Document Belgrade_doc_6b75e1c765

Prepared by: ROBERT PECCIA & ASSOCIATES www.rpa-hln.com Prepared for: October 17, 2018 CITY OF BELGRADE, MONTANA ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- i OCTOBER 17, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of List of iii List of iii Chapter 1: 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. Study 1.4. Goals and 1.5. Outreach and Public 1.5.1. Other Public Outreach Chapter 2: State of the 11 2.1. Overview 2.2. 2.2.1. Population and Demographic 2.2.2. Employment and Income 2.3. Land Use and 2.3.1. Historic Development Patterns and Current Land 2.3.2. Future Land 2.4. Transportation 2.4.1. Major Street 2.4.2. Active Transportation 2.4.3. Freight and Rail 2.4.4. Airport Road Network 2.5. Transportation 2.5.1. Existing Roadway Volumes and 2.5.2. Intersection 2.5.3. Active Transportation 2.5.4. Bicycle 2.6. 2.6.1. Crash 2.6.2. Intersection 2.6.3. Pedestrians and Chapter 3: Growth, Travel Forecasts, and 45 3.1. 3.2. Future growth and ---PAGE BREAK--- ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.2.1. Population and Housing 3.2.2. Employment 3.2.3. Allocation of Future 3.3. Projected Transportation 3.3.1. Projected Roadway 3.3.2. Projected Volume Chapter 4: Improving the 4.1. 4.2. Facility 4.2.1. Committed 4.2.2. Transportation System Management 4.2.3. Major Street Network 4.2.4. Future Road 4.3. Non-Motorized Network 4.3.1. 4.3.2. Shared-Use 4.3.3. On-Street Bike Lanes 4.3.4. Bicycle Boulevards 4.3.5. Spot Improvements Chapter 5: Policy and Planning 75 5.1. 5.2. Roadway Design 5.2.1. Roadway 5.2.2. 5.3. Transportation Demand 5.3.1. TDM 5.4. Roadway Operations and 5.5. Intersection 5.6. Traffic Calming 5.7. Development Review 5.8. Freight and Goods 5.9. Metropolitan Planning Organizations Chapter 6: Implementation and Financial 83 6.1. 6.2. Visionary Transportation 6.3. ---PAGE BREAK--- iii OCTOBER 17, 2018 List of Tables Table 1: Historic Population Data for Gallatin County and State of Montana Table 2: Mode of Transportation to Work Table 3: Number of Housing Units Table 4: Theoretical Roadway Table 5: Intersection Level of Service Table 6: Commute Mode Share and Travel Table 7: High Crash Severity Table 8: Population Projections for Gallatin Table 9: Population Projections for the City of Table 10: Population and Housing Unit Table 11: Employment Projections to 2040 for Gallatin Table 12: Employment Projections to 2040 for the LRTP Study Table 13: Committed Table 14: Transportation System Management Table 15: Major Street Network Table 16: Sidewalk Table 17: Shared-Use Path Table 18: Bike Lane Table 19: Bicycle Boulevard Table 20: Spot Improvement Table 21: Funding Programs List of Figures Figure 1: Study Area Figure 2: City of Belgrade Zoning Figure 3: Belgrade Future Land Figure 4: Existing Major Street Figure 5: Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Figure 6: Freight and Rail Figure 7: Airport Land Ownership and Proposed Road Figure 8: Existing V/C Figure 9: Existing Level of Figure 10: Bicycle Level of Traffic Figure 11: Number of Crashes Per Figure 12: Crash Figure 13: Severe Crash Figure 14: Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash Figure 15: Allocation of Future ---PAGE BREAK--- iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 16: Future V/C Figure 17: Projected Volume Figure 18: Facilities Figure 19: Non-Motorized Figure 20: Pavement Preservation Figure 21: Visionary Major Street Figure 22: Visionary Non-Motorized Appendix Appendix A: Public Comments Appendix B: Public Involvement Plan Appendix C: Goals and Objectives Appendix D: Socioeconomic Data and Land Use Forecasts Appendix E: Existing and Projected Conditions Appendix F: Alternative Modeling Scenarios Appendix G: Facility Recommendations Appendix H: Additional Considerations Appendix I: Funding Mechanisms ---PAGE BREAK--- v OCTOBER 17, 2018 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The successful completion of this project was made possible through cooperation and assistance of many individuals. The following people provided guidance and support throughout the course of the LRTP: Advisory Committee Ted Barkley, City of Belgrade City Manager Jason Karp, City of Belgrade Director of Planning Steve Klotz, City of Belgrade Director of Public Works Levi Ewan, Gallatin County Road and Bridge Engineer Chris Scott, Gallatin County Planner Katie Potts, MDT Statewide and Urban Planning Section Belgrade City Council Russell C. Nelson, Mayor Ken Smith, Deputy Mayor Anne Koentopp, Council Member Kristine Menicucci, Council Member Mark Criner, Council Member Jim Simon, Council Member Brad Cooper, Council Member LRTP Stakeholders Leland Stocker, Belgrade School District Superintendent Cathy Costakis, Big Sky Villa Tracy Menuez, HRDC Community Development Associate Ralph Zimmer, Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee Tiffanie Maierle, Belgrade Community Coalition Brian Sprenger, Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport Director Lee Hazelbaker, Streamline Director EJ Clark, Belgrade Police Chief Bruce Hennequin, Central Valley Fire District Fire Marshal Debra Youngberg, Chamber of Commerce Consultant Team The Traffic and Transportation Group of the consulting firm Robert Peccia and Associates was the prime con- sultant for the LRTP. The following team members were contributors to the plan: Scott Randall, PE, PTOE, Project Manager Dan Norderud, AICP, Senior Planner Shane PE, Traffic Engineer Kerry Pedersen, EI, Transportation Planner Adopted By Belgrade City-County Planning Board - May 29, 2018 Belgrade City Council - August 20, 2018 Gallatin County Commission - September 25, 2018 ---PAGE BREAK--- vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic AC Advisory Committee ACS American Community Survey BNSF BNSF Railway CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate CEIC Census & Economic Information Center EPA Environmental Protection Agency eREMI Regional Economic Models, Inc. FAST Act Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act GIS Geographic Information Systems HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development LOS Level of Service LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan LTS Level of Traffic Stress MDT Montana Department of Transportation MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MRL Montana Rail Link MSN Major Street Network MSU Montana State University NHTS National Household Travel Survey PDO Property Damage Only R/W Right of Way SOV Single Occupancy Vehicle TDM Travel Demand Model TDM Travel Demand Management TMP Transportation Master Plan TSM Transportation System Management Two Way Left Turn Lane U.S. United States U.S.C. United States Code USDOT United States Department of Transportation v/c Vehicle to Capacity Ratio vpd Vehicles per Day W&P Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 OCTOBER 17, 2018 The Belgrade Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) serves as a guide for development of and investment in the community’s transportation system in a comprehensive manner. The LRTP was developed through a collaborative approach with city, county, and state staff, elected officials, and local residents to provide a blueprint for guiding transportation infrastructure investments based on system needs and associated deci- sion-making principles. The LRTP incorporates all applicable background information, includes detailed anal- ysis of options and alternatives, incorporates meaningful input from citizens and local officials, and provides a framework for future efforts within the context of State and Federal rules, regulations, and funding allocations. This comprehensive plan identifies community goals and improvements to the transportation infrastructure and services within the City of Belgrade and the portion within Gallatin County that is likely to include future urban area expansion. The LRTP addresses regional transportation issues, overall travel convenience, traffic safety, sustainability, funding, and multi-modal connections. The LRTP includes recommendations for short- term improvements as well as recommended modifications and capital improvements to major roadways. 1.1. PURPOSE CHAPTER 1: Introduction ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 INTRODUCTION 1.2. BACKGROUND The City of Belgrade and surrounding areas have experienced large amounts of sustained growth over the past 40+ years with especially significant growth in the past 15 years. As Gall- atin County continues to experience a popula- tion influx, Belgrade faces a unique opportunity for economic development and continued pop- ulation growth. A well-planned transportation system can make the difference between suc- cessful growth and good quality of life verses failure to grow and a deteriorating quality of life. As Belgrade continues to grow, it is important to develop a comprehensive transportation plan to properly accommodate and prepare for the city’s current and future needs. The City of Belgrade and the Montana Depart- ment of Transportation (MDT) have partnered to develop this community focused transportation plan. The previous LRTP1 was the first for Bel- grade and was completed in 2002. Changes in land use, substantial upgrades to the community’s transpor- tation system, the community’s increased interest in transportation related matters, and the outdated nature of the 2002 LRTP, have necessitated a new examination of transportation issues within the Belgrade area. Transportation is a major concern to area residents today and is expected to remain a concern as growth continues and the challenges of accommodating travel needs becomes more difficult. 1.3. STUDY AREA The study area for the LRTP includes all land within the City of Belgrade and encompasses adjacent lands in Gallatin County where suburban development has occurred and will likely occur in the future. The boundary includes the entire Belgrade urban boundary limits that resulted from the 2010 Census, and a small portion of the Bozeman urban boundary. The study area includes major employers in the area, as well as land that may be used for employment centers in the next twenty years that could possibly be annexed into the city limits. It also includes densely developed residential land uses in the area, and those areas likely to increase the housing supply in the future and subsequently add traffic onto the transportation network. The study area, as presented in Figure 1, is important as it defines the limit of the area of focus for the LRTP. As Belgrade continues to grow, it is important to develop a comprehensive transportation plan to properly accommodate and prepare for the city’s current and future needs. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 OCTOBER 17, 2018 G A LLA T I N RIV E R G A L LA T IN R I V E R HY ALITE CR E E K BAK E R C REEK EA S T G ALLATIN R IVE R Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport PENWELL BRIDGE ROAD FRANK ROAD AIRPORT ROAD MAYFAIR DR CAMERON AVE CHEERY DR SUNRISE DR 8TH ST ALAS K A F RON TAGE RD HOFFMAN ST WESTWOOD CL ROSEBUD AVE W CAMERON BRIDGE RD LINNEY RD RIVER RD AIRW A Y BL V D E CAMERON BRIDGE RD ALASKA RD S TUBB RD BOLLINGER RD WEAVER RD JACKRABBIT LN NEVADA ST DAVIS ST GR O G A N ST CENTRAL AVE OREGON ST E VALLEY CENTER RD GOLDEN WEST DR AMSTERDAM RD JEFFERSON AVE SPOONER RD ROYAL RD THORPE RD DRY CREEK R D MAIN ST A M S T E R D A M R D MADISON AVE JACKRABBIT LN DRY CREEK RD BROADWAY ST FRONTAGE RD FRONTAGE RD THORPE RD 90 90 85 290 347 205 235 205 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.25 Miles Legend City Boundary Airport Study Area Urban Boundary STUDY AREA BOUNDARY Figure 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 1.4. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Development of goals and objectives for the LRTP is a critical first step in the transportation planning process. In addition to capturing all related information from previous community planning efforts, the goals and objec- tives lay out the general course of action for the LRTP development and represent the community’s vision for the future transportation system. Goals and objectives also provide direction on how to achieve the desired outcome. Collectively, they are intended to inform the planning process and set the course of action for future improvements to Belgrade’s transportation system. Numerous local planning documents were reviewed to determine what, if any, transportation related goals and objectives have already been developed within the community. Based on a review of relevant planning efforts within the community, five visionary principles were identified for the LRTP. Seven goals which support the visionary principles were identified for the LRTP. The individual goals and objectives recognize the need for a balance between safety, mobility, accessibility, cost, and environmental impact. These goals provide broad statements that are intended to direct the overall direction of the LRTP to- wards the community’s vision. While these goal statements do not specify how these desired outcomes would be accomplished, their associated objectives are more specific and identify measures or actions to help attain each goal. The goals and objectives represent the desired end result of the community’s transportation system once proj- ects identified are implemented. They are put forth in hopes of accurately reflecting the condition of planning within the general community, and more specifically reflecting the needs and desires relative to transportation in the Belgrade area. INTRODUCTION VISIONARY PRINCIPLES 1. The community desires a connected, efficient transportation system based on recognized linkages between land use and transportation planning so it serves not only existing, but fu- ture development in the community. This type of system allows users to choose what mode of travel they desire, and makes travel more convenient while promoting an active lifestyle by choice for community residents. 2. The community seeks to retain existing businesses and identify opportunities to attract new jobs to enhance the community’s economic vitality. 3. Efficient travel and increased mobility will help minimize transportation and associated costs. 4. Transportation influences the quality of life. The community’s transportation system should be compatible with the overall environment and context of the Belgrade area, with special consideration given to the conservation of surrounding agricultural lands, open space, and natural resources. 5. The community desires a safe transportation system, and strives for a reduction in crashes, injuries, and fatalities. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 OCTOBER 17, 2018 GOAL 1: Preserve and Maintain the Existing Transportation System. The transportation system in the Belgrade area is aging, and available funding is not sufficient for the neces- sary maintenance and preservation activities. There is often competition between funding for new projects as compared to maintenance and operations of the existing system. The short- and mid-term focus should turn to optimizing the existing transportation system to the greatest extent possible. Objectives: 1.1. Maintain existing roadway systems to optimize their usefulness and minimize life-cycle costs. 1.2. Monitor the performance of key facilities and work with local and regional partners to identify critical deficiencies in the roadway network. 1.3. Use transportation project selection criteria to identify and prioritize maintenance activities and proj- ect development. 1.4. Relieve pressures on the existing transportation system through minor infrastructure improvements, maintenance, and system preservation activities rather than expanding the current system. 1.5. Encourage reuse and/or redevelopment around existing transportation facilities. GOAL 2: Improve the Efficiency, Performance, and Connectivity of the Transportation System. A transportation system that performs effectively allows users to choose among multiple transportation modes and to use those modes in a safe and efficient manner. An efficient system allows people to move from place to place in as direct a route as possible, allowing them to reduce the amount of time spent in travel, the distance that must be traveled, and the amount of time spent in congested traffic. Connectivity allows citizens to make route decisions and mode choices based on traffic and road conditions, or desired destinations. Objectives: 2.1. Ensure the current roadway network of collectors, minor arterials, principal arterials, and the inter- state is adequate to safely and efficiently handle projected traffic. 2.2. Identify and implement critical and cost-effective new capacity and operations investments to im- prove transportation system throughput and reliability. 2.3. Promote the development of an effective roadway network through improvements in intersection and roadway capacity. 2.4. Improve opportunities for active transportation (non-motorized) as part of daily travel mode choice within the community by increasing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections. 2.5. Ensure mobility-challenged populations–such as low income residents, persons with disabilities, or senior citizens–have travel options in the Belgrade area. GOAL 3: Promote Consistency and Coordination between Land Use and Transportation Planning. Land use decisions affect the quality and quantity of transportation infrastructure throughout the study area. Linking transportation and land use planning is important to help ensure that the transportation system effec- tively and efficiently serves existing and future development within the community. This coordination helps ensure that existing and future industrial and commercial areas, service centers, and housing concentrations are adequately connected to the Gallatin Valley’s transportation system and appropriately located to preserve the quality of life in the community. Policies and partnerships should be developed to protect the capacity of the transportation system to strengthen the coordination between land use and transportation planning. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 INTRODUCTION Objectives: 3.1. Integrate land use planning and transportation planning to manage and develop the transportation system. 3.2. Use transportation project programming to encourage desired development patterns within the com- munity and ensure new development is adequately served. 3.3. Develop and implement consistent access management and corridor preservation standards, ordi- nances, and plans appropriate to the roadway network and land use throughout the study area. 3.4. Continue to coordinate transportation planning activities with local and regional land use planning activities, including the City and County Growth Policies (and subsequent updates). 3.5. Recognize on-going land use policy discussions about future development and corresponding den- sity between Bozeman, Four Corners, and Belgrade. 3.6. Ensure an environmentally responsible and sound transportation system that minimizes adverse environmental impacts within the community. GOAL 4: Provide a Safe and Secure Transportation System. Most community planning efforts recognize the desire for a safe transportation system. Community safety and security can be improved by reducing crashes and improving the ability of emergency responders to quickly and reliably respond to emergencies. Educational programs that help travelers understand the safety concerns associated with various travel modes can also help all users travel with increased confidence and security. Objectives: 4.1. Develop a “Major Street Network” classifying existing roadways within the study area by functional usage. 4.2. Reduce the rates of fatalities and crashes occurring on all transportation facilities. 4.3. Identify barriers to prompt and effective emergency response. 4.4. Implement safety initiatives and educational programs for all modes of transportation. 4.5. Facilitate safe and secure movements of goods and freight. GOAL 5: Support Economic Vitality of the Community. All economic activity relies on a functioning, diverse transportation network. Vehicle, freight, air, transit, rail, and non-motorized infrastructure all have a purpose to serve when linking economic vitality to the costs of doing business. Transportation in terms of economic vitality is only one component of a successful business environment. High quality schools, diversity in housing types, low debt, availability of infrastructure, and ac- cess to a highly skilled workforce all contribute to the economic success of a community. Objectives: 5.1. Optimize the transportation system to meet the needs of Belgrade and its citizens, including em- ployment centers, industrial and commercial areas, and users of Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport. 5.2. Provide attractive and convenient transportation facilities that attract and retain business, young professionals, families, and older adults. 5.3. Facilitate the movement of goods and freight to commercial and industrial centers. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 OCTOBER 17, 2018 GOAL 6: Protect and Enhance Environmental Sustainability, Provide Opportunities for Active Life- styles, and Conserve Natural and Cultural Resources. Both the FAST Act2 planning factors and the livability principles from HUD/EPA/USDOT3 point to quality of life concerns in the development of Not only are impacts to the environment taken more seriously, but increasingly, citizens are demanding a more holistic approach to transportation. The preservation of natural features, historic and cultural resources, as well as promoting a healthy, active lifestyle, are priorities of this LRTP and current Federal transportation planning guidance. Objectives: 6.1. Promote transportation projects, plans and/or programs that encourage reducing fuel consumption, reducing vehicle miles of travel, and thereby minimizing air pollution. 6.2. Coordinate transportation planning activities with appropriate federal, state, and local agencies re- sponsible for land use management, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation. 6.3. Engage stakeholders and the public in the decision-making stage of the transportation planning process. GOAL 7: Promote a Financially Sustainable Transportation Plan. A financially sustainable transportation plan is necessary to guide the transportation decision-making process for future years. Transportation facilities that provide options to the public, reduce time spent traveling, reduce fuel consumption, and make the best use of limited public funds for infrastructure improvements are desirable. Not only are costs related to the cost of building facilities, but there are also associated costs of time spent in vehicles. A sound financial base for the transportation system is provided through responsible management of public assets and resources and identification and implementation of funding strategies to ensure long-term balanced investment in the transportation system. Objectives: 7.1. Identify available and potential funding mechanisms for transportation system improvements includ- ing federal and state gas tax revenue, impact fees, transportation bond issues, local option gas tax- es, and other revenue funding sources used in similar cities. 7.2. Encourage cooperation between public, private, and non-profit organizations in the development, funding, and management of transportation projects. 7.3. Promote cost-effective recommendations that balance transportation system needs with available funding and expected expenditures. 7.4. As funds become available for transportation projects, place priority for funding on those projects and programs identified in the LRTP. ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 INTRODUCTION Belgrade Area Advisory Committee An Advisory Committee (AC) was established to guide process, review deliverables, and provide technical oversight during the planning process. Meetings were generally held every month. The AC included represen- tatives from the City of Belgrade, MDT, and Gallatin County. The AC was the principal guiding force behind the LRTP. Public Informational Meetings Two public informational meetings were held during the LRTP planning process. The first meeting was an open house that allowed community members to discuss and identify the issues and visioning to be addressed as part of the LRTP. This meeting intended to give the community an opportunity to talk with the project team, share their comments and concerns, and to ask any questions they had regarding the Plan. The meeting was held on September 19, 2017 at the Central Valley Fire Training Center. The second public meeting was held after the preliminary project recommendations were completed. This meeting gave the public the opportunity to review the project recommendations in their entirety and make comments as appropriate. The meeting was held on February 21, 2018 in the Belgrade City Hall Courtroom. Appendix A contains all public comments received over the course of the planning process. 1.5. OUTREACH AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Education and public outreach are essential parts of fulfilling the responsibility to successfully inform the public about the transportation planning process. The development of the LRTP involved early communication with interested parties to help identify needs, constraints, and opportunities to determine reasonable improvements given available resources and local support. Community, stakeholder, agency, and other involvement were important components to this planning process. The goal of the outreach effort was to have significant and ongoing public engagement. A number of strategies were utilized to disseminate information and elicit meaningful participation. These opportunities included: • Providing information on the critical elements included in the transportation planning process within the LRTP study area; • Providing input and asking questions throughout the planning process; and • Presenting findings and recommendations. Public participation means participation in planning by people within the Belgrade community, its citizens and entities, planning and engineering professionals, and those who are not professional planners or government officials. It is a process of taking part in the transportation planning and decision-making that affects the com- munity. Efforts to secure participation were targeted to stakeholders who are individuals or entities that could be significantly affected by the LRTP recommendations or could significantly influence implementation. A proactive approach was taken to provide an opportunity for the public to be engaged early and with a con- tinuing involvement in all phases of the planning process. For this project, a number of public engagement strategies were utilized to reach the most people possible and elicit meaningful participation. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 OCTOBER 17, 2018 1.5.1. Other Public Outreach Activities A number of other public outreach activities occurred over the planning duration: Website: A website was developed for the LRTP (www. belgradetransplan.com) as a landing page for infor- mation developed during the planning process. Draft technical memoranda, links to additional resources, frequently asked questions, and contact information were provided on the website. In addition, a Facebook site was created and maintained throughout the pro- cess to disseminate information about meetings and the LRTP progress. News Releases: Newspaper articles were used during the planning process to help keep the public informed. News releases were issued prior to public meetings to generate interest in the process, and to encourage participation by the public. Newsletters: Newsletters were created and distributed in hard copy format during the informational meetings. The newsletters were also distributed electronically to various stakeholders and were generally available to the public via the LRTP website. Wikimapping: An interactive mapping platform, called a “wikimap”, was used for the LRTP. The platform al- lowed the public to provide feedback on the transpor- tation network via an online map. Users were asked to provide comments related to transportation at spot or roadway segment locations. There were a total of 137 unique comments made on the platform, with an addi- tional 228 sub comments and 323 likes/dislikes made on the comments. Special Agency and Stakeholder Involvement A number of outreach activities to special agencies and other stakeholders occurred throughout the planning process. Targeted outreach occurred with the following groups: • Belgrade City Commission • City of Belgrade Department Directors • Gallatin County Staff & Elected Officials • MDT Modeling/Planning Staff • Chamber of Commerce • Belgrade School District • Central Valley Fire Department • Belgrade City Police • Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport • Belgrade Community Coalition • Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation A website was created for the LRTP, (www.belgradetransplan.com). Over 365 unique comments were made on the interactive commenting platform. ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 OCTOBER 17, 2018 2.1. OVERVIEW To clearly understand the needs of a community, it is important to evaluate the state of the existing land use, transportation network, social, and economic conditions of the community. To achieve this task for the Bel- grade community, information was collected on many aspects of the transportation system, socioeconomic conditions, and land use. Available and collected data were used to establish existing conditions for the com- munity. The existing conditions were used to determine issues and concerns related to the transportation system. CHAPTER 2: State of the Community ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 STATE OF THE COMMUNITY 2.2. SOCIOECONOMICS Local and regional population and econom- ic characteristics have important influences on motor vehicle travel in the Belgrade area. The study area for the LRTP includes all of the land within the City of Belgrade and en- compasses adjacent lands in Gallatin County where suburban development has occurred and will likely occur in the future. Although not directly within the study area, population and employment growth occurring in the in- corporated areas of Bozeman, Manhattan, and Three Forks and in the unincorporated Four Corners area is an important consid- eration for the LRTP. Belgrade’s residents work, shop, attend educational institutions, and recreate in these areas of the Gallatin Valley and their commuting patterns have impacts on the local transportation system. 2.2.1. Population and Demographic Trends Gallatin County has been one of Montana’s fastest growing counties over the last 30 years. In terms of nu- meric increases, Gallatin County has seen the most new residents of any county in the state since 1980. The total population of Gallatin County grew from 32,505 in 1970 to 89,513 in 2010—adding more than 57,000 res- idents. With the exception of the 1980s, the county’s population has increased by more than 30 percent every decade since 1970. Population growth during the 1980s was still notable and the number of county residents increased by nearly 18 percent between 1980 and 1990. Likewise, the City of Belgrade experienced significant growth over the 1970-2010 period as the city’s popu- lation grew from 1,307 to 7,389 residents. With the exception of the 2000s, the City of Belgrade’s population showed increases of between 46 and 79 percent during the other decades of the 1970-2010 period. Over the 1970-2010 period, the population of Gallatin County grew by more than 175 percent and the City of Belgrade’s population grew by 465 percent. On a percentage basis, the city’s population growth during the 40-year period was 2.7 times greater than that seen for Gallatin County as a whole and 4.7 times greater than seen for the City of Bozeman. Both the State of Montana and the United States showed population increases during each decade between 1970 and 2010 but the rates of increase were well below those seen in Gallatin County, the cities of Belgrade and Bozeman, and in all unincorporated areas of Gallatin County. The population of the U.S. and State of Montana grew by about 52 and 42 percent, respectively, between 1970 and 2010. The population of unincorporated areas of Gallatin County increased by 311 percent over the 1970-2010 period, with significant growth seen during the 1970s and after 1990. In 2010, the number of residents living outside incorporated communities in Gallatin County was 40,184 (4.1 times higher than in 1970). The majority of the unincorporated area population in 2010 lived in the greater Gallatin Valley area between Bozeman, Bel- grade and Four Corners and along the I-90 and Frontage Road corridor west of Belgrade. Table 1 shows the total populations for Gallatin County, the City of Belgrade, the City of Bozeman, and unin- corporated areas of the county over the 1970 to 2010 period. The table also shows the overall percent change in residents since 1970. Population data for the State of Montana and the nation provide benchmarks to help compare local population growth trends. The City of Belgrade's population grew by 465 percent between 1970 and 2010. ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 OCTOBER 17, 2018 2.2.1.1. Age Distribution Three age categories (residents less than 18 years old, residents 18 to 64 years old, and residents 65 years and over) were considered in the analysis of age distribution. As discussed earlier, the populations of Gallatin County and the City of Belgrade have steadily and significantly increased between 1970 and 2010. The coun- ty’s population is also notably younger than that of the state and nation. According to the American Communi- ty Survey (ACS), the median ages for residents of Gallatin County and the City of Belgrade are 33.2 years and 31.9 years, respectively. This compares to median ages of 37.6 years for all U.S. residents and 39.7 years for all Montana residents. The median age is the age at the midpoint of the population (i.e. half of the population is older than the median age and half of the population is younger). The ACS data shows Gallatin County, as a whole, has few residents in the “less than 18 years old” category and fewer residents in the “65 years and over” category than either the state or nation. More than 28 percent of the residents of the City of Belgrade were less than 18 years of age and about 7 percent of city residents were 65 years or older according to the ACS data. The share of the city’s population in both of these age groups represents a notable variation from similar statistics for county, state and national populations. The age group from 18 to 64 generally represents the working-age population. The ACS data for the 2011-2015 period showed the City of Belgrade had fewer residents in this broad age group than the county and the state. A review of the ACS data also showed the following age characteristics for the residents of Gallatin County and the City of Belgrade: • Residents aged 5-19 (generally representing the school age population) comprised 18.7 percent of the county’s population and 21.6 percent of the city’s population. • Residents aged 25-34 represented the largest age group in both Gallatin County (16 percent) and the City of Belgrade (21.6 percent). • 16.2 percent of the city’s residents and 12 percent of county residents were under 10 years of age. Table 1: Historic Population Data for Gallatin County and State of Montana Area 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2016* Compound Average % Change (1970-2010) Gallatin County 32,505 42,865 50,463 67,831 89,513 104,502 2.57% City of Belgrade 1,307 2,336 3,422 5,728 7,389 8,254 4.09% City of Bozeman 18,670 21,645 22,660 27,509 37,280 45,250 1.94% All Unincorporated Areas 9,768 15,914 21,231 30,293 40,184 46,010 3.43% State of Montana 694,409 786,690 799,065 902,195 989,415 1,042,520 0.89% United States 203,392,031 226,545,805 248,709,873 281,421,906 308,745,538 323,127,513 1.01% *Estimate as of July 1, 2016 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Estimates Data, available at: ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 STATE OF THE COMMUNITY According to the ACS, residents in about 96 percent of all occupied housing units in Gallatin County had ac- cess to one or more vehicles to commute to work or meet other personal needs. In the City of Belgrade, 98 percent of residents had access to at least one vehicle. Information about the number of workers (16 years and older) and their commuting characteristics is also available from the ACS. The ACS information provided estimates of the total share of workers who commute or work at home, the transportation modes used by commuters, and the mean travel times to work for commut- ers. Table 2 presents commuting characteristics for workers in the Gallatin County and the City of Belgrade. Similar statistics for the State of Montana and the United States are provided for comparison. Table 2 shows that about 82 percent of commuting workers in Gallatin County rely on personal vehicles or car- pools for transportation to work destinations. Nearly 90 percent of commuting workers in the City of Belgrade drove alone or carpooled to their places of employment. Few workers in the City of Belgrade were estimated to walk to work. Table 2 suggests public transportation options are more limited for Montana residents as compared to elsewhere in the United States. Commute times for workers in the Gallatin County and the City of Belgrade are similar to those of other Montana workers but are well below those seen by all commuters nationally. The ACS data showed workers in Belgrade had commute times of 17.9 minutes during the 2011-2015 period. This commute time suggests residents are working at jobs outside the Belgrade community, most likely in the Bozeman area. Table 2: Mode of Transportation to Work (2011-2015) Subject City of Belgrade Gallatin County State of Montana United States Number of Workers 16 Years and Older 4,204 51,306 478,238 143,621,168 Commuted to Work 95.6% 93.2% 93.8% 95.6% Worked at Home 4.4% 6.8% 6.2% 4.4% Transportation Mode Drove alone, car, truck, van 74.6% 72.5% 75.2% 76.4% Carpooled 15.2% 9.1% 10.4% 9.5% Public Transportation (excluding taxicabs) * 0.6% 0.8% 5.1% Walked to Work 0.3% 6.3% 4.9% 2.8% Other means of commuting 5.5% 4.6% 2.5% 1.8% Mean Travel Time to Work 17.9 min 17.5 min 18.1 min 25.9 min Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS) Profile Report: 2011-2015 (5-year estimates), available at: http://census.missouri. edu/acs/profiles/ * Data unavailable The Census Bureau identifies a housing unit as a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live and eat separately from any other persons in the building and which have direct access from outside of the building or through a common hall. The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated persons who share living arrangements. Table 3 lists the number of housing units that existed within Gallatin County and the City of Belgrade during past decennial censuses and as of the mid-year 2016 estimate made by the Census Bureau. Overall, the 2.2.1.2. Personal Commuting and Travel Characteristics 2.2.1.3. Housing Units ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 OCTOBER 17, 2018 number of housing units in the county increased by 24,546 units (a 143 percent increase) during the 1980- 2010 period with significant increases in the number of housing units recorded during each of the last two decades in the county. This trend is similar for the City of Belgrade which showed an increase of 2,309 units (a 266 percent increase) between 1980 and 2010 with nearly 1,900 of the housing units added between 1990 and 2010. This is likely due to Belgrade’s convenient commuting distance to Bozeman and generally lower housing costs. The data show that the population per housing unit decreased for all geographies considered over the 1980-2010 period. The population per housing unit in Gallatin County and the City of Belgrade were almost the same at 2.12 and 2.33 persons per housing unit, respectively, at the time of the 2010 Census. Because not all housing units are occupied, it is in- teresting to consider the number of residents per oc- cupied housing unit. At the time of the 2010 Census, more than 86 percent of the housing units in Gallatin County were occupied and over 93 percent of those in the City of Belgrade were occupied. If only occupied housing units are considered, the resulting population per housing unit rates are 2.45 people per unit in the county and 2.49 people per unit in the City of Belgrade. Table 3: Number of Housing Units (1980-2010) Area 1980 1990 2000 2010 2016 Gallatin County Population 42,865 50,463 67,831 89,513 104,502 Total Housing Units 17,173 21,350 29,489 42,289 47,345 Population per Housing Unit 2.50 2.36 2.30 2.12 2.20 City of Belgrade Population 2,336 3,422 5,728 7,389 8,254 Total Housing Units 865 1,294 2,239 3,174 * Population per Housing Unit 2.70 2.64 2.56 2.33 All Unincorporated Areas Population 15,914 21,231 30,293 40,184 46,010 Total Housing Units 6,949 9,298 13,559 18,826 * Population per Housing Unit 2.29 2.28 2.23 2.13 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population * Data unavailable The newly developed Ryen Glenn and Meadowlark Ranch subdivisions are home to many Belgrade residents. ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 STATE OF THE COMMUNITY 2.2.2. Employment and Income Trends As of 2015, Gallatin County is Montana’s third most popu- lous county, while the City of Belgrade is the state’s eleventh largest city. The Bozeman Micropolitan area, which includes the entire county, is the fourth fastest growing micropolitan area in the U.S. and the fastest growing in terms of pop- ulation gain. The economy of Gallatin County is diverse with construction, government, public and higher education, manufacturing, technology, retail trade, services, outdoor recreation, and agriculture all playing notable roles. Montana State University (MSU) comprises the largest component of Gallatin County’s economic base. The most recent available data show that total full and part- time employment in the county was 78,504 in 2015 with more than 98 percent of the jobs being non-farm related employ- ment. Total full and part-time employment in Gallatin County in 2015 was 261 percent higher than that recorded in 1980. This means total employment in the county increased 3.6 times since 1980. Over this 35-year period, the compound annual increase in employment in Gallatin County was about 7.5 percent per year. The service industry experienced the highest growth be- tween 1980 and 2015, where the total number of jobs in- creased by nearly 28,700 over the period. Other industry sectors showing sizable increases in employment since 1980 include: finance, insurance and real estate (net gain of 6,694 jobs); construction (net gain of 6,095 jobs); and retail trade (net gain of 5,105 jobs). The industries showing the lowest gains in employment between 1980 and 2015 were federal and civilian government; the military; mining; and ag- ricultural services and forestry. MSU is the largest employer in Gallatin County. As of fall 2016, MSU employed 3,318 permanent faculty and staff, and 761 graduate teaching and research assistants. Of the 3,318 permanent employees, 2,484 were classified as full time and 834 were part time employees. Large employers in the Belgrade area include the Belgrade School District, Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport, and Bozeman Health Belgrade Clinic. The largest private employers in Gallatin County during 20154 include: • Bozeman Deaconess Hospital (1,000+ employees); • Oracle America (250-499 employees); • Town Pump (250-499 employees); • Walmart (250-499 employees); and • 16 other businesses with 100 to 249 employees. Belgrade is one of the fastest growing communities in Montana. MSU is the largest employer in Gallatin County with over 4,000 total jobs in 2016. ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 OCTOBER 17, 2018 2.3. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT Land use plays a critical role in shaping transportation networks. Land use decisions affect the transportation system and can increase viable options for people to access work and recreation sites, goods, services, and other resources in the community. In turn, the existing and future transportation system may be impacted by the location, type, and design of land use developments through changes in travel demands, travel mode choices, and travel patterns. 2.3.1. Historic Development Patterns and Current Land Uses From the time of first settlement in the late 1800s and through the 1930s, Belgrade experienced a substantial expansion with the establishment of new businesses and other community developments. However, Belgrade was privy to the effects of the Great Depression and, in those years, quickly became a quiet community cen- tered around agriculture. Finally, after the Second World War, Belgrade began to see economic prosperity as existing businesses expanded and new ones were formed. In the late 1980s and into the 1990s, Belgrade continued to grow rapidly and today, is one of the fastest growing communities in Montana.5 As this is the case, land use in the Belgrade area is seeing a large shift from agricultural to residential land use. Although Belgrade has a longstanding history as a farming community, the increasing desire from its residents to grow the community, diversify the economy, and increase the number of jobs, has shifted land use from agricultural to non-farm uses over the years. Following the adoption of the 1999 Belgrade Area Plan, the city started to make some major advancements. In 2004, substantial upgrades to the city’s sewer treatment facil- ity abled Belgrade to consider petitions for annexations for residential, commercial, and retail land uses. The approved annexations total over 650 acres, or roughly one square mile of land, which is nearly a third of the total land owned by the City (as of the 2010 census). To keep up with the growth trends, Belgrade developed the 2006 Belgrade Area Growth Policy6 which ex- amines both historic and anticipated growth and uses those trends to provide policy recommendations for efficient land use. The Growth Policy applies to the City of Belgrade and its 4.5-mile planning jurisdiction. Concentrated development is encouraged within and adjacent to city limits and as distance increases from the city, the Growth Policy encourages a continued preservation of farm land and open space as well as protection of the East and West Gallatin Rivers. The Rivers were once a popular location within the Belgrade area where a residential development took place. However, the Growth Policy has discouraged further development in this area due to the unpredictable nature of the rivers and past tendencies to change their course during high water periods. Today, the areas east of Belgrade are dominated by the Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport and large open gravel pits but also contain several residential developments. Areas west of Belgrade have a mix of res- idential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural land uses. The current trend is expected to continue into the foreseeable future with a growing number of residential developments. Figure 2 depicts current land uses, as of February 2014, for the community as compiled by the Belgrade Planning Staff. 2.3.2. Future Land Use Figure 3 presents a future land use map for the Belgrade area from the 2007 Gallatin Field Airport Master Plan7 which was modified from the 2006 Belgrade Area Growth Policy to include the location of airport lands. In general, the future land use plan for the city seeks to keep growth concentrated within and near the current city limits and allow medium to low density development to occupy the outermost regions of the planning area. The map is divided into five different categories: Belgrade Zoning, High Density, Medium Density, Low Density, and Airport Lands. ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 STATE OF THE COMMUNITY Airport Runways Belgrade City Limit Roads Parcels Gallatin County AS- Agricultural Suburban District BP- Business Park BP10- Business Park B2- Highway Business District B3- Central Business District M1- Commercial Light Manufacturing District M2- Manufacturing and Industrial PLI- Public Lands and Institution R1- Residential Single Family R1T- Residential Transitional District R2- Residential Single Family District Medium Density R2D- Residential One and Two Family R2M - Residential Single Family and Manufactured Homes R3- Residential Medium Density District R3- Residential Multi-Family District R4- Residential Apartment District R4T- Residential Transitional District RSM- Residential Suburban Manufactured Legend AS R2-D PL-I SCALE 1:6500 Author: Belgrade Planning Staff Base map source: Gallatin County GIS Date: February 2014 BP CITY OF BELGRADE ZONING MAP 2014 ATTESTED PLI M1 BP BP10 R3 R2 R2M R3 R2 AS R4 R2 R2D R2D R4 R1 PLI R2 R4T B2 M1 M2 R2 PLI M1 B3 PLI M1 B2 R4 R3 R4 R2 R4 R3 R3 B2 B2 B3 R2M R2 R3 R1 R2 PLI R3 B2 M2 R3-Multi PLI B2 RSM M1 AS B2 M1 M1 M1 M1 B2 PLI R1 R1T R3 R3 R4 R4 R2D R3 Figure 2 CITY OF BELGRADE ZONING MAP Source: http://www.ci.belgrade.mt.us/planning/zoning_map.pdf ---PAGE BREAK--- FIGURE TITLE FIGURE TITLE FIGURE TITLE 19 OCTOBER 17, 2018 BELGRADE FUTURE LAND USE Source: Figure 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 STATE OF THE COMMUNITY Interstate Highways The main purpose of an interstate highway is to provide for both regional and interstate transportation of people and goods. Primary users include all types, ranging from local residents and commuters, to travelers and freight operators. Interstate highways characteristically have fully controlled access (provided by a limited number of interchanges), high design speeds, and place a high pri- ority on driver comfort and safety. The interstate system has been designed as a high-speed facility with all road intersections being grade separated. Principal Arterial The purpose of a principal arterial is to serve the major centers of activity, the highest traffic volume corridors, and the longest trip distances in an area. This classifi- cation of roadway carries a high proportion of the total traffic. Most of the vehicles entering and leaving the area will utilize principal arterials. Significant intra-area travel, such as between central business districts, outlying res- idential areas, and major suburban centers, is typically served by principal arterials. 2.4. TRANSPORTATION NETWORK Current information about the transportation system was analyzed to establish the existing traffic conditions and to determine current problem areas. Existing data were provided by MDT, Gallatin County and the City of Belgrade. Additional data were collected in 2017 to supplement the available information. Using a combination of the supplied and collected data, the existing operational characteristics of the transportation network were determined. 2.4.1. Major Street Network A transportation system is made up of a hierarchy of roadways, with each roadway being classified according to certain parameters. The parameters include, but are not limited to, geometric configuration, traffic volumes, spacing in the community’s transportation grid, speed, and adjacent land use. Each of these characteristics helps define the role that each segment of roadway plays within the overall network. The method by which these roles are defined is widely known as functional classification. Travel through a community involves movement through a network of roads. Functional classification defines the nature of travel within the network in a logical and efficient manner by defining the objectives that any particular road or street should meet to effectively move trips through the entire network. For this evaluation, emphasis was placed on roadways within the study area that are functionally classified as collectors, minor arterials, or principal arterials. Figure 4 on the next page presents the major street network for the study area. The figure shows existing roadway classifications. Note that the functional classifications shown in the figure may not represent the “Federally approved” functional classification system, rather, it shows the locally adopted classifications. These classifications are used for planning purposes and may not be representative of actual conditions. Included in the current study area are roadways with functional classifications of interstate system, principal arterial, minor arterial, collector routes, and local streets. The following list provides general descriptions of these functional classifications: Interstate Highway - I-90 Principal Arterial- Jackrabbit Lane ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 OCTOBER 17, 2018 Minor Arterial Street System The minor arterial street system interconnects with and supplements the principal arterial system. Minor arterials accommodate trips of moderate length at a somewhat lower level of travel mobility, as compared to principal arterials. They distribute travel to smaller geographic areas in addition to providing some access to adjacent lands. Collector Street System The collector street network provides links from resi- dential, commercial, and industrial areas to the arterial street network. This type of roadway differs from those of the arterial system in that collector roadways may traverse residential neighborhoods. The collector sys- tem distributes trips from the arterials to the user’s ulti- mate destinations while also collecting traffic from local streets in the residential neighborhoods and channel- ing the traffic to the arterial system. Local Street System The local street network comprises all facilities not in- cluded in the higher functional classes. The primary purpose of local streets is to permit direct access to abutting lands and connections to higher systems. Most local streets also provide residential and commercial access. Usually, service to through-traffic movements is intentionally discouraged either through low speeds or other traffic calming measures. Minor Arterial- Amsterdam Road Collector Street- Spooner Road Local Street - Rosebud Avenue ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 STATE OF THE COMMUNITY G A LLA T I N RIV E R G A L LA T IN R I V E R HY ALITE CR E E K BAK E R C REEK EA S T G ALLATIN R IVE R Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport PENWELL BRIDGE ROAD FRANK ROAD AIRPORT ROAD MAYFAIR DR CAMERON AVE CHEERY DR SUNRISE DR 8TH ST ALAS K A F RON TAGE RD HOFFMAN ST WESTWOOD CL ROSEBUD AVE W CAMERON BRIDGE RD LINNEY RD RIVER RD AIRW A Y BL V D E CAMERON BRIDGE RD ALASKA RD S TUBB RD BOLLINGER RD WEAVER RD POWERS BLVD BASELINE ROAD LAGOON ROAD JACKRABBIT LN NEVADA ST DAVIS ST GR O G A N ST CENTRAL AVE OREGON ST E VALLEY CENTER RD GOLDEN WEST DR AMSTERDAM RD JEFFERSON AVE SPOONER RD ROYAL RD THORPE RD DRY CREEK R D MAIN ST A M S T E R D A M R D MADISON AVE JACKRABBIT LN DRY CREEK RD BROADWAY ST FRONTAGE RD FRONTAGE RD THORPE RD 90 90 85 290 347 205 235 205 j *The functional classifications shown are recommended as part of this Transportation Plan and do not reflect the federally approved functional classification criteria. 