Document Whitefish_doc_66c92e96be

WHITEFISH WHITEFISH WHITEFISH URBAN CORRIDOR STUDY OF U.S. 93 July 2010 City of Whitefish MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ---PAGE BREAK--- A P R ROBERT PECCIA & ASSOCIATES HELENA - CORPORATE OFFICE KALISPELL BUTTE www.rpa-hln.com Civil Engineering For Future Generations ---PAGE BREAK--- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following people provided guidance and support throughout the course of this study: Project Oversight Committee (POC) Members Sheila Ludlow, MDT Statewide and Urban Planning Section Shane Stack, MDT Missoula District Karin Hilding, City of Whitefish Engineering Department John Wilson, City of Whitefish Public Works Department David Taylor, City of Whitefish Planning Department Bob Burkhardt, Federal Highway Administration Gene Kaufman, Federal Highway Administration Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Members Sabine Brigette, Citizen Shirley Jacobson, Former Whitefish City Council Member Don Spivey, Citizen Nick Polumbus, Whitefish Mountain Resort Jerry House, Whitefish School District Gary Stephens, Business Owner/Heart of Whitefish Bridger Kelch, Whitefish Fire Department Monte Gilman, Realtor Dale Duff, Rocky Mountain Transportation Mary Jo Look, Citizen Mary Person, Business Owner George S. Gardner, Citizen Other Important Contributors to the Whitefish Urban Corridor Study Lynn Zanto, MDT Rail, Transit & Planning Division Zia Kazimi, MDT Rail, Transit & Planning Division Tom Kahle, MDT Statewide and Urban Planning Section Jean Riley, P.E., MDT Program and Policy Analysis Section List of Preparers The following members of Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. were major contributors to this study or helped prepare the document: Brian Wacker, P.E., Vice President Daniel M. Norderud, AICP, Planner Scott Randall, E.I., Engineering Designer/Planner Kevin Ark, CADD Technician Gary Lesofski, CADD Division Manager Nick Ladas, Graphics Designer Kelly P. Quinn, Computer System Manager Jennifer Loobey, Production & Support Services Manager Jeffrey A. Key, P.E., Former Project Manager/Senior Traffic Engineer ---PAGE BREAK--- i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 INTRODUCTION IN-1 1.0 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS 1.1 US 93 and Its Adjoining Road and Street Network 1-1 1.2 Functional Classification 1-3 1.3 Existing Roadway Characteristics on US 93 and Baker Avenue 1-3 1.3.1 Lane Configurations and Typical Sections on US 93 1-4 1.3.2 Lane Configurations and Typical Sections on Baker Avenue 1-6 1.3.3 Posted Speeds 1-9 1.3.4 Intersections/Roadway Geometry 1-9 1.3.5 Traffic Controls and Turning Lanes 1-9 1.3.6 Right-of-Way 1-10 1.3.7 Bridges 1-10 1.3.8 Corridor Street Lighting 1-11 1.3.9 Corridor Utilities 1-11 1.3.10 Approaches and Access Control 1-12 1.4 Current Traffic Operations 1-12 1.4.1 Current Traffic Volumes on US 93 1-13 1.4.2 Hourly Variations in Traffic on the US 93 Corridor 1-15 1.4.3 Seasonal Variations in Traffic 1-16 1.4.4 Vehicle Classifications/Trucks 1-16 1.4.5 Existing Intersection Levels of Service 1-18 1.4.6 Corridor Capacity 1-21 1.5 Safety Analysis 1-22 1.5.1 Recent Crash Data for the Corridor 1-22 1.5.2 Severity Index and Crash Rates 1-23 1.6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the Corridor 1-24 1.6.1 Sidewalks 1-24 1.6.2 Crosswalks 1-25 1.6.3 Designated Pedestrian and Bicyclist Trails in the Corridor 1-26 1.6.4 Proposed Pedestrian and Trail Amenities on US 93 1-27 1.6.5 Pedestrian and Bicyclist Involvement in Corridor Crashes 1-27 1.7 Other Transportation Modes 1-27 1.7.1 Rail Service 1-27 1.7.2 Air Service 1-27 1.7.3 Transit Services 1-28 1.8 Summary of Existing Transportation Conditions 1-28 ---PAGE BREAK--- ii 2.0 COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND SETTING 2.1 Current and Planned Land Uses in the Corridor 2-1 2.1.1 Existing Corridor Land 2-1 2.1.2 Land Use Plans 2-2 2.1.3 Whitefish Downtown Business District Master Plan 2-3 2.1.4 Existing Land Use Regulations 2-5 2.1.5 Future Land Use and Community Development 2-5 2.2 Community Socio-Economic Characteristics 2-7 2.2.1 Demographics and Socio-Economic Conditions 2-7 2.2.2 Personal Travel and Commuting Characteristics 2-10 2.2.3 Current Economic Conditions 2-11 2.2.4 Population Projections 2-13 2.2.5 Future Household and Employment Projections 2-14 2.3 Environmental Setting 2-15 2.3.1 Geology and Soils 2-16 2.3.2 Important Farmland 2-16 2.3.3 Water Resources 2-16 2.3.4 Floodplains 2-19 2.3.5 Wetlands 2-17 2.3.6 Biological Resources 2-17 2.3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species 2-18 2.3.8 Air Quality 2-19 2.3.9 Noise 2-19 2.3.10 Hazardous Materials 2-20 2.3.11 Historical and Archaeological Sites 2-21 2.3.12 Section 4(f) Resources 2-21 2.3.13 Section 6(f) Properties 2-22 2.3.14 Utilities 2-22 2.3.15 Whitefish Critical Areas 2-23 2.3.16 Summary of Environmental and Community Resources 2-24 3.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 3.1 Future Travel Demand Forecasting in the Whitefish Area 3-1 3.1.1 Future Street Network 3-1 3.1.2 Traffic Model Development 3-2 3.1.3 Traffic Simulation and Analysis 3-3 3.2 Projected Traffic Conditions (2030) 3-3 3.2.1 Future Traffic Volumes and Capacity Considerations 3-3 3.2.2 Future Changes in Level of Service at Corridor Intersections 3-6 3.3 Anticipated Future Operational Deficiencies 3-9 4.0 CORRIDOR ISSUES, VISION AND GOALS 4.1 Identification of Corridor Issues 4-1 4.2 Corridor Needs 4-3 4.2.1 Improve Traffic Congestion and Capacity Concerns 4-3 4.2.2 Improve Geometric or Roadway Design 4-4 ---PAGE BREAK--- iii 4.2.3 Improve Safety 4-4 4.2.4 Improve Traffic Flow for Trucks 4-4 4.2.5 Improve the Physical Condition of US 93 through 4-5 4.2.6 Develop Fundable and Implementable Improvement Options 4-5 4.2.7 Avoid or Minimize Adverse Environmental Effects 4-7 4.2.8 Consider Local Plans 4-7 4.3.9 Enhance Pedestrian and Bicyclist Facilities Along US 93 4-7 4.3.10 Consider Transit and Intermodal Transportation 4-8 4.3 Corridor “Needs” Versus FEIS “Purpose and Need” 4-8 4.4 Corridor Vision 4-9 5.0 IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS AND STRATEGIES CONSIDERED FOR THE CORRIDOR 5.1 Purpose for Undertaking Improvement Options 5-1 5.2 Identification of Improvement Options 5-2 5.2.1 Alternatives from the US Highway 93 Somers to Whitefish West FEIS 5-2 5.2.2 FEIS/ROD Preferred Alternative 5-6 5.2.3 FEIS Alternatives and Strategies Not Warranting Consideration for the Corridor 5-7 5.2.4 FEIS/ROD Alternatives and Strategies to be Considered 5-8 5.2.5 Configurations Proposed After the FEIS/ROD 5-9 5.2.6 Consideration of Additional New Configurations 5-11 5.2.7 Off-System Improvements with Potential Benefits to the Corridor 5-12 5.2.8 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) 5-14 5.2.9 Options and Strategies to be Evaluated for the Corridor 5-14 6.0 EVALUATION OF IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS FOR THE CORRIDOR 6.1 Overview of Screening 6-1 6.2 Pre-Screening of Corridor Improvement Options and 6-2 6.2.1 Pre-Screening for Fatal Flaws 6-2 6.2.2 Options and Strategies Eliminated through Pre-Screening 6-3 6.2.3 Corridor Improvement Options and Strategies Advanced 6-5 6.3 Screening Process for Improvement Options 6-9 6.3.1 First-Level Screening 6-9 6.3.2 Second-Level Screening 6-9 6.3.3 Screening Criteria 6-9 6.4. Initial Operational Reviews of Corridor Improvement Options 6-10 6.4.1 Methodology 6-10 6.4.2 Results of Initial Operational Reviews 6-12 6.5. First-Level Screening Assessments for Improvement Options 6-14 6.5.1 Alternative A (4-Lane) Configuration 6-15 6.5.2 Alternative C (Couplet 1) Configuration 6-16 6.5.3 Alternative C (Couplet 2) Configuration 6-17 6.5.4 FEIS/Record of Decision Preferred-Alternative C (Couplet 3) Configuration 6-18 6.5.5 Alternative C (Couplet 4) Configuration 6-19 6.5.6 Alternative C (Offset) Configuration 6-20 ---PAGE BREAK--- iv 6.5.7 Modified Record of Decision Configuration 6-21 6.5.8 Contra-Flow Configuration 6-22 6.5.9 Truck Route Configuration 6-23 6.5.10 Downtown Business District Master Plan Configuration 6-24 6.6 Recommendations Based on First-Level Screening 6-25 6.6.1 Options Not Advanced to Second-Level Screening 6-25 6.6.2 Options Advanced to Second-Level Screening 6-25 6.6.3 Modification to Alternative C (Offset) Configuration 6-26 7.0 TRADEOFFS BETWEEN CONFIGURATIONS OF INTEREST FOR THE CORRIDOR 7.1 Capacity and Traffic Operations 7-1 7.1.1 Operation and Performance of Signalized Intersections 7-2 7.1.1.1 Contra-Flow Configuration 7-2 7.1.1.2 Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration 7-3 7.1.2 Operation and Performance of Unsignalized Intersections 7-4 7.1.2.1 Contra-Flow Configuration 7-4 7.1.2.2 Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration 7-5 7.1.3 Overall Performance of the Configurations 7-6 7.1.3.1 Contra-Flow Configuration 7-6 7.1.3.2 Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration 7-8 7.1.4 Accommodation of Truck Traffic 7-10 7.1.4.1 Contra-Flow Configuration 7-10 7.1.4.2 Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration 7-10 7.1.5 Tradeoffs Between the Configurations 7-10 7.2 Safety Considerations 7-12 7.2.1 Contra-Flow Configuration 7-12 7.2.2 Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration 7-12 7.2.3 Tradeoffs Between the Configurations 7-13 7.3 Consistency with MDT’s Current Design Standards 7-14 7.3.1 Contra-Flow Configuration 7-14 7.3.2 Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration 7-14 7.3.3 Tradeoffs Between the Configurations 7-14 7.4 Potential Environmental Effects 7-14 7.4.1 Contra-Flow Configuration 7-14 7.4.2 Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration 7-16 7.4.3 Tradeoffs Between the Configurations 7-17 7.5 Feasibility and Affordability 7-19 7.5.1 Contra-Flow Configuration 7-19 7.5.2 Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration 7-20 7.5.3 Tradeoffs Between the Configurations 7-21 7.6 Compatibility with Local Plans and Ideals 7-22 7.6.1 Contra-Flow Configuration 7-22 7.6.2 Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration 7-22 7.6.3 Tradeoffs Between the Configurations 7-23 ---PAGE BREAK--- v 8.0 FUTURE IMPROVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS 8.1 Spokane Avenue Improvements 8-1 8.1.1 General Operational Recommendations 8-1 8.1.2 Project Development and Design Considerations 8-1 8.2 2nd Street Improvements 8-2 8.2.1 General Operational Recommendations 8-2 8.2.2 Project Development and Design Considerations 8-2 8.3 Baker Avenue Improvements 8-3 8.3.1 General Operational Recommendations 8-3 8.3.2 Project Development and Design Considerations 8-3 8.4 7th Street Construction 8-4 8.4.1 General Operational Recommendations 8-4 8.4.2 Project Development and Design Considerations 8-4 8.5 13th Street Improvements 8-4 8.5.1 General Operational Recommendations 8-4 8.5.2 Project Development and Design Considerations 8-5 8.6 Pedestrian and Bicyclist Facilities 8-5 8.6.1 Project Development and Design Considerations 8-5 8.7 Improvement Priorities and Suggested Sequencing 8-6 9.0 FUNDING, IMPLEMENTING CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS, AND FINAL SUMMARY 9.1 Potential Federal and State Funding Sources 9-1 9.1.1 National Highway System (NHS) Funds 9-1 9.1.2 Urban Highway System (STPU) Funds 9-1 9.1.3 Community Transportation Enhancement Program (CTEP) 9-2 9.1.4 On-System Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program 9-3 9.1.5 Montana Air & Congestion Initiative (MACI) – Discretionary Program 9-3 9.1.6 TIGER Discretionary Grant 9-3 9.2 Potential Local Funding Sources 9-4 9.2.1 State Fuel Tax Apportionment to the City of Whitefish 9-4 9.2.2 City of Whitefish General Fund 9-4 9.2.3 Resort Tax Funds 9-5 9.2.4 Transportation Impact Fees 9-5 9.2.5 Tax Increment Financing (TIF) 9-6 9.3 Regionally Significant Projects and Fiscal Constraint 9-6 9.4 Future NEPA/MEPA Compliance 9-7 9.5 Summary of Public Comments on the Draft Corridor Study 9-8 9.6 Next Steps 9-9 9.6.1 Determine Options to Forward Into Project Development 9-10 9.6.2 Determine Long-Range Funding Sources for Corridor Improvements......... 9-10 9.6.3 Complete the Environmental Review Process 9-10 9.6.4 Begin Design Activities for Corridor Improvements Projects 9-11 ---PAGE BREAK--- vi APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Public Draft Corridor Study Comment/Response Matrix APPENDIX B: Public and Agency Involvement During the Corridor Study APPENDIX C: Transportation Planning Requirements and Their Relationship to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Approvals (July 17, 2008 Letter from FHWA) APPENDIX D: Screening Considerations Used for Assessments of Corridor Improvement Options APPENDIX E: Technical Materials Relevant to the Operational Review of Corridor Improvement Options APPENDIX F: Cost Estimates for Improvement Projects Associated with Contra-Flow and Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configurations ---PAGE BREAK--- vii LIST OF FIGURES Page No. Figure 1-1: Study Area Boundary 1-2 Figure 1-2: Typical Section – US 93 (South of 13th Street) 1-4 Figure 1-3: Typical Section – Spokane Avenue (6th Street to 2nd Street) 1-5 Figure 1-4: Typical Section – 2nd Street (Spokane to Baker Avenue) 1-6 Figure 1-5: Typical Section – Baker Avenue (3rd Street to Whitefish River) 1-7 Figure 1-6: Typical Section – Baker Avenue (Whitefish River to 7th Street) 1-8 Figure 1-7: Typical Section – Baker Avenue (7th Street to 10th Street) 1-8 Figure 1-8: Typical Section – Baker Avenue (10th Street to 13th Street) 1-9 Figure 1-9: Existing Traffic Volumes 1-14 Figure 1-10: Hourly Variations in Traffic Volumes within the Corridor 1-15 Figure 1-11: Designated Pedestrian and Bicyclist Trails in the Corridor 1-26 Figure 1-12: Existing Conditions – Spokane Avenue 1-30 Figure 1-13: Existing Conditions – 2nd Street 1-31 Figure 1-14: Existing Conditions – Baker Avenue 1-32 Figure 2-1: Existing Land Uses 2-3 Figure 2-2: Proposed Land Use Concept from the Whitefish Downtown Business District Master Plan 2-4 Figure 2-3: Future Land Use Map for the City of Whitefish 2-6 Figure 2-4: Environmental and Community Resources 2-25 Figure 3-1: Projected Traffic Volumes 3-5 Figure 3-2: Intersection Level of Service 3-8 Figure 5-1: Design Configurations from the FEIS/ROD 5-5 Figure 5-2: Design Configurations Proposed After the FEIS/ROD 5-10 Figure 5-3: Whitefish Transportation Plan Alternative Scenarios 5-13 ---PAGE BREAK--- viii LIST OF TABLES Page No. Table 1-1: Truck Percentages at Selected Intersections in the Corridor 1-17 Table 1-2: MDT Operational Standards for Urban Roadways and Intersections 1-19 Table 1-3: Peak Hour LOS for Signalized Intersections in the Corridor 1-20 Table 1-4: Peak Hour LOS for Unsignalized Intersections on the US 93 and Baker Avenue 1-21 Table 1-5: Crosswalks Along the US 93 Corridor and Baker Avenue 1-25 Table 2-1: Current Population Estimates and Growth Rates 2-8 Table 2-2: Underserved Populations in Whitefish as Compared to County and State Averages 2-10 Table 2-3: Mode of Transportation to Work 2-11 Table 2-4: City of Whitefish Employment by SIC Industry (1980-2000) 2-13 Table 3-1: Current and Future Modeled Traffic Volumes on US 93 and Baker Avenue 3-6 Table 5-1: Alternatives or Strategies from the FEIS/ROD Receiving Initial Consideration in the Corridor 5-8 Table 5-2: Options Receiving Initial Consideration in the Corridor 5-15 Table 6-1: Pre-Screening Evaluation of Corridor Options and Strategies 6-6 Table 6-2: Relevant Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) 6-11 Table 6-3: MOE Ratings for Improvement Options – Current (2003) Conditions 6-12 Table 6-4: MOE Ratings for Improvement Options – 2030 Conditions 6-14 Table 6-5: Options Not Advanced to Second-Level Screening 6-25 Table 7-1: Overall Level of Service at Signalized Intersections Contra-flow Configuration 7-2 Table 7-2: Overall Level of Service at Signalized Intersections Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration 7-3 Table 7-3: Level of Service at Unsignalized Intersections Contra-flow Configuration 7-4 Table 7-4: Level of Service at Unsignalized Intersections Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration 7-5 Table 7-5: Planning-Level Cost Estimate for Corridor Improvements Contra-Flow 7-19 Table 7-6: Planning-Level Cost Estimate for Corridor Improvements Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration 7-20 ---PAGE BREAK--- ES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) in cooperation with the City of Whitefish and the Montana Federal Highway (FHWA) Division Office used the corridor planning process for a section of U.S. Highway 93 (US 93) within the central portion of the city. US 93 is on the National Highway System and serves as an important north/south transportation route in western Montana. The roadway also functions as one of Whitefish’s main arterials accommodating access to commercial, residential, and recreational areas within the community. The focus of this study encompasses US 93 from its intersection with 13th Street northward along Spokane Avenue to 2nd Street and 2nd Street from Spokane Avenue through Baker Avenue. This area corresponds to the previously established limits for MDT’s Whitefish Urban project. A broad study area generally bounded by Karrow Avenue, Railway Street, Somers Avenue, and 18th Street was established to ensure areas beyond the limits of the Whitefish Urban Corridor received consideration. MDT and FHWA have considered improving US 93 through the community since the late 1980’s. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was completed in 1995 that identified necessary improvements for the facility. Design work for two additional reconstruction projects—the Whitefish Urban and Whitefish West projects—began in early 2005. The design of Whitefish West project has advanced, while design work on the Whitefish Urban project was suspended due to increased traffic, changing community conditions and updated local planning documents. This Study allows for evaluation of corridor needs based on the new information and changed conditions. This Corridor Study was developed concurrently with the Whitefish Transportation Plan, a broad community-wide look at the transportation system and its future needs. The work for the Transportation Plan helped analyze conditions within the corridor and provided an overall framework for recommending corridor improvements. The study examines the existing transportation system within the corridor and how the system could be improved to meet short and long-term needs. The study process was collaborative and involved MDT, FHWA, the City of Whitefish, a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), resource agencies, and the public in helping to identify transportation problems and feasible solutions. This Corridor Study is a pre-NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and pre-MEPA (Montana Environmental Policy Act) study. This study allows MDT flexibility in examining improvement options for the corridor taking into account new information, changed conditions and the Whitefish Transportation Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- ES-2 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS The Corridor Study provides a planning level look at the existing road and street network and its operational characteristics. Current traffic volumes, levels of service (LOS), and the recent crash history on US 93 and adjoining roadways were examined to establish existing conditions and operational problems. This review identified the following key findings: ƒ Traffic volumes on US 93 and other corridor roadways have steadily increased over the last decade above what was projected in the EIS. ƒ The signalized intersections on 2nd Street at Spokane and Baker Avenues currently function at a poor overall LOS during peak hours. ƒ Spokane Avenue (north of Riverside Avenue), 2nd Street (west of Baker Avenue), and Baker Avenue (between 6th and 13th Streets) are approaching or exceeding their estimated capacity volumes. ƒ Truck traffic along the US 93 corridor occasionally inhibits traffic flows and affects operations at intersections in the downtown area. 2nd Street’s intersections with Spokane and Baker Avenues—cannot accommodate the full range of truck movements. ƒ The types of collisions (rear-ends, right-turn and right-angle collisions, sideswipes, and left turn collisions) seen within the corridor are typical of roadways experiencing periods of traffic congestion. ƒ Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, and Baker Avenue are part of the City of Whitefish’s existing and planned pedestrian and bicyclist trail network ƒ Whitefish is well served by rail transportation; however, other forms of public transportation are seasonal or focused on special needs groups. COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS The population growth trends, household characteristics, and employment patterns are key factors in gauging transportation needs with this corridor. The key findings were: ƒ Population estimates show Whitefish as the fastest growing incorporated area in Montana over the 2000 to 2008 period. ƒ Health and professional services, retail trade, and services associated with the tourism industry constitute the primary employers. ---PAGE BREAK--- ES-3 ƒ Growth Policy projections shows the City’s population could range from 8,800 to 14,600 residents and the City’s planning jurisdictional area could have between 14,800 and 27,800 residents by the year 2030. ƒ The Whitefish travel demand model projects the number of housing units could increase by nearly 6,900 and more than 5,700 jobs could added by the year 2030. ƒ While the downturn in the national economy in recent years has slowed growth and economic development, it is likely that Flathead County and the City of Whitefish will remain among the state’s top growth areas over the long term. ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN An environmental scan was conducted to identify environmental issues with the potential to influence the type, location, or design of improvements to US 93 within the corridor. The most notable environmental considerations identified through this effort include: ƒ The potential effects to the Whitefish River and associated riparian wetlands, ƒ The potential to encounter contaminated sediments at several locations where Spokane and Baker Avenues cross the river; ƒ The existence of historic-age properties along corridor roadways; and ƒ The potential for noise levels to increase at some residences along Spokane and Baker Avenues as traffic volumes grow. Future NEPA/MEPA compliance processes must consider these and other potential environmental effects from corridor improvements. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AND TRANSPORTATION NEEDS Future traffic conditions on the US 93 corridor were assessed based on operational analyses using the results of travel demand modeling for the year 2030. The travel demand model takes into account socio-economic characteristics and growth projections for the community through the allocation of new housing units and employment. These allocations were consistent with the assumptions about future growth and development from the Growth Policy. ƒ The travel demand model forecasts increases in traffic volumes throughout the Whitefish area by the year 2030. These future modeled traffic volumes all range from 1.2 to 2.0 times higher than modeled volumes for existing conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- ES-4 ƒ Numerous segments on the US 93 corridor and Baker Avenue already operate at or near their capacities; therefore, the ability of these existing roadways to accommodate future traffic flows would continue to decrease as traffic volumes increase . ƒ By the year 2030, the unsignalized intersections along Spokane and Baker Avenues will operate at a poor LOS for the side street traffic during peak hours. The US 93 through traffic movements continue to operate at an acceptable level. CORRIDOR ISSUES AND OVERALL VISION Comments on issues associated with the improvement to US 93 through Whitefish and general community transportation concerns have been received from interested agencies and the public through a variety of past projects. Based on input from past projects and new work done for this corridor study, the following vision statement for the Whitefish Urban corridor was drafted: “The US 93 Whitefish Urban corridor serves as an important regional and local transportation link and helps support the economic, social, and recreational structure of the community. Future development of US 93 through the Whitefish urban area should effectively serve personal travel and goods movement within and through the corridor and provide safe transportation facilities for residents, community visitors, and through travelers. Transportation improvements should provide mobility on the corridor while complementing community land use visions and plans, be adaptable to accommodate future growth, and help maintain or enhance Whitefish’s unique character and quality of life. Transportation improvements should resolve site-specific operational or safety problems along the corridor and be designed and implemented in a way that protects the natural environment.” A preliminary set of goals and associated objectives to support the vision were developed for review by MDT, FHWA, the City of Whitefish, a CAC and the public. These goals and objectives provided the basis for the development and evaluation of configurations and transportation strategies for the corridor. The corridor vision, goals, and objectives were also determined to be consistent with the purpose and need for improving the US 93 corridor as stated in the U.S. Highway 93 Somers-Whitefish West Final EIS. CONFIGURATIONS AND STRATEGIES CONSIDERED A wide variety of configurations incorporating Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, Baker Avenue and 13th Street as well as other transportation strategies were initially considered to help address immediate and long-term needs within the corridor. Table 1 provides a complete list of improvement options and strategies initially considered in this study. The table identifies configurations that were evaluated in detail ---PAGE BREAK--- ES-5 in the U.S. Highway 93 Somers to Whitefish West FEIS/ROD. The middle column lists the four configurations that have been developed for the corridor since the FEIS/ROD was issued. The right column shows other strategies that may be applicable to the corridor. Many of these strategies were also previously considered in the FEIS/ROD. Table 1: Improvement Options and Strategies Considered for the Corridor Configurations Evaluated in the FEIS/ROD Configurations Developed After the FEIS/ROD Other Options or Transportation Strategies Warranting Consideration No-Action Alternative A (Four-Lane) Alternative C (Couplet 1) Alternative C (Couplet 2) Alternative C (Couplet 3) – FEIS/ROD PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Alternative C (Couplet 4) Alternative C (Offset) Modified ROD Configuration Contra-Flow Configuration Truck Route Configuration Downtown Business District Master Plan Configuration Other Options Western Route Alternates (FEIS Bypass Alternatives A-D) Selected Off-system Improvements Indirectly Benefiting the Corridor Transportation Strategies Transportation Demand Management Transportation System Management Transit Improvements Intelligent Transportation Systems EVALUATION OF CONFIGURATIONS AND STRATEGIES A multi-step screening process was used to determine how well the configurations and transportation strategies shown above address the goals and objectives for improving the corridor. The first step in the screening process was a “fatal flaw” review to identify improvements or actions that fail to support the overall goals for the US 93 corridor or that are unrealistic and have little or no reasonable chance of being implemented. The remainder of the screening process focused on the evaluation of configurations against a comprehensive set of first-level and second-level screening criteria found in Table 6-2. Several other considerations were examined to help identify promising improvement options. Each configuration was evaluated against criteria in five additional screening categories including: • Safety Considerations, • Consistency with Applicable Geometric Design Criteria, • Potential Environmental Effects, • Feasibility/Affordability, and • Compatibility with Local Plans and Community Ideals. ---PAGE BREAK--- ES-6 Two configurations— the Alternative C (Offset) Configuration and the Contra-Flow Configuration—were selected for more extensive review based on the results of the screening assessments. These configurations were advanced for the following reasons: The operational reviews showed the Contra-Flow Configuration ranked as the one of the best performing options under current and future conditions. Due to the anticipated high cost of providing a bridge at 7th Street and its associated environmental effects, there is merit to evaluating an option that does not include a 7th Street bridge. The Alternative C (Offset) Configuration reflects the existing street network and does not require adding any new roadway links. The overall performance of the Offset configuration is inhibited by the lack of dedicated turning lanes at the signalized intersections along the corridor, particularly on 2nd Street. Further review showed the operation of the Alternative C (Offset) Configuration can be enhanced by modifying the conditions at the signalized intersections. Therefore, the Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration was identified as a “new” configuration. Since the Modified Alternative C (Offset) performs better and is more consistent with local plans, the configuration was advanced over the Alternative C (Offset) Configuration (shown below). CONTRA-FLOW CONFIGURATION MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE C (OFFSET) CONFIGURATION The screening process recognizes a balance needs to be struck between the ability to meet current and future transportation needs, the potential environmental effects, the overall cost of implementing corridor improvements, and the desires of the community as ---PAGE BREAK--- ES-7 expressed in local plans. The Contra-Flow and Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configurations are both recommended for final consideration. Each of the options has inherent advantages and disadvantages and there are notable tradeoffs with implementing one option over the other. The issues and concerns of importance to future decision-makers are highlighted below. CAPACITY AND TRAFFIC OPERATIONS The ability to address current and projected future travel demands is the key operational consideration for the US 93 corridor. Providing a new bridge at 7th Street and extending 7th Street eastward to Kalispell Avenue as called for under the Contra-Flow Configuration could decrease traffic on Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, and portions of Baker Avenue by 15% to 20%. The Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration relies on the use of Baker Avenue south of 7th Street and 13th Street to accommodate corridor traffic. Cross over traffic between Spokane and Baker Avenues is accommodated at 13th Street instead of by a new connection at 7th Street. The Contra-Flow Configuration generally outperforms the Modified Alternative C (Offset) under current and future conditions. The operational review showed that under the Contra-Flow Configuration, users would experience fewer delays and could more efficiently travel through the corridor. Both options provide alternative routes for trucks which could reduce the amount of truck traffic on 2nd Street. The Contra-Flow Configuration would divert truck traffic to Baker Avenue at 7th Street and the Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration would divert trucks to Baker Avenue via 13th Street. SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS Both options represent an increase in overall safety on US 93 when compared to existing conditions. However, increased left turn conflicts may be expected since southbound traffic on Spokane Avenue and northbound traffic on Baker Avenue would need to cross two opposing lanes. Although the crossing distance would not change, pedestrians crossing Spokane and Baker Avenues would need to cross three travel lanes instead of two lanes. CONSISTENCY WITH MDT DESIGN STANDARDS Both options could be designed in a manner that complies with MDT’s design guidance for urban principal arterials. Increased corner radii could be provided as needed at Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street and at 2nd Street and Baker Avenue where the current layouts do not accommodate a full range of truck movements. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The Contra-Flow Configuration depends on the provision of a new connection at 7th Street linking Spokane and Baker Avenues. The new connection occurs at a location ---PAGE BREAK--- ES-8 where the Whitefish River channel and its associated riparian zone are substantially wider than other locations in the area. This necessitates the provision of a 500-600 foot- long bridge across the river. Adding capacity (width) to the existing bridge over the Whitefish River on Baker Avenue would be required for both configurations. Work within the Whitefish River would be subject to federal and state regulations protecting water quality and the City’s Critical Area Ordinance. New right-of-way (including a business acquisition) would be needed to accommodate the construction of 7th Street between Spokane and Kalispell Avenues and the new 7th Street river crossing. The Contra-Flow Configuration may also require the acquisition of new right-of-way along Baker Avenue between the Whitefish River and 7th Street. With the Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration, Baker Avenue between 7th and 13th Streets and 13th Street would need to be rebuilt to provide the desired configuration and accommodate road widening. Additional right-of-way would be required along Baker Avenue in some areas from the Whitefish River crossing to 13th Street. COST AND AFFORDABILITY The current cost to construct the improvements associated with Contra-Flow Configuration is estimated to be $20 million (including contingencies). Providing the required bridge at 7th Street and extending 7th Street east of Spokane Avenue accounts for about half of the total estimated cost. Cost estimates show the improvements for the Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration is $11 million (including contingencies). COMPATIBILITY WITH LOCAL PLANS Both options provide a two-lane configuration and would retain some on-street parking along 2nd Street. With the exception of Spokane Avenue between 7th and 2nd Streets, the lane configuration of the Contra-Flow option is generally consistent with local plans. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE CORRIDOR Both the Contra-Flow and Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configurations maintain US 93 traffic on Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street, include upgrades to portions of Baker Avenue between 2nd and 13th Street, and rely on connections at either 7th or 13th Streets to meet future travel demands. Design elements and recommendations from past planning efforts—including the U.S. Highway 93 Somers to Whitefish West FEIS/ROD and local plans—were considered in the development of future improvement options for corridor roadways. These considerations are highlighted below. SPOKANE AVENUE ƒ Both configurations provide a three-lane roadway accommodating two northbound ---PAGE BREAK--- ES-9 driving lanes, one southbound driving lane along Spokane Avenue north of 7th Street. ƒ Coordination with the City will need to occur during project development if an improvement option is forwarded to review. The coordination must consider the streetscape enhancements, future operation of US 93 and funding available from the city for the improvements. ƒ It may be desirable to use landscaped medians and left turn provisions for northbound traffic at several locations to serve commercial uses west of Spokane Avenue between 7th and 13th Streets. ƒ The large-diameter culverts conveying the Whitefish River beneath Spokane Avenue have considerable remaining service life; however, local preferences are to install a new bridge when the culverts are replaced. 2ND STREET ƒ Both configurations: o Maintain a two-lane roadway within the existing roadway “footprint” that accommodates one lane in each direction and allows for some on-street parking along 2nd Street consistent with local plans o Provide appropriate dedicated turn lanes at 2nd Street’s intersections with Spokane and Baker Avenues and prohibiting left turns from 2nd Street onto Central Avenue is required to facilitate traffic operations with either option o Require evaluation of traffic signals o Require minor right-of-way acquisitions on the intersection of 2nd and Spokane ƒ A 2006 District Court ruling prohibits MDT from acquiring property from the First American Bank property (located on the northwest corner of the 2nd and Baker intersection) through condemnation. Future improvements to the intersection of would have to be completed without acquiring any right-of-way from American Bank. ƒ Local plans include recommendations for desired elements and streetscape enhancements along 2nd Street. Coordination with the City will need to be completed to determine funding availability from the city for the enhancements. This would determine if the enhancements are consistent with current MDT design standards. BAKER AVENUE ƒ Both configurations provide a three-lane roadway accommodating two southbound driving lanes and a northbound driving lane between 2nd and 7th Streets. The Modified Alternative C (Offset) option continues the three-lane configuration south of 7th Street to 13th Street. ---PAGE BREAK--- ES-10 ƒ The existing bridge structure over the Whitefish River would need to either be widened or replaced with a new structure to accommodate additional lanes. ƒ New right-of-way acquisition is anticipated south of the Whitefish River to accommodate roadway widening. 7TH STREET ƒ The Contra-Flow Configuration would provide a three-lane roadway accommodating two eastbound driving lanes and a westbound driving lane between Spokane and Baker Avenues. The Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration would not provide a roadway connection at 7th Street. ƒ The Contra-Flow Configuration would provide a new connection between Spokane and Kalispell Avenues. New right-of-way (including a business acquisition) would be needed to accommodate the construction and the new river crossing. ƒ The installation of traffic signals and the addition of appropriate turn lanes would be necessary at the intersections with Spokane and Baker Avenues. 13TH STREET ƒ The Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration would provide a three-lane roadway accommodating one westbound driving lane and two eastbound driving lanes between Spokane and Baker Avenues. The Contra-Flow Configuration would not involve any improvements to 13th Street. ƒ A new traffic signal and dedicated turn lanes would be needed at the intersection of Baker Avenue and 13th Street. ƒ Areas of new right-of-way acquisition may be necessary along Baker Avenue south of the Whitefish River to accommodate roadway widening and the provision of dedicated turn lanes at Baker Avenue and 13th Street. Existing commercial buildings along 13th Street limit available right-of-way PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST ƒ Consider the policies and recommendations for pedestrian and bicyclist facilities identified in local plans and coordinate with the City concerning future corridor improvements. ƒ Ensure that sidewalks at least 5-feet wide are provided along each side of corridor roadways and install or modify curb ramps at intersections where needed to meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. ƒ Right-of-way limitations and traffic operations likely preclude the addition of bicycle lanes along both sides of 2nd Street; however, consideration should be given to providing 5-foot wide bicycle lanes along each side of Spokane and Baker Avenues if a project is forwarded. ---PAGE BREAK--- ES-11 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES This study outlines a desired sequencing for implementing the recommended improvements. The recommended sequencing recognizes that funding for corridor improvements will likely be limited over the foreseeable future. Another consideration for determining a desired sequencing for improvements was the need to have adequate alternate routes for local and through traffic in place during reconstruction activities on Spokane and Baker Avenues. Given the funding situation and other uncertainties related to the timing of downtown redevelopment projects, there was no attempt to identify when the recommended improvements should be implemented over the planning horizon for the corridor study. However, the following priorities were established for implementing corridor-related improvements: CONTRA-FLOW CONFIGURATION PRIORITY 1: 2nd Street Improvements and Signal Upgrades PRIORITY 2: Add Capacity to the Baker Avenue Bridge PRIORITY 3: Baker Avenue Reconstruction/Upgrades PRIORITY 4: 7th Street Bridge and 7th Street Connection PRIORITY 5: Spokane Avenue Reconstruction/Upgrades MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE C (OFFSET) CONFIGURATION PRIORITY 1: 2nd Street Improvements and Signal Upgrades PRIORITY 2: Add Capacity to the Baker Avenue Bridge PRIORITY 3: Baker Avenue and 13th Reconstruction/Upgrades PRIORITY 4: Spokane Avenue Reconstruction/Upgrades ESTIMATED COSTS FOR CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS Planning-level cost estimates were developed for the two corridor improvement configurations under review. The estimates include construction costs based on typical unit costs for recent MDT highway projects, a representative cost for right-of-way, and costs for mobilization and contingencies. The estimates provided in Table 3 are very preliminary and may change substantially based on more detailed engineering and design activities. Table 3 shows the estimated current total cost of improvements to these roadways under the Contra-Flow Configuration ranges from $20.81 million as compared to $10.86 million for the Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration. These cost estimates do not include providing a new bridge for the Whitefish River on Spokane Avenue. Replacing the culverts beneath Spokane Avenue with a bridge and making locally desired non- motorized trail connections would increase the estimated cost of each configuration by about $4.6 million. ---PAGE BREAK--- ES-12 Table 3: Estimated Construction Costs for Corridor Improvements CONTRA-FLOW CONFIGURATION Associated Improvements Current Cost (in millions) 2nd Street Improvements and Signal Upgrades $2.02 Add Capacity to the Baker Avenue Bridge $1.45 Baker Avenue Reconstruction/Upgrades $2.07 7th Street Bridge and 7th Street Connection $11.22 Spokane Avenue Reconstruction/Upgrades* $4.05 TOTAL $20.81M * Does not include the cost of replacing the culverts for the Whitefish River on Spokane Avenue with a new bridge. MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE C (OFFSET) CONFIGURATION Associated Improvements Current Cost (in millions) 2nd Street Improvements and Signal Upgrades $2.02 Add Capacity to the Baker Avenue Bridge $1.45 Baker Avenue and 13th Reconstruction and Upgrades $3.79 Spokane Avenue Reconstruction/Upgrades* $3.60 TOTAL $10.86 M * Does not include the cost of replacing the culverts for the Whitefish River on Spokane Avenue with a new bridge. Assuming a 3 percent annual rate of inflation, the cost of projects within the corridor could be 19 percent higher than current estimates by the year 2015 and 86 percent higher than current estimates by the year 2030. POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES AND IMPLEMENTATION • The improvement options could be eligible to receive National Highway System (NHS) funding if designated as part of US 93 and are eligible for federal and state fund administered through the NHS Program. • Other local government funding sources could help accomplish portions of the proposed projects, pay for desired amenities, or be used to implement off-system projects that would indirectly benefit the US 93 corridor. NEXT STEPS DETERMINE WHICH OPTIONS TO FORWARD INTO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT The decision makers from MDT and FHWA will need to determine which improvement options, if any, are to be forwarded into project development. ---PAGE BREAK--- ES-13 DETERMINE A LONG-RANGE FUNDING PLAN FOR CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS MDT, FHWA and the City of Whitefish will need to develop a funding plan to implement corridor improvements. Committing federal funding to corridor improvements will require that projects be nominated and programmed by MDT through its Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process. MDT and the City of Whitefish would need to develop cost sharing agreements to specify which entity would be responsible for funding the amenities included with the recommended corridor improvements. COMPLETE THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS Before federal and state funding can be programmed for the corridor improvements and design activities can actually begin, the environmental review process to document NEPA/MEPA compliance must be completed. This process would require the completion of a re-evaluation of the Final EIS as it relates to the Whitefish Urban project area to determine the need for the preparation of Supplemental EIS. FHWA, in consultation with MDT, would need to make a decision about the appropriate environmental review process and ultimately revise the Record of Decision for the Whitefish Urban project area. BEGIN DESIGN ACTIVITIES FOR CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS After completion of the environmental review process and funding becomes available, the design activities can be initiated on recommended improvements projects. Coordination would need to occur to ensure that designs incorporate any necessary or planned infrastructure work by the City and to identify amenities that would be part of the improvement projects. Design activities would also identify and facilitate necessary right-of-way acquisitions within each project area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. IN-1 INTRODUCTION Potential improvement to U.S. Highway 93 (US 93) have been considered since 1988 when the US 93 Kalispell to Whitefish Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) was prepared and approved by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). There was substantial public controversy generated during the 1989 to 1992 timeframe concerning the improvements to US 93 from Somers through Whitefish. Due to these public concerns that the EA/FONSI did not adequately address the social, economic and environmental effects of rebuilding US 93, in 1992 MDT and FHWA decided to prepare the U.S. Highway 93 Somers to Whitefish West Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS addressed improvements to US 93 from Somers (located south of Kalispell) through the communities of Kalispell and Whitefish to a location about 6 miles west of Whitefish. During the EIS process, the issues associated with improving US 93 within the community were explored, improvement options and strategies were developed and analyzed, and the impacts of making such improvements were assessed. A Preferred Alternative for improving the facility was identified in the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final EIS. The ROD was approved by FHWA in late 1994, MDT began work to design and implement the recommended configuration for US 93. Reconstruction of US 93 at the southern edge of Whitefish was completed in 1998 and design work for the two additional reconstruction projects on US 93 through the Whitefish area— known as Whitefish Urban and Whitefish West—began in early 2005. Although the design of Whitefish West project has proceeded, changing conditions and input received from recent planning studies resulted in MDT initiating a corridor study to determine feasible improvement options using the MDT Corridor Planning Process. MDT, in cooperation with the City of Whitefish, initiated work on the Whitefish Urban Corridor Study and the Whitefish Transportation Plan in 2007. The Whitefish Urban Corridor Study provides a focused look at the transportation needs and improvement options for US 93 in the Whitefish Urban study area. The Whitefish Transportation Plan, completed in 2010, examines transportation issues in a broader context, evaluates existing and future traffic operations, and identifies long-range transportation system needs for the greater Whitefish community. CORRIDOR STUDY AREA The City of Whitefish, the second largest incorporated area within Flathead County, lies 9 miles northwest of Columbia Falls and 15 miles north of Kalispell. The city is situated in the northern part of Flathead Valley just south of Whitefish Lake. Timber, farming and the railroad have historically provided the economic foundation for Whitefish., In recent years the community has become known as a tourist and recreational destination ---PAGE BREAK--- Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. IN-2 due to its proximity to Glacier National Park, the Whitefish Mountain Resort (ski resort), and abundant public lands. These amenities have promoted tourism which has resulted in growth within the community over the last two decades. Whitefish is served by US 93, a major north-south route connecting Canada with the United States, and by Montana Highway 40 which connects with U.S. Highway 2, a major east-west highway located about 7 miles east of the community. The Whitefish Urban Corridor encompasses a portion of US 93 and adjoining roadways located in the central part of the City of Whitefish. A focus of this study is the section of US 93 from its intersection with 13th Street (Reference Post 126.9) northward along Spokane Avenue to 2nd Street and 2nd Street from Spokane Avenue to just west of Baker Avenue (Reference Post 127.8). This area corresponds to the previously established limits for the Whitefish Urban project—designated as Project Number NH 5- 3(80)127, UPN 4781 000 by MDT. This study area was established to ensure areas beyond the limits of the Whitefish Urban Corridor received consideration. The study area also encompasses the locations where multiple alternatives for the improvement of US 93 were proposed in the U.S. Highway 93 Somers to Whitefish West FEIS/ROD. Specifically, the “Whitefish Area Alternatives” included various roadway configurations incorporating the existing sections of US 93 (Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street), Baker Avenue between 2nd Street and 13th Streets, and existing or new links between Spokane and Baker Avenues. PURPOSE OF THE CORRIDOR STUDY The purpose of this study is to determine short and long-term needs of the Whitefish Urban corridor and to recommend improvement options including the no build. Consideration was given to the needs of non-motorized facility users as well as to vehicular needs. The corridor study relied on a collaborative process involving the City of Whitefish, a Citizens Advisory Committee, MDT, FHWA, other federal and state agencies, and the public to help identify and address transportation problems in the community. The primary goals of the corridor study included: 1) Linking land use and transportation planning efforts in the community; 2) Fostering interagency coordination; 3) Determining issues and environmental factors with the potential to influence the configuration of US 93 through Whitefish; and 4) Identifying and recommending appropriate improvements and/or management strategies for meeting existing and future transportation needs. To accomplish these goals, this study reviews existing conditions, establishes current and future transportation needs within the corridor, identifies an overall vision for improving the corridor, and evaluates alternate ways to address current and future needs. The improvement options and strategies considered for the corridor were evaluated against a set of needs and objectives based on the overall vision for the ---PAGE BREAK--- Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. IN-3 corridor. The needs and objectives recognize that the improvements should be are viable to construct, financially feasible, and sensitive to input received from the public and resource agencies. The study will generate products that can be used in future National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) compliance processes if recommended corridor improvement options are advanced by MDT, FHWA or the City of Whitefish into project development. CORRIDOR STUDY PROCESS The corridor study process looks at the existing transportation system within the corridor and how the system could be improved to meet short and long-term needs. The process includes discussion of existing and projected travel patterns and social, environmental, and economic concerns within the corridor. It includes discussion of infrastructure improvements considering the land use and other community changes likely to be seen over the planning horizon. The study process involved research, data collection, and incorporating public input to identify concerns and environmental conditions relevant to the development of improvement options and strategies for US 93. This information was used to help assess current and future transportation needs in the corridor and develop a set of goals and objectives to serve as an overall framework for evaluating corridor design options and strategies. An important part of this initial information gathering step was the completion of an environmental scan and a meeting with resource agencies to discuss environmental conditions with the potential to affect the improvement options or configuration of US 93 through Whitefish. A wide range of improvement options and transportation strategies were identified and analyzed to determine their ability to address current and future needs in the corridor. Recommended corridor improvements were identified based on: their ability to meet the transportation functions of US 93 and MDT’s current design standards: input received from resource agencies, local planning guidance, and the general public; and funding considerations. This corridor study was developed concurrently with the Whitefish Transportation Plan. The work completed for the Transportation Plan helped with the analysis of existing conditions and identification of future transportation needs within the US 93 corridor and provided an overall framework for developing corridor recommendations. Similarly, findings and recommendations from the Corridor Study were incorporated into the Whitefish Transportation Plan. LINKING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND NEPA/MEPA In early 2005, the FHWA issued guidance encouraging stronger linkages between the transportation planning and NEPA processes. The guidance was prepared based on the concern that the environmental analyses produced to satisfy NEPA requirements have ---PAGE BREAK--- Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. IN-4 often been disconnected from the products and analyses developed for long range transportation plans, statewide and metropolitan area transportation improvement programs, and planning level corridor or small area plans. Without adequate coordination, the NEPA process may generate information that is more appropriately developed in the planning process, resulting in duplication of work and delays in transportation improvements. Alternately, transportation plans often contain projects that are recommended without due consideration of their potential environmental effects and ability to be realistically funded and implemented. The overall purposes of the FHWA’s 2005 guidance are to help ensure that transportation planning serves as a foundation for making sound decisions regarding highway projects and to better coordinate and manage transportation planning and NEPA processes to make efficient use of limited resources. The implementation of FHWA’s guidance is voluntary for states. MDT has chosen to follow the guidance and extend it to its MEPA compliance requirements to help ensure the transportation planning process and the environmental analysis required during project development by NEPA/MEPA work together, with the results of the transportation planning process informing the NEPA/MEPA process. The requirements for linking transportation planning and NEPA/MEPA were strengthened in 2007 when the FHWA issued regulations implementing changes in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). This legislation highlighted several key elements to be included in the planning process to enhance the linkage with NEPA/MEPA including purpose and need; public involvement requirements; the affected environment and environmental mitigation activities; the development, evaluation and elimination of alternatives; consultation with natural resource regulatory agencies; and documentation so planning products can be used in the NEPA/MEPA process. Making these linkages can result in savings in project development and implementation time and costs. This Corridor Study is considered a pre-NEPA/MEPA document. Rather than formally reopening the US Highway 93 Somers to Whitefish West EIS as it relates to the Whitefish Urban corridor, a pre-NEPA/MEPA study allows MDT more flexibility in examining improvement options for the roadway system. The supporting information, public processes, and recommendations from this Corridor Study and can be directly incorporated and relied upon to streamline future NEPA/MEPA compliance activities for US 93 improvements through Whitefish. PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT The Corridor Study included a variety of activities to involve and solicit input from interested agencies and the public. Since the Transportation Plan and Corridor Study were developed concurrently, many of the public and agency outreach activities for the Transportation Plan were also used as opportunities to convey information and obtain input relevant to the Corridor Study. ---PAGE BREAK--- Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. IN-5 A brief summary of some of the project outreach activities utilized during the study’s development is provided below: Resource Agency Workshop: A Resource Agency Workshop was held on May 24, 2007 at MDT’s Rail, Transit, and Planning Office in Helena. The purposes of this workshop were to: 1) introduce the Consultant Team to agency representatives; 2) provide an overview of the Corridor Study projects; 3) compare and contrast the corridor planning and NEPA/MEPA processes; 4) discuss existing conditions within the US 93 corridor and identify known corridor resource issues and concerns; and 5) solicit input from agency representatives on environmental resources along and affected by the highway corridor through Whitefish and possible regulatory concerns. Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Meetings: A Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) was established for Whitefish Transportation Plan to act as a sounding board to the Consultant team. The CAC was asked to look at the “bigger picture” regarding comprehensive transportation needs and issues in the Whitefish community. The role of the CAC for this study was to: ƒ Identify critical issues relating to the transportation system in the Whitefish study area boundary, including the US Highway 93 urban corridor; ƒ Represent the diverse interests of the Whitefish community; ƒ Review project deliverables & comment as appropriate. ; and ƒ Convey other citizen input that may be received to the Consultant team. The CAC met four times during the development of this Corridor Study—on April 17, 2007, July 16, 2007, January 8, 2008, and August 19, 2008. The final meeting with the CAC focused entirely on the Whitefish Urban Corridor Study was held on April 26, 2010. The CAC was provided with technical materials and draft reports in advance of scheduled meetings. Public Information Meetings: Several public meetings were held during the study process. The first public open house informational meeting for the Transportation Plan and Corridor Study occurred on April 16, 2007 in the Whitefish City Council Chambers. This meeting focused on informing the public about the current transportation problems that had been identified to date, and receiving public comment on which issues should be addressed by the planning studies. A variety of key issues were identified including: 1) the need to plan for future growth; 2) to relieve traffic congestion; 3) to improve traffic safety; and 4) to provide alternatives to the automobile. Specific problem intersections and roadway corridors were identified and presented at this first meeting. The second public open house informational meeting for the studies was held on July 17, 2007 in the Whitefish City Council Chambers. This meeting occurred after the analysis of the existing transportation system was completed. The effects of population growth and future land use changes on traffic volumes and transportation infrastructure in the community were discussed. Again, the public had the opportunity to provide their ---PAGE BREAK--- Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. IN-6 opinions and concerns on transportation system issues in the community and corridor study area. The third public meeting, focused on the Transportation Plan, was held at the O’Shaughnessy Center on Thursday, January 10, 2008. This meeting gave the public the opportunity to review the draft document in its entirety, including a thorough review of recommended improvement options that not only offered mitigation measures to solve existing transportation issues, but also measures to accommodate future growth issues. A fourth public information meeting for the Whitefish Transportation Plan and Urban Corridor Study projects was held on August 19, 2008 in the Whitefish City Council Chambers. The meeting was used to: provide an update on the Whitefish Transportation Plan; describe identified corridor problems and needs; present an overall “vision” for the US 93 corridor and outline goals for corridor improvements; discuss preliminary improvement options and other strategies under consideration; and to solicit input from the public on any new ideas (improvement options) for the corridor. APPENDIX B provides summaries of key public and agency meetings held during the development of the Corridor Study. Internet Access: The results of the technical studies and analyses conducted during the study process were made available to the public on MDT’s website for review and comment. This enabled the public to stay abreast of the developments occurring during the planning process. It also provided an opportunity for the public to submit comments. ORGANIZATION OF THE CORRIDOR STUDY This Corridor Study has been organized into nine major parts which are summarized below. • Part 1.0 examines the existing transportation facilities and services in the corridor study area. The discussion focuses on the existing road and street network and its associated characteristics including the function of the roadways, current traffic volumes, the performance of intersections in the corridor, and the crash history of corridor roadways. • Part 2.0 describes existing and planned land uses, applicable land use plans and regulations, and key population and socio-economic characteristics of the Whitefish community. The information describes how the community is likely to grow in the future and how the downtown area of Whitefish may be redeveloped in coming years. The results of an environmental scan identifying potential constraints to the development of corridor improvements are also included. ---PAGE BREAK--- Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. IN-7 • Part 3.0 includes an examination of future traffic conditions and operations on the US 93 corridor. Operational analyses based on the results of travel demand modeling for the year 2030 were used to identify future traffic conditions and potential operational concerns within the corridor. • Part 4.0 summarizes the issues and concerns associated with US 93 through Whitefish and presents an overall vision, needs and objectives for corridor improvements. • Part 5.0 identifies and discusses configurations and transportation strategies to potentially address immediate and long-term needs within the corridor. • Part 6.0 contains an evaluation of the configurations and transportation strategies for the US 93 corridor. The configurations and strategies were initially examined for fatal flaws and to identify those with little or no chance of being implemented. A group of configurations were advanced for more detailed evaluation based on a comprehensive set of screening considerations. Advantages and disadvantages associated with each configuration are presented. • Part 7.0 presents a detailed evaluation of the two configurations advanced from previous screening stages. The configurations were evaluated to determine how each addressed detailed criteria associated with the six screening categories. • Part 8.0 highlights future improvement options for the corridor. • Part 9.0 discusses potential funding sources for improvements to the US 93 corridor through Whitefish and other considerations relevant to the implementation of recommended improvements. Several appendices with supporting information are also included with this study. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-1 1.0 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS This Part examines the existing transportation facilities and services in the study area. The discussion focuses on the existing road and street network in the corridor study area and its associated characteristics. The purpose the roadways, their physical conditions, current traffic volumes, the performance of intersections in the corridor, and the crash history of corridor roadways are described on the following pages. This section concludes with information about other types of transportation available in Whitefish including railroad facilities; bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and transit services. This summary of existing transportation conditions provides a base of knowledge that will inform future decisions about the corridor. 1.1 US 93 and Its Adjoining Road and Street Network US 93 (shown on Figure 1-1) is located in the center of the Whitefish community and serves as the primary travel route through the City for both residents, visitors, and through traffic. The US 93 corridor within the City is comprised of US 93 south of 13th Street, Spokane Avenue from 13th Street to 2nd Street, and 2nd Street west of Spokane Avenue. MDT owns and maintains US 93 through the City. US 93 functions as the “backbone” of a larger road and street network in Whitefish with notable intersecting roads and streets including: JP Road, West 18th Street/Greenwood Drive, 13th Street, the street network in the City’s core area, and Karrow Avenue located west of downtown. When congestion and poor service levels occur on US 93, the effects are not just confined to the state highway system. Poor performance on US 93 translates into delays and congestion on local cross streets, ultimately affecting the efficient movement of traffic on other local collectors and arterials. This condition is made worse by the lack of alternate and continuous north-south or east-west routes in the community. From south of the Montana Highway 40 intersection and extending to 13th Street, US 93 transitions from a five-lane rural highway with a painted center median/two-way left turn lane to a five-lane urban roadway consisting of two travel lanes in each direction and a center two-way left turn lane. This section of US 93 serves numerous highway- oriented businesses, restaurants and motels, and the Mountain Mall. The North Valley Hospital and a large condominium development are located east of US 93 and north of Montana Highway 40. North of 13th Street, the character of US 93 changes notably as the roadway transitions to a two-lane street. This section of US 93 serves highway-oriented businesses, professional offices, a traditional residential neighborhood, and a variety of uses in downtown Whitefish. This portion of US 93 has seen little work other than periodic maintenance since being reconstructed in the 1960s. Baker Avenue, located two blocks west of Spokane Avenue, is a parallel north-south street that extends from West 19th Street to Railway Street. Baker Avenue is of interest ---PAGE BREAK--- Begin Whitefish Urban Project End Whitefish Urban Project Begin Whitefish West Project £ ¤ 93 £ ¤ 89 £ ¤ 2 £ ¤ 93 £ ¤ 2 Flathead Glacier Lincoln Lake Teton Sanders Pondera !I FIGURE 1-1 STUDY AREA BOUNDARY Whitefish - Urban Corridor Study of US 93 1-2 0 0.1 0.2 Miles LEGEND City Limits Study Area Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-3 when considering potential configurations to accommodate US 93 traffic in downtown Whitefish because it is one of the few continuous north-to-south roadways that provides an alternate route to US 93. Baker Avenue also connects to the only grade-separated crossing of the BNSF Railway in Whitefish and links US 93 with Wisconsin Avenue, the principal route used to access Whitefish Mountain Resort. Between 13th Street and 10th Street, Baker Avenue primarily serves commercial uses and professional offices. From 10th Street to the Whitefish River crossing, Baker Avenue serves a neighborhood consisting mostly of single family residences. North of the Whitefish River, Baker Avenue provides access to Riverside and Baker Parks and passes through the central business district before crossing over the BNSF Railway and transitioning to Wisconsin Avenue. 1.2 Functional Classification US 93 is part of the Non-Interstate National Highway System (NHS) in Montana. The NHS consists of over 3,850 miles of the state’s most important transportation routes including the Interstate highway system, other principal arterials, and other highways essential to the nation’s strategic defense policy or that link military installations. US 93 links the Flathead Valley to I-90 west of Missoula and provides access to British Columbia, Canada via Eureka. US 93 is functionally classified as a Principal Arterial. Baker Avenue is functionally classified as a Minor Arterial and portions of the route are on the state’s Urban Highway System. Baker Avenue (between 2nd Street and Big Mountain Road) is designated as Urban Route U-12001. Baker Avenue between 2nd Street and 7th Street is designated as Urban Route U-12002. 13th Street is functionally classified as an Urban Collector. Arterials provide the highest level of mobility, at the highest speed, for long uninterrupted travel. Arterials generally have higher design standards than other roads and many principal arterials have multiple lanes with some degree of access control. Principal arterials typically serve corridors with the highest traffic volume and those with the longest trip They carry most trips entering and leaving urban areas, and provide continuity for all rural arterials that intercept urban boundaries. Minor arterials provide connecting links to urban principal arterials. Collectors provide a lower degree of mobility than arterials and are designed for travel at slower speeds and for shorter distances. In urban areas, the collector system provides traffic circulation within residential neighborhoods and commercial and industrial areas. Urban collectors also channel traffic from local roads onto the arterial system. 1.3 Existing Roadway Characteristics The following sections discuss the existing design configuration and other physical features of US 93 (Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street) and Baker Avenue within the corridor study area. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-4 1.3.1 Lane Configurations and Typical Sections on US 93 South of 13th Street, US 93 has a 5-lane roadway design with curbs and gutters, four 12- foot wide through travel lanes, a 14-foot wide center two-way left turn lane, two 8-foot wide shoulders. A grassed buffer area and sidewalks parallel both sides of the highway in this area. MDT’s Montana Roadlog indicates a typical width of 81-feet in this area and narrows to 57 feet wide in the section where the roadway crosses the Whitefish River. The typical section of US 93 is illustrated in the following photograph and in Figure 1-2. SPOKANE AVENUE (SOUTH OF 13TH STREET) Looking north along Spokane Avenue at 13th Street FIGURE 1-2: Typical Section - US 93 (South of 13th Street) Spokane Avenue transitions from five-lanes to a two-lane street between 13th Street and the Whitefish River crossing. As shown in Figure 1-3, this section of Spokane Avenue is generally 40 feet wide and consists of two 12-foot wide driving lanes and two 8-foot wide shoulders or parking lanes. Between the Whitefish River crossing and 6th Street, a 5-foot wide sidewalk exists directly behind the curb along both sides of Spokane Avenue. Boulevards with mature trees and grass and 5-foot wide sidewalks are found along both sides of Spokane Avenue from 6th Street to 2nd Street. Bulb-outs have been incorporated at 4th and 5th Streets to reduce crossing distances for pedestrians at these intersections. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-5 FIGURE 1-3: Typical Section- Spokane Avenue (2nd to 6th Street) SPOKANE AVENUE (13TH STREET TO 2ND STREET) Looking south along Spokane Ave. near 6th Street Looking north along Spokane Ave. at 4th Street At 2nd Street, US 93 makes a 90-degree turn and continues west out of the City. West of Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street has an overall width of about 44 feet and consists of two 12- foot wide driving lanes, two 10-foot-wide parking lanes, and sidewalks directly behind the curb along each side of the street. Figure 1-4 illustrates this typical section. 2ND STREET (WEST OF SPOKANE AVENUE) Looking west from Central Avenue Looking east near Spokane Avenue intersection ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-6 Figure 1-4: Typical Section-2nd Street (Spokane to Baker) 1.3.2 Lane Configurations and Typical Sections on Baker Avenue With the exception of the intersection at 2nd Street where a 12-foot wide left turn lane has been provided for northbound traffic, Baker Avenue is a two-lane configuration. The street is typically 44-feet wide (between curb faces) with two 12-foot wide travel lanes and two 10-foot wide parking lanes. A sidewalk immediately behind the curb has been installed along Baker Avenue between 2nd and 3rd Streets. Parking has been eliminated for a short distance on both sides of Baker Avenue south of 2nd Street to accommodate a 12-foot wide left turn lane. The north approach to the Baker Avenue and 2nd Street intersection has been configured with a 12-foot wide through-right lane for southbound traffic, a 12-foot wide left turn lane for southbound traffic, and a 12-foot wide through lane for northbound traffic. A 7.4-foot wide shoulder marked to prohibit parking exists along the west side of the street on the north approach and a 9-foot wide parking lane exists along the east side of the street. BAKER AVENUE (SOUTH OF 2ND STREET) Looking north along Baker Avenue from south of 2nd Street Between 3rd Street and the Whitefish River, the roadway is 44 feet wide with two 12- foot-wide driving lanes and 10-foot wide parking lanes. Landscaped buffer areas and ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-7 sidewalks parallel Baker Avenue between 3rd Street and the Whitefish River. Figure 1-5 illustrates the typical configuration of this section of Baker Avenue. BAKER AVENUE (3RD STREET TO WHITEFISH RIVER) Looking north on Baker Avenue near 4th Street FIGURE 1-5: Typical Section-Baker Avenue (3rd Street to Whitefish River) BAKER AVENUE (WHITEFISH RIVER TO 7TH STREET) Baker Avenue narrows at the bridge over the Whitefish River. Information from MDT’s Bridge Management System shows the roadway on the existing bridge is 29 feet wide. Sidewalks have been provided along both sides of the bridge to accommodate pedestrian travel and a barrier rail separates the sidewalk from the roadway. South of the bridge to 7th Street, Baker Avenue resumes a 44-foot-wide typical width but the configuration of the roadway changes. This portion of Baker Avenue has a 14-foot travel lane for southbound traffic, a 12-foot travel lane for northbound traffic, a 4-foot wide bike lane and 10-foot wide parking pullout along the east side of the street. A landscaped buffer and 5-foot wide sidewalk exists along the west side of the road and a 5-foot wide sidewalk exists immediately behind the curb on the east side of Baker in this area. A typical section for this portion of Baker Avenue is shown in Figure 1-6. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-8 Looking north on Baker Avenue at Whitefish River FIGURE 1-6: Typical Section-Baker Avenue (Whitefish River to 7th Street) BAKER AVENUE (7TH TO 10TH STREET) Between 7th Street and 10th Street, Baker Avenue is about 32 feet wide (between the curb faces) with two 12-foot wide travel lanes and 4-foot wide shoulders. Landscaped buffers and 5-foot wide sidewalks exist along both sides of the street. On-street parking is prohibited along this section of Baker Avenue. This typical section is illustrated in Figure 1-7. Looking north on Baker Avenue near 7th Street FIGURE 1-7: Typical Section-Baker Avenue (7th Street to 10th Street) BAKER AVENUE (10TH TO 13TH STREET) Between 10th Street and 13th Street, Baker Avenue is about 38 feet wide (between the curb faces) with two 12-foot wide travel lanes and 7-foot wide bike lanes along both sides of the roadway. Landscaped (grass) boulevards and 5-foot wide sidewalks exist along both sides of the street. On-street parking is prohibited along this section of Baker Avenue. Figure 1-8 shows Baker Avenue’s configuration in this area. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-9 Looking north on Baker Avenue at 13th Street FIGURE 1-8: Typical Section-Baker Avenue (10th Street to 13th Street) 1.3.3 Posted Speeds According to Section 6-1-5 Paragraph C.3 of the Whitefish City Code, the speed limit on all through streets and arterial highways is typically 35 miles per hour. However, this speed limit has been adjusted for US 93 through the city center. A speed limit of 25 miles per hour has been established for Spokane Avenue between 2nd Street and the south bank of the Whitefish River and on 2nd Street between Spokane Avenue and a point 100 feet west of the Whitefish River. The posted speed limit on Baker Avenue is 25 miles per hour. There are no designated school zones on US 93 or on Baker Avenue. However, a designated school zone with a 15 mph speed limit exists on 2nd Street adjacent to Central School (located east of Spokane Avenue). 1.3.4 Intersections/Roadway Geometry Side streets joining Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, and Baker Avenue within the corridor are typically perpendicular to the major roadways and form standard three-legged intersections or four-legged intersections. Riverside Avenue, located just north of the Whitefish River, joins Spokane Avenue in a skewed configuration. Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street are located in level terrain and these streets have only minor variations in vertical alignment. A slight grade exists on Baker Avenue south of 3rd Street as the elevation of the roadway falls toward the Whitefish River. The gently rolling to level terrain along Baker Avenue between the Whitefish River and 13th Street West has resulted in minor variations in the vertical alignment of the roadway. 1.3.5 Traffic Controls and Turning Lanes Currently, there are eight signalized intersections in the Whitefish area and four of the signals are located within the Whitefish Urban corridor at the following locations: ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-10 ƒ Spokane Avenue and 13th Street ƒ Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street ƒ 2nd Street/Central Avenue ƒ 2nd Street/Baker Avenue All of these traffic signals are owned and operated by MDT and are pre-timed— meaning they operate with fixed cycle and assign rights-of-way to traffic movements according to a predetermined timing schedule for all or parts of the day. Pre-timed signals do not adjust to traffic flows and their operation sometimes leads to congestion if unusual traffic patterns develop or if there are major fluctuations in traffic demand on various approaches. Other roads adjoining Spokane Avenue and Baker Avenue are controlled by stop signs. All-way stop control exists at the intersection of Baker Avenue and 13th Street. However, the City of Whitefish has identified this intersection as a likely location for a future traffic signal. Few dedicated left or right turn lanes exist on Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, and Baker Avenue within the corridor. The intersection of Spokane Avenue and 13th Street was reconstructed and improved to include designated left turn lanes on all four approaches. A left turn lane exists on the east approach and a right turn lane has been installed on the north approach at the intersection of Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street. There are no other dedicated left or right turn lanes on 2nd Street within the corridor. The intersection of Baker Avenue and 2nd Street has been modified to include a left turn lane and a shared through-right turn lane on the north approach. 1.3.6 Right-of-Way The majority of the right-of-way for Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, and Baker Avenue is 70 feet wide. The right-of-way corridor for Spokane Avenue south of 13th Street was expanded to accommodate road widening during previous reconstruction on US 93. In the vicinity of 13th Street, the right-of-way for Spokane Avenue ranges in width from 185 feet to 235 feet. 1.3.7 Bridges There are no bridges on Spokane Avenue or 2nd Street within the Whitefish Urban study area. Spokane Avenue crosses the Whitefish River between 13th Street and Riverside Avenue; however, this road crossing is accommodated in three large-diameter culverts. Bridges over the Whitefish River exist on 2nd Street west of the downtown area (in MDT’s Whitefish-West project area) and on Baker Avenue between 5th and 6th Streets. The bridge on Baker Avenue (constructed in 1977) is a single span structure of about 100 feet in length and accommodates a 29 foot-wide roadway. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-11 1.3.8 Corridor Street Lighting Overhead street lighting exists along both Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street. Ornamental lighting fixtures have been added along the west side of Spokane Avenue between 4th and 3rd Streets. Ornamental lighting fixtures exist along Baker Avenue between the Whitefish River and 13th Street. 1.3.9 Corridor Utilities Water and Sewer Infrastructure. City of Whitefish water and sewer infrastructure is extensive within the corridor study area. Municipal water and/or sewer lines exist beneath portions of Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street and Baker Avenue and cross these streets at numerous locations. Improvement operations along the existing US 93 corridor or Baker Street could conflict with municipal water or sewer lines at the following locations: Spokane Avenue ƒ 6” diameter water line (from south of 13th Street to Riverside Avenue) ƒ 8”/12” diameter water line (from south of 13th Street to Riverside Avenue) ƒ 6” diameter water line (from Riverside Avenue to 7th Street) ƒ 6” diameter water line (from 7th Street to 2nd Street) ƒ 27” diameter sewer outfall (parallels Spokane Avenue at 7th Street and crosses Spokane south of Riverside Avenue) ƒ Sewer line crossings at 13th Street, 5th Street, and between 3rd and 4th Streets 2nd Street ƒ 10”/12” diameter water line (from Spokane Avenue to Lupfer Avenue) ƒ Sewer line crossings between Spokane and Central Avenues, between Central and Baker avenues, and at Lupfer Avenue Baker Avenue ƒ 12” diameter water line (from Spokane Avenue south of 13th Street) ƒ 27” diameter sewer outfall crossing between 5th Street and Whitefish River ƒ 8” diameter sewer line (from just south of Whitefish River to north of 10th Street) ƒ 8” diameter sewer line (from 10th Street to south of 13th Street) ƒ Sewer line crossings at 4th Street, just south of Whitefish River, and at 13th Street It is also likely that individual water or sewer service lines at numerous locations could be affected by highway improvements. The City of Whitefish’s Capital Improvement Plan 2007/08 – 2011/12 has identified the need for upgrades to the gravity sewer system on Spokane Avenue north of 13th Street and on 2nd Street west of Spokane Avenue. The City could upgrade the sewer lines in conjunction with improvements to US 93. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-12 Storm Drainage Facilities. Curbs and gutters and storm drainage facilities exist along Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, and Baker Avenue. Other Utilities. Overhead power lines, overhead and underground telephone cables and fiber optic lines, and underground natural gas distribution lines cross or exist adjacent to the Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street and Baker Avenue. Some of these utilities may be in conflict with improvements to the US 93 corridor. 1.3.10 Approaches and Access Control Commercial properties located adjacent to Spokane Avenue between 13th and 6th Streets are typically served by one or two approaches. Newer commercial developments, such as several motels located along the west side of Spokane Avenue, are typically served by one access point. Multiple or wide driveway approaches are found at business locations along the east side of Spokane between Riverside Avenue and 8th Street. The narrow lot configuration in the established residential neighborhood along Spokane between 6th and 2nd Streets is not conducive to individual driveway approaches. Property access is generally from alleys or side streets only in this area. Commercial uses have evolved on some of the blocks adjoining Spokane Avenue in central Whitefish and driveway approaches have been developed to serve off-street parking lots associated with businesses. Lot configurations and the presence of on-street parking have limited the number of driveway approaches along 2nd Street between Spokane and Baker Avenues. Access is currently unrestricted along Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, or Baker Avenue within the area under evaluation for this study. MDT has a System Impact Action Process (SIAP) in place to review and evaluate the potential impacts of non-MDT initiated projects that may substantially and permanently affect the use, capacity, and safety of state-maintained highways. This review process allows MDT to coordinate between local land use agencies, private developers, and/or other governmental agencies when considering requests for access to the MDT maintained system. 1.4 Current Traffic Operations Traffic operations are variable within the corridor study area. US 93 south of 13th Street is a suburban arterial with a 45 mile per hour speed limit. This section of US 93 was rebuilt in accordance to the ROD for the US Highway 93 Somers to Whitefish West EIS and includes four travel lanes, medians, turn lanes, improved signalization and restructured access to the highway. North of 13th Street, US 93 serves older highway commercial areas, traditional residential neighborhoods, and the city’s central business district. As expected, these two-lane streets have a different character and operating conditions than US 93 south of 13th Street. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-13 1.4.1 Current Traffic Volumes on US 93 Traffic has been continuously monitored by MDT at several permanent count locations within the Flathead Valley since the early 1980s. However, the nearest automatic traffic recorders are on US 2 near Kalispell (ATR Station A-24) and on US 2 east of Columbia Falls (ATR Station A-60). Station A-24 is representative of urban traffic on a Principal Arterial roadway similar to US 93. Although the counter does not represent traffic conditions within Whitefish, they do provide an indication of long term traffic growth trends in the Flathead Valley. Historical traffic count data from MDT’s Montana’s Automatic Traffic Recorders 2007 shows an increase in the annual average daily traffic (AADT) at the recording site of more than 60% over the 1991 to 2007 period and an increase in AADT volumes of about 25% between 2000 and 2007. Data for 2008 shows the AADT at this count station was about 7% lower than the 2007 AADT for this count station. However, the long-term AADT data shows traffic volumes at this Flathead Valley location have increased by 3 to 4% per year over most of the last two decades. MDT’s annual “Traffic by Section” publications do provide a long term record of traffic volumes on US 93 in the Whitefish area. The AADT data provided in the publications were developed from short-term periodic traffic counts conducted by MDT. Data collected over the 2000 to 2007 period shows traffic volumes on US 93 have increased by nearly 6% on US 93 south of 13th Street, held steady or shown minor increases through the downtown area of Whitefish, and increased by more than 4% on US 93 between Baker and Karrow Avenues. Traffic volumes on US 93 and other corridor roadways have steadily increased over the last decade. Recent (2007 and 2008) AADT volumes on corridor roadways are shown below: ƒ US 93 (south of 13th Street) – 18,000 to 22,000 vehicles ƒ Spokane Avenue (between 2nd and 13th Streets) – 8,000 to 15,000 vehicles ƒ 2nd Street (between Spokane and Baker Avenues) – 8,000 to 10,000 vehicles ƒ Baker Avenue (between 2nd and 13th Streets) – 9,000 to 13,000 vehicles A traffic model was developed for the Whitefish Transportation Plan to represent current and future travel based on existing and anticipated housing and employment within the community. With the model, it was possible to estimate daily traffic volumes on all major roads and illustrate the distribution of traffic on the road system in the Whitefish area. Figure 1-9 shows current (2003) daily traffic volumes on US 93 and other major streets within the corridor study area as determined by the traffic model. It should be noted that the modeled volumes are representative of current facility use but they may not match actual traffic volume data on the roadways. ---PAGE BREAK--- BAKER AVE PARK AVE MILES AVE E 6TH ST KALISPELL AVE E 5TH ST E 8TH ST LUPFER AVE E 3RD ST E 4TH ST E 9TH ST SOMERS AVE E 6TH ST ASHAR AVE VOER W 3RD ST E 1ST ST PINE AVE RAILWAY ST TH ST RIVERSIDE AVE W 5TH ST HIGHWAY 93 O`BRIEN AVE BAKER AVE PARK AVE FLINT AVE COLUMBIA AVE SCOTT AVE SPOKANE AVE W 10TH ST LUPFER AVE 2ND STREET 13TH STREET GOOD AVE JENNINGS AVE SPOKANE AVE CENTRAL AVE E 1ST ST E 2ND ST E 7TH ST W 15TH ST CENTRAL AVE COLUMBIA AVE SOMERS AVE PARK AVE PINE AVE KALISPELL AVE E 10TH ST W 13TH ST W 2ND STREET SPRUCE CT COLUMBIA AVE E 13TH ST DEPOT ST O`BRIEN AVE W 6TH ST GEDDES AVE BAKER AVE W 9TH ST W 8TH ST W 7TH ST SHADY RIVER LN £ ¤ 93 £ ¤ 93 2000 2100 1900 10900 600 800 500 500 10400 500 1000 900 1500 2200 7900 7600 1400 1400 8700 2100 1800 1400 1600 3900 6200 9600 1200 10600 3400 2600 2600 8100 8000 2100 2100 13700 12500 8300 7300 2100 6400 10700 9100 10400 9600 8000 10400 300 11200 10100 10400 8000 Note: The traffic volumes depicted in this graphic represent the results of a modeling exercise and may not accurately represent actual values. £ ¤ 93 £ ¤ 89 £ ¤ 2 £ ¤ 93 £ ¤ 2 Flathead Glacier Lincoln Lake Teton Sanders Pondera !I FIGURE 1-9 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Whitefish - Urban Corridor Study of US 93 1-14 0 0.05 0.1 Miles LEGEND On System Route Off System Route City Limits Highway 93 Corridor 1500 Modeled 2003 Traffic Volume ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-15 1.4.2 Hourly Variations in Traffic on the US 93 Corridor The lack of a continuously recording traffic counter on the US 93 corridor in Whitefish means that trends in traffic must be identified based on short-term counts at spot locations. Traffic volume data collected during August 2003 at two intersections on the US 93 corridor was reviewed to identify trends in hourly traffic variations in Whitefish. Hourly traffic volumes (expressed as a percentage of the total daily volume) at each intersection is presented below in Figure 1-10. Figure 1-10: Hourly Variations in Traffic Volumes within the Corridor Spokane Avenue/13th Street Data collected by WGM Group, Inc. in August 2003 2nd Street/Baker Avenue Data collected by WGM Group, Inc. in August 2003 The traffic volume data for Spokane Avenue and 13th Street shows a peak travel period occurring between 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with traffic volumes during each hour typically exceeding 7% of the total daily traffic at the intersection during this 7-hour long period. Data for the 2nd Street and Baker Avenue intersection shows a much longer sustained peak travel period—extending from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Traffic volumes during each hour of this 10-hour long period exceeded 6% of the total daily traffic at the intersection. Intersection turning movement counts conducted along Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, and Baker Avenue during 2007 showed that morning (AM) peak hours typically began ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-16 between 7:30 and 8:00 a.m. and afternoon (PM) peak hours typically began between 4:30 and 5:00 p.m. 1.4.3 Seasonal Variations in Traffic The lack of a permanent traffic counter and relevant previous traffic counts within Whitefish (and particularly the corridor study area) makes quantifying seasonal variations in traffic volumes difficult. However, it is recognized seasonal variations in traffic do occur in the community. MDT’s automatic traffic recorders—ATR Station A-24 near Kalispell and ATR Station A-60 east of Columbia Falls—provide a general indication of seasonal variations in traffic in the Flathead Valley. Data for 2008 from these stations show traffic volumes are typically highest from May through September and traffic volumes during peak months (July and August) may be substantially higher than the AADT for the year. During 2008, ATR Station A-24 showed traffic volumes during July (the peak month) were 13% above the AADT for this station. Due to the recreational traffic on US 2, ATR Station A-60 showed July traffic volumes were 85% higher than the AADT for the station. As expected, travel was lowest during the winter months at both these stations. In 2008, traffic volumes at the ATR Station near Kalispell during January were about 87% of the AADT. January 2008 traffic volumes were only about 56% of the AADT at ATR Station east of Columbia Falls. 1.4.4 Vehicle Classifications/Trucks Comments heard during the development of this corridor study indicate trucks on US 93 affect traffic operations and safety along the route and conflict with local desires for the redevelopment of downtown Whitefish. MDT’s Road Design Manual defines a truck as “a heavy vehicle engaged primarily in the transport of goods and materials, or in the delivery of services other than public transportation. For geometric design and capacity analyses, trucks are defined as vehicles with six or more tires.” MDT’s vehicle classification standards also categorize commercial vehicles by types as either Small Trucks or Large Trucks. Small Trucks are single-unit vehicles (Type 5, 6, or 7 Vehicles) with two to six axles. MDT’s vehicle classification standards identify Large Trucks (Type 8 through 13 Vehicles) as tractor- trailer combinations with various numbers of axles. WGM Group completed a series of manual counts and quantified truck traffic at 13 intersections along Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, and Baker Avenue during August 2003. For the purposes of these counts, vehicles the size of a typical UPS delivery vehicle and larger were identified as “trucks” during WGM’s counts. A typical UPS delivery vehicle is a 2-axle single-unit vehicle with six tires and is a Type 5 Commercial Vehicle within the Small Truck category according to MDT’s standards. While WGM’s data does not provide information on each type of vehicle associated with MDT’s Small Truck and ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-17 Large Truck categories, the data is indicative of the overall amount of commercial vehicle traffic on US 93 at the time of the counts. WGM’s counts yielded data on the percentage of trucks observed during the AM peak hour (typically between 7:00 and 9:00 AM) and PM peak hour (typically between 4:00 and 6:00 PM) at each intersection. The percentages of trucks present during peak hour traffic were examined at four representative intersections in the corridor study area including Spokane Avenue and 13th Street, Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street, 2nd Street and Baker Avenue, and Baker Avenue and 5th Street. The results of these truck counts are provided in Table 1-1. As the table shows, trucks comprised between 7.7% and 9.4% of all vehicles counted at key intersections along the US 93 corridor during the AM peak hour and between 2.4% and 4.1% of all vehicles counted during the PM peak hour. It should be noted that these truck counts were taken during a time when construction and development in the Whitefish area was at or near peak levels. These percentages may not accurately reflect current conditions due to the slowdown in development that has and is occurring in the area. Table 1-1: Truck Percentages at Selected Intersections in the Corridor Location AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Spokane Avenue/13th Street Peak Hour Volume 936 1443 Number of Trucks 82 52 % Trucks in Peak Hour 8.8% 3.6% Spokane Avenue/2nd Street Peak Hour Volume 668 1145 Number of Trucks 63 47 % Trucks in Peak Hour 9.4% 4.1% 2nd Street/Baker Avenue Peak Hour Volume 1300 1779 Number of Trucks 100 43 % Trucks in Peak Hour 7.7% 2.4% Baker Avenue/5th Street Peak Hour Volume 732 1087 Number of Trucks 31 20 % Trucks in Peak Hour 4.2% 1.8% Source: WGM Group, Inc. traffic counts during August 2003. Vehicles the size of a typical UPS delivery vehicle and larger were identified as “trucks” during WGM’s traffic counts. The presence of trucks occasionally inhibits traffic flows on US 93 and affects traffic operations at signalized intersections in the downtown area. At various times during the ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-18 day, it is not uncommon for just a few large commercial vehicles waiting at traffic signals to consume much of the available queuing space for vehicles on 2nd Street between Spokane and Baker Avenues. 1.4.5 Existing Intersection Levels of Service Urban road systems are ultimately controlled by the operation of their major intersections. Poor operating conditions reduce the number of vehicles that can pass through intersections during peak travel hours and limit a roadway corridor’s overall ability to accommodate traffic each day. The Level of Service (LOS) is often used as an indicator of the operating conditions at intersections. LOS is a performance measure developed by the transportation profession to account for such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impediments caused by other vehicles. It provides a “report card” type rating scale corresponding to the operation of the intersection and how it accommodates the amount of traffic using it. LOS A, B, and C represent conditions where traffic moves without significant delays during peak travel hours. Level of Service D and E suggest deteriorating operating conditions and increased delays. Level of Service F represents conditions where significant vehicle delays and congestion occur. Traffic engineers conduct LOS analyses for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. At signalized intersections, the LOS rating is based on the average delay of all movements. At side-street stop-controlled intersections, the LOS rating is based on the average delay of the worst movement; typically a left turn from the stop-controlled street. For this reason, even though the traffic on the major street (such as Spokane or Baker Avenues) may not be delayed, the intersection may be assigned a poor LOS because entering or crossing traffic from the side streets experience delays. For all-way stop-controlled intersections (like the intersection of Baker Avenue and 13th Street), the LOS rating is based on the average delay experienced on all movements. Intersections with short average delays have a high LOS; conversely, intersections with long average delays have a low LOS. LOS characteristics are different for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Drivers anticipate longer delays at signalized intersections that carry large amounts of traffic and generally expect unsignalized intersections to have less delay. Additionally, several driver behavior considerations combine to make delays at unsignalized intersections less desirable than at signalized intersections. For example, drivers at signalized intersections are able to relax during the red phase, whereas drivers on the minor approaches at an unsignalized intersection must remain attentive to identify acceptable gaps and make their desired traffic movement. Applicable MDT Operating Standards. MDT’s Traffic Engineering Manual indicates the highway mainline or intersections should be designed to accommodate a selected design hourly volume at a specified LOS. MDT’s operational standards for urban roadways and intersections are shown below in Table 1-2. These operating standards ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-19 apply to US 93 within the corridor study area and to the portion of Baker Avenue on the state highway system. MDT’s operating standards only specify a minimum or desirable LOS based on various typical roadway lane configurations (2-lane, 4-lane, and multi-lane facilities with or without curbs) and design speeds. Note that design speed is a selected speed used to determine the various geometric design features of the roadway and does not mean the same as operating speed or the posted speed. The desirable and minimum LOS represents anticipated operations under design year traffic volumes—typically 20 years into the future. MDT generally strives to provide arterial roadways that operate at LOS C or higher in the design year. Table 1-2: MDT Operational Standards for Urban Roadways and Intersections Urban Principal Arterials (NHS-Non-Interstate) Spokane Avenue/2nd Street 2-Lane 4-Lane Curbed Uncurbed Curbed Uncurbed Design Speed 40-45 mph 40-50 mph 40-45 mph 40-55 mph Design Year Level of Service* Desirable: B Minimum: C Desirable: B Minimum: C Urban Minor Arterials (Non NHS) Baker Avenue 2-Lane Multi-lane Curbed Uncurbed Curbed Uncurbed Design Speed 35 mph 35 mph 35 mph 35 mph Design Year Level of Service* Desirable: B Minimum: C Desirable: B Minimum: C Urban Collectors (Non NHS) Curbed Uncurbed Design Speed 30 mph 30 mph Design Year Level of Service* Desirable: C Minimum: D Source: Montana Department of Transportation, Road Design Manual, Chapter Twelve-Geometric Design Tables, Figures 12-7, 12-8 and 12-9, December 2004. Applicable City of Whitefish Operating Standards. The Whitefish City-County Growth Policy includes a goal under its Transportation element indicating a local desire to “provide an efficient and effective transportation system to serve the present and future needs of the Whitefish area.” However, the City has not developed policies specifying desirable or minimum LOS standards for road development. Current Levels of Service at Corridor Intersections. During the spring and summer of 2007, signalized intersections and high-volume unsignalized intersections on US 93 and Baker Avenue were counted to generate traffic data for LOS analyses. Each intersection was counted from 7:00 to 9:00 AM and from 4:00 to 6:00 PM in an effort to capture morning and evening peak hour volumes at the intersections. Additionally, peak hour traffic information from previous projects were obtained for two other stop controlled intersections on Baker Avenue and used for the LOS analysis. Based on the intersection traffic data collected in 2007, the LOS for each of the identified intersections within the corridor was calculated using Highway Capacity Software. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-20 Table 1-3 shows the AM and PM peak hour LOS for each individual leg of the signalized intersections evaluated based on count information collected in 2007, and an overall LOS for the entire intersection. Individual legs of intersections or intersections that operate at LOS D or below are highlighted in Table 1-3. LOS D or lower is indicative of intersections where geometric changes or operational improvements may be warranted. The LOS analyses suggest the intersections of Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street and 2nd Street and Baker Avenue currently operate at LOS F and LOS E, respectively during the PM peak hour. These intersections also have individual legs that operate a LOS D during the AM peak hour. The analyses showed the southbound leg of the intersection of 13th Street and Spokane Avenue operates poorly during the PM peak hour. Table 1-3: Peak Hour LOS for Signalized Intersections in the Corridor 2007 AM Peak LOS Intersection EB WB NB SB Overall Spokane Avenue & 13th Street C C B C C Spokane Avenue & 2nd Street B B D B C Central Avenue & 2nd Street B C A A B Baker Avenue & 2nd Street D C A B C 2007 PM Peak LOS Intersection EB WB NB SB Overall Spokane Avenue & 13th Street C C B D C Spokane Avenue & 2nd Street B B F C F Central Avenue & 2nd Street C C A A C Baker Avenue & 2nd Street F D B B E Table 1-4 presents the results of the LOS analyses for unsignalized (stop-controlled) intersections along the US 93 corridor and Baker Avenue where traffic data was collected in 2007. Please note turning movement counts were not performed at every intersection along Spokane Avenue or Baker Avenue during 2007, so LOS analyses were not performed for all unsignalized intersections along these roadways. The table shows two stop-controlled intersections—Spokane Avenue and 5th Street and Baker Avenue and 4th Street—currently operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour based on the 2007 traffic count data. The poor overall peak hour LOS shown at these unsignalized intersections is the result of at least one of the movements at each intersection operating with significant vehicle delays and does not necessarily mean the operations of the entire intersection are poor. Analyses suggest the major roadways (Spokane and Baker Avenues) generally operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hour. