Transportation PlanSeptember 2021
iKALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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
ii MOVE 2040
Table of Figures
Figure 1.1: Study Area .......................................................4
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
Study Area ......................................................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
Figure 3.41: Passenger Volumes at Kalispell-Glacier Park
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
Study Area ......................................................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 Flats School .......................................72
Figure 3.56: Evergreen Junior High School .........................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
iiiKALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 6.8: Alternative 5A ADT Change on
Select Corridors .............................................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 9.6: On-Street Bike Routes Project Priority Map ......207
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 .....................234
Figure 11.6: Minor Arterial Cross Section .........................234
Figure 11.7: Major Collector Cross Section .......................235
Figure 11.8: Minor Collector Cross Section .......................235
Figure 11.9: Local Road Cross Section ..............................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
iv MOVE 2040
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
and Mileage ...................................................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 by V/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 7.1: 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
vKALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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
I
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
vi MOVE 2040
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
U
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
ChapTEr 1:
INTrODUCTION
3KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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.
Background
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 Chapter 2
Study area
The study area for the project was established in collabo-
ration with the Urban Transportation Advisory Committee
(TAC). 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 boundary to 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.
4 MOVE 2040
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
")35")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WIL
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
STAGE
W S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
Legend
Study Area
Kalispell Urban Boundary
Evergreen
Kalispell City Boundary
0 10.5 Miles I
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, USGS,
NOAA
Figure 1.1: Study Area
5KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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:
1 See: https://www.mdt.mt.gov/tranplan/
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 Table 1.1,
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.1
6 MOVE 2040
Table 1.1: Kalispell Goal Areas by Order of
Importance
Kalispell
Priority
Kalispell Move 2040
Goal Area MDT TranPlanMT Goal
1 Safety and Security Safety
2 Congestion Reduction Accessibility and
Connectivity
3 Infrastructure
Condition
System Preservation
and Maintenance
4 Environmental
Sustainability
Environmental
Stewardship
5
System Reliability for
Freight Movement
and Economic Vitality
Mobility and
Economic Vitality
6 Reduce Project
Delays
Business Operations
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.
1A. Support Montana’s State Highway Safety Plan
“Vision Zero” as a goal to move toward zero deaths
and zero serious injuries.
1B. 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.
1C. Leverage technology advancements in project de-
velopment to improve safety.
1D. Partner with Mountain Climber to ensure a safe
and secure environment for transit system riders.
1E. 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.
1F. Provide safety education programs for all transpor-
tation users.
1G. Target safety improvement projects to address the
top 15 High Crash Locations, as identified in Move
2040.
1H. Enhance crash data integration and analysis to
support decision making and issue identification.
1I. 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
7KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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.
4B. 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-
ing for the efficient movement of people 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.
5B. 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.
5I. 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.
5J. 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.
6B. 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.
ChapTEr 2:
pUBLIC ENGaGEMENT
SUMMarY
11KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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.
12 MOVE 2040
Each of the Listening Sessions had three components:
»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.
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: Final Outreach and Input
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, an interview was given 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.
ChapTEr 3:
EXISTING CONDITIONS
15KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
INTrODUCTION
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
Flathead
County
City of
Kalispell Evergreen State of
Montana
1970 39,460 10,526 —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 102,106 23,938 7,552 1,062,305
Annual
Average
Change
3.38%2.71%2.75%1.13%
population Dynamics
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 3.2 shows the
population dynamics in the study area.
Table 3.2: Population Dynamics
Area 2000 2010 2017
Flathead County
Median Age 39 41.2 42.3
Younger than
18 25.9%23.4%22.4%
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 34.9
Younger than
18 24.0%25.1%25.5%
18 to 64 57.7%59.5%58.8%
Older than 64 18.3%15.4%15.7%
Evergreen
Median Age 35.4 37.8 42
Younger than
18 28.0%26.3%24.6%
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 39.8
Younger than
18 25.5%22.6%22.0%
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.
16 MOVE 2040
Table 3.3: Housing Trends in Study Area
Flathead
County
City of
Kalispell Evergreen
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 Average
Employment
Health Care and Social Assistance 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 1,000 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
17KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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 3.1 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).
Figure 3.1: Historical Unemployment
Rates in Flathead County
4.80%
5.70%
12.00%
4.90%
5.50%
7.80%
7.60%
0.00%
3.00%
6.00%
9.00%
12.00%
15.00%
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
18 MOVE 2040
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
exPlanation
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 Table 3.6.
Functionally classified roadways in the study area are
shown in Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4.
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.
19KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Table 3.6: Functional Classification Definitions
Functional Classification Characteristics
Urban areas (population Greater Than 5,000)
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 ¾ 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 ¾ mile
»Extends through residential neighborhoods, often only for a short
distance
Local »All remaining streets
»Direct land access and link to higher classifications
rural areas (population Less Than 5,000)
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
20 MOVE 2040
evaluation of exiSting functional claSS within the
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 Miles % of Total FHWA
Recommendation Within Range
Principal Arterial 33.8 6.5%4% to 9%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
21KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 3.3: Functionally Classified Roadways in the Study Area
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
")35
")82
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤93
£¤2
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
WHITEFISH
STAGE
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA¯
Legend
Study Area Functional Class
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Minor Collector
Local
0 10.5 Miles I
22 MOVE 2040
UV292
UV424
UV548
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
W RESERVE DR
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA
¯
Legend
Study Area Functional Class
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Minor Collector
Local
0 10.5 Miles I
Figure 3.4: Functionally Classified Roadways Inset
23KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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 3.5.
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.
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 System
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.
Figure 3.6 demonstrates identified roadway maintenance
obligations based on functional classification of minor
collector or higher.
24 MOVE 2040
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
")82
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
STAGE
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA¯
Legend
Study Area
Urban Boundary
FHWA System Designations
NHS Non-Interstate
Primary
Secondary
Urban
Local Roads 0 10.5 Miles I
Figure 3.5: Highway Systems in the Study Area
25KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
THREE MILE DR
FARM TO MARKET RD
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
£¤2
£¤93
£¤93
£¤93A
£¤93A
")82
")35
UV292
UV548
£¤93
£¤93
£¤2
£¤2
£¤93A
")82¯
Legend
Study Area Jurisdiction
City Maintained
County Maintained
MDT Maintained 0 10.5 Miles I
Figure 3.6: Roadway Maintenance Responsibility
26 MOVE 2040
Travel Trends
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
travel time
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. Figure 3.8 shows the average travel time to
work by mode.
Figure 3.8: Average Travel Time to Work by Mode
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 Figure 3.11 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 Figure 3.13, respectively. More analysis
of existing and projected demographic data to support
Move 2040 is included in Chapter 4.
77
.
3
0
%
9.0
0
%
0.
9
0
%
5.
3
0
%
1.
2
0
%
6.2
0
%
82
.
8
0
%
6.
6
0
%
1.
6
0
%
3%
1.4
0
%
4.
6
0
%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
Drove
Alone
Carpooled Transit Biked or
Walked
Taxicab Worked at
Home
2010 2017
13.7
21.9
84.8
15.61516.8
31.4
15.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Drove Alone Carpooled Public
Transportation
Average
2010 2017
27KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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. Figure 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.
As shown in Figure 3.14 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
V/C Ratio Level of Service Description
Under 0.6 LOS A 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
Figure 3.9: Level of Service Descriptions
CAPACITY
Under
FREE FLOW
Low volumes and no delays.
STABLE FLOW
Low volumes and speedsdictated by travel conditions.
STABLE FLOW
Speeds and maneuverability closely
controlled due to higher volumes.
RESTRICTED FLOW
Higher density traffic restricts maneuverability
and volumes approaching capacity.
UNSTABLE FLOW
Low speeds, considerable delays, and
volumes at or slightly over capacity.
FORCED FLOW
Very low speeds, volumes exceed capacity,and long delays with stop-and-go traffic.
Approaching
At
Over
TRAFFIC FLOW DESCRIPTION
28 MOVE 2040
1
4
7
0
0
14100
1
4
9
0
0
184 0 0
1 5 5 0 0
169
0
0
16
6
0
0
16500
19
7
0
0
1
3
3
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
1
2
4
0
0
1
12
0
0
1
6
8
0
0
2
5
300
20
5
0
0
15400
17
0
0
0
11300
19300
1 5 0 0 0
10
7
0
0
21
1
0
0
33
5
0
0
17
6
0
0
26
5
0
0
17000
11300
19600
21
9
0
0
900
18
0
0
65
0
0
20
0
0
3300
1700
30
0
0
3600
1100
3100
6300
200
39
0
0
100
90
0
60
0
0
50
44
0
0
4500
22
0
0
1
3
5
0
0
10
7
0
0
1
3
3
0
0
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
")35")35
12700
23800
2 4 5 0 0
19
0
0
0
144 0 0
1
5
5
0
0
17600
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
E RESERVE DR
HELENA
FLATSRD
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
S
TAGE
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
Legend
Study Area Modeled Volumes 2017
0 - 500
600 - 1,700
1,800 - 5,000
5,100 - 10,000
10,100 - 15,000
15,100 - 20,000
20,400 - 34,400
0 10.5 Miles I
Inset
Figure 3.10: 2017 Modeled Volumes in Study Area
29KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
19
3
0
0
21300
16900
184 0 0
2 170 0
1
3
2
0
0
18
5
0
0
281
0
0
2
5
9
0
0
1
3
3
0
0
1
5
0
0
0
22600
16
8
0
0
15400
16800
3
2
3
0
0
1
9
7
0
0
18
8
0
0
1
3
7
0
0
11
2
0
0
17900
11300
2
6
7
0
0
20
0
0
0
11
6
0
0
1
5
4
0
0
34
4
0
0
17
6
0
0
65
0
0
3300
30
0
0
3600
6300
39
0
0
60
0
0
1
3
5
00
5400
5600
4 6 0 0
41
0
0
1
4
6
0
0
E CENTER ST
1
S
T
A
V
E
E
N
3
R
D
A
V
E
E
N
APPLEWAY DR
NO
R
T
H
E
R
N
L
I
G
H
T
S
B
L
V
D
14TH ST E
11TH ST E
FOUR MILE DR
PA
R
K
P
L
21ST
S
T
E
7TH S T W
2ND ST E
4
T
H
A
V
E
E
N
5
T
H
A
V
E
W
7
T
H
A
V
E
W
4T
H
A
V
E
E
TWO MILE DR
18TH ST E
2ND ST W
HILLTOPAVE
5
T
H
A
V
E
W
N
1
S
T
A
V
E
E
N
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
R
D
3
R
D
A
V
E
E
1S
T
A
V
E
W
GRANDVIE
W
D
R
US
9
3
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
WEVERGREEN DR
US
2
CONRAD DR
WHITEFISHSTAGE
9
3
A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
E
SUNNYVIEW
LN
AIR
P
O
R
T
R
D
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤93
1900
5300
6
5
0
0
1
8
0
0
2300
1
3
0
0
3000
1400
1700
7000
3000
1800
15001200
1
0
0
0
1
7
0
0
18
0
0
4
4
0
0
4600
77
0
0
87
0
0
3
2
0
0
2
9
0
0
8400
21400
23800
17600
2 4 5 0 0
Legend
Study Area Modeled Volumes 2017
1,000 - 1,500
1,501 - 2,500
2,501 - 5,000
5,001 - 10,000
10,001 - 15,000
15,001 - 20,000
20,001 - 34,400
0 0.50.25 Miles IVolumes <1000 omitted
Figure 3.11: 2017 Modeled Volumes Inset
30 MOVE 2040
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
")35")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
STAGE
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
0 10.5 Miles I
Legend
Kalispell
Evergreen
Households per acre
0.0 - 0.5
0.6 - 1.0
1.1 - 10.0
10.1 - 50.0
50.1 - 117.1
Study Area
Figure 3.12: 2017 Households per Acre
31KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
")35")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
STAGE
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
0 10.5 Miles I
Legend
Evergreen
Kalispell
Jobs per acre
0.0 - 0.5
0.6 - 1.0
1.1 - 10.0
10.1 - 50.0
50.1 - 74.8
Study Area
Figure 3.13: 2017 Jobs per Acre
32 MOVE 2040
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
")35")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
STAGE
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
Legend
Study Area
0 10.5 Miles I
Inset
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
Figure 3.14: Volume-to-Capacity Ratios in Study Area
33KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 3.15: Volume-to-Capacity Ratios Inset
1
S
T
A
V
E
E
N
3R
D
A
V
E
E
N
NOR T H RID GE DR
N
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
R
D
APPLEWAY DR
18TH ST E
7
T
H
A
V
E
W
SUNNY VIEW
LN
NORTHERN
L
IGHTS
BLVD
5T
H
A
V
E
W
N
7
T
H
A
V
E
E
N
W WYOMING
S
T
14TH ST E
E CENTER ST
4TH ST E
11TH ST E PA
R
K
P
L
21ST
S
T
E
7TH S T W
5
T
H
A
V
E
W
4T
H
A
V
E
E
W CENTER ST
2ND ST W
HILLTOPAVE
1S
T
A
VE
E
3
R
D
A
V
E
E
1S
T
A
V
E
W
TWO MILE DR
MERIDIANRD
2NDSTE
GRANDVIE
W
D
R
THREE MILE DR
AIRPORT
RD
W EVERGREEN DR
US
2
U
S
9
3
CONRAD DR
WIL
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
WHITEFISHSTAGE
93
ALTERNATE
S
H
A
D
Y
L
N
4TH ST W
FOUR MILE DR
FOYS LAKE R D
E EVERGREEN DR
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
Legend
Study Area
0 0.50.25 MilesI
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
34 MOVE 2040
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: 2017 Actual Versus 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 Figure
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.
44
1
,
0
0
4
17
3
,
6
3
0
61
,
6
7
8
4,
7
4
5
50
1
,
5
8
7
16
9
,
3
9
5
69
,
4
8
2
4,
2
1
8
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector
2017 VMT 2017 Modeled VMT
Figure 3.17: Seasonal Traffic by Zone
-
2,500
5,000
7,500
10,000
12,500
15,000
17,500
20,000
22,500
25,000
27,500
30,000
November 2018 AADT 2018 Summer 2018
35KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 3.18: StreetLight Daily Destination Zone Volumes
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
#*
#*
#*#*
")35
£¤2
£¤93
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
4
2
3
1
9 10 11 12
1817 19
2322
25 26
2116
36
27 28
33
34
37
35
29
24
20
13
5 6
14
8
7
15
30
31 32
0 10.5 Miles
Legend
Study Area
Streetlight Data Analysis Zones
")External Zone
#*Segment Analysis Zone I
Montana Highway 35 East
US 93 South
US 2 West
Montana Highway
424 West
Reserve Dr West
US 93 North
Whitefish Stage
Rd North
US 2 North
36 MOVE 2040
Figure 3.19: Total Daily Traffic by Origin Zone
Figure 3.20: Total Daily Traffic by Destination Zone
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
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.
37KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Origin and Destination Analysis Results
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
38 MOVE 2040
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 3.22 shows the travel patterns for Rose Crossing.
Figure 3.22: Rose Crossing Zone Analysis
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 11.
Figure 3.24 shows the travel patterns for West Reserve
Drive.
39KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 3.24: West Reserve Drive Zone Analysis
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
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 (FedEx/USPS) being located along US 2 in
Evergreen.
Figure 3.26 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 3.28,
respectively.
40 MOVE 2040
Figure 3.26: Commercial Traffic Travel Trends
Figure 3.27: US 93 South to US 93 North Trip Duration Comparison
41KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 3.28: US 93 South to US 93 North Average Speed Comparison
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
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 Figure 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.
42 MOVE 2040
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤2
£¤93
")35
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤2
£¤93
")35
Figure 3.29: AM Peak Hour Congestion Figure 3.30: PM Peak Hour Congestion
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
US 93
US 2
Meridian Road
Reserve Dr West
US 93 Line
Montana Highway 424 W
Montana Highway 35 E
US 2 West
US 93 Bypass
US 2 North
Whitefish Stage Rd North
US 93 South
US 93 North
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
US 93
US 2
Meridian Road
Reserve Dr West
US 93 Line
Montana Highway 424 W
Montana Highway 35 E
US 2 West
US 93 Bypass
US 2 North
Whitefish Stage Rd North
US 93 South
US 93 North
43KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Multimodal Hotspots
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 Figure 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
44 MOVE 2040
Traffic Operations
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 Table 3.9.
Table 3.9: LOS Thresholds by Intersection Delay
Level of
Service
Unsignalized
Intersection
(sec/veh)
Signalized
Intersection
(sec/veh)
Description
LOS A <10 <10 Near free-flow
traffic.
LOS B 10 – 15 10 – 20 Minor delays.
LOS C 15 – 25 20 – 35
Some delays, but
not resulting in
significant traffic
congestion.
LOS D 25 – 35 35 – 55 Delays with some
traffic congestion.
LOS E 35 – 50 55 – 80
Significant delays
with significant
traffic congestion,
approaching
capacity.
LOS F > 50 > 80
Breakdown of
traffic flow, major
traffic congestion.
traffic oPerationS reSultS
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 10th
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.
45KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
ID Intersection Traffic
Control Peak Level of Service
EB WB NB SB Int
1 US 93 &
Reserve Dr Signal AM F D C C D
PM D D D C D
2
Reserve Dr
& Whitefish
Stage Rd
Signal AM C D D B D
PM D D D C D
3 US 2 &
Reserve Dr Signal AM B C B C C
PM C D C C C
4
US 93 &
Grandview
Dr/Four
Mile Dr
Signal
AM D D A A A
PM D D B A B
5
Helena
Flats Rd &
MT 35
Signal AM A C C C C
PM B C B C C
6 Meridian Rd
& 3 Mile Dr Signal AM B A A B B
PM B C A B A
7 Meridian Rd
& Liberty Signal AM C C A A A
PM C C A A A
8 Meridian Rd
& 2 Mile Dr Signal AM C C A A A
PM C C A A B
9 Meridian Rd
& US 2 Signal AM C B C C C
PM C C D C C
10 US 2 & 5th
Ave W Signal AM B A D E C
PM C B D E C
11 US 2 & US
93 Signal AM D C D D D
PM D D D D D
12 US 93 &
Center St Signal AM D C C B C
PM C C C B C
13
1st Ave EN
& E Center
St
Signal AM A A B B A
PM B C B B B
14 1st Ave W &
2nd Ave W Signal AM B A B B B
PM B A B B B
15
Woodland
Ave & 2nd
St/Conrad
Dr
3-way
Stop
AM B C B B C
PM B C B C C
16 US 93 & 4th
St Signal AM B B B A A
PM B C B A B
ID Intersection Traffic
Control Peak Level of Service
EB WB NB SB Int
17
Woodland
Ave & 11th
St W
TWSC AM B —A A B
PM B —A A B
18 US 93 &
11th St Signal AM C C B A B
PM C D B C C
19 US 93 &
Treeline Rd Signal AM D D A A B
PM E C B C C
20 US 93 &
Wyoming St Signal AM C B B A B
PM C B A A A
21 US 93 &
Conway Dr Signal AM —C A A A
PM —C B A B
22
US 93 &
Sunny View
Ln
Signal AM —D A A A
PM —D A A B
23
US 93 &
Commons
Way
Signal AM C D A B B
PM C D C B C
24 US 93 &
Meridian Rd Signal AM C —B B B
PM D —B B B
25
US 93 &
Commercial
Access
(Flathead
Valley)
Signal
AM B C A A A
PM B C A A A
26
W Reserve
Dr & Hutton
Ranch Rd
Signal AM B A B —A
PM B A B —B
27
US 2 &
Evergreen
Dr
Signal AM C C B B B
PM C C B B B
28 US 93 & 6th
St Signal AM C C A A A
PM D C A A A
29 US 93 &
13th St Signal AM E C A A D
PM F C A A D
30 US 93 & 7th
St TWSC AM —B A A B
PM —B A A B
31 US 93 &
10th St TWSC AM D D A A C
PM D C A A C
32 US 93 &
12th St TWSC AM C E A A A
PM C E A A C
Table 3.10: AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS
46 MOVE 2040
Figure 3.32: AM Peak Hour Traffic Operations
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
UV548
UV503
UV292
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
W RESERVE DR1 2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11
1213
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2932
30
31
33
¯
Legend
!(LOS A-C
!(LOS D
!(LOS E
!(LOS F 0 0.50.25 Miles I
47KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 3.33: PM Peak Hour Traffic Operations
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
UV548
UV503
UV292
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
W RESERVE DR1 2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11
1213
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2932
30
31
33
¯
Legend
!(LOS A-C
!(LOS D
!(LOS E
!(LOS F 0 0.50.25 Miles I
48 MOVE 2040
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 Figure 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
Figure 3.35: Crashes by Crash Type
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
265 251 229 212 202
738 704 828 797 697
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Injury Non-Injury
1,013 983
1,077 1,030
916
1,501
1,321
733
507
328
260
174
173
36
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Rear-End
Angle
Single Vehicle
Other
Sideswipe
Head-On
Left Turn
Run-off-Road
Right Turn
49KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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.
50 MOVE 2040
ID Intersection
Million
Entering
Vehicles
Crashes
Crash Rate Severity
RateInjuryNon-Injury Total
1 US 2 & US 93 79.0 10 40 50 0.63 0.80
2 US 93 & W Reserve Drive 64.9 12 36 48 0.74 1.06
3 US 93 & US 93A 38.6 12 43 55 1.42 1.94
4 W Reserve Drive & Whitefish Stage 39.5 17 40 57 1.44 2.10
5 US 93 & Meridian Road 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 & 11th Street 38.2 5 21 26 0.68 1.00
Table 3.11: High Crash Locations
51KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 3.36: Crash Hotspots
52 MOVE 2040
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!
!!
!
!
(
(
((
((((((((((
((((
(
((
((
((((
(((((((((
(((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((
((
(((((((((
(
(
(((
((((
(((((((((((((((
(
((((
((
(
(
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
(
(
((
((
(
((
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
")35")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
STAGE
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
¯
Legend
Study Area
Severe Crashes
!(Fatal
!(Serious Injury
0 10.5 Miles I
Figure 3.37: Severe Crash Locations
53KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
")35")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
STAGE
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
¯
Legend
Study Area
Wild Animal-Involved Crashes
!(Injury Crashes
!(Non-Injury Crashes 0 10.5 Miles I
Figure 3.38: Wild Animal Crashes
54 MOVE 2040
Figure 3.39: Severe Crash Locations
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(UV292
UV424
UV548
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
W RESERVE DR
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
11
3
10
1
15
4
12
8
6
5
13
7 14
9
2
¯
Legend
Study Area
!(Top 15 High Crash Intersections
0 10.5 Miles I
55KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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
ID Location 2018 Daily Traffic 2018 Daily Truck Traffic Percent Truck Traffic
17 US 93 Bypass (Airport Rd to US 93)9,086 603 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 1.58%
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 Airport Rd (S of 18th St)5,096 33 0.65%
56 MOVE 2040
Æ`
Æ`
Æ`
Æ`Æ`
Æ`
Æ`
Æ`
Æ`
Æ`
Æ`
Æ`
Æ`
Æ`
Æ`
Æ`
Æ`
Æ`
Æ`
Æ`
Æ`
Æ`
Æ`Æ`
Æ`
Æ`
Æ`
Æ`Æ`
Æ`
Æ`
Æ`
Æ`
Æ`
Æ`
!
!
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
UV292
UV292
UV424
UV503
UV424
UV548
")35")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤93
£¤2
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
STAGE
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
16
17
7
9
19
2
8
5
3
10
25
24
14
1
11
21
22
20
18
13
23
15
412
Legend
Study Area
Evergreen
Kalispell
Likely Freight-Generating Land Uses
High Truck Traffic
Rail
NHS Routes
Æ`Airports
!Freight Generators
!(Select Traffic Count Locations
Glacier Rail Park
0 10.5 Miles I
Figure 3.40: Truck Routes and Generators
57KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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 55 shows high truck
traffic locations.
rail
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
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
58 MOVE 2040
¹º»¼
¹º»¼
¹º»¼
¹º»¼
¹º»¼
¹º»¼
¹º»¼
¹º»¼
¹º»¼
¹º»¼
¹º»¼
¹º»¼
¹º»¼
Íëë
Íëë
Íëë
Íëë
Íëë
¹º»¼
UV292
UV292
UV424
UV503
UV424
UV548
")35")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
STAGE
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
Legend
Study Area
Evergreen
Kalispell
Rail
Railroad Crossing Type
ÍëëCrossing Lights And/Or Arms
¹º»¼Crossing Sign I0 10.5 Miles
Figure 3.42: Railroad Crossing Control Devices
59KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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
Facility Type Miles
Existing Shared-Use Recreation Route 53.4
Existing Bike Lane 1.7
Existing Sidewalks 140.7
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 1st Street W and 1st 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
60 MOVE 2040
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
»Helena Flats School
»Jeannette Rankin Elementary School
»Kalispell Middle School
»Lillian Peterson Elementary School
»Russell Elementary School
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 64 through Figure 3.57 on page
74 show the school locations and site specific details
for the safe routes to school analysis.
61KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
")35")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
STAGE
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
Legend
Study Area
Kalispell Area Trails
Shared Use Path
Bike Lane
Sidewalk 0 10.5 Miles I
Figure 3.44: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities in the Study Area
62 MOVE 2040
!
!
!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!
!!
!
(
(
(((
((((((((((((((((((((
(((((
((((
((((
(
((
(
!(
UV292
UV424
UV503
UV548
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
Legend
Study Area
Pedestrian-Involved Crashes
!(Fatal Crashes
!(Injury Crashes
!(Non-Injury Crashes
Kalispell Area Trails
Shared Use Path
Bike Lane
Existing Sidewalk
0 10.5 Miles I
Figure 3.45: Pedestrian Crash Locations
63KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
")35")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
STAGE
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
Legend
Study Area
Bicyle-Involved Crashes
!(Fatal Crashes
!(Injury Crashes
!(Non-Injury Crashes
Kalispell Area Trails
Shared Use Path
Bike Lane
Existing Sidewalk
0 10.5 Miles I
Figure 3.46: Bicycle Crash Locations
64 MOVE 2040
ElrodElrod
ElementaryElementary
EdgertonEdgerton
ElementaryElementary
HedgesHedges
ElementaryElementary
KalispellKalispell
MiddleMiddle
SchoolSchool
RussellRussell
ElementaryElementary
PetersonPeterson
ElementaryElementary
JeannetteJeannette
RankinRankin
ElementaryElementary
HelenaHelena
FlatsFlats
SchoolSchool
EvergreenEvergreen
Junior HighJunior High
East EvergreenEast Evergreen
ElementaryElementary
UV292UV548
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
WIL
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
¯
Legend
School 1/4-Mile Buffer
Sidewalk or Trail
0 10.5 Miles I
Figure 3.47: K-8 School Analysis Zones in the Study Area
65KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!
!!
!
!!
!"$
Ôëìí Ôëìí
Ôëìí
Ôëìí
Ôëìí
Ôëìí
Ôëìí
Ôëìí
Ôëìí
Ôëìí
Ôëìí Ôëìí
Ôëìí
Ôëìí
Ôëìí
7
7
0
0
600
3400
1600
1300
600
700
1300
1500
900
1900
800
1200
2300
2100
1100
3400
1100
900
600
600
7 0 0
1000
1700
600
600
2400
3500
5100
1200
3 7 0 0
1700
700
1400
3
6
0
0
4
8
0
0
5500
1
7
0
0
1
6
6
0
0
1
6
2
0
0
2
8
0
0
1
3
8
0
0
4
9
0
0
3
7
0
0
9
0
0
7
4
0
0
1
3
6
0
0
6
7
0
0
4
6
0
0
1
5
0
0
1
4
6
0
0
1
3
0
0
8
0
0
0
5
4
0
0
3
9
0
0
4
3
0
0
4
4
0
0
1
4
0
0
1
4
9
0
0
4
5
0
0
4
2
0
0
4
0
0
0
6
2
0
0
5
1
0
0
4
2
0
0
9
0
0
0
570
0
£¤93
ElrodElementary
¯0 500250Feet I
Legend
1/4-Mile Buffer
Sidewalk or Trail
School Speed Zone
!"$All-way Stop
!Pedestrian Crossing Sign
####AADT
Ôëìí Signalized Intersection
Non-Vehicular Crashes^_Bicycle
^_Pedestrian
Figure 3.48: Elrod Elementary School
66 MOVE 2040
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!!!
700
1200900
5
1
0
0
4600
54
0
0
60
0
0
700
56
0
0
4300
5
2
0
0
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
Edgerton
Elementary
¯0 500250Feet I
Legend
1/4-Mile Buffer
Sidewalk or Trail
School Speed Zone
!Pedestrian Crossing Sign
####AADT
Figure 3.49: Edgerton Elementary School
67KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!"$!"$!"$!"$
!"$!"$!"$!"$
!"$!"$!"$!"$
!"$!"$!"$!"$
!"$!"$!"$!"$
!"$!"$!"$!"$
!"$!"$!"$!"$
!"$!"$!"$!"$
ÔëìíÔëìí
Ôëìí
Ôëìí
Ôëìí
Ôëìí
3
1
0
0
5
2
0
0
3
5
0
0
4700
3
3
0
0
1 100
60
0
1500
1500
900
700
2600
1100 800
1800
1200
700
1100
2400
1600
2800 2700
3
6
0
0
3
3
0
0
3
4
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
8
0
0
7700
5
0
0
0
3
5
0
0
1
5
9
0
0
3
2
0
0
51
0
0
57
0
0
£¤93
Hedges
Elementary
¯0 500250Feet I
Legend
1/4-Mile Buffer
Sidewalk or Trail
School Speed Zone
!"$All-way Stop
!Pedestrian Crossing Sign
####AADT
Ôëìí Signalized Intersection
Non-Vehicular Crashes
^_Bicycle
^_Pedestrian
Figure 3.50: Hedges Elementary School
68 MOVE 2040
!!
Ôëìí
Ôëìí
Ôëìí
Ôëìí
Ôëìí
70
0
3500
1 200
2
6
7
0
0
1500
450036003300
1300
600
3
1
4
0
0
1900
1300
2800
600 800
4100
2100
3
0
6
0
0
10500
2400
31300
2
6
4
0
0
1600
5800
2
6
6
0
0
10
8
0
0
2
5
8
0
0
£¤93KalispellMiddleSchool
¯0 500250Feet I
Legend
1/4-Mile Buffer
Sidewalk or Trail
School Speed Zone
!Pedestrian Crossing Sign
####AADT
Ôëìí Signalized Intersection
Non-Vehicular Crashes^_Bicycle
^_Pedestrian
Figure 3.51: Kalispell Middle School
69KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
!
!
!
!"$!"$!"$!"$
!"$!"$!"$!"$
Ôëìí
Ôëìí
Ôëìí
1 7100
1 4 0 0
239
0
0
3200
4000
3100
6 0 0
15800
20100
15600
15500
15700
1900
800
1800
268
0
0
23800
1500
240
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
5
0
0
2
1
0
0
3
7
0
0
3
8
0
0
2
3
7
0
0
267
0
0
1200
800
3
2
0
0
267
0
0
£¤2 £¤93
RussellElementary
¯0 500250Feet I
Legend
1/4-Mile Buffer
Sidewalk or Trail
School Speed Zone
!"$All-way Stop
!Pedestrian Crossing Sign
####AADT
Ôëìí Signalized Intersection
Non-Vehicular Crashes
^_Bicycle
^_Pedestrian
Figure 3.52: Russell Elementary School
70 MOVE 2040
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!"$
!"$
!"$
1300
6 0 0
3800
1700
3700
1200
50
0
0
1300
3600
4700
45
0
0
800
900
1400
42
0
0
1
2
0
0
9
0
0
6
0
0
72
0
0
54
0
0
69
0
0
1100
52
0
0
1
4
4
0
0
700
£¤93A
PetersonElementary
¯0 500250Feet I
Legend
1/4-Mile Buffer
Sidewalk or Trail
School Speed Zone
!"$All-way Stop
!Pedestrian Crossing Sign
####AADT
Non-Vehicular Crashes
^_Bicycle
Figure 3.53: Peterson Elementary School
71KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
!
!
25
0
0
900
1000
800700
600
29
0
0
27
0
0
2
4
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
£¤93A
JeannetteRankinElementary
¯0 500250Feet I
Legend
1/4-Mile Buffer
Sidewalk or Trail
School Speed Zone
!Pedestrian Crossing Sign
####AADT
Figure 3.54: Jeanette Rankin Elementary School
72 MOVE 2040
!"$3100
20
0
0
24
0
0
600
19
0
0
10003000
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
ROSE XING
HelenaFlatsSchool
¯0 500250Feet I
Legend
1/4-Mile Buffer
Sidewalk or Trail
!"$All-way Stop
####AADT
Non-Vehicular Crashes^_Pedestrian
Figure 3.55: Helena Flats School
73KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Ôëìí
3500
17
7
0
0
3000
19
0
0
0
2900
17
9
0
0
60
0
1700
2800
700
3100
19200
1600
2800
£¤2
EvergreenJunior High
¯0 500250Feet I
Legend
1/4-Mile Buffer
Sidewalk or Trail
School Speed Zone
####AADT
Ôëìí Signalized Intersection
Non-Vehicular Crashes
^_Pedestrian
Figure 3.56: Evergreen Junior High School
74 MOVE 2040
Ôëìí
6001000
1500
45
0
0
1800
620
0
700900 900
1600
800
48
0
0
14000
46
0
0
11300
")35
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
East EvergreenElementary
¯0 500250Feet I
Legend
1/4-Mile Buffer
Sidewalk or Trail
####AADT
Ôëìí Signalized Intersection
Non-Vehicular Crashes
^_Bicycle
Figure 3.57: East Evergreen Elementary School
75KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Transit System
Mountain Climber provides fixed, fixed-deviated, and
paratransit public transportation in Flathead County for
the cities of Kalispell, Whitefish, and Columbia Falls.1 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 3.14 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.
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.
Table 3.14: Fixed Route Service Indicators
Fixed Route
Service Indicator 2014 2018 Percent
Change
Passenger Trips 66,575 67,463 1.3%
Operating Costs $717,456 $702,271 -2.1%
Passengers per
Revenue Hour 14.34 5.93 -58.7%
Passengers per
Revenue Mile 0.36 0.37 1.5%
Cost per Passenger $10.78 $10.41 -3.4%
Cost per Revenue
Hour $154.56 $61.75 -60.1%
Farebox Recovery
Ratio 4.69%3.54%-24.5%
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.
Table 3.15 shows the paratransit service indicators and
their trends between 2014 and 2018.
76 MOVE 2040
»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 2014 2018 Percent
Change
Passenger Trips 27,959 31,659 13.2%
Operating Costs $318,496 $525,160 64.9%
Passengers per
Revenue Hour 7.42 2.25 -69.6%
Passengers per
Revenue Mile 0.31 0.23 -26.9%
Cost per Passenger $11.39 $16.59 45.6%
Cost per Revenue
Hour $84.55 $37.40 -55.8%
Farebox Recovery
Ratio 4.69%3.54%-24.5%
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
Fleet Number Type Odometer
2093(2574)Fixed Route Bus 218,962
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]
77KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
UV292
UV503
UV424
UV548
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
S
T
A
GE
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
¯
Legend
Study Area Bus Routes & Stops
Bus Stop
Green Route
Orange Route
Red Route 0 10.5 Miles I
Figure 3.58: Kalispell Fixed Transit Routes and Stops
ChapTEr 4:
GrOWTh aND FOrECaSTS
81KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
GrOWTh pLaNNING
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 (2017) and 2040 popu-
lation and employment assumptions.
PoPulation and emPloyment
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 Figure 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.
houSehold growth
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.
82 MOVE 2040
UV292
UV292
UV424
UV503
UV424
UV548
")35")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤93
£¤2
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤2
£¤2
£¤93
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
STAGE
W
SPRINGCREEK
RD
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
Legend
Study Area
TAZ Boundaries
0 10.5 Miles I
Inset
Figure 4.1: TDM TAZ Structure
83KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
UV292
UV424
UV548
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
FOUR MILE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
W RESERVE DR
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
¯
Legend
Study Area
TAZ Boundaries
0 10.5 Miles I
Figure 4.2: TDM TAZ Structure Inset
84 MOVE 2040
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
")35")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
STAGE
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
0 10.5 Miles I
Legend
Kalispell
Evergreen
Households per acre
0.0 - 0.5
0.6 - 1.0
1.1 - 10.0
10.1 - 50.0
50.1 - 117.1
Study Area
Figure 4.3: Baseline TAZ Household Allocations
85KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
")35")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
STAGE
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
0 10.5 Miles I
Legend
Urban Boundary
Evergreen
Kalispell
Jobs per acre
0.0 - 0.5
0.6 - 1.0
1.1 - 10.0
10.1 - 50.0
50.1 - 74.8
Study Area
Figure 4.4: Baseline TAZ Employment Allocations
86 MOVE 2040
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
")35")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
STAGE
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
0 10.5 Miles I
Legend
Evergreen
Kalispell
Jobs per acre
0.0 - 0.5
0.6 - 1.0
1.1 - 10.0
10.1 - 50.0
50.1 - 74.8
Study Area
Figure 4.5: Geographic Development Areas
87KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
")35")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
STAGE
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
Legend
Study Area
Evergreen
Kalispell
Total Households 2040
0 - 50
51 - 150
151 - 500
501 - 1266
0 10.5 Miles I
Figure 4.6: 2040 Household Allocations
88 MOVE 2040
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
")35")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
STAGE
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
Legend
Evergreen
Kalispell
Household Growth 2018-2040
51 - 100
101 - 250
1 - 50
251 - 1265
0 10.5 Miles I
Study Area
Figure 4.7: Projected Household Growth 2018 – 2040
89KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
")35")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
STAGE
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
Households per Acre 2040
0.0 - 0.5
0.6 - 1.0
1.1 - 5.0
5.1 - 20.0
20.1 - 117.1
Legend
Evergreen
Kalispell
0 10.5 Miles I
Study Area
Figure 4.8: 2040 Household per Acre
90 MOVE 2040
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
2017 2040 Change
Annual
Percent
Change
Kalispell 12,831 19,836 7,005 2.5%
Evergreen 3,356 5,028 1,672 2.3%
Balance of
Study Area 1,392 1,970 578 1.9%
Total 17,579 26,834 9,255 2.4%
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 4.2.
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 Figure 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 32,031.
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
2017 2040 Change
Annual
Percent
Change
Kalispell 22,072 32,031 9,959 2.1%
Evergreen 3,999 5,022 1,023 1.2%
Balance of
Study Area 1,361 2,057 696 2.3%
Total 27,432 39,110 11,678 1.9%
91KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
")35")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
STAGE
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
Legend
Evergreen
Kalispell
Employment Growth 2018-2040
51 - 100
101 - 250
1 - 50
251 - 1600
0 10.5 Miles I
Study Area
Figure 4.9: 2040 Projected Employment Growth 2018 – 2040
92 MOVE 2040
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
")35")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
STAGE
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
Legend
Evergreen
Kalispell
Total Employment 2040
0 - 50
51 - 150
151 - 500
501 - 2940
0 10.5 Miles I
Study Area
Figure 4.10: 2040 Employment Allocations
93KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
")35")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
STAGE
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
Jobs per Acre 2040
0.0 - 0.5
0.6 - 1.0
1.1 - 5.0
5.1 - 20.0
20.1 - 77.9
Legend
Evergreen
Kalispell
0 10.5 Miles I
Study Area
Figure 4.11: 2040 Jobs per Acre
94 MOVE 2040
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.
ChapTEr 5:
prOJECTED CONDITIONS
97KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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 committed ProjectS
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 (2017)
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
2017 2040 % 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 Table 5.2.
98 MOVE 2040
Table 5.2: LOS Thresholds by V/C Ratio
V/C
Ratio
Level of
Service Description
Under
0.6 LOS A 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
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/
congest ed 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
System and Level of Service 2017 % of Total 2040 E+C % of Total
Total On-
System Roads
Miles LOS A–C 85.5 85%69.1 69%
Miles LOS D–F 15.0 15%31.4 31%
LOS By
System
NHS Miles LOS A–C 31.5 73%21.7 50%
Miles LOS D–F 11.8 27%21.6 50%
Primary Miles LOS A–C 0.3 16%0.3 16%
Miles LOS D–F 1.5 84%1.5 84%
Secondary Miles LOS A–C 10.6 100%9.4 88%
Miles LOS D–F 0.0 0%1.3 12%
Urban 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.
99KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
urban
In 2017, four percent of the urban system is congesting/
congested. By 2040, approximately 16 percent of the ur-
ban system is congesting/congested.
In 2017, 11 percent of all congesting/congested road-
ways are on the Urban systems. By 2040, 17 percent all
congested/congesting are on the Urban System.
In addition to the congested conditions listed above, 20
percent of the congested roadways in the 2040 E+C are
not currently functionally classified. This suggests a sig-
nificant growth in projected needs on urbanizing/growth
area corridors which will require some consideration of
potential future functional class designation.
These mileages as well as their comparison to 2040 can
be seen in Table 5.3. Levels of Service can be seen in
Figure 5.1 on page 101 and Figure 5.2 on page 102.
In addition to LOS, simple volume changes from 2017 to
2040 can be seen in Figure 5.3 on page 103.
interSection traFFic oPerationS
Future traffic operations were evaluated at the 33 study
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.
Table 5.4: LOS Thresholds by Intersection Delay
Level of
Service
Unsignalized
Intersection
(sec/veh)
Signalized
Intersection
(sec/veh)
Description
LOS A <10 <10 Near free-flow
traffic.
LOS B 10–15 10–20 Minor delays.
LOS C 15–25 20–35
Some delays, but
not resulting in
significant traffic
congestion.
LOS D 25–35 35–55 Delays with some
traffic congestion.
LOS E 35–50 55–80
Significant delays
with significant
traffic congestion,
approaching
capacity.
LOS F > 50 > 80
Breakdown of
traffic flow, major
traffic congestion.
100 MOVE 2040
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
105, 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 10th 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.
101KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
£¤2
£¤93
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤93A
")82
")35
UV292
UV424
UV548 E RESERVE DR
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
£¤93
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93£¤93A
")82¯
Legend
Study Area
Evergreen
Kalispell
Volume to Capacity 2040
A-C: 0.0 to .79
D: .8 to .89
E: .9 to 1.0
F: > 1.0 0 10.5 Miles I
Inset
Figure 5.1: 2040 LOS
102 MOVE 2040
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA¯
Legend
Study Area
Evergreen
Kalispell
Volume to Capacity 2040
A-C: 0.0 to .79
D: .8 to .89
E: .9 to 1.0
F: > 1.0 0 0.50.25 Miles I
Figure 5.2: 2040 LOS (Inset)
103KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WHITEFISH
STAGE
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
Legend
Study Area
Evergreen
Kalispell
0 10.5 Miles I
Volume Changes 2017 to 2040
0 - 100
101 - 500
501 - 1000
1001 - 5000
5001 - 10000
10001 - 26700
Figure 5.3: Traffic Volume Changes from 2017 to 2040
104 MOVE 2040
ID Intersection Traffic
Control Peak Level of Service
EB WB NB SB Int
1 US 93 &
Reserve Dr Signal AM F F D D F
PM E F E D E
2
Reserve Dr
& Whitefish
Stage Rd
Signal AM F F F C F
PM F F F E F
3 US 2 &
Reserve Dr Signal AM E F D E E
PM F F E F F
4
US 93 &
Grandview
Dr/Four
Mile Dr
Signal
AM B B C B B
PM C C F D E
5
Helena
Flats Rd &
MT 35
Signal AM A D D E D
PM C C C D C
6 Meridian &
3 Mile Dr Signal AM B A A B A
PM B C A B B
7 Meridian &
Liberty Signal AM C C A A A
PM C C A A A
8 Meridian Rd
& 2 Mile Dr Signal AM C C A A A
PM C C A A B
9 US 2 &
Meridian Rd Signal AM C C C D C
PM D D D D D
10 US 2 & 5th
Ave W Signal AM B A B B B
PM A A B B B
11 US 2 & US
93 Signal AM E D E D D
PM E D E E E
12 US 93 &
Center St Signal AM D C C B C
PM C C C B C
13
1st Ave EN
& E Center
St
Signal AM A A B B B
PM C C B A B
14 1st Ave W &
2nd St W Signal AM B B B B B
PM C B C C C
15
Woodland
Ave & 2nd
St/Conrad
Dr
All-way
Stop
AM C E C C D
PM C E C C D
16 US 93 & 4th
St Signal AM B B B A B
PM B B B B B
17
Woodland
Ave & 11th
St W
TWSC AM B —A A B
PM B —A A B
ID Intersection Traffic
Control Peak Level of Service
EB WB NB SB Int
18 US 93 &
11th St Signal AM C D B A B
PM C E B D C
19 US 93 &
Treeline Rd Signal AM D C A B B
PM E C C D D
20 US 93 &
Wyoming St Signal AM C B B A B
PM C C A A A
21 US 93 &
Conway Dr Signal AM —C A A A
PM —C C A B
22
US 93 &
Sunny View
Ln
Signal AM —D A A A
PM —D A A C
23
US 93 &
Commons
Way
Signal AM C D B B B
PM C D C C C
24 US 93 &
Meridian Rd Signal AM C —A B B
PM D —B B B
25
US 93 &
Commercial
Access
(Flathead
Valley)
Signal
AM A C A B A
PM B C A A A
26
W Reserve
Dr & Hutton
Ranch Rd
Signal AM B A B —B
PM C B C —B
27
US 2 &
Evergreen
Dr
Signal AM F E C D D
PM F F C D D
28 US 93 & 6th
St Signal AM C C A A A
PM D C A A A
29 US 93 &
13th St TWSC AM F C A A E
PM F D A A F
30 US 93 & 7th
St TWSC AM —B A A B
PM —B A A B
31 US 93 &
10th St TWSC AM F F A A D
PM F D A A D
32 US 93 &
12th St TWSC AM C F A A B
PM D E A A C
33
US 93 &
Hutton
Ranch Dr
Signal AM C C B C C
PM D F C D D
Table 5.5: 2040 AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS
105KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
UV548
UV503
UV292
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
W RESERVE DR1 2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
11
1213
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2932
30
31
33
¯
Legend
!(LOS A-C
!(LOS D
!(LOS E
!(LOS F 0 0.50.25 Miles I
Figure 5.4: 2040 AM Peak LOS
106 MOVE 2040
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
UV548
UV503
UV292
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
W RESERVE DR1 2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
11
1213
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2932
30
31
33
¯
Legend
!(LOS A-C
!(LOS D
!(LOS E
!(LOS F 0 0.50.25 Miles I
Figure 5.5: 2040 PM Peak LOS
ChapTEr 6:
aLTErNaTIVES aNaLYSIS
109KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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 out puts
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 Total VMT (% Change VMT
Compared to No Build)
Total VHT (% Change VHT
Compared to No Build)
Percent of Congested
Roadway Segments
2040 No Build 1,325,942 34,912 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%)35,073 (+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 1,326,616 (0.1%)35,047 (+0.4%)8.6%
2040 Build – Alternative #10 1,322,458 (-.2%)34,537 (-1.1%)7.9%
110 MOVE 2040
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 6.2. 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 Table 6.3 and Figure 6.1 on page
112. 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 1st Ave E and 1st Ave W.
Table 6.2: Alternative 1 Area-Wide Impacts
Alternative Total VMT Total VHT
Percent of
Congested
Roadway
Segments
2040 No Build 1,325,941 34,911 9.5%
2040 Build –
Alternative #1 1,319,893 34,735 9.7%
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.
111KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Table 6.3: Alternative 1 Change on Select Corridors
Corridor Segments (Termini)
2040 E+C Alternative 1
ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT
Change
hwy 93a
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%
Foys Lake 4th Street W 20,400 0.67 B 22,200 0.73 C 8.8%
hwy 93S
United Drive Cemetary Road 24,000 0.75 C 19,500 0.61 B -18.8%
Kelly Road 3rd Avenue E 20,400 0.72 C 16,100 0.57 A -21.1%
11th Street 10th Street 21,700 1.60 F 17,600 1.30 F -18.7%
Main
Street
(hwy 93)
8th Street 7th Street 20,100 1.49 F 16,300 1.21 F -18.7%
4th Street 3rd Street 19,800 0.73 C 16,200 0.60 B -18.1%
Montana Idaho (Hwy 2)22,700 0.84 D 20,700 0.77 C -9.0%
Meridian
road
3rd Street W 2nd Street W 10,300 0.86 D 12,000 1.00 F 16.5%
Appleway Drive Fishtail Drive 11,200 0.85 D 12,500 0.95 E 11.6%
2 Mile Drive W Wyoming
Street 11,700 0.65 B 12,700 0.71 C 8.5%
Westview Park
Place Parkway Drive 12,100 1.01 F 12,700 1.06 F 5.0%
1st
avenue E
11th Street 10th 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%
1st
avenue W
11th Street 10th 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%
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.
112 MOVE 2040
UV292
UV424
UV548
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
W RESERVE DR
W S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
UV292
UV424
UV548
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
W RESERVE DR
W S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
Legend
ADT Change
> -10%
-10% to 0%
0% to +10%
> 10%0 10.5 MilesI
Legend
LOS Change
> -0.1
-0.1 to 0
0 to +0.1
> 0.1 0 10.5 MilesI
Figure 6.1: Alternative 1 ADT Change on Select Corridors
113KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
alternative 2
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 6.4.
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 Table 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 1st Ave E and 1st Ave W with minor
LOS changes.
»No additional travel demand on Highway 93A.
