1. Resolution 5269 - Kalispell Area Transportation Plani
Cityof Kaspell Pui c Works Department
.;�;y;::is�aw:�r ;L;wv�'�s
..t':w:._� µma:'<w=`
..... .........
4 ..
., yPost Office Box 1.997, Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 - Telephone (406)758-7720Fax (406)758-7831
REPORT TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: James C. Hansz, P.E., Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Kalispell Area Transportation Plan Update Zooh
MEETING HATE: 17 March 2008
BACKGROUND: For the past 18 months the City and MDT have warped with Robert Peccia
and Associates to update the Kalispell Area Transportation Plan. This was last done in 1993 so
the current project was long over due. The update involved collection and analysis of a wide
array of data from which the consultant made an assessment of current conditions. Future growth
for the area was estimated and the impacts of this growth were modeled by MDT to assess future
impacts on the system.. From all this analysis the consultant has identified many projects that are
necessary to maintain adequate levels of service throughout the area transportation system.
Over the course of this effort there have been .many public meetings to outline progress,
answer public questions, to coordinate with the Kalispell Transportation Advisory Committee,
Kalispell Planning Board and with City Council. The final public hearing on the final public
draft was conducted March 3, 2008. Additional public comments from that meeting have been
reviewed by the consultant and the response to each is attached. Jeff Key, P.E., representing
Robert Peccla and Associates is available to discuss these comments and any other aspect of the
plan and the process that led to its completion.
The City Attorney has prepared resolution 5269 accepting the Kalispell Area
Transportation Plan Update 2006 as the transportation planning document for the Kalispell
transportation planning area.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve resolution 5269 to accept the Kalispell Area Transportation
Plan Update 2006 as the transportation planning document for the Kalispell transportation
planning area.
March 17, 2008 Transportation Plan Approval. doc
ACTION REQUESTED: AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 17, MOTION TO
APPROVE RESOLUTION 5269 ACCEPTING THE KALISPELL AREA
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE 2006.
FISCAL EFFECTS: None at this time, significant potential future expenditures for
improvements.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Council
Respectfully submitted,
Director of Public Works 1 Ci
ames H. Patrick
City Manager
Attachment: Consultant response to comments from. March 3, 2008 public hearing.
March 1.75 2008 Transportation Plan Approval.doc
RESOLUTION NO.5269
A RESOLUTION FOR 'THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE KALISPELL
AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN (2006 UPDATE) DATED FEBRUARY 1, 2005, AS
PREPARED BY R.OBERT PECCIA AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
REPLACING THE 1993 KALISPELL TRANSPORTATION PLAN.
WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell retained the engineering firm Robert Peccia and Associates
to analyze the transportation facilities in and around the City of Kalispell for the
purpose of developing a Kalispell Area Transportation Plan to update and replace
the existing transportation plan that was developed in 1993; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Kalispell Area Transportation Plan (2006 Update), dated February 1,
2008, developed by Robert Peccia and Associates addresses the transportation
issues within the City of Kalispell, plus an area up to 3 miles beyond the City
limits, into those areas the City can reasonably expect to grow; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Kalispell Area Transportation Plan (2006 Update) provides an
analysis of existing transportation conditions, transportation demand forecasting,
a discussion of alternative travel modes within the area and identification of
specific problem areas relative to crash occurrences, intersection capacities and
street corridor capacities; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Kalispell Area Transportation Plan (2006 Update) includes
recommendations for travel demand management and traffic calming techniques
and further provides a series of recommendations for improvements to the
transportation system including short term management changes, major street
system improvements and miscellaneous upgrades to the existing transportation
system; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Kalispell Area Transportation Plan (2006 Update) further includes a
financial analysis of the capital improvements to implement the plan; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2007 the Kalispell City Planning Board, after due and proper
notice, met and held a public hearing to consider recommending the adoption of
the Kalispell Area Transportation Plan (2006 Update). The Planning Board met
again on January 8, 2008, after due and proper notice, and after fully considering
the contents of the Plan and all of the public comment received, both oral and
written, voted unanimously to recommend approval and adoption of the plan to
the Kalispell City Council; and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2008, after due and proper notice and after making the proposed
Kalispell Area Transportation Plan (2006 Update) available to the public for its
inspection, the Kalispell City Council held a public hearing to receive oral and
written comment on the plan; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City of Kalispell and its residents that the existing
1993 Kalispell Transportation Plan be updated and replaced using current data
and traffic engineering analysis for the purposes of updating its Growth Policy as
required by state statute as well as providing a more timely and functional
analysis in the consideration of implementing transportation impact fees; and
WHEREAS, after fully considering the contents of the Kalispell Area Transportation Plan
(2006 Update) and all of the public comment received, both oral and written, the
Kalispell City Council finds that the proposed Kalispell Area Transportation Plan
(2006 Update), dated February 1, 2008, developed by Robert Peccia and
Associates sufficiently provides the data and analysis necessary to update and
replace the existing adopted policy of the 1993 Kalispell Transportation Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ALIS PELL AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. That the Kalispell Area .Transportation Plan (2006 Update), dated
February 1, 2008, developed by Robert Peccia and Associates shall be and
is hereby adopted and approved for transportation policy within the City
of Kalispell.
SECTION II. This resolution shall be and is hereby effective immediately.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF
THE CITY OF KALISPELL, THIS 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2008.
Pamela B. Kennedy
.Mayor
ATTEST:
Theresa white
City Clerk
City Council - Public Hearing Response Matrix
March 17t", 2008 Regular Meeting
Kalispell Transportation Plan (2006 Update)
General Comments Offered By Consultant
The responses provided in the matrix below are the Consultant's responses to the verbal and
written comments delivered to the City Council at the public hearing held on March 3id,
2008. Some general thoughts are appropriate before the reader reviews the public comments
and resultant responses shown in this matrix:
1. There is no legal requirement for a community to undertake a community Transportation
Plan. The only legal requirement for such an effort is found when a community is classified
as a Metropolitan Planning Organization (N4PO). MPO's are urban areas with a population
of 50,000 or greater. In Montana, the MPO's are Great Falls, Billings and Missoula, and they
are required to prepare a Transportation Plan every four or five years depending on the
community's air quality standards compliance.
