Loading...
1. Highway 93 North Speed StudyMontana ear ment or Transportation rtation March 25, 1999 City of Kalispell Theresa White PO Box 1997 312 1 st Ave E Kalispell, MT 59903 Subject: Speed Zone Investigation US 93-North of Kalispell Dear Ms. White: A4arc Racicot, Governor Enclosed is a copy of the study and recommendations made by our Department. As a reminder, local officials will have sixty days after the presentation to make written comments. Together with the Department's recommendations, all comments will be presented to the Montana Transportation Commission for action. I look forward to the April 12 workshop. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call at (406)523-5800 or toll free at 888-231-5819. Sincerely, b uv�--v 0. Darin D. Kaufman District Traffic Engineer cc: File An EGuea opportunjzy Emp c u! Montana Department of Transportation ,r. Helena, Montana 59620 --_ Memorandum l y�To: James T. Weaver, P.E. District Administrator -Missoula From: Donald P. Dusek, P.E. Traffic Engineer Date: March 22, 1999 Subject: Speed Zone Investigation US 93 - Kalispell North In conjunction with the straight -lines and speed statistics you have on file please present the following report to the appropriate local officials for review and comment. Inform them that we would prefer to receive all comments within the next sixty days. The Department's final recommendations will be presented to the Montana Transportation Commission for action. Background and Description This study was conducted at the request of the City of Kalispell. Local officials feel that due to increasing traffic volumes and turning movements at major intersections on US 93 from the intersection with Sunnyview Lane to Reserve Drive north of Kalispell the speed limit configuration should be extended north. The boundaries of this study cover a 3.8 mile section of US 93 from the intersection with US 2 and US 93 to a point north of the Stillwater River Bridge. This section of US 93 was constructed under numerous projects between 1960 to 1997. The typical section consists of four 12 foot travel lanes and a 5 foot raised median for the first mile north of the intersection with US 2. From this'point the 5 foot raised median transitions to a 12 foot flush median that continues north of the intersection with Grandview Drive. North of Grandview Drive the typical section transitions to include a two -way -left -turn lane. The roadside environment along US 93 is diverse. Between the intersection with US 2 and Wyoming Street the adjacent roadside is densely populated with both residential and commercial development. North of Wyoming Street the roadside environment begins to transition to a more open environment with commercial development that sets back away from the roadway. From the intersection with Conway Drive the roadside environment along US 93 continues to open up with less adjacent development. Access points are primarily confined to local streets and collector routes. Continuing north the roadside environment is rural in nature with some scattered development orientated mainly near the major intersections. Reserve Drive is the last major intersection. This area also has some development at and north of the intersection. Within the study area there are nine signalized intersections. Auxiliary lanes are in place. Sight distance on US 93 is good, especially in the rural area north of the existing 45 mph speed zone. On the south end of the study area within the existing special speed limit configuration the horizontal and vertical alignment of US 93 does limit intersection sight distance at some locations. However, the existing sight distance is consistent with documented running speeds on this segment. Accident History The accident history was reviewed for a 15-month period (October 1, 1997 to December 31, 1998) since the reconstruction of the northern section of the study area in 1997. During this period 65 accidents were reported within the study area. The accident rate is 2.57 accidents per million vehicle miles traveled. The following table lists the accident types by location. Angle Rearend Other Single Veh. Intersection 31 22 3 2 Non -Intersect. 1 2 3 1 Fifty-five percent of the accident experience (36 of 65) occurred at signalized intersections. The following is a list of the accidents occurring at each signalized intersection; Wyoming St. 8 accidents, Conway Dr. 2 accidents, Sunnyview Dr. 4 accidents, Meridian Rd. 6 accidents, Northridge Rd. 5 accidents, Grandview Dr. 1 accident and Reserve Dr. 10 accidents. The non -signalized intersections with Washington and Oregon Streets also had a notable amount of accident experience. There were four accidents that occurred at the intersection with Washington Street and six accidents at the intersection with Oregon Street. Adverse roadway conditions were listed as a contributing factor in 8 percent (5 of 65) of the accidents. Twenty percent (13 of 65) of the accidents occurred at night. There were two accidents that resulted in fatalities. The first fatal accident was a right angle accident at the intersection with Sunnyview Lane. Adverse roadway conditions were listed as a contributing factor in this accident. The second fatal accident was a rearend accident at the intersection with Reserve Drive. Of the 65 accidents 15 of them have occurred on the 2 mile section of US 93 outside the boundaries of the existing special speed zone configuration. Ten of these accidents occurred at the intersection with Reserve Drive. Travel Speeds Directional vehicular speed samples were collected at five locations within the existing special speed limit configuration. Within the 25 mph speed zone between the intersection with US 2 and the intersection with Nevada Street the 85th percentile speeds were 34 mph and 35 mph. The pace was (25 mph - 35 mph) with 59 percent to 71 percent of the traffic stream traveling within the pace. The 85th percentile speeds within the 35 mph speed zone ranged from 38 mph in both directions near Wyoming Street to 48 mph in the southbound direction near the intersection with Colorado Street. The pace ranged from (28 mph - 38 mph) to (40 mph - 50 mph) within the 35 mph speed zone. The percentage of the traffic stream traveling within the pace ranged from 54 percent to 74 percent. Within the 45 mph speed zone the 85th percentile speeds ranged from 47 mph to 51 mph. The pace ranged from (36 mph - 46mph) to (42 mph - 52 mph) with 40 percent to 62 percent of the traffic stream traveling within the pace. Speed samples were also collected at five locations north of the existing special limit configuration. Near the intersection with Summit Ridge Drive the 85th percentile speeds were 54 mph and 57 mph. The pace ranged from (42 mph - 52 mph) to (48 mph - 58 mph) with 51 percent of the traffic stream within the pace. In front of the Department of Natural Resources complex the 85th percentile speeds were 63 mph and 65 mph. The pace ranged from (51 mph.