Table 6.4: Alternative 2 Area-Wide Impacts
Alternative Total VMT Total VHT
Percent of
Congested
Roadway
Segments
2040 No Build 1,325,941 34,911 9.5%
2040 Build –
Alternative #2 1,303,435 34,310 9.7%
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 1st Avenue East and West, but no increase in travel
demand on Highway 93A. Both 1st Avenue East and West
are projected to have additional capacity to han dle traffic
changes which could result from changes to Highway 93/
Main Street.
114 MOVE 2040
Table 6.5: Alt 2 Change on Select Corridors
Corridor Segments (Termini)
2040 E+C Alternative 2
ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT
Change
hwy 93S 11th Street 10th Street 21,700 1.60 F 18,800 1.39 F -13.3%
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 21,900 0.81 D -3.9%
1st
avenue E 5th Street 3rd Street 3,900 0.43 A 4,500 0.50 A 15.4%
Meridian
road
Idaho (Hwy 2) Three Mile
Road 11,700 0.65 B 11,700 0.65 B 0.0%
Three Mile
Road Hwy 93 12,100 1.01 F 12,000 1.00 F -0.8%
1st
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 4,500 0.50 A 15.4%
1st
avenue
W
12th Street 9th Street 7,500 0.83 D 8,100 0.90 E 8.0%
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.
115KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
E CENTER ST
1
S
T
A
V
E
E
N
7T
H
A
V
E
W
5
T
H
A
V
E
W
W
O
O
D
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
14TH ST E
4TH ST W
7TH ST W
4TH ST E
11TH ST E
11TH ST W
2ND ST W
3R
D
A
V
E
E
N
4
T
H
A
V
E
E
N
5
T
H
A
V
E
W
N
1S
T
A
V
E
W
4
T
H
A
V
E
E
3
R
D
A
V
E
E
1S
T
A
V
E
E
W CENTER ST
US
9
3
2NDST E
£¤93
E CENTER ST
1
S
T
A
V
E
E
N
7T
H
A
V
E
W
5
T
H
A
V
E
W
W
O
O
D
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
14TH ST E
4TH ST W
7TH ST W
4TH ST E
11TH ST E
11TH ST W
2ND ST W
3R
D
A
V
E
E
N
4
T
H
A
V
E
E
N
5
T
H
A
V
E
W
N
1S
T
A
V
E
W
4
T
H
A
V
E
E
3
R
D
A
V
E
E
1S
T
A
V
E
E
W CENTER ST
US
9
3
2ND ST E
£¤93
Legend
ADT Change
> -10%
-10% to 0%
0% to +10%
> 10%
Legend
LOS Change
> -0.1
-0.1 to 0
0 to +0.1
> 0.101,000500FeetI 0 1,000500FeetI
Figure 6.2: Alternative 2 ADT Change on Select Corridors
116 MOVE 2040
alternative 2a: 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 Table 6.6.
Table 6.6: Alternative 2A Area-Wide Impacts
Alternative Total VMT Total VHT
Percent of
Congested
Roadway
Segments
2040 No Build 1,325,941 34,911 9.5%
2040 Build –
Alternative #2A 1,333,649 35,105 9.9%
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 Table 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 1st Ave E and 1st 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 chang es 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 con ditions are reason to
suggest more evaluation of this cor ridor following com-
pletion of Highway 93A.
LOS along Highway 93/ Main Street remain LOS E/F from
just 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.
117KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Table 6.7: Alternative 2A Change on Select Corridors
Corridor Segments (Termini)
2040 E+C Alternative 2A
ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT
Change
hwy 93a
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%
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 93S
Hwy 93A Cemetary
Road 24,000 0.75 C 19,100 0.59 A -20.4%
Cemetary
Road 13th Street 20,400 0.72 C 15,500 0.55 A -24.0%
11th Street 10th Street 21,700 1.60 F 15,700 1.17 F -27.3%
Main
Street
(hwy 93)
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%
Montana Idaho (Hwy 2)22,700 0.84 D 20,200 0.75 C -11.2%
Meridian
road
7th Street Center Street
W 10,300 0.86 D 12,100 1.01 F 17.5%
Center Street
W Idaho (Hwy 2)11,200 0.85 D 12,400 0.94 E 10.7%
Shady
Lane MT 35 Conrad Drive 5,100 0.38 A 5,800 0.43 A 13.7%
Conrad
Drive
Woodland Ave Willow Glen 4,500 0.44 A 6,300 0.62 B 40.0%
Willow Glen Shady Lane 8,300 0.61 B 10,200 0.75 C 22.9%
2nd
Street
East
Woodland Dr. Main Street
(Hwy 93)5,300 0.44 A 6,300 0.53 A 18.9%
Meridian
road
Idaho (Hwy 2) Three Mile
Road 11,700 0.65 B 12,700 0.71 C 8.5%
Three Mile
Road Hwy 93 12,100 1.01 F 12,800 1.07 F 5.8%
1st
avenue E 12th Street 9th Street 3,500 0.39 A 3,600 0.40 A 2.9%
2nd
avenue E 5th Street 3rd Street 3,900 0.43 A 4,200 0.47 A 7.7%
1st
avenue
W
12th Street 9th Street 7,500 0.83 D 7,600 0.84 D 1.3%
2nd
avenue
W
5th Street 3rd Street 7,400 0.82 D 7,500 0.83 D 1.4%
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.
118 MOVE 2040
Figure 6.3: Alternative 2A ADT Change on Select Corridors
UV292
UV424
UV548
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HELENA
FLATS
RD
WIL
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
UV292
UV424
UV548
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HELENA
FLATS
RD
WIL
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
Legend
ADT Change
> -10%
-10% to 0%
0% to +10%
> 10%
Legend
LOS Change
> -0.1
-0.1 to 0
0 to +0.1
> 0.1010.5 Miles I 0 10.5 Miles I
119KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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 Table 6.9 and Figure
6.4 on page 121. 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 6.9.
Table 6.8: Alternative 3 Area-Wide Impacts
Alternative Total VMT Total VHT
Percent of
Congested
Roadway
Segments
2040 No Build 1,325,941 34,911 9.5%
2040 Build –
Alternative #3 1,323,035 35,073 9.5%
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.
120 MOVE 2040
Table 6.9: Alternative 3 Change on Select Corridors
Corridor Segments (Termini)
2040 E+C Alternative 3
ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT
Change
Center
Street
Meridian Road 5th Avenue W 4,900 0.41 A 6,000 0.50 A 22.4%
5th Avenue W Main Street
(Hwy 93)4,900 0.20 A 5,700 0.24 A 16.3%
2nd
Street
East
Woodland Dr. Main Street
(Hwy 93)5,300 0.44 A 6,300 0.53 A 18.9%
3rd
avenue
WN
Idaho Center Street
W NA NA NA 2,400 0.40 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 10,100 0.77 C -9.8%
1st
avenue E
12th Street 9th Street 3,500 0.39 A 3,200 0.36 A -8.6%
5th Street 3rd Street 3,900 0.43 A 3,700 0.41 A -5.1%
1st
avenue
W
12th Street 9th Street 7,500 0.83 D 7,400 0.82 D -1.3%
5th Street 3rd Street 7,400 0.82 D 7,400 0.82 D 0.0%
121KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 6.4: Alternative 3 ADT Change on Select Corridors
N
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
R
D
14TH ST E
11TH ST E
4TH ST E
E CENTER ST
11TH ST W
1S
T
A
V
E
E
N
AI
R
P
O
R
T
R
D
3R
D
A
V
E
E
N
18TH ST E
7TH ST W
4T
H
A
V
E
E
N
5T
H
A
V
E
W
7
T
H
A
V
E
W
5T
H
A
V
E
W
N
W
O
O
D
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
4
T
H
A
V
E
E
S
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
R
D
W CENTER ST
APPLEWAY DR
TWO MILE DR
2ND ST W
3
R
D
A
V
E
E
1ST
AVE
E
1S
T
A
V
E
W
2ND STE
US 2
U
S
9
3
9
3
A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
E
4TH ST W
UV503
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
N
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
R
D
14TH ST E
11TH ST E
4TH ST E
E CENTER ST
11TH ST W
1S
T
A
V
E
E
N
AI
R
P
O
R
T
R
D
3R
D
A
V
E
E
N
18TH ST E
7TH ST W
4T
H
A
V
E
E
N
5T
H
A
V
E
W
7
T
H
A
V
E
W
5T
H
A
V
E
W
N
W
O
O
D
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
4
T
H
A
V
E
E
S
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
R
D
W CENTER ST
APPLEWAY DR
TWO MILE DR
2ND ST W
3
R
D
A
V
E
E
1ST
AVE
E
1S
T
A
V
E
W
2ND STE
US 2
U
S
9
3
9
3
A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
E
4TH ST W
UV503
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
Legend
ADT Change
> -10%
-10% to 0%
0% to +10%
> 10%
Legend
LOS Change
> -0.1
-0.1 to 0
0 to +0.1
> 0.101,000500Feet I 0 1,000500Feet I
122 MOVE 2040
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
Alternative Total VMT Total
VHT
Percent of
Congested
Roadway
Segments
2040 No Build 1,325,941 34,911 9.5%
2040 Build –
Alternative #3A 1,303,435 34,310 9.7%
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 Table 6.11 and Figure
6.5. 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.
»1st Avenue E sees significant ADT increases between
5th St and 3rd St.
Conclusions
Conditions remain roughly constant to those experi enced
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
Corridor Segments (Termini)
2040 E+C Alternative 3A
ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT
Change
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 Main Street
(Hwy 93)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%
1st 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%
1st 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 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.
123KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 6.5: Alternative 3A ADT Change on Select Corridors
2ND ST E
4TH ST E
11TH ST W
1
S
T
A
V
E
E
N
3
R
D
A
V
E
E
N
7TH ST W
4T
H
A
V
E
E
N
7
T
H
A
V
E
W
5
T
H
A
V
E
W
5T
H
A
V
E
W
N
4
T
H
A
V
E
E
APPLEWAY DR
1S
T
A
V
E
W
S M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
R
D
W CENTER ST
2ND ST W
US93
1ST
AVE
E
N
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
R
D
AIRPORT
RD
US 2
11TH ST E
3R
D
A
V
E
E
4TH ST W
E CENTER ST
UV503 £¤93
£¤2
2ND ST E
4TH ST E
11TH ST W
1
S
T
A
V
E
E
N
3
R
D
A
V
E
E
N
7TH ST W
4T
H
A
V
E
E
N
7
T
H
A
V
E
W
5
T
H
A
V
E
W
5T
H
A
V
E
W
N
4
T
H
A
V
E
E
APPLEWAY DR
1S
T
A
V
E
W
S M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
R
D
W CENTER ST
2ND ST W
US93
1ST
AVE
E
N
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
R
D
AIRPORT
RD
US 2
11TH ST E
3R
D
A
V
E
E
4TH ST W
E CENTER ST
UV503 £¤93
£¤2
Legend
ADT Change
> -10%
-10% to 0%
0% to +10%
> 10%
Legend
LOS Change
> -0.1
-0.1 to 0
0 to +0.1
> 0.101,000500FeetI 0 1,000500FeetI
124 MOVE 2040
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
junction 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/Lasalle 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 Table 6.12.
Table 6.12: Alternative 4 Area-Wide Impacts
Alternative Total VMT Total
VHT
Percent of
Congested
Roadway
Segments
2040 No Build 1,325,941 34,911 9.5%
2040 Build –
Alternative #4 1,323,432 35,096 9.6%
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 Table 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
Corridor Segments (Termini)
2040 E+C Alternative 4
ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT
Change
Shady Lane MT 35 Conrad Drive 5,100 0.38 A 6,000 0.40 A 17.6%
Conrad Drive Woodland Ave Willow Glen 4,500 0.44 A 6,600 0.65 B 46.7%
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%
Willow Glen Hwy 93 Woodland Drive 8,100 0.68 B 8,500 0.64 B 4.9%
Woodland Drive Conrad Road 5,500 0.40 A 5,900 0.39 A 7.3%
Woodland
park Dr Conrad Dr Idaho (Hwy 2)5,400 0.45 A 5,600 0.47 A 3.7%
highway 93S Airport Way Kelly Road 20,100 0.71 C 19,700 0.70 C -2.0%
Main Street
(highway 93)4th Street 3rd Street 16,500 0.61 B 16,500 0.61 B 0.0%
125KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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.
126 MOVE 2040
Figure 6.6: Alternative 4 ADT Change on Select Corridors
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
WHITEFISHSTAGE
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
WHITEFISHSTAGE
Legend
ADT Change
> -10%
-10% to 0%
0% to +10%
> 10%
Legend
LOS Change
> -0.1
-0.1 to 0
0 to +0.1
> 0.1I I00.50.25 Miles 0 0.50.25 Miles
127KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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
Alternative Total VMT Total VHT
Percent of
Congested
Roadway
Segments
2040 No Build 1,325,941 34,911 9.5%
2040 Build –
Alternative #5 1,325,810 35,122 10.0%
Corridor Level Impacts
Impacts of Alternative 5 were evaluated on several corri-
dor segments throughout the study area. Please see Table
6.15 and Figure 6.7 on page 129. 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.
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.
128 MOVE 2040
Table 6.15: Alternative 5 Change on Select Corridors
Corridor Segments (Termini)
2040 E+C Alternative 5
ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT
Change
Willow
Glen
Hwy 93 Woodland
Drive 8,100 0.68 B 9,100 0.76 C 12.3%
Woodland
Drive Conrad Road 5,500 0.40 A 8,300 0.61 B 50.9%
Woodland
Drive 12th Street 5th Street 5,800 0.48 A 4,500 0.38 A -22.4%
Shady
Lane MT 35 Conrad Drive 5,100 0.38 A 3,100 0.23 A -39.2%
Conrad
Drive
Woodland
Ave Willow Glen 4,500 0.44 A 5,300 0.52 A 17.8%
Willow Glen Shady Lane 8,300 0.61 B 12,600 0.93 E 51.8%
2nd Street
East Woodland Dr. Main Street
(Hwy 93)5,300 0.44 A 6,000 0.50 A 13.2%
New
Network
Segment
US2/MT35 Conrad Dr NA NA NA 7,200 0.71 C NA
hwy 2
(Idaho)
Hwy 93A Meridian
Road 18,300 0.65 B 18,300 0.65 B 0.0%
Meridian
Road
5th Avenue
W 21,800 0.77 C 21,900 0.77 C 0.5%
5th Avenue
W
Main Street
(Hwy 93)19,400 0.72 C 19,600 0.73 C 1.0%
Main Street
(Hwy 93)
3rd Avenue
EN 24,400 0.90 E 25,300 0.94 E 3.7%
3rd Avenue
EN
7th Avenue
EN/Whitefish
Stage
25,600 0.95 E 26,200 0.97 E 2.3%
7th Avenue
EN/Whitefish
Stage
Woodland
Park 23,300 0.86 D 24,200 0.90 D 3.9%
Woodland
Park
LaSalle/MT
35 27,100 0.89 D 27,200 0.89 D 0.4%
MT 35
Hwy 2/
LaSalle Shady Lane 15,900 1.04 F 15,800 1.03 F -0.6%
Shady Lane Helena Flats 12,000 0.88 D 11,900 0.88 D -0.8%
Helena Flats Flathead
River 14,100 1.04 F 14,400 1.06 F 2.1%
Woodland
park Dr Conrad Dr Idaho (Hwy
2)5,400 0.45 A 4,300 0.36 A -20.4%
129KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 6.7: Alternative 5 ADT Change on Select Corridors
UV548
UV292
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
W RESERVE DR
UV292UV548
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A £¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
W RESERVE DR
0 10.5 MilesI 0 10.5 MilesI
Legend
LOS Change
> -0.1
-0.1 to 0
0 to +0.1
> 0.1
Legend
ADT Change
> -10%
-10% to 0%
0% to +10%
> 10%
130 MOVE 2040
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
Alternative Total VMT Total VHT
Percent of
Congested
Roadway
Segments
2040 No Build 1,325,941 34,911 9.5%
2040 Build –
Alternative #5A 1,326,513 35,147 9.9%
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 Table 6.17 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 Table 6.17.
»No changes on Highway 93/Main Street
»Reduction in volumes on Highway 93S from Cemetery
Road to 13th Street.
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.
131KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Table 6.17: Alternative 5A Change on Select Corridors
Corridor Segments (Termini)
2040 E+C Alternative 5A
ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT
Change
Willow
Glen
Hwy 93 Woodland
Drive 8,100 0.68 B 9,400 0.71 C 16.0%
Woodland
Drive Conrad Road 5,500 0.40 A 8,600 0.57 A 56.4%
Woodland
Drive 12th Street 5th Street 5,800 0.48 A 4,600 0.38 A -20.7%
Shady
Lane MT 35 Conrad Drive 5,100 0.38 A 2,900 0.19 A -43.1%
Conrad
Drive
Woodland
Ave Willow Glen 4,500 0.44 A 5,700 0.56 A 26.7%
Willow Glen Shady Lane 8,300 0.61 B 13,300 0.89 D 60.2%
2nd Street
East Woodland Dr. Main Street
(Hwy 93)5,300 0.44 A 6,100 0.51 A 15.1%
New
Network
Segment
US2/MT35 Conrad Dr NA NA NA 7,600 0.75 C NA
hwy 2
(Idaho)
Hwy 93A Meridian
Road 18,300 0.65 B 18,400 0.65 B 0.5%
Meridian
Road
5th Avenue
W 21,800 0.77 C 21,900 0.77 C 0.5%
5th Avenue
W
Main Street
(Hwy 93)19,400 0.72 C 19,600 0.73 C 1.0%
Main Street
(Hwy 93)
3rd Avenue
EN 24,400 0.90 E 25,200 0.93 E 3.3%
3rd Avenue
EN
7th Avenue
EN/Whitefish
Stage
25,600 0.95 E 26,000 0.96 E 1.6%
7th Avenue
EN/Whitefish
Stage
Woodland
Park 23,300 0.86 D 24,100 0.89 D 3.4%
Woodland
Park
LaSalle/MT
35 27,100 0.89 D 26,700 0.87 D -1.5%
MT 35
Hwy 2/
LaSalle Shady Lane 15,900 1.04 F 15,600 1.02 F -1.9%
Shady Lane Helena Flats 12,000 0.88 D 11,900 0.88 D -0.8%
Helena Flats Flathead
River 14,100 1.04 F 14,400 1.06 F 2.1%
Woodland
park Dr Conrad Dr Idaho (Hwy
2)5,400 0.45 A 4,100 0.34 A -24.1%
132 MOVE 2040
Figure 6.8: Alternative 5A ADT Change on Select Corridors
UV548
UV292
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
WIL
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
W RESERVE DR UV548
UV292
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
WIL
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
W RESERVE DR
0 10.5 Miles I 0 10.5 MilesI
Legend
LOS Change
> -0.1
-0.1 to 0
0 to +0.1
> 0.1
Legend
ADT Change
> -10%
-10% to 0%
0% to +10%
> 10%
133KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
alternative 6: 7th 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 Table 6.18.
Table 6.18: Alternative 6 Area-Wide Impacts
Alternative Total VMT Total VHT
Percent of
Congested
Roadway
Segments
2040 No Build 1,325,941 34,911 9.5%
2040 Build –
Alternative #6 1,322,904 35,082 10.0%
Corridor Level Impacts
Impacts of Alternative 6 were evaluated on several corri-
dor segments throughout the study area. Please see Table
6.19 and Figure 6.9 on page 135. 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, 1st 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 corridor with improved
shoulders and related delineation, improved pedestrian
facilities including marked crosswalks and a review of ap-
propriate lane widths for a residential corridor.
134 MOVE 2040
Table 6.19: Alternative 6 Change on Select Corridors
Corridor Segments (Termini)
2040 E+C Alternative 6
ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT
Change
Willow
Glen Hwy 93 Woodland
Drive 8,100 0.68 B 9,500 0.79 C 17.3%
Woodland
Drive 12th Street 5th Street 5,800 0.48 A 7,800 0.65 B 34.5%
Conrad
Drive
Woodland Ave Willow Glen 4,500 0.44 A 6,800 0.67 B 51.1%
Willow Glen Shady Lane 8,300 0.61 B 10,200 0.75 C 22.9%
Center
Street
Main Street
(Hwy 93)
Woodland
Drive 5,400 0.45 A 6,800 0.57 A 25.9%
1st Street
East Woodland Dr. Main Street
(Hwy 93)400 0.11 A 600 0.16 A 50.0%
2nd Street
East Woodland Dr. Main Street
(Hwy 93)5,300 0.44 A 6,800 0.57 A 28.3%
New
Network
Segment
7th Ave EN 7th Ave EN NA NA NA 10,000 1.11 F NA
Willow
Glen
Woodland
Drive Conrad Road 5,500 0.40 A 5,300 0.39 A -3.6%
hwy 2
(Idaho)
3rd Avenue EN
7th Avenue
EN/Whitefish
Stage
25,600 0.95 E 24,100 0.89 D -5.9%
7th Avenue
EN/Whitefish
Stage
Woodland Park 23,300 0.86 D 25,100 0.93 E 7.7%
Whitefish
Stage
Idaho
(Highway 2) Evergreen 8,100 0.60 A 8,900 0.65 B 9.9%
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
park Dr Conrad Dr Idaho (Hwy 2)5,400 0.45 A 3,900 0.33 A -27.8%
135KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 6.9: Alternative 6 ADT Change on Select Corridors
UV292UV548
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
HELENA
FLATS
RD
E RESERVE DR
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
UV292UV548
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
HELENA
FLATS
RD
E RESERVE DR
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
0 10.5 Miles I 0 10.5 Miles I
Legend
ADT Change
> -10%
-10% to 0%
0% to +10%
> 10%
Legend
LOS Change
> -0.1
-0.1 to 0
0 to +0.1
> 0.1
136 MOVE 2040
alternative 6a
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
Alternative Total VMT Total
VHT
Percent of
Congested
Roadway
Segments
2040 No Build 1,325,941 34,911 9.5%
2040 Build –
Alternative #6A 1,316,697 34,706 9.8%
Corridor Level Impacts
Impacts of Alternative 6A were evaluated on several corri-
dor segments throughout the study area. Please see Table
6.21 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.
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.
137KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Table 6.21: Alternative 6A Change on Select Corridors
Corridor Segments (Termini)
2040 E+C Alternative 6A
ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT
Change
hwy 93S Cemetary Road 13th Street 20,400 0.72 C 19,000 0.67 B -6.9%
hwy 2
(Idaho)
3rd Avenue EN
7th Avenue
EN/Whitefish
Stage
25,600 0.95 E 24,000 0.89 D -6.3%
7th Avenue
EN/Whitefish
Stage
Woodland Park 23,300 0.86 D 24,900 0.92 E 6.9%
Willow
Glen Hwy 93 Woodland
Drive 8,100 0.68 B 9,900 0.75 C 22.2%
Woodland
Drive 12th Street 5th Street 5,800 0.48 A 7,900 0.66 B 36.2%
Whitefish
Stage
Idaho (Highway
2) Evergreen 8,100 0.60 A 8,900 0.65 B 9.9%
Evergreen Reserve Drive 9,200 0.77 C 9,800 0.82 D 6.5%
Shady
Lane MT 35 Conrad Drive 5,100 0.38 A 5,500 0.37 A 7.8%
Conrad
Drive
Woodland Ave Willow Glen 4,500 0.44 A 6,900 0.68 B 53.3%
Willow Glen Shady Lane 8,300 0.61 B 10,500 0.70 C 26.5%
Center
Street
5th Avenue W Main Street
(Hwy 93)4,900 0.20 A 5,300 0.22 A 8.2%
Main Street
(Hwy 93)
Woodland
Drive 5,400 0.45 A 6,800 0.57 A 25.9%
1st Street
East Woodland Dr. Main Street
(Hwy 93)400 0.11 A 600 0.16 A 50.0%
2nd Street
East Woodland Dr. Main Street
(Hwy 93)5,300 0.44 A 6,800 0.57 A 28.3%
1st
avenue E 12th Street 9th Street 3,500 0.39 A 3,300 0.37 A -5.7%
New
Network
Segment
Idaho Center Street E 100 0.01 A 10,000 1.11 F NA
Woodland
park Dr Conrad Dr Idaho (Hwy 2)5,400 0.45 A 3,800 0.32 A -29.6%
138 MOVE 2040
Figure 6.10: Alternative 6A ADT Change on Select Corridors
UV292
UV503
UV548
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
E RESERVE DR
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
WIL
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
UV292
UV503
UV548
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
E RESERVE DR
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
WIL
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
0 10.5 MilesI 0 10.5 MilesI
Legend
ADT Change
> -10%
-10% to 0%
0% to +10%
> 10%
Legend
LOS Change
> -0.1
-0.1 to 0
0 to +0.1
> 0.1
139KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
alternative 7
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 7 Area-Wide Impacts
Alternative Total VMT Total VHT
Percent of
Congested
Roadway
Segments
2040 No Build 1,325,941 34,911 9.5%
2040 Build –
Alternative #7 1,311,884 34,621 9.3%
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 Table 6.23 and Figure 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
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.