2. Community Transportation Plans are intended to provide a broad -brush, long-range
assessment at transportation needs for the community. They are not intended to offer
detailed traffic analysis or mitigation solutions. It is a planning level document that is very
broad and visionary. As recommended projects are programmed, additional work is needed
for the respective projects to be implemented that are by nature more specific to the
individual project.
3. Several of the comments imply it is inappropriate to ignore, or at least fail to mention,
that many of the recommended projects will encounter right-of-way costs to make the
project become a reality. Unfortunately, it is impossible to predict land values and areas
being affected within this visionary planning document. We believe that the final
Transportation Plan should have some additional language in it, whether that be in the
Executive Summary or perhaps at the beginning of Chapters 8 and 9, that points out that
often times the major roadway "reconstruction" projects do have right-of-way costs
associated with their implementation.
Written Comments Received - Three Letters Total
Kalvig & LeDuc, P.C. (Letter Number 1)
In my opinion, the report is incomplete because it does not contain all of the information
contracted for. It is inaccurate because some of the information has obviously not been verified. It is
inconsistent in certain areas that should have been addressed -- if only to furnish to you and MDT
the very serious nature of right-of-way acquisition in some of the proposed improvements.
Let me detail these matters to you in very brief fashion:
Transportation Plan Public Comments Matrix — City Council Page 1 of 15
Comment
Response
I
With respect to incomplete information, the
Ha.Zardous materials issues were not the subject of any
report fails to address the problem of hazardous
major investigwion of the Plan. The assumption regarding
materials being transported through the Kalispell
hazardous materials transport is that they are transported
area (except in cursory fashion). It does not assess
either on rail or on the two major routes through the
truck problems in any detail. Nor does it reflect
community — US 93 and/or US 2.
the collection of historic crash data for the last
three years or identify locations with a high level
Crashes have been addressed in the customary manner
crash frequency or severity, except intersections
The threeyearperiod was selected based on the most recent
(even though road corridors are identified in the
period of data available when the pr yect be 8 months
contract) .
ago.
Corridor crashes were not the primary area of focus, as
crash trends within the community were identified at the
intersections or this Tannin level e ort.
2
The report also fails to delineate public or TAC
All of the venues held with the public and the TAC are
input in any detail. Although this may not be a
outlined in Tables - 11 / -2, and / -3. Meeting minutes
matter of contract, it certainly is a matter of legal
for the TAC meetings were prepared by the City Planning
significance.
Department staff. Public meeting minutes were also
prepared by RI'A for the three meetings. Typically, these
are not inserted into the Transportation Plan document,
but become part of the Clients' and Consultant file. The
TAC reviewed all public comments throughout the course
of the prlect.
3
With respect to inconsistency, the report indicates
Planning level pryect cost estimates are provided. Land
that it does not furnish any information relative to
values and adjacent land costs vary within a community
right-of-way acquisition costs. It does identify
and are subject to several factors.
some areas where right-of-way acquisition is
involved, while at the same time failing to
This is divulged in the relevant chapters of the
recognize other areas where right -of --way
Transportation Plan (chapters 8 and 9).
acquisition would be an extreme problem due to
high costs, perhaps even costlier then the
improvement figures that are noted. If this
document is to be used as a plan, it should at least
be noted that there are severe right-of-way
acquisition problems with many of the
recommendations which may make those
recommendations not viable now or in the future.
The same comment can be made to major
infrastructures such as bridges.
4
With respect to verification of information, one
Land use forecasting is not an exact science. At the time
need only review Figure 39, Land Use
of the land use forecasting exercise, the densities developed
Forecasting -residential, to recognize that at least
are as shown on the graphics. TFe cannotpinpointgrowth
one of the density areas is completely wrong.
gle"dwelling unit (DU) out to
numbers to the nearest 'sin
Figure 39 notes that the number of dwelling units
theyear 2030. As such, numbers are rounded to the
for the area encompassing Stillwater Estates
nearest hundred. In thegeneral scheme of the traffic model,
(northwest of Highway 93 and Reserve) is 300
we work off `control totals" that tell how much growth
dwelling units. I represent Stillwater Estates. I
needs to be allocated within the study area boundary. For
have reviewed their covenants and the deeds to
this Plan, the dwelling unitgrowth total was
the subdivision. There are only 128 lots in the
approximately /6,000 DU's within the boundary and
entire subdivision.
mimics the City's Facility Plan and the US 93 Bypass
EIS Re-evaluation.
Transportation Plan Public Comments Matrix — City Council Page 2 of 15
Comment
Response
In the traffic modelingffort, the exact location of the
dwelling units has little impact on the overall influence to
re ional trafficflow.
5
The information used for land use forecasting in
Disagree -see re.yon.re above.
the plan is not accurate; nor has it been verified. I
do not know the explanation for the discrepancy,
The land use forecasting focers i.� similar to that used in
but it leads me to question the accuracy of the
all of Montana' Transortation Plan, and is based on the
report. It also makes me question the underlying
most current land use fans and assumptions foll-future
data upon which impact fees are being based. If
growth, and was subject to review and acceptance by the
the Plan states that a particular land area has 300
Technical Advisory Committee (TACK.
dwelling units when there may be less, then
growth projections are incorrect. If growth is not
correct, then there will be less traffic and less
need for added infrastructure and traffic impact
fees.
6
NISN3 - Grand View Dr. extension from Grand
Planning level_pr lect cost estimates are based onjear
View Comer to Whitefish Stage Rd. There is no
2007 bid(ices and RPA s quantity take -off , for each
data explaining how the cost of2,865,000.00 was
f ject, plus contingencies, engineering and construction
arrived at, nor any recognition of the extreme
management.
right-of-way and infrastructure problems that
would be involved in this project. I have been
advised that the bridge to cross the Stillwater
River would be a multimillion dollar prof ect in
itself. If right-of-way and bridge costs are not
addressed in the project, how can its feasibility
and prioritization be considered?