- 61 mph) to (56 mph - 66 mph) with 50 percent to 72 percent of the traffic stream within the pace. Further north, near the intersection with Reserve Drive the 85th percentile speeds were 56 mph and 60 mph. The pace ranged from (39 mph - 49 mph) to (42 mph - 52 mph) with 45 percent of the traffic stream traveling within the pace. At the Stillwater River Bridge the 85th percentile speeds were 65 mph and 68 mph. The pace ranged from (54 mph - 64 mph) to (57 mph- 67 mph. North of the Stillwater River Bridge the 85th percentile speed was 74 mph and the pace was (62 mph - 72 mph). Conclusions and Recommendations Based upon our investigation it is recommended to extend the special speed limit configuration further north on US 93. Special operational conditions exist north of the intersection with Commons Way. The operational characteristics on US 93 change south of the Stillwater Bridge as motorists approach the signalized intersection with Reserve Drive. The speed profile indicates that motorists adjust their travel speeds approaching the intersection. It also indicates that motorists do not maintain the 70 mph running speeds south of the intersection with Reserve Drive as they do north of the Stillwater Bridge. Even though the roadside environment is rural and the next major intersection is one mile down the road. The accident history also supports that the intersections with Reserve Drive, Grandview Drive and Northridge Drive all have a significant contribution to the traffic operation of US 93. The accident experience along US 93 is in line with its r.� operational character. Traffic maneuvers that require higher level decision making processes such as turning movements and their associated acceleration and deceleration activities are confined to designated points along the corridor. Traffic control such as traffic signals and auxiliary lanes are in place at the primary points of activity. The expansion of traffic signal control at intersections such as Commons Way also provides strategic signalized access along the corridor for safe and effective pedestrian access across the facility. It is our conclusion that a special 55 mph speed limit is in line with the traffic operations north of the intersection of Commons Way to the intersection with Reserve Drive. It is also our opinion that the 55 mph speed limit should be extended 1,300 feet through the transitional area between the intersection with Reserve Drive and the Stillwater Bridge. The speed profile indicates the motorists are reducing their speeds from the 70 mph range down to 55 mph within this section of roadway. A " Reduced Speed Ahead" sign could then be placed north of the Stillwater River Bridge to inform motorists of the upcoming change in the operational character. Based on the results of this investigation we recommend extending the special 45 mph speed limit and the addition of a special 55 mph speed limit for US 93 north of Kalipsell. A special 45 mph speed limit beginning at station 34+00, project F 270 (7) (100, north of Colorado Street) continuing north to station 90+00, an approximate distance of 5,600 feet. A special 55 mph speed limit beginning at station 90+00, project F 270 (7) (600' north of the intersection with Commons Way) continuing north to station 171+00, an approximate distance of 8,100 feet. Presently from the intersection with Arizona Street to the end of the study area the accident rate is 1.92 accidents per million vehicle miles traveled. This is comparable to the statewide average of 1.33 accidents per million vehicle miles traveled for rural primary routes. This section of roadway has higher main line traffic volumes, density of major access points and the existence of traffic signal control. The highest contributing factor to the accident history is the basic operational character associated with traffic signal control. Considering the traffic signal distribution throughout the corridor, this is a very low accident rate for a segment of roadway within an urban area like Kalispell. To attempt to impose a restrictive speed zone configuration in this environment will only disrupt the uniformity of the existing traffic flow. This would only be counter -productive to the safe flow of traffic through an area that has demonstrated effective operation. DPD:DRB:TRF:kalispelln cc: C.S. Peil R.D. Morgan D.R. Bailey tuber MM in KA.LISPELL S OF STILLWATER BRIDGE. percentile speed is 6-6-17- mph pCal number of vehicles in the sample is verage speed of this sample is 59.22 mph <gCandard deviation of this sample is 6.58 error of the mean is 0.085 mph 41gCandard =alimit of the pace is � en limit of the pace is`�NTffph number of vehicles in the pace is o3068 percent of vehicles in the pace is -.5-:6y the 7th percentile speed = 49.53 mph the 50th percentile speed = 59.12 mph the 90th percentile speed = 67.95 mph the 93rd percentile speed = 69.89 mph 0-.5950 mph the �:he the the the the the che, the 11 r] mber NM in KALISPELL S OF STILLWATER BRIDGE My LO percentile speed is �T mph total number of vehicles in the sample is average speed of this sample is 61.65 mph standard deviation of this sample is 6.44 standard error of the mean is 0.080 mph UTkle-n limit of the pace isWZZMph 1MwmV, limit of the pace is Q29mph number of vehicles in the pace is o3186 pent of vehicles in the pace is •43 7th percentile speed = 51.83 mph 50th percentile speed = 61.87 mph 90th percentile speed = 70.79 mph 93rd percentile speed = 71.46 mph i6458 mph rnumber ,min KALISPELL I S OF RESERVE ST ON US 93 he ga►percentile speed is 2 mph the total number of vehicles in the sample is the average speed of this sample is 49.85 mph the standard deviation of this sample is 7.56 the standard error of the mean is 0.077 mph the q-xpper#limit of the pace is - 'mph the 1, limit of the pace is iph the number of vehicles in the pace is %4273 the p�. ent of vehicles in the pace is jAzOW the 7th percentile speed = 39.21 mph the 50th percentile speed = 49.64 mph the 90th percentile speed = 59.56 mph the 93rd percentile speed = 61.42 mph r] 09542 mph f number MW in KALISPELL S OF RESERVE ST ON US 93 My the 8 i# percentile speed is -.mph the total number of vehicles in the sample is the average speed of this sample is 50.54 mph the standard deviation of this sample is 9.16 the standard error of the mean is 0.096 mph the upM-s limit of the pace is mph the 3tMg7w- limit of the pace is 3 h the number of vehicles in the pace is o4122 the percent of vehicles in the pace is 44 the 7th percentile speed = 40.01 mph the 50th percentile speed = 48.55 mph the 90th percentile speed = 65.09 mph the 93rd percentile speed = 67.78 mph e 