140 MOVE 2040
Table 6.23: Alternative 7 Change on Select Corridors
Corridor Segments (Termini)
2040 E+C Alternative 7
ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT
Change
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%
Four Mile
Drive/
Evergreen
Helena Flats LaSalle/Hwy 2 3,700 0.36 A 5,000 0.49 A 35.1%
Hwy 2/LaSalle Whitefish Stage 6,400 0.47 A 10,700 0.79 C 67.2%
Hwy 93 Hwy 93A 2,300 0.23 A 6,800 0.52 A 195.7%
Hwy 93A Farm to Market
Road 3,500 0.93 E 10,000 1.01 F 185.7%
Three Mile
Drive
Farm to Market
Road Hwy 93 10,000 0.74 C 8,200 0.60 B -18.0%
Stillwater
road Four Mile Drive West Reserve 1,500 0.40 A 1,100 0.29 A -26.7%
Springcreek
road Four Mile Drive West Reserve
Drive 4,400 1.17 F 6,000 1.60 F 36.4%
Farm to
Market (MT
424)
Three Mile Drive Four Mile Drive 4,100 0.40 A 1,600 0.16 A -61.0%
reserve
Drive
Spring Creek
Drive Stillwater Road 9,500 1.06 F 7,000 0.78 C -26.3%
Hwy 93 Whitefish Stage 20,700 1.00 E 18,600 0.89 D -10.1%
Whitefish
Stage
Idaho (Highway
2) Evergreen 8,100 0.60 A 7,200 0.53 A -11.1%
Evergreen Reserve Drive 9,200 0.77 C 5,700 0.48 A -38.0%
helena Flats
MT 35 Evergreen Drive 9,100 0.89 D 10,400 1.02 F 14.3%
East Reserve Rose Crossing 4,000 0.59 A 4,500 0.66 B 12.5%
rose
Crossing Lasalle (Hwy 2)Whitefish Stage 2,500 0.48 A 2,800 0.53 A 12.0%
New
Network
Segment
Evergreen Drive
Extension
Evergreen Drive
Extension NA NA NA 12,200 0.92 E NA
...continued on page 141
141KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Corridor Segments (Termini)
2040 E+C Alternative 7
ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT
Change
hwy 2
(Idaho)
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
93)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%
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%
LaSalle
(hwy 2)
Idaho/MT 35 Evergreen 23,300 0.73 C 24,600 0.77 C 5.6%
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%
MT 35
Hwy 2/LaSalle Shady Lane 15,900 1.04 F 14,800 0.97 E -6.9%
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%
142 MOVE 2040
Figure 6.11: Alternative 7 ADT Change on Select Corridors
UV292
UV424
UV548
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
WIL
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
UV292
UV424
UV548
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
WIL
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
0 10.5 Miles I 0 10.5 Miles I
Legend
ADT Change
> -10%
-10% to 0%
0% to +10%
> 10%
Legend
LOS Change
> -0.1
-0.1 to 0
0 to +0.1
> 0.1
143KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
alternative 8
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 6.24.
Table 6.24: Alternative 8 Area-Wide Impacts
Alternative Total VMT Total VHT
Percent of
Congested
Roadway
Segments
2040 No Build 1,325,941 34,911 9.5%
2040 Build –
Alternative #8 1,328,490 35,219 8.7%
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 Figure 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.
Conclusions
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.
144 MOVE 2040
Table 6.25: Alternative 8 Change on Select Corridors
Corridor Segments (Termini)
2040 E+C Alternative 8
ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT
Change
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%
1st avenue
E
12th Street 9th Street 3,500 0.39 A 3,100 0.34 A -11.4%
5th Street 3rd Street 3,900 0.43 A 3,600 0.40 A -7.7%
145KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 6.12: Alternative 8 ADT Change on Select Corridors
UV292UV548
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
UV292UV548
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
0 10.5 Miles I 0 10.5 Miles I
Legend
ADT Change
> -10%
-10% to 0%
0% to +10%
> 10%
Legend
LOS Change
> -0.1
-0.1 to 0
0 to +0.1
> 0.1
146 MOVE 2040
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
Alternative Total VMT Total VHT
Percent of
Congested
Roadway
Segments
2040 No Build 1,325,941 34,911 9.5%
2040 Build –
Alternative #9 1,326,615 35,046 8.6%
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.
Conclusions
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.
147KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Table 6.27: Alternative 9 Change on Select Corridors
Corridor Segments (Termini)
2040 E+C Alternative 9
ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT
Change
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%
Four Mile
Drive/
Evergreen
Helena Flats LaSalle/Hwy 2 3,700 0.36 A 5,500 0.54 A 48.6%
Hwy 2/LaSalle Whitefish Stage 6,400 0.47 A 10,600 0.78 C 65.6%
Hwy 93 Hwy 93A 2,300 0.23 A 6,800 0.52 A 195.7%
Hwy 93A Farm to Market
Road 3,500 0.93 E 10,100 1.02 F 188.6%
Three Mile
Drive
Farm to Market
Road Hwy 93 10,000 0.74 C 8,200 0.60 B -18.0%
Stillwater
road Four Mile Drive West Reserve 1,500 0.40 A 1,000 0.27 A -33.3%
Springcreek
road Four Mile Drive West Reserve Drive 4,400 1.17 F 6,100 1.63 F 38.6%
Farm to
Market (MT
424)
Three Mile Drive Four Mile Drive 4,100 0.40 A 1,500 0.15 A -63.4%
reserve
Drive
Spring Creek Drive Stillwater Road 9,500 1.06 F 6,800 0.76 C -28.4%
Hwy 93 Whitefish Stage 20,700 1.00 E 18,300 0.88 D -11.6%
Whitefish
Stage
Idaho (Highway 2) Evergreen 8,100 0.60 A 7,100 0.52 A -12.3%
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%
rose
Crossing
Helena Flats LaSalle (Hwy 2)5,300 1.25 F 4,600 0.61 B -13.2%
Lasalle (Hwy 2)Whitefish Stage 2,500 0.48 A 5,600 0.30 A 124.0%
Whitefish Stage Hwy 93 5,300 1.01 F 9,300 0.50 A 75.5%
hwy 93N Meridian Road Four Mile Drive 38,000 1.41 F 36,300 1.34 F -4.5%
Four Mile Drive West Reserve 26,400 0.98 E 24,600 0.91 E -6.8%
hwy 2
(Idaho)
Main Street (Hwy
93)3rd Avenue EN 24,400 0.90 E 22,100 0.82 D -9.4%
3rd Avenue EN 7th Avenue EN/
Whitefish Stage 25,600 0.95 E 23,500 0.87 D -8.2%
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
Drive Hwy 93 Meridan Road 4,500 0.33 A 4,100 0.30 A -8.9%
Stillwater
road Three Mile Drive Four Mile Drive 1,300 0.31 A 1,400 0.33 A 7.7%
148 MOVE 2040
Figure 6.13: Alternative 9 ADT Change on Select Corridors
UV292
UV424
UV548
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
E RESERVE DR
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
WIL
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
UV292
UV424
UV548
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
E RESERVE DR
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
WIL
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
0 10.5 Miles I 0 10.5 Miles I
Legend
ADT Change
> -10%
-10% to 0%
0% to +10%
> 10%
Legend
LOS Change
> -0.1
-0.1 to 0
0 to +0.1
> 0.1
149KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
alternative 10
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 Total VMT Total VHT
Percent of
Congested
Roadway
Segments
2040 No Build 1,325,941 34,911 9.5%
2040 Build –
Alternative #10 1,322,458 34,537 7.9%
Conclusions
Alternative 10 shows a redistri bution of traffic across the
study area. Improvements in modeled east-west capacity
serve to dis tribute traffic throughout the system. Please
see Table 6.29 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 Figure 6.15 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 154 and Figure 6.17
on 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 Highway 93 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.
150 MOVE 2040
Table 6.29: Alt 10 Change on Select Corridors
Corridor Segments (Termini)
2040 E+C Alternative 10
ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT
Change
hwy 93a
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 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 11th Street 10th Street 21,700 1.60 F 13,000 0.96 E -40.0%
Main Street
(hwy 93)
8th Street 7th Street 20,100 1.49 F 12,100 0.89 D -40.0%
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%
hwy 93N
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%
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%
hwy 2
(Idaho)
Meridian Road 5th Avenue W 21,800 0.77 C 19,400 0.68 B -11.0%
5th Avenue W Main Street (Hwy
93)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%
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%
Four Mile
Drive/
Evergreen
Helena Flats LaSalle/Hwy 2 3,700 0.36 A 4,900 0.48 A 32.4%
Hwy 2/LaSalle Whitefish Stage 6,400 0.47 A 9,300 0.68 B 45.3%
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
Drive/
Evergreen)
Whitefish Stage Hwy 93 NA NA NA 10,600 0.80 D NA
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 West Reserve
Drive 4,400 1.17 F 6,100 1.63 F 38.6%
...continued on page 151
151KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Corridor Segments (Termini)
2040 E+C Alternative 10
ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT
Change
Farm to
Market (MT
424)
Three Mile Drive Four Mile Drive 4,100 0.40 A 1,500 0.15 A -63.4%
Willow Glen Woodland Drive Conrad Road 5,500 0.40 A 4,800 0.35 A -12.7%
Hwy 93 Woodland Drive 5,500 0.40 A 4,800 0.35 A -12.7%
reserve
Drive
Spring Creek
Drive Stillwater Road 9,500 1.06 F 7,000 0.78 C -26.3%
Hwy 93 Whitefish Stage 20,700 1.00 E 27,900 0.70 C 34.8%
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
Drive 12th Street 5th Street 5,800 0.48 A 7,500 0.63 B 29.3%
Whitefish
Stage
Idaho (Highway
2) Evergreen 8,100 0.60 A 7,500 0.55 A -7.4%
Evergreen Reserve Drive 9,200 0.77 C 6,500 0.54 A -29.3%
Reserve Drive Rose Crossing 6,100 0.60 A 6,100 0.60 A 0.0%
New
Segment
(7th St/
Whitefish
Stage)
Idaho Center Street 100 0.01 A 9,600 1.07 F 191.0%
rose
Crossing
Helena Flats LaSalle (Hwy 2)5,300 1.25 F 4,300 0.57 A -18.9%
Lasalle (Hwy 2)Whitefish Stage 2,500 0.48 A 3,700 0.20 A 48.0%
Whitefish Stage Hwy 93 5,300 1.01 F 6,900 0.37 A 30.2%
Center
Street
Main Street (Hwy
93) Woodland Drive 5,400 0.45 A 6,200 0.52 A 14.8%
1st Street
East Woodland Dr. Main Street (Hwy
93)400 0.11 A 600 0.16 A 50.0%
Merdian
road
7th Street Center Street W 10,300 0.86 D 10,000 0.83 D -2.9%
Center Street W Idaho (Hwy 2)11,200 0.85 D 10,500 0.80 C -6.3%
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%
helena
Flats
MT 35 Evergreen Drive 9,100 0.89 D 10,000 0.98 E 9.9%
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%
LaSalle
(hwy 2)
Idaho/MT 35 Evergreen 23,300 0.73 C 24,200 0.75 C 3.9%
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.
152 MOVE 2040
Figure 6.14: Alternative 10 ADT Change on Select Corridors
UV292
UV424
UV548
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
W S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
UV292
UV424
UV548
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
W S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
0 10.5 Miles I 0 10.5 Miles I
Legend
ADT Change
> -10%
-10% to 0%
0% to +10%
> 10%
Legend
LOS Change
> -0.1
-0.1 to 0
0 to +0.1
> 0.1
153KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WIL
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
STAGE
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
WRESERVEDR
ROSE XING
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93 £¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WIL
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
STAGE
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
010.5MilesI 0 10.5 Miles I
Legend
Study Area2040 E+C LOS
A-C: 0.0 to .79
D: .8 to .89
E: .9 to 1.0
F: > 1.0
Legend
Study Area 2040 Alt 10 LOS
A-C: 0.0 to .79
D: .8 to .89
E: .9 to 1.0
F: > 1.0
Figure 6.15: 2040 Alternative 10 LOS
154 MOVE 2040
Figure 6.16: Volumes Comparison 2017 to 2040 E+C to 2040 Full Build
155KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 6.17: Volumes Comparison 2017 to 2040 E+C to 2040 Inset
ChapTEr 7:
prOJECT DEVELOpMENT
aND IDENTIFICaTION
159KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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
Figure 7.1 and Figure 7.2.
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 Chapter 9.
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 Figure 7.3 on page 164 and Figure 7.4 on
page 165. 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 contingency.
»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 ProjectS
The MSN recommendations list 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 assumptions were
used to support cost information for
the MSN Recommendations. Corridor
level construction or reconstruction
costs were based on the recom-
mended functional class. Cost
assumptions include construc-
tion, construction engineering
and a 25 percent contingency.
»Minor/Major
Collector: $1,700,000 per
mile
»Minor arterial:
$2,500,000 per mile
»principal arterial:
$3,800,000 per mile
160 MOVE 2040
!
!
!!
!
!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!
!
!!!!!
!!!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!
!!
!
!
(
(
((
(
(((((
((((
((((
(
((
((
((((
(((((((((
(((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((
(
(
(((((
((((
(
(
(((
((
((
(((((((((((((((
(
((((
((
(
(
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
(
(
((
((
(
((
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
")35")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤93
£¤2
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
STAGE
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
Legend
Study Area
MSN/TSM Projects 0 10.5 Miles I
Top 15 High CrashIntersections
Inset
Severe Crashes
!(Fatal
Serious Injury
Volume-to-Capacity ratio (2040)
0.80 - 0.89
0.90 - 1.00
1.01 - 2.25
Figure 7.1: Recommendations Identification
161KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
!!
!
!!!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!
!
!
!!
!!!
!!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!
!
!!!
!
((
(
(((
((
((((
(
(
(
((
(((
((((((((((
(
((((
(((((((((
(((((((((
((
(
((
((((
(
((((((((
(
(
((
(((
((((
(
(
((
(
(
((
(((((((
(
((((((
(
(((
(
!
!
!
!
!
!!
(
(
(
(
(
((
UV292
UV424
UV548
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
Legend
Study Area
MSN/TSM Projects
Severe Crashes
!(Fatal
I
Top 15 High Crash
Intersections Serious Injury
0 0.5 1Miles
Volume-to-Capacity ratio (2040)
0.80 - 0.89
0.90 - 1.00
1.01 - 2.25
Figure 7.2: Recommendations Identification (Inset)
162 MOVE 2040
Map
ID Corridor Intersection/Termini Short Description Cost
1 Conrad Rd Willow Glen Dr Install roundabout $1,500,000
2 2nd St East Woodland Ave Install roundabout Committed
3
2nd Street
East/
Conrad
Drive
Woodland Park Dr Install roundabout $1,500,000
4 Meridian Rd 7th St W Install roundabout $1,500,000
5 Meridian
Road
Center
Street
Appleway
Drive Increase storage for NB and SB left turn bays $80,000
6 Four-Mile Dr W Springcreek Rd Install roundabout or redesign to four-way
intersection (consider as part of MSN 5 or 21)$2,250,000
7 Three Mile
Drive
Heavens
Peak Dr.Stillwater Rd.
Monitor for signal warrants at Stillwater Rd. and
Heavens Peak; consider access modifications on
other minor intersections (consider as part of
MSN 36)
NA
8 Whitefish
Stage Tronstad Road Monitor & Improve turn lanes and signal control
per ongoing study and past TIS $320,000
9 Whitefish
Stage Rose Crossing Monitor & Improve turn lanes and signal control
per ongoing Corridor Study and past TIS $320,000
10 Whitefish
Stage West Reserve Address as part of MSN 27 or 28 NA
11 Whitefish
Stage Evergreen Drive Install roundabout $1,500,000
12 Whitefish
Stage Rail Park Drive Monitor turning movements, evaluate as build
out of Rail Park continues NA
13 Highway 2 Woodland Park Drive/
Flathead Drive Lengthen EB/WB left turn storage bay $160,000
14 Highway 2 Montclair Drive Monitor for need to install WB right turn lane/EB
left turn bay extension NA
15 Highway 2 MT 35
Improve turn bay length on inside EB left turn
lane. Modify SB to dedicated right turn, right
turn/thru and dedicated left turn. Evaluate EB
geometry to support two thru and dedicated EB
right turn.
$1,050,000
16 Highway 2 Evergreen
Prioirity Need: EB Left turn Lane and SB Right
Turn Lane; Secondary Need: WB left turn lane
and NB Right Turn lane.
$320,000
17 Highway 2 Reserve
Add dedicated turn lanes all approaches.
Evaluate as part of Reserve Street Corridor
Study.
$1,050,000
18 Highway 2 Rose Crossing EB/WB left turn lanes, SB right turn lane.
Imrpove rail grade crossing.$700,000
19 Highway 93 Silverbrook/Tronstad Road Convert to 3/4 access $160,000
20 Highway 93 Wild Pine Drive/Ponderosa
Lane
Consolidate into future full movement
intersection, monitor for intersection control.$700,000
Table 7.1: Transportation System Management Recommendations
...continued on page 163
163KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Map
ID Corridor Intersection/Termini Short Description Cost
21 Highway 93 Eagle Valley Ranch Future 3/4 Access NA
22 Highway 93 Rose Crossing Future Signalized Intersection Committed
23 Highway 93 Lincoln Street 3/4 access intersection (both sides)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,
addition of new EB/WB thru lanes.$875,000
26 Highway 93 Treeline Modify intersection to add WB & EB left turn
lanes & SB right turn lane Committed
27 Highway 93 Grandview Dr Add dedicated SB right turn lane $80,000
28 MT 35 Helena Flats Add WB right turn lane $80,000
29 Highway
93A Four Mile Drive Monitor for future signal warrants at ramps NA
30 Stillwater
Road Timberwolf Parkway Construct Roundabout Committed
31 Stillwater
Road Four Mile Drive Monitor for Intersection Control NA
32 Three Mile
Drive West Springcreek Road Convert to four-way intersection, monitor for
roundabout Committed
33 Highway 2 West Study
Limits Hwy 93A Continue to Implement Safety Study/Develop
Corridor Study $200,000
34 Highway 2 LaSalle/MT
35 Birch Grove Develop Corridor Study $412,500
35 Highway 2/
Idaho Hwy 93A LaSalle Develop Corridor Study $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
Road 7th Street W Highway 2/
Idaho Develop Corridor Study $75,000
39 MT 35 Highway 2 MT 206 Develop Corridor Study $275,000
40 Highway 93
(Main Street)12th Street Highway 2
(Idaho)Develop Corridor Study $250,000
Study Area Wide Update Transportation plan on 5-to-7-year cycle $300,000
164 MOVE 2040
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤93A
£¤93A ")35")35
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548 E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
STAGE
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
5
7
38 40
36
35
37
39
33
34
1
2
3
4
6
8
14
15
17
18
19
16
9
10
11
13
12
20
2221
24
25
27 28
26
23
29
30
31
32
Legend
Study Area
Evergreen
Kalispell
TSM Corridors
!TSM Intersections 0 10.5 Miles I
Inset
Figure 7.3: Transportation System Management Recommendations
165KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
UV292
UV424
UV548
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤93
£¤93
1
2
3
4
6
14
15
17
16
10
11
13
12
27
28
26
29
30
31
32
£¤2
E RESERVE DR
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
W RESERVE DR
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
5
37
36
7
38 40
39
33
34
36
35
Legend
Study Area
Evergreen
Kalispell
TSM Corridors
!TSM Intersections 0 10.5 Miles I
Figure 7.4: Transportation System Management Recommendations (Inset)
166 MOVE 2040
Map
ID Corridor Termini Termini Short Description Length
(miles)Cost
1 West Reserve
West
Springcreek
Road
Stillwater Road Construct to a three-lane
urban minor arterial 1.0 $2,500,000
2 West Reserve West Valley
Road
West
Springcreek
Road
Construct to a three-lane
urban major collector 1.0 $2,500,000
3 Four Mile
Drive Stillwater Rd Northland Rd Construct to a three-lane
urban minor arterial 0.5 $1,250,000
4 Four Mile
Drive Northland Road Hwy 93 Construct to a three-lane
urban minor arterial 0.3 $750,000
5 Four Mile
Drive
W Springcreek
Road Stillwater Road Construct to a three-lane
urban minor arterial 1.0 $2,500,000
6 Whitefish
Stage West Reserve Rose Crossing Construct to a three-lane
urban minor arterial 1.0 $2,500,000
7 Whitefish
Stage Rose Crossing Birch Grove Construct to a two-lane urban
major collector 2.5 $4,250,000
8 Whitefish
Stage California Street Evergreen Drive Construct to a three-lane
urban minor arterial 1.4 $3,500,000
9 Whitefish
Stage Evergreen Drive West Reserve
Drive
Construct to a three-lane
urban minor arterial 1.0 $2,500,000
10 7th Avenue EN Highway 2 California Street Construct to a three-lane
urban minor arterial 0.5 $1,250,000
10a 7th Avenue EN East Center/
Woodland Dr Highway 2 Construct to a two-lane urban
minor arterial 0.3 $850,000
11 Helena Flats MT 35 East Reserve
Drive
Construct to a two-lane urban
major collector 1.1 $2,337,500
12 Helena Flats East Reserve
Drive Rose Crossing Construct to a two-lane urban
major collector 1.0 $2,125,000
13 Foys Lake Rd Whalebone Dr Valley View Dr Construct to a two-lane urban
major collector 0.9 $1,530,000
14 Rose Crossing Whitefish Stage Highway 2 Construct to a three-lane
urban minor arterial 1.7 $4,250,000
15 Rose Crossing Highway 2 Helena Flats
Road
Construct to a two-lane urban
major collector 0.9 $1,530,000
16 Stillwater Rd Four Mile Drive West Reserve
Drive
Construct to a three-lane
urban minor arterial 1.0 $2,500,000
17 Sillwater Road Three Mile Drive Four Mile Drive Construct to a three-lane
urban minor arterial 1.0 $2,500,000
18 New Corridor Foys Lake US 2 Construct to a two-lane urban
minor collector 1.0 $2,700,000
19 W Springcreek
Road Highway 2 Three Mile Drive Construct to a three-lane
urban minor arterial 1.0 $2,500,000
20 W Springcreek
Road Four Mile Drive West Reserve
Drive
Construct to a three-lane
urban minor arterial 1.0 $2,500,000
21 Farm to
Market (424)Three Mile Drive Four Mile Drive Construct to a three-lane
urban minor arterial 1.1 $2,750,000
22 Willow Glen
Drive
Woodland
Avenue Conrad Dr Construct to a three-lane
urban minor arterial 1.1 $2,750,000
Table 7.2: Major Street Network Recommendations
...continued on page 167
167KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Map
ID Corridor Termini Termini Short Description Length
(miles)Cost
23 Willow Glen
Drive Highway 93 Woodland
Avenue
Construct to a three-lane
urban minor arterial 1.5 $3,750,000
24 Conrad Dr Willow Glenn Shady Lane Construct to a two-lane urban
minor arterial 1.2 $2,040,000
25 Shady Ln Conrad Drive MT 35 Construct to a two-lane urban
minor arterial 0.7 $1,190,000
26 Trumble Creek Rose Crossing Birch Grove Upgrade to a two-lane urban
major collector 2.5 $4,250,000
27 West Reserve
Drive Highway 93 Whitefish Stage Construct to a five-lane urban
principal arterial 1.0 $6,600,000
28 West Reserve
Drive Whitefish Stage Highway 2 Construct to a five-lane urban
principal arterial 1.5 $8,500,000
29 East Reserve
Drive Highway 2 Helena Flats
Road
Construct to a three-lane
urban major collector 1.0 $2,500,000
30 Grandview/
Evergreen Highway 93 Whitefish Stage Construct to a two-lane urban
minor arterial 1.0 $5,160,000
31 Evergreen Dr Whitefish Stage Highway 2 Construct to a three-lane
urban minor arterial 1.4 $3,500,000
32 Sunnyside Dr
(extension)5th Avenue W Airport Road Construct to a two-lane urban
minor collector 0.5 $1,700,000
33 7th Avenue W Bluestone Dr Sunnyside Construct to a two-lane urban
minor collector 0.3 $1,020,000
34 New Corridor Conrad Dr LaSalle Rd Construct to a two-lane urban
major collector 0.8 $2,720,000
35 MT 35 LaSalle Rd MT 206
Construct to a five-lane urban
minor arterial to Flathead
River; transition to a three-
lane urban minor arterial for
balance of project
5.7 $16,460,000
36 Three-Mile
Drive
Farm to Market
(424)Meridian Road Construct to a three-lane
urban minor arterial 2.0 $5,000,000
37 Two-Mile Dr W Springcreek
Road Meridian Road Construct to a two-lane urban
minor collector 2.0 $3,400,000
38 Highway 93A Airport Road Foys Lake
Construct to a four-lane
divided urban principal
arterial + interchange at
Foys Lake
0.4 $15,000,000
39 Highway 93A Base Camp Dr Foys Lake
Construct to a four-lane
divided urban principal
arterial + interchange at
Airport Road
1.0 $18,000,000
40 Highway 93A Highway 93 Base Camp Dr
93A mainline and Base Camp
Dr. improvements currently
under study (incl. Hwy 93/93A
intersection)
0.3 TBD
41 Cemetery
Road Airport Road Highway 93 Construct to a two-lane urban
minor collector 0.9 $1,530,000
42 Base Camp
Drive Highway 93A Cemetery Rd Construct to a two-lane urban
minor collector 0.8 $2,040,000
...continued on page 168
168 MOVE 2040
Map
ID Corridor Termini Termini Short Description Length
(miles)Cost
43 Base Camp
Drive Ashley Meadows Highway 93 Construct to a two-lane urban
minor collector 0.4 $1,020,000
44 Rose Crossing West Valley
Road Highway 93 Corridor preservation 3.0 $7,500,000
45 Church Drive West Valley
Road Highway 93 Corridor preservation 3.3 $5,610,000
46 Church Drive Highway 93 Whitefish Stage Corridor preservation 1.0 $1,700,000
47 Stillwater Rd West Reserve
Drive Church Drive Corridor preservation 3.1 $7,750,000
48
West
Springcreek
Road
West Reserve
Drive Church Drive Corridor preservation 2.9 $7,250,000
169KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
")35")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
FOURMILE DR
W
H
ITEFISH
STAGE
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
10a
33
40
32
43
10
43
42
2534
18
15
13
41
5
39
46
19
2
12
299
20
6
16
27
21
1
17
30
11
22
24
8
31
28
23
14
36
37
38
26
7
48 47
44
45
35
Legend
Study Area
Evergreen
Kalispell
Major Street Network (MSN)
0 10.5 Miles I
Inset
Figure 7.5: Major Street Network Recommendations
170 MOVE 2040
UV424
UV548
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
W RESERVE DR
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
482 47 126
10a
33
40
32
43
10
43
42
25
34
18
13
41
5
39
19
29
20
9
16
27
21
1
17
30
11
22
24
35
8
31
28
23
36
37
38
Legend
Study Area
Evergreen
Kalispell
Major Street Network (MSN)
0 10.5 Miles I
Figure 7.6: Major Street Network Recommendations (Inset)
ChapTEr 8:
prOJECT prIOrITIZaTION
173KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
INTrODUCTION
As discussed in Chapter 1, the Move 2040 goals express
key priorities and desired outcomes for the 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.
goal ranking
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.