7
N2SN9 Rose Crossing -Hwy 93 -Junior
Again, Nanning level work and in_put from the various
Interchange - There is no data to support the
-partiesguiding this foject suggest that a junior
design, the cost, or the right-of-way problems
interchange"would be a worthy, long -terms goal for future
associated with the project. Since the west side of
trans ortation considerations.
Highway 93 is not presently intended to be
developed, how will such a structure be
Based on I;v * cellaneous�ublic w ent, this was revised to
beneficial?
also surest atgrade signali�Zation control can be an
acce table alternative t e of access to US I-Ii hway 93.
8
MSN21 Evergreen Dr. - WIhitefish Stage to
The reference on_page 9-2 of LaSalle Road to Helena
LaSalle Rd. This particular recommendation is so
Flats Road in Table 9- / and is intended to _portray
confusing that it is impossible for me to
what the previous Tran.�portation Plan from 1993
determine what is intended. The project
recommended. In this case, the 1993 Plan recommended
recommends a three -lane road between Whitefish
reconstruction f -om LaSalle Road all the way to Helena
Stage and LaSalle Rd. There is no discussion
Flats Road.
regarding the severe right-of-way problems which
face the project. The description of the project on
The new recommendation in this Plan is to reconstruct
page 9-2 states that the project extends from
from LVhitefish Stage Road to LaSalle Road ony.
LaSalle to Helena Flats. The project description
on page 910 states the project extends from
Whitefish Stage to LaSalle, but recommends that
Evergreen be reconstructed from LaSalle to
Helena Flats. The project description should be
clarified.
Transportation Plan Public Comments Matrix - City Council Page 3 of 15
Comment
Response
9
MSN 24 Conrad Dr. connector. This was the
This major streetprolect (MSN) is defined in chapter 9.
No.4 priority in the 1993 report. There is virtually
no recognition of the significance of that priority,
An attempt mas made to prioriti.Ze projects in the
nor the significant effect it would have on
Executive Summary (see Table ES-2 on page ix thru xi).
downtown traffic if it were constructed.
This project mas grouped into the "zrst p7 zority "pr jests.
Considering the relatively minor costs of this
project when compared to the westside by-pass, it
is a major oversight to fail to address these issues.
10
The report does not include toll roads as a
The financial chapter is prepared by the Montana
financing alternative.
Department of Transportation and local government to
provide a snapshot of legitimate funding sources for
transportation improvements. Toll roads are not used in
Montana and it is questionable whether legally they can be
used on the States highway ystem.
11
The report does not address whether traffic
The City wanted a menu of traffic calming measures that
calming measures will cause added air pollution.
might be considered in the community, along with a process
by which a neighborhood can petition the City for traffic
calmin,g assistance.
12
The report does not address existing traffic
The scope of work for this pryect did not include a
problems in downtown Kalispell (the purpose of
downtown circulation and/orparhing task.
the 1993 report) and how downtown truck traffic
will be relieved.
13
The report does not coordinate with Flathead
The County is a member of the Technical Advisory
County. Flathead County has retained Robert
Committee and the coordination done through it. In
Peccia and Associates to prepare a transportation
addition, they were asked to participate and enter into a
plan. The city and county should coordinate with
funding agreement with MDT and the City to develop this
one another to prepare similar plans which
plan but were not interested.
contain the same facts and underlying
recommendations.
14
The report does not address whether the
Again, the Bypass and/or extension of the By mere
proposed west -side bypass should be extended
not a consideration for this Transportation Plan. This
farther north.
was primarily due to the fact that the Re-evaluation of the
EIS zvas completed and approved by the FHIA just
prior to the Transportation Plan pr yect beginning. It was
a requirement that RPA'r work rely on and complement
the US Highway 93 By EIS Re-evaluation.
15
According to page 2-13, intersection LOS (level
The decision mas made early in the pr * ct development to
of service) was calculated in the summer of 2006.
capture peak summer tra�cpenods, with no adjustments,
Summer is the busiest time of the year in
for analysis of existing conditions. This decision was
Kalispell. Other times of the year, intersection
agreed to by both the Montana Department of
LOS may be different. Should year-round
Transportation and the City of Kalispell.
transportation needs be based on traffic counts
that may only exist for three months of the ear?
16
The report does not address accidents caused by
Crash trends were assessed on a broad planning level effort
wildlife.
and focused on severity, crash rates and numbers of
intersections. Further breaking dozen crashes to a more
refined level is not customarily part of a regional ciomide
Transportation Plan eflort.
Transportation Plan Public Comments Matrix — City Council Page 4 of 15
Comment
Response
17
The report does not address issues related to
This was not identified in the project scope of worn for
traffic noise and mitigation. The Kalispell
assessment as part of the Tran.portation Plan. The issue
Planning Office has made noise mitigation a
of trfc noise and mitigation is a `fir jest level"issue that
condition of subdivision approval for property
is addressed with each individual pr ject � development and
adjacent to the proposed bypass. This policy
not with a community Tran.�portation Plan.
should be included in the plan.
18
The report does not address implementation. If
This is not required, or even achievable, through the
the report is going to be useful, it should explain
Consultant contract. The purpose of the Plan is to ident f
the process and provide a timeline for when its
the need — it is up to the City and MDT to implement the
goals will be implemented.
Plans recommendations throwh their existing policies and
procedures.
19
As a final note, I understand that there is a
There is no legal requirement for a community to prepare a
connection between Chapter 10 of the Kalispell
Transportation Plan unless the community is classified as
Growth Policy 2020 and the 2006 plan. It remains
a Metropolitan Planning Organisation (MPO). An
unclear which document controls transportation
MPO is an urban area with 50,000 population or
issues, and I find no record of reconciliation
greater. In Montana, the MPO s are Great Falls,
between the two documents in the event of an
Billings and Missoula, and they are required to prepare a
inconsistency. Based on Montana case law, it is
Transportation Plan every four or fiveyears defending on
important to ensure that growth policy
the community s air quality standards compliance.
documents are internally consistent.
