. Between 2014 and 2018, there were 5,001 crashes reported in the study area. The high level trends are discussed below with more detailed information later in this section. There were nine crashes that resulted in a fatality and 123 crashes that resulted in serious injury. There were 40 pedestrian involved crashes. About 72 percent of crashes occurred within a quarter mile of Kalispell. Around 48 percent of crashes occurred at intersections. The largest number of crashes occurred on roads with the greatest vehicle miles traveled, such as US 2 and US 93. From 2014 to 2018, the number of crashes has de- clined 9.5 percent. From 2014 to 2018, the number of injury crashes has declined 23 percent. The crash data included the spatial records which were analyzed to understand patterns of existing motorized vehicular crashes and identify high -risk areas. This was done through a hot -spot analysis which identifies clusters of dense accident occurrence, as shown in . Igure 3.36 on page 51. CRASH SEVERITY Crash severity is very important for implementation of safety related counter measures needed to compare and assess the roadway. The crash data categorized the crash- es by the following severity levels: Fatal Crash Suspected Serious Injury Crash Suspected Minor Injury Crash Possible Injury Crash Property Damage Only Crash Crash severity is categorized based on the most severe injury of the crash. For example, if a crash involved two vehicles that resulted in one serious injury and two possi- ble injury crash, the crash is reported as suspected serious injury crash. A Suspected Serious Injury crash is defined as an injury, other than fatal which prevents the injured individual from walking, driving, or normally continuing the activities they could perform before the injury. There were nine crashes reported that resulted in death, 1,159 crashes that resulted in an injury, and 3,764 crashes that resulted in property damage only. Figure 3.34 shows the number of injury and non -injury crashes by severity type during the analysis period. Injury crashes have declined every year since 2014. While non -injury crashes have var- ied year to year, they have ultimately declined nearly six percent during the analysis period. Figure 3.37 on page 52 shows the location of fatal and incapacitating injury crashes. Figure 3.34: Injury and Non -Injury Crashes Since 2014 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 1,077 1,030 2014 2015 2016 2017 ■ Injury ■ Non -Injury 2018 Figure 3.35: Crashes by Crash Type Right Turn 136 Run -off -Road 173 Left Turn 174 Head -On 260 Sideswipe 328 Other � 507 Single Vehicle 733 Angle 1,321 Rear -End 1,501 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 CRASH TYPE Identifying crash type at roadways assists in develop- ing counter measures to mitigate or minimize the crash type. During the analysis period, rear end (1,501), an- gle (1,321), and single vehicle related (733) crashes _48 MOVE 2040 represented the typical crash types in the study area. Aggressive driving, failing to stop, following too closely, and excessive speeding are a few factors in a substantial proportion of rear -end crashes. Figure 3.35 shows the crashes by crash type during the analysis period. CRASH OCCURRENCE PERIOD Crash occurrence statistics assist in refining patrol deploy- ment decisions. Typically, traffic varies significantly by time of day and day of the week, particularly during weekday peak hours. Crash data for the study area was evaluated based on the period of occurrence on the crash with re- spect to time of the day, week, and month. Around 80 percent of crashes occur between 7AM and 7 PM, typically occurring during peak travel periods. Around 80 percent of crashes occur during weekdays. The fewest crashes occur on Sundays. November through February generally experience more vehicular crashes. December is the peak month for crash frequency. Challenging winter road condi- tions including snow, sleet, and ice can contribute to the higher number of crashes. CRASHES INVOLVING IMPAIRED DRIVERS Montana has one of the highest fatality rates in the nation for number of deaths caused by impaired drivers per vehi- cle mile traveled. The statewide data from 2018 indicates that 64 percent of all fatalities statewide were the result of impaired driving. This is up from 61 percent in 2017. Within the study area, there were 312 crashes involving impaired drivers. Of these crashes 37 percent resulted in injuries. CRASHES INVOLVING ANIMALS From 2014 to 2018, there were 265 crashes that involved wild animals, which corresponds to 53 crashes per year. This is likely understated as many animal -vehicle colli- sions go unreported if the crash does not involve property damage or injury. Of these animal -vehicle collisions, 66 percent occurred on high -volume, high-speed roadways like US 2 and US 93. Wild animal crash locations are shown in Figure 3.38 on page 53. INTERSECTION AND SEGMENT CRASH EVALUATION To assess the intersections and segments safety perfor- mances, two methods were applied: Crash Rate and Severity Rate. These methods apply an easy -to -use statis- tical test to determine whether the crash rate and severity rate for a location is significantly higher than the average crash rate and severity rate for other locations in the juris- diction (or region) having similar characteristics. The crash rate is calculated as the number of crashes per million entering vehicles for intersections and the number of crashes per million vehicle miles traveled for segments. The severity rate applies a weight to crashes based on severity, including 5 for fatal crashes, 4 for incapac- itating injury crashes, 3 for non -incapacitating injury crashes, 2 for possible injury crashes, and 1 for prop- erty damage only crashes. If a location is identified as a high crash rate or high se- verity location, additional evaluation should be used to assess the needs of the location. Fifteen intersections were identified with the highest num- ber of crashes in the area. Table 3.11 summarizes the crash rate and severity rates of the intersections. :figure 3.39 on page 54 shows the high crash locations. KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 49_ Table 3.11: High Crash Locations ID 1 Intersection US 2 & US 93 Million Entering Vehicles 79.0 Injury 10 Crashes Non -injury 40 Total 50 Crash Rate 0.63 Severity Rate 0.80 2 US 93 & W Reserve Drive 64.9 12 36 48 0.74 1.06 3 US 93 & US 93A W Reserve Drive & Whitefish Stage US 93 & Meridian Road 38.6 12 43 55 1.42 1.94 4 39.5 17 40 57 1.44 2.10 5 60.9 15 30 45 0.74 1.13 6 US 2 & W Reserve Drive 50.0 15 31 46 0.92 1.38 7 US 2 & Meridian Road 53.8 7 34 41 0.76 0.95 8 US 93 & Center Street 49.5 13 24 37 0.75 1.05 9 US 2 & Evergreen Drive 39.9 11 31 42 1.05 1.48 10 US 93 & Four Mile Drive 56.2 14 21 35 0.62 0.98 11 W Reserve Drive & Hutton Ranch Road 35.4 8 31 39 1.10 1.52 12 Sunset Boulevard & Northridge Drive 54.4 7 24 31 0.57 0.74 13 US 2 & 3rd Avenue E 52.7 9 21 30 0.57 0.80 14 US 93 & Montana Street 47.5 11 28 39 0.82 1.16 15 US 93 & 11 th Street 38.2 5 21 26 0.68 1.00 _50 MOVE 2040 Figure 3.36: Crash Hotspots 424 -- t` C - L _ 93 f~ 2 — �29 a ROSE XING U j - - 0 j x j! _ 4 548 W RESERVE PR E RESERVE PR J i 424, FOORFAI PR 3A , 93 rl � 3 Legend IP Study Area Crash Density Severe Crash Type High Fatal Low Serious Injury Kalispell,At R&O Transportation Area Plan D 0 0.5 1 mmmiE= Miles KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 51_ Figure 3.37. Severe Crash Locations _52 MOVE zu4u Figure 3.38: Wild Animal Crashes Legend 1116 Study Area Wild Animal -Involved Crashes (D Injury Crashes O Non -Injury Crashes Kalispell Area i 0 0.5 1 mmmmz= Miles ransportation 'Jan r� KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 53_ Figure 3.39: Severe Crash Locations Legend Study Area Top 15 High Crash Intersections Kalispell Transportation Area. Plan 0 0.5 1 Miles _54 MOVE 2040 Freight Systems TRUCKS The city of Kalispell is located at the intersection of US 93 and US 2. In addition to those, US 93A is an alter- native route that bypasses the central business district of Kalispell. These routes connect Kalispell to regional and national trade routes and provide a vital service for the community. These highways, with the addition of local routes, ensure the safe and efficient movement of freight through the Kalispell study area. Truck Freight Network Within the study area, trucks rely on the following system of NHS non -interstate, primary highways, and secondary highways to move through and around Kalispell. These include the following: US 93 runs north -south connecting Canada in the north to Arizona in the south. Its termini are the Canada -US border in the north and Wickenburg, Arizona in the south. US 93A runs north -south in Kalispell bypassing the central business district of Kalispell. It begins just south of the junction with Secondary Highway 317 and runs north until it reconnects with US 93 north of Kalispell. US 2 runs east -west across the state connecting Washington and North Dakota. Its termini are Everett, Washington and St. Ignace, Michigan. Montana Highway 35 runs north -south connecting US 93 in Polson, Montana to US 2 in Evergreen. Secondary Highway 424 (Farm to Market Road) runs north -south connecting northwestern Kalispell at North Meridian Road and Three Mile Drive to US 93 west of Whitefish. Secondary Highway 503 (Foys Lake Rd & Airport Rd) runs north -south beginning at the junction US 2 and Meridian Road and runs to its other terminus at US 93 and 13th Street East. Secondary Highway 292 (Whitefish Stage) runs north - south connecting Kalispell in the south to Montana Highway 40 south of Whitefish. Table 3.12: High Truck Traffic Locations 17 US 93 Bypass (Airport Rd to US 93) Daily Traffic 9,086 2018 Daily Truck Traffic 603 Percent Truck Traffic 6.64% 14 MT 35 (W of Helena Flats Rd) 11,544 755 6.54% 18 Four Mile Dr (W of Springck Rd) 2,110 125 5.92% 22 Willow Glen Dr (N of Woodland Ave) 4,872 284 5.83% 5 US 2 (S of Airport) 17,370 860 4.95% 15 US 93A (S of Four Mile Dr) 15,017 738 4.91 % 21 Willow Glen Dr (N of US 93) 5,863 284 4.84% 4 US 2 (S of Evergreen Dr) 17,173 800 4.66% 16 US 93A (Meridian Rd to Airport Rd) 13,118 603 4.60% 6 US 93 (NW of MT 82) 20,121 889 4.42% 12 W Reserve Dr (E of US 93) 17,902 754 4.21 % 1 US 2 (W of Kalispell) 10,635 445 4.18% 25 Conrad Dr (E of Willow Glen Dr) 5,526 185 3.35% 7 US 93 (N of Kelly Dr) 15,521 513 3.31 % 8 US 93 (S of 7th St) 17,349 513 2.96% 10 US 93 (N of W Reserve Dr) 19,742 440 2.23% 2 US 2 (E of Meridian Rd) 17,605 389 2.21 % 11 W Reserve Dr (W Valley Dr) 2,247 49 2.18% 3 US 2 (E of Flathead Dr) 27,083 567 2.09% 24 Conrad Dr (W of Willow Glen Dr) 3,614 69 1.91 % 19 Meridian Rd (N of Liberty St) 12,509 215 1.72% 9 US 93 (S of Grandview Dr) 27,853 440 1 1.58% 13 Whitefish Stage Rd (W of 2nd Ave) 6,643 84 1.26% 23 Woodland Ave (S of 4th St) 4,537 39 0.86% 20 1 Airport Rd (S of 18th St) 5,096 33 0.65% KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 55_ Figure 3.40: Truck Routes and Generators 91� • r ■ IN ■ ■ x M y2Ewf� mD9 ■J ■ IVS6RVE DR tD■ FOUR MILE DR ■ 118 c' 18: �15 T 3 is 3A ■1 g♦♦ ■ 02 �♦■��r (5i ...a . ■ :♦♦KD■ -013 24 11L22 17 r� Legend 0 Study Area ■ ■ High Truck Traffic dF Evergreen Rail If Kalispell NHS Routes 4F Likely Freight -Generating Land Uses © Airports • Freight Generators ■ Glacier Rail Park Kalispell Transportation Area Plan 0 0.5 1 itions mom= Miles _56 MOVE 2040 Impacts of heavy vehicle traffic through Kalispell have been identified as a concern for many years. Using a combination of daily traffic counts and StreetLight data, a deeper understanding of truck movements and impacts can be gained. US 93 south is the highest truck traffic roadway en- tering Kalispell representing 33 percent of regional truck traffic. Both US 2 north and US 93 north represent around 22 percent of regional truck traffic each. East to west regional truck traffic is much less with only 10 percent using US 2 west and 11 percent using MT 35 east. Truck activity centers can influence the transportation net- work by slowing down traffic by stopping in the roadway blocking traffic and creating a safety hazard. To account for this many of the businesses that produce a high vol- ume of truck traffic will be situated in industrial or com- mercial areas that allow for large unloading area. As such, its important to document location of trucking and rail activity centers located within the study area as shown in Figure 3.40. Table 3.12 on page 5Z, shows high truck traffic locations. For years, the main rail line through Kalispell was owned by BNSF Railway. In 2004, the railway was leased by Watco Companies. However, in 2020 BNSF Railway re- sumed operations of the rail line from Columbia Falls to Kalispell. With the development of Glacier Rail Park, Kalispell has removed the railroad from downtown and relocated rail traffic to the Glacier Rail Park. The 1.7 miles of railway downtown is being redeveloped as a future biking and pedestrian trail. Figure 3.40 displays the location of the new Glacier Rail Park and its rail connection to Columbia Falls. RAILROAD CROSSINGS While railroads are privately owned, their interaction with the overall transportation network is important, especially within the realm of freight movement and vehicular and non -motorized safety and mobility on at -grade crossings. At -grade crossings are locations where train -vehicle inter- actions can conflict and create safety concerns and cause travel delays. There are a total of 11 at -grade crossings that exist within the study area. Traffic control at these sites vary and may include crossbucks, gates, posts with flashing lights, and cantilevers. Figure 3.42 displays the location and traffic control for each at -grade rail crossing within the study area. RAILROAD CONNECTIONS Amtrak provides passenger service via the Empire Builder Line which connects Flathead County to Seattle to the west and Chicago to the east. This service stops in Whitefish and the number of passengers boarding and alighting at the station during the 2019 fiscal year was 55,210. AIR TRANSPORTATION Kalispell is served by the Kalispell City Airport and the Kalispell -Glacier Park International Airport. Only the Kalispell -Glacier Park International Airport provides scheduled commercial service. The airport locations are shown in Figure 3.40. KALISPELL-GLACIER PARK INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT The Kalispell -Glacier Park International Airport lies northeast of Kalispell on US 2. Alaska Airlines, Allegiant, American Airlines, Delta, and United provide regular scheduled commercial flights (Frontier flights beginning in June 2021). These airlines provided flights to 306,487 passengers in 2018, the highest passenger volume ever recorded at the airport. Over the past five years the air- port has seen a 33 percent increase in passenger volume and a 75 percent increase since 2010 as seen in figure 3.41. Starting in 2020, the airport is expanding by 40,000 square feet to keep up with growing passenger volumes. Figure 3.41: Passenger Volumes at Kalispell -Glacier Park International Airport 350,000 3 00, 000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 9O KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 57_ Figure 3.42: Railroad Crossing Control Devices Y 93 U SE XING ' r\ iILK U z M � � W a = RESE E DR E RESERVE DR FOUR MILE DR �L Legend Study Area Railroad Crossing Type Evergreen Kalispell Crossing Lights And/Or Arms Rail Crossing Sign Qj-;0014 Kalispell Transportation Area Plan Q,1114`� 0 0.5 1 C :i Miles r� _58 MOVE 2040 The following are the major destinations and air carriers of the airport: Delta: Salt Lake City, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Atlanta (Seasonal), and Los Angeles (Seasonal) United: Denver and Chicago (Seasonal) Alaska: Seattle and Portland (Seasonal) Allegiant Air: Las Vegas, Phoenix, Oakland (Seasonal), Los Angeles (Seasonal) American Airlines: Chicago (Seasonal), Dallas (Seasonal), Los Angeles (Seasonal) In addition, the following airlines will begin seasonal ser- vice starting in 2021. Major destinations are specified for each airline: Jet Blue: New York (JFK) Sun Country Airlines: Minneapolis Frontier: Denver KALiSPELL CITY AIRPORT Kalispell City Airport is a municipal -owned airport serving the general aviation community. The airport averages 77 aircraft operations each day of which 43 percent are for local general aviation. Bicycle and Pedestrian System One of the main recommendations of the Kalispell Growth Policy was the development of a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle network. In order to progress to that goal, it is important to first identify the existing con- dition of the dedicated bike and pedestrian facilities. The following bullets describe the existing facilities in Kalispell and the specific amounts are summarized in Table 3.13 and displayed in Figure 3.44. Different bicycle and pedes- trian facility examples from around Kalispell are shown in Figure 3.43. Sidewalks are paths designated for pedestrians along the side of the roadway. Bike lanes are designated lanes within a portion of the roadway typically including striping, signage, and other pavement markings noting the space is for cyclists. Separated shared -use recreation routes are separate paths designated for pedestrians and cyclists. Table 3.13: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Types and Mileage Existing Shared -Use Recreation Route 53.4 Existing Bike Lane 1.7 Existing Sidewalks 1 40 .7 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASHES From 2014 to 2018 there were 43 pedestrian and 49 bi- cycle related crashes. Pedestrian and bicycle crash data are typically underreported as many minor crashes that do not involve injury or significant property damage are unlikely to be reported. These crash locations are shown in Figure 3.45 on page 62 and Figure 3.46 on page 63. Just seven percent of pedestrian crashes resulted in prop- erty damage only, while 35 percent resulted in a serious injury. There was one fatal pedestrian crash at the inter- section of 1 st Street W and 1 st Avenue W., which occurred after midnight and was a hit and run. For bicycle crash- es, 16 percent resulted in property damage only. Just 10 percent of bicycle crashes resulted in a serious injury and there were no bicycle -related fatalities. There are many contributing factor trends that emerged in the bicycle and pedestrian crash data. For pedestrian crashes, about 54 percent of crashes occurred at intersec- tions or driveways, 32 percent occurred during the eve- ning at locations with no street lighting, and 30 percent occurred where there were no sidewalks or pedestrian facilities. For bicycle crashes, about 80 percent of crashes Figure 3.43: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Examples from Kalispell KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 59_ occurred at intersections or driveways and 82 percent oc- curred where there were no bicycle facilities. SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS As part of the bicycle and pedestrian system analysis in Move 2040, special emphasis was placed around the lo- cal K-8 schools in the study area. This effort began by as- sessing the pedestrian conditions adjacent to the schools to identify any gaps that may be present. Later stages of Move 2040 will identify the need for infrastructure im- provements based on traffic conditions and best practices for school safety. Schools included in this analysis are: Cornelius Hedges Elementary School Edgerton Elementary School Elrod Elementary School Evergreen Elementary School Evergreen Junior High School Wd :ram. L 1 !r R� Helena Flats School Jeannette Rankin Elementary School Kalispell Middle School Lillian Peterson Elementary School Russell Elementary School c .. Each of these schools were analyzed by creating a quar- ter -mile buffer around each of the schools. In these buffer areas, the analysis looked for the following criteria: Presence of pedestrian facilities Bicycle and pedestrian activity Daily traffic volumes Road signs including stop signs, school speed zones, pedestrian crossings, and traffic control. Figure 3.47 on page 6ti through Figure 3.57 on page 74 show the school locations and site specific details for the safe routes to school analysis. Figure 3.44: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities in the Study Area 424 93 2 292 0 0 w U ROSE XING U z N 548 VE R F USE E DR -4 f� 424 FOUR 3A N N 35 93 35 4 2 2 L, 0 a ' yU O P 93 3A 503 L 93 Legend Jj Study Area Kalispell Area Trails Kalispell Transportation Area Plan Shared Use Path Bike Lane�� Sidewalk 0 0.5 1 - Miles KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 61_ Figure 3.45: Pedestrian Crash Locations Legend 0 Study Area Pedestrian -Involved Crashes O Fatal Crashes C Injury Crashes Non -Injury Crashes Kalispell Area Trails Shared Use Path Bike Lane Existing Sidewalk O 0 Kalispell Area i ransportation 'Jan 0 0.5 1 mmmmK== Miles r� _62 MOVE z040 Figure 3.46: Bicycle Crash Locations Legend 1119 Study Area Bicyle-Involved Crashes O Fatal Crashes C Injury Crashes Non -Injury Crashes Kalispell Area Trails Shared Use Path Bike Lane Existing Sidewalk 4491 ff Kalispell Area i 0 0.5 1 mmmmz= Miles ransportation 'Jan r� KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 63_ Figure 3.47. K-8 School Analysis Zones in the Study Area r� FOUR MILE DR Z 9Z W RESERVE DR E R Lj --.F -7 I Edgerton .- Elementary Evergren Q Junior �ligh- Kalispvll r Middll c � 35 SchoA� ' { Ru 11 , T, Element - ry 2 Elrod Peterson ementA;r lHedges ; E mentary ;�-. � ementary f w o ' 3A 1 � T Jeannette Rankin ementary Legend School 1/4-Mile Buffer Sidewalk or Trail z0r Helena Flats School 0 N Q Q W ESERVE DR - T x I East Evergreen Elementary Kalispell Transportation Area Plan 0 0.5 1 Miles _64 MOVE 2040 Figure 3.48: Elrod Elementary School Legend • ,0000moft%. 1/4-Mile Buffer Signalized Intersection Sidewalk or Trail Kalispell Transportation School Speed Zone Non -Vehicular Crashes Area Plan All -way Stop * Bicycle �`� Pedestrian Crossing Sign 0 250 500 AADT * Pedestrian mmmmmmE====Feet KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 65_ Figure 3.49: Edgerton Elementary School 0 J 0 e 1 Q Edgerton N Elementary 0 00 f Legend 1/4-Mile Buffer Sidewalk or Trail School Speed Zone Pedestrian Crossing Sign AADT Kalispell Transportation Area Plan 0 250 500 Feet _66 MOVE 204 Figure 3.50: Hedges Elementary School op o �'pp po p0 ep0 �p0 WE �r00 0 1*1 Pee [OP Hedges Elementary 0 w 0 0 12�� 11p0 1500 41 OE ;oo Wool Legend • '0000MM1 1/4-Mile Buffer Signalized Intersection WAtwqiRSidewalk or Trail KalispellTransportation School Speed Zone Non -Vehicular Crashes AreaPlan All way Stop i� Bicycle r r Pedestrian Crossing Sign 0 250 500 AADT * Pedestrian Feet KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 67_ Figure 3.51: Kalispell Middle School 3500 III 11900 5 000 2-40.0 4500 Legend • 0000EE1 1/4-Mile Buffer Signalized Intersection Sidewalk or Trail Kalispell Transportation School Speed Zone Non -Vehicular Crashes Area Plan Pedestrian Crossing Sign Bicycle�� QAADT 0 250 500 Pedestrian Feet _68 MOVE 2040 Figure 3.52: Russell Elementary School 00 :eo 00 . Russell ;ee Elementary N ,00 gp0 Legend • �� 1/4-Mile Buffer Signalized Intersection Sidewalk or Trail Kalispell Transportation School Speed Zone Non -Vehicular Crashes Area Plan All -way Stop * Bicycle`�b Pedestrian Crossing Sign 0 250 500 AADT * Pedestrian m Feet KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 69_ Figure 3.53: Peterson Elementary School Legend 1/4-Mile Buffer Sidewalk or Trail School Speed Zone All -way Stop Pedestrian Crossing Sign DMAADT Peterson Elementary I0 4 Non -Vehicular Crashes * Bicycle ;oo o M 7600 Kalispell Transportation Area Plan fo 0 250 500 Feet _70 MOVE 2040 Figure 3.54: Jeanette Rankin Elementary School Q-9 800 1/4-Mile Buffer Sidewalk or Trail School Speed Zone Pedestrian Crossing Sign AADT 000 Jeannette Rankin Elementary Kalispell Transportation Area Plan 0 250 500 Feet KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 71_ Figure 3.55: Helena Flats School 0 N 2 Helena Flats School 00 ROSE XING 000 � 000 Legend 1/4-Mile Buffer Non -Vehicular Crashes Sidewalk or Trail All -way Stop Pedestrian AADT Kalispell Transportation Area Plan 0 250 500 Feet _72 MOVE 2040 Figure 3.56: Evergreen Junior High School 3,000 C> i 2 00 Evergreen Junior High Legend 1/4-Mile Buffer Signalized Intersection Sidewalk or Trail School Speed zone Non -Vehicular Crashes AADT * Pedestrian 12.9.00 280.0 �rft"', 9691 Kalispell Transportation Area Plan 0 250 500 Feet KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 73_ Figure 3.57. East Evergreen Elementary School 000 •oo Im East Evergreen Elementary ONE, •oo — o ' Legend • �� 1/4-Mile Buffer Signalized Intersection Sidewalk or Trail Kalispell Transportation MMAADT Non -Vehicular Crashes Area Plan Bicycle` 0 250 500 Feet _74 MOVE 2040 Transit System Table 3.14: Fixed Route Service Indicators Mountain Climber provides fixed, fixed -deviated, and paratransit public transportation in Flathead County for the cities of Kalispell, Whitefish, and Columbia Falls.' It is operated by Flathead County and the Area IX Agency on Aging. Transit service and investment is guided through the planning efforts in the 2021 Transportation Coordination Plan (TCP), which was adopted in February 2020. Below is a summary of the transit existing conditions. Figure 3.58 on page 77 shows the fixed route routes and stops. FIXED ROUTE SERVICE Mountain Climber operates five fixed routes, providing more than 60,000 trips each year since 2012. Of these routes three operate primarily in Kalispell and operate five days per week with service operating between 6:50 AM and 6 PM. They include the following routes: Kalispell Green Line Kalispell Red Line Kalispell Orange Line The other two routes include the Tri-City Commuter which operates Monday through Friday and offers three rides in the morning and afternoon to Columbia Falls and Whitefish. The S.P.A.R.K. Route is an afterschool program for elementary schools in which Mountain Climber pro- vides one-way service from participating schools to the Summit Medical Fitness Center. Table 3.1 shows the fixed route service indicators and their trends between 2014 and 2018. Fixed route ridership has increased 1 .33 percent since 2012, while operating costs have declined by 2.12 percent in the same time period. Revenue hours (number of hours transit service is available) has increased by 145 percent since 2014 and passengers per revenue hour has decreased by 58.6 percent. This is primarily attributable to the in- crease in revenue hours from 4,642 in 2014 to an average of more than 11,200 beginning in 2015. Revenue miles (the number of miles driven to provide transit service) has decreased by 0.1 percent, while passengers per revenue mile has increased by 1.5 percent. Fixed Route Service Indicator W60A Percent Change Passenger Trips 66,575 67,463 1.3% Operating Costs $717,456 $702,271 -2.1 % Passengers per 14.34 5.93 -58.7% Revenue Hour 0.36 0.37 1.5% Passengers per Revenue Mile Cost per Passenger $10.78 $10.41 -3.4% Cost per Revenue $154.56 $61.75 -60.1% Hour Farebox Recovery 4.69% 3.54% LI-24-:59/6 Ratio Source: National Transit Database The three Kalispell fixed routes operate on thirty -minute frequencies. The orange line was created as of January 2019. The remaining Red and Green lines are split be- tween the Kal City AM and PM accounting for 33,552 rides between them. The next highest route is the S.P.A.R.K.S ridership program with 21,200 rides and averages 1,767 rides a month. In addition to the three fixed routes, Mountain Climber operated the Glacier National Park commuter service un- til late 2019. This route provided 12,845 rides to Glacier National Park from July 2018 through July 2019. Due to ongoing funding, safety, and operational concerns, the Flathead County Commissioners terminated the agree- ment. Going forward, transit service to the park will be provided by LC Staffing of Kalispell. PARATRANSIT SERVICE The Americans with Disabilities Act requires fixed route operators to provide paratransit within a three-quar- ter mile radius of fixed route service. Mountain Climber provides paratransit service within a three quarter mile radius of the Kalispell fixed routes for individuals who meet the functional need eligibility criteria. The service is curb -to -curb, or door-to-door on request, and is avail- able by appointment during the same hours the city buses operate. Mountain Climber's premium dial -a -ride is an appointment -based, curb -to -curb or door-to-door service available to individuals who meet the functional need el- igibility criteria who wish to travel within Evergreen and Kalispell. Figure 3.58 on page 77 shows the paratransit service area. Fable 3.15 shows the paratransit service indicators and their trends between 2014 and 2018. 1 Due to impacts related to COVID-19 Mountain Climber is currently restructuring its services. This data reflects operational conditions as of 7/1 /2020, and reflect historic conditions. KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 75_ Since 2014, paratransit rides have increased 13.2 percent which coincided with a nearly 65 percent in- crease in the operating costs. Revenue hours have increased by 272 percent since 2014, while passengers per revenue hour has de- creased by nearly 70 percent. Revenue miles have increased by nearly 55 percent, while passengers per revenue mile has decreased by 26 percent. Table 3.15: Paratransit Service Indicators Paratransit Service Indicator Percent Change Passenger Trips 27,959 31,659 13.2% Operating Costs $318,496 $525,160 64.9% Passengers per 7.42 2.25 -69.6% Revenue Hour Passengers per 0.31 0.23 -26.9% Revenue Mile Cost per Passenger $11.39 $16.59 45.6% Cost per Revenue $84.55 $37.40 -55.8% Hour Farebox Recovery 4.69% 3.54% -24.5% Ratio Source: National Transit Database VEHICLE FLEET Mountain Climber currently has 16 vehicles for passenger transportation. Nine are used for the fixed route service and seven for demand response and paratransit service. Table 3.16 shows the vehicle inventory and condition. Table 3.16: Mountain Climber Vehicle Inventory and Condition 2093(2574) Fixed Route Bus 218,962 I Minivan DR/Paratransit 61,384 892 (8040) DR/Paratransit 250,403 893(6948) DR/Paratransit 249,285 2088(1364) DR/Paratransit 204,864 49(8105) Fixed Route Bus 219,742 232(2239) Fixed Route Bus 162,715 233 (3801) Fixed Route Bus 159,181 234(3723) Fixed Route Bus 243,483 658(8478) Fixed Route Bus 141,481 572(7704) Fixed Route Bus 117,471 8022(3174) DR/Paratransit 72,933 1495 (3871) Fixed Route Bus 89,019 6528 DR/Paratransit 38,399 6527 DR/Paratransit 38,023 5556 Fixed Route Bus 9,896 Source: Eagle Transit, 2019 [now Mountain Climber] _76 MOVE 204U Figure 3.58: Kalispell Fixed Transit Routes and Stops Legend Study Area Bus Routes & Stops O Bus Stop Green Route Orange Route Red Route Kalispell Transportation Area Plan 0 0.5 1 Miles KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 77_ • rim 1\ 9 'l • ly,TA I : I i D MI o»•]'JlMi &Pm- -W, . "Aw *- - . M I - MW40,6�r. � 7. GROWTH PLANNING HOUSEHOLD GROWTH INTRODUCTION The base year of 2017 was established by the MDT for the development and calibration of the travel demand model (TDM) to support the Kalispell Area Transportation Plan (Move 2040). This chapter provides specific information on the development of base year (201 7) and 2040 popu- lation and employment assumptions. rUPULNi IUN ANu CMNLUYMEN' TAZ data from the 2017 TDM was fitted to the project study area boundary approved by the SRC. Data for the 2017 base year was reviewed and evaluated prior to set- ting any projected growth trends to the year 2040. Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2 on page 83 show the current TAZ structure from the TDM. Figure 4.3 on page 84 and Figure 4.4 on page 85 shows the current 2017 base year allocations for both employment and households. Employment information is further refined into retail and non -retail categories. Growth Projections The first step in the growth projection process was to es- tablish geographic growth assumptions within the Move 2040 study area. The Move 2040 study area was divided into three distinct geographic subareas. They are defined as follows, and shown in .-igure 4.5 on page 86: Kalispell includes the current annexation boundary for the city of Kalispell and was smoothed to match TAZ Boundaries which otherwise exceed the current annexation boundary of Kalispell. Evergreen includes the current census designated place (CDP) of Evergreen. This area encompasses more than the current boundary of the Evergreen Water & Sewer District, including the current Evergreen Waste Water Service Area Boundary developed between City of Kalispell and Evergreen Water & Sewer District. Balance of the Study Area includes the remainder of the study area currently outside of either areas de- fined as Kalispell or Evergreen. These areas are solely within Flathead County. Overall household growth within the study area was pro- jected to grow by nearly 9,300 households. Household growth was projected for Move 2040 specifically for each of the geographic subareas discussed earlier and adjust- ed to reflect the evaluation of potential projected condi- tions related to each subarea within the study area. These are shown in Table 4.1 on page 90 Figure 4.6 on page 87 shows total household alloca- tions for the 2040 planning horizon. figure 4.7 on page 88 shows allocation of projected household growth for the years 2018 through 2040. Figure 4.8 on page 89 shows 2040 household density per acre. Kalispell A 2.5 percent household growth rate was developed for the Kalispell subarea. This growth rate is slightly more ag- gressive than the two percent used by the City of Kalispell for recent infrastructure planning to support both its water and wastewater system completed in 2018 and 2019. However, initial work of allocating growth revealed a potential higher rate of growth to the year 2040. The 2.5 percent growth rate is below the trend lines seen by the City of Kalispell between the years 1980 and 2016 (3.1 percent). The 2.5 percent rate represents a balanced middle ground. Projected new household growth in the Kalispell portion of the study area is projected to be 7,005 to nearly 20,000 total households by 2040. Evergreen A 2.3 percent growth rate was used for the Evergreen subarea. This growth rate applies to the Evergreen CDP boundary and therefore makes assumptions for growth and development outside of the current Evergreen Water & Sewer District Boundary. The Evergreen Water & Sewer District is currently planning for a two percent growth rate specific to their district boundary. This growth rate is only based on a 10-year growth trend and does not ac- count for the larger CDP. The historical rate of growth for Evergreen (1980-2017) has been 2.7 percent annually. A 2.3 percent rate appeared more realistic in relation to available buildable land and existing water and sewer ca- pacity assumptions. A 2.3 percent household growth rate accounts for nearly 1,700 additional households over the life of planning horizon within the Evergreen CDP, for a total of more than 5,000 households by 2040. KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 81_ N rr Figure 4.3: Baseline TAZ Household Allocations m E a 0 1 ■ AU-1 l � PleZ., L Is, I Legend Households per acre k4wm0%,0 Study Area 0.0-0.5 Kalispell Transportation 12 Kalispell 0.6 - 1.0 Area Plan Evergreen 1.1 - 10.0 10.1 - 50.0�� 4F 50.1 - 117.1 0 0.5 1 Miles _84 MOVE 2040 Figure 4.4: Baseline TAZ Employment Allocations ki F b,04141.O LM me rl ■ a 074 El C3 � RI E DR i �C .I u Legend Jobs per acre koww1 Study Area 0.0 - 0.5 Kalispell Transportation Urban Boundary 0.6 - 1.0 Area Plan Evergreen 1.1 - 10.0 12 Kalispell 10.1 - 50.0 0 0.5 1 dr 50.1 - 74.8 mmmmz= Miles KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN $5_ Figure 4.5: Geographic Development Areas NI 11111111111MAN Legend Study Area Evergreen 43 Kalispell r Jobs per acre 0.0 - 0.5 0.6 - 1.0 1.1 - 10.0 10.1 - 50.0 50.1 - 74.8 x 0 3 Ir/ mr 1 11 0 Kalispell Transportation Area 41110 Plan 0 0.5 1 Miles _86 MOVE 2040 Figure 4.6: 2040 Household Allocations r. �I 93 2 292 W .3_ ROSE XING U U �1 �1 �t U I 93 Legend Total Households 2040 �1 Study Area 0 - 50 C 51 - 150 Kalispell Transportation 2 Evergreen Area Plan12 Kalispell 151 - 500 501 - 1266 • 0 0.5 1 mmmm== Miles KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 87_ Figure 4.7. Projected Household Growth 2018-2040 424 Legend Household Growth 2018-2040 4P Study Area 1 - 50 ! Evergreen C 51 - 100 Kalispell 101 - 250 251 - 1265 J I Q- a I RESERVE DR �I Kalispell Transportation Area Plan 0 0.5 1 Miles _88 MOVE 2040 Figure 4.8: 2040 Household per Acre 424 F J 0 ■fir+ ; *' t� ' 9 , i.. •� 1iR N - Q Q LEDR ,1 Legend Households per Acre 2040 1• �1 iffil Study Area C 0.0 - 0.5 J► Evergreen G 0.6 - 1.0 Kalispell Transportation 92 Kalispell 1.1 - 5.0 Area Plan �5.1 -20.0 W • 20.1 - 117.1 0 0.5 1 - Miles KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 89_ Balance of the Study Area A 1 .9 percent growth rate was used for the portion of the Move 2040 Study Area outside both Kalispell or Evergreen, otherwise called the Balance of the Study Area. This trend line is slightly higher than the 1.7 per- cent growth rate between 1990 and 2018 for Flathead County as a whole. However, this rate is higher than the projected rate established by the Montana Census and Economic Information Center (MT CEIC) of 0.9 percent over the next 20 years. The higher projected growth rate reflects the increased development potential adjacent to the Kalispell Urban Area than compared to other parts of Flathead County. This growth rate was the result of high potential for growth north of Evergreen, and generally following the US 2 Corridor north towards the study area boundary. By 2040, this subarea is expected to add nearly 600 new households for a total of 1,970. Table 4.1: Existing and Projected Household Growth EMPLOYMENT GROWTH Overall employment growth within the study area was projected to grow by 1.9 percent, or nearly 11,700 jobs. Employment growth was projected for Move 2040 spe- cifically for each of the geographic subareas discussed earlier and adjusted to reflect the evaluation of potential projected conditions related to each geographic subarea within the study. These are shown in Table 4.,_ Figure 4.9 shows allocation of projected employment growth for the years 2018 through 2040. -figure 4.10 on page 92 shows total employment allocation for the 2040 planning horizon and gure 4.11 on page 93 shows total employment density per acre. The 1.9 percent study area growth rate is in line with the 1.8 percent historical trends reported for the Northwest Region of Montana for the years 2013 through 2018, per the Montana Department of Labor & Industry (MTDLI). A 1.9 percent growth rate outpaces the 10-year MTDLI projected average for the Northwest Region of Montana of 1 .0 percent for the years 2018 through 2028. Based on MTDLI projections, the study area would capture about one-third of the projected employment growth for Northwest Region for the years 2018 through 2028. Kalispell An employment growth rate of 2.1 percent was utilized for Kalispell which roughly matches the 2.5 percent household growth discussed earlier. By 2040, Kalispell is expected to add nearly 10,000 jobs to a total of 32,03 1. Evergreen An employment growth rate of 1.2 percent was utilized for Evergreen. This lower growth rate was determined in con- sultation with the SRC and stakeholders from Evergreen. By 2040, Evergreen is expected to add more than 1,000 jobs to a total of 5,022. Balance of the Study Area A 2.3 percent growth rate was projected for employment in the Balance of the Study Area identified for Move 2040. Given its proximity to the Kalispell Urban Area, growth trends on the edges of the study area are anticipated to be higher than other parts of unincorporated Flathead County. As is discussed later, much of this growth is antic- ipated in the northeastern portion of the planning area. There is anticipated to be continued pressure for employ- ment growth north along US 2 towards the edge of the study area boundary. Growth and development along this corridor are also justified given the recent expansion plans announced by the Glacier Park International (GPI) Airport. By 2040, the balance of the study area is expect- ed to add nearly 700 jobs for a total of 2,057. Table 4.2: Existing and Projected Employment Growth Kalispell 1 22,072 1 32,031 1 9,959 1 2.1 % Evergreen 3,999 5,022 1 1,023 1.2% Balance of 1,361 2,057 696 2.3% Study Area Total 27,432 39,110 11,678 1.9% _90 MOVE 2040 Figure 4.9: 2040 Projected Employment Growth 2018-2040 v Legend Employment Growth 2018-2040 Study Area F 1 - 50 Evergreen 0 51 - 100 iV Kalispell 0101 - 250 251 - 1600 J'7 I * �1 Kalispell Transportation Area Plan �,,11� 0 0.5 1 mmmm== Miles AN KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 91_ Figure 4.10: 2040 Employment Allocations 93 \ J 3A 503 1_ f Legend Total Employment 2040 Study Area 0 - 50 Evergreen C 51 - 150 iV Kalispell MPr- 151 - 500 ■ 501 - 2940 • 400aa1 Kalispell[ Transportation Area Plan 60 0 0.5 1 - Miles _92 MOVE 2040 Figure 4.11: 2040 Jobs per Acre 0 � riiw�n � ■ � U G Legend Jobs per Acre 2040 1• �1 Illp Study Area — 0.0 - 0.5 J► Evergreen F 0.6 - 1.0 Kalispell Transportation 92 Kalispell M 1.1 - 5.0 Area Plan M5.1 -20.0 "R. • M20.1 -77.9 0 0.5 1 � Miles KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 93_ GROWTH ALLOCATION The second step in the growth project process involved the allocation of 2040 projected household and employ- ment growth to the TAZs. Significant consideration was given to recent infrastructure planning developed by both the City of Kalispell and the Evergreen Water & Sewer District. The announcement of the $100 million GPI ex- pansion was also factored into how growth was allocated. The following methods were used to allocate the project- ed household and employment growth. KALISPELL The allocation for Kalispell generally followed the growth allocation methods used in the Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan update completed in June 2019. This plan allocated growth in three increments: five years, 15 years, and full build -out (FBO) or 50 years. Allocations of growth were directly extracted for the five year and 15-year time frames, which equated to projected growth through the year 2033. For the final seven years of the transportation plan planning horizon (2034 through 2040) 20 percent of the remaining growth between the 15-year time frame and FBO from the Kalispell Wastewater Facility Plan was prorated. Effort was applied to account for infill of the Glacier Rail Park within the city's northeastern quadrant, as well as infill and reinvestment in the Kalispell core area. EVERGREEN Based on consultation with the Evergreen Water & Sewer District, growth was allocated within the current Evergreen CDP. Nearly two-thirds of the projected household growth was allocated outside of the Evergreen Wastewater Service Area. Most of the projected employment growth in Evergreen was allocated within the current Wastewater Service Area and accounted for infill along and in relative proximity to the US 2 corridor. BALANCE OF THE STUDY AREA The balance of the study area is a relatively small seg- ment of projected household and employment growth. Allocation of projected growth within the balance of the study area is significantly focused within the north- east corner of the study area and reflects projected fu- ture demand along the US 2 corridor and areas north of Evergreen. This area is anticipated to be influenced by the GPI Airport expansion and the potential expansion of wastewater capacity in that general area. _94 MOVE 2040 "19 i i i 0= = === qm MOVE Kalispell Area CHAPTER 5.0 0 0 Transportation Plan PROJECTED CONDITIONS BACKGROUND As part of the Kalispell Area Transportation Plan (Move 2040), an analysis was performed on the 2040 E+C mod- el for the study area. Similar to the 2017 base year mod- el, the 2040 E+C (Existing plus Committed) model output generated volumes, capacity, and the resulting V/C and LOS. DEVELOPMENT OF 2040 E+C MODEL ADDITION OF COMAAr '!D PROJECT° The 2040 E+C modeled road segments include "commit- ted" improvements to the transportation network within the study area. This means these improvements were not in place at the time of base model development (201 7) but are committed by either a local agency or MDT by the year 2024. The 2040 E+C network includes the following improvements not considered in the 2017 base model: Highway 93A and Foys Lake Road interchange Highway 2 and Dern Road intersection control changes MT 35 and Helena Flats intersection control changes Four Mile Drive — Northland Drive to Highway 93 ad- dition of two-way center left turn lane Highway 93 and Treeline Road southbound right turn lane on Highway 93 and eastbound and westbound left turn lanes on Treeline Road Rose Crossing — Highway 93 to Whitefish Stage Road addition of two-lane roadway Three Mile Drive and West Spring Creek Road inter- section changes PROJECTED 2040 GROWTH ALLOCATIONS As discussed in Chapter 3, households and employment growth were projected to the year 2040 for the Move 2040 study area. The 2040 E+C model reflects the ad- dition of this growth to the study area for the purpose of developing future traffic projections. Therefore, the 2040 E+C model shows year 2040 projected travel demand on the E+C roadway network. ANALYSIS OF PROJECTED CONDITIONS NETWORK CONDITIONS Areawide network analysis of projected conditions was based on outputs from both the 2017 and 2040 E+C models. A total of approximately 418 miles were analyzed for the 2040 model. Vehicle Miles and Hours Traveled VMT and VHT were calculated for both the 2017 and 2040 E+C models. Both metrics increased significantly, with VMT increasing by 80 percent from 733,000 in 2017 to 1.3 million in 2040. This growth in VMT suggest the amount of vehicle miles traveled in the study area will nearly double over the life of Move 2040. VHT increased by 42 percent from 24,500 in 2017 to 34,912 in 2040. This growth in VHT can be likely attributed to two factors. First, as the community grows outward, trips may become longer adding to the number of vehicle hours and second, areas of the transportation network that are over capacity cause additional congestion leading to additional travel time. Given VMT increases at a far higher rate than VHT, it is likely trip length is the primary driver of increased VHT. Comparison between 2017 and 2040 VHT and VMT can be seen in Table 5.1. Table 5.1: 2017 and 2040 VMT and VHT -0 % Change VMT 733,000 1,325,942 80.9% VHT 24,500 34,912 42.5% Volume -to -Capacity Ratios Travel demand model results can be used to establish planning -level V/C ratios for study area roadways. These V/C ratios are generally used to identify locations with the most significant capacity constraints that require more detailed and operations -based traffic analysis. At a planning -level, roadway capacities are a function of roadway functional classifications and the number of travel lanes. For analysis purposes, V/C ratios have been translated to roadway LOS based on federal research and guidelines. LOS is a letter grade used to describe traffic operations where LOS A provides travel with nearly no delay and LOS F represents gridlocked travel. Generally, LOS D or worse is considered deficient and in need of im- provements. The level of service thresholds by V/C ratios shown in T ' ' - r,ALISPELL AREA i RANSPORTATION PLAN 9' Table 5.2: LOS Thresholds by VIC Ratio Under LOS A Near free -flow traffic. 0.6 _ 0.6 to LOS B Minor delays. 0.7 LOS C Some delays, but not resulting in 0.7 to 0.8 significant traffic congestion. 0.8 to LOS D Delays with some traffic 0.9 1 congestion. 0.9 to Significant delays with significant 1.0 LOSE traffic congestion, approaching capacity. 