Document Butte_doc_c6556ab4b7

2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY HKM Engineering Inc. is pleased to present this update to Butte-Silver Bow’s Transportation Plan. This plan could not have been developed without the support, comments and recommendations provided by the general public who are users of the transportation system. Public participation was actively sought throughout the planning process via public meetings, hearings, displays, presentations and a website dedicated to this plan. Presentations were also given to selected service organizations to actively seek out comments. Socioeconomic factors were reviewed for historical trends and to predict a growth rate through the year 2025. This historically based predicted growth rate is This plan also reviewed growth rates of 6% and 12% to further identify potential areas of congestion and degraded Levels of Service. Chapter 3 highlights the findings of the socioeconomic study, while Appendix A presents the study in its entirety. A transportation model was developed and calibrated using traffic tube counters that were placed at strategic locations by MDT and HKM. The growth rate identified above was inserted into the model to determine traffic patterns for 2025. This model was used to evaluate alternate solutions by determining traffic impacts to the system. Alternate solutions to improve the efficiency of the roadway system were reviewed for implementation and are presented in Chapter 5. Some of these alternates proved viable from a planning perspective and were included in Chapter 6 as recommendations. Recommendations for improvements to Butte-Silver Bow’s existing transportation infrastructure are summarized in Figure 6.1 and Table 6-1. These recommendations were divided into the major categories listed below. Chapter 7 provides a comprehensive discussion of the possible funding sources available to finance these recommendations. • Committed Projects (Dewey St. Extension) • Recommendations to Committed Projects (Convert Harrison Ave. to 5 lanes) • Proposed Corridor Projects (Hanson Loop Connector Road) • Proposed Site Projects (Little Basin Creek Rd. and Beef Trail Rd. intersection) • Signals – Warrant Studies (Montana St. and George St. intersection) • Speed Studies (Oregon Ave. south of B Street) • Accident Studies (Harrison Ave. & Roosevelt Drive) • Transit System Improvements (Transit stop on Hanson Rd.) • Non-Motorized System Improvements (Trail system lighting) • Railroad System Study Improvements (Railroad crossing improvements) • Other Transportation Systems (Parking restrictions) Comments to the plan were received throughout the planning process up to and including the final public hearing. Proposed projects that could not be included in the plan, based primarily on scheduling issues, are presented at the end of Chapter 6 as Prospective Minor or Miscellaneous Projects. It should be noted that this is a “living” document. The system is likely to change and may require new projects to adapt to this change. On February 22, 2006, the Butte-Silver Bow Council of Commissioners approved this Plan (See Council Communication No. 06-84). ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The 2005 Butte-Silver Bow Transportation Plan Update was made possible through the cooperation and assistance of many individuals. The following principal study participants provided guidance and support through the course of this study: BUTTE – SILVER BOW TRANSPORTATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE Paul Babb Chief Executive, Butte – Silver Bow Bernard Harrington Mayor, City of Walkerville Jon Sesso Director, Butte – Silver Bow Planning Department John Van Daveer Director, Butte – Silver Bow Dept. of Public Works Dan Dennehy Director, Butte – Silver Bow Health Department Karen Byrnes Director, Butte – Silver Bow URA and Community Development Jeff Ebert MDT Butte District Administrator Lynn Zanto MDT Statewide & Urban Planning Section John Moodry Butte-Silver Bow Weed Control Department Jack Burke Citizen Advisor BUTTE – SILVER BOW PLANNING DEPARTMENT Jon Sesso Director Russ Connole Assistant Director BUTTE – SILVER BOW DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS John Van Daveer Director Gary Keeler Director, Transit BUTTE – SILVER BOW COUNCIL OF COMMISSIONERS District 1 Mike Kerns District 2 Joseph E. Lee District 3 Jim Fay District 4 John M. Sorich District 5 Charlie O’Leary District 6 Wally Frasz District 7 David Bud Walker District 8 David B. Coleman District 9 Laura Lee Dunlap District 10 Mike Sheehy District 11 Ted P. Bury District 12 Rocko Mulcahy MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Jim Director Jeff Ebert Butte District Administrator Joe Olsen Butte District Engineering Services Supervisor Lynn Zanto Statewide & Urban Planning Supervisor Sandra Straehl Rail, Transit & Planning Administrator Tom Kahle TransCAD Modeler BUTTE – SILVER BOW CITIZEN GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS The authors would like to extend a special thank you to all of the citizens who shared their opinions and concerns with the planning team in an effort to produce the best transportation plan possible for their community. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S III LIST OF PREPARERS This Plan was prepared by the consulting firms of HKM Engineering Inc. and Community Development Services of Montana. The following members of our firms were contributors to this Plan or helped prepare the document. HKM STAFF Gary Simonich P.E., Principal Chris Laity P.E., Project Manager Darryl James A.I.C.P., Quality Assurance Todd Cormier P.E., Technical Assistance Sarah Joyce E.I., Engineering Designer Jeremy Salle E.I., Engineering Designer Jennifer Peterson E.I., Public Involvement Dave Stratton Graphics Production Sarah Nicolai Graphics & Report Production SUBCONSULTANTS Janet Cornish Community Development Services of Montana Margie Seccomb MS Grant Writing Services ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S IV TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS II TABLE OF CONTENTS IV LIST OF FIGURES VI LIST OF FIGURES (CONT.) VII LIST OF TABLES VIII LIST OF APPENDICES VIII TRANSPORTATION ACRONYMS IX TRANSPORTATION GLOSSARY X 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Project Background 1-1 1.2 Study Area 1-2 1.3 Status of Projects Recommended from Previous Reports 1-2 1.4 Previous Planning Studies 1-3 2.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 2-1 2.1 Overview of Public Involvement Process 2-1 2.2 Public Comment Summary 2-4 2.3 Goals & Objectives 2-6 3.0 SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS 3-1 3.1 Population 3-1 3.2 Housing Units 3-5 3.3 Employment 3-7 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4-1 4.1 Roadway Network 4-1 4.1.1 Major Street Network – Functional Classification 4-1 4.1.2 On System Roadway Network 4-5 4.1.3 Corridor Capacity / Volumes 4-7 4.1.4 Intersection Level of Service 4-10 4.1.5 Gap Acceptance Study 4-14 4.1.6 Speed Study 4-16 4.1.7 Truck Study 4-22 4.1.8 Accident Assessment 4-25 4.2 Transit Services in Butte-Silver Bow 4-31 4.3 Non-Motorized Transportation 4-37 4.4 Transportation Demand Management 4-39 4.5 Other Transportation 4-40 4.6 Supplementary Information 4-43 4.7 Committed Projects 4-46 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 5-1 5.1 TransCAD 5-1 5.2 TransCAD Roadway Network 5-1 5.3 TransCAD Traffic Analysis Zones 5-2 5.4 TransCAD Modeling 5-2 5.5 Alternatives Analysis 5-8 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S V 6.0 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 6-1 6.1 Roadway Network 6-7 6.1.1 Recommendations to Committed Projects 6-7 6.1.2 Proposed Corridor Projects 6-20 6.1.3 Proposed Site Improvement Projects 6-42 6.1.4 Signal Warrant Studies 6-57 6.1.5 Speed Studies 6-60 6.1.6 Accident Studies 6-61 6.2 Transit Systems 6-62 6.3 Non-Motorized Systems 6-64 6.4 Railroad Systems 6-65 6.5 Other Transportation 6-66 6.6 Prospective Projects 6-67 7.0 FUNDING SOURCES 7-1 7.1 Introduction 7-1 7.2 Local Financing Tools 7-2 7.3 Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) Funding Sources 7-8 7.4 Other State and Federal Funding Sources 7-19 8.0 REFERENCES 8-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E L I S T O F F I G U R E S VI LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Study Area Boundary Figure 2.1 Public Identified Issues Figure 3.1 Urban Limits, Census Tracts, and Schools Figure 3.2 Projected Population Growth and Decline (2025) Figure 3.3 Projected Housing Gains and Losses (2025) Figure 4.1 Functional Classifications Figure 4.2 On-System Routes Figure 4.3 Existing 2005 Volume / Capacity Conditions Figure 4.4 Annual Average Daily Traffic 2005 Figure 4.5 Signalized Intersections Figure 4.6 Speed Study Figure 4.7 Truck Routes Figure 4.8 Accident Locations Figure 4.9 Existing Transit Routes for “The Bus” Figure 4.10 School Districts No. 1 Primary Bus Routes Figure 4.11 Existing and Proposed Trails Figure 4.12 Tour Routes Figure 4.13 Rail Lines Figure 4.14 Snow Routes Figure 4.15 EMS/Fire Districts Figure 4.16 Committed Projects Figure 5.1 Average Daily Traffic 2025 Figure 5.2 2025 Volume/Capacity Conditions Figure 5.3 Volume Impacts of Busch Ave. on Avg. Daily Traffic 2025 Figure 5.4 Volume Impacts of Floral Blvd. On Avg. Daily Traffic 2025 Figure 5.5 Off-Ramp at I-90/I-15 Interchange Figure 5.6 Volume Impacts of Iron St. on Avg. Daily Traffic 2025 Figure 5.7 Volume Impacts of Hanson Loop on Avg. Daily Traffic 2025 Figure 5.8 Volume Impacts of Tram Rd. on Avg. Daily Traffic 2025 Figure 6.1 Summary of Proposed Transportation Improvements/Alternatives Figure 6.2 Harrison Ave. and Amherst Ave. Figure 6.3 Harrison Ave., Page 1 Figure 6.4 Harrison Ave., Page 2 Figure 6.5 Harrison Ave., Page 3 Figure 6.6 Harrison Ave., Page 4 Figure 6.7 Harrison Ave., Page 5 Figure 6.8 Harrison Ave., Page 6A Figure 6.9 Harrison Ave., Page 6B Figure 6.10 Harrison Ave., Page 6C Figure 6.11 Hanson Loop Connector Rd. Figure 6.12 Hanson Rd. Improvements Figure 6.13 Mercury St. Heritage Loop Figure 6.14 Iron St. Access to Montana Tech ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E L I S T O F F I G U R E S VII LIST OF FIGURES (CONT.) Figure 6.15 Saddle Rock Road Connector Figure 6.16 Bluebird Trail Improvements Figure 6.17 Bluebird Trail Improvements Figure 6.18 Bluebird Trail Improvements Figure 6.19 Our Lady of the Rockies Tram Rd. Figure 6.20 Option 1 – Littlie Basin Creek & Beef Trail Intersection Figure 6.21 Option 2 – Littlie Basin Creek & Beef Trail Intersection. Figure 6.22 Option 3 – Littlie Basin Creek & Beef Trail Intersection Figure 6.23 Harrison Ave. at I-90 Eastbound Off-Ramp Figure 6.24 Texas Ave. Realignment Figure 6.25 Busch Ave. Improvements Figure 6.26 Arizona St. Improvements at Curtis St. Figure 6.27 Intersection Improvements – South Butte Figure 6.28 Intersection Improvements – Massachusetts, Florence, Ottawa Figure 6.29 Wyoming Ave. / Arizona Street Connector ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E L I S T O F T A B L E S & A P P E N D I C E S VIII LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1 Status of Previously Proposed Transportation System Improvement Projects Table 3-1 Means of Transportation to Work, Silver Bow County, 2000 Table 3-2 Population Projections 2005–2025 Table 3-3 Growth Projections by Number of Employed, Silver Bow County 2003-2025 Table 4-1 Functional Classification System Design Criteria Table 4-2 Roadway Capacity Table 4-3 Level of Service Criteria for Stop Controlled Intersections Table 4-4 Level of Service (LOS) for Stop Controlled Intersections Table 4-5 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Table 4-6 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Table 4-7 Gap Acceptance Times (Right or Left Turn From Minor Rd.) Table 4-8 Gap Study Table 4-9 Traffic Speeds Table 4-10 Truck Percentages Table 4-11 Intersections with 10 or more Accidents Table 4-12 Intersections with Greater than 1.0 Accidents per Million Entering Vehicles Table 4-13 Intersections with Severity Rating 2.0 or Greater Table 4-14 County Ranking for Traffic Safety Programs Table 4-15 Butte-Silver Bow Transit Fleet Inventory Table 4-16 Butte-Silver Bow Transit Ridership – FY 2002 through FY 2005 Table 4-17 Bert Mooney Airport Combined Enplanements Table 5-1 2025 Travel Time Comparison – Existing System / Alternatives Table 5-2 2025 Travel Distance and Gas Savings Comparison – Existing System / Alternatives Table 5-3 2025 Alternatives Estimated Cost per Vehicle Table 5-4 Accident Ranking for Harrison Ave. between Amherst Ave. & Grand Ave. Table 6-1 Butte-Silver Bow Transportation Plan Project Funding Table 7-1 Local Financing Tools Table 7-2 Montana Department of Transportation Programs Table 7-3 Other State and Federal Funding Sources LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A – Socioeconomic Conditions and Trends Appendix B – Public Meeting Summaries Appendix C – Selected MDT and FHWA Policies Appendix D – Traffic Counts/ Studies ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A C R O N Y M S IX TRANSPORTATION ACRONYMS ADA Americans with Disabilities Act CAA Clean Air Act CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments (1990) CBD Central Business District CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIP Capital Improvement Program CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program CO Carbon Monoxide CTEP Community Transportation Enhancement Program (a Montana Program) CTPP Census Transportation Planning Package DOT Department of Transportation EIS Environmental Impact Statement FAA Federal Aviation Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration GIS Geographic Information System HBNW Home-based Non-work Trips HBW Home-based Work Tips HCM Highway Capital Manual ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems MACI Montana Air and Congestion Initiative MDT Montana Department of Transportation MEPA Montana Environmental Policy Act MOE Measure of Effectiveness MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area MTA Montana Transportation Association NAAQNA National Ambient Air Quality Non-attainment Area NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act (1969) NHB Non-home Based Trips Nox Nitrogen Oxides PM Particulate Matter PM-2.5 Particulate Matter of Less Than 2.5 Microns PM-10 Particulate Matter of Less Than 10 Microns SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone TDM Transportation Demand Management TEA-21 Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century TIP Transportation Improvement Program VHT Vehicle Hours Traveled VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VPD Vehicles Per Day ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E T R A N S P O R T A T I O N G L O S S A R Y X TRANSPORTATION GLOSSARY Average Daily Traffic (ADT) - The total amount of traffic observed, counted or estimated on a roadway segment during a single non-holiday 24-hour period. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) - The average daily traffic averaged over a full year. Bike Lane – A lane devoted to non-motorized bicycles. Capacity – The maximum sustainable vehicle flow rate that can be expected to traverse a roadway segment/intersection during a specific time period given roadway, geometric, traffic, environmental, and control conditions. Capacity is usually expressed in vehicles per day (vpd) or vehicles per hour (vph). Context Sensitive Design (CSD) – Process of incorporating an increased sensitivity to the adjacent environment while completing roadway engineering. Delay – The amount of time spent not moving due to a red traffic signal, or the inability to pass through an unsignalized intersection. Gap – The amount of time between vehicles or the time that the lanes are available for merging traffic. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) – Organization for professional transportation engineers. ITE publishes the Trip Generation Manual, which provides information on trip generation for land uses and building types. For instance, if an individual needs to know the number of trip ends (see definition below) produced by an industrial park, the report provides a trip rate based upon the size of the building. The report also divides the trip rate into peak hour rates, weekday rates, etc. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) – This Congressional Act requires states to develop a Statewide Transportation Plan and a Statewide Transportation Improvements Program (STIP) that identifies short-term project needs and priorities. It has also been a major source of funding for transportation planning and encourages the linking of transportation and community planning. (See also TEA-21 below). Level of Service (LOS) – A qualitative measure of intersection or road segment operating condition. A grading scale of A through F is used to characterize traffic operating conditions. The scale is based on the ability of an intersection or street segment to accommodate the amount of traffic using it, and can be used for both existing and projected conditions. The scale ranges from which indicates insignificant vehicle delay, to which indicates significant vehicle delay and traffic congestion. Link – A segment of highway ending at a major intersection on an urban street or at a ramp merge or diverge point on a freeway. Links have a node at each end. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E T R A N S P O R T A T I O N G L O S S A R Y XI Link Volumes – The number of vehicles using a specific street segment. It is typically expressed as average daily traffic (ADT) or vehicle per peak hour (VPH). Linked Trip/Trip Chain – The sequence of grouping stops between the origin and ultimate destination. The intermediate stops made while enroute to the ultimate destination are referred to as passby trips. The term is used in the evaluation of the operation of the accesses or driveways serving the uses at the intermediate stops. Median – A physical divider separating lanes of traffic that typically are traveling in opposite directions. A median is often installed to prohibit unsafe turning movements. It can also be used to beautify a streetscape. Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) – The agency that administers the federally required transportation planning processes in a metropolitan area. An MPO must be in place in every urbanized area with a population over 50,000, and is responsible for the 20-year long- range plan and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The MPO is the coordinating agency for grants, billings and policy-making for transportation. Multimodal – The concept of incorporating private passenger vehicles, transit, and non- motorized (bicycles and pedestrians) transportation features into the planning process. Node – The end-point of a link; also used interchangeably with “point.” Peak Hour – The one-hour period during which an intersection or road segment carries the greatest number of vehicles. Traffic impacts are typically evaluated during the morning and afternoon peak hours when the greatest number of motorists are traveling to and from work. Pedestrian LOS – Level of service for pedestrians can be studied as part of a transportation or traffic analysis, but is less common. It is typically only an issue in larger urban areas. Platoon – A grouping of vehicles traveling in the same direction at the same approximate speed. SAFETEA-LU - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) - Was enacted August 10, 2005, as Public Law 109-59. SAFETEA- LU authorizes the Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the 5-year period 2005-2009. Stacking – The process of vehicles forming a line or queue. If the stacking extends into the through-lanes, delays and unsafe conditions become prevalent. Traffic Calming – The process of designing streets or adding design elements to reduce traffic speeds and address unsafe traffic conditions. Design elements include, for example, speed bumps, narrowed streets, added traffic circle, etc. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E T R A N S P O R T A T I O N G L O S S A R Y XII Traffic Impact Study (TIS) – A study conducted by a transportation professional using transportation modeling and analysis software to predict the volumes and associated impacts from traffic generated by a proposed land use or development project. The study analyzes the impacts to roads and intersections and includes recommendations for roadway improvements that may be needed to mitigate unsafe situations and comply with the regulations of the reviewing jurisdiction. TransCAD Model –Computer software from Caliper Corporation that combines Geographic Information System (GIS) and transportation modeling capabilities. Function uses include: GIS engine, mapping, visualization, and analysis tools. Application modules include: routing, travel model forecasting, public transit, logistics, site location, and territorial management Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) – Geographic areas that identify land use characteristics, natural physical features, and associated trips for use in the traffic model and land use projections developed for the project. Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA21) – TEA 21 was enacted June 9, 1998 as Public Law 105-178. TEA-21 authorizes and funds the Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the 6-year period 1998-2003. The TEA 21 Restoration Act, enacted July 22, 1998, provided technical corrections to the original law. (See also ISTEA above). Transportation Demand Management (TDM) – Programs designed to maximize the people- moving capability of the transportation system by increasing the number of persons in a vehicle, or by influencing the time of, or need to, travel. Travel Speed – The speed at which a vehicle travels between two points including all intersection delays. Trip End – The term used to describe trips in terms of their common origins or destination. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) –The total number of miles traveled by all motorized vehicles within the study area. Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio – The result of dividing the counted or estimated traffic volume in a corridor by the estimated corridor/intersection capacity for a similar increment of time. Vehicle Per Peak Hour (VPH) – This relates to Link Volumes (see above). Weaving – The process of exiting a site and merging across multiple lanes "with traffic" to reach an intersection and go in a different direction. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 1 . 0 I N T R O D U C T I O N 1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The 2005 Butte Transportation Plan Update is intended to provide a unified transportation vision that supports future growth in the Butte-Silver Bow area. Long-range transportation planning in an urban area typically involves the following elements: • Interpretation of current development trends. • Prediction of future trends in order to identify the projected transportation demands of persons and goods. • Assessment of the transportation network and services available to satisfy those needs. • Meaningful public involvement. • Identification and prioritization of the most reasonable solutions to address current and future transportation needs. This Plan Update contains analysis of existing traffic operations, roadway networks, transit systems, non-motorized transportation systems, and other transportation systems in the Butte- Silver Bow area. Additionally, the document examines current socioeconomic conditions and projected trends, identifies needed improvements to the transportation system, provides an alternatives analysis, and offers a set of recommendations to address the changing transportation needs of the community. Implementation of specific elements of the 2005 Transportation Plan Update will help to improve and sustain an integrated and efficient transportation system for the Butte-Silver Bow area. 1.1 Project Background Butte-Silver Bow initiated long-range transportation planning in 1970 with its original Transportation Plan. The 1970 Plan was subsequently updated in 1986 and 1996. Many of the short-term and long-term traffic improvements recommended in these previous Plans have now been or will soon be implemented. Accordingly, it is appropriate to again review and update the Transportation Plan to address the changing transportation needs of the Butte-Silver Bow area. The 2005 Transportation Plan Update serves as a continuation of this transportation planning process. In the spring of 2004, the Butte-Silver Bow Planning Department, in cooperation with the Montana Department of Transportation, solicited proposals to update the 1996 Transportation Plan. HKM Engineering was subsequently selected to develop the Plan in 2004-2006. Transportation in the Butte-Silver Bow area is overseen and guided by the Butte-Silver Bow Planning Department / Board, the Butte Transportation Coordinating Committee (BTCC), and the Butte-Silver Bow Council of Commissioners. The BTCC is comprised of private citizens, representatives from local government, and the Montana Department of Transportation. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 1 . 0 I N T R O D U C T I O N 1-2 1.2 Study Area Figure 1.1 illustrates the Study Area for this project. The study area generally extends from west of the Rocker Interchange to east of the I-15 and I-90 Interchanges east of Butte. The north boundary is north of Walkerville and the south boundary is located south of the Butte Airport. The 2005 study area encompasses all of the area included in the 1996 Transportation Plan Update and was enlarged to include areas along Little Basin Creek Rd., Beef Trail Rd., Moulton Rd., and Bull Run Rd.. 1.3 Status of Projects Recommended from Previous Reports The 1986 and 1996 Transportation Plan Updates provided recommendations for improvements that were categorized into major projects, minor/traffic system management projects, site improvement projects and major maintenance commitments. These projects were to meet the greater Butte area transportation demands. The previous Transportation Plan Updates contained estimated costs to complete the recommended projects. The estimated costs were presented in the dollars relative to the date that the report was prepared. The 1996 Update identified a total budget exceeding $43 million over the 20-year span of the plan. The level of investment significantly out-paced the expected funding reported to be about $10 million over the same time period. Table 1-1 lists the number of projects by category, as recommended by the 1986 and 1996 Transportation Plan Updates and also identifies the number of projects Butte-Silver Bow has been able to either entirely or partially complete. Table 1-1 Status of Previously Proposed Transportation System Improvement Projects Category Number of Projects Estimated Cost in Planning Year Dollars Projects Fully Completed Projects Partially Completed Number Percent Number Percent 1986 TPU Recommended Improvements Minor Projects/Traffic System Management 15 $ 212,500.00 9 60% 3 20% Committed Major Projects 5 $ 9,727,400.00 3 60% 1 20% Recommended Major Projects 11 $ 7,933,000.00 1 9% 3 27% 1986 Totals 31 $ 17,872,900.00 13 42% 7 23% 1996 TPU Recommended Improvements Minor Projects/Traffic System Management 22 $ 1,023,500.00 11 50% 2 9% Committed Major Projects 2 $ 5,800,000.00 2 100% N/A N/A Recommended Major Projects 13 $ 30,835,000.00 2 15% 4 31% Recommended Site Projects 6 $ 840,000.00 1 17% 1 17% Maintenance Projects 4 $ 4,750,000.00 0 0% 1996 Totals 47 $ 43,248,500.00 16 34% 11 23% Table 1-1 clearly shows that Butte-Silver Bow has been active in pursuing available funding and has made significant advances in completing the recommended projects. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 1 . 0 I N T R O D U C T I O N 1-3 1.4 Previous Planning Studies In the course of data collection, past plans and studies were obtained. These documents were reviewed and incorporated into this 2005 Transportation Plan Update, where applicable. The contributing documents include: 1970 Transportation Plan set forth an improvement plan for the major street system to the year 1990, the majority of which has been implemented. 1979 Airport Master Plan evaluated the operation of the Bert Mooney Airport and recommended that the existing airport site be retained. Future airport use was also estimated and incorporated into the ground transportation plan. 1982 Harrison Ave. Corridor Study analyzed the traffic and operational characteristics of the Harrison Ave. corridor extending from FAS 393 (Basin Creek Rd.) to the B.N. overpass just north of the Civic Center. The findings of this study were incorporated into the 1996 recommended improvements for Harrison Ave. This Plan utilizes information from the 1996 Update for Harrison Ave. 1985 Butte-Silver Bow Master Plan projected land use for Silver Bow County and set forth general planning goals to the year 1995. 1985 Socioeconomic Study Prepared detailed population, employment, housing, vehicle ownership, and commercial floor space projections. Other transportation planning efforts are also documented in the 1986 Transportation Study Update, the 1996 Butte-Silver Bow Transportation Plan Update, and the 2002 Butte-Silver Bow Area Comprehensive Master Plan which were referenced in the preparation of the 2005 Update. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 1 . 0 I N T R O D U C T I O N 1-4 Figure 1.1 Study Area Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 2 . 0 P U B L I C I N V O L V E M E N T 2-1 2.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 2.1 Overview of Public Involvement Process The Butte-Silver Bow Transportation Plan has been prepared using information derived from both the collection and analysis of data and the solicitation of public input. Public participation was sought in a variety of ways including: ¾ General public meetings ¾ Presentations to civic organizations ¾ Presentations to local government boards and committees ¾ Ongoing communication with the public through the use of a Transportation Plan website Copies of meeting notices, lists of attendees, detailed meeting summaries and copies of presentation slides are available upon request. Schedule of Presentations/ Open House/ Public Hearings Butte-Silver Bow, HKM Engineering and CDS of Montana worked together to bring the planning process to the public and interested groups. The following is a summary of the Presentations, Open Houses, & Public Hearings that were held during the Plan Update process. ¾ May 27th, 2004: Planning Board Briefing & Discussion ¾ July 15th, 2004: Public Open House & Presentation at the Belmont Center ¾ August 14th, 2004: Presentation to Silver Bow Kiwanis Club ¾ August 17th, 2004: Presentation to Butte Exchange Club ¾ August 18th, 2004: Presentation to Kiwanis Sunshine Club ¾ December 20th, 2004: Presentation to the Butte Transportation Coordinating Committee ¾ February 18th, 2005: Presentation to Butte Chamber of Commerce ¾ July 21st, 2005: Presentation to BTCC ¾ October, 2005: Public Release of Draft Report ¾ Oct 2005 – Jan 2006: Public Display of Major Projects at the Courthouse ¾ November 8th, 2005: Public Workshop, Rotunda of Courthouse ¾ November 15th, 2005: Public Workshop, Rotunda of Courthouse ¾ November 17th, 2005: Public Hearing, Planning Board, Courthouse ¾ December 14th, 2005: Presentation to BSB Department Heads ¾ January 26th, 2006: Presentation to Planning Board ¾ February 22, 2006: Public Hearing, Council of Commissioners (Plan Approved per Council Communication No. 06-84) General Public Meetings Overview – The Project Team conducted three general public meetings during the course of the planning process. The first was a Public Open House and Meeting held at the Belmont Senior Center on Mercury St. in Uptown Butte on July 15th, 2004. The purpose of this meeting was to inform the community about the Transportation Plan and its significance, as well as to provide an opportunity for citizens to voice their concerns regarding transportation issues. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 2 . 0 P U B L I C I N V O L V E M E N T 2-2 A list of potential transportation projects and programs was presented at a second public meeting conducted as a Public Hearing was held on November 17, 2005 at the Butte-Silver Bow Courthouse. The public was invited to comment on the proposed list, help set priorities, and make additional suggestions. The third and final public meeting to present the final plan was held before the Butte-Silver Bow Council of Commissioners on February 22, 2006. Notice – The meetings were advertised in the Montana Standard and the Butte Weekly. Local radio stations were provided with public service announcements to be read during their broadcasts of community activities. KXLF TV conducted an interview with project staff that was aired just prior to the first general meeting. Public meeting notices were also placed on HKM’s Transportation Plan Website. The media was invited to attend and provided coverage through news articles in the days following the meetings. Format – All of the public meetings utilized visual aids to help attendees identify critical issues. Displays included maps of the existing transportation network, aerial photos of the Butte area, traffic count information, and proposed projects. Participants were encouraged to view the displays and make both verbal and written comments. The first public meeting began with a slide show that outlined the overall transportation planning process. Then participants were asked to consider a series of questions to help spur discussion on transportation issues and opportunities. The questions were: ¾ As you commute to work each day, what do you encounter and/or observe about Butte’s transportation systems? What are the areas of concern? ¾ What transportation obstacles do you encounter in your daily life? ¾ How do transportation systems and services relate to community economic development and growth? In soliciting comments, the participants were asked to address all aspects of transportation including public transit, pedestrian travel, traffic enforcement, transportation and commerce, and the road system. Comments and suggestions were recorded by the project team and are available upon request. At the second public meeting, participants were asked to review suggested projects and priorities in an open house setting to the planning staff on November 8th and 15th, 2005. A public display was shown at the courthouse from October 2005 to January 2006. A comment box was provided to allow the public additional opportunities for comment. Comments were received following a formal presentation at a Public Hearing on November 17, 2005. A presentation of the Final Plan was delivered to the Butte-Silver Bow Council of Commissioners on February 22, 2006. Civic Organization Meetings Overview – In addition to general public meetings, the project team made presentations and held discussions at meetings of local civic organizations. This enabled the team to reach a larger number of people directly in order to learn about community transportation issues and concerns. Between August of 2004 and February of 2005, the team met with the Butte Exchange Club, the Kiwanis Sunshine Club, the Silver Bow Kiwanis Club, and the Butte-Silver Bow Chamber of Commerce. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 2 . 0 P U B L I C I N V O L V E M E N T 2-3 Notice – The project team worked with the program chair for each of the civic organizations to request time on their agenda. Members were notified of the upcoming presentation at their meetings and/or through mailed agendas. Format – Maps and other display materials were made available to attendees prior to the beginning of each meeting to help provide a context for our presentation and spur discussion. The formal part of each presentation began with a short slide show summarizing the planning process and our findings to date. Participants were then provided with an opportunity to share their ideas, issues and concerns regarding transportation in Butte-Silver Bow in the same manner as the first general public meeting. Comments and suggestions were recorded by the project team and are available upon request. Presentations to Local Government Board and Committee Overview – The project team made presentations to the Butte-Silver Bow Planning Board at three critical points in the planning process. The first of these was on May 27th, 2004 when the project team presented an overview of the transportation planning process and solicited comments and suggestions from Board members and their staff. On December 20th, 2004 and July 21st, 2005, the project team made a presentation to the Butte Transportation Coordinating Committee (BTCC), providing those in attendance with our findings to date regarding socio-economic data, traffic counts and accident data and subsequent recommendations. On December 14th, 2005, the project team made a presentation to Butte-Silver Bow’s Department Heads, highlighting the plan’s recommendations and public comments concerning the draft report. Requests for additional comments was made at this time. The draft plan with public comments was presented to the Planning Board on January 26th, 2006. The Planning Board recommended approval of the plan. The final plan was presented to Butte-Silver Bow’s Council of Commissioners on February 22, 2006 via a Public Hearing. The Plan was subsequently approved. Notice – Meetings of the Planning Board and the BTCC were open to the public. Notices were placed in the Montana Standard. E-mail notices were also sent to the Chamber of Commerce membership and to others who attended general public and organizational meetings, inviting them to attend the BTCC session. Format – Maps and other displays were available for viewing by attendees. The project team presented slide shows depicting the overall planning process and summary findings. Following the slide shows, participants were encouraged to ask questions and comment on the information presented. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 2 . 0 P U B L I C I N V O L V E M E N T 2-4 Transportation Plan Website Persons interested in learning about the Transportation Plan were able to obtain up-to-date information on a website specifically developed to keep the public informed on the overall process. HKM hosted a website that provided information on the project schedule, meeting results, project personnel contacts and findings, and included an on-line newsletter. The site also featured a feedback form for persons interested in sending in comments and suggestions via e- mail. 2.2 Public Comment Summary Before the Draft Release Most of the public comments addressed operational issues including roadway maintenance, signage, safety concerns at intersections, and traffic enforcement. Participants noted the importance of road maintenance and design, from lighting and landscaping to overall community development efforts, and specifically to the revitalization of the historic central business district. There were several comments about the Harrison Ave. Interchange, where traffic exiting I-90/I-15 going east creates a bottleneck on Harrison Ave. at the intersection of Dewey Blvd. Other noted trouble spots included the entrance to Butte High School at Wyoming and Silver Sts., and the intersection of Texas and Continental. There were also concerns raised with regard to how access for emergency vehicles (fire trucks and ambulances) was limited in the rural areas, particularly to the south of the urbanized area. Participants noted the need for convenient routes to connect critical destinations such as the YMCA, the Airport, Montana Tech, Uptown Butte, and St. James Healthcare. Conflicts between pedestrians and vehicular traffic were noted where the Blacktail Creek Trail intersects Harrison Ave.. Comments were also received about the lack of available maps showing the location of the new trail system. Some of the participants noted that information about bus routes was not always clear and that the system was underutilized. Representatives of the Chamber of Commerce suggested that bus stops be placed at the Berkeley Pit Viewing Stand and at the Chamber’s Visitor Center on George St. to help make a stronger connection between the transit system and visitor services. The Chamber of Commerce Civic Improvement Committee has requested that they be invited to all public involvement functions related to proposed projects. Comments received before the Draft Release are illustrated in Figure 2.1. Public meeting summaries are presented in Appendix B. Significant Public Comments on the Draft Release Significant discussion at the Public Hearing concerned the intersection of Beef Trail and Little Basin Creek Road. During the draft release, this intersection included as part of improving the two roads. Based on the public comments, the final plan has included this intersection as a stand alone project with three alternate designs and is placed first on the list of site projects. Based on landowner and public comments, the connector road that tied Harrison Avenue to Little Basin Creek Road and Beef Trail was dropped from the plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 . 0 P U B L I C I N V O L V E M E N T 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 2-5 RR Bridge in Poor Repair Bike/Ped. Routes Not Continuous Emergency Routes Needed to Terra Verde and Basin Creek * Visibility Problems Intersection is Confusing Safety Concerns Sidewalks improvements and better parking management needed in Uptown Better Gateway Extend Elizabeth Warren Need east-west route south of airport Tram Road connection Need better east/west connections “Rails to Trails” on East Ridge Key: Congested roadway Intersection problem areas Needs better system connectivity Bicycle / Pedestrian Improvements NOT TO SCALE Figure 2.1 Public Identified Issues Overall System Issues Improved sidewalk maintenance Speed limits often improper and inconsistent Street repair after construction is poor Cars park too close to intersections causing visibility problems Signage not always visible Maps of trail system should be readily available Bus routes are unclear Cars/boats/RV’s park too close to intersections Note: The issues illustrated in this graphic were identified through a series of meetings with City Staff and the general public. Complete trail between Blacktail Creek and Rocker ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 2 . 