Kalthleen Krager's (Letter Number 2)
On behalf of the Wolford Development, I have reviewed the Kalispell Area Transportation Plan
(2006 Update), prepared by Robert Peccia & Associates, Kalispell. An area transportation plan is an
important foundation for future transportation facilities planning; and, therefore, a careful review is
appropriate to obtain the best results possible. Based on my review, I offer the following comments:
Comment
Response
20
Analysis of Existing Signalized Intersections. I
IFe agree that optimising the individual traps signal
was somewhat surprised by the analysis of traffic
timings are a worthy endeavor and can improve the
operations at existing signalized intersections and
"capacity analysis" results. However from the pure
the numerous intersections which were shown to
purpose of documenting how each si�nali�ed intersection is
be operating at a poor or failing level of service.
operating, the signal timings are what they are, and this
My experiences in driving around Kalispell did
fact coupled with the phasing and volume of trap c during
not indicate the poor operations that were shown
the time period that intersection counts were competed, the
within the analysis. A review of the actual
level of service calculations were made and presented in the
Highway Capacity Software analysis sheets for
Plan.
each intersection indicates that the majority of
failing intersections are currently timed with
The signal tuning issue and .�y�nchroni�ation issue cannot
excessively long signal cycle lengths. Cycle lengths
be dealt with in the Transportation Plan. That is a level
currently in use vary from 91 seconds per cycle to
of detail that is outside the scope and intended use of this
200 seconds per cycle. A vehicle entering a
fanning level document. Furthermore, the MDT has sole
intersection with a 200-second cycle may have to
responsibility for the signal timing, phasing and
wait three minutes for a green light, even with no
.gnchroni�Zation issues, and as they have funding to
other vehicles waiting. Typical cycle lengths used
program improvements related to this subject they do so.
in urban areas range from 70 seconds to 120
seconds per cycle. These cycle lengths allow
enough time to maximize the volume of traffic
Transportation Plan Public Comments Matrix — City Council Page 5 of 15
21
22
Comment I Resnonse
through the intersection without causing
excessive delays. Also, the existing cycle lengths
along corridors vary greatly. For example, on
Highway 93, the cycle length for the Costco signal
is 88 seconds. The cycle length for the Home
Depot signal is 126 seconds, and the cycle length
at the Reserve Street signal is 157 seconds. These
signals are within one-half mile of each other and
should have the same cycle length, so that the
signals can be coordinated to improve traffic flow
on Highway 93. The Area Transportation Plan
does not address these signal timing problems,
and leads the reader to assume that there are
capacity problems at each intersection. Improved
signal timing and a coordinated signal system
could greatly improve the flow of traffic through
Kalispell.
Travel Demand Forecasting. The Area
Transportation Plan provides a Year 2030 traffic
model for the recommended plan, as well as
numerous scenarios. While perfection is not
possible when forecasting future traffic, the more
accurate the model, the easier it will be to use the
model in traffic impact analysis. A cursory review
of the model in the area of North Kalispell
indicates several problems. The model indicates a
large vehicle usage on Reserve Drive between
Highway 93 and Whitefish Stage Road. A
comparison with the other model runs indicates
that this volume is too high by at least 10,000
vehicles per day. Similarly, the volumes on US
Highway 2 north of Reserve Drive appear to be
too low by approximately 10,000 vehicles per day.
Also, a secondary street system is shown in the
area of Glacier Town Center, but no traffic
volumes have been identifies with this street
system. Traffic volumes should be assigned to the
secondary street system, which will reduce traffic
on parallel roadways, in particular on 'WThitefish
Stage Road and Highway 93.
Estimated Costs. The Area Transportation Plan
provides an estimated cost for each of the
recommended street improvements. However,
since no unit costs were provided, it is difficult to
determine if these costs are realistic. The unit
Project TS11/1-24 in chapter 8 of the Transportation Plan
suggests that the MDT revisit timing and �ynchvoniation
on a more frequent occurrence due to the high growth being
experienced in the community.
1e do not agree with the statement that the model
"...indicates several problems ". Vh. ile the comment is
correct in that ".. pe fection is not possible when
forecasting future trf c" the TransCAD travel demand
model * the best tool available at this time forpredicting
future volumes and subsequent needs. It is if course based
on assumptions regarding land use and the `Existing +
Committed " roadway network, but thZ's Z's the tool used f or
the Kali.pell Transportation Plan and other
Transportation Plans in Montana.
It is d f cult to understand the statements about volumes
being 0, 000 vpd too high or too low, however we think
the comparisons being made are between Figure 3- 3 and
Figure -3.
Figure 3- /3 .shows the model volumes for the future fear
2030 if nothing is done to the existing transportation
ystemI while Figure -3 .shows the model volumes i all
th�lor street network recommendations are
implemented. One would erect to .gee differences in
volumes along the various links after improvements are
made. The `secondag street ystem " defined on Figure
-3 su,ggests these should be viewed as "broad core dol.r "
and are subject to refinement when developments occur:
1Fe typica ly do not show these volumes, however showing
the volumes will not change the model volume numbers
shown on Figure -3 for IFhitefi:rh Stage Road, Reserve
Dn've or US Highway 93 North.
Planning level prlect costs estimate are provided. Land
values and adjacent land costs vary within a community
and are subject to several factors. Th. is is divulged in the
relevant chapters of the Transportation Plan (chapters 8
and 9).
,,: � �sj�.0 .• . , . ._ �aa � cox, ��.. �. W --� a , s � . _. a . ,.;.. . °. � . F : � . . .-�s�.x ���r�sar
Transportation Plan Public Comments Matrix — City Council Page 6 of 15
Comment
Response
costs information should be provided in an
appendix so that it could be reviewed. Also, the
costs do not include estimated costs for right of
way acquisition. I understand that it may not be in
the scope of an area transportation plan to
estimate right-of-way costs; however, identifying
the approximate amount of right-of-way taking,
the land use designation of the right-of-way
taking, and any improvements on the right-of-way
would be useful to the reader. It is inappropriate
to let the reader assume that a $500,00.00 project
with no right-of-way purchase is the same as a
$500,000.00 project with extensive right-of-way
urchases and relocations.