09091 mph ®number WM in KALISPELL F COLLEGE ON US 93 Wa _he :he :he :he the zhe the the the the she r- I r 3percentile speed is —f—mph total number of vehicles in the sample is %8492 average speed of this sample is 57.12 mph standard deviation of this sample is 6.68 mph standard error of the mean is 0.072 mph uelm limit of the pace is%'-Fsmph I limit of the pace is SlWhph number of vehicles in the pace is %4272 pe ��at of vehicles in the pace is aji 7th percentile speed 47.42 mph 50th percentile speed = 57.01 mph 90th percentile speed = 65.83 mph 93rd percentile speed = 66.82 mph :he .he :he .he :he .he :he she -he '--he the Ej umber SRI in KALISPELL COLLEGE Sft V_tMqo'k percentile speed is-65-76- mph number of vehicles in the sample is average speed of this sample is 60.80 mph standard deviation of this sample is 4.95 standard error of the mean is 0.470 mph upper limit of the pace is 166Ttiaph iMW-er limit of the pace is S767-mph number of vehicles in the pace is 80 pe�.Ycent of vehicles in the pace is %MM A 7th percentile speed = 53.88 mph 50th percentile speed = 60.56 mph 90th percentile speed = 67.30 mph 93rd percentile speed = 68.41 mph ill mph Vnumber in KALISPELL OF SUMMIT RIDGE RD ON US 93 IM the percentile speed is mph the total number of vehicles in the sample is the average speed of this sample is 51.16 mph the standard deviation of this sample is 6.75 the standard error of the mean is 0.077 mph the gtpprex limit of the pace isffi mph the lle& limit of the pace is mph the number of vehicles in the pace is a3911 the peer�t of vehicles in the pace is V the 7th percentile speed = 41.26 mph the 50th percentile speed = 50.93 mph the 90th percentile speed = 59.62 mph the 93rd percentile speed = 61.13 mph fe El 07719 mph F umber in KALISPELL SUMMIT RIDGE RD ON US 93 jhFeM49n:& percentile speed is mph zhe total number of vehicles in the sample is she average speed of this sample is 47.91 mph ,zhe standard deviation of this sample is 6.91 z,he standard error of the mean is 0.075 mph she iVoEtllimit of the pace is SMWph -he 3MEW limit of the pace is 14Wmph ~he number of vehicles in the pace is o4264 the pevpgnt of vehicles in the pace is the 7th percentile speed = 37.31 mph the 50th percentile speed = 48.06 mph the 90th percentile speed = 56.78 mph the 93rd percentile speed = 57.79 mph %8424 mph number tEbw in KALISPELL OF CONWAY DR ON US 93 e 8BEhI percentile speed is 51.95 mph he total number of vehicles in the sample is he average speed of this sample is 44.76 mph .he standard deviation of this sample is 7.36 ,he standard error of the mean is 0.089 mph :he�a ev limit of the pace isW5S,ph :he e` limit of the pace is mph .he number of vehicles in the pace is 0-.2949 -he percent of vehicles in the pace is--,-,39 :he 7th percentile speed = 33.72 mph ;he 50th percentile speed = 44.82 mph -he 90th percentile speed = 54.23 mph :he 93rd percentile speed = 55.77 mph .; 40 %6796 mph 'the the the the the the the the the the :he she .mberV519Q in KALISPELL 'ONWAY DR ON US 93M31%j iercentile speed is -5-.7-Z--mph total number of vehicles in the sample is o7061 average speed of this sample is 43.86 mph standard deviation of this sample is 7.88 mph standard error of the mean is 0.094 mph spent limit of the pace is VSWMph limit of the pace is W2Vmph number of vehicles in the pace is %2856 Pent of vehicles in the pace is w 7th percentile speed = 32.71 mph 50th percentile speed = 44.11 mph 90th percentile speed = 53.73 mph 93rd percentile speed = 55.20 mph the the the the the the the the the the the the rl 5 in KALISPELL NO /O WYOMING ST SE 38 ile speed is 4-89 mph total -number of vehicles in the sample is average speed of this sample is 33.49 mph standard deviation of this sample is 5.18 standard error of the mean is 0.056 mph upper limit of the pace is 38 mph lower limit of the pace is 28 mph number of vehicles in the pace is 0-.5263 percent of vehicles in the pace is 62.33 7th percentile speed = 26.34 mph 50th percentile speed = 33.16 mph 90th percentile speed = 40.38 mph - 93rd percentile speed = 41.44 mph .8444 mph inber 6 in KALISPELL NO SIGN S/O WYOMING ST NB the the the the the the the the the the the the Ap ® 3S 85th percentile speed is--9-8-5 mph total number of vehicles in the sample is average speed of this sample is 32.79 mph standard deviation of this sample is 6.19 standard error of the mean is 0.079 mph upper limit of the pace is 38 mph lower limit of the pace is 28 mph number of vehicles in the pace is 0-.3327 percent of vehicles in the pace is 53.88 7th percentile speed = 22.50 mph 50th percentile speed = 33.34 mph 90th percentile speed = 40.37 mph 93rd percentile speed = 41.35 mph .6175 mph "the the the the the the the the the the the the 'number 7 in KALISPELL NO. CALIFORNIA & ORE ST NB 35 h percentile speed is mph total number of vehicles in the sample is average speed of this sample is 30.25 mph 08660 standard deviation of this sample is 5.24 mph standard error of the mean is 0.056 mph upper limit. of the pace is 35 mph lower limit of the pace is 25 mph number of vehicles in the pace is 05089 percent of vehicles in the pace .is 58.76 7th percentile speed = 22.02 mph 50th percentile speed = 30.45 mph 90th percentile speed = 37.00 mph 93rd percentile speed = 37.77 mph she -he he .he .he she -he .he .he :he :he :he Lmber 7 in KALISPELL NO. ,IFORNIA & OREGON ST SB 3y )ercentile speed is 34-.--9�4 mph total number of vehicles in the sample average speed of this sample is 30.55 standard deviation of this sample is 4 standard error of the mean is 0.048 mph is o8704 mph .45 mph upper limit of the pace is 35 mph lower limit of the pace is 25 mph number of vehicles in the pace is o6142 percent of vehicles in the pace is 70.57 7th percentile speed = 23.80 mph 50th percentile speed = 30.47 mph 90th percentile speed = 36.40 mph 93rd percentile speed = 37.32 mph rE number ERIDIAN the the the the the the the the the the the the the in KALISPELL & HERITAGE ON US 93tM speed is9--5 mph vehicles in the sample is 112 average speed of this sample is 43.30 mph standard deviation of this sample is 5.74 mph standard error of the mean is 0.542 mph Wiper* limit of the pace is !-imph f-3limit of the pace is 42Mnph number of vehicles in the pace is 65 p�,©ent of vehicles in the pace is WVrA 7th percentile speed = 35.10 mph 50th percentile speed = 42.91 mph 90th percentile speed = 51.90 mph 93rd percentile speed = 52.79 mph Yo percentile total number of VEEN number MERIDIAN I.WMin KALISPELL & HERITAGE ON US 93 IN the Wbth4percentile speed is 4-8�- mph the total number of vehicles in the sample is the average speed of this sample is 42.33 mph the standard deviation of this sample is 5.48 the standard error of the mean is 0.520 mph the g�if limit of the pace isl==Mph the atmer`=-limit of the pace is mph the number of vehicles in the pace is 69 the pent of vehicles in the pace is % —" 6 the 7th percentile speed = 34.51 mph the 50th percentile speed = 41.72 mph the 90th percentile speed = 49.58 mph the 93rd percentile speed = 50.62 mph i ill mph the the the the the the the the the the the the the r] (CIO number v919bb► in KALISPELL ION UTAH ST & SUNSET BLVDVW '8Iv percentile speed is 48.38 mph total number of vehicles in the sample is average speed of this sample is 42.98 mph standard deviation of this sample is 4.61 standard error of the mean is 0.447'mph !qVMWz--3limit of the pace is ph 1�Z.!