1.0+ LOS F Breakdown of traffic flow, major traffic congestion. Source: NCHRP 387 - Planning Techniques to Estimate Speeds and Services Volumes for Planning Applications A comparison was completed between existing (2017) and projected (2040) conditions based on outputs of the E+C TDM. The comparison looked at the miles of road- way for each year which were either LOS A-C or LOS D-F. LOS D-F was considered congesting/congested for the purposes of the analysis. Analysis of both existing and projected systems were based upon the system designations of NHS, Primary, Secondary, and Urban, thus reflecting all on -system roads in the study area. In 2017 there were 15 miles of on -system roadways con- gesting/congested, or 15 percent of on -system roads. By 2040 this increases to 31 miles of congesting/congested on -system roadways, or roughly 31 percent of on -system roads. Table 5.3 provides a summary comparison be- tween the existing 2017 and projected 2040 conditions. NHS In 2017, approximately 27 percent of the NHS is congesting/congested. Between 2017 and 2040, the number of congesting/congested miles on the NHS grows from approximately 12 to 22 miles of roadway. By 2040, 50 percent of the NHS corridors are congesting/ congested. In 2017, seventy-five (75) percent of all congesting/ congested roadways are on the NHS. By 2040, the per- cent of all congesting/congested roadways on the NHS drops to 54 percent. PRIMARY For the modeling analysis, MT 35 was the only portion on the Primary System in the study area. This area is congest- ing/congested in 2017 and remains congested in 2040. SECONDARY In 2017, there is no congesting/congested roadways on the secondary system. By 2040 12 percent is congesting/ congested. Table 5.3: 2017 and 2040 E+C Model, LOS, and Miles for On -System Roads Miles LOS A-C 85.5 Miles LOS D-F _.� 85% 69.1 69% 15% 31.4 31% NHS Miles LOS A-C 31.5 73% 21.7 50% Miles LOS D-F 11.8 2 7% 21.6 50% Primary Secondary Urban Miles LOS A-C 0.3 16% 0.3 16% Miles LOS D-F 1.5 84% 1.5 84% Miles LOS A-C 10.6 100% 9.4 88% Miles LOS D-F 0.0 0% 1.3 12% Miles LOS A-C 43.2 96% 37.7 84% Miles LOS D-F 1.8 4% 7.1 16% Analysis conducted with West Reserve classified as an Urban route. _98 MOVE 2040 URBAN Table 5.4: LOS Thresholds by Intersection Delay In 2017, four percent of the urban system is congesting/ F— Unsignalized Signalized congested. By 2040, approximately 16 percent of the ur- Level of DescriptionIntersection Intersection ban system is congesting/congested. In 2017, 11 percent of all congesting/congested road- Near free -flow ways are on the Urban systems. By 2040, 17 percent all LOS A <10 <10 traffic. I congested/congesting are on the Urban System. - In addition to the congested conditions listed above, 20 LOS B 10-15 10-20 Minor delays. percent of the congested roadways in the 2040 E+C are not currently functionally classified. This suggests a sig- Some delays, but nificant growth in projected needs on urbanizing/growth LOS C 15-25 20-35 not resulting in area corridors which will require some consideration of significant traffic potential future functional class designation. congestion. These mileages as well as their comparison to 2040 can LOS D 25-35 Delays with some 35-55 traffic congestion. be seen in Table 5.3. Levels of Service can be seen in Significant delays Figure 5.1 on page 101 and Figure 5.2 on page 102 In addition to LOS, simple volume changes from 2017 to with significant 2040 can be seen in igure 5.3 on page 103. LOS E 35-50 55-80 traffic congestion, approaching capacity. INTERSECTION TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Breakdown of LOS F > 50 > 80 traffic flow, major Future traffic operations were evaluated at the 33 study traffic congestion. intersections using methodologies from the Highway Capacity Manual. Traffic operations are described in terms of LOS, ranging from LOS A to LOS F, as previously described. The LOS calculations incorporate traffic volumes, intersection ge- ometry, signal timing, and other parameters to estimate the delay per vehicle at the intersection. LOS A indicates near free -flow traffic conditions with little delay and LOS F indicates breakdown of traffic flow with very high amounts of delay. At oversaturated intersections and ap- proaches, the delay may only reflect the vehicles that can be processed in the analysis period and not the total delay for that intersection, thus underreporting the actual de- lay experienced by drivers. LOS C or better is considered acceptable. The LOS thresholds for intersection delay are shown in Table 5.4. KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 99_ Traffic Operation Results Intersection LOS analysis was performed for 33 intersec- tions within the study area based on projected 2040 con- ditions. Many locations begin to experience deficiencies during one or both peak hours, as discussed below and shown in Table 5.5 on page 104, Figure 5.4 on page ', and Figure 5.5 on page 106. Multiple intersections are expected to operate defi- ciently through both peak hours with all approaches operating deficiently, including US 93 and Reserve Drive, US 2 and Reserve Drive, and US 2 and US 93. Reserve Drive and Whitefish Stage Road operates at LOS F during both peak hours. During the PM peak all approaches are deficient; during the AM peak only the southbound approach operates acceptably. Multiple intersections operate deficiently in both peak hours due to deficient side street operations. Woodland Avenue and 2nd Street/Conrad Drive operates deficiently at LOS D during both peak periods. Only the westbound approach is deficient at LOS E (during both peak hours). US 2 and Evergreen Drive operates deficiently at LOS D during both beak periods. Only the northbound approach operates acceptably at LOS C during both peak periods. US 93 and 13th Street operates deficiently at LOS E during the AM peak and LOS F during the PM peak. During the AM peak only the eastbound approach is deficient however during the PM peak the eastbound and westbound approaches are deficient. US 93 and 1 Oth Street operates deficiently at LOS D during the AM and PM peak. The eastbound and westbound approaches are deficient during both peak hours. Multiple intersections operate deficiently during one peak hour. US 93 and Grandview Drive/Four Mile Drive operates at LOS E during the PM peak. Helena Flats Road and MT 35 operates deficiently at LOS D during the AM peak. US 2 and Meridian Road operates deficiently at LOS D during the PM peak. US 93 and Treeline Road operates deficiently at LOS D during the PM peak. US 93 and Hutton Ranch Drive operates deficiently at LOS D during the PM peak hour. _100 MOVE 2040 Figure 5.1: 2040 LOS 1- e A 'i =' Nil,... �1l i •`� O••p ar •.Y•rr• '� ■ Legend Study... 040 Evergreenid 0.0 \Transportation Kalispelldf . :.:• Area Plan • to 1.0 w� 4 N Miles KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 101_ Figure 5.2: 2040 LOS (Inset) Legend J@ Study Area Volume to Capacity 2040 Evergreen —A-C: 0.0 to .79 Kalispell D:.8 to .89 E:.9 to 1.0 �F: > 1.0 Kalispell Area 0 0.25 ki ransportation Ian D 0.5 ::i Miles _102 MOVE 2040 r. �t Legend 1116 Study Area Evergreen Kalispell re 5.3: Traffic Volume C i t � J FOUR MLLE D h ! r 2 N H from 2017 to 2040 r� W RESERVE DR Volume Changes 2017 to 2040 E RESERVE DR 0 - 100 Kalispell f Transportation 101 - 500 Area Plan 501 - 1000 1001 - 5000 64,00MMOO 5001 - 10000 0 0.5 1 —10001 - 26700 mmmm== Miles KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 103_ Table 5.5: 2040 AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS ID Intersection Traffic Peak Level of Service US 93 & 1 Signal AM F F D D F PM F E D Reserve Dr Reserve Dr AM F F F C F 2 & Whitefish Signal Stage Rd PM F F F E F AM F D E E US 2& 3 Signal PM F F E F F Reserve Dr US 93 & AM B B C B B Grandview 4 Signal Dr/Four Mile Dr PM C C F D E Helena AM A D D D 5 Flats Rd & Signal MT 35 PM C C C D I C 6 Meridian & Signal g AM B A A B A PM B C A B B 3 Mile Dr 7 Meridian & Signal g AM C C A A A PM C C A A A Liberty Meridian Rd Signal B AM C C A A A PM C C A A B & 2 Mile Dr US2& AM C C C D C 9 Meridian Rd Signal PM D D D D D 10 US 2& 5th Signal AM B A B B B PM A A B B B Ave W US 2& US Signal 11 AM D E D D PM D E E E 93 12 US 93 & Signal AM D C C B C PM C C C B C Center St 1 st Ave E N AM A A B B B 13 & E Center Signal St PM C C B A B 1 st Ave W& AM B B B B B F Signal 2nd St W g PM C B C C C 15 Woodland Ave & 2nd All -way AM C C C D St/Conrad Stop Dr + PM C E C C D US 93 & 4th AM B B B A B 16 Signal St g PM B B B B B AM B — A A B FWoodland 17 I Ave & 11 th TWSC St W PM B — A A B ID Intersection Traffic Peak Level of Service US 93 & 18 1 1 th St Signal AM C D B A B PM C B D C US 93 & 19 Tree, ine Rd Signal AM D C A B B PM E C C D D 20 US 93 & Wyoming St 93 & Conway Dr Signal AM C B B A B PM C C A A A 211US 21 Signal AM — C A A A PM — C C A B US 93 & AM — D A A A 22 Sunny View Signal Ln PM — D A A C US 93 & AM C D B B B 23 Commons Signal Way PM C D C C C US 93 & 24 Meridian Rd Signal AM C — A B B PM D — B B B AM A C A B A US 93 & Commercial 25 Access Signal (Flathead Va I I ey) PM B C A A A W Reserve AM B A B — B 26 Dr & Hutton Signal Ranch Rd PM C B C — B US 2& AM F C D D 27 Evergreen Signal Dr PM F F C D D 28 US 93 & 6th Signal St g AM C C A A A PM D C A A A 29 US 93 & 13th St TWSC AM F C A A PM F D A A F 30 US 93 & 7th St TWSC AM — B A A B PM — B A A B 31 US93& 1 Oth St TWSC AM F F A A D PM F D A A D F US 93 & 12th St TWSC AM C F A A B PM D A A C US 93 & AM C C B C C 33 Hutton Ranch Dr Signal PM D F C D D _104 MOVE 2040 Figure 5.4: 2040 AM Peak LOS FO R r Legend k LOS A-C Kalispell Transportation LOS D Area Plan LOS E LOS F 0 0.25 0.5 Miles KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 105_ Figure 5.5: 2040 PM Peak LOS FO R r Legend _) LOS A C Kalispell Transportation LOS D Area Plan LOS E C LOS F 0 0.25 0.5 Miles _106 MOVE 2040 • 1 rim 1 1\ 9 • 1 �= M �_ - �- INTRODUCTION As part of the Kalispell Urban Area Transportation Plan, Move 2040, an alternatives analysis was completed to evaluate a range of 10 different alternatives, some of which consider sub alternatives which combined various base alternatives. In total, model runs were performed for 14 model alternatives. Alternatives were designed to replicate the potential improvement to a corridor or set of corridors for the purposes of evaluating the relative ben- efit of those improvements. Each alternative considered the addition of one or more changes to the transportation system in the Move 2040 study area. Each alternative is evaluated against the original outputs from the 2040 E+C model network, which forecast traffic conditions assuming that only committed projects will be added beyond existing facilities. Thus, each alternative can be viewed as a "2040 build" condition which assumes that some level of investment will be made beyond cur- rently committed projects. The 2040 E+C network can be considered the "2040 No Build" condition, which assumes that only currently committed projects will be completed through 2040. As shown in Table 6.1, the results of each alternative were evaluated against area -wide travel indicators such as VMT, VHT, and miles of congested roadways. Congested roadways were defined as segments of roadway with a LOS of D, E or F. Alternatives were also evaluated against corridor level travel indicators such as change in annual daily traffic (ADT) and V/C or LOS. Table 6.1: Summary System -Wide VMT and VHT Changes Alternative 2040 No Build Total VMT (% Change VMT Compared to No Build) 1,325,942 Total VHT (% Change VHT Compared to No Build) 34,912 Percent of Congested Roadway Segments 9.5% 2040 Build — Alternative #1 1,319,894 (-0.5%) 34,735 (-0.5%) 9.7% 2040 Build — Alternative #2 1,303,435 (-1.7%) 34,310 (-1.7%) 9.7% 2040 Build — Alternative #2A 1,333,650 (+0.6%) 35,106 (+0.6%) 9.9% 2040 Build — Alternative #3 1,323,036 (-0.2%) 351073 (+0.5%) 9.5% 2040 Build — Alternative #3A 1,309,370 (-1.2%) 34,674 (-0.7%) 9.5% 2040 Build — Alternative #4 1,323,432 (-0.2) 35,097 (+0.5%) 9.6% 2040 Build — Alternative #5 1,325,811 (+0.0%) 35,122 (+0.6%) 10.0% 2040 Build — Alternative #5A 1,326,513 (+0.0%) 35,148 (+0.7%) 9.9% 2040 Build — Alternative #6 1,322,904 (-0.2%) 35,083 (+0.5%) 10.0% 2040 Build — Alternative #6A 1,316,698 (-0.7%) 34,707 (-0.6%) 9.8% 2040 Build — Alternative #7 1,311,885 (-1.1%) 34,622 (-0.8%) 9.3% 2040 Build — Alternative #8 1,328,490 (0.2%) 35,220 (+0.9%) 8.7% 2040 Build — Alternative #9 11326,616 (0.1 %) 35,047 (+0.4%) 8.6% 2040 Build — Alternative #10 1,322,458 (-.2%) 34,537 (-1.1%) 7.9% KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 109_ ALTERNATIVE 1: COMPLETED HIGHWAY 93A (KALISPELL BYPASS Alternative 1 assumes the completion of the southern leg of the Highway 93A corridor from Foys Lake Road to its southern junction with Highway 93. This assumed expan- sion of the two-lane elements of the corridor to four lanes, including completion of a grade separated interchange at Airport Road and intersection improvements at Foys Lake. The current two-lane roundabout at Base Camp Drive was left in place as it currently exists. Alternative 1 was tested against area -wide metrics to de- termine the potential benefits of the proposed improve- ments. The intent was to measure the full benefit of the completed Highway 93A on other elements of the trans- portations system. Area -Wide Impacts Area -wide impacts of Alternative 1 were measured against the 2040 No Build network related to VMT, VHT and percent of congested roadway segments on the sys- tems (as measured in miles). Alternative 1 is comparable in terms of congestion, VMT, and VHT to a no -build sce- nario, as can be seen in Table 6.� The percentage of congested roadway segments increases from 9.5 percent to 9.7 percent. Both total VMT and total VHT decrease by 0.5 percent. Corridor Level Impacts Impacts of Alternative 1 were evaluated on several corri- dor segments throughout the study area which were an- ticipated to see an impact from the completion of Highway 93A corridor. Please see and -figure 6.1 on page Key findings include: Highway 93A — As expected, the completion of the Kalispell Bypass will increase its volume, with im- proved LOS from US 93 to Airport Road and worsen- ing LOS from Airport Road to US 2. Highway 93S — Improved LOS along portions of Highway 93S, especially just south of downtown. Highway 93/Main St — Reduction in travel demand through downtown. Worsening LOS on Meridian Road. Minor changes on 1 st Ave E and 1 st Ave W �Trrs�w a ST w 8Tk 3A S C 4P�S�yQ �j Yn nPtmmm CFy��N Q P�KE❑R � Nt Q¢ m¢ a = m 3 �Q R ❑ g O d 41 Sj� r BLUE ONE FqG� GIN KELLY E0R gE RD T RUSSELL DR '.. pry -P dd� rFA bR- A O n V F SH WELF LN e� o CEMETERY RD �� y SILVER BUCKLE RS] y�TF FQ'�f' 6 a C0 KACU LIq �.._ . ,_ -. :.- . • ASHLEY MDWS Table 6.2: Alternative 1 Area -Wide Impacts Conclusions The completion of the Highway 93A as a four -lane lim- ited access corridor reduces travel demand on Highway 93 South and Highway 93/Main Street through Kalispell anywhere from 15 to 20 percent. This suggests Highway 93A will continue to divert traffic away from Highway 93. Once fully completed Highway 93A only minimally impacts travel demand on the commercial areas along Highway 93 North between Four Mile Drive and West Reserve. This is to be expected given the amount of existing and projected new growth along this stretch of Highway 93. Under Alternative 1 Highway 93A would operate below capacity except for a small segment north of Old Reserve Drive. A completed Highway 93A will cause an increase in traf- fic along the Meridian Road corridor, specifically between Highway 2/Idaho and West 7th Street/Foys Lake Road. Volumes generally increase along Meridian Road all the way to its intersection with Highway 93. Given the res- idential nature of Meridian Road south of West Center, these conditions support an evaluation of this corridor as improvements are completed along Highway 93A. _110 MOVE 2040 Table 6.3: Alternative 1 Change on Select Corridors -0 Corridor &Segments (Termini) ADT V/C LOS ADT• Change Basecamp Drive Airport Road 15,100 0.99 E 17,900 0.58 A 18.5% Kismet Court Bluestone Dr 19,300 0.63 B 24,600 0.80 D 27.5% Hwy 93A Foys Lake 4th Street W 20,400 0.67 B 22,200 0.73 C 8.8% United Drive Cemetary Road 24,000 0.75 C 19,500 0.61 B -18.8% Hwy 93S Kelly Road 3rd Avenue E 20,400 0.72 C 16,100 0.57 A -21.1% 11th Street IOth Street 21,700 1.60 F 17,600 1.30 F -18.7% 8th Street 7th Street 20,100 1.49 F 16,300 1.21 F -18.7% Main Street 4th Street 3rd Street 19,800 0.73 C 16,200 0.60 B -18.1% (Hwy 93) Montana Idaho (Hwy 2) 22,700 0.84 D 20,700 0.77 C -9.0% 3rd Street W 2nd Street W 10,300 0.86 D 12,000 1.00 F 16.5% Meridian Appleway Drive Fishtail Drive 11,200 0.85 D 12,500 0.95 E 11.6% 2 Mile Drive W Syoming 11,700 0.65 B 12,700 0.71 C 8.5% Road Westview Park Place Parkway Drive 12,100 1.01 F 12,700 1.06 F 5.0% 1 st 11 th Street 1 Oth Street 3,500 0.39 A 3,800 0.42 A 8.6% 5th Street 4th Street 3,900 0.43 A 4,200 0.47 A 7.7% Avenue E 1 st 11 th Street 1 Oth Street 7,500 0.83 D 7,100 0.79 C -6.8% 5th Street 4th Street 7,400 0.82 D 7,000 0.78 C -5.4% Avenue W Modeled volumes on Highway 93/Main Street were adjusted to match 2017 AADT. Model generated growth factors were applied to the 2017 AADT to derive the 2040 E+C and 2040 Alternative model run outputs for Highway 93/Main Street. KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 111_ Figure 6.1: Alternative 1 ADT Change on Select Corridors Legend ADT Change �> -10% -10% to 0% 0% to +10% ■ -> 10% 11 W-Q-; Kalispell Transportation. Area Plan 0 0.5 1 Miles _112 MOVE 2040 ALTERNATIVE Z Table 6.4: Alternative 2 Area -Wide Impacts Alternative 2 evaluates a three -lane section on Highway 93/Main Street from 7th Street to West Center Street. The intent of this alternative was to understand the impacts to ADT and LOS along the Highway 93/Main Street corri- dor. Previously developed traffic analysis has dismissed a three -lane option for the Main Street portion of Highway 93, due to capacity related concerns. Recent past plans developed by the City of Kalispell support local preference to convert the Main Street portion of Highway 93 to a more pedestrian friendly and downtown orientated cor- ridor. Any efforts or action to adjust the roadway section on Highway 93/Main Street will require coordination with MDT and account for criteria related to the NHS. Area -Wide Impacts Area -wide impacts of Alternative 2 were measured against the 2040 No Build network related to VMT, VHT and per- cent of congested roadway segments on the systems (as measured in miles). Alternative 2 has decreases in total VMT and VHT with reductions in each by 1.7 percent. The percentage of congested roadway segments rises slightly from 9.5 percent to 9.7 percent. Totals can be seen in Table 6.ti Corridor Level Impacts Impacts of Alternative 2 were evaluated on several corri- dor segments throughout the study area which were an- ticipated to see an impact from the conversion of down- town Main St. Please see ible 6.5 and Figure 6.2 on page 115. Key findings include: Highway 93/Main St — Travel demand reduced by as much as 15 percent; however, LOS falls to F with re- duced capacity. Minor changes on Meridian Road. ADT increases on 1 st Ave E and 1 st Ave W with minor LOS changes. No additional travel demand on Highway 93A. Conclusions Previous traffic planning efforts have discarded a three - lane alternative along Highway 93Main Street based on projected capacity and LOS issues. However, local public opinion including a series of recent reports and studies developed by the City of Kalispell favor a more pedestri- an friendly corridor. The conversion of Highway 93/Main Street to a three -lane section reduces travel demand by as much as 15 percent from north of the Courthouse through 2nd Street. LOS along this stretch of Highway 93/ Main Street is reduced to F with a reduction in capacity. Modeling results show an increase in travel demand along both 1 st Avenue East and West, but no increase in travel demand on Highway 93A. Both 1 st Avenue East and West are projected to have additional capacity to handle traffic changes which could result from changes to Highway 93/ Main Street. KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 113_ Table 6.5: Alt 2 Change on Select Corridors i-i Corridor Segments (Termini) A"DT MM •LOSIM Hwy 93S 11 th Street 1 Oth Street 21,700 1.60 F 18,800 1.39 F -13.3% 8th Street 7th Street 20,100 1.49 F 17,300 1.28 F -14.0% Main Street 4th Street 3rd Street 19,800 0.73 C 16,700 1.13 F -15.5% (Hwy 93) Montana Idaho (Hwy 2) 22,700 0.84 D 21,900 0.81 D -3.9% 1st 5th Street 3rd Street 3,900 0.43 A 4,500 0.50 A 15.4% Avenue E Idaho (Hwy 2) Three Mile 11,700 0.65 B 11,700 0.65 B 0.0% Meridian Road Road Three Mile Road Hwy 93 12,100 1.01 F 12,000 1.00 F -0.8% 12th Street 9th Street 3,500 0.39 A 3,800 0.42 A 8.6% 1 st 5th Street 3rd Street 3,900 0.43 A 4,500 0.50 A 15.4% Avenue E 1 st 12th Street 9th Street 7,500 0.83 D 8,100 0.90 E 8.0% Avenue W 5th Street 3rd Street 7,400 0.82 D 8,100 0.90 E 9.5% Modeled volumes on Highway 93/Main Street were adjusted to match 2017 AADT. Model generated growth factors were applied to the 2017 AADT to derive the 2040 E+C and 2040 Alternative model run outputs for Highway 93/Main Street. _114 MOVE 2040 Figure 6.2: Alternative 2 ADT Change on Select Corridors Legend ADT Change �> -10% -10% to 0% 0% to +10% > 10% Kalispell Transportation, Area Plan ARM 500 1,000 1 m = Feet KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 115_ ALTERNATIVE2A! ALTERNATIVES 1 & 2 COMBINED Alternative 2A carries forward the same assumptions from Alternative 1, however also assumes the full build out of Highway 93A as discussed in Alternative 1. Alternative 2A evaluates Highway 93/Main Street with reduced capacity in tandem with a fully completed Highway 93A. Area -Wide Impacts Area -wide impacts of Alternative 2A were measured against the 2040 No Build network related to VMT, VHT and percent of congested roadway segments on the sys- tems (as measured in miles). Alternative 2A has increases in total VMT and VHT—the greatest increase in VMT of all alternatives. The percentage of congested roadway seg- ments rises as well, from 9.5 percent to 9.9 percent. Totals can be seen in fable 6.6. Table 6.6: Alternative 2A Area -Wide Impacts Corridor Level Impacts Impacts of Alternative 2A were evaluated on several cor- ridor segments throughout the study area which were anticipated to see an impact from the conversion of downtown Main Street along with Highway 93A buildout. Please see 'able 6.7 and Figure 6.3 on page 118. Key findings include: Highway 93A will see significant increases in travel demand along its entirety. However LOS will improve on the section from Highway 93 to Airport Rd. Highway 93S will have decreases in ADT and im- proved LOS. Highway 93/Main Street experiences over a 25 per- cent reduction in travel demand. LOS through down- town fall to LOS F and E due to reduced capacity. Meridian Rd increases in ADT. ADT increases on 1 st Ave E and 1 st Ave W. Shady Lane and Conrad Dr both have increases in ADT and worsening LOS. Conclusions Alternative 2A assumes a completed Highway 93A and capacity reductions to Highway 93/Main Street. The com- pletion of Highway 93A coupled with a conversion to a three -lane section along Highway 93/Main Street reduces travel demand through downtown Kalispell by between 20 to 30 percent. The combination of a full build Highway 93A and a three - lane section on Highway 93/Main Street show decreased travel demand on Highway 93 South between 20 to 25 percent. Like changes seen along Meridian Road in Alternative 1, changes to both the Highway 93A and Highway 93/Main Street tend to push more traffic along the balance of the Meridian Road. Given the residential nature of Meridian Road south of West Center, these conditions are reason to suggest more evaluation of this corridor following com- pletion of Highway 93A. LOS along Highway 93/ Main Street remain LOS E/F from lust south of the couplet to West Center. Overall con- gestion along Highway 93/Main Street is less severe in Alternative 2A than other alternatives that modeled re- duced capacity. _116 MOVE zu4 Table 6.7. Alternative 2A Change on Select Corridors i-i E+C Alternative "Corridor Se ments (Termini) :::JWWADT=WJWEM6.;W .. BLM Hwy 93 Airport Road 15,100 0.99 E 18,300 0.60 A 21.2% Airport Road Foys Lake 19,300 0.63 B 25,000 0.82 D 29.5% Hwy 93A Foys Lake Hwy 2 20,400 0.67 B 22,500 0.74 C 10.3% Old Reserve Hwy 93 20,300 0.56 A 22,300 0.62 B 9.9% Hwy 93A Cemetary 24,000 0.75 C 19,100 0.59 A -20.4% Road Hwy 93S Cemetary 13th Street 20,400 0.72 C 15,500 0.55 A -24.0% Road 11 th Street 1 Oth Street 21,700 1.60 F 15,700 1.17 F -27.3% Main 8th Street 7th Street 20,100 1.49 F 14,600 1.08 F -27.3% 4th Street 3rd Street 19,800 0.73 C 14,300 0.96 E -27.7% Street (Hwy 93) Montana Idaho (Hwy 2) 22,700 0.84 D 20,200 0.75 C -11.2% 7th Street Center Street 10,300 0.86 D 12,100 1.01 F 17.5% Meridian Road Center Street Idaho (Hwy 2) 11,200 0.85 D 12,400 0.94 E 10.7% W Shady MT 35 Conrad Drive 5,100 0.38 A 5,800 0.43 A 13.7% Lane Conrad Woodland Ave Willow Glen 4,500 0.44 A 6,300 0.62 B 40.0% Drive Willow Glen Shady Lane 8,300 0.61 B 10,200 0.75 C 22.9% 2nd Main Street Street Woodland Dr. (Hwy 93) 5,300 0.44 A 6,300 0.53 A 18.9% East Idaho (Hwy 2) Three Mile 11,700 0.65 B 12,700 0.71 C 8.5% Meridian Road Road Three Mile Road Hwy 93 12,100 1.01 F 12,800 1.07 F 5.8% 1 st 12th Street 9th Street 3,500 0.39 A 3,600 0.40 A 2.9% Avenue E 2nd 5th Street 3rd Street 3,900 0.43 A 4,200 0.47 A 7.7% Avenue E 1 st Avenue 12th Street 9th Street 7,500 0.83 D 7,600 0.84 D 1.3% W 2nd Avenue 5th Street 3rd Street 7,400 0.82 D 7,500 0.83 D 1.4% W Modeled volumes on Highway 93/Main Street were adjusted to match 2017 AADT. Model generated growth factors were applied to the 2017 AADT to derive the 2040 E+C and 2040 Alternative model run outputs for Highway 93/Main Street. KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 117_ Figure 6.3: Alternative 2A ADT Change on Select Corridors 563 Legend ADT Change �> -10% -10% to 0% 0% to +10% —> 10% i Kalispell Transportation. Area Plan 0 0.5 1 Miles _118 MOVE 2040 ALTERNATIVE 3: NEW 8TH AVE AND 3RD AVE CONNECTIONS Alternative 3 evaluates the benefits of connecting both 8th Avenue WN and 3rd Avenue WN between Highway 2/Idaho Street and West Center Street. The assumption is that the development of a new travel corridor along 3rd Avenue WN may be possible if future commercial re- development occurs at the Center Mall. Extension of 8th Avenue WN seems more feasible with the removal of the rail line through the core area of Kalispell. Area -Wide Impacts Area -wide impacts of Alternative 3 were measured against the 2040 No Build network related to VMT, VHT and per- cent of congested roadway segments on the systems (as measured in miles). Alternative 3 has a minor decrease in total VMT and slight increase in total VHT. The percentage of congested roadway segments remains at 9.5 percent. Totals can be seen in Table 6.8. Corridor Level Impacts Impacts of Alternative 3 were evaluated on several cor- ridor segments through out the study area which were anticipated to see an impact from the completion of Highway 93A corridor. Please see cable 6.9 and n page 1 � Key findings include: Center Street West of Main sees significant increases in ADT but minor changes in LOS. 2nd Street E sees significant ADT increases between Woodland Drive and Highway 93. Other potentially impacted corridors were studied and can be seen in Table 6.y Table 6.8: Alternative 3 Area -Wide Impacts t Conclusions Creating better connections between Highway 2/Idaho and downtown Kalispell through adding connections on both 3rd Avenue and 8th Avenue attract about 2,400 and 2,200 vehicles to each corridor respectively. Conditions slightly improve along Meridian Road between Highway 2/Idaho and West Center. Traffic increases along both East and West Center and 2nd Street East, however both corridors operate efficiently with these changes. The im- provements to 3rd and 8th Avenues would improve con- nectivity within the northern portion of downtown, south of Highway 2/Idaho. However, these changes don't serve to positively or negatively impact other existing or project- ed travel conditions. These improvements should be further evaluated if re- development opportunities present themselves in the years ahead. Any improvements which serve to better connect roadways adjacent to Highway 93/Main Street and Highway 2/Idaho should be considered beneficial to the overall transportation network in the core area of Kalispell. KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 119_ Table 6.9: Alternative 3 Change on Select Corridors 2040 E+C _,�rnative 3 ELSegments (Termini) i.._ M�� ADT �Nww=�Los I= Meridian Road 5th Avenue W 4,900 0.41 A 6,000 0.50 A 22.4% Center 5th Avenue W M in Street 4,900 0.20 A 5,700 0.24 A 16.3% Street 2nd Main Street Street Woodland Dr. (Hwy 93) 5,300 0.44 A 6,300 0.53 A 18.9% East 3rd Center Street Avenue Idaho NA NA NA 2,400 0.40 A NA WN W 8th Center Street Avenue Idaho NA NA NA 2,200 0.37 A NA WN W Meridian Center Street Idaho (Hwy 2) 11,200 0.85 D 10,100 0.77 C -9.8% Road W 12th Street 9th Street 3,500 0.39 A 3,200 0.36 A -8.6% 1 st 5th Street 3rd Street 3,900 0.43 A 3,700 0.41 A -5.1 % Avenue E 1st 12th Street 9th Street 7,500 0.83 D 7,400 0.82 D -1.3% Avenue W 5th Street 3rd Street 7,400 0.82 D 7,400 0.82 D 0.0% _120 MOVE 2040 Figure 6.4: Alternative 3 ADT Change on Select Corridors DR Legend ADT Change �> -10% -10% to 0% 0% to +10% > 10% U Kalispell Transportation Area Plan r� 0 500 1,000 Feet KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 121_ ALTERNATIVE 3A' ALTERNATIVES 2 & 3 COMBINED Alternative 3A combines the assumption of Alternatives 2 and 3. This would measure improved north -south con- nectivity between Idaho and West Center Street as well as reduced capacity along the Main Street portion of Highway 93 north of the couplet to West Center Street. Area -Wide Impacts Area -wide impacts of Alternative 3A were measured against the 2040 No Build network related to VMT, VHT and percent of congested roadway segments on the sys- tems (as measured in miles). Alternative 3A has a signif- icant decrease in total VMT of 1.2 percent and decrease in total VHT of 0.7 percent. The percentage of congested roadway segments remains at 9.5 percent. Totals can be seen in Table 6.10. Table 6.10: Alt 3 Area -Wide Impacts Corridor Level Impacts Impacts of Alternative 3A were evaluated on several cor- ridor segments throughout the study area. As expected, major impacts can be seen on mostly the same corridors as Alternatives 2 and 3. Please see (able 6.1 1 and Key findings include: Highway 93/Main Street experiences reduction in travel demand; however, LOS is reduced to F through downtown. Center St west of Main sees significant increases in ADT but minor changes in LOS. 1 st Avenue E sees significant ADT increases between 5th St and 3rd St. Conclusions Conditions remain roughly constant to those experienced in Alternative 3. Alternative 3A experiences roughly the same traffic diversion away from Highway 93/Main Street experienced in Alternative 2. Due to changes in capacity along Highway 93/Main Street, LOS drops to an F. Table 6.11: Alternative 3A Change on Select Corridors Main Street (Hwy 93) 8th Street 7th Street 20,100 1.49 F 17,300 1.28 F -14.0% 4th Street 3rd Street 19,800 0.73 C 16,700 1.13 F -15.5% Montana Idaho (Hwy 2) 22,700 0.84 D 19,300 0.71 C -15.3% Center Street Meridian Road 5th Avenue W 4,900 0.41 A 6,000 0.50 A 22.4% 5th Avenue W M in Street 4,900 0.20 A 5,800 0.24 A 18.4% 3rd Avenue WN Idaho Center Street W NA NA NA 2,500 0.42 A NA 8th Avenue WN Idaho Center Street W NA NA NA 2,200 0.37 A NA Meridian Road Center Street W Idaho (Hwy 2) 11,200 0.85 D 10,300 0.78 C -8.0% 1 st Avenue E 12th Street 9th Street 3,500 0.39 A 3,800 0.42 A 8.6% 5th Street 3rd Street 3,900 0.43 A 4,400 0.49 A 12.8% 1 st Avenue W 12th Street 9th Street 7,500 0.83 D 8,000 0.89 D 6.7% 5th Street 3rd Street 7,400 0.82 D 8,000 0.89 D 8.1 % Modeled volumes on Hiahwav 93/Main Street were adiusted to match 2017 AADT. Model aenerated arowth factors were applied to the 2017 AADT to derive the 2040 E+C and 2040 Alternative model run outputs for Highway 93/Main Street. 122 n, - . , Figure 6.5: Alternative 3A ADT Change on Select Corridors zr IAL DR Legend ADT Change �> -10% -10% to 0% 0% to +10% > 10% Kalispell Transportation Area Plan "��C�; A 0 500 1,000 1 Feet KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 123_ ALTERNATIVE 4: WILLOW GLEN CONRAD/SHADY LANE Alternative 4 evaluates the development of a three -lane roadway along the Willow Glen corridor from Highway 93 South to Conrad Road, then continuing along Conrad Road to Shady Lane, where it would continue until its function with MT 35. This corridor improvement has been studied in the past and is widely believed to help provide some east side relief for traffic origin -destination patterns from south Kalispell to the Evergreen area along Highway 2/1-asalle Road, and points north. Area -Wide Impacts Area -wide impacts of Alternative 4 were measured against the 2040 No Build network related to VMT, VHT and percentage of congested roadway segments on the systems (as measured in miles). Alternative 4 has a mod- est 0.2 percent decrease in total VMT and 0.5 percent in- crease in total VHT. The percentage of congested roadway segments rises slightly to 9.6 percent. Totals can be seen in cable 6. 1 . Table 6.12: Alternative 4 Area -Wide Impacts Corridor Level Impacts Impacts of Alternative 4 were evaluated on several cor- ridor segments throughout the study area. As expected, impacts can be seen on Shady Lane and Conrad Drive. Please see fable 6.13 and Figure 6.6 on page 126. Key findings include: Shady Lane is expected to see a 17.6 percent increase in ADT with no significant change to LOS. Conrad Drive increases significantly in ADT and LOS gets worse from Woodland Ave to Willow Glen 2nd St E also sees increased ADT from Woodland Dr. to Main. Table 6.13: Alternative 4 Change on Select Corridors Shady Lane MT 35 Conrad Drive 5,100 0.38 A 6,000 0.40 A 17.6% Woodland Ave Willow Glen 4,500 0.44 A 6,600 0.65 B 46.7% Conrad Drive Willow Glen Shady Lane 8,300 0.61 B 10,600 0.71 C 27.7% 2nd Street East Woodland Drive Main Street (Hwy 93) 5,300 0.44 A 6,400 0.53 A 20.8% Hwy 93 Woodland Drive 8,100 0.68 B 8,500 0.64 B 4.9% Willow Glen Woodland Drive Conrad Road 5,500 0.40 A 5,900 0.39 A 7.3% Woodland Conrad Dr Idaho (Hwy 2) 5,400 0.45 A 5,600 0.47 A 3.7% Park Dr Highway 93S Airport Way Kelly Road 20,100 0.71 C 19,700 0.70 C -2.0% Main Street 4th Street 3rd Street 16,500 0.61 B 16,500 0.61 B 0.0% (Highway 93) _ 124 MOVE -- Conclusions One possible constraint to Alternative 4 is resident op- position. The current corridor is largely residential with large lots with a semi -rural character. An arterial may be unpopular as improvements attract additional traffic to all segments of the corridor. The most significant increases are seen along Shady Lane, Conrad Drive and 2nd Street East. Slight increases are seen along Willow Glen, with a small increase along Woodland Park Drive. Improvements along Willow Glen/Conrad Road appear to have no impact on conditions along Highway 93. These im- provements alone minimally reduce traffic along Highway 2/Idaho between MT 35 and Highway 93. Nothing with- in the TDM results would suggest changing the historical sentiment to pursue improvements on this general travel corridor constituting Willow Glen, Conrad Road and Shady Lane. As is shown later, improvement to this travel corridor is improved through finding new north -south connectivity, either along 7th Street EN/Whitefish Stage or a possible LaSalle Extension. KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 125_ Figure 6.6: Alternative 4 ADT Change on Select Corridors Legend �1 ADT Change Kalispell Transportation �> -10% Area Plan -10% to 0% 0% to +10% `ow fo > 10% 0 0.25 0.5 Miles _126 MOVE 2040 ALTERNATIVE 5: LASALLE EXTENSION Alternative 5 considers the potential connection between LaSalle Road/Highway 2 and Conrad Road. Alternative 5 creates a new connection from the junction of Highway 2 and MT 35 south to Conrad Road. This alternative has been modeled in the past and is considered to have the potential to improve access into downtown Kalispell, re- lieve potential congestion on Highway 2/Idaho Street and improve north -south mobility through the study area. Area -Wide Impacts Area -wide impacts of Alternative 5 were measured against the 2040 No Build network related to VMT, VHT and per- centage of congested roadway segments on the systems (as measured in miles). Alternative 5 has no change in total VMT and 0.6 percent increase in total VHT. However the percentage of congested roadway segments rises to 10 percent —tied with Alternative 6 for the highest per- centage of congested roadway segments. Totals can be seen in Table 6.14. Table 6.14: Alternative 5 Area -Wide Impacts Corridor Level Impacts Impacts of Alternative 5 were evaluated on several corri- dor segments throughout the study area. Please see able 6.15 and Figure 6.7 on page 12� Key findings include: Willow Glen and Conrad Dr see increases in ADT and worsening LOS. Woodland Dr and Shady Lane both see decreases in ADT and improvements to LOS. 2nd St E also sees increased ADT from Woodland Dr. to Main. Other hand -selected corridors for analysis can be seen in Table 6.15. No changes on Highway 93/Main Street. Reduction in volumes on Highway 93S from Cemetery Road to 13th Street. a _ u9E ti� Conclusions A new connection between Highway 2 and Conrad Road would attract 7,200 vehicles daily. This so-called LaSalle Extension would reduce travel demand on Woodland Drive, Woodland Park Drive and Shady Lane. With this new roadway segment, travel demand would increase on 2nd Street East and Conrad Drive. Accordingly, trav- el demand would increase on Willow Glen. Increases on Willow Glen with the LaSalle Extension are greater than those seen with improvements only to the Willow Glen/ Conrad Road/Shady Lane corridors. Projected travel de- mand increases along existing corridors don't appear significant enough to negatively impact future operations within the general area of influence. KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 127_ Table 6.15: Alternative 5 Change on Select Corridors i-i Corridor Segments (Termini) ::�01 ADT V/C LOS ADT• Change Hwy 93 Woodland 8,100 0.68 B 9,100 0.76 C 12.3% Willow Drive Glen Woodland Drive Conrad Road 5,500 0.40 A 8,300 0.61 B 50.9% Woodland 12th Street 5th Street 5,800 0.48 A 4,500 0.38 A -22.4% Drive Shady MT 35 Conrad Drive 5,100 0.38 A 3,100 0.23 A -39.2% Lane Woodland Willow Glen 4,500 0.44 A 5,300 0.52 A 17.8% Conrad Ave Drive Willow Glen Shady Lane 8,300 0.61 B 12,600 0.93 E 51.8% 2nd Street Woodland Dr. Main Street 5,300 0.44 A 6,000 0.50 A 13.2% East (Hwy 93) New Network US2/MT35 Conrad Dr NA NA NA 7,200 0.71 C NA Segment Hwy 93A Meridian 18,300 0.65 B 18,300 0.65 B 0.0% Road Meridian 5th Avenue 21,800 0.77 C 21,900 0.77 C 0.5% Road W 5th Avenue Main Street 19,400 0.72 C 19,600 0.73 C 1.0% W (Hwy 93) Main Street 3rd Avenue 24,400 0.90 E 25,300 0.94 E 3.7% Hwy 2 (Hwy 93) EN (Idaho) 7th Avenue 3rd Avenue EN/Whitefish 25,600 0.95 E 26,200 0.97 E 2.3% EN Stage 7th Avenue Woodland EN/Whitefish Park 23,300 0.86 D 24,200 0.90 D 3.9% Stage Woodland LaSalle/MT 27,100 0.89 D 27,200 0.89 D 0.4% Park 35 Hwy 2/ Shady Lane 15,900 1.04 F 15,800 1.03 F -0.6% LaSalle Shady Lane Helena Flats 12,000 0.88 D 11,900 0.88 D -0.8% MT 35 Helena Flats Flathead 14,100 1.04 F 14,400 1.06 F 2.1% River Woodland Conrad Dr Idaho (Hwy 5,400 0.45 A 4,300 0.36 A -20.4% Park Dr 2) _128 MOVE 2040 Figure 6.7. Alternative 5 ADT Change on Select Corridors KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 129_ ALTERNATIVE 5A' ALTERNATIVES 4 & 5 COMBINED Alternative 5A would combine the assumptions from Alternatives 4 and 5. This would improve the Willow Glen/Conrad Road/Shady Lane corridor in addition to providing for a new connection between Highway 2 and Conrad Road. Area -Wide Impacts Area -wide impacts of Alternative 5A were measured against the 2040 No Build network related to VMT, VHT and percentage of congested roadway segments on the systems (as measured in miles). Like Alternative 5, Alternative 5A has no change in total VMT but has a slightly greater 0.6 percent increase in total VHT. The percentage of congested roadway segments falls to 9.9 percent compared to Alternative 5. Totals can be seen in Table 6.16. Table 6.16: Alternative 5A Area -Wide Impacts Corridor Level Impacts Impacts of Alternative 5A were evaluated on several cor- ridor segments throughout the study area. Combining Alternatives 4 and 5 seems to strengthen the effects of both. Please see and Figure 6.8 on page 132 Key findings include: Willow Glen has increases in ADT and worsening LOS. Woodland Dr and Shady Lane both see decreases in ADT and improvements to LOS. Conrad Dr. worsens to a greater degree than either base alternative alone. ADT increases at 2nd St E with little change in LOS. Other selected segments can be seen in able 6.17. No changes on Highway 93/Main Street Reduction in volumes on Highway 93S from Cemetery Road to 13th Street. 35 < x W——VJ — f,{rcp[h F� f HC!TSTA - z ?a,D DR y ri E u � eT p4 ` Y '61:1.5Tr r� �w a KD mac,. of, v " Fip'R ' #$�0h+ER LN FGA-1 Rh Conclusions Combining improvements along Willow Glen/Conrad Road/Shady Lane with the LaSalle Extension further in- crease the attractiveness of an improved east side corri- dor. The results of Alternative 4, 5 and 5A demonstrate the potential need to ensure an improved connection to Highway 2 in combination with an east side corridor such as Willow Glen. Projected travel demand increases along existing corridors don't appear significant enough to neg- atively impact future operations within the general area of influence. _130 MOVE 204( Table 6.17. Alternative 5A Change on Select Corridors 2040 E+C Alternative 5A AM Corridor Segments DT LOS AMA LOS Hwy 93 Woodland 8,100 0.68 B 9,400 0.71 C 16.0% Willow Drive Glen Woodland Drive Conrad Road 5,500 0.40 A 8,600 0.57 A 56.4% Woodland 12th Street 5th Street 5,800 0.48 A 4,600 0.38 A -20.7% Drive Shady MT 35 Conrad Drive 5,100 0.38 A 2,900 0.19 A -43.1% Lane Conrad Woodland Willow Glen 4,500 0.44 A 5,700 0.56 A 26.7% Ave Drive Willow Glen Shady Lane 8,300 0.61 B 13,300 0.89 D 60.2% 2nd Street Woodland Dr. Main Street 51300 0.44 A 6,100 0.51 A 15.1% East (Hwy 93) New Network US2/MT35 Conrad Dr NA NA NA 7,600 0.75 C NA Segment Hwy 93A Meridian 18,300 0.65 B 18,400 0.65 B 0.5% Road Meridian 5th Avenue 21,800 0.77 C 21,900 0.77 C 0.5% Road W 5th Avenue Main Street 19,400 0.72 C 19,600 0.73 C 1.0% W (Hwy 93) Main Street 3rd Avenue 24,400 0.90 E 25,200 0.93 E 3.3% Hwy 2 (Hwy 93) EN (Idaho) 7th Avenue 3rd Avenue EN/Whitefish 25,600 0.95 E 26,000 0.96 E 1.6% EN Stage 7th Avenue Woodland EN/Whitefish Park 23,300 0.86 D 24,100 0.89 D 3.4% Stage Woodland LaSalle/MT 27100 0.89 D 26,700 0.87 D -1.5% Park 35 Hwy 2/ Shady Lane 15,900 1.04 F 15,600 1.02 F -1.9% LaSalle MT 35 Shady Lane Helena Flats 12,000 0.88 D 11,900 0.88 D -0.8% Helena Flats Flathead 14,100 1.04 F 14,400 1.06 F 2.1% River Woodland Conrad Dr Idaho (Hwy 5,400 0.45 A 4,100 0.34 A -24.1% Park Dr 2) KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 131_ Figure 6.8: Alternative 5A ADT Change on Select Corridors V Legend �1 ADT Change Kalispell T►ansportation �> -10% Area Plan -10% to 0% 0% to +10% �> 10% 0 0.5 1 Miles _132 MOVE 2040 ALTERNATIVE & %TH AVE EXTENSION Alternative 6 assumes an extension of 7th Avenue EN from Highway 2/Idaho Street to East Center Street/ Woodland Avenue. This could be considered an extension of Whitefish Stage Road. The improvement is similar to Alternatives 4 and 5 and is aimed at trying to increase north -south mobility through the study area. Area -Wide Impacts Area -wide impacts of Alternative 6 were measured against the 2040 No Build network related to VMT, VHT and percentage of congested roadway segments on the systems (as measured in miles). Alternative 6 along with Alternative 5 has the highest percentage of congested roadway segments of any alternative at 10.0 percent. VMT has a modest decrease of 0.2 percent while VHT in- creases 0.5 percent. Totals can be seen in fable 6.1 b Table 6.18: Alternative 6 Area -Wide Impacts Corridor Level Impacts Impacts of Alternative 6 were evaluated on several corri- dor segments throughout the study area. Please see 6.19 and gure 6.9 on page 13: Several downtown corridors see significant changes. Although many cor- ridors have significant increases in ADT and worsening levels of service, LOS remains level A—C: Willow Glen has increases in ADT and worsening LOS. Woodland Dr sees increases in ADT and worsening LOS. Conrad Dr. has significantly increased ADTs and wors- ening LOS. Center St sees increases in ADT. 1st St E sees increases in ADT but no signficant LOS change. 2nd St E sees increases in ADT. No changes on Highway 93/Main Street. Conclusions The addition of a connection between Highway 2/Idaho and East Center Street at 7th Street EN/Whitefish Stage would attract 10,000 vehicles per day. This new connec- tion increases travel demand on a series of adjacent corri- dors including Conrad Drive, Center Street, 1 st Street and 2nd Street. Additionally, this new connection would gen- erate increased traffic demand along Willow Glen from Highway 93 South to Woodland Drive and points north. The proposed connection also serves to increase trav- el demand along the Whitefish Stage corridor north of Highway 2/Idaho. This change in travel demand is ex- pected given the new connectivity provided in the middle of the study area. For the most part, increases in travel demand on existing corridors doesn't appear to negative- ly impact projected conditions. Travel demand increases to Woodland Drive would not be significant enough to degrade the current residential character of the neighbor- hood. Consideration should be given to improve roadway safety along the Woodland Avenue corridorwith improved shoulders and related delineation, improved pedestrian facilities including marked crosswalks and a review of ap- propriate lane widths for a residential corridor. KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 133_ Table 6.19: Alternative 6 Change on Select Corridors a ALj=WffjMF Alternative 6 Chafn 3 Willow Woodland Hwy 93 8,100 0.68 B 9,500 Ak 0.79 C 17.3% Glen Drive Woodland 12th Street 5th Street 5,800 0.48 A 7,800 0.65 B 34.5% Drive Woodland Ave Willow Glen 4,500 0.44 A 6,800 0.67 B 51.1 % Conrad Drive Willow Glen Shady Lane 8,300 0.61 B 10,200 0.75 C 22.9% Center Main Street Woodland 5,400 0.45 A 6,800 0.57 A 25.9% Street (Hwy 93) Drive 1 st Street Woodland Dr. Main Street 400 0.11 A 600 0.16 A 50.0% East (Hwy 93) 2nd Street Woodland Dr. Main Street 5,300 0.44 A 6,800 0.57 A 28.3% East (Hwy 93) New Network 7th Ave EN 7th Ave EN NA NA NA 10,000 1.11 F NA Segment Willow Woodland Conrad Road 5,500 0.40 A 5,300 0.39 A -3.6% Glen Drive 7th Avenue 3rd Avenue EN EN/Whitefish 25,600 0.95 E 24,100 0.89 D -5.9% Hwy 2 Stage 7th Avenue (Idaho) EN/Whitefish Woodland Park 23,300 0.86 D 25,100 0.93 E 7.7% Stage Idaho (Highway 2) Evergreen 8,100 0.60 A 8,900 0.65 B 9.9% Whitefish Stage Evergreen Reserve Drive 9,200 0.77 C 9,700 0.81 D 5.4% Reserve Drive Rose Crossing 6,100 0.60 A 6,400 0.63 B 4.9% Woodland Conrad Dr Idaho (Hwy 2) 5,400 0.45 A 3,900 0.33 A -27.8% Park Dr _134 MOVE 2040 Figure 6.9: Alternative 6 ADT Change on Select Corridors I Legend i �1 ADT Change Kalispell Transportation �> -10% Area Plan -10% to 0% 0% to +10% > 10% 0 0.5 1 Miles KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 135_ ALTERNATIVE M Alternative 6A combines the assumption of both Alternative 4 and 6. Alternative 6A combines a Whitefish Stage/7th Street extension with improvements to the Willow Glen/ Conrad Road/Shady Lane corridor. Area -Wide Impacts Area -wide impacts of Alternative 6A were measured against the 2040 No Build network related to VMT, VHT and percentage of congested roadway segments on the systems (as measured in miles). Alternative 6A has a low- er percentage of congested roadway segments compared to Alternative 6 (10.0 percent) but higher than Alternative 4 (9.6 percent). VMT has a decrease of 0.7 percent while VHT decreases 0.6 percent. Totals can be seen in Table 6.20. Table 6.20: Alternative 6A Area -Wide Impacts Corridor Level Impacts Impacts of Alternative 6A were evaluated on several corri- dor segments throughout the study area. Please see and Figure 6.10 on page 138. Corridor impacts are comparable to Alternatives 4 and 6: Willow Glen has increases in ADT and worsening LOS. Conrad Dr. has increased ADTs and worsening LOS. Center St sees increases in ADT. 1st St E sees increases in ADT but no significant LOS change. 