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.25 Miles Legend Major Street Network* Interstate Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector City Boundary Airport Study Area Figure 4 EXISTING MAJOR STREET NETWORK ---PAGE BREAK--- 23 OCTOBER 17, 2018 2.4.2. Active Transportation Network As awareness of the physical and environmental benefits of active transportation increases, cities have ex- perienced a heightened demand for facilities which accommodate active transportation options and public transportation choices. The City of Belgrade is no exception. The focus of the active transportation network will be on non-motorized mode choices, such as biking and walking, but will also include the public transportation options available to residents. Figure 5 shows the existing active transportation network in the study area. 2.4.2.1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Belgrade has limited bike and pedestrian accommodations available to its residents, as such, there are many opportunities for improvement to the non-motorized transportation network. Connectivity of such facilities re- mains one of Belgrade’s biggest challenges in regards to accommodating active transportation modes. The following list describes the existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the study area. The data provided in this section is from the Gallatin County GIS Trails Shapefile and includes additional data that was collected during field review. At this time, approximately 14.22 miles of bicycle and pedestrian facilities existed, excluding side- walks. Bike Lanes Bike lanes are a type of separated bikeway that uses signage and striping to delineate the right-of-way assigned to bicyclists and mo- torists. Bike lanes encourage predictable movement by both bicy- clists and motorists. Belgrade has only two bike lanes, their com- bined length totaling roughly 1.25 miles. The bike lane on Grogan Street/Spooner Road is 0.71 miles long and the bike lane on Penwell Bridge Road is 0.5 miles long. The bike lane on Penwell Bridge Road is only on the eastbound side of the roadway and is buffered with striping and a continuous rumble strip. Shared Use Paths Shared use paths are off-street paved trails that are designated for the use of bicyclists, pedestrians, and other non-motorized users such as skateboarders and rollerbladers. Examples include those along Thorpe Road and Royal Road on the west side of I-90. Gall- atin County reported 6.88 miles of asphalt paved shared use paths in the study area. Natural Surface Trails There are some natural surface trails in Belgrade. These trails serve as both transportation and recreational facilities. Within Belgrade, these trails are located near subdivisions and tend to serve more of a recreational purpose. There are 2.64 miles of natural surface trails reported in Belgrade. Sidewalks There are sidewalks alongside some of the main streets throughout the study area, however there are still many locations where the existing pedestrian facilities lack connectivity. In addition to side- walks located adjacent to the roadways, there are also 3.44 miles of sidewalk reported within the study area which serve as alternate paths for pedestrians. These sidewalks are mostly found in neigh- borhoods. Existing bike lane along Spooner Road Existing shared-use path along Amsterdam Road ---PAGE BREAK--- 24 STATE OF THE COMMUNITY G A LLA T I N RIV E R G A L LA T IN R I V E R HY ALITE CR E E K BAK E R C REEK EA S T G ALLATIN R IVE R Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport PENWELL BRIDGE ROAD FRANK ROAD AIRPORT ROAD MAYFAIR DR CAMERON AVE CHEERY DR SUNRISE DR 8TH ST ALAS K A F RON TAGE RD HOFFMAN ST WESTWOOD CL ROSEBUD AVE W CAMERON BRIDGE RD LINNEY RD RIVER RD AIRW A Y BL V D E CAMERON BRIDGE RD ALASKA RD S TUBB RD BOLINGER RD WEAVER RD POWERS BLVD BASELINE ROAD LAGOON ROAD JACKRABBIT LN NEVADA ST DAVIS ST GR O G A N ST CENTRAL AVE OREGON ST E VALLEY CENTER RD GOLDEN WEST DR AMSTERDAM RD JEFFERSON AVE SPOONER RD ROYAL RD THORPE RD DRY CREEK R D MAIN ST A M S T E R D A M R D MADISON AVE JACKRABBIT LN DRY CREEK RD BROADWAY ST FRONTAGE RD FRONTAGE RD THORPE RD 90 90 85 290 347 205 235 205 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.25 Miles Legend City Boundary Airport Study Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Bike Lane Natural Surface Trail Off Street Sidewalk On Street Sidewalk Shared Use Path Figure 5 EXISTING BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ---PAGE BREAK--- 25 OCTOBER 17, 2018 2.4.2.2. Transit Facilities Streamline provides fixed route public transportation in Bozeman, Belgrade, and Livingston. Streamline cur- rently operates one fare-free route in Belgrade, the Greenline Express. This route was created to meet in- creasing demand for public commuter service between Belgrade and Bozeman. Beginning in Belgrade every weekday, the first bus leaves from the Belgrade bus stop (Smith and Missoula) at 6:35 AM and heads into Boz- eman with several stops along the way before reaching MSU. The Greenline makes six trips a day between Belgrade, Four Corners, and Bozeman – two in the morning, two in the afternoon, and two in the evening – with the last stop in Belgrade at 7:00 PM.8 Streamline Ridership Trends Approximately 70 percent of the Greenline’s ridership is comprised of MSU students and faculty. Sixty-two (62) percent of riders use the Greenline service to commute to and from work. In 2012, there were nearly 20,000 boardings in Belgrade. Streamline’s Business Plan was updated in 2012 and some historic data are available. In the month of October in 2012, on aver- age, 21.48 passengers per day boarded the Green- line at the stop in Belgrade (Smith and Missoula). The morning peak hour sees the most ridership in Bel- grade with significant mid-day and evening peaks as well. Demand is expected to continue growing but lack of funding continues to limit service. Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity to Transit Due to Streamline’s limited service in Belgrade, many of the Belgrade riders say they have to drive to a bus stop (47 percent) while others walk or bike to the bus stop (48 percent). The median travel time for walkers was five minutes and for bikers, 10 minutes. Recently, Streamline decreased the number of stops in Belgrade from two to one and provided the one stop (Smith and Missoula) with a Park and Ride facility. A second stop was previously located at the Flying J Travel Plaza. Throughout the entire Streamline service area, bus stop amenities are varied and range from high-quality custom designed shelters with benches and informa- tion to simple bus stop signs with a route timetable. Walking and bicycling are natural compliments to tran- sit use. Transit use can be improved in Belgrade by high-quality pedestrian and bicycle facilities that can fill in the “first or last mile” of transit journeys. There are some sidewalks connecting to the bus stop from the west but there are still many barriers to pedestrian mobility surrounding the bus stop. Streamline currently operates one fare-free route in Belgrade, the Greenline Express. The Greenline Express travels between Bozeman, Four Corners, and Belgrade along Huffine Lane and Jackrabbit Lane. ---PAGE BREAK--- 26 STATE OF THE COMMUNITY 2.4.3. Freight and Rail Network Although freight volumes have declined in the past decade nationwide, Montana freight and rail companies are optimistic that they can maintain volumes by providing service to all commodities. As long as this proves true, Belgrade will continue being situated along busy freight and rail routes. Understanding how freight and rail interact with the rest of the transportation network will help ensure that as the demand for these services fluctuate, all other transportation modes can continue to move safely and efficiently about the transportation network. 2.4.3.1. Freight and Heavy Vehicles The City of Belgrade is situated near the junction of I-90 and Montana Highway 85 (MT-85). I-90 connects Belgrade with Bill- ings and I-94 to the east and Butte and I-15 to the west. MT-85 extends south and meets with US Highway 191 (US-191) and MT-84 in Four Corners. US-191 then extends south to West Yellowstone where it connects to US- 20. MT-84 travels west to its junction with US-287 in Norris. Each of these routes serve regional, national, and international trade. As such, it is important that delivery vehicles are able to travel through the area in a safe and effective manner. While heavy vehicles traveling from the east can access all of these junctions from Bozeman, Belgrade is sometimes the more attractive option due to the higher speed limits and a lower number of traffic signals. Within the study area, of major concern is the volume of heavy vehicle traffic transferring between I-90 and MT-85 (Jackrabbit Lane). Traffic counts from MDT along the Jackrabbit Lane/MT-85 corridor indicate that an annual average daily total (AADT) of commercial vehicles is 2,257, or roughly 9.3 percent of the total traffic along this segment in 2015.9 Large volumes of truck traffic are generated by the gravel pits east of Belgrade city limits. Previously, these trucks traveled through the city along Main Street in order to access I-90. With the recent construction of the East Belgrade Interchange, however, heavy truck traffic has been directed through the new interchange. The location of trucking activity centers can greatly influence the transportation network as a whole. For ex- ample, if a business wishes to receive daily deliveries from heavy vehicles, they would need to ensure that the trucks have a safe an accessible location to unload goods. If a loading dock or large parking area were not available, it is possible the truck would have to stop in the roadway while unloading. This would block traffic and may create a safety hazard. Main Street in Belgrade is an area of particular concern in regards to truck traffic and its associated congestion. An additional concern is that trucks coming from the gravel pits traveling down Main Street tend to leave behind dust and gravel on the streets, making the area undesirable for pe- destrians. However, many of the businesses that generate high volumes of truck traffic tend to be located in industrial or commercial areas that allow for large unloading areas. Figure 6 presents the areas that generate high percentages of truck activity within the study area. Also shown on the figure is the percentage of heavy vehicle traffic that was observed at various intersections throughout the study area. The data were collected in conjunction with the level of service analysis discussed in Section 2.5.2. Downtown Belgrade experiences heavy truck traffic throughout the day. ---PAGE BREAK--- 27 OCTOBER 17, 2018 G A LLA T I N RIV E R G A L LA T IN R I V E R HY ALITE CR E E K BAK E R C REEK EA S T G ALLATIN R IVE R Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport PENWELL BRIDGE ROAD FRANK ROAD AIRPORT ROAD MAYFAIR DR CAMERON AVE CHEERY DR SUNRISE DR 8TH ST ALAS K A F RON TAGE RD HOFFMAN ST WESTWOOD CL ROSEBUD AVE W CAMERON BRIDGE RD LINNEY RD RIVER RD AIRW A Y BL V D E CAMERON BRIDGE RD ALASKA RD S TUBB RD BOLLINGER RD WEAVER RD POWERS BLVD BASELINE ROAD LAGOON ROAD JACKRABBIT LN NEVADA ST DAVIS ST GR O G A N ST CENTRAL AVE OREGON ST E VALLEY CENTER RD GOLDEN WEST DR AMSTERDAM RD JEFFERSON AVE SPOONER RD ROYAL RD THORPE RD DRY CREEK R D MAIN ST A M S T E R D A M R D MADISON AVE JACKRABBIT LN DRY CREEK RD BROADWAY ST FRONTAGE RD FRONTAGE RD THORPE RD 90 90 85 290 347 205 235 205 2.9 2.8 4.9 1.2 1.3 3.4 3.5 5.0 6.0 1.9 2.0 3.0 5.9 4.8 3.6 2.9 0.0 6.2 7.9 1.4 1.4 4.0 3.8 6.3 7.3 4.7 5.1 9.2 5.8 Bus Barn Gravel Pit 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.25 Miles Legend City Boundary Airport Study Area At-grade Railroad Crossing Truck Stop Heavy Truck Activity Centers Percentage of Truck Traffic at Intersection 1.6 Figure 6 FREIGHT AND RAIL NETWORK ---PAGE BREAK--- 28 STATE OF THE COMMUNITY 2.4.3.2. Rail The main rail line through Belgrade is currently owned by BNSF Railway (BNSF) and is leased to Montana Rail Link (MRL). The line is designated as Subdivision Two – Spurling to Helena. Speed limits range from 50 to 60 miles per hour on the main track. As many as 28 trains travel through the Belgrade area daily. Through trains average approximately 110 cars per train. Belgrade has three at-grade rail crossings at Jackrab- bit Lane, at Broadway Street, and at Oregon Street (re- fer to Figure The Montana Rail Grade Separation Study10 conducted in 2016 evaluated both the Jackrab- bit Lane and Broadway Street crossings as part of the top 25 crossings in Montana needing improvements, based upon delay and safety issues. Providing a grade separation at Broadway Street was determined in- feasible due to site conditions and potential impacts to surrounding buildings, infrastructure, residences, and street connectivity. The Jackrabbit Lane crossing, combined holistically with the Broadway Street crossing, was further investigated and identified as a high priority at-grade crossing in Montana. The findings of the 2016 study determined that the Jack- rabbit Lane crossing has the greatest number of daily vehicle volumes of all crossings analyzed with daily traf- fic volumes over 16,400 AADT in 2014 and projected volumes of 32,690 AADT in 2034. Frequent train cross- ings of the roadway currently cause significant traffic delays. The study concluded that grade separation of Jackrabbit Lane from the railroad would help minimize delays and congestion, while also increasing safety. A variety of constraints led to the conclusion that an un- derpass was the most feasible solution as it required minimal changes to the surrounding roadway network. The railroad crossing at Jackrabbit Lane is one of three at-grade crossings in Belgrade. Frequent train crossings cause significant travel delays. ---PAGE BREAK--- 29 OCTOBER 17, 2018 The Bozeman Yellowstone Internation- al Airport (previously known as Gallatin Field Airport) is located adjacent to Bel- grade to the northeast and has been included in the study area. In 2007, the airport updated their Airport Mas- ter Plan to investigate future growth and to outline anticipated improvement projects. The proposed development projects in the plan are aimed at help- ing accommodate the airport’s growing needs and keep operations running smoothly. The report projected 100 percent growth for the airport within the 20-year planning horizon (2025). These forecasts have generally held true for the past ten years, making the Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport the busiest airport in Montana in 2017. The airport has a substantial impact on Belgrade’s road network. The I-90 East Belgrade Interchange was constructed in 2015 and provides easy airport access for interstate travelers and has helped improve traffic flows in Belgrade. The Master Plan proposes multiple airport expansion projects including the addition of new runways and the relocation of existing roadways, among other projects. The Master Plan proposes the relocation of Lagoon Road and Baseline Road. This would involve moving Lagoon Road east to run parallel with Powers Blvd before running south to meet with Baseline Road at the existing intersection of Tubb Road and Baseline Road. Baseline Road would then continue further south (east of Jetway Drive) before curving to the west around the existing houses built along Timothy Lane until it meets again with Tubb Road. Additional discussions with the airport have noted a desire to made additional changes to the transportation network. It is generally preferred to extend Dollar Drive north to connect to Tubb Road via Jetway Drive. Due to safety issues along Airport Road and other general issues, it is preferable to remove the portion of Airport Road that curves around the airport boundary. Dollar Drive would then connect to the remain- ing part of Airport Road approximately at the intersection of Tower Road. The proposed road relocations could have an impact on travel patterns within the existing Belgrade road network. Figure 7 shows the airport's pro- posed relocations. The relocations are merely for discussion purposes only and do not represent final plans. The amount of land currently owned in northeastern Belgrade by the airport is substantial. In addition to physical property, the airport controls additional land through clear zone easements, development rights, and leases. Around the time of the Master Plan Update, the airport, in conjunction with Gallatin County and the City of Belgrade, created an avigation easement area for the lands surrounding the airport. The easement identifies height restrictions and permits lawful operation of aircraft in the area. Figure 7 shows the land which is currently owned by the Gallatin Airport Authority and potential land acquisition. 2.4.4. Airport Road Network The Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport is located northeast of Belgrade and was the busiest airport in Montana in 2017. ---PAGE BREAK--- 30 STATE OF THE COMMUNITY Figure 7 AIRPORT LAND OWNERSHIP AND PROPOSED ROAD RELOCATIONS Source: Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport, May 2018 ---PAGE BREAK--- 31 OCTOBER 17, 2018 Existing roadway traffic data were collected by MDT, Gallatin County, and the City of Belgrade. The data were used to establish traffic conditions and to provide reliable data on historic traffic volumes. The most recently available AADT counts were used to represent existing conditions. The capacity of the roadways is of critical importance when looking at the growth of the community. As traffic volumes increase, vehicle flow deteriorates. When traffic volumes approach and exceed the available capac- ity, users experience congestion and vehicle delay. As such, it is important to investigate the size and config- uration of the existing roadways and to determine if these roads need to be expanded to accommodate the existing or projected traffic demands. The capacity of a roadway is based on various features including the number of lanes, intersection function, access and intersection spacing, vehicle fleet mix, roadway geometrics, and vehicle speeds. Individual road- way capacity varies greatly and should be calculated on an individual basis. However, for planning and com- parison purposes, theoretical roadway capacities were developed based on simplistic roadway configurations. Table 4 presents the capacities, given in vehicles per day, that have been used for this work. These values are not intended to be used to set any thresholds for roadway performance, but rather provide general information to be used for comparison purposes. A roadway’s capacity, and associated volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio, can be used as a comparison tool when looking at the transportation system. The v/c ratio of a roadway is defined as the traffic volume on the roadway divided by the capacity of the roadway. Figure 8 presents the resultant v/c ratios for the existing major street network. The v/c ratios help identify potential capacity deficiencies on the transportation system. 2.5. TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS In order to get an accurate representation of the existing roadway network in Belgrade, it was necessary to collect and analyze a significant amount of data. The data aids in the understanding of how the current road network is operating and gives a basis for determining future planning needs. Table 4: Theoretical Roadway Capacity Road Configuration Capacity (vpd)* 2 Lane 12,000 2 Lane – 18,000 3 Lane 18,000 4 Lane 24,000 4 Lane – 32,000 Interstate 68,000 * Values represent planning level daily capacities developed for this LRTP and are intended for comparison purposes only. Actual physical roadway capacity can vary greatly depending on roadway design features and access control. Two-way Left-turn Lane 2.5.1. Existing Roadway Volumes and Capacity ---PAGE BREAK--- 32 STATE OF THE COMMUNITY G A LLA T I N RIV E R G A L LA T IN R I V E R HY ALITE CR E E K BAK E R C REEK EA S T G ALLATIN R IVE R Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport PENWELL BRIDGE ROAD FRANK ROAD AIRPORT ROAD MAYFAIR DR CAMERON AVE CHEERY DR SUNRISE DR 8TH ST ALAS K A F RON TAGE RD HOFFMAN ST WESTWOOD CL ROSEBUD AVE W CAMERON BRIDGE RD LINNEY RD RIVER RD AIRW A Y BL V D E CAMERON BRIDGE RD ALASKA RD S TUBB RD BOLLINGER RD WEAVER RD POWERS BLVD BASELINE ROAD LAGOON ROAD JACKRABBIT LN NEVADA ST DAVIS ST GR O G A N ST CENTRAL AVE OREGON ST E VALLEY CENTER RD GOLDEN WEST DR AMSTERDAM RD JEFFERSON AVE SPOONER RD ROYAL RD THORPE RD DRY CREEK R D MAIN ST A M S T E R D A M R D MADISON AVE JACKRABBIT LN DRY CREEK RD BROADWAY ST FRONTAGE RD FRONTAGE RD THORPE RD 90 90 85 290 347 205 235 205 1.13 1.33 1.26 0.65 0.43 0.39 0.17 0.29 0.67 0.22 0.53 0.28 0.21 0.17 0.50 0.26 0.14 0.48 0.12 0.81 0.17 0.71 0.52 0.87 0.74 0.65 0.65 0.30 0.27 0.21 0.18 0.08 0.06 0.30 0.25 0.28 0.07 0.06 0.16 0.21 0.43 *The functional classifications shown are recommended as part of this Transportation Plan and do not reflect the federally approved functional classification criteria. 