-y limit of the pace is7,nmph number of vehicles in the pace is 71 g�i*t of vehicles in the pace is �8 7th percentile speed = 36.24,mph 50th percentile speed = 42.78 mph 90th percentile speed = 49.35 mph 93rd percentile speed = 49.92 mph 106 mph "the the the the the the the the the the the the r )er ZPWFin KALISPELL UTAH ST & SUNSET BLVD i1ft4_49V -centile speed is 4g-6b mph total number of vehicles in the sample is average speed of this sample is 43.99 mph standard deviation of this sample is 4.59 standard error of the mean is 0.440 mph 'e p`ert limit of the pace is Wnph .ee�'limit of the pace is mph number of vehicles in the pace is 81 pr-gent of vehicles in the pace is V4A3T' 7th percentile speed = 37.54 mph 50th percentile speed = 44.05 mph 90th percentile speed = 50.04 mph 93rd percentile speed = 51.35 mph MOM mph %J i number MMM in KALISPELL N OF STILLWATER BRIDGE TMMa the l? percentile speed is -74, 53 -mph the total number of vehicles in the sample the average speed of this sample is 67.69 the standard deviation of this sample is 5 the standard error of the mean is 0.531 mph is 124 mph .91 mph the gWen limit of the pace is MRZmph the 1-awem7limit of the pace is 6�Mph the number of vehicles in the pace is 70 the percent of vehicles in the pace is zp y45� the 7th percentile speed = 59.26 mph the 50th percentile speed = 67.06 mph the 90th percentile speed = 75.91 mph the 93rd percentile speed = 77.33 mph 4 to ID Lo 0 MENE ELtl CorstrLv'n Project Nunber F-270 (1) Ul NO YC END F-270 ITI U•IIBEG F-210 IT) U 3 400' YC +0.537. 8W' YC +4.90% I F-270 (1) U-3 1000' YC +0.29X Cuves/Tro3es r +0.595X 1 300' VC o +1.62X I +1.36X I / a- STATE OF OTANA DEPARTIENT OF TRANSPORTATUN o 9� o V N f �� I N I I ®� Ln N r` �� SENAT �!9 -- ✓ iRAfFIC UNIT SPEED ZONE SLKY SIGNALSCHxI YARDS XAl6PEll N0, Cunt t— Rcodray J Ste— eta 50+� " ST �I I F o I I \" 5 i I F I i i \ i W O ���` /��/ /J' t " / /�� Jl y ON ctt W ® Fi I I I = i' " t� t� STA.iNR S1A b6 - _ = Ep1FfAl0 HLLS GOIf COLRSE Roochm Idth 65 FT LOTH n� : 4I' OV LT 4 LANES L ` 411 FT 5 FT CONCRETE IEDIAN _ S8 S8 8704 YEH 8660 YEH 8444 YEN 6115 1'EH - SIT N8 1D9 VEH 106 YEN 0= 39' ia' RT l = 98J.7 FT NlmW of Striped lines Type of D•nider Traffic 5;0 Data Averoge Doly Traffic knber of VeNdes Cb� Smed . P� 15 - 35 I71X) 25 - 35 (59X) 28 ' 38 (62X1 28 - 38 041) 38 - 48 170 40 - 50 (61X) 85th Percentie 34 IPH 35 IPH 38 IPH 8 IPH 48 IPH 47 IPH (risfing Speed lone €.........1.. I.....L .. I Proposed Sneed Zone SPEED PRCFLE...............�.. . :.... ... :.... :::: ::::: ::::::::: :::: ::::: ::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::: :::: LEGEND 60 1 € -- •----1... .....:::::::::::::::::::::::.:.......... 1 € 1 ... I.....F...- €..... € €..... t....�.....1..........1.. RoodSig-s::::::::::::€:::::€:::::::::::::;:::::€::::�:::::....� :::::::::::::::E:::::::::::::::I:::::::::::i::::::::::I::::.€..._.i.... E f ....1....3 I 50 th Percent 85 Percentile .......:i- ::.:. 1.....1.......... : :.:::€.:: = -._..€ .....t ............... ... Loren L•mt of Poce O 50 :: :::::::::: :::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: �€�E� ::::::::::::::::::::: �. ....._ .....€......_...1.....t..... ::::::::::::::::... _ ::::: ::: :::::::::::E::I::::E1 _::::EEE:€:::: :.:. 0 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::t:::::::::I:::E:::_:::E::::E:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::�::::::::: t € 3 € 40 _ .. ..... ... ....... ....... ::::--- ....-•---- -... ...-' ------...- ---:::::::::::::.._.....:::::::::::::::::::::€::::::::: -----....- :::::::::: ::::: :::: ::::: :::: ::::: ::::+::::: :::: :::: :::::€:::: ::::: :::: ::::: :::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::: :•: a::::: = :::: :ccci cEic EiEEE €.........€....d.... EEEEiiccEc :EEE:::::: --- :::E[EEcEE ---- .... :cEcc ciEE €.... -•-'-----. .....::::: 30 ...... ..... .... ..... .... ..... h I.....I...30 --..........€ € € : 20 Sheet I of 4 20 . --• . -.-.-.... ... .....�.... ............_�..... .... ...... I.... ..... .....-............... ......... ...:... c[ iccci[i[i ci[cc ::[::ccc[[ ct::c Construction Project Nurber F-270 (7) U-3' +0.29Z 400' YC +1.92X 500' YC i +O.00X 800' YC 1.591X Cu-vWGrodes _ � o $ o STATE OF IUNTAHA DEPARTIENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRAFFC �® DAYS NH � o -� o STA. LS P+a �` STA. ffiR - t 3 .�sf �� SIGNAL w ";�st S as ao 1 o� I z — UNIT �� SPEED ZONE SLRVET KAISPELL NO. CRounty FLATFEAD TEmtlm Ii II TON II In Sta frao + to+ �D CLRCHlo ctt g SIGNAL ri a+ art ' A a C' STA. Date JAA I�99 APARTIENTS — — HOSPITAL r Roodway nth 82.5 FT IOTH p = IS* 52'RT I 793.3 FT Number of Striped Lines Num 4 LANES Type of Divider 12 FT PANT ICBM Traffic Sio Data SEI h8 - SB Ka S8 NB Aver D Traffic Number of Yehides 7D61 YEH 6736 YEH III YEH 112 YEH 36 - 46 162X1 40 - 50 ISM 8424 YEN 42 - 52 ISM 7719 YEH 48 . 58 ISM Oaserved Speed - Poce 42 - 52 140Z) 42 - 52 143X) 51 IPH _ 47 WH 49 WH 54 lPfi 57 IP}I 85th Percentile 510 ExistN Speed Zone noosed Sneed Zone IPti ...... :::................ :.::::1::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i:::::t:::::::::€::::3:::::€:::::::::€:::::::::€:::::::::€:::::::::::::J:::F:::::�:: € € :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::........................... 7..... ... ........._ . IPH SPEED PULE :_::::::::::::::::..:......::::::::E:::::::::::::i:::::€::::::::::E:::::::::€::::a::::a:::::::::€:::::::..1..._�.....t..-- 1- ......1. ..k... 1 €60 ... ..... .... ............... .... ..... .......... .......... ::............i........._..._..........::::::::: `.::::::::.._:.:::: �.....1..__i.... :::....... ...::::::: r ::...._..::::: 1 ::::....:: . :::::':::: :. _..::::. ..__: 7..:::::::::::::::`.t:::: ..1.....€.:::1:::::€::::1:::::r::::€:::::€:::::::::t:::::::::€:::::::::€:::::::::€::::::::::::::::::€:::::::::::::3:::::1:::::�:::::1:::::..:..1.....€. LEGEND RoodSga ::::: ::1:::::1:::::1:::::€::::1::::: = = ::::::::: 3-....E....t.....€.........€. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.......7... :.::::::::::::::1::::::::::::a:::..1-.........1.....1._..1._.._E_...1.....€ �.....E.........€.:.... €.........1..., E ( € € ::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- €......_......�.....€....� �-- ..--,...... .