2nd St E sees increases in ADT. Woodland Park Dr decreases ADT and improves LOS. No changes on Highway 93/Main Street. 4 "r f F.� '• r'i� x -b�,hkkC rW+ 451..— ry,, ss �'Y r # l , n� r KUL' RD `f Y ! ).'hu Fr k vA � K J 4tii � f. Conclusions Combining the 7th Street EN/Whitefish Stage connection with previously identified improvements along Willow Glen/Conrad Road/Shady Lane doesn't dramatically change those patterns seen through just adding the new connection. As was expressed earlier, the attractiveness of existing or improved east side corridors such as Willow Glen are enhanced if additional north -south connectivity is provided through either a 7th Street EN/Whitefish Stage connection or the LaSalle Extension. Traffic increases to Woodland Drive would not degrade the current residen- tial character of the neighborhood. Table 6.21: Alternative 6A Change on Select Corridors Corridor Segments (Termini) ADT Imi • • Change Hwy 93S Cemetary Road 13th Street 20,400 0.72 C 19,000 0.67 B -6.9% 7th Avenue 3rd Avenue EN EN/Whitefish 25,600 0.95 E 24,000 0.89 D -6.3% Hwy 2 Stage 7th Avenue (Idaho) EN/Whitefish Woodland Park 23,300 0.86 D 24,900 0.92 E 6.9% Stage Willow Hwy 93 Woodland 8,100 0.68 B 9,900 0.75 C 22.2% Glen Drive Woodland 12th Street 5th Street 5,800 0.48 A 7,900 0.66 B 36.2% Drive Idaho (Highway Evergreen 8,100 0.60 A 8,900 0.65 B 9.9% Whitefish 2) Stage Evergreen Reserve Drive 9,200 0.77 C 9,800 0.82 D 6.5% Shady MT 35 Conrad Drive 5,100 0.38 A 5,500 0.37 A 7.8% Lane Woodland Ave Willow Glen 4,500 0.44 A 6,900 0.68 B 53.3% Conrad Drive Willow Glen Shady Lane 8,300 0.61 B 10,500 0.70 C 26.5% 5th Avenue W Main Street 4,900 0.20 A 5,300 0.22 A 8.2% Center (Hwy 93) Street Main Street Woodland (Hwy 93) Drive 5,400 0.45 A 6,800 0.57 A 25.9% 1st Street Woodland Dr. Main Street 400 0.11 A 600 0.16 A 50.0% East (Hwy 93) 2nd Street Woodland Dr. Main Street 5,300 0.44 A 6,800 0.57 A 28.3% East (Hwy 93) 1 st 12th Street 9th Street 3,500 0.39 A 3,300 0.37 A -5.7% Avenue E New Network Idaho Center Street E 100 0.01 A 10,000 1.11 F NA Segment Woodland Conrad Dr Idaho (Hwy 2) 5,400 0.45 A 3,800 0.32 A -29.6% Park Dr KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 137_ Figure 6.10: Alternative 6A ADT Change on Select Corridors Legend �1 ADT Change Kalispell T►anspo►tation �> -10% Area Plan -10% to 0% 0% to +10% �> 10% 0 0.5 1 Miles _138 MOVE 2040 ALTERNATIVE Alternative 7 evaluates the development of an improved three -lane corridor along Evergreen/Four Mile Drive from Whitefish Stage to its junction with Farm -to -Market Road. Alternative 7 assumes the development of a new crossing of the Stillwater River to make the connection between Whitefish Stage and Highway 93. Evaluated in past plans, the improvement looks to improve east -west mobility through the north -central portions of the study area. Area -Wide Impacts Area -wide impacts of Alternative 7 were measured against the 2040 No Build network related to VMT, VHT and percentage of congested roadway segments on the systems (as measured in miles). Alternative 7 has a 1.1 percent decrease in VMT and 0.8 percent decrease in VHT over the no -build scenario. The percentage of congested roadway segments is about average among all alterna- tives at 9.3 percent. See totals in Table 6.22. Table 6.22: Alternative 7Area-Wide Impacts Corridor Level Impacts Impacts of Alternative 7 were evaluated on several corri- dor segments throughout the study area. Corridor impacts are significant for the northern portions of the study area. Please see -able 6.23 and gure 6.11 on page 142. Key findings include: Highway 93A increases in ADT with little change in LOS. Highway 93 from Idaho to Wyoming St improves LOS from F to E. ADT increases on Four Mile Dr/Evergreen ADT decreases (and impacts to LOS) at: • Three Mile Drive • Stillwater Road • Farm to Market • Reserve Dr Whitefish Stage ADT increases at: Springcreek Road Helena Flats Rose Crossing F t: 1 NO3 €4i11 Lcop o",, h4yYER,*r k TWO.`hI r Dq iw Lkl;r [fly. _- #--� Conclusions The addition of a new connection across the Stillwater River connecting Evergreen Drive with Grandview Drive/ Four Mile Drive would have a dramatic impact on the transportation network. The new roadway segment will attract 12,200 vehicles per day. This new connection im- proves the utility of the overall travel corridor between Helena Flats and Farm to Market Road. Projected travel demand along the corridor generally stays within pro- jected capacity. The new connection appears to assist in facilitating regional mobility relative to projected growth trends. The new connection reduces travel demand along Whitefish Stage, Highway 2/Idaho, segments of Highway 93 North, as well as other future growth corridors on the west side of Highway 93A. Noticeable travel demand reductions are seen along West Reserve from Whitefish Stage to points west. Relative to several other alternatives, improvements to the Evergreen/Grandview/Four Mile Drive corridor shows the most potential to reduce travel demand along Highway 2/Idaho. Additionally, the new connection also serves to reduce travel demand along MT 35 from Helena Flats to its intersection with Highway 2. The new connection impacts travel demand along Helena Flats as the corridor appears to continue to develop as a more enhanced parallel route to Highway 2/LaSalle. While this currently occurs to some degree, this trend is accentuated with the improved connection across Evergreen/Grandview/Four Mile Drive. Projected condi- tions don't appear to outstrip capacity along Helena Flats, however future considerations would be needed for an urban roadway section, as opposed to an improved rural section. KALIJYtLL A K t A IPANSPUKIAIIUN PLAN 139'A Table 6.23: Alternative 7 Change on Select Corridors i Corridor Segments (Termini) ADT ABbm=iLc..wJ= Hwy 93A Three Mile Drive Four Mile Drive 24,000 0.67 B 27,000 0.75 C 12.5% Hwy 93N Idaho (Hwy 2) Wyoming Street 29,800 1.10 F 26,900 1.00 E -9.7% Helena Flats LaSalle/Hwy 2 3,700 0.36 A 5,000 0.49 A 35.1 % Four Mile Hwy 2/LaSalle Whitefish Stage 6,400 0.47 A 10,700 0.79 C 67.2% Drive/ Evergreen Hwy 93 Hwy 93A 21300 0.23 A 61800 0.52 A 195.7% Hwy 93A Farm to Market 31500 0.93 E 10,000 1.01 F 185.7% Road Three Mile Farm to Market Hwy 93 10,000 0.74 C 8,200 0.60 B -18.0% Drive Road Stillwater Road Four Mile Drive West Reserve 1,500 0.40 A 1,100 0.29 A -26.7% Springcreek Four Mile Drive West Reserve 4,400 1.17 F 6,000 1.60 F o 36.4/0 Road Drive Farm to Market (MT Three Mile Drive Four Mile Drive 4,100 0.40 A 1,600 0.16 A -61.0% 424) Spring Creek Stillwater Road 9,500 1.06 F 7,000 0.78 C -26.3% Reserve Drive Drive Hwy 93 Whitefish Stage 20,700 1.00 E 18,600 0.89 D -10.1 % Idaho (Highway Evergreen 8,100 0.60 A 7,200 0.53 A -11.1% Whitefish 2) Stage Evergreen Reserve Drive 9,200 0.77 C 5,700 0.48 A -38.0% MT 35 Evergreen Drive 9,100 0.89 D 10,400 1.02 F 14.3% Helena Flats East Reserve Rose Crossing 4,000 0.59 A 4,500 0.66 B 12.5% Rose Lasalle (Hwy 2) Whitefish Stage 2,500 0.48 A 2,800 0.53 A 12.0% Crossing New Network Evergreen Drive Evergreen Drive NA NA NA 12,200 0.92 E NA Segment Extension Extension ..continued on page 141 _140 MOVE 2040 -1 .-. Corridor AL ini) NMML�v • .- Hwy 93A Meridian Road 18,300 0.65 B 17,800 0.63 B -2.7% Meridian Road 5th Avenue W 21,800 0.77 C 20,800 0.73 C -4.6% 5th Avenue W Main Street (Hwy 19,400 0.72 C 18,500 0.69 B -4.6% Main Street (Hwy 93) 3rd Avenue EN 24,400 0.90 E 22,000 0.81 D -9.8% Hwy 2 (Idaho) 3rd Avenue EN 7th Avenue EN/ Whitefish Stage 25,600 0.95 E 23,400 0.87 D -8.6% 7th Avenue EN/ Whitefish Stage Woodland Park 23,300 0.86 D 21,600 0.80 D -7.3% Woodland Park LaSalle/MT 35 27,100 0.89 D 25,300 0.83 D -6.6% Idaho/MT 35 Evergreen 23,300 0.73 C 24,600 0.77 C 5.6% LaSalle (Hwy 2) Evergreen West Reserve 25,200 0.78 C 24,800 0.77 C -1.6% West Reserve Rose Crossing 26,400 0.82 D 26,300 0.82 D -0.4% Hwy 2/LaSalle Shady Lane 15,900 1.04 F 14,800 0.97 E -6.9% MT 35 Shady Lane Helena Flats 12,000 0.88 D 10,900 0.80 D -9.2% Helena Flats Flathead River 14,100 1.04 F 14,200 1.04 F 0.7% KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 141_ Figure 6.11: Alternative 7ADT Change on Select Corridors _142 MOVE Zu4u ALTERNATIVE S Alternative 8 develops an improved three -lane facility along the Rose Crossing corridor from Helena Flats to the Highway 93. The improvement is developed to provide additional east -west connectivity between Highway 2 and Highway 93 in the northern portion of the study area. Area -Wide Impacts Area -wide impacts of Alternative 8 were measured against the 2040 No Build network related to VMT, VHT and percentage of congested roadway segments on the systems (as measured in miles). Alternative 8 has a 0.2 percent increase in VMT and 0.9 percent increase in VHT, giving it the highest VHT of all alternatives. The percent- age of congested roadway segments is among the lowest of all alternatives at 8.7 percent. See totals in Table 6.2z Table 6.24: Alternative 8 Area -Wide Impacts Corridor Level Impacts Impacts of Alternative 8 were evaluated on several corri- dor segments throughout the study area. Corridor impacts are significant for the northern portions of the study area. Please see Table 6.25 and gure 6.12 on page 145. Key findings include: Four Mile Dr/Evergreen decreases ADT with little change to LOS. Helena Flats increases ADT with little change to LOS. Expected ADT increases on Four Mile Dr/Evergreen. Rose Crossing increases ADT. Helena Flats has minor impacts to ADT and LOS. Travel demand on Highway 93A increases. WAY �'•'atrFjSNTRI 7er:r�str��ka � ' ,x �ry5 ee Conclusions CP rt �k r � w 4 WN �N s An improved Rose Crossing has a measurable impact on the overall transportation network. The corridor itself west of Highway 2/LaSalle experiences a doubling in travel de- mand. However, these increases are within the projected capacity anticipated for this corridor. As with improvements to the Evergreen/Grandview/Four- Mile Drive corridor, the improvement to Rose Crossing accentuates the function of Helena Flats as a parallel roadway to Highway 2/LaSalle. The improved connec- tion across Rose Crossing also serves to reduce traffic on the northern segment of Whitefish Stage from Evergreen Drive to Rose Crossing. The improvement along Rose Crossing tends to drive up travel demand along Highway 93 North from Rose Crossing to West Reserve, and then along Highway 93A from West Reserve to Two Mile Drive. Percentage of con- gested roadway segments is among the lowest at 8.7 percent. KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 143_ Table 6.25: Alternative 8 Change on Select Corridors "Corridor M� Segments (Termini) L �:���wANN=AILJLM 2040]E+C Alternative 8 M Four Mile Drive/ Evergreen Helena Flats LaSalle/Hwy 2 3,700 0.36 A 3,100 0.30 A -16.2% Hwy 2/LaSalle Whitefish Stage 6,400 0.47 A 5,700 0.42 A -10.9% Helena Flats Evergreen Drive East Reserve 5,900 0.58 A 6,700 0.66 B 13.6% Rose Crossing Helena Flats LaSalle (Hwy 2) 5,300 1.25 F 5,000 0.67 B -5.7% Lasalle (Hwy 2) Whitefish Stage 2,500 0.48 A 5,900 0.32 A 136.0% Whitefish Stage Hwy 93 5,300 1.01 F 10,300 0.56 A 94.3% Hwy 93A Three Mile Drive Four Mile Drive 24,000 0.67 B 24,900 0.69 B 3.8% Four Mile Drive Old Reserve 21,400 0.59 A 22,300 0.62 B 4.2% Old Reserve Hwy 93 20,300 0.56 A 21,400 0.69 B 5.4% Whitefish Stage Idaho (Highway 2) Evergreen 8,100 0.60 A 8,100 0.60 A 0.0% Evergreen Reserve Drive 9,200 0.77 C 8,700 0.73 C -5.4% Reserve Drive Rose Crossing 6,100 0.60 A 5,500 0.54 A -9.8% Helena Flats MT 35 Evergreen Drive 9,100 0.89 D 9,400 0.92 E 3.3% Evergreen Drive East Reserve 5,900 0.58 A 6,700 0.66 B 13.6% East Reserve Rose Crossing 4,000 0.59 A 4,400 0.65 B 10.0% Rose Crossing Helena Flats LaSalle (Hwy 2) 5,300 1.25 F 5,000 0.67 B -5.7% Lasalle (Hwy 2) Whitefish Stage 2,500 0.48 A 5,900 0.32 A 136.0% Whitefish Stage Hwy 93 5,300 1.01 F 10,300 0.56 A 94.3% 1 st Avenue E 12th Street 9th Street 3,500 0.39 A 3,100 0.34 A -1 1.4% 5th Street 3rd Street 3,900 0.43 A 3,600 0.40 A -7.7% _144 MOVE 2040 Figure 6.12: Alternative 8 ADT Change on Select Corridors KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 145_ ALTERNATIVE 9 Alternative 9 combines the assumptions from Alternative 7 and 8 and models improved east -west connectivity along both Four Mile Drive/Evergreen and Rose Crossing. Area -Wide Impacts Area wide impacts of Alternative 9 were measured against the 2040 No Build network related to VMT, VHT and per- centage of congested roadway segments on the systems (as measured in miles). Alternative 8 has a 0.1 percent increase in VMT and 0.4 percent increase in VHT. See to- tals in Table 6.26. Table 6.26: Alternative 9 Area -Wide Impacts Corridor Level Impacts Impacts of Alternative 9 were evaluated on several corri- dor segments throughout the study area. Please see Table 6.27 and Figure 6.13 on page 148. Impacts include a combination of impacts from Alternatives 7 and 8: Highway 93A ADT increases with little LOS change. Highway 93N shows a decrease in ADT and improve- ment in LOS. Four Mile Drive/Evergreen shows significant increases in ADT and worsening LOS. Decreases in ADT at: • Three Mile Drive • Stillwater Road • Farm to Market • Reserve Drive Whitefish Stage Increases in ADT at: Springcreek Road Helena Flats Rose Crossing has mixed results. Other Changes in table 6.27. 9� M, 1 N t� Conclusions Ci-, L4 __ •l [ty ri a h K,., DR QI!5-r IN, , yvw tin' -2 35 F' 0! The combination of the Rose Crossing improvements and the improvements to the Evergreen/Grandview/Four Mile Drive travel corridor accentuate the overall trends seen when analyzing each improvement individually. Overall, the key takeaway is that the study area would greatly ben- efit from improved east -west connectivity. Improvements to both travel corridors should be retained in Move 2040. _146 MOVE 2 Table 6.27. Alternative 9 Change on Select Corridors i-i Hwy 93A Three Mile Drive Four Mile Drive 24,000 0.67 B 26,900 0.75 C 12.1 % Hwy 93N Idaho (Hwy 2) Wyoming Street 29,800 1.10 F 26,700 0.99 E -10.4% Helena Flats LaSalle/Hwy 2 3,700 0.36 A 5,500 0.54 A 48.6% Four Mile Hwy 2/LaSalle Whitefish Stage 6,400 0.47 A 10,600 0.78 C 65.6% Drive/ Hwy 93 Hwy 93A 2,300 0.23 A 6,800 0.52 A 195.7% Evergreen Hwy 93A Farm to Market 3,500 0.93 E 10,100 1.02 F 188.6% Road Three Mile Farm to Market Hwy 93 10,000 0.74 C 8,200 0.60 B -18.0% Drive Road Stillwater Road Four Mile Drive West Reserve 1,500 0.40 A 1,000 0.27 A -33.3% Springcreek Road Four Mile Drive West Reserve Drive 4,400 1.17 F 6,100 1.63 F 38.6% Farm to Market (MT Three Mile Drive Four Mile Drive 4,100 0.40 A 1,500 0.15 A -63.4% 424) Reserve Spring Creek Drive Stillwater Road 9,500 1.06 F 6,800 0.76 C -28.4% Drive Hwy 93 Whitefish Stage 20,700 1.00 E 18,300 0.88 D -1 1.6% Idaho (Highway 2) Evergreen 8,100 0.60 A 71100 0.52 A -12.3% Whitefish Stage Evergreen Reserve Drive 9,200 0.77 C 6,100 0.51 A -33.7% Reserve Drive Rose Crossing 6,100 0.60 A 5,000 0.49 A -18.0% Helena Flats MT 35 Evergreen Drive 9,100 0.89 D 11,200 1.10 F 23.1 % Helena Flats LaSalle (Hwy 2) 5,300 1.25 F 4,600 0.61 B -13.2% Rose Lasalle (Hwy 2) Whitefish Stage 2,500 0.48 A 5,600 0.30 A 124.0% Crossing Whitefish Stage Hwy 93 5,300 1.01 F 9,300 0.50 A 75.5% Meridian Road Four Mile Drive 38,000 1.41 F 36,300 1.34 F -4.5% Hwy 93N Four Mile Drive West Reserve 26,400 0.98 E 24,600 0.91 E -6.8% Main Street (Hwy 3rd Avenue EN 24,400 0.90 E 22,100 0.82 D -9.4% 93) 3rd Avenue EN 7th Avenue EN/ Whitefish Stage 25,600 0.95 E 23,500 0.87 D -8.2% Hwy 2 (Idaho) 7th Avenue EN/ Whitefish Stage Woodland Park 23,300 0.86 D 21,800 0.81 D -6.4% Woodland Park LaSalle/MT 35 27,100 0.89 D 25,800 0.84 D -4.8% LaSalle (Hwy 2) Idaho/MT 35 Evergreen 23,300 0.73 C 25,300 0.79 C 8.6% MT 35 Shady Lane Helena Flats 12,000 0.88 D 10,800 0.79 C -10.0% Three Mile Hwy 93 Meridan Road 4,500 0.33 A 4,100 0.30 A -8.9% Drive Stillwater Three Mile Drive Four Mile Drive 1,300 0.31 A 1,400 0.33 A 7.7% Road KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 147_ Figure 6.13: Alternative 9 ADT Change on Select Corridors _148 MOVE 2040 ALTERNATIVF 10 Conclusions Following the discussion and evaluation of the previous nine model runs, a tenth and final model run was de- veloped. The tenth model run was fashioned to include the corridor level improvements determined to constitute a preferred build condition. Alternative 10 improvments include: Completion of the Kalispell Bypass (Alternative 1) Three Lane Highway 93/Main Street — Couplet to West Center (Alternative 2) Whitefish Stage/7th Avenue Extension (Alternative 6) Evergreen Extension/Four Mile Drive Corridor Improvements (Alternative 7) Rose Crossing Corridor Improvements (Alternative 8) West Reserve Corridor Improvements (West Reserve was modeled as a five -lane principal arterial from Highway 93 to Highway 2/LaSalle) Area Wide Impacts Area wide impacts of Alternative 10 were measured against the 2040 No Build network related to VMT, VHT and percentage of congested roadway segments on the systems (as measured in miles). Alternative 10 has a 0.3 percent decrease in VMT and 1.1 percent decrease in VHT. The percentage of congested roadway segments is the lowest of all alternatives at 7.9 percent. See totals in Table 6.28. Table 6.28: Alt 10 Area -Wide Impacts Alternative 10 shows a redistribution of traffic across the study area. Improvements in modeled east -west capacity serve to distribute traffic throughout the system. Please see cable 6.217 and -figure 6.14 on page 152. LOS is- sues along the Highway 93A corridor materialize with the addition of the new east -west capacity, coupled with completion of Highway 93A. Segments of Highway 93A are congesting (LOS E) in Alternative 10 between Airport Road and Four Mile Drive. Please see gure o. i o on page 153. Travel demand on Highway 93 South and Highway 93/Main Street are re- duced by between 25 to 40 percent. Highway 93/Main Street operates at LOS E south of the Courthouse Couplet, and LOS D from the Courthouse Couplet to West Center. Alternative 10 shows the best LOS along Highway 93/ Main Street of the options which modeled reduced ca- pacity. However, the corridor remains congested with an LOS D or worse through the modeled three -lane section. Please refer to Figure 6.16 on page 15 and Figure 6.17 n page 155. Alternative 10 serves to further trends witnessed in Alternative 9, in which traffic moves towards the complet- ed Highway 93A, putting new travel demand on Highway 93A. Alternative 10 shows projected reductions in travel de- mand along segments of both Highway93 North, Highway 93 South, and Highway 2/Idaho. Increases in traffic along Meridian Road, Whitefish Stage (North of Highway 2), and Helena Flats experienced in earlier Alternatives are no longer visible in Alternative 10. However, the new pro- posed extension of 7th Avenue EN from Highway 2/Idaho Street to East Center Street/Woodland Avenue is project- ed to operate at LOS F under this Alternative. KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 149_ Table 6.29: Alt 10 Change on Select Corridors i-i i Corridor Se ments (Termini) 0&jLftd1UbLL0S I= Hwy 93 Airport Road 15,100 0.99 E 20,900 0.68 B 38.4% Airport Road Foys Lake 19,300 0.63 B 28,700 0.94 E 48.7% Foys Lake Hwy 2 20,400 0.67 B 29,100 0.95 E 42.6% Hwy 93A Hwy 2 Three Mile Drive 27,600 0.77 C 35,100 0.98 E 27.2% Three Mile Drive Four Mile Drive 24,000 0.67 B 33,600 0.93 E 40.0% Four Mile Drive Old Reserve 21,400 0.59 A 25,700 0.71 C 20.1 % Old Reserve Hwy 93 20,300 0.56 A 25,000 0.69 B 23.2% Hwy 93S 11 th Street 1 Oth Street 21,700 1.60 F 13,000 0.96 E -40.0% 8th Street 7th Street 20,100 1.49 F 12,100 0.89 D -40.0% Main Street (Hwy 93) 4th Street 3rd Street 19,800 0.73 C 12,000 0.81 D -39.4% Montana Idaho (Hwy 2) 22,700 0.84 D 17,900 0.66 B -21.5% Idaho (Hwy 2) Wyoming Street 29,800 1.10 F 22,400 0.83 D -24.8% Meridian Road Four Mile Drive 38,000 1.41 F 33,100 1.23 F -12.9% Hwy 93N Four Mile Drive West Reserve 26,400 0.98 E 26,400 0.98 E 0.0% West Reserve Rose Crossing 32,100 1.00 E 34,100 1.06 F 6.2% Meridian Road 5th Avenue W 21,800 0.77 C 19,400 0.68 B -1 1.0% 5th Avenue W Main Street (Hwy 19,400 0.72 C 17,000 0.63 B -12.4% Main Street (Hwy 93) 3rd Avenue EN 24,400 0.90 E 19,800 0.73 C -18.9% Hwy 2 (Idaho) 3rd Avenue EN 7th Avenue EN/ Whitefish Stage 25,600 0.95 E 20,700 0.77 C -19.1 % Woodland Park LaSalle/MT 35 27,100 0.89 D 24,300 0.79 C -10.3% Helena Flats LaSalle/Hwy 2 3,700 0.36 A 4,900 0.48 A 32.4% Four Mile Hwy 2/LaSalle Whitefish Stage 6,400 0.47 A 9,300 0.68 B 45.3% Drive/ Evergreen Hwy 93 Hwy 93A 2,300 0.23 A 10,500 0.80 C 356.5% Hwy 93A Farm to Market Road 3,500 0.93 E 10,200 1.03 F 191.4% New Segment (Four Mile Whitefish Stage Hwy 93 NA NA NA 10,600 0.80 D NA Drive/ Evergreen) Three Mile Drive Farm to Market Road Hwy 93 10,000 0.74 C 8,400 0.62 B -16.0% Stillwater Road Four Mile Drive West Reserve 1,500 0.40 A 1,000 0.27 A -33.3% Springcreek Road Four Mile Drive Drive 4,400 1.17 F 6,100 1.63 F 38.6/0 ..continued on page 151 _150 MOVE 204 TO Corridor IL AMK Segments (Termini) jj&MMErADT V/C LOS ADT Change Farm to Market (MT Three Mile Drive Four Mile Drive 4,100 0.40 A 1,500 0.15 A -63.4% 424) Woodland Drive Conrad Road 5,500 0.40 A 4,800 0.35 A -12.7% Willow Glen Hwy 93 Woodland Drive 5,500 0.40 A 4,800 0.35 A -12.7% Spring Creek Stillwater Road 9,500 1.06 F 7,000 0.78 C -26.3% Drive Reserve Hwy 93 Whitefish Stage 20,700 1.00 E 27,900 0.70 C 34.8% Drive Whitefish Stage Lasalle (Hwy 2) 18,900 0.91 E 26,900 0.68 B 42.3% LaSalle (Hwy 2) Helena Flats 7,500 0.74 C 8,100 0.79 C 8.0% Woodland 12th Street 5th Street 5,800 0.48 A 7,500 0.63 B 29.3% Drive Idaho (Highway Evergreen 8,100 0.60 A 7,500 0.55 A -7.4% Whitefish 2) Evergreen Reserve Drive 9,200 0.77 C 6,500 0.54 A -29.3% Stage Reserve Drive Rose Crossing 6,100 0.60 A 6,100 0.60 A 0.0% New Segment (7th St/ Idaho Center Street 100 0.01 A 9,600 1.07 F 191.0% Whitefish Stage) Helena Flats LaSalle (Hwy 2) 5,300 1.25 F 4,300 0.57 A -18.9% Rose Lasalle (Hwy 2) Whitefish Stage 2,500 0.48 A 3,700 0.20 A 48.0% Crossing Whitefish Stage Hwy 93 5,300 1.01 F 6,900 0.37 A 30.2% 14.8% Center Main Street (Hwy Woodland Drive 5,400 0.45 A 6,200 0.52 A Street 93) 1 st Street Woodland Dr. Main Street (Hwy 400 0.11 A 600 0.16 A 50.0% East 93) 7th Street Center Street W 10,300 0.86 D 10,000 0.83 D -2.9% Merdian Center Street W Idaho (Hwy 2) 11,200 0.85 D 10,500 0.80 C -6.3% Road Idaho (Hwy 2) Three Mile Road 11,700 0.65 B 11,600 0.64 B -0.9% Three Mile Road Hwy 93 12,100 1.01 F 12,300 1.03 F 1.7% MT 35 Evergreen Drive 9,100 0.89 D 10,000 0.98 E 9.9% Helena Flats Evergreen Drive East Reserve 5,900 0.58 A 5,700 0.56 A -3.4% East Reserve Rose Crossing 4,000 0.59 A 4,200 0.62 B 5.0% Idaho/MT 35 Evergreen 23,300 0.73 C 24,200 0.75 C 3.9% LaSalle (Hwy 2) Evergreen West Reserve 25,200 0.78 C 24,400 0.76 C -3.2% West Reserve Rose Crossing 26,400 0.82 D 27,900 0.87 D 5.7% Modeled volumes on Highway 93/Main Street were adjusted to match 2017 AADT. Model generated growth factors were applied to the 2017 AADT to derive the 2040 E+C and 2040 Alternative model run outputs for Highway 93/Main Street. KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 151_ Figure 6.14: Alternative 10 ADT Change on Select Corridors _152 MOVE 2040 Figure 6.15: 2040 Alternative 10 LOS } Legend C Study Area 2040 Alt 10 LOS A-C: 0.0 to .79 D:.8 to .89 E:.9 to 1.0 F: > 1.0 Kalispell Transportation Area Plan Aab . A 0 0.5 1 mmmmr-= Miles KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 153_ Figure 6.16: Volumes Comparison 2017 to 2040 E+C to 2040 Full Build l vo v c _ + 424 c 93 0 1- - 1600 1800 7600 1 0025010 _� 0 w -r '-'-.N 2300 i N --� - - 292 M C 1DD a a Q IT 2 1 20 o� o� Go W - R_OSE_XING ice- 1DDD 1 0 Y 0 G 'ooDo_ o� a c v 1800 3• z G[�r7 4200 5700 4500 9500 19300 20 Do w RESERVE aeon 7000 2790 - v 424 3003000 La FOUR MILE DR- N 5 J 1 D 7 4900 r 142 Op Nr 93 o 35 iI 35 01 - --- - ova 12a0 AI ._' ,� ao0 ` 1400 I. 2 1541D0 153 ` .r, l o 2 15400 g v 13_ �53 q0p ADD 41005 100 � Od 630 1 Inset 12 L - - - - - so Soo �p�`rlp 93CDo 503 Al W r02600 3200 00 Legend�� JV Study Area 11 Kalispell Transportation #### - 2017 Volumes Area Plan (Values equal to or less than 500 omitted) fo #### - 2040 E+C Volumes�� #### - 2040 Full Build Volumes 0 0•5 1 OEM= Miles _154 MOVE 2040 Figure 6.17. Volumes Comparison 2017 to 2040 E+C to 2040 Inset 0 v 93 1200, o `~ o moo` 0Ln v ter"'• 3300 450 v �t 4600 r. d 900 13 r, 1500 C, - 3900 o 0 600 G 1 J 2 J J -i' - 18,0022300 F- co 1 �, \ 1 0000 ?p a 90 vo ._ ❑❑ P Q l in r to aav . a 4 o a 4900 9100 a g 10100 w o o- o J ❑ O p a- ca � eel p- r CD 0 o v c `•' ❑ J p C 0-0 wD v D 2200 2 00 2000 9001000 c 1100LO a o M a 0 o Ln Legend AP Study Area #### - 2017 Volumes (Values equal to or less than 500 omitted) #### - 2040 E+C Volumes #### - 2040 Full Build Volumes 1 Q a a a A oa 0048 c $ Q0°j5000 I L a � J co 1 O., i W G s� r o s� W c 0 400 $ ❑ g o 0 N Q � C> p,U02100 2100 3 o —pQ CD oD 'ao CD 93 c 1 0o Lb op �� %?Z�i?Q� .a Ln LO � Lb vD 0 • 400� Kalispell Transportation Area Plan 0 0.25 0.5 Miles KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 155_ "19 i i i 0= = === qm MOVE Kalispell Area CHAPTER 7.0 0 0 Transportation Plan PROJECT DEVELOPMENT D IDENTIFICATION r -qi L�-A INTRODUCTION The recommendations identification process identified recommended projects in two categories: Transportation System Management (TSM) and Major Street Network (MSN). This process is generally described below. First, a consistency review of the previous transpor- tation plan was completed. Recommended projects which have already been completed were removed from the potential project list. Second, new safety and operational data was re- viewed. Previously identified recommendations were compared to the new data. Third, projected areas of congestion (based on poor level of service), as well as high crash locations were used to establish any new project recommendations based on updated existing and projected needs. The evaluation of TSM and MSN project recommendations against congestion and safety conditions is shown in rigure 7.1 and r igure 7.- Future MSN project recommendations developed should include accommodations for bicycle and pedestrian users. A more specific set of recommendations related to active transportation is included in naprer > TSM PROJECTS The TSM recommendations list reflects intersection -level improvements which respond to both safety and traffic operations -related issues at an isolated location, typically an intersection. TSM project recommendations are devel- oped based on a review of more localized existing and projected conditions. Each TSM recommendation listing includes a summary of the corridor location, related intersections, short de- scription, and planning -level project cost. TSM project recommendations are listed in Table 7 1 on page 162 and shown in 'igure 7.3 on page 164 and Figure 7.4 on page 16` All cost estimates are shown as present-day (2020) dollars. TSM Cost Methods Planning level cost assumptions were used to support proj- ect cost information for TSM Recommendations. Projects already agreed to through a development agreement or programmed in the STIP are listed as committed. Planning level cost assumptions for the following improvement types were developed and include construction, construc- tion engineering and a 25 percent continency. Roundabout (small): $1,500,000 Roundabout (large): $3,000,000 Major Intersection Modification: $1,400,000 Minor Intersection Modification: $700,000 Turn Lane Addition: $80,000 TSM STUDIES RECOMMENDATIONS A series of corridor level studies are included in the TSM Recommendations. The inclusion of the studies in the TSM Recommendations provides footing for future pro- gramming support of these efforts. The studies are local- ized and regional in nature. These recommended studies assist with the development of additional corridor level analysis not typically possible through a long-range trans- portation plan. These recommendations are based on existing and projected needs. The lead agency on these studies in most cases would be MDT. It is expected the City of Kalispell could lead or initiate studies with a direct impact to the City of Kalispell. MSN PROJECT"' TheMSN recommendations I ist reflects larger corridor -level improvements aimed at both improving existing corridors or upgrading corridors which are projected to require a higher standard related to safety and operations. Each MSN recommendation listing includes a summary of the corridor location, related termini, short description, and planning -level project cost estimate. MSN project rec- ommendations are listed in Table 7.2 on page 166 and are shown in Figure 7.5 on page 169 and Figure 7.6 on page 170. All cost estimates are shown as present-day (2020) dollars. MSN Cost Methods Planning level cost assumptior used to support cost informatioi the MSN Recommendations. Corr level construction or reconstruc costs were based on the recom- mended functional class. Cost assumptions include construc- tion, construction engineering and a 25 percent continency. Minor/Major Collector: $1,700,000 per mile Minor Arterial: $2,500,000 per mile Principal Arterial: $3,800,000 per mile KALISPELL AKtA i PANSP( Figure 7.1: Recommendations Identification Legend Volume -to -Capacity I@ Study Area Severe Crashes ratio 2040 Kalispell OTop 15 High Crash 0 Fatal 0.80 - 0.89 Area Intersections O Serious Injury 0.90 - 1.00 MSN/TSM Projects �1.01 - 2.25 0 0.5 1 mmmff= Miles ransportation Ian _160 MOVE 2040 Figure 7.2: Recommendations Identification (Inset) E 11 2 503 ® 93 • 3A Legend Stud Area Volume-to-CapacityPRED y Severe Crashes ratio 2040 ) Kalispell Transportation OTop 15 High Crash 0 Fatal 0.80 - 0.89 Area Plan Intersections O Serious Injury 0.90 - 1.00 MSN/TSM Projects �1.01 - 2.25 0 0.5 1 Miles KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 161_ Table 7.1: Transportation System Management Recommendations Map ID Corridor IntersectionlTermini Short Description Cost 1 Conrad Rd Willow Glen Dr Install roundabout $1,500,000 2 2nd St East Woodland Ave Install roundabout Committed 2nd Street 3 East/ Conrad Woodland Park Dr Install roundabout $1,500,000 Drive Install roundabout Increase storage for NB and SB left turn bays 4 Meridian Rd 7th St W $1,500,000 $80,000 5 Meridian Center Appleway Road Street Drive W Springcreek Rd $2,250,000 6 Four -Mile Dr Install roundabout or redesign to four-way intersection (consider as part of MSN 5 or 21) Monitor for signal warrants at Stillwater Rd. and 7 Three Mile Heavens Stillwater Rd Heavens Peak consider access modifications on TBD Drive Peak Dr. . other minor intersections (consider as part of MSN 36) 8 Whitefish Tronstad Road Monitor & Improve turn lanes and signal control $320,000 Stage Rose Crossing per ongoing study and past TIS 9 Whitefish Monitor & Improve turn lanes and signal control $320,000 Stage per ongoing Corridor Study and past TIS 10 Whitefish Stage West Reserve Address as part of MSN 27 or 28 NA 11 Whitefish Stage Evergreen Drive Rail Park Drive Install roundabout Monitor turning movements, evaluate as build $1,500,000 12 Whitefish NA Stage out of Rail Park continues Lengthen EB/WB left turn storage bay 13 Highway 2 Woodland Park Drive/ Flathead Drive $160,000 14 Highway 2 Montclair Drive Monitor for need to install WB right turn lane/EB NA left turn bay extension Improve turn bay length on inside EB left turn lane. Modify SB to dedicated right turn, right 15 Highway 2 MT 35 turn/thru and dedicated left turn. Evaluate EB $1,050,000 geometry to support two thru and dedicated EB right turn. Prioirity Need: EB Left turn Lane and SB Right 16 Highway 2 Evergreen Turn Lane; Secondary Need: WB left turn lane $320,000 and NB Right Turn lane. Add dedicated turn lanes all approaches. 17 Highway 2 Reserve Evaluate as part of Reserve Street Corridor $1,050,000 Rose Crossing Study. 18 Highway 2 EB/WB left turn lanes, SB right turn lane. $700,000 Imrpove rail grade crossing. Convert to 3/4 access Consolidate into future full movement 19 Highway 93 Silverbrook/Tronstad Road $160,000 20 Highway 93 Wild Pine Drive/Ponderosa $700,000 Lane intersection, monitor for intersection control. ..continued on page 163 _162 MOVE 2040 Map ID Corridor IntersectionlTermini Short Description C ostv 21 Highway 93 Eagle Valley Ranch Future 3/4 Access NA 22 Highway 93 Rose Crossing Lincoln Street Future Signalized Intersection 3/4 access intersection (both sides) Committed 23 Highway 93 NA 24 Highway 93 .5 mi. north of West Reserve Future Signalized Intersection Committed 25 Highway 93 West Reserve Modify to two EB/WB dedicated left turn lanes, $875,000 addition of new EB/WB thru lanes. 26 Highway 93 Treeline Modify intersection to add WB & EB left turn Committed lanes & SB right turn lane Add dedicated SB right turn lane Add WB right turn lane Monitor for future signal warrants at ramps 27 Highway 93 Grandview Dr $80,000 28 MT 35 Helena Flats Four Mile Drive $80,000 29 Highway NA 30 Stillwater Road Timberwolf Parkway Four Mile Drive Construct Roundabout Monitor for Intersection Control Committed 31 Stillwater Road TBD 32 Three Mile West Springcreek Road Convert to four-way intersection monitor for Committed Drive roundabout 33 Highway 2 West Study Hwy 93A Continue to Implement Safety Study/Develop $200,000 Limits Corridor Study 34 Highway 2 LaSalle/MT 35 Birch Grove Develop Corridor Study Develop Corridor Study $412,500 35 Highway 2/ Idaho Hwy 93A LaSalle $240,000 36 Highway 93 Highway 2 West Reserve Develop Corridor Study $285,000 37 Highway 93 West Reserve MT 40 Develop Detailed Access Control Plan Committed 38 Meridian 7th Street W Highway 2/ Develop Corridor Study $75,000 Road Highway 2 Idaho MT 206 Develop Corridor Study 39 MT 35 $275,000 40 Highway 93 12th Street Highway 2 Develop Corridor Study $250,000 (Main Street) (Idaho) Study Area Wide Update Transportation plan on 5-to-7-year cycle $300,000 KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 163_ Figure 7.3: Transportation System Management Recommendations 93 N � J 19 I8 2 37 292 20 r N H Q 0 21 22 OSE XING *8 w � w 23 J 9 U 24 r U �a - 25 �T RESERVE DR 7T E RESERVEIDR 548 30 26 424 � 6 31 29 i FOUR 27 11 16 28: 36 � 3A 93 15 35 � � 3P 7 i 12 14 i i 3 35, • 1 33, 5 38 � o I � 4 z � 93 Inset 3 �- - - - - - - - - -EM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- Legend 0 Study Area Evergreen Kalispell TSM Corridors • TSM Intersections Kalispell VAk Transportation Area Plan O 0 0.5 1 MEMO== Miles _164 MOVE 2 Figure 7.4: Transportation System Management Recommendations (inset) 31 11 33 Legend 1116 Study Area Evergreen Kalispell TSM Corridors • TSM Intersections I 16'F EDR 1 i27 I' 40 :kw 17 E RESERVE DR 0 2 a a z x 34 16 28 T� 3� / 115Z ,Ak A N*5 i Kalispell Transportation Area Plan 0 0.5 1 Miles KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 165_ Table 7.2: Major Street Network Recommendations .ap, Corridor Termini Termini Short Description ID West Construct to a three -lane 1 West Reserve Springcreek Stillwater Road Road urban minor arterial West Valley West Construct to a three -lane 2 West Reserve Road Springcreek urban major collector Stillwater Rd Road Northland Rd 3 Four Mile Construct to a three -lane Drive Hwy 93 urban minor arterial 4 Four Mile Northland Road Construct to a three -lane Drive urban minor arterial 5 Four Mile W Springcreek Construct to a three -lane Stillwater Road Drive ` Road urban minor arterial to a three -lane Whitefish 6 Stage West Reseose CrossingConstruct rve Rurban minor arterial Rose Crossing Birch Grove Construct to a two-lane urban 7 Whitefish Stage major collector California Street Evergreen Drive Construct to a three -lane 8 Whitefish Stage urban minor arterial Whitefish West Reserve Construct to a three -lane Ever 9 Stage green Drive Drive urban minor arterial Construct to a three -lane 10 7th Avenue EN Highway 2 California Street I urban minor arterial st Center/ East Construct to a two-lane urban 1 Oa 7th Avenue EN Woodland Dr gy 2 minor arterial 11 Helena Flats MT 35 East Reserve Construct to a two-lane urban Drive major collector 12 Helena Flats East Reserve Rose Crossing Construct to a two-lane urban Drive major collector Construct to a two-lane urban 13 Foys Lake Rd Whalebone Dr Valley View Dr major collector 14 Rose Crossing Whitefish Stage Highway 2 Construct to a three -lane Rose Crossing Highway 2 Helena Flats urban minor arterial 15 Construct to a two-lane urban Stillwater Rd Four Mile Drive Road major collector 16 West Reserve Construct to a three -lane Drive urban minor arterial 17 Sillwater Road Three Mile Drive Four Mile Drive Construct to a three -lane urban minor arterial 18 New Corridor Foys Lake US 2 Construct to a two-lane urban minor collector W Springcreek Highway 2 19 Three Mile Drive Construct to a three -lane I Road urban minor arterial W Springcreek Four Mile D 20 rive West Reserve Construct to a three -lane Road Drive urban minor arterial Farm to Construct to a three -lane 21 Three Mile Drive Market (424) Four Mile Drive urban minor arterial 22 Willow Glen I Woodland I Conrad Dr Construct to a three -lane Drive Avenue urban minor arterial 1.0 $2,500,000 1.0 1 $2,500,000 0.5 $1,250,000 0.3 $750,000 1.0 $2,500,000 1.0 1 $2,500,000 2.5 $4,250,000 1.4 1 $3,500,000 1.0 1 $2,500,000 0.5 1 $1,250,000 0.3 $850,000 1.1 1 $2,337,500 1.0 1 $2,125,000 0.9 $1,5301000 1.7 $4,250,000 0.9 1 $1,530,000 1.0 1 $2,500,000 1.0 1 $2,500,000 1.0 1 $2,700,000 1.0 1 $2,500,000 1.0 ' $2,500,000 1.1 1 $2,750,000 1.1 1 $2,750,000 _166 MOVE 2040 ..continued on page 167 23 Willow Glen Highway 93 Woodland Construct to a three -lane I 1.5 $3,750,000 Drive Avenue urban minor arterial 24 Conrad Dr Willow Glenn Shady Lane Construct to a two-lane urban 1.2 $2,040,000 minor arterial 25 Shady Ln Conrad Drive MT 35 Construct to a two-lane urban 0.7 $1,190,000 minor arterial 26 Trumble Creek Rose Crossing Birch Grove Upgrade to a two-lane urban 2.5 $4,250,000 major collector 27 West Reserve Highway 93 Hi Whitefish Stage Construct to a five -lane urban 1.0 $6,600,000 Drive principal arterial 28 West Reserve Whitefish Stage Highway 2 Construct to a five -lane urban 1.5 $8,500,000 Drive principal arterial 29 East Reserve Hi Highway 2 Helena Flats Construct to a three -lane 1.0 $2,500,000 Drive Road urban major collector $5,160,000 30 Grandview/ Hi Highway 93 Construct to a two-lane urban Whitefish Stage 1.0 Evergreen Evergreen Dr Whitefish Stage Highway 2 minor arterial Construct to a three -lane 1.4 $3,500,000 31 Sunnyside Dr 5th Avenue W Airport Road urban minor arterial Construct to a two-lane urban 0.5 $1,700,000 32 (extension) minor collector 33 7th Avenue W Bluestone Dr Sunnyside Construct to a two-lane urban 0.3 $1,020,000 minor collector 34 New Corridor Conrad Dr LaSalle Rd Construct to a two-lane urban 0.8 $2,720,000 major collector Construct to a five -lane urban minor arterial to Flathead 35 MT 35 LaSalle Rd MT 206 River; transition to a three- 5.7 $16,460,000 lane urban minor arterial for Farm to Market Meridian Road balance of project Construct to a three -lane 2.0 $5,000,000 36 Three -Mile Drive (424) W Springcreek Meridian Road urban minor arterial Construct to a two-lane urban 2.0 $3,400,000 37 Two -Mile Dr Road minor collector Construct to a four -lane 38 Highway 93A Airport Road Foys Lake divided urban principal 0.4 $15,000,000 arterial + interchange at Foys Lake Construct to a four -lane 39 Highway 93A Base Camp Dr Foys Lake divided urban principal 1.0 $18,000,000 arterial + interchange at Airport Road 93A mainline and Base Camp 40 Highway 93A Highway 93 Base Camp Dr Dr. improvements currently 0.3 TBD under study (incl. Hwy 93/93A Airport Road Highway 93 intersection) Construct to a two-lane urban 0.9 $1,530,000 41 Cemetery Road Highway 93A Cemetery Rd minor collector Construct to a two-lane urban 0.8 $2,040,000 42 Base Camp Drive minor collector ...continued on page 168 KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 167_ 43 Base Camp Ashley Meadows Highway 93 Drive 44 Rose Crossing West Valley Highway 93 Road West Valley 45 Church Drive Highway 93 Church Drive Road Whitefish Stage Church Drive 46 Highway 93 West Reserve 47 Stillwater Rd West 1 Springcreek Drive Church Drive 48 West Reserve Road Drive Construct to a two-lane urban I 0.4 I $1,020,000 minor collector Corridor preservation 3.0 $7,5001000 Corridor preservation Corridor preservation 3.3 $5,610,000 $1,700,000 $7,750,000 1.0 3.1 Corridor preservation Corridor preservation 1 2.9 $7,250,000 _168 MOVE 2040 Figure 7.5: Major Street Network Recommendations 0 �MI LEIELJ r 1 16 120 , , I 1 -5 , , 1 21 L17 � 36 , , 37- �19 Inset 292 r O E XING 14 15 -6— --- 112 27 W R SERVE DR 28 29 L RESERVE DR 9 _ J 11� N 3-4 30 N 31 1 3 D - � ; 1 3� 93 g -1 35 34 25 I 10 , 2 10a 24 , 22 , , 18 1 13 -32- 33 , , (� 38 23 , , 3A 93 1 41 � J 42 , 39 , 40 --- - - - - - ----43-- ---- --� - Legend J@ Study Area Evergreen Kalispell Area Kalispell Major Street Network (MSN) ransportation is n 0 0.5 1 mmmm== Miles KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 169_ Figure 7.6: Major Street Network Recommendations (Inset) 48 47 6 -2 1 548 27 28 ■ 0 Y 16 U 9 z a N 20 5 FOUR MILE DR 3 4 30 31 3A a N 424 � 21 17 x — 1 3 — 93 8 36 10 j 7- 37 19 2 10a IL '212 118 JIi13 + w ,41 J Legend J@ Study Area Evergreen Kalispell Major Street Network (MSN) 3 1�2 29 E RESERVE D 35 35 25 Kalispell Transportation Area Plan 0 0.5 1 Miles _170 MOVE 2' MOVE Kalispell Area CHAPTER 800 0 0 Transportation Plan PROJECT PRIORITIZATION III INTRODUCTION As discussed in Chapter 1 the Move 2040 goals express key priorities and desired outcomes forthe Kalispell Urban Area transportation system. The goals help to establish the long-term vision for both the City and adjacent plan- ning area. For this reason, recommended transportation projects should play a role in making progress towards the goals. The goals are not necessarily quantitative in nature, however, and more specific measures are need- ed to objectively compare various projects based on their adherence to the community's transportation vision. The goals were used as a foundation to develop an objective methodology for prioritizing the MSN and TSM project recommendations. PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGY A project prioritization methodology was developed to re- flect the community's assessment of its most critical trans- portation issues. To do this, the team identified the three top -ranked goals based on input collected during the plan's public involvement process. Then, the team devel- oped prioritization criteria for each of the top three goals based on its ranked importance, as well as additional criteria reflecting key priorities identified through public engagement and emphasized by the City. This process is summarized below. Gone RONKING Input collected through the public involvement process allowed the project team to identify the top three goals and assign them a ranking according to the community's assessment of their importance. During outreach events, the public was asked to provide input on the goals and other factors that they felt were most critical to achieving the Move 2040 vision. The feedback collected through these events allowed the project team to arrange the top three goals in order of importance. The top three goals are shown by rank in Table 8.1: Top Three Move 2040 Goals by Rank of Importance PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA To develop the prioritization methodology, the study team assigned prioritization criteria for each of the top three goals, with the scoring value of each criteria reflecting the rank of its corresponding goal. For example, the prioriti- zation criteria for "Safety and Security" have the highest value, followed by the criteria for "Congestion Reduction", and so on. The City also emphasized the importance of prioritizing project recommendations based on their ability to address future growth. To reflect this, the project team developed several criteria that would evaluate projects based on their potential to alleviate future traffic congestion, as well as their location with respect to 2040 High Growth Areas. Finally, the team allowed for bonus points to be assigned to projects that had been specifically highlighted during public outreach, or that have been designated as having regional significance. The final set of prioritization cri- teria was designed to allow for an objective evaluation approach which elevates projects that reflect community preferences and support the Move 2040 vision. The prioritization criteria are presented in Table 8.2. KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 173_ Table 8.2: Move 2040 Project Prioritization Criteria PRIORITIZATION RESULTS CRASH FREQUENCY CRASH SEVERITY CORRIDOR CONGESTION INTERSECTION CONGESTION IMPROVEMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE STUDY AREA Project addresses at least one of the top 15 crash locations Project addresses at least one of the severe crash locations The prioritization results for TSM and MSN projects are presented in able 8.. and Table 8.4 on page 17E and gure 8.1 on page 176, Figure 8.2 on page 177, igure 8.3 on page 179, and Figure 8.4 on page 180. Projects were grouped into three tiers according to their prioritization rank relative to other projects, with 1 being the highest priority. Project addresses a corridor While TSM and MSN projects are shown separately for with 2017 V/C equal to or clarity, all projects were scored together (the "Tier" col - greater than LOS D umn within the tables communicates the absolute tier of Project address an a project when all projects are organized into a single intersection with LOS D or table). A project's Map ID can be used to locate the proj- worse ect on its respective TSM or MSN map. Bicycle and pedestrian projects are discussed separately Project is within the Kalispell in Chapter 9. urban boundary and/or Evergreen CDP boundary I Project addresses a corridor FUTURE CORRIDOR with 2040 V/C equal to or CONGESTION 1 greater than LOS D Project address an FUTURE INTERSECTION intersection with 2040 LOS D CONGESTION or worse POPULATION AND j Project serves an identified ECONOMIC GROWTH 12040 Hiah Growth Area Project was specifically PUBLIC INPUT highlighted during public engagement Project has been designated REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE as having specific regional significance _174 MOVE 2040 Table 8.3: TSM Projects 25 Highway 93 @ West Reserve High 35* Highway 2/Idaho Highway 93A LaSalle 36* Highway 93 Highway 2 West Reserve 40* Highway 93 (Main Street) 12th Street Highway 2 (Idaho) 27 Highway 93 @ Grandview Dr 34* Highway 2 LaSalle/MT 35 Birch Grove 17 Highway 2 @ Reserve 10 Whtiefish Stage @ West Reserve 38* Meridian Road 7th Street W Highway 2/Idaho 16 Highway 2 @ Evergreen 28 MT 35 @ Helena Flats 39* MT 35 Highway 2 1 MT 206 18 Highway 2 @ Rose Crossing Medium Low 33* Highway 2 West Study Limits Highway 93A 31 Stillwater Road @Four Mile Drive 14 Highway 2 @ Montclair Drive 13 Highway 2 @ Woodland Park Drive/Flathead Drive 15 Highway 2 @ MT 35 9 Whitefish Stage @ Rose Crossing 5 Meridian Road Center Street Appleway Drive 11 Whitefish Stage @ Evergreen Drive 4 Meridian Rd @ 7th St W 6 Four -Mile Dr @ W Springcreek Rd 12 Whitefish Stage @ Rail Park Drive 29 Highway 93A @ Four Mile Drive 3 2nd Street East/ Conrad Drive @ Woodland Park Dr 7 Three Mile Drive Heavens Peak Dr. Stillwater Rd. 21 Highway 93 @ Eagle Valley Ranch 19 Highway 93 @ Silverbrook/Tronstad Road 20 Highway 93 @ Wild Pine Drive/Ponderosa Lane 22 Highway 93 @ Rose Crossing 8 Whitefish Stage @ Tronstad Road 23 Highway 93 @ Lincoln Street 24 Highway 93 Conrad Rd 9.5 mi. north of West Reserve 1 @ Willow Glen Dr *Project is a recommended study or plan KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 175_ Figure 8.1: TSM Project Prioritization i 1 292 . m 0 sell M, f -•- • Study• High KalispellEvergreen .. Kalispell-• Low ' 0.5 1 mmw= Miles N _176 MOVE 2040 Figure 8.2: TSM Project Prioritization (Inset) FOUR MILE DR 29 31 3A 1I 33 � XN Legend W Study Area TSM Priority Tiers Evergreen High Kalispell Medium Low f 292 RVE DR 17 E RESERVE DR 10 N a z 16 a 11 N N 35 � 39 rr^` 15 12 r 14 ` 1 Kalispell Transportation Area Plan �I. 0 0.5 1 Miles KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 177_ Table 8.4: MSN Projects Map ID 27 Corridor West Reserve Drive Termini/Intersection Highway 93 Termini/Intersection Whitefish Stage Priority Tier High 28 West Reserve Drive Whitefish Stage Highway 2 4 Four Mile Drive Northland Road Hwy 93 30 Grandview/Evergreen Highway 93 Whitefish Stage 6 Whitefish Stage West Reserve Rose Crossing 9 Whitefish Stage Evergreen Drive West Reserve Drive 29 East Reserve Drive Highway 2 Helena Flats Road 11 Helena Flats MT 35 East Reserve Drive I Oa 7th Avenue EN East Center/Woodland Dr Highway 2 14 Rose Crossing Whitefish Stage Highway 2 15 Rose Crossing Highway 2 Helena Flats Road 35 MT 35 LaSalle Rd MT 206 10 7th Avenue EN Highway 2 Stillwater River 31 Evergreen Dr Whitefish Stage Highway 2 19 W Springcreek Road Highway 2 Three Mile Drive 36 Three -Mile Drive Farm to Market (424) Meridian Road 39 Highway 93A Base Camp Dr Foys Lake Medium 24 Conrad Dr Willow Glenn Shady Lane 25 Shady Ln Conrad Drive MT 35 18 New Corridor Foys Lake US 2 34 New Corridor Conrad Dr LaSalle Rd 8 Whitefish Stage Oregon Street Evergreen Drive 7 Whitefish Stage Rose Crossing Birch Grove 17 Sillwater Road Three Mile Drive Four Mile Drive 26 Trumble Creek Rose Crossing Birch Grove 41 Cementary Road Airport Road Highway 93 23 Willow Glen Drive Highway 93 Woodland Avenue 3 Four Mile Drive Stillwater Rd Northland Rd 5 Four Mile Drive W Springcreek Road Stillwater Road 38 Highway 93A Airport Road Foys Lake 12 Helena Flats East Reserve Drive Rose Crossing 22 Willow Glen Drive Woodland Avenue Conrad Dr 1 West Reserve West Springcreek Road Stillwater Road 13 Foys Lake Rd Whalebone Dr Valley View Dr 20 W Springcreek Road Four Mile Drive West Reserve Drive 21 Farm to Market (424) Three Mile Drive Four Mile Drive 42 Base Camp Drive Highway 93A Cemetary Rd 43 Base Camp Drive Ashley Meadows Highway 93 40 Highway 93A Highway 93 Base Camp Dr Low 16 Stillwater Rd Four Mile Drive West Reserve Drive 37 Two -Mile Dr W Springcreek Road Meridian Road 44 Rose Crossing West Valley Road Highway 93 47 Stillwater Rd West Reserve Drive Church Drive 32 Sunnyside Dr (extension) 5th Avenue W Airport Road 33 7th Avenue W Bluestone Dr Sunnyside 45 Church Drive West Valley Road Highway 93 2 West Reserve West Valley Road West Springcreek Road 46 Church Drive Highway 93 Whitefish Stage 48 West Springcreek Road West Reserve Drive Church Drive _178 MOVE 2040 Figure 8.3: MSN Project Prioritization 48 I 1 0 47— Y 44 0 z z a N 2 1 16 '20 1 Inset L------- Legend Study Area MSN Priority Tiers Evergreen High Kalispell —Medium —Low 46 10� 1 26 28 Kalispell Transportation Area Pian 0 0.5 1 mmmm== Miles KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 179_ Figure 8.4: MSN Project Prioritization (inset) 48 47 .2 548 1 Y I 5 FOUR MILE DR 1 3 4 1 3A 7- 37A 19- 1 M Legend Study Area MSN Priority Tiers Evergreen High Kalispell Medium Low 10 ,41 J 28 22 L 1 29 rRESER 1 Kalispell OA 4W*9 q10q, Transportation Area Plan 0 0.5 1 Miles _180 MOVE 2040 • rim i 7h/�Alwojo 4w NPTER 9. mn PFn U 911 Nw - _�€'_+tea •.,.'