Northwest Montana Association of REALTORS, Inc. (Letter Number 3)
To provide good livable communities, a good transportation plan must be in place. According to a
2007 Growth and Transportation Study conducted by Public Opinion Strategies for the National
Association of REALTORS®, three -fourths of Americans believe that improving public
transportation and building smarter development are better long-term solutions for reducing traffic
congestion than building roads. More than 70 percent are concerned with how growth and
development affects global warming. The proposed Kalispell Transportation Plan doesn't go far
enough to address the needs of a long term solution nor addresses the specific dollars needed to fund
the recommendations. We believe the following items need to be researched further and addressed
before the City of Kalispell approves this plan.
Comment
Response
23
Robert Peccia and Associates have been asked to
Ve agree, howeverprevious efforts to get everybody on
conduct a Transportation plan for the City of
board to accoylish this `regional" Transportation Plan
Kalispell, City of Whitefish and the County of
proved unsuccessful. Homever the sane travel demand
Flathead. Yet, there is no mentioning of how all
model developed by MDT mill be used to support all three
three plans could work together and possibly
planning efforts.
form a regional transportation plan, to include
how the US 93 Bypass could alleviate some of
The County is a member of the Technical Advisory
Kalispell's concerns. The City of Kalispell will be
Committee and the coordination done through it. In
deciding to adopt their plan on March 31a. The
addition, they were asked to participate and enter into a
City of Whitefish is in the "birthing" stage of their
funding agreement with MDT and the City to develop this
Transportation Plan and the County of Flathead
plan but mere not interestedd,
will be developing their plan by the end of 2008
beginning of 2009. All three governments should
work together to provide a regional transportation
plan which addresses the needs of each. For
example, a county wide standard for traffic Noise
Abatement should be considered. Currently, some
jurisdictions are berms and landscaping and some
are thirty foot walls. This creates hardships for
developers not knowing which will be asked for.
The City requires one plan, the County requires a
Transportation Plan Public Comments Matrix — City Council Page 7 of 15
Comment
Response
different plan and the State requires a third plan.
In essence, a new community along city, county
and state lands could see berms, walls and trees
within 3 miles of each other due to different noise
abatement requirements.
24
With recent developments expanding the City
The focu.� of this Plan was_p17alzly surface
Airport, this plan does not take into account ways
tran.�portation. Ai1Port fanning efforts could be
to increase the needs of the City Airport or
summani�Zed and included in the fan, but not scoped to do
Glacier International Airport. To be effective, this
ai�port fanning.
plan CANNOT be a road transportation plan. It
must consider all modes of transportation: buses;
Transit features were reiterated fl-om the recently col;V_pleted
air and possibly rail. As the region grows, so will
Eagle Transit 'Transit Develop ent Plan (2005) "
the needs for better transportation.
which was the community �, most recent transit fanning
document for the community.
25
A five, ten and thirty year plan or benchmarking
This is a good comment, and i.� �reci.� ey why the
should be considered. As the community grows,
community should consider an update to the Plan every 5
we will begin to see an increase in senior
years. Although the update may not need to be a
residents, especially since the baby boomer
comprehenszve re -assessment of this Tran.Vortation Plan, it
generation will begin to retire. The City should
can serve to monitor�rogrer,� and other imyortant items,
consider safety stops for Eagle Transit and
such as the land use assuptions and updating the trfc
increase Commuter bus routes. Seniors and
model due to the growth characteristics in the community.
people with disabilities need access to
employment, social activities, shopping, medical
treatments and mantic other accommodations.
J
Without a seven day a week commuter bus
system, they and other citizens can not enjoy the
Quality of Life we all cherish.
26
By offering alternative modes of transportation,
This is a good comment. Again, cunrent transit features
such as frequent bus routes, this would cut down
and fanning were reiterated from the recently cow
feted
on traffic and protect our environment. This
Eagle Transit 'Transit Develop ent Plan (2W5) " -
would also serve as a deterrent, during the
which was the community' most recent transit fanning
summer months, due to summer tourism.
document for the community.
Citizens prefer to live in a community that is
walkable or attainable without spending more
time in their vehicles.
27
As population in Kalispell and the region grows,
Assuming this wmment relates to the downtown? The
the need for adequate parking will increase at
.scope of work fbr this_project did not include a downtown
existing businesses and public places. This
circulation and/or_parking task.
transportation plan does not discuss the need for
increased parking structures or lots along these
As a result of the_public comments received via the
amenities. By including new parking spaces or
Planning Board h. eanin� language was added that relates
structures, this would provide parking for all uses
to this s fic comment (see page vi, xi and xii of the
within a reasonable walking distance. This would
Executive Summary, _page 4-1 andage 6-2)
create two solutions: reduce congestion on streets,
especially during summer months, as people walk
from location to location and reduce the amount
of vehicle pollution and emissions into the
atmosphere.
Transportation Plan Public Comments Matrix — City Council Page 8 of 15
Comment
Response
28
Per Montana Code Annotated 61-3-562, older
No comment
vehicles (I I years or older) can be permanently
registered. According to the Environment
Canada, "in 2007, an estimated 5 million old
vehicles (model year 1995 or older) are still in use,
out of a total fleet of 18 million personal vehicles.
It is estimated that nearly 3 million of
J
these older vehicles will still be on the road in
2010. These vehicles predate current, more
stringent emissions standards. So that while they
account for less than one-third of personal
vehicles in the study, they contribute up to two-
thirds of smog -forming pollutants." Therefore,
with no mechanism in place to address older
vehicles on the streets and the environmental
impact they cause due to their age, Kalispell's
roads (and air) suffer the most. The City of
Kalispell should take the lead in addressing this
issue by requesting the state of Montana to
change the statute to require emission testing and
registration on all vehicles. A portion of the
fees should come back to the City and Counter for
use towards road and transportation
improvements.