- t ::.4.....t....T..... ......, _... 7....,........ : :1 50 85thPercentie :: :::::::::::::::::::::....... :1: -•-- ••-- 1 -•------•-•---• .... ..... .... ..... ::.: ::•: _ 3 t:::3:::::E..:.3.....E..:.?.::::::::�:::::,::::�:::::::::::::: ........._.... I i........ ..a :::: ::::i ciEci:::::::::: �_. :::E:,----4. .r.. �.....t.... ._... ..'": ::::: ....t.. ::::77 :icc: ::..,-.... :::ciic::: ::ccc:::::::: 1.....�• 1 .. ._ 1 :: €1......€.........I..........t.....i.....1... 1 1 E Loner tat of Pace O .. .......... ..... .....•• -- " ----•----- ---- ..-- —..... �:� .. _—._.—.... -... .......... -- ..... __......_...... ..... --•- ••--- --- -- .... ...... ------- --------••....a..... t........- :...................-d- L..-....- -€:: :::::::1::::: ::: :.. - - - :1:::::€::::€ = E€....�...............1.......� €....�.....€... - 1 1::::1:::::1:::::1:::::::::: 40 E...... €€� € II ....... 30:::::€:::T:::E E........_t_...3.....E :...--::::::::C:::E':E:::::::3::::::::E :::::::::€::::3:::::::::x:::::::::::::::1:::::I:::::I:::::E:::: :EEE:I:::E:EE:EE E:E::::::::.::: ..:. 20 1.................. E ..... :::::::::::::...:.:::::::.I....................._.......r.. ::::::::::::::.:..y t_...� �.... _ .�::::::..:: -r---- _c.--. .......... ..... . .............E................................... Sheet 2 of 4i20....? ::::7::::7-- .::::: :::: ..... ........ ....... t %b spe(lal Montana's FO(Us How Fast Should You Drive In Montana there are two types of speed limits: Statutory Speed Limits Under legislative control defined by Montana statutes. ♦ Safe and prudent ♦ Daytime speed limits for trucks ♦ Nighttime speed limits for all vehicles ♦ Limits for urban districts ♦ Limits for survey crew work projects Special Speed Limits or Speed Zones Are based on recommendations of traffic engineering pro- fessionals on specified section of roadway.. ♦ School speed zones ♦ Senior citizen centers ♦ Roadways where the adjacent environment is Transitioning between rural and urban ♦ Temporary work zones ♦ Segments where the combination of roadway design features and intensity of adjacent development tend to cause the traffic stream to travel at other than statutory limits. The intent of speed zones is to influence as many drivers as possible to operate at or near the same speed, thus reducing conflicts created by wide differentials in operating speeds. These conflicts, and the resultant accidents, are substantially less when the majority of vehicles are traveling the same speed. There is a common misconception that posting lower speed zones reduces the speed of vehicles. This is not true. An article titled "Traffic Engineering Myths and Realities" in the January, 1990 issue of Public Works Magazine con- firms this. The section on speed zones tells us that: "One of the most prevalent myths around is that motorists will adjust their speed in response to the numbers posted on speed limit signs regardless of roadway and traffic condi- tions. Before -and -after studies consistently demonstrate that there are no significant changes in traffic speeds fol- lowing the posting of new or revised speed limits." Studies show speed.. limit signs The article continues, "Further more, have little . no published research findings have _ or no effect established any direct relationship on the between posted speed limits and ac- speed of cident frequency,..." traffic: Regulatory speed limit signs should identify the maximum speed limit, enabling law en- forcement to target those who are driving outside the normal pace of traffic. Another common misconception about speed zones is lower speed zones decrease accidents. In fact, speed zones which are set arbitrarily low are often less safe than speed zones which have been recommended based on a thorough traffic and engineer- ing study of the roadway and its environment. Setting speed zones below the normal traffic pace can result in a wider range of traffic Appropriate speed speeds on the roadway, zones are aids to and potentially more hazardous conditions. law enforcement to target the smaller number of high risk motorists in the traffic stream who drive at a speed other than that deemed prudent by the majority of the drivers. The use of engineering and design tools is the best way to target and re- duce accident trends. These tools include modified roadway align- ment, intersection de- sign, traffic signals, pavement markings, and signage. Properly ap- plied, these tools result in a more uniform pace, reduced conflicts, and fewer accidents. Speed Zones Procedures for Revising Speed Zones On MDT Highways 1. MDT encourages any requests for changes in a speed limit to be submitted to the department by local governments or state agencies. If a lo- cal individual submits a request, MDT will con- tact the appropriate local governing authority for approval. 2. Following receipt of a request, MDT sends a letter to the requestor explaining the specific procedures. MDT staff then meets with the lo- cal government body to explain the law, depart- ment and Montana Transportation Commission responsibilities, and the traffic and engineering study used to develop recommendations. 3. The local government body has 30 days after the meeting to decide whether to sign a letter saying the officials want the study to continue. 4. If the local government body gives its approval, traffic engineers conduct a traffic and engineer- ing study as required by law and then prepares recommendations for the local government. Recommendations are based on several factors, including the 85th percentile speed and pace. The pace is a 10 MPH range of speed contain- ing the largest proportion of the traffic stream. Both radar and automated counters are used to measure vehicular speeds in both directions. En- gineers review the distribution of speed within the traffic stream to determine the speed most drivers are driving. The greater the percentage of vehicles in the pace, the fewer conflicts the driver has to deal with and the safer the road- way. Other factors considered are road surface and condition, curves and hazards, roadside de- velopment, such as business and advertising signs - sometimes called roadside friction, park- ing and pedestrian activity, and accident records for the area. Since motorists take most of these things into account when determining their speed, the best measurement for speed zone setting is still the speed most drivers are driving. This is referred to as the 85th percentile and is based on the princilple that 85 percent of the drivers are safe and prudent and adjust their speed to the con- ditions regardless of the posted limit. Studies have also shown motorists driving at or right below the 85th percentile speed are the most alert and least likely to involved in an accident. 