+.�7�`• L%�. Amur - Fe Tw OEM G 7 C *ii►�� _ BACKGROUND Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is a critical com- ponent of moving people to and through the Flathead Valley, particularly within the Move 2040 study area. As the population continues to grow, demand for sidewalks, bike lanes and shared use paths as a safe and effective means of getting from one place to the next will continue to be a priority. Studies have shown that sidewalks and bike lanes provide a direct economic benefit to communi- ties, in addition to improving public health and wellness. Given the focus on recreational amenities in the Kalispell area coupled with growth projections over the next twenty year planning horizon, closing gaps and improving access to safe bike and pedestrian facilities should be a focus when considering holistic transportation improvements. This chapter provides a detailed analysis of existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities based on a core set of conditions, applying a weighted score to those fa- cilities and connections that are most beneficial to public safety and the growing community. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIF Preliminary analysis of the bicycle and pedestrian network focused on existing and proposed routes that were de- veloped by the City during the Kalispell Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan process. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan pro- vided a logical point from which to begin this analysis, tying into the outcomes and project priorities of this long- range transportation planning process. To support the work already completed and limit duplication of efforts, the analysis in this chapter focuses on network gaps and priority connections that should be improved alongside future system -wide transportation projects. Methodology Proposed bicycle and pedestrian routes were separated into the following categories for evaluation: Shared use paths (SUP) Sidewalks and paths (S) On -street designated bike lanes (BL) On -street shared bike routes (BR) Within each category, routes were further broken into segments by type, allowing for a detailed analysis of spe- cific projects and potential connections based on a set of established criteria. Segments were determined by eval- uating a number of conditions including localized speed limits, intersection orientation, vehicular movement and circulation, signage, sight lines and vision triangles; these elements were evaluated using Google Earth and ArcGIS aerial data as well as in -person ground-truthing to es- tablish the most appropriate segment lengths, types and networks. Each segment is numbered using the route type abbreviation and distinct line color and type for identifica- tion purposes as shown on :figure 9.1 on page 18f and Figure 9.2 on page 186. Once segments were determined, a set of existing and fu- ture conditions were used to evaluate, rank and prioritize potential non -motorized improvements projects. Through this analysis, some segments were removed or replaced and some route types changed; this accounts for the few skips and gaps in the numerical order of each route type listed in the tables that follow. Final route segments were ranked according to whether, and how, the following conditions applied. If a condition was determined to be present, or if the project would fa- cilitate the condition in the future, the segment was given a score of 1". A determination was made that certain conditions should be emphasized in terms of their impor- tance when prioritizing projects; this determination was partially influenced by areas of emphasis identified by the public. Where present, the following conditions have been scored higher to elevate the importance of infill, re- development and public health and safety: Segments supporting infill development and connec- tivity to existing residential, commercial and recre- ational amenities are awarded 2x the points available. Segments supporting Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) are awarded 3x the points available. Segments where public safety is a factor due to bicy- cle or pedestrian crashes and frequency are awarded 4x the points available. TYPE OF CONNECTION Segments were evaluated to determine the type of con- nection each would establish and the extent to which that connection would: Provide a link to and between existing neighborhoods or established residential areas, where growth is ex- pected to remain stable but infill development is pro- jected or can be accommodated. Provide a link to and between established neighbor- hoods and those areas projected for significant future residential density in the planning area. Provide a link to and between existing neighborhoods or established residential areas and existing econom- ic hubs, connecting current populations with goods and services as well as current job centers. Provide a link to and between existing neighborhoods or established residential areas and future economic centers, connecting current populations with areas KALISPELL AREA TPANSPORTATIOr, PLAN 183_ slated for significant future economic growth, job op- portunities and retail. Provide a link between established neighborhoods and existing recreation amenities. Provide a link between established neighborhoods and future recreation amenities. Facilitate the completion of a localized network, pro- viding a key connection that serves cyclists and/or pe- destrians in a specific area or neighborhood. Facilitate the expansion of the regional bicycle and pedestrian network, providing a critical connection serving the broader population and linking neighbor- hoods, communities or amenities. Facilitate connectivity between future development projected for the planning area, specifically that which will occur on predominantly undeveloped lands. SCHOOL FACILITIES Segments were evaluated on their impact in furthering SRTS, specifically whether the segment: Provides a connection that completes or contributes to the broader SRTS network, such as linking a nearby neighborhood to school facilities or completing a crit- ical route connection that would support a safer route for children to walk or bike to school. Is located within the established'/4-mile walking radi- us of a school facility. If any portion of a segment fell within this radius, points were awarded based on the anticipated impact it would have. NON -VEHICULAR CRASHES Segments were evaluated based on the type —pedestrian or cyclist -involved —and frequency of non -vehicular crashes recorded along each route or within 1/4-mile of a route or terminus point. This information helped to il- lustrate segments that would positively influence public health and safety should they be constructed in the future. NON -MOTORIZED EQUITY Segments located in orserving areas where non -motorized infrastructure and connectivity is currently lacking also re- ceived a point score. Improving non -motorized connec- tivity in under -served areas will have a significant impact on the overall transportation network and improve public health and safety exponentially. These areas tend to be overlooked when prioritizing key connections or gaps, as entire neighborhoods are often considered "gaps" in the network and looked upon as insurmountable to address. LENGTH AND COST Finally, each segment was measured to establish the overall length of future connections, and an approximate planning cost per linear foot assigned to the segment based on the type of route and anticipated construction costs. For instance, painting "sharrows" and striping bike lanes costs much less per linear foot than building a sep- arated shared use path. These numbers have no bearing on the overall scoring and ranking of each segment and are intended to be informative, for use by the City and County in determining budgetary needs and priorities in the future. Approximate costs should be viewed as estimates, pro- viding the City and County with a baseline for budget- ing purposes, but in no way representative of actual construction -level costs. Those will be established based on material and installation costs at the time improve- ments are bid. _184 MOVE 204 Figure 9.1: Potential Project Identifier Map =�P E 7: r �I— ''_ �' ,.� k Ill.. 4 , .I i ,� 1 3 9 � 1 r T, ,(� 1( Ir> r — 'om ll raw 1 � i � 1 1 t 9 .-_``pia,.♦� � �I'_ � � 1 .,..,.,....... Legend Ezising Pathor 1 Sidewalk V4 Mile Buffer Ezisting designated bikelane Petlestrian Cashes Separatetl Sharetl-Use Kalispell Transportation Project Identifier M a p Path icommittetl pmjecti t—J Bicycle Crashes Pmposetl5eparatetl Area Play Sha—Use Path SchoolSpeetl IDne Pmposetl Pathor Sitlewalk ■ Ezisfeng S,p—d o--o Pmposetl On -stall Sha tl-U P [h Bike Route Ezisting Bike Route Pmposetl On -street Bike one KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 185_ Figure 9.2: Potential Project Identifier Map (Inset) S SUP 2 1 r-+i _ O - SUP 10 31 AJ Glaser High School S S 3 o SUP - 8.1 S41P 9 SUP 1 41 J - Edgerton \ Kalispell Youth �� Elementary �i i Athletic Complex Olathead community SUP (KYAC) \ college 32 SUP - - - - - - - - - SUP 31P m _ SUP . O / SUYua 42P/Rvl 9� 8.1 / a SUP /� p IT 61, er s tea- N a isPe S Mid+ �� U 5 School' _ - J � f � 4' 11 r" I-I-�,il �a - a q'� f p �r_ t SUP m° �J 13 41 --R T\ S _J =x vd�-4_�R IJ 11 10 SUP 1\ SAP /F J aP S t� j1J`-wv _ SUPS2416 P = Hnk Hm /III / 6 �i 9 � < >,. �v _ 1 J�, 4 4y1�r1 1 Z SUP f t y"1 �J•� 0.4 S ent 92 +"F , 11 % I 1 1 + %1 33P UpUp Up S12 J 3;�-1lSc�i e 4 � 1 suP� U- lu 1 e ll - SUP up 1a%1\ 11`�JJ-uW 211 �0 -=SUP 0.1 F, E ":.r. SUP � 4 J--' SUP 39.1 IT SUP ' glh SUP/li A I ` 1 44.1 SUP 44.2 ry s r w,N SUP v�� 39.2 J +� � ankin iTe entary y�o �J J� ' {{ y _186 MOVE 2040 PRIORITY RANKING S #9.1 - SOUTH MERIDIAN SIDEWALK CONNECTION After each route segment was evaluated and assessed points based upon the conditions present, these numbers were tallied to produce a final score upon which the seg- ments were ranked by category. Each category (SUP, S, BL or BR) has its own matrix that lays out this ranking meth- odology in detail in the following pages. Projects were then classified as "high", "medium' or "low" priorities based on the following scoring range: High Priority = a score of 20 or more points Medium Priority = a score between 10 and 19 points Low Priority = a score of less than 10 points The following section lists the highest scoring priority segments for each route category alongside a brief dis- cussion of the existing conditions and why infrastructure improvements are needed. Specific improvements rec- ommended for each of these priorities, and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure generally, alongside discussion on non -motorized best practices can be found in the fol- lowing sections. Certain connections failed to score high enough to be top priorities according to the ranking methodology but may still be critical projects based on the transportation demand modeling data and public input. Potential con- nections and networks to explore, in addition to those priorities ranked in the following pages, include: The area along Meridian Road south of Highway 2 and especially south of Center Street presents a challenge for pedestrians and cyclists given its auto -centric design. Intermittent sidewalks, numerous driveway and uncon- trolled access points, and fast-moving traffic make travel along this corridor on foot or by bike potentially unsafe. Travel demand modeling suggests that traffic will continue to increase along South Meridian in the future. Given the corridor serves Peterson Elementary and a popular Rails - to -Trails trailhead, the need for safer pedestrian connec- tivity should be taken into account through consideration of a sidewalk along this corridor. S #8 - WOODLAND AVENUE CONNECTION A gap in the non -motorized network currently exists be- tween Willow Glen Drive and 8th Street. While a shared use path exists traveling north from Willow Glen along the small creek that parallels Woodland, the sidewalk network stops at the intersection of Woodland and Willow Glen, leaving those traveling on foot few options to connect to the shared use path or make the connection between neighborhoods. While this connection scores low on the priority list given the conditions, the completion of a side- walk along Woodland Avenue would have a significant impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 187_ Shared Use Paths SUP #3.1 - WEST RESERVE/BY-PASS CONNECTION Current conditions along the West Reserve corridor linking the terminus of the Kalispell Bypass at Highway 93 to Highway 2 are not conducive to the amount of future growth and development projected for this area on the north side of Kalispell. This corridor pro- vides a major connection between the west and east valleys, but bicycle and pedestrian facilities are lacking. Some sidewalks have been constructed as a result of more recent development, but the network is incomplete on the north side of West Reserve. The construction of a shared use path is viewed as the safest alternative to moving cyclists and pedestrians along this busy thoroughfare. SUP #4 - FLATHEAD VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE/HIGHWAY 2 CONNECTION This proposed mixed recreational shared use path would provide a new connection between the Flathead Valley Community College (FVCC) campus and neighborhoods to the east, as well as future connectivity to Evergreen and the Junior High School. Connectivity in this area is complicated due to the Whitefish and Stillwater Rivers, the rail line, and historical development patterns in Evergreen, resulting in a gap in east/ west movement between Highway 93 and Highway 2 for both vehicles and pedestrians. SUP #5.1 - HIGHWAY 93 CONNECTION - SOU - The connectivity between downtown and the Kalispell Regional Medical Center (KRMC), the College campus, and the commercial and residential development on the north side of Kalispell is broken by a significant gap in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure— the section of Highway 93 extending from the Highway 2 intersection north to KRMC. This section of the highway lacks sidewalks, bike lanes, and shared use paths, offers poor site distances, has numerous intersections and access points with limited control, and has traffic speeds of 35 mph and higher. When combined, these conditions make walk- ing or biking along this route unsafe and impractical, limiting connectivity between two major employment centers in the community. I SUP #5.2 - HIGHWAY 93 CONNECTION Similar to SUP segment #5.1, the east side of Highway 93 extending north from Commons Way to Grandview Drive and serving the FVCC campus and neighborhoods in between is unsafe for bikes and pedestrians. A limited shoulder and travel speeds of 35 mph and higher make this road segment undesirable as a bike route, and no sidewalk or path currently exists to connect pedestrians to the commercial services in and around the hospital complex or to the educational and recreational opportunities provided by FVCC. Establishing a shared use path along this section of highway will link to the existing sidewalk and path network present to the north and south of this recom- mended route segment, completing a key connection along the Highway 93 corridor. SUP #22 - HIGHWAY 2 EAST CONNECTING EAST EVERGREEN The Evergreen community is lacking in sidewalks, bike lanes, and shared use paths; this is especially apparent along the Highway 2 corridor traveling east from Kalispell into Evergreen. The existing network is limited to disconnected footpaths and occasional sidewalks in between businesses, interrupted by uncontrolled access to businesses and industry. With five lanes of traffic traveling at speeds of 35 mph and more, this corridor poses unsafe conditions for a cyclist or pedestrian. The addition of a shared use path along either (or both) sides of Highway 2 would offer a key connection to and from es- tablished neighborhoods in Kalispell and Evergreen, and serve the business community in between. _188 MOVE 2040 SUP #29 — HIGHWAY 2 NORTH CONNECTION Sidewalk present along Highway 2 traveling north through Evergreen is intermittent and infrequent, and existing pedestrian paths are interrupted by multiple access points for business and industry. Coupled with five -lanes of traffic traveling 45 mph and faster, this route is unsafe for cyclists and pedestrians, especially school -aged children walking to and from the Junior High. A shared use path along the western side of the highway, extending from the intersection of Highway 35 and the West Reserve corridor, would support safer travel by foot and bike to school from the surrounding neighborhoods. SUP #30 - LENA FLATS CONNECTION The Helena Flats corridor has seen residential growth over the past decade and con- tinues to be viewed as an area that will accommodate more families and homes in the years to come, with the East Evergreen and Helena Flats Elementary Schools poised to serve a growing school -aged population. Helena Flats Road presents a number of chal- lenges for cyclists and pedestrians, with little shoulder, two lanes and traffic speeds of 35 mph. There is an incomplete network of shared use paths installed as requisites for past development proposals, but the network is inconsistent in connecting neighborhoods and schools. The addition of a shared use path from the intersection with Highway 35 north to Pine Loop Road could improve connectivity in this area. SUP #39.I — KALISPELL NEIGHBORHOOD CONNECTION It can be challenging to move safely across the Center Street and Highway 2 West corridors, presenting a barrier to connectivity between the west side neighborhoods and the West North neighborhoods. The establishment of a shared use path along 5th Avenue West would provide a safe option for cyclists and pedestrians to travel from the west side and destinations like Flathead High School and Elrod Elementary to Russell Elementary and the County fairgrounds. This shared use path would supplement the existing sidewalk network and offer a clear and safe crossing point at the intersection of 5th Avenue and Highway 2. SUP #43 — KALISPELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER NETWORK As the Kalispell Regional Medical Center continues to grow, it will become increasingly important to offer safe routes for employees to walk or bike to work, and for employees and guests to connect to surrounding support offices and local business on foot or by bike. The proposed shared use path network would connect the medical campus to surrounding businesses and offer a link to existing paths on either side of Highway 93. The network would also support safer connectivity to Kalispell Middle School, located across Highway 93, for students living in the residential neighborhoods in and around the medical center. Please refer to the shared use paths summary in Table 9.1 on page 193 and Figure 9.3 on page 199. KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 189_ Sidewalks S #5 - THREE MILE DRIVE CONNECTION Three Mile Drive has seen significant growth in the last decade, further compounded by the completion of the by-pass. Much of the existing residential development on the north side of Three Mile is served by a (nearly) continuous path that runs west along Three Mile until it bends north toward West Valley. The south side of Three Mile has an intermittent path serving the neighborhoods west of the bypass, but the property to the east between the by-pass and North Meridian has no non -motorized infrastructure. Future infill development targeted for this area would be better served by a complete network of sidewalks serving residents on both sides of Three Mile and providing safe access from the neighborhoods to Kalispell Middle School. S #6 - Hwy 2 WEST CONNECTION Highway 2 West serves significant residential and limited commercial development be- tween Kila and Kalispell. While the south side of Highway 2 has a popular shared use path connecting residents and recreational ists, the northern side of the highway lacks any paths or pedestrian infrastructure. By extending a path or sidewalk from the inter- section at North Meridian west to Springcreek Road, a safe route for pedestrians in the neighborhood north of Highway 2 would be established and a beneficial connection made between those residents and the existing Rail Trail access at Springcreek. Please refer to the sidewalks summary in Table 9.2 on page 200 and Figure 9.4 on page 201. Bike Lanes BL #2 - SECOND STREET EAST TO WEST CONNECTION Second Street East and West offer the best opportunity to establish a striped, dedicated bike lane connecting the neighborhoods that flank downtown Kalispell. While numer- ous east/west routes exist through town, Second Street offers a wider road width to accommodate a dedicated lane and provides important connectivity between Peterson Elementary School on the west side and Woodland Park on the east side. It also serves as a primary thru-route for vehicle traffic and, as a result, is signed and signalized to minimize conflict and congestion. Suggested improvements would also benefit cyclists and add to the safety of having a dedicated lane for bikes. Please refer to the bike lanes summary in gable 9.3 on page 202 and Figure 9.5 on page 203. E Bike Routes BR #11 - FOUR MILE TO HILLTOP DRIVE Residential development off of Four Mile Drive offers an opportunity to establish a safe route for cyclists to access the Youth Athletic Complex, FVCC, and commercial devel- opment along Highway 93 North. New and existing roads are wide enough and traffic speeds low enough to allow for safe routes through and between older neighborhoods surrounding Kalispell Middle School and newer neighborhoods west of the bypass. This route would connect an established network of existing shared use paths and sidewalks within these neighborhoods and along Four Mile and Highway 93 North, completing a broad network of bicycle and pedestrian facility options. BR #13 - FOUR MILE DRIVE CONNECTION Continuing the established bike route from the FVCC campus south along Grandview Drive to the KRMC campus effectively links these two community resources and provides an alternate route for cyclists to navigate. _190 MOVE 2040 BR #14 — RIVER ROAD/COTTONWOOD DRIVE CONNECTION Beginning at the terminus of River Road and West Evergreen Drive, looping through established neighborhoods along Cottonwood Drive and continuing south of Highway 35 to Meadow Manor Village, this route would connect the north and south sides of Evergreen while providing a safe and established bike route away from primary traffic corridors and significant intersections. It would also serve as a connection between two high -priority shared use path connections, further expanding the bicycle and pedestrian network in this under -served area. BR #16.1 — FIRST AVENUE EAST NORT NETWORK This network of segments establishes a clear bike route for cyclists moving through the East North neighborhood of Kalispell, taking advantage of controlled intersections and providing safe access to Lawrence Park. While the East North neighborhood is well -served by sidewalks, bike facilities are lacking and those unfamiliar with the area might not select the safest intersection across Highway 2 or Highway 93. By providing a network of shared bike routes through the neighborhood, safer and clearer access to recreational amenities and proposed paths and trails would result. BR #16.2 — FIFTH AVENUE EAST CONNECTION Fifth Avenue East provides an alternative north/south route for cyclists moving through Kalispell, avoiding some of the busier intersections closer to downtown and connecting Hedges Elementary with a potential shared -use path across Highway 2 and up towards Lawrence Park along Whitefish Stage. Fifth Avenue has signed intersections, good site distances and offers a wide right-of-way to easily accommodate bikes and vehicles in the same lane. BR #16.3 — FIRST AVENUE EAST CONNECTION First Avenue East offers the ability to move cyclists safely through Downtown Kalispell without the need to use Main Street, which is Highway 93. First Avenue East runs the entire length of downtown, extending from Lawrence Park to a terminal point feeding into Highway 93 on the south end of Kalispell. Lane width and reduced speeds afford bikes and cars the ability to interact safely, with controlled intersections and less traffic than one would find on the primary route(s) through town. BR #16.4 — FIRST AVENUE WEST CONNECTION Similar to First Avenue East, First Avenue West offers the ability to move cyclists safe- ly and effectively through Downtown Kalispell without the need to use Main Street, (Highway 93). First Avenue West runs the entire length of downtown, extending from the mall property to a terminal point feeding into Highway 93 on the south end of Kalispell. Lane width and reduced speeds afford bikes and cars the ability to interact safely, with controlled intersections and less traffic than one would find on primary route(s). BR #16.5 — Ei H AVENUE WEST CONNECTION The southwest corner of the established West Side neighborhood in Kalispell is an area with exceptionally poor bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. While installing sidewalks may be a long-term goal, an easy mechanism to improve connectivity between estab- lished networks and safe routes through the west side and to those developments fur- ther south is the creation of a shared bike route connecting Eighth Avenue to Eleventh Street West. KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 19' BR #16.6 - FOURTH STREET EAST/WEST CONNECTION While the bike lane recommended for Second Street East/West provides a primary con- nection between these neighborhoods, establishing a shared bike route along Fourth Street East/West could provide an alternative and expand safe travel through these neighborhoods. BR #27 - KALISPELL MIDDLE SCHOOL NEIGHBORHOOD CONNECTION Building upon BR segment #11, these bike routes would connect newer development off of Four Mile and the bypass to and through existing, established neighborhoods adjacent to and around Kalispell Middle School. Many of these neighborhoods lack sidewalks, and the winding street grid can be confusing to navigate. Establishing a clear route for cyclists to use could offer more direct access from those neighborhoods west of the by-pass to major employment centers like KRMC. This network would also support SRTS for students attending the middle school. BR #28 - KALISPELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER NETWORK As the Kalispell Regional Medical Center continues to grow in prominence in the Valley, it will become more important to offer safe routes for employees bike to work and opportunities for employees and guests to connect to the surrounding offices and local business by bike. The proposed bike routes that form this network would connect the medical campus to surrounding businesses and offer a link to existing shared use paths on either side of Highway 93. The network would also support safer connectivity to Kalispell Middle School, located across Highway 93, for students living in the residential neighborhoods in and around the medical center. BR #21 - SUNNYSIDE DRIVE CONNECTION Similar to SUP segment #39.1, there is a need to connect residents of neighborhoods on the south end of Kalispell to the community core, school facilities, and residents on the north side of town to recreational amenities such as the shared use path along the bypass, the Rail Trail leading west of town, Foy's Lake and Lone Pine Park. By continuing a shared use path connection from the high school south along 5th Avenue West and along Sunnyside Drive, a key north/south connection can be established that provides a safe route to and through town for residents on the western side of Kalispell. Please refer to the bike routes summary in Table 9.4 on page 204 and Figure 9.6 on page 207. _192 MOVE 2040 Table 9.1: Shared Use Paths Analysis = r N in a N a� 3 > = \ i V \ 3 p Q Q 3 V Z S= i Q •O 0 i i C i 1Qii1 Z W �o N oZ Z °' o "� a) L Q 3 Q Q Q v Q Q M Q a) N O a� 0! > a� V O Z D! Z i H 3 '> o c N > 3 a)`vl i s a)O 'O Z O 2 y O O Q � � o! Connects and supports 2 2 2 2 2 2 existing neighborhoods 1 1 1 1 1 1 Connects and supports 1 future neighborhoods Connects and supports existing economic 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 centers Connects and supports 1 1 1 1 1 1 future economic centers Connects and supports CONNECTION existing recreation 2 2 2 2 2 2 TYPE amenities Connects and supports future recreation 1 1 1 amenities Facilitates localized 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 network expansion 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Facilitates regional 1 network expansion 1 1 1 1 Facilitates connections to 1 future development Supports localized safe routes to schools (SRTS) 3 3 3 3 3 3 SCHOOL network FACILITIES Route segment located within 1/4-mile school 3 3 zone NON- Pedestrian -involved 4 4 4 VEHICULAR 4 4 4 4 CRASH TYPE Cyclist -involved NON - Multiple non -vehicular VEHICULAR crashes along route 4 4 4 CRASH segment FREQUENCY MOBILITY Route segment supports an under -served 1 1 1 1 EQUITY neighborhood 8 12 3,838 26 12,945 10 1,559 21 11,476 29 3,110 26 3,109 5 6,561 7 5,267 Score LENGTH Route segment length 12,717 (linear feet) COST Cost per linear foot $238 Approximate Cost $3,026,600 $913,400 $3,080,900 $371,000 $2,731,300 $740,200 $739,900 $1,561,500 $1,253,500 ...continued on page 194 KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 193_ Connects and supports existing neighborhoods Connects and supports future neighborhoods Connects and supports existing economic centers Connects and supports future economic centers Connects and supports CONNECTION existing recreation TYPE amenities Connects and supports future recreation amenities Facilitates localized network expansion Facilitates regional network expansion Facilitates connections to future development Supports localized safe routes to schools (SRTS) SCHOOL network FACILITIES Route segment located within 1/4-mile school zone NON- Pedestrian -involved VEHICULAR CRASH TYPE Cyclist -involved NON - Multiple non -vehicular VEHICULAR crashes along route CRASH segment FREQUENCY MOBILITY Route segment supports ° -� ,; i 0 `o O a E 7, o U o. — = 3 c— `o in -0 a o a� O U O ' O 3 in a)3 a) i a- E Z 3 c i O T Z 2 ' V i a) In N O -O a) -0 i> 0 E L of V L O • 1•i O \ = O! Qi i LL. L O_ V L Qi N C C QM. O w o `vl a w 0 H `o o° " a� o °' 3 a� a O O =o �o Na 3� y ix w O N 3 �N �a ix ° x ° o ai LL. Z a 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 4 4 EQUITY an under -served I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 neighborhood Score) 7 10 6 12 12 8 5 11 7 LENGTH Route segment length (linear feet) 6,556 5,329 8,220 3,127 4,646 4,194 7,848 2,156 10,358 COST Cost per linear foot $238 Approximate Cost $1,560,300 $1,268,300 $1,956,400 $744,200 1 $1,105,700 $998,200 $1,867,800 $513,100 1 $2,465,200 ...continued on page 195 _194 MOVE 2040 2 C S • N a o c V) 0 a M 01 CM S} j a s N VLL c}y£a o s*5a E -a L omM,>00 S'n3° -•°a a Z w a c 0 W0 Jo Jo Wm aL E u_ u_ z Connects and supports 2 2 2 2 2 2 existing neighborhoods Connects and supports 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 future neighborhoods Connects and supports existing economic 2 2 2 centers Connects and supports 1 1 1 future economic centers Connects and supports CONNECTION existing recreation 2 2 2 2 2 TYPE amenities Connects and supports future recreation 1 amenities Facilitates localized 1 1 1 1 1 network expansion Facilitates regional 1 1 1 1 1 1 network expansion Facilitates connections 1 1 1 1 to future development Supports localized safe routes to schools (SRTS) 3 3 3 3 SCHOOL network Route segment located FACILITIES within '/a -mile school 3 3 3 3 zone NON- Pedestrian -involved 4 VEHICULAR Cyclist -involved 4 4 4 CRASH TYPE NON - Multiple non -vehicular VEHICULAR crashes along route 4 CRASH segment FREQUENCY segment supports MOBILITY iRoute 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EQUITYnunder-served eighborhood 7 19 19 Score 5 I 27 I 11 I 7 5 6 LENGTH Route segment length 5,096 8,675 5,329 7,685 7,965 6,320 3,950 3,959 3,997 (linear feet) COST Cost per linear foot $238 Approximate Cost $1,212,800 1 $2,064,700 1 $1,268,300 1 $1,829,000 $1,895,700 $1,504,200 $940,100 $942,200 $951,300 ...continued on page 196 KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 195_ A g L LL i O L a o N N -a Cl) L CD -a ,C i N a) a ON = a�oi� 3N >.°' a o �� ° >� 0 •L c Ln a s £ C9 cn a c o 0> 3 o o a � a c9 �— CD y ax a3i a x$ ° a 0Ln 3> `_ °' 3 Z zm 3 " = S % L 3a za Connects and supports 2 2 2 2 2 2 existing neighborhoods Connects and supports 1 1 1 1 1 future neighborhoods Connects and supports existing economic 2 2 2 2 2 centers Connects and supports 1 1 1 1 1 future economic centers Connects and supports CONNECTION existing recreation 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 TYPE amenities Connects and supports future recreation 1 1 1 amenities Facilitates localized 1 1 1 network expansion Facilitates regional 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 network expansion Facilitates connections 1 1 to future development Supports localized safe routes to schools (SRTS) 3 3 SCHOOL network Route segment located FACILITIES within 1/4-mile school 3 zone NON- Pedestrian -involved 4 4 4 VEHICULAR Cyclist -involved 4 CRASH TYPE NON - Multiple non -vehicular VEHICULAR crashes along route 4 4 CRASH segment FREQUENCY MOBILITY Route segment supports an under -served 1 1 1 1 1 1 EQUITY neighborhood 6 Score 2 I 27 I 10 11 4 19 14 10 LENGTH Route segment length 2,011 14,763 1:1, 666 7,991 4,471 5,935 13,753 22,504 4,472 (linear feet) COST Cost per linear foot $238 Approximate Cost j $478,600 1 $3,513,600 1 $2,728,900 1 $1,064,300 1 $1,901,900 1 $1,064,100 1 $1,412,500 1 $3,273,200 $5,356,000 ...continued on page 197 _196 MOVE 2040 O M a p� -0 O- C O Lr) Cl) i -p 3 i i O J p C O 3 a > �0 a o Z > s N o \ \ 3 _ J = O 0 -O O Z O a 5 iLL. a p p °� a �3 a0 30 �o _ = V1 � Connects and supports 2 2 existing neighborhoods 1 1 1 Connects and supports 1 future neighborhoods Connects and supports existing economic 2 2 centers Connects and supports future economic 1 1 1 centers CONNECTIONEConnects and supports TYPE ecreation 2 s Connects and supports future recreation 1 amenities I Facilitates localized network expansion Facilitates regional network expansion Facilitates connections to future development Supports localized safe routes to schools SCHOOL (SRTS) network Route segment located FACILITIES within '/a -mile school zone NON- Pedestrian -involved VEHICULAR Cyclist -involved Multiple non -vehicular CRASH TYPE NON - VEHICULAR crashes along route CRASH segment FREQUENCY MOBILITY Route segment rn ° -d �CC C W C K a, o o W a s \ 3 o a E c 3 p 0 a o J V S Y 0 o 0 N U V 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 1 FA 1 1 1 1 1 1 EQUITY supports an under- I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 served neighborhood Score 26 20 6 10 10 9 5 4 4 LENGTH Route segment length (linear feet) 9,487 7,260 3,240 497 2,244 3,005 17,031 5,664 5,395 COST Cost per linear foot $238 Approximate Cost $2,257,900 $1,727,900 $771,100 $118,300 1 $534,100 $715,200 $4,053,400 $1,348,000 $1,284,000 ...continued on page 198 KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 197_ o W Lu } M Cl) A O N -O S a Q O LLI N O� 2NN L C N S S a Y Q a i CV) 0 O% Vf N Cl) y 3 N cn ° x N L -° N L y S Z` S OM. N N % W > i O O a o L ° o ° o a o ° �� a3 �> o a s� a -°° a c 03 zV 3 >� =3 z �� a� a�i 3 � N 3 W Connects and supports 2 2 2 2 2 existing neighborhoods Connects and supports 1 1 1 1 future neighborhoods Connects and supports existing economic 2 2 2 2 2 centers Connects and supports 1 1 1 1 1 1 future economic centers Connects and supports CONNECTION existing recreation 2 2 2 TYPE amenities Connects and supports future recreation 1 1 1 amenities Facilitates localized 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 network expansion Facilitates regional 1 1 1 1 network expansion Facilitates connections 1 1 1 1 to future development Supports localized safe routes to schools (SRTS) 3 3 3 SCHOOL network Route segment located FACILITIES within 1/4-mile school zone NON- Pedestrian -involved 4 4 4 VEHICULAR Cyclist -involved 4 4 4 CRASH TYPE NON - Multiple non -vehicular VEHICULAR crashes along route 4 4 CRASH segment FREQUENCY MOBILITY Route segment supports an under -served 1 1 1 1 1 EQUITY neighborhood 5 5 7 9 18 12 17 17 11 Score LENGTH Route segment length 7,789 3,768 1,621 2,123 5,469 7,217 14,685 14,685 5,939 (linear feet) COST Cost per linear foot $238 Approximate Cost $1,853,800 $896,800 $385,800 $505,300 $1,301,600 $1,717,600 $3,495,000 $3,495,000 $1,413,500 _198 MOVE 2040 .r1............. ._ --__._ ._ 1A A...__.._._........: M.........�.......■ ■.... 1A i� _ ■ ■ ■.....©..■ I: .* 'SUP ,• r * °9 jL- . ! SLIP' 7 ja J -- — � corv,m,,,,l•xx•ax - ■-...�.... (� 29.6.2.3.1 • ..� 5 3• 20 70A 27 ■ • - � �`c� s• � 24+13. 17.2 �.2. s.7 • 23. 29-2. 32 • 33 34-40 } a - ... - = _ ■ 20.1.18.1.14.7•B.2 !3•x1.7 •xs•]1. 39.1 - - G .. _ - i • 33.2 '•tl. ' ■ 6-1.12. 18. 1$.2 27 ■ z1z•s6 ■ s; Hid PROJECT PRIORITY LEGEf�O � � j IILSI P-),lv � ; - � Iri _••i fi ■ Ili••• Existing Se pasted Shared -Use Path ,-� •'�. �i •Q.. _{ > ■ c Existing Bike Route Existing Path ar Sidewalk �' ' • r Existing designated - '�� -;y. bike lane R••••••.. 1M Mile 8.ffer Lowe•51 Priority N Table 9.2: Sidewalks Analysis O O i O O 3 y y O 3 a p r o u.i � N p N Qi � r_ V V C N 3 p V c > W �S °'z Q O y O 4) N-75 = 3 } 3 Sin 3� 3 Connects and supports 2 2 2 2 2 existing neighborhoods 1 Connects and supports 1 future neighborhoods 2 Connects and supports 2 2 2 2 existing economic centers 1 1 1 1 Connects and supports future economic centers Connects and supports :ONNECTION existing recreation 2 2 2 2 TYPE amenities Connects and supports future recreation 1 amenities Facilitates localized 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 network expansion 1 1 Facilitates regional 1 network expansion 1 1 Facilitates connections to 1 1 future development Supports localized safe routes to schools (SRTS) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 SCHOOL network FACILITIES 3 3 3 3 Route segment located within 1/4-mile school zone NON- Pedestrian -involved 4 4 VEHICULAR Cyclist -involved 4 4 4 4 CRASH TYPE NON - Multiple non -vehicular VEHICULAR crashes along route 4 4 CRASH segment FREQUENCY MOBILITY Route segment supports an under -served 1 1 1 EQUITY neighborhood 5 7 13 5 24 20 9 17 17 Score LENGTH Route segment length 10,430 5,209 2,398 1,146 649 10,736 4,901 3,200 13,262 (linear feet) Cost per linear foot COST (assumes 4' width, 4" $15 thickness) $156,500 $78,100 $36,000 $17,200 $9,700 $161,000 $73,500 $48,000 $198,900 Approximate Cost _200 MOVE 2 r Tceium¢awur _ _ •_ pqm •s.rweuu A.- _ a - Hum6ers l _ 9-1.92. 10.11 ` 1 ..-. 3.7 10 .y• � s a 1•a i PROJECT PRIORITY LEGEND ■ a highestPrivrlty _ I Existing Separated ■ ■ hrd Highest Prionly i�i■�" - Shamd-Use Path >. ''-• Existing Bike Route 1 1 3,d Highest Priority Existing Path or� Sidewalk ■i r ■ • ■ i Alth High esr Priority Existing designated bike lane ■........ ■ Sth High Est Priority 1A MRe Buffer ....... Lowest Ptiordy N Table 9.3: Bike Lanes Analysis L 3 ° ` > �3N 33 in y N in Connects and supports existing neighborhoods 2 2 2 Connects and supports future neighborhoods Connects and supports existing economic centers _T Connects and supports future economic centers 2 Connects and supports existing recreation amenities 2 2 CONNECTION TYPE Connects and supports future recreation amenities 1 iFacilitates localized network expansion I 1 I 1 I 1 Facilitates regional network expansion 1 1 1 Facilitates connections to future development Supports localized safe routes to schools (SRTS) network 3 3 3 SCHOOL FACILITIES Route segment located within 1/4-mile school zone 3 3 3 NON -VEHICULAR CRASH Pedestrian -involved 4 4 TYPE Cyclist -involved 4 NON -VEHICULAR CRASH FREQUENCY Multiple non -vehicular crashes along route segment 4 MOBILITYEQUITY Route segment supports an under -served neighborhood Score 25 16 12 LENGTH Route segment length 7,528 5,227 5,210 (linear feet) COST Cost per linear foot of construction $10 Approximate Cost j $75,300 1 $52,300 1 $52,100 _202 MOVE 2040 ► � .yy:�� r � . tit IL • L � r r i - i, � '• = • i , . Re�is - projut �.n a 0 PROJECT PR10RtTY LEGEND ■ ■ Highest Priorlty Existing Separated Shared -Use Path•-}� ■ ■ �= Existing Bike Route • r.. I''�..' i' S' • �.'.:.•�. Existing Path or Sidewaik a a ■"� Existing designated bike lane ........a IM MAe Buffer ■.....■ Lowest Priority Table 9.4: Bike Routes Analysis . A O O O vOi LL }O C> } ` / •N \ O E O E_ E O ° N� 'N y N Q O 0-S } Q V > O v 7 D_ V 0 0 O N y y y N 7 N S = i N LL O) > N > > N WLU ° a� �, °o a� a� '� o •y � c a� ° a o �, Z i 3 J Z C Z V N E N 3 S V N V G V V N ' Z Connects and supports existing 2 2 2 neighborhoods Connects and supports future 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 neighborhoods Connects and supports existing 2 2 2 2 economic centers Connects and supports future 1 1 1 1 1 economic centers CONNECTION Connects and supports existing 2 2 TYPE recreation amenities Connects and supports future 1 1 recreation amenities Facilitates localized network 1 1 1 1 expansion Facilitates regional network 1 1 1 expansion Facilitates connections to future 1 1 1 1 development Supports localized safe routes to 3 3 SCHOOL schools (SRTS) network Route segment located within 3 FACILITIES 1/4-mile school zone NON- Pedestrian -involved 4 VEHICULAR Cyclist -involved 4 4 4 CRASH TYPE NON - VEHICULAR Multiple non -vehicular crashes 4 CRASH along route segment FREQUENCY MOBILITY Route segment supports an 1 1 1 1 1 1 EQUITY under -served neighborhood 5 5 15 28 Score 5 I 4 I 4 I 12 LENGTH Route segment length 8,458 10,381 12,560 7,217 7,789 5,807 11,035 2,724 (linear feet) COST Cost per linear foot $6 Approximate Cost $46,700 $50,700 $62,300 $75,400 1 $43,300 $34,800 $66,200 $16,300 ..continued on page 205 _204 MOVE 2040 • • N O M p N 0 0 } } o } C a N W a _ O L C o .L M a o c'n o x rn cif o U v 0) 'L Ln �, .$ o 3 Z 5 £ a c > L L c c°n N r° O t w Y ° a �`n s ° cn �° N °o \ a c a3i -c ai ate, a g JI'll a� � o3 3 s �o a L % L !� O LL vw LL N m Connects and supports 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 existing neighborhoods Connects and supports future 1 1 neighborhoods Connects and supports 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 existing economic centers Connects and supports future 1 1 economic centers CONNECTION Connects and supports 2 2 2 2 2 2 TYPE existing recreation amenities Connects and supports future 1 1 recreation amenities Facilitates localized network 1 1 1 1 1 1 expansion Facilitates regional network 1 expansion Facilitates connections to future development Supports localized safe routes 3 3 3 3 3 3 SCHOOL to schools (SRTS) network FACILITIES Route segment located within 3 3 3 3 3 '/a -mile school zone NON- Pedestrian -involved 4 4 4 4 4 4 VEHICULAR Cyclist -involved 4 4 4 4 4 4 CRASH TYPE NON - VEHICULAR Multiple non -vehicular crashes 4 4 4 4 4 4 CRASH along route segment FREQUENCY MOBILITY Route segment supports an 1 EQUITY under -served neighborhood I 8 2,975 25 25 25 Score 23 6,806 23 16,263 26 5,585 I 4 5,031 LENGTH Route segment length 8,928 8,213 2,710 (linear feet) COST Cost per linear foot $6 Approximate Cost $40,800 $97,600 1 $17,900 $53,600 1 $49,300 $16,300 $33,500 1 $30,200 ..continued on page 206 KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 205_ • • s o > y o i > p V> 0 S o;A- �� i Q N � � A i5 s •L J a y -p L N p LO y i •L y 0 N m N 0 J L W S t3 i N 0, c 3 2 (� O Z ° 2 Connects and supports existing 2 2 neighborhoods 1 1 1 Connects and supports future neighborhoods 2 Connects and supports existing economic centers Connects and supports future 1 economic centers CONNECTION Connects and supports existing 2 2 TYPE recreation amenities Connects and supports future 1 1 recreation amenities Facilitates localized network 1 1 expansion 1 1 1 Facilitates regional network expansion 1 1 Facilitates connections to future development 3 3 Supports localized safe routes to SCHOOL schools (SRTS) network 3 3 FACILITIES Route segment located within 1/4-mile school zone NON- Pedestrian -involved 4 VEHICULAR CRASH TYPE Cyclist -involved 4 NON - VEHICULAR Multiple non -vehicular crashes 4 CRASH along route segment FREQUENCY MOBILITY Route segment supports an under- 1 1 EQUITY served neighborhood Score 10 I 26 5 I 4 I 4 LENGTH Route segment length 4,705 5,857 8,458 10,381 12,560 (linear feet) COST Cost per linear foot $6 Approximate Cost $28,200 1 $35,100 1 $50,700 1 $62,300 1 $75,400 _206 MOVE 2040 - , icy •� � `.. 