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-21 Table 1-4: Peak Hour LOS for Unsignalized Intersections on US 93 and Baker Avenue 2007 LOS (Stop-Controlled Intersections) Intersection AM PM Intersection AM PM Spokane Avenue & 1st Street A A Baker Avenue & 4th Street B D Spokane Avenue & 4th Street C C Baker Avenue & 5th Street B C Spokane Avenue & 5th Street C D Baker Avenue & 7th Street B C Baker Avenue & 10th Street* B B Baker Avenue & 13th Street* B C * Intersection not counted by RPA 1.4.6 Corridor Capacity Assessing the capacity of a road segments within a corridor can provide important information about the ability of existing facilities to accommodate present and future traffic volumes. The capacity of a road is a function of a number of factors including: ƒ the operation intersections along the corridor; ƒ adjacent land uses; ƒ side approaches and intersection spacing; ƒ road alignment and grade; ƒ speed; ƒ turning movements; ƒ the types of vehicles using the road; and ƒ the planning and maintenance devoted to the associated street network. As traffic volumes increase, vehicle flows deteriorate and delays increase. When traffic volumes approach and exceed the available capacity, roadway operations begin to fail and service levels drop. The number of lanes on the roadway may be indicative of its available capacity. In general, two-lane roads can accommodate up to 12,000 vehicles per day, three-lane roads can carry between 12,000 and 18,000 vehicles per day, and four-lane roads can handle between 18,000 and 24,000 vehicles per day. Five lanes or more are typically required for volumes over 24,000 vehicles per day. The Volume to Capacity (v/c) ratio is a statistic indicating whether a roadway segment has an adequate numbers of travel lanes for the traffic volumes using the facility. If traffic volumes exceed capacity, congestion will occur and facility users experience increased vehicle delays and a decreased LOS. High v/c ratios are indicative of roadway segments unable to adequately accommodate traffic flows and poor operating conditions. Roadways with v/c ratios of 0.8 may operate at or near capacity and at a poor LOS (LOS D and LOS Ratios of 1.0 or more suggest the road may be over capacity and operating at LOS F. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-22 The travel demand model developed for the Whitefish Transportation Plan provides traffic volume data can be used together with information about existing lane configurations to identify corridor locations with capacity concerns. Through this analysis, the following roadway sections may be approaching capacity or over capacity and operating at a poor LOS during peak hours: ƒ Spokane Avenue between Riverside Avenue and 1st Street, ƒ 2nd Street west of Baker Avenue, ƒ Baker Avenue north of 2nd Street, and ƒ Baker Avenue between 6th and 13th Streets. 1.5 Safety Analysis 1.5.1 Recent Crash Data for the Corridor Crash data for a three-year time period from October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2006 was obtained from the MDT Traffic and Safety Bureau to identify areas of traffic safety concern and help assess the overall safety performance of the US 93 corridor and adjoining streets. ƒ No fatalities occurred as a result of the crashes along the US 93 corridor or on Baker Avenue; however, 20 of the reported crashes along Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street and 8 of the crashes along Baker Avenue resulted in injuries or possible injuries. ƒ Nearly 90% of the reported crashes involved two or more vehicles with the most common crashes being rear-end collisions right-turn/angle collisions sideswipe collisions and left turn collisions ƒ About one-fourth of the crashes recorded on Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street during the three-year period occurred during hours of darkness or low light conditions. About 29% of the reported collisions on Baker Avenue during the study period occurred at dawn, dusk or at night. ƒ About one-fourth of the crashes along the US 93 corridor and on Baker Avenue occurred on wet, icy, or snowy road surfaces. ƒ Fifteen (15) of the 24 crashes on Baker Avenue between 2nd and 13th Streets during the three-year study period occurred at intersections along the corridor. Thirteen (13) crashes were reported at the intersection of Baker Avenue and 13th Street and 3 each occurred at Baker Avenue’s intersections with 4th Street and 10th Street. ƒ Almost 87% of the reported crashes on Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street were attributed to intersections along the corridor. Six intersections had 5 or more reported crashes during the study period. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-23 In an effort to better understand the crash history at intersections along US 93 and on Baker Avenue, additional data for those locations with five or more crashes during the three-year study period were analyzed. This analysis considered crash types, road surface and light conditions, information about the intent of motorists involved in crashes, direction of travel, vehicles involved, and contributing circumstances to each crash. The evaluation of crash types and other contributing factors helps determine the primary causes for the crashes and may be indicative of possible engineering solutions needed to reduce certain crashes. The predominant crash type at the intersections along the US 93 corridor examined in detail was rear-end collisions followed by right-turn and right angle collisions, left turn collisions, sideswipes, and collisions with fixed objects. Most of these collision types are characteristic of roadways experiencing periods of traffic congestion. The queues of vehicles stopped at signalized intersections along Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street are likely contributing factors to rear-end collisions along US 93. Crashes involving left or right-turning vehicles and right angle collisions are often the result of drivers misjudging the speed and/or distance of oncoming traffic and mistakenly turning in front of or into an oncoming vehicle. Sideswipe collisions within the corridor may suggest the need for improved centerline or lane markings. They may also be reflective of a narrow roadway, particularly in areas of the corridor where parking exists along both sides of the street. The fixed object collisions recorded at the intersections of Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street and 2nd Street and Baker Avenue, suggests the need for geometric modifications to increase turning radii at these intersections for large vehicles. 1.5.2 Severity Index Ratings and Crash Rates Severity index ratings and crash rates were calculated for the intersections along Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, and Baker Avenue where 3 or more crashes were recorded during the study period. These measures (along with the total number of crashes recorded) can indicate the need for safety improvements by allowing the severity and frequency of crashes at corridor intersections to be compared with other locations. Severity Index Ratings. The severity index rating is a measure used by MDT that considers three categories of severity resulting from crashes—property damage only (PDO), non-incapacitating injuries, and incapacitating injuries or fatalities. MDT developed a weighted formula that considers the total number of crashes by severity type and the total crashes occurring at a location to determine a severity index rating. Crashes resulting in injuries or fatalities are weighted more than crashes resulting in only property damage. A location where all crashes resulted in property damage but no injuries would have a severity index rating of 1.00. Locations where crashes resulted in injuries would have index ratings above 1.00. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-24 The three intersections along US 93 with the highest severity index ratings during the study period were Spokane Avenue and 3rd Street (1.86), Spokane Avenue and 13th Street (1.82), and Spokane Avenue and 4th Street. These severity ratings are not abnormally high or indicative of critical safety concerns when compared to other locations on the state highway system. The only intersections along Baker Avenue with 3 or more crashes and severity index ratings higher than 1.00 were at Baker Avenue and 3rd Street (3.00) and Baker Avenue and 13th Street (1.33). It should be noted the severity index rating for intersection of Baker Avenue and 3rd Street is the result of only 3 crashes at the location with some level of injuries in each instance. The crash rate does not indicate a high frequency of crashes at this intersection. . Intersection Crash Rates. Crash rates relate the total number of crashes to the total amount of traffic entering the intersection during a given period. Intersection crash rates are expressed in terms of crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV). Crash rates for intersections on US 93 and Baker Avenue were calculated for intersections with five or more crashes using estimates of the total daily traffic entering each intersection during the three-year period. The estimated crash rates for the selected intersections along US 93 and Baker Avenue during the three-year study period ranged from 0.23 to 0.67 crashes per MEV. These estimated crash rates are not considered high when compared with such rates for intersections in other urban areas of Montana. 1.6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the Corridor 1.6.1 Sidewalks Sidewalks exist along both sides of Spokane Avenue from 13th Street to 2nd Street and along the majority of 2nd Street from Spokane Avenue westward to the Whitefish River crossing. Sidewalks also parallel both sides of Baker Avenue between Railway Street and 13th Street. Sidewalks along US 93 South, Spokane Avenue and Baker Avenue are typically 5 feet wide and meet the AASHTO standard for minimum clear width. The sidewalks along Spokane Avenue between the Whitefish River and 6th Street are located immediately behind the curbs along each side of the street and are not 8 to 10 feet wide as suggested in AASHTO’s guidance. Sidewalks in front of businesses along on 2nd Street between Spokane and Baker Avenues are generally 8 to 10 feet wide. Clear widths on the sidewalks along this portion of 2nd Street are reduced in some locations by poles for overhead street lighting and traffic signals, sign posts, planters, and supporting posts for overhead awnings attached to adjacent buildings. Intersections along the corridor typically include curb ramps for wheelchair accessibility on two or more corners; however, not all intersections include curb ramps with ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-25 detectable warning surfaces for visually-impaired pedestrians as called for in the “Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines” (ADAAG). Please note that work for this corridor study did not include a detailed evaluation to determine if existing sidewalks comply with all requirements of the ADAAG (grade, cross-slope, obstacles, etc.). 1.6.2 Crosswalks Table 1-5 identifies pedestrian crosswalk locations along Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, and Baker Avenue. Crosswalks have been installed on all approaches at the signalized intersections in the corridor and at several other intersections with stop-controlled side approaches. A mid-block crosswalk with curb ramps also exists on Baker Avenue at Riverside Park. All crosswalk locations are delineated by painted pavement striping with painted stop bars in advance of each crosswalk. Advance crosswalk warning signs have been installed to alert motorists well ahead of the crosswalks on Spokane Avenue at 4th and 5th Streets and on Baker Avenue at 4th Street. The crosswalk at Spokane Avenue and 4th Street also has overhead flashing lights for all approaches to reinforce the crossing is used by school children. Pedestrian push buttons and pedestrian signal (WALK/DON’T WALK) indicators are provided on the poles supporting signal mast arms on all legs of the intersection at Spokane Avenue and 13th Street. Pedestrian pushbuttons (typically installed with pedestrian signals) are electronic buttons used by pedestrians to change traffic signal timing to accommodate street crossings. Vehicle traffic is not delayed if pedestrians are not present to signal the need for crossing. Pedestrian signal indicators exist at Spokane and 2nd and 2nd and Central, but not at 2nd and Baker. Table 1-5: Crosswalks Along the US 93 Corridor and Baker Avenue Crosswalk Locations Relation to Intersection Spokane and 13th Street* All corners Spokane and 5th Street North of cross street Spokane and 4th Street North and south of cross street Spokane and 2nd Street* All corners 2nd Street and Central Avenue* All corners 2nd Street and Baker Avenue* All corners Baker Avenue and 3rd Street South of cross street Baker Avenue and 4th Street South of cross street Baker Avenue (South of 5th) Mid-block at Riverside Park Baker Avenue and 13th Street All corners * Signalized intersection ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-26 It was noted a portable “Pedestrian Crossing” sign placed on the centerline of the roadway is used to reinforce the presence of the crosswalk at Baker Avenue and 3rd Street for approaching motorists. This sign is not used during the winter months due to the need to plow snow from the roadway. 1.6.3 Designated Pedestrian and Bicyclist Trails in the Corridor The City of Whitefish prepared and approved the Whitefish Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan which identifies a safe, usable, and functional transportation system for pedestrians and bicyclists within the community. The City has also formed a Pedestrian and Bicycle Path Advisory Committee to help guide the development of a non- motorized trail network in the community and routinely update the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The City’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Path Advisory Committee has routinely updated the recommendations in the plan. According to the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, the US 93 corridor (Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street) is designated as a proposed bike route with links to other designated bicycle routes and paths. Numerous other designated pedestrian or bicyclist trails cross or parallel US 93 and Baker Avenue. Both existing and proposed trails are shown on Figure 1-11. FIGURE 1-11: Designated Pedestrian and Bicyclist Trails in the Corridor Source: Fish Trails – Whitefish Montana Accessed at: http://www.fishtrails.info/fish_trails_map.php ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-27 1.6.4 Proposed Pedestrian and Trail Amenities on US 93 The Whitefish Downtown Business District Master Plan advocates the development of a pedestrian-friendly environment to encourage visitors and residents to utilize downtown businesses. The Plan calls for pedestrian improvements throughout the downtown to support and improve the viability of retail businesses, to improve pedestrian safety along and across 2nd Street, and provide connections to adjacent neighborhoods. 1.6.5 Pedestrian and Bicyclist Involvement in Corridor Crashes The incidence of crashes involving pedestrians or bicyclists on US 93 or Baker Avenue within the corridor study area is very low. 1.7 Other Transportation Modes 1.7.1 Rail Service Whitefish is located on the main railroad line operated by the BNSF Railway in Montana. Both passenger and freight service are available in the community. Amtrak, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, operates across the northern portion of Montana and stops at Whitefish. Amtrak’s Empire Builder provides daily passenger service between Chicago and Seattle. Each day, a westbound train departs during the evening (at about 9:00 an eastbound train departs each morning (at about 7:30 Whitefish is a summer and winter tourist destination for rail passengers due to its proximity to Big Mountain and Glacier National Park. Amtrak statistics show Whitefish is the busiest Amtrak station between Minneapolis and Seattle with between 60,000 and 70,000 annual passenger arrivals or departures in recent years. The Amtrak passenger station is located in the historic Whitefish Depot at the north end of Spokane Avenue in downtown Whitefish. Railroad freight service is also available in Whitefish. The BNSF Railway operates about 60 trains per day through Whitefish, carrying agricultural products and other cargo. According to the 2000 Montana State Rail Plan Update, the BNSF Railway’s Wolf Point- Havre-Shelby-Libby Main Line through Whitefish is considered a major transcontinental rail freight route. Railroad freight facilities are generally located west of the grade- separated crossing on Wisconsin Avenue. 1.7.2 Air Service Glacier Park International Airport is located 11 miles southeast of Whitefish and accessed from US 93 via Montana Highway 40 and US Highway 2. The airport offers numerous daily flights and is served by Delta, Sky West, Northwest, Horizon, Alaska, and United Airlines and Allegiant Air. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-28 1.7.3 Transit Services Whitefish is served by Rimrock Trail Lines with daily coach service to Missoula. In Missoula, passengers can make connections via other Rimrock buses or transfer to the Greyhound system. Eagle Transit provides general public transportation service in Flathead County. Eagle Transit, controlled by the Flathead County Area IX Agency on Aging, was initially focused on serving the elderly. In recent years, Eagle Transit has expanded to serve the disabled population and general public within the county. Eagle Transit currently provides a variety of services including Kalispell city bus route, county-wide “door to door” service with scheduled routes in Columbia Falls and Whitefish, and demand- response inter-city services. Service was recently expanded in Columbia Falls and to the Columbia Heights Park & Ride on US Highway 2 east of the community. The “door to door” service varies by community and is designed to meet the needs of the elderly and disabled. Public transportation services and anticipated transportation needs over the 2007-2012 period in Whitefish (and Flathead County) are discussed in a Transit Development Plan (TDP) prepared for Eagle Transit by LSC Transportation Consultants during 2006. Eagle Transit currently offers scheduled bus service to commuters traveling between Kalispell and Whitefish, Whitefish and Columbia Falls, and Kalispell and Columbia Falls. This service is a result of an agreement for Flathead County to use Glacier National Park busses, the park only uses the busses July through August. 1.8 Summary of Existing Transportation Conditions Figures 1-12, 1-13, and 1-14 summarize the existing physical and operational characteristics of Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, and Baker Avenue. The following “highlights” are identified from the assessment of existing transportation conditions presented in this chapter: ƒ US 93 through Whitefish accommodates both local and through traffic. The route is part of a National Highway System (NHS) route and serves as an important element of the downtown Whitefish’s street network. ƒ Traffic volumes on US 93 vary notably within the community. AADT volumes are higher in the commercial area along Spokane Avenue south of the Whitefish River (15,000 to 17,000 vehicles) than in the downtown area along 2nd Street west of Spokane Avenue (8,000 to 10,000 vehicles). ƒ Truck traffic, including through tractor-trailer combinations and local commercial delivery and construction vehicles, has historically represented a sizable percentage of the traffic on US 93 through Whitefish during portions of the day. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-29 ƒ The LOS analyses of the existing conditions reveals some approaches at signalized intersections and several unsignalized intersections within the US 93 corridor and on Baker Avenue currently function at LOS D or lower during peak hours. These intersections include: Spokane Avenue and 13th Street; Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street; and Baker Avenue and 2nd Street. Spokane Avenue and 5th Street, and Baker Avenue and 4th Street. The poor LOS ratings predicted for the unsignalized intersections are the result of delays for side street traffic and not due to poor traffic flows on Spokane or Baker Avenues. ƒ Volume to capacity data shows several sections of US 93 and Baker Avenue are at or approaching capacity and operate at poor Levels of Service (LOS D and E) during peak travel periods. ƒ The primary crash type along the US 93 corridor during a recent three-year period was rear-end collisions followed by right-turn and right angle collisions, sideswipes, and left turn collisions. These crash types are indicative of roadways experiencing traffic congestion. ƒ Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, and Baker Avenue are integral to the City of Whitefish’s existing and planned pedestrian and bicyclist trail network. Designated trail segments exist along each of these streets. ƒ Whitefish is well served by rail transportation; however, other forms of public transportation are seasonal (like the Shuttle Network of Whitefish Bus to Whitefish Mountain Resort) or generally focused on serving “special needs” groups within the community. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 2-1 2.0 COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND SETTING This Part examines current and planned land uses, key demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the Whitefish community, and describes environmental considerations that could potentially influence the location or design of US 93 through the City. 2.1 Current and Planned Land Uses in the Corridor This section describes the existing and likely future land uses within the US 93 corridor study area. The focus of this discussion is on land uses along Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, and Baker Avenue and applicable land use plans and regulations. 2.1.1 Existing Corridor Land Uses Highway-oriented businesses and services generally dominate US 93 (Spokane Avenue) between Montana Highway 40 (outside the corridor study area) and 13th Street. Numerous highway-oriented businesses, hotels, restaurants, and the Mountain Mall exist along Spokane Avenue south of 13th Street. Commercial uses dominate the area between 13th and 6th Streets including various retail establishments, restaurants, casinos, professional offices, auto sales and services, several hotels and motels, a supermarket, and convenience stores with fuel sales. Between 6th and 4th Streets, Spokane Avenue passes through a traditional residential neighborhood being redeveloped with new uses. Single-family and multi-family homes in this area are interspersed with commercial and office uses that occupy several former residences along both sides of Spokane Avenue. North of 4th Street, Spokane Avenue enters the commercial core of Whitefish. The commercial core area includes retail commercial uses, professional and government offices, financial institutions, restaurants and taverns, hotels, and art galleries and studios. Central School is located in the northeast quadrant of the Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street intersection. A new surface parking lot was recently developed on City- owned property northwest of the same intersection. US 93 turns west at 2nd Street and bisects Whitefish’s central business district. Between Spokane Avenue and Baker Avenue, 2nd Street is flanked by retail establishments, offices, and parking lots. Retail establishments and professional offices are the primary land uses along 2nd Street west of Baker Avenue. The intersection of 2nd Street and Baker Avenue is one of the City’s busiest intersections. Notable land uses at the intersection of 2nd Street and Baker Avenue include the Whitefish City Hall building on the northeast corner, First American Bank on the northwest corner, and Glacier Bank on the southwest corner. MDT has been unsuccessful in acquiring land for highway purposes from First American Bank property. On March 22, 2006, District Court Judge Katherine R. Curtiss ---PAGE BREAK--- 2-2 entered a Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order in Flathead County Cause No. DV- 04-474(B) that included the following determination: “The Court determines that the use to which the MDOT seeks to apply the property of Defendant American Bank is not a necessary public use authorized by law; it is not a more necessary public use than the existing public use; and the public interest does not require the taking of said property.” The District Court then formally dismissed MDT’s complaint with prejudice. “With prejudice” means that the right to bring a further action (i.e. condemnation) on the same property is prohibited as the Court’s determination is conclusive on the issue. Therefore, any future improvements to the intersection of 2nd Street and Baker Avenue would have to be completed without acquiring any property from American Bank through condemnation. Baker Avenue is a major north-south roadway with the only grade-separated crossing of the BNSF Railway in Whitefish. North of 2nd Street, Baker Avenue serves public uses (Whitefish Fire Department) and commercial uses south of the Wisconsin Avenue overpass. Wisconsin Avenue provides access to residential areas, commercial uses, recreational sites, and is part of the route used to access the Whitefish Mountain Resort. Between 2nd Street and the Whitefish River, Baker Avenue serves a variety of land uses including retail and banking businesses, churches, the U.S. Post Office, and Riverside City Park. South of the river, Baker Avenue passes through a residential area before entering a newer commercial area between 10th and 13th Streets. Figure 2-1 shows existing land uses in the corridor study area. The locations of Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, and Baker Avenue are highlighted on the map. Note the hospital shown in the lower right portion of Figure 2-1 has been relocated to an area north of Montana Highway 40 and east of US 93. The old hospital area is being redeveloped with residential lots and townhouses. 2.1.2 Land Use Plans Guidance on land use planning within the City of Whitefish and its jurisdictional area is provided by the Whitefish City-County Growth Policy adopted by the City Council in November 2007. The new Growth Policy replaces the 1996 City-County Master Plan and is the result of a community-wide planning effort that began in January 2006. The Growth Policy reflects changed conditions in the Whitefish area since the 1996 Master Plan was adopted. The City-County Growth Policy establishes a vision to guide growth and development in the community over the next 20 years. The Growth Policy addresses growth and development issues through detailed discussions of various elements including: natural resources, economic development, land use, community facilities, housing, and transportation. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2-3 FIGURE 2-1: Existing Land Uses 2nd Street Spokane Avenue Baker Avenue 7th Street Karrow Avenue Hospital (Relocated) Source: Draft Land Use Element, City of Whitefish City-County Growth Policy, 2006 Two concepts apparent in the Growth Policy are the preservation of Whitefish’s “community character” and sustainability. Preservation of community character means maintaining and enhancing the qualities and resources that make Whitefish unique. With respect to land use and transportation, sustainability translates into compact growth patterns, mixed land uses, and multiple transportation choices to help reduce vehicle trips. The Growth Policy recognizes that managing growth is essential to preserving the community’s character and sustainability. 2.1.3 Whitefish Downtown Business District Master Plan The Whitefish Downtown Business District Master Plan, approved by the Whitefish City Council in April 2006, outlines plans to redevelop the commercial core area of the City. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2-4 The Plan was jointly developed by the City of Whitefish and the “Heart of Whitefish” downtown business association in an effort to increase the vitality of the downtown area. The Plan identifies and evaluates the long range opportunities and needs of the downtown business district and recommends land use changes and new development ideas to ensure the long-term viability of the downtown. Figure 2-2 shows the redevelopment concept and future land uses proposed for the downtown area of Whitefish according to the Master Plan. FIGURE 2-2: Proposed Land Use Concept from the Whitefish Downtown Business District Master Plan Source: Whitefish Downtown Business District Master Plan, Crandall Arambula PC, December 2005 The Downtown Business District Master Plan makes several recommendations that affect US 93 through downtown Whitefish including: ƒ Improving access and circulation by developing Spokane Avenue and Baker Avenue as a couplet with a “contra-flow” lane on Baker Avenue. ƒ Maintaining on-street parking along both sides of 2nd Street for a half block east and west of Central Avenue. ƒ Providing a two-lane facility on 2nd Street and prohibiting left turn lanes from 2nd Street onto Central Avenue. ƒ Providing turn lanes and improving truck-turning radii at the intersection of 2nd Street and Baker Avenue. ƒ Linking Spokane and Baker Avenues by providing a distinctively designed bridge across the Whitefish River at 7th Street. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2-5 ƒ Developing a pedestrian streetscape and improving pedestrian facilities to support and improve the viability of businesses, improve safety along 2nd Street, and provide connections to adjacent neighborhoods. It is important to recognize that MDT is the road authority for US 93 (Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street) through Whitefish. Although MDT was consulted during the development of the Downtown Business District Master Plan, it was not responsible for the recommendations included in the Plan. Some recommendations for changes on US 93 may not be consistent with MDT and FHWA requirements. Therefore, any proposed changes to these roadways will require MDT’s concurrence. 2.1.4 Existing Land Use Regulations Properties adjoining the existing US 93 corridor (Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street) have been zoned as WB-2 (Secondary Business District), WR-4 (High Density Multi-family Residential) and WB-3 (General Business District). WB-2 zones are generally intended for retail uses along highway corridors and are found along Spokane Avenue between 13th and 6th Streets. Properties along Spokane Avenue between 6th and 4th Streets are zoned WR-4 which permits higher density residential uses and other conditional uses such as professional offices, galleries, and bed and breakfast inns. Areas adjoining Spokane Avenue north of 4th Street and most of the area along 2nd between Spokane Avenue and the Whitefish River are zoned WB-3. The WB-3 district is intended for financial, retail, commercial, governmental, professional, institutional and cultural activities. Properties along Baker Avenue between 2nd and 4th Streets fall within WB-3 (General Business District) zone. Lands adjoining Baker Avenue between 4th and 9th Streets fall within various residential zones of various densities (WR-2, WR-3 and WR-4) before transitioning to the Secondary Business District (WB-2). Land use changes or new developments on properties adjoining the US 93 corridor could potentially affect the operation or safety of the highway. As noted earlier, MDT‘s System Impact Action Process is in place to review and coordinate the potential impacts of such projects with local land use agencies, private developers, and/or other governmental agencies to ensure measures are considered and implemented to preserve the function and safety of state highways. 2.1.5 Future Land Use and Community Development The Land Use Element of the City’s Growth Policy provides a graphic representation of the type, density, and spatial extent of future growth in the Whitefish area. Figure 2-3 shows a portion of the future land use map for the Whitefish area. This figure generally incorporates the proposed land use concept identified in the Downtown Business District Master Plan previously presented in Figure 2-2. Revisions to the City’s current zoning regulations may be necessary to accommodate all of the land use changes called for in the Master Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2-6 FIGURE 2-3: Future Land Use Map for the City of Whitefish Map Source: Whitefish City-County Growth Policy, Future Land Use-Detail Map #2 (South Section) adopted November 19, 2007. Available at: http://planitwhitefish.com/pdf/growth_policy/FutureLandUse_CoreDetail_South.pdf The future land use map shows the lands adjoining the US 93 corridor are primarily designated as “General Commercial” or “Core Commercial.” General Commercial uses typically apply to the US 93 South corridor and include a variety of auto-oriented ---PAGE BREAK--- 2-7 commercial and service uses. The primary access is by automobile with sufficient parking provided on site. The Core Commercial designation applies to the downtown area of Whitefish and surrounding transitional and mixed use areas. The major uses in such areas include retail commercial, professional and government offices, financial institutions, restaurants and taverns, hotels, and art galleries and studios. Lands along Baker Avenue have been designated for “High Density Residential”, “Parks and Recreation”, “Urban”, “General Commercial” and “Planned Industrial Uses.” The City of Whitefish has examined areas within the community with development potential as a way to gauge where the community may grow in the future. The Growth Policy indicates more than 2,400 new housing units could potentially be developed on the identified properties. Of these new potential new housing units, approximately half exist in already approved developments that are either partially built out or have not yet begun construction. The City estimates at least 1,200 housing units could be built on other vacant and/or underdeveloped lands in the planning area. The general corridor study area contains several parcels with development potential, most notably along the Karrow Avenue corridor southwest of the downtown area and at the former North Valley Hospital site (east of Spokane Avenue) where a redevelopment proposal was approved in 2009. 2.2 Community Socio-Economic Characteristics Population growth trends, household characteristics, and employment patterns are key factors in gauging transportation needs in Whitefish and the corridor study area. This section provides an overview of demographic characteristics in the City of Whitefish including data on population growth trends, race, age, and ethnicity, household income, and community travel characteristics. These statistics are compared with those for Flathead County and the State of Montana where possible to identify relevant trends. 2.2.1 Demographics and Socio-Economic Conditions Historic Population Trends. Historically, the City of Whitefish’s population fluctuated until 1960 when the community began a period of sustained growth. These changes in population directly corresponded to economic conditions and employment associated with the railroad. Much of the population growth seen in Flathead County has occurred outside of the major cities in the county. From 1960-2000, the rural population of Flathead County increased by nearly 190%. This long-term growth rate is substantially higher than those experienced in all of the cities in Flathead County over the same period. Development trends on rural lands surrounding the City of Whitefish were generally similar to those experienced in other areas of Flathead County over the 1960-2000 period. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2-8 The population of the City of Whitefish increased by an average of about 1.7% per year over the 1960-2000 period. During this same time, the population of Flathead County increased at an average rate of about 3.1% per year. Population Trends Since 2000. As shown in Table 2-1 below, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates the current (2008) population of the City of Whitefish at 8,281. This represents a total population change of more than 64% between 2000 and 2008 and translates to an average growth rate of 8% per year over the period. This rate is significantly higher than that experienced over the 1960-2000 period when the City’s population increased by about 70% over the four decade period. The population estimates show Whitefish was the fastest growing incorporated area in Montana over the 2000 to 2008 period. Table 2-1 also shows that notable growth continued in Flathead County with the annual rate of growth being about three times higher than that of the State of Montana for the 2000-2008 period. The data shows the population of the rural areas in Flathead County grew by about 4% over the same period. The population increases shown for Whitefish and other incorporated cities in the County since 2000 are likely due to recent annexations and the establishment of residences in previously approved developments in the communities. Table 2-1: Current Population Estimates and Growth Rates Geographic Area 2000 Census 2008** Estimate % Change 2000-2008 % Annual Growth 2000-2008 City of Whitefish 5,032 8,281 +64.6% 8.1% Flathead County (Total) 74,471 88,473 +16.6% 2.4% Flathead County (Rural)* 51,571 53,749 +4.2% 0.5% State of Montana 902,195 967,440 +7.2% 1.0% * Rural Flathead County Population = Total County Population minus populations of incorporated cities in County. Population data for 2008 are estimates as of July 1, 2008. Annual Estimates of the Population for Incorporated Places in Montana, by County: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008. Source: Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau Release Date: July 1, 2009 Seasonal Residents. There is a strong demand in Flathead County and the Whitefish area for second home ownership and for occasional use and vacation housing. Housing units dedicated for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use have been identified and quantified in the Census. Ethnicity. The City of Whitefish and Flathead County have very homogeneous racial populations. The 2000 Census indicates that about 96% of the total population of Whitefish and the County identified themselves as Caucasians (white). The State of Montana is more diverse with about 91% of the population in 2000 identifying themselves as being of the white race. Age Distribution. Census data on the age of the population since 1980 within in the City of Whitefish, Flathead County and the State of Montana was reviewed to identify ---PAGE BREAK--- 2-9 notable trends. This review showed the following trends for the City of Whitefish and Flathead County: ƒ The number of pre-school age residents and school age residents (5-17 years old) declined in the City of Whitefish and Flathead County between 1980 and 2000. ƒ Notable declines in the number of persons between 18 and 24 of age were apparent in both the City and Flathead between 1980 and 1990. However, that trend also appears to have stabilized and population increases in this age group were realized by 2000. ƒ The number of retirement age residents has increased in the City and County since 1980. ƒ As the population of the City of Whitefish and Flathead County has continued to grow, it has also aged considerably since 1980. Environmental Justice Considerations. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes assure that individuals are not excluded from participation in, denied the benefit of, or subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, age, gender or disability. Executive Order 12898 directs Federal agencies to “make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” “Disproportionately high and adverse effect” on minority and low-income populations means an adverse effect that: ƒ Is predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income populations; or ƒ Will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the non-minority population and/or non-low-income population. Executive Order 12898 identifies minority communities as “Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian and Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.” The 2000 Census shows these ethnic groups accounted for 3.8% of the City’s population and 3.2% of the County’s population at the time of the census. These minorities accounted for 9% of the State’s total population in 2000. A review of detailed population data for the City of Whitefish shows the overall percentage of minority populations is very near the County average and does not suggest that minority populations would be disproportionately affected by corridor improvements. The Executive Order defines low income as a person whose median household income is at or below the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines ---PAGE BREAK--- 2-10 A recent 3-year (2006-2008) estimate of median household income prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey shows that median household income levels in Flathead County ($44,867) are above the statewide median household income ($44,042). However, similar data for 2008 shows the median household income in the County ($41,110) was notably below the statewide median household income ($43,654). Current estimates of median household income for residents of the City of Whitefish from the Census Bureau or State of Montana are not available for comparison. According to 2000 Census data, the number of residents living below the poverty line was higher for the City of Whitefish than for the State and Flathead County. About 14.2% of all individuals living in Montana were below the poverty line in 2000. Census data shows 13.0% and 18.2% of the individuals living in Flathead County and City of Whitefish, respectively, were living in poverty in 2000. The available data on income and poverty levels does not suggest that the effects of corridor improvements would be disproportionately high and adverse to low income persons. Traditionally Underserved Populations. Not all groups are specifically identified as being “environmental justice” populations but they may be traditionally underserved populations. For example, an elderly or a disabled person who is not low-income or a minority would not be considered among the environmental justice population. Therefore, two other traditionally underserved populations were identified—the elderly (age 65+ at the time of the 2000 Census) and residents with sensory, physical, mental, self-care, “go-outside-the-home,” and employment disabilities. Table 2-2 shows the percentages of elderly and disabled populations in Whitefish and compares them with similar populations within the County and State of Montana. Table 2-2: Underserved Populations in Whitefish as Compared to County and State Averages Area Considered Percent of Population (Age 65+) Percent of Elderly Population with Disability Percent of Population Age 5+ with Disability State of Montana 13.4% 9.4% 28.7% Flathead County 13.0% 8.5% 27.7% City of Whitefish 14.4% 7.6% 21.1% Source: US Bureau of the Census, Census of Population (2000) As Table 2-2 shows, with the exception of percentage of elderly residents, the percentages of City residents in the identified underserved population groups were below those for the County and State in the City of Whitefish at the time of the 2000 Census. 2.2.2 Personal Travel and Commuting Characteristics Household Vehicle Ownership. About 95% of the households in the City of Whitefish and Flathead County owned at least one vehicle at the time of the 2000 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2-11 Census. More recent (2005) data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census American Community Survey shows 98% of the households in Flathead County owned at least one vehicle. Updated information on vehicle ownership in the City is not available. Mode of Transportation to Work. Information about the modes of transportation to work by residents in the City of Whitefish, Flathead County, and the State of Montana is shown in Table 2-3. The table shows the majority of residents in all geographic areas rely on personal vehicles or carpools for transportation to work destinations. The data shows that about 83% of Whitefish residents used personal vehicles or carpooled to work as compared to nearly 90% of county residents and about 86% of state residents in 2000. A higher percentage of Whitefish residents also rely on buses for transportation to work and walk or bicycle to work than do Flathead County or Montana residents at the time of the 2000 Census. Table 2-3: Mode of Transportation to Work Transportation Mode City of Whitefish City of Whitefish % Flathead County Flathead County % Montana Montana % Drove Alone 1,576 69.4% 26,229 77.0% 311,872 73.9% Carpool 307 13.5% 4,139 12.2% 50,192 11.9% Bus 54 2.4% 114 0.3% 2,441 0.6% Streetcar 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 96 0.0% Railroad/Subway 0 0.0% 4 0.0% 79 0.0% Ferry 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 29 0.0% Taxicab 0 0.0% 18 0.1% 167 0.0% Walk 172 7.6% 1,373 4.0% 23,336 5.5% 0 0.0% 14 0.0% 338 0.1% Bicycle 27 1.2% 201 0.6% 4,049 1.0% Other 0 0.0% 232 0.7% 2,649 0.6% Work at Home 135 5.9% 1,721 5.1% 26,911 6.4% Average Travel Time 14.6 minutes 19.0 minutes 17.7 minutes Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, STF-3 2.2.3 Current Economic Conditions Flathead County Economy and Employment. Flathead County has a diverse economic base, which includes: manufacturing (primary metals, wood products, and high-tech), transportation (railroads), tourism and travel, the federal government (including the USDA Forest Service and the National Park Service), growing areas of healthcare, specialized services, construction, and retail trade. Flathead County was historically a natural resource based economy; however, the economy has changed and diversified over the last twenty years with strong growth in retail trade and service industries. Between the years 1970 and 2007, the number of jobs in Flathead County more than tripled, from 15,627 jobs in 1970 to 63,320 jobs in 2007. Job growth in Flathead County steadily increased between 1970 and 2007 with the largest increase occurring during the 1990 to 2000 period. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of jobs in the county increased ---PAGE BREAK--- 2-12 by nearly 16,000 representing an increase of nearly 50%. In 2007, the Flathead County economy supported an estimated 63,807 jobs, an increase of more than 14,500 jobs since the year 2000. The five private industries with the largest increases in the number of jobs over the 1970 to 2000 period were (in order): services; retail trade; construction; finance, insurance, and real estate; and local government. Employment data shows the service industry provided the largest number of jobs in the county during 2007 with health care, accommodations, and food services accounting for nearly 45% of the jobs within the service industries. It is important to note that the number of jobs in Flathead County between 1970 and 2000 reflect Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes to identify a firm's primary business activity and that the numbers of jobs for 2007 are based on North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes. NAICS codes provide a greater level of detail about a firm's activity than SIC codes. The economy of Flathead County, like much of the rest of the nation, has slowed considerably since 2008. The County has seen unemployment rates that were some of the highest in Montana beginning in late 2008. The downturn of the local economy is related to significant declines in the construction and real estate industries, cutbacks and reductions in the wood products industry, and layoffs and cutbacks in manufacturing industries and nearby mining operations. The county has also felt the effects of the national economy on the nonresident travel industry. The 2009 Economic Outlook for Flathead County prepared by the Bureau of Business and Economic Research from the University of Montana-Missoula suggests the county’s economy will recover relatively quickly and resume growing by 2012. Whitefish Area Economy and Employment. Historically, the economic foundation of Whitefish was based on timber, agriculture, and the railroad. However, during the 1950s and 1960s the local economy began an evolution toward an economy based on tourism, outdoor recreation, and service industries. The community has become a desirable location for new residents and visitors and resort development. Whitefish experienced a surge in new housing construction in the early 1990s, which created a construction boom in the city and surrounding area. Although construction activity declined during the mid-1990s and activity is presently slowing, the community is still seeing notable construction and new development activity. The increase is not limited to new housing units, but includes new commercial development, and expansion of resort development. Table 2-4 presents employment data by industry for the City of Whitefish over the 1980 to 2000 period. The table shows that by 2000, more than 2,350 jobs existed in Whitefish and that 760 jobs were added to the local economy between 1980 and 2000. The table also indicates that significant increases in employment occurred in the entertainment and recreation sector, the finance, insurance and real estate industry, and construction industry. Health and professional services, retail trade, and services associated with the tourism industry constitute the primary employers. More than half of the employment within the City during 2000 occurred in the professional services industry, the ---PAGE BREAK--- 2-13 entertainment and recreation industry, and the retail trade industry. The only industries showing declines in employment during the 1980 to 2000 period were agriculture and forestry and transportation (largely reflecting decline in railroad employment). Table 2-4: City of Whitefish Employment By SIC Industry (1980-2000) Sector 1980 1990 2000 Net Change 1980-2000 jobs/percent) Agricultural, Forestry, Fisheries, Mining 76 47 25 (51)/-67% Construction 114 136 180 66/+58% Manufacturing 202 194 171 (31)/-15% Transportation 260 199 138 (122)/-47% Communication, Other Public Utilities 33 27 64 31/+93% Wholesale Trade 12 22 49 37/+308% Retail Trade 253 400 314 61/+24% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 50 106 200 150/+300% Business and Repair Services* 8 42 182 174/NA* Personal, Entertainment, & Recreation 160 288 449 289/+180% Professional Services 320 385 529 209/+65% Public Administration 40 18 53 13/+32% Totals 1,528 1,864 2,354 760/+54% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980, 1990, 2000 * Business and Repair Services category changed to Professional, scientific, management, administrative and waste management services. The U.S. Bureau of the Census compiles an Economic Census that profiles the economy every five years, from the national to the local level. The 2002 Economic Census provides the most recent, but partial, employment data for the City of Whitefish. This data shows the five NAICS industries with the largest number of employees within the City were (in order): accommodation and food services (952 jobs); retail trade (624 jobs); health care and social assistance (475 jobs); arts, entertainment, and recreation (316 jobs); and professional, scientific, and technical services (135 jobs). Full data from the 2002 Economic Census is not released or available for Whitefish. Whitefish has not escaped the effects of the recent economic downturn. Like the remainder of Flathead County, the Whitefish area has seen notable declines in the construction and real estate industries and felt the broad effects of less recreational travel to the area. 2.2.4 Population Projections Flathead County Population Projections. Projections are estimates of the population for future dates. They illustrate reasonable courses of future population change based on assumptions about current or expected demographic trends. Population projections (along with forecasts of future households and employment conditions) are used to predict future travel patterns, and to analyze the potential performance capabilities of the Whitefish area transportation system. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2-14 The Montana Department of Commerce Census and Economic Information Center (CEIC) provides population projections through the year 2030 for all counties in the state. The projections available through the CEIC are developed by NPA Data Services Inc. and presented in 5-year increments and annually adjusted based on US Census Bureau estimates of county population. The NPA population projections for Flathead County show a continuation of significant population growth in the county over the foreseeable future and show the county’s population could approach 126,000 by the year 2030. This projection suggests nearly 37,500 more people will reside in Flathead County in 2030 and represents a 42% increase in population over the 2008 estimate of population for the county (88,473). Population Projections for the City of Whitefish and Surrounding Area. The City of Whitefish and its planning jurisdictional area comprise only a small portion of Flathead County. Although County level population projections are indicative of overall growth rates and trends for future population, they are not sensitive enough to the unique growth characteristics of individual municipalities or other subareas of the County. The 2006 Resource Analysis for the City’s Growth Policy presents population projections for the City of Whitefish and its planning jurisdictional area. Generally, these projections put the year 2025 City of Whitefish population at between 8,439 and 12,649 depending on the assumptions and projection methods used. The total population projected for the planning jurisdictional area in 2025 ranged from 14,065 to 23,348. A continuation of the high and low growth rates used for the Growth Policy projections shows the City’s population could range from 8,800 to 14,600 residents and the City’s planning jurisdictional area could have between 14,800 and 27,800 residents by the year 2030. As noted earlier, the City’s population in 2008 was estimated to be 8,281. It should be noted that projections of growth and development for the Whitefish area are based on historic trends and the community experienced an unprecedented period of growth during the 2000-2006 period. Recent economic conditions have slowed growth and development within the Whitefish area, Flathead County, and nationwide. While these conditions have and will negatively affect the rate of growth in the Whitefish area in the short-term, it is unknown how long the economic slowdown will persist. There are few applicable statistics that can be relied upon to temper population and growth forecasts at this time. For this reason, it is important to keep in mind the population projections represent what might reasonably be expected within the next 20 to 25 years and that community growth could happen at a slower (or faster) rate depending upon the many factors that influence growth. 2.2.5 Future Household and Employment Projections As part of the Whitefish Transportation Plan, future housing units and retail and non- retail employment for the Whitefish planning jurisdictional area were projected and allocated for each Census Tract and Census Block to facilitate the modeling of travel ---PAGE BREAK--- 2-15 demands to the year 2030. The allocations of population and employment are consistent with assumptions about future land uses and growth outlined in the Whitefish Growth Policy Update. During the development of the travel demand model employed in the Whitefish Transportation Plan, Flathead County and Whitefish area planners, engineers, school officials, and other interested representatives met to identify areas of known planned developments and assign anticipated future growth within the community. The anticipated locations for future growth were then transferred to corresponding traffic analysis zones to facilitate travel demand modeling. The forecasts of additional dwelling units and employment used in the Whitefish Transportation Plan and considered in the corridor study were presented to the Citizens Advisory Committee and the public for comments and input during July 2007. The travel demand model used for the Whitefish Transportation Plan projects the number of housing units in Whitefish Planning Jurisdictional Area will increase by nearly 6,900 and more than 5,700 jobs will added by the year 2030. This represents an increase in numbers of households of about 94% over existing levels in 2003 (the base year considered by the travel demand model). Similarly, retail employment and non- retail employment in the Whitefish area were projected to increase by about 80% and 74%, respectively, by 2030. While the downturn in the national economy in recent years has slowed growth and economic development, it is very likely that Flathead County and the City of Whitefish will remain among the state’s top growth areas over the long term. 2.3 Environmental Setting An environmental scan was conducted to identify environmental issues with the potential to influence the type, location, or design of improvements to US 93 considered in the corridor study and in future environmental evaluation processes under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). The environmental scan also documents the concerns of environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies early in the process so that these issues can be considered during the development of recommendations for highway improvements. Topics addressed in the environmental scan are listed below: ƒ Geology and Soils ƒ Important Farmlands ƒ Water Resources and Water Quality ƒ Floodplains ƒ Fish and Wildlife Resources ƒ Wildlife Species of Concern ƒ Threatened and Endangered Species ƒ Wetlands ƒ Air Quality ƒ Noise ƒ Hazardous Materials ƒ Cultural Resources ƒ Section 4(f) Resources ƒ Section 6(f) Properties ƒ Environmental Justice ƒ Utilities ƒ City of Whitefish Critical Areas ---PAGE BREAK--- 2-16 The major findings of the environmental scan are discussed below. 2.3.1 Geology and Soils The underlying geology and surface soils in the Whitefish area pose no limitations to highway development. 2.3.2 Important Farmland While several soils in the Whitefish area are classified as “Prime Farmland” or “Farmland of Statewide Importance” by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, future improvements to US 93 corridor would likely occur entirely within existing highway rights-of-way and on lands already developed or committed to urban uses. As such, the Farmland Protection Policy Act does not apply since improvements to US 93 would not convert “farmland” to nonagricultural uses. 2.3.3 Water Resources The Whitefish River is the only surface water within the corridor study area that would likely be impacted by improvements to US 93. The highway currently crosses the river on Spokane Avenue and on 2nd Street west of the downtown. Another crossing of the river exists on Baker Avenue. The Whitefish River is considered an “impaired water” by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) because metals and other pollutants, nutrients, and undesirable water temperature changes limit two beneficial uses of the river (aquatic life support and the cold water fishery). The MDEQ is in the process of developing Total Maximum Daily Loads for pollutants in impaired waters in the Flathead-Stillwater Planning Area, including the Whitefish River. If future corridor improvements affect surface waters, the actions would be subject to the provisions of Sections 402 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Montana Stream Protection Act, and other state or local laws protecting water quality. Depending on the proposed scope of corridor improvements, the following water-related permits or authorizations may need to be obtained for future projects: ƒ “Nationwide” or Individual Section 404 Permit (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) ƒ Stream Protection Act - SPA 124 Notification (Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks) ƒ Short-term Water Quality Standard for Turbidity - 318 Authorization (MDEQ) ƒ Section 401 Certification (MDEQ) ƒ Exemption to Critical Areas Ordinance (City of Whitefish) Storm water issues include storm water runoff control during and after construction. Construction projects would be subject to the requirements of the Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges. The Whitefish River is considered commercially navigable from Whitefish Lake to its confluence with the Stillwater River. As such, the project sponsor would need to obtain a ---PAGE BREAK--- 2-17 Land Use License or Easement from the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) for work in or above the river. Although areas of seasonally high groundwater may be encountered within the corridor, this condition would not be a limiting factor to improving US 93 in the City. 2.3.4 Floodplains Floodplains delineated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency occur along the Whitefish River. US 93 encroaches on the floodplain of the Whitefish River at crossings on Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street west of the downtown area. Baker Avenue crosses the delineated floodplain of the river. Improvements to US 93 would likely require one or more crossings of the river and minor encroachments on its delineated floodplain. Such encroachments would be subject to local Floodplain Management regulations. 2.3.5 Wetlands Wetlands within the Whitefish corridor study area exist along the Whitefish River and its tributaries. Wetlands within the existing highway corridor, delineated during project development activities for MDT highway projects, consist of narrow wetland fringes along the banks of the Whitefish River vegetated by emergent and scrub-shrub species. Impacts to delineated wetlands could occur due to the placement of minor amounts of fill associated with work at existing highway crossing structures or by building new bridges. Work in jurisdictional wetlands would be subject to the conditions associated with a “Nationwide” or Individual Section 404 Permit from the Corps of Engineers. 2.3.6 Biological Resources With the exception of riparian habitat and wetlands along the Whitefish River, residential and commercial development has eliminated most natural wildlife habitat within the city limits of Whitefish. However, wetlands and riparian lands along the Whitefish River do provide locally important habitat for some migratory birds, waterfowl, small mammals, and both white-tailed and mule deer. Urban landscaping and boulevard trees provide habitat for some small mammals and song birds. Common loons, LeConte’s sparrow, olive-sided flycatchers, and bobolinks, are wildlife species of concern that may occur in the Whitefish area. Since most of these species favor lake areas and wetland habitats, improvements to the existing corridor would be expected to result in minimal impacts to these sensitive wildlife species. Eleven fish species can be found in the Whitefish River including three species of trout and several warm water species. Modifying existing structures or building new structures on US 93 could cause minor impacts to aquatic resources due to encroachments upon and/or require work within the Whitefish River. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2-18 Information obtained from the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP) reported occurrences of 11 plant species of concern in the Whitefish area although none are in the corridor study area. No plant species of concern observed during field reviews for MDT’s Whitefish-Urban and Whitefish-West reconstruction projects on US 93. From this information, the likelihood future highway improvements would affect sensitive plants appears low. Canada thistle and spotted knapweed were commonly observed noxious weeds along the US 93 corridor in the Whitefish area along with scattered populations of ox-eye daisy, houndstongue, and orange hawkweed. Ground disturbances, such as those associated with highway construction, often present opportunities for the spread of noxious weeds. 2.3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species Based on literature reviews and coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), it was concluded that two threatened species—bull trout and grizzly bears— could potentially occur in the Whitefish area. Bald eagles (formerly listed as a threatened species) may occasionally be seen foraging for fish or waterfowl along the Whitefish River or lakeshore areas. The bald eagle was officially delisted on June 28, 2007; however, the species is still protected under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The gray wolf, once listed as an endangered species, could potentially occur in the greater Whitefish area. However, the gray wolf was delisted by the USFWS in January 2009. On March 6, 2009, the Secretary of the Interior reaffirmed the decision by the USFWS to remove gray wolves from the list of threatened and endangered species in the Montana. Bull Trout. Bull trout occur in Whitefish Lake and in the Whitefish River. Whitefish Lake and tributaries above the lake have been designated as critical habitat for bull trout by the USFWS. Although the Whitefish River is within bull trout range, it provides poor quality habitat for the species and is not considered critical habitat for the species. Modifying existing crossing structures or building new structures at roadway crossings may encroach upon and/or require work within the Whitefish River. Construction activities could temporarily affect bull trout habitat and there may be potential for taking an individual fish. Due to these potential adverse effects to bull trout and its habitat at US 93 crossings of the Whitefish River, formal consultation with the USFWS may be required if a project is forwarded. Grizzly Bears. The City of Whitefish is located just outside the boundaries established for the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE), a designated grizzly bear recovery zone. Mapping information from the USFWS indicates grizzly bears could occasionally occur in Whitefish area. Improving US 93 is unlikely to result in a notable loss of habitat or cause other adverse effects to the species. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2-19 2.3.8 Air Quality The only air pollutant of concern within the Whitefish area are particulates—specifically PM-10 (particulate matter ranging in size from 2.5 to 10 micrometers). The Whitefish area was designated as a “moderate” PM-10 Non-attainment Area by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1992. Whitefish continues to be classified as a Non-attainment Area, even though air quality standards have been met through local efforts to control PM-10. PM-2.5 (particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers) is an emerging issue in Whitefish and air quality monitoring data suggests the community may be at risk of exceeding federal standards for 24-hour PM-2.5 averages. An air quality impact analysis would need to be completed during project develop if a recommended improvement was forward to demonstrate that any recommended improvements to US 93 will not cause or increase PM-10 violations within the Whitefish area. Although Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) do not pose a major concern in Whitefish, the pollutant must be considered in a future NEPA/MEPA document for US 93 improvements forwarded into project development. 2.3.9 Noise Residences located along Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, and Baker Avenue represent the most sensitive noise receptors in the corridor study area. Concentrations of residences exist along Spokane Avenue between 4th and 6th Streets; along the east side of Baker Avenue between 3rd and 4th Streets; along most of Baker south of the Whitefish River; and along 2nd Street west of the Whitefish River between Baker and Karrow Avenues. City park areas are present along both sides of Baker from 5th Street to the Whitefish River. Traffic on roads and streets within the Whitefish area will likely continue to increase with or without improvements to US 93, and this would likely increase the traffic noise levels on neighboring properties. Any changes to the road system that would increase traffic volumes or move travel lanes closer to current receivers would also likely increase the traffic noise at the receivers. Such changes are most likely along the existing US 93 corridor or other new arterial connectors. Noise modeling conducted for the Somers-Whitefish West Final EIS in 1993 predicted noise levels at numerous receptors along existing sections of US 93 and Baker Avenue would approach or exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC). The 1993 evaluation predicted that no receptors would experience a “substantial increase” in noise levels (defined as 10 dBA or greater in the Final EIS) by the project design year (2015). Although this conclusion appears reasonable, there have been no recent measurements ---PAGE BREAK--- 2-20 of ambient (existing) noise levels or noise modeling using the FHWA’s current Traffic Noise Model to verify if this is the case. 2.3.10 Hazardous Materials During the preparation of the environmental scan for this study, on-line data bases of federal, state, and local agencies were searched for information on regulated facilities within the Whitefish area that could potentially be affected by corridor improvements. The database search did not identify any facilities listed on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Toxics Release Inventory or generators, receivers, and transporters of hazardous waste listed on the EPA’s RCRA Information System (RCRIS). However, the search identified a Comprehensive Environmental Cleanup Responsibility Act (CECRA) Priority Site (State Superfund Site)—the Burlington Northern Fueling Facility—near Railway Street and Spokane Avenue at the north edge of downtown Whitefish. The site is not adjacent to US 93 and there appears to be a low potential for encountering such contamination within the existing highway right-of-way. Databases listing identifying hazardous materials sites such as registered underground storage tank (UST) locations, leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites, and petroleum release sites were also reviewed. This review identified 24 such sites within the corridor study area. A Phase II Hazardous Materials Assessment was prepared for MDT’s Whitefish Urban and Whitefish West project areas during 2005. The assessment identified numerous sites in the Whitefish Urban project area with documented or potential hazardous material contamination issues. These sites included locations on underground storage tank lists; observed commercial users with a moderate to high potential of using, storing or generating hazardous materials/wastes; and sites where potential concerns exist due to past and/or present land uses. Work completed for the assessment involved drilling and sampling to verify the extent of subsurface contamination within the highway right-of-way at several locations. Subsurface petroleum impacts were identified at the following areas along the existing US 93 corridor: ƒ Intersection of Spokane Avenue and 8th Street ƒ Intersection of Spokane Avenue and 3rd Street ƒ Intersection of Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street ƒ Intersection of Baker Avenue and 2nd Street Contaminated sediments along the Whitefish River were identified at the existing highway culverts on Spokane Avenue, at existing bridges on 2nd Street and Baker Avenue, and in the vicinity of 7th Street where a new bridge across the Whitefish River was proposed in the US Highway 93 Somers to Whitefish West Final EIS. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2-21 A gasoline seep along the Whitefish River within the limits of the corridor study has resulted in environmental concerns regarding contaminated soils and affected water quality. Efforts are underway by MDEQ’s Petroleum Release Section to assess the problem and determine how to address the gasoline seep. The EPA recently ordered the BNSF Railway to begin removing contaminants from the Whitefish River and work to accomplish this cleanup was initiated in September 2009. The first stage of the work focuses on removing contaminants from the BNSF Railway’s upstream property boundary to the 2nd Street Bridge. The second phase would cleanup areas of the bridge to JP Road. MDEQ is also reviewing a remedial investigation report from the BNSF Railway. After the remedial investigation is reviewed, a feasibility study would be conducted in preparation for a large-scale cleanup of the BNSF Railway facility which has affected groundwater and contaminated soils in the area. 2.3.11 Historic and Archaeological Resources Previous cultural resources inventories of properties adjoining Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, and Baker Avenue identified numerous historic buildings and several neighborhoods adjoining US 93 that could potentially comprise a historic residential district. The cultural resource surveys have identified 30 individual properties determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and/or contributing properties to a potential historic residential district. However, no formal boundaries for a historic residential district in Whitefish have ever been established. Historic properties could be directly affected if improvements require expanding existing rights-of-way. Improving the existing highway could also indirectly alter the visual and aesthetic character of the areas surrounding these resources. Although improvements within the existing US 93 corridor could cause minor impacts to historic properties, it is unlikely that such improvements would jeopardize a future nomination of this possible residential historic district. The original cultural resource survey was done in 1994 and there may be other properties that are now old enough to qualify for the National Register of Historic Places. For these reasons, the cultural resource survey would need to be updated If an improvement option is forwarded into project development. 2.3.12 Section 4(f) Resources Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, protects public parks and recreation lands, wildlife habitat, and historic sites of national, state, or local significance. Improvements to US 93 or Baker Avenue would not affect any wildlife or waterfowl refuges. However, the improvements could potentially affect several City parks, portions of the City’s trail system, or historic properties. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2-22 Two City-owned parks—Riverside Park and Baker Park—could potentially be affected by improvements to US 93 or Baker Avenue within the corridor. The permanent use of land from these parks is unlikely, but reconstruction of the existing US 93 corridor or new construction on Baker Avenue could result in minor, temporary effects to these parks during construction. Improvements to US 93 would not affect the playground at Central School. Several existing or planned segments of the City of Whitefish’s pedestrian and bicyclist trail system could be affected by improvements to US 93. In general, highway improvements should be designed and implemented to maintain the continuity of existing trails and facilitate the future development of planned trails where practicable. The FHWA has developed guidance for the applicability of Section 4(f) to trails and the statute may or may not apply depending upon the primary use and purpose of the trail and whether the trail exists on public or private land. The applicability of Section 4(f) to affected trail segments would need to be reviewed and coordinated projects to implement corridor improvements are developed. Reconstruction of US 93 could result in minor Section 4(f) effect at some known historic properties along Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, or Baker Avenue that are individually eligible for the NRHP or are contributing elements to a potential historic residential district in Whitefish. An updated cultural resource survey for the corridor may also identify other properties that are now old enough to qualify for the National Register of Historic Places and subject to Section 4(f) provisions. 2.3.13 Section 6(f) Properties The City of Whitefish, Flathead County, and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks have completed ten projects in the community with funds made available through the National Land & Water Conservation Fund Act. Kay Beller City Park is the only Section 6(f) property in the corridor study area. Improvements to the Whitefish Urban corridor would not affect Kay Beller Park. 2.3.14 Utilities City of Whitefish water and sewer infrastructure is extensive within the corridor study area. Municipal water and/or sewer lines exist beneath portions of Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street and Baker Avenue and cross these streets at numerous locations. If improvement options are forwarded into project development there could be conflict with municipal water or sewer lines at numerous locations. Overhead power lines, overhead and underground telephone cables and fiber optic lines, and natural gas distribution lines cross or exist adjacent to the Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street and Baker Avenue. Some of these utilities could be in conflict with future improvements to US 93. BNSF Railway facilities would not be affected by improvements to the US 93 corridor. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2-23 2.3.15 Whitefish Critical Areas On March 3, 2008, the Whitefish City Council approved the Critical Areas Ordinance (Ordinance No. 08-04) to regulate development in “critical areas” within the community. Under the ordinance, critical areas are defined as “a critical stormwater conveyance, stream, lake, wetland, or a slope with potential for erosion hazard or instability.” The ordinance also establishes buffers (setbacks) for each type of critical area. Buffers are areas contiguous to a critical area determined to be needed for the continued functioning and/or structural stability of that critical area. The stated purposes of the ordinance are to: ƒ Maintain the community’s ability to manage stormwater through protection of “critical conveyances.” ƒ Protect and improve the quality of the Whitefish area’s water bodies, including lakes, streams, and the Whitefish River, which are central to the community’s identity and values. ƒ Protect public safety, public and private property, and water quality from threats of landslides and other geologic instability. ƒ Protect property from damage due to high groundwater levels or changes in natural groundwater levels. ƒ Protect and preserve the lawful use and enjoyment of private property. The Critical Areas Ordinance sets forth standards and regulations to meet these purposes and procedures that must be followed for applicants (property owners or their agents) to document compliance with the ordinance. Future improvement options to US 93 through Whitefish could require encroachments or crossings of the Whitefish River and its associated riparian zone and could impact wetlands. Previous discussions in this Part have generally addressed these “critical areas.” Several federal and state regulations Sections 402 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, Montana Stream Protection Act, and Floodplain Management regulations) will apply if these “critical areas” are affected by future highway construction. MDT is not exempt from compliance with the Critical Areas Ordinance and would have to follow the City’s procedures if road, bridge, or trail construction encroaches on critical areas. Section 2.F of the Ordinance indicates public agencies and utilities may apply for a Reasonable Use Exception if the application of the ordinance would prohibit a development proposal. This section also indicates the public agency or utility is also required to demonstrate that the application of the ordinance would unreasonably restrict the ability to provide services to the public. Section 2.D.1 through 2.D.5 of the ordinance outlines the procedures and requirements for a Reasonable Use Exception. Section 2.C.2 of the Critical Areas Ordinance includes an exemption for the “operation, maintenance, repair, modification, or addition to existing structures, infrastructure improvements, utilities, public or private roads, dikes, levees, or drainage systems, if the activity applies best management practices and does not further encroach within a ---PAGE BREAK--- 2-24 critical area or buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the action.” 2.3.16 Summary of Environmental and Community Resources Figure 2-4 illustrates environmental conditions and community resources that have the potential to affect planning and decisions for improvements to the US 93 corridor through Whitefish. Conditions depicted on the figure include surface waters and floodplains, known wetlands, hazardous materials sites, public recreational lands, and historic properties. ---PAGE BREAK--- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ` _ ` _ ` _ ` _ ` _ ` _ ` _ ` _ ` _ ` _ ` _ ` _ ` _ ` _ ` _ ` _ ` _ ` _ ` _ ` _ ` _ ` _ ` _ ` _ ` _ ` _ ` _ ` _ £ ¤ 93 £ ¤ 89 £ ¤ 2 £ ¤ 93 £ ¤ 2 Flathead Glacier Lincoln Lake Teton Sanders Pondera !I FIGURE 2-9 ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES Whitefish - Urban Corridor Study of US 93 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 Miles Legend Existing Historical Sites Waterbody / Floodplain Parks and Open Space Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Existing Haz Mat Sites ` _ ! ! City Limits On System Route Off System Route Highway 93 Corridor 2-25 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3-1 3.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS This Part examines future traffic conditions in Whitefish and describes how the US 93 corridor may operate in the year 2030. Simulations and analyses based on the results of travel demand modeling for the year 2030 were used to identify future traffic conditions and potential operational concerns within the corridor. The travel demand model used for this Corridor Study was also used for the Whitefish Transportation Plan. 3.1 Travel Demand Forecasting in the Whitefish Area The methods and process developed to predict growth in the Whitefish area to the year 2030 are described in detail in the Whitefish Transportation Plan and briefly summarized below. Through the use of population, employment and other socio- economic projections, the needs for the future transportation system along the US 93 corridor were defined. A model of the future (2030) street network in the Whitefish area was created to predict traffic demands based on the projected socio-economic information and changes to the transportation system likely to occur before the year 2030. The following section provides information about how the future year traffic model was created. 3.1.1 Future Street Network For the purposes of the corridor study, the future street network in the Whitefish area was assumed to consist of the existing system plus committed projects expected to be in place by the year 2030. The Whitefish Transportation Plan refers to this future street network as the “E+C Network.” MDT’s Whitefish-West project is the only “committed” transportation improvement included on the E+C Network. The Whitefish-West project extends from Reference Post (RP) 127.8 (located on 2nd Street between Baker and Lupfer Avenues) to RP 133.0 west of Whitefish and is currently in the design phase. No local improvements to the transportation network were assumed to be in place by the year 2030. The Whitefish Transportation Plan recommends numerous and extensive improvements to the local street network including new bridges and road connections in order to help meet the anticipated traffic demands for the year 2030. Some of these recommended projects are located on routes that fall under the MDT’s jurisdiction; however, most of the recommendations affect streets and roads that fall under the responsibility of either the City of Whitefish or Flathead County. There is no certainty MDT or these local governments can or will implement all of these projects over the planning horizon. For this reason, the E+C Network presents a very “conservative” representation of the future street system in Whitefish. Modeling the E+C Network provides with an indication of what future operating conditions on the local road and street network may be like without expanding the capacity on US 93 or major system improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3-2 3.1.2 Traffic Model Development The year 2030 was selected as the planning horizon for the future year traffic model. The model takes into account socio-economic and growth projections for the community through the allocation of new housing units and employment through the year 2030 for the Whitefish area. These allocations were consistent with the assumptions about future growth and development included in the Whitefish City-County Growth Policy. Land use and socio-economic characteristics in the greater Whitefish area influence the traffic patterns present in the community today. To build a model to represent this condition, the housing information was collected from the 2000 Census and updated to include housing to the year 2003, utilizing Department of Revenue data. The employment information was gathered from the Montana Department of Labor and Industry, second quarter of 2003 and was reviewed by local agency planners and MDT staff. The roadway network/centerline information was provided by the Flathead County GIS office. This information was supplemented by input from staff from the City of Whitefish, Flathead County, and MDT. With this substantial local knowledge, the accuracy of the base model was increased. The GIS files, population census information, and employment information are readily available and summaries of the housing and employment forecasts are presented in the Whitefish Transportation Plan. TransCAD software, which employs this information as input data, was used to create the traffic model. The TransCAD traffic model uses the input data to generate, distribute and assign traffic and project traffic volumes for the road network. These traffic volumes are then compared to actual ground counts and adjustments are made to ensure the accuracy of the model. It should be noted that since traffic models are based on forecasted land uses and existing travel patterns, the resulting traffic volumes are not expected to be completely accurate but only to assist in the evaluation of projected future conditions. To develop a transportation model, the modeling area must be established. The modeling area is, by necessity, much larger than the corridor study area. The study area for the Whitefish area traffic model is the same as the Whitefish Planning Jurisdiction Area considered in the City-County Growth Policy. Traffic generated from outlying communities or areas contributes to the traffic load within the Whitefish area, and is therefore important to accuracy of the model. Additionally, it is desirable to have a large model area for use in future projects. The modeling area was subdivided by using census tracts and census blocks to help identify population and other socio-economic characteristics of the area. Census blocks are typically small in the downtown and existing neighborhood areas, and grow geographically larger in the less densely developed areas. The census blocks and census ---PAGE BREAK--- 3-3 tracts were used to allocate the population and employment growth anticipated to occur between now and 2030. 3.1.3 Traffic Simulation and Analysis Traffic simulation software is used to determine how a roadway, intersection, or network performs under designated conditions. plus SimTraffic 6 (designed by Trafficware Ltd.) was used to simulate traffic behavior, optimize signal timings, and perform analysis throughout the specified network. For the purposes of the corridor study, the network consists of every intersection along Spokane Avenue between 13th Street and 2nd Street, every intersection along Baker Avenue between 13th Street and 2nd Street, and the intersection of Central Avenue and 2nd Street. requires peak-hour turning movement volumes to be input at each intersection in the network. These turning movement volumes came from taking twelve percent (12%) of the modeled traffic volumes generated by the TransCAD traffic model. The geometry of the future network and of each intersection reflects the geometry in place today. The signal timing for future conditions was determined by using the “optimize” function in This feature allows to optimize cycle splits and offsets to determine the situation that performs at the best level for the entire network. Signal timing for existing conditions was based on current signal timing values obtained from MDT. Once the network is set up with the appropriate geometry, traffic volumes and signal timings, an analysis of the network and of each individual intersection can be done. The analysis process was also done via which is capable of producing detailed reports for “Intersection Capacity Analysis” and “Measures of Effectiveness”. Information about vehicle delays and the projected future LOS for each intersection, as determined through the “Intersection Capacity Analysis”, is presented later in this Part of the Corridor Study. 3.2 Projected Traffic Conditions (2030) This section examines projected traffic conditions in the year 2030 on the E+C Network. The future traffic conditions for the Whitefish area were predicted through the use of the traffic model and analysis methods discussed earlier. These tools help to identify future problems on the road and street network and determine possible improvement options to help the network perform at a higher level. 3.2.1 Future Traffic Volumes and Capacity Considerations Using the traffic model, it was possible to project traffic volumes (AADTs) on all major roads within the Whitefish study area. These roads were analyzed for the base year 2003 and for the future year 2030 to determine how volume changes expected to occur ---PAGE BREAK--- 3-4 on the network by the year 2030 may affect traffic operations. The volumes generated by the model reflect the future year housing and employment projections. The modeled traffic volumes on the US 93 corridor, Baker Avenue, and adjoining streets for the year 2030 can be found in Figure 3-1. Modeled volumes for the year 2003 were previously presented in Figure 1-9. Changes in modeled traffic volumes at selected locations for the years 2003 and 2030 are highlighted in Table 3-1. The travel demand model projects substantial increases in traffic volumes throughout the study area by the year 2030. Model results show future traffic volumes at locations along Spokane Avenue ranging from 1.2 to 2.0 times higher than modeled volumes for 2003. Traffic volume increases along 2nd Street show future volumes that are 1.5 times higher than those for 2003. Likewise, modeling shows future traffic volumes along Baker Avenue could be about 1.3 to 1.5 times above modeled volumes for 2003. Consistent with the range of projected volume increases on Spokane Avenue in the vicinity of 13th Street, the model predicts increases in traffic volumes on 13th Street both east and west of Spokane by the year 2030. The number of lanes and projected daily traffic volumes can be used to help predict future roadway capacity issues. As noted in Part 1.0, two-lane roadways can typically accommodate up to 12,000 vehicles per day. Since Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, and Baker Avenue are two lane facilities, this standard was used as an indicator of future capacity concerns on these roadways. The model results for the year 2030 showed the following roadway sections within the corridor with modeled AADT volumes at or near 12,000 vehicles: ƒ Spokane Avenue (between 13th and 6th Streets); ƒ 2nd Street between Central and Baker Avenues; ƒ The north and south approaches at the intersection of 2nd Street and Baker Avenue; and ƒ Baker Avenue between the Whitefish River and 13th Street. This suggests the current two-lane roadways may be at or exceeding their capacity by the year 2030 and indicates the need for design and/or operational changes to increase their capacity. Segments within individual roadway corridors showing volume to capacity (v/c) ratios of 0.8 or higher are of concern because this limitation on road capacity leads to congestion. Ratios of 1.0 or more suggest the road is beyond its ability to accommodate traffic flows. As previously discussed in Part 1.0, most of Spokane Avenue between Riverside Avenue and 2nd Street currently has v/c ratios ranging from about 0.80 to more than 1.0. Similarly, portions of Baker Avenue north of 2nd Street and between 6th and 13th Streets have v/c ratios that suggest the roadway is currently approaching its capacity. ---PAGE BREAK--- BAKER AVE PARK AVE MILES AVE E 6TH ST KALISPELL AVE E 5TH ST E 8TH ST LUPFER AVE E 3RD ST E 4TH ST E 9TH ST SOMERS AVE E 6TH ST ASHAR AVE VOER W 3RD ST E 1ST ST PINE AVE RAILWAY ST TH ST RIVERSIDE AVE W 5TH ST HIGHWAY 93 O`BRIEN AVE BAKER AVE PARK AVE FLINT AVE COLUMBIA AVE SCOTT AVE SPOKANE AVE W 10TH ST LUPFER AVE 2ND STREET 13TH STREET GOOD AVE JENNINGS AVE SPOKANE AVE CENTRAL AVE E 1ST ST E 2ND ST E 7TH ST W 15TH ST CENTRAL AVE COLUMBIA AVE SOMERS AVE PARK AVE PINE AVE KALISPELL AVE E 10TH ST W 13TH ST W 2ND STREET SPRUCE CT COLUMBIA AVE E 13TH ST DEPOT ST O`BRIEN AVE W 6TH ST GEDDES AVE BAKER AVE W 9TH ST W 8TH ST W 7TH ST SHADY RIVER LN £ ¤ 93 £ ¤ 93 9600 4800 4100 17600 15800 3500 700 2200 4600 4900 12200 11100 4900 4700 10800 4700 5400 3500 4300 10400 9100 2900 3300 10500 3100 2900 15800 2000 5100 4900 4900 4300 9700 4100 28200 16700 10300 8900 14100 13900 10200 14200 8100 4100 14100 12300 11800 14000 14700 10700 1400 10700 Note: The traffic volumes depicted in this graphic represent the results of a modeling exercise and may not accurately represent actual values. £ ¤ 93 £ ¤ 89 £ ¤ 2 £ ¤ 93 £ ¤ 2 Flathead Glacier Lincoln Lake Teton Sanders Pondera !I FIGURE 3-1 PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES Whitefish - Urban Corridor Study of US 93 3-5 0 0.05 0.1 Miles LEGEND 1500 Modeled 2030 Traffic Volume On System Route Off System Route City Limits Highway 93 Corridor ---PAGE BREAK--- 3-6 Since numerous roadway segments of US 93 and Baker Avenue already operate at or near their capacities, it is apparent that the ability of these roadways to accommodate traffic flows would continue to decrease as traffic volumes increase in the future. Table 3-1: Current and Future Modeled Traffic Volumes on US 93 and Baker Avenue Location Current/Future Modeled Traffic Volumes 2003 Volume 2030 Volume Spokane Avenue South of 13th Street 13700 28200 North of 13th Street 10900 17600 South of 6th Street 10400 14100 Between 6th and 5th Streets 8700 10800 Between 4th and 3rd Streets 7300 8900 South of 2nd Street 6400 8100 North of 2nd Street 3400 5100 2nd Street East of Spokane Ave 6200 9100 West of Spokane Ave 7600 11100 West of Central Ave 7900 12200 West of Baker Ave 9600 10500 Baker Avenue North of 2nd Street 12500 16700 South of 2nd Street 9100 12300 Between 5th Street and WF River 8000 10700 Between 7th and 8th Streets 10600 13900 North of 10th Street 10100 14000 Between 10th and 13th Streets 10400 15800 South of 13th Street 8500 12500 Central Avenue North of 2nd Street 2600 4900 South of 2nd Street 2100 4100 13th Street West of Spokane Ave 2100 4800 East of Spokane Ave 2000 9600 3.2.2 Future Level of Service at Corridor Intersections As noted in Part 1.0 of this study, urban road systems are controlled by the operation of their major intersections. Intersection failures reduce the number of vehicles that can be accommodated during peak travel hours at specific locations and lessen a roadway corridor’s overall traffic volume capacity each day. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3-7 Each intersection along the US 93 corridor and along Baker Avenue between 2nd and 13th Streets was analyzed using the procedures outlined in the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual – Special Report 209. The analyses were conducted using plus SimTraffic 6 software and projected traffic data for corridor intersections generated by the traffic model. The existing (2003) and future (2030) peak hour LOS for the signalized and unsignalized intersections along the US 93 corridor and on Baker Avenue are shown on Figure 3-2. The peak hour traffic volumes at each intersection were estimated from the results of traffic model for current and future conditions. Existing signal timings were used to analyze existing conditions. Optimal signal timing was applied to each signalized intersection in the future (2030) analysis to obtain the traffic conditions at that location. Figure 3-2 shows that without improvements, the peak hour LOS at most signalized intersections on Spokane Avenue may progressively worsen as traffic volumes increase. By the year 2030, the signalized intersections at Spokane Avenue and 13th and at 2nd Street and Baker Avenue may operate at LOS E or F, respectively, during the peak hour. By the year 2030, almost all unsignalized intersections along Spokane and Baker Avenues may operate at LOS E or F during the peak hour without improvements. The poor overall peak hour LOS rating reported for unsignalized intersections is the result of at least one of the movements at each intersection operating with significant delays and does not necessarily mean that the operation of the entire intersection is poor. The poor LOS ratings at unsignalized intersections in the corridor are due to the delays that side street traffic may experience while attempting to enter or cross traffic flows on Spokane or Baker Avenues and not the result of poor operations on these major roadways. Analyses suggest Spokane and Baker Avenues would likely operate at an acceptable LOS in the peak hour through the year 2030. This is consistent with a fundamental priority to facilitate traffic flows on the arterial corridor. Please note the “improved” LOS at the intersection of Spokane Avenue and 9th Street by the year 2030 is a peculiarity of the travel demand model and likely the result of little or no turning movements being assigned to the existing side street approach. There is no reason to believe this side street approach would operate any differently than other nearby intersections during peak hour conditions. Highway capacity analyses for the signalized intersections at Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street and at 2nd Street and Central Avenue predict little change in LOS ratings at these locations during peak hours in 2030. This may be due in part because the intersection analyses assumed optimized signal timing at these locations. The poor operation of the intersection at 2nd Street and Baker Avenue may also inhibit traffic flows on 2nd Street and indirectly benefit the LOS at the intersections of Central and Spokane Avenues. ---PAGE BREAK--- BAKER AVE PARK AVE MILES AVE E 6TH ST KALISPELL AVE E 5TH ST E 8TH ST LUPFER AVE E 3RD ST E 4TH ST E 9TH ST SOMERS AVE E 6TH ST ASHAR AVE VOER W 3RD ST E 1ST ST PINE AVE RAILWAY ST TH ST RIVERSIDE AVE W 5TH ST HIGHWAY 93 O`BRIEN AVE BAKER AVE PARK AVE FLINT AVE COLUMBIA AVE SCOTT AVE SPOKANE AVE W 10TH ST LUPFER AVE 2ND STREET 13TH STREET GOOD AVE JENNINGS AVE SPOKANE AVE CENTRAL AVE E 1ST ST E 2ND ST E 7TH ST W 15TH ST CENTRAL AVE COLUMBIA AVE SOMERS AVE PARK AVE PINE AVE KALISPELL AVE E 10TH ST W 13TH ST W 2ND STREET SPRUCE CT COLUMBIA AVE E 13TH ST DEPOT ST O`BRIEN AVE W 6TH ST GEDDES AVE BAKER AVE W 9TH ST W 8TH ST W 7TH ST SHADY RIVER LN £ ¤ 93 £ ¤ 93 E B F E F D F C A E E C F B F E F C F F F D F D F C B C B B F D F E F D F D Note: The LOS rating at signalized intersections is based on the average delay of all movements. The LOS rating for unsignalized intersections is based on the avereage delay of the worst movement (usually a left turn from the stop-controlled street) and does not mean that all movements function at the LOS level shown. £ ¤ 93 £ ¤ 89 £ ¤ 2 £ ¤ 93 £ ¤ 2 Flathead Glacier Lincoln Lake Teton Sanders Pondera !I 0 0.05 0.1 Miles LEGEND On System Route Off System Route City Limits Highway 93 Corridor Unsignalized Intersection Signalized Intersection B C Year 2030 Year 2003 B C Year 2030 Year 2003 FIGURE 3-2 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Whitefish - Urban Corridor Study of US 93 3-8 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3-9 3.3 Anticipated Future Operational Deficiencies This section identifies future operational deficiencies on the US 93 corridor. In general, increasing traffic volumes, inadequate intersection or road geometries, and poor traffic flows will contribute to deteriorating traffic operations within the corridor. Based on projected travel demands and the assumption no major improvements are implemented to address such demands, the most apparent future deficiencies corridor will be: ƒ delays for side street traffic attempting to enter or cross Spokane and Baker Avenues; ƒ Deteriorating LOS at the signalized intersections of Spokane Avenue and 13th Street and 2nd Street and Baker Avenue; and ƒ The continued inability for the intersection of 2nd Street and Baker Avenue to adequately accommodate all turning movements by large trucks. Failure resulting from inadequate roadway and intersection capacity may result in traffic congestion and poor network performance. Traffic volumes that exceed or approach capacity levels cause increased vehicle delays along the roadway and on side streets resulting in lower LOS ratings. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-1 4.0 CORRIDOR ISSUES, VISION, AND GOALS This portion of the study describes issues associated with the US 93 corridor through Whitefish that have been identified through previous planning efforts within the community. These issues are indicative of the reasons why improvements are needed within the corridor. An overall vision and a set of goals were drafted to help identify and evaluate infrastructure improvement options for the corridor based on the identified needs. The corridor vision and goals are examined for consistency with the purpose and need for improving the US 93 corridor developed for the U.S. Highway 93 Somers-Whitefish West Final EIS. 4.1 Identification of Corridor Issues Input on issues associated with the reconstruction of US 93 through Whitefish and general transportation concerns have been received from agencies and the public through a variety of past projects and plan conducted in the community. These include: ƒ U.S. Highway 93 Somers-Whitefish West Final EIS/ROD (1993/1995) ƒ MDT Whitefish Urban and Whitefish West Design Projects (2005/Ongoing) ƒ Whitefish Downtown Business District Master Plan (2005/2006) ƒ Whitefish City-County Growth Policy (2006/2007) ƒ Whitefish Transportation Plan (2010) While each of these projects and plans have a specific focus, the public input, analyses, and recommendations generated during these planning efforts collectively provide an extensive amount of information directly relevant to this study. The Corridor Study acknowledges these past projects and plans to use them to help identify appropriate and effective improvements for the corridor. The issues and comments identified through previous projects and community planning efforts were reviewed by the consultant team. Since many of the issues and comments are closely related, they were combined to generate a set of statements reflecting corridor needs that can be used to develop an overall vision and goals for the corridor. The issue statements below were presented to the public and to the Citizens Advisory Committee during the development of this study. Traffic Operations Traffic circulation problems and congestion exists along US 93 through downtown Whitefish. The lack of appropriate dedicated turn lanes on 2nd Street at the intersections Spokane and Baker Avenue is a key factor contributing to congestion. The lack of east-west and north-south road connections within the community affects the efficiency of the local transportation system. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-2 Trucks in Downtown Truck traffic on US 93 (including construction vehicles Whitefish serving new developments) is a concern in Whitefish and affects safety, environment, and downtown image. The design for US 93 should attempt to mitigate that traffic through the community to the extent practicable. However, US 93 is part of the National Highway System and trucks cannot be prevented from using this public facility. Safety Existing street configurations and development patterns, high traffic volumes, and driveway accesses along the US 93 corridor contribute to safety concerns for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists. Parking Improvements to US 93 could impact the availability of on- street parking. Potential The community values the environment and recognizes Environmental Effects it is one of the factors that helps make Whitefish unique. Corridor improvements have the potential to affect the natural environment, most notably at highway crossings of the Whitefish River. Improving US 93 also has the potential to affect historic properties, a potential historic residential district, and involve sites with hazardous materials concerns. Land Use/Growth The Whitefish area has grown at a rapid pace in recent years resulting in changes to existing and planned land uses in the community. Transportation improvements must be adaptable and flexible to accommodate future growth in the Whitefish area and consider recommendations from local plans. Community Character Preserving the character and “small town feel” is essential to Whitefish’s economic vitality and quality of life. Landscaping and streetscape enhancements are desirable elements of corridor improvements. Alternate Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are an essential and Transportation desirable element of the local transportation system. The community has expressed an interest in expanded transit opportunities and services in Whitefish. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-3 4.2 Corridor Needs The comments received and relevant technical analyses from past projects in Whitefish were reviewed to help establish the “needs” to be addressed by improving the US 93 corridor. These corridor needs are summarized on the following pages. 4.2.1 Improve Traffic Congestion and Capacity Concerns There is a need to address existing and projected peak period traffic congestion resulting from inadequate highway capacity and/or operational problems at key intersections like 2nd Street and Baker Avenue. One of the principal reasons for considering improvement options to US 93 through Whitefish is to provide for and maintain the efficient movement of traffic. To accomplish this, the facility must be designed to handle existing and future traffic at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS). MDT’s operating standards identify LOS C as acceptable and LOS B as a desirable service level. As noted earlier, LOS D and E suggest deteriorating operating conditions and increased delays. LOS F represents conditions where vehicle delays and congestion occur. Traffic congestion is often seen in Whitefish during morning and evening peak hours, specifically at several major intersections on Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, and Baker Avenue and adjoining side streets. Analyses performed for the Whitefish Transportation Plan and this study indicated the following: ƒ Currently, one or more approaches at the signalized intersections of Spokane Avenue and 13th Street, Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street, and 2nd Street and Baker Avenue operate at LOS D, E or F during the AM and/or PM peak hours. Overall, the intersections of Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street and 2nd Street and Baker Avenue operate at LOS F and E, respectively, during the PM peak hour. ƒ By the year 2030, the signalized intersections at Spokane Avenue and 13th and at 2nd Street and Baker Avenue may operate at LOS E or F, respectively, during the peak hour. ƒ While traffic flows on Spokane and Baker Avenues operate acceptably, the high volumes of two-way traffic on these routes make left turns or through movements from these side streets difficult during peak hours. ƒ The LOS analyses based on the results of the travel demand model, suggest unsignalized intersections along Spokane and Baker Avenues between 13th Street and 2nd Street would function at an undesirable LOS by the year 2030. As noted previously, while the mainline roadways may function acceptably, the overall LOS ratings for the unsignalized intersections are reduced because of the vehicle delays experienced on side street approaches. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-4 ƒ Without improvements, the majority of Spokane Avenue between 13th Street and 2nd Street, 2nd Street west of Baker Avenue, and most of Baker Avenue south of the Whitefish River would approach or exceed their capacities by 2030. Future improvement options to US 93 need to provide for improved traffic flow in anticipation of future community growth. The Whitefish Transportation Plan recognizes the road and street network in Whitefish lacks continuous parallel collectors and streets that provide east-west connectivity across the City. As a result, motorists have few options other than using US 93 for travel through the community and congestion often occurs during peak hours. 4.2.2 Improve Geometric or Roadway Design Lane widths, shoulders, and parking areas along Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street are generally adequate and comply with the geometric design criteria for urban principal arterials identified in MDT’s Road Design Manual. However, portions of the facility have poor lane continuity, some intersections lack beneficial turn lanes or cannot adequately accommodate all truck movements, and some turn lanes have insufficient capacity. Addressing these needs can relieve traffic congestion and better manage traffic flows through Whitefish. 4.2.3 Improve Safety As noted earlier in this study, almost 87% of the reported crashes on Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street during the three-year study period were attributed to intersections along the corridor. Three intersections had more than 10 recorded crashes during the study period—Spokane Avenue and 13th Street (17 crashes), Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street (11 crashes), and 2nd Street and Baker Avenue (14 crashes). All but 10 of the reported crashes along Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street during the study period involved two or more vehicles with the most common crashes being rear- end collisions, right-turn/angle collisions, sideswipe collisions and left turn collisions The overall safety performance of the corridor should improve if the future design addresses the causes of traffic congestion along the corridor. The U.S. Highway 93 Somers-Whitefish West FEIS suggests a high number of driveway access points exist along Highway 93 corridor in Whitefish. Although this portion of the corridor does not include a high concentration of driveway approaches, such access points often contribute to conflicts between through and turning traffic. Future improvements to Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street should identify opportunities to combine or restructure approaches to minimize traffic conflicts and enhance safety where practicable. 4.2.4 Improve Traffic Flow for Trucks There is a need to improve the flow of large trucks passing through Whitefish on the US ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-5 93 corridor. Large commercial vehicles on US 93 adversely affect traffic operations, contribute to congestion along 2nd Street, present safety concerns, and are inconsistent with community desires for the downtown expressed in local plans. Truck traffic is comprised both of large commercial vehicles (tractor-trailer combinations including chip and log trucks) passing through the community and smaller commercial vehicles serving businesses and new construction in the Whitefish area. Past input from the US Highway 93 Citizens Working Group (CWG) suggests design improvements for the corridor should attempt to redirect or reduce truck traffic through downtown Whitefish to the extent practicable. However, since US 93 is on the National Highway System, trucks cannot be prevented from using this public roadway. 4.2.5 Improve the Physical Condition of US 93 through Whitefish Much of US 93 in the corridor was constructed in 1939, and received an overlay with seal and cover in 1979. Pavement maintenance and other activities are routinely completed by MDT to preserve the facility. While the existing highway has been well maintained, most of Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street within the corridor are nearly 50 years old and key infrastructure components need upgrading. For example, the traffic signals along 2nd Street cannot provide for varied phasing/timing schemes and protected left turns at appropriate locations. 4.2.6 Develop Fundable and Implementable Improvement Options As managers of public funds, both the MDT and the FHWA have the obligation to build and maintain facilities in a financially prudent manner. That is, the dollars expended to both maintain existing facilities and build new ones should accomplish the states’ transportation goals in a cost-effective manner. The recommended improvement options should be realistically implemented corridor improvements. This means projects should be practical, generally fit within available right-of-way and meet environmental regulations. Improvements should meet MDT Standards, Policies and Procedures. Improvement options would also need to be conducive to staged construction (to meet available transportation funds) and be able to address the short-term needs as well as long-term needs of the corridor. Staged construction could minimize disruptions and street closures to traffic. Local funding may be needed to implement corridor improvements. Considering the type of improvements and design recommendations presented in local plans, it should be recognized local funding contributions may be required to help pay for the proposed improvements within the corridor. In January 2008, the FHWA issued guidance regarding planning and environmental document approvals given the current fiscal realities of funding for transportation ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-6 improvements. The FHWA’s guidance clarifies the statutory and regulatory planning and (air quality) conformity requirements must be met for a proposed project prior to FHWA issuing its environmental approval for the project. This has relevance to the Whitefish Urban corridor since improvements to US 93 were previously identified through an EIS process. Improvement options recommended as a result of the corridor study must be evaluated and approved through a future National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) process (such as a Reevaluation of the Final EIS or a Supplemental EIS for the Whitefish Urban project area). The FHWA’s guidance indicates before FHWA can issue an environmental approval for a regionally significant project, the proposed project or project phase preliminary engineering, final design, right-of-way, utility relocation, or construction) must come from an approved, (financially constrained Statewide Transportation Improvement Program(STIP)). Regionally significant projects include projects on a facility which serves regional transportation needs and typically includes principal arterial highways like US 93. The FHWA provided guidance to MDT on July 17, 2008 to help identify the characteristics of regionally significant projects. In Montana’s rural areas, outside of Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) planning boundaries, regionally significant projects include all projects on principal arterial highways that add potential capacity or significantly change the highway’s operational characteristics. The guidance indicates the most common types of highway improvements (such as projects involving pavement preservation, minor/major rehabilitation, reconstruction on or paralleling the existing alignment without adding lanes, safety improvements, and new or revised intersection control or configuration) are not regionally significant. A copy of FHWA’s July 17, 2008 guidance letter to MDT can be found in APPENDIX C. The term financially constrained means that projects can be implemented with current or proposed revenue sources without affecting the operation and maintenance of the transportation system as a whole. Montana, along with other states, must develop a STIP showing priority transportation projects to be undertaken during the period covered by the STIP (at least 3 years). FHWA’s July 17, 2008 guidance to MDT outlines requirements for developing funding plans, agency approvals for final NEPA decision documents, and procedures for including regionally significant and non-regionally significant projects on the STIP. Whitefish is considered to be a Rural/non-MPO Area, so FHWA and MDT will need to review the scope of any proposed changes to US 93 and determine if the proposed improvements meet the regionally significant definition. The FHWA fiscal restraint guidance means that MDT must ensure that future improvements to the corridor are duly considered in the STIP and that adequate and viable revenue sources are available to implement the recommended improvement options or individual phases of such a project. Given the current funding situation for transportation improvements in Montana, it is unlikely all funding needed to implement recommended improvement ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-7 options will be available at the conclusion of a future NEPA/MEPA process. For this reason, a logical phased approach to implementing recommended improvement options will likely be necessary. Logical improvement options phasing, if appropriate, will need to be identified. 4.2.7 Avoid or Minimize Adverse Environmental Effects Recent Whitefish planning efforts and associated citizen input indicate broad community support for environmental protection and the recognition that natural resources comprise one of the community’s greatest assets. The City’s Growth Policy advocates protecting natural areas and traditional neighborhoods and avoiding development that is out of scale with its surroundings as ways to help preserve “community character.” As noted in Part 2.0, future reconstruction of US 93 could require encroachments on or crossings of the Whitefish River and could impact associated wetlands. Improvements within the existing US 93 corridor could also affect historic properties in some neighborhoods adjacent to the highway. With this in mind, future improvement options to US 93 need to be designed in a manner sensitive to adjoining lands and attempt to avoid or minimize adverse effects on environmental features important within the community. Compliance with relevant federal, state, and local regulations will ensure projects are developed with adequate environmental protection measures. 4.2.8 Consider Local Plans Current land uses and future development within the corridor are guided by the Whitefish City-County Growth Policy and recommendations from the Whitefish Downtown Business District Master Plan. These documents have been adopted by the City of Whitefish and lay out a desired framework for how the community should develop and how the downtown core may be revitalized. Coordination with the City will be needed during the development of future improvement options for the corridor to consider local recommendations and determine how they can be addressed without adversely affecting the future operation of US 93 and funding availability. 4.2.9 Enhance Pedestrian and Bicyclist Facilities Along US 93 Bicycle and pedestrian safety, mobility, and accessibility need to be maintained or improved as part of the surface improvements to US 93 through Whitefish. According to the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street are designated as a proposed bike route with links to other designated bike routes and pedestrian paths. Other designated pedestrian or bicyclist trails cross or parallel US 93 within the City. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-8 If improvement options to US 93 are forwarded into project development, the project development staff should correlate with the city on connections with the city’s planned trial network. 4.2.10 Consider Transit and Intermodal Transportation Public transit services in Whitefish are currently limited and operate on a seasonal basis. However, public input received during the Whitefish Transportation Plan suggests a strong local desire to begin thinking about providing transit services and facilities suited to the unique needs of the community. Some comments recognized the benefits for area residents and visitors provided by a transit system makes intermodal connections with AMTRAK passenger rail facilities in Whitefish and commercial air service at Glacier Park International Airport. Future improvements to the US 93 corridor should not preclude the provision of transit service or development of transit-related facilities in the community. 4.3 Corridor “Needs” Versus FEIS “Purpose and Need” The corridor “needs” discussed earlier are important considerations for the future NEPA and MEPA process that must be undertaken by MDT and FHWA if improvement options are forwarded into project development. The identified corridor needs are directly relevant to the purpose and need discussions found in environmental decision documents like the U.S. Highway 93 Somers-Whitefish West FEIS. The purpose and need section is one of the most important parts of such documents because it establishes why the agency is proposing to invest public funds while at the same time causing environmental impacts. The project purpose and need drives the process for alternatives development, in-depth analysis, and selection of the most appropriate action. The alternatives considered in the U.S. Highway 93 Somers- Whitefish West FEIS/ROD were developed based on the following purpose and need statement (found on page 1-4 in the FEIS): The primary purpose and need for improvements to US 93 is to reduce congestion on the existing facility, provide for planned growth and development, improve safety, provide for improved intermodal facility connections and provide for enhanced scenic values. The purpose and need statement above reflects the overall project goals and objectives listed on pages 2-4 and 2-5 in the FEIS. The FEIS suggested that meeting the project goals and objectives for improvements to US 93 would result in the following secondary benefits: ƒ Providing support to Flathead County economic development; ƒ Enhancing and supporting Flathead Valley visual quality; ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-9 ƒ Accommodating travel demands associated with population and employment growth; ƒ Providing support to modal relationships (including pedestrian and bicycle circulation); and ƒ Correcting US 93 deficiencies. Since the time of the FEIS/ROD, several local land use planning efforts have been completed that have identified local desires to enhance downtown Whitefish, preserve the unique character of the community, and protect environmental features. However, the same fundamental needs identified in the FEIS—reduce congestion on US 93, improve safety, accommodate planned growth and development, improve intermodal connections, and provide visual enhancements—still exist within the Whitefish Urban corridor. For this reason, the original FEIS purpose and need statement still remains valid for the corridor. 4.4 Corridor Vision Establishing a vision and set of goals for the corridor can guide the development improvement options. The vision is a statement of the desired future for the corridor – from both a land use and a transportation perspective. The goals support the vision, and lay out desired long-range outcomes to be achieved through the corridor planning process. The vision and goals help define effective improvements and strategies for the corridor. Developing a vision for the Whitefish Urban corridor involved several steps, including a thorough review of the issues and public comments received during previous projects and community planning efforts. Additionally, system evaluations and operational reviews, travel demand modeling, and public input received as part of the Whitefish Transportation Plan helped identify future transportation needs for the corridor. Based on this input, the following vision statement for the Whitefish Urban corridor was drafted: “The US 93 Whitefish Urban corridor serves as an important regional and local transportation link and helps support the economic, social, and recreational structure of the community. Future development of US 93 through the Whitefish urban area should effectively serve personal travel and goods movement within and through the corridor and provide safe transportation facilities for residents, community visitors, and through travelers. Transportation improvements should support community land use visions and plans, be adaptable to accommodate future growth, and help maintain or enhance Whitefish’s unique character and quality of life. Transportation improvements should resolve site-specific operational or safety problems along the corridor and be designed and implemented in a way that protects the natural environment.” ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-10 This vision statement was reviewed by MDT and the City of Whitefish and presented to the Citizens Advisory Committee and the public during meetings for the corridor study. A set of goals and associated objectives were developed based on the vision for the US 93 corridor. The goals and objectives were also important considerations during the evaluation of improvement options and strategies for the corridor. The goals and objectives can be found in APPENDIX D. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-1 5.0 IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS AND STRATEGIES CONSIDERED FOR THE CORRIDOR The improvement options and transportation strategies initially considered for the US 93 corridor through Whitefish are described in this Part. The configurations and other strategies will be evaluated through a screening process based on the needs and goals for the corridor to ultimately help determine which ones merit further detailed study. The conceptual improvement options and strategies identified for the corridor include: ƒ Alternatives for the Whitefish urban area from the U.S. Highway 93 Somers to Whitefish West FEIS/ROD; ƒ Design options developed after the ROD during project development activities for the MDT’s Whitefish Urban reconstruction project; ƒ Recommendations for US 93 from the Whitefish Downtown Business District Master Plan; and ƒ Other strategies that may potentially help relieve congestion and reduce future travel demands in the corridor. 5.1 Purpose for Undertaking Improvement Options The purpose and need for undertaking improvement options is a key factor in determining a range of actions to be considered for the US 93 corridor. Part 4.0 discussed the purpose and need from the U.S. Highway 93 Somers-Whitefish West FEIS/ROD and concluded it remains valid with respect to improving the US 93 corridor through Whitefish. Based on the purpose and need, the improvement options to US 93 should: • Improve the operation and efficiency of the facility by incorporating measures to enhance traffic flows and better manage truck traffic in the corridor; • Incorporate physical changes to the roadway and its adjoining environment so the facility complies with MDT’s geometric design criteria for Urban Principal Arterials; • Reduce opportunities for traffic conflicts and crashes associated with turning movements at major intersections and other corridor locations; • Provide a transportation facility that meets current and future demands; • Provide facility improvements that consider recommendations made in the City’s Policies and Plans; and • Ensure future improvements help maintain the character of the community by being sensitive to the surrounding natural environment and land uses. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-2 5.2 Identification of Improvement Options Alternatives as defined in NEPA (40 CFR 1502.14) include a broad range of strategies from major modal alternatives and location alternatives to minor design changes that would mitigate anticipated adverse impacts. For corridor studies, alternatives typically consist of transportation system improvements and strategies that would be expected to address identified needs within the corridor. The improvement options and transportation strategies initially considered for the corridor are discussed on the following pages. 5.2.1 Alternatives from the US Highway 93 Somers to Whitefish West FEIS The U.S. Highway 93 Somers to Whitefish West FEIS considered several groups of alternatives including: ƒ Adding capacity to US 93 by widening Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street; ƒ Adding capacity to US 93 by developing a couplet configuration incorporating Spokane and Baker Avenues; ƒ Providing a bypass around the City; ƒ Improving a parallel corridor to US 93; ƒ Making minor improvements to existing US 93; ƒ Improving transit opportunities; ƒ Implementing measures to reduce demand for traffic to drive on US 93; and ƒ Making no improvements to US 93. These alternatives were developed in detail and analyzed in the FEIS based on their responsiveness to the document’s purpose and need. Ultimately, the No-Build Alternative and 6 build options were evaluated in detail in the FEIS. Alternative C (Couplet-3) was identified as the Preferred Alternative for US 93 through Whitefish in the ROD. Build Alternatives Considered in the FEIS. The build alternatives for US 93 through Whitefish from the FEIS are briefly described below and schematically illustrated in Figure 5-1. ™ ALTERNATIVE A (FOUR-LANE) This alternative followed the existing alignment of US 93 and involved the provision of four 11-foot-wide travel lanes along Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street and intersection improvements at Spokane and 2nd. Parking would be removed along Spokane Avenue and on 2nd Street between Spokane and Baker Avenues to accommodate four travel lanes. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-3 ™ ALTERNATIVE C (COUPLET1) The alternative consists of developing a one-way couplet, with Spokane Avenue providing for northbound traffic and Baker Avenue providing for southbound traffic. The alternative included upgrades to Baker Avenue and an extension of Baker Avenue to provide a connection with Spokane Avenue. 2nd Street would accommodate two-way traffic. ™ ALTERNATIVE C (COUPLET 2) The alternative was the same as Couplet 1 except a new bridge across the Whitefish River would be provided to connect Spokane Avenue and Baker Avenue and improve traffic flows on the proposed one-way street network. ™ ALTERNATIVE C (COUPLET 3) This alternative continues two-way traffic on Spokane Avenue to 7th Street where a one-way couplet begins on Spokane Avenue (for northbound traffic) and Baker Avenue (for southbound traffic). Like Couplet 2, this alternative provides a new bridge across the Whitefish River (at 7th Street) to link Spokane and Baker Avenues and accommodate two-way traffic. ™ ALTERNATIVE C (COUPLET 4) The alternative is similar to Couplet 1. However, the one-way couplet includes a two-way section between 5th and 8th Streets on Baker Avenue and relies on 5th Street to provide a connection between Spokane and Baker Avenues. ™ ALTERNATIVE C (OFFSET) The alternative splits US 93 traffic between Spokane Avenue and Baker Avenue by providing three-lane roadways to increase capacity. Spokane Avenue would have two lanes for northbound traffic and one lane for southbound vehicles. 2nd Street would be reconfigured with two westbound lanes and one eastbound lane between Spokane and Baker Avenues. Baker Avenue would be redesigned to include two southbound lanes and one northbound lane. Bypass Routes Considered in the FEIS. The FEIS identified five bypass alignments for US 93 in the Whitefish area. These options, listed below, were duly considered but not advanced in the FEIS because: they failed to divert substantial amounts of traffic off Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street; had the potential for substantial environmental impacts; and they generated significant public opposition. ™ BYPASS A Bypass A begins at an intersection with US 93 approximately 1.7 miles south of MT 40. Bypass A travels in a northwesterly direction and follows an existing road for the first 1.7 miles. The alignment then proceeds north through natural drainage swales to connect back with US 93. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-4 ™ BYPASS B Bypass B begins at the intersection of MT 40 and US 93. The alignment would then proceed west to Blanchard Lake where a bridge would be required to cross the lake. After the bridge, the alignment would head northwest to connect back with US 93. ™ BYPASS C Bypass C begins at the intersection of MT 40 and US 93. The alignment would then follow the same alignment as Alternative B for the first 1.5 miles. At this point, the alignment would then follow the eastern side of Blanchard Lake along existing power lines and eventually join US 93. ™ BYPASS D Bypass D would begin at the intersection of MT 40 and US 93 and would follow the same alignment as Bypass B until it intersects with Karrow Avenue (approximately 1.4 miles). The alignment would then proceed north along Karrow to intersect with US 93. ™ BYPASS E Bypass E was an extension of Whitefish Stage Road (beginning at MT 40 east of US 93) that continued north to 2nd Street east of downtown Whitefish. The route would bypass only a portion of the city and would require a new bridge across the Whitefish River. Other Alternatives or Strategies Considered in the FEIS. Other alternatives or strategies considered in the FEIS/ROD are described below. ™ NO ACTION The No Action (or No Build) Alternative examined in the FEIS consisted of the existing US 93 cross-section with some committed improvements, and minor, short-term maintenance or safety enhancements. This alternative, schematically shown in Figure 5-1, was evaluated in detail in the FEIS/ROD. ™ MASS TRANSIT The FEIS considered several options for mass transit in this part of the Flathead Valley including: fixed guideway facilities (light rail transit, commuter rail transit, dedicated busways, and elevated transit systems (like a monorail); improvements to existing bus systems; and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. Fixed guideway options were not advanced in the FEIS due to high capital and operating costs and the inability of such systems to generate enough riders to make the system financially feasible. Mass transit options were not advanced because they would not meet future travel demands on US 93 and would require substantial public subsidies to meet operating costs for an expanded bus system in the area. HOV lanes (or existing lanes designated for HOV use during peak ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-5 FIGURE 5-1: Design Configurations from the FEIS/ROD ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-6 periods) were likely to make traffic congestion worse in existing travel lanes and would not significantly reduce travel. ™ TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) TDM strategies are relatively low-cost ways of reducing travel demand and improving traffic flow during peak hours. These strategies consist of programs or policies focused on either reducing the number of vehicles on the roadway or distributing trips to less congested periods of the day. The FEIS considered a group of TDM options to address transportation needs in the US 93 corridor including: increased telecommuting, variable work hours, employer based carpool and vanpool programs, and parking management strategies. The FEIS did not advance any TDM strategies because they are primarily directed at commuter or other regularly occurring travel and they showed little promise to decrease travel on US 93. It was recognized there are few large employers in Whitefish area that could effectively implement carpool or vanpool programs. The FEIS concluded TDM strategies (by themselves) would not meet the future travel demands on US 93. ™ TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM) TSM projects are relatively low cost, “tune-up” type improvements designed to increase the operational efficiency and capacity of the existing street system. These strategies are typically focused on actions like modernizing or installing new traffic signals, intersection improvements (approach widening, channelization, addition of turn lanes), optimizing lane usage, removing or restricting on-street parking, and improvements to signage and lighting improvements. Access management can also be considered a TSM-type improvement. Access management is typically implemented to improve the safety, function, and operation of the roadway, and to ultimately provide a traffic facility that better serves both local and regional users. Access management plans often recommend measures like adding turn lanes, incorporating turning restrictions, consolidating or eliminating accesses, and implementing other measures to maintain the desired operational characteristics of the highway. 5.2.2 FEIS/ROD Preferred Alternative The U.S. Highway 93 Somers to Whitefish West FEIS and ROD identified Alternative C (Couplet-3) as the Preferred Alternative for the Whitefish Urban project area. The primary design elements of Alternative C (Couplet-3) were described in the previous section. The Preferred Alternative was selected for the following reasons: o Enhanced traffic operations and level of service when compared to other alternatives; ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-7 o Less out-of-direction travel when compared to other couplet alternatives; o Protection of the residential character along Baker Avenue south of 7th Street; o Enhanced circulation to Whitefish schools; o Traffic relief on 2nd Street; o Support for the City’s development goals in the southwestern area of Whitefish; and o Support by the Whitefish City Council. 5.2.3 FEIS Alternatives and Strategies Not Warranting Consideration for the Corridor Considering the original FEIS purpose and need statement and the overall goals for future improvements to US 93 through Whitefish listed on page 5-1, the following preliminary design options or strategies do not warrant further consideration in the corridor study. No Action. This alternative fails to address the overall purpose and need for undertaking improvements within the Whitefish Urban corridor. The option would not change the existing facility and does nothing to address current and future travel demands. Bypass Alternative E. Bypass Alternative E was dropped from consideration because it does not offer an attractive alternate route to the use of Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street. The bypass alignment, located at the eastern edge of the community, originates on MT 40 and would require that traffic use 2nd Street to proceed west on US 93 or access the northern portion of the city. The identified route would be unlikely to divert enough traffic to benefit the existing US 93 corridor. Columbia Avenue as a Parallel Arterial to Spokane Avenue. Columbia Avenue, located two blocks east of Spokane Avenue, is a continuous north-south street beginning at 13th Street. Columbia Avenue (as well as other north-south streets east of Spokane Avenue) offers little potential for development as parallel arterials to help alleviate future traffic demands on US 93. Columbia Avenue passes through some of Whitefish’s older residential neighborhoods and arterial street development would be out of character with these neighborhoods. Area residents would likely be opposed to such a change. Improving Columbia Avenue would be unlikely to attract through traffic from the existing corridor since Spokane Avenue represents a more direct travel route. Additionally, even if traffic from US 93 were drawn to such a route, there is no way for traffic headed to the north side of Whitefish to cross the BNSF Railway. As a result, vehicles would be forced to travel west on 2nd Street to Baker Avenue to use the viaduct over the railroad or east to an at-grade crossing linking 2nd Street to East Edgewood Place. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-8 Strict Reliance on Non-motorized Transportation Facilities. This option would rely on pedestrian and bicyclist improvements and implementing policies to encourage non-motorized travel as a means of reducing vehicle travel on the US 93 corridor. Although this presents an admirable goal, strict reliance on non-motorized transportation to alleviate traffic congestion and meet future travel demands within the corridor is unrealistic. A literature search on this topic suggests that some 5-10% of automobile trips can reasonably be shifted to non-motorized transport in a typical urban area highly populated metropolitan areas developed at a higher density than the City of Whitefish). This shift in travel may be increased if disincentives to driving are implemented in conjunction with a non-motorized transportation emphasis. Future improvements to the US 93 corridor should accommodate all appropriate travel modes and be designed to make appropriate connections to the City of Whitefish’s planned pedestrian and bicycle trail system. Incorporation of Fixed Guideway Options and HOV Lanes. The FEIS considered several options for implementing mass transit in the Flathead Valley including: fixed guideway facilities (light rail transit, commuter rail transit, dedicated busways, and elevated transit systems (like a monorail); and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. These options were not evaluated in detail in the FEIS and have not been advanced as viable ways to address future travel demands in the greater Flathead Valley. Because these mass transit options have a “regional” scope, they are not appropriate for the limited segment of US 93 located within the City of Whitefish. 5.2.4 FEIS/ROD Alternatives and Strategies to be Considered Table 5-1 summarizes the design alternatives and other transportation strategies from the FEIS/ROD that will receive initial consideration in the corridor study. Table 5-1: Alternatives or Strategies from the FEIS/ROD Receiving Initial Consideration in the Corridor Study Alternatives Evaluated in Detail in the FEIS/ROD Other Strategies from the FEIS/ROD Alternative A (Four Lane) Alternative C (Couplet 1) Alternative C (Couplet 2) Alternative C (Couplet 3) – FEIS/ROD PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Alternative C (Couplet 4) Alternative C (Offset) Revisit Western Route Alternates (FEIS Bypass Alternatives A - D) Revisit Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Revisit Transportation System Management (TSM) Revisit Transit Improvements Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Strategies ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-9 5.2.5 Configurations Proposed After the FEIS/ROD Based on the ROD for the U.S. Highway 93 Somers to Whitefish West FEIS, MDT began design work for the Whitefish Urban and Whitefish West reconstruction projects on US 93. During these design efforts, additional configurations for the US 93 corridor were developed in response to identified capacity and geometric needs and changed conditions in the community. These configurations, described briefly in the following paragraphs and illustrated in Figure 5-2, will be considered in this corridor study. Modified ROD Configuration. MDT’s design consultant completed a traffic analysis for the Whitefish Urban project that identified several capacity and geometric concerns associated with the Preferred Alternative specified in the ROD. Based on the results of a preliminary traffic analysis for the project, MDT’s design consultant modified the FEIS/ROD Preferred Alternative configuration to provide for future traffic volumes and geometric needs. The modifications included the addition of appropriate auxiliary turn lanes at major intersections in the corridor and design changes to accommodate truck movements at key intersections. Contra-Flow and Truck Route Configurations. Two other configurations for the US 93 corridor—known as the Contra-Flow and Truck Route Configurations—were developed based on newly identified capacity and geometric concerns and to reflect community desires expressed in the Growth Policy and Downtown Business District Master Plan. The origin of the “contra-flow” concept was opposition to a one-way street configuration in the downtown expressed by some in the business community and the additional circulation benefits provided by such a feature. These iterations were based on concepts included with the FEIS/ROD Preferred Alternative. Both configurations were presented as ways to improve downtown circulation by eliminating one-way streets, provide an alternate route for trucks on Baker Avenue, and to be responsive to recommendations in the Downtown Business District Master Plan, particularly on 2nd Street where a two-lane configuration is proposed instead of a three- lane associated with the build alternatives presented in the FEIS. Downtown Business District Master Plan Configuration. The Downtown Business District Master Plan provided a recommended street configuration for Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, and Baker Avenue. The proposed configuration incorporates a couplet concept on Spokane and Baker Avenues similar to the FEIS/ROD Preferred Alternative. However, a northbound “contra-flow” lane would be provided on Baker Avenue north of a new bridge at 7th Street and 2nd Street would be maintained as a two-lane street. The Downtown Business District Master Plan Configuration also recommends various streetscape enhancements along 2nd Street. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-10 FIGURE 5-2: Design Configurations Proposed After the FEIS/ROD ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-11 5.2.6 Consideration of Additional New Configurations MDT’s Whitefish Urban project generally extends from the intersection of Spokane Avenue and 13th Street to the intersection of 2nd Street and Baker Avenue. Without going substantially beyond this project area, no new or “previously undiscovered” configurations are proposed for the Whitefish Urban corridor. The improvement options previously identified encompass a broad range of concepts for addressing current and future transportation needs within the corridor by improving the existing facility or using other nearby streets. The identified configurations also consider various ways to accommodate traffic flows within the corridor by: ƒ Maintaining the existing two-way traffic flows on Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street; ƒ Providing four-lanes on all or portions of Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street; ƒ Developing a “couplet” configuration to accommodate northbound and southbound on Spokane and Baker Avenues with one-way or two-way traffic configurations; ƒ Employing a “contra-flow” traffic circulation pattern through portions of downtown Whitefish; and ƒ Enhancing east-west connectivity by linking Spokane Avenue and Baker Avenue with a new bridge at 7th Street. A fundamental consideration in the Whitefish Transportation Plan is to enhance connectivity by adding logical and beneficial east-west and north-south links to the existing road and street network. Linking Spokane and Baker Avenues at 7th Street is a logical place for a new roadway connection because 7th Street is the only east-west street that already connects Baker and Karrow Avenues and it is located about midway between 2nd and 13th Streets. Comments heard during the development of the U.S. Highway 93 Somers to Whitefish West FEIS and the City’s Growth Policy suggest not all community members support the concept of making this connection because it would require a long and expensive bridge and cross the widest part of the Whitefish River’s floodplain and associated wetlands. Securing necessary environmental permits for a new 7th Street bridge may be difficult if other options resulting in less impact to the river and wetland areas are viable. Other streets west of the river (6th, 8th, and 9th Streets) are discontinuous and have irregular alignments making these locations poor candidates for establishing a new connection between Spokane and Baker Avenues. Moving trucks off Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street is a strong local desire. Several configurations have been developed that attempt to do this—notably the Truck Route Configuration and other improvement options that provide connections between Spokane and Baker Avenues at 7th or 13th Streets. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-12 5.2.7 Off-System Improvements with Potential Benefits to the Corridor The Whitefish Transportation Plan modeled numerous “Alternative Scenarios” to examine the effects of changes to the local street network. Modeling efforts examined the effects of extending existing routes, providing new roadway links, adding a new crossing over the BNSF Railway, adding new bridges across the Whitefish River, and providing other network improvements to enhance travel within the community. The options modeled for the Transportation Plan were typically associated with “off-system” roads—roads not on the state’s Urban System or under MDT’s maintenance responsibility. These off-system roads provide a supporting local road network to US 93. While these “off-system” road improvements are not essential to the operation of US 93, they offer the potential for enhancing whatever improvements are recommended for the corridor. Locally implemented improvements may indirectly benefit traffic operations on US 93 by diverting traffic from the corridor or by offering alternate routes for travel. In total, seventeen (17) Alternative Scenarios were test modeled as part of the work for the Whitefish Transportation Plan. Figure 5-3 shows the Alternative Scenarios considered in the Transportation Plan. The modeling effort allowed to readily identify the potential changes in traffic flows on local streets and the US 93 corridor by comparing existing modeled volumes to year 2030 projected traffic volumes on the street network. Off-system improvement options with potential benefits to traffic operations on the US 93 corridor are discussed below. Western Route Alternates (Alternative Scenarios AS-1 through AS-4). These scenarios correspond to Bypass Routes A-D considered in the FEIS and provide the potential to draw some traffic away from the US 93 corridor. Baker Avenue Extension (Alternative Scenario AS-5). This scenario would extend Baker Avenue south from 19th Street and provide a connection to US 93 at JP Road. This new roadway link would provide a new north-south route parallel to US 93/Spokane Avenue and serve commercial areas in the southern portion of the City. Texas/Columbia Avenue Railroad Crossing (Alternative Scenario AS-9). This scenario consists of adding an elevated crossing over the BNSF Railway to connect Texas Avenue with Columbia Avenue. This improvement would make Columbia Avenue a parallel north-south route to US 93 and Baker Avenue (north of 2nd Street) and would provide another grade separated railroad crossing in the community. Traffic headed to or from destinations on the north side of Whitefish would be the primary beneficiaries of such an improvement. Eastside Route Alternates (Alternative Scenarios AS-8, AS-10, AS-11, AS- 15a/AS-15b). These scenarios include development of north-south road connections along the eastern perimeter of the City. The improvement would generally result in the ---PAGE BREAK--- AS-9 AS-12 AS-6 AS-11 AS-7 AS-5 AS-15 AS-15 AS-10 AS-8 AS-11 AS-13 AS-4 AS-3 AS-2 AS-1 AS-14 AS-10 AS-14 £ ¤ 93 £ ¤ 89 £ ¤ 2 £ ¤ 93 £ ¤ 2 Flathead Glacier Lincoln Lake Teton Sanders Pondera !I FIGURE 5-3 WHITEFISH TRANSPORTATION PLAN ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS Whitefish - Urban Corridor Study of US 93 5-13 0 0.5 1 Miles LEGEND Transportation Plan Study Area Boundary City Limits Urban Boundary Alternative Scenario AS-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-14 provision of new north-south roadway corridors 1 or 2 miles east of the existing US 93 corridor, a new elevated railroad crossing, and improved access to the north side of Whitefish. 7th Street Bridge Addition (Alternative Scenario AS-12). This scenario involves adding a new bridge across the Whitefish River at 7th Street linking Baker and Spokane Avenues. While various FEIS alternatives included this feature, modeling for this scenario allowed the operational effects associated with adding a new bridge and enhancing this new east-west link to be tested independently from other improvements to US 93 and Baker Avenue. 13th Street Bridge Addition (Alternative Scenario AS-6). This scenario would add a bridge across the Whitefish River and provide a beneficial new roadway along 13th Street (east of Columbia Avenue). The improvement would facilitate east-west movements between Baker and Spokane Avenues and Voerman Road. 5.2.8 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) The U.S. Highway 93 Somers to Whitefish West FEIS did not identify Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) as a potential strategy to address some of the identified needs on US 93 through Whitefish. ITS encompasses a broad range of wireless and wire line communications-based information and electronics technologies. When integrated into the transportation system’s infrastructure, and in vehicles themselves, these technologies relieve congestion, improve safety and enhance productivity. ITS ensures facility users have broad access to all informational services needed to make and execute efficient travel and transport choices, both before and during trips. In general, ITS projects offer these overall benefits: ƒ Enhanced public safety; ƒ Reduced congestion; ƒ Improved access to transit and travel information; ƒ Cost savings to motor carriers, transit operators and government; and ƒ Reduced environmental impacts. The Whitefish Transportation Plan does not identify ITS as a recommended strategy for improving transportation in the community. However, video vehicle detection coupled with an updated system of signals and controls is an ITS application would be appropriate for the signalized intersections in the corridor like those on 2nd Street. 5.2.9 Options and Strategies to be Evaluated for the Corridor The configurations and transportation strategies listed below will be evaluated in Part 6.0 of this study. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-15 Table 5-2: Options Receiving Initial Consideration in the Corridor Study Configurations Evaluated in Detail in the FEIS/ROD Configurations Developed After the FEIS/ROD Other Options Warranting Consideration Alternative A (Four Lane) Alternative C (Couplet 1) Alternative C (Couplet 2) Alternative C (Couplet-3) - FEIS/ROD PREFERRED ALT Alternative C (Couplet 4) Alternative C (Offset) Modified ROD Configuration Contra-Flow Configuration Truck Route Configuration Downtown Business District Master Plan Configuration Revisit Western Route Alternates (FEIS Bypass Alternatives A - D) Revisit TDM Revisit TSM Transit Improvements Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Strategies Selected Off-system Improvements Indirectly Benefiting the Corridor ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-1 6.0 EVALUATION OF IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS FOR THE CORRIDOR The methods used to evaluate potential improvement options for the US 93 corridor through Whitefish and the results of initial screening efforts are presented in this Part. The screening process was focused on the conceptual improvement options and other strategies identified in Part 5.0 of this study. These options and strategies were presented and discussed at meetings with the Citizen’s Advisory Committee and general public held during August 2008. A summary of these meetings can be found in APPENDIX B. 6.1 Overview of Screening Process Screening is a term often used to describe the process for reviewing a range of conceptual improvement options or strategies (“alternatives”) and deciding which ones to carry forward for detailed study. The primary function of the screening process is to determine feasible actions to address the overall purpose and specific needs of a project. Screening provides a means of separating the unreasonable options (those which can be eliminated without detailed study) from the reasonable options (those carried forward for more detailed study). The overall purpose of this evaluation process is to screen potential improvements and strategies to identify reasonable actions for the US 93 corridor. Reasonable improvement options will be subjected to a more detailed analysis to finalize the recommended system improvements for the corridor. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA do not define the term “reasonable” alternative. However, based on the CEQ’s guidance (Question 2a in its Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations), “reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the applicant.” This general guidance will be considered in the identification reasonable design options for the corridor. The evaluation of improvement options will rely on a multi-step process designed to consider how well the potential improvement strategies address the overall vision for the corridor and the following goals: 1. Preserve the role of US 93 as regional transportation route while recognizing the need for the segment of US 93 within the corridor to adequately function as an urban principal arterial. 2. Design improvements that provide a safe roadway and transportation environment for facility users and those abutting the roadway. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-2 3. Ensure improvements are consistent with current MDT design standards for Urban Principal Arterials wherever practicable. 4. Provide transportation solutions that minimize impacts to the natural, cultural and social environment in the corridor where practicable. 5. Ensure corridor improvements are feasible to implement and represent a reasonable expenditure of limited public funds. 