5. MDT staff provides the study results to the lo- cal government within 30 days of the study completion. 6. The local government has 60 days after receiv- ing the results to comment. A copy of the re- sults is also sent to local law enforcement offi- cials and the Montana Highway Patrol. 7. At the end of 60 days the results and the department's recommendation are presented to the Montana Transportation Commission at its next regular meeting. The local government receives written notification of recommenda- tions and is also informed of the Commission meeting date. The local government is advised of the opportunity to appear before the Com- mission. 8. If the Transportation Commission approves the change, MDT personnel make the necessary signing changes. Transportation Planning Newsline Page 4 Transportation Planning Newsline Page 5 reatunng Bridges H i n hwaw Traffic Engineering - Myths and Realities BENJAMIN E. BURRITT, P.E. Associate Vice President, Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall, Phoenix, Arizona TRAFFIC engineers and the public often carry severe handicaps when dealing with each other be- cause they simply do not talk the same language, they do not understand the nature of each other's problems, or both. This is understandable when you realize that engineers approach traffic problems on the basis of data analysis, applying engineering prin- ciples, developing alternative so- lutions, and selecting the best course of action — whereas the citizen is usu- ally interested in getting something done quickly to solve what he per- ceives to be an obvious problem. One of the greatest obstacles a pro- fessional traffic engineer faces in ap- plying sound principles of traffic con- trol is that everyone who has a driver's license is convinced that they are traffic experts. Consequently, the traffic engineer is often given not only the diagnosis of a traffic. problem, but a remedy as well. For. example, someone calls and says, "I almost got i_:t turning left. at Buckeye Road and 51st Avenue — what we need there is a left turn arrow — how long will it take to put it in?" In a sense this would be like calling your doctor and saying, "Doc, I've got a pain in my stomach — what I need is my appendix removed — how soon can you do the opera- tion?" At this point let me hasten to say that most traffic engineers encourage information, suggestions, and input from the public. This is one of the ways that they become aware of exist- ing or potential traffic operational problems. Engineers must be recep- tive to input from the public antl at- tempt to overcome the built-in hand- icaps by trying to communicate in a common understandable language. What I would like to do now is to review a couple of the myths and realities pertaining to traffic engineer- ing and traffic controls. )S yty h Number 1: The public knows and cares about traffic engineering principles, objectives, analyses, al- ternatives, or methods. Reality: The familiar expression "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up!" unfortunately has widespread acceptance. The public is handicapped by a short attention span and an aversion to facts, logic, or viewpoints that are contrary to its personal opinions and emotions. ;Myth Number 2: Traffic control devices (signs, signals, and markings) provide an effective solution to almost any traffic problem. Reality: There is widespread pub- lic unwillingness to accept abundant evidence of limited effectiveness of various devices in solving basic design or construction deficiencies. The political need to "do something that might help, doesn't cost much, and can't hurt" is overpowering and further encourages the public de- mand. The fallacy lies in thinking that a safer condition prevails when actu- ally this may not be the case. Let's take a look at a few of the common traffic controls in view of the myths and the realities. Pedestfian Crosswalks How safe are they? How secure are you in a crosswalk? Marked crosswalks are widely classified as "safety devices" and most jurisdic- tion's give the pedestrian the right- of-w•av when within them. Interestingly, however, there is strong evidence that these very facts prompt many pedestrians to feel overly secure when using a marked crosswalk — to the degree that they aggressively place themselves in a hazardous position with respect to vehicles in the mistaken belief that the motorist can and will stop in all cases, even when it may be impossible to do so. It is not unusual, also, for this type of aggressive pedestrian behavior to cause rear -end collisions. By contrast, a pedestrian using an unmarked crosswalk generally feels less secure, less certain that the motorist will stop — and exercises more caution in waiting for safe gaps in traffic before crossing. The end re- sult is fewer accidents at unmarked crosswalks. One of the commonly accepted functions of the marked crosswalk is that it serves as a warning device to the motorists. Yet, studies show that the motorists' views of a crosswalk are greatly reduced when they are at the safe stopping sight distance — where they should be able to perceive and react to a pedestrian in a crosswalk — due to the effects of foreshortening and distance diminishment. Their view of the crosswalk is further af- fected by road alignment, ir- regularities in the pavement, and other variables like weather, dirty windshields, glare, and adverse light- ing conditions. Meanwhile, pedestrians' views of the same crosswalk are quite impres- sive and they are prone to assume that, since they can see the crosswalk so well, certainly motorists can see it just as clearly. This resulting overcon- fidence is seen as another factor in the disproportionate share of accidents in marked crosswalks. Does this mean marked crosswalks should not be installed? Not necessar- ily. The marked crosswalk is a useful device for channelizing pedestrians and helping pedestrians find their way across complex and confusing in- tersections. The decision to install or not install a marked crosswalk should not be taken lightly. Rational war- rants have been adopted by many governmental jurisdictions for their installation. It is important that the general pub- lic recognize what marked crosswalks can and cannot do. It is also important that public officials not install them, unless the anticipated benefits out- weigh the risks. Traffic Signals Are traffic signals the answer to in- tersection traffic problems? Let's look at the advantages and disadvantages. Signals offer maximum control at intersections — they relay. messages of bath what to do and what not to do. The primary-function-of--any_..traffic signal is _to assign 654ht-of-way to con- ters of traffic to of time separations By alternately assigning right-of- way to various traffic movements, signals provide for the orderly move- ment of conflicting flows. They may interrupt extremely heavy flows to permit the crossing of minor movements that could not otherwise move safely through the intersection. When properly timed, the traffic signal increases the traffic handling capacity of an intersection, and when installed under conditions that justify its use, it is a valuable device for im- proving the safety and efficiency of both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. In particular, signals may reduce cer- tain types of accidents, most notably 'the angle (broadside) collision. While many people realize that traf- fic signals can reT�ce the number_Qf.