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.25 Miles Legend Functional Class* Interstate Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector City Boundary Airport Study Area Volume to Capacity Ratio > 1.00 1.15 Volume to Capacity Ratio < 1.00 0.65 Minor Collector Figure 8 EXISTING V/C RATIOS ---PAGE BREAK--- 33 OCTOBER 17, 2018 2.5.2. Intersection Operations Urban road systems are ultimately controlled by the efficiency of the major intersections. High amounts of vehicle delay at major intersec- tions directly reduces the number of vehicles that can be accommo- dated along the road during peak hours. Intersection performance is evaluated in terms of vehicle delay. The amount of vehicle delay expe- rienced at an intersection correlates to a measure called level of service (LOS). LOS is used as a means for identifying intersections that are ex- periencing operational difficulties, as well as a means for comparing mul- tiple intersections. The LOS scale represents the full range of operat- ing conditions. The scale is based on the ability of an intersection or street segment to accommodate the amount of traffic using the inter- section. The scale ranges from which indicates little, if any, vehicle delay, to which indicates signif- icant vehicle delay and traffic con- gestion. LOS is one approach to evaluating traffic operations. Intersection LOS defines intersection performance in terms of vehicle delay and does not factor in alternative travel modes nor does it take into consideration the health of the overall transportation system. Intersection LOS is often based on a single hour, or peak hours, for which the system is most congested. A broader approach to improving the transportation system, not just reducing peak hour delay at single intersections, should be taken. Also note that in this analysis intersections were analyzed on an individual basis. This means that LOS was determined based on the total number of vehicles traveling through the intersection during the peak hour. Consequently, intersection queues that form as a result of delay at nearby intersections were not accounted for in this analysis. In other words, at many of the intersections in the study area, peak hour traffic causes gridlock which only allows low volumes of traffic to travel through the intersection, numerically, this results in a better LOS. A total of 29 intersections were evaluated within the study area. Data were collected during the spring of 2017 at 17 of the 29 intersections (6 signalized and 11 unsignalized locations). Each intersection was counted during the peak hours, defined as 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. Turning movement counts were obtained from MDT for 5 additional intersections (1 signalized and 4 unsignalized locations), and from other sources for 7 additional intersections (1 signalized and 6 unsignalized locations). Data at the MDT count locations were collected on various dates over the past few years. While the other counts were collected in the fall of 2017. The existing LOS for the intersections evaluated are presented in Figure 9. Table 5: Intersection Level of Service Descriptions LOS Intersection Description A • Free flow • Low Volumes • <1 vehicle in queue • Signalized: most vehicles do not stop • Unsignalized: Very easy to find acceptable gap B • Mostly free flow • Somewhat low Volumes • Occasionally 1+ vehicles in queue • Signalized: vehicles clear in one green phase • Unsignalized: Very easy to find acceptable gap C • Smooth flow • Moderate Volumes • Standing queue of at least 1 vehicle • Signalized: Individual cycle failures may occur • Unsignalized: Acceptable gaps found regularly D • Approaching unstable flow • High volume/capacity ratios • Standing queue of vehicles upon arrival • Signalized: Individual cycle failures are noticeable • Unsignalized: Hard to find acceptable gap E • Unstable flow • Volumes at or near capacity • Standing queue of vehicles upon arrival • Signalized: Individual cycle failures are frequent • Unsignalized: Hard to find acceptable gap F • Saturation condition • Volumes over capacity • Standing queue of vehicles upon arrival • Signalized: Many individual cycle failures • Unsignalized: Very hard to find acceptable gap ---PAGE BREAK--- 34 STATE OF THE COMMUNITY G A LLA T I N RIV E R G A L LA T IN R I V E R HY ALITE CR E E K BAK E R C REEK EA S T G ALLATIN R IVE R Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport PENWELL BRIDGE ROAD FRANK ROAD AIRPORT ROAD MAYFAIR DR CAMERON AVE CHEERY DR SUNRISE DR 8TH ST ALAS K A F RON TAGE RD HOFFMAN ST WESTWOOD CL ROSEBUD AVE W CAMERON BRIDGE RD LINNEY RD RIVER RD AIRW A Y BL V D E CAMERON BRIDGE RD ALASKA RD S TUBB RD BOLLINGER RD WEAVER RD POWERS BLVD BASELINE ROAD LAGOON ROAD JACKRABBIT LN NEVADA ST DAVIS ST GR O G A N ST CENTRAL AVE OREGON ST E VALLEY CENTER RD GOLDEN WEST DR AMSTERDAM RD JEFFERSON AVE SPOONER RD ROYAL RD THORPE RD DRY CREEK R D MAIN ST A M S T E R D A M R D MADISON AVE JACKRABBIT LN DRY CREEK RD BROADWAY ST FRONTAGE RD FRONTAGE RD THORPE RD 90 90 85 290 347 205 235 205 B C C C C B D F C B B B C B F D B C B C A B C D B C B C B B C C A A B C B C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C A A A A A A Level of Service A B C D E F Signalized Intersections AM PM Unsignalized Intersections AM PM 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.25 Miles Legend City Boundary Airport Study Area Figure 9 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE ---PAGE BREAK--- 35 OCTOBER 17, 2018 2.5.3. Active Transportation Data Providing an accurate picture of pedestrian and bicycle activity within any community is difficult. Data are typ- ically not available or not comprehensive enough to form a complete picture of active transportation behavior. Data for vehicles are, by comparison, much more readily available. The following subsections summarize available data pertaining to active transportation. The US Census has long been one of the only readily available sources of data to measure general levels of transportation choices. The data are limited to commute based trips and do not reflect the spectrum of poten- tial trip types available. The ACS has supplemented the 10-year cycle of the US Census to provide additional annual data. For communities the size of Belgrade, annual data are not statistically valid, therefore five-year averages are used. This method provides some insight, however, it is slow to note changes over time. For walking and bicycling, the margins of error are over one percent. Table 6 compares the City of Belgrade to Gallatin County and the State of Montana. Commuting patterns have changed when compared with those of the 2000 and 2010 Census. While the margin for error inherent in the ACS is significant, the inconsistency in the data make it difficult to arrive at any concrete conclusions about travel patterns. In 2000, Belgrade reported that 1.58 percent of residents walk to work, 0.30 percent bike, and 0.18 percent ride the bus. In 2010, those numbers increased to 5.77 percent walking, 3.34 percent biking, but dropped to 0.00 percent riding the bus. It is not surprising that active trans- portation modes increased in popularity, but it is curious that bus ridership would decrease. Streamline began operations in 2006 and many of the riders expressed that the Streamline was their main form of transportation to work. The 2011-2015 ACS estimates report a dramatic decline in active transportation users; 0.30 percent walking, another 0.03 percent biking, and still 0.00 percent taking the bus. Although the margin of error in this dataset is high, it is important to note this trend. A decrease could be due to a larger number of households being constructed at a greater distance from destinations and an increase of workers living in Belgrade and commuting to Bozeman. Additionally, Belgrade has seen an increase in personal vehicle ownership, suggest- ing that workers are opting to use their personal vehicles to commute rather than to use any active transpor- tation modes. 2.5.3.1. Journey to Work/Commuting (ACS) 2011-2015 Data Table 6: Commute Mode Share and Travel Time Mode Share State of Montana Gallatin County City of Belgrade Walking* 4.9% 6.3% 0.3% Biking* 1.4% 3.4% 0.3% Driving† 85.6% 81.6% 89.7% Drove Alone 75.2% 72.5% 75.0% Transit 0.8% 0.6% 0.0% Travel Time to Work (mean) 19.6 min 18.9 min 19.2 min Data: American Community Survey (ACS) Five Year Estimates, 2011-2015 * Due to small sample sizes, the margin of error is approximately 1.2 percent for walking and 1.4 percent for bicycling † Driving mode share combines single occupancy vehicles and carpools ---PAGE BREAK--- 36 STATE OF THE COMMUNITY 2.5.4. Bicycle Operations Vehicular LOS has been a standard metric for the evaluation of transportation networks for decades. Based on the freedom of movement, vehicular LOS methods often do not apply to non-motorized transportation. As such, transportation professionals have been working to develop a comparable means of evaluation for pedestrians and bicyclists. For these modes, it is the qualitative metrics, or how a street “feels”, that may de- termine how it performs. One tool to analyze the perceived level of traffic stress (LTS) has been outlined in the Mineta Transportation Institute Report 11-1911. A LTS for bicyclists is determined based on various factors including posted speed limit, street width, traffic volume, and presence of bicycle lanes. The combination of these criteria separates the bicycle network into one of four scores: LTS 1: Low-stress roadway suitable for all ages and abilities, LTS 2: Roadway comfortably ridden by the mainstream adult population, LTS 3: Roadway ridden by the “enthused and confident” cyclists, and LTS 4: Roadway ridden by the “strong and fearless” cyclists. Off-street facilities, such as shared use paths, would generally be considered as low-stress environments (LTS while a roadway shared with motor vehicle traffic operating at high speeds would receive a higher LTS score. LTS scores can be used to identify existing areas that may be acting as barriers to bicycle traffic due to high levels of stress. Local streets with low traffic volumes and low speeds can be comfortable for many cyclists despite the shared roadway environment. The LTS analysis focuses specifically on the roadway en- vironment. Shared-use paths offer comfortable facilities for all cyclists and have been score as LTS 1 for this analysis. The results of the LTS analysis are presented in Figure 10. The framework provided by the LTS analysis can be used to identify corridors that may require more interven- tion than others to provide a comfortable experience for bicyclists. For example, a roadway with a standard six- foot wide bike lane would be scored as LTS 1 if the posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour or less. A roadway with four travel lanes can, at best, be scored at LTS 3 if there are no separated bike lanes. There are currently two corridors with bike lanes within the study area, Grogan Street/Spooner Road and Penwell Bridge Road. Each of these facilities has been scored at LTS 1. Much of the major street network within the study area has been scored at LTS 3 or 4 due to high traffic speeds and volumes and the lack of on-street bicycle facilities. 2.5.3.2. National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) 2009 Data Data from the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) provides mode share data aggregated at the nation- al level for all trips and not just commute to work trips. For example, NHTS indicates that for every one bike to work trip, there are another 1.6 utilitarian bike trips (shopping, personal trips, transporting others, medical or dental visits, meals, or other reasons), 0.5 bike to school trips, and 4.8 social or recreational trips. Overall bike to work trips represent only approximately 7.5 percent of all bike trips nationally. It should be noted that ap- proximately 41 percent of bike trips counted by NHTS are return home trips, indicating many bicyclists perform the initial part of their round trip by other means. While it is likely that travel patterns in Belgrade, particularly recreational based travel, do not match the national averages, it is very likely that the ACS commute mode share noted previously in Table 6 under represents overall mode share in Belgrade. ---PAGE BREAK--- 37 OCTOBER 17, 2018 G A LLA T I N RIV E R G A L LA T IN R I V E R HY ALITE CR E E K BAK E R C REEK EA S T G ALLATIN R IVE R Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport PENWELL BRIDGE ROAD FRANK ROAD AIRPORT ROAD MAYFAIR DR CAMERON AVE CHEERY DR SUNRISE DR 8TH ST ALAS K A F RON TAGE RD HOFFMAN ST WESTWOOD CL ROSEBUD AVE W CAMERON BRIDGE RD LINNEY RD RIVER RD AIRW A Y BL V D E CAMERON BRIDGE RD ALASKA RD S TUBB RD BOLINGER RD WEAVER RD POWERS BLVD BASELINE ROAD LAGOON ROAD JACKRABBIT LN NEVADA ST DAVIS ST GR O G A N ST CENTRAL AVE OREGON ST E VALLEY CENTER RD GOLDEN WEST DR AMSTERDAM RD JEFFERSON AVE SPOONER RD ROYAL RD THORPE RD DRY CREEK R D MAIN ST A M S T E R D A M R D MADISON AVE JACKRABBIT LN DRY CREEK RD BROADWAY ST FRONTAGE RD FRONTAGE RD THORPE RD 90 90 85 290 347 205 235 205 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.25 Miles Legend Level of Traffic Stress City Boundary Airport Study Area * Includes Shared-use Paths 4: Strong and Fearless 3: Enthused and Confident Adult 2: Average Adult 1: All Ages and Abilities* Parks Figure 10 BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS ---PAGE BREAK--- 38 STATE OF THE COMMUNITY 2.6. SAFETY Crash data were provided by the MDT Traffic and Safety Bureau for the five-year period between January 1st, 2012 and December 31st, 2016. The crash reports are a summation of information from the scene of the crash provided by the responding officer. As such, some of the information contained in the crash reports may be subjective. According to the MDT crash database, there were 1,480 crashes reported within the study area during the analysis time period. The number of crashes per year increased from 211 crashes in 2012 to 365 crashes in 2014. After 2014 the number of yearly crashes decreased to approximately 340 crashes in both 2015 and 2016. The number of injury crashes steadily increased over the five years, totaling 45 in 2012 and rising to 81 by 2016. The number of non-injury crashes per year in 2012 was 166 crashes and increased to a peak in 2014 with 299 crashes before decreasing to roughly 260 crashes in both 2015 and 2016. The number of injury crashes per year steadily increased by approximately 10 crashes between 2012 and 2016. Figure 11 presents the total, injury, and non-injury crashes per year for the five-year analysis period. The spatial distribution of all crashes was plotted based on the reported crash locations. The number of crash- es per area were then tallied and are displayed in Figure 12. Locations with higher traffic volumes appear to have a higher number of crashes. Figure 11 NUMBER OF CRASHES PER YEAR ---PAGE BREAK--- 39 OCTOBER 17, 2018 G A LLA T I N RIV E R G A L LA T IN R I V E R HY ALITE CR E E K BAK E R C REEK EA S T G ALLATIN R IVE R Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport PENWELL BRIDGE ROAD FRANK ROAD AIRPORT ROAD MAYFAIR DR CAMERON AVE CHEERY DR SUNRISE DR 8TH ST ALAS K A F RON TAGE RD HOFFMAN ST WESTWOOD CL ROSEBUD AVE W CAMERON BRIDGE RD LINNEY RD RIVER RD AIRW A Y BL V D E CAMERON BRIDGE RD ALASKA RD S TUBB RD BOLLINGER RD WEAVER RD POWERS BLVD BASELINE ROAD LAGOON ROAD JACKRABBIT LN NEVADA ST DAVIS ST GR O G A N ST CENTRAL AVE OREGON ST E VALLEY CENTER RD GOLDEN WEST DR AMSTERDAM RD JEFFERSON AVE SPOONER RD ROYAL RD THORPE RD DRY CREEK R D MAIN ST A M S T E R D A M R D MADISON AVE JACKRABBIT LN DRY CREEK RD BROADWAY ST FRONTAGE RD FRONTAGE RD THORPE RD 90 90 AB 85 290 347 205 235 205 y K 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.25 Miles Legend City Boundary Study Area Crash Density per 500ft x 500ft Grid* *January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2016 >50 Crashes 26 - 50 Crashes 11-25 Crashes 6 - 10 Crashes 1 - 5 Crashes Airport Figure 12 CRASH DENSITY ---PAGE BREAK--- 40 STATE OF THE COMMUNITY 2.6.2. Intersection Crashes The 29 intersections that were studied for LOS analysis were also investigated for crashes. The crash information was ana- lyzed to identify those intersections with crash characteristics that may warrant fur- ther study. Crash rates were used to com- pare the number of crashes to the daily traffic volume. The rate is expressed as the number of crashes per million entering vehicles as shown in Equation 1. The severity index was calculated by applying multipliers to crashes based on severity. For the severity index, crashes were broken into three categories of severity: property damage only (PDO), non-incapacitating injury, and fatal or incapacitating injury crashes. Each of these three types was given a different multiplier: 1.0 for PDO, 3.0 for injury, and 8.0 for fatal or incapacitating injury crashes. Equation 2 was used to calculate the se- verity index. The severity rate is calculated by multiplying the crash rate by the severity index. Table 7 presents the intersections with crash severity rates greater than 1.00. Crash severity is categorized based on the most severe injury resulting from the crash. For example, if a crash results in two possible injuries and an incapacitating injury, the crash is reported as an incapacitating injury crash. An incapacitating injury is defined as an injury, other than a fatality, which prevents the injured individual from walking, driving, or normally continuing the activities they were capable of performing before the injury. During the five-year analysis period, there were a total of 312 injury crashes and 8 fatal crashes, accounting for 21 and 0.5 percent of all crashes, respectively. As a result of multiple individuals being injured in a single crash, a total of 433 individuals were injured during the crash analysis period. Furthermore, 8 individuals sus- tained fatal injuries during the same period. The locations of the incapacitating and fatal injury crashes are shown in Figure 13 on the next page. The fol- lowing locations appear to have a trend of severe crashes occurring during the analysis period: 2.6.1. Crash Severity Table 7: High Crash Severity Locations Intersection Crash Rate Severity Index Severity Rate Royal Road & Amsterdam Road 1.00 2.82 2.82 Jackrabbit Lane & Amsterdam Road 1.47 1.53 2.24 Airport Road & Frontage Road 1.20 1.86 2.22 Jackrabbit Lane & Madison Avenue 1.64 1.34 2.20 Broadway Street & Madison Avenue 0.53 3.67 1.93 Thorpe Road & Amsterdam Road 1.06 1.75 1.85 Broadway Street & Main Street 1.11 163 1.81 Jackrabbit Lane & Main Street 1.38 1.17 1.62 River Rock Road & Amsterdam Road 0.49 2.67 1.31 I-90 EB On/Off & Amsterdam Road 0.69 1.89 1.30 Oregon Street & Jefferson Avenue 0.88 1.46 1.29 Jackrabbit Lane & I-90 WB On/Off 0.71 1.50 1.07 • I-90 west of the Amsterdam Road Exit, • Jackrabbit Lane I-90 Overpass, • Jackrabbit Lane south of Frank Road, • Royal Road and Amsterdam Road, and • Madison Avenue between Broadway and Jackrabbit Lane. ---PAGE BREAK--- 41 OCTOBER 17, 2018 G A LLA T I N RIV E R G A L LA T IN R I V E R HY ALITE CR E E K BAK E R C REEK EA S T G ALLATIN R IVE R Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport PENWELL BRIDGE ROAD FRANK ROAD AIRPORT ROAD MAYFAIR DR CAMERON AVE CHEERY DR SUNRISE DR 8TH ST ALAS K A F RON TAGE RD HOFFMAN ST WESTWOOD CL ROSEBUD AVE W CAMERON BRIDGE RD LINNEY RD RIVER RD AIRW A Y BL V D E CAMERON BRIDGE RD ALASKA RD S TUBB RD BOLLINGER RD WEAVER RD POWERS BLVD BASELINE ROAD LAGOON ROAD JACKRABBIT LN NEVADA ST DAVIS ST GR O G A N ST CENTRAL AVE OREGON ST E VALLEY CENTER RD GOLDEN WEST DR AMSTERDAM RD JEFFERSON AVE SPOONER RD ROYAL RD THORPE RD DRY CREEK R D MAIN ST A M S T E R D A M R D MADISON AVE JACKRABBIT LN DRY CREEK RD BROADWAY ST FRONTAGE RD FRONTAGE RD THORPE RD 90 90 85 290 347 205 235 205 Fatal accident Incapacitating injury accident 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.25 Miles Legend City Boundary Airport Study Area *January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2016 Crash Severity* Figure 13 SEVERE CRASH LOCATIONS ---PAGE BREAK--- 42 STATE OF THE COMMUNITY 2.6.3. Pedestrians and Bicyclists Bicycle and pedestrian crash data are part of the same data set as the vehicular crash data. All bicycle crashes have the reported crash type listed as bicycle. In con- trast, some of the crashes list the collision type as rear- end or right angle but also provide a count for the num- ber of pedestrians involved. These pedestrian-involved crashes were accounted for in the following data anal- ysis. Note that each crash used for this analysis was also included in the prior study area crash analysis. Crash data were reviewed for the five-year period between January 1st, 2012 to December 31st, 2016. There was a total of 27 non-motorized crashes. Of the 14 bicycle crashes, 4 resulted in an incapacitating in- jury, 8 caused an injury, and 2 were property damage only crashes. Of the 13 pedestrian crashes, 3 caused an incapacitating injury, 6 resulted in an injury, and 4 were property damage only crashes. The vast majority of pedestrian- and bicycle-involved crashes occurred at intersections or driveways; essentially, places where vehicle turning movements conflict. Most of these in- tersections are on Belgrade’s arterial and collector system. The following bicyclist and pedestrian crash trends were noted: • There were 14 crashes involving bicyclists and 13 crashes involving pedestrians in the analy- sis period. • Of the 27 total bicycle and pedestrian crashes in the analysis period, 21 crashes (78 percent) resulted in some form of injury, although there were no fatalities. • 67 percent of total bicycle and pedestrian crashes occurred at an intersection or were in- tersection related. • 81 percent of the crashes involving bicycles or pedestrians occurred during daylight condi- tions. The crash data indicate a focus on intersection safety may yield reductions in the number of future crashes. Additionally, as fewer pedestrian and bicycle crashes occur on local streets (37 percent), local streets may be another place to invest future improvements such as bicycle boulevards and arterial crossing improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists. Figure 14 shows the lo- cations of the bicycle and pedestrian crashes within the study area over the past five years. Intermittent sidewalks along Jackrabbit Lane present a barrier to pedestrian traffic. The mid-block crossing near Main Street and Oregon Street is frequently used. ---PAGE BREAK--- 43 OCTOBER 17, 2018 G A LLA T I N RIV E R G A L LA T IN R I V E R HY ALITE CR E E K BAK E R C REEK EA S T G ALLATIN R IVE R Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport PENWELL BRIDGE ROAD FRANK ROAD AIRPORT ROAD MAYFAIR DR CAMERON AVE CHEERY DR SUNRISE DR 8TH ST ALAS K A F RON TAGE RD HOFFMAN ST WESTWOOD CL ROSEBUD AVE W CAMERON BRIDGE RD LINNEY RD RIVER RD AIRW A Y BL V D E CAMERON BRIDGE RD ALASKA RD S TUBB RD BOLINGER RD WEAVER RD POWERS BLVD BASELINE ROAD LAGOON ROAD JACKRABBIT LN NEVADA ST DAVIS ST GR O G A N ST CENTRAL AVE OREGON ST E VALLEY CENTER RD GOLDEN WEST DR AMSTERDAM RD JEFFERSON AVE SPOONER RD ROYAL RD THORPE RD DRY CREEK R D MAIN ST A M S T E R D A M R D MADISON AVE JACKRABBIT LN DRY CREEK RD BROADWAY ST FRONTAGE RD FRONTAGE RD THORPE RD 90 90 85 290 347 205 235 205 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.25 Miles Legend City Boundary Airport Study Area *January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2016 Crash Type* Bicycle Pedestrian Figure 14 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH LOCATIONS ---PAGE BREAK--- 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- 45 OCTOBER 17, 2018 CHAPTER 3: Growth, Travel Forecasts, and Needs 3.1. OVERVIEW This chapter discusses the background and assumptions used to project growth in the Belgrade area to the year 2040. By using population, employment, and other socioeconomic trends as aids, the future transporta- tion needs were projected. A travel demand model of the transportation system for Gallatin County was built by MDT. Information about future growth was used to allocate residential and employment development to project future conditions. Changes to the transportation system that are committed to occur in the next five years were incorporated into the model to forecast future transportation conditions. An analysis of the project- ed transportation conditions was performed to estimate how traffic patterns and characteristics may change from existing conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- 46 GROWTH, TRAVEL FORECASTS, AND NEEDS 3.2. FUTURE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT Projections are estimates of various characteristics at future dates. They illustrate reasonable estimates of future conditions based on assumptions about current or expected trends. Population and employment pro- jections, in the form of housing units and total jobs, are used to help predict future travel patterns and assess the performance of the transportation system. 3.2.1. Population and Housing Projections Population and housing totals are used in the TDM to help determine where vehicle trips are originating with- in the study area. Residential growth is best represented in the model by reporting housing units as the key model input. Gallatin County Several sources of population projections for Gallatin County were examined to help understand potential growth within the county. These sources consisted of both published community planning documents and recognized sources for demographic projections. These projections are summarized in Table 8. For the purposes of the Belgrade LRTP, the Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. (W&P) projections were select- ed as the preferred set of population projections for Gallatin County. With a projected year 2040 population of more than 177,000, these projections reflect sustained and significant growth in Gallatin County. Table 8: Population Projections for Gallatin County Estimate or Projection Source 2010 2014 2016 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 CAGR* U.S. Census Bureau/CEIC Estimate 89,513 97,322 104,502 194,124** 2.61% Gallatin County Growth Policy 82,000 116,000 137,969** 1.75% Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan12 Low Growth Projection 84,935 100,037 108,567 117,824 138,774** 1.65% Moderate Growth Projection 87,406 109,023 121,760 135,986 169,618** 2.23% High Growth Projection 90,727 121,930 141,350 163,863 220,218** 3.00% Bozeman Community Plan13 88,300 97,780 107,100 116,450 153,574** 1.86% Bozeman TMP14 89,513 99,586 176,191 2.70% eREMI Model 89,616 95,470 98,940 105,568 112,302 116,627 119,368 122,432 1.05% Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 89,587 97,276 103,141 113,574 127,844 143,437 160,030 177,477 2.30% * Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) calculated using 2010 population totals and future population projections. **Estimated using CAGR applied to population projection. ---PAGE BREAK--- 47 OCTOBER 17, 2018 City of Belgrade Population projections for the City of Belgrade are not as readily available as for Gallatin County. The principal sources of projections for the city’s population are other published community planning documents including the Belgrade Area Growth Policy (2006) and the Belgrade Area Transportation Plan (2002). Population projec- tions from these sources along with estimates from the 2010 Census and W&P are shown in Table 9. It is apparent from a review of Table 9 that substantial variation exists between the population projections for the city. This is due in part to the fact that these planning documents were produced before 2010 Census data became available that firmly established populations for all geographies of the county. Planning studies prior to the 2010 Census data had to rely on older Census data or other information to help estimate population growth trends. Discrepancies in population projections are also partially due to differences in areas of anal- ysis. The Census population estimates reflect population totals only within Belgrade city limits whereas the other sources used larger areas of interest. While the W&P projections are not available specifically for the City of Belgrade, the 2.30 percent CAGR cal- culated for Gallatin County was applied to the 2010 Census estimate for the City of Belgrade population for reference purposes. This method results in a projected City of Belgrade population of approximately 15,000 for the year 2040. Belgrade LRTP Study Area The share of the population living within the LRTP study area was estimated using Census population data. GIS analysis was used to identify the total population within all census blocks entirely within or crossed by the study area boundary. This analysis established the study area population to be 15,722 in 2010 and 16,970 in 2014. The population of the LRTP study area accounted for just over 17 percent of the county’s total popula- tion in 2010 and 2014. In order to have current data for the LRTP, the 2014 population totals were increased to represent 2016 exist- ing conditions. The 2016 baseline conditions for the LRTP study area used the population estimate for Gallatin County provided by W&P and was then proportioned based on the percent of the population within the LRTP study area in the year 2014 (17.04 percent). This percent distribution of the county’s population within the Belgrade and Bozeman areas was then carried forward for future projections, being held constant through the year 2040. The number of housing units is a key component in the TDM model. Housing units represent the population and act as a hub for traffic within the network. According to the 2014 calibrated model, Gallatin County had 99,586 residents distributed among 47,048 housing units. Within the study area, the calibrated model shows a population of 16,970 distributed among 6,879 housing units. The number of occupants per housing unit under baseline conditions is 2.12 and 2.47, respectively, for Gallatin County and the study area. Table 9: Population Projections for the City of Belgrade Estimate or Projection Source 2010 2014 2016 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 CAGR* U.S. Census Bureau/CEIC Estimate 7,389 7,790 8,254 12,852** 1.33% Belgrade Area Growth Policy 10,000 20,000 80,000** 7.18% Belgrade Area Transportation Plan 8,200 12,000 25,699** 3.88% Woods & Poole Economics, Inc.