16 a � c,�lx, Numbers a j JaR 13-14 BIR 16-2 1• 21 10 I i• o . 3 • d -, 8-f LLI— 7 PROJECT PR10RtTY LEGEND 0 ■ Highest Priorlty Existing Separated f ■ TI Shared-Use PathExisting Bike Route • • Existing Path or Sidewaik Existing designated bike lane ........a IM MAe Buffer ".....■ Lowest Priority Ile RECOMMENDATIONS Project Priorities When considering project priorities for improvements to, or expansion of, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, it is best to consider the transportation network holistically and plan for facility upgrades in concert with TSM and MSN improvements. This approach will result in cost effi- ciencies and minimize unnecessary repairs or reconstruc- tion of recently installed facilities, capitalizing on project overlap that minimizes construction length and leads to better results. Through extensive modeling and analysis, this plan iden- tifies priority corridor projects relating to Kalispell's spe- cific MSN and TSM infrastructure needs. When compared to the bicycle and pedestrian connections analyzed in this chapter, overlapping priorities and project opportunities begin to emerge. The top ten corridor infrastructure proj- ects coincide with bicycle and pedestrian improvements as shown in 1_Li_ o C Overlapping priorities indicate clear direction on project goals and future transportation improvements for vehi- cles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The top project identified for major street network improvements is the connection between Highway 93 North at the present by-pass ter- minus and Highway 2 North along West Reserve Drive. While sidewalks exist sporadically along either side of West Reserve Drive, prioritized improvements resulting from this plan's recommendations afford the City an op- portunity to create a safe and unified route for bikes and pedestrians as part of corridor upgrades. A shared use path in line with the suggested design shown in gure 9.7 on page 210 is identified as one of the highest-rank- ing priorities for bicycle and pedestrian connectivity —this segment scored 26 points when analyzed according to the methodology introduced in the previous pages. The top scoring bike and pedestrian facility improvement at 29 points is the corridor between the intersection of Highway 93 and Highway 2 in the heart of downtown Kalispell, and the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive —more specifically, the segment identified as SUP 5.1 extending from the Highway 93 and 2 inter- section up to Ryder Road. This corridor ranked 8th over- all according to the transportation modeling, but is the 3rd highest transportation safety measure recommended in the plan. The corridor is plagued by limited right -of way, site distances, multiple uncontrolled access points, and a turn on grade. Careful analysis suggests a shared Table 9.5: Project Priorities Pro"ject Ido' LTransportatio, _W�&T. Project A =I Non -Motorized Project 27 West Reserve Drive Whitefish Stage Highway 93 MSN West Reserve/By-Pass SUP 3.1 Connection 28 West Reserve Drive Highway 2 Whitefish Stage MSN 4 Four Mile Drive Hwy 93 Northland Road MSN SUP 32 Four Mile Dr./Northland Dr. to Meadow Vista Loop 30 Grandview/ Whitefish Highway 93 MSN SUP 4 New Connection/ Evergreen Stage Grandview Dr. to Hwy 2 Rose Whitefish Stage/West 6 Whitefish Stage Crossing West Reserve MSN SUP 6.1 Reserve Dr. to Rose Crossing 26 Intersection Highway 93 West Reserve TSM 33 Highway 2/Idaho LaSalle Hwy 93A TSM S 6 Hwy 2 West Connection SUP 5.1 Hwy 93 North/Nevada St. 34 Highway 93 Highway 2 West Reserve TSM and SUP to Ryder Rd. and Hwy 93 5.2 North/E. Meridian to West Reserve Dr. Hwy 93 North/West 35 Highway 93 West Reserve MT 40 TSM SUP 2 and Reserve to Nob Hill Loop SUP 7 and Hwy 93 North/Rose Crossing to Hagerman Ln. 38 Highway 93 (Main 12th Street Highway 2 I TSM Street) (Idaho) rw use path be constructed along the east side of the road- way to ensure both bikes and pedestrians have a safe means of travel from downtown to the hospital complex and surrounding neighborhoods. However, acquisition of right-of-way necessary to construct such a facility may not be possible; therefore alternative design recommenda- tions have been made, for this segment and other priority non -motorized projects. Prioritization of a new corridor connection between Grandview Drive and Whitefish Stage also aligned with bicycle and pedestrian connectivity priorities, reinforcing the potential for a shared use path in this location. While a recreational shared use path (SUP 4) is recommended for the short-term, long-term plans to construct a road in this location will result in the need for sidewalk con- nectivity, with an eye toward future shared -use path con- struction similar to that which exists along the west side of Whitefish Stage. Other corridor projects were less aligned with bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvement priorities. SUP 32 connecting the Kid Sports facility with Northland Drive and Meadow Vista Loop ranked relatively low when evaluated according to the established criteria and methodology in this chapter. Similarly, shared use path connections along Highway 93 North to serve new development planned for this corridor scored low. It is important to note, however, that where improvements to the transportation network are prioritized, related bicycle and pedestrian infrastruc- ture should also be prioritized for construction, regardless of whether it has been identified and recommended as a project priority according to this analysis. Any opportunity to close network gaps should be encouraged; using MSN and TSM corridor projects to do so ensures a cohesive transportation network is achieved over time. FACILITY DESIGN The successful design of bicycle and pedestrian facilities is critical to the overall safety and usability of Kalispell's non -motorized network. gure 9.7 provides guidance on the suggested design of bicycle and pedestrian facilities outlined in this plan. These design recommendations are based on industry best practice for facility construction and should be used as a baseline when determining the right treatment for a corridor improvement project, depending on the context surrounding a particular connection. In addition to the design and construction of the con- nection itself, other safety and design elements should be considered to improve the experience for cyclists and pedestrians. The following toolbox expands on the cross -sections in ,ure Y./: Shared Lane Markings (SLMs). Shared lane mark- ings, often referred to as "sharrows," are defined by the National Association of City Transportation Officials as road markings that indicate a shared lane environment for bicycles and automobiles. Sharrows reinforce the presence of bicycle traffic on the street, dictate proper bicyclist positioning, and may be con- figured to offer directional and wayfinding guidance. They should not be considered a substitute for bike lanes, shared use paths, or other separation treat- ments where these types of facilities are otherwise warranted or space permits. Buffering. Buffered bike lanes are conventional bi- cycle lanes paired with a designated buffer space separating the bicycle lane from the adjacent travel lane or parking lane. For a lane to be considered ap- propriately buffered it must include word or symbol markings to define the bike lane and designate that portion of the street for preferential use by bicyclists, and two solid white lines on both edges of the buf- fer space indicating where crossing is discouraged, though not prohibited. Additionally, where a buffer is three feet or wider, diagonal or cross -hatching shall be used to designate the space. Buffering can also be accomplished using changes in color or texture of pavement. Physically protected bike lanes are also considered "buffered" but use physical barriers like concrete, planters, or parking. When an intersection or mid -block crossing is considered as part of a corridor improvement, the following design elements should be considered to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety: Bike Boxes. A bike box is a designated area at the head of a traffic lane at a signalized intersection that provides bicyclists with a safe and visible way to get ahead of queuing traffic during the red signal phase. This type of facility should be used in areas of high traffic and is typically designated by lines and mark- ings, changes in color and texture, and different pav- ing applications. Crosswalk Improvements. Improving the cross- walk experience for pedestrians is key to creating a safe and walkable environment and making suc- cessful connections throughout Kalispell's growing non -motorized network. Crosswalk treatments may include elevating the crosswalks to increase visibili- ty and vehicular awareness of pedestrians; this also serves to slow traffic. Other paving treatments such as rumble strips or raised caps also trigger awareness of pedestrian zones. Curb extensions at corners and pe- destrian refuge zones at mid -block crossings should be incorporated wherever possible, to reduce the distance a pedestrian must travel to cross the street. Additionally, signage and signaling can be used to further reinforce a crossing in the third dimension. KALIJ,r, L AKtA IRANSPUKIAII. - , -N 209_ N _L- � c0 cn m 1= CL) C i J _CL) m C cc J CD m c0 m O cn - u m " E Y >. •I L 3 L a C, m c y • • j C T � Y N = T Y O L u'-Q O O m E O \ E m u E E v rn m m Q o o y ER V rn s Q O1 s a c v y > 2 ~O 60 'u a `m o a m e $ E > a v n a u u E m m E m o m o 0 v u a m 01 m a a O 06 N O m >` E O N u o o v o — y '" Y vuo Q E s :. - Y v m o3ofu v - T v o 0 0 °' v> o „ a i 2 c u a' a .Q E w o o s 01 E N N 46 w - T O ;t E .s ° > t o �v d°° u t v i� vv yv ao E i. u E av t O u o 3 m 3 o y o u m 3 v y° y a ¢ E � > t° 3 m `m � y-+ Z cc LI_ C.1 4+ O L Cl) cc CD J _210 MOVE 2040 Signaling. For uncontrolled or mid -block crossings, signaling can be more effective than signage to alert drivers to pedestrians crossing. The following types of signals are recommended as best practices when im- plementing this plan. Flashing beacons. Flashing beacons at cross- walks can improve pedestrian safety by alerting motorists of mid -block crossings or establishing visible cues for intersections and crossings that are wide or lack sufficient facilities for pedestrian safety. Beacons can be especially useful in school zones where pedestrians are smaller and lower to the ground, creating situations where driv- er awareness is critical. Multiple beacon options exist, but the type most often recommended as a best practice (especially in schools zones) are the Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFBs). These beacons use irregular flash patterns sim- ilar to those used by police vehicles, reinforcing a driver's reaction to similar stimuli by encour- aging them to slow down or stop when visible. These types of beacons can be successfully in- stalled along any roadway, from local streets to multi -lane collectors and arterials, and have been shown to drastically improve vehicle yielding com- pliance compared to the standard flashing yellow ball beacons formerly used in such applications. HAWK Crossings. This style of hybrid beacon, also known as a High -intensity Activated Cross- walk (HAWK), consists of a signal -head with two red lenses over a single yellow lens on the major street, and pedestrian signal heads for the mi- nor street or trail crossing. There are no signal indications for motor vehicles on the minor street approaches. Hybrid beacons are used to improve non -motorized crossings of major streets in loca- tions where side -street volumes do not support installation of a conventional traffic signal. Hybrid beacons can operate in areas of heavy traffic and multiple travel lanes where a RRFB would be less effective. In -Road Warning Lights (IRWL). In -road treat- ments alert motorists to pedestrians crossing at uncontrolled locations. Both sides of a crosswalk are lined with encased raised lights installed to be level with the asphalt; these are typically LED strobe lighting and face towards the driver. When a pedestrian enters a crosswalk, the in -pavement lighting system is activated and research has shown a decline in vehicle speed as a result. Safe Routes to School Zones STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS These treatments are especially important when it comes to safety for cyclists and pedestrians in school zones. Kalispell's SRTS infrastructure is well intact in the City's core, but newer school zones and areas on the periphery of the urban boundary that have seen continued growth over the past decade are less equipped with signage, sig- naling, and adequate bicycle and pedestrian infrastruc- ture to ensure children arrive at their destination safely. One of the higher priority shared use path connections identified through this analysis was SUP 29 along the west side of Highway 2 as it extends north through Evergreen. This corridor has limited sidewalks and crosswalks and many uncontrolled access points along and adjacent to Evergreen Junior High School. Moving west into the neighborhoods, sidewalks become intermittent or non- existent and road infrastructure fails to designate routes that are safest and most appropriate for bikes. Signaling, signage, and implementation of crosswalk infrastructure is key for this area; focusing sidewalk improvements in and around Evergreen Junior High, as well as in neigh- borhoods surrounding East Evergreen Elementary (also a high ranking priority connection in SUP 30) will help to improve safety and walkability for the students served. School zone expansion is another recommendation that may improve overall access for students in those parts of the City experiencing rapid development. Designated school zones surrounding Hedges Elementary, Elrod Elementary, Russel Elementary, and Flathead High School are all served by a cohesive network of sidewalks, well - signed crosswalks, and signaling. Select intersections along the 5th Avenue West corridor may require improve- ments in the future, but for the most part these facilities meet the safety needs of those students walking and biking to school. Edgerton Elementary School is also well served by sidewalk network and signage, and easily ac- cessed by adjacent neighborhoods using the shared use path currently in place along the west side of Whitefish Stage Road. As one moves beyond the downtown core, however, the SRTS network begins to break down. The deficien- cies surrounding Evergreen Junior High School have been previously discussed, but of note are the limit- ed bicycle and pedestrian facilities available to serve Peterson Elementary School, Kalispell Middle School, East Evergreen Elementary, and Glacier High School. Some of these schools are newer and located in areas where res- idential growth has occured more recently. Even with this newer development, limited sidewalk networks add to the difficulty in moving pedestrians —especially school -aged children —safely to their destination. Considering schools like Helena Flats and Rankin Elementary, an expanded ixALI:,i � � L AK- I RAN SPc_,RTATIOr. . —, 211 i school zone may be necessary to account for the larger geographies and less dense development these institu- tions are serving. While the typical school zone for SRTS treatment is a 1 /4 mile radius, in the exurban areas an expanded 1 /2 mile radius may be appropriate to rein- force walk -ability and bike -ability for students. City policy requiring sidewalks for all new development and prioritiz- ing sidewalk infrastructure expansion on an annual bases for those areas previously built -out but which do not have sidewalks will aide in creating a cohesive SRTS network over time. General Best Practice THE PLAN/POLICy RELATIONSHIP With any planning effort it is important that priority rec- ommendations acknowledge the realities of federal, state, and local policy. Integrating plans and priorities for bicycle and pedestrian improvements provides the City with a consistent means to approach capital planning and budgeting for infrastructure needs and reinforce the im- portance of these facilities and connections to the overall transportation network. Identification and prioritization of bicycle and pedestrian facilities ensures that improve- ments are considered as future development occurs or as state and federally -funded road improvement projects are undertaken. The City recently developed a compre- hensive bicycle and pedestrian plan that provides more detailed guidance on facility construction, management, and maintenance, dovetailing with recommendations in- cluded in this plan. This policy will serve as an important tool to guide day-to-day decision -making and direct im- provements that may be driven by private development or public desire in the short, mid, and long-term plan horizon. In developing these recommendations, the policy direc- tives of the state transportation department were also considered. On -system improvements within MDT right of way must be coordinated with MDT to comply with pol- icies and design standards, meaning further analysis to determine feasibility of these facilities on a case by case basis will be required. MDT generally recommends these facilities be located outside of state-owned right of way whenever possible. However, in some instances state right-of-way is the only feasible option to ensure facili- ty construction and connectivity. Additionally, bicycle and pedestrian facilities are acknowledged and supported by the 2017 TranPlan MT. Municipalities and other local jurisdictions are typically responsible for planning, constructing, and maintaining pedestrian and bicycle facilities. As previously discussed, identifying key connections and priority projects allows MDT to consider and plan for these projects as part of MDT facility improvements, or as non -MDT project en- croachments. Because there are limited federal funds available for the construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, MDT evaluates bicycle and pedestrian projects viability based on long-term ownership and maintenance responsibility, transportation purpose, location in proxim- ity to city limits and urban (developing) areas, enhance- ment of traffic safety, connectivity, impact to the Highway State Special Revenue Account, and cost. MDT's plan- ning, engineering, and maintenance divisions also work together to identify paths in need of repairs and consider the timing for inclusion in the scope of work for future projects where right-of-way overlaps. As pedestrian facilities are considered in the planning and project development process, it is imperative that eq- uitable access to all transportation users be considered. According to MDT's ADA Transition Plan, the department is committed to creating and supporting an accessible transportation system throughout the state by removing barriers to access along MDT controlled, federal -aid el- igible routes. Ensuring connectivity of all residents and mobility types automatically alleviates a physical barri- er to access, such as that which is present in places like Evergreen within this transportation plan. However, many routes in Evergreen are locally -controlled and will require coordination between state and local governments to en- sure these accessibility benchmarks are met. CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE The fiscal realities of facility construction and maintenance weigh heavily on capital improvements planning efforts, and must be taken into consideration given other prior- ities and the context in which each facility exists. While bike routes and lanes are less fiscally burdensome to plan and budget for, the construction of new sidewalks and shared use paths is significantly more expensive and must be balanced with the needs of the overall transportation network, available funding mechanisms, and long-term maintenance projections. Planning and budgeting for infrastructure maintenance can be equally challenging. Shared use paths typically require greater capital maintenance activities with age, often needing full reconstruction at some point in their lifetime. Some jurisdictions focus on eventual reconstruc- tion and treat this as a maintenance item to be budgeted for, whereas others treat this as a separate capital project to be considered in the future. There is no right or wrong way to approach maintenance, but having a consistent plan for ongoing and necessary improvements is vital to keeping the non -motorized network safe and effective. Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is important but will only serve its purpose if kept in working order. �212 m—,, Given these considerations and the overall recommenda- tions, the TAC felt it was important to identify key policy decisions affecting the implementation of this plan. Bike routes and bike lanes identified will not be im- plemented until the roadway is updated to meet the necessary widths and acceptable design standards approved by Public Works. There will be no additional symbols placed in the road way to identify bike routes at this time. Pending additional resources to support the Public Works Department in the application and upkeep required for bike route signage and pavement markings, these symbols will serve as a recommendation only and not be prioritized for implementation. Designated bike lanes and bike routes shall not re- ceive special or additional snow plowing or deicing treatment outside of the City's current Policy and Procedure Manual for Snow and Ice Removal at this time. While this does not preclude a facility identi- fied from being implemented, it is important that the public understand the seasonality of bike routes and lanes. Without additional resources to add plowing and deicing capacity, users should not expect clear bike lanes through winter months. KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 213_ "19 i i i 0= = === qm MOVE Kalispell Area CHAPTER 1000 0 0 Transportation Plan FUNDING PROGRAMS r k INTRODUCTION ALLOCATIONS AND MATCHING REQUIREMENTS This element of Move 2040 provides a general overview of transportation funding relevant to the study area. Most transportation dollars directed to the study area are de- rived from federal and state sources. MDT administers several programs that are funded from state and federal sources. The City of Kalispell is dependent on a number of these programs to support transportation infrastruc- ture investments. Additionally, the City of Kalispell uses a street maintenance fund to support operations and main- tenance projects. As recommended earlier in this plan, the City of Kalispell should consider an Arterial and Collector Special Assessment policy to support future transportation investments. Each year, in accordance with Montana Code Annotated (MCA) 60-2-127 the Montana Transportation Commission allocates a portion of available federal -aid highway funds for construction purposes and for projects located on the various systems in the state as described throughout this document. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) was signed into law on December 4, 2015, and authoriz- es federal transportation funding for federal fiscal years 2016 through 2020. Funding sources and allocations changes with each authorization and may vary following completion of the next federal authorization. FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES The following sections summarize relevant federal trans- portation funding categories received by the state through US Code Title 23 and US Code Title 49, including state developed implementation or sub -programs that may be potential sources for projects. To receive project funding under these programs, projects must be included in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), where relevant. National Highway Performance Program The National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) funds are federally apportioned for the NHS roads and bridges, which includes the Interstate and non -Interstate NHS routes. The purpose of the 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 require- ments; and serve interstate and interregional travel. The NHS includes all Interstate routes, a large percentage of urban and rural principal arterials, the defense strategic highway network, and strategic highway connectors. NHPP funds are federally -apportioned to Montana and allocated to financial districts based on need by the Montana Transportation Commission. Also, consideration is given to balancing needs using the MDT Performance Programming Process. Based on system performance, the funds are allocated to three programs: Interstate Maintenance National Highway System (Non -Interstate) NHPP Bridge Figure 3. and Figure 3.5 in the Existing Conditions chap- ter shows the roadways eligible for NHPP funds. ELIGIBILITY AND PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Activities eligible for NHPP funding include: Construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation of roadways on the NHS. Construction, replacement, rehabilitation, preserva- tion and protection of NHS bridges. Projects or part of a program supporting national goals for improving infrastructure condition, safety, mobility, or freight movements on the NHS. Operational improvements and highway safety im- provements are also eligible. Other miscellaneous activities that may qualify for NHPP funding include bikeways and pedestrian walkways, environmental mitigation, restoration and pollution control, infrastructure based intelligent transportation systems, vehicle -to -infrastructure com- munication equipment, traffic and traveler monitoring and control, and construction of intra or inter -city bus terminals serving the NHS. The Transportation Commission establishes priorities for the use of NHPP funds and projects are let through a competitive bidding process. Surface Transportation Block Grant Program Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG) 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), the Surface Transportation Program Urban Highways (STPU), and the Surface Transportation Program — Bridge Program (STPB), as well as set -asides for programs including Transportation Alternatives (TA) and Recreational Trails (RT). The federal share for these projects is 86.58 percent with the state r,ALi�)rtLL AREA i PANS POR-1AI i u N rLAN 217` share typically funded through a Highway State Special Revenue Account (HSSRA). The Montana Transportation Commission establishes priorities for the use of STBG funds and projects are let through a competitive bidding process. PRIMARY HIGHWAY SYSTEM (STPP)' The federal and state funds available under this pro- gram are used to finance transportation projects on the state -designated Primary Highway System. The Primary Highway System includes highways that have been func- tionally classified by MDT and FHWA as either principal or minor arterials and that have been selected by the Montana Transportation Commission to be placed on the primary highway system MCA 60-2-126(b). Allocations and Matching Requirements Primary funds are distributed statewide (MCA 60-3-205) to each of five financial districts. The Commission distrib- utes STPP funding based on system performance. The fed- eral share for this program is 86.58 percent and the State is responsible for the remaining 13.42 percent. The state share is funded through the HSSRA. Eligibility and Planning Considerations STPP funds are eligible for resurfacing, rehabilitating or reconstructing roads and bridges on the Primary System. SECONDARY HIGHWAY SYSTEM (STPS)2 The federal and state funds available under this pro- gram are used to finance transportation projects on the state -designated Secondary Highway System. The Secondary Highway System includes any highway that is not classified as a local route or rural minor collector and that has been selected by the Montana Transportation Commission to be placed on the Secondary Highway System. Funding is distributed by formula and is utilized to resurface, rehabilitate, and reconstruct roadways and bridges on the Secondary System. Allocations and Matching Requirements Secondary funds are distributed statewide (MCA 60-3- 206) to each of five financial districts, based on a formu- la, 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. The federal share for this program is 86.58 per- cent and the State is responsible for the remaining 13.42 percent. Normally, the match on these funds is from the HSSRA. Eligibility and Planning Consideration Eligible activities for the use of Secondary funds fall un- der three major types of improvements: reconstruction, rehabilitation, and pavement preservation in addition to vehicle -to -infrastructure communication equipment. The reconstruction and rehabilitation categories are allocated at 65 percent of the program funds with the remaining 35percent dedicated to pavement preservation. Priorities are identified in consultation with the appropriate local government and approved by the Montana Transportation Commission. URBAN HIGHWAY SYSTEM (STPU)3 The federal and state funds available under this program are used to finance transportation projects on Montana's Urban Highway System (MCA 60-3-21 1). STPU alloca- tions are based on a per capita distribution and are recal- culated each decade following the census. Allocations and Matching Requirements State law guides the allocation of STPU funds to Montana's urban areas (population of 5,000 or greater) through a statutory formula based on each area's population com- pared to the total population in all urban areas. The fed- eral share for this program is 86.58 percent and the State is responsible for the remaining 13.42 percent. The state share is funded through the HSSRA. Table 10.1: Montana's Urban Areas Anaconda Columbia Falls I Helena Miles City Belgrade Kalispell Glendive Missoula Billings Great Falls Laurel Sidney Bozeman Hamilton Lewistown Whitefish Butte Havre Livingston 1 State funding program developed to distribute Federal funding within Montana. 2 State funding program developed to distribute Federal funding within Montana. 3 State funding program developed to distribute Federal funding within Montana. _218 MOVE 2040 Eligibility and Planning Considerations STPU funds are eligible for rehabilitation, resurfacing, reconstruction of existing facilities, operational improve- ments, vehicle -to -infrastructure communication equip- ment, bicycle facilities, pedestrian walkways, carpool projects, and traffic operation projects on the 430 miles of the State -designated Urban Highway System. Priorities for the use of STPU funds are established at the local level through local planning processes with final approval by the Montana Transportation Commission. BRIDGE PROGRAM (STPB) The federal and state funds available under this pro- gram are used to finance bridge projects for on -system and off -system routes in Montana. Title 23 U.S.C. re- quires that a minimum amount (equal to 15 percent of Montana's 2009 Federal Bridge Program apportionment) be set aside for off -system bridge projects. The remainder of the Bridge Program funding is established at the discre- tion of the state. Bridge Program funds are primarily used for bridge rehabilitation or reconstruction activities on Primary, Secondary, Urban, or off -system routes. Projects are identified based on bridge condition and performance metrics. The UPP is a sub -allocation of the larger Surface Transportation Program that provides funding to urban areas with qualifying Pavement Management Systems (as determined jointly by MDT and FHWA). This sub -allocation is approved annually by the Transportation Commission and provides opportunities for pavement preservation work on urban routes (based on system needs identified by the local Pavement Management Systems). SET -ASIDE (PREVIOUSLY "TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES (TA) PROGRAM" UNDER MAP-21) The Set -Aside Program (TA) requires MDT to obligate 50 percent of the funds within the state based on population, using a competitive process, while the other 50 percent may be obligated in any area of the state. Funds may be obligated for projects submitted by: Local governments Transit agencies Natural resource or public land agencies School district, schools, or local education authority Tribal governments Other local government entities with responsibility for recreational trails for eligible use of these funds Eligibility and Planning Considerations Eligible categories include: On -road and off -road trail facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists, including ADA improvements. Historic Preservation and rehabilitation of transporta- tion facilities. Archeological activities relating to impacts for a trans- portation project. Any environmental mitigation activity, including pre- vention and abatement to address highway related stormwater runoff and to reduce vehicle/animal colli- sions including habitat connectivity. Turnouts, overlooks, and viewing areas. Conversion/use of abandoned railroad corridors for trails for non -motorized users. Inventory, control, and removal of outdoor advertising. Vegetation management in transportation right of way for safety, erosion control, and controlling inva- sive species. Construction, maintenance, and restoration of trails and development and rehabilitation of trailside and trailhead facilities. Development and dissemination of publications and operation of trail safety and trail environmental pro- tection programs. Education funds for publications, monitoring, and pa- trol programs and for trail -related training. Planning, design, and construction of projects that will substantially improve the ability of students to walk and bicycle to school. Non -infrastructure -related activities to encourage walking and bicycling to school, including public awareness campaigns, outreach to press and com- munity leaders, traffic education and enforcement near schools, student sessions on bicycle and pedes- trian safety, health, and environment, and funding for training. Competitive Process The State is required to allocate TA funds through a com- petitive process which allows eligible applicants an op- portunity to submit projects for funding. MDT's process emphasizes safety, ADA, relationships to State and com- munity planning efforts, existing community facilities, and project readiness. State funding program developed to distribute Federal funding within Montana. KALISPELL AREA TR National Highway Freight Program ALLOCATIONS AND MATCHING REQUIREMENTS The National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) was cre- ated by the FAST Act to invest in freight projects on the National Highway Freight Network. This program is ap- portioned to states by formula and a state must have had a freight plan in place beginning FY 2018 to receive for- mula funding. Activities eligible for NHFP funding include planning, environmental review, preliminary engineering, design work, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation work and/or operational improvements that directly result in improved system performance — as well as interchange improvements, truck -only lanes, shoulder widening, traf- fic signal optimization, highway ramp metering and road- way capacity projects (that address freight bottlenecks). Generally, the federal share for this program is 91.24 percent and the State is responsible for the remaining 8.76 percent. The State share is typically funded through the HSSRA for projects on state highways and local gov- ernments provide the match for local projects. Highway Safety Improvement Program Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds are apportioned to Montana for safety improvement projects approved by the Commission and are consistent with the strategic highway safety improvement plan. In Montana, the primary focus of the HSIP program involves identifying locations with crash trends (where feasible countermea- sures exist) and prioritizing work according to benefit/ cost ratios. However, MDT also advances systemic im- provements (such as rumble strip projects, curve signing and wrong -way warnings) to address safety issues at the network level. Additionally, a portion of Highway Safety Improvement Program funds are designated to improve safety at railroad crossings via the installation of protective devices or the elimination of hazards. The Commission approves and awards the projects which are let through a competitive bidding process. Generally, the federal share for the HSIP projects is 90 percent and the State is re- sponsible for the remaining 10 percent. Typically, the state share is funded through the HSSRA. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) 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 at- tributed to carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM,o). 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 formula based distribution of CMAQ funds goes to projects in Missoula since it was Montana's only designated and classified air quality non -attainment area. The remaining, non -formula funds, referred to as "flexible CMAQ" are primarily directed to areas of the state with emerging air quality issues through various state programs. The Commission approves and awards all projects on MDT right-of-way. Infrastructure and capital equipment projects are let through a competitive bidding process. The federal share for this program is 86.58 per- cent and the State is responsible for the remaining 13.42 percent. The state share is funded through the HSSRA for projects on state highways and local governments provide the match for local projects. ELIGIBILITY AND PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS In general, eligible activities include transit improvements, ADA upgrades, traffic signal synchronization, bicycle pe- destrian projects, intersection improvements, travel de- mand management strategies, traffic flow improvements, air -quality equipment purchases, vehicle -to -infrastructure communication equipment, 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 the FHWA. CMAQ (Formula) Mandatory CMAQ funds that come to Montana based on a Federal formula are directed to Missoula, Montana's only classified, moderate CO non -attainment area. Projects are prioritized through the Missoula metropolitan planning process. Montana Air and Congestion Initiative —Guaranteed Program (Flexible)' The Montana Air and Congestion Initiative (MACI) — Guaranteed Program is a state program funded with flexible CMAQ funds that the Commission allocates an- nually to Billings and Great Falls to address carbon mon- oxide issues in these designated, but "not classified", CO non -attainment areas. The air quality in these cities is roughly equivalent to Missoula. However, these cities are "not classified" so they do not get direct funding through the federal formula. Projects are prioritized through the respective Billings and Great Falls metropolitan planning processes. 1 220 State funding program developed to distribute Federal funding within Montana. MOVE 2040 Montana Air and Congestion Initiative — 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 MAC I -Discretionary funds to get ahead of the curve for CO and PM, problems in non -at- tainment and high -risk communities across Montana. District administrators and local governments nominate projects cooperatively. Projects are prioritized and select- ed 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. Federal Lands Access Program The Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) was created by the "Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century Act" (MAP-21) to improve access to federal lands and is con- tinued in the FAST Act. FHWA's Western Federal Lands Division administers the program and MDT is an eligible applicant for the funds. The program is directed towards public highways, roads, bridges, trails, and Ttansit systems that are under state, county, town, township, tribal, municipal, or local govern- ment jurisdiction or maintenance and provide access to federal lands. FLAP funds improvements to transportation facilities that provide access to, are adjacent to, or are located within federal lands. The program supplements state and local resources for public roads, transit systems, and other transportation facilities, with an emphasis on high -use recreation sites and economic generators. Program funds are subject to the overall federal -aid ob- ligation limitation. Funds are allocated among the states using a statutory formula based on road mileage, number of bridges, land area, and visitation. ELIGIBILITY AND PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS The following activities are eligible for consideration on federal lands access transportation facilities: Preventive maintenance, rehabilitation, restoration, construction, and reconstruction. Adjacent vehicular parking areas. Acquisition of necessary scenic easements and scenic or historic sites. Provisions for pedestrian and bicycles. Environmental mitigation in or adjacent to Federal land to improve public safety and reduce vehicle -wild- life mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity. Construction and reconstruction of roadside rest ar- eas, including sanitary and water facilities. Operation and maintenance of transit facilities. Proposed projects must be located on a public highway, road, bridge, trail or transit system that is located on, is adjacent to, or provides access to Federal lands for which title or maintenance responsibility is vested in a state, county, town, township, tribal, municipal, or local government. Allocation and Matching Requirements The federal share for this program is 86.58 percent and the State provides match for projects on state highways that address MDT identified infrastructure condition deficiencies; local governments provide the match for off -system projects. The state share is funded through the HSSRA. Funding is authorized and allocated for each state under U.S.C. Title 23, Chapter 2, MAP-21, Division A, Title I, Subtitle A, Section 1 119 distribution formula. Congressionally -Directed or Discretionary Funds Congressionally -directed funds may be received through highway program authorization or annual appropria- tions processes. These funds are generally described as "demonstration" or "earmark" funds. Discretionary funds are typically awarded through a federal applica- tion process or Congressional direction. If a locally -spon- sored project receives these types of funds, MDT will administer the funds in accordance with the Montana Transportation Commission Policy #5 — "Policy resolution regarding Congressionally -directed funding: including Demonstration Projects, High Priority Projects, and Project Earmarks." NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT FREIGHT AND HIGHWAY PROJECTS This program was also established by the FAST Act to create competitive grants or Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loans for proj- ects greater than $100 million. This is a discretionary freight -focused grant program that allows states, metro- politan planning organizations, local governments, tribal governments, special purpose districts, public authorities (including port authorities), and other parties to apply for funding to complete projects that improve safety and hold the greatest promise to eliminate freight bottlenecks and improve critical freight movements. Generally, the federal share for this program is 91.24 percent and the State is responsible for the remaining 8.76 percent. The State pro- vides match for projects on state highways that addresses MDT identified infrastructure condition deficiencies; local State funding program developed to distribute Federal funding within Montana. KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 221_ governments provide the match for off -system projects The state share is typically funded through the HSSRA. Eligible Activities Highway freight projects on the National Highway Freight Network. NHS highway/bridge projects, projects in National Scenic Areas. Freight rail/intermodal/port projects. Rail -highway grade crossings or grade separation projects. Transit Capital & Operating Assistance Funding The MDT Transit Section provides federal and state fund- ing to eligible recipients through federal and state pro- grams. Federal funding is provided through the Section 5310 and Section 5311 transit programs and state fund- ing is provided through the TransADE program. MAP-21 incorporated the JARC and New Freedoms Programs into the Section 5311 and 5310 programs, respectively. It also created a new bus and bus facilities discretionary formula program (Section 5339) for fixed route bus operators. 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 pro- cess that includes representatives of public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human service providers and participation from the public. BUS AND BUS FACILITIES SECTION 5339) This program provides capital funding to replace, reha- bilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus -related facilities. Federal funds pay 80 percent of capital costs. The remaining 20 percent must come from the local recipient. Funds are eligible to be transferred by the state to supplement urban and rural formula grant programs (5307 and 5311, respectively). ENHANCED MOBILITY OF SENIORS AND INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES SECTION 5310) Section 5310 authorizes capital grants to eligible or- ganizations to assist in providing transportation for the elderly and/or persons with disabilities. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds 80 percent of all costs for equipment, with 20 percent match provided by the lo- cal recipient. Eligible recipients for this program are pri- vate, nonprofit organizations; public bodies approved by the State to coordinate services for elderly persons; and persons with disabilities; or public bodies which certify to the Governor that no nonprofit organization is readily available in a service area to provide this transportation service. Ten percent of the state's Section 5310 apportion- ment can be used to administer the program, to plan, and to provide technical assistance. FORMULA GRANTS FOR RURAL AREAS SECTION 5311) This program enhances the access of people in non -ur- banized areas by providing public transportation. Federal funds pay 86.58 percent of capital costs and 54.11 per- cent of deficit operating costs, 80 percent of adminis- trative costs, and 80 percent of maintenance costs. The remaining 13.42, 45.89, 20, and 20 percent respectively must come from the local recipient. Eligible recipients of these funds can be a state agency, a local public body, a nonprofit agency, or an operator of public transportation services. Ten percent of the state's Section 5311 appor- tionment is dedicated to carry out a program to develop and support intercity bus transportation. _222 MOVE 2040 STATE FUNDING SOURCES State Funds for Transit Subsidies Rail/Loan Funds ADMINISTRATION AND MATCHING REQUIREMENTS The Montana Rail Freight Loan Program (MRFL) is a revolv- ing loan fund administered by the Montana Department of Transportation to encourage projects for construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of railroads and related facilities in the state and implements MCA 60-1 1-1 13 to MCA 60-1 1-1 15. Loans are targeted to rehabilitation and improvement of railroads and their attendant facilities, including sidings, yards, buildings, and intermodal facil- ities. Rehabilitation and improvement assistance projects require a 30 percent loan -to -value match. Facility con- struction assistance projects require a 50 percent match. ELIGIBILITY AND PLANNING CONSIDERATION Eligible applicants for loans under the program include railroads, cities, counties, companies, and regional rail authorities. Port authorities may also qualify, provided they have been included in the state transportation plan- ning process. Projects must be integrally related to the railroad transportation system in the state and demon- strate that they will preserve and enhance cost-effective rail service to Montana communities and businesses. 