- angle collisions at an intersection, few PUBLIC WORKS for January, 1990 63 realize that signals can _also cause a significant _%nc_rea_se-in rear -end colli- sions. �Normally, traffic engineers are will- ing to trade off an increase in rear -end collisions for a decrease in the more severe angle accidents; however, when there is no angle accident prob- lem at an intersection and a signal is not needed for traffic control, there is nothing to trade off and the installa- tion of traffic signals can actually cause a deterioration in the overall safety at the intersection. This situa- tion sometimes prompts the remark. "You mean you won't do anything until somebody gets killed!" What is not fully understood is that traffic sig- nals are not a "cure-all" and that the primary goal of the traffic engineer is to attain the safest and most efficient traffic flow feasible. In addition to an increase in acci- dent fre_auency_, unjust fei it traffic signals can also cause excessive de- Iay— isd" obedience o signals and i- version of traffic to residential streets. Traffic signals are more costly than is commonly realized, even though they represent a sound public invest- ment when justified. A modern signal can ost tax ayers between $50,000 and $100,000 to tnsta — depending on the complexity of the intersection and the characteristics of the traffic using it. On top of this, there is a per- petual cost that is almost never con- sidered — the cost, of the electrical power consumed in operating a sig- nalized intersection 24 hours a day. This now averages about $1,400 per year. Speed Limits One of the most prevalent myths around is that motorists will adjust their speed in response to the num- bers posted on speed limit signs re- gardless of roadway and traffic condi- tions. Before -and -after studies consis- tently demonstrate that there are no significant changes in traffic speeds following the posting of new or re- vised speed limits. Furthermore, no published research findings have es- tablished any direct relationship be- tween posted speed limits and acci- dent frequency, although short-term reductions have resulted from satura- tion enforcement efforts directed at speed and other traffic law violations. Police agencies necessarily rely on reasonable and well recognized speed taws to control the unreason- able violator whose behavior is clearly out of line with the normal flow of traffic. Contrary to popular belief, speed in itself is not a major cause of accidents. In fact, there is a consensus of profes- sional opinions that many speed - related accidents result from both ex. cessiveiy low and high speeds. Then why -have speed limits? Realistic speed limits — that is, speed limits that re ec t e norts• taLactlo 5—f t e reasonab e driver are useful for sev`era reasons: f They invite public compliance by conforming to the behavior of the majority. They give a clear reminder of reasonable and prudent speeds to non -conforming violators. 6 They offer an effective enforce- ment tool to the police. They tend to minimize the public antagonism toward police enforce- ment that results from obviously un- reasonable regulations. On the other hand, unrealistic speed limits can be detrimental: • They do not invite voluntary compliance, since they do not reflect the behavior of the majority._ • They make the behavior of the majority unlawful. • They create public antagonism toward the police, since the police are enforcing a "speed trap." • They create a bad image for a community in the eyes of tourists. Flashing Beacons Do they really cause motorists to reduce their speeds? Flashing bea- cons (commonly called flashers or flashing lights) are frequently re- quested by communities in the belief that they will reduce vehicle speeds. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily the case. A flasher is generally in- stalled at an intersection or in con- junction with a warning sign in ad- vance of an area requiring greater than normal care by the average driver. Flashing beacons serve a use- ful purpose where the flashing yellow is used to alert drivers to unusual con- ditions that are not readily apparent, such as obstructions in the roadway, uncommon roadway conditions, nar- row bridges, or unusual conditions hidden from the motorist's view. One of the more common locations where a flasher can be used effec- tively is at a signalized intersection lo- cated just beyond a vertical or a hori- zontal curve, when the intersection is hidden from the view of approaching motorists. For any flasher to be effective, it must command the respect of the motoring public. In other words, im- mediately after seeing a flasher, the driver must consistently see an un- usual condition that is being singled out for attention. Furthermore, the condition that motorists see must be viewed as serious enough to justify their having been alerted. When flashers are used improperty and installed at locations where they are not warranted, they soon lose much of their effectiveness. The% simply cease to command the respec of the drivers. What happens is tha after continually being alerted to - condition which seldom, if ever, al, pears to be truly unusual, drivers ac tually stop "seeing" the flasher. Whe: this happens, flashers that are tru; needed may well be disregarded l; drivers who have become cor ditioned to believe that flashers ar just "window dressing." Because this normal human reaction, even or. improper usage greatly reduces tl- effectiveness of essential flashers. Quite often, community reques for flashers are emotional respons to symptoms, rather than attempts solve underlying problems. To p this into perspective, let's use an propriate analogy: the case measles. Obviously, to cure a patie who has measles, the disease its (measles must be treated — not t symptom (rash). In traffic control, i not uncommon for public response be directed at treating symptoms. F example, in cases where concerr. parents are requesting flashers pedestrian warning signs, a traffic vestigation all too frequently reve that: • There is no "safe route to schc plan in the community. • There is no pedestrian saf program in the schools. • Very