29
Reconfiguring traffic is another issue. For
lVe cannot follow this comment, but we thinly it is relating
example, by having all north bound and left -turn
to `'slithasing" a traffic signal at the va7zous sipalied
lanes precede together, then all south bound and
intersections. True `slithased" traffic signals are very
left -turn lanes together, this would prevent a
in f (yent and are rarely used in Montana anymore.
backup on the main arterials. Left -turn lanes do
not load with enough vehicles compared to time
The MDT adjusts signal timing, phasing and
allowed to turn and when the straight through
.gnchroniation as best they can given funding and the
traffic proceeds, left -turn lane reloads and
individual needs of the intersections.
overflow extends causing a restriction in flow.
30
Other findings not mentioned were: added turn
Disagree.
signals near Target and Costco; additional
East/West arterials from East Valley to West
The fbcus of the Plan isprimarily on the major street
Valley; both an East and West Bypass;
network, not individual a_p� vaches to commercial centers.
synchronization of lights to keep traffic flowing;
Control signal at Hwy 2 and Woodland Park
W1'e've tried to identfflllture conidoll:� connecting the east
Drive; Reconstruction of Springcreek and Hwy 2
and west areas of the community (see Figure
West.
Wye do recommend the MDT undertake a traffic
ynchroni.Zation prlect as funding allows (see TSM-24).
Wye will not recommend a traffic signal at Wloodland Parr
Drive and US Highway 2.
For S�ringcreek Road and Hwy 2 Wlest, the northbound
and southbound movements, which are the highest delay
movements, do not have enough traffic to warrant a traffic
signal at this intersection at the time.
Transportation Plan Public Comments Matrix — City Council Page 9 of 15
Verbal Comments Received (cD- March 3rd Public Hearinq
Comment Response
Eric Hummel(Attorney for Wolford Development)
31
(Comment from Kathleen Krager)
The background information is typically turned over to the
Report is lacking background information in the
Client (in this case the city of Kalispell and the MT.
form of an Appendix that would be useful to
Department of Transportation) at the completion of the
verify information that is the basis of the plan.
pr ject for their future needs. It is typically not included as
The Appendix should include actual traffic counts
an Appendix — it is not a formal environmental document
and LOS operations. The Appendix should also
subject to NEPA/MEPA.
contain information for the MSN projects such as
cost estimates including unit, length, materials,
There is no legal requirement to undertake a
land cost so someone can read the report and
TransPinpthe community.
figure out how the report has reached the
conclusions that it did.
32
(Comment from Marshall Murray/Eric Hummel):
TY�e agree, howeverprevious efforts to get everybody on
City should work with Flathead County to
board to accomplish this `regional" Transportation Plan
coordinate the Plan.
proved unsuccessful. However the same travel demand
model developed by MDT will be used to support all three
planning efforts.
The County is a member of the Technical Advisory
Committee and the coordination done through it. In
addition, they were asked to participate and enter into a
funding agreement with MDT and the City to develop this
plan but were not interested.
33
(Comment from Marshall Murray/Eric Hummel):
(See comments provided earlier in this matrix in response
The Transportation Plan is a supplement to the
to written comments received located on pages 4 thru 5)
Growth Policy; therefore various parts of the
Plans should be consistent with one another.
1. Providing a comprehensive traffic
circulation system working with the
County would help achieve this goal.
2. Another goal is to construct a Westside
A timeline for construction of the US Highway 93 Bypass
bypass. We encourage you to include a
cannot be provided in the Transportation Plan.
timeline for this.
3. The 5th goal is to explore a greater
The funding chapter is intended to capture the existing
number of funding options for roads.
programs that can be considered for transportation
The Transportation Plan discusses
improvements. Since Kalispell is not an MPO, there is no
Federal, State, and Local Authorities but
legal requirement to provide a Yzn"financially"financiallystable"
there is not a lot of discussion on local
Transportation Plan. More flexibility is built within the
sales tax or local gas tax.
Plan if it's not fiscally constrained —this allows agencies to
4. The 7th goal is to reduce congestion and
take advantage of opportunities that might arise.
traffic. Until you know how severe traffic
is, which is determined by the LOS. You
The LOS analysis contained in the Transportation Plan
need to make sure the LOS numbers
is accurate based on the time period of data collection and
identified in Krager's comments are
the existing signal timing/phasing encountered during the
accurate. Kalispell may not have as bad
data collection periods.
of a transportation problem as is thought.
A LOS C is not bad, it is average., it is a
Transportation Plan Public Comments Matrix — City Council Page 10 of 15
Comment I Resvonse
LOS D. E and F that are bad.
5. Need to make sure that there is adequate
right-of-way for MSN projects. May want
to include this as part of the project.
6. Inconsistencies between the Growth
Policy and the Transportation Plan
include 4 examples for priorities for
roads that are different between the two
documents. Whitefish Stage Road is
priority 1 in one document and 2 in the
other. 18th Street expansion is priority 1
in once document and 2 in the
Transportation Plan. West Springcreek
was priority 2 in one document and 3 in
the other. Stillwater Road was moved
from a 2nd priority to 1st. We encourage
an explanation of why the priorities have
changed in the two plans and which one
controls.
34 (Comment from Marshall l/2urray/Eric Hummel):
The Transportation Plan will form the basis for
consideration on whether or not to adopt impact
fees. It is important that the numbers are accurate
so there is a legally supported. The LOS should
be accurate and there is a need for the
transportation impact fees to be considered.
Comment from Charles La
35 I have some concerns with the assumptions on
the population growth in the County in Chapter
3. One graph shows there will be 200 less people
in the County. Need to look though the charts,
graphs, and numbers to make sure everything
adds up.