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 stat- ute. State funds pay 54.11 percent of deficit operating costs, 80 percent of administrative costs, and 80 percent of maintenance costs. The remaining 45.89, 20, and 20 percent respectively must come from the local recipient. Applicants are also eligible to use this funding as match for the federal transit grant programs. ELIGIBILITY AND PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Eligible recipients of this funding are counties, incorporat- ed cities and towns, transportation districts, or non-profit organizations. Applications are due to the MDT Transit Section by the first working day of March 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. The 46th Montana Legislature amended Section 7-14- 102 MCA providing funds to offset up to 50 percent of the expenditures of a municipality or urban transportation district for public transportation. The allocation to oper- ators of transit systems is based on the ratio of its local support for public transportation to the total financial sup- port for all general purpose transportation systems in the State. Local support is defined as: LOCAL SUPPORT = Expenditure for public transportation operations Mill value of City or urban transportation district State Fuel Tax Allocations The State of Montana assesses a tax on each gallon of gasoline and clear diesel fuel sold in the state and used for transportation purposes. According to State law, each incorporated city and town within the State receives an allocation of the total tax funds based upon: 1. the ratio of the population within each city and town to the total population in all cities and towns in the State, and 2. the ratio of the street mileage within each city and town to the total street mileage in all incorporated cities and towns in the State. (The street mileage is exclusive of the Federal -Aid Interstate and Primary Systems.) State law also establishes that each county be allocated a percentage of the total tax funds based upon: 1. the ratio of the rural population of each county to the total rural population in the state, excluding the population of all incorporated cities or towns within the county and State; 2. the ratio of the rural road mileage in each coun- ty to the total rural road mileage in the State, less the certified mileage of all cities or towns within the county and State; and 3. the ratio of the land area in each county to the total land area of the State. Effective July 1, 2017, HB473, the Bridge and Road Safety and Accountability Act (BaRSAA) incrementally increases Montana's fuel tax rate for gasoline and for special fuel. HB473 directs the fuel tax rate increase each biennium, until 2023, at the following increments as shown in Table 10.2. KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 223_ Table 10.2: BaRSAA Increases SUMMARY OF MOVE 2040 FUNDING July 1, 2017 0.315 0.2925 July 1, 2019 0.32 0.2945 July 1, 2021 0.325 0.2955 July 1, 2023 0.33 0.2975 A portion of the revenue generated by the increase will be allocated to local governments in addition to the existing fuel tax distributions provided for in MCA 15-70-101 and 7-14-102(2). BaRSAA funds are allocated in the same proportion and using the same ratios provided for in MCA 15-70-101 (2)(b), (2)(c), and (3). Allocations are calculat- ed based upon the statutory formula. Local governments can use BaRSAA funds for the con- struction, reconstruction, maintenance, and repair of ru- ral roads or city streets and alleys the local government has the responsibility to maintain which does not include the purchase of capital equipment. Funds may also be used to match federal funds used for the construction of roads and streets that are part of the national, primary, secondary or urban highway systems; or road and streets a local government has the responsibility to maintain. Beginning March 1, 2018, local governments have been able to request distribution of their allocation from MDT. Local governments must match each $20 requested for distribution with at least $1 of local government budgeted matching funds. Local governments can request distribu- tions of allocated funds between March 1 and November 1 of the calendar year the funds were allocated. Reservation requests can be made between September 1 st and November 1 st. For State Fiscal Year 2020, the City of Kalispell will re- ceive $390,204. 41 and Flathead County will receive $ 484,914.69 from MCA 15-70-101 and $ 5,767.30 from MCA 7-14-102(2) for a total of $ 490, 681.99 in State fuel tax funds. The amount varies annually. For calendar year 2020, the City of Kalispell will be allocated $445,646.47 and Flathead County will be allocated $ 553,813.64 in BaRSAA funds. Priorities for the use of these funds are established by each jurisdiction. As discussed in Chapter 7, Move 2040-identified TSM and MSN recommendations exceeding $200 million of road- way costs. Expenditures will far outstrip revenues over the 20-year planning horizon. Assuming only federal, state and lo- cal funds available to the City of Kalispell and Flathead County, more than 70 percent of transportation needs identified in this plan remain unfunded. MDT's asset management -based funding approach will account for some portion of system needs identified in this plan. _224 MOVE 2040 • AW il • U • v ..-- -MA.Y- .. INTRODUCTION The Policy Plan element of Move 2040 provides the City of Kalispell policy guidance to support development of the transportation system. The Plan encompasses the pri- orities and policy direction established within other local plans, and leverages collaboration with stakeholders and agency partners to set forth a vision for mobility, accessi- bility, and connectivity that will serve the community for decades to come. The Transportation Policy Plan covers several policy areas that will support the economic success and vibrancy of the Kalispell Urban Area. The policy areas included in the Plan are summarized below: Downtown -Highway 93 Main Street: Discusses the redevelopment of Kalispell's downtown with a focus on the U.S. Highway 93/Main Street corridor. Future Functional Class Map: Presents and discuss- es Kalispell's future functional class map. Typical Street Cross Sections: Presents street cross section concepts for principal and minor arterials, major and minor collectors, and local roads. Access Management: Provides an overview of ac- cess management and discusses best practices to op- erate an effective access management program. Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Guidelines: Discusses standards for the requirement, format, and content of a TIS. Traffic Calming: Presents a sample toolbox of traffic calming techniques, and discusses their appropriate- ness for different road types. Overview of Roundabouts: Presents an overview of best practices for roundabouts, including types of roundabouts, their warrants, and a comparison with other traffic control devices. ITS: Provides an overview of ITS and presents several solutions for consideration within the Kalispell area. Figure 11.1: View of Downtown Kalispell in 1940 DOWNTOWN - HIGHWAY 93/MAIN STREET The redevelopment of Kalispell's downtown is part of the City's vision to promote economic development, improve employment opportunities, improve housing opportuni- ties, and expand the community's tax base. The down- town is an important tourism destination for the City and greater Flathead Valley, and is a home to residents, busi- nesses, banks and local government offices. In addition to the economic benefits of the downtown, it is the City's epicenter of arts, culture and historic conservation. While the downtown remains a centerpiece of the com- munity, it has changed from the bustling, pedestrian friendly destination that it was mid-century (Figure 11.1). High traffic volumes, commercial truck use, vehicle speed, and a lack of pedestrian facilities are some of the primary factors that have changed the historic character of Main Street and the downtown area. Downtown Kalispell at present is shown in jure 11.2. It will be important for the City to balance local desires and its vision for Highway 93/Main Street with the expec- tations for the corridor as a part of the NHS. As part of the NHS, MDT will be focused on maximizing vehicular mobil- ity and reducing congestion on Highway 93/Main Street. The City and MDT should work collaboratively on future discussions and studies involving multi -modal mobility of Highway 93/Main Street. The City understands that restoring the character of Main Street is essential to the revitalization of the histor- ic downtown. To emphasize the importance of the U.S. Highway 93/Main Street corridor, the City has provided policy recommendations in several of its planning docu- ments, including the Downtown Plan (2017), the Urban Renewal Plan (2018), and Growth Policy Plan (Plan -It 2035) (2017). These policy recommendations are sum- marized in the following sections. Figure 11.2: View of Downtown Kalispell Today KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 227_ DOWNTOWN PLAN The Downtown Plan puts forth a vision for reviving the historic character of Kalispell's downtown and reinforcing its identity as the heart of the community. One of the most important factors for this vision is the U.S. Highway 93/ Main Street corridor, which the plan looks to reclaim as a pedestrian -scale hub of tourism, shopping, jobs, civic and cultural activity. However, public feedback has indi- cated several challenges to achieving this vision, includ- ing high traffic volumes and commercial truck use, vehicle speeds, and the associated noise and dust from traffic on Main Street. While U.S. Highway 93 was designed and is managed as a 4-lane thoroughfare, the community of Kalispell aspires to reclaim this corridor as "Main Street", the social and economic hub of the City. The Downtown Plan highlights several challenges associated with the current design of the U.S. Highway 93/Main Street corri- dor. The challenges are summarized below: >: Four wide (12-foot) travel lanes: This design fea- ture emphasizes vehicle speed and volume over local commerce. Narrow parallel parking lanes: The two parallel parking lanes provide minimal parking and are dif- ficult to access because of the speed and volume of adjacent traffic. Narrow sidewalks: The narrow sidewalks provide minimal space for street lighting, trees, pedestrian amenities such as benches, and pedestrian traffic. No left turns: The lack of left turns throughout the corridor is discouraging to drivers seeking local access to downtown storefronts. Lengthy pedestrian crossings: Long crossing dis- tances force pedestrians to walk the full width of Main Street, exposing them to six lanes of traffic. The Plan presents several strategies to meet these chal- lenges and realize its vision for Downtown. The strategies are summarized as follows: STRATEGIES: Widen sidewalks to 16 feet: Widen sidewalks by six feet to create opportunities for outdoor eating ar- eas and merchant displays, space for trees/landscape features, and space for pedestrian amenities. Provide intersection corner bump -outs: Provide bump -outs to make pedestrian street crossings safer. Reduce travel lanes to two: Reduce travel lanes to one lane in each direction in order to decrease vehi- cle speeds and discourage freight use. Incorporate a center turn lane: Incorporate a two- way left -turn lane to increase traffic flow and allow for access to storefronts along Main Street. Widen parallel parking isles: Widen parking lanes to better separate pedestrians from traffic and facili- tate parking. Install pedestrian -scaled lighting: Add appropri- ate lighting to convey simplicity, safety, and charm to visitors. URBAN RENEWAL PLAN One of the primary goals of the Urban Renewal Plan is the creation of a downtown tax increment district (TID) to help fund the implementation of the Downtown Plan. To establish a TID, the state requires that a determination of blight be made. The Urban Renewal Plan satisfies this re- quirement by highlighting the blighted conditions within the downtown area as presented in the Downtown Plan. The Urban Renewal Plan reinforces the importance of the U.S. Highway 93/Main Street corridor by restating the challenges presented in the Downtown Plan. The Urban Renewal Plan presents these challenges in the context of blight, which supports the determination of blight neces- sary for the establishment of a downtown TID. Like the Downtown Plan, the Urban Renewal Plan cites among the corridor's principal challenges a roadway de- sign that encourages high speeds and freight traffic, long pedestrian crossing distances and a lack of multimocial facilities, and impediments to local traffic circulation. The Urban Renewal Plan also puts forth the core redesign rec- ommendations presented in the Downtown Plan, includ- ing the addition of a center left -turn lane, widening of sidewalks, addition of bump -outs, addition of landscap- ing and trees, and pedestrian -scale lighting. GROWTH POLICY PLAN (PLAID 2035 The Growth Policy Plan recognizes the historic downtown as central to Kalispell's growth framework due to its role as an economic hub and tourist destination, as well as the community's epicenter of arts, culture and historic conservation. The Growth Policy Plan identifies a series of issues affecting the downtown at present; the first issue listed emphasizes the conditions of the U.S. Highway 93/ Main Street corridor: "Excessive through vehicular and truck traffic in the downtown and core area detracts from the preservation and maintenance of the historical and cultural character and undermines pedestrian and bicycle safety and access." The Plan addresses this issue by encouraging the design of urban streets to provide for convenient circulation, safe _ 228 m u v t pedestrian and bicycle access, and to avoid excessive road width. Further, the Plan establishes a goal that commer- cial truck through traffic be diverted from the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods to a more appropriate route. rUTUk DEMAND DOWNTOWN A series of areawide TDM runs were evaluated during the Alternatives Analysis phase of Move 2040. Outputs from the analysis allowed for the comparison of various system -wide improvements related to both Highway 93A and Highway 93/Main Street. The analysis clarified the effects of various investments on both regionally and na- tionally significant corridors. Two potential improvements are of particular importance to the downtown —completion of U.S. Highway 93A and a lane reduction on a portion of the Highway 93/ Main Street corridor. Four alternatives explored the effects of these improvements: Alternative 1: Completed Highway 93A corridor. Alternative 2: Reduction in capacity on Highway 93/ Main Street from 7th Street to W Center Street from four lanes to three lanes. Alternative 2A: Combination of Alternative 1 and 2, a completed Highway 93A and reduced capacity on Highway 93/Main Street. Alternative 10: A combination of several anticipat- ed improvements understood to serve the intent of a best -fit set of future improvements. Through a series of model runs it was possible to observe how the Highway 93/Main Street corridor may function with different system improvements. Key takeaways from the analysis are summarized below and ble 11.1 com- pares model outputs for these alternatives along Highway 93/Main Street/Highway 93 S and U.S. Highway 93A. Completion of U.S. Highway 93A (Alternative 1) re- duces traffic volumes by as much as 18 percent from south of the Courthouse Couplet through 2nd Street. Completion of U.S. Highway 93A will continue to at- tract additional travel demand. The reduction in capacity on Highway 93/Main Street (Alternative 2) does not increase travel demand on U.S. Highway 93A. The combination of a lane reduction on Highway 93/Main Street and completion of U.S. Highway 93A (Alternative 2A) reduces travel demand on the Highway 93/Main Street corridor by nearly 30 per- cent. LOS remains E or worse on segments modeled with reduced capacity. Alternative 10 results in LOS E along Highway 93/ Main Street just south of the Courthouse Couplet and LOS D through from 8th Street to West Center. Additional detailed corridor -level analysis is recommend- ed to fully understand the specific viability of Highway 93/ Main Street with less than current capacity. Future anal- ysis needs to consider more detailed operational factors, issues related to the NHS and involve intimate coordina- tion with MDT. A detailed presentation of the Alternatives Analysis can be found in Chapter E iE �iilir� � KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 229_ Table 11.1: Comparison of 2040 TDM Alternatives for U.S. Highway 93 and U.S. Highway 93A Corridor From TO -0 ADT VIC ADT. . Ashley Meadows Hwy 93A 34,800 1.08 34,800 1.08 34,800 1.08 34,800 1.08 35,100 1.09 Hwy 93A Cemetary Road 24,000 0.75 19,500 0.61 23,900 0.74 19,100 0.59 17,600 0.55 Cemetary Road 13th Street 20,400 0.72 16,100 0.57 20,200 0.71 15,500 0.55 12,500 0.44 IOth Street 21,700 1.60 17,600 1.30 18,800 1.39 15,700 1.17 13,000 0.96 l lth Street 8th Street 7th Street 20,100 1.49 16,300 1.21 17,300 1.28 14,600 1.08 12,100 0.89 4th Street 3rd Street 19,800 0.73 16,200 0.60 16,700 1.13 14,300 0.96 12,000 0.81 Montana Idah�)(Hwy 22,700 0.84 20,700 0.77 21,900 0.81 20,200 0.75 17,900 0.66 Hwy 93 Airport Road 15,100 0.99 17,900 0.58 15,200 0.99 18,300 0.60 20,900 0.68 Airport Road Foys Lake 19,300 0.63 24,600 122,200 0.80 19,400 0.63 25,000 122,500 0.82 28,700 0.94 Hwy 2 20,400 0.67 0.73 20,400 0.66 0.74 29,100 0.95 Foys Lake Hwy 2 Three Mile 27,600 0.77 29,300 0.81 27,800 0.77 29,900 0.83 35,100 0.98 Drive Three Mile Four Mile 24,000 0.67 25,800 0.72 24,200 0.67 26,400 0.73 33,600 0.93 Drive Drive Four Mile Old Reserve 21,400 0.59 22,900 0.64 21,600 0.60 23,400 0.65 25,700 0.71 Drive Old Hwy 93 120,300 Reserve 0.56 21,500 0.60 20,400 0.57 22,300 0.62 25,000 0.69 _230 MOVE 2040 RECOMMENDED FUNCTIONAL CLASS MAP The project team worked with the City to create a rec- ommended functional classification map. To develop the map, the team evaluated the existing functional clas- sification system within the study area against FHWA guidelines for recommended percentages for each func- tionally classified roadway. These ranges are based on FHWA best practices for urban areas based on the 2013 Highway Functional Classification Concepts, Criteria and Procedures manual. As discussed in Chapter 3, the City of Kalispell will default from its locally approved functional class system to a functional class map based on FHWA criteria, as used by MDT. The new map, based on FHWA criteria, was used for this evaluation. The project team's assessment revealed the following for the existing system: Too few minor arterial and minor collector roadways. Excess number of roadways classified as local. The City's recommended functional classification map ad- dresses these issues in order to bring the roadway system into alignment with FHWA best practices. Table 11.2 shows total mileage by functional classification for the existing and recommended functional classification maps, and provides a comparison with FHWA best practices. The city's recommended functional classification map is shown in Figure 11.3 and Figure 11.4. For an existing built roadway, the recommended functional class map shows the recommended function of the roadway such that it meets both existing and projected demand. These designations should be used in cooperation with MDT to assist with the next functional class map update for the Kalispell Urban Area. These designations should guide future roadway investments in terms of access and typical section standards. For roadways not yet constructed or currently not yet ur- banized (i.e., paved or gravel rural standard roadways) the recommended functional class map shows a proposed functional class standard to which that roadway should be built as it is improved. This is particularly important for roadways in growth areas which have not yet been urbanized to support access management and right-of- way preservation. Table 11.2: Total Mileage by Functional Classification — Existing and Recommended Functional Classification Maps Functional Class Name Principal Arterial FHWA Recommendation 4% to 9% Miles 33.8 Existing FC % of Total 6.5% Map Within Range Yes Recommended Miles % of Total 35.6 6.4% FC Map Within Range Yes Minor Arterial 7% to 14% 27.3 5.3% -8.95 miles 58.7 10.5% Yes Major Collector 3% to 16% 28.2 5.4% Yes 59.4 10.6% Yes Minor Collector 3% to 16% 10 1.9% -26.24 miles 37.3 6.7% Yes Local 62% to 74% 419 80.8% +35.33 miles 367.4 65.8% Yes Total 518.5 100% 1 558.4 1 100% KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 231_ Figure 11.3: Recommended City of Kalispell Functional Classification Map Legend Study Area - - Minor Arterial (Proposed) A Evergreen Major Collector Kalispell Transportation = Kalispell - Major Collector (Proposed) Area Plan Future Functional Class —Minor Collector • - Minor Collector (Proposed) "`� Principal Arterial fo Local 0 0.5 1 Minor Arterial � Miles _232 MOvt 2040 Figure 11.4: Recommended City of Kalispell Functional Classification Map (Inset) 1 rOLIR MILE DR 1 1 3 I jL y 1 093 � 1 1 1 1 1 PENN *--.. Tv�*A r o LIM i U i Legend Study Area — — Minor Arterial (Proposed) r��]] =Evergreen Major Collector Kalispell ■ •Transportation =Kalispell Major Collector (Proposed) Area Plan Future Functional Class Minor Collector Principal Arterial Minor Collector (Proposed)` Local 0 0.5 1 Minor Arterial Mlles KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 233_ TYPICAL STREET CROSS SECTIONS To support the Functional Classification Map, planning level roadway cross sections are presented below for Kalispell. The concepts presented here are intended to be illustrative and aspirational, and do not constitute approved or com- pulsory standards. Typical cross sections concepts are provided for the following functional classifications: PRINCIPAL AND MINOR ARTERIALS MAJOR AND MINOR COLLECTORS LOCAL STREETS PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL The principal arterial cross section is presented as a five - lane divided facility with the following characteristics: Figure 11.5: Principal Arterial Cross Section !dI Vff! INN nk�� Mal Potential streetscape elements for the principal arterial concept include a shared -use path, benches and other pedes- trian amenities, street trees, and bike racks. A dedicated bicycle/pedestrian facility (rather than on -street bike lanes) is proposed due to the high vehicle speeds and volumes on this road type. MINOR ARTERIAL The minor arterial cross section is presented as a three - lane undivided facility with the following characteristics: No ME WN R ■ Wra Figure 11.6: Minor Arterial Cross Section ■■ ■ ■■ ME = s� fi n � 1R 1� Ir �► Made with Streetmix _234 MOVE 2040 Potential streetscape elements for the minor arterial concept include a shared -use path, benches and other pedestrian amenities, street trees, and bike racks. A dedicated bicycle/pedestrian facility (rather than bike lanes) is proposed due to the high vehicle speeds and volumes on this road type. MAJOR CO The major collector cross section is presented as a three - lane facility with the following characteristics: :NMI Figure 11.7. Major Collector Cross Section �I withStreetmix Potential streetscape elements for the major collector concept include protected bike lanes, benches and other pedestri- an amenities, street trees, and bike racks. A dedicated bicycle/pedestrian facility is proposed, as well as striped on -street bike lanes. The major collector concept could also be designed to incorporate a parking lane on one side of the street by removing the two-way center left -turn lane and on -street bike lanes. MINOR CC The minor collector cross section is presented with two travel lanes and a parking lane: Figure 11.8: Minor Collector Cross Section KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 235_ Potential streetscape elements for the minor collector concept include sharrows within the travel lanes, benches and other pedestrian amenities, street trees, and bike racks. While the major collector concept (above) does not leave room for a parking lane due to the inclusion of a center turn lane, the minor collector provides a 10-foot parking lane on one side of the street. LOCAL ROAD .0 • • . _ The local road cross section is presented with two travel - - 7' • - ' lanes and a parking lane:lane Figure 11.9: Local Road Cross Section 1. Made with wi w Potential streetscape elements for the local road concept include benches and other pedestrian amenities, street trees, and bike racks. _236 MOVE 2040 ACCESS MANAGEMENT Figure 11.10: Access and Mobility According to MDT, access management is a "strategy for managing the type of development along and physical connections to transportation corridors by regulating the frequency or location of access points along roadways".' While access points, such as intersections, pedestrian crossings, and driveways, are essential in allowing users to reach their destinations, poorly designed access man- agement can increase the risk of crashes among vehicles and other roadway users. Access management addresses the classic trade-off be- tween corridor -wide throughput (or "mobility") and local accessibility (Figure 11.10). At one extreme, no minor street conflicts exist on a corridor and traffic flows freely, with influences on function limited to density, weather, and integrity of the roadway. When minor -street conflicts are introduced, the mainline flow is affected by the result- ing combination of slowing, turning, merging, entering, and stopped vehicles. Inadequate access management may result in growing corridors that deteriorate function- ally and aesthetically. The characteristics of good and poor access management are compared in T7ble 1 1 .3. ACCESS MANAGEMENT BEST PRACTICEf Each access point along a facility creates opportunities for conflict between turning vehicles and through traffic. Access management seeks to limit the number, spacing, and location of vehicle -to -vehicle conflict points, reduce the speed differentials between turning vehicles and through traffic, and require proof of necessity for access from developers. Principal Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Local Street There are six basic principles of access management that are used to achieve the desired outcome of safer and more efficient roadways: 1 . Limit the number of conflict points 2. Separate the different conflict points 3. Separate turning vehicles from through traffic 4. Locate traffic signals to facilitate traffic movement 5. Maintain a hierarchy of roadways by function 6. Limit direct access on higher speed roads Access management encompasses a set of techniques that local governments can use to control access to highways, major arterials, and other roadways. The following rep- resents a "toolbox" of access management best practices that can be used to preserve roadway capacity, improve safety, and plan for future growth. Table 11.3: Characteristics of Good and Poor Access Management Reduced congestion and better overall traffic flow i » Poor capacity throughput » Lower potential for crashes due to fewer opportunities for vehicle conflicts with other vehicles, with pedestrians and with bicyclists Decreased travel times for commuters, truck drivers, and others Easier movement between properties, increasing the attractiveness of adjacent neighborhoods Preservation of public investment in transportation infrastructure Better control over the intended character of a corridor and its adjacent neighborhoods Increases in crashes and crash rates Reduced roadway efficiency Decreased property values and less livable neighborhoods Waste of public funds resulting from disrupted traffic movement (public not "getting what they paid for" in terms of the intended function of a roadway) Potential for unsightly strip development Potential for unwanted neighborhood cut-thru traffic Less desirable corridor user experience; "chilling effect" on new investment Please see: https://www.mdt.mt.gov/research/toolkit/m 1 /pptools/ds/am.shtml KALISPELL AREA i RANSPORTATION PLAN 237_ Access Denial, Removal, or Relocation Property Access Restriction A city may control the number of conflict points by de- nying, removing, relocating, and consolidating access points. If proof of necessity cannot be adequately demon- strated for a proposed access onto a major roadway, then the access permit request may be denied and alternate means of access explored. A TIS may be required before a new access is permit- ted. The purpose of a TIS is to evaluate the effects of a proposed development on the surrounding transportation network. The TIS assesses the ability of the intended land use traffic to efficiently and safely enter/exit the site. The TIS makes recommendations for any mitigation measures needed to accommodate the additional traffic volumes resulting from the proposed entrances. TISs are discussed in detail under the "Traffic Impact Study" section. Access Spacing Standards Access spacing standards establish the minimum dis- tance between access points with the intent of separating potential conflict points involving turning vehicles and through -moving vehicles. Access spacing standards gov- ern the distance between driveways, between unsignalized intersections, and between intersections and the nearest driveway. Access spacing standards will vary based on the functional classification of the adjacent roadway, the de- sired land use, and the type of access. An indirect method to reinforce the minimum access spacing requirements is to require an increased minimum lot frontage on major roadways for all new development. Frontage Roads Frontage roads can reduce the frequency of conflicts along the main travel lanes of high -volume roadways. Direct ac- cess to adjoining property is provided from the frontage road and is restricted or prohibited from the main road- way. The restricted access along the main roadway allows for fewer access points with increased spacing. Median Alternatives Medians can be used to create space between access points, restrict some turning movements at access points, and facilitate auxiliary lanes for turning vehicles. For ex- ample, use of a non -traversable median is an effective way to limit disruptive left -turn movements into and out of access points to only those spots designed for turning vehicles. All other mid -block access points would be re- stricted to right -turn only movements, reducing danger- ous cross -traffic movements. The regulation of access location can be accomplished by restricting each parcel to a specific number of access points, typically one. If a parcel is further subdivided, the new lots would have to share the single permitted access point. Denying major roadway access would force devel- opments to provide internal lot access and utilize minor street networks or other pre -approved access roads. This technique encourages a connected street system with residential access served by low -volume neighborhood streets rather than major arterials or collectors. Turn Lanes Turn lanes can serve as an effective access manage- ment technique as they separate through traffic from vehicles slowing and turning. Separating traffic turning from through traffic reduces the speed differentials that increase the risk of crashes and increase delay, thereby improving safety and increasing capacity. Turn lanes are often incorporated as a separate lane or traversable me- dian, such as a two-way left -turn lane, or are included as turning bays within non -traversable medians. Traffic Signal Spacing Signalized intersections should be spaced uniformly to maintain optimal signal timing and progression. The in- stallation of traffic signals can assist access management by establishing the location and spacing of major access points. The signalized access points allow for protected movements to and from these accesses. Signal design and timing operation often incorporate access manage- ment techniques involving turn lanes and medians to ef- ficiently remove potential conflicts between turning and through traffic. Corridor Preservation Measures Corridor preservation is the process of preventing or min- imizing development along a defined transportation cor- ridor through the use of building setback standards and local guidelines. These measures are intended to address potential future land development and transportation im- provements along the corridor, which may include addi- tional vehicle travel lanes, bikeways, multi -use trails, high occupancy vehicle lanes, and fixed -rail lines, etc. Corridor preservation measures ensure that new developments along planned transportation corridors are designed to accommodate future transportation facilities. State, regional, and local governments across the country use access management programs to preserve the func- tionality of their roadway systems. This is often done by designating an appropriate level of access control for each of a variety of facilities. For example, local r238 MOVE 2 residential roads are allowed full access, while major highways and freeways allow very little. Between these classifications are a series of road types that require stan- dards to help ensure the free flow of traffic and minimize crashes, while still allowing access to major businesses and other land uses along a road. For roadways on the State system and under the juris- diction of MDT, MDT develops an access control plan de- fining minimum access point spacing, access geometrics, etc. For other roadways, the adoption of an access clas- sification system based upon the functional classification of the roadway is recommended. These local regulations should serve to govern minimum spacing of driveway ap- proaches/connections and median openings along a giv- en roadway in an effort to fit the roadway into the context of the adjacent land uses and the overall roadway system. bAMPLE GUIDELINES Lsy ruNuIUNAL CLASSIFICATION While the development of specific access and spacing guidelines is beyond the scope of Move 2040, the project team compiled a set of sample standards by roadway type to aid the City as it considers improvements to its existing access management program. The sample standards are based upon peer research, and represent the approach used by various small (<50,000) cities within the Midwest. It is important to note that, while the sample guidelines provide a valuable point of reference, an effective ac- cess management program must be tailored to consider a roadway's specific context and reflect the community's unique transportation and land use goals. .ble 11.4 provides sample guidelines for minimum ac- cess spacing by roadway functional classification. Note: When determining minimum spacing for one in- tersection with respect to another intersection of a differ- ent access roadway functional classification, it is recom- mended that the minimum spacing corresponding to the lower -tier functional classification intersection be used. 14 ILLOSER LOOK: LOUR MI► The project team used the sample access management standards to conduct a preliminary assessment of a sam- ple corridor: Four Mile Drive from Farm to Market Road to U.S. Highway 93. The assessment considered the corridor under 2040 "build" conditions, with roadway classifica- tions reflecting those defined in the Move 2040 future functional classification map. Alternative 10 ( ) was used to evaluate traffic volumes along the corridor. The corridor is shown in figure 1 1.1 1. Table 11.4: Access Spacing Guidelines Private ' Residential No direct access No direct access No direct access No direct access As required Driveways f Based on: Speed, Commercial Driveways No direct access No direct access 1/8 mile (660') 1/8 mile (660') Traffic Volume, Sight Distances, etc. (min. 100 ft.) Non -Continuous' Local Roads No direct access No direct access 1/8 mile (660') 1/4 mile (1,320') 1/4 mile (1,320') 1/8 mile (660') 1/8 mile (660') 1/8 mile (660') 1/8 mile (660') 1/8 mile (660') 1/8 mile (660') (150') (150') 1/8 mile (660') Continuous Local Roads Collector Streets 1/2 mile (2,640') Minor Arterials 1 mile (5,280') 1/2 mile (2,640') 1/4 mile (1,320') 1/4 mile (1,320') 1/4 mile (1,320') Minimum 100' for Spacing Between commercial Intersection N/A N/A 330' 330' driveways; 35' and Nearest for residential Driveway2 driveways 1 "Non -continuous" roads refer to cul-de-sacs or short length streets, typically less than one-half mile in length, which do not cross the roadway providing access (three-legged intersections). 2 See: Access Management Guidelines for the Urbanized Area (https://ccrpc.org/wp-content/upIoads/2015/03 access-manage ment-2013-04-17-final.pdf) KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 239_ Figure 11.11: Four Mile Corridor from Farm to Market Road to U.S. Highway 93 Figure 11.12: Four Mile Drive Corridor from Farm to Market Road to U.S. Highway 93 _240 MOVE 2040 Context The future functional classification map defines Four Mile Drive from Farm to Market Road to U.S. Highway 93 as a minor arterial, and conversion of the corridor to a three -lane facility is designated as a high -priority proj- ect within Move 2040. While the corridor does not ex- perience congestion at present, sections of the corridor become congested when analyzed under 2040 "build" conditions. Under these conditions, annual average daily traffic (AADT) ranges from 13,400 at the center of the corridor to 10,500 on the east, with volume -to -capacity ratios ranging from 1.35 west of U.S. Highway 93A to .79 east of the highway. Speed limits along the roadway will be increased to 35 by 2040. The corridor under 2040 "build" traffic conditions is shown in , 1 1.12. The corridor is surrounded by agricultural land uses to the west of Stillwater Road, with rural resi- dential properties located at the northwest and southeast quadrants of the Four Mile Drive -Stillwater Road intersec- tion, respectively (these properties do not have driveway access to Four Mile Drive). To the east of Stillwater Road, density increases gradually, with several subdivisions, athletic fields, and office land uses concentrated between Northland Drive and U.S. Highway 93. Existing and Approved Access Two new intersections along the corridor west of Stillwater Road were approved in late 2020. These access points will be extensions of interior roads serving the 430 Stillwater Road subdivision abutting the Four Mile Drive to the north. No additional access points are located on the corridor west of Stillwater Road. The two rural residential properties located at the Four Mile Drive -Stillwater Road intersection do not have di- rect access to Four Mile Drive, but instead have drive- ways connecting to Stillwater Road north and south of the intersection. U.S. Highway 93A is located to the east of the intersec- tion. Immediately east of this, two new intersections have been approved to serve the Bloomstone subdivision. The new intersections include Treeline Road (a future minor collector) and Foxglove Drive (a future local road). From the Foxglove Drive intersection east, both private and public access points become frequent and closely spaced, with access points concentrated between Northland Drive and U.S. Highway 93. ASSESSMENT Public and private access points are closely spaced along the corridor, increasing the potential for conflicts between turning vehicles and through -moving vehicles. New intersections have been approved within a close distance of existing intersections. The safety and efficiency issues caused by frequent access points will likely become more apparent as the corridor approaches its forecast 2040 traffic conditions. Finally, the future conversion of Four Mile Drive to a three -lane facility may be complicated by the high costs of acquiring right-of-way that has been de- veloped by abutting developments. West of Stillwater Roaa Two new intersections (the westernmost a non -continuous local road connection; the easternmost a major collector connection) have been approved to the west of Stillwater Road to provide access to the 430 Stillwater Road subdi- vision. The subdivision will be located immediately north- west of the Four Mile Drive -Stillwater Road intersection. The new intersections are located 1,050 ft. from one an- other, and the easternmost intersection is located roughly 580 ft. to the west of the Four Mile Drive -Stillwater Road intersection. While the two new intersections are spaced sufficiently from one another (the minimum recommended distance for a non -continuous local road on a minor arterial is 660 ft.), the easternmost intersection is far too close to the Four Mile Drive -Stillwater Road intersection (collector ac- cess on a minor arterial should be located a minimum of 1,320 from a minor arterial (Stillwater Road). Existing Access ■ Approved Access Corridor a�0i pan �� Roaa Aft ' ■ ' 1� The easternmost approved 430 Stillwater Road subdivision access is 580 ft. from Stillwater Road. The recommended spacing is 1,320 ft. iOLS Stillwater Road to Northland Drive The U.S. Highway 93A mainline is located 760 ft. east of the Four Mile Drive -Stillwater Road intersection. Further east, two new intersections have been approved for the Bloomstone subdivision, one to be located 670 ft. from KALIJYtLL AKtA iPANS PUKIAIIuN PLAN 2411 U.S. Highway 93A (Treeline Road) and the other to be lo- cated approximately 930 ft. east of the first (Foxglove Drive). The Foxglove Drive intersection will be located at a distance of roughly 200 ft. from the Northland Drive in- tersection farther east. Access spacing along this section of the corridor would be considered inadequate. Stillwater Road, a future minor arterial, should be located at least half -a -mile (2,640 ft.) from U.S. Highway 93A. Treeline Road, a future minor collector, should be located a minimum 1,320 ft. from the highway. Foxglove Drive, a future non -continuous local road, is located only 200 ft. from Northland Drive - the recommended minimum spacing between these intersec- tions is 660 ft. East of Northland Drive A large number of tightly spaced intersections with non -continuous local roads and driveways are located be- tween Northland Drive and U.S. Highway 93. Specifically, Parkway Drive connects to the corridor at two locations, Meadow Vista Loop connects to the corridor at two lo- cations, and North Haven Drive connects to the corridor at one location. Commercial driveways are dispersed throughout this section of the corridor, including two serv- ing the Kidsports facility and two serving the office land use abutting U.S. Highway 93. Access spacing along this section of the corridor would be considered inadequate. Local road intersections are closely spaced, with no intersection at a distance of more than 400 ft. from its neighboring intersection. Such inter- sections should be separated by at least 660 ft. on a mi- nor arterial. Driveway access should ideally be prohibited altogether on minor arterial roadways. RECOMMENDATIONS Driveways: Several driveways provide access to non-res- idential uses along the corridor east of Northland Drive. Non-residential driveway access appears to be permissi- ble under Standards for Design and Construction section 8.1.3.E, which only prohibits "residential driveways" on arterials. The City should consider prohibiting all drive- ways on arterials, and explore the possibility of relocating existing driveway access to a local road, where feasible. Local Street Access: Standards for Design and Construction section 8.1 .3.E specifies that intersections of local streets with arterials shall be kept to a minimum. However, there are a large number of tightly -spaced non -continuous lo- cal roads intersecting the corridor. In the future, the City should enforce the use of frontage roads and require that subdivisions provide access to adjacent parcels. In addi- tion, existing access locations that are adjacent to new subdivisions should be reviewed for incorporation into proposed plats. Spacing Minimums: As discussed above, access spacing along the corridor is seldom sufficient. On a minor arte- rial, this results in high propensity for conflict, disrupted traffic flow, and general deterioration of the roadway's functionality. The City defines a 35 ft. minimum distance between driveways and intersections —this is largely the extent of the City's access spacing guidelines at present. It is recommended that the City increase the minimum spac- ing between driveways and intersections for higher -tier roadways, and that it develop a clear and comprehensive policy on access spacing by functional classification. _242 MOVE 2040 Turn Lanes: The conditions described above are made more acute by the fact that the corridor is an undivided two-lane facility. Both left- and right -turning movements obstruct the flow of through traffic. The conversion of Four Mile Drive to a two-lane facility with a two-way center left turn lane will improve this issue. The information provided in this section makes use of a variety of guidance documents, including: https://www.mdt.mt.gov/research/toolkit/ml / pptools/ds/am.shtml https://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/Bureaus/Cpdm/ WE B/Best Practi cesi nAccessManagem ent. pdf https://flathead.mt.gov/planning zoning/docu- ments/FTP_Final Small.pdf https://ccrpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ac cess-management-2013-04-17-final. pdf TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY OVERVIEW One of the City's chief responsibilities is to operate and maintain a safe and efficient roadway system. The review and management of development -generated traffic is an integral part of this effort. The sample TIS procedures outlined in this section are provided to help guide this process. A TIS identifies existing traffic volumes and conditions, de- velopment traffic volumes and conditions and their com- bined impacts on the existing and future roadway system. Additionally, a TIS analyzes traffic circulation both on- and off -site. This is a useful tool for early identification of po- tential traffic problems and can play an important part in the success of a development and functionality of the sur- rounding transportation system. The need for a TIS should be assessed as early as possible in the development pro- cess when there is maximum flexibility to mitigate traf- fic -related problems. Prior to obtaining any permits, the developer should have received the City's acceptance of the completed TIS. Typically, the City will provide a summary of any issues regarding the proposed development outlined in the TIS. The developer would need to address the City's issues prior to moving forward with the permitting process. 