*** 7,389 14,638 2.30% * Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) calculated using 2010 population totals and next soonest population count. **Estimated using CAGR applied to 2010 population count. Estimated using 2010 Census and Woods & Pool Economics, Inc. CAGR calculated for Gallatin County. ---PAGE BREAK--- 48 GROWTH, TRAVEL FORECASTS, AND NEEDS The number of housing units for the 2016 baseline condition were calculated using the populations from the 2016 baseline condition and the occupancy factors from the 2014 calibrated model. This calculation results in a total of 48,727 housing units in the county and 7,125 housing units within the LRTP study area. The number of housing units within Gallatin County and the LRTP study area by the year 2040 was again determined by dividing the total populations for these geographies by their respective occupancy factors. Applying the occu- pancy rate to the projected 2040 population for Gallatin County results in 83,846 housing units; an increase of 35,119 from the year 2016. For the LRTP study area, an increase of 5,135 housing units is projected for the year 2040. For reference, the population and housing units for the City of Bozeman and its unincorporated areas have also been provided for each of the conditions. The data for Bozeman comes directly from the Bozeman Trans- portation Master Plan (TMP). The “Outside Study Areas” data includes all areas within Gallatin County except those areas that are within the Belgrade LRTP study area or the Bozeman TMP study area. Table 10 shows the projected population of the LRTP study area through the year 2040, which is forecasted to be more than 30,000 residents. Table 10: Population and Housing Unit Projections Area 2010 (Census) 2014 (Calibrated Model) 2016 (Baseline) 2040 (Projection) Net Change (2016-2040) Gallatin County Total Population 89,513 99,586 103,141 177,477 77,891 Housing Units 42,289 47,048 48,727 83,846 36,798 Population per Housing Unit 2.12 Belgrade LRTP Study Area Population 15,722 16,970 17,576 30,243 13,273 Housing Units 6,373 6,879 7,125 12,259 5,380 Population per Housing Unit 2.47 Bozeman TMP Study Area Population 49,814 56,924 58,956 100,712 41,756 Housing Units 22,783 26,035 26,964 46,062 19,097 Population per Housing Unit 2.19 Outside Study Areas Population 23,977 25,692 26,609 46,522 19,913 Housing Units 13,133 14,134 14,638 25,525 10,887 Population per Housing Unit 1.82 ---PAGE BREAK--- 49 OCTOBER 17, 2018 3.2.2. Employment Projections Employment numbers are used in the TDM model to help distribute vehicle traffic as accurately as possible within the street and road network. Places with high levels of employment will tend to generate high levels of vehicle traffic. The traffic generated is based, in part, on the type of employment: retail, service, or basic. Gallatin County Table 11 presents full and part-time employment data for Gallatin County over the 2010 to 2040 period. In 2010, the total employment for Gallatin County was estimated to be 53,313 with farm and nonfarm employ- ment totaling 1,200 and 64,199, respectively. Future employment projections from W&P for Gallatin County show that total nonfarm employment in the county may reach 132,522 by 2040 ( an increase of 60,488 jobs from 2016). This represents a total overall increase of approximately 67 percent in nonfarm employment over the 2016-2040 period and an average increase in employment of 2.2 percent per year. The W&P employment projections suggest that Gallatin County will continue to see steady and significant job growth in the future. Belgrade LRTP Study Area The total employment within the LRTP study area for the year 2014 was extracted from the MDT model. Sim- ilar to the process followed to establish baseline population data, GIS analysis was used to identify the total employment within the study area. This analysis established the total employment for the LRTP study area to be 7,175 in 2014. This means that roughly 12 percent of the total employment in Gallatin County occurred within the LRTP study area. Estimates fro 2016 were made based on W&P projections. This resulted in an estimated 7,703 jobs within the study area in 2016. Table 12 presents employment projections for the year 2040. Future employment was projected using the W&P projected growth rate (2.14 percent). Applying this growth rate to the model’s calculated 2016 baseline employment numbers resulted in a total of 5,107 new jobs within the LRTP study area. Outside of the LRTP study area, 38,430 new jobs are projected with 27,325 of those jobs occurring in the Bozeman TMP study area. The percent distribution of retail, service, and basic job classifications was held constant from the 2014 calibrated model for both the 2016 baseline and the 2040 projection. Table 11: Employment Projections to 2040 for Gallatin County Employment Projection* 2010 2014 2016 2020 2030 2040 Net Change (2016-2040) CAGR (2016-2040) Total Full and Part-time Employment 65,399 75,033 80,552 88,706 110,473 133,962 53,410 2.14% Farm Employment 1,200 1,324 1,343 1,372 1,421 1,440 97 0.95% Nonfarm Employment 64,199 73,709 79,209 87,334 109,052 132,522 53,313 2.20% Note: Employment data for 2010 was obtained from US Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis – Table CA25 and Table CA25N. Employment data for years 2014-2040 were obtained from the Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. dataset for Gallatin County. Montana. ---PAGE BREAK--- 50 GROWTH, TRAVEL FORECASTS, AND NEEDS 3.2.3. Allocation of Future Growth Modeling of future travel patterns out to the year 2040 planning horizon using MDT’s travel demand model required identification of future socioeconomic characteristics within each census tract and census block. County population and employment projections were translated into predictions of increases in housing and jobs within Gallatin County, the Belgrade LRTP study area, and the Bozeman TMP study area. To accomplish this task, the 2016 baseline conditions first had to be established for the model. Since the model was previously calibrated to the year 2014, the additional growth from 2014 to 2016 had to be allocated within the model’s census blocks. Allocation of the additional jobs and housing units was based on local knowl- edge and known new construction between 2014 and 2016. Other areas used a uniform growth rate applied to the model’s existing housing and employment numbers. A total of 246 new housing units and 528 new jobs were allocated within the LRTP study area between 2014 and 2016. An additional 929 housing units and 2,824 new jobs were allocated within the Bozeman TMP study area, while 504 additional housing units and 1,148 additional jobs were added to areas within the County. For 2040 future conditions, initial allocation of the housing and employment growth within the LRTP study area was made based on a review of existing land use and zoning maps for Belgrade and the surrounding county area, city and county growth policies, and other community planning documents. After the initial assignment of housing and employment through the year 2040 was made, a land use workshop was held with various stakeholders on August 22, 2017 to discuss and reach consensus on the distribution of future housing and employment growth within the study area. This enabled local stakeholders to consider and revise the growth Table 12: Employment Projections to 2040 for the LRTP Study Area Area 2010 2014 (Calibrated Model) 2016 (Baseline) 2040 (Projection)* Net Change (2016 - 2040) Gallatin County Retail 22,810 33,671 36,148 60,115 23,968 Service 12,825 13,645 14,649 24,361 9,713 Basic 12,915 13,847 14,866 24,722 9,857 Total 48,550 61,163 65,662 109,199 43,537 Belgrade LRTP Study Area Retail 3,084 3,527 3,786 6,297 2,511 Service 885 1,309 1,115 1,855 740 Basic 2,435 2,609 2,801 4,658 1,857 Total 6,404 7,175 7,703 12,810 5,107 Bozeman TMP Study Area Retail 15,004 21,720 23,318 38,857 15,540 Service 9,196 10,050 10,789 17,979 7,190 Basic 6,067 6,617 7,104 11,838 4,734 Total 30,267 38,387 41,211 68,675 27,464 Outside Study Areas Retail 4,722 8,424 9,044 14,961 5,917 Service 2,744 2,556 2,744 4,527 1,783 Basic 4,413 4,621 4,961 8,226 3,265 Total 11,879 15,601 16,749 27,714 10,965 * 2040 projections were based on a 2.14% per year CAGR as calculated based on Woods & Poole projections. ---PAGE BREAK--- 51 OCTOBER 17, 2018 assignments as needed based on their knowledge of recent land use trends, land availability, devel- opment limitations, land use regulations, planned public improvements, and known development proposals. Allocation of future housing and employment growth for the Bozeman TMP study area was di- rectly from the TMP. Outside of the study areas, a uniform growth rate was used. A total of 5,135 new housing units and 5,107 new jobs were allocated within the LRTP study area. An additional 19,097 housing units and 27,464 jobs were allocated with- in the Bozeman TMP study area. Outside these study areas, a uniform growth rate was applied for a total of 10,887 additional housing units and 10,965 additional jobs. Figure 15 shows where growth is expected to occur in the study area. The Ryen Glenn Subdivision is located on the northeast side of Belgrade and is one of Belgrade's newest housing developments. ---PAGE BREAK--- 52 GROWTH, TRAVEL FORECASTS, AND NEEDS G A LLA T I N RIV E R G A L LA T IN R I V E R HY ALITE CR E E K BAK E R C REEK EA S T G ALLATIN R IVE R Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport PENWELL BRIDGE ROAD FRANK ROAD AIRPORT ROAD MAYFAIR DR CAMERON AVE CHEERY DR SUNRISE DR 8TH ST ALAS K A F RON TAGE RD HOFFMAN ST WESTWOOD CL ROSEBUD AVE W CAMERON BRIDGE RD LINNEY RD RIVER RD AIRW A Y BL V D E CAMERON BRIDGE RD ALASKA RD S TUBB RD BOLINGER RD WEAVER RD POWERS BLVD BASELINE ROAD LAGOON ROAD JACKRABBIT LN NEVADA ST DAVIS ST GR O G A N ST CENTRAL AVE OREGON ST E VALLEY CENTER RD GOLDEN WEST DR AMSTERDAM RD JEFFERSON AVE SPOONER RD ROYAL RD THORPE RD DRY CREEK R D MAIN ST A M S T E R D A M R D MADISON AVE JACKRABBIT LN DRY CREEK RD BROADWAY ST FRONTAGE RD FRONTAGE RD THORPE RD 90 90 85 290 347 205 235 205 New Growth Allocation* 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.25 Miles Legend City Boundary Airport Study Area *Dot locations are intended to depict general areas of growth from 2016-2040. They do not represent exact locations 1 Dot = 1 Dwelling Unit 1 Dot = 1 Jobs Figure 15 ALLOCATION OF FUTURE GROWTH (2016-2040) ---PAGE BREAK--- 53 OCTOBER 17, 2018 3.3. PROJECTED TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS An analysis of the projected transportation system was performed to estimate how traffic patterns and char- acteristics may change from the existing conditions in the future. The inputs for this analysis include the 2016 existing conditions and forecasted growth in housing and jobs out to the year 2040. The model was used to evaluate the projected 2040 year conditions by applying additional housing and jobs to the existing travel demand model. Census blocks and census tracts were used to distribute the population and employment growth that was projected to occur between 2014 and 2040. In addition, known roadway infrastructure projects expected to be constructed within the next five years were included as part of the projected conditions model. One assumption that was built into the model is that traffic characteristics will remain similar to those that are seen today. Many factors can influence this assumption, such a fuel prices, technological advances, and other unknown circumstances. Another assumption of the model is that the socioeconomic projections will be real- ized by the year 2040. Ultimately, the projected conditions model was used as a planning tool to help evaluate how traffic patterns might be affected by anticipated future development. 3.3.1. Projected Roadway Capacity Projected traffic volumes were estimated using the travel demand model. A comparison of the existing and projected conditions models was made to de- termine the percent change in traffic volume. The percent change was then applied to known existing AADT count sites to reflect projected daily traffic vol- umes. In cases where the 2016 travel demand model predicted volumes more than ±30 percent difference from actual existing AADT counts, the 2040 travel de- mand model volumes were used. Figure 16 presents the projected v/c ratios for the major street network. 3.3.2. Projected Volume Growth To visualize where growth is projected to occur in Bel- grade, and to aid in the planning process, a map of the projected traffic volume growth on the major street network was prepared. Figure 17 shows where high traffic growth is expected to occur given the future land use assumptions made. The volumes shown are the difference between the volumes in the 2016 and 2040 travel demand models. This visualization helps identify which roads may need additional investment to accommodate future growth. While some roads currently have little traffic volume and do not currently have capacity issues, future growth may greatly in- crease traffic volumes and could cause capacity is- sues if road improvements are not made. Amsterdam Road is projected to experience growth between now and 2040 likely resulting in volumes that exceed the available capacity. ---PAGE BREAK--- 54 GROWTH, TRAVEL FORECASTS, AND NEEDS G A LLA T I N RIV E R G A L LA T IN R I V E R HY ALITE CR E E K BAK E R C REEK EA S T G ALLATIN R IVE R Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport PENWELL BRIDGE ROAD FRANK ROAD AIRPORT ROAD MAYFAIR DR CAMERON AVE CHEERY DR SUNRISE DR 8TH ST ALAS K A F RON TAGE RD HOFFMAN ST WESTWOOD CL ROSEBUD AVE W CAMERON BRIDGE RD LINNEY RD RIVER RD AIRW A Y BL V D E CAMERON BRIDGE RD ALASKA RD S TUBB RD BOLLINGER RD WEAVER RD POWERS BLVD BASELINE ROAD LAGOON ROAD JACKRABBIT LN NEVADA ST DAVIS ST GR O G A N ST CENTRAL AVE OREGON ST E VALLEY CENTER RD GOLDEN WEST DR AMSTERDAM RD JEFFERSON AVE SPOONER RD ROYAL RD THORPE RD DRY CREEK R D MAIN ST A M S T E R D A M R D MADISON AVE JACKRABBIT LN DRY CREEK RD BROADWAY ST FRONTAGE RD FRONTAGE RD THORPE RD 90 90 85 290 347 205 235 205 1.29 1.63 1.06 1.36 1.10 1.04 1.14 1.01 0.54 0.76 0.19 0.51 0.95 0.28 0.76 0.61 0.78 0.40 0.99 0.90 0.31 0.75 0.31 0.22 0.91 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.85 0.28 0.51 0.32 0.13 0.60 0.36 0.50 0.54 0.24 0.04 0.44 1.16 Note: Projected volumes are based on travel demand modeling exercises and may not represent actual conditions. *The functional classifications shown are recommended as part of this Transportation Plan and do not reflect the federally approved functional classification criteria. 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.25 Miles Legend Functional Class* Interstate Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector City Boundary Airport Study Area Volume to Capacity Ratio > 1.00 1.15 Volume to Capacity Ratio < 1.00 0.65 Minor Collector Figure 16 2040 FUTURE V/C RATIOS ---PAGE BREAK--- 55 OCTOBER 17, 2018 G A LLA T I N RIV E R G A L LA T IN R I V E R HY ALITE CR E E K BAK E R C REEK EA S T G ALLATIN R IVE R Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport PENWELL BRIDGE ROAD FRANK ROAD AIRPORT ROAD MAYFAIR DR CAMERON AVE CHEERY DR SUNRISE DR 8TH ST ALAS K A F RON TAGE RD HOFFMAN ST WESTWOOD CL ROSEBUD AVE W CAMERON BRIDGE RD LINNEY RD RIVER RD AIRW A Y BL V D E CAMERON BRIDGE RD ALASKA RD S TUBB RD BOLLINGER RD WEAVER RD POWERS BLVD BASELINE ROAD LAGOON ROAD JACKRABBIT LN NEVADA ST DAVIS ST GR O G A N ST CENTRAL AVE OREGON ST E VALLEY CENTER RD GOLDEN WEST DR AMSTERDAM RD JEFFERSON AVE SPOONER RD ROYAL RD THORPE RD DRY CREEK R D MAIN ST A M S T E R D A M R D MADISON AVE JACKRABBIT LN DRY CREEK RD BROADWAY ST FRONTAGE RD FRONTAGE RD THORPE RD 90 90 85 290 347 205 235 205 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.25 Miles Legend City Boundary Airport Study Area *Projected volume growth is based on travel demand modeling exercises and may not represent actual conditions. Projected Volume Growth (AADT)* < 2,500 2,500 - 5,000 5,000 - 10,000 10,000 - 15,000 > 15,000 Figure 17 2040 PROJECTED VOLUME GROWTH ---PAGE BREAK--- 56 ---PAGE BREAK--- 57 OCTOBER 17, 2018 CHAPTER 4: Improving the System 4.1. OVERVIEW Recommended improvements were developed through a combination of public process, project solicitation from partnering agencies, travel demand modeling, traffic engineering analysis, and policy choices to support LRTP goals and objectives. In most cases, the recommended projects are either needed to meet the antici- pated traffic demands for the year 2040 or to bring sub-standard roadways up to current standards based on the functional classification of the roadway. There are two categories of street improvement projects; Major Street Network and Transportation System Management projects. These two categories are consistent with past long range transportation planning efforts completed for the Belgrade community. ---PAGE BREAK--- 58 IMPROVING THE SYSTEM 4.2. FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS A list of recommendations for facility improvements to the transportation system was developed to address current and anticipated future transportation needs. The project recommendations made as part of this LRTP were specifically aimed at improving issues identified along the major street network. The recommendations are focused on areas currently experiencing issues, as well as areas expected to need improvements to accommodate future growth. Figure 18 at the end of this section shows the location of the facility recommen- dations. System deficiencies and needs are often not fundable in the foreseeable future. However, funding opportuni- ties often arise over time and sometimes from unexpected sources. To be prepared to take advantage of such opportunities, the following lists of projects is provided, with no identified funding source or schedule for con- struction/implementation. It is likely that some of them will become funded at some point during the planning horizon even though a current source may not be known. Each section contains planning level descriptions of the recommendations along with preliminary project cost estimates. The preliminary project cost estimates are “planning level” estimates and do not include allowances for right-of-way, utility, traffic management, or other heavily variable costs. The cost estimates were developed based on recent projects constructed in the area. The costs are in 2018 dollars with no inflation factor for anticipated construction year. In some cased it may be appropriate to combine project recommendations. For example, combining a project to construct bike lanes with full roadway reconstruction may be more efficient than implementing the projects individually. 4.2.1. Committed Projects A project is deemed committed if construction is likely to occur within five years and a funding source has been identified and assigned to the project. Committed projects are only listed if the project will affect capacity and/or delay characteristics of a roadway facility and/or intersection. This distinction is necessary since some committed improvement projects, likely to occur within the next five years, are not listed as they will not affect capacity and/or delay characteristics (an example might be a street overlay). Table 13 lists the projects which are committed within the LRTP study area. Table 13: Committed Projects ID Name Description Anticipated Construction Estimated Cost COM-1 Belgrade-South (Jackrabbit Lane – Frank Road to Hulbert Road) A project is currently under construction to widen Jackrabbit Lane between Frank Road and Hubert Road to include two travel lanes in each direction, a center two-way left-turn lane, widened shoul- ders, and a shared use path on the east side of the roadway. The project also includes installation of traffic signals at the intersec- tions with Frank Road and with Cameron Bridge Road. Currently under construction $9,324,142 COM-2 Slope Flattening Belgrade (Frontage Road – RP 23.0 to RP 24.6) A project is planned to reconstruct the Frontage Road from Hya- lite Creek (RP 23.0) to east of Sacajawea Peak Drive (RP 24.6). The reconstruction project will include wider shoulders (eight feet wide), flatter side slopes, a center left-turn lane, and turn bays at major approaches. The project is intended to address identified safety concerns. The project is anticipated to be let in 2018. 2018 $350k to $1.5M ---PAGE BREAK--- 59 OCTOBER 17, 2018 4.2.2. Transportation System Management Improvements Transportation System Management (TSM) projects are typically relatively lower cost, “tune-up” type improve- ments. TSM projects are considered to have a reasonable chance of being implemented within a ten-year timeframe. In some instances, these recommendations may be combined with larger-scale Major Street Net- work improvement projects (see next section). Table 14 contains a summary of the recommended TSM im- provements identified for the Belgrade area and are not listed in any particular order with respect to priority. Many of the TSM projects include recommendations for traffic signals or roundabouts. Both types of intersec- tion control treatments have different initial set-up and long-term maintenance costs. The costs for building a roundabout and a traffic signal are quite different. Generally, initial capital costs are less for a traffic signal compared to a roundabout. Part of the reason is that a roundabout may need more property within the actual intersection. In the long-term, however, roundabouts eliminate hardware, maintenance and electrical costs associated with traffic signals, which can cost between $5,000 and $10,000 per year. Roundabouts are also favorable during power outages. Unlike traditional signalized intersections, which must be treated as a four- way stop or require police to direct traffic, roundabouts continue to work like normal. Table 14: Transportation System Management Recommendations ID Name Description Estimated Cost TSM-1 Amsterdam Road/ Royal Road Intersection It is recommended that the intersection be evaluated for additional traf- fic control, such as signalization or construction of a roundabout, to ac- commodate existing and future demand and to improve safety. It may be desirable to coordinate improvements to this intersection with any future expansion/reconstruction of Amsterdam Road. MSN-9 recommends that Amsterdam Road be reconstructed to a five-lane minor arterial standard east of Royal Road. Non-motorized crossing accommodations are also recommended due to the shared use path on the north side of Amsterdam Road. $750k to $1.5M TSM-2 Amsterdam Road/ River Rock Road Intersection It is recommended that the intersection be evaluated for additional traffic control, such as signalization or construction of a roundabout, to accom- modate existing and future demand and to improve access to the school. There are some traffic signal hardware components and pedestal bases already installed at the intersection which may allow for easier installa- tion of a traffic signal with the current intersection configuration. If further intersection modifications are desired in the future, such as inclusion of additional lanes and sidewalk, a larger reconstruction project would be necessary. It may be desirable to coordinate any major intersection re- construction improvements to this intersection with any future expansion/ reconstruction of Amsterdam Road. MSN-9 recommends that Amsterdam Road be reconstructed to a five-lane minor arterial standard east of Royal Road. Non-motorized crossing accommodations are also recommended due to the shared use path on the north side of Amsterdam Road. $350k to $1.5M TSM-3 Jackrabbit Lane/ Amsterdam Road/ Alaska Frontage Road Intersection It is recommended that this intersection be evaluated for addition of pro- tected left-turn signal phasing. The eastbound approach should also be evaluated to determine if widening could occur to accommodate dual left- turn lanes. Note that the intersection is timed in coordination with several other signals along the Jackrabbit Lane corridor. Any changes to signal timing would require retiming of the other coordinated signals which may result in additional overall delay along the corridor. Ultimately, this inter- section will need to be fully reconstructed as part of larger improvement (see MSN-7 and MSN-10) to accommodate existing and projected de- mands. $500k to $1.5M ---PAGE BREAK--- 60 IMPROVING THE SYSTEM ID Name Description Estimated Cost TSM-4 Jackrabbit Lane/ Madison Avenue Intersection Now that the East Belgrade Interchange is complete, it is recommended that the intersection be re-evaluated for the addition of northbound and southbound protected left-turn phasing. It is also recommended that the southbound leg be reconstructed to include two through lanes. The addi- tion of a southbound through lane would also require the removal of the eastbound right-turn slip lane. It may be desirable to develop this project in conjunction with MSN-6 which recommends that Jackrabbit Lane be expanded to a five-lane principal arterial standard. $500k to $1.5M TSM-5 Madison Avenue/ Broadway Street// Colorado Street Intersection It is recommended that improvements be made to the intersection to bet- ter define the free-flow traffic movement and to provide the appropriate traffic control. Options may include construction of a single-lane round- about or realignment of approach legs. Further evaluation will be needed to determine the appropriate configuration of the intersection. It may be desirable to develop this project in conjunction with MSN-8 which recom- mends reconstruction of the Madison Avenue/Broadway Street corridor. $500k to $2.0M TSM-6 Broadway Street/ Main Street Intersection It is recommended that the intersection be evaluated for changes to traffic control to improve traffic operations. Potential changes include construc- tion of a traffic signal or a single-lane roundabout. Options to change the intersection may be limited due to right-of-way constraints and the prox- imity to the at-grade rail crossing on the south leg of the intersection. This recommendation is also included in the Belgrade to Bozeman Frontage Road Corridor Study. It may be desirable to develop this project in con- junction with MSN-3. $750k to $1.50M TSM-7 Oregon Street/ Main Street Intersection It is recommended that the intersection be reconstructed to improve traffic control and operations. Reconstruction of the intersection to include a traf- fic signal or roundabout would likely require intersection realignment due to the location of the gas station to the north. Intersection reconstruction would result in lower vehicle delay along the minor approach legs. This recommendation is also included in the Belgrade to Bozeman Frontage Road Corridor Study. It may be desirable to develop this project in con- junction with MSN-3. $1.0M to $2.50M TSM-8 Airport Road/ Frontage Road Intersection Public comments have indicated a desire to install a dedicated eastbound left-turn lane due to the high volume