Table 8.1: Top Three Move 2040 Goals by Rank of
Importance
Rank Move 2040 Goal
1 Safety and Security
2 Congestion Reduction
3 Infrastructure Condition
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.
174 MOVE 2040
Table 8.2: Move 2040 Project Prioritization Criteria
Criterion Methodology
Goal 1: Safety and Security
CRASH FREQUENCY Project addresses at least one
of the top 15 crash locations
CRASH SEVERITY Project addresses at least one
of the severe crash locations
Goal 2: Congestion reduction
CORRIDOR
CONGESTION
Project addresses a corridor
with 2017 V/C equal to or
greater than LOS D
INTERSECTION
CONGESTION
Project address an
intersection with LOS D or
worse
Goal 3: Infrastructure Condition
IMPROVEMENT OF
INFRASTRUCTURE
WITHIN THE STUDY
AREA
Project is within the Kalispell
urban boundary and/or
Evergreen CDP boundary
addressing Future Growth
FUTURE CORRIDOR
CONGESTION
Project addresses a corridor
with 2040 V/C equal to or
greater than LOS D
FUTURE INTERSECTION
CONGESTION
Project address an
intersection with 2040 LOS D
or worse
POPULATION AND
ECONOMIC GROWTH
Project serves an identified
2040 High Growth Area
Bonus points
PUBLIC INPUT
Project was specifically
highlighted during public
engagement
REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
Project has been designated
as having specific regional
significance
prIOrITIZaTION rESULTS
The prioritization results for TSM and MSN projects are
presented in Table 8.3 and Table 8.4 on page 178 and
Figure 8.1 on page 176, Figure 8.2 on page 177,
Figure 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.
While TSM and MSN projects are shown separately for
clarity, all projects were scored together (the “Tier” col-
umn within the tables communicates the absolute tier of
a project when all projects are organized into a single
table). A project’s Map ID can be used to locate the proj-
ect on its respective TSM or MSN map.
Bicycle and pedestrian projects are discussed separately
in Chapter 9.
175KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Table 8.3: TSM Projects
Map ID Corridor Termini/Intersection Termini/Intersection Priority Tier
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 MT 206
18 Highway 2 @ Rose Crossing
Medium
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
Low
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 @ .5 mi. north of West Reserve
1 Conrad Rd @ Willow Glen Dr
*Project is a recommended study or plan
176 MOVE 2040
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
13
4
6
8
14
15
17
18
19
16
9
10
11
13
12
20
22
21
24
25
27 28
23
2931
5
367
38 40
35
39
33
34
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤93
£¤2
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISHSTA
GE
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
Legend
Evergreen
Kalispell
TSM Priority Tiers
!High
!Medium
!Low
Study Area
0 10.5 Miles I
Inset
Figure 8.1: TSM Project Prioritization
177KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
UV292
UV424
UV548
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤93
£¤93
£¤2
E RESERVE DR
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
W RESERVE DR
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
5
36
7
38 40
39
33
34
36
35
1
3
4
6
14
15
17
16
10
11
13
12
25
272931
Legend
Evergreen
Kalispell
TSM Priority Tiers
!High
!Medium
!Low
Study Area
0 10.5 Miles I
Figure 8.2: TSM Project Prioritization (Inset)
178 MOVE 2040
Table 8.4: MSN Projects
Map ID Corridor Termini/Intersection Termini/Intersection Priority Tier
27 West Reserve Drive Highway 93 Whitefish Stage
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
10a 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
179KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 8.3: MSN Project Prioritization
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
FOURMILE DR
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
ROSE XING
W RESERVE DR
10a
33
40
32
43
10
43
42
2534
18
15
13
41
5
39
46
19
2
12
29
920
6
16
27
21
1
17
30
11
22
24
8
31
28
23
14
36
37
38
267
48
47
44
45
35
Legend
Study Area
Evergreen
Kalispell
MSN Priority Tiers
High
Medium
Low
Inset
0 10.5 Miles I
180 MOVE 2040
Figure 8.4: MSN Project Prioritization (inset)
UV424
UV548
UV503
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
E RESERVE DR
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
W RESERVE DR
W S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
482 47 126
10a
33
40
32
43
10
43
42
25
34
18
13
41
5
39
19
29
20
9
16
27
21
1
17
30
11
22
24
35
8
31
28
23
36
37
38
Legend
Study Area
Evergreen
Kalispell
MSN Priority Tiers
High
Medium
Low 0 10.5 Miles I
ChapTEr 9:
BICYCLE aND pEDESTrIaN
SYSTEM
aNaLYSIS & rECOMMENDaTIONSaNaLYSIS & rECOMMENDaTIONS
183KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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 analySiS
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 185 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
184 MOVE 2040
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 ¼-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 ¼-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 or serving 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.
185KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
<Null>
9TH ST E
HALTER
C
T
SUNNY CT
11TH ST W
4TH ST E
8TH ST W
7TH ST E
8TH ST E
12TH ST E
6TH ST W
13TH ST E
1ST ST W
12TH ST E
11TH ST W
2ND ST W
10TH ST W
7TH ST W
5TH ST E
3RD ST E
BOIS
E
A
V
E
GUC
C
I
W
A
Y
TREELINE RD
STE
V
E
N
R
D
DOVE LN
FOUR MILE DR
COO
P
E
R
L
N
RA
N
C
H
R
D
W CENTER ST
SY
L
V
A
N
C
T
MERIDIAN CT
HOLLYHOC
K
L
N
SALEM ST
JOHNSTONS DR
VAL
L
E
Y
V
I
E
W
C
T
STO
N
E
R
I
D
G
E
P
L
W COLORADO ST
VAL
L
E
Y
V
I
E
W
D
R
STRANDDR
MERIDIANRD
BLU
E
S
P
R
U
C
E
L
N
CEMETERY RD
HUN
L
N
E COTTONWOOD DR
EMERIDIANRD
PINTA
I
L
C
T
FENNWAY
RETI
R
E
M
E
N
T
W
A
Y
CHARLOT
T
E
A
V
E
MONTAN
A
3
5
W RESERVE DR
PALMERDR
93 ALTERNATE
AIR
P
O
R
T
R
D
WHI
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
TRAILSENDDR
WESTWOODLN
RYA
N
L
N
WHIT
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
ALF
A
L
F
A
D
R
6TH
A
V
E
W
VAL
L
E
Y
D
R
AIR
P
O
R
T
R
D
FOYS LAKE RD
COL
L
I
E
R
L
N
KAR
A
D
R
FOYSLAKERD
W RESERVE DR
WILD PINE DR
SUNSET DR
STIL
L
W
A
T
E
R
R
D
CA
R
O
L
I
N
E
R
D
<Null>
STIL
L
W
A
T
E
R
R
D
CEMETERY RDTER
R
A
C
E
R
D
ROSE XING
MANNINGTON STWH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
W RESERVE DR
STILLWATER RD
FOUR MILE DR
DRA
K
E
D
R
CLARK DR
ROUNDUP LN
LAWRENCEPARKRD
ROSEWATERLOOP
WILD
GOOSERUN
93 A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
E
93
A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
E
PIN
T
A
I
L
D
R
RUSTY TRL
PARK DR
ROGERS DR
9TH ST W 10TH ST E
HAVEN CT
12TH ST W
3RD ST W
MAR
K
L
N
14TH ST E
2ND ST E
11TH ST E
IR
I
S
C
T
BING CT
8TH ST E
MIS
S
I
O
N
T
R
L
7TH ST E
GREEN CV
8T
H
A
V
E
W
N
12T
H
A
V
E
W
SEL
D
E
R
S
L
N
KYNZIE LN
GA
R
D
E
N
D
R
6TH ST E
KINGS LOOP
7TH ST W
BELMAR
HEARST DR
QUE
E
N
S
C
T
2ND ST E
MARE LN
CONRAD DR
8TH ST W
PAR
K
P
L
SHE
F
F
E
R
D
L
N
BAIN LN
4T
H
A
V
E
W
N
SHE
L
L
A
N
W
A
Y
11T
H
A
V
E
W
4TH
A
V
E
E
8T
H
A
V
E
E
N
1S
T
A
V
E
W
N
9TH
A
V
E
W
3R
D
A
V
E
W
2N
D
A
V
E
WN
7T
H
A
V
E
W
2N
D
A
V
E
W
4T
H
A
V
E
W
3RD
A
V
E
W
2N
D
A
V
E
W
5TH
A
V
E
W
5T
H
A
V
E
E
7T
H
A
V
E
E
10T
H
A
V
E
W
2ND
A
V
E
E
N
6TH
A
V
E
E
N
8T
H
A
V
E
W
5TH
A
V
E
E
N
NOR
T
H
R
I
D
I
N
G
6TH
A
V
E
W
THREE MILE DR
6TH
A
V
E
E
1ST
A
V
E
W
3R
D
A
V
E
E
N
DE
N
V
E
R
A
V
E
SUNNYSIDE DR
4T
H
A
V
E
E
6T
H
A
V
E
W
N
2N
D
A
V
E
E
9TH
A
V
E
E
N
SHERWOO
D
L
N
3R
D
A
V
E
E
9TH
A
V
E
W
1ST
A
V
E
E
3RD
A
V
E
W
N
2ND
A
V
E
E
7TH
A
V
E
W
N
1S
T
A
V
E
E
TETON ST
<Null>
COL
L
E
G
E
A
V
E
BROOK DR KIN
S
H
E
L
L
A
A
V
E
AUSTIN ST
SANTA FE ST
DUKE DR
ARDELL DR
FINA
N
C
I
A
L
D
R
BEA
R
G
R
A
S
S
L
N
RITZMAN LN
CONWAY DR
WELF LN
17TH ST W7T
H
A
V
E
W
CO
N
D
O
R
D
R
GARDENWAY
ME
M
O
R
Y
L
N
ASPE
N
D
R
THEODORE ST
5T
H
A
V
E
E
TAH
O
E
D
R
4TH
A
V
E
W
AIRP
O
R
T
R
D
KACU LN
S MEADOWS DR
LEA
R
N
L
N
WOODS DR
PARKLANE DR
2ND
S
T
W
SH
E
R
R
Y
L
N
GLACIER ST
COUNTRY CT
MOES RUN
N CE
D
A
R
D
R
PICKWICK CT
DAY
S
A
C
R
E
S
L
N
21ST ST
E
SOUTH VIEW LN
WE
S
T
E
R
N
D
R
HAW
T
H
O
R
N
A
V
E
LEHI LN
WINCHESTER ST
FORD WAY
18TH ST E
W WYOMING ST
GLE
N
W
O
O
D
D
R
MU
S
K
R
A
T
D
R
W ARIZONA ST
RIMROCK CT
GRANRUD LN
WAL
T
O
N
D
R
CRE
E
K
S
I
D
E
D
R
QUAR
R
Y
R
D
SHADY GLEN DR
SNOWLINE LN
BAR H DR
RO
C
K
D
R
3R
D
A
V
E
E
STILLWO
O
D
D
R
EK
A
L
A
K
A
L
N
SKY
L
I
N
E
D
R
SALISH CT
DAIRYDR
TW
I
N
P
I
N
E
S
D
R
SAGER LN
MA
L
L
A
R
D
D
R
CAR
D
I
F
F
A
V
E
SWEETGRASS LN
AINLEY LN
E N
I
C
K
L
A
U
S
A
V
E
7T
H
A
V
E
E
N
DOD
E
R
D
TRONSTADLN
TRILLIU
M
W
A
Y
HON
E
Y
S
U
C
K
L
E
L
N
ELM
A
V
E
JU
D
I
T
H
R
D
BATTLE RIDGE DR
SO
U
T
H
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
1ST
A
V
E
W
E OREGON ST
1S
T
A
V
E
E
N
SAGELN
GOL
D
E
N
E
A
G
L
E
L
N
CONRAD DR
TWO MILE DR
SAN
C
T
U
A
R
Y
R
D
CONCORD LN
N M
A
I
N
S
T
TRUMP DR
COLTER TRL
WESTLAND DR
SHI
L
O
H
D
R
W EVERGREEN DR
ASPEN LN
HAT
H
A
W
A
Y
L
N
PLEASANT LN
QUINC
Y
L
O
O
P
WILL
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
LIBERTY ST
SIL
V
E
R
L
E
A
F
D
R
GET
T
Y
D
R
MAR
G
R
E
T
H
E
R
D
4TH ST W
EAGLEDR
SU
L
K
Y
L
N
EIDERDR
SHA
R
O
N
R
D
SPR
U
C
E
R
D
6TH ST W
WELT
Y
W
A
Y
VISTA LOOP
W RESERVE DR
STR
A
T
F
O
R
D
D
R
LENWOOD LN
TRAILRIDGERD
SE
G
I
A
H
W
A
Y
GREENRIDGE D
R
5TH
A
V
E
W
N
WOO
D
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
TEA
L
D
R
E RAILROAD ST
PAR
K
A
V
E
ASPEN CT
SPRING CREEK DR
FLYWAY
RO
S
E
H
E
I
G
H
T
S
L
N
BOUNTIFUL DR
MOUNTAIN VISTA WAY
WE
S
T
B
R
I
E
R
C
T
SOLBERG DR
GRIZZLY WAY
AURICH A
V
E
HAR
M
O
N
Y
R
D
5TH ST W
SC
A
R
B
O
R
O
U
G
H
A
V
E
N M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
R
D
E RESERVE DR
EAGLE
C
R
E
S
T
C
T
SPERRY WAY
SHORT PINE DR
BIR
C
H
D
R
NIC
H
O
L
S
O
N
D
R
BUFF
A
L
O
S
T
A
G
E
N M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
R
D
CARNEGIE DR
RIDGEVIEW DR
MAHOGANY AVE
5TH
A
V
E
W
ADDISON SQ
BRUYER WAY
S C
E
D
A
R
D
R
OBE
R
L
I
N
L
O
O
P
LOGAN WAY
DOUBL
E
E
A
G
L
E
C
T
WIN
D
W
A
R
D
W
A
Y
SUNN
Y
V
I
E
W
L
N
BAND
O
L
N
MOU
N
T
A
I
N
V
I
E
W
D
R
LAW
R
E
N
C
E
L
N
NORTHRIDGE D
R
THREE MILE DR
BRUYER WAY LOOP
WHI
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
ROSEBUDLN
CRESTLI
N
E
A
V
E
W RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
FARVIEW
DR
THOMPSON LN
4TH
A
V
E
E
N
GRANITEHILLRD
WHIT
E
P
I
N
E
R
D
ADDISONCT
WHITE
B
A
R
K
L
N
STAFFORD ST
W B
O
W
M
A
N
D
R
VANDERBILT DR
VELVA DR
YODELI
N
R
I
D
G
E
R
D
YELLOW
P
I
N
E
D
R
FISHTAIL DR
FAIR
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
JACKSON VIEW TRL
MISSIONWAY
LEISHALN
KIRSTENDR
DARLINGTON
FOXHILLDR
ROCKEFELLER DR
TWIN ACRES DR
S WOODLAND DR
SYLV
A
N
D
R
FAR
R
I
E
R
L
N
MISSIONWAYN
GRANDVIEWDR
RYDER RD
GRE
E
N
B
R
I
A
R
D
R
COO
T
C
T
THREE MILE DR
HIDDEN LN
MOUNTAIN PARK LN
VILL
A
G
E
L
O
O
P
WHE
A
T
G
R
A
S
S
L
N
PAR
K
S
T
BEGGPARKDR
BER
N
A
R
D
R
D
LUPINEDR
CO
R
P
O
R
A
T
E
D
R
FOX HO
L
L
O
W
R
D
N BEL
M
A
R
TAELORRD
BLUESTONE
N SPRINGWO
O
D
R
D
ALILOOP
TRIPLE CREEK DR
NMISSIONDR
HERITAGEWAY
LARCH CA
N
Y
O
N
T
R
L
PHEA
S
A
N
T
R
U
N
TREVINODR
HILLTOPAVE
POPLAR DR
ARBOURDRE
WIN
D
W
A
R
D
L
O
O
P
SPRINGWOODLN
PARKRIDGEDR
MILKYWAY
ALP
I
N
E
L
N
PEB
B
L
E
D
R
RAINBOWDR
PARKSIDEDR
WILL
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
LEISUREDR
GRANDALEAVE
PARKWAYDR
AIR
P
O
R
T
R
D
HARMONY CT
BIGSKYBLVD
PH
E
A
S
A
N
T
D
R
E EVERGREEN DR
ARBOUR DR
SUNSETCT
HOW
A
R
D
D
R
TREASURE LN
MEADO
W
H
I
L
L
S
D
R
TERRYRD
GRA
N
I
T
E
V
I
E
W
D
R
COOPERATIVEWAY
NO
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
L
N
WHALEBONE DR
ASHLEY MDWS
EM
P
I
R
E
L
O
O
P
KON
L
E
Y
D
R
MOU
N
T
A
I
N
V
I
E
W
D
R
ARBOURDRW
LOWER VALLEY RD
STONEST
HIGHRD
FAR
M
V
I
E
W
L
N
MISSIONTRL
PINELOOPRD
WNICKLAUSAVE
MORNING STAR DR
COMMONSWAY
UNIT
E
D
D
R
HAVEN DR
JA
C
K
S
O
N
P
E
A
K
D
R
EBOWMANDR
COUNTRYWAY
E NICKLAUS AVE
NOR
T
H
L
A
N
D
D
R
BLACKHAWK LN
STI
L
L
W
A
T
E
R
R
D
MEADOWLARK DR
ROSEWOODDR
CRESTVIEWRD
CHESTNUTDR
BELLS LN
E RESERVE DR
AMATASIALN
PARLIAMENTDR
HELENAFLATSRD
WIN
D
R
I
V
E
R
D
R
WILLOW DR
SFOYSLAKEDR
DOVERDR
AIRPORTWAY
PONDEROSA LN
ANDERSONLN
8TH
A
V
E
E
TWO MILE DR
WES
T
V
I
E
W
D
R
STAG LN
CONRAD DR
MAP
L
E
D
R
BISMARK
ST
LONEPINERD
KELLYRD
GREATVIEW
STEELBRIDGERD
NO
R
T
H
E
R
N
L
I
G
H
T
S
B
L
V
D
WILSON HTS
GAR
L
A
N
D
S
T
GUNSI
T
E
L
O
O
P
RIV
E
R
R
D
FLATHEADDR
EAGLERIDGELN
WEVERGREENDR
BISONDR
RIVER PL
SUSSEXDR
RIVE
R
R
D
WILD
G
O
O
S
E
L
N
MEA
D
O
W
S
L
N
BLACKGOLD
DR
HOLTSTAGE
GLA
C
I
E
R
C
I
R
WHALEBONEDR
APPLEWAY DR
SUMMITRIDGEDR
HUTTONRANCHRD
TREELINERD
ASHLEY DR
US
9
3
COUNTRY WAY N
SCE
N
I
C
D
R
CONRAD DR
MISS
I
O
N
W
A
Y
S
TRU
M
B
L
E
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
ASH
R
D
FOREST DR
BUCKBOARD LN
RIVERSIDE DR
SOMERSET DR
TRU
M
B
L
E
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
ZIM
M
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
TWO MILE DR
WA
G
G
E
N
E
R
W
A
Y
KOOKOOSINTTRL
HARTT HILL DR
SH
A
D
Y
L
N
STONERIDGEDR
SHADOWLN
HARRISONBLVD
RINGNECKDR
FFA DR
RIVERVIEWDR
ROSE XING
ED
G
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
E COTTONWOOD DR
NFOYSLAKEDR
VA
L
L
E
Y
V
I
E
W
D
R
DEM
E
R
S
V
I
L
L
E
R
D
W RESERVE DR
RIDGEWOOD DR
ROSE X
I
N
G
N HAVEN DR
ASPENLOOP
SILVER BUCKLE RD
WIL
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
WOL
F
P
A
C
K
W
A
Y
RE
S
E
R
V
E
L
O
O
P
WHITEFISHSTAGE
QUARTER HORSE LN
FOUR MILE DR
EL R
A
N
C
H
O
R
D
STILLWATERLOOP
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
KIN
G
S
W
A
Y
STI
L
L
W
A
T
E
R
R
D
LAKESHOREDR
FOYS CANYON RD
JOSSIE LN
FOY
S
L
A
K
E
R
D
SIR
U
C
E
K
L
N
93ALTERNATE
93 A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
E
HIGH RD
STE
E
L
B
R
I
D
G
E
R
D
LONEPINERD
NOB HILL LOOP
LOW
E
R
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
PIN
E
G
R
O
V
E
L
N
93 A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
E
")35
?@503
?@292
?@548
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤93
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
ST
U
D
Y
A
R
E
A
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
ST
U
D
Y
A
R
E
A
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
Flathead CommunityCollege
Kalispell YouthAthletic Complex(KYAC)
FlatheadHigh School
GlacierHigh School
HelenaFlatsSchool
EastEvergreenElementary
EvergreenJunior High
RankinElementary
PetersonElementary
RussellElementary
HedgesElementary
KalispellMiddleSchool
ElrodElementary
EdgertonElementary
TERMINATE AT WEST SPRING CREEK RD.