1 RAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CATEGORIES A regulating agency's TIS procedures may make use of a variety of approaches. A common aspect of TIS regu- lations is the use of analysis categories, which increase the content and level of analysis required of the prepar- er as the potential impact of a development increases. For example, the City of Middleton, WI requires that a TIS include additional elements based on peak -hour trip thresholds. Similarly, the City of Corona, CA requires that developments generating less than 50 peak -hour trips prepare only an abbreviated "Focused Site Traffic Impact Study", with developments generating 50 peak -hour trips or more required to prepare full analysis. It is also common for a city to give the reviewing authority the dis- cretion to waive the requirement for a TIS under certain circumstances. An example of TIS categories from the City of Peoria, AZ is shown in References https://www.cityofmiddleton.us/DocumentCenter/ View/293/Traffic-Impact-Analysis-Guidelines?bidld= https://www.coronaca.gov/home/showpublished document?id=454 https://www.peoriaaz.gov/home/showpublished document?id=1969 KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 243_ Figure 11.13: Traffic Impact Analysis Categories Example (Peoria, Arizona) CATEGORY• GENERATIONTIA TRIP . Traffic Impact Developments that are estimated to Study generate less than 100 trips during Opening Year To be determined by City Traffic Engineer the highest peak hour. Developments that are estimated to 1. Site access drives 1 generate greater than 100 but less Opening Year and 5 years in the 2. All major signalized and unsignalized intersections within'/4 mile and all major than 500 vehicle trips during the future driveways within 500 feet highest peak hour. 3. All roadway segments within'/4 mile of the project site boundary Developments that are estimated Opening Year plus 5 and 10 1. Site access drives 2 to generate more than 500 but less years in the future (phasing of 2. All major signalized and unsignalized intersections and all major driveways within than 1,000 vehicle trips during the the development must also be a'/2 mile radius of the project site boundary highest peak hour. considered) 3. All roadway segments within'/2 mile of the project site boundary Developments that are estimated to Opening Year plus 5, 10, 15 1. Site access drives 3 generate more than 1,000 but less years in the future (phasing of 2. All major signalized and unsignalized intersections and all major driveways within than 1,500 vehicle trips during the the development must also be a 1-mile radius of the project site boundary highest peak hour. considered) 3. All roadway segments within 1 mile of the project site boundary Regional Development generating Opening Year plus 5, 10, 15, 1. Site access drives 2. All major signalized and unsignalized intersections and all major driveways within 4 1,500 or greater trips during the and 20 years in the future or as an impact area defined during the scoping meeting highest peak hour. specified in the Phasing Schedule 3. All roadway segments within an impact area defined during the scoping meeting 1. The trip generation used for determining the TIA category shall not be reduced for internal or pass -by trips unless approved by the City Traffic Engineer. For deveopments with peaks different than the typical adjacent street peak such as churches, schools, shift work, sports complex, movie theater, etc., the peak hour of the generator shall be calculated. 2. The Traffic Impact Analysis shall consider the phasing of the development and make infrastructure improvement recommendations so an adequate level of services (LOS) is maintained with each phase of development. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FORMAT AND CONTENT As stated above, there is no single standard for TIS re- quirements. However, several elements of the content and format of a TIS document are widely incorporated by regulating agencies. The project team considers the 2021 guidelines provided by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation to reflect the prevailing standards and best practices for TIS requirements. Using these guide- lines, the project team presents the following annotated outline as a recommended approach to the format and content of a TIS document. Further details regarding spe- cific outline items can be found within the WisDOT Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines'. Chapter 1. Introduction and Executive Summary Chapter 1 briefly describes the development and provides a summary of its potential traffic impacts. This chapter should identify the purpose of the report and highlight who conducted the analysis and why. There should also be a discussion of the study objectives to provide context for review of the report. The chapter should provide a short synopsis of the important findings and conclusions. It is helpful if the executive summary can be understand- able as a stand-alone document. a. Purpose of Report and Study Objectives b. Executive Summary c. Chapter 1 Exhibits Chapter 2. Proposed Development Chapter 2 provides the narratives and exhibits necessary so that the reviewer has a complete description of the proposed development. Descriptions should explain the time frame and stages/phases for the development, lo- cation of the site, planned land use, and intensity of the development. If the development will not take place all at one time, the site plan should illustrate the develop- ment -staging plan to highlight the location where each phase of the development will occur in relationship to the full project buildout. a. On -Site Development i. Development Descriptions and Site Locations ii. Land Use and Intensity iii. Site Plan iv. Development Phasing and Timing b. Study Area c. Off -Site Land Use and Development d. Site Accessibility e. Chapter 2 Exhibits 1 r244 See: https://wisconsindot.gov/dtsdManuaIs/traffic-ops/manuals-and-standards/tiaguide.pdf MOVE 2040 Chapter 3. Analysis of Existing Conditions Chapter 3 presents the analysis of existing conditions for the study area, which serves as the base against which to measure the incremental traffic impacts of the proposed development. Specifically, this chapter should address the physical characteristics of the existing transportation system and any planned improvements, existing traffic volumes in the study area, level of service analysis, and documentation of all data used to complete the analyses. a. Physical Characteristics b. Traffic Volumes c. Capacity/Level of Service Analysis d. Sources of Data e. Chapter 3 Exhibits Chapter 4. Projected Traffic Chapter 4 presents an analysis of future traffic volumes in the study area, which should consist of background traffic, development traffic, and the additional off -site de- velopment traffic. Traffic volumes should be forecast for all horizon years, as determined by the reviewing agency. Because the quality of the traffic analysis depends upon the accuracy of the traffic projections, it is important that the preparer document all assumptions and methodolo- gies used in the preparation of future traffic volumes so that the reviewing agency can assess the analysis for rea- sonableness and completeness. a. Background Traffic Forecasting b. On -Site and Off -Site Development Traffic Forecasting i. Trip Generation ii. Mode Split iii. Determination of Pass -By + Linked -Trip Traffic iv. Trip Distribution V. Trip Assignment c. Build and Total Traffic d. Chapter 4 Exhibits Chapter 5. Traffic and Improvement Analysis Given the total projected traffic for each horizon year, Chapter 5 presents an analysis of the future traffic conditions, identifies needs, and analyzes alternative im- provements for the study area. a. Proposed Site Access b. Future Capacity/Level of Service Analysis c. Queuing Analysis d. Multimodal Considerations e. Speed Considerations/Sight Distance f. Traffic Control Needs g. Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis h. Chapter 5 Exhibits Chapter 6. Conclusions and Recommendations Chapter 6 provides a discussion of conclusions regard- ing the analysis of existing and future conditions. Based on the conclusions of the analysis, this chapter presents recommendations to mitigate identified operational and safety -related deficiencies. a. Conclusions b. Recommendations c. Chapter 6 Exhibits TRAFFIC CALMING Traffic calming supports the livability and vitality of res- idential and commercial areas through improvements in non -motorist safety, mobility, and comfort. These ob- jectives are achieved by reducing vehicle speeds or vol- umes on a single street or a street network. Traffic calm- ing approaches use a variety of physical measures and driver -perception techniques to produce desired effects. An effective traffic calming program can help to trans- form streets and aid in creating a sense of place for communities. The importance of reducing vehicle speeds in an area where there is potential for conflict between a pedes- trian and a motor vehicle is undeniable. Simply stated, the slower the speed of a motor vehicle, the greater the chances are for survival for a pedestrian. illustrates the relationship between the speed of a vehicle and the potential for pedestrian injury. KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 245_ Figure 11.14: Speed/Pedestrian Injury Severity Correlation VEHICLE IMPACT SPEED vs. PEDESTRIAN INJURY (initial impact only) �dl Fa Impact Speed C CALMING TOOLBOX The study team compiled a sample toolbox of individual traffic calming measures that may be considered in the development of a traffic calming program. It is important to remember that the application of a calming measure must consider the specific problem to be addressed, as even very effective measures will produce little benefit in the wrong context. Table 11.5 presents the toolbox of traffic calming mea- sures, including a description of each measure and an indication of the type of roadway for which the measure may be most appropriate. The toolbox is not comprehen- sive, but rather provides a sample of effective calming measures. Much of the toolbox content was adapted from the FHWA Traffic Calming ePrimerl . The table separates measures into four general categories: Horizontal deflection limits the ability of a motorist to drive in a straight line by creating a horizontal shift in the roadway Vertical deflection creates a change in the height of the roadway that forces a motorist to slow down in order to maintain an acceptable level of comfort Street width reduction makes increases driver atten- tiveness and naturally lowers vehicle speeds Routing restriction prevents turns or through move- ments into specific areas to reduce traffic or create pedestrian zones The appropriateness of a specific measure by road type is indicated with the numbers 3 to 1 , with 3 re- flecting a high level of potential appropriateness, 2 reflecting a moderate level, and 1 representing a low level. CONCLUSION Traffic calming involves trade-offs between the need to provide an efficient transportation network and maintain- ing a livable and safe environment for bicyclists, pedes- trians, drivers, and adjacent land uses. The challenge of traffic calming is selecting the appropriate measures and locations to reach that balance. The City is encouraged to refer to the FHWA Traffic Calming ePrimer and its recom- mended resources as it develops and updates its traffic calming plan. 1 246 see: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/traffic_calm.cfm MOVE 2040 Table 11.5: Traffic Calming Toolbox Measure Description Appropriateness Horizontal Deflection Chicane A series of alternating curves or lane shifts that force a motorist to steer back and forth out of a Arterials: 1 straight travel path. The curvilinear path is intended to reduce the speed at which a motorist is Collectors: 3 comfortable travelling through a facility. Chicane curves can be created with a curb extension that alternates from one side of the street to the other. Local Roads: 3 Realigned The reconfiguration of an intersection with perpendicular angles to have skewed approaches Arterials: 1 Intersection or travel paths through the intersection. The expectation is that these physical features will Collectors: 3 discourage fast vehicle movements through the intersection. Local Roads: 3 Traffic Circle A raised island, placed within an unsignalized intersection, around which traffic circulates. Arterials: 1 A circle forces a motorist to use reduced speed when entering and passing through an Collectors: 2 intersection, whether the vehicle path is straight through or involves a turn onto an intersecting street. 30 Local Roads: 3 Vertical Deflection Speed Hump An elongated mound in the roadway pavement surface extending across the travel way at Arterials: 1 a right angle to the traffic flow. A speed hump produces sufficient discomfort to a motorist Collectors: 3 driving above the speed hump design speed to discourage speeding. Local Roads: 3 Speed Table A raised area placed across the roadway designed to limit the speed at which a vehicle can Arterials: 2 traverse it. Like a speed hump, it extends across the travelway. Unlike a speed hump, a speed Collectors: 3 table has a long enough flat top (typically 10 feet) to accommodate the entire wheelbase of most passenger cars. This flat top enables comfortable and safe vehicle speeds that are faster Local Roads: 3 than allowed by a speed hump. Raised A variation of a flat-topped speed table, a raised crosswalk is marked and signed as a Arterials: 2 Crosswalk pedestrian crossing. A raised crosswalk improves pedestrian safety by causing motorist speed Collectors: 3 to decrease at the crossing. Additionally, the height of the crosswalk increases the visibility of a pedestrian to motorists and improves the line of sight for a pedestrian toward an oncoming Local Roads: 3 vehicle. Street Width Reduction Curb A horizontal extension of the sidewalk into the street resulting in a narrower roadway section. Arterials: 3 Extension This method may be used at either a corner or midblock. A curb extension at an intersection Collectors: 3 is called a corner extension, while at midblock it is referred to as a choker. A corner extension shortens pedestrian crossing distance, and can be combined with a vertical speed control Local Roads: 3 device (e.g., a raised crosswalk) to achieve a greater reduction in vehicle speed. Median A raised island located along the street centerline that narrows the travel lanes at that Arterials: 3 Island location, encouraging motorists to slow. A median island can double as a pedestrian refuge Collectors: 3 island if a cut in the island is provided along a marked crosswalk. When placed at or near the entrance to a neighborhood, a median island provides a visual cue to the motorist about the Local Roads: 3 preferred vehicle speed Road Diet The conversion of an undivided roadway to a cross-section with fewer or narrower through Arterials: 3 motor vehicle travel lanes. The most common application is the conversion of an undivided Collectors: 3 four -lane roadway to a three -lane roadway consisting of two through lanes and a center two-way left -turn lane. This lane reduction may also accommodate the inclusion of multimodal Local Roads: 2 Routing Restriction elements such as bicycle lanes, sidewalks, pedestrian refuge islands, and transit. A diagonal diverter is a physical barrier placed diagonally across a four -legged intersection. Arterials: 1 Diagonal The barrier creates two unconnected intersections. Traffic approaching the intersection is Collectors: 2 Diverter restricted to one receiving leg, rather than three. A strategically placed diagonal diverter can reduce traffic volume by preventing straight -through traffic movements at an intersection. Local Roads: 2 A physical barrier placed across a street to close the street completely to through vehicle traffic. Full closure can be done at either an intersection or midblock. A full closure can be designed Arterials: 1 Full Closure to allow bicyclists and pedestrians to pass through. It is important to consider where the Collectors: 2 diverted traffic is likely to shift, in particular the availability, capacity, and appropriateness of Local Roads: 2 the alternative routes. A median barrier is a raised island placed through an intersection, along the centerline of a Arterials: 2 Median roadway, preventing a motorist from traveling straight through the intersection on the side Collectors: 3 Barrier street. A median barrier can be designed to allow turns to and from the main street, while preventing through traffic from the side street from crossing the main roadway. Local Roads: 3 KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 247_ OVERVIEW OF ROUNDABOUTS PRIMARY ROUNDABOUT TYPES Table 11.6 compares the characteristics of the primary roundabout types. The primary types/configurations of the modern roundabout in the United States include: A Multi -Lane Roundabout (Figure 11.15) has two or more approach lanes for each leg of the intersec- tion and two or more circulating lanes throughout the entire roundabout. Desired Entry Speed Typical Inscribed Circle (Curb to Curb of the circulating Planning Level Entering Volume Capacity Advantages Disadvantages Applicable Contexts A Hybrid Multi -Lane Roundabout (Figure 11.16), commonly referred to as a "2x1 Roundabout", is clas- sified as having a mixture of one- and two-lane ap- proaches and circulating lanes. A Single -Lane Roundabout (Figure 1 1.17) has one approach lane and a circulating lane throughout the entire footprint. A Mini Roundabout (,gure 1 1.'i ) is a single -lane roundabout with design features that make it more compressed and suitable for compact urban environ- ments. Mini roundabouts have become more com- mon across the United States in recent years. In the right circumstances they can achieve the same ben- efits as a single -lane roundabout at a substantially lower price. Table 11.6: Roundabout Type Comparison 25 to 30 mph 150 to 300 ft Up to 45,000 for two lane approaches on each leg. Roundabouts with 3+ entry legs require more planning level analysis Large capacity and ability to process traffic volume Large footprint and will likely increase the overall frequency of crashes (still greatly reducing severity) compared to other roundabouts. There are concerns with driver entry yielding compliance that is elevated with multi- lane roundabouts. The design process can be very challenging and complex compared to smaller roundabouts. Multi -lane roundabouts are typically most successful for traffic operation mitigation where a large signalized intersection would have been needed. Varies Varies Varies Allows for adaptive and creative design where there are right-of-way constraints and has a smaller footprint and cost than a traditional multi -lane roundabout if the capacity is not needed on the minor approach Inconsistency of lanes in the circulatory roadway may cause additional crossing paths and confusion for motorists. The design process and for multi -lane/ hybrid roundabouts can be complex compared to other roundabouts. A Hybrid roundabout should be used in specific circumstances where traffic volumes are unbalanced but the operations are still deemed to be acceptable. 20 to 25 mph 90 to 180 ft Up to 25,000 The maximum safety benefit compared to other roundabout types More expensive and larger impact compared to mini roundabouts. A Single lane roundabout is the most common and widely applicable roundabout in the United States. 15 to 20 mph 45 to 90ft Up to 15,000 vpd Small footprint, usually able to be constructed within the existing curb lines of an intersection which relates to a lower construction cost Tight geometry makes navigation for large vehicles difficult. The entire center island must be fully traversable for heavy vehicles. This roundabout should be used in low speed urban areas. _248 MOVE 2040 Figure 11.15: Multi -Lane Roundabout - King Avenue and 40th Street, Billings, MT Figure 11.16: Hybrid Multi -lane Roundabout (2x1) - E North Pacific Avenue and Airway Boulevard, Belgrade, MT W. j Figure 11.17. Single -lane Roundabout - Smelter Avenue and Division Road, Great Falls, MT Figure 11.18: Mini Roundabout - Toole Avenue and Scott Street, Missoula, MT I IMVU71iF A KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 249_ PREVALENCF OF ROUNDABOUT: Roundabouts construction emerged in the 1990s in states like California, Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Vermont, and Maryland. As public perception and safety data improved to show the safety and operational benefits of round- abouts, their implementation increased drastically in the mid to late 2000s. Kittelson's Lee Rodegerdts played a key role in the NCHRP study and since then has kept a real-time database of roundabouts in the Unites States through his firm Kittelson and Associates since 1997. figure 'I and Figure 11.21 give more perspective on the history and growth of roundabouts in the United States. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) conducted a study in 2003 that found that 73% of roundabouts in the United States are single lane and mini roundabouts, 25% are hybrid multi -lane and multi- lane with two approach lanes and circulating lanes, and 2% were multi -lane roundabouts with at least one ap- proach that had three or more lanes. A comparable study has not been completed since then. MDT began design and public engagement for round- abouts in the early 2000s and constructed their first roundabouts in the late 2000s. To date, there are ap- proximately 56 roundabouts in operation, 10 more in construction, and 18 more in design, planning, or early consideration phases according to MDT records. These numbers are broken out in able 11.7. Billings Bozeman & Belgrade Great Falls Helena Butte Missoula Figure 11.19: Types of Roundabouts in the U.S. (NCHRP) -# of Circulating Lanes One TWO 73% Three Figure 11.20: Roundabouts by State sbn s� c V f 600 a � aoa II200 z ca `ca gh �C a o La Fc. V �'y 9t ��,io`' Qo�dP �v. PO ,�3� �.e �e e Slate or Province Figure 11.21: Roundabouts by Year Constructed Soo i 500 400 0 n aoo aoo a til'tig° �9`ry19� ��+y°9y ti������+�9 Year Table 11.7. Montana Roundabouts by Location' 5 3 3 N Kalispell 7 2 3 Combination of Other Jurisdictions With Less than 10,000 population (Sidney, Poplar, Miles City, Lame Deer, Red Lodge, 4 3 1 Browning) Total 56 10 18 1 See: httl2s://www.mdt.mt.gov/visionzero/roads/roundabouts/locations.shtml. Table numbers are current as of March 2021. 2 Includes roundabouts that are let for construction _250 MOVE 2040 600 500 BENEFITS OF ROUNDABOUTS Roundabouts have been shown to reduce the number of crashes that occur at an intersection, reduce crash severity, and improve bicycle and pedestrian safety. The two ma- jor components that allow the accomplishment of these safety benefits are the ability of the roundabout to reduce conflict points between facility users and reduce vehicle Safety Delay Cost speed. +gure 1 I.' and Figure help demonstrate how a roundabout physically achieves these concepts. Roundabouts can also reduce delay and travel time, re- duce operation and maintenance costs, be cheaper to construct, offer more flexibility for traffic growth and trav- el pattern changes, and offer opportunities for placemak- ing and aesthetics. Table 11.( provides considerations for roundabouts in comparison to other traffic control types. Table 11.8: Comparison of Roundabouts to Other Traffic Control Types There may be an increase in low severity sideswipe crashes and rear end crashes on the major approach when converting from two way stop control. This is especially true of muilti-lane and hybrid roundabouts. Roundabouts are also less consistent and less capable of servicing large volume intersections or dominant movements when compared to signal actuation, signal time of day plans, or the uncontrolled approach of two-way stop control. The geometric footprint of roundabouts frequently cost more than a signal. It is important to complete a benefit/ cost analysis for roundabouts when less expensive solutions may be adequate. Maintenance of the center island components should be considered in the cost. Roundabouts show a 44% reduction in all crashes and up to 87% reduction in serious and fatal crashes. Roundabouts can improve the frequency and duration of gaps for minor street traffic movements when compared to two-way stop control. No Cost Advantage. While there is still Roundabouts show expected to be a a 48% reduction in crash reduction, the all crashes and up comparison to all -way to 78% reduction in stop control is less serious injury and fatal drastic than other crashes. control types. Roundabouts are generally able to process traffic faster due to a yield entry condition instead of the full stop and by allowing multiple approaches to enter the intersection simultaneously. No Cost Advantage Roundabouts in a variety of cases are able to reduce delay compared to a signal by elimination of loss time (yellow + all -red between phases). Roundabouts of a smaller footprint, especially mini roundabouts, can cost less to construct than signals. Roundabouts also require less maintenance and no electrical equipment. KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 251_ Figure 11.22: Vehicle Conflict Point Comparison J * Q"-U 141 �osr.rrglr�145 Figure 11.23: Pedestrian Conflict Point Comparison _252 MOVE 2040 ITS POTENTIAL ITS SOLUTIONS: ITS applies information, technology, and systems engi- neering principles to the management and operations of surface transportation facilities and systems, including freeways, arterials, and transit. ITS includes a wide range of applications that process and share information to re- duce congestion, improve traffic management, minimize environmental impacts and increase the benefits of trans- portation to commercial users and the general public. The substantial benefits of ITS can be observed in the areas of travel time improvement, capacity management, incident management, and sustainability. Many of the most prominent ITS technologies have al- ready been deployed throughout the country (please see the text box to the right). MDT has employed several ITS solutions to improve the ef- ficiency of Montana's transportation system, with the most notable examples being upgrades to traffic signal systems and implementation of traveler information systems. MDT has also implemented the 511 system, which allows drivers to access real-time information by phone or In- ternet. The 511 system provides updates on weather -re- lated conditions, road work, commercial vehicle restric- tions, road closures, chain requirements and other travel information. Finally, dynamic message signs have been employed at key locations on the road network to advise motorists of changing travel conditions. These technolo- gies allow travelers to make better choices about when they travel, what transportation mode they use, and what route they take. IT5 FOR KALISP USDOT recognizes that there is a subset of ITS solutions and technologies that is most relevant for "rural envi- ronments", which it defines to include both rural areas and urban centers with populations of less than 50,0001. This is because such areas have different technological infrastructure, fiscal resources, infrastructure usage, and travel patterns relative to urban areas. Considering these unique characteristics, the City may benefit from explor- ing ITS solutions in the following focus areas: Traveler Safety and Security This focus area addresses a driver's ability to operate their vehicle in a safe and responsible way and for im- proving driver awareness of potentially hazardous driving conditions. Dynamic speed warning message signs that commu- nicate a vehicle's actual speed to the driver. Animal Warning Systems that warn motorists about the potential or actual presence of animals on the road. These systems utilize electronic sensors to de- tect animals. Once an animal is detected, signs are activated to warn drivers of the presence of an animal. EXAMPLca %JF ITS IN Usc i wu y r Ramp Meters (RM) on freeway ramps alternate between red and green signals to control the flow of entering vehicles. Metering rates are altered based on freeway traffic conditions. Red Light Cameras (RLC) detect when a motor vehicle runs a red light. The sensors connect to computers in high-speed cameras, which capture license plate information. Law enforcement reviews the information and mails a citation if warranted. Adaptive Signal Control Technology (ASCT) col- lects and evaluates traffic data in real time to adjust signal timing and improve traffic flow. ASCT can also respond to traffic incidents and special events. Transit Signal Priority (TSP) systems use sensors to detect approaching transit vehicles and give them priority at signalized intersections. Source: USDOT ITS Research Fact Sheets — Benefits of Intelligent Transportation Systems Tourism and Travel Information Services This focus area addresses the challenges experienced by drivers unfamiliar with the area through which they are traveling. POTENTIAL ITS SOLUTIONS: Dissemination of real-time information on parking availability through a cell phone application. Such an application could also provide information on con- struction projects, etc. Dissemination of real-time weather and road condi- tions information via cell phone applications. Transit Services This focus area addresses opportunities to increase the ac- cessibility and coordination of Mountain Climber service. https://www.pcb.its.dot.9ov/eprimer/moduIeI O.aspx POTENTIAL ITS SOLUTIONS: TSP technologies, which reduce dwell time at traffic signals for transit vehicles by holding green lights lon- ger or shortening red lights. TSP may be implemented at individual intersections or across corridors or entire street systems. Electronic fare payment systems to automate fare col- lection and processing. Electric payment options in- clude smart phones (e-tickets), magnetic stripe cards, smart cards and credit cards. Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) technology, a com- puter -based vehicle tracking solution that uses GPS to communicate the real-time location of buses. Transit agencies use AVL systems to improve customer service by communicating arrival times, which can be posted to variable message boards installed at transit stops, websites and smartphone applications. AVL also al- lows agencies to monitor transit driver performance. Automated voice annunciator systems that broadcast bus route and safety information. Traffic Signals This focus area addresses the signal system so that traffic operates at an optimal level. POTENTIAL ITS SOLUTIONS: Traffic signal coordination provides the ability to syn- chronize multiple intersections to enhance the op- eration of one or more directional movements in a system. The decision to use coordination is supported by various considerations, but is typically most appro- priate when intersections are in close proximity and there is a large amount of traffic on the coordinated street. _254 MOVE 2040 G.a MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 8/31/2021 Comment and Response Log Multiple public venues, as outlined below, were held to review the Plan and receive comments. • Planning Board Public Hearing was held on July 12, 2021 • City Council Work Session was held on July 26, 2021. • City Council Public Hearing was held on August 16, 2021 Below in black text are the comments received as part of the City Council Work Session and Public Hearing. The City's response are below each comment in green. TRANSPORTATION PLAN COUNCIL WORK SESSION QUESTIONS & COMMENTS — 07/26/21 1. We were looking to have a Kalispell Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan, is that now just incorporated into this? Response: A plan for implementation of initiatives to be considered by Council will be forthcoming after adoption of this plan. However, the Transportation Plan includes a detailed framework plan for advancing a series of corridor level active transportation system needs including shared use paths, shared ("sharrow") roadways, bike lanes and sidewalks. Additionally, attention was centered around 12 elementary/middle school zones in an effort to identify and prioritize segments to support Safe Routes to Schools. 2. We are not prioritizing something like, not removing the couplet, is that not one of the proposals? Response: All scenarios run on Main Street/Highway 93 assumed the current couplet configuration to remain unchanged. The couplet along with final Main Street design will require consideration and coordination with multiple agencies. 3. This does not say anything about Main Street. Response: The plan does evaluate Main Street. Alternative 2 evaluated a three -lane section (northbound lane, southbound lane, and center turn) for Main Street by itself; Alternative 2A combined the completion of the bypass with the three -lane for Main Street; Alternative 3A combined north/south connections between Center and Idaho with the three -lane for Main Street, and Alternative 10 evaluated the completion of Alternatives 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and MDT improvements to Reserve Drive. All of these scenarios evaluated the City's vision of Main Street so that the City's vision should not be disregarded or ignored. Page 1 of 23 MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 8/31/2021 Comment and Response Log The findings of the model runs show that reducing Main Street to three lanes has a negative impact on the Level of Service (LOS) and will serve to divert traffic to other north/south corridors. The recommendation of the Transportation Plan is to complete a Corridor Study on Main Street between 12t" Street and Idaho to more accurately understand corridor level operations along Main Street and on adjacent roadways through downtown Kalispell. 4. Should we still be looking at a 71" Steet connector across the path after it was already looked at as part of the Parkline Trail project? Response: One of the stated goals of the TIGER grant application was to connect the community across the barrier created by the railroad tracks which were previously controlled by BNSF. The 71 Street connection to Woodland Drive received the most public support for a potential street connection during the public outreach for the Parkline Trail project. Due to limitations in time to acquire right-of-way for the connection, limited funding to construct the longer connection, and negative comments received by residents on Woodland Drive, the connection was removed from further consideration for the Parkline Trail project. However, from a transportation design perspective, the project remains as a viable option which would provide a significant benefit to vehicular traffic as a north -south corridor connection, especially if the capacity of Main Street is reduced to a 3-lane corridor. 5. What is infeasible about the Willow Glen connection, why isn't Willow Glen falling higher up on the priority list. Response: The plan supports the improvement of the Willow Glen corridor as has been supported in past transportation plans as an east side connection from Highway 93 north to Highway 2/MT 35. The connection to Highway 2 was included in the Medium Priority Tier (project # 34 on page 178 of the report). Challenges to building this route include property acquirements for right of way and high costs for the required road infrastructure, i.e. bridge, corridor, intersections. Page 2 of 23 MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 8/31/2021 Comment and Response Log 6. The main focus of the plan is primarily pursuing additional road capacity. Response: Only two routes within the jurisdiction of the City of Kalispell were modeled with increased capacity in the "2040 build". Whitefish Stage and Four Mile Drive were both modeled with three lanes of capacity rather than the two lanes that exist today. Essentially, this means they were modeled as roadways with a shared center left turn. Adding a center turn lane is considered an operational rather than a capacity improvement. These kinds of operational improvements make the roadways more efficient by decreasing the delay due to turning movements at and between intersections and increase safety through the potential reduction in rear end crashes. All of the other routes under city jurisdiction were modeled in the "2040 build" as they are today even if they were recommended to be upgraded with a center turn lane 7. People respond to added capacity by driving more, and eventually filling up the capacity, which results in a need for more capacity. This concept is called "induced demand" and is increasingly being considered in transportation planning processes. Main Street is an example of the opposite of induced demand, it discourages vehicle use and makes the downtown Main Street a more desirable place. Communities are ruined by ever increasing road capacity. I would encourage staff and Mr. Kline to somehow incorporate induced demand modeling into the transportation plan model. We can reduce the number of vehicle trips taken by giving people alternatives. This includes investing in pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation infrastructure. But, it is more than just the infrastructure, we must have the urban design that makes it safe, convenient, and enjoyable to walk, bike, and take public transit. Response: A simplified description of induced demand is the Field of Dreams — "If you build it, they will come." In some respects, that is true. Like most things, traffic tends to follow the path of least resistance. By expanding capacity, a corridor can become more attractive and may attract traffic from other adjacent corridors which are less convenient. Typical modeling assumes the overall number of vehicles within a location would remain the some, but the distribution of where those vehicles choose to travel may change if capacity is increased on corridors to make them more attractive. The point that appears to be made is that added road capacity will attract people to drive rather than walk or bike, whereas reductions in road capacity will encourage people to walk or bike rather than drive. This scenario is more applicable to very large and urbanized metropolitan areas where short distance commutes can take a considerable amount of time due to congestion. A relatively short trip to the grocery store in a large city may take 30 minutes or more. Creating pedestrian, biking, and/or transit alternatives in these dense metropolitan cities can assist in reducing these short trips from adding to existing roadway congestion. Page 3 of 23 MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 8/31/2021 Comment and Response Log The modeling completed for the Kalispell Urban Area Transportation plan shows that by making the proposed changes allows for a better distribution of traffic among the available roadway networks. The strategy includes overall better utilization of Hwy 93A, as well as other north -south and east -west corridors. Connections such as Whitefish Stage/7t" Street and Evergreen/Grandview go a long way to balancing significant regional travel demand across the entire system. Paramount in this approach is the modeled assumption that Main Street/Hwy 93 operates with less than current capacity, thus meeting the previously stated goals of the City of Kalispell. The model developed by MDT does not include a mode split to account for transit, bike and pedestrian movements. It is not typical for a community of Kalispell's size to include a mode split in its travel demand model. The only community in Montana to currently account for mode split is Missoula whose evolved modal systems allow for this level of analysis. Development of a model for Kalispell which includes a mode split is a lofty but reasonable goal. Staff may consider working with MDT to consider this concept when we update our plan again in the next 5 or more years. The modeling used in this plan does not attempt to alter the preferred modes of transportation for the public within the City of Kalispell, but rather models the distribution of vehicular traffic routes today with consideration for similar distributions as growth continues into the future. The goal of the transportation plan modeling is to identify issues and potential solutions which can provide transportation facilities better able to accommodate the community we serve. As density increases and development or redevelopment occurs, pedestrian and biking alternatives should be considered and have therefore been included in Chapter 9 of the Move 2040 plan. Chapter 9 includes a comprehensive plan for the development of bike and pedestrian facilities in existing city infrastructure. The Policy Plan in Chapter 11 also includes recommended street cross sections for new development which incorporate options for bike and pedestrian facilities. Although alternative transportation options are very important to the transportation system as a whole and have been considered in the Move 2040 plan, it is not a directive of the plan to make vehicular traffic inconvenient to the traveling public so that they bike and walk more, especially given the mostly seasonal use of the alternative transportation facilities in our climate. Page 4 of 23 MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 8/31/2021 Comment and Response Log 8. We cannot separate transportation planning from urban design. People will be reluctant to walk, bike or spend much time outside of a car along wide, heavily trafficked, ugly road stretches fronted by acres of parking with building set far back from the street frontage. Public transportation also becomes increasingly financially unfeasible the more spread out a community becomes. Density is the key to long term success of public transportation systems. When you concentrate your commercial areas in one area and then you spread out your residential areas, it forces people to drive to have their commercial needs met. Research shows that people tend not to walk more than about 1/2 mile, so all residences with within the city should be able to have some of their commercial needs met within 1/2 mile of their residence. If we are serious about reducing vehicle trips made. I believe our transportation plans should at least acknowledge the important role of urban design factors in how they play a role in the transportation outcomes. The problem I have with transportation planning in this kind of traditional model is the way it's kind of in a silo. Response: Transportation Planning does not historically define where and how urban design outside of road corridors should occur. These types of considerations should be included in the Growth Policy and Zoning requirements. The Move 2040 plan does acknowledge the Downtown Plan, the Urban Renewal Plan, and the Growth Policy Plan in Chapter 11 in the section titled, "Downtown -Highway 93 Main Street". Zoning and PUDs for recent annexations and developments within the city include pockets of neighborhood commercial to provide some of the commercial needs for neighborhood residents. Examples of this include the neighborhood commercial area in Silverbrook (World Gym and The Great Indoors); the zoned neighborhood commercial areas at the intersection of Three Mile Drive and West Spring Creek Road to serve Mountain Vista, Meadows Edge, and Rockwood Ranch subdivisions; the zoned neighborhood commercial areas at the intersection of Cemetery Road and Airport Road which will serve the Parkland Meadows development, and the zoned neighborhood commercial area at the intersection of Four Mile Drive and Stillwater Road which will serve the Stillwater Crossings neighborhood. These zoning areas were all established independently of the Transportation Plan update and are location specific decisions which are vetted through the public processes of the Planning Board and City Council. In general, the intent of the Transportation Plan is to have a well thought out holistic plan which can anticipate the impacts of development as it occurs but leave decisions for zoning and development to other more pertinent plans, such as the Growth Plan. Page 5 of 23 MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 8/31/2021 Comment and Response Log 9. Concerning Four Mile Connection to Evergreen Drive: I think ideally you would have a bridge connection that is pedestrian/bike only. I have a colleague who actually spoke of this years ago when her kids were young and going Kids Sport all the time, she wanted to bike with them over to the Kids Sports, she lives in the over in the Edgewood neighborhood and she was forced because of the infrastructure to get into the car with the kids, get on W Reserve and come around and so she's added traffic to W Reserve where she could have biked with their kids over to Kids Sports. Response: East and west connections are badly needed in Kalispell for vehicles, bikes, and pedestrians. The City identified the need for this connection in previous transportation plans and has existing right-of-way reserved on the east side of the river to accommodate the connection. The modeling for this alternative supports the connection as a high priority for the City. Currently, east/west connections for the neighborhood along Whitefish Stage are dependent on West Reserve and Highway 2. This proposed connection also provides a health and safety benefit for response time from Police and Fire. The recommended connection should also include pedestrian facilities to provide a connection from the neighborhood to attractions including FVCC, KidSports, Spring Prairie, and Hutton Ranch. 10. Concerning 72 St to Woodland Ave Connection: In my view, the best part of the Parkline Trail is going to be that part overlooking Woodland Park. Not only because it is going to be great views and you're down to park below but also it's the stretch that is the farthest from any road and is going to be the quietest, is going to be the most natural feeling, is going to be the spot where people can go and feel like they're kind of out of the city, I think. But if you make that connection, you're going to have a lot of traffic and then that section of the trail that I think would be the best part of the trail, is going to be I think heavily impacted by traffic noise. Response: One of the goals of the TIGER grant application was to connect the community across the historic barrier created by the railroad tracks and controlled by BNSF. Due to limitations in time to acquire right-of-way for the connection, limited funding to construct the longer connection, and negative comments received by residents on Woodland Drive, the connection was removed from further consideration for the Parkline Trail project. The 1h Street connection to Woodland Drive received the most overall public support during the public outreach for the Parkline Trail project. The project remains as a viable option which would provide a significant benefit to vehicular traffic as a north -south corridor connection. Page 6 of 23 MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 8/31/2021 Comment and Response Log 11. Concerning Willow Glen Connection to Hwy 2: A new extension there would not only be the impact to the wetlands but anytime you add significant capacity to a road system, make it a major thoroughfare, that attracts development. When you see that along the bypass, you're going to get more development pressure along there and it's a floodplain so it's encouraging people to go and develop in a floodplain and I don't think that's ever a good idea. Then the impact on wildlife and wildlife corridor there. Response: Impacts to floodplain, wetlands, and wildlife would need to be analyzed and mitigated or avoided as a potential project moves forward. This connection was also identified in the previous transportation plan and reanalyzed as part of this plan. The connection does provide a benefit to the transportation system and is listed in the medium priority tier. Potential concerns noted were partly why this alternative was not ranked as high and included in Alternative 10, however, it is viewed as a potential future project. 12. This transportation plan makes perfect sense if you're only thinking about the driver occupying that vehicle. What I want transportation plans to think about is the whole community, the people outside the vehicle, the impact on the community beyond just traffic flow, a broader vision for transportation planning. Response: The plan does have a very good, clear, and robust section addressing bike and pedestrian systems and recommendations in Chapter 9 of the document. This element outpaces other similar sized plans in Montana for addressing active transportation needs and provides a fantastic framework for a more detailed implementation in the next coming years. 