6. Provide transportation improvements in the corridor that are compatible with local land use and transportation plans and that are sensitive to aspects of the community valued by Whitefish’s residents. These goals support the vision statement presented in Part 4.0 of this Corridor Study. The goals also reflect the purpose and need for improving the highway corridor as presented in the U.S. Highway 93 Somers-Whitefish FEIS/ROD. The original FEIS purpose and need statement remains valid because the same fundamental needs identified in the document still exist within the Whitefish Urban corridor. Conceptual improvement options and other strategies for the corridor were pre- screened to identify potential fatal flaws and to determine their general ability to support the purpose and need for improving US 93 through Whitefish. Improvement options and transportation strategies advanced from the pre-screening evaluation were then subjected to a more detailed assessment process based on criteria established for a variety of screening categories sensitive to the identified goals for corridor improvements. 6.2 Pre-Screening of Corridor Improvement Options and Strategies 6.2.1 Pre-Screening for Fatal Flaws As a first step in identifying potentially actions for the corridor, the range of improvement options and other strategies identified in Part 5.0 were pre-screened to avoid consideration of improvements or actions that fail to support the overall goals for the US 93 corridor or that possess “fatal flaws.” Fatally flawed improvement options or transportation strategies are those that common sense suggests are unrealistic or have little or no reasonable chance of being implemented. The following factors were considered to be potential fatal flaws for corridor design options or strategies: ƒ Potentially excessive costs ƒ Not feasible for legal/logistical reasons unlikely to be permitted) ƒ Reliance on unproven technology ƒ Clearly unacceptable effects on the natural environment ƒ Clearly unacceptable community impacts with potential for substantial local opposition The pre-screening step also consisted of assessing each option or strategy with a ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-3 subjective “Yes” or “No” response to the following questions based on six overall corridor needs: ƒ Would the improvement option or strategy provide a transportation facility that meets current and future demands? ƒ Would the improvement option or strategy improve the operation and efficiency of the facility for the traveling public by incorporating measures to enhance traffic flows and better manage truck traffic in the corridor? ƒ Would the improvement option or strategy reduce opportunities for traffic conflicts and crashes associated with turning movements at major intersections and other corridor locations? ƒ Would the improvement option or strategy incorporate physical changes to the roadway and its adjoining environment so the road’s design complies with MDT’s current design standards for Urban Principal Arterials? ƒ Would the improvement option or strategy provide facility improvements that consider recommendations made in local plans? ƒ Would the improvement option or strategy ensure future improvements help maintain the character of the community by being sensitive to the surrounding natural environment and land uses? 6.2.2 Options and Strategies Eliminated through Pre-Screening The paragraphs below identify the options and strategies dropped as a result of the pre- screening evaluation and discuss the reasons for their elimination. Western Route Alternates. None of the Western Route Alternates (FEIS Bypass Alternatives A - D) were advanced for detailed screening. The Whitefish Transportation Plan does not endorse the development of a western bypass route for US 93 based on the results of travel demand modeling, potential environmental impacts, likely public opposition, and cost considerations. With limited transportation funding available to MDT and local governments, implementing a bypass project in the Whitefish area would be financially unattainable in the short-term. Selected Off-System Improvements. The Whitefish Transportation Plan examined the effects of making changes to the local road and street network to enhance travel and street connectivity within the Whitefish Study Area. Many of the improvements modeled for the Transportation Plan were associated with “off-system” roads (i.e. roads and streets not on the state’s Urban System or under MDT’s maintenance responsibility). ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-4 Projects from the Transportation Plan with the potential to benefit operations on US 93 included: ƒ Columbia Avenue South Extension (MSN-2) ƒ Karrow Avenue Reconstruction (MSN-3) ƒ Baker Avenue Extension (MSN-4) ƒ Kalner Lane Extension (MSN-8) Travel demand modeling shows these and other locally implemented improvements to off-system roads could potentially benefit traffic operations on US 93 by offering alternate routes for travel that may draw some traffic from the corridor. However, none of the off-system road improvement projects examined in the Transportation Plan offer the potential to address the anticipated travel demands and meet other needs on the US 93 corridor. Transportation System Management (TSM). Transportation System Management (TSM) improvements are designed to increase the operational efficiency and capacity of the existing street system. These strategies often include limited actions like installing new traffic signals, adding turn lanes at intersections, removing or restricting on-street parking, and lighting and signage improvements. The Whitefish Transportation Plan recommends two TSM improvement options in the corridor study area: ƒ TSM-2 (13th Street/US Highway 93 Intersection) – Revise lane use designations and striping to smooth traffic flows on the east and west approaches to the intersection. ƒ TSM-3 (Baker Avenue/13th Street Intersection) - Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Baker Avenue and 13th Street when signal warrants are met. These improvement options could provide interim relief and help resolve traffic congestion and associated issues at spot locations on the US 93 corridor or adjoining roads. However, by themselves, the TSM projects do not represent a long-term or comprehensive way to address all corridor needs. Travel Demand Management (TDM). TDM strategies can reduce travel demand and improving traffic flow during peak hours. These strategies consist of programs or policies focused on either reducing the number of vehicles on the roadway or redistributing trips so they occur during less congested periods of the day. Widely practiced TDM measures include telecommuting, variable work hours, walking or bicycling to work, employer-based carpool and vanpool programs, and parking management strategies. The Whitefish Transportation Plan recognizes some TDM measures could be effective in helping to reduce travel (vehicle trips and the vehicle miles traveled) as Whitefish grows. While the use of TDM strategies in Whitefish is encouraged, this strategy would ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-5 likely result in only a small reduction in overall vehicle travel in the community and the corridor. Transit Improvements. Improving bus transit within the community is a strategy that could help address traffic congestion and future travel demands on US 93. Currently, several organizations offer limited transit services within Whitefish (like the Snow Bus to Whitefish Mountain Resort and Eagle Transit’s shuttle services to other Flathead Valley communities). However, these services are offered only on a seasonal basis within Whitefish. The Whitefish Transportation Plan notes interest within the community for the expansion of transit services. Given the limited public transportation services presently available in Whitefish and funding issues typically associated with establishing and operating such services, relying on transit alone to reduce congestion on the US 93 corridor is unrealistic. Transit options were not advanced because they would not meet future travel demands on US 93 and would require large public subsidies to provide necessary capital and operating costs. ITS Strategies. Although ITS strategies could potentially benefit some traffic operations in the greater Whitefish area, they would be unlikely to produce any major travel changes within the US 93 corridor. For this reason, ITS strategies were not recommended for further evaluation. While ITS as an overall strategy for addressing corridor needs was not recommended, video detection coupled with an updated system of traffic signals and controls is an ITS application could be incorporated with future improvement options at the signalized intersections along the US 93 corridor. 6.2.3 Corridor Improvement Options and Strategies Advanced The results of the pre-screening evaluations for corridor improvement options and strategies are presented in Table 6-1. As the table shows, all “Build Options” for the US 93 corridor from the U.S. Highway 93 Somers-Whitefish FEIS/ROD were recommended for further evaluation. The Build Options generally address many of the identified needs of the corridor although some options are more responsive than others. Without a detailed analysis of their potential ability to serve current and future travel demands in the corridor it is not possible to eliminate specific improvement options. These detailed analyses were undertaken as part of the first-level screening process. Additionally, the four design configurations developed after the FEIS/ROD were advanced. These configurations attempt to respond to identified capacity and geometric needs in the corridor and changed conditions in the community. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-6 Table 6-1: Pre-Screening Evaluation of Corridor Options and Strategies CONSISTENCY WITH THE CORRIDOR PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT (from US Highway 93 Somers-Whitefish West FEIS) FEIS/ROD Preferred Alternative OTHER ALTERNATIVES FROM US HIGHWAY 93 SOMERS TO WHITEFISH WEST FEIS Alternative A (4-Lane) Alternative C (Offset) Alternative C (Couplet-1) Alternative C (Couplet 2) Alternative C (Couplet 4) Would the improvement option or strategy provide a transportation facility that meets current and future demands? UNKNOWN without further analysis Would the improvement option or strategy improve the operation and efficiency of the facility for the traveling public by incorporating measures to enhance traffic flows and better manage truck traffic in the corridor? YES (Operations) PARTIALLY (Trucks) YES (Operations) NO (Trucks) YES (Operations) PARTIALLY (Trucks) Would the improvement option or strategy reduce opportunities for traffic conflicts and crashes associated with turning movements at major intersections and other corridor locations? YES YES YES YES YES YES Would the improvement option or strategy incorporate physical changes to the roadway and its adjoining environment so the road’s design complies with MDT’s current design standards for Urban Principal Arterials? YES YES YES YES YES YES Would the improvement option or strategy provide facility improvements that consider recommendations made in local plans? NO NO NO NO NO NO Would the improvement option or strategy ensure future improvements help maintain the character of the community by being sensitive to the surrounding natural environment and land uses? YES (New Bridge Impacts River) NO YES YES YES (New Bridge Impacts River) YES POTENTIAL FATAL FLAWS? 1. Potentially excessive project costs 2. Legal/logistical infeasibility 3. Reliance on unproven technology 4. Potentially unacceptable environmental effects 5. Potentially unacceptable community impacts or community opposition NO YES 5) NO NO NO NO ADVANCE TO DETAILED SCREENING? YES YES YES YES YES YES ? ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-7 Table 6-1: Pre-Screening Evaluation of Corridor Options and Strategies (Cont.) CONSISTENCY WITH THE CORRIDOR PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT (from US Highway 93 Somers-Whitefish West FEIS) OPTIONS IDENTIFIED AFTER THE FEIS/ROD Modified Record of Decision Configuration Contra-Flow Configuration Truck Route Configuration Whitefish Downtown Business District Master Plan Configuration Would the improvement option or strategy provide a transportation facility that meets current and future demands? UNKNOWN without further analysis UNKNOWN without further analysis UNKNOWN without further analysis UNKNOWN without further analysis Would the improvement option or strategy improve the operation and efficiency of the facility for the traveling public by incorporating measures to enhance traffic flows and better manage truck traffic in the corridor? YES (Operations) PARTIALLY (Trucks) YES YES YES Would the improvement option or strategy reduce opportunities for traffic conflicts and crashes associated with turning movements at major intersections and other corridor locations? YES YES YES YES Would the improvement option or strategy incorporate physical changes to the roadway and its adjoining environment so the road’s design complies with MDT’s current design standards for Urban Principal Arterials? YES YES YES YES Would the improvement option or strategy provide facility improvements that consider recommendations made in local plans? PARTIALLY YES YES YES Would the improvement option or strategy ensure future improvements help maintain the character of the community by being sensitive to the surrounding natural environment and land uses? YES (New Bridge Impacts River) YES (New Bridge Impacts River) YES (New Bridge Impacts River) YES (New Bridge Impacts River) POTENTIAL FATAL FLAWS? 1. Potentially excessive project costs 2. Legal/logistical infeasibility 3. Reliance on unproven technology 4. Potentially unacceptable environmental effects 5. Potentially unacceptable community impacts or community opposition NO NO NO NO ADVANCE TO DETAILED SCREENING? YES YES YES YES ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-8 Table 6-1: Pre-Screening Evaluation of Corridor Options and Strategies (Cont.) CONSISTENCY WITH THE CORRIDOR PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT (from US Highway 93 Somers-Whitefish West FEIS) OTHER TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES FOR US 93 THROUGH WHITEFISH Western Route Alternates Selected Off-system Improvements Transit (Bus Service) Only TDM Strategies Only TSM Strategies Only ITS Strategies Would the improvement option or strategy provide a transportation facility that meets current and future demands? NO NO NO NO NO NO Would the improvement option or strategy improve the operation and efficiency of the facility for the traveling public by incorporating measures to enhance traffic flows and better manage truck traffic in the corridor? NO NO NO NO NO NO Would the improvement option or strategy reduce opportunities for traffic conflicts and crashes associated with turning movements at major intersections and other corridor locations? NO NO NO NO NO NO Would the improvement option or strategy incorporate physical changes to the roadway and its adjoining environment so the road’s design complies with MDT’s current design standards for Urban Principal Arterials? NO NO NO NO YES NO Would the improvement option or strategy provide facility improvements that consider recommendations made in local plans? PARTIALLY NO NO NO NO NO Would the improvement option or strategy ensure future improvements help maintain the character of the community by being sensitive to the surrounding natural environment and land uses? NO NO YES YES NO NO POTENTIAL FATAL FLAWS? 1. Potentially excessive project costs 2. Legal/logistical infeasibility 3. Reliance on unproven technology 4. Potentially unacceptable environmental effects 5. Potentially unacceptable community impacts or community opposition YES 4, 5) NO YES NO NO NO ADVANCE TO DETAILED SCREENING? NO NO NO NO NO NO ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-9 6.3 Screening Process for Improvement Options The configurations advanced from the Pre-screening stage were subjected to more detailed screening to determine reasonable improvement actions for the corridor. Detailed screening is a two-step process intended to identify those options that best address the goals for the corridor. 6.3.1 First-Level Screening This initial screening step involved an assessment of corridor options to identify those improvement options that are most practical or feasible from a technical, economic, and environmental standpoint. First-level screening was intended to reduce the number of options through the general consideration of their ability to meet goals and associated objectives for the corridor. The options were evaluated against a set of screening criteria relating to identified goals and objectives for the US 93 corridor. An assessment of each improvement option was conducted to help identify: ƒ Options would be unlikely to provide desired operational or safety characteristics under current or future conditions; ƒ Options could potentially cause unreasonable impacts to the environment; ƒ Options lack consistency with local plans or community desires; and ƒ Options may be financially unrealistic due to high implementation costs. The initial screening step included an operational review, an assessment of potential environmental effects, and a generalized estimate of project costs (low, medium, and high cost) for each option. Traffic modeling for existing and future year (2030) conditions and simulations provided the information needed to assess the operational characteristics and overall performance of each improvement option. The options advanced to second-level screening were based on how well each design option addressed the first-level screening considerations. 6.3.2 Second-Level Screening The improvement options advanced from the first-level screening stage were then subjected to a second and more detailed screening evaluation to help identify the option(s) that best address corridor needs. Where possible, the final screening process considered quantifiable measures to help differentiate between each option. 6.3.3 Screening Criteria Screening criteria based on the goals and objectives for the corridor were developed to help evaluate improvement options at each screening level. The screening ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-10 considerations used to evaluate improvement options are highlighted briefly below: ƒ Capacity and Traffic Operations: This consideration relates to operational characteristics and performance of improvement options for with the corridor. The criteria relate to how well each option addresses current and future travel demands based on the results of detailed modeling and performance analyses. ƒ Safety: This screening consideration focuses on improvements to the corridor from a safety standpoint. Issues such as traffic conflicts, bike and pedestrian safety, and contributing factors identified from the crash analysis are covered in this screening consideration. ƒ Eliminate/Reduce Roadway Deficiencies: Compliance to MDT’s current design standards for Urban Principal Arterials is the focus of this consideration. ƒ Potential Environmental Effects: Environmental impacts that each improvement option is expected to have on the community are the focus of this screening consideration. Conformity to environmental standards is also addressed in these criteria. ƒ Feasibility and Affordability: This consideration is concerned with issues like overall constructability and probable cost of the improvements, future compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), and the potential for agency or public opposition to aspects of the improvements. ƒ Compatibility with Local Plans and Community Ideals: This screening consideration addresses consistency with local accepted plans and community desires. The first-level and second-level screening criteria used to evaluate corridor design options can be found in APPENDIX D. 6.4 Initial Operational Reviews of Corridor Options 6.4.1 Methodology Each improvement option considered for the corridor was analyzed to assess how the option may perform under current and future traffic conditions. The proposed corridor modifications (lane configurations and assumed intersection controls) for each improvement option were added to the street network and modeled using the travel demand model created for the Whitefish Transportation Plan. Modeling was conducted for each option to provide an indication of how the option might initially operate and perform by the year 2030. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-11 The results of the travel demand modeling for each improvement option (traffic volumes and turning movement distributions) were used as inputs to analyze peak hour LOS at intersections in the corridor and for operational reviews of road network performance using software. The software is capable of producing detailed reports with numerical values for measures of effectiveness (MOE) to help gauge network operations under current and future conditions. The MOE provide a way of comparing traffic operations on a broader scale than just focusing on LOS for individual intersections. Examining the relative differences between the values for individual MOEs can be insightful when comparing the overall performance of various improvement options. It should be noted that some of the MOEs calculated by the software are difficult to compare and not very meaningful due to the differences between the configurations. Table 6-2 identifies and defines the relevant MOEs for each option considered during the first-level screening assessment. Table 6-2: Relevant Measures of Effectiveness MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS DEFINITION Total Delay A measure in hours of the total vehicle delay within the network. Delay can also be expressed in terms of the number of seconds of delay experienced by each vehicle using the network. Lower values suggest better network operations. Total Number of Stops A sum of the total number of stops by vehicles within the network. Stops can also be expressed in terms of the number of stops per vehicle using the network. Lower values suggest better network operations. Total Travel Time A sum of the individual vehicle travel times in hours within the network. Lower values suggest better network operations. Distance Traveled A sum of the individual vehicle distance traveled in miles within the network. Lower values for miles traveled suggest more efficient travel through the network and less out of direction travel. Intersection LOS A summary of intersection level of service within the network. The rating is based on the number of signalized intersections and unsignalized operating at or below LOS D. Unserved Vehicles The total number of vehicles in the network not served upon arrival by the first green phase of traffic signals. Unserved vehicles must wait for successive red or green phases. Lower values for unserved vehicles suggest more efficient network operations. Fuel Consumed The combined total amount of fuel consumed by all vehicles in the network. Lower values for fuel consumption suggest more efficient network operations. CO Emissions The combined total amount of CO emitted by all vehicles in the network. Lower values suggest more efficient network operations. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-12 6.4.2 Results of Initial Operational Reviews Operational Reviews of Improvement Options Under Current Conditions. Table 6-3 presents MOE ratings for each option based on the operational assessment of network performance under current (2003) conditions. The ratings provide a general indication of how each option may perform with respect to individual MOEs and offer a means to compare overall performance among the options. The table illustrates the options that showed the best and worst performance characteristics and those options that fell somewhere in the “middle” with respect to relevant MOE values. The ratings reflect the numerical MOE values calculated by the software that can be found in APPENDIX E. Table 6-3: MOE Ratings for Improvement Options - Current (2003) Conditions CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT CONFIGURATION MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS (MOE) Total Delay Total Stops Travel Time Distance Traveled Signalized Intersections Below LOS D Unsignalized Intersections Below LOS D Unserved Vehicles Fuel Consumed CO Emissions Alternative A (Four Lane) z z z z z z All Equal z/z Alternative C (Couplet 1) z I z Ÿ I z All Equal Alternative C (Couplet 2) Ÿ I I Ÿ I I All Equal Alternative C (Couplet-3) FEIS/ROD PREFERRED Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ I I All Equal Alternative C (Couplet 4) z z z Ÿ I z All Equal z/z Alternative C (Offset) Ÿ Ÿ I I z Ÿ All Equal I/I Modified ROD I Ÿ I Ÿ I I All Equal Contra-Flow Configuration I I I I I Ÿ All Equal I/I Truck Route Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ z Ÿ All Equal z/z Downtown Business District Master Plan Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ I Ÿ All Equal I Among Best Performing Options for MOE Ÿ MOE Values Falling Between Best and Worst Performing Options z Among Worst Performing Options for MOE ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-13 Based on the MOE ratings from Table 6-3, the Contra-Flow option appears to exhibit the best performance under current conditions. The Alternative C (Couplet Alternative C (Offset), and Modified ROD configurations also showed some of the best performance characteristics under current conditions. The Alternative A (Four Lane) option was among the worst performing configuration based on MOEs for current conditions. The Alternative C (Couplet 1) and Alternative C (Couplet 4) configurations also showed poor performance characteristics based on the MOE ratings based on current conditions. The operational review showed that many of the options fell “somewhere in the middle” for performance characteristics and many options appear to operate similarly with respect to several MOEs. For example, the operational review showed all options resulted in no unserved vehicles. There was also little difference among all options in the MOE for the number of signalized intersections operating below LOS D—the “worst” performing options showed only one intersection operating below LOS D. Operational Reviews of Improvement Options Under Future Conditions. The operational review examined the potential performance of improvement options under year 2030 conditions. Table 6-4 on the following page shows a generalized rating for each option based on a comparison of calculated values for relevant MOEs. Table 6-4 shows the Contra-Flow and Alternative C (Couplet 4) options exhibit some of the best performance characteristics based on the MOEs for year 2030 conditions. The Alternative C (Couplet 2) and the Alternative C (Offset) configurations were improvement options that showed good performance characteristics for several MOEs. The Alternative A (Four Lane) and Alternative C (Couplet 1) options were the worst performing configuration based on MOEs for future conditions. The Alternative C (Couplet-3) FEIS/ROD Preferred, Alternative C (Offset), and Truck Route configurations showed poor performance characteristics with one or more of the relevant MOE ratings for future conditions. There was little difference in performance among most improvement options with respect to the number of unsignalized intersections operating at or below LOS D. The operational review showed that most unsignalized intersections along the corridor would likely operate at or below LOS D in the future. Nine of the ten configurations showed poor operations at unsignalized intersections. This poor LOS is due to the delays that side street traffic at unsignalized intersections may encounter when attempting to enter or cross high volume corridor roads. As noted previously, the numerical MOE values for future conditions presented in APPENDIX E. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-14 Table 6-4: MOE Ratings for Improvement Options - 2030 Conditions CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT CONFIGURATION MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS (MOE) Total Delay Total Stops Travel Time Distance Traveled Signalized Intersections Below LOS D Unsignalized Intersections Below LOS D Unserved Vehicles Fuel Consumed CO Emissions Alternative A (Four Lane) z z z z I Ÿ Ÿ z/z Alternative C (Couplet 1) z I z Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ z/z Alternative C (Couplet 2) I Ÿ I Ÿ z Ÿ Ÿ I/I Alternative C (Couplet-3) FEIS/ROD PREFERRED Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ z Ÿ z Alternative C (Couplet 4) Ÿ I Ÿ I I I I Alternative C (Offset) Ÿ z Ÿ Ÿ I z I Modified ROD Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ z Contra-Flow Configuration I Ÿ I Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ I I/I Truck Route Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ z Ÿ z Downtown Business District Master Plan Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ I Ÿ I Among Best Performing Options for MOE Ÿ MOE Values Falling Between Best and Worst Performing Options z Among Worst Performing Options for MOE 6.5 First-Level Screening Assessments for Improvement Options The operational review provides an indication of expected current and future performance for each configuration. While performance is the primary consideration for the corridor, other factors like potential environmental effects, overall cost and implementation requirements, and consistency with local plans must be reviewed to help identify the option(s) that best address the short-term and long-term transportation needs of the corridor. The following section summarizes the first-level screening assessments of each option and highlights the advantages and disadvantages associated with implementing each option. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-15 6.5.1. Alternative A (4-Lane) Configuration ALTERNATIVE A (4-LANE) ADVANTAGES: • Adding new travel lanes would increase the capacity of Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street through Whitefish. • With the provision of dedicated turn lanes at key intersections, the configuration generally performs well under current (2003) conditions. • Impacts to the Whitefish River could be avoided. • This option would likely be among those with the lowest overall cost since work would occur along the existing alignment of US 93 and it attempts to provide a 4-lane roadway within the “footprint” of the existing roadway. ALTERNATIVE A (4-LANE) DISADVANTAGES: • The configuration would operate poorly under future (2030) conditions and was one of the worst performing options under future conditions. • Trucks accommodations on US 93 would be unchanged. • All on-street parking along Spokane Avenue and along 2nd between Spokane and Baker Avenues would be lost. • There would be no provision for bicycles to use the roadway. • The addition of new travel lanes may make crossings more difficult for pedestrians at unsignalized intersections along Spokane Avenue. • A 4-lane roadway would change the character of Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street. • There is no local support for reconstructing Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street as 4-lane facilities through downtown Whitefish. CONCLUSION: NOT ADVANCED TO SECOND-LEVEL SCREENING This configuration was not advanced because of its anticipated poor future performance, inconsistency with MDT current design standards, impacts to on-street parking, and conflicts with local plans. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-16 6.5.2. Alternative C (Couplet 1) Configuration ALTERNATIVE C (COUPLET 1) ADVANTAGES: • The configuration would increase roadway capacity along Spokane Avenue, Baker Avenue, and 2nd Street. • This configuration would initially perform adequately. • The configuration removes a portion of the truck traffic currently using Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street by diverting some southbound traffic to Baker Avenue. • Bicycle lanes could be provided along Spokane and Baker Avenues. • Impacts to the Whitefish River could be avoided. • On-street parking could be retained along Spokane and Baker Avenues. • Right-of-way acquisition would be necessary only at key intersections. • This option would be among those with the lowest overall construction cost. ALTERNATIVE C (COUPLET 1) DISADVANTAGES: • When analyzed under future (2030) conditions, Alternative C (Couplet 1) performs poorly. • Based on several relevant measures of effectiveness, the configuration rated among the worst performing options under future conditions. • The proposed 3-lane configuration on 2nd Street would cause the loss of some on-street parking between Spokane and Baker Avenues and conflicts with recommendations from local plans. • This configuration relies on a one-way couplet to move traffic through downtown Whitefish. The one-way couplet configuration is not consistent with the traffic circulation concept presented in local plans. CONCLUSION: NOT ADVANCED TO SECOND-LEVEL SCREENING This configuration was dropped due to its anticipated poor future performance level. One-way traffic flows on Spokane and Baker Avenues and a 3-lane configuration on 2nd Street are not consistent with local plans and desires. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-17 6.5.3. Alternative C (Couplet 2) Configuration ALTERNATIVE C (COUPLET 2) ADVANTAGES: • This configuration increases the overall capacity of the corridor to accommodate traffic. • The configuration performs adequately under current (2003) conditions and would operate at a high performance level under future (2030) conditions. • The configuration rated among the best performing options for future conditions based on key measures of effectiveness. • The 7th Street connection enhances east-west connectivity and could help decrease traffic on Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, and portions of Baker Avenue. • A portion of the truck traffic currently using Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street would be diverted to Baker Avenue. • Like Alternative C (Couplet the option represents one of the configurations with the least impact to on-street parking. On-street parking could be retained along Spokane and Baker Avenues. ALTERNATIVE C (COUPLET 2) DISADVANTAGES: • This one-way configuration has many of the same disadvantages as Couplet 1. • The 7th Street connection requires a and expensive bridge due to its location. • Building a bridge would affect the Whitefish River and associated wetlands and would be subject to federal, state, and local regulations protecting water quality. • New right-of-way, including a business acquisition, would be needed to construct the 7th Street connection. • This option would be among those with the highest overall cost due to the provision of a new bridge, the amount of new road construction and traffic signals, and the need to acquire additional rights-of-way. • The proposed 3-lane configuration on 2nd Street would likely cause the loss of some on- street parking between Spokane and Baker Avenues and conflicts with parking recommendations from local plans. • The one-way traffic circulation concept and lane configuration on 2nd Street are not consistent with recommendations from local plans. CONCLUSION: NOT ADVANCED TO SECOND-LEVEL SCREENING This configuration was not advanced because one-way traffic circulation and a 3-lane configuration on 2nd Street are not consistent with local plans. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-18 6.5.4. FEIS/Record of Decision Preferred Alternative Alternative C (COUPLET 3) Configuration FEIS/ROD PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ADVANTAGES: • This configuration would increase the overall capacity within the corridor. • This configuration performs well under existing and adequately under future conditions. • Like Couplet 2, the provision of a bridge with two-way traffic flows at 7th Street improves east-west connectivity and would help reduce out-of-direction travel within the corridor. • The configuration could reduce truck traffic through the downtown. • The proposed configuration on Spokane and Baker Avenue could generally be accommodated within the “footprint” of the existing corridor roadways. • On-street parking could be retained along Spokane and Baker Avenues. FEIS/ROD PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE DISADVANTAGES: • The proposed 3-lane configuration on 2nd Street would cause the loss of some on-street parking between Spokane and Baker Avenues and conflicts with parking recommendations from local plans. • Building a bridge would affect the Whitefish River and associated wetlands and would be subject to federal, state, and local regulations protecting water quality. • New right-of-way (including a business acquisition) would be needed to extend 7th Street between Baker and Kalispell Avenues. • This option would be among those with the highest overall cost due to the provision of a new bridge and required right-of-way acquisitions. • This configuration relies on a one-way couplet to move traffic through downtown Whitefish and is not consistent with the traffic circulation concept presented in local plans. • The lane configuration on 2nd Street is not consistent with local desires. CONCLUSION: NOT ADVANCED TO SECOND-LEVEL SCREENING Although this configuration was identified as the Preferred Alternative in the FEIS/ROD, this option was not recommended for further screening because of capacity and geometric needs and changed community conditions identified since the time of the EIS. The configuration’s one-way traffic circulation in the downtown and its configuration on 2nd Street are not consistent with local plans. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-19 6.5.5. Alternative C (Couplet 4) Configuration ALTERNATIVE C (COUPLET 4) ADVANTAGES: • This configuration would increase the overall capacity within the corridor. • This configuration would perform adequately under future (2030) conditions. • An improved 5th Street would enhance east-west connectivity between Spokane and Baker Avenues. • The improvements could generally be made within the existing footprint of corridor roadways. • Incorporating a single northbound lane on Baker between 5th and 8th Streets would limit out-of-direction travel particularly for residents of Baker Avenue neighborhoods south of the river. • This option would be less costly to construct than options incorporating a new bridge at 7th Street. • On-street parking could be retained along Spokane and Baker Avenues. ALTERNATIVE C (COUPLET 4) DISADVANTAGES: • This configuration would perform poorly under current (2003) conditions. • The availability of a traffic signal at 5th Street and Baker Avenue could increase traffic volumes and congestion in the area due to recirculating traffic. • Changing lane configurations on Baker Avenue could be confusing to drivers. • This configuration would require widening Baker Avenue (including the existing bridge) between 5th and 8th Streets to accommodate a 3-lane roadway. This may require additional right-of-way. • The Whitefish River could be impacted due to work at the Baker Avenue crossing. • The proposed 3-lane configuration on 2nd Street would cause the loss of some on-street parking between Spokane and Baker Avenues and conflicts with parking recommendations from local plans. • This option incorporates one-way traffic flows on Spokane and Baker Avenues in downtown Whitefish. • The lane configuration on 2nd Street is not consistent with local desires. CONCLUSION: NOT ADVANCED TO SECOND-LEVEL SCREENING This configuration was dropped from consideration because its one-way traffic circulation on Spokane and Baker Avenues and 3-lane configuration on 2nd Street are not consistent with local plans. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-20 6.5.6. Alternative C (Offset) Configuration ALTERNATIVE C (OFFSET) ADVANTAGES: • This configuration would increase the overall capacity within the corridor. • The configuration reflects the existing street network and does not require adding any new roadway links. • The operational reviews show this option it would provide a high performance level under current (2003) conditions. • Much of Spokane and Baker Avenues and 2nd Street could be improved within the existing roadway footprint. • Truck traffic could be diverted from Spokane Avenue at 13th Street and from 2nd Street at Baker Avenue. • This configuration would be less costly to construct than options incorporating a new bridge at 7th Street. • This option incorporates two-way traffic flows on Spokane and Baker Avenues in downtown Whitefish. ALTERNATIVE C (OFFSET) DISADVANTAGES: • Although the configuration would initially perform at a high level, it shows a declining performance under future (2030) conditions. • The three-lane configuration associated with this configuration (two lanes in one direction and one opposing lane) is a non-typical lane configuration. Conflicts between through and turning traffic could increase as “mainline” traffic attempts to turn left across two lanes. • Diverting truck traffic to Baker Avenue may be opposed by some residents in the area south of the Whitefish River crossing. • This configuration would require widening Baker Avenue (including the existing bridge) between 5th and 13th Streets to accommodate a 3-lane roadway. This would require areas of right-of-way acquisition along Baker Avenue. • The Whitefish River would be affected by work at the Baker Avenue crossing. • On-street parking would be eliminated along Spokane and Baker Avenues south of 2nd Street and some on-street parking on 2nd Street would be lost. • The lane configuration on 2nd Street is not consistent with local desires. CONCLUSION: ADVANCED TO SECOND-LEVEL SCREENING The Alternative C (Offset) Configuration was advanced because it builds on the existing roadway network and does not require adding new roadway links. Operational reviews suggest the option would initially perform well and function acceptably in the future. It is the only couplet configuration that provides for two-way traffic circulation in the downtown. Because the option does not include a bridge at 7th Street, the configuration is among the least expensive corridor options. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-21 6.5.7. Modified Record of Decision Configuration MODIFIED ROD ADVANTAGES: • The per im formance of the FEIS/ROD Preferred Alternative is ed with the modifications provided by this n. prov configuratio • Th perfor contin • Th FEIS/R benefits and 7th Str • Th could poten • Im accom • On Avenues. e Modified ROD Configuration would provide a high mance level under current (2003) conditions and ue to perform well under future (2030) conditions. is configuration possesses the same advantages as the OD Preferred Alternative including the circulation enhanced east-west connectivity provided by the eet bridge and street extension. e alternate route for trucks via 7th Street and Baker Avenue tially reduce truck traffic through the downtown. provements to corridor roadways could generally be modated within the existing roadway footprint. -street parking could be retained along Spokane and Baker MODIFIED ROD DISADVANTAGES: • The proposed 3-lane configuration on 2nd Street would likely cause the loss of some on- street parking between Spokane and Baker Avenues and conflicts with parking recommendations from local plans. • Building a bridge would affect the Whitefish River and associated wetlands and would be subject to federal, state, and local regulations protecting water quality. • New right-of-way (including a business acquisition) would be needed to extend 7th Street between Baker and Kalispell Avenues. • This option would be among those with the highest overall cost due to the provision of a new bridge and required right-of-way acquisitions. • This option incorporates one-way traffic circulation on Spokane and Baker Avenues in downtown Whitefish. The lane configuration on 2nd Street is not consistent with local desires. • CONCLUSION: NOT ADVANCED TO SECOND-LEVEL SCREENING The Modified ROD Configuration was not advanced because one-way traffic flows and a 3-lane configuration on 2nd Street are not consistent with local plans and desires. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-22 6.5.8. Contra Flow Configuration CONTRA-FLOW DISADVANTAGES: dge CONTRA-FLOW ADVANTAGES: • The op like erational reviews showed this configuration would perform at a high level under both current (2003) and (2030) conditions. ly future • Th analyzed for • Th could • Ci be rea extending 7t • So betwe • Th downtown. e option was the best performing configuration of those this study. e alternate route for trucks via 7th Street and Baker Avenue help reduce truck traffic through the downtown. rculation benefits and enhanced east-west connectivity can lized by the provision of a bridge at 7th Street and h Street east of Spokane Avenue. me parking would be retained along both sides of 2nd Street en Spokane and Baker Avenues. e configuration maintains two-way traffic flows in the • Baker Avenue south of the Whitefish River crossing and the existing Baker Avenue bri would need to be widened to accommodate a 3-lane roadway. • Additional right-of-way would be required along portions of Baker Avenue from the reet . st. Whitefish River crossing to 7th Street. • The Whitefish River would be affected by work at the Baker Avenue crossing. • Building a new bridge would affect the Whitefish River and associated wetlands and work within the river would be subject to federal, state, and local regulations. • New right-of-way (including a business acquisition) would be needed to extend 7th St between Baker and Kalispell Avenues. Parking along Spokane and Baker Avenues south of 2nd Street would be eliminated • • This option would be among those with the highest overall co CONCLUSION: ADVANCED TO SECOND-LEVEL SCREENING This configuration was advanced because the operational reviews showed the Contra-Flow option to be the best performing option under current and future conditions. The 7th Street connection is beneficial since it would efficiently accommodate corridor traffic and enhance ast-west connectivity within the community. The option is e also generally consistent with oncepts and recommendations presented in local plans. c ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-23 6.5.9. Truck Route Configuration TRUCK ROUTE ADVANTAGES: • This configu roa and ration would result in a minor increase in capacity along the corridor since Spokane Avenue Street would remain as 2-lane facilities. dway 2nd • The Truck perform conditions. • The option prov • The 7th Stre Spokane east-west co • The 2nd Street b Spokane • Consistent maintain provide Route Configuration would be expected to adequately under both existing and future ides an alternate route for trucks. et bridge and 7th Street connection between and Kalispell Avenues enhances circulation and nnectivity. option would retain some parking along both sides of etween Spokane and Baker Avenues and along Avenue where it is currently permitted. with local plans, the configuration would two-way traffic flows in the downtown and s a 2-lane configuration on 2nd Street. TRUCK ROUTE DISADVANTAGES: • The Truck Route configuration ranked among the worst performing options for two relevant measures of effectiveness under future (2030) conditions. • Baker Avenue south of the Whitefish River crossing and the existing Baker Avenue bri would need to be widened to accommodate a 3-lane roadway. dge m the reet of 2nd Street. • Additional right-of-way would be required along portions of Baker Avenue fro Whitefish River crossing to 7th Street. • The Whitefish River would be affected by work at the Baker Avenue crossing. • Building a new bridge at 7th Street would affect the Whitefish River and associated wetlands and work within the river would be subject to federal, state, and local regulations. • New right-of-way (including a business acquisition) would be needed to extend 7th St between Baker and Kalispell Avenues. • The configuration would eliminate parking along Baker Avenue south • This option would be among those with the highest overall cost. CONCLUSION: NOT ADVANCED TO SECOND-LEVEL SCREENING While this option may help reduce the presence of trucks on 2nd Street, the Truck Route Configuration was not advanced because it would operate at only an adequate level under future conditions. Although this option is sensitive to local plans, it does not perform as well another option (the Contra-Flow Configuration) based on a comparison of key measures of effectiveness. The costs and potential environmental effects as of the Truck Route configuration are notable due to the provision of a bridge at 7th Street. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-24 6.5.10. Downtown Business District Master Plan Configuration DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN CONFIGURATION ADVANTAGES: • This configuration would provide an overall increase in corridor capacity. • The configuration would likely perform adequately under both current (2003) and future (2030) conditions. • The configuration provides an alternate route for trucks that could help reduce truck traffic through the downtown. • The 7th Street connection provides circulation benefits, enhances east-west connectivity, and could help decrease traffic volumes on other corridor roadways. • Some parking along both sides of 2nd Street between Spokane and Baker Avenues and along one side of Spokane Avenue could be retained. • This configuration was recommended in the Whitefish Downtown Business District Master Plan. DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN CONFIGURATION DISADVANTAGES: • Spokane Avenue north of 7th Street would have a one-way northbound configuration. • Baker Avenue south of the Whitefish River and the existing Baker Avenue bridge would need to be widened to accommodate a 3-lane roadway. • Additional right-of-way would be required along portions of Baker Avenue from the Whitefish River crossing to 7th Street. • Building a new bridge at 7th Street would affect the Whitefish River and associated wetlands and work within the river would be subject to federal, state, and local regulations. • New right-of-way (including a business acquisition) would be needed to extend 7th Street between Baker and Kalispell Avenues. • Parking along one side of Baker Avenue south of 2nd Street would be eliminated. • This configuration is among a group of options with the highest overall cost. CONCLUSION: NOT ADVANCED TO SECOND-LEVEL SCREENING The Downtown Master Plan Configuration was not advanced due to its anticipated network performance. Although it performs adequately compared to other options, the configuration does not rank among the best performing options based on key measures of effectiveness. Operational reviews suggest the Contra-Flow Configuration would operate more effectively than this option. Like other options with a bridge at 7th Street, the Downtown Master Plan Configuration is costly and its potential environmental effects are notable. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-25 6.6 Recommendations Based on First-Level Screening 6.6.1 Options Not Advanced to Second-Level Screening Eight corridor improvement options were eliminated from further evaluation based on the initial operational reviews and the consideration of the criteria associated with other first-level screening considerations. The options that were dropped after first-level screening are shown in Table 6-5. Table 6-5: Options Not Advanced to Second-Level Screening Configurations Evaluated in Detail in the FEIS/ROD Configurations Developed After the FEIS/ROD Alternative A (Four Lane) Alternative C (Couplet 1) Alternative C (Couplet 2) FEIS/ROD PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Alternative C (Couplet 4) Modified ROD Configuration Truck Route Configuration Downtown Business District Master Plan Configuration 6.6.2 Options Advanced to Second-Level Screening Two configurations— the Alternative C (Offset) Configuration and the Contra-Flow Configuration—were selected for more extensive review based on the results of the first-level screening. All screening categories were considered to identify the option(s) that best satisfy the overall corridor vision and the associated goals supporting the vision. The major reasons why the Alternative C (Offset) and Contra-Flow Configurations were recommended for more detailed study are highlighted below. • The operational reviews showed the Contra-Flow Configuration ranked as the one of the best performing options under current and future conditions. Providing a road connection between Spokane and Baker Avenues at 7th Street efficiently accommodates corridor traffic and enhances east-west connectivity within the community. The two-lane configuration on 2nd Street and the two-way traffic circulation associated with the Contra-Flow Configuration is also consistent with recommendations in local plans. • Although the Contra-Flow Configuration initially performs comparably to other options that provide a bridge at 7th Street and two-lanes on 2nd Street (like the Truck Route and Downtown Master Plan Configurations), the Contra-Flow Configuration outperforms these options under future traffic conditions. • While several other couplet configurations performed similarly or better, only the Alternative C (Offset) Configuration provides for two-way traffic flows on Spokane and Baker Avenues in the downtown area favored by local residents and the ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-26 business community. The other couplet configurations rely on one-way traffic flows using Spokane and Baker Avenues to handle corridor traffic. The Offset Configuration requires less out-of-direction travel than the one-way couplet options. • Due to the anticipated high cost of providing a bridge at 7th Street and its associated environmental effects, there is merit to evaluating an option—like the Alternative C (Offset) Configuration—that does not include a bridge. • The Alternative C (Offset) Configuration reflects the existing street network and does not require adding any new roadway links. • Both options offer alternate routing possibilities for trucks passing through Whitefish and could help reduce the number of such vehicles on 2nd Street between Spokane and Baker Avenues. • The options include a configuration previously considered in the U.S. Highway 93 Somers to Whitefish West FEIS and a configuration developed after the EIS that reflects the type of transportation network improvements currently recommended in local plans. 