of left-turning traffic. This recommen- dation is also included in the Belgrade to Bozeman Frontage Road Corri- dor Study. Note that the Gallatin Field Airport 2007 Master Plan Update1 indicates a desire by the Airport to modify the road network to the east of the Airport. These modifications would include the obliteration of a section of Airport Road and would reroute traffic onto Dollar Drive. If Airport Road is modified in the future, this recommendation may need to be reevaluat- ed. It may be desirable to develop this project in conjunction with MSN-4. $500k to $750k TSM-9 Cruiser Lane/ Dry Creek Road Intersection As development occurs in the area, it is recommended that the intersec- tion be evaluated for an increased level of traffic control such as a round- about or traffic signal. $500k to $1.50M TSM-10 I-90 Corridor Study (Belgrade to Bozeman) An assessment of the Interstate System and interchanges between Bel- grade and Bozeman is needed to evaluate current and future issues, con- straints, and opportunities to ensure the safe operations. It is recommend- ed that a pre-NEPA/MEPA Corridor Planning Study be completed for I-90 between Belgrade and Bozeman. $200k to $250k TSM-11 I-90 Southwest to Northeast Crossing Study There is currently a lack of connectivity between the southwest and north- east sides of Interstate 90 which bisects the Belgrade community. Further study and evaluation is needed to determine the feasibility of an over- pass/underpass across the Interstate, and, if deemed feasible, where the best location for a new crossing would be. $150k to $300k ---PAGE BREAK--- 61 OCTOBER 17, 2018 4.2.3. Major Street Network Improvements Major Street Network (MSN) improvements are typically larger scale projects that may take many years to implement. The MSN improvements are envisioned as long-term improvements needed to address network demands and existing or projected capacity issues. Table 15 contains a summary of the recommended MSN improvements identified for the LRTP study area and are not listed in any particular order with respect to proj- ect priority. Table 15: Major Street Network Recommendations ID Name Description Estimated Cost MSN-1 Frontage Road (Weaver Road to Bolinger Road) It is recommended that the roadway be reconstructed to rural minor ar- terial standards to address safety concerns. Widened shoulders, recov- erable side slopes, and dedicated left-turn lanes/center left-turn lane are recommended. $7.0M to $8.5M MSN-2 Main Street (Bolinger Road to Jackrabbit Lane) It is recommended that the roadway be reconstructed to urban minor arterial standards to address safety and capacity concerns. Non-motor- ized facilities should be constructed as presented in SW-7. $3.0M to $4.0M MSN-3 Main Street (North Quaw Boulevard to Gallatin Field Road) This recommendation is also included in the Belgrade to Bozeman Front- age Road Corridor Study. It may be desirable to develop this project in conjunction with TSM-6 and TSM-7. Non-motorized facilities should be constructed as presented in SW-1. $3.5M to $4.5M MSN-4 Frontage Road (West of Airport Road to Hyalite Creek) It is recommended that this roadway be reconstructed to rural minor ar- terial standards, consisting of one travel lane in each direction, widened shoulders, and recoverable side slopes. Reconstruction of this segment is envisioned to connect the recently completed East Belgrade Inter- change project with the planned slope flattening project (COM-2). This recommendation is also included in the Belgrade to Bozeman Frontage Road Corridor Study. It may be desirable to develop this project in con- junction with TSM-8. $2.0M to $3.0M MSN-5 Jackrabbit Lane (Mayfair Drive to Cruiser Lane) As future development occurs, it is recommended that the roadway be reconstructed to urban minor arterial standards to be consistent with the southern portion of the corridor. A center left-turn lane, shoulders/bike lanes, curb, gutter, and sidewalks are recommended. Non-motorized fa- cilities should be constructed as presented in SW-10 and BIKE-1. $1.5M to $2.0M MSN-6 Jackrabbit Lane (Main Street to Madison Avenue) It is recommended that the roadway be reconstructed to urban princi- pal arterial standards to accommodate existing and projected traffic de- mands. Two travel lanes in each direction, center left-turn lane or turn bays at major intersections, shoulders/bike lanes, curb, gutter, and side- walks on both sides of the roadway are recommended. An evaluation of access control and opportunities to consolidate approaches should also be explored. It may be desirable to develop this project in conjunction with TSM-4 and MSN-12. Non-motorized facilities should be constructed as presented in SW-11, BIKE-2. $3.0M to $4.5M MSN-7 I-90 Westbound Off-ramp/ Jackrabbit Lane (Belgrade Interchange to Amsterdam Road) It is recommended that the Jackrabbit Lane overpass be widened/re- constructed to accommodate additional travel lanes and provide for non-motorized accommodations. Reconstruction of the I-90 westbound off-ramp to increase capacity is also recommended. The feasibility of reconstructing the ramp and overpass structure is unknown at this time due to various potential constraints. A detailed traffic and engineering study will be necessary to determine project feasibility and configuration. It may be desirable to develop this project in conjunction with TSM-3. Non-motorized facilities should be constructed as presented in SW-12, BIKE-3, and SPOT-6. $12.5M to $20.0M ---PAGE BREAK--- 62 IMPROVING THE SYSTEM ID Name Description Estimated Cost MSN-8 Madison Avenue and Broadway Street (Jackrabbit Lane to Main Street) It is recommended that the Madison Avenue/Broadway Street corridor be reconstructed to minor arterial standards, consisting of paved on- street parking/shoulder/bike lanes, curb and gutter, and continuous side- walks. It may be desirable to develop this project in conjunction with TSM-5, SW-13, BIKE-7, and SPOT-3. $1.5M to $2.0M MSN-9 Amsterdam Road (Royall Road to Thorpe Road) It is recommended that the roadway be reconstructed to urban minor arterial standards to accommodate existing and future demand. It is suggested that the roadway be reconstructed with two travel lanes in each direction, center left-turn lane/turn bays at major intersections, and appropriate non-motorized accommodations. It may be desirable to de- velop this project in conjunction with TSM-1 and TSM-2. $5.0M to $6.0M MSN-10 Amsterdam Road (Thorpe Road to Jackrabbit Lane) It is recommended that the roadway be reconstructed to urban minor ar- terial standards to accommodate existing and future demand. Two travel lanes in each direction, turn bays at major intersections, shoulders, and appropriate non-motorized accommodations are recommended. It may be desirable to develop this project in conjunction with TSM-3. $6.0M to $7.0M MSN-11 Frank Road (Jackrabbit Lane to Alaska Road South) It is recommended that the existing portion of Frank Road east of Jack- rabbit Lane be reconstructed to urban minor arterial standards. One travel lane in each direction, shoulders/on-street parking, bike lanes, sidewalks, curb and gutter, and center turn lane/turn bays at major in- tersections are recommended. It is also recommended that the roadway be extended from its current eastern terminus to Alaska Road South. Future projections indicate planned commercial and industrial growth in the area. This new connection would provide alternate connectivity to the Jackrabbit Lane corridor and to the East Belgrade Interchange. The corridor would also serve as an alternate east/west route to Amsterdam Road. Non-motorized facilities should be constructed as presented in SW-15 and BIKE-5. $2.5M to $3.0M MSN-12 Jackrabbit Lane Grade Separated Rail Crossing Construct grade separated rail crossing as recommended in the Mon- tana Rail Grade Separation Study. An underpass would require that the nearby intersections of Northern Pacific Avenue/Arden Drive and Main Street be reconstructed to match the new profile of the Jackrabbit Lane intersection. It is recommended that two travel lanes in each direction be included to accommodate existing and future demands. It may be de- sirable to coordinate this improvement with MSN-6 which recommends reconstruction of Jackrabbit Lane to increase roadway capacity. $17.0M to $18.5M MSN-13 Cruiser Lane (Dry Creek Road to Westwood Circle) It is recommended that the roadway be reconstructed to urban major collector standards to accommodate existing and future demands. One travel lane in each direction, bike lanes, on-street parking, and side- walks are recommended. Non-motorized facilities should be constructed as presented in SW-9 and BIKE-10. $1.5M to $2.5M MSN-14 South Alaska Road (Frank Road to Valley Center Drive) It is recommended that the roadway be reconstructed to rural major collector standards to accommodate existing and future demands. One travel lane in each direction and widened shoulders are envisioned. Non-motorized facilities should be constructed as presented in SUP-5. $4.0M to $6.0M ---PAGE BREAK--- 63 OCTOBER 17, 2018 4.2.4. Future Road Connections The major street network consists of all interstate principal arterial, non-interstate principal arterial, minor arterial, and collector routes. Expansion of the major street network will occur in the future as the area develops. The future connections shown are conceptual in nature and may vary based on factors such as topography, wetlands, land own- ership, and other unforeseen factors. The pur- pose of the connections is to illustrate the antic- ipated build-out of the major street network. It is likely that many of the corridors shown will not be developed into roads for many years to come. On the other hand, if development occurs in the area, the recommended road network will ensure that the arterial and collector roads will be established in a fashion that produces an efficient and logical future road system. The future road connections are not intended as project recommendations, rather, they are intend- ed to be built as development occurs and needs arise in the future. Figure 18 shows the anticipat- ed future road connections as dashed lines. Ad- ditional connections and/or changes to the future road connections may be necessary and should be assessed as future development occurs. A full visionary major street network is discussed in Chapter 5. When the East Belgrade Interchange was constructed, a small part of Frank Road was constructed, connecting Alaska Frontage Road to Alaska Road South. A future extension of Frank Road is envisioned. On the east end, Frank Road turns to a dirt road just west of Jackrabbit Lane. Frank Road terminates at Rock Road which often experiences heavy truck traffic due to the various freight centers located in this area. ---PAGE BREAK--- 64 IMPROVING THE SYSTEM G A LLA T I N RIV E R G A L LA T IN R I V E R HY ALITE CR E E K BAK E R C REEK L L ATIN RI VE R EA S T G ALLATIN R IVE R Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport PENWELL BRIDGE ROAD FRANK ROAD AIRPORT ROAD MAYFAIR DR CAMERON AVE CHEERY DR SUNRISE DR 8TH ST ALAS K A F RON TAGE RD HOFFMAN ST WESTWOOD CL ROSEBUD AVE W CAMERON BRIDGE RD LINNEY RD RIVER RD AIRW A Y BL V D E CAMERON BRIDGE RD ALASKA RD S TUBB RD BOLINGER RD WEAVER RD POWERS BLVD BASELINE ROAD LAGOON ROAD JACKRABBIT LN NEVADA ST DAVIS ST GR O G A N ST CENTRAL AVE OREGON ST E VALLEY CENTER RD GOLDEN WEST DR AMSTERDAM RD JEFFERSON AVE SPOONER RD ROYAL RD THORPE RD DRY CREEK R D MAIN ST A M S T E R D A M R D MADISON AVE JACKRABBIT LN DRY CREEK RD BROADWAY ST FRONTAGE RD FRONTAGE RD THORPE RD MSN-5 MSN-8 MSN-7 MSN-6 MSN-9 MSN-11 MSN-3 MSN-2 MSN-4 MSN-10 MSN-1 COM-2 COM-1 MSN-13 MSN-14 MSN-12 TSM-5 TSM-1 TSM-2 TSM-7 TSM-8 TSM-9 TSM-4 TSM-3 TSM-6 TSM-10 TSM-11 90 90 85 290 347 205 235 205 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.25 Miles Legend Facility Recommendations Airport Study Area City Boundary Transportation System Management Recommendation Committed Project Major Street Network Recommendation Future Connection Figure 18 FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS ---PAGE BREAK--- 65 OCTOBER 17, 2018 4.3. NON-MOTORIZED NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS This section presents recommendations for improvements to the non-motorized network. While many non-mo- torized facilities may be constructed in conjunction with other transportation projects, some may require stand- alone projects to complete. Some improvements are specific to either pedestrians or bicycles, others may ben- efit many transportation modes. The identified recommendations are intended to address previously identified non-motorized connectivity gaps and are meant to compliment the major street network. The recommended improvements to the non-motorized network are shown in Figure 19 at the end of this section. Note that any non-motorized network change constructed within MDT right of way is subject to all existing MDT policies including, but not limited to, POL 8.03.001 Shared Use Paths In MDT R/W. Additionally, in cases with limited ability to increase the width of the roadway due to the built environment and where competing design features are recommended (i.e. parallel parking vs. bike lanes), cautionary measures should be taken when carrying out the recommendations in the LRTP. 4.3.1. Sidewalks A complete sidewalk network provides safe transportation for pedestrians. Currently, many residential areas of the study area lack sidewalks altogether, while other areas have gaps in the network. The following recom- mendations are not fully exhaustive for the major street network, rather they are meant to address the largest gaps in the sidewalk network which have the highest priority needs. Table 16 lists the sidewalk projects which were identified for the Belgrade area and are not listed in any particular order with respect to priority. Table 16: Sidewalk Recommendations ID Location Description Estimated Cost SW-1 Main Street Jackrabbit Lane to Gallatin Field Road Multiple gaps in the sidewalk network along Main Street currently exist, par- ticularly between Kennedy Street and the west end of the East Belgrade Interchange project (Gallatin Field Road). Evidence of existing demand for safe pedestrian routes can be seen in the form of social paths along various portions of this segment of Main Street. It is recommended that the sidewalk network be completed to provide a continuous connection between Belgrade and the airport. The project would likely require construction of curb, gut- ter, and drainage features. Sidewalks could be constructed as a stand-alone project, or in conjunction with roadway reconstruction as recommended in MSN-3. $500k to $650k SW-2 Davis Street / Central Avenue Main Street to Lewis and Clark Park There are gaps in the sidewalk network along Davis Street between Main Street and Central Avenue. The sidewalk along Central Avenue ends at the gravel parking lot for the Lewis and Clark Park. During wet and inclement weather, the gravel parking lot can cause challenges for many non-motorized users. It is recommended that the sidewalk network be completed to connect Main Street to Lewis and Clark Park via Davis Street and Central Avenue. $30k to $50k SW-3 Broadway Street Main Street to Cameron Avenue Sidewalks exist on the majority of Broadway Street with some remaining gaps. It is recommended that the sidewalk network be completed to help im- prove pedestrian safety and accessibility along Broadway Street. $125k to $175k SW-4 Hoffman Street Main Street to Park Avenue There are gaps in the sidewalk network along Hoffman Street between Main Street and Belgrade High School. It is recommended that a fully connected pedestrian network be developed along Hoffman Street. $30k to $45k SW-5 Park Avenue West of Hoffman Street Sidewalk exists for the majority of Park Avenue except for one small section on the north side of the roadway just west of Hoffman Street. It is recommend- ed that this missing piece be constructed to provide a complete connection to Belgrade High School. $5k to $10k ---PAGE BREAK--- 66 IMPROVING THE SYSTEM ID Location Description Estimated Cost SW-6 Triple Crown Road Jackrabbit Lane to Spooner Road Triple Crown Road provides access to Belgrade Middle School and connects Jackrabbit Lane to Spooner Road. There is a continuous sidewalk on the north side of the road and some gaps along the south side. It is recommended that the sidewalk network be finished along the south side of the road. $20k to $35k SW-7 Frontage Road 8th Street to 13th Street The Frontage Road continuous to see commercial and mixed residential development west of Jackrabbit Lane. Sidewalks are currently in place be- tween Jackrabbit Lane and 8th Street. It is recommended that the sidewalks be extended to connect to 13th Street, which is currently at the edge of the City of Belgrade boundary. This connection would serve existing and future residences and would create a continuous connection to downtown Belgrade. Sidewalks could be constructed as a stand-alone project, or with roadway reconstruction as recommended in MSN-2. $100k to $150k SW-8 Jackrabbit Lane Cruiser Lane to Happy Lane There are currently no sidewalks on either side of Jackrabbit Lane north of Cruiser Lane. It is recommended that sidewalks be constructed on both sides of the roadway to connect current and future developments to the rest of the pedestrian network. $75k to $125k SW-9 Cruiser Lane Dry Creek Road to Westwood Circle Gaps in the sidewalk network along Cruiser Lane exist along undeveloped parcels and in front of commercial development on the northeast side. It is recommended that the sidewalk network be complete to provide for a con- tinuous connection along Cruiser Lane. Sidewalks could be constructed as a stand-alone project, or with roadway reconstruction as recommended in MSN-13. $85k to $120k SW-10 Jackrabbit Lane Mayfair Drive to Cruiser Lane There are currently no sidewalks on the east side of Jackrabbit Lane between Mayfair Drive and Cruiser Lane. It is recommended that sidewalks be con- structed to complete the network. Sidewalks could be constructed as a stand- alone project, or with roadway reconstruction as recommended in MSN-5. $115k to $160k SW-11 Jackrabbit Lane Madison Avenue to Arden Drive There are currently no sidewalks on the west side of Jackrabbit Lane between Madison Avenue and Arden Drive. It is recommended that sidewalks be con- structed to complete the network. Sidewalks could be constructed as a stand- alone project, or with roadway reconstruction as recommended in MSN-6. $100k to $135k SW-12 Jackrabbit Lane Amsterdam Road to Albertsons There are currently no sidewalks on the west side of Jackrabbit Lane be- tween Amsterdam Road and the entrance to Albertsons. It is recommended that sidewalks be constructed to complete the network. Note that a stand- alone project to construct sidewalks between Amsterdam Road and the I-90 westbound ramps would be difficult and costly due to the narrow overpass structure and the location of the eastbound on-ramp. Sidewalks could be add- ed to this segment with roadway reconstruction as recommended in MSN-7. Additionally, a separated pedestrian overpass structure may be needed as presented in SPOT-6. North of the westbound ramps, sidewalks could be constructed as a stand-alone project if desired. $100k to $135k SW-13 Madison Avenue Jackrabbit Lane to Nevada Street There remains a gap in the sidewalk network along the south side of Madison Avenue between just east of Jackrabbit Lane and Nevada Street. It is recom- mended that sidewalks be constructed to complete the network. Sidewalks could be constructed as a stand-alone project, or with roadway reconstruction as recommended in MSN-8. $20k to $35k SW-14 Alaska Frontage Road Jackrabbit Lane to Frank Road There are currently sidewalks on the south side of Alaska Frontage Road between Jackrabbit Lane and the Bozeman Health Belgrade Clinic. The area is projected to see increased commercial and industrial development in the future. It is recommended that sidewalks be constructed along the corridor as new development occurs in the area. $450k to $700k SW-15 Frank Road Jackrabbit Lane to Alaska Road South An extension of Frank Road between Jackrabbit Lane and Alaska Road South is recommended in MSN-11. The area is projected to see increased commer- cial and industrial development in the future. Sidewalks should be construct- ed as part of the roadway reconstruction and extension recommendation. $550k to $800k ---PAGE BREAK--- 67 OCTOBER 17, 2018 4.3.2. Shared-Use Paths Shared-use paths are typically asphalt paved paths that restrict use to non-motorized travel modes. Both pe- destrians and bicyclists may use these paths. Given the mixed environment, it is recommended that the paths are a minimum of 10-feet in width. These paths generally, but are not required to, run parallel to existing motor- ized transportation facilities. Existing shared-use paths can be found on Amsterdam Road, Royal Road, Jack- rabbit Lane (currently under construction), and Valley Center Road. Table 17 presents the shared-use paths which were identified for the Belgrade area and are not listed in any particular order with respect to priority. Table 17: Shared-Use Path Recommendations ID Location Description Estimated Cost SUP-1 Royal Road Amsterdam Road to N River Rock Drive Complete the existing shared-use path on the west side of Royal Road from Amsterdam Road to West Shore Drive. With the completion of this project and SUP-2, a continuous path would exist around the one-mile square made up of Amsterdam Road, Royal Road, and Thorpe Road. $130k to $200k SUP-2 Thorpe Road Landmark Drive to Amsterdam Road Construct a shared-use path from Landmark Drive to Amsterdam Road along Thorpe Road. On the east/west portion of Thorpe Road it is recom- mended that the path be constructed on the south side of the road. On the north/south portion of Thorpe Road it is recommended that the path be constructed on the west side of the road. With the completion of this project and SUP-1, a continuous path would exist around the one-mile square made up of Amsterdam Road, Royal Road, and Thorpe Road. $675k to $1.0M SUP-3 Amsterdam Road Clovehitch Road to Jackrabbit Lane Construct a shared-use path along Amsterdam Road from Clovehitch Road to Jackrabbit Lane. It is recommended that the path be constructed on the south side of the roadway to limit conflicts between non-motorized users and motorized vehicles. This project should be completed in con- junction with SPOT-4. $575k to $850k SUP-4 Madison Avenue Amsterdam Road to Jackrabbit Lane Construct a shared-use path along Madison Avenue from Jackrabbit Lane to the western terminus of Madison Avenue. Construction of this project in conjunction with the pedestrian tunnel given in SPOT-5 would be critical to providing a complete non-motorized connection. This con- nection would improve non-motorized connectivity from the River Rock area to retail sites near Jackrabbit Lane and Madison Avenue. Currently, pedestrians wishing to travel from the River Rock area to Belgrade prop- er must cross I-90 using the Jackrabbit Lane overpass which does not have sufficient non-motorized accommodations. $160k to $240k SUP-5 Alaska Road South Valley Center Road to Frank Road Construct a shared-use path along Alaska Road South between Frank Road and Valley Center Road. This path would connect the East Bel- grade Interchange area with the existing shared use path along Valley Center Road. It is recommended that the path be constructed on the west side of Alaska Road based on potential development on that side of the roadway. This project can be constructed in conjunction with MSN-14 or as a stand-alone project. $775k to $1.2M SUP-6 Dry Creek Road Airway Boulevard to Penwell Bridge Road Construct a shared-use path along Dry Creek Road between Airway Boulevard and Penwell Bridge Road. There is an existing trail bed and millings in place between Airway Boulevard and Cameron Avenue, how- ever, the existing path is in poor condition and it is recommended that it be formalized with asphalt construction. $900k to $1.4M SUP-7 East Madison Avenue Main Street to Gallatin Field Road Construct a shared-use path between Main Street and Gallatin Field Road along East Madison Avenue. This path would create a more direct connection between downtown Belgrade and the Airport. $150k to $220k ---PAGE BREAK--- 68 IMPROVING THE SYSTEM ID Location Description Estimated Cost SUP-8 Airport Service Drive Dry Creek Road to Airport Terminal Construct a shared-use path connection along Service Drive, which ac- cesses the airport on the north side from Dry Creek Road. The connec- tion would provide non-motorized accommodations to the airport from the northern part of Belgrade and would connect to the proposed shared used path along Dry Creek Road (SUP-6). $90k to $130k SUP-9 East Madison Avenue Broadway Street to Oregon Street Construct a shared-use path along East Madison Avenue between Broad- way Street and Oregon Street. This path, along with SUP-10, would cre- ate a more direct connection to the East Belgrade Interchange area. $120k to $180k SUP-10 Northern Pacific Avenue Oregon Street to Airway Boulevard Construct a shared-use path to connect the neighborhoods south of Northern Pacific Avenue with downtown Belgrade and the East Belgrade Interchange. The corridor currently lacks sidewalks along the majority of the roadway. It is unknown if a shared-use path could be constructed on the north side of the roadway due to the presence of the railroad and right-of-way constraints. $220k to $320k SUP-11 Northern Pacific Avenue Broadway Street to Davis Street Construct a shared-use path between Broadway Street and Davis Street to connect the south side of Belgrade to downtown Belgrade. There is an informal dirt roadway along this segment which appears to have been constructed on private property. $50k to $75k SUP-12 Frontage Road Airway Boulevard to Study Area Boundary Construct a shared-use path along the north side of Frontage Road from Airway Boulevard to the eastern extent of the study area. This path would create a connection between Belgrade and destinations to the east along Frontage Road and ultimately Bozeman. This path is recommended as part of the Belgrade to Bozeman Frontage Road Corridor Study. $1.5M to $2.0M SUP-13 Cameron Avenue Hoffman Street and Dry Creek Road Construct a shared-use path between Hoffman Street and Broadway Street along Cameron Avenue. This path would connect the area near Belgrade High School with Dry Creek Road and other proposed non-mo- torized facilities. $135k to $200k SUP-14 Hoffman Street Cameron Avenue to Allison Avenue Construct a shared-use path between Allison Avenue and Cameron Av- enue along Hoffman Street. This section of Hoffman Street currently has no pedestrian facilities. During events at Belgrade High School, a high