young children are allo,, to wander to school by whate route their youthful minds prefer • Parents are willing to abdi their responsibilities by placing entire burden for pedestrian safe: a traffic control device. • Local law enforcement off'. turn a blind eye to youthful pedes- traffic violations. • Where traffic laws are enfc by conscientious law enforceme: ficials, outraged parents explain r the irresponsible behavior of children by claiming that the fau in inadequate traffic control de,. not in their children. Flashers that are installed these conditions exist result in z lowing: _ • The flasher soon becomes the normal driving environmer is ignored. • Parents continue to ignore responsibilities to their childre: • The community continu avoid treating the real probler, • Other flashers, which ar tified, are frequently disregarc motorists conditioned to belie% flashers can be safely disregar (Continued on page 9-4 64 PUBLIC WORKS for Jaituar- 8.87 billion, the highest number since 1961 when most transit was run by private carriers facing mounting fi- nancial difficulties. Ridership jumped by 101 million over 1987 and is up more than 10 per- cent since 1982, according to the au- thoritative Transit Fact Book, pub- lished by APTA, the 107-year-old in- ternational trade association of transit operators, their suppliers and man- ufacturers. Jack R. Gilstrap, executive vice president of APTA, said the ridership record shows that people will choose transit as an alternative to the au- F, n The Verdict is in. B RAIN aRD•IULMAN has been found guilty. Guilty of breaking and entering: breaking more cylinders and entering more laborato- ries with their unequalled 1 line of Concrete Testing.. Equipment. This crime is no mystery, it's an open and shut case of prod- uct superiority. The C-140 Com- pression Machine not only has a 440,000 load capacity and meets ASTM specs, it features MAXT-11 electronics with digital readout and printer. Standard equipment tomobile — especially for commuting — if service is reliable, dependable, and provided on modern vehicles. Gilstrap said growing transit pa- tronage also reflects an emerging public desire to travel sensibly and upgrade the quality of life in cities and suburbs. "The use of public transpor- tation is a spreading ethic," he added. Two-thirds of transit ridership oc- curs on buses and vans, with virtually all the rest on subways, "light rail" trolleys, and commuter railroads, APTA reported. Although use of transit occurs mainly in the country's largest metropolitan areas, the includes heavy duty steel frame, frag- ment guards, and 7" platens. Ill. 1 I The evi- dence mounts 77�with our products used for testing fresh concrete as well as those for conducting non- destructive, in -place tests. Ac- cording to expert wit- nesses, our innovative designs and proven quality pro- vide stronger, more reliable products. greatest ridership increases from 1987 to 1988 occurred in small urban areas with populations of fewer than 100,000 people (11 percent) and among com- munities served by door-to-door spe- cial services (23 percent), APTA said. APTA News, October 6, 1989. Railroad Crossing Safety Plan Approved A $10-million plan to install signaL< at 117 railroad crossings on the state'= roadways has been approved by the Texas Highway Commission.,A sepa rate plan to replank 146 crossings at cost of $3.5 million was also approved Thet two plans are part of ongoin: programs to upgrade rail-highwa, crossings around the state. "Texas leads the nation in the number of miles or railroad track a well as the number of railroad cros sings on our highways," said Arnol� Oliver, engineer -director of the high way department. "Approximat-' 9,300 of the state's 14,000 rail-highA crossings have no signal. This prc gram, which is Federally funded, a lows us to improve safety at railroa crossings by providing automatic si: nal devices." Texas Department of Highways ar. Public Transportation News, Octobe 27, 1989. Traffic Engineering Myths (Continued from page .64) In summary, when flashers ar properly located, they serve a usef function. When they are• used properly and installed in locatio_ where they are not warranted, the soon lose much, if not all, of their e fectiveness. More seriously, improp usage greatly reduces the e£fectiv ness of other flashers installed areas where there is a real need. Above all, it is essential to pro that there is a problem which can solved through the installation of flasher before actually employi one. Too often, flashers are instal: when someone assumes there is, or going to be, a problem. It is import: that flasher installation be minimiz to maintain a high degree of rest for the flasher installations that truly needed. In conclusion, many people wonder why an "obvious" tra. problem is so difficult that some. called a traffic engineer should needed to develop a solution. He fully, the preceding discussion been in a common understands language that will help overcome built-in handicap inherent in c� munications between laymen professionals. C For details circle No. A-54 on card PT1RT.1r' WORKS for Januaru yr 00 m rn v m D m MEMORANDUM April 5, 1999 N tplA To: Al Thelen, Interim City Manager Frank Garner, Police Chief From: Jim Hansz, Director of Public W rks Subject: Speed Study by MDT for US 93 North I have reviewed the MDT speed study for the section of US 93 North of Kalispell that was requested about two years ago. It seems to answer the concerns of the City Council. A speed reduction is proposed from Reserve Drive into town. Speeds south bound would be reduced to 55 MPH north of Reserve at the Stillwater Bridge, with a further reduction to 45 MPH just south of Summit Ridge Drive. The speed of 35 MPH from just south of Colorado Street into town is not recommended for change. Speeds north bound also are recommended for change. Between Commons Way and Indian Trail MDT recommends the posted speed be reduced to 55 MPH from the present "reasonable and prudent" limit. MDT also recommends a reduction to the new 65 MPH limit from at the Stillwater Bridge north bound on US 93. I recommend we endorse this proposal. Post Office Box 1997 • Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 ® Telephone (406) 758-7700 • FAX (406) 758-7758 The Kalispell -------------- Department Memorandum April 7, 1999 To : Interim City Manager, Al Thelen From: Chief of Police, Frank Garner � Re : Speed Study by MDT for US 93 North I concur with your recommendation that we endorse the speed study prepared by the Montana Department of Transportation for US 93 North. Please let me know how I can be of assistance in this effort Frank Garner, Chief of Police • Jim Brown, Asst. Chief of Police • KPD phone (406) 758-7780, FAX (406) 758-7799 -;,;; ` 300 1 st Ave. East, Kalispell, MT 59901 e--