BL4
BL3
BL2
BR1 BR2
BR3
BR4
BR5
BR7
BR7
BR11 BR13
BR14
BR15
BR16.6
BR16.2
BR19.1
BR21
BR24 BR19.2
BR16.1
BR16.1
BR18
BR14
BR14
BR6
S6
S8
S6
S1
S2
S3S7 S4
S5
S10S11
S9.1
S9.1
S9.2
S9.2
SUP1
SUP2
SUP3.1
SUP9
SUP10
SUP11
SUP12
SUP13
SUP14
SUP15
SUP16
SUP17.2
SUP18.1
SUP36
SUP37
SUP38
SUP38
SUP20.1
SUP40
SUP20.3
SUP39.1
SUP39.2
SUP20.4
SUP21.1
SUP21.2
SUP22
SUP27
SUP28.1
SUP28.1
SUP41SUP41
SUP29
SUP30
SUP31
SUP32
SUP28.2
SUP28.2
SUP23
SUP24
SUP33
SUP34
SUP44.2
SUP44.2
SUP45
SUP44.1
SUP44.1
SUP35
SUP25
SUP26
SUP18.2
SUP13
SUP6.1
SUP7
SUP8.1
SUP8.2
SUP6.2
SUP3.2
SUP4
SUP5.1
SUP5.2
SUP42
SUP42
0 1.5 Mile
Existing SeparatedShared-Use Path
Existing Path or Sidewalk
Separated Shared-UsePath (committed project) ^^_Proposed SeparatedShared-Use Path
Existing Bike Route
Proposed Path or Sidewalk
Proposed On-streetBike Route
School Speed Zone
Pedestrian Crashes
1/4 Mile Buer
Bicycle Crashes
Proposed On-streetBike Lane
Existing designatedbike lane_Project Identifier Map
Figure 9.1: Potential Project Identifier Map
186 MOVE 2040
<Null>
9TH ST E
HALTER
C
T
SUNNY CT
11TH ST W
4TH ST E
8TH ST W
7TH ST E
8TH ST E
12TH ST E
6TH ST W
13TH ST E
1ST ST W
12TH ST E
11TH ST W
2ND ST W
10TH ST W
7TH ST W
5TH ST E
3RD ST E
BO
I
S
E
A
V
E
GU
C
C
I
W
A
Y
TREELINE RD
ST
E
V
E
N
R
D
DOVE LN
FOUR MILE DR
CO
O
P
E
R
L
N
RA
N
C
H
R
D
W CENTER ST
SY
L
V
A
N
C
T
MERIDIAN CT
HOLLYHO
C
K
L
N
SALEM ST
JOHNSTONS DR
VAL
L
E
Y
V
I
E
W
C
T
ST
O
N
E
R
I
D
G
E
P
L
W COLORADO ST
VA
L
L
E
Y
V
I
E
W
D
R
STRAND DR
MERIDIANRD
BLUE SPRUCE LN
CEMETERY RD
HU
N
L
N
E COTTONWOOD DR
EMERIDIANRD
PINT
A
I
L
C
T
F
ENNWAY
RETIREMENT WAY
CHARL
O
T
T
E
A
V
E
MONTA
N
A
3
5
W RESERVE DR
PALMERDR
93 ALTERNATE
AIR
P
O
R
T
R
D
WHITEFISH STAGE
TRAILSENDDR
WESTWOODLN
RY
A
N
L
N
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
AL
F
A
L
F
A
D
R
6T
H
A
V
E
W
VA
L
L
E
Y
D
R
AI
R
P
O
R
T
R
D
FOYS LAKE RD
CO
L
L
I
E
R
L
N
KA
R
A
D
R
FOYSLAKERD
W RESERVE DR
WILD PINE DR
SUNSET DR
ST
I
L
L
W
A
T
E
R
R
D
CA
R
O
L
I
N
E
R
D
<Null>
STILLWATER RD
CEMETERY RDTE
R
R
A
C
E
R
D
ROSE XING MANNINGTON STWHITEFISH STAGE
W RESERVE DR
STILLWATER RD
FOUR MILE DR
DR
A
K
E
D
R
CLARK DR ROUNDUP LN
LAWRENCEPARKRD
ROSEWATER LOOP
WILD
G
O
O
S
E
R
U
N
93
A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
E
93
A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
E
PIN
T
A
I
L
D
R
RUSTY TRL
PARK DR
ROGERS DR
9TH ST W 10TH ST E
HAVEN CT
12TH ST W
3RD ST W
MA
R
K
L
N
14TH ST E
2ND ST E
11TH ST E
IR
I
S
C
T
BING CT
8TH ST E
MI
S
S
I
O
N
T
R
L
7TH ST E
GREEN CV
8T
H
A
V
E
W
N
12
T
H
A
V
E
W
SE
L
D
E
R
S
L
N
KYNZIE LN
GA
R
D
E
N
D
R
6TH ST E
KINGS LOOP
7TH ST W
BELMA
R
HEARST DR
QU
E
E
N
S
C
T
2ND ST
E
MARE LN
CONRAD DR
8TH ST W
PAR
K
P
L
SH
E
F
F
E
R
D
L
N
BAIN LN
4T
H
A
V
E
W
N
SH
E
L
L
A
N
W
A
Y
11
T
H
A
V
E
W
4T
H
A
V
E
E
8T
H
A
V
E
E
N
1S
T
A
V
E
W
N
9T
H
A
V
E
W
3R
D
A
V
E
W
2N
D
A
V
E
WN
7T
H
A
V
E
W
2N
D
A
V
E
W
4T
H
A
V
E
W
3R
D
A
V
E
W
2N
D
A
V
E
W
5T
H
A
V
E
W
5T
H
A
V
E
E
7T
H
A
V
E
E
10
T
H
A
V
E
W
2N
D
A
V
E
E
N
6T
H
A
V
E
E
N
8T
H
A
V
E
W
5T
H
A
V
E
E
N
NO
R
T
H
R
I
D
I
N
G
6T
H
A
V
E
W
THREE MILE DR
6T
H
A
V
E
E
1S
T
A
V
E
W
3R
D
A
V
E
E
N
DE
N
V
E
R
A
V
E
SUNNYSIDE DR
4T
H
A
V
E
E
6T
H
A
V
E
W
N
2N
D
A
V
E
E
9T
H
A
V
E
E
N
SHERW
O
O
D
L
N
3R
D
A
V
E
E
9T
H
A
V
E
W
1S
T
A
V
E
E
3R
D
A
V
E
W
N
2N
D
A
V
E
E
7T
H
A
V
E
W
N
1S
T
A
V
E
E
TETON ST
<Null>
CO
L
L
E
G
E
A
V
E
BROOK DR KIN
S
H
E
L
L
A
A
V
E
AUSTIN ST
SANTA FE ST
DUKE DR
ARDELL DR
FIN
A
N
C
I
A
L
D
R
BE
A
R
G
R
A
S
S
L
N
RITZMAN LN
CONWAY DR
WELF LN
17TH ST W7T
H
A
V
E
W
CO
N
D
O
R
D
R
GARDENWAY
ME
M
O
R
Y
L
N
ASP
E
N
D
R
THEODORE ST
5T
H
A
V
E
E
TA
H
O
E
D
R
4T
H
A
V
E
W
AIR
P
O
R
T
R
D
KACU LN
S MEADOWS DR
LE
A
R
N
L
N
WOODS DR
PARKLANE DR
2ND
S
T
W
SH
E
R
R
Y
L
N
GLACIER ST
COUNTRY CT
MOES RUN
N C
E
D
A
R
D
R
PICKWICK CT
DA
Y
S
A
C
R
E
S
L
N
21ST S
T
E
SOUTH VIEW LN
WE
S
T
E
R
N
D
R
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
A
V
E
LEHI LN
WINCHESTER ST
FORD WAY
18TH ST E
W WYOMING ST
GL
E
N
W
O
O
D
D
R
M
U
S
K
R
A
T
D
R
W ARIZONA ST
RIMROCK
C
T
GRANRUD LN
WA
L
T
O
N
D
R
CR
E
E
K
S
I
D
E
D
R
QUA
R
R
Y
R
D
SHADY GLEN DR
SNOWLINE LN
BAR H DR
RO
C
K
D
R
3R
D
A
V
E
E
STILLWOOD DR
EK
A
L
AK
A
L
N
SKY
L
I
N
E
D
R
SALISH CT
DAIRYDR
TWIN PINES DR
SAGER LN
MA
L
L
A
R
D
D
R
CA
R
D
I
F
F
A
V
E
SWEETGRASS LN
AINLEY LN
E N
I
C
K
L
A
U
S
A
V
E
7T
H
A
V
E
E
N
DO
D
E
R
D
TRONSTADLN
TRILLI
U
M
W
A
Y
HO
N
E
Y
S
U
C
K
L
E
L
N
EL
M
A
V
E
JU
D
I
T
H
R
D
BATTLE RIDGE DR
S
O
U
T
H
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
1S
T
A
V
E
W
E OREGON ST
1S
T
A
V
E
E
N
SAGELN
GO
L
D
E
N
E
A
G
L
E
L
N
CONRAD DR
TWO MILE DR
SA
N
C
T
U
A
R
Y
R
D
CONCORD LN
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
TRUMP DR
COLTER TRL
WESTLAND DR
SHILOH DR
W EVERGREEN DR
ASPEN LN
HA
T
H
A
W
A
Y
L
N
PLEASANT LN
QUINC
Y
L
O
O
P
WIL
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
LIBERTY ST
SIL
V
E
R
L
E
A
F
D
R
GET
T
Y
D
R
MA
R
G
R
E
T
H
E
R
D
4TH ST W
EAGLEDR
SU
L
K
Y
L
N
EIDERDR
SH
A
R
O
N
R
D
SP
R
U
C
E
R
D
6TH ST W
WEL
T
Y
W
A
Y
VISTA LOOP
W RESERVE DR
ST
R
A
T
F
O
R
D
D
R
LENWOOD LN
TRAILRIDGE RD
SE
G
I
A
H
W
A
Y
GREENRIDGE
D
R
5T
H
A
V
E
W
N
WO
O
D
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
TE
A
L
D
R
E RAILROAD ST
PA
R
K
A
V
E
ASPEN CT
SPRING CREEK DR
FLY W AY
RO
S
E
H
E
I
G
H
T
S
L
N
BOUNTIFUL DR
MOUNTAIN VISTA WAY
WE
S
T
B
R
I
E
R
C
T
SOLBERG DR
GRIZZLY WAY
AURICH
A
V
E
HA
R
M
O
N
Y
R
D
5TH ST W
S
C
A
R
B
O
R
O
U
G
H
A
V
E
N M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
R
D
E RESERVE DR
EAG
L
E
C
R
E
S
T
C
T
SPERRY WAY
SHORT PINE DR
BIR
C
H
D
R
NIC
H
O
L
S
O
N
D
R
BUF
F
A
L
O
S
T
A
G
E
N M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
R
D
CARNEGIE DR
RIDGEVI
E
W
D
R
MAHOGANY AVE
5T
H
A
V
E
W
ADDISON SQ
BRUYER WAY
S C
E
D
A
R
D
R
OBE
R
L
I
N
L
O
O
P
LOGAN WAY
DOU
B
L
E
E
A
G
L
E
C
T
WIN
D
W
A
R
D
W
A
Y
SUN
N
Y
V
I
E
W
L
N
BAN
D
O
L
N
MO
U
N
T
A
I
N
V
I
E
W
D
R
LA
W
R
E
N
C
E
L
N
NORTHRIDG
E
D
R
THREE MILE DR
BRUYER WAY LOOP
WH
I
T
E
F
I
S
H
S
T
A
G
E
ROSEBUDLN
CRESTL
I
N
E
A
V
E
W RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
FARVIE
W
DR
THOMPSON LN
4T
H
A
V
E
E
N
GRANITEHILLRD
WHITE PINE RD ADDISONCT
WHI
T
E
B
A
R
K
L
N
STAFFORD ST
W
B
O
W
M
A
N
D
R
VANDERBILT DR
VELVA DR
YODELI
N
R
I
D
G
E
R
D
YELLOW PINE DR
FISHTAIL DR
FAI
R
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
JACKSON VIEW TRL
MISSIONWAY
LEISHALN
KIRSTE
N
DR
DARLINGTON
FOXHILLDR
ROCKEFELLER DR
TWIN ACRES DR
S WOODLAND DR
SYL
V
A
N
D
R
FARRIER LN
MISSION WAYN
GRANDVIEWDR
RYDER RD
GR
E
E
N
B
R
I
A
R
D
R
COO
T
C
T
THREE MILE DR
HIDDEN LN
MOUNTAIN PARK LN
VIL
L
A
G
E
L
O
O
P
WH
E
A
T
G
R
A
S
S
L
N
PAR
K
S
T
BEGGPARKDR
BE
R
N
A
R
D
R
D
LUPINEDR
C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
E
D
R
FOX HOLLOW RD
N BE
L
M
A
R
TAELORRD
BLUESTONE
N SPRINGWOOD RD
ALILOOP
TRIPLE CREEK DR
N MISSIONDR
HERITAGE
W
AY
LARCH
C
A
N
Y
O
N
T
R
L
PHE
A
S
A
N
T
R
U
N
TREVIN
O
DR
HILLTOPAVE
POPLAR DR
ARBOURDR
E
WIN
D
W
A
R
D
L
O
O
P
SPRINGWOODLN
PARKRIDGEDR
MILKYWAY
AL
P
I
N
E
L
N
PE
B
B
L
E
D
R
RAINBOWDR
PARKSIDEDR
WIL
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
LEISURE
DR
GRANDALEAVE
PARKWAYDR
AIR
P
O
R
T
R
D
HARMONY CT
BIGSKYBLVD
PH
E
A
S
A
N
T
D
R
E EVERGREEN DR
ARBOUR DR
SUNSETCT
HO
W
A
R
D
D
R
TREASURE LN
MEADO
W
H
I
L
L
S
D
R
TERRYRD
GR
A
N
I
T
E
V
I
E
W
D
R
COOPERATIVEWAY
NO
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
L
N
WHALEBONE DR
ASHLEY MDWS
EM
P
I
R
E
L
O
O
P
KO
N
L
E
Y
D
R
MO
U
N
T
A
I
N
V
I
E
W
D
R
ARBOURDRW
LOWER VALLEY RD
STONE ST
HIGHRD
FA
R
M
V
I
E
W
L
N
MISSIONTRL
PINELOOPRD
W
NICKLAUSAVE
MORNING STAR DR
CO MMONSWAY
UN
I
T
E
D
D
R
HAVEN DR
JA
C
K
S
O
N
P
E
A
K
D
R
E BOWMANDR
C OUNT RY WAY
E NICKLAUS AVE
NO
R
T
H
L
A
N
D
D
R
BLACKHAWK LN
ST
I
L
L
W
A
T
E
R
R
D
MEADOWLARK DR
ROSEWO
ODDR
CRESTVIEW
R
D
CHESTNUTDR
BELLS LN
E RESERVE DR
AMATASIALN
PARLIAMENTDR
HELENAFLATSRD
WIN
D
R
I
V
E
R
D
R
WILLOW DR
S
FOYS
LAKEDR
DOVE
R
DR
AIRPORTWAY
PONDEROSA LN
ANDERSONLN
8T
H
A
V
E
E
TWO MILE DR
WE
S
T
V
I
E
W
D
R
STAG LN
CONRAD DR
MA
P
L
E
D
R
BISM
A
R
K
ST
LONEPINERD
KELLYRD
GREATVIEW
STEELBRIDGERD
NO
R
T
H
E
R
N
L
I
G
H
T
S
B
L
V
D
WILSON HTS
GA
R
L
A
N
D
S
T
GUNSITE LOOP
RIV
E
R
R
D
FL AT H EAD DR
EAGLERIDGE
L
N
WEVERGREENDR
BISONDR
RIVER PL
SUSSEXDR
RIV
E
R
R
D
WIL
D
G
O
O
S
E
L
N
ME
A
D
O
W
S
L
N
BLACKGOLDDR
H O LT ST AG E
GL
A
C
I
E
R
C
I
R
WHALEBONEDR
APPLEWAY DR
SUMMITRIDGE D R
HUTTON
RANCH
RD
TREELINERD
ASHLEY DR
U
S
9
3
COUNTRY WAY N
SC
E
N
I
C
D
R
CONRAD DR
MIS
S
I
O
N
W
A
Y
S
TRUMBLE CREEK RD
ASH
R
D
FOREST DR
BUCKBOARD LN
RIVERSIDE DR
SOMERSET DR
TRUMBLE CREEK RD
ZIM
M
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
TWO MILE DR
WA
G
G
E
N
E
R
W
A
Y
KOOKOOSINTTRL
HARTT HILL DR
S
H
A
D
Y
L
N
STONERIDGEDR
SHADOW
LN
HARRISONBLVD
RINGNECK
DR
FFA DR
RIVERVIEW DR
ROSE XING
ED
G
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
E COTTONWOOD DR
NFOYSLAKE DR
VA
L
L
E
Y
V
I
E
W
D
R
DE
M
E
R
S
V
I
L
L
E
R
D
W RESERVE DR
RIDGEWOOD DR
ROSE XING
N HAVEN DR
ASPEN
LOOP
SILVER BUCKLE RD
WIL
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
WOL
F
P
A
C
K
W
A
Y
RE
S
E
R
V
E
L
O
O
P
WHITEFISHSTAGE
QUARTER HORSE LN
FOUR MILE DR
EL
R
A
N
C
H
O
R
D
STILLWATERLOOP
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
KIN
G
S
W
A
Y
STILLWATER RD
LAKESHOREDR
FOYS CANYON RD
JOSSIE LN
FO
Y
S
L
A
K
E R
D
SIRUCEK LN
93
AL
TERNATE
93
A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
E
HIGH RD
ST
E
E
L
B
R
I
D
G
E
R
D
LO
NEPINERD
NOB HILL LOOP
LO
W
E
R
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
PINE GROVE LN
93
A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
E
")35
?@503
?@292
?@548
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤2
£¤93
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
S
T
U
D
Y
A
R
E
A
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
ST
U
D
Y
A
R
E
A
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
Flathead Community
College
Kalispell YouthAthletic Complex
(KYAC)
Flathead
High School
Glacier
High School
HelenaFlatsSchool
EastEvergreenElementary
EvergreenJunior High
RankinElementary
PetersonElementary
RussellElementary
Hedges
Elementary
KalispellMiddleSchool
ElrodElementary
EdgertonElementary
TERMINATE AT WEST SPRING CREEK RD.
BL4
BL3
BL2
BR1 BR2BR3BR4 BR5
BR7
BR7
BR11 BR13
BR14
BR15
BR16.6
BR16.2
BR19.1
BR21
BR24 BR19.2
BR16.1
BR16.1
BR18
BR14
BR14
BR6
S6
S8
S6
S1
S2
S3S7 S4
S5
S10S11
S9.1
S9.1
S9.2
S9.2
SUP1SUP2
SUP3.1
SUP9
SUP10
SUP11
SUP12
SUP13
SUP14
SUP15
SUP16
SUP17.2
SUP18.1
SUP36
SUP37
SUP38
SUP38
SUP20.1
SUP40
SUP20.3
SUP39.1
SUP39.2
SUP20.4
SUP21.1
SUP21.2
SUP22
SUP27
SUP28.1
SUP28.1
SUP41SUP41
SUP29
SUP30
SUP31
SUP32
SUP28.2
SUP28.2
SUP23
SUP24
SUP33
SUP34
SUP44.2
SUP44.2
SUP45
SUP44.1
SUP44.1
SUP35
SUP25
SUP26
SUP18.2
SUP13
SUP6.1SUP7 SUP8.1 SUP8.2SUP6.2
SUP3.2
SUP4
SUP5.1
SUP5.2
SUP42
SUP42
0 1.5 Mile
Existing SeparatedShared-Use Path
Existing Path or Sidewalk
Separated Shared-Use
Path (committed project) ^^_Proposed Separated
Shared-Use Path
Existing Bike Route
Proposed Path or
Sidewalk
Proposed On-streetBike Route
School Speed Zone
Pedestrian Crashes
1/4 Mile Buer
Bicycle Crashes
Proposed On-streetBike Lane
Existing designated
bike lane_Project Identifier Map
Figure 9.2: Potential Project Identifier Map (Inset)
187KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Priority ranking
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:
S #9.1 – South meridian Sidewalk connection
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.
188 MOVE 2040
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.
Shared Use paths
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 – South
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.
SuP #5.2 – highway 93 connection – north
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.
189KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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 – helena 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 #39.1 – 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.
Please refer to the shared use paths summary in Table 9.1 on page 193 and Figure 9.3 on page 199.
190 MOVE 2040
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 recreationalists, 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.
Sidewalks
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.
Bike Lanes
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.
Bike routes
Please refer to the sidewalks summary in Table 9.2 on page 200 and Figure 9.4 on page 201.
Please refer to the bike lanes summary in Table 9.3 on page 202 and Figure 9.5 on page 203.
191KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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 north 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 #13 – four mile drive connection
Continuing the established bike route from the Flathead Valley Community College
campus south along Grandview Drive to the Kalispell Regional Medical Center campus
effectively links these two community resources and provides an alternate route for
cyclists to navigate.
As the KRMC continues to grow in prominence in the Valley, it will become more im-
portant to offer safe routes for employees who bike to work and opportunities for em-
ployees 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.
192 MOVE 2040
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 #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.
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 – eighth 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.
193KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
CRITERIA SHARED USE PATH (SUP) SEGMENT
1 2 3.1 3.2 4 5.1 5.2 6.1 6.2
Corridor Description
Ro
s
e
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
/
N
o
b
H
i
l
l
Lo
o
p
t
o
H
w
y
2
Hw
y
9
3
N
o
r
t
h
/
W
e
s
t
Re
s
e
r
v
e
t
o
N
o
b
H
i
l
l
L
o
o
p
We
s
t
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
D
r
.
/
H
u
t
t
o
n
Ra
n
c
h
t
o
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
V
i
e
w
We
s
t
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
D
r
.
/
Gr
a
n
i
t
e
V
i
e
w
t
o
R
o
c
k
D
r
.
Ne
w
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
/
Gr
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
.
t
o
H
w
y
2
Hw
y
9
3
N
o
r
t
h
/
N
e
v
a
d
a
S
t
.
to
R
y
d
e
r
R
d
.
Hw
y
9
3
N
o
r
t
h
/
E
.
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
to
W
e
s
t
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
D
r
.
Wh
i
t
e
f
i
s
h
S
t
a
g
e
/
W
e
s
t
Re
s
e
r
v
e
D
r
.
t
o
R
o
s
e
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Wh
i
t
e
f
i
s
h
S
t
a
g
e
/
R
o
s
e
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
t
o
T
r
o
n
s
t
a
d
R
d
.
CONNECTION
TYPE
Connects and supports
existing neighborhoods 2 2 2 2 2 2
Connects and supports
future neighborhoods 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Connects and supports
existing economic
centers
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Connects and supports
future economic centers 1 1 1 1 1 1
Connects and supports
existing recreation
amenities
2 2 2 2 2 2
Connects and supports
future recreation
amenities 1 1 1
Facilitates localized
network expansion 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Facilitates regional
network expansion 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Facilitates connections to
future development 1 1 1 1 1
SCHOOL
FACILITIES
Supports localized safe
routes to schools (SRTS)
network
3 3 3 3 3 3
Route segment located
within ¼-mile school
zone
3 3
NON-
VEHICULAR
CRASH TYPE
Pedestrian-involved 4 4 4
Cyclist-involved 4 4 4 4
NON-
VEHICULAR
CRASH
FREQUENCY
Multiple non-vehicular
crashes along route
segment
4 4 4
MOBILITY
EQUITY
Route segment supports
an under-served
neighborhood
1 1 1 1
Score 8 12 26 10 21 29 26 5 7
LENGTH Route segment length
(linear feet)12,717 3,838 12,945 1,559 11,476 3,110 3,109 6,561 5,267
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
Table 9.1: Shared Use Paths Analysis
...continued on page 194
194 MOVE 2040
CRITERIA SHARED USE PATH (SUP) SEGMENT
7 8.1 8.2 9 10 11 12 13 14
Corridor Description
Hw
y
9
3
N
o
r
t
h
/
R
o
s
e
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
t
o
H
a
g
e
r
m
a
n
L
n
.
Hw
y
2
E
a
s
t
/
W
e
s
t
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
Dr
.
t
o
R
o
s
e
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Hw
y
2
E
a
s
t
/
R
o
s
e
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
t
o
an
d
a
l
o
n
g
H
e
l
e
n
a
F
l
a
t
s
R
d
.
St
i
l
l
w
a
t
e
r
R
d
.
/
F
o
u
r
M
i
l
e
Dr
i
v
e
t
o
T
i
m
b
e
r
w
o
l
f
P
k
w
y
.
Ol
d
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
D
r
.
/
S
t
i
l
l
w
a
t
e
r
Rd
.
t
o
F
a
r
m
V
i
e
w
L
n
.
Fo
u
r
M
i
l
e
D
r
.
/
S
t
i
l
l
w
a
t
e
r
R
d
.
to
W
e
s
t
S
p
r
i
n
g
r
e
e
k
R
d
.
Ne
w
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
/
M
t
n
.
V
i
s
t
a
ac
r
o
s
s
F
o
u
r
M
i
l
e
t
o
S
t
i
l
l
w
a
t
e
r
Th
r
e
e
M
i
l
e
D
r
.
/
G
a
p
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
Me
a
d
o
w
s
a
n
d
C
a
m
p
C
r
o
o
k
Tw
o
M
i
l
e
D
r
.
/
N
o
r
t
h
Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
t
o
W
e
s
t
Sp
r
i
n
g
c
r
e
e
k
R
d
.