volume of vehicles park along Hoffman Street and walk to their destina- tions. This connection, along with other recommended improvements, would create a cohesive non-motorized network in the area around the High School. $75k to $115k SUP-15 North High School Campus Spooner Road to Hoffman Street Construct a shared-use path connecting Spooner Road and Hoffman Street along the northern edge of the Belgrade High School Campus. This path would create a pedestrian connection across the High School Campus eliminating the campus as a potential barrier. $90k to $130k SUP-16 Penwell Bridge Road Dry Creek Road to Roundup Boulevard Construct a shared-use path along the south side of Penwell Bridge Road. This path, along with SUP-6 would create a non-motorized con- nection between the Ryen Glen/Meadowlark subdivisions and the rest of Belgrade. $300k to $450k SUP-17 Sports Field Connection Jackrabbit Lane to Dry Creek Road Construct a shared-use path from Jackrabbit Lane to Dry Creek Road between Saddle Park Elementary School and Kathy Hollensteiner Park. This path would provide a non-motorized connection between the school campus, multiple sports fields, and Lions Park. $250k to $375k ---PAGE BREAK--- 69 OCTOBER 17, 2018 4.3.3. On-Street Bike Lanes On-street bicycle lanes help to improve safety and mobility for bicycle users. Generally speaking, bicycle lanes should be four-feet wide or greater with a preference for five-foot wide lanes. Bicycle lanes should not be used as a pedestrian facility. As such, it is common to see bike lanes parallel to pedestrian facilities. Depending on the characteristics of the roadway of which the bicycle lanes are part of, they may not be suitable or desirable for all users. Additional care must be given to intersection treatments for bicycle lanes due to the possible conflict points between bicyclists and motorists. The following recommendations have been made to address gaps in the bicycling network throughout the study area and assume that the bicycle lanes would be constructed in both directions along the listed route. Many of these locations have paved shoulders that may be of adequate width to accommodate a bicycle lane and would only require the proper striping and signing. Others, however, may require the expansion of the paved width and are therefore more expensive. Table 18 lists the bike lane projects identified for the Belgrade area and are not listed in any particular order with respect to priority. Table 18: Bike Lane Recommendations ID Location Description Estimated Cost BIKE-1 Jackrabbit Lane Main Street to Cruiser Lane Between Main Street and Mayfair Drive, the roadway is approximately 44 feet wide. It may be possible to restripe the roadway to include bike lanes along the shoulders at the expense of a narrower center turn lane. North of Mayfair Drive, the roadway is recommended for reconstruction with MSN-5. On-street bike lanes should be included when the roadway is reconstructed. $250k to $325k BIKE-2 Jackrabbit Lane Madison Avenue to Main Street Jackrabbit Lane has varying shoulder widths between Madison Avenue and Main Street. The majority of the corridor has shoulders wide enough to accommodate bike lanes with new striping. The corridor is also rec- ommended for reconstruction with MSN-6. On-street bike lanes could be striped as a stand-alone project, or they could be added when the roadway is reconstructed. $25k to $45k BIKE-3 Jackrabbit Lane Amsterdam Road to Madison Avenue Jackrabbit Lane has shoulders wide enough to accommodate bike lanes with new striping between Madison Avenue and the I-90 west- bound ramps. Between the westbound ramps and Amsterdam Road, the roadway width is constrained by the narrow overpass structure. The narrow portion of the corridor and overpass structure are recommended for reconstruction with MSN-7. On-street bike lanes would need to be developed when the roadway is reconstructed. n/a BIKE-4 Alaska Frontage Road Jackrabbit Lane to Frank Road This connection would help to improve access to the proposed devel- opment near the East Belgrade Interchange. A portion of the route may have shoulders that are wide enough to stripe as bicycle lanes without an increase in pavement width. $350k to $500k BIKE-5 Frank Road Jackrabbit Lane to Alaska Road South This connection would help to improve access to the proposed develop- ment near the East Belgrade Interchange. This route should be included with the future extension of Frank Road as recommended in MSN-11. n/a BIKE-6 Airway Boulevard Frank Road to Gallatin Field Road This connection would further link the East Belgrade Interchange to the rest of the non-motorized network. Some sections of this route may have shoulders of adequate width and may only require striping. Bicy- cle accommodations through the three roundabouts on this route would also need to be addressed. $60k to $90k ---PAGE BREAK--- 70 IMPROVING THE SYSTEM ID Location Description Estimated Cost BIKE-7 Madison Avenue / Broadway Street Jackrabbit Lane to Main Street This route would create a connection between retail locations near Jack- rabbit Lane and Madison Avenue to recreation sites on the north end of Broadway Street. The existing roadway appears to have shoulders wide enough to accommodate bike lanes through restriping. Some re- moval of on-street parking may be necessary, however. This corridor is recommended for reconstruction with MSN-8 which is recommended to include on-street bike lanes. $115k to $165k BIKE-8 Broadway Street Main Street to Cameron Avenue On-street bike lanes are recommended to provide non-motorized con- nectivity between downtown Belgrade and the northeastern portion of town, including Heck/Quaw Elementary School. Portions of the corridor appear wide enough to include bike lanes through restriping, while oth- ers may require some shoulder widening. This corridor is recommended for reconstruction with MSN-8 which is recommended to include on- street bike lanes. $115k to $165k BIKE-9 Spooner Road Mayfair Drive to Cruiser Lane Extend the existing bicycle lanes on Spooner Road from Mayfair Drive to Cruiser Lane. This route would complete the existing bicycle lanes on Spooner Road and create a connection to the athletic fields between Mayfair Drive and Cruiser Lane. Additionally, a connection to Dry Creek Road would be established. $225k to $300k BIKE-10 Cruiser Lane Dry Creek Road to Westwood Circle This route would connect the northwestern portion of Belgrade to Dry Creek Road. This corridor is recommended for reconstruction with MSN-13 which is recommended to include on-street bike lanes. With- out reconstruction, the addition of bike lanes would require removal of on street parking on at least 1 side of the roadway. A future extension of Cruiser Lane west to Bolinger Road is also envisioned and should include bike lanes. $25k to $45k 4.3.4. Bicycle Boulevards Bicycle boulevards are routes in which a shared road environment may be preferred over dedicated bicycle facilities. As a general rule, shared road environments have low vehicular volumes along with low vehicle speeds. Local roads are preferred for these facilities. Shared lane markings, share the road signage, and other bicycle wayfinding signage can be used to define a bicycle boulevard. The following recommendations have been made to further address gaps in the bicycle network throughout the study area. Table 19 presents the bicycle boulevard projects identified for the Belgrade area and are not listed in any particular order with respect to priority. Table 19: Bicycle Boulevard Recommendations ID Location Description Estimated Cost BB-1 Central Avenue Grogan Street to Davis Street Develop Central Avenue as a bicycle boulevard between Grogan Street and Davis Street using shared lane markings and signage. The corridor would provide a bicycle friendly alternative to Main Street. Note that the roadway has stop signs at most intersections which may limit the desirabil- ity for bicycle users. $15k to $30k BB-2 Mayfair Drive Jackrabbit Lane to Spooner Road Develop Mayfair Drive between Jackrabbit Lane and Spooner Road as a bicycle boulevard using shared lane markings and signage. This route would provide a connection between the proposed bike lanes on Jackrab- bit Lane and Spooner Road (BIKE-1 and BIKE-9). $7.5k to $15k BB-3 Golden West Drive Jackrabbit Lane to Spooner Road Designate Golden West Drive between Jackrabbit Lane and Spooner Road as a bicycle boulevard using shared lane markings and signage. This route would provide a connection between the proposed bike lanes on Jackrabbit Lane and Spooner Road (BIKE-1 and BIKE-9). $7.5k to $15k ---PAGE BREAK--- 71 OCTOBER 17, 2018 ID Location Description Estimated Cost BB-4 Powers Boulevard Penwell Bridge Road to Baseline Road Designate Powers Boulevard between Penwell Bridge Road and Baseline Road as a bicycle boulevard using shared lane markings and signage. This route would provide a connection between the proposed shared-use path on Penwell Bridge Road and the Ryen Glen and Meadowlark subdi- visions. $50k to $100K BB-5 Colorado Street and Custer Ave Madison Avenue to Jackrabbit Lane Designate Colorado Street and Custer Avenue from Madison Avenue to Jackrabbit Lane as a bicycle boulevard using shared lane markings and signage. This route should be designated in conjunction with SPOT-1. This would create a connection between proposed bike lanes on Madison Av- enue and Broadway with proposed pedestrian amenities along Jackrabbit Lane. $10k to $20k 4.3.5. Spot Improvements Non-motorized spot improvements are intended to address specific concerns or challenges found within the study area. These projects are intended to address gaps in the non-motorized network or to improve existing facilities that may not be performing as desired. The following recommendations are not exhaustive, rather they represent large gaps and barriers in the network. Spot improvements are presented in Table 19. The following spot improvements were identified for the Belgrade area and are not listed in any particular order with respect to priority. Table 20: Spot Improvement Recommendations ID Location Description Estimated Cost SPOT-1 Custer Avenue Tunnel Custer Avenue to west side of Jackrabbit Lane Construct a pedestrian tunnel under Jackrabbit Lane at Custer Avenue. Connect with a shared-use path to Jefferson Avenue on the east side and the Albertsons entrance on the west side. This connection would improve pedestrian connectivity across Jackrabbit Lane and create a more direct route between residential and commercial areas. $850k to $1.1M SPOT-2 Lewis and Clark Park Main Street, west of Oregon Street Improve the existing pedestrian crosswalk across Main Street at Lewis and Clark Park. This crosswalk is heavily used and is located in a com- plex roadway environment. Increasing the visibility of pedestrians and the crosswalk could help to improve safety for all users. Possible improve- ments could include pedestrian activated flashing LED warning signs, overhead pedestrian crossing signs, or pedestrian hybrid beacons. This project could be completed in conjunction with TSM-7 or as a stand-alone project. $15k to $100k SPOT-3 Madison Avenue Intersection of Madison Avenue and Nevada Street Improve the existing pedestrian crosswalk across Madison Avenue at Nevada Street. The north end of this crosswalk is located in the middle of a parking area. As a result, the crosswalk is not located such that drivers may not be expecting pedestrians. Increasing the visibility of pedestrians and the crosswalk could help to improve safety for all users. Possible improvements could include pedestrian activated flashing LED warning signs, overhead pedestrian crossing signs, or pedestrian hybrid beacons. $15k to $100k SPOT-4 Amsterdam Road Near Clovehitch Road It is recommended that the existing buried pedestrian tunnel under Am- sterdam Road near Clovehitch Road be uncovered and utilized to con- nect the north and south sides of Amsterdam Road. This project should be completed in conjunction with SUP-3. n/a SPOT-5 Madison Avenue Tunnel Amsterdam Road to Madison Avenue Construct a pedestrian tunnel connecting Amsterdam Road with Madison Avenue under I-90. This connection would improve non-motorized con- nectivity between the River Rock area and retail areas near Jackrabbit Lane and Madison Avenue. This projected should be completed in con- junction with SUP-4. $1.1M to $1.5M ---PAGE BREAK--- 72 IMPROVING THE SYSTEM ID Location Description Estimated Cost SPOT-6 Jackrabbit Lane I-90 overpass Construct a separate non-motorized overpass of I-90 on the west side of the existing overpass structure. Pedestrian accommodations would be required on both the eastbound and westbound on-ramps. For the westbound on-ramp, crosswalks and associated phasing could be added to the existing traffic signal. For the eastbound on-ramp, it is likely that a pedestrian activated traffic signal would be needed. This project should be constructed in conjunction with SW-12 and/or MSN-7. $2.0M to $3.0M SPOT-7 School Crossings Jackrabbit Lane (Triple Crown Road to 8th Street) There are multiple unsignalized crosswalks across Jackrabbit Lane be- tween the Belgrade Middle School and Saddle Peak Elementary School. Some of the crosswalks have school crossing guards in the morning and afternoons. The crosswalks experience heavy use during school hours and also during sporting and afterschool events. The heavy-use crossings should be evaluated for additional crossing treatments such as pedestrian activated flashing LED warning signs, overhead pedestrian crossing signs, and/or pedestrian hybrid beacons. $15k to $100k each ---PAGE BREAK--- 73 OCTOBER 17, 2018 G A LLA T I N RIV E R G A L LA T IN R I V E R HY ALITE CR E E K BAK E R C REEK N RI VE R EA S T G ALLATIN R IVE R Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport PENWELL BRIDGE ROAD FRANK ROAD AIRPORT ROAD MAYFAIR DR CAMERON AVE CHEERY DR SUNRISE DR 8TH ST ALAS K A F RON TAGE RD HOFFMAN ST WESTWOOD CL ROSEBUD AVE W CAMERON BRIDGE RD LINNEY RD RIVER RD AIRW A Y BL V D E CAMERON BRIDGE RD ALASKA RD S TUBB RD BOLINGER RD WEAVER RD POWERS BLVD BASELINE ROAD LAGOON ROAD JACKRABBIT LN NEVADA ST DAVIS ST GR O G A N ST CENTRAL AVE OREGON ST E VALLEY CENTER RD GOLDEN WEST DR AMSTERDAM RD JEFFERSON AVE SPOONER RD ROYAL RD THORPE RD DRY CREEK R D MAIN ST A M S T E R D A M R D MADISON AVE JACKRABBIT LN DRY CREEK RD BROADWAY ST FRONTAGE RD FRONTAGE RD THORPE RD 90 90 85 290 347 205 235 205 9 11 14 8 15 1 13 7 4 10 16 3 2 5 6 12 9 3 7 2 8 10 1 5 4 6 4 4 5 6 2 3 13 8 12 10 9 11 7 1 14 15 3 2 1 5 17 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.25 Miles Legend Airport Study Area Recommendations City Boundary Bike Boulevard Bike Lane Shared Use Path On Street Sidewalk Spot Improvement Figure 19 NON-MOTORIZED RECOMMENDATIONS ---PAGE BREAK--- 74 ---PAGE BREAK--- 75 OCTOBER 17, 2018 5.1. OVERVIEW CHAPTER 5: Policy and Planning Framework This portion of the LRTP addresses several topics that link the transportation system to broader quality of life considerations within the community. The LRTP is intended to include long- and short-range programs that lead to the development of an integrated multi-modal transportation system that facilitates the efficient move- ment of people and goods. The design, modal mix, and location of transportation infrastructure and facilities can directly affect urban form and functions as well as community character. Current directions in transportation planning place importance on developing transportation systems that help reduce unnecessary travel delays and manage travel demands in ways that create balanced multimodal net- works that offer multiple transportation choices. Transportation systems also need to provide facilities and ser- vices to help achieve reliable and timely access to jobs, community services, affordable housing, and schools while helping create safe streets and improving economic competitiveness, and enhancing unique community characteristics. Refer to Appendix H for a complete discussion on each of topics in this chapter. ---PAGE BREAK--- 76 POLICY AND PLANNING FRAMEWORK 5.2. ROADWAY DESIGN STANDARDS It is important to have established standards that identify the overall character of various roads within a com- munity. These standards should identify the anticipated amount of right-of-way necessary at full build-out. They should also include all of the design elements necessary such as sidewalks, bicycle facilities, landscap- ing, and space for utilities and snow storage. The standards should reflect the uses for each type of road, and the applicable traffic volumes anticipated. Suggested standards were developed (see Appendix H) for all of the categories of roads that are found within the Belgrade study area from local and collector roads, to minor and principal arterials. The standards differ depending on the context of the roadway, urban or rural. It is important to note that the functional classifica- tions listed in the Belgrade Administrative Code15 differ from the functional classification designations given in this LRTP. The suggested typical sections were developed for the functional classes in the Belgrade area as they appear on the major street network (Figure A variety of lane widths were included in the suggested road standards. Lane widths vary based on the volume and expected type of traffic on each street. Generally, streets which will carry larger numbers of vehicles and vehicles of larger sizes have been given wider travel lanes. The suggested standards have not been formally adopted by the City of Belgrade, rather they are intended to be used as a guide in future road construction projects. 5.2.1. Roadway Features Landscaped boulevards and sidewalks are required on both sides of all urban roads. Boulevards are neces- sary throughout the community to provide space for snow storage and separation of pedestrians and vehicles. The boulevards also provide space for trees and other forms of corridor landscaping, which are considered an essential ingredient to producing a livable community. Both flush and raised center medians are also included in various road standards. The use of raised versus flush medians will be determined on a case by case basis and depends on the number of driveways. Bicycle facilities are suggested in all but the local road standards. Bicycle facilities are not necessary on local streets due to the relatively low traffic volumes and low vehicle speeds. In all other cases, five or six-foot-wide bicycle lanes are required on both sides of the street. A ten-foot-wide combined ped/bike trail option is allowed if the necessary right-of-way is available or provided for the primary arterial typical sections. The use of bicycle facilities that are not in the roadway are a safety concern at cross-street intersections, therefore, this option may be proposed only in cases where there are few minor intersections along the corridor. This plan has taken a multi-modal approach to the provision of transportation services. Therefore, it is im- portant that the pedestrian and bicycle facilities depicted on the street standards illustrated in this chapter be constructed as a basic component of the initial facility rather than being considered as an optional add-on. 5.2.2. Summary There will always be special circumstances that must be considered as roadway improvements are contem- plated. Context sensitive solutions and designs suggest that roadway improvements can be done in harmony with local community objectives and public interests. The potential does exist that deviations from the pro- posed typical sections may be warranted via reduced lane widths, on-street parking, building placement and orientation and access control features. These should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by community leaders. ---PAGE BREAK--- 77 OCTOBER 17, 2018 5.3. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT The Belgrade area is projected to continue growing. The accompanying expansion of transportation infrastruc- ture is expensive and usually lags behind growth. Proper management of demand now will help to maximize the existing infrastructure and delay the need to build more expensive additional infrastructure. Travel De- mand Management (TDM) is an important and useful tool to extend the useful life of a transportation system. TDM strategies are an important part of the Belgrade LRTP due to their inherent ability to provide the following benefits a number of benefits to the commuting public. TDM can provide better transportation accessibility, predictability, commute choices, and enhanced transportation system performance. TDM measures can also be applied to non-commuter traffic, and are especially easy to adapt to tourism, special events, emergencies, and construction. These changes allow the same amount of transportation infrastructure to effectively serve more people. They acknowledge and work within the mode and route choices which motorists are willing to make, and can en- courage a sense of community. Certain measures can also increase the physical activity of people getting from one place to another. Congestion can be reduced or managed on a long-term basis through the use of an integrated system of TDM strategies. In order to provide a TDM system that will address the needs of the Belgrade area, the elements of the system must be acceptable to the general population. If elements are proposed which are not acceptable, the TDM system goals may not be reached. While some of the strategies may work well in the Belgrade area, it is clear that some may be less affective. To provide a TDM system that is effective in managing demand, a combi- nation of strategies is necessary. TDM strategies, which are, or have been used by other communities in the United States, are listed below: • Flextime • Alternate Work Schedule • Compressed Work Week • Telecommuting • Ride Sharing (Carpooling) • Vanpooling • Bicycling • Walking • Park and Ride Lots • Car Sharing • Traditional Transit • Traffic Calming • Special Routes/Detours for Emergencies or Special Events • Linked Trips • Guaranteed Ride Home Programs for Transit Riders • Mandatory TDM Measures for Large Employers • Densification/Mixed Use Elements for New Developments • Transit Oriented Development ---PAGE BREAK--- 78 POLICY AND PLANNING FRAMEWORK 5.3.1. TDM Implementation Many TDM options are available for use in the Belgrade area. Existing infrastructure is in place to use alternative modes of transportation including transit, walking, and bicycling in some areas, while others will need expan- sion. There are several major employers in the Belgrade area including city government, the Bozeman Health Belgrade Clinic, the Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport, and the Belgrade School District who could be approached to implement work week adjustments (flex time, alternate work hours, compressed work week) that may help to reduce peak hour congestion. With many of Belgrade’s residents working in Bozeman, Belgrade has the opportunity to offer and encourage TDM strategies such as park and ride or carpooling to its commuters. Streamline already offers one park and ride facility from Belgrade to Bozeman, but additional stops, routes, or park and ride lots could be beneficial. The Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport is also a large generator of traffic in the Belgrade area. The use of paid parking lots and providing scheduled bus trans- portation to Big Sky, West Yellowstone, and Gardner has been successful in mitigating SOV trips. Montana State University also provides a student shuttle to and from the airport during peak holiday travel times. These TDM strategies have proved beneficial and continued use and expansion of these strategies should be en- couraged. Based upon this general TDM evaluation, the Belgrade area could benefit from a successful TDM program. Some recommended strategies are listed below. • Encourage employers to provide alternate work schedules to their employees. • Implement a guaranteed ride home program for transit users. • Increase bicyclist access throughout the com- munity for commuting purposes. • Encourage walking and biking as a commute choice. • Look at ways to increase transit ridership and transit options. • Consider factors such as land use and zoning issues when approving non-rural projects in the outlying areas. The Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport is a large traffic generator in the Belgrade area. The Bozeman Health Belgrade Clinic was recently constructed along Alaska Frontage Road and is a major employer in the Belgrade area. ---PAGE BREAK--- 79 OCTOBER 17, 2018 5.4. ROADWAY OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Traditionally, federal, state, and local agencies have allowed their roadways to deteriorate to “fair,” or “poor”, structural condition and ride quality before steps are implemented to rehabilitate the road. However, that is beginning to change with recent findings showing this management system to be both costly and time con- suming. Federal, state, and local agencies are beginning to realize that the most cost-effective way to manage their roadways is to implement a series of low-cost preventative maintenance treatments in order to preserve their roadways and avoid continual rehabilitation. In essence, roadway preservation is a system of planned roadway treatments that are implemented at the optimum time to enhance roadway longevity and maximize the useful life of a roadway while minimizing costs. The purpose of roadway preservation is not to improve traffic flow or operations, it is designed to be the most cost-effective way to maintain the current working order of a healthy roadway. Roadway preservation is intend- ed to address minor deficiencies in a roadway and implement low cost solutions that extend the service life of the roadway by preventing minor deficiencies from becoming major problems. Figure 20 shows the concept behind roadway preservation and the emphasis of “Optimal Timing”. The example in Figure 20 compares two paved roadways starting at the same condition. One scenario is managed under the traditional approach of rehabilitating the roadway and allowing it to deteriorate to a state of failure. Failure occurs when the road is in fair to poor condition shown by the rehabilitation trigger line. At this line, irreversible structural damage has occurred, resulting in the need for costly rehabilitation of the entire roadway. The scenario implements regular roadway preservation techniques. These preservation techniques are low- cost preventative maintenance treatments that are implemented when the roadway reaches a predetermined level. The timing of treatment implementation is crucial for the success of the preservation plan. If the pres- ervation techniques are implemented after the optimal time, the roadway will be deteriorating