0 P U B L I C I N V O L V E M E N T 2-6 2.3 Goals & Objectives The 2005 Transportation Plan Update Goals and Objectives were developed through collection and analysis of data, public input, and revision of goals set during previous planning efforts. A preliminary set of Goals and Objectives was drawn from those first established in the 1996 Transportation Plan Update. They were then modified and updated according to public and local government input. The Primary Goal of the 1996 Update was to: Develop a sound strategy for allocating scarce resources to produce a transportation system that is: 1. Efficient, Affordable and Sustainable 2. Friendly to Neighborhoods and Commerce 3. Attractive and Enjoyable 4. Accessible and Equitable 5. User-Friendly 6. Safe and Healthy Keeping this 1996 Primary Goal in mind, the following Goals and Objectives have been developed to guide the 2005 Butte-Silver Bow Transportation Plan Update: Goal 1: Assist Economic and Community Development Objectives • Identify transportation strategies that are reflective of community goals concerning economic and community development. • Provide or enhance well-designed links between primary traffic generators. Goal 2: Employ Good Design in Planning Transportation Infrastructure Objectives • Identify transportation strategies that are reflective of the community’s culture and sense of place in order to respect and enhance residential and business neighborhood cohesiveness, historic districts, and historic design elements. • Employ design approaches that utilize aesthetic elements in order to enhance overall community appearance. These approaches include landscape design, creative use of lighting and materials, and curb design. • Utilize handicap-accessible elements in the transportation design that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Goal 3: Promote Transportation Safety Objectives • Provide or enhance transportation routes that enable quick response by emergency services providers. • Design transportation routes and infrastructure to assure safe and efficient traffic flow by considering speed limits, lane configuration, intersection design, and directional signage. • Improve areas that have a history of safety concerns. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 2 . 0 P U B L I C I N V O L V E M E N T 2-7 Goal 4: Address Non-Motorized Transportation Concerns Objectives • Foster improved coordination among motorized and non-motorized travel. • Provide safe pedestrian and bicycle travel routes for recreation and non-recreational activities. • Develop strategies to reduce conflicts between pedestrians, bicycles, and motorized vehicles on roadways and trails. Goal 5: Maintain the Transportation System over Time Objective • Employ engineering design approaches that provide for ease of maintenance, access, and repair to facilitate street cleaning, snow removal, and sub-surface infrastructure replacement. Goal 6: Support the Efforts of the Butte-Silver Bow Transit Authority to provide Public Transportation Objectives • Utilize the Public Participation process to assist the Butte-Silver Bow Transit Authority in achieving its goals and objectives regarding its services and ridership. • Make recommendations to the Transit Authority to improve efficiency and route selection based on the Transportation Study. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 3-1 3 . 0 S O C I O E C O N O M I C C O N D I T I O N S 3.0 SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS Population, housing, employment and economic factors were utilized as data input to generate traffic volumes in the 2005 TransCAD model. Traffic volumes were calibrated with the use of pneumatic tube counters to correlate the trips generated by the driving population. A study was conducted to determine the current growth trends and redistribution of the population base. Trend data was used to project growth rates for the years 2015 and 2025. Please refer to Appendix A for a detailed discussion regarding historical and projected growth rates. This chapter summarizes Appendix A. 3.1 Population Population Distribution Current Distribution Approximately 88 % (30,615) of Silver Bow County’s population resides within the Butte urban limits, while approximately 12% (3,991) of the population resides in areas outside the urban boundaries. Within the urban limits, nearly 33% (9,986 people) of the population is concentrated in Census Tracts 1 and 2, 37% (11,350 people) is contained in Census Tracts 3, 4 and 5 and the remaining 30% (9,041 people) is concentrated in Tracts 6, 7 and 8 (within the urban limits). Refer to Figure 3.1 for map of urban limits and Census Tracts, and Figure 3.2 for population growth and decline at the census tract level. Redistribution U.S. Census Bureau figures from 1990 and 2000 indicate that Butte-Silver Bow experienced an internal redistribution of population that could potentially impact the road system. Census Tracts 1 through 5 showed losses ranging from 0.9% to 8.3%, with losses generally occurring within the urban limits in the following specific areas: • North side or Kennedy Elementary School area • West Elementary School area • Emerson Elementary School area • Whittier Elementary School area • Old Greeley School area Areas of growth during the period occurred primarily on the periphery or outside the urban limits to the north, east and south and in Census Tracts 6, 7 and 8. Notable areas of growth included: • Beef Trail/Little Basin Creek area • Black Tail Loop area • Bull Run area • Hillcrest Elementary School area (Country Club-Holly Lane areas) • East Ridge area • Hanson Rd. (new YMCA, Old Stockyards area) • Moulton Reservoir area Current redistribution of the population is consistent with this historic data based on new housing starts. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 3-2 3 . 0 S O C I O E C O N O M I C C O N D I T I O N S Figure 3.1 Urban Limits, Census Tracts, and Schools ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 3-3 3 . 0 S O C I O E C O N O M I C C O N D I T I O N S Figure 3.2 Projected Population Growth and Decline (2025) Note: Data utilized for population is currently available at the census tract level only. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 3-4 3 . 0 S O C I O E C O N O M I C C O N D I T I O N S Vehicles per Household and Means of Transportation to Work (2000 Census) Butte-Silver Bow had approximately 26,095 vehicles available to households in 2000 compared to 24,277 in 1990—a 7.5% increase over the ten-year period. The mean number of available vehicles per household in 2000 was 1.81, up from the 1990 Census figure of 1.78. The county had 15,600 workers in 2000, the majority of whom drove alone to their workplaces. (Refer to Table 3-1.) Of those who did not work at home, the mean travel time to work was 14.4 minutes. The majority of these workers left home between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. Table 3-1 Means of Transportation to Work Silver Bow County, 2000 Means of Transportation Total Number Percent Drove Alone 12,664 81.2% Carpooled 1,639 10.5% Public Transportation (including Taxi Cab) 90 0.06% Bicycled or Walked 673 4.3% or Other Means 110 0.07% Worked at Home 425 2.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Transportation Planning Package (CTPP 2000) Future Growth Overall Growth Table 3-2 presents three scenarios for growth. In the low growth scenario, Butte-Silver Bow gains 1,046 people between 2005 and 2025 for a 3% rate of growth. The moderate growth scenario shows a gain of 2,113 people for a 6% rate of growth, and the high growth scenario presents a 12% growth rate for a gain of 4,287 people over the 20-year period. While the road system is generally able to accommodate low and moderate growth, it would be impacted by a growth rate of greater than 6% (an additional 2000 or more people) at Harrison Ave. between Amherst St. and Dewey Blvd.. This location is currently over capacity. Table 3-2 Population Projections 2005-2025 Year Low Growth Scenario Moderate Growth Scenario Higher Growth Scenario 2005 34,688 34,688 34,688 2015 35,207 35,729 36,769 2025 35,734 36,801 38,975 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 3-5 3 . 0 S O C I O E C O N O M I C C O N D I T I O N S Growth Distribution The pattern of population redistribution is generally expected to continue into the year 2025 at a decelerated rate, with Census Tracts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 losing population, and gains occurring in Tracts 6, 7 and 8. Tract 2 has the potential for growth and is projected to start gaining population between 2015 and 2025. Growth is expected to occur specifically in the following areas: • Beef Trail/Little Basin Creek Area • Black Tail Loop Area • Bull Run Area • Hillcrest Elementary School Area (Specifically Country Club-Holly Lane Areas) • East Ridge Area • Hanson Rd. (New YMCA, Old Stockyards Area) • Moulton Reservoir Area 3.2 Housing Units Number of Housing Units Butte-Silver Bow County had a total of 16,176 housing units in 2000, an increase of 4.5% (702 units) over 1990. The county experienced a growth rate of 3.8% in occupied housing units during the decade 1990-2000, going from 13,899 to 14,432. Distribution of Occupied Units Current Distribution According to 2000 Census figures, 89.8% (14,523) of occupied housing units were located inside the urban cluster of Silver Bow County. Just over 10% (1,653) were located outside the urban cluster. Ninety-one percent (1,498) of units in the rural areas are contained in Tract 8, with the remaining 9% (155) of rural units in Tract 6. Within the urban limits, just over 30% of occupied units were concentrated in Census Tracts 1 and 2. Nearly 33% of the units are located in Census Tracts 3, 4 and 5. Redistribution Changes in occupied housing units followed the pattern of population redistribution. There were losses to Census Tracts in 1, 3, 4 and 5 during the decade 1990-2000, and gains to Tracts 6, 7 and 8. Tract 2 did not show an overall loss due to gains within two small pockets of growth inside its boundaries. Tract 8 experienced the highest growth in occupied units during the period, gaining 458 units for a 31% rate of growth, while Tract 7 gained 227 units for a growth rate of 21.48%. Future Growth Overall Growth Refer to Figure 3.3 for projected housing gains and losses at the census block level. Future growth in the number of occupied housing units is also linked to successful economic development efforts and the in-migration of population. Following the low population growth scenario, occupied housing units would grow at a rate of approximately 7.76% for a total gain of 1,136 housing units over the 20 year period 2005-2025. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 3-6 3 . 0 S O C I O E C O N O M I C C O N D I T I O N S Figure 3.3 Projected Housing Gains and Losses (2025) ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 3-7 3 . 0 S O C I O E C O N O M I C C O N D I T I O N S Growth Distribution Distribution of additional occupied housing units is expected to follow the general pattern of population distribution into the year 2025. Census Tracts 1, 3, 4 and 5 will continue to lose units while Tracts 6, 7, 8 and pockets of Tract 2 will experience gains. Tract 8 is expected to see the highest growth at a 30% rate, Tract 7 is projected to experience 20% growth, and Tract 6 is projected to grow by 18.8% between 2005 and 2025. Specific areas of growth in occupied housing units are expected to occur in the same areas of projected population growth. 3.3 Employment Current Distribution Refer to Appendix A for additional information regarding employment. The total number of people employed in Butte-Silver Bow in 2003 was 14,135. Of the total employed, 25% were employed in the retail industry and 75% were employed in non-retail industries. Retail employment is concentrated in two main areas in the county including the Harrison Ave. corridor, which passes through Census Tracts 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, with the highest concentration in Tract 6, and the uptown business district, which is primarily in Census Tract 1. Other pockets of retail employment exist along Montana St., Front St. and Amherst Ave. Because retail jobs generate more drive-in customers, they have a higher volume of vehicle trips per job. Non-Retail employees are spread across the eight Census Tracts in Butte-Silver Bow, with many located on the periphery or outside the urban limits. Census Tracts 1 and 8 contain 42% of all non- retail employees in the county. Future Growth Overall Growth The number of employed in Butte-Silver Bow is projected to grow by almost 21% between 2005 and 2025. Total employed is expected to reach 15,685 by 2015 and 17,393 by 2025. Employment in the retail sector would, under this scenario, grow at a rate of 28% over the 20-year period for a gain of 998 employees and a total of 4,547 employees. Non-retail employment would grow by 18.6% for a gain of 2,013 employees and a total of 12,846 employees. (Refer to Table 3-3 for employment figures). Table 3-3 Growth Projections by Number of Employed Silver Bow County 2003-2025 2003 Base Year 2005 Projection 2015 Projection 2025 Projection Retail 3,462 3,549 3,985 4,547 Non-Retail 10,673 10,833 11,700 12,846 Total 14,135 14,382 15,685 17,393 Source: Based upon Historic and Forecast Employment Data for Silver Bow County; NPA Data Services, Inc, 2003 Growth Distribution Growth in employment is likely to continue in the current pattern of distribution. Retail employment will continue to be concentrated in Census Tract 1, primarily in the uptown business district and in Tract 6 along the Harrison Ave. corridor. Growth in non-retail employment is expected to be concentrated in Tracts 1 and 8. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-1 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS To aid in a comprehensive understanding of the Butte-Silver Bow transportation system and how it will serve future needs, it is necessary to gather information on the existing physical infrastructure and current operational characteristics. This chapter presents data collected on the existing roadway network, transit services, and non-motorized facilities within the study area. It also provides an overview of the safety and operational characteristics of the existing system, which in turn help identify and prioritize future transportation improvement needs. 4.1 Roadway Network This section presents information specific to the roadway network, including classification, corridor and intersection studies. MDT traffic volume data was supplemented with data collected by HKM. The supplemental data set included: vehicle classification, traffic speeds, and gap information. Corridor counts were conducted continuously during 48 or 72-hour periods using Jamar traffic counters with pneumatic road tubes. Intersection counts were taken with hand-held Jamar counters. Refer to Appendix D – Traffic Counts/ Studies for additional information. 4.1.1 Major Street Network – Functional Classification Within the Butte-Silver Bow study area, roadways are grouped into six general functional classifications. A description of this classification system is provided in Table 4-1. The current functional classification of the Butte-Silver Bow area roadways is provided in Figure 4.1. Roadways in Butte are classified as follows: • Interstate o I-90/ I-15 • Principal Arterial o Harrison Ave. o Front St. o Montana St., between LaSalle Ave. and Granite St. o Park St., between Montana St. and Utah Ave. o Galena St., between Montana St. and Utah Ave. o Utah Ave., between Front St. and Granite St. • Minor Arterial o Daly St. o Walkerville Dr. o Main St., above Park St. o Park St., between Excelsior Ave. and Montana St. o Excelsior Ave., above of I-90/I-15 interchange o Park St., east of Utah Ave. o Shields Ave. o Farrell St., east of Texas Ave. o Continental Dr. o Lexington Ave. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-2 • Minor Arterial (cont.) o Montana St., between LaSalle Ave. and Josette Ave. o Rowe Rd. o Holmes Ave. o Amherst Ave. o Elizabeth Warren Ave. o Mount Highland Dr. o Highway 2, north of the intersection with Continental Dr. • Collector o Park St., west of Excelsior Ave. o Mercury St., east of Montana St. o Platinum St., between Excelsior Ave. and Utah Ave. o Main St., between Front St. and Park St. o Second St., east of Montana St. o Excelsior Ave., west of I-90/I-15 interchange o George St. o Grand Ave. o Texas Ave., north of Grand Ave. o Adams Ave., north of Grand Ave. o Oregon Ave., north of Dewey Blvd. o Cobban St., west of Sheridan Ave. o Farragut Ave., between Amherst Ave. and Grand Ave. o Dewey Blvd. o Sheridan Ave., south of Cobban St. o Hill Ave., south of Dewey o Montana St., between Josette Ave. and Beef Trail Rd. o Hanson Rd. o Burlington St., between Sheridan Ave. and White Way o White Way, between Elizabeth Ave. and Burlington St. o Blacktail Lane o Western Blvd. o Electric St., between Western Blvd. and Utah Ave. o Utah Ave., between Electric St. and Four Mile Rd. o Four Mile Rd., east of Utah Ave. o Basin Creek Rd. • Rural Collector o Little Basin Creek Rd. o Beef Trail Rd. o Oro Fino Rd. o Bull Run Gulch Rd. o Moulton Reservoir Rd. o Santa Claus Rd. • Local Roads ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W 4-3 T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E Sources: MDT; ITE Journal, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1985; AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Table 4-1 Functional Classification System Design Criteria Functional Classification Service Performed Location Mobility/ Access Priorities Approximate Daily Traffic (VPD) Approximate Recommended Spacing (Miles) Typical Speed Limit (MPH) Interstate Connects Butte-Silver Bow to other urban areas Edge of development areas Highest traffic mobility; no direct land access 10,000+ Principal Arterial Provides mobility within and between adjacent subareas On edges of neighborhoods Medium to high traffic mobility; limited land access 5,000-40,000+ ½ to 1-1/2 30-45 Minor Arterial Connects activity centers in developed areas On edges or within neighborhoods Medium traffic mobility; medium land access 4,000-15,000 ½ to 1 30-45 Collector Connects neighborhoods and other land uses On edges or within neighborhoods Limited traffic mobility; high land access 1,000-8,000 ½ or less 25-35 Rural Collector Lower volume road that connects rural areas surrounding the urbanized area to the urban system Outskirts of urbanized area Medium to high traffic mobility with medium to high land access; terrain dependant < 400 Terrain Dependant 45-55; Terrain Dependant Local Provides mobility within neighborhoods and developments Within neighborhood development areas or other homogeneous development Most limited traffic mobility; highest land access < 1,000 As needed 25 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4-4 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S Figure 4.1 Functional Classifications ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4-5 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4.1.2 On System Roadway Network On System refers to routes that fall under the jurisdiction of the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) and/or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). These roadways are eligible for funding assistance through programs administered by MDT. The designations of the roadways are similar to the functional classification described above. See Figure 4.2. National Highway System – Interstate • I-90 / I –15 • I-115 (City Center on/off-ramps carry this designation up to the intersection with Excelsior Ave.) National Highway System – Non Interstate None present in the study area Primary Routes • P-29 also known as Montana Highway 2 (Highway 2 from Janney Rd. on the south end of town to Iron St. at Excelsior Ave.) Secondary Routes • S-276 (Brown’s Gulch Rd.) • S-393 (Basin Creek Rd.) Urban Routes • U-1801 (In general: Excelsior Ave., Daly St., Main St. south to the intersection with Park St.) • U-1804 (Park St. from Montana St. to the intersection with Blue Bird Trail) • U-1805 (Montana St. from the intersection with Iron St. to the intersection with Hanson Rd.) • U-1806 (Front St. from Montana St. to Utah Ave.) • U-1807 (Park St. east from the intersection with Arizona Ave. then on Shields Ave., then on Farrell St., then on Continental Dr. to Hwy. • U-1809 (Mount Highland Rd.) • U-1810 (Grand Ave.) • U-1812 (Amherst Ave.) • U-1818 (Western Blvd. south from its intersection with Holmes Ave., Electric St. between Western Blvd. and Utah Ave., Utah Ave between Electric St. and 4-Mile Vue Rd., 4-Mile Vue Rd. to its intersection with Harrison Ave.) • U-1820 (Holmes Ave. & Hanson Rd.) • U-1821 (Dewey Blvd. Including the connector to Montana St.) ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4-6 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S Figure 4.2 On-System Routes ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4-7 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4.1.3 Corridor Capacity / Volumes Corridor Capacity Table 4-2 presents the capacity thresholds for given roadway segments as utilized by the TransCAD model. Volume of traffic on the roadway segment is divided by the capacity threshold to obtain a V/C ratio. The volume of traffic per day used for the 2005 V/C ratio calculations were based on actual road tube counts where available. Figure 4.3 identifies those portions of the road network that are approaching or are currently operating at capacity thresholds. Harrison Ave. between Cornell St. and Amherst Ave. is the only location currently experiencing traffic volumes greater than the available capacity. Locations that are experiencing volumes approaching capacity (0.8 ≤ v/c < 1.0) are: • Harrison Ave. at the east bound I-90/ I-15 on ramp • Harrison Ave. under the I-90/ I-15 overpass • Harrison Ave. between Amherst & Harvard Ave. • Shields Ave. (Continental Dr.) between Texas Ave. & Second St. • Montana St. between Front St. and De Smet St. Corridor Traffic Volumes Figure 4.4 illustrates the Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes for 2005. Traffic volumes were highest on Harrison Ave. and Montana St., both of which are classified as Principal Arterials. Rowe Rd., classified as a Minor Arterial, also experiences relatively high traffic volumes. Table 4-2 Roadway Capacity Local streets: Capacity* (Vehicles/ Day) 2 lane 7,200 Collectors: 2 lane w/o left turns 10,000 2 lane w/ left turns 12,000 4 lane undivided 20,000 4 lane divided 24,000 Arterials: 2 lane w/o left turns 11,000 2 lane w/ left turns 15,000 4 lane undivided 23,000 4 lane divided 27,000 Interstates: 4 lane divided 68,000 One-way streets: 2 lane collector 10,000 3 lane collector 18,000 2 lane arterial 12,500 3 lane arterial 20,000 * Capacity utilized by TransCAD model. Source: MDT ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4-8 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S Figure 4.3 Existing 2005 Volume/Capacity Conditions ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4-9 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S Figure 4.4 Annual Average Daily Traffic 2005* *This figure represents a combination of volumes from the TransCAD model, MDT, and HKM traffic counts. Traffic data utilized 2002- 2004 counts and adjusted to represent approximate 2005 conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-10 4.1.4 Intersection Level of Service Manual intersection counts were taken at limited locations to better understand the system as a whole. The intersection counts took place from May 20th to October 13th, 2004 and utilized electronic counting boards. The counts, intersection configuration, vehicle types, and signal timing (if applicable) were used to develop the Levels of Service. The intersection counts preceded the signal upgrade (interconnecting the signals) program described in the committed projects section. This plan makes recommendations at various intersections that are intended to improve capacity and level of service. Refer to Chapter 6 for these recommendations. For the purposes of this study, intersection level of service C or better is acceptable. Unsignalized Intersections The Level of Service (LOS) criteria for an unsignalized intersection is different than that for a signalized intersection. Drivers assume that a signalized intersection is designed to carry a higher volume of traffic than an unsignalized intersection. Drivers are more tolerant of longer delays at a signal. At an unsignalized intersection, drivers are less tolerant of a longer delay and are more likely to attempt to enter or cross traffic with less than ideal gaps. The control delay is similar to that defined in the signalized intersections with stop signs being used in place of signals. Table 4-3 is adapted from the Highway Capacity Manual to identify the Level of Service based on control delay for unsignalized intersections. Source: Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000) The criteria presented in Table 4-3 was utilized to determine the Level of Service for selected unsignalized intersections in Butte. The findings are presented in Table 4-4. Table 4-3 Level of Service Criteria for Stop Controlled Intersections Level of Service Control Delay (seconds per vehicle) A ≤ 10 B >10 ≤ 15 C >15 ≤ 25 D >25 ≤ 35 E >35 ≤ 50 F > 50 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-11 * Delay/ vehicle is presented for the worst-case approach only. Table 4-4 identifies the following approaches as functioning below the desired Level of Service • Texas Ave. at Continental Dr. (This Plan recommends that a right turn lane be added to Texas Ave. to reduce the delay found on the northbound approach. This Plan further recommends that the alignment of Texas Ave. be shifted to the east to improve the intersection sight distance. Observed traffic patterns on Continental Dr. indicates that a high volume of traffic occurs during a limited time and that this peak drops off significantly. A signal warrant study could be conducted to further explore this intersection. It is anticipated that a signal will improve the intersection to Level of Service A) • George St. at Montana St. (This Plan recommends a traffic light at this intersection to improve the intersection Level of Service to A. See Table 4-6) • Dewey Blvd. (eastbound) at Rowe Road. (This Plan recommends a traffic light at this intersection to improve the Level of Service. This improvement should coincide with development along Beef Trail Road.) Please refer to Chapter 6 for additional information regarding the recommended improvements to these intersections. Table 4-4 Level of Service (LOS) for Stop Controlled Intersections Intersection AM PEAK LOS PM PEAK LOS (Major/Minor) PEAK 15 Min Peak Hour EB WB NB SB Delay/Veh * Peak 15 min Peak Hour EB WB NB SB Delay/Veh* Continental Dr. & Texas Ave. (N-S) 7:45-8:00 7:45-8:45 A A E - 40.2 sec. 5:00-5:15 4:15-5:15 A A E - 39.8 sec. Continental Dr. (N-S) & Grand Ave.(E-W) 8:15-8:30 7:30-8:30 B - A A 12.7 sec. 5:00-5:15 4:45-5:45 B - A A 11.0 sec. Grand Ave. (E-W) & Farragut St. (N-S) 7:45-8:00 7:45-8:45 A A B - 14.4 sec. 5:00-5:15 4:15-5:15 A A B - 14.6 sec. Elizabeth Warren (E-W) & Mt. Highland Dr. (N-S) 7:45-8:00 7:45-8:45 A A B - 14.8 sec. 5:00-5:15 4:30-5:30 A A C - 22.9 sec. Holmes Ave. (E-W) & Western Blvd. (N-S) 7:45-8:00 7:45-8:45 A A A - 9.3 sec. 4:30-5:00 4:30-5:30 A A B - 10.2 sec. Kaw Ave. (N-S) & Cobban St. (E-W) 8:00-8:15 7:30-8:30 - B A A 13.7 sec. 5:00-5:15 4:30-5:30 - B A A 14.1 sec. Montana St. (N-S) & George St. (E-W) 7:45-8:00 7:30-8:30 - C A A 19.4 sec. 5:00-5:15 4:15-5:15 - E A A 42.7 sec. Rowe Rd. (N-S) & Dewey Blvd. (E-W) 7:45-8:00 7:45-8:45 C B A A 21.4 sec. 4:45-5:00 4:15-5:15 D B A A 33.7 sec. Continental Dr. & Texas Ave. (N-S) Modified A A E/ B - 39.9/ 10.1 sec. A A D/ B - 33.9/ 13.1 sec. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-12 Signalized Intersections Table 4-5 is adapted from the Highway Capacity Manual and defines the Level of Service for signalized intersections based on control delay. Table 4-6 represents the Level of Service at signalized locations within the study area. Figure 4.5 illustrates existing signalized intersections in the study area. Source: Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000) Refer to HCM 2000, Chapter 16 There are no signalized intersections that are currently functioning below Level of Service C. MDT is currently developing a project that will review and modify the signal timing following the completion of the 1999 Signal Upgrade Project (refer to Committed Projects Section). Table 4-5 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections LOS Control Delay per Vehicle (seconds per vehicle) A < 10 B >10 ≤20 C >20 ≤35 D >35 ≤55 E >55 ≤80 F >80 Table 4-6 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Intersection (Major/Minor) AM Peak PM Peak Peak 15 Min. Peak Hour Delay/Veh V/C LOS Peak 15 Min Peak Hour Delay/Veh V/C LOS Arizona & Park St. 8:00-8:15 7:45-8:45 11.8 sec. 0.24 B 5:00-5:15 4:15-5:15 13.1 sec. 0.32 B Front & Main St./Kaw Ave. 8:00-8:15 7:45-8:45 12.8 sec. 0.38 B 5:00-5:15 4:30-5:30 13.6 sec. 0.20 B Main St. & Park St. 8:15-8:30 7:45-8:45 11.9 sec. 0.28 B 5:00-5:15 4:15-5:15 12.6 sec. 0.33 B Park St. & Excelsior St. 8:00-8:15 7:45-8:45 10.8 sec. 0.35 B 5:00-5:15 5:00-6:00 11.4 sec. 0.36 B Front St. & Utah St. 8:15-8:30 7:45-8:45 10.6 sec. 0.40 B 5:00-5:15 4:15-5:15 14.1 sec. 0.53 B Montana St. & Park St. 7:45-8:00 7:45-8:45 13.2 sec. 0.20 B 5:00-5:15 4:30-5:30 13.9 sec. 0.27 B Amherst Ave. & Farragut Ave. 7:45-8:00 7:45-8:45 9.6 sec. 0.23 A 5:00-5:15 4:15-5:15 11.2 sec. 0.36 B Harrison Ave. & Cobban St. 7:45-8:00 7:45-8:45 8.8 sec. 0.31 A 5:00-5:15 4:15-5:15 9.8 sec. 0.52 A Harrison Ave. & Amherst Ave. 7:45-8:00 7:45-8:45 15.9 sec. 0.51 B 5:00-5:15 4:45-5:45 17.4 sec. 0.76 B Harrison Ave. & Dewey Blvd. 8:45-9:00 8:00-9:00 9.2 sec. 0.32 A 5:15-5:30 4:45-5:45 12.9 sec. 0.59 B Harrison Ave. & Grand Ave. 7:45-8:00 7:45-8:45 5.6 sec. 0.29 A 5:00-5:15 4:30-5:30 4.9 sec. 0.34 A Harrison Ave. & George St. 8:45-9:00 8:00-9:00 5.1 sec. 0.22 A 4:30-4:45 4:30-5:30 6.0 sec. 0.9 A Montana St. & Front St./Centennial Ave. 7:45-8:00 7:45-8:45 12.9 sec. 0.39 B 5:00-5:15 4:30-5:30 14.0 sec. 0.58 B Rowe Rd. & Montana St. 7:45-8:00 7:30-8:30 25.8 sec. 0.51 C 4:30-4:45 4:30-5:30 29.0 sec. 0.52 C Montana St. & George St. (Modified w/ Signalization) 3.9 sec. 0.34 A 4.8 sec. 0.47 A “Control delay is the portion of the total delay attributed to traffic signal operation for signalized intersections. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay.” (HCM 2000, 16-1) ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4-13 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S Figure 4.5 Signalized Intersections ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-14 4.1.5 Gap Acceptance Study As a driver approaches an intersection without signal control, the driver on the minor street must assess the size, availability, and safety of a gap in traffic on the through route. This driver assessment is referred to as “gap acceptance.” Table 4-7 presents the estimated gap-time in seconds that a driver of the given size vehicle would require to feel safe in entering the major flow of traffic. Table 4-7 Gap Acceptance Times (Right or Left Turn From Minor Rd.) Design Vehicle GAP Acceptance Time (tc) (sec) Passenger Car 7.5 Single-Unit Truck 9.5 Tractor/Semitrailer 11.5 Reference: MDT Traffic Engineering Manual, 2000. Data was collected to determine gap acceptance times at locations where volumes and spot speed were observed for this study. The gap study is usually taken at limited areas for specific purposes at the operational level and is generally not performed at the planning stage. This study is incorporated into this report to better understand local street - business interaction with collectors and arterial routes. Table 4-8 illustrates current gap times at study locations. From this overview, it appears that most intersections studied routinely operate with acceptable gap times. Four locations were found to operate less than 30 percent of the time with an acceptable passenger car gap time. Those locations are highlighted in bold text in the table. Table 4-8 Gap Study Location Percentage of Gap ≥ 8 sec. Percentage of Gap ≥ 10sec. Percentage of Gap ≥ 12 sec. Platinum St. by Butte High School 51.8 46.1 40.5 Continental Dr. North of Philips St.- North & Southbound 33.7 28.1 23.2 Utah St. North of Aluminum - Northbound 54.2 48.9 43.7 Utah St. North of Aluminum - Southbound 47.3 41.6 37.2 Main St. North of Silver St. - Northbound 67.0 63.3 58.5 Main St. North of Silver St. - Southbound 63.5 61.0 58.5 Platinum St. West of Alabama East & Westbound 44.6 38.5 33.9 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-15 Table 4-8 Gap Study (cont.) Location Percentage of Gap ≥ 8 sec. Percentage of Gap ≥ 10sec. Percentage of Gap ≥ 12 sec. Front St. West of Oregon - Westbound Traffic 27.9 22.9 19.3 Front St. West of Oregon - Eastbound Traffic 28.4 21.7 17.1 Lafayette South of Grand - North & Southbound 92.3 91.2 88.2 Farragut North of Harvard - North & Southbound 43.8 37.4 31.1 Grand Ave. at Thomas St. - Eastbound 73.7 69.1 65.9 Grand Ave. East of Garfield - Westbound 84.5 81.2 78.8 Farragut South of Grand - North & Southbound 58.5 52.5 47 Floral St. between Bayard & State - North & Southbound 54.4 47.5 41.7 Mortorview West of Harrison - East & Westbound 81.4 77.2 72.8 Grand Ave. West of Georgia - Westbound 78.9 74.0 70.7 Grand Ave. East of Georgia - Eastbound 74.9 70.3 66.8 Harrison Ave. South of Cobban - Southbound 24.7 20.0 16.3 Harrison Ave. South of Cobban - Northbound 29.9 24.1 20.1 Cobban St. West of Carolina St. - East & Westbound 57.0 50.0 44.5 Oregon St. South of B St. - North & Southbound 69.8 63.6 58.5 Cobban St. East of Lowell St. - East & Westbound 58.4 52.4 46.1 Montana St. North of Front St. - Southbound 39.8 31.3 24.8 Montana St. North of Front St. - Northbound 21.0 17.2 14.7 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-16 Table 4-8 Gap Study (cont.) Location Percentage of Gap ≥ 8 sec. Percentage of Gap ≥ 10sec. Percentage of Gap ≥ 12 sec. Dewey Blvd. West of Wyoming - Eastbound 51.3 43.3 37.3 Dewey Blvd. West of Wyoming - Westbound 51.3 45.1 38.9 Elizabeth Warren East of Harrison Ave. - East & Westbound 25.7 19.5 15.4 Utah St. West of M. Leary School - North & Southbound 76.3 73.8 70.8 Park St. East of Montana Tech - East & Westbound 45.4 39.1 33.8 4.1.6 Speed Study This Plan collected traffic speed data at 32 locations in the study area. This data was compared against the posted speed limit to determine if the posted speed limit is appropriate. Speed Limit Standards Speed limits in the study area are set by local authority in accordance with Montana Code Annotated (MCA). Below is a list of applicable MCA legal statutes governing posted speed limits. • MCA 61-8-303: Speed restrictions, basic rule • MCA 61-8-309: Special speed zones • MCA 61-8-310: When local authorities may and shall alter limits • MCA 61-8-312: Special speed limitations on trucks • MCA 61-8-313: Special speed limitations on bridges • MCA 61-8-314: Traffic violations in construction and work zones • MCA 61-10-128: When authorities may restrict the right to use roadway AASHTO recommends the posted speed limit be set at or near the 85th percentile speed. (AASHTO. Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2004, pp.72). In report number FHWA-RD-92-084, the Federal Highway Administration supports the use of the 85th percentile speed, the speed at (or under) which 85 percent of the drivers travel, in setting the posted speed limit. The FWHA report concludes the following, “The majority of motorists select a speed to reach their destination in the shortest time possible and to avoid endangering themselves, others, and their property. In selecting their speed, motorists consider roadway, traffic, weather, and other conditions. The collective judgment of the majority of motorists represents the level of reasonable travel and acceptable risk. Prior research has shown that the ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-17 upper region of acceptable risk is in the vicinity of the 85th percentile speed. … Most States and localities set safe and reasonable maximum speed limits based on the results of an engineering and traffic investigation. While all States and most jurisdictions use the 85th percentile speed as a major factor in selecting the appropriate speed limit for a given street or highway, other factors such as roadside development, accident experience, and design speed are often subjectively considered.” FHWA-RD-92-084 also indicates that the posted speed limit has little affect on the 85th percentile speed on a road stating that, “Both formal research and informal operational observations conducted for many years indicate that there is very little change in the mean or 85th percentile speed as the result of raising or lowering the posted limit. Unrealistic limits increase accident risk for persons who attempt to comply with the limit by driving slower or faster than the majority of road users.” It follows that, posted speed limits significantly different than the 85th percentile could increase speed violations and accidents in a corridor without decreasing the 85th percentile speed. Speed Study Spot speed studies were conducted at 32 locations throughout the study area to determine whether any areas were in need of more detailed speed zone analysis, altered posted speed limits, traffic calming measures, or more intensive enforcement efforts. Table 4-9 identifies the location of the speed data collection, the posted speed limit, the average speed observed during the study, the 85th percentile speed, and the pace speed. Pace Speed is defined as the range of speed that has the highest number of observations. This is reported in a 10mph range for this study. Figure 4.6 illustrates the results of the speed studies. The posted speed differs from the 85th percentile by 10 mph or more at the following locations: • The 85th percentile speed is 10 mph higher than the posted speed limit on Oregon St. south of B St. At this location Oregon St. is transitioning to an interstate overpass. North and south of the overpass Oregon St. passes through densely populated residential neighborhoods. This plan does not recommend an increased speed limit at this location. Traffic calming measures may be considered. One traffic calming measure that may reduce the traffic speeds is to install curb bulb-outs at the intersection of Oregon St. & B St. and possibly Oregon St. & A St. Additional enforcement may also be required. • The 85th percentile speed is 15 mph lower than the posted speed limit on Montana St. north of Front St. in the southbound lanes. At this location, cars frequently slow down in order to make a left turn into commercial business or accommodate other turning vehicles. Also at this location, vehicles begin to slow for the signal at the intersection of Montana St. and Front St. This plan does not recommend a decreased speed limit at this location. It is anticipated that the addition of a center turn lane from Second St. to Front St. would improve this location. • The 85th percentile speed is 10 mph higher than the posted speed limit on Motorview west of Harrison Ave. At this location, Motorview passes through a residential area. This plan does not recommend an increased speed limit at this location. Traffic calming measures or additional enforcement should be implemented at this location. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-18 • The 85th percentile speed is 12 mph higher than the posted speed limit on Hanson Rd. south of Wathena Drive. Hanson Rd. is partially developed with limited access residential property to the west and a limited access developing commercial subdivision to the east. This plan recommends that the speed limit on Hanson Rd. be increased to 35 mph in conjunction with the proposed Hanson Rd. improvements. There were 23 locations studied that had a posted speed limit of 25 mph. The 85th percentile speed was higher than 30 mph at 18 of these locations. A cross review of the average speed and the pace speed was conducted. The following locations represent places where the pace speed range was at or greater than 24 mph to 33 mph and where the average speed was 28 mph or greater (excluding already identified locations): • Utah St. north of Aluminum o Consider additional enforcement. • Floral St. (a.k.a. Farragut Ave.) between Bayard St. & State St. o Physical traffic calming measures should be designed and implemented at this location. • Grand Ave. east and west of Georgia Ave. o Consider raising speed limit to 30 mph. • Dewey Blvd. between Utah Ave. & Nevada Ave. o Consider raising speed limit to 30 mph • Utah St. west of Margaret A. Leary Elementary School o Consider additional enforcement. Due to public comments, not verified by this plan, it is recommended that corridor speed studies be conducted at the locations below in order to identify and, if applicable, correct deficient posted speeds or recommend an alternate solution. • Continental Drive/Farrell St./Shields Ave. from MT Highway 2 to it’s connection with Park St. • Holmes Avenue from Harrison Ave. to Rowe Rd. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4-19 Table 4-9 Traffic Speeds Location Average Speed (mph) Posted Speed (mph) 85th Percentile Speed Pace Speed (mph) Platinum St. by Butte High School 16 15 22 15-24 Continental Dr. North of Philips St.- North & Southbound 30 35 (25 8:00am-5:00pm) 35 26-35 Utah St. North of Aluminum - Northbound 29 25 33 25-34 Utah St. North of Aluminum - Southbound 26 25 31 23-32 Main St. North of Silver St. - Northbound 23 25 27 18-27 Main St. North of Silver St. - Southbound 25 25 29 20-29 Platinum St. West of Alabama East & Westbound 26 25 30 22-31 Excelsior Ave. North of Platinum St - North & Southbound 26 25 29 21-30 Front St. West of Oregon - Westbound Traffic 30 35 34 26-35 Front St. West of Oregon - Eastbound Traffic 29 35 33 25-34 Lafayette South of Grand - North & Southbound 23 25 27 19-28 Farragut North of Harvard - North & Southbound 25 25 30 22-31 Grand Ave. at Thomas St. - Eastbound 27 25 31 23-32 Grand Ave. East of Garfield - Westbound 26 25 32 21-30 Farragut South of Grand - North & Southbound 27 25 31 23-32 Floral St. between Bayard & State - North & Southbound 28 25 33 24-33 Mortorview West of Harrison - East & Westbound 30 25 35 25-34 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4-20 Table 4-9 Traffic Speeds (cont.) Location Average Speed (mph) Posted Speed (mph) 85th Percentile Speed Pace Speed (mph) Grand Ave. West of Georgia - Westbound 29 25 32 24-33 Grand Ave. East of Georgia - Eastbound 28 25 32 24-33 Hanson Rd. South of Wathena Dr. 31 25 37 26-35 Harrison Ave. South of Cobban - Southbound 31 35 36 28-37 Harrison Ave. South of Cobban - Northbound 32 35 36 28-37 Cobban St. West of Carolina St. - East & Westbound 27 25 31 23-32 Oregon St. South of B St. - North & Southbound 30 25 35 26-35 Cobban St. East of Lowell St. - East & Westbound 25 25 29 21-30 Montana St. North of Front St. - Southbound 22 35 20 20-29 Montana St. North of Front St. - Northbound 31 35 35 27-36 Dewey Blvd. West of Wyoming - Eastbound 28 25 31 24-33 Dewey Blvd. West of Wyoming - Westbound 28 25 31 24-33 Elizabeth Warren East of Harrison Ave. - East & Westbound 36 35 40 32-41 Utah St. West of M. Leary School - North & Southbound 29 25 34 24-33 Park St. East of Montana Tech - East & Westbound 22 25 27 18-27 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-21 Figure 4.6 Speed Study ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-22 4.1.7 Truck Study Truck Percentages Data was collected to determine the percentage of truck traffic on the road system through the use of vehicle classification pneumatic tube counters. Table 4-10 defines “trucks” as vehicles having manufacturer’s gross vehicle weight (GVW) ratings of 9,000 lbs (4,000 kg) or more and having dual tires on at least one rear axle (AASHTO 2004). This data is included to depict truck traffic on various streets. Truck Routes There are a number of commercial trucking companies, moving companies, and delivery companies in Butte-Silver Bow. Operation of vehicles over 27,000 lbs (12,000 kg) is restricted by Section 10.56.060 of the Butte-Silver Bow Municipal Code to those routes designated as Truck Routes. There are currently twenty-one truck routes in and around Butte, as described by Section 10.56.070 of the Butte-Silver Bow Municipal Code. Figure 4.7 illustrates existing truck routes within the City and also illustrates the proposal to designate Hanson Loop as a truck route instead of Rowe Rd.. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-23 Table 4-10 Truck Percentages Location Percentile Platinum St. by Butte High School 5.7 Continental Dr. North of Philips St. – North & hb d h hb d 9.5 Utah St. North of Aluminum - Northbound 6.4 Utah St. North of Aluminum - Southbound 5.7 Main St. North of Silver St. - Northbound 6.3 Main St. North of Silver St. – Southbound 6.8 Platinum St. West of Alabama East & Westbound 5.6 Excelsior Ave. North of Platinum St - North & hb d 6.7 Moulton Rd. - North & Southbound 8.3 Front St. West of Oregon - Westbound Traffic 8.3 Front St. West of Oregon - Eastbound Traffic 9.5 Lafayette South of Grand - North & Southbound 6.1 Farragut North of Harvard - North & Southbound 5.2 Grand Ave. at Thomas St. - Eastbound 7.3 Grand Ave. East of Garfield - Westbound 6.8 Farragut South of Grand - North & Southbound 6 Floral St. between Bayard & State - North & Southbound 6.9 Mortorview West of Harrison - East & Westbound 8.3 Grand Ave. West of Georgia - Westbound 7.8 Grand Ave. East of Georgia - Eastbound 6.7 Harrison Ave. South of Cobban St. - Southbound 8.6 Harrison Ave. South of Cobban St. - Northbound 7.8 Cobban St. West of Carolina St. - East & Westbound 5.2 Oregon St. South of B St. - North & Southbound 5.3 Cobban St. East of Lowell St. - East & Westbound 5.8 Montana St. North of Front St. - Southbound 7.6 Montana St. North of Front St. - Northbound 7.8 Dewey Blvd. West of Wyoming - Eastbound 5.9 Dewey Blvd. West of Wyoming - Westbound 5.9 Elizabeth Warren East of Harrison Ave. - East & b d 6.9 Utah St. West of M. Leary School - North & Southbound 6.9 Park St. East of Montana Tech - East & Westbound 3.9 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-24 Figure 4.7 Truck Routes ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-25 4.1.8 Accident Assessment An accident assessment was conducted on the street network located within the study area boundary. Accident records were obtained from the Montana Department of Transportation through the Highway Information System (HIS). This system is a database that contains records for all “on and off” system reported accidents. The database contained 2,845 accidents within the study area boundary including ten (10) fatalities. To reduce the data into a manageable number and concentrate the analysis on the most problematic areas the following limits were established: • Only accident data from July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2004 were included in the analysis. • Locations included only those with the following: o More than four accidents, or o Three accidents with at least one fatality. • A severity number was assigned to each accident: o 1 – Property damage only (PDO), no bodily injury or fatality. o 3 – Non-incapacitating injury. o 8 – Fatality or incapacitating injury. The accident data was collated and the intersections ranked as follows: • Table 4-11 lists intersections with a total number of accidents greater than 10. • Table 4-12 presents intersections with greater than one (1.0) accident for one million (1,000,000) entering vehicles. This is utilized to compare intersections having a high ADT with those that have a relatively low ADT. ADT’s used in this study were based on model volumes or nearby tube counts where available. • Table 4-13 presents locations with a severity rate greater than two The severity rate for each intersection was calculated by the following equation: ((number of PDO accidents x 1) + (number of injury accidents x 3) + (number of fatality accidents x (total number of accidents at the intersection). A severity rating of one (1.0) indicates that there were no injuries or fatalities. Locations with ratings higher than one (1.0) would have involved personal injury or fatalities. The higher the severity number, the higher the percent of accidents at that location that involved a personal injury or fatality. Figure 4.8 illustrates accident locations that have been identified as ranking in the top ten for each of the three tables described above. Refer to Chapter 6 for a list of intersections that should receive additional study. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-26 Table 4-11 Intersections with 10 or more Accidents Accident Total Rank Accident Totals at Each Location Street 1 Street 2 1 72 Harrison Ave Dewey Blvd 2 46 Harrison Ave Holmes Ave 3 42 Harrison Ave Elizabeth Warren Ave 4 39 Harrison Ave Amherst Ave 5 37 Harrison Ave Roosevelt 6 35 Harrison Ave George St 7 33 Montana St (P-29) Front St 8 32 Harrison Ave Cobban St 9 30 Front St Utah Ave 10 28 Front St Main St 10 28 Harrison Ave Cornell 11 23 Harrison Ave Gilman 12 21 Dewey Blvd Kaw Ave 12 21 Harrison Ave Ottawa/ C St. 13 20 Park St (P-29) Excelsior Ave 14 19 Montana St Iron St 15 18 Main St Mercury St 15 18 Utah Ave Second St 15 18 Kaw Ave George St 16 17 Utah Ave Arizona Ave 17 16 Dewey Blvd Rowe Rd 17 16 Front St Arizona Ave 18 15 Harrison Ave McKinley 18 15 Montana St (P-29) Rowe Rd 19 14 Harrison Ave Marcia 20 13 Park St Montana St 20 13 Continental Dr. Mount Highland 20 13 Park St Main St 20 13 Excelsior Ave Granite St 20 13 Harrison Ave A St. 20 13 Montana St (P-29) Second St 21 12 Montana St Mercury St 21 12 Main St Platinum St 22 11 Arizona Ave Mercury St 22 11 Harrison Ave Grand Ave 22 11 Harrison Ave Dundee 23 10 Dewey Blvd Hill Ave 23 10 Harrison Ave Majors 23 10 Harrison Ave Samson ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-27 Table 4-12 Intersections with Greater than 1.0 Accidents per Million Entering Vehicles AMV Rank Accidents Per Million Vehicles Street 1 Street 2 1 2.11 Excelsior Ave Centennial Ave 2 2.03 Busch Ave Roosevelt Ave 2 2.03 Washington St St 3 1.90 Continental Dr. Mount Highland 4 1.69 Sampson Ave Busch Ave 5 1.33 Empire St Excelsior Ave 6 1.29 Dewey Blvd Kaw Ave 7 1.24 Harrison Ave Dewey Blvd 8 1.23 Harrison Ave Holmes Ave 8 1.23 Front St Main St 9 1.21 Main St Mercury St 9 1.21 Excelsior Ave Granite St 10 1.18 Granite St Alabama Ave 11 1.08 Front St Utah Ave 12 1.05 Park St (P-29) Excelsior Ave 13 1.04 Harrison Ave George St 14 1.03 Harrison Ave Elizabeth Warren Ave 14 1.03 Kaw Ave George St Table 4-13 Intersections with Severity Rating 2.0 or Greater Severity Rating Rank Severity Rate Street 1 Street 2 1 3.33 Park St (P-29) Continental Dr 2 3.00 Continental Dr Texas Ave 3 2.75 Arizona Ave Curtis 4 2.67 Harrison Ave 4 Mile Vue 5 2.20 Busch Ave Roosevelt Ave 5 2.20 Platinum St Colorado St 6 2.00 Harrison Ave George St 6 2.00 Meadowlark Paxson Ave 6 2.00 Grand Ave Texas Ave 6 2.00 Main St Maryland Ave 6 2.00 Rowe Rd Clinton Ave 6 2.00 Ottawa St Florence Ave 6 2.00 Main St Granite St 6 2.00 Rowe Rd Hobson Ave 6 2.00 Excelsior Ave Platinum St 6 2.00 Front St Atlantic 6 2.00 Harrison Ave I-90 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-28 Figure 4.8 Accident Locations ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-29 Table 4-14 compares Traffic Safety Programs in Silver Bow County to other counties in Montana. The source for this table is Traffic Safety Problem Identification FY 2006 published July 15, 2005 by MDT. It is noted that Silver Bow County ranks below the other urbanized counties and above the rural counties as would be expected. It is further noted that Silver Bow County can improve upon its use of seatbelts. Table 4-14 County Ranking for Traffic Safety Programs Rank County Severe Crash Rank Alcohol Cr+inj+F Rank Ped+Bike+ Rank DUI Conviction Rank Restraint Conviction Rank Sum of Ranks 1 Missoula 1 2 2 3 1 9 2 Yellowstone 2 1 1 2 6 12 3 Cascade 4 4 3 4 2 17 4 Flathead 2 3 4 6 4 19 5 Gallatin 5 5 6 2 8 26 6 Lewis and Clark 6 7 5 5 5 28 7 Ravalli 6 9 7 8 11 41 8 Lake 8 6 8 7 14 43 9 Silver Bow 18 15 9 10 3 55 10 Lincoln 9 14 10 12 18 63 11 Park 16 10 12 13 15 66 12 Hill 25 11 16 9 6 67 13 Glacier 10 8 11 20 20 69 14 Jefferson 12 12 12 17 19 72 15 Carbon 10 17 16 17 16 76 16 Stillwater 14 12 16 32 21 95 17 Sanders 13 21 16 22 28 100 18 Big Horn 18 18 22 11 34 103 19 Dawson 33 23 26 15 12 109 20 Madison 16 22 14 28 30 110 21 Fergus 20 24 16 23 30 113 22 Richland 28 26 30 24 10 118 23 Beaverhead 27 30 22 27 13 119 23 Custer 44 34 16 16 9 119 25 Roosevelt 29 16 14 39 26 124 26 Broadwater 24 34 30 14 28 130 27 Valley 33 20 30 25 23 131 28 Deer Lodge 22 27 22 21 40 132 29 Powell 15 27 30 29 34 135 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-30 Table 4-14 (cont.) County Ranking for Traffic Safety Programs Rank County Severe Crash Rank Alcohol Cr+inj+F Ped+Bike+ Rank DUI Conviction Rank Restraint Conviction Rank Sum of Ranks 30 Rosebud 22 19 38 19 40 138 31 Mineral 20 37 26 29 40 152 32 Granite 25 25 30 38 40 158 33 Pondera 30 31 30 34 34 159 34 Blaine 35 36 38 25 30 164 34 Sweet Grass 32 40 38 31 23 164 36 Choteau 30 27 38 39 34 168 36 Teton 37 32 22 37 40 168 38 Phillips 39 32 38 42 30 181 39 Toole 39 40 26 41 40 186 40 Fallon 39 47 30 45 26 187 41 Sheridan 37 38 38 35 40 188 42 Daniels 49 44 38 49 17 197 43 Meagher 44 42 30 44 40 200 43 Musselshell 56 39 50 32 23 200 43 Wheatland 39 47 38 36 40 200 46 Treasure 48 45 50 45 21 209 47 Powder River 44 49 38 45 34 210 48 McCone 44 43 38 51 40 216 49 Judith Basin 39 49 38 52 40 218 50 Petroleum 35 54 38 52 40 219 51 Carter 53 54 26 54 40 227 52 Prairie 51 49 50 42 40 232 53 Garfield 53 53 50 45 34 235 54 Wibaux 49 49 50 54 40 242 55 Liberty 51 55 50 49 40 245 56 Golden Valley 53 56 50 54 40 253 Source: TIS - Montana Department of Transportation ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-31 4.2 Transit Services in Butte-Silver Bow Butte-Silver Bow Transit The primary provider of public transit services is Butte-Silver Bow (BSB) Transit, an agency within the local government’s Public Works Department. BSB Transit operates seven buses on a fixed-route system within the Butte urban area, including Walkerville. The Transit service, known as “The Bus,” provides affordable transportation services using 2000-2001 model buses, equipped with air conditioning and bicycle racks. Refer to Table 4-15. Table 4-15 Butte-Silver Bow Transit Fleet Inventory Manufacturer Year Wheelchair Accessible Capacity Condition Orion V 2001 Y 37 Excellent Orion V 2001 Y 37 Excellent Orion V 2001 Y 37 Excellent Orion V 2001 Y 37 Excellent Orion V 2001 Y 37 Excellent Orion II 2000 Y 17 Excellent Orion II 2000 Y 17 Excellent “The Bus” provides services to the general public and complimentary paratransit service through a transportation services contract with AWARE, Inc. (see below). General bus service is provided daily, Monday through Friday on four routes between 6:45 A.M. and 6:30 P.M. Figure 4.9 illustrates the four routes, which operate on fixed schedules with roughly 60-minute headways (time between buses). The bus routes cover a total of 50 miles throughout the service area. The primary transfer point is located adjacent to the Civic Center on Harrison Ave.. Table 4-16 presents ridership information for the Butte-Silver Bow Transit system and includes ridership of transit services provided to AWARE. BSB Fiscal Year runs July 1st to June 30th. Table 4-16 Butte-Silver Bow Transit Ridership – FY 2002 through FY 2005 Fiscal Year Yearly Total Average Ridership 2001 88,728 7,394 2002 96,040 8,003 2003 99,659 8,305 2004 111,867 9,322 2005 135,589 11,299 Increases in ridership may be attributed to higher fuel costs. The addition of the new central transfer station and the reorganization of the bus routes in 2002 to create greater efficiency may have also helped increase the number of riders. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-32 AWARE, Inc. AWARE, Inc. is a nonprofit organization providing community-based services throughout the state of Montana to persons with special needs ensuring that individuals achieve maximum independence, productivity and integration into communities. AWARE provides a variety of transit services to children and adults with disabilities and also the elderly. Transportation services in Butte are contracted through the Department of Public Health and Human Services, Developmental Disabilities Program, and Butte-Silver Bow. In Butte-Silver Bow, AWARE provides a demand-response transit service for the disabled and elderly throughout the Butte community. This paratransit service meets the needs of those who cannot access Butte's fixed route system. AWARE has 43 passenger-carrying vehicles being utilized statewide. Four specialized lift vehicles are dedicated to the Butte-Silver Bow Paratransit System. BSW, Inc. BSW, Inc. (formerly Butte Sheltered Workshop) provides private services to developmentally disabled individuals. Funding for the agency comes primarily from the Rehabilitative Services and the Developmental Disabilities Divisions of the Montana Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services. The BSW fleet consists of 17 vehicles, providing transportation services for the residents of group homes and for persons with disabilities. Approximately 125 one-way trips are provided each day for clients. Human Resources Council, District XII Human Resources Council, District XII (HRC) is the designated Community Action Agency for Southwest Montana. Currently, HRC provides demand-responsive transportation for the Head Start Program. Head Start has six buses for transportation of its students to and from school and for field trips. The buses operate during the school year from 9:30 A.M. to 2:00 P.M., Monday through Thursday. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-33 Figure 4.9 Existing Transit Routes for “The Bus” ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-34 The Belmont Center The Belmont Senior Center provides transportation to seniors for congregate meals and activities at the Belmont Center, for medical appointments, and for grocery shopping. Their fleet includes a 16 passenger bus with space for two wheel chairs and a new 2005 Ford bus, acquired in May of 2005. The new 21-passenger bus is equipped with a hydraulic wheel chair lift and can accommodate up to three wheel chairs. The presence of wheel chairs reduces the capacity of each bus by approximately 2-3 seats per wheel chair. Transportation for lunch and associated activities at the Belmont is provided Monday through Friday. Passengers are provided with transit between their home and the Belmont Center. Medical appointment transportation is provided Monday through Thursday for a small fee. The last appointment can be no later than 1:00 P.M. The Belmont Center also provides two shopping excursions each week at no charge. On Tuesdays, transportation is provided from the Belmont Center to Safeway and back again. On Friday, passengers are taken to Wal-Mart and are provided with transportation to and from their homes or the Belmont Center. The bus provides more than 1,200 rides during an average month to local seniors. A-1 Ambulance Service A-1 Ambulance Service is a 24-hour emergency service for anyone in need. A-1 Wheelchair Transport A-1 Wheelchair Transport provides van service for wheelchair clients. The service is demand- responsive from the client’s home to the destination required. Anyone is eligible for this service. Out of town trips are available, but travel within Butte-Silver Bow is a priority. Mining City Taxi Mining City Taxi is currently the only taxi company operating in Butte-Silver Bow. Mining City Taxi provides demand-responsive transportation services, 24 hours per day, seven days per week. None of its vehicles are wheelchair accessible. Inter-City Transport Services Four companies provide inter-city charter bus transportation services to Butte-Silver Bow. These include Rimrock Stages Trailways in Billings, Karst Stage in Bozeman, G and L Transport in Helena, and Tucker Transportation in Butte. Greyhound Bus provides daily service between Butte and cities throughout the United States. Their facilities are located at 103 East Front St.. Discovery Basin Shuttle Service The Discovery Basin Ski Resort provides transportation services to skiers between Butte and the ski hill through a contract with Tucker Transportation in Butte. Buses are provided on Saturdays and Sundays throughout the ski season and every day during the winter school break. Buses leave at 8:00 A.M. from the parking lot of Express Care on South Montana and leave the ski hill at 4:00 P.M. Skiers may pay per ride or purchase a season’s pass. Ridership varies depending on ski conditions, but at times, two buses are required to meet the demand. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-35 School District Number One School District Number One provides transportation to high school students living within Butte- Silver Bow County, and to elementary and middle school students residing within School District No. 1. The District’s fleet includes 30 buses, three of which are wheelchair equipped, and a liner for longer trips. The District also contracts with Tucker Transportation and G and L Transport to provide transportation for field trips and athletic events outside a 100 mile radius. Transportation services are provided to high school students living more than three miles from the high school. Middle school students must live more than two miles from the school. Elementary school distances vary, based on individual agreements with each school and geographic boundaries such as limited access highways. School District No. 1 has identified that the number of students served varies from about 1,600 to 2,200 out of a total school enrollment of 5,000. Figure 4.10 illustrates the primary bus routes for the District and may vary from year to year. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-36 Figure 4.10 School District No. 1 Primary Bus Routes ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-37 4.3 Non-Motorized Transportation The Butte non-motorized transportation system is comprised of sidewalks, detached trails/pathways, and on-street bike routes/lanes. These transportation facilities are an important segment of Butte-Silver Bow’s larger transportation system. Trails and Routes The existing formal and informal non-motorized routes and trails are shown on Figure 4.11. There are 18.5 miles of existing trail routes and 34.7 miles of proposed trails in the Butte-Silver Bow area. Trail extensions proposed in Chapter 6 of this Update are also shown in Figure 4.11. Sidewalks and Crosswalks As documented in the 1996 Transportation Plan Update, sidewalks in the Butte-Silver Bow area are in a variety of conditions, including new and in good repair, existing but in poor repair, and non-existent. Sidewalk conditions were inventoried for the 1996 Plan Update. At that time, commercial areas had the best coverage and condition of sidewalks. Residential neighborhoods generally had good sidewalk coverage, although not necessarily in good repair. Some newer residential areas and other industrial or underdeveloped areas did not have adequate sidewalk coverage. The area’s sidewalk system has not significantly improved since the 1996 Plan Update. Butte-Silver Bow currently lacks an effective sidewalk maintenance program. As described by Section 12.12 of the Butte-Silver Bow Municipal Code, it is the duty of owners or tenants to keep sidewalks in front of their property in good condition. Any person may report defective or unsafe sidewalks to the Department of Public Works. The Department will then investigate the reported sidewalk and issue a notice of required repairs. If the owner or tenant fails to repair the sidewalk, the Department may proceed with the repairs and charge an assessment fee for such services. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-38 Figure 4.11 Existing and Proposed Trails ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-39 4.4 Transportation Demand Management Transportation Demand Management (TDM) (also called Mobility Management) is a transportation planning approach aimed at changing travel behavior in order to increase transportation system efficiency while maintaining existing capacity. TDM may be used to achieve specific objectives, including reduced traffic congestion, road and parking cost savings, consumer savings, increased safety, improved mobility for non-drivers, energy conservation, pollution emission reductions, and more efficient land use. There are many different TDM strategies with a variety of impacts. Some improve the transportation options available to consumers and reduce the number of vehicle trips, while others provide an incentive to change travel mode, time or destination. Some reduce the need for physical travel through transportation substitutes or more efficient land use. Examples of TDM strategies include ridesharing (i.e. carpooling or vanpooling), public transit, park and ride facilities, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) priority measures, flextime schedules, and telecommuting. The U.S. Census Bureau, Transportation Planning Package (CTPP 2000) for Silver Bow County identifies that approximately 80% of the working population drove to work alone. The Census Bureau also identifies that approximately 15% of the working population arrive at work via carpooling, public transportation, bicycling or walking. Refer to Table 3-1 Means of Transportation to Work - Silver Bow County, 2000. Due to the previously described transit services, the increasing trail system, and the relatively high Level of Service and low congestion levels, this Plan does not identify further TDM strategies. Should a new high traffic generator start business in the Study Area, such as warehouses in Rocker, it is recommended that those businesses consider park & ride activities, carpooling, and working hours that generate traffic during off-peak hours. Should the transportation system’s LOS deteriorate and congestion worsen, it is recommended that Butte- Silver Bow create a task force to further analyze TDM tools. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-40 4.5 Other Transportation Butte Chamber of Commerce The Butte-Chamber of Commerce operates the Butte Trolley, a 26-passenger touring vehicle, providing guided tours of historic Butte. The Trolley, built by Specialty Vehicles, Inc. was acquired in February of 2005 and its passenger area can be easily converted from open air to enclosed space. It is equipped with a hydraulic lift to accommodate up to two wheel chairs, each taking up the space of two seats. The driver of the Trolley doubles as a tour guide and provides interpretive information to tour participants as they travel through the community. The Trolley operates during the summer months, but an extended period of operation is currently under consideration given that the Trolley can provide enclosed, heated space during inclement weather. Tours last 90 minutes and are offered at 9:00 A.M., 11:00 A.M., 1:00 P.M. and 3:30 P.M., Monday through Saturday and at 10:00 A.M., Noon, and 2:00 P.M. on Sundays. Tours begin and end at the Chamber Visitor Center on George St.. The Trolley schedule is linked to the Historic Uptown Bus or HUB, which is operated by the Butte-Silver Bow Transit Authority, Monday through Saturday between Historic Uptown Butte and the Chamber Visitor Center. Visitors can travel between the Visitor Center and Uptown to visit sites in the historic central business district. Tour Routes The “Old Number One” provides trolley tours of historic Butte seven days a week. The narrated tour originates at the Butte Chamber of Commerce and follows the existing trolley route, as illustrated in Figure 4.12. A Headframe Tour route has also been proposed. The route would parallel the existing trolley route to a certain extent, but provide more extensive coverage in the northern portion of the City. This proposed tour route is also shown in Figure 4.12. Rail Lines There are several railroad lines that pass through the Butte-Silver Bow area. Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) serves as a freight carrier connecting Butte to the Port of Montana. This BNSF line continues to Garrison where it meets with Montana Rail Link (MRL). Rarus Railway Company runs a short line operation between Butte and Anaconda. Union Pacific Railroad connects the Port of Montana to Pocatello, Idaho. Figure 4.13 shows the existing active rail lines, abandoned rail lines, and rail lines that have been converted to trails. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-41 Figure 4.12 Tour Routes ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-42 Figure 4.13 Rail Lines ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-43 Air Transportation The Bert Mooney Airport is on Airport Rd. in Butte. Originally named the Butte Municipal Airport and later the Silver Bow County Airport, the name was changed to Bert Mooney Airport in 1972. The public airport has hard-surfaced, lighted runways, the longest of which is 9,000 feet. In 1991, a new terminal was constructed at a cost of approximately $1.8 million. The airport is served by two carriers, Skywest and Horizon Air. Skywest, effective 12/01/05, offers two daily flights to and from Salt Lake City. Horizon Air offers two daily flights to and from Bozeman and Seattle. Table 4-17 details the combined number of enplanements for the Bert Mooney Airport. Table 4-17 Bert Mooney Airport Combined Enplanements Month 2002 2003 2004 2005 % Increase from 2004 January 3,280 2,711 2,886 2,949 2.2 February 2,822 2,587 2,691 2,746 2 March 3,529 2,809 2,770 3,706 33.8 April 2,903 2,388 2,726 2,987 9.6 May 3,417 2,953 2,943 3,410 15.9 June 4,254 3,739 4,138 4,367 5.5 July 4,415 4,889 4,426 4,675 5.6 August 4,308 4,288 4,238 4,378 3.3 September 3,489 3,061 3,595 3,328 -7.4 October 3,154 3,134 3,192 3,395 6.4 November 3,072 2,932 3,135 3,226 2.9 December 3,566 3,035 3,579 2,686 -25 Total 42,209 38,526 40,319 41,853 3.8 4.6 Supplementary Information Snow Routes Butte-Silver Bow Snow Routes are included as Figure 4.14 in order to assist in the coordination between BSB and MDT in snow removal. EMS / Fire Districts Figure 4.15 is included in this document to illustrate the breakdown of responsibility between local fire stations. This plan has attempted to improve emergency response times and create addition areas of mutual aid. Refer to Chapter 6 for a description of proposed projects. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-44 Figure 4.14 Snow Routes ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-45 Figure 4.15 EMS / Fire Districts ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-46 4.7 Committed Projects Committed Projects are those projects that currently have money allocated for construction. They are shown on Figure 4.16 and include the following: CM1 - Dewey Blvd. Extension - This project is currently in the design phase with the intent to extend Dewey Blvd. west to the intersection of Beef Trail Rd. and Montana St.. Montana St. south of this intersection would no longer connect to the north. Traffic generated on Montana St. would be diverted to a new road that connects to Hanson Rd. opposite the new YMCA. The expected construction date is 2010. CM2 – Realignment of Grand Ave. at Harrison Ave. - This project is currently in the design phase. This project will realign Grand Ave. to a intersection with Harrison Ave. CM3 – Harrison Ave. Reconstruction – Amherst Ave. to Front St. - A preliminary field review has been recently completed by MDT. The project will consist of the reconstruction of Harrison Ave. from Amherst to Front St. CM4 – Butte Interstate Traffic Study - A preliminary field review has recently been completed by MDT. The study to be done will provide overall long range planning for the Butte Interstate system. The study will identify both immediate and future deficiencies in the Interstate system and provide conceptual treatments and cost estimates to address the identified deficiencies. CM5 – Daly St. Engineering Study - A preliminary field review has recently been completed by MDT. The study to be done will provide planning to correct deficiencies along Daly St. involving disability access. CM6 – 2003 – Variable Message Signs – Butte East This project includes a trailer with an automated sign describing road conditions and messages for safe driving. CM7 – Upgrade Sprinkler Sys. at Harrison Ave. and I-90/I-15 Interchange - This project is scheduled to be constructed in 2006 and involves improvements to the sprinkler irrigation system. CM8 – Holmes Ave. – Harrison to Rowe (mill & overlay) - This project is scheduled to be constructed in 2006 and involves cold milling and an overlay on Holmes Ave. CM9 – 1999 – Signal Upgrade – Butte - The design of this project was completed in February 2005. It is anticipated that construction will occur during 2005-2006. The project in general consists of upgrading the signal system, installing new curb ramps, updating striping and signing at the following locations: • Harrison Ave. at Wal-Mart • Harrison Ave. at Holmes / White Blvd. – Reconstruct White Blvd. to align with Holmes Ave. • Harrison Ave. at Roosevelt Dr. (Mall entrance) ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-47 • Harrison Ave. at Dewey Blvd. –Install larger radius curb at northwest corner of intersection (Harrison right to Dewey). • Harrison Ave. at Amherst St. • Harrison Ave. at Cobban St. • Harrison Ave. at George St. • Harrison Ave. at Civic Center Rd. - Install larger radius at southeast corner of intersection (next to the Civic Center). • Front St. at Utah Ave. • Second St. at Utah Ave. • Platinum St. at Utah Ave. • Mercury St. at Utah Ave. • Mercury St. at Montana St. • Platinum St. at Montana St. • Iron St. at Montana St. CM10 – 2002 – Turn Bays – Butte - The design of this project was completed in February 2005. It is anticipated that construction will occur during 2005-2006. The project consists of seal operations on Montana St. from midblock between Front and Second St. north to the railroad crossing. Left turn bays (east and westbound) are planned on Montana St. at the intersection with Second St. A painted medium will be used to establish the bays. CM11 – Junction MT Highway 2 – SW This project consists of mill & overlay operations on BSB secondary route S-393. The limits of this project are from the junction between Highway 2 & Harrison Ave. South along Basin Creek Road for 3.8 miles. This project is estimated to be completed during 2006. CM12 – Realignment of Elizabeth Warren at Harrison Ave. - This project is currently in the design phase. This project will realign Elizabeth Warren on the east to line up with Elizabeth Warren on the west. The name of Elizabeth Warren to the west of Harrison Ave., formerly known as Hemons Ave, was changed by Council Resolution 1503. CM13 – 2002 Kaw Ave. Signal (at Dewey Blvd.) - This project involves installation of a flashing light at the intersection of Kaw Ave. and Dewey Blvd. CM14 – Bridge Skid Treatment This project consists of patching the decks, installing waterproof membranes, and overlaying the interstate bridge decks with asphalt. This project is located on the bridges over Santa Claus Rd., west of the pole plant, prior to the connection with Iron St. This project is scheduled for construction in 2006. CM15 – 2001 Signal at Front St. and Main St. - This project is scheduled for construction in 2006 and involves upgrading the traffic signal at Front St. and Main. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-48 CM16 – Butte Area Structures This project is the remediation of the interstate bridges located along I-15 & I-90 ¼ of mile west of the Montana St. exit. The project is estimated for a construction date of 2008. CM17 – 2002 – Sign/Guardrail This project involves installing guardrail and providing uniformed sign delineation. This project is located in and between Jefferson County and Silverbow County. The project is about 4 miles in length along Montana Highway 2. CM18 – Butte High School Parking Improvements – This project is currently in design phase with the intent to construct additional parking lots near Butte High School. New parking lots are proposed at the following locations… • Corner of Mercury St. and Wyoming Ave., • Corner of Main St. and Silver St., and • Corner of Main St. and Gold St. The additional lots will improve the parking conditions around Butte High School and potentially reduce the number of vehicles parking on Main St., Wyoming Ave., and Silver St. CM19 – Hillcrest Elementary Parking and Drop Off Improvements – This project is currently in the design phase with the intent to reorganize the parking lot at Hillcrest Elementary School. The existing parking lot becomes congested at drop-off and pick-up times. The proposed parking lot reorganization should reduce the number of vehicles backed up onto Continental Drive, and improve student safety. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 4 . 0 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 4-49 Figure 4.16 Committed Projects ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S 5-1 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS This chapter provides a summary of the traffic modeling effort conducted to project future travel conditions in the Butte-Silver Bow study area, and identifies several major projects that merit further analysis to address anticipated needs by the year 2025. 5.1 TransCAD Model The Butte-Silver Bow regional travel demand model is an important tool that has been created as part of the 2005 Butte-Silver Bow Transportation Plan Update. The travel demand model, developed by MDT, is essentially a computer-based simulation of the Butte-Silver Bow area transportation system based on land use and socioeconomic characteristics. The roadway impacts of both transportation system changes and land development scenarios can be evaluated with the model. 5.2 TransCAD Roadway Network The roadway network included in the travel model was provided by the GIS department of Butte-Silver Bow (BSB), and covers all of Silver Bow County. All roads contained within this network file were used with the model to determine traffic flows. Attributes were assigned to each road segment to allow the model to distribute traffic onto the network so that the model flows correlate to the traffic counts. These additional attributes are available to BSB’s GIS department for additional planning. The assigned attributes include the following: • Functional classification • On-System route designation • Number of lanes • Speeds • Direction of traffic flow • Identification of one-way streets • MDT traffic counts (ADT) • HKM supplemental traffic counts (ADT) • Capacity specific to that segment of roadway • Road segment length • Street name • Traffic impedance factors (these allow the model to better predict the traffic flows through the network that drivers find restrictive and thus tend to avoid, i.e. local roads with parking that visually restrict the travel lanes.) • Turn movement restrictions (no left turns at an intersection) Committed projects as well as scheduled changes to the roadway network were incorporated in the model and were also assigned the above attributes. Model runs over the entire network create the following additional attributes that are then assigned to each road segment: • Travel time along each segment • Volumes of traffic on each road segment ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S 5-2 5.3 TransCAD Traffic Analysis Zones Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) are the base geographical unit of analysis for the Butte-Silver Bow travel demand model. The TAZ boundaries are based on Silver Bow County’s Census Blocks. The model therefore has 1,975 TAZs. It is important to note that while the TransCAD model operates across the entire Silver Bow County, only that portion of the county located within the study area boundary is calibrated and has growth rates assigned. MDT staff compiled the base year socioeconomic data for the Butte-Silver Bow model. Consultant staff worked with both MDT and the City to develop the planning horizon socioeconomic data, as discussed in Chapter 3. The following attributes were assigned to each TAZ: • Area • Average household size • Census Block identification • Occupied Housing Units • Seasonal Housing Units • Total Housing Units • Vacant Housing Units • Total Population • Retail Employment • Non-retail employment This data is available to the BSB GIS department and may be useful in other planning applications. As an example, this data may be used as a starting point to determine the sizing of sanitary sewer lines. This information can also be used in grant applications. 5.4 TransCAD Modeling The model application used for Butte-Silver Bow is a sequential, four-step model summarized in the following components: Trip Generation The trip generation module is utilized to estimate the number of trips that are produced by and attracted to each TAZ in the region. The number and location of housing units and employment are the variables used to generate trips in the Butte-Silver Bow model. Household data is the primary independent variable used to calculate trip productions in the model. The trip production calculations utilize household automobile ownership information to determine the trip production rate per household. Employment data is the main variable used to calculate trip attractions in the Butte-Silver Bow model. Employment is categorized into retail and non-retail jobs for the trip attraction module. The product of the trip generation module is an estimated number of person trips by trip purpose produced and attracted to each TAZ. An assumption of average auto occupancy (discussed below) is then utilized to convert person trips to vehicle trips. These vehicle trips determine the amount of vehicles per day on a given road segment. In the Butte-Silver Bow model, trip productions and attractions are classified by one of three trip purposes: • HBW: Home-based work trips • HBNW: Home-based non-work trips • NHB: Non home-based trips ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S 5-3 Auto Occupancy Auto occupancy factors were developed by MDT to transform the person trip tables into vehicle trip tables. These assignments are specific to this model. The auto occupancy factors employed by trip purpose are: • HBW: 1.4 persons per vehicle • HBNW: 1.7 persons per vehicle • NHB: 1.4 persons per vehicle Trip Distribution The trip distribution module is used to estimate traffic flows between TAZs across Silver Bow County. A gravity model was utilized for the Butte-Silver Bow trip distribution. Through the gravity model, the number of trips between two TAZs is estimated to be in proportion to: • The relative number of trips generated in each TAZ (as estimated through the trip generation module). • The relative travel time between each TAZ. The product of the trip distribution module is a separate origin-destination matrix of person trips, or a trip table, for each of the trip purposes. Each trip table is a summary of the estimated number of trips between all TAZs in the Butte-Silver Bow region. Traffic Assignment The Butte-Silver Bow traffic assignment module is used to estimate the traffic flow on the roadway network. In the assignment module, traffic is loaded onto the roadway network based on the TAZ to TAZ vehicular flow estimates in the vehicle trip table. The assignment module uses an equilibrium assignment method. With this method, traffic is loaded onto the network for each TAZ to TAZ flow through an iterative process that minimized the travel time between each TAZ pair. Capacity restraint is estimated and considered in the equilibrium assignment method; when a link is approaching or exceeding its capacity, estimated travel delay is added to the link. The travel delay is based on the volume to capacity ratio (v/c) and is defined as the volume of traffic divided by the capacity of the road segment. When there is more volume than capacity on a given road segment (when v/c > 1) then that road segment is operating beyond its capacity threshold. Above this threshold, drivers often seek to find alternate routes for travel to their destinations. This may result in unwanted traffic on the local road network. The product of the traffic assignment module, the final step in the travel model application, is a set of estimated traffic flows for all roadway segments included within the regional model. Model Calibration A model run was created that encompassed the existing road network. This run produced ADTs for each road segment and was compared against actual road tube counters for accuracy. Corrections and adjustments to the road network and socioeconomic data were made until the model and the actual tube count field data correlated with each other. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S 5-4 Model Runs The TransCAD model for Butte-Silver Bow was utilized to develop the traffic volumes on the road network for the following conditions: • Existing Road Network 2002 • Existing + Committed Network 2005 • Existing + Committed Network 2025 • I-90/ I-15 off-ramp at Busch St. • I-15 off-ramp at Bayard St. • I-15 off-ramp at Floral St. • Hanson Loop Connector (tying Montana St. to Harrison Ave.) • Iron St. Connector (new off-ramp connecting Montana Tech’s campus to the City Center Exit (I-115) Each of these model run scenarios is discussed in the following sections. Existing Road Network 2002 The Existing Road Network 2002 was utilized for model calibration as previously described and to determine existing deficiencies within the system. Existing + Committed Network 2005 The Existing + Committed Network 2005 was developed to include all the committed projects that have the potential to impact traffic patterns. This model run was reviewed against the Existing Road Network 2005. This check was made to verify that the road network configuration was correct. The check also determined that the traffic impacts related to the committed projects were valid. The road network associated with this model run was used as the base for all future model runs. Existing + Committed Network 2025 The Existing + Committed Network 2025 incorporated the growth predictions as outlined in Chapter 3. This information was applied to the TAZs and a new iteration of the attraction/ distribution table was developed. The TransCAD model was then developed with the new traffic loading for the year 2025 on the road network from the Existing + Committed Network 2005. Figure 5.1 illustrates the ADTs on the network for the year 2025. Raw unadjusted model outputs were obtained to determine total system mileage and travel time during a 24-hour period. • Total System Travel Time = 1,317,557 min. (21,959 hours) • Total Distance = 897,326 miles These travel characteristics serve as the baseline for comparison of future alternatives. Traffic volumes for this scenario were compared against capacity to identify future deficiencies. Figure 5.2 identifies those portions of the road network that could approach or may operate at capacity thresholds by the year 2025. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S 5-5 Locations that are expected to experience volumes of traffic that exceed the capacity of the given roadway segments (v/c > 1) are: • Harrison Ave. between Cornell St. & Amherst Ave. • Montana St. between De Smet St. (I-90/ I-15 on ramp) & George St. Locations that are expected to experience volumes approaching capacity (0.8 ≤ v/c < 1.0) are: • Harrison Ave. at the east bound I-90/ I-15 on ramp • Harrison Ave. under the I-90/ I-15 overpass • Harrison Ave. between the I-90/ I-15 ramps and Cornell St. • Harrison Ave. between Amherst Ave. & Yale St. • Harrison Ave. between Noyes St. & Oregon Ave. • Shields Ave. (Continental Dr.) between Texas Ave. & Second St. • Kaw Ave. (Lexington Ave.) between George St. & Front St. • Rowe Rd. at the intersection with Holmes Ave. • Rowe Rd. between Hobson Ave. & Montana St. • Montana St. between La Salle Ave. & De Smet St. (I-90/ I-15 ramps) • Montana St. between George St. & Front St. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S 5-6 Figure 5.1 Average Daily Traffic 2025 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S 5-7 Figure 5.2 2025 Volume/Capacity Conditions ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S 5-8 5.5 Alternatives Analysis Areas with existing and/or anticipated future deficiencies were analyzed after the baseline Existing + Committed model was established. The various transportation benefits associated with alternatives to address future deficiencies are discussed in this section. Tables 5-1 and 5-2 outline the travel time, travel distance, and gas savings of the major alternatives. Table 5-3 outlines the estimated cost of the major alternatives including the cost per vehicle benefited. Table 5-1 2025 Travel Time Comparison – Existing System / Alternatives Total Travel Time # Of Vehicles Benefiting Travel Time Saved (min.) (hr.) (hr/24hr) (min/vehicle) Existing + Committed (Baseline) 1,317,557 21,959 N/A N/A N/A + Off-Ramp (Floral) 1,310,266 21,838 350 122 21 + Iron St. Access to Montana Tech 1,309,485 21,825 2,020 135 4 + Hanson Loop Rd. + Widening 1,309,178 21,820 6,000* 140 1 + Our Lady of the Rockies - Tram Rd. 1,309,009 21,817 1,173 142 7 * 6000 vpd assumes limited growth. Additional volumes and savings will be realized as commercial and residential properties develop. Table 5-2 2025 Travel Distance and Gas Savings Comparison – Existing System / Alternatives Total Travel Distance (miles) # Of Vehicles Benefiting Travel Distance Saved Gas Savings* (miles/24hr) (miles/vehicle) ($/year) Existing + Committed (Baseline) 897,326 N/A N/A N/A N/A + Off-Ramp (Floral) 894,223 350 3,103 9 $ 169,889 + Iron St. Access to Montana Tech 895,101 2,020 2,225 1 $ 121,819 + Hanson Loop Rd. + Widening 894,519 6,000 2,807 0.5 $ 153,683 + Our Lady of the Rockies - Tram Rd. 893,655 1,173 3,671 3 $ 200,987 * Assumes fuel economy of 20miles/gallon and fuel price of $3/gallon. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S 5-9 Table 5-3 2025 Alternatives Estimated Cost per Vehicle # Of Vehicles Benefiting Estimated Project Cost Cost Per Vehicle Existing + Committed (Baseline) N/A N/A N/A + Off-Ramp (Floral) 350 $ 4,700,000 $ 13,429 + Iron St. Access to Montana Tech 2,020 $ 2,800,000 $ 1,386 + Hanson Loop Rd. + Widening 6,000 $ 5,550,000 $ 925 + Our Lady of the Rockies - Tram Rd. 1,173 $ 4,200,000 $ 3,580 * 6000 vpd assumes limited growth. Additional volumes and savings will be realized as commercial and residential properties develop. Harrison Ave./ Amherst Ave. Intersection Improvement Problem Defined: Harrison Ave. between Cornell St. & Amherst Ave. is currently functioning over its capacity. The intersection is currently operating at Level of Service B. The intersection has been identified as having a high number of accidents. These findings are consistent with the 1996 Transportation Plan Update. A 1993 MDT study on the intersection recognized the need for additional lanes to improve capacity and safety at the intersection. Intersection counts at this intersection were conducted by HKM Engineering for AM and PM peak hours of traffic on 6/15/2004. These counts indicate that approximately 10 to 12 percent of the northbound Harrison Ave. traffic turns right onto Amherst Ave. The capacity and safety concerns justify an additional lane on Harrison Ave. Traffic from Amherst Ave. turning right (northbound) onto Harrison Ave. accounts for approximately 19% of that approach’s volume. Two new businesses recently began operation on Amherst Ave. east of the intersection since the date of the traffic counts. Observations indicate that more vehicles are turning right onto Harrison Ave. than were previously observed. A right turn only lane will increase the capacity for this approach. Creating a right turn only lane reduces the queue length of the two left turn lanes. This reduction in the queue length should benefit the business approaches to the north. Recommendations: Add a right turn lane on Harrison Ave. Add a right turn lane on Amherst Ave. Montana St. between De Smet St. (I-90/ I-15) and George St. Warrant Study Montana St. & George St. Problem Defined: This road segment currently functions at a level that is approaching capacity, and is anticipated to receive traffic volumes beyond the capacity threshold by 2025. This intersection is currently operating at Level of Service E. A signal installed at the intersection of Montana St. and George St. coordinated with the signal at Montana St. & Rowe Rd. would provide an effective means of handling this loading. A benefit to the coordinated signals is greater gap times at the Interstate off-ramps. The signal at Montana ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S 5-10 St. and George St. would allow recreational vehicles from the KOA campground on George St. and Kaw Ave. a designated phase during which to merge onto Montana St. Additional lanes on Montana St. may be required in the future should housing and population growth occur at a rate greater than predicted. Recommendations: A warrant study should be conducted to determine if a signal should be installed. It is anticipated that by adding a signal, the Level of Service improves to A. Harrison Ave. and Dewey Blvd. Problem Defined: Harrison Ave. between Dewey Blvd. and the interstate off-ramp is approaching capacity. Refer to Figure 5.2. The intersection of Harrison Ave. and Dewey Blvd. ranks 1st in terms of the number of accidents, refer to Table 4-11, and ranks 7th for accidents per million entering vehicles. Public comments indicate that there appears to be insufficient spacing between the interstate off-ramp and this intersection. Two alternates were reviewed and are described below. Alternate A - Busch off-ramp at Harrison Ave. (see Figure 5.3. for volume impacts) A model run was developed to replace the existing ramp with a new ramp that intersects with Dewey Blvd. at Busch Ave. This new ramp was also intended to help create a parallel business strip to Harrison Ave. and thus reduce the traffic volumes on Harrison Ave. Model traffic flow went directly to Harrison Ave. with negligible volume impacts on Busch St.. This alternative would require Right-of-Way acquisition and would negatively impact business along the proposed new alignment. Implementation of this project would result in a high cost with limited benefits. This alternative is not recommended and is shown for informational purposes only. Alternate B - Harrison Ave./ Dewey Blvd./ I-90 off-ramp Signal An alternative to the reconfiguration of the off-ramp would be to install a new signal at the intersection off-ramp. This new signal would stop southbound Harrison Ave. traffic north of the off-ramp. The signal should be coordinated with the other signals on Harrison Ave. Detection loops should be placed under the off-ramp causing the signal to be fully actuated. A micro level analysis along Harrison Ave. should be completed to better coordinate the signals. Recommendations: It is recommended that an accident study be done for this intersection to better understand the causes of the accidents. It is further recommended to review the use of an additional signal. Refer to Chapter 6 for additional information. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S 5-11 Figure 5.3 Volume Impacts of Busch Avenue on Avg. Daily Traffic 2025 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S 5-12 Floral Blvd. / Bayard St. off-ramp Problem Defined: Harrison Ave. at the I-90 off-ramps is approaching capacity. Refer to Figure 5.2. An interstate off-ramp to Continental Dr. may benefit a proposed tram presented by Our Lady of the Rockies Foundation. Refer to Figure 5.4 for volume impacts and Figure 5.5 for aerial photography A model run was created to simulate new off-ramps from the I-90/ I-15 interchange. This model run was created to determine the amount of traffic that would take this exit and to determine what the impacts, if any, would be to the traffic volumes in Uptown Butte and on Harrison Ave.. Model outputs were compared to the outputs of the Existing + Committed Network 2025, see Tables 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3. Traffic volumes affected by the creation of either ramp had minimal effect on Harrison Ave. and negligible effect on Uptown Butte. This is in part due to the limited volumes of southbound I-15 traffic, and the distance from the proposed off-ramp to Uptown Butte and to Harrison Ave. Recommendations: This project is not recommended for implementation due to the high costs associated with this project compared to the volume of traffic. No impacts were made to parts of the system that are operating near or at capacity. It is unlikely that this project would receive public support due to the close proximity to Hillcrest Elementary School. An off-ramp connecting to Grand Ave. provides greater benefits. See the discussion concerning the Tram Rd. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S 5-13 Figure 5.4 Volume Impacts of Floral Boulevard on Avg. Daily Traffic 2025 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S 5-14 Figure 5.5 Off-Ramp at I-90/I-15 Interchange ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S 5-15 Additional Signal on Harrison Ave. Problem Defined: Harrison Ave. between Cobban St. and Amherst Ave. does not provide adequate gaps in the traffic for entering or exiting traffic. Existing signals on Harrison Ave. in this vicinity are located at the intersections with Cobban St. and with Amherst Ave. These intersections are spaced at a distance of greater than a ½ mile. The platooning of vehicles due to the signal operation looses its effect within this distance. (Vehicles are no longer spaced at close intervals to each other and the gap in traffic that was created by the signal is lost.) The gap information provided in Table 4-7 (Gap Acceptance Times) and Table 4-8 (Gap Study) indicate that there is not enough available time for passenger cars to enter onto Harrison Ave. Most of this section of Harrison Ave. has off street parking lots and thereby experiences a higher percent of entering and exiting traffic than it would with on street parking. A signal located between the intersections with Cobban St. and Amherst Ave. would help to create sufficient gaps in the traffic to allow vehicles to enter or exit Harrison Ave. in this business district. Two alternates were reviewed for use and are presented below. Alternate A: Harrison Ave. & B St. Signal The 1996 Transportation Plan Update recommended that a traffic signal be installed at the intersection of Harrison Ave. & B St. This intersection is located approximately midway between Cobban St. and Amherst Ave.. This midway spacing would maximize the benefits of signal coordination while maintaining the most efficient gap timing. This intersection would be three legged as there is no roadway to the west of this intersection. B St. to the east is only two blocks long and terminates at Massachusetts Ave. Additional traffic loading is not recommended on Massachusetts Ave. due to its acute angle with Harrison Ave. This plan does not concur with the findings of the 1996 update and does not recommend a signal at this location. Alternate B: Harrison Ave. & Ottawa St. / C St. Signal Harrison Ave. & Ottawa St. ranks 12th in the number of accidents (see Table 4-11) and 9th in accident severity (see Table 4-13). Ottawa St. has an approximate 60 degree skew with Harrison Ave. This intersection is a little further than midway between Cobban St. and Amherst Ave.. This results in a coordinated signal system that is less effective than the B St. signal and would not maximize the available gap time for passenger vehicles on this section of Harrison Ave. Ottawa St. is closer to the intersection of Massachusetts Ave. and Harrison Ave. Traffic is more likely to use Ottawa St. with a signal than B St. should any improvements be made to the intersection of Massachusetts Ave. and Harrison Ave. The close proximity to a signal should minimize cut through traffic at the business located just north of Massachusetts Ave. & Harrison Ave. Ottawa St./ C St. is the closest midway street between Cobban St. and Amherst Ave. This corridor connects to Continental Dr. and could reduce traffic flows on Cobban St. and/ or Amherst Ave. C St. does not connect to Oregon Ave. Recommendations: This plan recommends that a signal be reviewed for use at the intersection of Harrison Ave. and Ottawa/ C St.. A warrant study should be conducted with the committed project: Harrison Ave. Amherst/ Front. Improvements should also be made to the intersection of Ottawa St. and Florence Ave. Ottawa St. & Florence Ave. rank 6th in accident severity, see Table 4-13. C St. should be reviewed for improvement. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S 5-16 Recommendations for Harrison Ave. Reconstruction Problem Defined: Harrison Ave. between Cobban St. and Amherst Ave. does not provide adequate gaps in the traffic for entering or exiting traffic. Public comments would like to see Harrison Ave. aesthetically improved. Background data is presented below. The time available for vehicles to enter or exit Harrison Ave. is not limited to that portion between Cobban St. and Amherst Ave., although this section has a more pronounced problem due to the lack of platooning. Signals are spaced at approximately ¼ mile intervals north of Cobban St. The platooning effect begins to diminish with this interval and gap spacing begins to suffer. Harrison Ave. is typically a four-lane road with on-street parking available at varying locations Currently, left turning vehicles stop in the interior lane and wait for a gap to appear in the oncoming traffic. This effectively shuts down one of the four lanes and turns Harrison Ave. into a three lane Principal Arterial for approximately 1/3 to 1/2 of a block. Drivers are forced to stop behind this waiting vehicle and the situation becomes a safety hazard and a “defacto” three lane road. When an available gap is slow to appear, driver frustration occurs, decision making ability is reduced, and the safety risk is increased. The following table is a summary of the accident data at locations on Harrison Ave. between Amherst Ave. and Grand Ave. (inclusive). Table 5-4 Accident Ranking for Harrison Ave. between Amherst Ave. & Grand Ave. Location # of Accidents Accident Total Rank Accidents / Million Entering Vehicles Rank Accident Severity Rank Harrison Ave. & George St. 35 6 12 18 Harrison Ave. & Ottawa/ C St. 21 12 29 7 Harrison Ave. & Cobban St. 32 8 16 29 Harrison Ave. & Amherst Ave. 39 4 25 32 Harrison Ave. & Marcia St. 14 19 42 21 Harrison Ave. & Princeton 8 25 54 17 Harrison Ave. & Yale Ave. 7 26 58 24 Harrison Ave. & Dundee St. 11 22 50 38 Harrison Ave. & Grand Ave. 11 22 51 38 Harrison Ave. & Argyle St. 6 27 59 26 Harrison Ave. & Majors St. 10 23 51 56 Harrison Ave. & Harvard Ave. 9 24 59 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S 5-17 Of the 2,845 reported accidents from July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2004, only 105 intersections met the review criteria listed in the Accident Assessment section (see paragraph Twenty-six of these intersection occurred on Harrison Ave with 12 intersections occurring between and inclusive of Amherst Ave. & Grand Ave. These 12 intersections had 203 accidents during the five years studied. The majority of the parking available between Cobban St. and George St. is off-street parking. Off-street parking lots or side street parking is available for many businesses along this portion of Harrison Ave. however a few businesses still require on-street parking. More businesses require on street parking north of George St. This is due to a lack of off street parking lots. Trends in development of Harrison Ave. are towards off street parking as can be observed while traveling south to north. This trend should be considered when planning the width of Harrison Ave. during reconstruction. It is common practice to install raised medians and/or two way left turn lanes to improve vehicle access to businesses/ residences while reducing the accident rate. Two alternates are presented below to address these issues. Alternate A: Convert Harrison Ave. to three lanes between Amherst Ave. & Grand Ave.. The discussions presented in this alternate are based primarily on the report entitled Guidelines for the Conversion of Urban Four-Lane Undivided Roadways to Three-Lane Two-Way Left-Turn Lane Facilities, April 2001, by the Center for Transportation Research and Education. Arterial routes by definition and design are intended to move large volumes of vehicles from point A to point B with limited access to adjoining facilities. Harrison Ave. in its current configuration as a four-lane undivided roadway, functions and is classified as an arterial route. Harrison Ave. is also tasked with providing access to adjoining businesses and residences. This additional demand of access is contrary to the definition of an arterial route. The conflict of access versus volume and through movement increases the accident rate. The conversion report cites two case studies in Montana along with additional case studies in other states. “In 1979, the City of Billings, Montana, restriped 17th Street West from a four-lane undivided roadway to a three-lane cross section.” This roadway had an ADT of 9,200 to 10,000 vpd. There was no noticeable delay following conversion and the accident rate was reduced. U.S. 12 in Helena was also restriped for this conversion. This took place in a commercial area with many access points with an ADT of 18,000 vpd. Traffic flow was maintained, the accident rate dropped and the project received public support following the conversion. The reduction in accidents is most likely attributed to the reduction in conflict points (i.e. left turning vehicles crossing only one lane of traffic instead of two). In almost all case studies, the three lane conversion was chosen based on cost savings. Additional Right-of-Way was not required and the road did not have to be widened. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S 5-18 The conversion report concludes the following: • “The addition of a or raised median to an undivided roadway typically reduces through vehicle delay.” (three-lane or five-lane variants) • “The addition of a or raised median to an undivided roadway typically reduces crash rates.” (three-lane or five-lane variants) • “Typically, a reduction of less than five mph has been observed and/ or simulated in average or 85th percentile speed • “Some four-lane undivided roadways currently operate as “defacto” three-lane roadways (especially during the peak period).” • “The total number of crashes is typically reduced (from 17 to 62 percent for the case studies identified)…” (case studies identified in the conversion report). • “Four-lane undivided roadways with an ADT between 8,400 and 24,000 vpd, and a relatively wide range of traffic flow and physical characteristics, have been successfully converted…” The conversion report makes the following recommendation: • “From an operational point of view, it is suggested that four-lane undivided to three-lane cross section conversions be considered as feasible (with respect to volume only) option when bi-directional peak-hour volumes are less than 1,500 vph, but that more caution should be exercised when the roadway has a bi-directional peak hour volume between 1,500 vph and 1,750 vph. At and above 1,750 vph, the simulation indicated a reduction in arterial level of service….Assuming that these volumes represent 10 percent of the ADT along the corridor, they are equivalent to 15,000 vpd and 17,500 vpd. These recommendations are based on the simulation analysis of an idealized case study corridor, and the expected operational impacts should be considered and investigated on an individual basis if the conversion is considered feasible based on these general volume suggestions.” This report also identifies a conversion on East 14th Street in the City of San Leandro, California. ADT’s on this roadway ranged from 16,000 vpd to 19,300 vpd. The conversion resulted in a 52% reduction in crashes and a reduction in Level of Service at one intersection. The City was required to restripe this intersection back to the four-lane configuration to maintain an acceptable Level of Service. This case study helps to verify the volume limit as stated in the conversion report’s recommendation as stated above. Conclusions: The Preliminary Field Review Report for Harrison-Amherst/Front – Butte dated June 30, 2005 identifies a design ADT of 25,970 vpd for the year 2029. This Plan indicates a range of 14,000 to 18,000 vpd for the year 2005. Projected 2025 volumes with a low growth scenario indicates an ADT of 15,000 to 19,000 vpd. The high growth scenario predicts that the volumes will increase to a range of 18,000 vpd to 22,000 vpd with a high growth scenario. New traffic generators along this corridor could increase this volume to 25,970 vpd as mentioned in the Preliminary Field Review Report. Current traffic volumes along this corridor are at the upper limit of a successful conversion to a three lane configuration. It is anticipated that Level of Service will drop a letter grade at each intersection should a conversion to three lanes occur. This Plan does not recommend a three lane configuration for this corridor due to the volume of traffic present and projected. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S 5-19 Alternate B: Add a Two-Way Left-Turn Lane between Amherst Ave. & Grand Ave.. A five-lane road cross section with raised concrete medians currently exists along Harrison Ave. north of Grand Ave. and south of Amherst Ave. A review of the available Right-of-Way, existing pavement & sidewalk width, and on-street parking requirements makes the five-lane configuration a viable option to improve Harrison Ave. Recommendations: This plan recommends that a two way left turn lane and the following be reviewed for use with the Harrison Ave. Amherst Ave./ Front St. committed project: Based on the review of gap acceptance and accident data, the following design elements should be reviewed for use in future design efforts on Harrison Ave.: • Raised concrete medians for channelization/prevent movements. • Intersection corner bulbouts at signalized intersections to limit the pedestrian crossing distance and to protect on-street parking where available. • Parking bulbins allowing on-street parking to meet the requirements of businesses. ADA acceptable sidewalks are mandatory. Based on public comments, the following hardscape/softscape features should be considered: • Alternate medium for pedestrian crossings such as concrete or brick pavers. • Trees or shrubbery appropriate for use by sidewalks. o Irrigation infrastructure should be implemented as well. o Tree grates should be mandatory. o Sight triangles need to be free from obstructions throughout life of tree. o Clear Zones need to be maintained. • Alternate medium for sidewalks such as brick pavers or edge stamping. • Historic lighting, benches, & trash receptacles. Note: Review disability requirements during surface design (i.e. brick pavers). Iron St. Access to Montana Tech A model run was generated to determine the impacts of a road that connects Montana Tech to the City Center Exit ramps (aka Interstate-115, aka Iron St. exit). This model run was conducted as an attempt to reduce interval loadings on Park St. associated with the start and end times for classes on the Tech campus. This connector is an attempt to reduce the volume of vehicles entering the campus via the hill on Park St., which is steep and often inclement during the winter months. It was also an attempt to reduce pedestrian/vehicular conflicts on campus. The goals associated with the alternative included minimizing traffic impacts to the Lower West Side. As shown in Figure 5.6 the traffic would be reduced significantly by building the Iron St. Connector. A side benefit of this alternative is an alternate route to the City Landfill when incorporated with the improvements to the Bluebird Trail. Currently, the primary route is along the interstate to the Rocker Interchange. This project is not recommended for implementation without a traffic flow analysis to be conducted on campus to determine the needs and severity of traffic problems related to Montana Tech. The reduction in traffic flow on Excelsior Ave. Park St., Platinum St. & Montana St. will be an improvement on the capacity and will reduce the demand on the uptown transit system. Model outputs compared to the outputs of the Existing + Committed Network 2025, see Tables 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S 5-20 Figure 5.6 Volume Impacts of Iron Street on Avg. Daily Traffic 2025 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S 5-21 South Butte Arterial Route Selection The need for a South Butte arterial route was documented in the 1986 and 1996 Transportation Plan Updates. Required preliminary reconstruction efforts have been completed. The major route in this area (Rowe Rd.) has limited commercial growth potential, as it is confined by the railroad tracks and Stodden Park/Municipal Golf Course. Alternatives have been addressed in the previous transportation plans and include connection points to Harrison Ave. by way of utilizing Holmes Ave., Elizabeth Warren Ave., and Four Mile Rd.. All alternatives connect Montana St. to Hanson Rd. The following provides a description of the opportunities and constraints for each of these routes. Holmes Ave. The connection to Harrison Ave. at Holmes Ave. is currently in place and would require a redesign of the Rowe Rd./Holmes Ave. intersection. This route would not require additional Right-of-Way but would require improvements to the existing railroad crossing. This route selection does not aid the economic growth potential of south Butte as Holmes is mostly built out. Elizabeth Warren Ave. The connection to Elizabeth Warren requires Right-of-Way acquisition, new road construction and a railroad crossing. New Right-of-Way acquisition would be required in general from Hanson Road to Wynne Ave. Utilization of California Ave. would minimize the acquisition. Right-of-Way acquisition would require land from MDT’s Butte District storage yard. Land may be required in the area as a replacement for the Right-of-Way to fulfill their storage needs. This route would serve MDT as a direct route to I-90 westbound. This route provides a direct connection from the Continental Dr. exit to the Montana St. exit. This overall route includes Mount Highland, Elizabeth Warren, new construction, Hanson Rd. and then Montana St.. This route could replace Holmes Ave. as a truck route. This route along with Paxson St. and Wynne Ave. serves the trucks operating in the warehouse area of Butte. This route opens up undeveloped land. Extension of Arizona St. would be a likely follow up project. A reconstruction of the intersection of Elizabeth Warren and Harrison Ave. has been designed and is currently in the Right-of-Way acquisition phase. This is currently a signalized intersection. Four Mile Rd. The connection to Four Mile Rd. at Harrison Ave. includes many of the same benefits and negatives as those described for Meadowlark Lane. Margaret A. Leary Elementary School is located at the end of Four Mile Rd. along with several soccer fields. There is not sufficient room to develop a route that utilizes Four Mile Rd. and that avoids placing and arterial route next to this elementary school. Placing a four lane arterial route next to an elementary school is unlikely to receive public support when other viable options are available. Meadowlark Lane The connection to Meadowlark Lane may require reconstruction of the existing road to handle the additional truck volumes that could be directed onto this road. Right-of-Way acquisition would be required from Hanson Rd. to Western Blvd. Additional acquisition may be required at the intersection of Western Blvd. and Meadowlark Lane should the 90 degree intersection be replaced with a curve. A new railroad crossing would be required to replace the existing. This route would aid in the development of land along Meadowlark Lane. This route along with ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S 5-22 Paxson St. and Wynne Ave. serves the trucks operating in the warehouse area well. Meadowlark is one block south of Elizabeth Warren and most likely would not meet the warrants for a new signal until significant development occurs. If designated as a truck route, then trucks would be required to travel one block on Harrison Ave. then turn onto Elizabeth Warren if they are not continuing their trip on Harrison Ave.. These trucks would be required to turn left across two lanes of traffic without a signal. The location of the airport prevents a continuation of Meadowlark across Harrison Ave. Hanson Loop Rd. The Hanson Loop Rd. alternative was developed as a result of the recent and proposed development of housing and businesses along Hanson Rd., Little Basin Creek Rd., and Beef Trail Rd. This project also supports the need to connect south Butte to Uptown Butte by way of Montana Street. South Butte is an area that has been identified as a growth area. Uptown Butte is an area targeted for economic growth. The connection along Harrison Ave. is limited to the capacity at the I-90 overpass. This project is a continuation of several projects that are designed to take the emphasis off Rowe Rd. and to direct traffic towards Hanson Rd. Recently, Hanson Rd. replaced Rowe Rd. as an on-system route. Previous and ongoing projects include the Montana St. & Rowe Rd. intersection reconstruction and the Dewey Blvd. Extension. Current growth trends include new housing starts along Little Basin Creek, Beef Trail Rd., Hanson Rd., and the southern reaches of Butte. A 55-acre mixed use subdivision is planned along Hanson Rd. and includes recent construction of the new Butte Family YMCA, as well as other committed businesses that are planned in Phase One of the subdivision. Residential subdivisions have recently been approved on Little Basin Creek Rd. All previous plans recommend a four-lane arterial with the option of a continuous two way left turn lane. Volume calculations that factor in growth along the corridor and proposed business development concur with those findings. It is recommended that the road be constructed to handle four continuous lanes. The road may be widened to develop a center turn lane at intersections. Right-of-Way should be acquired to support the additional lane. Limited access should be the standard due to the potential to handle large volumes of traffic. A model run was generated to determine the volume impacts due to the construction of the Hanson Loop Rd. on the surrounding network. This model run assumed that 7,000 vpd would be generated from the Copper Peaks Subdivision. Additional traffic loading was not inputted into the model. Figure 5.7 illustrates the volume impacts. It is noted that the volume on Rowe Rd. is reduced by approximately half. The volume of traffic on Lexington Ave. and Hill Ave. is reduced by approximately 1,000 vpd. Paxson Ave. and Warren Ave. saw a drastic reduction of approximately 3,000 vpd. Hanson Rd. increased to approximately 8,000 vpd on its current alignment. The proposed alignment that will carry the traffic to Elizabeth Warren Ave. received approximately 6,000 vpd. Refer to Tables 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 for a comparison of this model to the Existing + Committed Network 2025. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S 5-23 The following information was utilized to determine the width of the proposed Hanson Loop Rd.: 10,500 vpd Combined 2025 Volumes of Rowe Rd. and Hanson Rd. with no improvements. 7,000 vpd Copper Peaks Subdivision all phases. (refer to Cattleman’s Crossing Feasibility Study and Phase I Copper Peaks Traffic Impact Study) 1,700 vpd Butte Ski Club No. 4 Major Subdivision (84 lots/ 10 vpd, assumed two subdivisions) Total vehicles per day that may be expected should these scenarios play out over the next 20 years is 19,200 to 21,000 vpd. A four-lane road with a center turn lane would be appropriate for this level of traffic. Recommendations: This Plan recommends that the corridor from the Montana St. & Rowe Rd. intersection be improved along Montana St. and Hanson Rd. This Plan further recommends that Hanson Rd. be extended to Elizabeth Warren Ave. This plan recommends that the proposed road have sufficient width to accommodate four lanes of traffic, but should be striped for two lanes at this time. Refer to Chapter 6 for additional information. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S 5-24 Figure 5.7 Volume Impacts of Hanson Loop on Avg. Daily Traffic 2025 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S 5-25 Our Lady of the Rockies - Tram Rd. This project is presented by the Our Lady of the Rockies Foundation, and is not in response to any identified transportation system deficiency. Physical elements of the interstate access were compared against design requirements as listed in the MDT Traffic Engineering Manual: Chapter 29 Interchanges. Minimal Ramp Terminal Spacing for entrance to exit ramps is 600 m (1,970 ft. Weaving) Ramp terminal spacing as shown is 1,890 feet. Conclusion: Terminal spacing distance might be achievable based on surveyed elevations and the design location of the gore areas. Maximum vertical gradient allowed: 5%-7% Vertical gradient of southbound I-15 off-ramp as shown: 7.5% Conclusion: Attempted location of off-ramp at various locations to minimize the downgradient and was only able to achieve a 7.5% grade without taking into account vertical curves that would be required at the top and bottom of the ramp. The existing downgradient on the interstate is The 7% requirement may still be achieved. A topographical survey in preliminary design would be required to verify this grade. A model run was generated to determine the net volume impacts on the Existing + Committed Network 2025. This project consists of the following three components: • Component One – Construct a connector road from Grand Ave. at Continental Dr. to Saddle Rock Rd. located east of I-15. • Component Two – Reconstruct State St. from its intersection with Saddle Rock Rd. to a proposed parking lot that would serve the Carousel and the proposed Tram. • Component Three – Construct an interchange that would service Uptown Butte. The model was developed with all of the components constructed without the actual Tram in operation (not an attraction for the model). Manual separation of the predicted volumes into component based volumes was then performed. Volumes listed are the total of both directions, or the predicted one way volume in the case of one way traffic. See Figure 5.8 for a graphical representation of the projected volumes for this scenario. • Completion of the connector road from Grand Ave. to Saddle Rock Rd. resulted in approximately 250 vehicles per day (vpd) on the connector road. • Completion of the connector road and the interstate ramps resulted in approximately 1,175 vpd on the connector and an approximate increase on Continental Dr. north of Grand Ave. of 550 vpd. • Completion of the above infrastructure and an operational Tram resulted in approximately 1,275 vpd on the connector and an approximate increase on Continental Dr. north of Grand Ave. of 650 vpd. Tram ridership information was based on the “Realistic Year 10” predictions obtained from “Our Lady of the Rockies Tram: Marketing Plan & Ridership Estimate” 1999. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S 5-26 Total riders per year is given at 21,550 with 1.7 persons per vehicle results in 12,675 vehicles per year. Assuming that the Tram is in operation for five months out of the year, the expected volumes are 85 vehicles per day. The adjusted model volumes assumed 100 vpd. Raw unedited model outputs follows along with a comparison to the outputs of the Existing + Committed Network 2025, see Tables 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3. The following alternatives to the infrastructure presented by the Foundation were reviewed. An alternate off-ramp to provide interstate access was modeled and is presented in Chapter 5 as Floral Blvd. / Bayard St. off-ramp. The Floral Blvd. off-ramp model run predicted that the off- ramp would receive approximately 350 vpd without the Tram in operation. Volumes up to 450 vpd may be expected on this off-ramp if the Tram were in operation. The current configuration of the I-90/ I-15 interchange makes additional ramps impractical to design. A review of a new alternate overpass structure was conducted to determine if this option would be viable based on the given terrain constraints as observed using BSB’s GIS aerial contours. This was deemed non reasonable should the overpass structure be located south of the current railroad overpass due to its close proximity to the I-90/ I-15 interchange. It also appears that locating a new overpass structure north of the existing overpass is not reasonable due to the vertical gradient requirement. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S 5-27 Figure 5.8 Volume Impacts of Tram Road on Avg. Daily Traffic 2025 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 5-28 5 . 0 A L T E R N A T I V E S A N A L Y S I S Runaway Vehicle Ramp – Walkerville Problem Defined: Public comments have indicated that a runaway ramp on Main St. in Walkerville is needed due to the steep incline and inclement weather conditions. Presented below are three alternate locations. Alternate A. – Walkerville Runaway Truck Ramp – Main St. and Clear Grit Terrace A runaway vehicle ramp that begins at this location was reviewed for use as a safety improvement. There is a rocky outcrop that would have to be blasted to construct appropriate grades, followed by a very deep drop off down to the concrete drainage course conveying runoff to the east. This alternative is not recommended and is shown for informational purposes only. Alternate B. – Walkerville Runaway Truck Ramp – Main St. and Wells A runaway vehicle ramp that begins at this location was reviewed for use as a safety improvement. There are residences on the west side of Main St., which would require run away vehicles to cross traffic to get to the field on the east side of Main St. Additionally, at this location the topography is quite steep, and the length of the arrestor bed would have a corresponding increase due to the grade of an arrestor bed constructed to the grade of the natural topography. This alternative is not recommended and is shown for informational purposes only. Alternate C. – Walkerville Runaway Truck Ramp – Main St. and Buffalo Ave. A runaway vehicle ramp that begins at this location was reviewed for use as a safety improvement. There is a grassy field in the northwest corner of the subject intersection, which appears to be the most likely location for a runaway vehicle ramp on Main St. Recommendations: It is recommended that this location be used for a runaway vehicle ram. However, there does not appear to be adequate length to construct a runaway vehicle ramp, end treatments may be required. A Dragnet could be utilized at this location and should be explored during design. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-1 6.0 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS This chapter presents the recommended improvements to the transportation system as defined by this Plan. Improvement projects are categorized into the following sub-chapters: • Roadway Network • Transit Systems • Non-Motorized Systems • Other Transportation Systems Each sub-chapter contains a planning level description of the proposed project. Figure 6.1 is graphical representation of the proposed transportation improvement projects presented with this Plan. Table 6-1 summarizes these projects into a tabular format and also includes planning level costs and funding strategies. Table 6-1 further categorizes the projects into the following sections: • Committed Projects o These projects are identified in section 4.5 and are currently receiving or have allocated funding. • Recommendations to Committed Projects o These recommendations are described in section 6.1, Roadway Network. • Proposed Corridor Projects o These projects either create a new or improve an existing corridor. o These projects are prioritized based on meeting future growth demands, public comments and emergency service needs. • Proposed Site Projects o These projects were developed to correct one or all of the following: deficient Level of Service, capacity issues, and/ or safety concerns. o Projects S1-S4 are prioritized higher than the other projects listed due the accident rate(s) coupled with a deficiency problem o Projects S5-S13 are not prioritized due to the typical low cost nature of the improvement or the limited impact to the system. • Signals – Warrant Studies • Accident Studies o These are locations that were identified as needing additional study but are not currently associated with a recommended improvement project. • Transit System • Non-Motorized System • Railroad System • Other Transportation Systems ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-2 Figure 6.1 Summary of Proposed Transportation Improvements/ Alternatives ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-3 Table 6-1 Butte-Silver Bow Transportation Plan Project Funding Committed Projects References Project Cost Primary Responsible Party Funding Sources and Strategies Section Figure CM1 Dewey Blvd. Extension 4.7 4.16, 6.1 To Be Determined MDT CM2 Realignment of Grand Ave at Harrison Ave. 4.7 4.16, 6.1 To Be Determined MDT CM3 Harrison Ave. Reconstruction – Amherst Ave. to Front St. 4.7, 5.5 4.16, 6.1 $7,000,000 MDT STPP, NPFR CM4 Butte Interstate Traffic Study 4.7 N/A N/A MDT IM, NPFR CM5 Daly St. Engineering Study 4.7 4.16, 6.1 N/A MDT STFU, NPFR CM6 2003-Variable Message Signs – Butte East 4.7 4.16, 6.1 $638,000 MDT NPFR CM7 Upgrade Sprinkler Sys. at Harrison Ave. at I-90/I-15 Interchange 4.7 4.16 $225,000 MDT IM CM8 Holmes-Harrison to Rowe (mill & overlay) 4.7 4.16, 6.1 $190,000 MDT SFCU CM9 1999 Signal Upgrade 4.7 4.16, 6.1 $2,200,000 MDT CM CM10 2002-Turn Bays 4.7 4.16, 6.1 $28,000 MDT CM11 Junction MT Highway 2 - SW (mill & overlay) 4.7 N/A $90,000 MDT STPS CM12 Realignment of Elizabeth Warren at Harrison Ave. 4.7 4.16, 6.1 Under Negotiations MDT CM CM13 2002-Kaw Ave. Signal (at Dewey Blvd.) 4.7 4.16, 6.1 $26,000 MDT CM14 Bridge Skid Treatment 4.7 4.16, 6.1 $1,133,000 MDT IM CM15 2001-Signal at Front St. and Main St. 4.7 4.16, 6.1 $184,000 MDT CM16 Butte Area Structures 4.7 4.16, 6.1 $4,292,000 MDT IM CM17 2002-Sign/Guardrail 4.7 N/A $44,000 MDT CM18 Butte High School Parking Improvements 4.7 4.16, 6.1 Variable Butte School Dist. #1 Butte School Dist. URA CM19 Hillcrest Elementary Parking and Drop Off Improvements 4.7 4.16, 6.1 To Be Determined Butte School Dist. #1 Butte School Dist. #1 Recommendations to Committed Projects Section Figure RCM1 Harrison Ave./ Amherst Ave. Intersection Imp. w/ Accident Study (Recommendation for Harrison-Amherst/ Front) 5.5, 6.1.1, 6.1.5 6.1, 6.2 To be reviewed with Committed Project MDT STPP RCM2 Recommendations for Harrison Ave. (Recommendation for Harrison-Amherst/ Front) 6.1.1 6.1, 6.3 – 6.10 To be reviewed with Committed Project MDT STPP RCM3 Warrant Study – Add Signal Harrison Ave. & Ottawa St./ C St. (Recommendation for Harrison-Amherst/ Front) 6.1.3, 6.1.4 4.4, 6.1, 6.9 $175,000 MDT STPP RCM4 Railroad Crossing Improvements – Dewey Blvd. (Recommendation for the Dewey Blvd. Extension Project) 6.1.1 4.13, 6.1 $90,000 MDT RCM5 Intersection Improvements – Front St. & Main St./ Kaw Ave. w/ Accident Study (Recommendation for the 2001-Signal-Front/Main) 6.1.1, 6.1.5 6.1 To be reviewed with Committed Project MDT / Butte-Silver Bow STPU / Local Financing Tools* RCM6 Interstate Collaboration 6.1.1 N/A N/A MDT N/A ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-4 Table 6-1 (cont.) Butte-Silver Bow Transportation Plan Project Funding Proposed Corridor Projects References Project Cost Primary Responsible Party Funding Sources and Strategies Section Figure COR1 Hanson Loop Rd. Construction/ Hanson Rd. Widening 5.5, 6.1.2 5.7, 6.1, 6.11, 6.12 $5,550,000 MDT & Butte-Silver Bow STPU COR2 Mercury St. Heritage Loop 6.1.2 6.1, 6.13 $1,200,000 Butte-Silver Bow CTEP, URA/TIF, other local* and state** financing tools, CDBG COR3 Iron St. Access to Montana Tech 5.5, 6.1.2 5.6, 6.1, 6.14 $2,800,000 MDT & Butte-Silver Bow STPU/IM/Local Financing Tools* COR4 Saddle Rock Road Connector 6.1.2 6.1, 6.15 $200,000 to $1,000,000 Butte-Silver Bow Rural and Fire Related Funding Sources, and other local state** and federal financing tools*** COR5 Connector from Harrison Ave. to Continental Dr. North of Highway 2 6.1.2 6.1 $600,000 Butte-Silver Bow Rural and Fire Related Funding Sources, and other local state** and federal financing tools*** COR6 Bluebird Trail Improvements 6.1.2 6.1, 6.16 – 6.18 $600,000 to $1,100,000 Butte-Silver Bow CTEP, local financing tools*, state financing tools** and federal financing tools***, CDBG COR7 Our Lady of the Rockies – Tram Rd. w/ Interstate Access 5.5, 6.1.2 5.8, 6.1, 6.19 $1,000,000 - $4,200,000 (assumes R/W donated) Our Lady of the Rockies/ MDT/ FHWA Our Lady of the Rockies Foundation/ IM COR8 Improvements to Beef Trail Rd., Little Basin Creek Rd., and Oro Fino Gulch Rd. 6.1.2 6.1 $500,000 to $3,000,000 w/o asphalt Butte-Silver Bow Rural and Fire Related Funding Sources and other federal financing tools*** Proposed Site Projects Section Figure S1 Intersection Improvements - Beef Trail & Little Basin Creek 6.1.3 6.1, 6.20-6.22 $5k, $90k, $20k Butte-Silver Bow Local Financing Tools* S2 Improvements to Harrison Ave. at I-90/ 15 Eastbound Off-Ramp w/ Accident Study 6.1.3, 6.1.6 6.1, 6.23 $80,000 MDT STPP/ IM S3 Texas Ave. Realignment w/ Accident Study, w/ Signal Warrant review 4.1.4, 6.1.3, 6.1.6 6.1, 6.24 $35,000 + ($4,500 Accident Study), Butte-Silver Bow /MDT STPU/Local Financing Tools* S4 Busch Ave. Improvements w/ Accident Study 6.1.3, 6.1.6 6.1, 6.25 $25,000 Butte-Silver Bow Local Financing Tools* S5 Arizona St. Improvements at Curtis St. w/ Accident Study 6.1.3, 6.1.6 6.1, 6.26 $20,000 + ($4,500 Accident Study) MDT STPP S6 Intersection Improvements – South Butte 6.1.3 6.1, 6.27 $40k, $40k, $30k MDT/ Butte-Silver Bow STPP/ STPS/ Local Financing Tools* S7 Intersection Improvements – Massachusetts, Florence, Ottawa 6.1.3 6.1, 6.28 $30k, $180k Butte-Silver Bow/ MDT Local Financing Tools*/ STPP S8 Walkerville Dr. & 16th Ave. – East Side Guardrail Construction 6.1.3 6.1 $5,000 Butte-Silver Bow/MDT STPU/BSB Maintenance S9 Montana St. & Idaho St. – Guardrail Construction 6.1.3 6.1 $5,000 Butte-Silver Bow/MDT STPU/BSB Maintenance S10 Main and Buffalo Intersection Improvements Runaway Vehicle Ramp Option 6.1.3 6.1 $30,000 to $50,000 Butte-Silver Bow/MDT STPU/BSB Maintenance S11 Upgrade Truck Route Corner Radii Study 6.1.3 N/A $ 8,500 per corner MDT STPP/STPU/Local Financing Tools* S12 Reduction of Site Distance Problems due to obstacles 6.1.3 N/A $ 4,000 per corner Butte-Silver Bow Enforcement/Regulatory/Right-of-Way Acquisition S13 Wyoming Ave./ Arizona St. Connector 6.1.3 6.1, 6.29 $55,000 Butte-Silver Bow & Butte School District No.1 Local Financing Tools*/Butte School District No. 1 S14 Center Turn Lane on Montana St. from Front to Second St. 6.1.3 6.1 $80,000 MDT STPU S15 Slope Improvement on Sunset Rd. over Sand Creek by the Montessori School 6.1.3 6.1 $50,000 Butte-Silver Bow Butte-Silver Bow Maintenance Funds S16 Shoe String Annie – Sight Distance 6.1.3 6.1 $215,000 to $275,000 (w/o asphalt) Butte-Silver Bow Butte-Silver Bow Maintenance Funds S17 Rocker Eastbound Weigh Station 6.1.3 N/A $200,000 to $3,000,000 MDT IM ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-5 Table 6-1 (cont.) Butte-Silver Bow Transportation Plan Project Funding Signals - Warrant Studies References Project Cost Primary Responsible Party Funding Sources and Strategies Section Figure SIG1 Warrant Study – Add Signal Montana St. & George St. 4.1.4, 6.1.4 4.4, 6.1 $175,000 MDT STPU SIG2 Warrant Study – Add Signal Rowe Rd. & Dewey Blvd. 4.1.4, 6.1.4 4.4, 6.1 $175,000 MDT/ Butte-Silver Bow STPU/ Local Financing Tools* SIG3 Warrant Study – Remove Signal Main St. & Broadway St. 4.1.4, 6.1.4 4.4, 6.1 $15,000 MDT/Butte-Silver Bow STPU/ Local Financing Tools* SIG4 Warrant Study – Remove Signal Wyoming St. & Broadway St. 4.1.4, 6.1.4 4.4, 6.1 $15,000 Butte-Silver Bow Local Financing Tools* SIG5 Warrant St. – Remove Signal Wyoming St. & Granite St. 4.1.4, 6.1.4 4.4, 6.1 $15,000 Butte-Silver Bow Local Financing Tools* Speed Studies Section Figure SPD1 Oregon Ave. south of B St. 4.1.6, 6.1.5 4.6 $30,000 Butte-Silver Bow Local Financing Tools* SPD2 Motorview Ave. west of Harrison Ave. 4.1.6, 6.1.5 4.6 $10,000 Butte-Silver Bow Local Financing Tools* SPD3 Hanson Rd. south of Wathena St. 4.1.6, 6.1.5 4.6 $3,000 MDT STPU SPD4 Utah Ave. north of Aluminum St. 4.1.6, 6.1.5 4.6 N/A Butte-Silver Bow Enforcement SPD5 Floral St. (a.k.a. Farragut Ave.) between Bayard St. & State St. 4.1.6, 6.1.5 4.6 $10,000 Butte-Silver Bow Local Financing Tools* SPD6 Grand Ave. east & west of Georgia Ave. 4.1.6, 6.1.5 4.6 $3,000 MDT STPU SPD7 Dewey Blvd. between Utah Ave. & Nevada Ave. 4.1.6, 6.1.5 4.6 $3,000 MDT STPU SPD8 Utah St. west of Margaret A. Leary Elem. School 4.1.6, 6.1.5 4.6 N/A Butte-Silver Bow Enforcement SPD9 Continental Drive/ Farrell St. / Shields Ave. 4.1.6, 6.1.5 4.6 N/A MDT STPU SPD10 Holmes Ave. from Harrison Ave. to Rowe Rd. 4.1.6, 6.1.5 4.6 N/A MDT STPU Accident Studies Section Figure A1 Accident Study Harrison Ave. & Roosevelt Ave. 6.1.6 4.7, 6.1, 6.22 $4,500 MDT STPP A2 Accident Study Excelsior Ave. & Centennial Ave. 6.1.6 4.7, 6.1 $4,500 MDT STPU A3 Accident Study Washington St. & St. 6.1.6 4.7, 6.1 $4,500 Butte-Silver Bow Local Financing Tools* A4 Accident Study Continental Dr. & Mt. Highland 6.1.6 4.7, 6.1 $4,500 MDT STPU A5 Accident Study Park St. & Continental Dr. 6.1.6 4.7, 6.1 $4,500 MDT STPU A6 Accident Study Harrison Ave. & 4 Mile Vue 6.1.6 4.7, 6.1 $4,500 MDT STPP ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-6 Table 6-1 (cont.) Butte-Silver Bow Transportation Plan Project Funding Transit System Improvements References Project Cost Primary Responsible Party Funding Sources and Strategies Section Figure T1 New or Relocated Transit Stop on Hanson 6.2 N/A $1,200 to $15,000 Butte-Silver Bow CTEP, Transit Funds T2 Transit Stops at Berkeley Pit and Chamber of Commerce 6.2 N/A $1,200 to $15,000 Butte-Silver Bow CTEP, Transit Funds Non-Motorized System Improvements Section Figure NM1 Connect Butte High School to East Middle School 6.3 N/A $50,000 to $450,000 Butte-Silver Bow CTEP, URA, local financing tools* NM2 Trail System Lighting Upgrade and Installation 6.3 N/A $3,300 per 100 lf Butte-Silver Bow CTEP, URA/TIF, and other local financing tools* NM3 Sidewalk Improvement Program 6.3 N/A $20,000 (intern for summer) Butte-Silver Bow CTEP, URA, BSB maintenance funds Railroad System Study Improvements Section Figure RR1 Railroad Crossing Consolidation Study 6.4 4.12 $18,000 for study MDT RR2 Railroad Crossing Improvements 6.4 4.12 $115,000 ea. MDT Other Transportation Systems Section Figure OTS1 Public Parking Lot Landscaping 6.4 N/A $100 per parking stall Butte-Silver Bow TIF, Parking District, and other local financing tools* OTS2 Parking Restrictions in Uptown Butte for Delivery Vehicles 6.4 N/A N/A Butte-Silver Bow Enforcement/Regulatory OTS3 Parking Restrictions Distance from Corners 6.4 N/A N/A Butte-Silver Bow Enforcement/Regulatory OTS4 Historic Signing Plan 6.4 N/A N/A Butte-Silver Bow Local Financing Tools* *Local Financing Tools (additional information in Chapter 7) Optional Motor Vehicle Tax --61-3-537 MCA Additional road and bridge construction tax – election required --7-14-2504 MCA Bridge and Road Capital Improvement Fund 7-6-616, 7-14-2506 MCA Local Option Motor Fuel Excise Tax 7-14-301 MCA Special improvement districts 7-12-4101 MCA Urban Transportation Districts (bonding authority) 7-14-201 MCA Impact Fees 76-3-510 MCA ***Federal Programs (other than DOT) Economic Development Administration Public Works and Economic Development Facilities Grants U.S. Department of Agriculture Community Facilities Department of Homeland Security/FEMA **State Programs (other than MDT) Montana Intercap Loan Program Community Development Block Grant Program Community Facilities Treasure State Endowment Program (Bridges) ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-7 6.1 Roadway Network This section presents the recommended improvements to the roadway network as defined by this Plan. Roadway Network projects are categorized into the following sub-categories: • Recommendations to Committed Projects • Proposed Corridor Projects • Proposed Site Projects • Signals – Warrant Studies • Accident Studies 6.1.1 Recommendations to Committed Projects RCM1 – Harrison Ave./ Amherst Ave. Intersection Improvements The 1996 Transportation Plan Update recommended that a right turn lane be provided from Harrison Ave. onto Amherst Ave. This Plan agrees with that finding based on the volume of traffic that travels northbound on Harrison Ave. and turns right onto Cornel St. Vehicles exiting the interstate traveling northbound are forced to either take the right turn lane onto Cornell St. or are required to merge left onto one of Butte’s most congested lanes. Pedestrian access and parking requirements are major design constraints for this improvement and may be minimized by shifting travel lanes on Harrison Ave. to the west. As illustrated in Figure 6.2, a right turn only lane is recommended on Amherst Ave. at Harrison Ave. Intersection counts indicate that 20% of vehicles take this right turn. They are currently in a shared left-turn, right-turn lane. Separating these different movements will increase the capacity on Amherst Ave. Congestion reduction on Harrison Ave. should occur since Amherst Ave. may not require as much signal green time. This available green time can be reallocated to Harrison Ave. Recent business construction has occurred near this intersection on Amherst Ave. This Plan recommends that a Traffic Impact Study be conducted to determine the required bay on Amherst Ave. at the intersection. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-8 Figure 6.2 Harrison Avenue and Amherst Avenue ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-9 RCM2 and RCM3 – Recommendations for Harrison Ave. Refer to Figures 6.3 – 6.10 for improvements to Harrison Ave. The Butte District of the Montana Department of Transportation has recommended Harrison Ave. to be reconstructed between Amherst Ave. and Front St. This project is in the Preliminary Field Review Stage and is subject to approval for financing. This Transportation Plan Update has reviewed past recommendations for lane assignments from the 1986 Update and the 1996 Update. Field reviews of traffic and travel patterns along with land use changes have confirmed the recommendations of the previous Plans. The 1986 Update included a project “Harrison Ave., Yale St. to Grand Ave.” The justification for this project is included in this Update for informational purposes. “The traffic flow on this section of street affects the operation of Harrison Ave. as far south as Holmes Ave. Northbound drivers familiar with Harrison Ave. use the outside lane in order to avoid being trapped behind left-turning vehicles throughout this section. This results in a loss of street capacity. Provision of a continuous left-turn bay from Yale Ave. to Grand Ave. would eliminate this problem. Removal of parking along this section would be required. This could be done in phases similar to the Cobban St. intersection where parking has been removed on each side of the intersection for a distance to allow a painted left-turn pocket to be installed. On several blocks, residential parking is using the street. Most of these residences have garages with access from the alley. Other commercial establishments have undeveloped vacant land that could be used for off street parking. Future commercial development should be required to meet off-street parking requirements.” No figures were presented. The 1996 Update included a project “Harrison Ave. – I-90 to Front”. A portion of the discussion for Phase II from that report is included in this update for informational purposes. “The installation of raised medians, where included, is intended to separate opposing traffic streams, eliminate some opportunities for left turns where they are undesirable from a safety standpoint, and allow separate space for left turning vehicles where the movement is acceptable. The installation of raised medians elsewhere in this project (between Princeton St. and Grand Ave.) is also desirable for the same reasons. However, due to the impacts that would result to adjacent businesses in this area, a two-way-left-turn lane is recommended in lieu of the medians, to allow separate space for left turning vehicles.” This Update has incorporated these previous ideas to develop a lane configuration that is intended to reduce accidents and provide additional capacity. This Update recognizes the current land use of on-street parking and the requirements that businesses have for their clients to park nearby. The existing trend on Harrison Ave. is that businesses are developing off-street parking for use by their clientele. This adjustment to the parking locations and land use is dominant south of Cobban St. and is steadily advancing to the north. The proposed reconstruction project ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-10 that will be developed by the Montana Department of Transportation should recognize the land use and parking use shift in developing the new street width and lane assignments. This Update presents a possible lane assignment that may be considered for use in the reconstruction project. An alternate lane configuration is presented to indicate changes that could be implemented should off-street parking develop. Corner Bulbouts should be considered on the reconstruction project to reduce the pedestrian crossing distance and to provide a physical barrier from on-street parking to side streets. Aesthetic streetscape should be considered for use as context sensitive design. A bicycle lane may be considered for use, but would require the removal of a parking lane on Harrison Ave. Florence St., located east and paralleling Harrison Ave., could be used as a bicycle linkage tying the Pedestrian/Bicycle Culverts that cross Harrison Ave. These culverts are located under Harrison Ave. north of Olympia Ave. and under Harrison Ave. by the Interstate. Refer to 6.1.4 for information regarding a signal at Harrison Ave. and Ottowa St./ C St. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-11 Figure 6.3 Harrison Avenue Page 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-12 Figure 6.4 Harrison Avenue Page 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-13 Figure 6.5 Harrison Avenue Page 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-14 Figure 6.6 Harrison Avenue Page 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-15 Figure 6.7 Harrison Avenue Page 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-16 Figure 6.8 Harrison Avenue Page 6A ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-17 Figure 6.9 Harrison Avenue Page 6B ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-18 Figure 6.10 Harrison Avenue Page 6C ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-19 RCM4 – Railroad Crossing Improvements – Dewey Boulevard This plan recommends that the railroad crossing on Dewey Blvd. be upgraded and improved in coordination with the Dewey Blvd. Extension Project in order to handle the increased traffic volumes that may be generated by population growth associated with the Beef Trail Rd. and Little Basin Creek Rd. Subdivisions. RCM5 – Intersection Improvements –Front St. & Main St. / Kaw Ave. The following improvements should be made to this intersection: • The southwest corner should be reviewed for a wider radius curb. • Review location of northbound stop bar. • Install lane use signage for southbound traffic on Main St. • Upgrade to thermoplastic markings for lane markings and lane use symbols. RCM6 – Interstate Collaboration An interstate study program will take place following this Plan. The following is a list of areas that should be reviewed during that study period. • The eastbound off-ramp at Rocker consistently stacks up traffic on the ramp due to the location of the weigh station and high truck volume. A new weigh station should be considered similar to the westbound station that would be located near the top of the hill prior to the existing eastbound ramp. A connect road could tie the weigh station to the frontage road and help to relieve traffic on the existing ramp. An alternate could be to add a second lane and provide for a longer queue. • Review the left turn off-ramp for eastbound traffic to Iron St. This is currently planned to be reviewed for a conversion to a right turn off-ramp. • Review location of guardrails on ramps. • Review radius of off-ramps. • Review Harrison Ave. Interchange. Harrison Ave. at the Interstate is the most congested route in town and the location of the off-ramps could play a key role in reducing or making the congestion more tolerable. • Review the off-ramp location by Dewey Blvd. for possible relocation. An alternate study could review the use of interconnected signals to create adequate gaps for vehicles to enter onto Harrison Ave. from this off-ramp. • Review the location, safety, and usability of the I-90/I-15 interchange. Grades and location are severe constraints to this facility. Flyovers and on/off-ramps should be reviewed for use. • The Iron St. Connector to Montana Tech should be reviewed for location and design constraints following during the review of the left to right turn off-ramp conversion. • An interchange for the proposed Tram Rd. project should be reviewed north of the existing I-90/I-15 interchange. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-20 6.1.2 Proposed Corridor Projects COR1 – Hanson Loop Connector Rd. Project Overview This project addresses the need for an alternate route, particularly for trucks, that connects Montana St. and Hanson Rd. to Harrison Ave. at Elizabeth Warren, creating a southwestern loop. The project would also provide for better access to the Jeremy Bullock Soccer Complex via an extension of Arizona St. from the Complex to Elizabeth Warren (also known as Hemons) and access to Continental Dr. via Mount Highland Dr. The route would provide a convenient truck route through Butte by providing a better connection to the Montana St. and Continental Dr. exits of I-90/I-15. It would also provide an accessible route to Uptown from the south end of the valley. This route would help to alleviate congestion that currently exists on Rowe Rd. and Holmes Ave. The project would alleviate a number of current problems identified by members of the Butte-Silver Bow community. Relationship to Goals and Objectives This project addresses the following goals/objectives set forth in Chapter 2 of this Plan: • Assist Economic and Community Development. - Provide or enhance well-designed links among primary traffic generators. • Promote Transportation Safety. - Design transportation routes and infrastructure to assure safe and efficient traffic flow. Project Elements As depicted in Figure 6.11, a loop would be created by extending Elizabeth Warren to the west through the current Montana Department of Transportation storage yard to connect with Hanson via Western Ave. and possibly California St. The route would then follow Hanson to Montana St. and the new access to I-90/I-15. By including California St. as part of the route, the intersections at Holmes and Western, and at Holmes and Rowe Rd. could be eliminated. However, if California St. is not a logical option, then these intersections would have to be redesigned to address their alignment, line of sight issues, and the Rail Rd. crossing. The project should include landscape and streetscape components. Project “Ownership” MDT and Butte-Silver Bow. Challenges Configuring the route may present some challenges. Additionally, there are some private ownership issues that would have to be addressed and Right-of-Way will have to be acquired. A railroad crossing will be required. Refer to recommendations for railroad crossing consolidation. Opportunities There are many benefits associated with this project. The proposed roadway would create a logical trucking route through Butte. The development of this loop would likely help facilitate economic and community development activities along the route, including the new YMCA. Rowe Rd., which has little or no business development potential, would be de-emphasized as a primary route. The project would allow for a more logical route to connect areas of current population growth such as the Country Club, Blacktail Loop, Holly Lane, Hanson Rd., and Montana St. By decreasing traffic on Holmes, pedestrian conflicts at Holmes and Hill would be reduced. The project would facilitate travel to Uptown Butte from the south. The project would also help move traffic away from Margaret Leary School at Four Mile Vue Rd. The development of the southwestern loop would assist warehouse and distribution activities in the vicinity of the old Safeway Warehouse. If the airport were ever relocated, other routes might be considered, including Meadowlark Lane. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-21 Trigger Volumes for Hanson, Rowe, and Holmes Intersection Improvements to this intersection are identified on Figure 6.11 “Hanson Loop Connector Road”. It is anticipated that the environmental, design, and right-of-way acquisition phases for the corridor will be a process. It may be beneficial to the community to make the improvements to this intersection prior to the corridor’s construction. The majority of the traffic associated with this corridor is currently traveling on Rowe Road and Holmes Avenue. This is the shortest route that connects Montana Street to the southern portion of Harrison Avenue with the primary function of moving traffic through an area with limited existing or potential access. New developments in the Copper Peaks Subdivision located off of Hanson Road have created new attractions. It is anticipated that these new attractions will shift traffic from Rowe Road to Hanson Road. Traffic tube counters have identified approximately 8000 vpd on Rowe Road and approximately 2000 vpd on Hanson Road prior to new construction. This plan recommends additional monitoring of the traffic volumes on Rowe and Hanson. Reconfiguration of the intersection is recommended when the two roads begin to balance in volume. The timing of this is dependant on the growth along the existing Hanson Road corridor. Alternately, reconstruction of the intersection prior to the balance of volumes is likely to enhance the commercial development of the area and may be considered viable for growth reasons. COR1 – Hanson Rd. Widening This project is intended to serve as a predecessor to the Hanson Loop Rd. Connector project. As illustrated in Figure 6.12, this project is presented in two phases. Phase I – Increase the radius at the intersection of Hanson Rd. and Holmes Ave. to meet current design standards. Phase II – Acquire Right-of-Way along the existing Hanson Rd. to meet the requirements of a minor arterial road. This is an increase from a 60-ft Right-of-Way to 80-ft Right-of-Way. Widen the existing Hanson Rd. to meet the requirements of a minor arterial. This phase should include landscape and streetscape components. Interaction with the Dewey Blvd. Extension Project – The intention of the Hanson Loop Connector and these improvements are to develop a minor arterial that connects Harrison Ave. to Montana St. This minor arterial travels through the Dewey Blvd. Extension Project. Coordination should occur to set the design standard of Hanson Rd. and Montana St. to a minor arterial as it relates to the Dewey Blvd. Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-22 Figure 6.11 Hanson Loop Connector Road ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-23 Figure 6.12 Hanson Road Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6-24 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S COR2 – Mercury St Improvements Project Overview: The Butte-Silver Bow Urban Renewal Plan and subsequent evaluations of Butte’s Historic Uptown have identified the need for a clearly defined into the central business district. This project calls for the creation of an and aesthetically pleasing corridor into the Uptown area, beginning at Mercury St. and Continental Dr. The Belmont Mine, located at the intersection of these two streets, provides a definable, emblematic to Uptown Butte that reflects the area’s heritage and historic character. Relationship to Goals and Objectives This project addresses the following goals/objectives set forth in Chapter 2 of this Plan: • Economic and Community Development. - Provide or enhance well designed traffic links among primary traffic generators. • Employ good design in planning transportation infrastructure. - Identify transportation strategies that are reflective of the community’s culture and sense of place in order to respect and enhance residential and business neighborhood cohesiveness, historic districts, and historic design elements. - Employ design approaches that encompass aesthetic elements in order to enhance overall community appearance. These approaches include landscape design, creative use of lighting and materials, and curb design. Project Elements As illustrated in Figure 6.13, this proposed project would create a corridor into Uptown Butte via Mercury St., beginning at Continental Dr. Specific elements would include an into the Historic Central Business District at the Belmont Mine. Overhead utility lines along Mercury St. would be removed and placed underground. The corridor would feature historic lighting and other “hardscape” features such as benches, trash receptacles, interpretive signs and new sidewalks. Landscaping would include street trees in grates with tree guards and plants. Conversations with the Historic Preservation Society to determine specific project elements would enhance this route. The corridor would continue north from Mercury St. via Montana St. along Park St. and/or Broadway St. to create a loop back to Continental Dr. Expansion of the existing trail network could be provided with this project. Project “Ownership” The project would occur in the Butte-Silver Bow Right-of-Way. Funding Strategies Funding sources for this project could include the following: • Community Transportation Enhancement Funds (CTEP) • Tax Increment Financing (TIF) • Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Potential Partners Potential Partners could include: • Butte-Silver Bow Urban Revitalization Agency • Mai Wah Society • Belmont Senior Center • Butte Central • Butte High School ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6-25 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S Challenges Many of the buildings along the route are deteriorating. The project will depend on cooperation of private property owners to help improve their properties. Additionally, moving the overhead power lines underground is very expensive. Opportunities The Belmont Mine and its associated buildings provide an outstanding into Uptown. The proximity of the Berkeley Pit Visitor Center to the Belmont provides an easy link for visitors to the Uptown. Vehicles traveling east-bound on Mercury to Continental would be afforded a spectacular view of the Berkeley Pit framed by the headframe and hoist house of the historic Belmont mine. The improvement of Mercury St. could be a key component to a “Mercury St. Revitalization Project” that would focus on stabilizing and restoring the historically significant buildings along the route, including the Mai Wah Society buildings and the historic red light district structures. The project would enhance ongoing efforts to develop an Asian heritage cultural center at the Mai Wah museum and other interpretive elements at adjacent sites. It has been suggested that the site across Mercury from the Mai Wah could serve as a combined interpretive site and parking facility providing much needed parking for Butte High School and Emma Park. The site could also offer additional venues for cultural activities. The corridor could facilitate access to Emma Park, enhancing the open space and cultural center just south of the Central Business District. The proposed project could also help enhance the pedestrian link between Park St. and Emma Park via Colorado St. and the pedestrian path between Galena St. and Park St. The project could help focus traffic on Continental Dr. as a logical connector between Uptown and the “flats.” The Bus could potentially see additional riders on the Uptown Transit Route due to an increase of activity along this corridor. Safety issues concerning the existing location of the power poles (in the street) would be addressed. The corridor could provide a strong link between the Belmont Senior Center and St. James Healthcare, providing a possible incentive for additional healthcare related development along the corridor. The existing trail system could be expanded west to Wyoming Ave. This extended trail could serve Central’s and Butte High School’s cross country and track teams with a connection to the trail on Continental. An additional trail could be developed off of Continental Dr. along Stuart Ave. to East Middle School. Schools have been a logical starting point of trails in many communities. This expanded trail system would link Butte High School, Central High School Gymnasium, Greeley Elementary and East Middle School. The connection from the High Schools and the track at East also serves to enhance after school programs. The corridor could serve to connect the following cultural and historic elements: the Belmont Center, the Headframe, the Dumas Brothel, the Mai Wah Society, a potential Chinese Heritage Park across from the Mai Wah Society, and pedestrian access to Emma Park. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-26 Figure 6.13 Mercury Street Heritage Loop ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6-27 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S COR3 – Iron St. Access to Montana Tech Project Overview The north campus of Montana Tech of The University of Montana is located at the west end of Park St. and is a major traffic generator. Access to the campus is primarily via Park St. from the east, Excelsior St. from the north and south, and via various streets located in the residential areas of Butte’s west and lower west sides. West Park St. is also the primary access to the World Museum of Mining, which is located to the south and west of the campus. The approach to the campus from the east via Park St. is a steep incline, creating a driving hazard during the winter months when roads are icy. Butte-Silver Bow has identified a need to address traffic issues associated with the current access to Montana Tech and the Museum, including current impacts to area residential neighborhoods and driving conditions on Park St. It is proposed that a new interstate access to Montana Tech and the World Museum of Mining via I-90/I-15 Business Loop (Iron St.) be developed. Coordination with the proposed Interstate Study Project is critical to determining the location of this connector. Relationship to Goals and Objectives This project addresses the following goals/objectives set forth in Chapter 2 of this Plan: • Assist Economic and Community Development. - Provide or enhance well designed links among primary traffic generators. • Promote Transportation Safety. - Design transportation routes and infrastructure to assure safe and efficient traffic flow. Project Elements As illustrated in Figure 6.14, access to Montana Tech would be provided through a new exit from the I-90/ I-15 Business Loop (Iron St.). The exit would be available to both east and west- bound traffic and connect Iron St. with the World Museum of Mining and the Montana Tech campus via West Steel St. (currently a dirt road) and the Mining Museum Rd.. The new exit should be designed to provide adequate sight distance for drivers. Deceleration lanes should be provided and speed limits should be adjusted on Iron St. The specific location should be determined with respect to the line of sight for east-bound drivers, land ownership, Right-of-Way considerations and topography. The project should include landscape and streetscape components. Zoning classification of R1 should be maintained along this route. Project “Ownership” MDT and Butte-Silver Bow. Funding Strategies • Butte-Silver Bow. • MDT. Regulatory and Programmatic Strategies The location of the proposed access to Montana Tech is located outside the urban boundary for the purpose of MDT Urban funding. However, an adjustment of the existing urban boundary to include this proposed new corridor between Iron St. and the campus would facilitate the use of urban transportation funds. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6-28 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S Challenges Identifying the Iron St. access point will present some difficulty. A site must be chosen that can provide an adequate sight distance for drivers turning left, across the west bound lanes of Iron St. Additionally, residential property owners adjacent to the proposed exit may object to additional traffic in the vicinity of their homes. Coordination with the Interstate Study Project is critical. Opportunities Using Iron St. as an access to Montana Tech and the World Museum of Mining can provide the impetus for improving the aesthetics of the Iron St. – Montana St. intersection. It can be made more inviting to serve as both a Butte from the City Center Exit and as a logical way to access Montana Tech and the Museum. The new exit would provide direct access to Montana Tech and the Museum from the Interstate system. The availability of an additional access to these destinations could reduce traffic on Park St., Excelsior, St. and Platinum St. Traffic flows on Park St. located within the campus of Montana Tech may increase. An in-depth traffic impact analysis should be performed prior to implementation. A connector road south of campus next to the pedestrian path, as described in the 1986 Transportation Plan Update, could be constructed to relieve on campus traffic. Granite St. could also serve as a traffic relief route. The construction of either route should relieve vehicle/pedestrian conflicts on campus. The development of the Iron St. access to Montana Tech and the Museum in conjunction with improvements to the Bluebird Trail offers opportunities for development west and south of campus. This area would be ideal for residential and low-impact commercial development serving Tech and surrounding neighborhoods. Growth along this corridor should be consistent with low volume traffic generation to maintain the overall character of the area. Zoning should be reviewed to prevent traffic generators from occurring in this corridor. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-29 Figure 6.14 Iron Street Access to Montana Tech ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6-30 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S COR4 – Saddle Rock Road Connector Project Overview The intent of this project is to create an additional access to the residential area of the East Ridge. Currently, this area is accessed from Butte via Burlington St. or Mt. Highland Drive. The two existing access roads cross Interstate-90 using overpass structures. An additional access road would aid in the emergency response time and would improve access to uptown Butte. This proposed connector road would utilize an existing railroad underpass and is viable only with an easement or Right-of-Way from the railroad. Relationship to Goals and Objectives This project addresses the following goals/objectives set forth in Chapter 2 of this Plan: - Provide or enhance transportation routes that enable quick response by emergency services providers. Project Elements Figure 6.15 illustrates the concept of this proposed corridor. It is planned to connect to Continental Drive at its intersection with Grand Ave. and then proceed to the northeast along the existing railroad tracks, under Interstate-15 using the existing structure. This project will terminate at its intersection with Saddle Rock Road. A pedestrian and bike trail could be planned in conjunction with this road project as the area currently sees use for these recreational pursuits. Appropriate landscaping and streetscaping should be considered with this project. Project “Ownership” This road would be the responsibility of Butte-Silver Bow. Methodologies for Implementation It is required that this project follow the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The use of the railroad bed may require reclamation. It is recommended that an Environmental Assessment be conducted prior to design. An easement or right of way will be required from the railroad. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-31 Figure 6.15 Saddle Rock Road Connector ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6-32 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S COR5 – Connector from Harrison Ave. to Continental Dr. North of Highway 2 Project Overview The intent of this project is to provide an additional connection from Continental Dr. to Harrison Ave. This connector would not only improve the access for residents living south of town, but also improve the emergency response to the entire area. Currently, the only access between Harrison Ave. and Continental Dr. is by either Highway 2 or Elizabeth Warren. A study should be conducted to see if this route is cost effective. COR6 – Bluebird Trail Improvements Project Overview: The current Bluebird Trail is an unimproved road that connects the Montana Tech campus to Brown’s Gulch Rd. This project calls for upgrading the trail to a paved two-lane road with an associated bicycle path to help foster residential development and recreational activities west of the campus while providing an alternate route to the county landfill site. The bicycle path would create a loop trail with the existing Copper Way Trail between Rocker and Butte. The improved Bluebird Trail would also enable direct access to the World Museum of Mining from the Rocker Interchange for east-bound travelers on I-90/I-15. Relationship to Goals and Objectives This project addresses the following goals/objectives set forth in Chapter 2 of this Plan: • Assist economic and community development. - Provide or enhance well-designed links among primary traffic generators. • Address non-motorized transportation concerns. Project Elements As illustrated in Figures 6.16 – 6.18, the project calls for the improvement of the existing roadway with minimal deviation from its current alignment. Automobile access to the Bluebird Trail from the east would be at the intersection of the World Museum of Mining and West Steele St. Bicycle access would be provided at the west end of Park St. from the Montana Tech campus. The bike and roadways would join at the existing junction, west of Montana Tech and continue side by side to Rocker. The current Bluebird Trail travels through a historic mining area and is in close proximity to the proposed Big Butte Park. The area is used by pedestrians, and mountain bikers and as an informal shooting range, particularly during hunting season. The road should be designed with respect to these uses and should include streetscaping such as signs and other elements that explain the area’s history. Landscaping components should also be considered. Project “Ownership” Implementation of the project would require Butte-Silver Bow to negotiate with existing landowners for Right-of-Way acquisition. Methodologies for Implementation It is recommended that this project be constructed in a two-phase operation. The first phase would include alignment/profile changes and installation of a gravel base. The road should be monitored for volumes and reviewed for paving once 400 vehicles per day are achieved. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6-33 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S Funding Strategies Funding sources for this project could include the following: • Community Transportation Enhancement Program (CTEP) • CDBG • SID’s if residential development occurs • Potential ARCO involvement Challenges Potential heavy metals contamination from historic mining and smelting contamination of the area may require remediation prior to any development in the area. Opportunities This proposed project offers a variety of benefits to the Butte-Silver Bow community. An improved Bluebird Trail would provide an interactive, interpretive link from the I-90/I-15 Interchange to the World Museum of Mining, enhancing tourism related activity. For residents living north of I-90, the proposed roadway would provide direct access to the dump. In combination with the development of a new Montana Tech/World Museum of Mining access via Iron St., the Bluebird Trail could help reduce traffic on the lower West Side and at West Elementary School. The proposed project may also facilitate additional commercial activity at Rocker by providing a corridor directly to Butte. The development of housing in this area could assist in Phase II (paving) operations through the use of Improvement Districts. Finally, the Bluebird corridor could provide a key link connecting traffic for Butte and Rocker for the interstate facilities’ heavy industrial activities in Rocker and Silver Bow. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-34 Figure 6.16 Bluebird Trail Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-35 Figure 6.17 Bluebird Trail Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-36 Figure 6.18 Bluebird Trail Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6-37 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S COR7 – Our Lady of the Rockies – Tram Rd. Project Overview This project is submitted by the Our Lady of the Rockies Foundation and is presented with three components in this Plan. It is noted that should this project proceed, the Foundation has numerous volunteers to assist with its development. Component One provides for a connector road from Continental Dr. at the intersection with Grand Ave parallel to a railbed to the point that the railway crosses under I-15. At this point, it is proposed to converge the road onto the railway and utilize the existing overpass structure to cross to the east of I-15 where it will intersect with Saddle Rock Rd. and State St. Component Two is to reconstruct State St. at its intersection with Saddle Rock Rd. to its terminus at a proposed parking lot for a proposed Tram at the base of Our Lady of the Rockies. Component Three is to develop a new interstate exit on I-15 north of the existing scenic overlook that will service Uptown Butte. Relationship to Goals and Objectives This project addresses the following goals/objectives set forth in Chapter 2 of this Plan: • Assists economic and community development. • Employ good design in planning transportation infrastructure. - Provides a transportation strategy that reflects the community’s culture and history. • Promote transportation safety. - Provides a transportation route that enable quick response by emergency services providers. Project Elements The three components of this project are illustrated in Figure 6.19. Component One: This component proposes a new two-lane road that connects to Continental Dr. at the intersection with Grand Ave. is proposed. A railroad crossing exists at this location. This line is currently inactive. The two-lane road parallels the railway and lies to the north of the tracks. The road will need to converge with the railway near the Potter’s Field in order to fit between existing piers supporting the I-15 overpass. Retaining walls may be required at the corner of the Potter’s Field and at the overpass structure. Both landscape and streetscape components should be considered with this component. It is the intent of the road location to minimize disturbance to the rail bed, thus minimizing potential environmental concerns. The Foundation proposes to build the new road at an elevation lower than the railroad, in locations where the road is offset from the railroad, in order to mitigate potential noise to the surrounding area. This road will terminate north of the overpass and intersect with Saddle Rock Rd. and State St. There is an existing drainage located at the beginning of the north third of this road. Parallel ditches directing storm water to this drainage is anticipated. A culvert will be required at this crossing. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6-38 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S Component Two: This component proposes to reconstruct State St. from its intersection with Component One and Saddle Rock Rd. This two-lane road will follow the existing road to its terminus at the parking lots for the proposed Tram and the proposed reconstructed carousel. Both landscape and streetscape components should be considered with this component as well. Component Three: This component consists of providing a new interstate exit north of the existing overpass. Two on-ramps and two off-ramps are proposed to provide full access to Butte. Cost prohibitive grade changes can be mitigated by utilizing this area to the north of the overpass. Component One, the proposed road from Grand to Saddle Rock is a requirement for this component. Landscaping components should be considered. Challenges There are numerous challenges to the successful implementation to this project. The roadway would be required to enter onto the railroad property in order to utilize the overpass structure. An easement may be granted to the developers in order to build the roadway. It is unlikely that ownership transferal of this inactive line will occur. FHWA may not proceed with an interstate exit that connects to a public road with an easement instead of ownership, since the easement may revert back to the railway, should the line become active again. Should the railroad activate it’s line again, the ramps east of the interstate lose their practicality, as a full-service exit ceases to exist. There are inherent environment concerns associated with building in the railroad Right-of-Way. This project attempts to mitigate this concern by avoidance of the existing soil around the rail bed. Design requirements, especially a drainage ditch located between the road and railway may have to disturb the existing soil. Mitigation measures should be considered with this project. There is an existing burial site known as Potter’s Field Cemetery, which lies near the existing railroad be. The tram road is required to circumvent this site in order to prevent disturbance. It is recommended that the Montana Department of Transportation’s environmental procedures be implemented during design. A court decision on State St., whether it is a county road or not, is currently pending. Should the court decide that this is not a public road, this project, as described, is no longer valid. Opportunities There are many opportunities associated with this project as well as the challenges. Benefits from the construction of the connector road from Grand Ave. to Saddle Rock Rd. are as follows: o Reduced emergency response time to residents along the East Ridge. o Reduced travel time for residents of the East Ridge to Uptown Butte. o Reduced emissions. o Reduction in fuel. o Reduce traffic on Burlington Rd. that currently serves as the primary access to the East Ridge development. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6-39 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S o Reduce traffic on Continental Dr. Hillcrest Elementary School may benefit from reduced potential pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. Benefits from the reconstruction State St. is as follows: o Allows for the development of the Carousel and the Tram, as described above. o Cultural and Historic benefits. o Provides greater access to forest lands. Benefits from the construction of the proposed interstate exit follows: o Provides a more direct access to Uptown Butte from I-15/Helena. o Reduced emissions. o Reduction in fuel. o Helps to relieve congestion at the Harrison Ave/I-90 intersection. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-40 Figure 6.19 Our Lady of the Rockies Tram Road ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6-41 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S COR8 – Improvements to Beef Trail Rd., Little Basin Creek Rd. and Oro Fino Gulch Rd. This Plan recommends that these roads be reviewed for asphaltic concrete paving due the population shift and the increased traffic volumes. The South Dakota Gravel Roads Manual recommends that an average daily traffic volume of 400 to 500 is reasonable to justify the paving operations based on a benefit analysis. Improvements could be made following the development of a staged construction plan. Under Phase One of this Plan, roadways could be brought to an acceptable geometric configuration (i.e. widths, curvature, etc.). This phase includes the finish design, sub-base preparation, installation of crushed aggregate course material, and appropriate ditches. It is recommended to mix the aggregate with recycled asphalt developed from mill and overlay operations in Butte. During Phase Two, paving operations should occur over the next few years. Landscaping components should be implemented during construction. Proper maintenance is critical during this interim period. Existing Average Daily Counts Beef Trail Rd.– 950 vpd (includes Little Basin Creek Rd.) 450 vpd (does not include Little Basin Creek Rd.) Little Basin Creek Rd. 500 vpd Oro Fino Gulch Rd. 200 vpd All three roads should be brought to the standards of a rural collector road identified in Butte- Silver Bow’s 2002 Subdivision Regulations. AASHTO’S “Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads (ADT ≤ 400), 2001,” may be used where there is a defined reduction in vehicle travel. (i.e. on the of other side of a subdivision). Refer to Project: Connector – Terra Verde to Little Basin Creek Rd., for additional project collaboration. This project could be funded by a Transportation Improvements District, and potential CMAQ funds. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6-42 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6.1.3 Proposed Site Improvement Projects S1 – Intersection Improvements – Beef Trail & Little Basin Creek Rd. This intersection received more public comment than any other project within the Transportation Plan Update due to the intersection’s skewed angle. Three options are presented in this plan to improve the intersection with the intent on improving safety. • Option 1 – This option leaves the geometric configuration of the intersection alone. This option would relocate the existing yield sign on Beef Trail Rd. to Little Basin Creek Rd. and place a mailbox turnout to the east of the intersection. This is the minimum recommendation. This option could also serve as stage one for a larger improvement. (See Figure 6.20 Option 1 Little Basin Creek & Beef Trail Intersection) • Option 2 – This option calls for a full reconstruct of this intersection by realigning Little Basin Creek Rd so that it is perpendicular to Beef Trail Road. The private approach to the north would be realigned to match the proposed location of Little Basin Creek Road. A new mailbox turnout, a new culvert and new breakaway signs are included with this option. Reclamation of the abandoned road would be required and landscaping should be considered. Four way stop control may be an option depending on an actual intersection count. This option is the most expensive. (See Figure 6.21 Option 2 Little Basin Creek & Beef Trail Intersection) • Option 3 – This option is a compromise of Options 1 and 2. This option calls for a minimal realignment of Little Basin Creek Road and a new mailbox turnout to the east. Landscaping will be needed in conjunction with the realignment. (See Figure 6.22 Option 2 Little Basin Creek & Beef Trail Intersection) ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6-43 T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S Figure 6.20 OPTION 1 LITTLE BASIN CREEK & BEEF TRAIL INTERSECTION ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6-44 T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S Figure 6.21 OPTION 2 LITTLE BASIN CREEK & BEEF TRAIL INTERSECTION ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6-45 T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S Figure 6.22 OPTION 3 LITTLE BASIN CREEK & BEEF TRAIL INTERSECTION ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6-46 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S S2 – Improvements to Harrison Ave. at I-90/15 Eastbound Off-Ramp Harrison Ave. southbound, north of Dewey Blvd., does not provide sufficient gap to allow traffic from the I-90/15 eastbound off-ramp to merge onto Harrison Ave. Adding an actuated signal south of the off-ramp to stop southbound traffic north of the ramp would provide a gap for off- ramp traffic to merge. The new signal should be actuated by traffic on the off-ramp and should be coordinated with all other signals in the area. (See Figure 6.23 Harrison Ave. at I-90 Eastbound Off-Ramp) S3 – Texas Ave. Realignment Texas Ave. should be realigned at the intersection with Farrell St. (a.k.a. Continental Dr.). This realignment is needed to correct the limited sight distance to the north caused by the railroad bridge and the curve on Continental Dr. The realignment would consist of relocating Texas Ave. approximately 15 feet to the south. Landscaping should be included in the realignment. This intersection should be reviewed for signal warrants. (See Figure 6.24 Texas Ave. Realignment) S4 – Busch Ave. Improvements Busch Ave. is located west of Harrison Ave. and south of Dewey Blvd. Traffic currently traveling on Busch Ave. is confronted with stop signs at every intersection from Dewey Blvd. to Roosevelt Ave. Roosevelt Ave. is opposite the entrance to the mall at Harrison Ave. This project converts Busch Ave. to a through street. The intent is to relieve traffic on Harrison Ave by providing an alternate route. The stop signs in their existing configuration are not maintained for sight as trees, etc. have encroached into the line of vision. The reconfiguration may also help to prevent accidents. Refer to the discussion on Accident Analysis. (See Figure 6.25 Busch Ave. Improvements) S5 – Arizona St. Improvements at Curtis St. The northbound lanes of Arizona St. (P-29) narrow to a minimum of approximately nine feet at the intersection of Curtis St. This narrowing has been the cause of past accidents. Widening these lanes may increase the safety of this intersection. According to MDT’s Geometric Design Standards for Urban and Developed Areas, the minimum lane widths on a principal route are twelve feet (exterior lanes) and eleven feet (interior lanes). The power pole located in the northeast corner of the intersection should be relocated or removed to accommodate these improvements. This project could coincide with potential improvements in the Arizona St. corridor. (See Figure 6.26 Arizona St. Improvements at Curtis St.) ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-47 Figure 6.23 Harrison Avenue at I-90 Eastbound Off-Ramp ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-48 Figure 6.24 Texas Avenue Realignment ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-49 Figure 6.25 Busch Avenue Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6-50 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S Figure 6.26 Arizona Street Improvements at Curtis Street ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-51 S6 – Intersection Improvements – South Butte There are three intersections located in South Butte that were brought up during the public comment period and are included herein for realignment. (See Figure 6.27 Intersection Improvements – South Butte) • The intersection of Harrison Ave. (P-29 & S-393) and Highway 2 (P-29) • The intersection of Harrison Ave. with Beacon Rd. & Little Basin Creek Rd. (S-393) • The intersection of Janney Rd. with Highway 2 (P-29) Appropriate landscaping and/ or streetscaping should be implemented with this project. S7 – Intersection Improvements – Massachusetts, Florence, Ottawa This intersection is currently has five approach legs and is located one block to the east of the Harrison Avenue & Ottawa Street intersection. The Harrison Ave. intersection is recommended in this plan for review as a signalized intersection. The additional volumes that the signal may generate would further deteriorate this project’s intersection. This intersection would benefit from better traffic management in either case. Two alternatives are presented below illustrating the concepts involved with better traffic management. (See Figure 6.28 Intersection Improvements – Massachusetts, Florence, Ottawa) • Alternative 1 – This alternative is based on the 1996 Plan recommendations. A raised concrete island is planned to split the northbound traffic from Massachusetts to Florence. Massachusetts north of the intersection would become one way from this intersection to B Street. The figure illustrates two one-way lanes on this block. Design might require the western most lane to be abandoned and leave only a one-way northbound lane. Ottawa and Florence would remain unchanged. This alternate should include a landscape and streetscape component. • Alternative 2 – A roundabout is presented to handle the existing and proposed traffic loading at this intersection. The location of the roundabout is based on FHWA guidelines. This alternative shows a single lane movement around the circle for passenger vehicles and single unit trucks. A raised middle portion illustrated as a brick stamped pattern would include a mountable curb that could handle larger vehicles. The center of the roundabout should include a landscaping element. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-52 Figure 6.27 Intersection Improvements – South Butte ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6-53 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S Figure 6.28 Intersection Improvements – Massachusetts, Florence, Ottawa ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-54 S8 – Walkerville Dr. & 16th Ave. – Eastside Guardrail Construction The east side of Walkerville Dr.was reviewed for installation of guardrail as it intersects with 16th St. Southbound traffic on Walkerville Dr. rounding the bend to the west, there is a relatively sharp/steep drop off beyond the east shoulder. It is recommended that approximately 200 ft of guardrail be added on the east shoulder to increase the safety of Walkerville Dr. at this location. S9 – Montana St. & Idaho St. – Guardrail Construction The addition of guardrail on Montana St. as it intersects with Idaho St. was reviewed for feasibility of preventing vehicles from sliding off of the road. Southbound traffic on Montana St. rounding the bend to the east, there is a relatively sharp/steep drop off beyond the west shoulder. It is recommended that approximately 200 ft of guardrail be added on the west shoulder to increase the safety of Montana St. at this location. S10 – Main & Buffalo Intersection Improvements It is recommended that this intersection be improved for safety reasons by removing or relocating power/telephone poles and the installation of guardrails. In addition, a runaway vehicle ramp that begins at this location should be reviewed for use as a safety improvement. Due to the limited distance available for the length of the runaway ramp, end treatments may be required. A Dragnet could be utilized at this location and should be explored during design. A landscape component should be included. S11 – Upgrade Truck Route Corner Radii Study This Plan recommends that a study be conducted to review the radii at all intersections along the designated truck routes. This study should review the existing dimensions versus the current design requirements and make recommendations for upgrades, as appropriate. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-55 S12 – Reduction of Site Distance Problems due to obstacles This plan recommends that objects located within the intersection site distance triangles be evaluated for removal and appropriate action taken place. This may require pruning of trees, Right-of-Way acquisition for relocation of fences, etc. S13 – Wyoming Ave. / Arizona St. Connector The addition of a connector road between Wyoming Ave. to Arizona St., south of the Cuttin’ Edge Barber shop may help to reduce congestion at the Wyoming Ave. entrance of Butte High School at the beginning and end of the school day. This route may also serve as a parental drop- off loop. Landscaping and streetscaping components should be considered. (See Figure 6.29 Wyoming Ave./Arizona St. Connector) S14 – Center turn lane on Montana St. from Front St. to Second St. This has been reviewed for use for application by MDT and was deemed to not be practical due to the location of the single resident located on this road segment. Negotiations with the landowner should occur to remove the existing on street parking that is currently required. Removal of on street parking should allow for the creation of a center turn lane and thereby help to reduce accidents on this road segment. S15 – Slope Improvement on Sunset Rd. over Sand Creek by the Montessori School Currently, this location has a significant drop off from the edge of the road to Sand Creek. Slope improvements should be made at this location by extending the large diameter culvert pipes and by flattening the slopes to 4:1. Flared end terminal sections should be fitted to the ends of the corrugated steel pipes. Landscaping components should be considered. S16 – Shoe String Annie – Sight Distance Sight distance concerns should be reviewed for improvements along Shoe String Annie. This road has a severe crest vertical curve that creates limited sight distance as vehicles drive over this crest from either direction. Reducing the curvature by importing fill dirt would improve the sight distance. This road may be a logical connector road from Harrison Ave. by Highway 2 to Continental Dr. S17 – Rocker Eastbound Weigh Station It has been observed that the weigh station for eastbound traffic by Rocker has backed up traffic up the ramp and close to the interstate. This Plan recommends that an additional lane be reviewed for use or that the weigh station be relocated just west of its present location to near the top of the local hill. A landscape component should be included in this project. It is anticipated that a relocation of the weigh station will reduce driver confusion at this location. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-56 Figure 6.29 Wyoming Ave./ Arizona Street Connector ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-57 6.1.4 Signal Warrant Studies SIG1 – Amherst Ave. and Farragut Ave. – Signal Improvement The intersection of Amherst Ave. and Farragut Ave. is a source of public comment indicating that the actuated signal on Farragut Ave. northbound is not functioning consistently. When the loop detectors are functioning correctly, the intersection functions at a LOS A. However, when the loop detectors are malfunctioning, the northbound leg of the intersection functions at an unknown level of service, presumably lower than LOS C. Public comment indicates that vehicles traveling north on Farragut Ave. never receive a green light, and are forced to either make a right turn or run the light. Comments also indicate that vehicles avoid the intersection of Amherst Ave. and Farragut Ave. Vehicles avoiding the signal are diverted onto either Dalgren Ave. or Howard Ave., significantly increasing the traffic on these streets. This plan recommends that the loop detectors on Farragut Ave., specifically in the northbound lane, be either reviewed for mechanical error and corrected, upgraded or replaced with video actuation. Signal Other Signal Locations It is recommended that the following locations be considered for a location of a new signal: • RCM3 – Harrison Ave. and C St. (Ottawa Ave.) o To fill a void in the existing signal system on Harrison Ave. o To provide a platooning effect and thus creating acceptable gaps for incoming traffic. This gap supplemented with a two way left turn lane may assist businesses from C St. to Cobban St. by allowing greater ingress/ egress movements. o See Warrants 1, 3, 6 & 8 below. • SIG1 – Montana St. and George St. o This signal would create a platooning effect and could benefit the Montana St./ I- 90 ramp traffic, if coordinated with the signal at Montana St. and Rowe Rd. o This signal would also assist businesses in this area by allowing time for ingress/ egress movements. o A signal at this location would benefit tourists with recreational vehicles that travel from the interstate to KOA located at George St. and Kaw Ave. o This signal may reduce congestion at the signalized intersection of Front St. and Kaw/Main St. (i.e. traffic north on Kaw Ave., left on George St., right on Montana northbound. As opposed to north on Kaw Ave., left on Front St., right on Montana St. northbound.) o See Warrants 1, 3, 6 & 8 below. • SIG2 – Rowe Rd. and Dewey Blvd. o This intersection is recommended for a Signal Warrant Study once development of the Beef Trail/ Little Basin Creek area occurs. o It is anticipated that this intersection will see a significant inflow of traffic from these residential developments as well as impacts from the Copper Peaks commercial subdivision located on Hanson Rd. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-58 Due to a decrease in traffic volumes, the following signals should be evaluated to determine if signal warrants are no longer being satisfied: • SIG3 – Main St. and Broadway St. • SIG4 – Wyoming St. and Broadway St. • SIG5 – Wyoming St. and Granite St. The MUTCD Millennium Edition states the following disadvantages to traffic control signals: A. Excessive Delay; B. Excessive disobedience of the signal indications; C. Increased use of less adequate routes as road users attempt to avoid the traffic control signals; D. Significant increases in the frequency of collisions (especially re-end collisions). Signal Warrants New signals or the removal of existing signals are required to be reviewed to determine if the appropriate warrants are met or are no longer met. These warrants are provided by the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and are listed below for reference. A traffic control signal shall not be installed or removed unless one or more of these warrants are satisfied, or all of these warrants are no longer satisfied. “The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.” (MUTCD). Warrant 1 – Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume The Minimum Vehicular Volume, Condition A, is intended for application where a large volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. The Interruption of Continuous Traffic, Condition B, is intended for application where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street. Warrant 2 – Four-Hour Vehicular Volume The Four-Hour Vehicular Volume signal warrant conditions are intended to be applied where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. Warrant 3 – Peak Hour The Peak Hour signal warrant is intended for use at a location where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of one hour of an average day, the minor-street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street. Warrant 4 – Pedestrian Volume The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant is intended for application where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street. Warrant 5 – School Crossing The School Crossing signal warrant is intended for application where the fact that school children cross the major street is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-59 Warrant 6 – Coordinated Signal System Progressive movement in a coordinated signal system sometimes necessitates installing traffic control signals at intersections where they would not otherwise be needed in order to maintain proper platooning of vehicles. Warrant 7 – Crash Experience The Crash Experience signal warrant conditions are intended for application where the severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reasons to consider installing a traffic control signal. Warrant 8 – Roadway Network Installing a traffic control signal at some intersections might be justified to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-60 6.1.5 Speed Studies The following locations were identified in the Speed Study section of Chapter 4 as being in need of correction or enforcement: • SPD1 - Oregon Ave. South of B St. o Bulb out corners of Oregon Ave. & B St. and Oregon Ave. & A St. to serve as traffic calming devices. • S11 - Montana St. north of Front Street o Install Two-Way Left-Turn Lane • SPD2 - Motorview Ave. west of Harrison Ave. o Install traffic calming devices, or o Additional Enforcement. • SPD3 - Hanson Rd. south of Wathena o Increase posted speed limit to 35 mph. • SPD4 - Utah Ave. north of Aluminum Street o Additional Enforcement • SPD5 - Floral St. (a.k.a. Farragut Ave.) between Bayard St. & State St. o Install traffic calming devices • SPD6 - Grand Ave. east & west of Georgia Ave. o Increase posted speed limit to 30 mph. • SPD7 - Dewey Blvd. between Utah Ave. & Nevada Ave. o Increase posted speed limit to 30 mph. • SPD8 - Utah St. west of Margaret A. Leary Elementary School o Additional Enforcement. Due to public comments, not verified by this plan, it is recommended that corridor speed studies be conducted at the locations below in order to identify and, if applicable, correct deficient posted speeds or recommend an alternate solution. • SPD9 - Continental Drive/Farrell St./Shields Ave. from MT Highway 2 to it’s connection with Park St. • SPD10 - Holmes Avenue from Harrison Ave. to Rowe Rd. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-61 6.1.6 Accident Studies The following locations were identified in the Accident Analysis section of Chapter 4. It is recommended that additional studies be conducted to determine the causes of the accidents and the appropriate solution. It is recommended that accident locations that coincide with committed projects be reviewed with the committed project, if not done so already. It is recommended that accident locations that coincide with proposed projects be reviewed during project implementation. Locations that are not associated with either a committed project or a proposed project should have an independent accident study to recommend an appropriate solution. All locations identified in Figure 4.8 Accident Locations: • RCM5 – Front St. at Main St./Kaw Ave. o Refer to Proposed Project: Intersection Improvements –Front St. & Main St. / Kaw Ave. • SIG1 – Harrison Ave. at George St. o Refer to Committed Project: 1999 Signal Upgrade. • S1 – Harrison Ave. at Dewey Blvd. o Refer to Proposed Project: Improvements to Harrison Ave. at I-90/I-15 Eastbound Off-Ramp. • S3 – Busch Ave. at Roosevelt Ave. o Refer to Proposed Project: Busch Ave. Improvements. • CM8 – Harrison Ave. at Holmes Ave/ White Blvd. o Refer to Committed Project: 1999 Signal Upgrade. (realignment of White Blvd.) Top five locations from Table 4-11 Intersections with 10 or more Accidents: (unless mentioned above): • CM11 – Harrison Ave. at Elizabeth Warren Ave. o Refer to Committed Project: Elizabeth Warren Intersection Improvement (at Harrison Ave.). • RCM1 – Harrison Ave. at Amherst Ave. o Refer to Committed Project: Harrison Ave. – Amherst Ave./Front St • A1 – Harrison Ave. at Roosevelt Top five locations from Table 4-12 Intersections with Greater than 1.0 Accidents per Million Entering Vehicles (unless mentioned above): • A2 – Excelsior Ave. at Centennial Ave. • A3 – Washington St. at St. • A4 – Continental Dr. at Mount Highland Dr. • S3 – Busch Ave. at Sampson Ave. o Refer to Proposed Project: Busch Ave. Improvements. Top five locations from Table 4-13 Intersections with Severity Rating 2.0 or Greater (unless mentioned above): • A5 – Park St. at Continental Dr. • S2 – Texas Ave. at Continental Dr. o Refer to Proposed Project: Texas Ave. Realignment • S4 – Arizona St. at Curtis St. o Refer to Proposed Project: Arizona St. Improvements at Curtis St. • A6 – Harrison Ave. at 4 Mile Vue Rd. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-62 6.2 Transit Systems T1 – New or Relocated Transit Stop on Hanson A new or relocated transit stop is recommended at the intersection of (future) Discovery Dr. and Hanson Rd. This new location occurs at the new YMCA and the continuation of the trail system. This trail system is planned to eventually link Copper Mountain Sports Complex and Stodden Park. There is an existing stop at the intersection of Beef Trail and Montana St. where Hanson Rd. begins. The existing stop is located on the “Montana St./Oregon Ave.-Butte Plaza” Route. This transit stop may be beneficial when Dewey Blvd. is extended to Montana St. The new location at the YMCA should serve as a primary stop due to the connection of the trail system to the transit system. T2 – Transit Stops at Berkeley Pit and Chamber of Commerce Project Overview The Butte-Chamber of Commerce has suggested that two new transit stops be added to the Butte-Silver Bow Transit system, one at the Berkeley Pit Interpretive Center and one at the Chamber visitor center on George St. The stops would provide direct access for community members as well as visitors to these sites via public transportation. The Chamber site would also provide additional shelter and the opportunity to view Chamber exhibits while waiting for The Bus. The Berkeley pit site will help to physically tie this important cultural resource to the Uptown and the Mercury St. corridor in particular. Relationship to Goals and Objectives This project addresses the following goals/objectives set forth in Chapter 2 of this Plan: • Economic and Community Development - Identify transportation strategies that are reflective of community goals concerning economic and community development. • Employ Good Design in Planning Transportation Infrastructure - Identify transportation strategies that are reflective of the community’s culture and sense of place. (residential and business neighborhood cohesiveness, historic districts, historic design elements, etc.) • Support the Efforts of the Butte-Silver Bow Transit Authority to provide Public Transportation - Utilize the Public Participation process to assist the Butte-Silver Bow Transit Authority in achieving its goals and objectives regarding its services and ridership. - Make recommendations to the Transit Authority to improve efficiency and route selection based on the Transportation Study. Project Elements The elements of this project include the construction of a new transit stop at the Berkeley Pit Interpretive Center and the relocation of a current bus stop from George St. to the Chamber Visitor Center. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-63 Project “Ownership” The bus stop facilities would be owned by the Butte-Silver Bow Transit Authority. Funding Strategies The Community Transportation Enhancement Program or CTEP would be a likely source of funds. Urban transit dollars may also be available for this project. Partnership and Potential Strategies A partnership between the Chamber of Commerce and Butte-Silver Bow would serve this project well. Opportunities The placement of bus stops at the Berkeley Pit Interpretive Center and the Chamber Visitor Center would provide an easy way for visitors and community members to access these two critical interpretive sites. This project would provide an excellent way to tie a variety of transportation systems together including The Bus, Old Number the Belmont Senior Center bus and private vehicles. The stops could be designed in a manner that contributes to the overall aesthetics of the areas in which they are located to emphasize their linkages to current transportation systems as well as to the history of transportation in the community. The location of the bus stop at the Berkeley Interpretive Center can further enhance efforts to define the Belmont Center as a primary into Uptown Butte. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-64 6.3 Non-Motorized Systems NM1 – Connect Butte High School to East Middle School This proposed project would add to the existing trail system on Mercury St. and Continental Dr.. The project would begin on Wyoming St. at Butte High School and travel north. The trail would then turn east along Mercury St. where it would connect to the existing trail. The existing trail runs along Mercury St. next to the newly developed Butte Central Gymnasium until it reaches Shields Ave. (a.k.a. Continental Dr.). The existing trail continues south on Continental Dr. past McGruff Park. Note that this area has been discussed as a possible location for a skateboard/inline skate park. A proposed trail would depart from the existing trail on Continental Dr. and travel south towards East Middle School along either Stuart, Hayes, or Garfield Aves. A connection point could be developed at Greeley Elementary School. See discussion about Mercury St. Improvements. NM2 – Trail System Lighting, Upgrade, and Installation Butte-Silver Bow has developed and is currently developing a trail system that winds its way throughout the Butte community. The existing trail network receives pedestrian and bicycle users predominantly during daylight hours. The trail system is utilized by many even during the winter months when daylight hours are limited. This Plan recommends that a lighting system be reviewed for use on the existing system and planned for in proposed projects. This lighting system should consist of poles and globes that are designed to withstand vandalism while still maintaining an aesthetic quality applicable for use on a trail. Reflective globes could be utilized to prevent “up-lighting” and side scatter of light. AFFCO poles (1915 mold) from Anaconda utilizing halogen bulbs in a polyolefin plastic globe have been used successfully in Missoula. Missoula’s configuration produces a 70-ft radius illumination footprint and are installed at 100-ft intervals. Total installation costs have been estimated at $3000 to $3500 per pole. NM3 – Sidewalk Improvements Program As previously described in Section 4.3 Non-Motorized Transportation, it is currently the private owner’s responsibility for installation, maintenance and repair of sidewalks that front their property. The Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access manual, published by the U.S. Department of Transportation, states that several municipalities take responsibility for the maintenance of sidewalks located within the public Right-of-Way. It also states that it is also common to have the landowners assume this responsibility. This Plan recommends that Butte- Silver Bow continue to seek grants and/or cost sharing incentives for the installation and maintenance of sidewalks. This Plan further recommends that Butte-Silver Bow employ a summer intern to develop a complete sidewalk inventory including ADA compliance. Sidewalk construction and reconstruction efforts are required to meet the design standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act with special consideration given to slope, width, truncated domes, orientation and color variants. Butte-Silver Bow should consider quality control issues during the implementation of the program. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-65 6.4 Railroad Systems RR1 – Railroad Crossing Consolidation Study Currently there are 6 railroad crossings on the one mile length of track that parallels Rowe Rd. This Plan recommends that a Crossing Consolidation Study be performed at the following locations: • Montana St. north of Greenwood Ave. • Greenwood Ave. • Chula Ave. • Clinton Ave. • Dewey Blvd. • Holmes Ave. • The proposed Hanson Loop Connector FHWA’s Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings, A Guide to Crossing Consolidation and Closure, July 1994 states the following arguments for crossing closure: • Crossing is unnecessary • More than four crossings per mile • Low highway traffic counts • Safety will be improved • Crossing has undesirable characteristics such as sight restriction, steep approach or multiple tracks • Efficient use of public crossing safety funds • Railroad or state will pay the closing cost • Savings in crossing maintenance costs • Closure is a community improvement • Reduction in train whistle noise. RR2 – Railroad Crossing Improvements This Plan recommends that the Main St., Arizona St., Utah St, and Kaw Ave. railroad crossings be improved to lessen the vertical grade change at these intersections. This improvement should incorporate pedestrian crossing locations on both the east and the west side of the roads. A new railroad crossing surface should also be incorporated at this time. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-66 6.5 Other Transportation Systems Airport (Reader is referred to the Airport Master Plan) O1 – Public Parking Lot Landscaping Butte-Silver Bow zoning ordinances require a tree per five parking spaces for a parking lot. In addition it is required that for every parking space, twenty-five square feet of landscaping be provided in or around the parking lot. This plan recommends that any improvements to existing parking lots owned by Butte-Silver Bow or MDT or future parking lot construction follow these requirements. O2 – Parking Restrictions in Uptown Butte for Delivery Vehicles Loading/unloading zones are designated for freight and passengers by the parking commission in the Central Business District. Other locations include in front of the entrances to businesses or halls that serve as a place for public assemblies. Signs are used to designate loading zones and the nature of the freight to be delivered. Due to the limited sight distance available in the Central Business District this plan recommends that a review of delivery times be made to coordinate deliveries during off-peak traffic times. This improvement would limit conflicts during peak traffic times. O3 – Parking Restrictions – Distance from Corners This plan recommends that Butte-Silver Bow follow the statutes set forth in the regulations below. These distances are minimum requirements and may need to be increased based on engineering investigations. The following requirements are based on a design speed of twenty- five miles per hour and perpendicular intersections. Butte-Silver Bow Municipal Code 10.52.010 specifies that all on street parking be prohibited within the following: • an intersection, • five feet from a driveway, • fifteen feet of a fire hydrant, • thirty feet upon the approach, and • twenty feet upon the departure of any crosswalk at an intersection. MDT Traffic Engineering Manual, Part III – Signs/Pavement Markings specifies that all on street parking be prohibited within the following: • ten feet from the radius return on a private approach, • twenty feet from the crosswalk on an unsignalized intersection, and • thirty feet from the stop bar at a signalized intersection. O4 – Historic Signing Plan This plan recommends that Butte-Silver Bow implement a new Historic Signing Plan that clearly directs tourists to Uptown Butte and other historically significant sites in town. Public comments indicate that the existing signage to Uptown Butte is confusing and inadequate. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 6 . 0 R E C O M M E N D E D I M P R O V E M E N T S 6-67 6.6 Prospective Projects The following projects are based on public comments concerning traffic measures at specific locations or additional areas of interest for future planning. Prospective Miscellaneous Projects: The prospective miscellaneous projects are those projects that do not fit into a specific category, were not developed within the plan based on late submission of the concept, or require additional events to facilitate their implementation. They are presented below for future planning purposes. • Consider relocating the entrance to the Rocky Mountain Clinic. • Review lighting on Continental Drive, including but not limited to: o Between East Lake Street & Mt. Highland Dr. o North of Grand Ave. • Review the rail bed on the East Ridge for the Rails to Trails program. • Review Main Street and Arizona Avenue for potential conversion to three lanes within the Central Business District. • Develop a pedestrian/ bike trail that would connect the Berkeley Pit Viewing Stand, the Skateboard Park, McGruff Park and the bus transfer station. • Connect Father Sheehan Park to the Mall with a pedestrian/ bike trail via a large box culvert under the interstate. • Conduct a feasibility study to review existing & potential corridors for new commercial development. Possible corridors that may be included in this study are as follows: o Kaw & Lexington Avenue o Continental Drive o A corridor connecting Montana Street to Harrison Avenue generally along the Metro Storm Drain utilizing George Street where practical. Prospective Minor Projects: The prospective minor projects are anticipated to have a relatively low cost. These projects would typically be done out of the maintenance budget of the appropriate governing agency. • Replace the yield sign with a stop sign at the exit to Copper Mountain Sports Park • Remove the raised island at the exit to Copper Mountain Sports Park. • Review the intersection of George & Florence for use as a four way stop. • Review Janney Road for stop sign locations. • Review the intersection of Granite and Excelsior for use as a four way stop. • Consider posting bus schedules at bus stop locations. • Review southbound Farragut Ave. for a right turn lane onto Amherst Ave. at the signalized intersection. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 7-1 7.0 FUNDING SOURCES 7.1 Introduction The Butte-Silver Bow transportation system including construction, maintenance and public transit is managed by the Public Works Department. The two primary sources of revenue for the road system budget ($2.3 million in 2004-2005), are the gas tax apportionment and real property tax. In addition, Butte-Silver Bow manages four maintenance improvement districts that generate approximately $300,000 per year in assessments and one construction district for the Blacktail Loop subdivision that generates $44,500 per year. The transit system budget (approximately $820,000 in 2004-2005) is funded through a combination of property taxes and federal transit grants. (Source: Butte-Silver Bow Budget Office) Financing strategies for addressing transportation needs identified in this Plan will likely include combining various funding sources. For example, a local special improvement district might be used in combination with a Montana Board of Investment Intercap loan to match federal or state dollars. Specific funding strategies are discussed for each of the projects identified in the Plan. The following is a summary of programs available to fund transportation infrastructure. The following information was originally prepared for the Montana Department of Commerce, Treasure State Endowment Program by Community Development Services of Montana in 1996. The information has been updated to the extent possible. There may be additional sources of funding available to fund transportation needs for Butte-Silver Bow under the new Federal Transportation Bill. In addition, the 2005 Montana Legislature has made some changes to transportation funding mechanisms, authorities and financing limits, which are awaiting codification. Funding Programs This chapter provides information on a variety of local and outside funding sources that are available to Butte-Silver Bow for the funding of transportation needs. It includes those publicly supported programs that have expressly included transportation infrastructure as eligible for funding. In certain cases, other programs, that are not listed here, may provide funding for transportation infrastructure as part of other eligible activities. For example, bridges and roads may benefit from programs that provide project funding for reclamation, wildlife management, historic preservation, or recreation. Private foundation sources have not been included. In many cases, private foundations do not award grants to government entities. However, there may be instances where private foundation funds can be incorporated into a financing scheme, particularly for special improvements such as lighting, recreational and interpretive improvements related to transportation corridors. For example, in Butte-Silver Bow projects that reflect the historic significance of the community may be eligible for private foundation funding. However, in general, funding for transportation infrastructure will come from public sources at the local, state and federal levels. A chart summarizing the various funding sources can be found at the end of this chapter. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 7-2 7.2 Local Financing Tools This section describes funds and funding sources that are available to cities and counties at the local level to finance transportation infrastructure under Montana statute. Funding methods, such as local option taxes, improvement districts, tax increment financing and other types of bonds, enable local citizens to participate in transportation funding. In general, however, the ability to use additional property tax levies to fund transportation infrastructure is governed by Montana Statute under 15-10-402 MCA that limits taxes to1996 levels. A. Bridge and Road Mills (Property Taxes) Montana law provides for cities (7-14-4101, MCA) and counties (7-14-2201) to manage transportation infrastructure. Counties are specifically responsible for all the bridges in a county, including those within cities and towns, except those managed by the Montana Department of Transportation. City and county budget revenues are based on the "mill" which is equal to one/one thousandth of the county taxable valuation. The city or county sets the number of mills to be levied based on its needs but the levy is subject to overall taxation limitations set by Montana State statute. Each property owner pays taxes in an amount equal to his or her share of the taxable valuation of the property multiplied by the number of mills levied. County road mills are based on the county's taxable value exclusive of incorporated areas while bridge mills are based on county taxable value inclusive of all incorporated and unincorporated areas. Under 7-14-2501, MCA, a board of county commissioners is authorized to raise revenue for the construction, maintenance, or improvement of public highways. The number of mills levied is subject to the provisions set forth in 15-10-420, MCA. Under 7-14-2502 MCA, a special tax may be levied on all taxable property in the county for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, and repairing free public bridges, which includes those bridges within the municipalities. Municipalities may establish a city road fund under 7-14-4113 MCA. B. Creation of county motor vehicle fund Under 7-14-2511 MCA, all license and registration fees for which there is no specific provision as to disposition are credited to the county motor vehicle fund. Further, under 7-14-2512, MCA, the county motor vehicle funds are divided between the city and the county road funds. The statute requires that 50% of the net license fees derived from owners residing within the city limits must be placed in the city road fund. The remaining funds are placed in the county road fund. C. Additional road and bridge construction tax – election required. Under 7-14-2504 MCA, counties may levy an additional road and bridge construction tax. However, the levy is subject to a vote of the people. A majority of the votes cast is necessary to permit the additional levy, which must be collected in the same manner as other road taxes. D. Bridge and Road Capital Improvement Fund The governing body of a county may establish a road and bridge capital improvement fund in accordance with the provisions of Title 7, chapter 6, part 616 of the Montana Code. The fund may not exceed $500,000. (7-14-2506, MCA) and must be invested according to Montana law. Amounts that exceed operation requirements may be allocated to this fund over time. This strategy provides a way in which counties can finance major bridge and road work through a ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 7-3 minimal appropriation each year. It enables counties to anticipate bridge and road needs over time with respect to the expected useful life rather than being confronted with a crisis. This technique is fiscally sound and may be more politically palatable in that taxpayers are not asked to foot the bill for road or bridge repair or reconstruction all at once through increased assessments or bond debt payments. E. Life Cycle Costing for Road Equipment In addition to depreciation funds, cities and counties can choose to participate in lease-purchase agreements with equipment companies with "buy back" options. Under lease-purchase agreements, the county "rents" road equipment. When the rent payments equal the purchase price, the county becomes the owner. During the rental period, the equipment company provides regular maintenance. When road equipment requires replacement, buy back options enable a county to sell equipment back to the equipment supplier and enter into a new lease-purchase agreement. Lease-purchase agreements can enable a county to keep equipment costs constant and down time for repairs at a minimum. This approach looks at the cost of operating equipment on a per hour basis over the life of the equipment, rather than a one-time purchase price. Teton County, for example, currently takes part in such a program for its road graders. As their equipment supplier provides maintenance on a regular schedule, county crews are able to spend more time grading county roads and less time repairing machinery. F. PILT Payments and Timber Receipts Federal public land management agencies are not subject to taxation. However, counties with federal lands are compensated for the resultant loss of tax revenue by Payment in Lieu of Tax or "PILT" funds. Counties may allocate any portion of PILT fund for roads and bridges. Counties also receive a percentage of receipts from U.S. Forest Service timber harvests of which 40 percent is allocated to schools and 60 percent to roads and bridges. The amount of PILT funds a county receives is reduced somewhat when timber harvest receipts increase, so that the total amount which a county receives in PILT and timber receipts remains fairly constant over time. G. Optional Motor Vehicle Tax Under state law, counties have the option of imposing a 0.7 percent tax on motor vehicles under 61-3-537, MCA, if it is approved by the electorate. Of the amount collected, 50 percent is allocated to the county and the remaining 50 percent is allocated to both the county and incorporated areas based on population. While district courts are given first priority for funding under this program, counties may use a portion of the funds for bridges and roads. H. Local Option Motor Fuel Excise Tax County governments may levy a motor fuel excise tax under 7-14-301, MCA. The tax, which cannot exceed 2 cents per gallon, may be levied as the result of local initiative or by a resolution passed by the board of county commissioners. Funds may be used for the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and repair of public streets and roads. I. Oil and Gas Leases (bridges and roads) Under 7-14-2505, MCA, counties may allocate 50 percent of those funds received from oil and gas leases and reserved royalty interest to the county road fund. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 7-4 J. Debt Financing Cities and Counties can make use of various kinds of debt financing to meet bridge and road needs. These include general obligation bonds, special and rural improvement district bonds and revenue bonds. Debt financing enables local governments to finance major infrastructure projects using future revenue from special assessments, user fees, and other forms of revenue. The local government incurs various administrative costs in conjunction with issuing bonds. These costs include the retention of legal counsel and financial consultants, the establishment of reserve funds and the preparation of the prospectus and various required documents. These bonds provide tax-free interest earnings to purchasers and are therefore subject to detailed scrutiny under both state and federal law. The citations in the Montana Code are listed below, for each type of bond described. 1. Special Improvement Districts Under 7-12-4101, cities and towns can create special improvement districts for the construction and maintenance of bridges and roads, culverts, gutters, lighting, sidewalks, landscaping, trails, parking facilities, the conversion of overhead utilities to underground locations in accordance with 69-4-311 through 69-4-314, and other infrastructure. The city governing body may order and create special improvement districts covering projects abutting the city limits and include properties outside the city when the special improvement district abuts and benefits that property. Property owners within the proposed district boundaries outside the city may not be included in the special improvement district if 40% of those property owners protest the creation of the special improvement district. The property outside the city must be treated in a similar manner as to improvements, notices, and assessments as the property inside the city limits. A joint resolution of the city and county must be passed agreeing to the terms of the special improvement district prior to passing the resolution of intention or the resolution creating the special improvement district. 2. Rural Improvement Districts Debt financing for transportation infrastructure located outside the incorporated limits of cities and towns is undertaken through the formation of rural improvement districts (RID). Section 7-12-2102 and Section 7-12-4102, MCA, authorizes an RID for a number of purposes including paving, curbs and gutters, culverts, and bridges. In a RID, the cost of the improvements is born by those property owners that are primarily benefiting from the improvement. Property owners pay an annual fee, which is included on their property tax statements to cover debt service for improvements and/or ongoing maintenance costs. The creation of an RID can be initiated by the board of county commissioners or by the property owners. Although not required, property owners within the proposed district will often submit a petition to the county commissioners requesting that the district be created. Before any formal action is taken, either the county surveyor and/or a professional consultant prepare cost estimates. Cost estimates should be prepared carefully and include a range of costs that might be anticipated in association with undertaking the proposed construction or maintenance. Once the project has been defined and cost estimates prepared, the commissioners pass a Resolution of Intent to create the district. The resolution informs the property owners of the size of the district, the nature of the improvements, the project engineer, cost estimates, method of assessment and duration (7-12-2103, MCA). The affected property owners are given due notice of the intent to create the district and opportunity to protest. If less than 50 percent of those property owners protest, the county may proceed with the creation of the RID. More detailed information on the creation of special districts is provided in two Montana Department of Commerce publications, entitled Rural Special Improvement District Handbook, and Special Improvement District Handbook, Second Edition, both published in May of 1986. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 7-5 3. 7-14-2901. Road Improvement Districts Under 7-14-2901 MCA, the board of county commissioners may establish road improvement districts in those areas of the county that are not within the limits of an incorporated city or town. The purpose of a road improvement district is to allow a public entity to assess owners of parcels of land directly benefited by a proposed public road or a public road within the county that is not a county road or a highway to provide for the construction, reconstruction, upgrade, repair, or maintenance of the proposed public road or a public road that does not meet the standards of 7- 14-2111 or 7-14-2112. “Benefited Property" means land within the district that receives a direct benefit from the road for which the road improvement district was created. A parcel of land is not benefited property if the parcel is within the district solely because the road passes over the property to provide access to benefited property. A parcel of land within the district used solely for agricultural purposes is not considered benefited property. 4. Local Improvement Districts for Roads Upon receipt of a proper petition, the board of county commissioners may create a local improvement district (LID) for roads, which can fund the survey, construction, opening and improvements of roads (7-14-2701, MCA). The petition must be presented by owners of 2/3 of the lineal feet of land fronting the proposed or existing road or by 2/3 of the residents of the proposed road district. The county commissioners can choose to share the costs with the property owners under 7-14-2733, MCA. This particular provision is available for roads only and is specific to county governments. 5. General Obligation Bonds Counties may issue general obligation bonds for the financing of bridge and road infrastructure. General obligation bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the county and must be approved by the voters in an election. As such, they are not subject to the taxing limitation contained in 15-10-402, MCA. General obligation bonds are generally payable from ad valorem taxes (based on the value of property) and expressed in mills. General obligation bonds are attractive to bond buyers because they have voter approval and are not as vulnerable to fluctuations in revenue. Counties are assigned a bond debt limit based on a percentage of taxable valuation. General obligation bonds must fall within this limit. Under 7-14-2520 and 7-14- 2521, MCA counties may issue bonds upon the full faith and credit of the county for the construction or improvement of county roads, state highways and bridges. It is important to note that under 7-14-2205, MCA, if the county will be undertaking the construction of a bridge in any city or town, and must incur debt of $10,000 or more to complete the project, it must do so by issuing general obligation bonds after approval by a vote of the qualified electors of the county on the question of whether the bridge is to be constructed and paid for by the county. County commissions are often reluctant to consider general obligation bonds because they fear that county residents will vote down the bond, particularly if they see only a segment of the county benefiting from the improvement. One approach to this problem might be to package a number of bridges, strategically located throughout the county, in one construction project to gain support from voters county-wide. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 7-6 6. Revenue Bonds Under 7-7-2501, MCA, a county may issue revenue bonds to finance any project or activity authorized including the construction of bridges and roads. Revenue bonds are retired through the payment of earnings including user fees incurred by a public enterprise, such as toll bridges or toll roads. Revenue bonds have no claim on the county's taxable resources, unless specified (through a special guarantee, for example). As such, they are not subject to the taxing limitation contained in 15-110-402, MCA. Industrial revenue bonds enable the financing of bridge and road infrastructure, which benefits private industrial concerns. Lease payments are made by the industry to the local government to service bond debt. Bonds may be issued in the form of general obligation bonds, revenue bonds or a combination. In reality however, the use of revenue bonds for county bridge and road projects is not very feasible, since these projects rarely provide any source of long-term revenue to cover debt service. K. Transportation Improvement Authority Established under 7-14-1001, MCA, the purpose of a transportation improvement authority is to blend the interests of local, state, and federal governments with the interests of the general public and the business community to build, modify, or improve transportation facilities and systems within its jurisdiction. The Authority may enter into contracts and accept local, state, federal and private funds to undertake transportation projects. L. Urban Transportation Districts Urban Transportation Districts are authorized under 7-14-201, MCA to supply transportation services and facilities to district residents and other persons. The local governing body (city or county) may levy mills on properties located within the transportation district and appoint a governing board to oversee the operations of the district. M. Tax Increment Financing Under the Montana Urban Renewal Law (7-15-4201, MCA), communities may establish tax increment districts for the purposes of revitalizing blighted neighborhoods, central business districts and infrastructure deficient industrial areas. Tax increment financing simply means that new property tax dollars resulting from increases in the market value of real property may be directed to the area where the real property is located. The base property tax (before any improvements to real property) continues to be distributed to the local government and school districts. However, tax dollars that accrue from increases in property values (from rehabilitation, new construction, etc.) are available for reinvestment. A tax increment program is authorized for 15 years or longer if the tax increment revenue is pledged to the payment of tax increment bonds. A municipality must identify the specific geographic area where the program will be implemented. Funds may be used to finance roads and bridges within tax increment areas. In the case of industrial infrastructure district, funds may also be used to connect districts to other resources. If the improvement will benefit industrial development within the tax increment district, funds may be used to finance bridges and roads, which include portions outside the increment district. Tax increment programs depend on substantial investment in property but can work in rural communities that are experiencing some growth. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 7-7 The use of tax increment financing is restricted to "municipalities" or incorporated areas including consolidated city-county governments. However, as counties are responsible for all off-system bridges, including those that are located in cities and towns, tax increment financing may offer some local funding for bridge repair or reconstruction if the city or town council, or urban renewal agency, approves the use of tax increment funds for bridge improvements. In addition, if a bridge is historic or offers additional recreational opportunities (e.g. for pedestrian or cyclists), the city might provide tax increment funds for improvements as part of their community revitalization program. N. Impact Fees A number of cities counties have contemplated the use of impact fees for the construction and upgrading of roads and bridges in association with new subdivisions. The Montana Subdivision and Platting Act, 76-3-510, MCA provides for such fees to be assessed as long as they are proportional to the impact created. The statute states, "A local government may require a sub- divider to pay or guarantee payment for part or all of the costs extending capital facilities related to public health and safety, including but not limited to public roads. The costs must reasonably reflect the suspected impacts directly attributable to the subdivision." The developer must be provided with information indicating how the fees will be spent. Fees may go for construction, replacement and upgrades but not for regular operations and maintenance. The county zoning enabling act (76-2-201 et seq., MCA) may provide some basis for the charging of impact fees. Under 76-2-203, MCA, a county may establish zoning regulations designed to, among other things, "lesson congestion in the streets; to secure safety from fire, panic, and other danger; to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation...and other public requirements." Therefore a county, in adopting and administering its zoning regulations, may consider the impact new developments will have on roads and bridges. It would seem that it may also require a developer to pay an impact fee to cover the cost of providing the transportation infrastructure necessary to serve the development. Any such fee would have to be roughly proportional to the additional transportation needs represented by the new development. Also, the fees could be used only for construction or upgrading of facilities and not for operations and maintenance. O. Tax levy for contracts to operate bus service For the purpose of raising the necessary money to defray the cost of the transportation service authorized by 7-14-4401 MCA, pursuant to a contract, lease, or lease and operating agreement with an independent carrier or carriers, the city or town council may annually levy a tax on the taxable value of all taxable property within the limits of the city or town under 7-14-4404 MCA. Whenever the council of the city or town considers it necessary to raise money by taxation for transportation services in excess of the levy allowed by 15-10-420, the council of the city or town shall in the manner prescribed by law submit the question of the additional levy to the qualified electors of the city or town at an election held pursuant to 15-10-425. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 7-8 P. Voluntary Programs In some cases, homeowner associations, business groups or other property owners may finance bridge and road improvements on a voluntary basis. In Gallatin County, for example, private associations have raised funds for road improvement and then contracted with the county to undertake the work. In some instances, the county and the association have shared the development costs. 7.3 Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) Funding Sources The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) administers a number of programs that are funded from state and federal sources. The following information is taken from the Financing Montana's Federal-Aid Highways, prepared by the MDT Transportation Planning Division, March 6, 1996, from Transportation Funding Categories prepared by the Rail, Transit and Planning Division of the MDT in June of 2005, and from the Montana Code Annotated Each year, in accordance with 60-2-127, MCA, the Montana Transportation Commission allocates a portion of available federal-aid highway funds for construction purposes and for projects located on the various highway systems in the state as described below: A. The National Highway System Purpose and Authorization The purpose of the National Highway System (NHS) is to provide an interconnected system of principal arterial routes which will serve major population centers, international border crossings, intermodal transportation facilities and other major travel destinations; meet national defense requirements; and serve interstate and interregional travel. Allocations and Matching Requirements The National Highway System includes all Interstate routes, a large percentage of urban and rural principal arterials, the defense strategic highway network, and strategic highway connectors. The Federal share for any eligible NHS project is 86.58% and the State is responsible for the remaining share of 13.42%. The State share is funded through the State Special Revenue Account. Eligibility and Planning Considerations Activities eligible for the National Highway System funding include construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation of segments of the NHS. Operational improvements as well as highway safety improvements are also eligible. Other miscellaneous activities that may qualify for NHS funding include research, planning, carpool projects, bikeways, and pedestrian walkways. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 7-9 The Montana Transportation Commission approves the fund apportionment to National Highway System projects. NHS funds are distributed throughout the financial districts based solely on need. However, consideration is given to balancing needs against existing and future construction manpower when distributing the funds. Applicability to Butte-Silver Bow Interstate 90, Interstate 15, and Interstate 115 are NHS routes in the Butte study area. B. Primary Highway System – STPP - Surface Transportation Program Authorization Primary funds are distributed statewide (MCA 60-3-205) to each of five financial districts. Prior to the beginning of each biennium the Montana Transportation Commission designates a level of sufficiency that it considers adequate and another considered critical. MDT then computes the ratio between the Primary System mileage rated below adequate sufficiency within each financial district and the total Primary System mileage rated below the adequate level statewide. Another ratio is computed of the Primary System mileage rated at-or-below critical in each district to total Primary System mileage rated at-or-below critical statewide. Eligibility and Planning Requirements The Federal and State funds available under this program are used to finance transportation projects on the state-designated Primary Highway System. Of the total received, 86.58% is Federal and 13.42% is State funds from the State Special Revenue Account. MDT distributes three-fourths of the total Primary System funds among the five financial districts based on the adequate sufficiency ratio and one-fourth based on the “at or below” critical sufficiency ratio. No financial district can receive more than one-third of the total Primary System funds. In the event that a district would receive more than one-third of the available primary system funds based on the adequate and critical ratios, the funds in excess of one-third are redistributed among the remaining districts. The Transportation Commission establishes priorities for the use of Primary funds. Eligible activities include construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, restoration and operational improvements. Applicability to Butte-Silver Bow P-29 is the only Primary Highway System route within the Butte study area and consists of the Harrison Ave., Front St., Utah, Arizona, Park St., Montana St., and Iron St. Corridor. C. SecondaryHighway System – STPS - Surface Transportation Program – Secondary The Secondary Highway System is defined under 60-2-125, MCA as those highways that have been functionally classified by the MDT as either minor arterials or major collectors and that have been selected by the Montana Transportation Commission in cooperation with the boards of county commissioners, to be placed on the secondary highway system. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 7-10 Authorization Title 23 USC and SAFETEA-LU authorizes the Surface Transportation Program. The Secondary Highway System is a component of this program. The Montana Transportation Commission allocates the federal funding received through this program under the provisions governed by MCA 60-2-127. Allocations and Matching Requirements Federal funds for Secondary Highways must be matched by non-federal funds on a 86.58 percent (federal) to 13.42 percent (non-federal) basis. Normally, the match on these funds is from the state. Funds are apportioned to MDT financial districts based on a formula, which takes into account the land area, population, road mileage and bridge square footage. For the total funds available, 65 percent are allocated for capital construction projects including reconstruction and rehabilitation, and 35 percent for pavement preservation. The Montana Transportation Commission may use funds for on-system bridges and Secondary Highways subject to approval. Secondary funds can also be used for any project that is eligible for STP under Title 23, U.S.C. The Transportation Commission (MCA 60-2-110 distributes Secondary funds each fiscal year to the five financial districts. Distribution is based on the following: 1) 30% in the ratio of land area in each district to the total land area in the state. 2) 35% in the ratio of the rural population in each district to the total rural population in the state. 3) 30% in the ratio of rural road mileage in each district to the total rural road mileage in the state. 4) 5% in the ratio of the rural bridge square footage in each district to the total rural bridge square footage in the state. MDT and county commissions determine Secondary priorities cooperatively for each district. Eligibility and Planning Considerations The Montana Transportation Commission consults with the board of county commissioners of the county in which a highway is located when establishing priorities and when selecting and designating segments on the Secondary Highway System for construction and reconstruction. Applicability to Butte-Silver Bow Secondary Highway System routes within Butte study area eligible for the use of these funds include S-393 – Basin Creek Rd and S-276 – Brown’s Gulch Rd. D. Urban Highway System – STPU - Surface Transportation Program – Urban The Urban Highway System is described under 60-2-125, MCA, as those highways and streets that are in and near incorporated cities with populations of over 5,000 and within urban boundaries established by the MDT, that have been functionally classified as either urban arterials or collectors, and that have been selected by the Montana Transportation Commission, in cooperation with local government authorities, to be placed on the Urban Highway System. Authorization Under 60-3-211, MCA, the MDT apportions the federal-aid highway funds allocated for the Urban Highway System to the cities in the state with populations of over 5,000. "Urban population" is defined as population within the incorporated limits of cities of over 5,000, and that population within unincorporated urban fringe areas delineated and reported in the latest federal census. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 7-11 Allocations and Matching Requirements MDT distributes STPU funds to 15 urban areas in accordance with a statutory formula based on each area’s population compared to the total population in all urban areas. Of the total received, 86.58% is Federal and 13.42% is State match from the State Special Revenue Account for highway projects. This is the principal funding source for major projects on Butte’s 27 miles of designated Urban Highways. This funding source can also be used for any project that is eligible for STP under Title 23, U.S. C. Priorities for the use of STPU funds are established at the local level through the Butte Transportation Coordinating Committee, which includes representation from Butte-Silver Bow County and the Montana Department of Transportation. Final approval for project prioritization and funding expenditure is vested with the Montana Transportation Commission. Eligibility and Planning Considerations The Montana Transportation Commission consults with the appropriate local government authorities prior to designating a highway or street to be placed on the Urban Highway System, and when establishing priorities and selecting and designating segments on the Urban Highway System for construction and reconstruction. Applicability to Butte-Silver Bow Butte’s FFY 2005 urban funding balance as of 12/8/05 is $1,048,920. Existing priorities include the Dewey Blvd. Extension (Right-of-Way and utility costs) and the Daly St. engineering study. The annual allocation of urban funds for Butte projects is $817,500 (total dollars, Federal plus State match). We assume this allocation will remain constant through the life of the Plan. E. Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program Authorization The federal "Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program" enables states to replace or rehabilitate bridges that are unsafe because of structural deficiencies, physical deterioration or functional obsolescence. This program provides funding for the rehabilitation and replacement of deficient bridges. The funding, eligibility requirements and project selection for this program is divided into two categories, depending upon whether the bridge is located “on-system” or “off-system”. On-System Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program The On-System Bridge Program receives funding through the federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. The On-System Bridge Program receives 65 percent of the funds. In general, On-System Bridge projects are funded with 80 percent Federal funds and 20 percent State funds. Projects eligible for funding under the On- System Bridge Program include all highway bridges on the State system. The bridges are eligible for rehabilitation or replacement. In addition, painting and seismic retrofitting are also eligible under this program. A structurally deficient bridge is eligible for rehabilitating or replacement; a functionally obsolete bridge is eligible only for rehabilitation; and a bridge rated as sufficient is not eligible for funding under this program. MDT’s Bridge Bureau assigns a priority for replacement or rehabilitation of structurally deficient and functionally obsolete structures based upon sufficiency ratings assigned to each bridge. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 7-12 Off-System Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program The Off-System Bridge Program receives funding through the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. As stated above, the On-System Bridge program receives 65 percent of the funds. The remaining 35 percent are allocated to the Off- System Bridge Program. Off-System Bridge projects are funded with 80 percent Federal funds and 20 percent State funds. Allocations and Matching Requirements For off-system bridges, the provides for 80 percent federal participation to be matched by 20 percent from the state. In Montana, of the available funds, 35 percent are earmarked for off-system bridges, the minimum amount allowed under federal law (15 percent is required under federal regulations and the states have the option of appropriating an additional 20 percent). Not less than 65 percent or more than 85 percent of a state apportionment is available for those bridges on-system, which include bridges on the secondary system. Funds are allocated to each of the five financial districts based on need. Eligibility and Planning Considerations Projects eligible for funding under the Off-System Bridge Program include all bridges not “on- system,” at least 20 feet long in length, and have a sufficiency rating of less than 80. Procedures for selecting bridges for inclusion into this program are based on a ranking system that weighs various elements of a structures condition and considers county priorities. MDT Bridge Bureau personnel conduct a field inventory of off-system bridges on a two-year cycle. The field inventory provides information used to calculate the Sufficiency Rating (SR). F. Federal Lands Highway Program Authorization About 30 percent of the land in the United States falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal government. The Federal Lands Highway Program provides funding for a coordinated system of public roads on that land which is not the responsibility of state or local government’ The Western Federal Lands Highway Division operates as part of the Federal Lands Highway Program, serving the needs of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Alaska. actively administers the surveying, design and construction of forest highway system roads, parkways and park roads, Indian reservation roads, defense access roads, and other Federal lands roads. also provides training, technology, deployment, engineering services, and products to other customers. The Federal Lands Highway (FLH) Program works in cooperation with Federal Land management agencies to plan, design, construct, and rehabilitate highways and bridges on federally owned lands. This includes forest highways, public lands highways, park roads, parkways, refuge roads, and Indian reservation roads. FLH roads serve recreational travel and tourism, protect and enhance natural resources, provide sustained economic development in rural areas, and provide needed transportation access for Native Americans. Overall, FLH provides funding for more than 90,000 miles of federally owned and public authority owned roads which serve Federal lands. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 7-13 The agency also directs the conduct of transportation planning and engineering studies, and administers the Emergency Relief program for Federally Owned roads (ERFO). The FLH field organization consists of three divisions: Western, Central, and Eastern. The FLH is a Core Business Unit of the Federal Highway Administration. Allocations and Matching Requirements Two-thirds of the funds allocated for the Public Lands Highway Program are dedicated to Forest Highways and the remainder is discretionary. Eligibility and Planning Considerations (Forest Highway Funds) Forest Highways are proposed for inclusion in the system by the MDT and the U.S. Forest Service with additional proposals coming from the counties. Routes are designated by the Federal Highway Administration in conjunction with the Forest Service and the State. The criteria for a route to be on the Forest Highway System are: • Development and utilization of National Forest Service renewable resources; • Enhance economic development at a local, regional or national level; • Traffic; • Serves preponderance of Forest Service generated traffic; and • Continuity of transportation network serving Forest Service and dependent communities. Eligible activities include, but are not limited to: • Planning, research, engineering and construction; • Transportation planning for programs to enhance tourism and recreational development; and • Construction and reconstruction of roadside rest areas (including sanitary and water facilities). Eligible improvements include reconstruction, engineered overlays and bridges. Maintenance improvements are not eligible. Projects that occur on Primary, Secondary or National system roads must have Federal Transportation Commission approval. Projects are designed and constructed under the auspices of the Western Federal Land Highway Division of the Federal Highway Administration. Public Lands funds are discretionary in nature and allocated on the basis of need for specific projects that are proposed by the States and which must compete for funding with other projects on a nationwide basis. Typically, many more projects are submitted for consideration than can be selected within budgetary constraints. Local governments are encouraged to work closely with the MDT in planning for these projects, in order to present projects that are well documented as to their eligibility for funding. G. Federal Hazard Elimination Program Authorization The Federal Hazard Elimination Program funds apply to all roads except the National Highway System-Interstate. Funding is allocated on a priority system, based on a benefit/cost analysis. The State (MDT) tries to get the highest returns on the dollars invested in safety improvements, to eliminate the most critical hazards. The purpose of the Program is to identify hazardous locations throughout the states highway system, assign benefit/cost ratio priorities for the correction of these hazards, and implement a schedule of projects for their improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 7-14 Allocations and Matching Requirements The funding for any corrective action under this program is 90 percent federal and 10 percent state/local participation. Eligibility and Planning Considerations To be eligible, a county must be a regular participant in reporting accidents to the MDT Transportation Information System (TIS). The proposed improvement must be on the county's hazard priority list and it must not fall under regular maintenance activities. The county submits information to MDT regarding accident data and trends, traffic information and proposed improvements. All safety improvements are included in an overall statewide ranking and priority listing. Depending on the funding level, the projects with the highest benefit/cost ratios are funded under this program to eliminate hazards. Projects eligible for funding under the Hazard Elimination Program include any safety improvement project on any public road; any public surface transportation facility or any publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail; or any traffic calming measure. MDT’s Traffic & Safety Bureau selects the projects by identifying high hazard sites through the analysis of law enforcement accident reports. Sites with a cluster of accidents over time are field reviewed and an appropriate type of corrective action is determined. The cost of the proposed Hazard Elimination project is compared to the potential benefit of the action. Once the benefit/cost ratio is calculated for all high hazard sites statewide, the projects are prioritized from highest to lowest and the projects are funded in this order until the yearly funds are exhausted. H. Transportation Enhancements (pedestrian/bicycle, landscaping, etc.) Authorization 23 USC 133 sets aside 10 percent of the Surface Transportation Program monies awarded to each state that may only be used for transportation enhancements. Allocations and Matching Requirements Montana is unique in that enhancements are made available to communities under the Community Transportation Enhancement Program (CTEP) administered by MDT. The MDT distributes these funds for all counties and cities that are 1st, 2nd, and 3rd class cities, and tribal governments. From 1992 through 2003, the annual allocation has been approximately $4.5 million. Local governments are responsible for providing the required 13 percent of project costs as non-federal match for their transportation enhancement projects. Under certain conditions, all eligible enhancement participants may use services in kind as part of their required match. Total project costs are suggested to be at least $10,000. Eligibility and Planning Considerations In order to receive funding, transportation enhancement projects must be included in the STIP. Eligible CTEP categories include: • Pedestrian and bicycle facilities • Historic preservation • Acquisition of scenic easements and historic or scenic sites • Archaeological planning and research • Mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff or reduce vehicle-caused ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 7-15 • Wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity • Scenic or historic highway programs including provisions of tourist and welcome center facilities • Landscaping and other scenic beautification • Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use for bicycle or pedestrian trails) • Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures or facilities (including railroads) • Control and removal of outdoor advertising • Establishment of transportation museums • Provisions of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists Projects addressing these categories and that are linked to the transportation system by proximity, function or impact, and where required, meet the "historic" criteria, may be eligible for enhancement funding. For example, where an historic bridge must be replaced because of structural deficiencies, enhancement funds might be used to preserve the original bridge as part of an interpretive trail. Projects must be submitted by the local government to the MDT, even when the project has been developed by another organization or interest group. Project proposals must include evidence of public involvement in the identification and ranking of enhancement projects. Local governments are encouraged to use their planning boards, where they exist, for the facilitation of public participation; or a special enhancement committee. The MDT staff reviews each on-system project proposal for completeness and eligibility and submits them to the Transportation Commission and the Federal Highway Administration for approval. Funds are expected to be available each year for six years. Applicability to Butte-Silver Bow Butte-Silver Bow County is allocated about $157,600 annually (federal dollars). There is currently a balance of $255,000 (federal dollars) for this program. The balances represent funds not obligated towards a selected project. I. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) Authorization The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) is directed to projects that help communities meet the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act. While originally aimed at addressing air quality problems in Missoula, the funds are now used to address air quality and traffic congestion problems throughout the state. Allocations and Matching Requirements Funding is not allocated by system (primary, urban, etc.). The federal share is 86.58% and must be matched with 13.42% non-federal funds by MDT. Federal funds available under this program are used to finance transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 7-16 As a minimum apportionment state, Montana can direct a majority of its CMAQ funds to a wide variety of projects and programs. A requirement for the use of these funds is the estimation of the reduction in pollutants resulting from implementing the program/project. These estimates are reported yearly to FHWA. Eligibility and Planning Considerations The primary consideration for participation in the CMAQ program is whether a community is a nonattainment, maintenance, or at risk for air quality. Projects are evaluated based on the estimated reduction of pollutants associated with program implementation. Although Missoula continues to receive the amount that come to Montana by virtue of the Federal formula, the majority of these funds can be used anywhere in the state on any type of federal-aid project. MDT has chosen to take advantage of this increased flexibility to proactively address air quality and automobile congestion problems throughout the state. To do this, the MDT has created the Montana Air & Congestion Initiative (MACI) Discretionary and Guaranteed Programs. Applicability to Butte-Silver Bow Butte is considered an eligible area under the MACI-Discretionary Program: Montana Air & Congestion Initiative (MACI) – Discretionary Program The MACI – Discretionary Program provides funding for projects in areas of the state that are designated non-attainment or recognized as being “high-risk” for becoming non- attainment. Butte is a non-attainment area for PM-10 and high risk for CO. Eligible activities include intersection improvements, signal projects, the purchase of sweepers and flush trucks. District Administrators and local governments nominate projects cooperatively. Projects are prioritized and selected based on air quality benefits and other factors. J. IM - Interstate Maintenance The Interstate Maintenance (IM) Program provides funding for projects on the Interstate System involving resurfacing, restoring, and rehabilitation of the existing roadway. Allocations and Matching Requirements The Federal share for IM projects is 91.24% and the State is responsible for 8.76%. The State’s percentage is funded through the State Special Revenue Account. Eligibility and Planning Considerations Activities eligible under the Interstate Maintenance Program include resurfacing, restoring, and rehabilitation of the roadway. In addition, reconstruction or rehabilitation of bridges, existing interchanges, and over crossings also qualify. Construction of new travel lanes (other than high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes) or new interchanges are not eligible for IM funding. Preventive maintenance activities are eligible when a state can demonstrate, through its pavement management system, that such activities are a cost-effective means of extending interstate pavement life. The Montana Transportation Commission approves the fund apportionment to the statewide Interstate Maintenance Program. The IM funds are distributed throughout the financial districts based solely on need. However, consideration is given to balancing needs against existing and future construction manpower when distributing the funds. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 7-17 Applicability to Butte-Silver Bow Eligible routes within the Butte study area are Interstate 15, Interstate 90, and Interstate 115. K. - Rail/Highway Crossing Protective Devices Program Authorization The purpose of the Federal Rail/Highway Crossing – Protective Devices Program is to identify high hazard rail crossing sites and install new rail crossing signals. Allocations and Matching Requirements MDT's Rail - Highway Safety manager is responsible for surveying, identifying and prioritizing those railroad crossings that require new protective devices or upgrading of existing devices. The funds are distributed on a statewide basis determined by a priority list ranked by a hazard index. The Federal/State ratio is 90% Federal and 10% State. L. - Rail/Highway Crossing Elimination of Hazard Program Authorization The purpose of the Federal Rail/Highway Crossing – Elimination of Hazard Program is to identify high hazard rail crossing sites and construct new rail/highway grade crossings. The program also uses funds to rehabilitate existing grade separations. Allocations and Matching Requirements Grade separation projects are funded with 90% Federal funds and 10% State funds. Since funding for this program is limited, funds are often used in combination with other Federal funding sources to fund costly grade separation projects. Eligibility and Planning Considerations Eligible expenditures include the separation or protection at grade crossings, reconstruction of existing crossings and relocation of highways to eliminate crossings. Projects for this program are selected by identifying those sites where only a grade separation will eliminate an identified hazard or where an existing grade separation exists but needs rehabilitation or replacement. M. State Fuel Tax - City and County Authorization Under 15-70-101, MCA, Montana assesses a tax of $.27 per gallon on gasoline and diesel fuel used for transportation purposes. Each incorporated city and town receives a portion of the total tax funds allocated to cities and towns based on: 1) The ratio of the population within each city and town to the total population in all cities and towns in the State; 2) The ratio of the street mileage within each city and town to the total street mileage in all incorporated cities and towns in the State. The street mileage is exclusive of the Interstate, National Highway, and Primary Systems. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 7-18 Allocations and Matching Requirements Each county receives a percentage of the total tax funds allocated to counties based on: 1) The ratio of the rural population of each county to the total rural population in the State, excluding the population of all incorporated cities or towns within the county and State; 2) The ratio of the rural road mileage in each county to the total rural road mileage in the State, less the certified mileage of all cities or towns within the county and State; and 3) The ratio of the land area in each county to the total land area of the state. Eligibility and Planning Considerations All fuel tax funds allocated to the city and county governments must be used for the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and repair of rural roads or city streets and alleys. Priorities for the use of these funds are established by the cities and counties receiving them. Applicability to Butte-Silver Bow For State Fiscal Year 2005, Butte Silver Bow’s combined allocation was about $689,800 in state fuel tax funds. The amount varies annually, but the current level provides a reasonable base for projection throughout the planning period. N. Transit Funding Authorization Several Federal Transit Administration funding programs provide funding for Montana transit providers. With the exception of the Section 5303 and Section 5307 Urbanized Area (Missoula, Great Falls, Billings) programs, the FTA programs are administered by MDT. The two primary programs are the Section 5310 and Section 5311 programs. Allocations and Matching Requirements A) Section 5310 Service for the Elderly and Persons With Disabilities These funds are available through an application process to non-profit groups and public bodies for capital assistance. The funding requires a 20% local match. B) Section 5311 Rural General Public Transit Service Section 5311 funds are available through an application process for capital and operating assistance to eligible providers of transit services to the general public outside of urbanized areas. Local match requirements are 46% for operating and 13% for capital. Federal law also requires each State to direct 15% of its Section 5311 funds to intercity bus-related projects. C) TransADE The TransADE program offers operating assistance to eligible organizations providing transportation to the elderly and persons with disabilities. State funds pay 50 percent of the operating costs and the remaining 50 percent must come from the local recipient. Applications are due to the MDT by the first working day of February each year. Eligible recipients of this funding are counties, incorporated cities and towns, transportation districts, or non-profit organizations. To receive this funding the applicant is required by state law (MCA 7-14-112) to develop a strong, coordinated system in its community and/or service area. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 7-19 7.4 Other State and Federal Funding Sources A. Treasure State Endowment Program ~ Montana Department of Commerce Authorization The Montana Treasure State Endowment Program (TSEP) is a state-funded program, authorized under 90-6-701 through 710, MCA, and is administered by the Montana Department of Commerce (MDOC). It is designed to assist local governments in financing capital improvements to public facilities including bridges (but not roads). Funds are derived from the Montana coal severance tax and made available to local governments as matching grants, loans and grant/loan combinations. TSEP also provides matching grants of up to $15,000 to local governments for preliminary engineering study costs. TSEP funds may not be used for annual operation and maintenance; the purchase of non- permanent furnishings; or for refinancing existing debt, except when required in conjunction with the financing of a new TSEP project. Allocations and Matching Requirements Approximately $16 million will available to award for grants during the 2005 biennium, and this amount grows approximately $2 to $3 million each biennium. Grant requests cannot exceed $500,000 and the county must typically provide a dollar for dollar match that can include other grant funds. Matching funds can be public or private funds provided by a TSEP applicant to directly support the cost of eligible project activities. There are a number of ways in which local governments can provide matching funds for bridge projects. Eligible types of matching funds include: • local general funds or other cash; • proceeds from the sale of general obligation, revenue, special assessment or other bonds; • entitlement or formula-based federal or state funds such as federal highway funds or payments in lieu of taxes; • loan or grant funds from a state or federal program (including TSEP loans); • funds expended for engineering studies, reports, and plans, or other reasonable expenses expended for the preparation of the application, directly related to the proposed project during the period 24 months prior to the TSEP application deadline; • funds expended after the TSEP application deadline, but before being approved by the Legislature, for project management, final engineering design, and other reasonable expenses necessary to prepare the project as proposed in the TSEP application for the construction phase; • the value of land or materials provided by the applicant, if appraised within a two-year period preceding the application deadline. The appraisal must be: • an impartially written statement that adequately describes the land or materials, and states an opinion of defined value as of a specific date; • supported by an analysis of relevant market information; and • prepared by a qualified appraiser independent from the applicant. • the value of labor performed by the applicant’s employees on the proposed project, after the TSEP project has been approved for funding and a TSEP contract has been signed, as long as the employee is paid at his or her standard hourly rate of pay and the time worked is adequately documented; and ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 7-20 • the value of machinery used in the process of constructing the project that is owned (or leased) and operated by the applicant. The value of the use of the machinery will be determined using the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) equipment rate schedules. A county should evaluate each of these mechanisms regarding its potential use for the proposed project. In addition, the county should evaluate whether it has allocated the maximum amount of tax revenues to the bridge fund. In addition to local sources, counties should evaluate other potential outside grant and loan sources. A thorough analysis of the feasibility of using these various funding mechanisms is a critical component in developing a proposal to TSEP. Eligibility and Planning Considerations Eligible applicants include incorporated cities and towns, counties, consolidated governments and county or multi-county water, sewer, or solid waste districts, and tribal governments (includes any federally recognized Indian tribe within the State of Montana.) Counties may form partnerships with other eligible applicants to provide the most appropriate and cost effective solution. Such partnerships would be particularly useful for bridge projects that often involve a number of jurisdictions. Bridge projects submitted to TSEP can be more than one bridge. Bridge projects can effectively compete for funding under a number of the criteria used to evaluate and rank projects. The federal government has identified very specific standards under which bridges are evaluated. Issues related to safety can be well defined and easily documented. Projects that include bridges with a sufficiency rating of 50 or less will be the most competitive. MDT routinely inspects bridges that are 20 feet or longer in length. For bridges not inspected by MDT, the county will need to obtain the services of an engineer that is trained and qualified to inspect bridges. In certain circumstances, state bridge personnel at the MDT may be able to assist in providing an inspection as a service to the county. Inquiries to the MDT should be made as early as possible so that an inspection can be scheduled in time for TSEP application submittal. TSEP has specific requirements for what should be included in the preliminary engineering study. A properly completed preliminary engineering report is critical to being competitive and ultimately funded. Counties that have adopted capital improvement plans for their road and bridge improvements and associated costs will also be more competitive. Applicants will also need to demonstrate that the county has taken all reasonable steps to fund bridge projects. During process of ranking applications, a financial analysis is completed in order to evaluate relative financial need. MDOC looks at the current efforts by applicants to finance their bridge systems. The financial analysis for bridge applicants is primarily based on two indicators; however, additional information will also be used to determine the score provided on the financial analysis. The primary financial indicator used to measure financial need looks at the bridge levy relative to the county’s median household income (MHI). If the bridge levy is below the statewide median of .04% of MHI, MDOC will also look at the total levy relative to the county’s MHI. If the bridge levy is below the statewide median, MDOC will also look at a second indicator that evaluates changes in the county’s ability to levy taxes. In order to be competitive, applicants typically must demonstrate that the county’s bridge levy is equal to no less than .04% of the county’s MHI. Application Information Project proposals are submitted to the MDOC every two years. Applications are due in May of the year prior to the legislature meeting. Applications are ranked based on seven statutory priorities: • projects that solve urgent and serious public health or safety problems, or that enable local governments to meet state or federal health or safety standards; ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 7-21 • projects that reflect greater need for financial assistance than other projects; • projects that incorporate appropriate, cost-effective technical design that provide thorough, long term solutions to community public facility needs; • projects that reflect substantial past efforts to ensure sound, effective long-term planning and management of public facilities and that attempt to resolve the infrastructure problem with local resources; • projects that enable local governments to obtain funds from sources other than TSEP; • projects that provide long term, full time job opportunities for Montanans, that provide public facilities necessary for the expansion of a business that has a high potential for financial success, or that maintain the tax base or encourage expansion of the tax base; and • projects that are high local priorities and have strong community support. The Governor reviews the recommendations prepared by the MDOC staff and submits recommendations to the Legislature, which makes the final decision on funding awards. Applications for preliminary engineering grants can be submitted throughout the biennium and are awarded on a first-come first served basis. B. The Montana Intercap Program ~ Montana Board of Investments Authorization The INTERCAP Program is a low cost, variable-rate program that lends money to Montana local governments, state agencies and the university system for the purpose of financing or refinancing the acquisition and installation of equipment or personal and real property and infrastructure improvements. The Board of Investments issues tax-exempt bonds and loans the proceeds to eligible borrowers. In addition to long-term financing, INTERCAP is an excellent source for interim financing. Allocations and Matching Requirements Funding is always available with no specific cycle. Allocations of $200,000 and under are considered and approved by the Board of Investments staff. Allocations in excess of $200,000 are considered and approved by the Board. Funds are released on an on-going basis as the project is completed. The program provides loans at a variable rate plus a one percent loan origination fee on loans over one year and for a term of 5 or 10 years depending on the borrower's legal authority. Short-term loans of less than a year are also available. Interest and principal payments are due bi-annually (February 15 and August 15 of each year). Loans may be pre-paid without penalty with 30 days notice. Types of financing include installment purchase loans, general fund loans, general obligation bonds, revenue bonds and special improvement district and rural improvement district bonds. Gas tax revenues may not be used to service debt. Projects that will use rural improvement district payments to cover the annual debt are limited to a total loan of $300,000. Intercap funds may be used in association with other grant and loan programs as well as local sources. Eligibility and Planning Considerations Bridge and road projects are among the public facility projects that are eligible for Intercap financing. Loans can also be used to cover preliminary engineering costs in association with a bridge or road project under the same terms as described above. Preliminary engineering studies ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 7-22 are those that are conducted by a professional consulting engineer. Funds may not be used for studies conducted by county personnel. Many funding programs, including those provided through MDT and the Treasure State Endowment Program require preliminary engineering studies for funding applications. Intercap loan funds can offer a county a reasonable alternative for financing these engineering studies. Application Information Monies are continuously available and applications are accepted at any time. For more information, contact the Montana Board of Investments at [PHONE REDACTED] or in writing at 2401 Colonial Dr., PO Box [PHONE REDACTED], Helena, MT 59620 C. Community Development Block Grants ~ Montana Department of Commerce (bridges and roads) Authorization Montana's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program is a federally-funded competitive grant program designed to help communities of less than 50,000, and is aimed at benefiting low and moderate income persons. Grants are administered by the Montana Department of Commerce (MDOC) and awarded in three categories including economic development, housing and community revitalization, and public facilities. Bridge and road projects may receive assistance under the public facilities and economic development categories under limited circumstances described below. Allocations and Matching Requirements CDBG grant awards for public facilities projects may not exceed $500,000 and are most often used in combination with other federal, state or local funds to make public improvements. The program requires that applicants provide at least 25 percent local match. Eligibility and Planning Considerations Eligible applicants are limited to general-purpose local governments: cities and towns with less than 50,000 people and counties. Counties may apply for a project that will include activities within the jurisdiction of an incorporated city or town if the proposed activity will benefit all county residents. This is particularly relevant for bridges, given that the county is responsible for all off-system bridges both inside and outside of incorporated areas. Each CDBG project proposal must demonstrate that at least 51 percent of the project's principal beneficiaries will be low and moderate income persons. Therefore, the area that is primarily served by the bridge or road in question must meet these requirements. Demonstrating that the improvements to a road or bridge will principally benefit low and moderate income persons could be difficult, and is unlikely to be competitive unless the bridge or road provides critical access for a low or moderate income neighborhood or community. If, for example, the proposed improvements will provide the only access for emergency assistance or access to other community services (such as schools or health care) and addresses a major public safety problem, the project may be more competitive. Under the CDBG economic development category, roads and bridges or other public improvements may receive assistance when they are in support of a business or other economic development activity. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 7-23 Application Information Applications for public facilities funding are submitted to the MDOC late in May of each year. CDBG economic development project proposals are accepted at any time. Applicants should initially review potential projects with the MDOC staff to determine their eligibility under program guidelines. Proposed projects must be selected through a community-wide needs assessment, which incorporates a strong public participation component. As in the TSEP program, the review of CDBG applications is undertaken in two steps. The first step ranks project applications based on program criteria. In the second step of review, applications are evaluated based upon the applicant's ability to borrow funds or otherwise finance the project without the use of CDBG funds. For more information about the CDBG program, contact the Community Development office of the Montana Department of Commerce at [PHONE REDACTED] or write to the Community Development Block Grant Program, Montana Department of Commerce, PO Box 200523, 1424 Ninth Ave., Helena, MT 59620-0523. D. Public Works Program ~ Economic Development Administration Authorization The Economic Development Administration (EDA) is an agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce. The purpose of the Public Works Program is to assist communities with the funding of public works and development facilities that contribute to the creation or retention of private sector jobs and to the alleviation of unemployment and underemployment. Such assistance is designed to help communities achieve lasting improvement by stabilizing and diversifying local economies, and improving local living conditions and the economic environment of the area. Allocations and Matching Requirements Grants are awarded up to a participation level of 80 percent but the average EDA grant covers approximately 50 percent of project costs. Acceptable sources of match include cash, local general obligation or revenue bonds; Community Development Block Grants, TSEP grants and loans, entitlement funds, Rural Development loans; and other public and private financing, including donations. Eligibility and Planning Considerations Eligible road and bridge projects are those which are undertaken to facilitate economic development activities and are located in areas which meet EDA criteria regarding severe economically "distressed areas." Funding may not be used for non-industrial street/road construction or repair that is normally the responsibility of local government, county, or the Federal highway program. Projects must result in private sector job and business development in order to be considered for funding. Eligible applicants under this program include any state, or political subdivision thereof, Indian tribe (and other U.S. political entities), private or public nonprofit organization or association representing any redevelopment area if the project is within an EDA-designated redevelopment area. Redevelopment areas, other than those designated under the Public Works Impact Program must have a current EDA-approved Overall Economic Development Program (OEDP) in place. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 7-24 Application Information Applications are accepted on an annual-open cycle. The program does not set specific project funding limits. Call the Montana Economic Development Representative at [PHONE REDACTED] or write to the Economic Development Administration, PO Box 10074, Federal Building, Helena, MT 59626 for more specific information. E. Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Authorization In the event of emergencies that affect off system and local road and bridge infrastructure, the federal government provides relief through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Allocations and Matching Requirements FEMA dollars are for unanticipated needs that result from disasters and emergencies and are typically not included in a county's financial planning process. Eligibility and Planning Considerations FEMA personnel are dispatched to the site of the disaster and are responsible for addressing all elements of repair or replacement as required. They assess the damage, hire the necessary professional consultants, prepare engineering analyses, bid projects and manage contracts. Application Information For further information contact the FEMA regional office in Denver, Colorado. Phone: 303- 235-4830. Address: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Denver Federal Center, Building 710, PO Box 52267, Denver, CO 80225. F. Federal Highway Administration Emergency Relief Authorization In the event of emergencies that affect on-system, state owned roads and bridges, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides relief through the Emergency Relief (ER) program. Funds are distributed through the ER program much like traditional highway funds in that the State’s are reimbursed for their efforts in correcting emergency situations. The ER program provides for repair and restoration of highway facilities to pre-disaster conditions. Allocations and Matching Requirements ER dollars are for unanticipated needs resulting from floods, slides, and earthquakes, and other natural disasters. ER dollars cannot be expended for items considered to be “heavy maintenance,” or work frequently performed by the state and county maintenance crews in repairing damage normally expected from seasonal and occasional unusual natural conditions ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 7-25 Eligibility and Planning Considerations Federal, State, and County personnel are dispatched to the disaster area and are responsible for addressing all elements of repair as deemed necessary by the review team and approved by the FHWA. Eligible items include: • Engineering and Right-of-Way, • Detours • Traffic Damage • Overlays • Raising Grades • Basin Flooding • Slide • Work on active Construction projects • Traffic Control Devices • Landscaping, Roadside Appurtenances • Timber and Debris Removal • Project Features Resulting from the NEPA Process. A minimum $5000 in repair cost per site is used as a non-regulatory guideline to be considered eligible for ER funds. Also, 23 CFR Subpart 668A includes a $700,000 disaster eligibility threshold. In other words, for a formal declaration that a disaster has occurred, the combined cost to restore all damaged areas must exceed $700,000. This will also be marked by a declaration of the Governor. Application Information Additional information is available from Federal Highway Administration. G. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Housing Service - Community Facilities Loans and Grants Authorization Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended, Section 306, Public Law 92-419, 7 U.S.C. 1926. The program provides funding to construct, enlarge, extend or otherwise improve community facilities providing essential services to rural residents. Allocations Assistance includes guaranteed and insured loans, direct loans and project grants. Eligible Projects Community facilities include but are not limited to those providing or supporting overall community development such as child care facilities, food recovery and distribution centers; assisted-living facilities; group homes, mental health clinics, and shelters; and education facilities. Projects comprise, community, social, cultural, transportation, industrial park sites, fire and rescue services, access ways, and utility extensions. All facilities financed in whole or in part with RHS funds shall be for public use. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 7-26 Eligible Applicants City, county, and State agencies; political and quasi-political subdivisions of States and associations, including corporations, Indian tribes on Federal and State reservations and other federally recognized Indian tribes; and existing private corporations which: are operated on a not-for-profit basis; have or will have the legal authority necessary for constructing, operating, and maintaining the proposed facility or service and for obtaining, giving security for, and repaying the loan; and are unable to finance the proposed project from its own resources or through commercial credit at reasonable rates and terms. Assistance is authorized for eligible applicants in rural areas Application and Award Process The standard application forms as provided by the Federal agency and required by OMB Circular No. A-102 must be used for this program. An environmental assessment is required for this program. This program is eligible for coverage under E.O. 12372, "Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs." An applicant should consult the office or official designated as the single point of contact in his or her State for more information on the process the State requires in applying for assistance if the State has selected the project for review. Pre-application Form SF- 424 is filed at the local Rural Development district office from which assistance may be obtained. This program is subject to the provisions of OMB Circular No. A-110. After the pre- application has been reviewed by the Rural Development Area Office, it is forwarded to the Rural Development State Office for review and processing instructions. Following review by the State Office, the applicant is notified about eligibility, availability of funds, and if an application should be filed. Upon completion of application processing requirements and approval by the State Office, funds are made available to the Rural Development Area Office for delivery. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7-27 Table 7-1 Local Financing Tools Funding Strategy MCA References Subject to 105? Election or Petition Required? Uses Bridge and Road Mills 7-1-2111, 7-14-2201, 7-14-2501, 2502, 2504 yes no Bridges, Roads and Equipment Depreciation Reserve Funds 7-14-2506 no no Bridges, Roads and Equipment County CIP Funds 7-6-2219, 2220, 2221 yes no Bridges, Roads and Equipment Life Cycle Costing for Road Equipment None no no Equipment Gas Tax Allocation 15-70-101 no no Bridges, Roads and Equipment PILT/Timber Receipts None no Bridges, Roads and Equipment Optional Motor Vehicle Tax 61-3-537 no yes Bridges and Roads Local Option Motor Fuel Excise Tax 7-14-301 If created by resolution local initiative or resolution Bridges, Roads and Equipment Oil and Gas Leases 7-14-2505 no no Bridges, Roads and Equipment Rural Improvement Districts 7-12-2102, 2103, 4102 no yes Bridges, Roads and Equipment Local Improvement Districts for Roads 7-14-2701, 2733 o petition Roads General Obligation Bonds 7-14-2521 no yes Bridges, Roads and Equipment Revenue Bonds 7-7-2501 no in certain cases Bridges, Roads and Equipment Tax Increment Financing 7-15-4201 (municipalities only) no no Bridges, Roads and Equipment Impact Fees 76-3-510, 203 no no Bridges and Roads Voluntary Programs None no no Bridges and Roads ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7-28 *STIP State Transportation Improvement Program Highway Bridge Replacement or Rehabilitation Program Federal Hazard Elimination Program Table 7-2 Montana Department of Transportation Programs Program MCA References Funding Source Eligibility Issues Allocations and Matching Planning Considerations Uses Federal Aid Programs 60-2-126, 127 Federal STIP* inclusion Secondary Highway Program 6-2-125 Federal STIP Inclusion 65% Capital Construction 86.58% Fed. 13.42% Non-Fed County and MDT input Bridges and Roads Urban Highway Program 60-2-125 Federal STIP inclusion in/near inc. cities of 5000 86.58% Fed 13.42% Non-Fed local governing body and MDT Bridges and Roads Pavement Preservation 60-3-206 State Gas Tax STIP inclusion 35% Pavement Preservation Variable, No Match Pavement Management System On-system Roads Off-system Federal STIP inclusion 80% Fed 20% Non-Fed 35% of available funding County and MDT Off-System Bridges On-system Federal STIP inclusion 80% Fed 20% Non-Fed 65% of available funding County and MDT On-System Bridges Forest Highway Funds Federal Federal Highway Administration, Public Lands Highway Program MDT and U.S. Forest Service with input from Counties Bridges and Roads Federal Participate in Accident Reporting 90% Federal 10% State/Local State-wide Rating and Priority Bridges and Roads Transportation Enhancements – Community Transportation Enhancement Program (CTEP) Federal Identified Eligible Activities 87% Federal 13% Local Local Gov. Priorities Enhancements ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 . 0 F U N D I N G S O U R C E S 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 7-29 *TSEP - Treasure State Endowment Program **CDBG - Community Development Block Grant ***EDA - Economic Development Administration Table 7-3 Other State and Federal Funding Sources Funding Source Loan/Grant Authorization Eligible Uses Agency Funding Cycle Allocations/Matching Requirements TSEP* Both 90-6-701, MCA Bridges Montana Department of Commerce Every two years 50% match, awards cannot exceed $500,000 Montana Intercap Program Loan State Bridges, Roads and Equipment Montana Board of Investments On-going Up to $500,000 (SID based loans cannot exceed $300,00) CDBG** Grant Federal/State Bridges and Roads Montana Department of Commerce Annual 25% local match, awards cannot exceed $500,000 EDA*** Public Works Program Grant Federal Bridges and Roads U.S. Department of Commerce On-going 20 to 5% local match required USDA – Rural Housing Service Grants and Loans Federal Bridges and Road U.S. Department of Agriculture On-going various Federal Emergency Management Agency Funds Grant Federal Bridges and Roads US. Department of Homeland Security As needed N/A Federal Highway Administration Emergency Relief Grant Federal Bridges and Roads U.S. Department of Homeland Security As needed 100%<180 Days >180 Days 80/20% non-federal match ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 8 . 0 R E F E R E N C E S 8-1 8.0 REFERENCES AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: AASHTO, 1999. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Washington, DC: AASHTO, 2001. American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Roadside Design Guide. Washington, DC: AASHTO, 2002. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities. Washington DC. 2004. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Public Law 226, 101st Congress. July 26, 1990. Brandon-Legg Development/Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Cattleman’s Crossing Subdivision Feasibility Study. December 1998 Butte-Silver Bow Planning Board. Butte-Silver Bow Subdivision Regulations, Butte, Montana July 19, 2002 Clete Daily & Associates. Transportation Study Update, Butte, Montana 1986. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), FHWA, 2003 FHWA. Safety and Operations Electronic Reading Room. Accessed June 2005. Garber, Nicholas J. and Lester A. Hoel. Traffic and Engineering, Second Edition. Washington DC. 1997. Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE). Traffic Safety Toolbox: A Primer on Traffic Safety. Washington, DC: ITE 1993. Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE). Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities. Washington, DC: ITE, March 1998. ITE: The Traffic Safety Toolbox: A Primer on Traffic Safety. Washington, DC: ITE, 1999. J.B., P.W. Axelson, P.E. Longmuir, K.M. Mispagel, J.A. Stein, and D.A. Yamada. Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part II of II: Best Practices Design Guide. Report No. FHWA-EP-01-127. Washington, DC:USDOT, FHWA, September 2001. Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) Traffic Engineering Manual. Helena, Montana.2000. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 0 0 5 B U T T E - S I L V E R B O W T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E 8 . 0 R E F E R E N C E S 8-2 Our Lady of the Rockies Tram: Marketing Plan & Ridership Estimate. Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research, School of Forestry, University of Montana, July 1999 Robert Peccia & Associates. Butte – Silver Bow Transportation Plan 1996 Update, Butte, Montana 1996. Robert Peccia & Associates. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update, Bozeman, Montana 2001. Robert Peccia & Associates. Great Falls Area Transportation Plan. Helena, Montana. 2003 Robert Peccia & Associates. Greater Helena Area Transportation Plan-2004 Update, draft. Helena, Montana. 2004. State Highway Traffic Safety Office. Traffic Safety Problem Identification, FY 2006. , Montana Department of Transportation, July 15, 2005 Transportation Research Board (TRB). Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Washington, DC: TRB, National Research Council (NRC), 2000. TRB. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209. Washington, DC: TRB, 1985. TRB. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209. 1999 update. Washington, DC: TRB, 1994. TRB. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209. 1997 update. Washington, DC: TRB, 1997. URS Transportation. 2004 Missoula Urban Transportation Plan Update, Missoula, Montana May, 2001. U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (US Access Board). Draft Guidelines on Accessible Public Rights-of-Way. http://www.access-board.gov/rowdraft.htm. June 17, 2002. U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (US Access Board). Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG). 36 CFR Part 1191. As amended through September 2002. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (USDOT FHA). Traffic Calming State of the Practice. Washington, DC. 1999 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (USDOT FHA).Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide. Washington, DC