36 1 The Plan references the 1993 Plan for items
completed and uncompleted. Uncompleted items
are listed in the new Plan and these are no closer
to being done now. The concern is that with a
Transportation Plan, one thing that needs to
come out of it is a capital improvements plan
Project przoriti.Zation is extremely d cult and is
customarily not attempted in a Transportation Plan. This
mas discussed at the joint Planning Board/ Ci y Council
meeting, as mell at the formal Planning Board public
hearing. The direction mas to group the various projects in
first, second or third priorities in an effort to lead the reader
to comprehend the overall benefits and importance of a type
of project in the community.
The LOS is accurate based on the time period when counts
mere taken and the traffic signal timing/phasing being
utilised as provided by the MDT.
The intersection LOS is a totally unrelated issue to the
roadway impact fee discussion. Our understanding is that
the impact fee CIP projects are being based on major street
network �MSN) 1)rolects and not intersection broiects.
This has been explained several times and the numbers are
accurate. The discussion is made on page 3-9 that the
Kalispell Facilities Plan predicts a more aggressive gromth
pattern (approximately 3 %� within the Plan study area
boundary than the gromth predicted in the County.
Gromth Polig document (1.59% countyxide). The effect
of this is that almost all o f the dwelling unitgromth
predicted within Flathead County through their Gromth
Policy would be expected to occur within the
Facilities/ Transportation Plan study area boundary.
Table 3-6 maspre based on this fact, and me believe
this is where this comment is beinggenerated from. Even
though by the numbers the growth defined through the
County. Gromth Policy mould all be occurring within the
Transportation Plans study area boundary, this is
counterintuitive, and so additional growth mas assigned
outside of the Transportation Plans study area boundary.
TFe agree. It is hoped that the local government will take
the long-range transportation project needs and develop a
capital improvement plan that can be utilised for the City'.r
transportation infrastructure planning.
Transportation Plan Public Comments Matrix — City Council Page I of 15
37
Comment I Resnonse
(CIP) so you have projects scheduled. This is not
in the Plan. The Plan does put some projects in
list of priorities, but it also includes a disclaimer,
so a CIP plan is needed on how to implement
these.
Regarding the different scenarios, what if they do
one simple improvement that may affect the
whole transportation grid without any growth
involved. An example is the traffic light at Rose
Crossing and Highway 2 - the traffic counts
doubled after this was put in. The Plan talks
about rebuilding Old Bridge and it is a committed
project to be done next year. The Plan is the only
document saying this and it will change the traffic
patterns on the east side.
38 This should be a joint effort between the City and
the County so there is not contradicting Plans.
The TransCAD travel demand model recognises the
traffic characteristics that may change as a result of the
`committed "projects. There pryeas were defined in
Chapter 3 and the inclusion of these pr jests in the
`Existing plus Committed (E + Q " traffic model ensures
that their impact is accounted for in the future year
assessment.
If a pr ject that is not committed does come to fruition, and
the project development process is undertaken, the end
result should be put into the model to determine, from a
planning perspective, what changes might occur. Major
_pryests take time to develop, and again the
recommendation is to update the Plan on a five year cycle to
verify the original assumptions and make any necessary
modifications.
T Yee agree, however previous efforts to get everybody on
board to accomplish this "re
is Plan
proved unsuccessful. However the same travel demand
model developed by MDT mill be used to support all three
planning efforts.
The County is a member of the Technical Advisory
Committee and the coordination done through it. In
addition, they were asked to participate and enter into a
funding agreement with MDT and the City to develop this
flan but mere not interested.
Comment from Denise Smith (Executive Director, Flathead Business and Industry Association FBIA)
39
40
41
FBIA feels the Plan does nothing more than
address transportation needs of projects already in
place. While it deals with several phases of
projects translating into a project that should be
useable will into the future. The Plan lacks vision
and is reactionary to current demands.
FBIA encourages to continue the bypass as the
number 1 projects and begin networking with
Flathead County and Whitefish to expand the
bypass further north.
The following projects should be considered
priority:
1. East side connector MSN 24 has merits
from improved connectivity.
2. Flathead County listed Willow Glen as
#1 priority for secondary highways. This
will assist in traffic flow in the eastside of
Kalispell and cost is palatable in assisting
Disagree. The Plan is trying to be visionary out to the
year 2030 planning horizon and accommodates gromth
totals that are well documented. The various developments
in the works or being planned for accounts for most of the
expected growth already.
No comment
Table ES-2 Oa
,ge x of the Executive Summary lists this
in the "first priority "_prjecls.
Table ES-2 (page x of the Executive Summary lists this
in the "first priority " pr yecls.
Transportation Plan Public Comments Matrix — City Council Page 12 of 15
Comment
Response
to alleviate traffic in the downtown area
in comparison to the bypass cost.
3. MSN 31 Highway 93 North. While a
Thsac�novledged and as a result o f comment, received
junior interchange may seem like a good
on the Public Draft of the Plan, language has been added
solution, it may not after a corridor study
regarding the need for a coil dor study and the -Potential of
should be conducted. This will do well in
trf c signal control instead of junior interchanges.
making the Plan into a visionary
document and would do nothing to
negatively impact current plans there.
Table ES-2 (Page ix of the Executive Summary lists this
4. MSN 5 Whitefish Stage Road from Rose
in the "filst��zority "_pr jects.
Crossing to Birch Grove. This is I\MT's
21 d priority and should be seen as priority
for the City of Kalispell.
The LOS is accurate based on the tine_period when counts
5. Since the Plan is the basis for
were taken and the traffic signal timing) f acing being
Transportation Impact fees, you need to
utilised asprovided bj the MDT.
question the accuracy of the LOS and
costs (are these true costs or is additional
The intersection LOS is a totally unrelated issue to the
information needed such as land
roadway ipact fee collections andpotential expenditures.
acquisition costs).
Our understanding is that the impact fee CIP pr leas are
being based on major street netmork (AISN) prjeas and
not intersection projects.
Planning leveler ject cost estimates are based on fear
2007 bid prices and KP11's quantity tape -off for each
pr jest, funs contingencies, engineellzng and construction
management.