at a rate from which it cannot recover from and the investment in maintenance will be wasted. However, if the preventative maintenance is implemented at the optimal time, the roadway will be restored to near original condition, and if routine maintenance continues it will result in much greater intervals between roadway rehabilitations. Roadway preservation is a long-term strategy for enhancing functional roadway performance by using integrat- ed, cost-effective practices that extend roadway life, improve safety, and motorist satisfaction while achieving sustainable roadway con- ditions. See Appendix H for an in depth discussion on road preservation and for various strategies that can be used to success- fully implement a pres- ervation plan. Also dis- cussed is how to develop a maintenance program which ensures bikeway and walkway facilities are usable to the public to the greatest extent possible. Figure 20 PAVEMENT PRESERVATION CONCEPT ---PAGE BREAK--- 80 POLICY AND PLANNING FRAMEWORK 5.5. INTERSECTION CONTROL Intersection control refers to the level of restriction to free flow travel through an intersection. Non-restric- tive intersections are uncontrolled, meaning there is no form of regulatory sign or traffic signal on any of the approaches. Unsignalized intersections—stop controlled, yield controlled, or roundabouts—are moderately restrictive to traffic flow whereas signalized intersections provide the highest level of control. Each type of intersection control can be advantageous and can improve operations and safety at intersections. However, when used unnecessarily, each type of intersection control can also be prohibitive and potentially unsafe. Stop and Yield Controlled Intersections In general, when two vehicles approach an intersection from different streets or highways at approximately the same time, the right-of-way rule requires the driver of the vehicle on the left to yield the right-of way to the vehicle on the right. The right-of-way can be modified at through streets or highways by placing yield signs or stop signs on one or more approaches. Engineering judgment should guide the establishment of intersection control but should consider all modes of traffic and their volumes on all approaches, the intersection geome- try, approach speeds, and crash trends. All regulatory traffic control signs and pavement markings should be placed in accordance with the MUTCD [Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices]. Traffic Signals When determining whether a traffic signal is appropriate at an intersection, it is first necessary to conduct a traffic signal warrant analysis. The signal warrant analysis should be conducted using guidelines outlined in the MUTCD. According to the MUTCD, there are nine signal warrants that should be analyzed for the instal- lation of a traffic signal. The warrants are related to vehicle traffic conditions, pedestrian traffic, and physical characteristics. The MUTCD states that a traffic signal should not be installed unless one or more warrants are satisfied, how- ever, meeting one or more warrants does not in itself require the installation of a traffic signal. Note that it may not be appropriate in every case to install a traffic signal at every location that meets warrants. Alternatives to traffic signals, such as roundabouts, reduced access, revised intersection geometrics, etc. may be analyzed as other potential traffic control measures. Roundabouts Roundabouts have become an increasingly popular in recent decades as studies confirm their effectiveness. At intersections where safety is concerned, especially with head-on and angle collisions, roundabouts are a positive solution because of the reduced number of conflict points. Additionally, when used properly, round- abouts can improve traffic operations because they promote a continuous flow of traffic through the intersec- tion. Roundabouts can be categorized into three categories--mini-roundabouts, single-lane roundabouts, and multilane roundabouts--according to size, number of lanes, and environment. 5.6. TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES Traffic calming refers to a number of methods which are used to reduce vehicle speeds, improve safety, and enhance the quality of life. In the simplest definition, it is changing the physical environment to reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior, and improve conditions for pedestrians and other non-motorized street users. Traffic calming techniques are typically aimed at lowering vehicle speeds, de- creasing truck volumes, and/or reducing the amount of cut-through traffic in a given area. When applied prop- erly, these techniques result in a more pleasant environment for pedestrians and bicyclists while increasing the overall safety of a roadway or road network. ---PAGE BREAK--- 81 OCTOBER 17, 2018 Traffic calming techniques cannot be used with the same degree of success on all roadway facilities. To best serve the needs of all users, including bicyclists and pedestrians, care needs to be taken when implementing any traffic calming technique. The following guidelines should be considered in traffic calming installations: • Traffic calming planning should include adequate public involvement. • Involve experts familiar with the latest traffic calming resources and design standards. • Planners should consider a variety of traffic calming devices, rather than relying on a single type, such as speed humps or rumble strips. • Traffic calming projects should support multiple objectives, including enhanced street aesthetics or improved walking and cycling conditions, as well as controlling traffic speeds. • Stop signs should not be used as traffic calming devices. • Maintenance of new traffic calming devices should be included in planning and design phases. • Devices that are new to an area should be implemented on a trial basis with adequate signing. For example, the first traffic circles in an area should have signs showing the path vehicles should follow. After a few years, such signs become unnecessary. • Delays to emergency vehicles should be minimized by the appropriate placement and design of traffic calming devices. In some cases, certain traffic calming devices may not be appropriate. • Traffic calming installations should not divert traffic to other local residential streets. Traffic calming installations should support the street classifications established in community plans. Traffic may be diverted from residential streets to higher classified through streets. The potential impacts of traffic diversion should be evaluated for all traffic calming installations. • Traffic calming should not impair the mobility of non-motorized users of the street. • Traffic calming installations must address drainage, sight distance, and location of utilities. Traffic calming measures generally fit into one of the following major categories: passive measures; education and enforcement; signing and pavement marking; deflection or narrowing; and diversions or restrictions. 5.7. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW POLICIES The impact that new development has on the existing transportation system has been documented within this Transportation Plan from a larger, regional context. However, as individual development proposals are con- templated and submitted to the City of Belgrade for review, development related specifics for transportation system mitigation is warranted. Presently, new developments are required to submit detailed traffic impact studies (TISs) for developments within the city expected to generate more than 100 vehicle trips per day. This process is in place such that the developer will know what mitigation may be required as a result of their development, and also for City staff and elected officials to contemplate traffic impacts on the system. The result of preparation and review of the detailed TISs can result in a list of “conditions for approval” that an individual developer will be required to meet before the development can proceed. This process is currently in place in Belgrade and can be found in the City of Belgrade Design Standards and Specifications Policy16. However, the standards lack detail and the degree to which this system is enforced is unknown. Appendix H provides guidelines which detail the elements required (at a minimum) for preparing a TIS and provide for the consistent preparation of these studies throughout the community. A detailed summary of potential traffic performance measure policies which could be implemented in Belgrade is also provided. ---PAGE BREAK--- 82 POLICY AND PLANNING FRAMEWORK 5.8. FREIGHT AND GOODS MOVEMENT Moving goods efficiently and safely in the region is critical to the economy and quality of life in the Belgrade area. Belgrade is home to many trucking activity centers, freight terminals, and local businesses engaged in industrial, agricultural, office and retail activities which rely on timely deliveries to supply finished goods and services to their customers. These businesses contribute primary jobs that grow the region’s economy and maintain long-term economic competitiveness. Goods movement is important to local distributors and consumers, as increasing numbers of people shop online and expect goods delivered quickly to their homes. The Belgrade area is part of long-distance goods movement corridors supporting interstate and international commerce. Goods movement affects all modes of transportation and a broad mix of land uses in the Belgrade area. Goods move through the region alongside drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, and passengers traveling by bus, rail, and air. The transportation network connects and passes through commercial districts, residential neighbor- hoods, and parks. Demand for goods movement is increasing as the region’s economy and population grows. Integrating goods movement into the transportation system and local land uses is critical to protecting safety and quality of life. 5.9. METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS A Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is a federally mandated and federally funded transportation policy-making organization that is made up of representatives from local government and governmental trans- portation authorities. MPOs were introduced by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962, which required the formation of an MPO for any urbanized area with a population greater than 50,000. Federal funding for trans- portation projects and programs are channeled through this planning process. Congress created MPOs in order to ensure that existing and future expenditures of governmental funds for transportation projects and programs are based on a Continuing, Cooperative, and Comprehensive planning process. Statewide and metropolitan transportation planning processes are governed by federal law (23 U.S.C. 134–135). Trans- parency through public access to participation in the planning process and electronic publication of plans now is required by federal law. The federal government wishes to see federal transportation funds spent in a manner that has a basis in met- ropolitan region-wide plans developed through intergovernmental collaboration, rational analysis, and consen- sus-based decision making. Accordingly, MPOs are essential to ensure that: • scarce federal and other transportation funding resources are allocated appropriately; • planning reflects the region’s shared vision for its future; • a comprehensive examination of the region’s future and investment alternatives has occurred; and • facilitation of governments, interested parties, and residents occur in a collaborative manner in the planning process. In future years it is likely that the Bozeman/Belgrade area could become a MPO, as such it is important to know the requirements and responsibilities associated with a MPO designation. ---PAGE BREAK--- 83 OCTOBER 17, 2018 6.1. OVERVIEW CHAPTER 6: Implementation and Financial Strategies This part of the LRTP details the long-term vision for the Belgrade transportation system as well as strategies for achieving the vision. Implementation of the envisioned transportation system requires extensive coordi- nation with various agencies, many years of execution, and substantial funds. This section also discusses financial strategies for funding the implementation of the visionary transportation network. ---PAGE BREAK--- 84 IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCIAL STRATEGIES 6.2. VISIONARY TRANSPORTATION NETWORK An established plan for Belgrade’s future transportation system is an essential component to community plan- ning and future land development. It ensures that planners, landowners, and developers know the intent and location of the future road network and facilitates a long-term planning strategy. It enables the community to enhance the transportation network with, or ahead of, development rather than being caught behind develop- ment with no financial means to accommodate the associated travel demands. All of the recommended projects discussed previously have been compiled to make up the “visionary trans- portation network”. The visionary network is meant to serve as guidance for future transportation projects and may be changed or adapted to fit Belgrade’s changing needs. Figure 21 presents the visionary major street network which consists of all interstate principal arterial, non-interstate principal arterial, minor arterial, and collector routes. Local streets are not included on the visionary major street network. Figure 22 presents the visionary non-motorized network including the recommendations for sidewalks, shared-use paths, bike lanes, and bike boulevards. All future alignments shown in Figure 21 and Figure 22 are conceptual in nature and may vary based on factors such as topography, wetlands, land ownership, and other unforeseen factors. The purpose of these figures is to illustrate the visionary transportation network at full build-out. It is likely that many of the corridors shown will not be developed into roads or paths for many decades to come. On the other hand, if development is proposed in a particular area, the visionary transportation network will ensure that the various facilities will be established in a fashion that produces an efficient and logical future transportation system. Presenting the visionary transportation network herein is an effort to help plan for the future development of the transportation system in the community. ---PAGE BREAK--- 85 OCTOBER 17, 2018 G A LLA T I N RIV E R G A L LA T IN R I V E R HY ALITE CR E E K BAK E R C REEK EA S T G ALLATIN R IVE R Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport PENWELL BRIDGE ROAD FRANK ROAD AIRPORT ROAD MAYFAIR DR CAMERON AVE CHEERY DR SUNRISE DR 8TH ST ALAS K A F RON TAGE RD HOFFMAN ST WESTWOOD CL ROSEBUD AVE W CAMERON BRIDGE RD LINNEY RD RIVER RD AIRW A Y BL V D E CAMERON BRIDGE RD ALASKA RD S TUBB RD BOLINGER RD WEAVER RD POWERS BLVD BASELINE ROAD LAGOON ROAD JACKRABBIT LN NEVADA ST DAVIS ST GR O G A N ST CENTRAL AVE OREGON ST E VALLEY CENTER RD GOLDEN WEST DR AMSTERDAM RD JEFFERSON AVE SPOONER RD ROYAL RD THORPE RD DRY CREEK R D MAIN ST A M S T E R D A M R D MADISON AVE JACKRABBIT LN DRY CREEK RD BROADWAY ST FRONTAGE RD FRONTAGE RD THORPE RD 90 90 85 290 347 205 235 205 y j *The functional classifications shown are recommended as part of this Transportation Plan and do not reflect the federally approved functional classification criteria. 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.25 Miles Legend Major Street Network* Interstate Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector City Boundary Airport Study Area Future Connection Figure 21 VISIONARY MAJOR STREET NETWORK ---PAGE BREAK--- 86 IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCIAL STRATEGIES G A LLA T I N RIV E R G A L LA T IN R I V E R HY ALITE CR E E K BAK E R C REEK EA S T G ALLATIN R IVE R Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport PENWELL BRIDGE ROAD FRANK ROAD AIRPORT ROAD MAYFAIR DR CAMERON AVE CHEERY DR SUNRISE DR 8TH ST ALAS K A F RON TAGE RD HOFFMAN ST WESTWOOD CL ROSEBUD AVE W CAMERON BRIDGE RD LINNEY RD RIVER RD AIRW A Y BL V D E CAMERON BRIDGE RD ALASKA RD S TUBB RD BOLINGER RD WEAVER RD POWERS BLVD BASELINE ROAD LAGOON ROAD JACKRABBIT LN NEVADA ST DAVIS ST GR O G A N ST CENTRAL AVE OREGON ST E VALLEY CENTER RD GOLDEN WEST DR AMSTERDAM RD JEFFERSON AVE SPOONER RD ROYAL RD THORPE RD DRY CREEK R D MAIN ST A M S T E R D A M R D MADISON AVE JACKRABBIT LN DRY CREEK RD BROADWAY ST FRONTAGE RD FRONTAGE RD THORPE RD 90 90 85 290 347 205 235 205 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.25 Miles Legend City Boundary Airport Study Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Natural Surface Trail Bike Lane Bike Boulevard Off Street Sidewalk On Street Sidewalk Shared Use Path Figure 22 VISIONARY NON-MOTORIZED NETWORK ---PAGE BREAK--- 87 OCTOBER 17, 2018 6.3. FUNDING Transportation improvements can be implemented using Federal, State, local and private funding sources. Historically, Federal and State funding programs have been used almost exclusively to construct and upgrade the major roads in the Belgrade area. Considering the current funding limits of these traditional programs, and the extensive list of recommended road projects, more funding will be required from local and private sources if all transportation network needs are to be met over the planning horizon. Much of the following information concerning the Federal and State funding programs was assembled with the assistance of the Statewide and Urban Planning Section of MDT. The intent was to identify traditional Feder- al, State and local sources of funds for transportation related projects and programs in the Belgrade area. A summary of each potential funding source is provided in Table 21, including: the source of revenue; purpose for which funds are intended; means by which the funds are distributed; and the agency or jurisdiction respon- sible for establishing priorities for use of the funds. A complete description of each funding category as well as eligibility and matching requirements can be found in Appendix I. Depending on their intended purpose, some of the funding sources may not be entirely available for construc- tion of capital improvements. Several of the sources listed allocate money for routine and/or deferred main- tenance activities. Many of the funding sources are constrained to use for improving specific route systems; National, Primary, Secondary, or Urban Highway Systems, and Off-system routes. Table 21: Funding Programs Summary Funding Program Subprograms (State) Description FEDERAL National Highway Performance Program • Interstate Maintenance (IM) • National Highway (NH) • NHPP Bridge (NHPB) Provides funding for the National Highway System, including the Interstate System and NHS roads and bridges. Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG) • Primary Highway System (STPP) • Secondary Highway System (STPS) • Urban Highway System (STPU) • Bridge Program (STP) • Urban Pavement Preservation Program (UPP) • Set-aside Program Funds available for projects on state-designated Pri- mary, Secondary, and Urban Highway Systems. Bridge Program funds are primarily used for bridge rehabilita- tion or reconstruction activities on primary, secondary, urban, or off-system routes. National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) N/A This program was created by the FAST Act to invest in freight projects on the National Highway Freight Net- work. This program provides funding for construction, operational improvements, freight planning, and perfor- mance measures. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) N/A Funds are apportioned for safety improvement projects included in the State Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Projects must correct or improve a hazardous road lo- cation or feature, or address a highway safety problem. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) • CMAQ (formula) • Montana Air & Congestion Initiative (MACI)- Guaranteed Program • Montana Air & Congestion Initiative (MACI)- Discretionary Program Federal funds available under this program are used to finance transportation projects and programs to help improve air quality and meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. At the project level, the use of CMAQ funds is not constrained to a particular system (i.e. Pri- mary, Urban, and NHS). ---PAGE BREAK--- 88 IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCIAL STRATEGIES Funding Program Subprograms (State) Description Congressionally Directed Funds • Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects Congressionally directed funds may be received through either highway program authorization or an- nual appropriations processes. This is a discretionary freight-focused grant program for projects that improve safety and improve critical freight movements. Transit Capital and Operating Assistance Funding • Bus and Bus Facilities (Section 5339) • Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities (Section 5310) • Formula Grants for Rural Areas (Section 5311) • Urbanized Area Formula Grants (Section 5307) The MDT Transit Section provides federal and state funding to eligible recipients through Federal and state programs. All funded projects must be derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan (a “coordinated plan”). STATE Rail/Loan Funds • Montana Rail Freight Loan Program (MRFL) Revolving loan fund administered by MDT to encour- age projects for construction, reconstruction, or reha- bilitation of railroads and related facilities in the State. TransADE N/A The TransADE grant program offers operating assis- tance to eligible organizations providing transportation to the elderly and persons with disabilities. State Funds for Transit Subsidies N/A Provides funds to offset expenditures of a municipality or urban transportation district for public transportation. The allocation to operators of transit systems is based on the ratio of its local support for public transporta- tion to the total financial support for all general-purpose transportation systems in the State. State Fuel Tax • Bridge and Road Safety and Accountability Act (BaRSAA) The State of Montana assesses a tax on each gallon of gasoline and clear diesel fuel sold in the state and used for transportation purposes. State law also establishes that each city and county be allocated a percentage of the total tax fund. Funds may be used for National, Pri- mary, Secondary or Urban Highway Systems as well as local roads. LOCAL Capital Improvements Fund N/A This fund is used to finance major capital improve- ments to county infrastructure. Revenues are generat- ed by loans from other county funds and must be repaid within ten years. Special Improvement District (SID) Revolving Fund N/A A SID fund provides financing to satisfy bond payments for SIDs in need of additional funds. Rural Improvement District (RID) N/A A Rural Improvement District is a legal taxing authority through which a subdivision can raise funds for on-go- ing road maintenance and improvements. Gas Tax Apportionment N/A Revenues are generated through State gasoline taxes apportioned from the State of Montana. Street Maintenance Assessment N/A Street maintenance includes, but is not limited to, the following: sprinkling, graveling, oiling, chip sealing, seal coating, overlaying, treating, general cleaning, sweep- ing, flushing, snow and ice removal, and leaf and debris removal. ---PAGE BREAK--- 89 OCTOBER 17, 2018 Funding Program Subprograms (State) Description Street Impact Fees N/A Impact fees are collected from new developments based on the demand that the development will place on the existing system. Private Funding Sources • Cost Sharing • Transportation Corporations • Road Districts • Private Donations • Private Ownership • Privatization • Tax Increment Financing (TIF) • General Obligation Funds • Multi-Jurisdictional Service District • Local Improvement District Private financing of roadway improvements, in the form of right-of-way donations and cash contributions, has been successful for many years. In recent years, the private sector has recognized that better access and improved facilities can be profitable due to increase in land values and commercial development possibilities. Future Potential Funding Sources  Local Sales Tax  Wheel Tax  Local Options Motor Fuel Tax  Excise Taxes  Value Capture Taxes Various other sources of funding may be available in the future, pending legislation and other political deci- sions made by governing entities. ---PAGE BREAK--- 90 ---PAGE BREAK--- 91 OCTOBER 17, 2018 References 1 Belgrade Area Transportation Plan, Morrison Maierle, June 2002 2 Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, December 4, 2015, 3 Livability Principles, HUD/EPA/USDOT, 4 "Montana Labor Market Information." Montana.gov. Montana Department of Labor and Industry, 2015, http://lmi.mt.gov/ 5 “History of Belgrade.” Belgrade Chamber of Commerce, 2017. 6 Belgrade Area Growth Policy, City of Belgrade, October 30, 2006, http://ci.belgrade.mt.us/pdf/Growth-Policy.pdf 7 Gallatin Field Airport 2007 Master Plan Update, Morrison Maierle, Inc, August 3, 2006, com/content/documents/Master%20Plan%20Chapter%201.pdf 8 Streamline, Routes & Schedules, http://www.streamlinebus.com/routes-schedules/, accessed 07/05/2017. 9 2015 Traffic by Sections Report, Montana Department of Transportation, http://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/ 10 2016 Montana Rail Grade Separation Study Final Report, Montana Department of Transportation, May 2016, 11 Mineta Transportation Institute, Report 11-19, Low Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity, May 2012, http:// transweb.sjsu.edu/pdfs/research/1005-low-stress-bicycling-network-connectivity.pdf 12 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update), Robert Peccia and Associates, http://gallatincomt. virtualtownhall.net/public_documents/gallatincomt_plandept/Plans&Policies/tp 13 Bozeman Community Plan, City of Bozeman, 2009. 14 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan, Robert Peccia and Associates, April 25, 2017, http://weblink.bozeman. net/WebLink8/0/doc/122828/Electronic.aspx 15 City of Belgrade Administrative Code. Section 11-7-9. 16 City of Belgrade. Design Standards and Specifications Policy. Section IV.L. July 2017. http://www.ci.belgrade. mt.us/water/design-standards-2017.pdf ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ROBERT PECCIA & ASSOCIATES Planning and Design for Future Generations HELENA, MT – CORPORATE OFFICE 3147 Saddle Drive Helena, MT 59601 [PHONE REDACTED] KALISPELL, MT 102 Cooperative Way, Suite 300 Kalispell, MT 59903 [PHONE REDACTED] BOZEMAN, MT 3810 Valley Commons Dr., #4 Bozeman, MT 59718 [PHONE REDACTED] www.rpa-hln.com