6.6.3 Modification to Alternative C (Offset) Configuration The initial operational review showed the overall performance of the Alternative C (Offset) option is inhibited by its design configuration on 2nd Street. The option’s performance suffers from a lack of dedicated turn lanes at several signalized intersections. The provision of two westbound through lanes and one eastbound through lane on 2nd Street also conflicts with local desires for maintaining a two-lane configuration on the roadway. As discussed above, the Alternative C (Offset) Configuration has several characteristics that suggest it may be a viable option for the corridor. The operational review showed traffic flows on 2nd Street could be more effectively handled under the Offset Configuration by providing one through lane in each direction, prohibiting left turns at Central Avenue, and adding dedicated turn lanes at the signalized intersections at Spokane and Baker Avenues. Modifying the option in this manner should help the Alternative C (Offset) Configuration better address overall corridor needs. Making these operational revisions on 2nd Street represents a notable change from the Alternative C (Offset) Configuration initially reviewed. Therefore, the Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration (shown at right) is considered to be a new and different configuration. Since the Modified ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-27 Alternative C (Offset) would likely perform better and be more consistent with local plans, the revised configuration was advanced instead of the Alternative C (Offset) Configuration. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7-1 7.0 TRADEOFFS BETWEEN CONFIGURATIONS OF INTEREST FOR THE CORRIDOR This Part further evaluates the two configurations advanced from the initial screening of improvement options and strategies— the Contra-Flow and the Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configurations. These configurations have the following similarities and differences: • The configurations provide additional capacity to the corridor by incorporating three travel lanes on much of Spokane Avenue between 2nd and 13th Streets and three travel lanes on all or portions of Baker Avenue between 2nd and 13th Streets. • Both configurations would change geometric conditions at key signalized intersections to improve traffic flows and accommodate turning movements by trucks. • Both configurations would maintain two through travel lanes on 2nd Street and provide auxiliary turn lanes at 2nd Street’s intersections with Spokane and Baker Avenues. • The Contra-Flow configuration includes a bridge at 7th Street and would extend 7th Street between Spokane and Kalispell Avenues; however, the Modified Alternative C (Offset) does not include either of these features. • The Modified Alternative C (Offset) configuration incorporates Baker Avenue between 2nd and 13th Streets and 13th Street between Baker and Spokane Avenue to help manage corridor traffic flows. • The Contra-Flow option uses Baker Avenue between 2nd and 7th Streets and the new 7th Street connection between Baker and Spokane Avenues to move traffic through the corridor. This Part includes a discussion of how these design configurations address the second-level screening criteria for the major screening categories identified for the study. These screening criteria can be found in APPENDIX D. The following pages compare and contrast the two corridor configurations of interest. 7.1 Capacity and Traffic Operations Urban road systems are generally controlled by the operation of their major intersections. Intersection failures reduce the number of vehicles that can be accommodated during peak travel hours at specific locations and lessen a roadway corridor’s overall traffic carrying capacity. Travel demand modeling was conducted for both design configurations to help predict traffic volumes and generate information needed to assess the likely operation of the signalized and unsignalized intersections within the corridor. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7-2 7.1.1 Operation and Performance of Signalized Intersections 7.1.1.1 Contra-Flow Configuration Signals currently control traffic flows at four corridor locations (Spokane Avenue and 13th Street, Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street, 2nd Street and Central Avenue, and 2nd Street and Baker Avenue). With the Contra-Flow configuration, traffic signals would be added at Spokane Avenue and 7th Street and at Baker Avenue and 7th Street to regulate traffic flows across the new 7th Street bridge. The operational analyses assumed left turns from 2nd Street onto Central Avenue would be prohibited and other key intersections were reconfigured to include appropriate dedicated turn lanes. The operations at each of the signalized intersections were analyzed based on projected current and future peak hour traffic volumes generated by the travel demand model. Existing signal timings were used to analyze current conditions and optimal signal timing was applied to each signalized intersection to obtain future conditions at that location. Table 7-1 shows the anticipated current and future LOS at signalized intersections in the corridor with the Contra-Flow configuration. Table 7-1: Overall Level of Service at Signalized Intersections Contra-Flow Configuration Signalized Intersection Current (2003) LOS Future (2030) LOS Spokane Avenue/13th Street A B Spokane Avenue/7th Street B B Spokane Avenue/2nd Street B B 2nd Street/Central Avenue B B 2nd Street/Baker Avenue C C Baker Avenue/7th Street B F A performance assessment and information about anticipated peak hour volumes, delays, and volume to capacity ratios for these signalized intersections under current and future conditions can be found in APPENDIX E. The analyses show that all signalized intersections would operate at an overall rating of LOS C or better under current peak hour conditions. All signalized intersections within the corridor except for the intersection of Baker Avenue and 7th Street would operate at LOS C or above under future (2030) conditions. Based on the assumed lane configuration, analyses show the intersection of Baker Avenue and 7th Street would experience a poor LOS due to the vehicle delays expected along the north and west approaches to the intersection. Future traffic volumes at this intersection could be effectively accommodated by modifying the intersection layout. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7-3 The LOS C ratings shown for the intersection of 2nd Street and Baker Avenue assume necessary turn lanes are in place on all approaches at the intersection. Adding a dedicated left-turn lane for eastbound traffic on the west approach, dedicated left and right-turn lanes for westbound traffic on the east approach, and a dedicated right-turn lane for southbound traffic on the north approach would benefit operations at the intersection. However, these improvements cannot be fully completed until a project to relocate City Hall and redevelop the property it occupies moves forward. The intersection currently operates at LOS D and its performance would continue to be inhibited until necessary turning lanes are provided. 7.1.1.2 Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration Signals would control traffic flows at four existing corridor locations (Spokane Avenue and 13th Street, Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street, 2nd Street and Central Avenue, and 2nd Street and Baker Avenue). Additionally, the intersection at Baker Avenue and 13th Street would be controlled by a new traffic signal instead of a four-way stop under the Modified Alternative C (Offset) configuration. With the exception of 2nd Street and Central Avenue, necessary dedicated turn lanes would be added to these key signalized intersections within the corridor. Like the Contra-Flow configuration, it was recommended left turns from 2nd Street onto Central Avenue would be prohibited. The following table summarizes the anticipated current and future LOS at signalized intersections in the corridor with the Modified Alternative C (Offset) configuration. Table 7-2: Overall Level of Service at Signalized Intersections Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration Signalized Intersection Current (2003) LOS Future (2030) LOS Spokane Avenue/13th Street A C Spokane Avenue/2nd Street B B 2nd Street/Central Avenue B B 2nd Street/Baker Avenue C C Baker Avenue/13th Street* B B * Assumes intersection is changed from its existing stop-controlled condition. APPENDIX E includes a performance assessment and information about anticipated peak hour volumes, delays, and volume to capacity ratios for these signalized intersections under current and future conditions. The analyses show all signalized intersections in the corridor would operate at an overall rating of LOS C or better under current and future peak hour conditions under the Modified Alternative C (Offset) configuration. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7-4 As discussed earlier, the LOS ratings for the intersection of 2nd Street and Baker Avenue are somewhat misleading since necessary turn lanes must be in place on all approaches for the intersection to function at LOS C. The intersection would likely continue to operate at LOS D or below until all necessary turning lanes are provided. 7.1.2 Operation and Performance of Unsignalized Intersections 7.1.2.1 Contra-Flow Configuration Table 7-3 shows the anticipated current and future LOS at unsignalized intersections in the corridor with the Contra-Flow configuration. Currently, only three unsignalized intersections operate at LOS D or below during the peak hour. However, the analyses show all but one of the intersections would operate at or below LOS D under future peak hour conditions. Table 7-3: Level of Service at Unsignalized Intersections Contra-Flow Configuration Unsignalized Intersection (Stop-Controlled Side Streets) Current (2003) LOS Future (2030) LOS Spokane Avenue/Riverside B C Spokane Avenue/9th Street A F Spokane Avenue/8th Street E F Spokane Avenue/6th Street D F Spokane Avenue/5th Street C F Spokane Avenue/4th Street C F Spokane Avenue/3rd Street B D Baker Avenue/3rd Street C F Baker Avenue/4th Street C F Baker Avenue/5th Street D F Baker Avenue/6th Street C F Baker Avenue/8th Street B F Baker Avenue/10th Street C F It is important to recognize the LOS ratings are based on the movement that shows the greatest average delay at the intersection (usually a left turn or a through movement from the stop-controlled street). The poor LOS ratings predicted for the unsignalized intersections along Spokane and Baker Avenues are the result of delays for side street traffic and not due to poor traffic flows on the main roadways. Traffic on some side streets already experiences delays when attempting to cross or turn left onto Spokane or Baker Avenues during peak travel periods. The volume of two-way traffic on these roadways is expected to increase in the future and side street movements ---PAGE BREAK--- 7-5 would be inhibited because fewer gaps in traffic flows would be available during peak hours. Additionally, traffic attempting left turns off of Spokane or Baker Avenue may experience delays at unsignalized intersections due to high anticipated traffic volumes in the future. The stop-controlled intersection of Baker Avenue and 13th Street is not part of the Contra-Flow configuration. However, travel demand modeling produced traffic volume information needed to analyze the current and future operation of this intersection with the configuration in place. The LOS analysis showed a poor service level (LOS D and LOS F) resulting at the intersection under both existing and future conditions. This suggests the traffic volumes at this intersection are too high to be adequately handled using stop control and the location needs to be signalized in the future. Signalizing this intersection would provide a LOS of A under both existing (2003) and future (2030) conditions. The City of Whitefish has already identified this intersection as a potential location for a new traffic signal. 7.1.2.2 Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration The anticipated current and future LOS at unsignalized intersections in the corridor with the Modified Offset configuration is shown in Table 7-4. As the table illustrates, six unsignalized intersections within the corridor currently operate at LOS D or below. By 2030, 13 of the 14 unsignalized intersections may operate at LOS F during the peak hour. Table 7-4: Level of Service at Unsignalized Intersections Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration Unsignalized Intersection (Stop-Controlled Side Streets) Current (2003) LOS Future (2030) LOS Spokane Avenue/Riverside C B Spokane Avenue/9th Street F F Spokane Avenue/8th Street E F Spokane Avenue/6th Street F F Spokane Avenue/5th Street E F Spokane Avenue/4th Street E F Spokane Avenue/3rd Street C F Baker Avenue/3rd Street C F Baker Avenue/4th Street C F Baker Avenue/5th Street D F Baker Avenue/6th Street C F Baker Avenue/7th Street C F Baker Avenue/8th Street B F Baker Avenue/10th Street C F ---PAGE BREAK--- 7-6 Like the Contra-Flow configuration, the poor LOS at unsignalized intersections along Spokane and Baker Avenues can be attributed to the delays that side street traffic would likely experience when attempting to cross or turn left onto these roadways during peak hours. The decrease in LOS shown for future conditions is due to the high anticipated traffic volumes using Spokane and Baker Avenues during peak hours. 7.1.3 Overall Performance of the Configurations 7.1.3.1 Contra-Flow Configuration As noted in Part 6.0, the initial operational reviews show the Contra-Flow Configuration to be one of the best performing options under current and future conditions. Providing a road connection between Spokane and Baker Avenues at 7th Street accommodates corridor traffic and enhances east-west connectivity within the community. With the provision of appropriate improvements at key intersections, Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, and Baker Avenue would operate acceptably. The anticipated performance of corridor roadways under the Contra-Flow configuration is discussed in the paragraphs below. Spokane Avenue The addition of a second northbound lane increases capacity on Spokane Avenue under the Contra-Flow configuration. Similarly, the southbound capacity is also increased on Spokane Avenue between 7th and 13th Streets due to the addition of a second southbound lane. Year 2030 modeled volumes along Spokane Avenue ranged from about 10,000 north of 7th Street to about 25,000 south of 7th Street. Based on these volume projections, Spokane Avenue would approach the capacity of a four-lane roadway south of 7th Street but could adequately be served by a three-lane roadway north of 7th Street. 2nd Street The Contra-Flow configuration generally maintains one eastbound and one westbound travel lane along 2nd Street between Spokane Avenue and Baker Avenue and provides necessary turn lanes at Spokane and Baker Avenues. Travel demand modeling shows a 10 to 25% decrease in traffic volumes along 2nd Street when compared to the future operation of the existing corridor configuration. This decrease can largely be attributed to the addition of the 7th Street connection between Spokane Avenue and Baker Avenue. This connection provides an alternate east-west route along the corridor which helps draw traffic from 2nd Street. The travel demand model results show that the future (2030) traffic volumes along 2nd Street would not approach the typical capacity for a two-lane roadway. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7-7 7th Street The Contra-Flow configuration would provide a new east-west connection between Baker Avenue and Kalispell Avenue along 7th Street. The extension of 7th Street between Baker and Kalispell Avenues is beneficial to traffic flows and circulation within the community. Currently, 2nd Street provides the only continuous east-west link across the community and there is no link between Spokane and Baker Avenues between 5th and 13th Streets. When compared to future conditions without such improvements, travel demand modeling shows the 7th Street connection could result in modest (about 15-20%) decreases in traffic on portions of Spokane Avenue, on 2nd Street, and sections of Baker Avenue. Baker Avenue The addition of a second southbound lane increases capacity on Baker Avenue under the Contra-Flow configuration. The Contra-Flow configuration does not incorporate Baker Avenue south of 7th Street; however, the operational review for this study examined existing and future conditions on this portion of Baker Avenue. The travel demand modeling for the Contra-Flow configuration shows a 5 to 25% increase in volumes on Baker Avenue between 2nd and 7th Streets under future (2030) conditions. The increase in volumes along this section of Baker Avenue could be adequately handled by a three-lane roadway. Modeling also indicated the existing two- lane roadway on Baker Avenue between 7th and 13th Streets may approach or exceed its capacity under future (2030) conditions. 13th Street The Contra-Flow configuration relies on a new road connection between Spokane and Baker Avenues at 7th Street and does not incorporate 13th Street. However, since Baker Avenue extends south of 7th Street and 13th Street already links Spokane and Baker Avenues, the operational review for the Contra-Flow configuration acknowledged this existing condition. The travel demand model results show a 50-60% decrease in traffic volumes along 13th Street under both existing and future conditions. This decrease in volume can largely be attributed to the provision of the 7th Street connection. The new east-west connection draws traffic that would otherwise use 2nd and 13th Street for travel between Spokane and Baker Avenues. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7-8 7.1.3.2 Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration Operational reviews show the Modified Offset configuration would initially provide a high performance level but its performance declines under future conditions. The option enhances the capacity of the existing roadway network and does not provide any new roadway links that would improve traffic circulation within the community. With the provision of appropriate turn lanes at key intersections, particularly 2nd Street’s intersections with Spokane and Baker Avenues, corridor roadways would operate acceptably in the future. The anticipated performance of corridor roadways under this configuration is discussed below. Spokane Avenue The addition of a second northbound lane increases the capacity on Spokane Avenue under the Modified Offset configuration. Spokane Avenue would transition from five- lanes south of 13th Street to a three-lane roadway between 2nd and 13th Streets. Modeling shows traffic on Spokane Avenue would likely increase by about 10 to 30% when compared with modeled volumes for the corridor without any improvements under both existing and future conditions. Future modeled traffic volumes along Spokane Avenue range from just under 10,000 vehicles south of 2nd Street to more than 18,000 vehicles between 6th Street and 13th Street. The capacity benefits and reduced delays due to the addition of another northbound travel lane would be responsible for the increased use of Spokane Avenue. Considering these modeled volumes, a three-lane roadway would be adequate between 2nd and 6th Streets. However, the portion of Spokane Avenue between 6th and 13th Streets may approach or exceed the capacity of a three-lane roadway under future conditions. 2nd Street The Modified Offset configuration generally maintains one eastbound and one westbound travel lane along 2nd Street between Spokane Avenue and Baker Avenue and provides necessary turn lanes at Spokane and Baker Avenues. Modeling for the configuration showed traffic volumes on 2nd Street between Spokane and Baker Avenues ranging from 8,000 to 9,000 vehicles under current conditions. The modeled volumes were about 10 to 15% higher than the volumes shown by the model for current conditions without any corridor improvements. Modeled future traffic volumes on 2nd Street approached 11,500 vehicles and were similar to the volumes predicted by the model for future conditions without any corridor improvements. As a general indicator, the capacity of a two-lane roadway may be approached or exceeded when volumes reach about 12,000 vehicles. The modeled future volumes for this portion of 2nd Street approach this capacity threshold. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7-9 The Modified Offset configuration maintains 2nd Street as a two-lane and does not link Spokane and Baker Avenues at 7th Street. The operational review shows the additional westbound through lane on 2nd Street associated with most of the configurations from the FEIS does little to help traffic operations. Due to the short distance between intersections along this portion of 2nd Street, the capacity benefit afforded by the additional travel lane is unlikely to be realized because traffic in the through lanes would frequently be delayed by turning vehicles. These delays can be avoided if turning movements are separated from through movements. Analyses indicate traffic flows on 2nd Street can be more effectively handled by providing one through lane in each direction, prohibiting left turns at Central Avenue, and adding dedicated turn lanes at the signalized intersections at Spokane and Baker Avenues. As noted earlier, the signalized intersections along 2nd Street were shown to operate at an acceptable LOS under both current and future conditions with these modifications. This implies that 2nd Street would function adequately in the future under the Modified Offset configuration. Baker Avenue The addition of a second southbound lane increases the capacity of Baker Avenue between 2nd and 13th Streets under this configuration. Modeled volumes on Baker Avenue with the Modified Offset configuration were typically less than 10,500 vehicles for current conditions. This is similar to modeled volumes for Baker Avenue without any corridor improvements. The model predicted 14,000 to 20,000 vehicles on the roadway between 2nd and 13th Streets under future conditions. These volumes suggest Baker Avenue would have sections that may exceed the capacity of a three-lane roadway by 2030. Like Spokane Avenue, the capacity and reduced delays afforded by the addition of another southbound travel lane could increase the use of this roadway. 13th Street The Modified Offset configuration would provide a three-lane roadway (two eastbound lanes and one westbound lane) on 13th Street with additional widening at the intersections for necessary turn lanes. The travel demand model for this configuration shows an increase in traffic volumes on 13th Street under both existing and future conditions. The model projects 13th Street to carry about 5,400 vehicles under existing conditions and about 11,500 vehicles in 2030. The modeled traffic volumes for 13th Street suggest a three-lane roadway would be adequate under future conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7-10 7.1.4 Accommodation of Truck Traffic Truck traffic on US 93 adversely affects traffic operations, contributes to congestion, occasionally presents safety concerns, and is inconsistent with the desires presented in local plans. The presence of substantial numbers of trucks inhibits traffic flows on US 93 and affects traffic operations at signalized intersections in the downtown area. Community input during the numerous planning efforts in Whitefish reiterated these concerns and called for the final design of US 93 to include measures that would mitigate traffic through the community to the extent practicable. Given that Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street are part of a state highway and on the National Highway System, commercial vehicle traffic cannot be prohibited from using these public roads. 7.1.4.1 Contra-Flow Configuration Corridor roadways could be improved to accommodate turns by large vehicles at all signalized intersections. This would involve providing dedicated turning lanes, adequate curb radii on corners, and may require some minor widening for receiving lanes. Trucks would be diverted from Spokane Avenue at 7th Street and diverted from 2nd Street at Baker Avenue. Southbound trucks on Baker would cross the new 7th Street bridge and rejoin Spokane Avenue. This configuration would reduce the number of trucks using Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street in downtown Whitefish. 7.1.4.2 Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration Like the Contra-Flow configuration, corridor roadways could be improved to accommodate turns by large vehicles at all signalized intersections. The only viable locations to divert trucks from Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street with this configuration would be at the intersection of Spokane Avenue and 13th Street and at the intersection of 2nd Street and Baker Avenue. Reduced truck traffic on Spokane Avenue north of 13th Street and 2nd Street could be realized if a truck route using Baker Avenue and 13th Street was established. The potential for noise-related effects to residences along the roadway south of the Whitefish River has been identified as a concern with shifting truck traffic onto Baker Avenue. Commercial areas along Baker Avenue north of 13th Street would be less sensitive to traffic-related noise. 7.1.5 Tradeoffs Between the Configurations The Contra-Flow and Modified Alternative C (Offset) configurations were reviewed with respect to the second-level screening criteria for Capacity Considerations found in APPENDIX D. A summary of how these options address the criteria in this screening category is provided below. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7-11 SECOND-LEVEL SCREENING CONSIDERATIONS CONFIGURATIONS UNDER FINAL REVIEW Contra-Flow Configuration Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration V/C, LOS, average travel time and delay, other measures of effectiveness ADVANTAGE Would the option improve traffic flows for trucks through the City? ADVANTAGE Would key intersections be designed to better accommodate truck traffic and turning movements? EQUAL Could the option reduce the number of driveway intersections along corridor? EQUAL Would the option potentially support increased multimodal transportation facilities? EQUAL The Contra-Flow configuration was given the advantage over the Modified Alternative C (Offset) configuration because the option showed better overall performance for relevant measures of effectiveness. The operational review suggests the Contra-Flow configuration would perform better than the Modified Offset configuration in the future. The enhancement of traffic circulation within the community afforded by the 7th Street connection also gives the option an advantage over the Modified Offset configuration. Both options provide alternate routes for trucks to use Baker Avenue instead of Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street. The Contra-Flow option would allow for trucks to use Spokane Avenue, 7th Street, and Baker Avenue for travel through the corridor. The Modified Offset configuration would require trucks to use Baker Avenue between 2nd and 13th Streets and 13th Street to travel the corridor. The advantage was given to the Contra- Flow configuration since a residential area along Baker Avenue south of 7th Street would be affected less by truck movements than with the Modified Offset configuration. Both configurations could include modifications at intersections that accommodate truck traffic and provide appropriate turn lanes. If improvement options are forwarded into project development, both configurations could be designed to better manage access along corridor roadways by combining approaches or eliminate unnecessary approaches. Corridor roadways could be designed to accommodate pedestrian and bicyclist travel and future transit facilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7-12 7.2 Safety Considerations 7.2.1 Contra-Flow Configuration This option provides an increase in overall safety on US 93 when compared to existing conditions due to the added capacity of corridor roadways and improvements at key intersections. The Contra-Flow configuration incorporates a non-typical lane arrangement (two lanes in one direction and one opposing lane) on Spokane and Baker Avenues and on 7th Street between these streets. This lane arrangement could increase the crash potential on these roadways. Increased left turn conflicts could be expected since southbound traffic on Spokane Avenue and northbound traffic on Baker Avenue would be required to cross two opposing lanes when making such turns. New traffic signals would be installed on both Spokane and Baker Avenues at 7th Street. These new signals would introduce additional locations for traffic conflicts to occur due to the number of turning movements expected at these intersections. The potential for congestion and conflicts between through traffic and motorists attempting to park would be eliminated with the removal of on-street parking along portions of Spokane and Baker Avenues. Pedestrians crossing Spokane and Baker Avenues would need to cross three travel lanes instead of the two lanes. Pedestrian movements at signalized intersections on Spokane and Baker Avenues, 2nd Street, and 7th Street would continue to be regulated by signals. 7.2.2 Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration The added capacity and intersection improvements associated with this configuration would be expected to provide an overall increase in safety within the corridor. Like the Contra-Flow option, the Modified Offset configuration employs a non-typical lane arrangement on Spokane and Baker Avenues and would have a similar potential for an increase in left turn conflicts on Spokane and Baker Avenues. The removal of on-street parking along portions of Spokane and Baker Avenues would eliminate the potential for conflicts between through traffic and motorists attempting to park along these roadways. The anticipated volumes of traffic on Baker Avenue south of the Whitefish River and 13th Street may make access to and from businesses and public buildings along the street more difficult and increase the potential for traffic conflicts. A new traffic signal would be provided at Baker Avenue and 13th Street to replace the existing stop controls at the intersection. National studies suggest, in many cases, the number of crashes and crash rates typically increase as the result of installing traffic signals at intersections. Since this intersection is already controlled by stop signs on all ---PAGE BREAK--- 7-13 legs, the change in traffic control may not result in notable changes in the number of crashes or the crash rate at the intersection. Pedestrians crossing Spokane and Baker Avenues would need to cross three travel lanes instead of two lanes. Pedestrian crossings at signalized intersections on Spokane and Baker Avenues, 2nd Street, and 13th Street would continue to be regulated by signals. 7.2.3 Tradeoffs Between the Configurations The Contra-Flow and Modified Alternative C (Offset) configurations and were reviewed against the screening criteria for the Safety Considerations category. A summary of how these options address the second-level screening criteria for this category is provided below. SECOND-LEVEL SCREENING CONSIDERATION CONFIGURATIONS UNDER FINAL REVIEW Contra-Flow Configuration Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration Does the option meet MDT’s current design standards for urban principal arterials? EQUAL Does the option address identified common factors identified in crash analysis? EQUAL Does the option have the potential to reduce traffic conflicts? ADVANTAGE Would the option change the manner in which trucks are accommodated on US 93? EQUAL Does the option have the potential to reduce the number of driveway access points along the corridor? EQUAL Does the option include improvements to enhance safety or mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists? EQUAL The Contra-Flow configuration was given an advantage over the Alternative C (Offset) configuration because the future increases in traffic along Baker Avenue north of 13th Street projected for the Offset option may increase the potential for traffic conflicts. In most other respects, the options are similar in their ability to address the screening criteria for this category. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7-14 7.3 Consistency with MDT’s Current Design Standards 7.3.1 Contra-Flow Configuration The Contra-Flow could be designed to resolve geometric deficiencies within the corridor and generally comply with MDT’s current standards for National Highway System routes and urban principal arterials. The option would include the corner radii modifications necessary to facilitate truck movements at 2nd Street’s intersections with Spokane and Baker Avenues. Widening would be needed on Baker Avenue from the Whitefish River to 7th Street to accommodate the proposed road cross-section. 7.3.2 Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration Like Contra-Flow configuration, the Modified Alternative C (Offset) configuration could be designed and constructed in a manner that resolves identified geometric deficiencies and generally complies with appropriate MDT design guidance for urban principal arterials. Widening would be needed on Baker Avenue from the Whitefish River southward and along 13th Street between Spokane and Baker Avenues to accommodate the proposed road cross-section consistent with MDT’s Current Design Standards for Urban and Developed Areas. 7.3.3 Tradeoffs Between the Configurations These improvement option configurations are judged to be equal in their ability to meet MDT’s current design standards. Both configurations could require design exceptions for turn lane taper rates along 2nd Street and for any variances from 12-foot-wide lanes on corridor roadways. 7.4 Potential Environmental Effects 7.4.1 Contra-Flow Configuration The most apparent potential environmental effects associated with the Contra-Flow configuration would be at 7th Street where a new bridge and road extension are proposed. The new connection at 7th Street would occur at a location where the river channel and its associated riparian zone are substantially wider than most locations in the area. Consequently, a bridge about 575 feet long would be required to cross the Whitefish River at 7th Street. The active channel of the river could be easily spanned; however, the new bridge would cross a delineated floodplain and the construction of bridge piers would impact riparian wetlands. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7-15 The existing bridge over the Whitefish River on Baker Avenue would also have to be widened or replaced to accommodate the proposed three-lane roadway associated with the Contra-Flow option. Several federal, state, and local water regulations protecting water would apply to work in or near the Whitefish River. The following permits or authorizations may be needed for building a new bridge at 7th Street and widening or replacing the existing bridge on Baker Avenue: ƒ “Nationwide” or Individual Section 404 Permit (Corps of Engineers) ƒ Stream Protection Act - SPA 124 Notification (Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks) ƒ Short-term Water Quality Standard for Turbidity - 318 Authorization (MDEQ) ƒ Section 401 Certification (MDEQ) ƒ Floodplain Development Permit (City of Whitefish) ƒ Exemption to Critical Areas Ordinance (City of Whitefish) While a new bridge and road connection at 7th Street could be designed in a manner that minimizes impacts to the Whitefish River and associated wetlands, ensuring compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations can sometimes be difficult or contentious. For example, the Corps of Engineers may resist issuing a 404 permit for the bridge project if realistic alternatives exist that could result in lesser impacts to “Waters of the U.S.” including special aquatic sites and jurisdictional wetlands. Compliance with Section 404 requires a permit from the Corps of Engineers and the design would need to consider measures to avoid or minimize impacts to jurisdictional waters or wetlands. To receive a 404 permit, the design would need to demonstrate the proposed is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative to achieve the purpose. Mitigation would be required for unavoidable impacts to waters or wetlands resulting from the bridge work associated with the Contra-Flow option. The Critical Areas Ordinance, adopted by the City in early 2008, indicates the community places a high priority on protecting water bodies and wetlands in the Whitefish area. Contaminated sediments are also known to exist at various locations along the Whitefish River. The bridge construction associated with Contra-Flow configuration offers the potential for disturbing the sediments. It should be noted that a cleanup project is underway along the Whitefish River that may remove this contaminated material. The improvements to Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, and Baker Avenue (between 2nd Street and the Whitefish River) associated with the Contra-Flow option could generally be provided within the existing right-of-way for these roadways. Areas of new right-of- way acquisition are anticipated along Baker Avenue south of the Whitefish River to accommodate roadway widening. Minor amounts of right-of-way may be required at ---PAGE BREAK--- 7-16 key intersections to accommodate geometric modifications and the addition of turn lanes. As noted previously, right-of-way limitations exist at the intersection of 2nd Street and Baker Avenue making the provision of necessary turn lanes on all approaches difficult at this time. The new connection at 7th Street would require new right-of-way along the bridge alignment and from lands between Spokane Avenue and Kalispell Avenue. Additionally, the Whitefish River is considered commercially navigable from Whitefish Lake to its confluence with the Stillwater River. As such, a Land Use License or Easement from the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) before a bridge could be constructed across the river would need to be obtained. The Preliminary Traffic Report for the Whitefish Urban project (WGM, February 2006) shows a business on the southeast corner of 7th Street and Spokane Avenue intersection would need to be relocated due to the extension of 7th Street eastward. The development of the three-lane roadways associated with the Contra-Flow configuration would eliminate parking along Spokane Avenue between 3rd and 6th Streets and on Baker Avenue between 2nd and 5th Streets. The addition of turn lanes on 2nd Street at Baker Avenue would result in the loss of some parking near the intersection; however, the configuration would retain some parking along both sides of 2nd Street between Spokane and Baker Avenues. Noise levels along Baker Avenue would rise as overall traffic and truck volumes on the roadway increase. Conversely, noise levels may decrease along Spokane Avenue (north of 7th Street) and 2nd Street due to the diversion of some traffic to Baker Avenue and because fewer trucks may be in the traffic stream. 7.4.2 Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration The Modified Alternative C (Offset) configuration would affect the Whitefish River at the existing bridge location on Baker Avenue due to the need to widen or replace the narrow structure. Various federal, state, and local water regulations protecting water would apply to work in or near the Whitefish River and the following permits and authorization may be needed for work at the highway crossing: ƒ “Nationwide” or Individual Section 404 Permit (Corps of Engineers) ƒ Stream Protection Act - SPA 124 Notification (Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks) ƒ Short-term Water Quality Standard for Turbidity - 318 Authorization (MDEQ) ƒ Section 401 Certification (MDEQ) ƒ Montana Land-use License of Easement on Navigable Waters (DNRC) ƒ Floodplain Development Permit (City of Whitefish) ƒ Exemption to Critical Areas Ordinance (City of Whitefish) ---PAGE BREAK--- 7-17 If improvement options are forwarded mitigation for unavoidable impacts to waters or wetlands resulting from the widening or replacement of the Baker Avenue bridge would need to be provided. As with the Contra-Flow option, areas of contaminated sediments along the river could be encountered during bridge construction. The right-of-way needs for the Modified Offset configuration are similar to those of the Contra-Flow option on Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, and Baker Avenue (between 2nd Street and the Whitefish River). Roadway improvements could generally be provided within the existing right-of-way for these roadways. Minor amounts of right-of-way may be required at key intersections to accommodate geometric modifications and the addition of turn lanes. Like the Contra-Flow option, right-of-way limitations exist at the intersection 2nd Street and Baker Avenue and necessary turn lanes on all approaches cannot be provided until sufficient right-of-way becomes available. Areas of new right-of-way would be necessary along Baker Avenue between the Whitefish River and 13th Street to accommodate roadway widening. Staff from the City of Whitefish noted that right-of-way acquisition posed issues during previous reconstruction projects on Baker Avenue. Additional right-of-way would likely be needed at the intersection of Baker Avenue and 13th Street to provide necessary turn lanes and ensure corner radii are adequate for turning movements by large vehicles. Like the Contra-Flow option, the Modified Offset configuration would result in the loss of on-street parking spaces along Spokane Avenue between 3rd and 6th Streets and along Baker Avenue between 2nd and 5th Streets. The option would retain some parking along both sides of 2nd Street as called for in local plans. The Modified Offset configuration would divert truck traffic to Baker Avenue and noise levels along the roadway could rise. Such a diversion could decrease noise levels along Spokane Avenue as fewer trucks use the roadway. 7.4.3 Tradeoffs Between the Configurations A comparison of how the Modified Alternative C (Offset) and Contra-Flow configurations address the second-level screening criteria for Potential Environmental Effects is shown below. The Modified Alternative C (Offset) configuration possesses a clear advantage over the Contra-Flow option when considering screening criteria focused on the natural environment. This conclusion was reached because the Contra-Flow configuration would provide a new bridge across the Whitefish River and affect riparian habitat. The potential effects on the river at the existing crossing on Baker Avenue would be similar for both configurations. The Contra-Flow option also has the potential to encounter contaminated sediments at two Whitefish River crossing locations. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7-18 The Contra-Flow configuration has an advantage with respect to the emission of air pollutants since the operational review shows the option would result in fewer miles of travel, less overall delay, and lower fuel consumption than the Modified Offset configuration. The Modified Offset configuration has a higher potential to increase noise levels along Baker Avenue than the Contra-Flow option and has the potential to affect sensitive noise receptors in a residential area along Baker Avenue south of 7th Street. Both configurations would require new right-of-way acquisition at various locations within the corridor. The Modified Offset configuration was given a slight advantage over the Contra-Flow option for this screening consideration because the extension of 7th Street east of Spokane Avenue may require a business relocation. The configurations rated similarly for most other criteria in this screening category. SECOND-LEVEL SCREENING CONSIDERATION CONFIGURATIONS UNDER FINAL REVIEW Contra-Flow Configuration Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration Would wildlife or fisheries habitat be affected? ADVANTAGE Are wetlands or Waters of the US affected? Would FEMA-designated 100-year floodplains be crossed or encroached upon? Would City of Whitefish “critical areas” be affected? Is there a potential for increased emissions of air pollutants? ADVANTAGE Are noise sensitive receptors present? ADVANTAGE Are Hazardous Materials Sites affected? ADVANTAGE Are cultural resources affected? EQUAL Are 4(f) Resources (historic sites, public recreation facilities or parkland) affected? EQUAL Would the option likely cause notable socio- economic effects? EQUAL Would on-street parking be lost? EQUAL Would new right-of-way be required? SLIGHT ADVANTAGE Would the option eliminate access from adjoining properties? EQUAL Would utilities be affected? EQUAL ---PAGE BREAK--- 7-19 7.5 Feasibility and Affordability 7.5.1 Contra-Flow Configuration As Table 7-5 shows, the planning-level cost for the Contra-Flow configuration is estimated to be about $20.81 million. The costs of building a new bridge at 7th Street and extending 7th Street between Spokane and Kalispell Avenues accounts for more than $11 million of the total estimated construction cost for the configuration. The estimates include construction costs based on typical unit costs for recent MDT highway projects, a representative cost for new right-of-way, and costs for mobilization and contingencies. Please note the estimates provided are very preliminary and will likely change based on more detailed engineering and design activities. APPENDIX F presents a table detailing the items considered to develop planning-level cost estimates for the corridor improvements associated with this configuration. Table 7-5: Planning-Level Cost Estimate for Corridor Improvements—Contra-Flow Configuration Associated Improvements Current Cost (in millions) 2nd Street Improvements and Signal Upgrades $2.02 Add Capacity to the Baker Avenue Bridge $1.45 Baker Avenue Reconstruction/Upgrades $2.07 7th Street Bridge and 7th Street Connection $11.22 Spokane Avenue Reconstruction/Upgrades* $4.05 TOTAL $20.81M * Does not include the cost of replacing the culverts for the Whitefish River on Spokane Avenue with a new bridge. Because it would be unlikely to accomplish all corridor improvements within the same timeframe, the potential future costs of implementing corridor improvements were also examined. Estimates of future improvement costs were calculated based on an assumed annual inflation rate of 3 percent over the next 20 years. This assumed inflation rate shows that costs could be about 19% higher than current estimates by the year 2015 and about 86% higher than current estimates by the year 2030. This means the total cost for the improvements associated with the Contra-Flow configuration would be about $24.8 million by 2015 and about $38.7 million by the year 2030. The Contra-Flow configuration was developed after the U.S. Highway 93 Somers to Whitefish West FEIS/ROD so the option was not examined in detail in the FEIS. MDT must complete an environmental review to document NEPA/MEPA compliance before federal and state funding could be programmed for the corridor improvements and design activities can actually begin. This review would involve a re-evaluation of the FEIS as it relates to the Whitefish Urban project area to determine if a Supplemental EIS is needed. FHWA, in consultation with MDT, would need to make a decision about the ---PAGE BREAK--- 7-20 appropriate environmental review process and would need to revise the ROD for the Whitefish Urban project area to include the improvements associated with the Contra- Flow configuration. Building a new bridge at 7th Street and widening or reconstructing the existing bridge on Baker Avenue would be subject to federal and state regulations protecting water quality and the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance. Securing environmental permits and authorization for a new 7th Street bridge may be complicated if other options (like the Modified Offset configuration) could reduce impacts to the river and wetlands. 7.5.2 Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration The Modified Alternative C (Offset) configuration would require about 1.7 miles of reconstruction along Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street, on Baker Avenue between 2nd and 13th Streets, and on 13th Street between Baker and Spokane Avenues. The option includes the widening or replacement of the existing bridge across the Whitefish River on Baker Avenue. Signal upgrades or replacements would be needed at four locations and a new signal would be required at Baker and 13th Street. As shown in Table 7-6, the planning-level cost for the Modified Alternative C (Offset) configuration is $10.86 million. The estimates for corridor improvements include construction costs based on typical unit costs for recent MDT highway projects, a representative cost for right-of-way, and costs for mobilization and contingencies. Table 7-6: Planning Level Cost Estimate for Corridor Improvements—Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration Associated Improvements Current Cost (in millions) 2nd Street Improvements and Signal Upgrades $2.02 Add Capacity to the Baker Avenue Bridge $1.45 Baker Avenue and 13th Reconstruction and Upgrades $3.79 Spokane Avenue Reconstruction/Upgrades* $3.60 TOTAL $10.86 M * Does not include the cost of replacing the culverts for the Whitefish River on Spokane Avenue with a new bridge. APPENDIX F presents the items considered to develop the planning-level cost estimates for the corridor improvements associated with this configuration. Based on an assumed annual inflation rate of 3 percent over the next 20 years, the total cost of the Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration improvements would be more than $12.9 million by 2015 and be nearly $20.2 million by the year 2030. The Alternative C (Offset) configuration was evaluated in detail in the U.S. Highway 93 Somers to Whitefish West FEIS; however, the option considered in the FEIS included ---PAGE BREAK--- 7-21 three travel lanes on 2nd Street instead of two lanes as proposed with the Modified Offset configuration. Like the Contra-Flow option, advancing this configuration would require a re-evaluation of the FEIS focused on the Whitefish Urban project area to determine the need for a Supplemental EIS and a future revision to the ROD. The environmental permitting process for the Modified Offset configuration would be focused on the potential effects of widening or replacing the existing bridge on Baker Avenue. 