13. I'll note there was only briefly mentioned of the mountain climber public transportation system and I would like to see the city's commitment to public transportation mountain climber, increase its importance to the community and so I would like to see transportation plan consider what ways the city could contribute more to the growth of mountain climber and its incorporation into our city transportation system. Response: The Flathead County Mountain Climber public transit system is identified and described in the document (see pages 75 - 77). Public Works has historically reviewed and permitted bus stops throughout the city to support public transit. As appropriately described in goal 1D, the city will continue to "ensure a safe and secure environment for transit system riders". Additional policy and support for this system can be considered through requests by the transit system and consideration by the Council. Flathead County needs an overall Transit Development Plan (TDP) to address the scale of transit needs in Kalispell and the larger Flathead valley. This work is currently being started by the County. Given the amount of work dedicated to planning and implementation on the part of Flathead County regarding public transit through Page 7 of 23 MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 8/31/2021 Comment and Response Log Mountain Climber, we anticipate significant new service opportunities to come online throughout 2021 and into 2022. The Kalispell Urban Area Transportation Plan provides a solid base set of existing and projected conditions to support planning and programming currently underway on the part of the Flathead County and the Mountain Climber system. 14. The transportation plan is telling you to put in the capacity. The approach I'd like to see, is you first put your money, attention, time into the alternatives (walk, bike, transit) and then when you've exhausted those then you can look at capacity. Response: The modeling used in this plan does not attempt to alter the preferred modes of transportation used within the City of Kalispell, but rather models the distribution of vehicular traffic rates today with consideration for similar distributions as growth continues into the future. The goal of the transportation plan modeling is to identify issues and potential solutions which can provide transportation facilities better able to accommodate the community we serve. 15. Mayre Flowers: Thank you and I know this is late and I appreciate all of you sitting through and trying to absorb a lot of information. I wanted to just make a few points and one is that as this plan stands right now, I feel like the goals don't really reflect the vision of the city. I think Kalispell had some really old goals about your downtown and core plan, your downtown shopping tourist capacity and I feel like a model is only as good as what you ask it to do. I'm not sure we've asked this model to really first say this is our vision as a community, tell us how we can support that vision, not just add capacity throughout the system but what do we need to do, what are the kind of priorities that will help us retain our downtown, be able to put in diagonal parking, that will help us convince the State not to use this model against us but to help us be able to make the argument to the State that this is a program that could be successful. Response: The modeling alternative runs for Main Street did incorporate the City's vision for a 3-lane corridor. The result of the model runs indicate that Main Street will have decreases in level of service and impacts on adjacent roadways. When other alternatives are added into the model, such as was done with Alternative 10, we can see that some portions of Main Street actually perform better. Therefore, the recommendation of the model is to complete a more in-depth corridor study of Main Street which can be more specific to Main Street and help the City understand what other options may be available to mitigate the impacts of reducing the number of lanes on Main Street. Page 8 of 23 MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 8/31/2021 Comment and Response Log I have just kind of open-ended question, we have this model but can we as a city, can you as a city now come back and run for the public if the public comes back and says we want to see more you know in terms of the public transportation or we want to see more about how we're going to retain and build out our downtown plan? Do we have the ability to use this model to generate that information or do we really need before we close the door in this, to have the model rerun looking at some of the priorities that have been mentioned here tonight? Response: MDT completes the model runs in-house and ownership of the transportation model remains with MDT. MDT did work well with us on the modeling and ran a total 14 alternatives, which is about two times what they would typically perform for a transportation plan. We appreciate their efforts to work with us to run so many I would revisit your goals. I think they don't reflect the really quality growth that the city has been pushing for, for a number of years and so I think that's an issue. I would also challenge you to work with Whitefish and Columbia Falls, it's really unique that you have the same engineer doing the plan for three cities and I think there should be an executive summary report that says looking at these issues these three cities are doing, here's what we need the county to really be aware of in terms of the pressures that you're working with and ways that the four bodies could collaborate more seems like that should be a really important outcome of these three studies. Response: Although the some engineer was selected for the Kalispell, Whitefish and Columbia Falls transportation plans, the goals and objectives for each municipality are independent of each other. Each of these three Urban Area Plans will make a recommendation for each community to work more proactively together to address issues of regional significance, and this includes more coordination with MDT, Mountain Climber and Flathead County. Through each of these three urban area transportation plans, an informal set of dialogue was set in motion that had not previously existed between the major communities in Flathead County. We anticipate that we will start to see more shared discussions on major transportation issues going forward. We would suggest that entities such as the Citizens for a Better Flathead also have an obligation to try and develop venues for shared visioning and goals setting among public agencies and we look forward to working with their team on such efforts. Then having tried to participate in some of these workshops I would say one of the challenges is that there's not pauses for you or the public to really say OK here's one point in this transportation plan and allow for public comment because there was so much information presented tonight, it's hard to really organize your thoughts. I would encourage that as you move into some public hearings on this and I am concerned about the public hearing process and almost sounds like well we've only got to jump through three more hoops and then we're done. Page 9 of 23 MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 8/31/2021 Comment and Response Log I almost feel like maybe we need to just pause a minute, look at the growth policy, look at the model and say is there something we could do a little bit better here before you go through with these final let's check this off and say we're done. Thank you. Response: Public outreach was a key component of the Move 2040 plan which has been ongoing throughout the entire process providing many avenues for input, questions, and comments. We have worked very hard to keep the public as involved and up to date as possible. As a part of this plan, public outreach included: • Development of a Study Review Committee comprised of stakeholders from the City of Kalispell, Flathead County, TAC, and MDT which met nine times between October 2019 and April 2021. • Listening Sessions — Feb 12t" & 13t", 2020 — were advertised through a variety of medias (including ads on Channel 190 five times per day) and allowed opportunities to explain the plan process to the public and also gather public input on perceived issues within the study area. • Development of the Move 2040 project website to receive comments from the public and to provide updates on the progress of the study. The website included four project related videos explaining the transportation planning process and how to get involved.(https.Ilkalispellmove2O4O.coml) o 6,866 unique IP's visited the site with 14,521 total visits (some IP's visited multiple times) • Online SocialPinPoint interactive survey with a total of 131 responses. • Community Updates via social media reaching 10,000 individuals. • Direct Updates to o Kalispell Development Association o Kalispell Chamber of Commerce o Kalispell Business Improvement District o Flathead County Economic Development Authority o Evergreen Water and Sewer District o Evergreen Chamber of Commerce o Montana West Economic Development • Presentation at the Kalispell Chamber of Commerce Growth Summit • Two informal working group meetings with the Mountain Climber TAC to share information on ongoing transportation plans not only in Kalispell, but Whitefish and Columbia Falls. • Three "live air" radio interviews discussing the plan and preliminary findings • Work Session and Public Hearing at Kalispell Planning Board • Work Sessions and Public Hearing at Kalispell City Council Page 10 of 23 MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 8/31/2021 Comment and Response Log JULY 26T" PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND RESPONSE 1. Margaret S Davis, homeowner Kalispell 7/29/2021 Comment: I support moving forward with and adopting the MOVE 2040 plan. Resolving pedestrian and bike sidewalk/path issues on Highway 93 and other N/S collector streets between Idaho and FVCC should be designated a high priority. In addition the lack of a proper public street between Conroy and Sunnyview in the H-1 zone has been an on -going problem as the hospital has developed. Response: Thank you for your comments. Projects ID's 34 and 35 for Shared Use Paths (SUPs) along Hwy 93 are included as Priority Projects on pg 208 of the plan. These SUPs are described in more detail on pg 188 of the plan. The SUP project near the hospital is described in more detail on pg 189. 2. Mayre Flowers: Citizens for a Better Flathead; 8/2/2021 Comment: Kalispell is in an unpresented time of growth and change. Transportation is a major aspect of development and impacts virtually all other sectors. Public policies influence transportation choices and activities in various ways. The new Draft Move 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan and its policies favor an automobile -dependent transportation sector, including public expenditures on roads and traffic services, and land use scaled for automobile travel. Not only do these policies affect highways and roads surrounding town, they also have a huge impact on how downtown Kalispell will look and function as it continues to grow and develop. Almost 5 years ago the City Council had a vision for what Kalispell's downtown should look like and what policies should guide future growth. These were outlined in the 2017 Kalispell Downtown Plan and City Growth Policy plan, and the 2018 Downtown Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan. The Move 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan is incongruent with these three documents and fails to address the vision, goals, and policy recommendation of these guiding plans. The Growth Plan outlined numerous goals for what Kalispell transportation sector would look like as it grew and developed. These goals explicitly stated that the City Council wished to "Provide a safe, efficient, accessible, and cost-effective transportation system that offers a viable choice for moving people and goods throughout the community." It also stated that they wished to "Preserve and enhance Kalispell traditional townscape of main street and neighborhood streets designed for slower vehicle traffic, walking, bicycling and historic town atmosphere." And adopt a complete street approach to right-of-way development that balances vehicle usage with transit and non -motorized modes of transportation, so they may be seen as viable alternatives to automobile travel in and around the community (City of Kalispell Growth Policy Plan -IT 2035 p.40 and 48)" Page 11 of 23 MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 8/31/2021 Comment and Response Log The Move 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan is ignoring these goals and not expanding access to different modes of transportation. This is evident when looking at the goals of the transportation plan. "Goal 1: Create a transportation system that incorporates safety and security throughout all modes and for all users. Goal 2: Create a transportation system that optimizes mobility and connectivity, allowing users to move from one place to another in a direct route with minimal travel times and delays. Goal 3: Proactively preserve and maintain existing transportation system infrastructure. Goal 4: Prioritize environmental stewardship in the development, maintenance, and operation of the transportation system. Goal 5: Create a transportation system that supports economic competitiveness, vitality, and prosperity by providing for the efficient movement of people and goods. Goal 6: Provide efficient, cost effective management and operation to accelerate transportation project delivery and ensure system reliability (Move 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan Executive Summary p.3)." Although many of these goals are a necessary focus of the transportation plan, additional thought needs to be given to alternative modes of transportation for this plan to be congruent with the growth policy. Response: The Move 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan does not ignore alternative modes of transportation. Each of the defined goals in the plan try to summarize multiple subset goals developed in the Public Outreach process. Goals 1D, 2B, and 3B specifically call out working with Mountain Climber. Goal 11 discusses bike safety. Goal 2C discusses bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Goal 2E discusses accessibility and connectivity needs for roads, paths, and sidewalks. Goal3A discusses maintaining transportation infrastructure including bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Goal 4D speaks to multimodal transportation planning. Furthermore, this transportation plan will not adequately address problems identified by the 2017 Downtown Plan. The Downtown Plan noted that narrow sidewalks discourage business from developing outdoor eating spaces and do not provide room for trees to grow. Furthermore, wide automobile lanes encourage faster traffic and truck thoroughfare, thus creating noise and congestion (City of Kalispell Downtown Plan p.14). If Kalispell proceeds with all recommendations in the Move 2040 plan, the epicenter of Kalispell's transportation —Main Street --will only continue to increase in congestion, noise, and not serve our local business interests. Response: As a result of modeling Main Street as a three -lane corridor, the recommendation of the Move 2040 plan is to complete a more detailed corridor study of Main Street. The plan does not suggest adding lanes or additional capacity to Main Street. Page 12 of 23 MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 8/31/2021 Comment and Response Log Kalispell's Downtown Plan outlined a vision for what the city's core will look like in the future. It proclaimed that by 2035 Kalispell will be, "A pedestrian -friendly environment that encourages visitors and residents to utilize downtown business... A bike -friendly environment with safe routes for bikes and available bike rakes to encourage bicyclists to stay downtown (City of Kalispell Downtown Plan p.11)." The automobile -oriented goals of the Move 2040 Transportation Plan push the question of alternative transportation down the pike, which fails to prioritize innovation and livability during this time of unprecedented growth. Response: The Move 2040 plan devoted an entire chapter (Chapter 9) to Bike and Pedestrian Facilities which identified and prioritized projects for the city. This included identified bicycle facilities through downtown to improve overall community mobility (see Chapter 9). Although the primary goal of the 2018 Downtown Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan was to create a funding mechanism in order to assist in the implementation of The 2017 Downtown Plan, it still outlined several redevelopment goals and recommendations that need to be taken into consideration. The plan made special note of the city's transportation network. "There is currently a 90' wide sea of asphalt and concrete providing little in the way of culture, charm, or aesthetics, placing emphasis upon vehicles and detracting from the perspective or experience of the pedestrian.... The traffic generally discourages walking in the area of the city where walking should be encouraged (Downtown Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan p.8)." Again, the City Council noted the importance of cutting down on automobile traffic downtown in favor of pedestrians and bikes. The Urban Renewal Plan notes the economic need to foster culture and charm as a way to promote commerce at the city's center. The Move 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan should do the same. Response: The Move 2040 plan does mimic the vision of the city for Main Street by modeling the vision of three lanes to evaluate the impacts to the transportation system. Chapter 9 identifies needs for bikes and pedestrians and prioritizes projects to address those needs. The recommended typical street cross sections in Chapter 11 (starting on page 234) provide a combination of vehicular, bike, and pedestrian facilities which can be accommodated in the common right-of-way widths within the city. A study by the Victoria Transportation Institutes analyzed the effects of an automobile - dependent transportation plan. It found that automobile -dependency can impose significant economic, social and environmental costs, and can cost an average household thousands of dollars per year. It can also increase problems such as congestion, road and parking facility costs, crash damages and environmental degradation. Automobile -dependent transportation and land use patterns reduce access, which increases the amount of vehicle travel required to maintain a given level of productivity, and reduces travel alternatives, making non -drivers worse off in absolute and relative terms. It found that these costs will be dispersed through the economy and can reduce productivity. It is critical to a community to have varied and viable alternative forms of transportation (Victoria Transportation Institute: Automobile Dependency and Economic Development p.17). We encourage the council and city staff working on this plan to also consider some of the innovative ways transportation models can be more effectively used to meet the goals of a community. See https://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdml25.htm Page 13 of 23 MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 8/31/2021 Comment and Response Log The city council adopted a growth plan, downtown plan, and an urban renewal plan that sought to increase pedestrian traffic, create viable and varied modes of transportation, and spur commerce at the city's core. The transportation plan that guides Kalispell for the next 20 years should agree with that vision. Although it is clear that the streets and highways around Kalispell need to be updated, expanded, and remodeled, particularly given anticipated growth, the Move 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan is not as currently drafted the best path forward. It is a plan driven too narrowly by a response to increased use of roadways by automobiles and not by existing adopted plans and goals of the city. Rather than be driven by a problem, the transportation plan for Kalispell should be led by a vision. Response: Thank you for your comments. Chapter 11 (starting on pg 225) of the Move 2040 plan discusses the Downtown Plan, the Urban Renewal Plan, and the Growth Policy Plan. Each of these plans are distinct from one another, but carry a common theme of a vision for Downtown Kalispell. In addition to describing the transportation goals and recommendations of these related plans, Chapter 11 also provides a policy plan to help achieve these common goals. 3. Pat Malone, Email: pcmwccc@hotmail.com , Columbia Falls 08/01/21 For forty-five years as a city planner/community-economic development professional and consultant I helped largely small towns and rural communities across the Pacific Northwest update or expand their human, physical and social capital (or soft and hard infrastructure systems). Today Congress is debating whether all of America (rich and poor) should have access to affordable and high quality infrastructure through the proposed American Infrastructure and Jobs Plan. What we know is that America has not adequately reinvested in most infrastructure systems since World War II. Unlike Europe and Japan that were rebuilt post war and newer industrial nations like China, India, Indonesia and Korea the US has not keep pace with population growth or technological innovations which place new and larger demands on all forms of our societal infrastructure. Speed, safety and dramatically increasing maintenance costs are rising challenges. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, our "hard" infrastructure price tag is at least $2.6 trillion by 2025 alone (and we certainly need equal investments in such social systems as child care, early childhood education, etc.). They also estimate that if not invested we could lose $4 trillion in gross domestic product. McKinsey researchers project that $150 billion per year is needed between 2017 and 2030 to adequately maintain our country's "hard" infrastructure. Some studies already show current negative annual economic impacts such as traffic congestion costing our economy $120 billion annually; delays or avoided trip to airports another $35 billion; deficiencies in our rail system at $30 billion, etc. The electricity and water events of last February's brief freeze in Texas which impacted 4.5 million homes and businesses isjust one example of the high cost of doing nothing. I pray Congress finds the will to act. Page 14 of 23 MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 8/31/2021 Comment and Response Log Response: We agree that funding is a critical component to transportation planning. Chapter 10 (starting on page 215) of the Move 2040 plan discusses potential funding sources and limitations. In addition, the plan recommends an Arterial and Collector Special Assessment policy to support future transportation projects. Most improvements to the city transportation system are development driven. Having a current plan in place to follow as development occurs is vital. If local, state, or federal funds become available, we also have projects prioritized in Move 2040 to assist in decision making so that we get the largest return on our transportation investments. 4. Don Burgard, Email: burgie@hughes.net , 08/13/21 1 am a 78-year-old guy who lives a couple of blocks from downtown Kalispell. I walk and ride a bicycle a lot for fun, shopping, business, etc. It would please me if the Draft Move 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan was considerably stronger with respect to alternative forms of transportation --walking, biking, bus. This transportation plan somewhat dampened the hope I held for revitalizing Kalispell as outlined in previous Downtown Plans that included reducing main street vehicle traffic and emphasized a pedestrian friendly design. Don J. Burgard Response: Thank you for your comment. Chapter 9 of the Move 2040 plan comprehensively addresses bike and pedestrian transportation goals and priorities. The Flathead County Mountain Climber public transit system is also identified and described in the document (see pages 75 - 77). Public Works has historically reviewed and permitted bus stops throughout the rife fn cunnnrt nuhlir frnncif do rlocrriharl in nnnl 1 n tho rife Will rnnfinua fn "oncura n cnfa and S. Maureen Louden, Email: mbloudenC@hotmail.com , 08/13/21 Please rework the Draft Move 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan to fully support revitalizing Main Street and the Downtown Plan instead of making Downtown Kalispell a thoroughfare for yet more traffic. Please also give greater priority in and around Kalispell to providing infrastructure for alternative forms of transportation -- walking, biking, ride sharing, and bus service as a way to decrease automobile congestion. The non-stop loud traffic going through Kalispell is frustrating and does not make the downtown very appealing. This was re -enforced just last week as we sat outside of Sweet Peaks enjoying ice cream cones. Not only is it loud but I hate to think about the pollution we are subjected to anytime we spend any time in downtown Kalispell. Response: The alternatives for the Move 2040 plan modeled Main Street in accordance with the city's three -lane vision. There are no recommendations within the plan to expand the volume of Main Street. Rather, the plan recommends an in-depth corridor study of Main Street to further evaluate the city's vision. Page 15 of 23 MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 8/31/2021 Comment and Response Log 6. Andy Matthews, Email: andy@montanabasecamp.com, Kalispell 08/13/21 Please change the name of Alt. HWY 93. Give it a real name. Very very confusing for tourist. Response: This is outside the purview of the Move 2040 plan. The bypass is an MDT corridor. Please contact MDT for further discussion on your request. Please make Main Street quiet and slow . Please delete all the no left turns. Please rework the Draft Move 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan to fully support revitalizing Main Street and the Downtown Plan instead of making Downtown Kalispell a thoroughfare for yet more traffic. Please also give greater priority in and around Kalispell to providing infrastructure for alternative forms of transportation -- walking, biking, ride sharing, and bus service as a way to decrease automobile congestion. Response: The alternatives for the Move 2040 plan modeled Main Street in accordance with the city's three -lane vision. There are no recommendations within the plan to expand the volume of Main Street. Rather, the plan recommends an in-depth corridor study of Main Street to further evaluate the city's vision. 7. Stuart Halpern, Email: lazycpa@aol.com , Whitefish 08/13/21 Please find the courage to do the right thing. It is the right thing to do and the only thing that matters to the grandchildren. You will be glad you did. Good luck! Suggest trying to rework the Draft Move 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan to fully support revitalizing Main Street and the Downtown Plan instead of making Downtown Kalispell a thoroughfare for yet more traffic. Response: The alternatives for the Move 2040 plan modeled Main Street in accordance with the city's three -lane vision. There are no recommendations within the plan to expand the volume of Main Street. Rather, the plan recommends an in-depth corridor study of Main Street to further evaluate the city's vision. Please also give greater priority in and around Kalispell to providing infrastructure for alternative forms of transportation -- walking, biking, ride sharing, and bus service as a way to decrease automobile congestion. Response: Chapter 9 of the Move 2040 plan comprehensively addresses bike and pedestrian transportation goals and priorities. The Flathead County Mountain Climber public transit system is also identified and described in the document (see pages 75 - 77). Public Works has historically reviewed and permitted bus stops throughout the city to support public transit. As described in goal 1D, the city will continue to "ensure a safe and secure environment for transit system riders". Page 16 of 23 MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 8/31/2021 Comment and Response Log Please look at Whitefish downtown throughway and resulting traffic to see what the result will be. Response: The city's vision for a three -lane Main Street is supported and was analyzed by this plan. There are many differences between Whitefish and Kalispell. In particular, Kalispell is at the intersection of two major highways, rather than a single highway passing through the town. Ultimately, MDT has the final say in many of the decisions along Main Street (Hwy 93) and Idaho (Hwy 2). With an in-depth corridor study of Main Street as visualized by the City of Kalispell, we hope MDT will recognize the possibility of the city's vision and we also hope that the city can understand, plan for, and mitigate many of the impacts of reducing the vehicular capacity of Main Street. 8. Gil Jordan & Kimberly Pinter, Email: ontherun@aboutmontana.net , Coram 08/13/21 I worked in and around downtown Kalispell for 30 years. We don't need to facilitate more traffic. If Kalispell is to be a healthy, progressive place to live into the next decade and beyond, we need to prioritize human -friendly plans. Please rework the Draft Move 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan to fully support revitalizing Main Street and the Downtown Plan instead of making Downtown Kalispell a thoroughfare for yet more traffic. Please also give greater priority in and around Kalispell to providing infrastructure for alternative forms of transportation -- walking, biking, ride sharing, and bus service as a way to decrease automobile congestion. If you look to the future with open eyes and minds, this is what will make Kalispell a great place to live and work. Response: Thank you for your comments. The Move 2040 plan does support the city's downtown vision, and includes goals, analysis, and recommendations for walking, biking, and bus services. The Move 2040 plan provides a holistic view of the entire transportation system in and around Kalispell, not just downtown and not just Main Street. For this reason, one of the recommendations of the plan is to do an additional corridor analysis of Main Street which will be more detailed and comprehensive to Main Street and adjacent corridors. 9. Stephen Johnson, Email: spimontana@gmail.com , 08/14/21 Please rework the Draft Move 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan to fully support revitalizing Main Street and the Downtown Plan instead of making Downtown Kalispell a throughfare for yet more traffic. Please also give greater priority in and around Kalispell to providing infrastructure for alternative forms of transportation —walking, biking, ride, sharing, and bus service as way to decrease automobile congestion. Page 17 of 23 MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 8/31/2021 Comment and Response Log Response: Thank you for your comments. The Move 2040 plan does support the city's downtown vision, and includes goals, analysis, and recommendations for walking, biking, and bus services. The Move 2040 plan provides a holistic view of the entire transportation system in and around Kalispell, not just downtown and not just Main Street. For this reason, one of the recommendations of the plan is to do an additional corridor analysis of Main Street which will be more detailed and comprehensive to Main Street and adjacent corridors. 10. Catherine, Email: gandydancerpepper@montanasky.net , 08/14/21 Please rework the Draft Move 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan to fully support revitalizing Main Street and the Downtown Plan instead of making Downtown Kalispell a thoroughfare for yet more traffic. Please also give greater priority in and around Kalispell to providing infrastructure for alternative forms of transportation -- walking, biking, ride sharing, and bus service as a way to decrease automobile congestion. Response: Thank you for your comments. The Move 2040 plan does support the city's downtown vision, and includes goals, analysis, and recommendations for walking, biking, and bus services. The Move 2040 plan provides a holistic view of the entire transportation system in and around Kalispell, not just downtown and not just Main Street. For this reason, one of the recommendations of the plan is to do an additional corridor analysis of Main Street which will be more detailed and comprehensive to Main Street and adjacent corridors. 11. Keith Hammer, Email: keith@swanview.org, Flathead County, 253-6536 08/14/21 Please rework the Draft Move 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan to fully support revitalizing Main Street and the Downtown Plan instead of making Downtown Kalispell a thoroughfare for yet more traffic. Please also give greater priority in and around Kalispell to providing infrastructure for alternative forms of transportation -- walking, biking, ride sharing, and bus service as a way to decrease automobile congestion. Make downtown Kalispell a calm, walkable and bikeable place to do business. Your plan will do the opposite defeat the gains made via the Bypass project. Keith Hammer - Chair Swan View Coalition Response: Thank you for your comments. The Move 2040 plan does support the city's downtown vision, and includes goals, analysis, and recommendations for walking, biking, and bus services. The Move 2040 plan provides a holistic view of the entire transportation system in and around Kalispell, not just downtown and not just Main Street. For this reason, one of the recommendations of the plan is to do an additional corridor analysis of Main Street which will be more detailed and comprehensive to Main Street and adjacent corridors. Page 18 of 23 MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 8/31/2021 Comment and Response Log 12. Christina Granrud, Email: cgranrud@hotmail.com , 08/16/21 Please rework the Draft Move 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan to fully support revitalizing Main Street and the Downtown Plan instead of making Downtown Kalispell a thoroughfare for yet more traffic. Please also give greater priority in and around Kalispell to providing infrastructure for alternative forms of transportation -- walking, biking, ride sharing, and bus service as a way to decrease automobile congestion. nr3Nur13r. i nr Ivlwr cu-ru Niun uurZ, ZIuNNuI < uir LILY Z, uumitown vision, and includes goals, analysis, and recommendations for walking, biking, and bus services. The Move 2040 plan provides a holistic view of the entire transportation system in and around Kalispell, not just downtown and not just Main Street. For this reason, one of the recommendations of the plan is to do an additional corridor analysis of Main Street which will be more detailed and comprehensive to Main Street and adjacent corridors. Right now CHAOS is KaIispeII's transportation plan!!! The STUPID, INCOMPETENT jerk that changed 3rd and 4th Avenues East from one-way to both ways should be tarred and feathered!! In fact, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and possibly others SHOULD ALL BE ONE-WAY!!! Traffic hardly moves. There is almost NO parking available on the avenues!!! One way, zig-zag, NON movement reigns!!! STUPID! AND WHY IS MAIN STREET, DOWNTOWN KALISPELL A HIGHWAY THOROUGH FARE!!! Once again, STUPID!!! Response: The transition of 3rd and 4111 Ave E from one-way to two-way streets was a recommendation of the previous transportation plan and in line with the city goals to make a residential street better serve local residential traffic rather than non -local through traffic. Both of the streets front schools with school zones and crossing school age pedestrian traffic. Neither of the streets were designed to serve collector traffic but were transitioned from two-way traffic into one-way thoroughfares in 1966 because they crossed the railroad tracks and connected to Hwy 2. The goal of the transition back to two-way traffic was to make the streets less attractive to through traffic so that through traffic would choose other more appropriate routes better designed for the through traffic. I KEEP HOPING THERE IS SOMEONE WITH A BRAIN IN KALISPELL CITY GOVERNMENT THAT IS CAPABLE OF PLANNING CORRECTLY!!! I am still waiting for that to happen!!! The citizens of Kalispell need better walking and biking choices!!! The citizens of Kalispell need ride share opportunities!!! There is already too much carbon being emitted into the atmosphere!!!!! The citizens of Kalispell need an expanded bus service in place!!! There are many citizens who cannot afford to own cars!!! What the heck are they supposed to do!!! Page 19 of 23 MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 8/31/2021 Comment and Response Log There are too many people moving to the Flathead and to Montana! People need to be discouraged from coming here! Our roads cannot sustain this overloading! Our infrastructure cannot sustain this overloading! Montanans born and raised here cannot afford to live here!! M! That is a mortal sin!!! I am sick and tired of catering to the hordes of outsidersHHH! It is past time to help REAL MONTANANS!!!!!!!!!!HM! ENOUGH SELFISH, ENOUGH STUPID, AND TOO MUCH GREED!!!!!!!!!!!!!HHH! Response: The proposed city cross sections in the Move 2040 plan include considerations for walking and biking. Chapter 9 of the Move 2040 plan comprehensively addresses bike and pedestrian transportation goals and priorities. The Flathead County Mountain Climber public transit system is also identified and described in the document (see pages 75 - 77). Public Works has historically reviewed and permitted bus stops throughout the city to support public transit. As described in goal 1D, the city will continue to "ensure a safe and secure environment for transit system riders". 13. D.L. Blank, Email: dblankl@cyberport.net , Whitefish 08/16/21 This plan is too focused on more pavement, more bridges, and more cars. For thriving citizens and communities, encourage people to switch from using cars to walking, public transit, and bicycling by providing bicycle and walking routes that are connected, safe, and pleasant, and expanded bus service. So many times I have wished I could get to town by putting my bike on a bus, and then use the bicycle to do my errands. It seems crazy for me to drive alone in my car with hundreds of people doing the same thing, going to the same area. But our system is set up to make anything else very inconvenient, dangerous, and annoying because of all the car traffic. Please follow the Kalispell Downtown Plan and re -write the Transportation Plan. Emphasize methods that work for people who want to save money, want a healthier, pleasanter way to move, or are too old or too young to drive or can't for other reasons. By the way, that includes every single one of us at various points in our lives. This will save the city a lot of money, too. Response: Thank you for your comments. The proposed city cross sections in the Move 2040 plan include considerations for walking and biking. Chapter 9 of the Move 2040 plan comprehensively addresses bike and pedestrian transportation goals and priorities. The Flathead County Mountain Climber public transit system is also identified and described in the document (see pages 75 - 77). Public Works has historically reviewed and permitted bus stops throughout the city to support public transit. As described in goal 1D, the city will continue to "ensure a safe and secure environment for transit system riders". Page 20 of 23 MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 8/31/2021 Comment and Response Log 14. Jennifer Graham, Email: jennifergraham2004@msn.com , Kalispell 08/16/21 Please rework the Draft Move 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan to fully support revitalizing Main Street and the Downtown Plan instead of making Downtown Kalispell a thoroughfare for yet more traffic. Please also give greater priority in and around Kalispell to providing infrastructure for alternative forms of transportation -- walking, biking, ride sharing, and bus service as a way to decrease automobile congestion. Response: The proposed city Ll uss sections in the Move 2040 plan include considerations for walking and biking. Chapter 9 of the Move 2040 plan comprehensively addresses bike and pedestrian transportation goals and priorities. The Flathead County Mountain Climber public transit system is also identified and described in the document (see pages 75 - 77). Public Works has historically reviewed and permitted bus stops throughout the city to support public transit. As described in goal 1D, the city will continue to "ensure a safe and secure environment for transit system riders". Please don't ruin our last chance to make the city user friendly and charming. how about using the road by Toyota as a bypass to rt2 by Snappys --makes sense. Jennifer Graham Response: Thank you for your comments. The east side connection you mentioned was analyzed as part of the modeling completed for Move 2040 and is a recommended project of the Move 2040 plan. 15. Gary & Lynn Havens, Email: Ihavens@montanasky.net , Kalispell, 08/16/21 I would first like to ask you in general to please rework the Draft Move 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan so that it focuses on revitalizing Main Street instead of making it a thoroughfare for more traffic. My husband and I live on Woodland Avenue and consider ourselves part of the downtown corridor. Our hope is that this lovely downtown area, including the Conrad Mansion, can remain quaint and an asset to the city. Currently it's a mecca for walking and biking, and I don't think this aspect of the city has been considered in several of the plans — especially the roundabout at the corner of 2nd Street East and Woodland Ave. Has anyone counted the number of people who cross this intersection to use the walking/bike path and going to and coming from Woodland Park? We see lots of folks on this stretch and feel that a roundabout with no stopping would be a disaster and would result in many, many injuries. If drivers circling the roundabout even see people crossing the street, which I doubt, they would have to stop (pedestrians have the right of way???) and that would result in a back-up of traffic in the circle. Roundabouts have a purpose and work well when not partnered with busy pedestrian traffic. Please rethink this plan! Page 21 of 23 MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 8/31/2021 Comment and Response Log Response: Thank you for your comments. The plan does model Main Street as a three -lane street. The analysis shows that congestion will occur on Main Street and adjacent streets. Therefore, the recommendation of the plan is to complete a corridor study of Main Street to better understand, plan for, and mitigate these impacts if MDT implements a narrower road section. The roundabout proposed at 2nd St East and Woodland Drive is a safety project intended to address vehicle crash incidence and severity. The proposed plan will add ADA compliant crossings on three legs of the intersection which don't exist today. For additional information as this project moves forward please visit: https://www.mdt.mt.pov/pubinvolve/woodland/ 16. Marie LeMoyne, Email: marielemoyneC@hotmail.com , 08/16/21 1 was walking with a young friend behind the mall on Idaho and found I had to walk much too far to get to a safe crossing place. I am reminded that towns are not pedestrian or bike friendly! Please rework the Draft Move 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan to fully support revitalizing Main Street and the Downtown Plan instead of making Downtown Kalispell a thoroughfare for yet more traffic. Please also give greater priority in and around Kalispell to providing infrastructure for alternative forms of transportation -- walking, biking, ride sharing, and bus service as a way to decrease automobile congestion. Thank you H Response: Thank you for your comment. A major improvement to walking in the area you are describing will be completed with the Parkline Trail project which is currently under construction. Also, the proposed city cross sections in Chapter 11 of the Move 2040 plan include considerations for walking and biking. Additionally, Chapter 9 of the Move 2040 plan comprehensively addresses bike and pedestrian transportation goals and priorities throughout Kalispell. 17. Steve Martinez, Email: martinezlac@gmail.com, Kalispell, 08/16/21 I am writing to express my dismay over what I know about the move 2040 transportation plan for the city of Kalispell. MY GOD how can any plan speaking about transportation today not include, increased bicycle, pedestrian or public transportation access. This is 2021 our state is burning up, climate change IS a reality. If we are going to survive as a community (species) we have to shrink our carbon use. Increasing ways to move more cars through downtown IS NOT the answer. Increasing density, providing for non motorized access is the sustainable way we need to go as a city and downtown. We cannot build our transportation system out of this pace of growth, it will not happen, we will always be behind. It is time to think out of the box, look at some European models of mixed access and higher density living. It is more sustainable, it breaths hope into the future. Page 22 of 23 MOVE 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan 8/31/2021 Comment and Response Log The Kalispell Downtown Plan and Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan are much more inline with what our community vision should be. Please do not through these visions of the future out for a hoax of a fix to our traffic problems. Response: Thank you for your comment. The Move 2040 plan does support the city's downtown vision, and includes goals, analysis, and recommendations for walking, biking, and bus services. The proposed city cross sections in Chapter 11 of the Move 2040 plan include considerations for walking and biking. Chapter 9 of the Move 2040 plan comprehensively addresses bike and pedestrian transportation goals and priorities. The Move 2040 plan provides a holistic view of the entire transportation system in and around Kalispell, not just downtown and not just Main Street. For this reason, one of the recommendations of the plan is to do an additional corridor analysis of Main Street which will be more detailed and comprehensive to Main Street and adjacent corridors. 18. Charley Jones, Email: charleyldiC@gmail.com, 8/25/21 Hello, Please prioritize and support the 2017 and 2018 Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan as a way to form a healthy and safe downtown for all of us residents, especially residents with families and young kids. We need less traffic on mainstreet, more biking and safe walking paths, bike racks and a peaceful environment that makes us want to shop and stay downtown, rather than quickly get up and leave because of the noise, speed of vehicles and congestion. One of the best things we can do as a community is encourage and form a walking friendly, biking friendly downtown, where families can be without stress and other forms of transportation can be used, which helps form healthy family environments, which is incredibly important for a strong and healthy community. The Urban development plans that were created in 2017 and 2018, encouraged a lot of community input excitement for young families, and people of all ages. Please don't allow Kalispell to fall behind other towns in the Valley that are prioritizing walking and biking and a vital downtown economy. I appreciate your time and thought with this moving forward. Sincerely, Charley Jones Response: Thank you for your comments. The Move 2040 plan supports the city's downtown vision, and includes goals, analysis, and recommendations for walking and biking. The proposed city cross sections in Chapter 11 of the Move 2040 plan include considerations for walking and biking. Chapter 9 of the Move 2040 plan comprehensively addresses bike and pedestrian transportation goals and priorities. Page 23 of 23