CONNECTION
TYPE
Connects and supports
existing neighborhoods 2 2
Connects and supports
future neighborhoods 1 1 1 1 1
Connects and supports
existing economic
centers
2 2 2 2 2 2
Connects and supports
future economic centers 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Connects and supports
existing recreation
amenities
2 2 2
Connects and supports
future recreation
amenities 1 1
Facilitates localized
network expansion 1 1
Facilitates regional
network expansion 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Facilitates connections to
future development 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
SCHOOL
FACILITIES
Supports localized safe
routes to schools (SRTS)
network
3 3
Route segment located
within ¼-mile school
zone
NON-
VEHICULAR
CRASH TYPE
Pedestrian-involved 4
Cyclist-involved 4
NON-
VEHICULAR
CRASH
FREQUENCY
Multiple non-vehicular
crashes along route
segment
MOBILITY
EQUITY
Route segment supports
an under-served
neighborhood
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
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 $1,105,700 $998,200 $1,867,800 $513,100 $2,465,200
...continued on page 195
195KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
CRITERIA SHARED USE PATH (SUP) SEGMENT
15 16 17.2 18.1 18.2 20.1 20.3 20.4 21.1
Corridor Description
We
s
t
S
p
r
i
n
g
c
r
e
e
k
D
r
.
/
H
w
y
2
W
e
s
t
a
n
d
T
h
r
e
e
M
i
l
e
D
r
.
Hw
y
2
/
N
o
r
t
h
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
t
o
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
P
a
r
k
D
r
.
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
R
d
.
/
K
a
c
u
L
n
.
t
o
Fr
a
n
k
l
i
n
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
R
d
.
/
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
R
d
.
to
D
e
m
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e
R
d
.
Lo
w
e
r
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
/
De
m
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e
R
d
.
t
o
Fo
y
s
B
e
n
d
L
n
.
Fo
y
s
L
a
k
e
R
d
.
/
W
i
l
s
o
n
H
t
s
.
to
H
w
y
9
3
B
y
p
a
s
s
Se
v
e
n
t
h
S
t
.
/
H
w
y
9
3
By
p
a
s
s
t
o
H
w
y
9
3
Ra
i
l
S
p
u
r
P
a
t
h
/
S
o
u
t
h
Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
t
o
W
e
s
t
C
e
n
t
e
r
(t
r
a
i
l
h
e
a
d
)
Ne
w
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
/
F
o
y
s
L
a
k
e
Rd
.
t
o
R
a
i
l
T
r
a
i
l
W
e
s
t
CONNECTION
TYPE
Connects and supports
existing neighborhoods 2 2 2 2 2 2
Connects and supports
future neighborhoods 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Connects and supports
existing economic
centers
2 2 2
Connects and supports
future economic centers 1 1 1
Connects and supports
existing recreation
amenities 2 2 2 2 2
Connects and supports
future recreation
amenities
1
Facilitates localized
network expansion 1 1 1 1 1
Facilitates regional
network expansion 1 1 1 1 1 1
Facilitates connections
to future development 1 1 1 1
SCHOOL
FACILITIES
Supports localized safe
routes to schools (SRTS)
network
3 3 3 3
Route segment located
within ¼-mile school
zone 3 3 3 3
NON-
VEHICULAR
CRASH TYPE
Pedestrian-involved 4
Cyclist-involved 4 4 4
NON-
VEHICULAR
CRASH
FREQUENCY
Multiple non-vehicular
crashes along route
segment 4
MOBILITY
EQUITY
Route segment supports
an under-served
neighborhood
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Score 5 27 11 7 5 7 19 19 6
LENGTH Route segment length
(linear feet)5,096 8,675 5,329 7,685 7,965 6,320 3,950 3,959 3,997
COST Cost per linear foot $238
approximate Cost $1,212,800 $2,064,700 $1,268,300 $1,829,000 $1,895,700 $1,504,200 $940,100 $942,200 $951,300
...continued on page 196
196 MOVE 2040
CRITERIA SHARED USE PATH (SUP) SEGMENT
21.2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28.1 28.2
Corridor Description
Ne
w
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
/
H
w
y
9
3
By
p
a
s
s
t
o
S
U
P
2
1
.
1
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
Hw
y
2
a
n
d
H
w
y
3
5
/
Fl
a
t
h
e
a
d
D
r
i
v
e
t
o
H
e
l
e
n
a
Fl
a
t
s
R
d
.
Wi
l
l
o
w
G
l
e
n
D
r
.
/
W
o
o
d
l
a
n
d
Av
e
.
t
o
H
w
y
2
a
n
d
3
5
Co
n
r
a
d
D
r
.
/
S
y
l
v
a
n
D
r
.
t
o
Wi
l
l
o
w
G
l
e
n
D
r
.
Ho
l
t
S
t
a
g
e
R
d
.
/
C
o
n
r
a
d
D
r
.
t
o
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
R
d
.
Wi
l
l
o
w
G
l
e
n
D
r
.
/
L
o
w
e
r
Va
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
t
o
a
n
d
a
l
o
n
g
F
F
A
Dr
.
Wh
i
t
e
f
i
s
h
S
t
a
g
e
/
W
o
o
d
l
a
n
d
Av
e
.
t
o
L
a
w
r
e
n
c
e
P
a
r
k
D
r
.
Ne
w
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
/
L
a
w
r
e
n
c
e
Pa
r
k
D
r
.
t
o
W
e
s
t
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
D
r
.
Ne
w
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
/
W
e
s
t
Re
s
e
r
v
e
D
r
i
v
e
A
l
o
n
g
St
i
l
l
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
CONNECTION
TYPE
Connects and supports
existing neighborhoods 2 2 2 2 2 2
Connects and supports
future neighborhoods 1 1 1 1 1
Connects and supports
existing economic
centers
2 2 2 2 2
Connects and supports
future economic centers 1 1 1 1 1
Connects and supports
existing recreation
amenities
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Connects and supports
future recreation
amenities 1 1 1
Facilitates localized
network expansion 1 1 1
Facilitates regional
network expansion 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Facilitates connections
to future development 1 1
SCHOOL
FACILITIES
Supports localized safe
routes to schools (SRTS)
network
3 3
Route segment located
within ¼-mile school
zone
3
NON-
VEHICULAR
CRASH TYPE
Pedestrian-involved 4 4 4
Cyclist-involved 4
NON-
VEHICULAR
CRASH
FREQUENCY
Multiple non-vehicular
crashes along route
segment
4 4
MOBILITY
EQUITY
Route segment supports
an under-served
neighborhood
1 1 1 1 1 1
Score 2 27 10 11 6 4 19 14 10
LENGTH Route segment length
(linear feet)2,011 14,763 11,466 4,472 7,991 4,471 5,935 13,753 22,504
COST Cost per linear foot $238
approximate Cost $478,600 $3,513,600 $2,728,900 $1,064,300 $1,901,900 $1,064,100 $1,412,500 $3,273,200 $5,356,000
...continued on page 197
197KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
CRITERIA SHARED USE PATH (SUP) SEGMENT
29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
Corridor Description
Hw
y
2
N
o
r
t
h
/
H
w
y
3
5
t
o
We
s
t
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
D
r
.
He
l
e
n
a
F
l
a
t
s
R
d
.
/
H
w
y
3
5
to
P
i
n
e
L
o
o
p
R
o
a
d
St
i
l
l
w
a
t
e
r
R
d
.
/
P
a
r
k
r
i
d
g
e
Dr
.
t
o
F
o
u
r
M
i
l
e
D
r
.
Fo
u
r
M
i
l
e
D
r
.
/
N
o
r
t
h
l
a
n
d
Dr
.
t
o
M
e
a
d
o
w
V
i
s
t
a
L
o
o
p
Co
n
c
o
r
d
L
n
.
/
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
Sh
a
r
e
d
U
s
e
P
a
t
h
t
o
W
i
l
l
o
w
Gl
e
n
D
r
.
Ke
l
l
y
R
d
.
/
H
w
y
9
3
t
o
Wi
l
l
o
w
G
l
e
n
D
r
.
Fo
y
s
L
a
k
e
R
d
.
/
W
i
l
s
o
n
H
t
s
.
to
O
r
c
h
a
r
d
R
i
d
g
e
R
d
.
Ne
w
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
/
A
s
h
l
e
y
M
d
w
s
to
C
e
m
e
t
e
r
y
R
d
.
De
m
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e
R
d
.
/
L
o
w
e
r
Va
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
t
o
F
o
y
s
B
e
n
d
L
n
.
CONNECTION
TYPE
Connects and supports
existing neighborhoods 2 2 2 2
Connects and supports
future neighborhoods 1 1 1 1 1
Connects and supports
existing economic
centers
2 2 2 2
Connects and supports
future economic
centers
1 1 1 1 1 1
Connects and supports
existing recreation
amenities
2 2 2 2
Connects and supports
future recreation
amenities
1 1
Facilitates localized
network expansion 1 1 1 1 1
Facilitates regional
network expansion 1 1 1 1
Facilitates connections
to future development 1 1 1 1 1
SCHOOL
FACILITIES
Supports localized
safe routes to schools
(SRTS) network
3 3 3
Route segment located
within ¼-mile school
zone 3 3
NON-
VEHICULAR
CRASH TYPE
Pedestrian-involved 4
Cyclist-involved 4 4
NON-
VEHICULAR
CRASH
FREQUENCY
Multiple non-vehicular
crashes along route
segment
4 4
MOBILITY
EQUITY
Route segment
supports an under-
served neighborhood
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
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 $534,100 $715,200 $4,053,400 $1,348,000 $1,284,000
...continued on page 198
198 MOVE 2040
CRITERIA SHARED USE PATH (SUP) SEGMENT
38 39.1 39.2 40 41 42 44.1 44.2 45
Corridor Description
Ne
w
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
/
H
w
y
9
3
t
o
Lo
w
e
r
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
S.
W
o
o
d
l
a
n
d
D
r
.
/
K
e
l
l
y
R
d
.
t
o
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
.
Tw
i
n
A
c
r
e
s
D
r
.
/
H
w
y
9
3
t
o
Wi
l
l
o
w
G
l
e
n
D
r
.
Va
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
D
r
.
/
S
u
n
n
y
s
i
d
e
Dr
i
v
e
t
o
F
o
y
s
L
a
k
e
R
d
.
Hu
t
t
o
n
R
a
n
c
h
R
d
.
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
Wa
l
m
a
r
t
t
o
W
h
i
t
e
f
i
s
h
S
t
a
g
e
No
r
t
h
r
i
d
g
e
D
r
.
/
N
o
r
t
h
l
a
n
d
Dr
.
t
o
H
w
y
9
3
We
s
t
S
i
d
e
o
f
H
w
y
9
3
/
A
s
h
l
e
y
Me
a
d
o
w
s
t
o
2
1
s
t
S
t
.
E
.
Ea
s
t
S
i
d
e
o
f
H
w
y
9
3
/
A
s
h
l
e
y
Me
a
d
o
w
s
t
o
2
1
s
t
S
t
.
E
.
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
.
/
W
i
l
l
o
w
Gl
e
n
D
r
.
t
o
E
i
g
h
t
S
t
.
E
.
CONNECTION
TYPE
Connects and supports
existing neighborhoods 2 2 2 2 2
Connects and supports
future neighborhoods 1 1 1 1
Connects and supports
existing economic
centers
2 2 2 2 2
Connects and supports
future economic centers 1 1 1 1 1 1
Connects and supports
existing recreation
amenities
2 2 2
Connects and supports
future recreation
amenities 1 1 1
Facilitates localized
network expansion 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Facilitates regional
network expansion 1 1 1 1
Facilitates connections
to future development 1 1 1 1
SCHOOL
FACILITIES
Supports localized safe
routes to schools (SRTS)
network
3 3 3
Route segment located
within ¼-mile school
zone
NON-
VEHICULAR
CRASH TYPE
Pedestrian-involved 4 4 4
Cyclist-involved 4 4 4
NON-
VEHICULAR
CRASH
FREQUENCY
Multiple non-vehicular
crashes along route
segment
4 4
MOBILITY
EQUITY
Route segment supports
an under-served
neighborhood
1 1 1 1 1
Score 5 5 7 9 18 12 17 17 11
LENGTH Route segment length
(linear feet)7,789 3,768 1,621 2,123 5,469 7,217 14,685 14,685 5,939
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
199KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 9.3: Shared Use Paths Project Priority Map
200 MOVE 2040
Table 9.2: Sidewalks Analysis
CRITERIA SIDEWALK (S) SEGMENT
1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9.1 9.2
Corridor Description
St
i
l
l
w
a
t
e
r
R
d
.
/
W
e
s
t
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
Dr
.
t
o
C
l
a
r
k
D
r
.
We
s
t
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
D
r
.
/
S
t
i
l
l
w
a
t
e
r
Rd
.
t
o
W
e
s
t
S
p
r
i
n
g
c
r
e
e
k
R
d
.
Wo
l
f
p
a
c
k
W
a
y
/
S
t
i
l
l
w
a
t
e
r
Rd
.
t
o
O
l
d
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
D
r
.
Tr
e
e
l
i
n
e
R
o
a
d
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Th
r
e
e
M
i
l
e
D
r
.
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
a
n
d
Ka
l
i
s
p
e
l
l
M
i
d
d
l
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
Hw
y
2
W
e
s
t
/
N
o
r
t
h
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
to
W
e
s
t
S
p
r
i
n
g
c
r
e
e
k
R
d
.
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
.
/
W
i
l
l
o
w
Gl
e
n
D
r
.
t
o
E
i
g
h
t
S
t
.
E
.
So
u
t
h
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
/
W
e
s
t
C
e
n
t
e
r
St
.
t
o
S
e
v
e
n
t
h
S
t
.
W
e
s
t
We
s
t
S
i
d
e
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
e
t
w
o
r
k
CONNECTION
TYPE
Connects and supports
existing neighborhoods 2 2 2 2 2
Connects and supports
future neighborhoods 1 1
Connects and supports
existing economic centers 2 2 2 2 2
Connects and supports
future economic centers 1 1 1 1
Connects and supports
existing recreation
amenities
2 2 2 2
Connects and supports
future recreation
amenities
1
Facilitates localized
network expansion 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Facilitates regional
network expansion 1 1 1
Facilitates connections to
future development 1 1 1 1
SCHOOL
FACILITIES
Supports localized safe
routes to schools (SRTS)
network
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Route segment located
within ¼-mile school zone 3 3 3 3
NON-
VEHICULAR
CRASH TYPE
Pedestrian-involved 4 4
Cyclist-involved 4 4 4 4
NON-
VEHICULAR
CRASH
FREQUENCY
Multiple non-vehicular
crashes along route
segment 4 4
MOBILITY
EQUITY
Route segment supports
an under-served
neighborhood
1 1 1
Score 5 7 13 5 24 20 9 17 17
LENGTH Route segment length
(linear feet)10,430 5,209 2,398 1,146 649 10,736 4,901 3,200 13,262
COST
Cost per linear foot
(assumes 4’ width, 4”
thickness)$15
approximate Cost $156,500 $78,100 $36,000 $17,200 $9,700 $161,000 $73,500 $48,000 $198,900
201KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 9.4: Sidewalks Project Priority Map
202 MOVE 2040
Table 9.3: Bike Lanes Analysis
CRITERIA BIKE LANE (BL) SEGMENT
2 3 4
Corridor Description
St
i
l
l
w
a
t
e
r
R
d
.
/
W
e
s
t
Re
s
e
r
v
e
D
r
.
t
o
C
l
a
r
k
D
r
.
We
s
t
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
D
r
.
/
St
i
l
l
w
a
t
e
r
R
d
.
t
o
W
e
s
t
Sp
r
i
n
g
c
r
e
e
k
R
d
.
Wo
l
f
p
a
c
k
W
a
y
/
St
i
l
l
w
a
t
e
r
R
d
.
t
o
O
l
d
Re
s
e
r
v
e
D
r
.
CONNECTION TYPE
Connects and supports existing neighborhoods 2 2 2
Connects and supports future neighborhoods
Connects and supports existing economic centers
Connects and supports future economic centers
Connects and supports existing recreation amenities 2 2 2
Connects and supports future recreation amenities 1
Facilitates localized network expansion 1 1 1
Facilitates regional network expansion 1 1 1
Facilitates connections to future development
SCHOOL FACILITIES
Supports localized safe routes to schools (SRTS) network 3 3 3
Route segment located within ¼-mile school zone 3 3 3
NON-VEHICULAR CRASH
TYPE
Pedestrian-involved 4 4
Cyclist-involved 4
NON-VEHICULAR CRASH
FREQUENCY Multiple non-vehicular crashes along route segment 4
MOBILITY EQUITY Route segment supports an under-served neighborhood
Score 25 16 12
LENGTH Route segment length
(linear feet)7,528 5,227 5,210
COST Cost per linear foot of construction $10
approximate Cost $75,300 $52,300 $52,100
203KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 9.5: Bike Lanes Project Priority Map
204 MOVE 2040
CRITERIA ON-STREET BIKE ROUTE (BR) SEGMENT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11
Corridor Description
Ne
w
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
/
J
a
c
k
s
o
n
V
i
e
w
Tr
a
i
l
s
o
u
t
h
St
i
l
l
w
o
o
d
D
r
.
t
o
P
i
n
e
G
r
o
v
e
Ln
.
t
o
R
o
s
e
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Ne
w
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
/
N
o
b
H
i
l
l
L
o
o
p
an
d
s
o
u
t
h
Ne
w
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
/
R
o
s
e
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
t
o
W.
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
Sc
e
n
i
c
D
r
i
v
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
/
R
o
s
e
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
t
o
W
e
s
t
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
Tr
u
m
b
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
R
d
.
/
R
o
s
e
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
t
o
B
i
r
c
h
G
r
o
v
e
R
d
.
We
s
t
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
t
o
H
e
l
e
n
a
F
l
a
t
s
to
W
e
s
t
E
v
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
D
r
.
t
o
Hw
y
2
No
r
t
h
l
a
n
d
D
r
.
/
F
o
u
r
M
i
l
e
D
r
.
to
P
a
r
k
r
i
d
g
e
D
r
.
CONNECTION
TYPE
Connects and supports existing
neighborhoods 2 2 2
Connects and supports future
neighborhoods 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Connects and supports existing
economic centers 2 2 2 2
Connects and supports future
economic centers 1 1 1 1 1
Connects and supports existing
recreation amenities 2 2
Connects and supports future
recreation amenities 1 1
Facilitates localized network
expansion 1 1 1 1
Facilitates regional network
expansion 1 1 1
Facilitates connections to future
development 1 1 1 1
SCHOOL
FACILITIES
Supports localized safe routes to
schools (SRTS) network 3 3
Route segment located within
¼-mile school zone 3
NON-
VEHICULAR
CRASH TYPE
Pedestrian-involved 4
Cyclist-involved 4 4 4
NON-
VEHICULAR
CRASH
FREQUENCY
Multiple non-vehicular crashes
along route segment 4
MOBILITY
EQUITY
Route segment supports an
under-served neighborhood 1 1 1 1 1 1
Score 5 5 4 4 12 5 15 28
LENGTH Route segment length
(linear feet)7,789 8,458 10,381 12,560 7,217 5,807 11,035 2,724
COST Cost per linear foot $6
approximate Cost $46,700 $50,700 $62,300 $75,400 $43,300 $34,800 $66,200 $16,300
Table 9.4: Bike Routes Analysis
...continued on page 205
205KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
CRITERIA ON-STREET BIKE ROUTE (BR) SEGMENT
13 14 15 16.1 16.2 16.6 18 19.1
Corridor Description
Gr
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
.
t
o
S
u
n
n
y
v
i
e
w
Ln
.
/
K
R
M
C
C
a
m
p
u
s
Ri
v
e
r
R
d
.
t
o
W
.
C
o
t
t
o
n
w
o
o
d
Dr
.
/
c
o
n
t
’
d
S
o
u
t
h
o
f
H
w
y
3
5
Mo
n
t
c
l
a
i
r
e
D
r
.
/
H
w
y
2
t
o
Wh
i
t
e
f
i
s
h
S
t
a
g
e
R
d
.
W
.
W
y
o
m
i
n
g
S
t
.
t
o
E
.
Or
e
g
o
n
S
t
.
/
N
.
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
t
o
Wh
i
t
e
f
i
s
h
S
t
a
g
e
Fi
f
t
h
A
v
e
.
E
a
s
t
/
E
a
s
t
C
e
n
t
e
r
St
.
t
o
1
8
t
h
S
t
.
E
a
s
t
Fo
u
r
t
h
S
t
.
/
S
.
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
R
d
.
t
o
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
.
Si
x
t
h
A
v
e
.
/
S
e
v
e
n
t
h
S
t
.
W
.
t
o
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
S
t
.
Be
g
g
P
a
r
k
D
r
.
t
o
B
l
u
e
s
t
o
n
e
Dr
.
t
o
S
u
n
n
y
s
i
d
e
D
r
.
CONNECTION
TYPE
Connects and supports
existing neighborhoods 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Connects and supports future
neighborhoods 1 1
Connects and supports
existing economic centers 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Connects and supports future
economic centers 1 1
Connects and supports
existing recreation amenities 2 2 2 2 2 2
Connects and supports future
recreation amenities 1 1
Facilitates localized network
expansion 1 1 1 1 1 1
Facilitates regional network
expansion 1
Facilitates connections to
future development
SCHOOL
FACILITIES
Supports localized safe routes
to schools (SRTS) network 3 3 3 3 3 3
Route segment located within
¼-mile school zone 3 3 3 3 3
NON-
VEHICULAR
CRASH TYPE
Pedestrian-involved 4 4 4 4 4 4
Cyclist-involved 4 4 4 4 4 4
NON-
VEHICULAR
CRASH
FREQUENCY
Multiple non-vehicular crashes
along route segment 4 4 4 4 4 4
MOBILITY
EQUITY
Route segment supports an
under-served neighborhood 1
Score 23 23 8 25 25 25 26 4
LENGTH Route segment length
(linear feet)6,806 16,263 2,975 8,928 8,213 2,710 5,585 5,031
COST Cost per linear foot $6
approximate Cost $40,800 $97,600 $17,900 $53,600 $49,300 $16,300 $33,500 $30,200
...continued on page 206
206 MOVE 2040
CRITERIA ON-STREET BIKE ROUTE (BR) SEGMENT
19.2 21 24 25 26
Corridor Description
Me
r
g
a
n
s
e
r
D
r
.
t
o
S
t
r
a
t
f
o
r
d
Dr
.
t
o
S
u
n
n
y
s
i
d
e
D
r
.
Su
n
n
y
s
i
d
e
D
r
.
t
o
S
i
x
t
h
A
v
e
.
/
Hw
y
9
3
B
y
p
a
s
s
t
o
S
e
v
e
n
t
h
St
.
Lo
n
e
P
i
n
e
R
d
.
/
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
Dr
.
t
o
F
o
y
s
L
a
k
e
R
d
.
No
r
t
h
e
r
n
L
i
g
h
t
s
B
l
v
d
.
/
S
o
u
t
h
of
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
R
d
.
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
L
n
.
/
S
o
u
t
h
o
f
Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
R
d
.
CONNECTION
TYPE
Connects and supports existing
neighborhoods 2 2
Connects and supports future
neighborhoods 1 1 1
Connects and supports existing
economic centers 2
Connects and supports future
economic centers 1
Connects and supports existing
recreation amenities 2 2
Connects and supports future
recreation amenities 1 1
Facilitates localized network
expansion 1 1
Facilitates regional network
expansion 1 1 1
Facilitates connections to future
development 1 1
SCHOOL
FACILITIES
Supports localized safe routes to
schools (SRTS) network 3 3
Route segment located within
¼-mile school zone 3 3
NON-
VEHICULAR
CRASH TYPE
Pedestrian-involved 4
Cyclist-involved 4
NON-
VEHICULAR
CRASH
FREQUENCY
Multiple non-vehicular crashes
along route segment 4
MOBILITY
EQUITY
Route segment supports an under-
served neighborhood 1 1
Score 10 26 5 4 4
LENGTH Route segment length
(linear feet)4,705 5,857 8,458 10,381 12,560
COST Cost per linear foot $6
approximate Cost $28,200 $35,100 $50,700 $62,300 $75,400
207KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 9.6: On-Street Bike Routes Project Priority Map
208 MOVE 2040
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 Table 9.5.
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 Figure
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
Project
Identifier
Transportation
Corridor To From Project
Type
Project
Identifier
Non-Motorized Project
Priority
27 West Reserve Drive Whitefish
Stage Highway 93 MSN
SUP 3.1 West Reserve/By-Pass
Connection28West 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/
Evergreen
Whitefish
Stage Highway 93 MSN SUP 4 New Connection/
Grandview Dr. to Hwy 2
6 Whitefish Stage Rose
Crossing West Reserve MSN SUP 6.1
Whitefish Stage/West
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
34 Highway 93 Highway 2 West Reserve TSM
SUP 5.1
and SUP
5.2
Hwy 93 North/Nevada St.
to Ryder Rd. and Hwy 93
North/E. Meridian to West
Reserve Dr.
35 Highway 93 West Reserve MT 40 TSM SUP 2 and
SUP 7
Hwy 93 North/West
Reserve to Nob Hill Loop
and Hwy 93 North/Rose
Crossing to Hagerman Ln.
38 Highway 93 (Main
Street)12th Street Highway 2
(Idaho)TSM
209KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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. Figure 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 Figure 9.7:
»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.