(Comment from George Culpepper Jr. — Northwest Montana Association of Realtors)
42
Per Montana Code Annotated 61-3-562, older
No comment
vehicles (I I years or older) can be permanently
registered. According to the Environment
Canada, "in 2007, an estimated 5 million old
vehicles (model year 1995 or older) are still in use,
out of a total fleet of 18 million personal vehicles.
It is estimated that nearly 3 million of
these older vehicles will still be on the road in
2010. These vehicles predate current, more
stringent emissions standards. So that while they
account for less than one-third of personal
vehicles in the study, they contribute up to two-
thirds of smog -forming pollutants." Therefore,
with no mechanism in place to address older
vehicles on the streets and the environmental
impact they cause due to their age, Kalispell's
roads (and air) suffer the most. The City of
Kalispell should take the lead in addressing this
issue by requesting the state of Montana to
change the statute to require emission testing and
registration on all vehicles. A portion of the
fees should come back to the City and CounoT for
use towards road and transportation
improvements.
Transportation Plan Public Comments Matrix — City Council Page 13 of 15
Comment
Response
43
Robert Peccia and Associates have been asked to
Wl'e agree, however_previous forts to get evegbody on
conduct a Transportation plan for the City of
board to accomfish this `��egional" Tran��ortation Plan
Kalispell, City of Whitefish and the County of
_proved unsucces ful. However the same travel demand
Flathead. Yet, there is no mentioning of how all
port all three
model developed by MDT will be used to su_p
three plans could work together and possibly
Manning forts.
form a regional transportation plan.
The County is a member of the Technical Advisory
Committee and the coordination done through it. In
addition, they were asked to _participate and enter into a
funding agreement with MDT and the City to develop this
plan but were not interested.
44
With recent developments expanding the City
The focus of this Plan was_primariy surface
Airport, this plan does not take into account ways
tran.q)ortation. Airport fanning forts could be
to increase the needs of the City Airport or
summarised and included in the fan, but not scoffed to do
Glacier International Airport. To be effective, this
airport fanning.
plan CANNOT be a road transportation plan. It
must consider all modes of transportation: buses;
Transit features were reiterated from the recently cow
feted
air and possibly rail. As the region grows, so will
Eagle Transit "Transit Development Plan (2006)';
the needs for better transportation.
which was the community'. most recent transit fanning
document or the communit .
45
A five, ten and thirty year plan or benchmarking
This Z's a good comment, and iSprecisely why the
should be considered. As the community grows,
community should consider an update to the Plan every 5
we will begin to see an increase in senior
years. Although the update may not need to be a
residents, especially since the baby boomer
comprehensive re -assessment f ti.r trans tation an, it
generation will begin to retire. The City should
can serve to monitor�rogress and other important items,
consider safety stops for Eagle Transit and
such as the land use assumfions and updating the traf c
increase Commuter bus routes. Seniors and
model due to the growth characteristics in the community.
people with disabilities need access to
employment, social activities, shopping, medical
treatments and many other accommodations.
Without a seven day a week commuter bus
system, they and other citizens can not enjoy the
Quali r of Life we all cherish.
46
By offering alternative modes of transportation,
This Z's a good comment. Again, cunrent transit, f atures
such as frequent bus routes, this would cut down
and fanning were reiterated from the recently cow
feted
on traffic and protect our environment. This
Eagle Transit ' Transit Development Plan (2006�';
would also serve as a deterrent, during the
which was the community � most recent transit fanning
summer months, due to summer tourism.
document for the community.
Citizens prefer to live in a community that is
walkable or attainable without spending more
time in their vehicles.
47
As population in Kalispell and the region grows,
Assuming this comment relates to the downtown? The
the need for adequate parking will increase at
scope of work for this _project did not include a downtown
existing businesses and public places. This
circulation andlorparking task.
transportation plan does not discuss the need for
increased parking structures or lots along these
As a result of the_public comments received via the
amenities. By including new parking spaces or
Planning Board hearing, language was added that relates
structures, this would provide parking for all uses
to this f fzc comment (see page vi, xi and xii of the
within a reasonable walking distance. This would
Executive Summag, _page 4- andage 6-2)
create two solutions: reduce congestion on streets,
especially during summer months, as people walk
Transportation Plan Public Comments Matrix — City Council Page 14 of 15
48
E1%
Comment I Response
from location to location and reduce the amount
of vehicle pollution and emissions into the
atmosphere.
Reconfiguring traffic is another issue. For
example, by having all north bound and left -turn
lanes precede together, then all south bound and
left -turn lanes together this would prevent a
backup on the main arterials. Left -turn lanes do
not load with enough vehicles compared to time
allowed to turn and when the straight through
traffic proceeds, left -turn lane reloads and
overflow extends causing a restriction in flow (ex.
Main and Idaho)
Other findings not mentioned were: added turn
signals near Target and Costco; additional
East/West arterials from East Valley to West
Valley; both an East and West Bypass;
synchronization of lights to keep traffic flowing;
Control signal at Hwy 2 and Woodland Park
Drive; Reconstruction of Springcreek and Hwy 2
West.
TFe cannot follom this comment, but me think it is relating
to ".relit f asing" a traffic signal at the various signali.Zed
intersections. True ".relit f ased" traffic signals are very
in efflicient and are rarely used in Montana anymore.
The MDT adjusts signal timing, phasing and
ynchroniation as best they can given funding and the
individual needs of the intersections.
Disagree.
The focus of the Plan is primarily on the major street
network, not individual drive approaches to commercial
centers.
TFe've tried to identi
fyfuture corridors connecting the east
and ,vest areas of the community (see Figure
TFe do recommend the MDT undertake a traffic
ynchroni.Zation pr lect as funding allows (see TSM-24).
TFe will not recommend a traffic signal at TFoodland Park
Drive and US Highway 2.
For Springcreek Road and Hzvy 2 LVest, the northbound
and southbound movements, xhich are the highest delay
movements, do not have enough traffic to warrant a traffic
signal at this intersection at the present time.
Transportation Plan Public Comments Matrix — City Council Page 15 of 15