210 MOVE 2040
P
Ce
n
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
o
f
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
ma
r
k
i
n
g
p
l
a
c
e
d
i
n
c
e
n
t
e
r
of
t
r
a
v
e
l
l
a
n
e
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Bi
k
e
L
a
n
e
Sh
a
r
e
d
-
u
s
e
Pa
t
h
Bi
k
e
R
o
u
t
e
(S
h
a
r
e
d
L
a
n
e
)
Sh
o
u
l
d
e
r
B
i
k
e
w
a
y
Le
a
s
t
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
s
t
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
Bu
f
f
e
r
e
d
B
i
k
e
La
n
e
A
t
-
G
r
a
d
e
,
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
Bi
k
e
L
a
n
e
De
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
s
s
p
a
c
e
f
o
r
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
an
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
s
p
e
r
c
e
i
v
e
d
c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
t
y
Re
d
u
c
e
s
r
i
s
k
o
f
‘
d
o
o
r
i
n
g
’
co
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
a
bi
k
e
l
a
n
e
,
a
n
d
mit
i
g
a
t
e
s
t
h
e
r
i
s
k
o
f
a
do
o
r
e
d
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
b
e
i
n
g
r
u
n
o
v
e
r
b
y
a
m
o
t
o
r
ve
h
i
c
l
e
Lo
w
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
s
t
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
u
s
e
o
f
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
u
s
i
n
g
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
a
n
e
a
s
a
ba
r
r
i
e
r
Us
e
a
l
o
n
g
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
w
i
t
h
h
i
g
h
m
o
t
o
r
ve
h
i
c
l
e
v
o
l
u
m
e
s
a
n
d
/
o
r
s
p
e
e
d
s
Be
s
t
o
n
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
w
i
t
h
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
a
n
e
s
w
i
t
h
a
hi
g
h
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
r
a
t
e
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
c
u
s
h
i
o
n
o
f
s
p
a
c
e
t
o
mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
f
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
m
o
t
o
r
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
o
n
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
w
i
t
h
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
t
or
f
a
s
t
m
o
t
o
r
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
t
r
a
c
All
o
w
s
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
t
o
p
a
s
s
o
n
e
an
o
t
h
e
r
o
r
a
v
o
i
d
o
b
s
t
a
c
l
e
s
wit
h
o
u
t
e
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
i
n
g
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
tr
a
v
e
l
l
a
n
e
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
m
o
t
o
r
i
s
t
s
h
y
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
fr
o
m
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
Re
q
u
i
r
e
s
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
p
a
c
e
an
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Re
d
u
c
e
s
r
i
s
k
o
f
‘
d
o
o
r
i
n
g
’
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
to
a
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
Ex
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
t
r
a
v
e
l
l
a
n
e
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
s
pr
o
p
e
r
r
i
d
i
n
g
Re
d
u
c
e
s
p
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
h
a
t
mo
t
o
r
i
s
t
s
w
i
l
l
s
t
r
a
y
i
n
t
o
bi
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
’
p
a
t
h
Vis
u
a
l
r
e
m
i
n
d
e
r
o
f
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
’
rig
h
t
t
o
t
h
e
r
o
a
d
6‘
w
i
d
t
h
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
.
4
’
wi
d
t
h
i
n
c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Bik
e
l
a
n
e
s
w
i
d
e
r
t
h
a
n
7
’
m
a
y
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
l
o
a
d
i
n
g
i
n
bi
k
e
l
a
n
e
Pa
v
e
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
u
s
e
d
a
s
a
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
t
r
a
v
e
l
la
n
e
Ru
m
b
l
e
s
t
r
i
p
s
r
e
d
u
c
s
p
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
h
a
t
mo
t
o
r
i
s
t
s
w
i
l
l
s
t
r
a
y
i
n
t
o
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
’
p
a
t
h
Fo
r
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
w
i
d
t
h
s
e
q
u
a
l
t
o
o
r
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
th
a
n
4
’
,
r
u
m
b
l
e
s
t
r
i
p
s
a
r
e
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
d
Fo
r
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
w
i
d
t
h
s
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
4
’
,
r
u
m
b
l
e
st
r
i
p
s
a
r
e
u
s
u
a
l
l
y
o
m
i
t
t
e
d
o
r
t
h
e
w
i
d
t
h
o
f
th
e
o
s
e
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
t
r
i
p
e
a
n
d
ru
m
b
l
e
s
t
r
i
p
w
i
d
t
h
s
a
r
e
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
Sk
i
p
s
(
G
a
p
s
)
i
n
t
h
e
r
u
m
b
l
e
s
t
r
i
p
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
be
1
2
-
1
3
’
i
n
l
e
n
g
t
h
e
v
e
r
y
4
0
’
-
6
0
’
Po
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
tr
a
v
e
l
l
a
n
e
Ale
r
t
s
m
o
t
o
r
i
s
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
pr
e
s
e
n
c
e
o
f
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
s
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
t
o
r
i
d
e
an
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
a
w
a
y
fr
o
m
t
h
e
“
d
o
o
r
z
o
n
e
”
o
n
st
r
e
e
t
s
w
i
t
h
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
Sh
o
u
l
d
n
e
v
e
r
b
e
u
s
e
d
a
s
a
re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
l
a
n
e
s
Pl
a
n
t
i
n
g
s
t
r
i
p
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
c
u
r
b
sh
o
u
l
d
b
e
4
’
m
i
n
.
b
u
t
6
’
i
s
p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
De
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
o
n
v
o
l
u
m
e
o
f
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
an
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
t
r
a
c
,
t
h
e
p
a
t
h
c
a
n
b
e
st
r
i
p
e
d
f
o
r
t
w
o
-
w
a
y
l
a
n
e
s
b
u
t
i
s
n
o
t
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
.
4’-
7
’
Tr
a
v
e
l
L
a
n
e
Tr
a
v
e
l
L
a
n
e
Ru
m
b
l
e
s
t
r
i
p
Of
f
s
e
t
f
r
o
m
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
str
i
p
e
Sk
i
p
(
G
a
p
)
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
ru
m
b
l
e
s
t
r
i
p
s
Sid
e
-
Wa
l
k
Sh
o
u
l
d
e
r
Si
d
e
-
Wa
l
k
Sid
e
-
Wa
l
k
Tr
a
v
e
l
L
a
n
e
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
L
a
n
e
Tr
a
v
e
l
L
a
n
e
5’+
2
’
+
5-
7
’
3
’
8-
1
0
’
S
h
a
r
e
d
-
u
s
e
Pa
t
h
4’
Tra
v
e
l
L
a
n
e
Sid
e
-
Wa
l
k
Fi
g
u
r
e
9
.
7
:
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
211KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
»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
212 MOVE 2040
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.
213KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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.
ChapTEr 10:
FUNDING prOGraMS
217KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
INTrODUCTION
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
allo cates 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.
allocationS and matching requirementS
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 3.3 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
218 MOVE 2040
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)1
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.
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.
Eligibility and Planning Considerations
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 60-3-211). 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 Helena Miles City
Belgrade Kalispell Glendive Missoula
Billings Great Falls Laurel Sidney
Bozeman Hamilton Lewistown Whitefish
Butte Havre Livingston
219KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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.
uPP1
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
1 State funding program developed to distribute Federal funding within Montana.
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.
220 MOVE 2040
National highway Freight program
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 (PM10).
1 State funding program developed to distribute Federal funding within Montana.
allocationS and matching requirementS
CMAQ funds are federally-apportioned to Montana and
allocated to various eligible programs by formula and by
the Commission. As a minimum apportionment state, a
federally-required 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)1
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.
221KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Montana Air and Congestion Initiative–Discretionary Program (Flexible)1
The MACI – Discretionary Program provides funding for
projects in areas designated non-attainment or recognized
as being “high-risk” for becoming non-attainment. Since
1998, MDT has used MACI-Discretionary funds to get
ahead of the curve for CO and PM10 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 21st 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.
1 State funding program developed to distribute Federal funding within Montana.
»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 1119 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
222 MOVE 2040
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.
223KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
State Funding SourceS
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 60-11-113 to
MCA 60-11-115. 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.
State Funds for Transit Subsidies
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.
224 MOVE 2040
Table 10.2: BaRSAA Increases
Date State Gas Rate State Diesel Rate
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
1st and November 1st.
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.
Summary oF move 2040 Funding
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.
ChapTEr 11:
pOLICY pLaN
227KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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.
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 Figure 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 11.1: View of Downtown Kalispell in 1940 Figure 11.2: View of Downtown Kalispell Today
228 MOVE 2040
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:
CHALLENGES:
»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 multimodal
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 (Plan it 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
229KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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.
Future travel 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 improve ments 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 improve ments 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 Table 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 6.
230 MOVE 2040
Corridor From To 2040 E+C Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 2A Alt 10
ADT V/C ADT V/C ADT V/C ADT V/C ADT V/C
hig
h
w
a
y
9
3
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
11th Street 10th Street 21,700 1.60 17,600 1.30 18,800 1.39 15,700 1.17 13,000 0.96
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 Idaho (Hwy
2)22,700 0.84 20,700 0.77 21,900 0.81 20,200 0.75 17,900 0.66
hig
h
w
a
y
9
3
alt
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 0.80 19,400 0.63 25,000 0.82 28,700 0.94
Foys Lake Hwy 2 20,400 0.67 22,200 0.73 20,400 0.66 22,500 0.74 29,100 0.95
Hwy 2 Three Mile
Drive 27,600 0.77 29,300 0.81 27,800 0.77 29,900 0.83 35,100 0.98
Three Mile
Drive
Four Mile
Drive 24,000 0.67 25,800 0.72 24,200 0.67 26,400 0.73 33,600 0.93
Four Mile
Drive Old Reserve 21,400 0.59 22,900 0.64 21,600 0.60 23,400 0.65 25,700 0.71
Old
Reserve Hwy 93 20,300 0.56 21,500 0.60 20,400 0.57 22,300 0.62 25,000 0.69
Table 11.1: Comparison of 2040 TDM Alternatives for U.S. Highway 93 and U.S. Highway 93A
231KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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
FHWA
Recommendation
(% of total)
Existing FC Map Recommended FC Map
Miles % of Total Within Range Miles % of Total Within Range
Principal
Arterial 4% to 9%33.8 6.5%Yes 35.6 6.4%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%558.4 100%
232 MOVE 2040
UV292
UV424
UV424
UV503
UV548
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
£¤2
£¤2
£¤93
WHITEFISH
STAGE
E RESERVE DR
HE
L
E
N
A
F
L
A
T
S
R
D
WI
L
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
W
S
P
R
I
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
W RESERVE DR
ROSE XING
Legend
Study Area
Evergreen
Kalispell
Future Functional Class
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Minor Arterial (Proposed)
Major Collector
Major Collector (Proposed)
Minor Collector
Minor Collector (Proposed)
Local 0 10.5 Miles I
Inset
*This map is for local planning purposes and does not represent the FHWA-approved
functional classification.
Figure 11.3: Recommended City of Kalispell Functional Classification Map
233KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
UV503
")35
£¤93A
£¤93A
£¤93
£¤2
£¤93
WIL
L
O
W
G
L
E
N
D
R
FOUR MILE DR
WHITEFISH
STAGE
Legend
Study Area
Evergreen
Kalispell
Future Functional Class
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Minor Arterial (Proposed)
Major Collector
Major Collector (Proposed)
Minor Collector
Minor Collector (Proposed)
Local 0 10.5 MilesI
*This map is for local planning purposes and does not represent the FHWA-approved
functional classification.
Figure 11.4: Recommended City of Kalispell Functional Classification Map (Inset)
234 MOVE 2040
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 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
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:
Figure 11.6: Minor Arterial Cross Section
PRINCIPAL AND MINOR ARTERIALS LOCAL STREETSMAJOR AND MINOR COLLECTORS
»100’ ROW
»12’ outside travel lane
»12’ inside travel lane
»12’ left turn lane
»8’ sidewalks
»8’ boulevards
»80’ ROW
»12’ travel lanes
»12’ TWCLTL
»6’ sidewalks
»10’ shared use path
»11.5’ boulevards
»No on-street parking
235KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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 collector
The major collector cross section is presented as a three-
lane facility with the following characteristics:
Figure 11.7: Major Collector Cross Section
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 collector
The minor collector cross section is presented with two
travel lanes and a parking lane:
Figure 11.8: Minor Collector Cross Section
»80’ ROW
»12’ travel lanes
»12’ TWCLTL
»5’ sidewalks
»5’ bike lanes
»10’ shared use path
»8’ boulevards
»60’ ROW
»12’ travel lanes
(sharrows)
»10’ parking lane
»5’ sidewalks
»6’ boulevards
»Option for no parking/
TWCLT
236 MOVE 2040
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
The local road cross section is presented with two travel
lanes and a parking lane:
Figure 11.9: Local Road Cross Section
Potential streetscape elements for the local road concept include benches and other pedestrian amenities, street trees,
and bike racks.
»60’ ROW
»10’ travel lanes
»8’ parking lane
»5’ sidewalks
»9’ boulevards
237KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
aCCESS MaNaGEMENT
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”.1
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 Table 11.3.
acceSS management BeSt PracticeS
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.
1 Please see: https://www.mdt.mt.gov/research/toolkit/m1/pptools/ds/am.shtml
Figure 11.10: Access and Mobility
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
Good Access Management Poor Access Management
»Reduced congestion and better overall traffic flow »Poor capacity throughput
»Lower potential for crashes due to fewer opportunities for vehicle conflicts with other vehicles, with pedestrians and with bicyclists
»Increases in crashes and crash rates
»Decreased travel times for commuters, truck drivers,
and others
»Reduced roadway efficiency
»Easier movement between properties, increasing the attractiveness of adjacent neighborhoods »Decreased property values and less livable neighborhoods
»Preservation of public investment in transportation infrastructure »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)
»Better control over the intended character of a corridor and its adjacent neighborhoods »Potential for unsightly strip development
»Potential for unwanted neighborhood cut-thru traffic
»Less desirable corridor user experience; “chilling effect” on new investment
238 MOVE 2040
access Denial, removal, or relocation
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.
property access restriction
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
239KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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.
SamPle guidelineS By Functional
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.
Table 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.
a cloSer look: Four mile drive
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 (Chapter 6)
was used to evaluate traffic volumes along the corridor.
The corridor is shown in Figure 11.11.
Table 11.4: Access Spacing Guidelines
Type of Access Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Local Road
Private
Residential
Driveways
No direct access No direct access No direct access No direct access As required
Commercial
Driveways No direct access No direct access 1/8 mile (660’)1/8 mile (660’)
Based on: Speed,
Traffic Volume,
Sight Distances,
etc. (min. 100 ft.)
Non-Continuous1
Local Roads No direct access 1/8 mile (660’)1/8 mile (660’)1/8 mile (660’)(150’)
Continuous Local
Roads No direct access 1/4 mile (1,320’)1/8 mile (660’)1/8 mile (660’)(150’)
Collector Streets 1/2 mile (2,640’)1/4 mile (1,320’)1/8 mile (660’)1/8 mile (660’)1/8 mile (660’)
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
Spacing Between
Intersection
and Nearest
Driveway2
N/A N/A 330’330’
100’ for
commercial
driveways; 35’
for residential
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/uploads/2015/03/access-management-2013-04-17-final.pdf)
240 MOVE 2040
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
241KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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 Figure 11.12. 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 Road
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).
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
242 MOVE 2040
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.
243KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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/m1/
pptools/ds/am.shtml
»https://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/Bureaus/Cpdm/
WEB/BestPracticesinAccessManagement.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.
traFFic 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 Figure 11.13.
references
»https://www.cityofmiddleton.us/DocumentCenter/
View/293/Traffic-Impact-Analysis-Guidelines?bidId=
»https://www.coronaca.gov/home/show published
document?id=454
»https://www.peoriaaz.gov/home/showpublished
document?id=1969
244 MOVE 2040
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 Guidelines1.
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.
1 See: https://wisconsindot.gov/dtsdManuals/traffic-ops/manuals-and-standards/tiaguide.pdf
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
Figure 11.13: Traffic Impact Analysis Categories Example (Peoria, Arizona)
TIA CATEGORY TRIP GENERATION THRESHOLD1 HORIZON YEAR(S)2 STUDY AREA
Traffic Impact
Study
Developments that are estimated to
generate less than 100 trips during
the highest peak hour.
Opening Year To be determined by City Traffic Engineer
1
Developments that are estimated to
generate greater than 100 but less
than 500 vehicle trips during the
highest peak hour.
Opening Year and 5 years in the
future
1. Site access drives
2. All major signalized and unsignalized intersections within ¼ mile and all major
driveways within 500 feet
3. All roadway segments within ¼ mile of the project site boundary
2
Developments that are estimated
to generate more than 500 but less
than 1,000 vehicle trips during the
highest peak hour.
Opening Year plus 5 and 10
years in the future (phasing of
the development must also be
considered)
1. Site access drives
2. All major signalized and unsignalized intersections and all major driveways within
a ½ mile radius of the project site boundary
3. All roadway segments within ½ mile of the project site boundary
3
Developments that are estimated to
generate more than 1,000 but less
than 1,500 vehicle trips during the
highest peak hour.
Opening Year plus 5, 10, 15
years in the future (phasing of
the development must also be
considered)
1. Site access drives
2. All major signalized and unsignalized intersections and all major driveways within
a 1-mile radius of the project site boundary
3. All roadway segments within 1 mile of the project site boundary
4
Regional Development generating
1,500 or greater trips during the
highest peak hour.
Opening Year plus 5, 10, 15,
and 20 years in the future or as
specified in the Phasing Schedule
1. Site access drives
2. All major signalized and unsignalized intersections and all major driveways within
an impact area defined during the scoping meeting
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.
245KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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. Figure 11.14
illustrates the relationship between the speed of a vehicle
and the potential for pedestrian injury.
246 MOVE 2040
traFFic 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 ePrimer1. 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
1 see: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/traffic_calm.cfm
»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.
Figure 11.14: Speed/Pedestrian Injury Severity Correlation
247KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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
straight travel path. The curvilinear path is intended to reduce the speed at which a motorist is
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.
Arterials: 1
Collectors: 3
Local Roads: 3
Realigned
Intersection
The reconfiguration of an intersection with perpendicular angles to have skewed approaches
or travel paths through the intersection. The expectation is that these physical features will
discourage fast vehicle movements through the intersection.
Arterials: 1
Collectors: 3
Local Roads: 3
Traffic Circle A raised island, placed within an unsignalized intersection, around which traffic circulates.
A circle forces a motorist to use reduced speed when entering and passing through an
intersection, whether the vehicle path is straight through or involves a turn onto an intersecting
street.
Arterials: 1
Collectors: 2
Local Roads: 3
Vertical Deflection
Speed Hump An elongated mound in the roadway pavement surface extending across the travel way at
a right angle to the traffic flow. A speed hump produces sufficient discomfort to a motorist
driving above the speed hump design speed to discourage speeding.
Arterials: 1
Collectors: 3
Local Roads: 3
Speed Table A raised area placed across the roadway designed to limit the speed at which a vehicle can
traverse it. Like a speed hump, it extends across the travelway. Unlike a speed hump, a speed
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
than allowed by a speed hump.
Arterials: 2
Collectors: 3
Local Roads: 3
Raised
Crosswalk
A variation of a flat-topped speed table, a raised crosswalk is marked and signed as a
pedestrian crossing. A raised crosswalk improves pedestrian safety by causing motorist speed
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
vehicle.
Arterials: 2
Collectors: 3
Local Roads: 3
Street Width reduction
Curb
Extension
A horizontal extension of the sidewalk into the street resulting in a narrower roadway section.
This method may be used at either a corner or midblock. A curb extension at an intersection
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
device (e.g., a raised crosswalk) to achieve a greater reduction in vehicle speed.
Arterials: 3
Collectors: 3
Local Roads: 3
Median
Island
A raised island located along the street centerline that narrows the travel lanes at that
location, encouraging motorists to slow. A median island can double as a pedestrian refuge
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
preferred vehicle speed
Arterials: 3
Collectors: 3
Local Roads: 3
Road Diet The conversion of an undivided roadway to a cross-section with fewer or narrower through
motor vehicle travel lanes. The most common application is the conversion of an undivided
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
elements such as bicycle lanes, sidewalks, pedestrian refuge islands, and transit.
Arterials: 3
Collectors: 3
Local Roads: 2
routing restriction
Diagonal
Diverter
A diagonal diverter is a physical barrier placed diagonally across a four-legged intersection.
The barrier creates two unconnected intersections. Traffic approaching the intersection is
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.
Arterials: 1
Collectors: 2
Local Roads: 2
Full Closure
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
to allow bicyclists and pedestrians to pass through. It is important to consider where the
diverted traffic is likely to shift, in particular the availability, capacity, and appropriateness of
the alternative routes.
Arterials: 1
Collectors: 2
Local Roads: 2
Median
Barrier
A median barrier is a raised island placed through an intersection, along the centerline of a
roadway, preventing a motorist from traveling straight through the intersection on the side
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.
Arterials: 2
Collectors: 3
Local Roads: 3
248 MOVE 2040
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.
»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 11.17) has one
approach lane and a circulating lane throughout the
entire footprint.
»A Mini roundabout (Figure 11.18) 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
Characteristics Multi-Lane Roundabout Hybrid Multi-Lane
Roundabout
Single-Lane
Roundabout Mini Roundabout
Desired Entry
Speed
25 to 30 mph Varies 20 to 25 mph 15 to 20 mph
Typical Inscribed
Circle (Curb to Curb
of the circulating
roadway)
150 to 300 ft Varies 90 to 180 ft 45 to 90ft
planning Level
Entering Volume
Capacity
Up to 45,000 for two lane
approaches on each leg.
Roundabouts with 3+ entry
legs require more planning
level analysis
Varies Up to 25,000 Up to 15,000 vpd
advantages Large capacity and ability to
process traffic volume
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
The maximum
safety benefit
compared to
other roundabout
types
Small footprint,
usually able to
be constructed
within the existing
curb lines of an
intersection which
relates to a lower
construction cost
Disadvantages 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.
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.
More expensive
and larger impact
compared to mini
roundabouts.
Tight geometry
makes navigation
for large vehicles
difficult. The
entire center
island must be
fully traversable
for heavy vehicles.
applicable Contexts Multi-lane roundabouts are
typically most successful for
traffic operation mitigation
where a large signalized
intersection would have been
needed.
A Hybrid roundabout
should be used in specific
circumstances where traffic
volumes are unbalanced
but the operations are still
deemed to be acceptable.
A Single lane
roundabout
is the most
common and
widely applicable
roundabout in the
United States.
This roundabout
should be used in
low speed urban
areas.
249KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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
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
250 MOVE 2040
Prevalence oF roundaBoutS
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 11.20 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 Table 11.7.
Figure 11.19: Types of Roundabouts
in the U.S. (NCHRP)
Figure 11.20: Roundabouts by State
Figure 11.21: Roundabouts by Year Constructed
Table 11.7: Montana Roundabouts by Location1
General Location Roundabouts
in Operation
Roundabouts
under
Construction2
Roundabouts in
Consideration/Planning/
Design Phases
Billings 17 1 5
Bozeman & Belgrade 11 0 1
Great Falls 1 0 3
Helena 5 1 3
Butte 0 1 1
Missoula 11 2 2
Kalispell 7 2 3
Combination of Other Jurisdictions With Less than 10,000
population (Sidney, Poplar, Miles City, Lame Deer, Red Lodge,
Browning)
4 3 1
Total 56 10 18
1 See: https://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
251KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
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
speed. Figure 11.22 and Figure 11.23 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 11.8 provides considerations for
roundabouts in comparison to other traffic control types.
Table 11.8: Comparison of Roundabouts to Other Traffic Control Types
Consideration Disadvantages Advantages over Side-
Street Stop Control
Advantages over All-
Way Stop Control
Advantages over Signal
Control
Safety 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 show a
44% reduction in all
crashes and up to 87%
reduction in serious
and fatal crashes.
While there is still
expected to be a
crash reduction, the
comparison to all-way
stop control is less
drastic than other
control types.
Roundabouts show
a 48% reduction in
all crashes and up
to 78% reduction in
serious injury and fatal
crashes.
Delay 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.
Roundabouts can
improve the frequency
and duration of gaps
for minor street traffic
movements when
compared to two-way
stop control.
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.
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).
Cost 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.
No Cost Advantage.No Cost Advantage.Roundabouts of a
smaller footprint,
especially mini
roundabouts, can cost
less to construct than
signals. Roundabouts
also require less
maintenance and no
electrical equipment.
252 MOVE 2040
Figure 11.22: Vehicle Conflict Point Comparison
Figure 11.23: Pedestrian Conflict Point Comparison
253KALISPELL AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
ITS
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.
itS For kaliSPell
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.
1 https://www.pcb.its.dot.gov/eprimer/module10.aspx
Potential itS SolutionS:
»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.
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.
EXAMPLES OF ITS IN USE TODAY
»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
254 MOVE 2040
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.