7.5.3 Tradeoffs Between the Configurations The summary below indicates how the Contra-Flow and Modified Alternative C (Offset) configurations address the second-level screening criteria for Feasibility and Affordability Considerations. SECOND-LEVEL SCREENING CONSIDERATION CONFIGURATIONS UNDER FINAL REVIEW Contra-Flow Configuration Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration Does a precedent exist for similar strategies? EQUAL Could the option be constructed under traffic? EQUAL Is the option potentially fundable by FHWA/MDT? EQUAL What is the relative cost of the option? ADVANTAGE Does the option include components or design features that would likely result in agency or public opposition or generate controversy? ADVANTAGE Relative expense and ease of procedural requirements for to advancement of the option through a future NEPA process. SLIGHT ADVANTAGE The non-typical lane arrangement for Spokane and Baker Avenues (two lanes in one direction and one opposing lane) associated with the Contra-Flow and Modified Offset configurations provide for added roadway capacity. However, similar three-lane roadways have not been previously used in Whitefish. With proper sequencing, detours, and traffic controls, both options could be constructed with minimal delays to facility users. The Modified Alternative C (Offset) configuration has clear advantages over the Contra- Flow configuration with respect to the overall cost of making corridor improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7-22 Planning-level cost estimates show the Contra-Flow configuration would be nearly twice as expensive as the Offset configuration due to the provision of the new bridge and roadway connection at 7th Street. It is assumed the lower overall cost of the option could facilitate the funding and implementation of the corridor improvements. The annual maintenance costs associated with the Modified Offset configuration may be higher than those for the Contra-Flow option due to the difference in overall roadway of the options. However, the Modified Offset configuration would have lower bridge maintenance costs since it does not include a bridge at 7th Street and has fewer traffic signals to maintain than the Contra-Flow option. Procedurally, the Modified Offset configuration may have a slight advantage over the Contra-Flow option since the option was evaluated previously in the U.S. Highway 93 Somers to Whitefish West FEIS. However, a re-evaluation of the FEIS for the Whitefish Urban project area would initially be required with both options to determine the need for a Supplemental EIS. Environmental permitting for the Offset configuration may also be less difficult or contentious than for Contra-Flow option since it does not include a bridge at 7th Street. 7.6 Compatibility with Local Plans and Ideals 7.6.1 Contra-Flow Configuration The Contra-Flow configuration was developed after the U.S. Highway 93 Somers to Whitefish West FEIS/ROD to address concerns associated with the ROD Preferred Alternative about the lane configuration on 2nd Street, parking, and circulation in downtown Whitefish. The option provides an alternate routing for trucks to pass through the downtown via a bridge at 7th Street. While the concept presented in this configuration does not exactly match the recommendations from local plans, the option retains 2nd Street as a two-lane roadway with some on-street parking along both sides of the street and provides for two-way traffic flows on Spokane and Baker Avenues. Both of these elements are very important aspects of local plans and desired by downtown business owners. Comments received during various planning efforts in the community shows a range of opinions about the viability of providing a new bridge at 7th Street as called for in the Contra-Flow configuration. 7.6.2 Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration The Alternative C (Offset) configuration evaluated in the FEIS was developed more than a decade before the completion of the Whitefish Downtown Business District Master Plan and the City’s Growth Policy. As a result, the FEIS configuration does not reflect many of the community’s more recent concerns and ideas about redevelopment in the downtown area, particularly on 2nd Street. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7-23 However, the Modified Alternative C (Offset) configuration better reflects recommendations from local plans. The Modified Offset configuration provides for two-way traffic flows on Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, and Baker Avenue in the downtown. The option generally maintains 2nd Street as a two-lane facility with some on-street parking between Spokane and Baker Avenues. 7.6.3 Tradeoffs Between the Configurations A comparison of how well the two configurations address the second-level screening criteria associated with the Compatibility with Local Plans and Ideals screening category is provided below. SECOND-LEVEL SCREENING CONSIDERATION CONFIGURATIONS UNDER FINAL REVIEW Contra-Flow Configuration Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration Would the option be compatible with or support recommendations from local plans? ADVANTAGE Would the option be consistent with the City of Whitefish’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan? EQUAL Would enhancements be consistent with features recommended in local plans or desired by the City of Whitefish and local residents? EQUAL Does the option provide new and desirable connections to local street network? ADVANTAGE Does the option have the potential to enhance the appearance of the corridor? EQUAL The overall advantage has to be given to the Contra-Flow configuration since the option was developed based on the input received and recommendations contained in the Whitefish Downtown Business District Master Plan and the City’s Growth Policy. As a result, the Contra-Flow configuration is more responsive to local planning concepts than the Modified Offset configuration. The Contra-Flow option also has an advantage over the Modified Offset configuration since it enhances traffic circulation within the community by including a bridge and roadway to connect Baker, Spokane, and Kalispell Avenues along 7th Street. Enhancing roadway connectivity within Whitefish was a key consideration in the recent development of the Whitefish Transportation Plan. Both configurations could include many of the desired trail connections and streetscape amenities called for in local plans if local funding is available. ---PAGE BREAK--- 8-1 8.0 FUTURE IMPROVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS Both the Contra-Flow and Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configurations maintain US 93 traffic on Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street, incorporate portions of Baker Avenue between 2nd and 13th Street, and rely on east-west connections at either 7th or 13th Streets to meet future travel demands within the corridor. The following sections discuss general operational recommendations for each configuration and highlight future development considerations for improvement options to the US 93 corridor. Recommendations from past planning efforts—including the U.S. Highway 93 Somers to Whitefish West FEIS/ROD and local plans—were considered in the identification of project development considerations for corridor roadways. Since this study is a planning-level document, it does not provide details about specific design items or features. These design details would be identified during project development activities if improvement options are forwarded into project development. A desired sequencing for making major corridor improvements associated with each configuration is presented. 8.1 Spokane Avenue Improvements 8.1.1 General Operational Recommendations Both the Contra-Flow and Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configurations would provide a three-lane roadway accommodating two northbound driving lanes and one southbound driving lane along Spokane Avenue north of 7th Street. South of 7th Street, the Contra-Flow Configuration provides an additional travel lane for southbound traffic and dedicated turn lanes at the 13th Street intersection. The Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration maintains a three-lane roadway south of 7th Street and includes widening for dedicated turn lanes at the 13th Street intersection. 8.1.2 Project Development and Design Considerations • Preserving boulevards and the mature trees along Spokane Avenue north of 6th Street are important to local residents. • The use of raised, landscaped medians and left turn provisions for northbound traffic may be desirable at several locations to serve commercial uses west of Spokane Avenue between 7th and 13th Streets. • The large-diameter culverts conveying the Whitefish River beneath Spokane Avenue have considerable remaining service life; however, local preferences are to install a new bridge when the culverts are replaced. ---PAGE BREAK--- 8-2 • Consideration must be given to whether the pavement on Spokane Avenue needs to be reconstructed or can be sufficiently rehabilitated by milling the existing surface and installing a new asphalt overlay. Reconstruction would likely ensure the roadway is capable of withstanding the demands of traffic for well over 25 years with the pavement preservation activities routinely performed by MDT. Assuming there are no foundation problems, milling and overlaying the existing pavement may add 10-15 years of life to the roadway. 8.2 2nd Street Improvements 8.2.1 General Operational Recommendations The Contra-Flow and Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configurations would maintain 2nd Street as a two-lane facility but include widening for dedicated turn lanes at 2nd Street’s intersections with Spokane and Baker Avenues. Both configurations would improve the street within its existing “footprint” and retain some on-street parking along both sides of 2nd Street. 8.2.2 Project Development and Design Considerations • Providing appropriate dedicated turn lanes on 2nd Street at the intersections of Spokane and Baker Avenues and prohibiting left turns from 2nd Street onto Central Avenue would be required to facilitate traffic operations with either option. • With either configuration, there is a need to evaluate traffic signals and upgrade them as required bringing the system to current standards. Making such improvements may require replacing the existing traffic signals and controllers at each intersection, adding sensors to detect vehicles, and interconnecting the new signals to coordinate the operation of the three intersections along 2nd Street. An updated traffic study would needed at these intersections to obtain current peak hour turning movement data for the analyses required to establish appropriate signal timings. • Both configurations require minor right-of-way acquisitions on the southeast corner of the intersection of 2nd and Spokane and the southwest and southeast corners of 2nd and Baker to implement intersection modifications and accommodate truck turning movements. • A 2006 District Court ruling prohibits MDT from acquiring right-of-way through condemnation from the First American Bank property (located on the northwest corner of the 2nd and Baker intersection). Since the Court’s determination is conclusive on the issue, future improvements to the intersection of would have to be completed without acquiring any right-of-way from American Bank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 8-3 • Roadway widening for the recommended right turn lanes at 2nd Street and Baker Avenue cannot occur until the City Hall property on the northeast corner of the intersection is redeveloped and additional right-of-way becomes available. While the City has plans to relocate from the existing City Hall building, when and if the property will be redeveloped is uncertain at this time. Adding left turn lanes for east and westbound traffic will benefit operations at the intersection; however, analyses show operations at the intersection of 2nd Street and Baker Avenue will continue to operate at LOS D into the future until the right turn lanes are provided. • The city of Whitefish has recommended design elements and streetscape enhancements along 2nd Street. To incorporate these enhancements, it will need to be determined the extent of available funding from the city. • Consideration must be given to whether the pavement on 2nd Street needs to be fully reconstructed or can be sufficiently rehabilitated by milling the existing surface and installing a new asphalt overlay. 8.3 Baker Avenue Improvements 8.3.1 Operational Recommendations The Contra-Flow and Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configurations provide a three- lane roadway with two southbound driving lanes and a northbound driving lane between 2nd and 7th Streets. The Contra-Flow Configuration then directs corridor traffic east to Spokane Avenue along a new 7th Street connection. The Modified Alternative C (Offset) option continues the three-lane configuration on Baker Avenue south of 7th Street to 13th Street. 8.3.2 Project Development and Design Considerations • Areas of new right-of-way acquisition are anticipated along Baker Avenue south of the Whitefish River to accommodate roadway widening. • There is a need to add capacity (roadway width) to the existing bridge over the Whitefish River on Baker Avenue by either widening the existing structure or building a new bridge. • Areas of new right-of-way acquisition are anticipated along Baker Avenue south of the Whitefish River to accommodate roadway widening. • The Modified Alternative C (Offset) configuration would require widening to provide dedicated turn lanes at Baker Avenue’s intersection with 13th Street. ---PAGE BREAK--- 8-4 • The City’s Transportation Plan identified the intersection of Baker Avenue and 13th Street as a potential location for a new traffic signal. The Modified Alternative C (Offset) configuration would incorporate a new traffic signal and dedicated turn lanes at the intersection of Baker Avenue and 13th Street. • Design features like landscaped boulevards and decorative street lighting exist on Baker Avenue between 10th and 13th Streets. • Consideration must be given to whether the pavement on affected sections of Baker Avenue needs to be reconstructed or rehabilitated by milling the existing surface and installing a new asphalt overlay. 8.4 7th Street Construction 8.4.1 Operational Recommendations The Contra-Flow Configuration would provide a three-lane roadway accommodating two eastbound driving lanes and a westbound driving lane between Spokane and Baker Avenues. The Contra-Flow Configuration would also extend 7th Street between Spokane and Kalispell Avenues. The Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration would not provide a roadway connection between Spokane and Baker Avenues at 7th Street or extend 7th Street east of Spokane Avenue to Kalispell Avenue. 8.4.2 Project Development and Design Considerations • The installation of traffic signals and the addition of turn lanes would be required at 7th Street’s intersections with Spokane and of Baker Avenues. • New right-of-way (including a business acquisition) would be needed to accommodate the construction of 7th Street between Spokane and Kalispell Avenues and the new 7th Street river crossing. 8.5 13th Street Improvements 8.5.1 Operational Recommendations The Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration would provide a three-lane roadway accommodating one westbound driving lane and two eastbound driving lanes between Spokane and Baker Avenues. The Contra-Flow Configuration would not require any improvements to 13th Street since 7th Street would serve as the east-west connection between Spokane and Baker Avenues. ---PAGE BREAK--- 8-5 8.5.2 Project Development and Design Considerations • As noted previously, the Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration would incorporate a new traffic signal and dedicated turn lanes at the intersection of Baker Avenue and 13th Street. • Additional right-of-way, on the northeast corner of the intersection of Baker Avenue and 13th Street, would likely be needed to accommodate roadway widening for dedicated turn lanes. The City of Whitefish has been approached regarding a project to construct a new gas station on the northeast corner of the intersection of Baker Avenue and 13th Street. • Commercial buildings along 13th Street between Spokane and Baker Avenues limit available right-of-way. • Consideration must be given to whether the pavement on 13th Street between Spokane and Baker Avenues needs to be reconstructed or can be adequately rehabilitated by milling and overlaying the roadway. 8.6 Pedestrian and Bicyclist Facilities Within the corridor, sidewalks currently parallel both sides of Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, Baker Avenue and 13th Street. Marked pedestrian crosswalks exist at four signalized intersections along Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street, at 4th and 5th Streets on Spokane Avenue, and at four locations along Baker Avenue. Spokane and Baker Avenues between 2nd and 13th Streets and 2nd Street are designated as proposed bicycle routes in the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. 13th Street is not part of a designated bicycle route. Only Baker Avenue between 10th and 13th Streets has marked bicycle lanes along each side of the roadway. Bicyclists must use the roadway or its shoulders/parking areas for travel on other corridor roadways. Both configurations would perpetuate and/or enhance existing pedestrian and bicyclist facilities within the corridor. 8.6.1 Design and Project Development Considerations • Consider the policies and recommendations for pedestrian and bicyclist facilities within the corridor found in local plans and coordinate with the City about how future corridor improvements can facilitate their implementation. • Local preferences are to install a new bridge and provide grade-separated pedestrian/bicyclist trail connections at the Whitefish River crossing on Spokane Avenue when the existing culverts are replaced. ---PAGE BREAK--- 8-6 • Right-of-way limitations, the need to accommodate through traffic and turning movements, and the desire to retain some on-street parking makes it difficult to add bicycle lanes along both sides of 2nd Street between Spokane and Baker Avenues. • Ensure that sidewalks at least 5-feet wide are perpetuated along each side of corridor roadways and modify or install curb ramps at intersections where needed to meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines. 8.7 Improvement Priorities and Suggested Sequencing Since implementing a single comprehensive improvement to upgrade the entire Whitefish Urban corridor and other affected roadways is unlikely, this study outlines a desired sequencing for implementing corridor improvements under each configuration. The recommended sequencing recognizes funding for corridor improvements will likely be limited over the foreseeable future. Additionally, providing left turn lanes for eastbound and westbound traffic at the intersection at 2nd Street and Baker Avenue and installing a new coordinated signal system, are high priorities for the City of Whitefish and can notably enhance the operation of the corridor. Another consideration for determining a desired sequencing for improvements was the need to have adequate alternate routes for local and through traffic in place during reconstruction activities on Spokane and Baker Avenues. Given the funding situation and other uncertainties related to the timing of downtown redevelopment projects, there was no attempt to identify when the recommended corridor improvements should be implemented over the planning horizon for this study. It is recognized that the funding situation could change or other factors may ultimately influence the how corridor improvements were implemented. The following general priorities were established for implementing corridor-related improvements under the configurations of interest: CONTRA-FLOW CONFIGURATION PRIORITY 1: 2nd Street Improvements and Signal Upgrades PRIORITY 2: Add Capacity to the Baker Avenue Bridge PRIORITY 3: Baker Avenue Reconstruction/Upgrades PRIORITY 4: 7th Street Bridge and 7th Street Connection PRIORITY 5: Spokane Avenue Reconstruction/Upgrades MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE C (OFFSET) CONFIGURATION PRIORITY 1: 2nd Street Improvements and Signal Upgrades PRIORITY 2: Add Capacity to the Baker Avenue Bridge PRIORITY 3: Baker Avenue and 13th Reconstruction/Upgrades PRIORITY 4: Spokane Avenue Reconstruction/Upgrades ---PAGE BREAK--- 8-7 The suggested sequencing would help address some of the long-standing operational problems at the intersection of 2nd Street and Baker Avenue intersection and enhance traffic flows along 2nd Street. Traffic would have to be detoured off 2nd Street at Spokane and Baker Avenues at times to accommodate to reconstruction activities. Adding capacity at the bridge across the Whitefish River on Baker Avenue would eliminate a “bottleneck” created by the existing structure. A project to widen the Baker Avenue bridge would provide a structure capable of accommodating the preferred lane configuration on Baker Avenue under either improvement option. This would allow the structure to be in place before reconstruction efforts were undertaken on the remainder of the street. Traffic could be detoured around the Baker Avenue bridge improvement area by using Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street or 7th Street and Karrow Avenue to access West 2nd Street. Adding the 7th Street bridge and 7th Street connection as called for under the Contra- Flow Configuration is an improvement could happen at almost any time during implementation. However, some of the operational benefits made possible by making this new street connection would not be realized until after capacity improvements were completed on Baker Avenue. Having the 7th Street bridge in place would provide opportunities for detours around work areas during the reconstruction of Spokane Avenue. Under the Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration, rebuilding Baker Avenue and 13th Street may be accomplished in two phases using 7th Street as a possible split point to help minimize traffic disruptions. Work north of 7th Street could be accomplished relatively quickly since the recommended improvements north of the bridge would all occur within the existing “footprint” of Baker Avenue. South of the river, Baker Avenue and 13th Street require right-of-way acquisition and more reconstruction work. Phasing the work on Baker Avenue in this manner would allow the opportunity to use 7th Street and Karrow as a detour route around the work area. Other than using Spokane Avenue, detour options are limited for Baker Avenue in the area south of the Whitefish River. Because a specific timeline for implementing improvement projects has not been identified, periodic monitoring of corridor conditions is important to help determine when further improvements or actions might be needed. The monitoring effort could be focused on readily available measures of performance like traffic volumes and crash data and tied to performance thresholds that indicate the need for action. The City’s review of new developments or major redevelopment proposals and MDT’s System Impact Assessment Process (SIAP) reviews could also be used to help signal the need for corridor improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-1 9.0 FUNDING, IMPLEMENTING CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS, AND FINAL SUMMARY Potential funding sources for improvements to the US 93 corridor through Whitefish and other considerations relevant to the implementation of recommendations are discussed in this Part. The primary funding sources for corridor improvements will be federal and state funds. However, other local government funding sources are described because such funds could accomplish portions of the proposed projects or be used to implement off-system projects that would indirectly benefit the US 93 corridor. Part 9.0 also discusses fiscal constraint requirements associated with planning for corridor improvements, regionally significant projects, and highlights NEPA/MEPA compliance activities needed to advance corridor improvement projects. 9.1 Potential Federal and State Funding Sources The primary Federal and State funding sources for constructing highway improvements within the corridor are identified and briefly described on the following pages. This discussion is focused on programs developed for the distribution of Federal and State transportation funding administered by the FHWA and MDT. A description of each potential funding source and its applicability to corridor roadways is provided in the following sections. 9.1.1 National Highway System (NHS) Funds The improvement options could be eligible to receive NHS funding if designated as part of US 93. NHS funds are federally-apportioned to Montana and allocated based on system performance by the Montana Transportation Commission. Currently, the federal share for NHS projects is 86.58% and the State is responsible for the remaining 13.42% of project costs. The Highway State Special Revenue Account provides the source of the State’s share of NHS project costs. Activities eligible for this funding include construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation of segments of the NHS. Other miscellaneous activities that may qualify for NHS funding include research, planning, carpool projects, bikeways, and pedestrian walkways. 9.1.2 Urban Highway System (STPU) Funds The Federal and State funds available under this program are used to finance transportation projects on the state-designated Urban Highway System. The Urban Highway System is described under 60-2-125(6), Montana Codes Annotated (MCA), as those highways and streets are in and near incorporated cities with populations of over ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-2 5,000 and within urban boundaries established by the MDT, have been functionally classified as either urban arterials or collectors, and have been selected by the Montana Transportation Commission, in cooperation with local government authorities, to be placed on the Urban Highway System. State law (60-3-211, MCA) guides the allocation of funds to projects on the Urban Highway System in the fifteen urban areas (3 Urbanized Areas, and 12 Small Urban Areas) through a statutory formula based on each area’s population compared to the total population in all urban areas. As with NHS funds, Urban funding is 86.58% Federal with a 13.42% non-federal match typically provided from the Special State Revenue Account. Urban funds are used primarily for major street construction, reconstruction, and traffic operation projects on the State-designated Urban Highway System, but can be used for any project that is eligible for the Surface Transportation Program (STP) under Title 23 of the U.S. Code. Priorities for the use of Urban funds are established at the local level through local planning processes with final approval by the Transportation Commission. Within urban boundary for Whitefish, Baker Avenue between 2nd Street and 7th Street, Baker Avenue north of 2nd Street, Wisconsin Avenue, East Lakeshore Drive, and a portion of Big Mountain Road are on the Urban Highway System. 9.1.3 Community Transportation Enhancement Program (CTEP) Federal law requires that at least 10% of STP funds must be spent on transportation enhancement projects. The Montana Transportation Commission created the Community Transportation Enhancement Program (CTEP) in cooperation with the Montana Association of Counties (MACO) and the Montana League of Cities and Towns to comply with this Federal requirement. CTEP is a unique program that distributes funding to local and tribal governments based on a population formula and provides project selection authority to local and tribal governments. The Transportation Commission provides final approval to CTEP projects within the State’s right-of-way. The Federal share for CTEP projects is 86.58% and the Local and tribal governments are responsible for the remaining 13.42%. CTEP projects must fit into one or more of 12 enhancement categories. Within the US 93 urban corridor, program funds could potentially be used to pay for pedestrian and bicycle facilities, streetscape enhancements, landscaping, and other scenic beautification improvements. The City of Whitefish has a current balance of approximately $266,300 and the estimated 2010 allocation is about $29,500 (Federal). The balance represents funds not obligated towards a selected project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-3 9.1.4 On-System Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program The On-System Bridge Program receives 65% percent of the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program 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. 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. 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. The bridge over the Whitefish River on Baker Avenue—identified as structure M15120000+00101 according to MDT’s Bridge Management System—was built in 1977 and is not considered to be deficient based on its sufficiency rating. However, the existing structure has a roadway width of only 29 feet and poses a limitation for future widening at this location on Baker Avenue. The bridge falls within the portion of Baker Avenue included on the Urban Highway System but MDT’s Bridge Management System does not presently list this structure as an Urban System bridge. 9.1.5 Montana Air & Congestion Initiative (MACI) – Discretionary Program The MACI – Discretionary Program provides funding for projects in areas designated non-attainment or recognized as being “high-risk” for becoming non-attainment. Since 1998, MDT has used MACI-Discretionary funds to address CO and PM-10 problems in non-attainment and high-risk communities across Montana. District Administrators and local governments nominate projects cooperatively. Projects are prioritized and selected based on air quality benefits and other factors. The most beneficial projects to address these pollutants have been sweepers and flushers, intersection improvements and signal projects. While there is potential for the use of MACI funds to implement some corridor improvements, such funding may not be viable for improvements like those recommended for 2nd Street since work would focus on intersection improvements. MACI project selection is typically focused on those most beneficial to address the pollutants in the area and intersection improvements usually have the benefit of lowering overall CO emissions. Because Whitefish is not a high-risk area for CO, it is unlikely MACI funds would be identified as a potential funding source for intersection improvements projects. 9.1.6 TIGER Discretionary Grant The Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program, ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-4 funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), targets national and regional transportation projects that foster job creation, show strong economic benefits, and promote communities that are safer, cleaner and more livable. No direct local matching funds are required for the grants. The City of Whitefish submitted an application and was awarded a $3.5 million grant for improving 2nd Street between Spokane and Baker Avenues. The grant is intended for full reconstruction of the roadway, upgrades to sewer and water lines, installation of a new coordinated signal system, the addition of left turn lanes, streetscape enhancements, and modifications to parking along 2nd Street. The project supports the City’s efforts to revitalize existing infrastructure and encourage long-term economic growth in downtown Whitefish. 9.2 Potential Local Funding Sources 9.2.1 State Fuel Tax Apportionment to the City of Whitefish Under 15-70-101, MCA, Montana currently assesses a tax of $0.27 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 Federal-Aid Interstate and Primary System. All fuel tax funds allocated to the city governments must be used for the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and repair of rural roads or city streets and alleys. The funds may be used for the share that the city or county might otherwise expend for proportionate matching of Federal funds allocated for the construction of roads or streets on the Primary, Secondary, or Urban Systems. Priorities for these funds are established by the cities and counties receiving them. Revenues are generated through State gasoline taxes apportioned by the State of Montana and allocations to local governments vary each year. Within incorporated areas, the allocation amount depends upon population and the miles of streets and alleys in the City. For State Fiscal Year 2010, the allocation of state fuel tax funds to the City of Whitefish was about $156,000. 9.2.2 City of Whitefish General Fund This fund provides revenue for most major city functions like the administration of local government, and the departments of public services, including police, fire, and parks. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-5 Revenues for the fund are generated through the general fund mill levy on real and personal property and motor vehicles; licenses and permits; state and federal intergovernmental revenues; intergovernmental fund transfers; and charges for services. Minor transportation-related services are supported by this fund through the City of Whitefish Police Department. The Police Department is responsible for enforcing traffic laws on the street system. 9.2.3 Resort Tax Funds The City of Whitefish is one of seven incorporated areas within Montana that collects “resort” taxes. Resort communities are incorporated towns with populations less than 5,500 that meet specific resort qualifications defined by the State. The fundamental idea behind resort taxes is to allow places that get a lot of tourism to pay for the wear-and- tear on local infrastructure. In Whitefish, the resort tax amounts to a 2% percent tax on businesses such as restaurants, hotels and tourist-oriented retail stores. Resort tax revenue is also used as a major source of infrastructure funding in resort communities. The City of Whitefish earmarks 65% of annual resort tax revenue for street improvement projects, 25% goes to tax relief and the last 10% is divided between contributing businesses and local parks. During the fiscal year 2007, the City of Whitefish collected $1.6 million from resort tax revenue. It should be noted that the most recent information from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, estimates the population of the City of Whitefish to be nearly 8,300 residents. This population substantially exceeds the upper population threshold for resort communities of 5,500 established by State law. 9.2.4 Transportation Impact Fees Impact fees are increasingly being considered as a potential method for financing transportation infrastructure needs. Presently, the only a handful of communities in the state utilize impact fees programs. However, other local governments in Montana including the City of Whitefish are in the process of considering and implementing impact fee programs. Developer exactions and fees allow growth to pay for itself. The developers of new properties may be required to provide at least a portion of the added transportation system capacity necessitated by their development, or to make some cash contribution to the agency responsible for implementing the needed system improvements. Establishment of an equitable fee structure would be required to assess developers based upon the level of impact to the transportation system expected from each project. Such a fee structure could be based upon the number of additional vehicle trips generated, or upon a fundamental measure such as square footage of floor space. Once ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-6 the mechanism is in place, all new development would be reviewed by the local government and fees assessed accordingly. The City of Whitefish has adopted impact fees to help fund trails, the park maintenance facility, the emergency services building, city hall, water and sewer facilities, and storm water facilities. In the future, the City may expand the use of impact fees to help fund projects identified in its Transportation Plan. 9.2.5 Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Increment financing has been used in many municipalities in Montana to generate revenue for public improvements projects. As improvements are made within the district, and as property values increase, the incremental increases in property tax revenue are earmarked for this fund. The fund is then used for improvements within the district. Expenditures of revenue generated by this method are subject to certain spending restrictions and must be spent within the district. According to information from the City’s Growth Policy, Whitefish established an urban renewal plan and tax increment district in 1987. Since that time, the TIF district has generated over $12 million, and another $9.9 million has been raised through urban renewal bonds in 2000, 2001, and 2004. Numerous infrastructure projects have been financed by the increment directly and through urban renewal bonds including numerous street projects including reconstruction of Baker Avenue. TIF monies have also been used to help improvements and new construction of recreational facilities in the community. It is possible that TIF funds could be used to implement some of the identified enhancements to the US 93 corridor. Once all bond obligations are paid, the tax increment district in Whitefish is expected to sunset in 2020. 9.3 Regionally Significant Projects and Fiscal Constraint The FHWA’s planning guidance indicates before the agency can issue an environmental approval for a regionally significant project, the proposed project or project phase preliminary engineering, final design, right-of-way, utility relocation, or construction) must come from an approved, financially constrained Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Regionally significant projects typically include projects on a facility which serves regional transportation needs and typically includes principal arterial highways like US 93. Regionally significant projects in areas outside of Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) boundaries (like Whitefish) include all projects on principal arterial highways that add capacity or significantly change the facility’s operational characteristics. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-7 FHWA’s July 17, 2008 guidance (found in Appendix C) notes the most common types of highway improvements (pavement preservation, rehabilitation, reconstruction on or parallel to the existing alignment without adding lanes, safety improvements, and intersection modifications) are not regionally significant projects. FHWA will need to review the scope of any proposed changes to US 93 and determine if the proposed improvements meet the regionally significant definition. Fiscal constraint has been a key component of federal transportation legislation since 1991. Fiscal constraint provisions are intended to focus on available financial resources and help States prioritize decisions so those projects for which funding is reasonable expected can be advanced. The term financially constrained means that projects can be implemented with current or proposed revenue sources without affecting the operation and maintenance of the transportation system as a whole. Montana routinely develops a STIP showing priority transportation projects to be undertaken during the period covered by the plan (at least 3 years). MDT’s District Offices and the Project Analysis Bureau have critical roles in managing the planning process and programming funds for individual projects included on the STIP. MDT must ensure future improvements to the US 93 corridor are duly considered in the STIP and adequate and viable revenue sources are available to implement a reconstruction project or individual phases of such a project. 9.4 Future NEPA/MEPA Compliance Advancing either configuration to project development would require consulting with the FHWA to discuss the need for and scope of a re-evaluation of the Final EIS as it relates to the Whitefish Urban project area. FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A addresses re-evaluations and suggests such actions include both consultation with FHWA and a written re-evaluation to determine the validity of the Final EIS and ROD for the Whitefish Urban project area. The FHWA Montana Division Office would consider the information provided in the re- evaluation and make a decision regarding the need for a Supplemental EIS. If the re- evaluation demonstrates there are significant changes in impact status or document compliance, then some type of supplemental environmental documentation may be required. In this situation, MDT will coordinate with FHWA to determine the work effort and public involvement required to allow the project to progress. FHWA’s regulations (23 CFR 771.130) indicate a Supplemental EIS is needed when the agency determines that: ƒ Changes to the proposed action would result in significant environmental impacts that were not evaluated in the EIS; or ƒ New information or circumstances relevant to environmental concerns and bearings on the proposed action or its impacts would result in significant ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-8 environmental impacts not evaluated in the EIS. A Supplemental EIS will not be necessary where: ƒ The changes to the proposed action, new information, or new circumstances result in a lessening of adverse environmental impacts evaluated in the EIS without causing other environmental impacts that are significant and were not evaluated in the EIS; or ƒ The FHWA decides to approve an alternative fully evaluated in an approved final EIS but not identified as the preferred alternative. If it is determined a Supplemental EIS is not necessary, the ROD as it relates to the Whitefish Urban project would need to be revised. FHWA’s regulations addressing changes to the preferred alternative identified in the Final EIS and ROD, listed in 23 CFR 771.127(b), are shown below: “If the Administration subsequently wishes to approve an alternative which was not identified as the preferred alternative but was fully evaluated in the final EIS, or proposes to make substantial changes to the mitigation measures or findings discussed in the ROD, a revised ROD shall be subject to review by those Administration offices which reviewed the final EIS under §771.125(c). To the extent practicable the approved revised ROD shall be provided to all persons, organizations, and agencies that received a copy of the final EIS pursuant to §771.125(g).” This corridor study and its supporting documents will provide considerable information that can be directly considered in a re-evaluation of the Final EIS or for a Supplemental EIS if FHWA determines such a document is necessary. It is worth noting that MDT recently re-evaluated the Final EIS as it related to the Whitefish-West project. Based on the re-evaluation, it was determined a Supplemental EIS was not needed and the Whitefish West project has advanced to the design stage. 9.5 Summary of Public Comment on the Draft Corridor Study Final public meetings for the Whitefish Urban Corridor Study of US 93 were held on April 26, 2010 at the Whitefish City Council Chambers. The purpose of the meetings was to present and discuss the major findings and recommendations from the Public Draft Corridor Study with staff from the City of Whitefish, the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), and the public. Presentations about the project were made at each meeting and opportunities to comment on and discuss all aspects of the study were provided at the meetings. MDT and its consultant met with City of Whitefish staff and CAC members prior to the public information meeting. Corridor needs and goals were presented, followed by a discussion about the wide range of corridor options considered in the study. The ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-9 evaluation process and results were then presented with more a more detailed discussion on the two options which were advanced in the study. Planning level cost estimates were shared along with the anticipated next steps in the corridor study process. Discussions at the City and CAC meeting were focused on the following questions: • Would the culverts conveying the Whitefish River beneath Spokane Avenue be replaced with a bridge? If so, appropriate bicycle and pedestrian accommodations should be considered at the crossing. • Is there enough room to accommodate three lanes of traffic, bike lanes, and sidewalks on Spokane and Baker Avenues? • What impacts will result if Spokane and Baker Avenues are reconstructed as three-lane facilities? • Will there be bicycle and pedestrian accommodations on a 7th Street bridge if it’s built? The final public information meeting for the Whitefish Urban Corridor Study of US 93 occurred between 6:30 and 8:30 p.m. Twenty-three (23) people signed the attendance sheets at the meeting; however, others joined the meeting while it was underway and did not sign the attendance sheets for the meeting. The meeting was attended by the Mayor of Whitefish, several members of the Whitefish City Council, the City Manager, and staff from the City’s Public Works and Planning Departments. The meeting included a presentation of corridor study findings and recommendations similar to that provided earlier to City staff and CAC members. The majority of the meeting was devoted to receiving comments and answering questions posed by the audience. Comments and questions heard from the public during the meeting related to these major topics: • Potential impacts of reconstructing Spokane and Baker Avenues, particularly the loss of on-street parking;. • Potential needs for new right-of-way along the corridor; • Safety and increased traffic concerns at City parks along Baker Avenue; • Recommendations for improvements to 2nd Street and its signalized intersections; • Truck accommodations in the corridor under each design configuration; • Benefits of a bypass around Whitefish and its potential costs; • The long-term obligation to accommodate trucks on two roadways in the City if either design option for the corridor is advanced; • The need to communicate future decisions about corridor improvements; and • Providing follow-ups to public comments on the Corridor Study. Additional information about the April 26, 2010 meetings can be found in the summaries prepared for the meetings. These summaries are on file with MDT’s Statewide and Urban Planning Section. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-10 APPENDIX A includes a matrix with written comments received on the Draft Corridor Study and responses to the comments. Many of the written comments received were similar to comments offered during the April 26 meetings for the project. 9.6 Next Steps 9.6.1 Determine Options to Forward into Project Development The decision makers from MDT and FWA will need to determine which improvement options, if any, are to be forwarded into project development. 9.6.2 Determine Long-range Funding Sources for Corridor Improvements MDT, FHWA and the City of Whitefish will need to develop a long-range funding plan for corridor improvements that fully consider the federal, state and local requirements tied to the use of these funding sources. Committing federal funding to corridor improvements will require that projects be nominated and programmed by MDT through its STIP process. This programming covers a variety of project phases. As noted earlier in this Part, Baker Avenue north of 7th Street is a state-designated Urban Route and eligible to receive Surface Transportation Program - Urban (STPU) funds. However, Baker Avenue south of 7th Street and 13th Street between Spokane and Baker Avenues are not on the state-designated Urban Highway System and are, therefore, not eligible for STPU funds. These roadways could be added to the Urban Highway System at the request of the local government. However, such additions require MDT’s review and support for the proposed change and the Montana Transportation Commission must ultimately approve the request. It should be noted any addition to the urban system would generally require removal of mileage from the existing urban system. MDT and the City of Whitefish would need to develop cost sharing agreements to specify which entity would be responsible for funding the amenities included with corridor improvements. 9.6.3 Complete the Environmental Review Process MDT must complete an environmental review process to document NEPA/MEPA compliance before federal and state funding can be programmed for the corridor improvements and design activities can actually begin. As noted above, re-evaluation of the Final EIS as it relates to the Whitefish Urban project area must be completed to determine whether a Supplemental EIS is necessary. Based on the findings of the re- evaluation, FHWA and MDT would need to make a decision about the appropriate environmental review process and ultimately revise the Record of Decision for the Whitefish Urban project area based on the outcome of the process. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-11 The work of this study, together with the Whitefish Transportation Plan, should provide much of the information and analyses needed for the environmental review process. However, existing cultural resource surveys, wetlands delineations, or noise evaluations would need to be updated or supplemented as part of the environmental review process. 9.6.4 Begin Design Activities for Corridor Improvements Projects As soon as possible after completing the environmental review process and necessary programming decisions have been made, it is recommended that design activities be initiated on corridor improvements projects based on their identified priorities. These activities would include the surveys needed for design and the development of specific scopes of work for corridor projects and the development of traffic studies to provide current traffic counts, intersection turning movement counts, projected traffic volumes, and level of service and capacity information for the relevant intersections and corridor road segment. Coordination would need to occur to ensure designs incorporate any necessary or planned infrastructure work by the City and to identify amenities that would be part of the improvement projects. Design activities would also identify and facilitate necessary right-of-way acquisitions within each project area. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX A: Public Draft Corridor Study Comment/Response Matrix Comments Received on the Public Draft Corridor Study COMMENT DATE SOURCE OF COMMENT Comment #1 04/12/10 Don Spivey Email (to Dan Norderud) Comment #2 04/17/10 Don Spivey Email (to Dan Norderud) Comment #3 04/19/10 Shelby Powell Email (to Necile Lorang – City of Whitefish) Comment #4 04/19/10 No Name Via MDT Website (13:04:35) Comment #5 04/19/10 No Name Via MDT Website (09:38:07) Comment #6 04/20/10 Mary Jo Look Telephone Call (to Dan Norderud) Comment #7 04/26/10 Jim Thompson Comment Form from Public Meeting Comment #8 04/26/10 Jerry Luderman Comment Form from Public Meeting Comment #9 04/26/10 Karl Borchers Comment Letter Comment #10 04/26/10 Rebecca Norton Comment Form from Public Meeting Comment #11 04/29/10 John Chaney Comment Letter to RPA (identical letter sent to Sheila Ludlow at MDT) Comment #12 04/30/10 Jan Metzmaker Comment Form from Public Meeting Comment #13 05/05/10 Konrad Binder via MDT Website (14:44:56) Comment #14 05/13/10 Brian Schott via MDT Website (12:49:26) Comment #15 05/13/10 Schott via MDT Website (21:27:59) Comment #16 05/14/10 Mary Jo Look Comment Form from Public Meeting Comment #17 05/14/10 Mary Jane Barrett Comment Form from Public Meeting MDT appreciates your taking the time to comment on this study. If an improvement option is forwarded, your comments will be provided to the project team. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- A-1 APPENDIX A: COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PUBLIC DRAFT CORRIDOR STUDY # COMMENT RECEIVED RESPONSE 1 04/12/10 Don Spivey Email (to Dan Norderud) Dan Comment 1-A I haven't been through the study in detail but a few things popped out that I'd like to be able to discuss in the CAC meeting. I note in your estimated construction cost summaries for the two preferred alternatives you have noted that they do not include costs for a bridge replacing the 3 culverts on the Spokane Whitefish River crossing. That would imply MDT has decided not to build the bridge. Comment 1-B As you may recall I've discussed the role of that "bridge" in our Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan. We have at various times in the past discussed with MDT the desirability of hanging a pedestrian bridge under the then proposed bridge replacement as the means for us to transit from the East to the West side of the River where we have easements in place to continue our main stem bike path south along the river toward the playing fields near hwy 40. During those earlier conversations MDT seemed willing to seriously consider that option. Comment 1-C What now? For safety reasons we need a way to make that east/west transition without climbing up to Spokane and making a grade level crossing at that point. As I have no idea what is actually planned at that river crossing I would request that you come to the CAC meeting with some response to that critical need. Comment 1-D In both the preferred alternatives you are suggesting 3 lanes of traffic along Spokane. One from 2nd to 7th and one from 2nd to 13th. In the 3 lane sections as well as the 4lane section along Spokane, a separated, boulevarded bike/pedestrian path is desirable and I'm not sure I see that discussed. Comment 1-E Widening Spokane in itself represents a challenge. Response 1-A The culverts beneath Spokane Avenue function acceptably from a hydraulic standpoint and have considerable remaining service life. There is also sufficient room to accommodate minor widening of Spokane Avenue at this crossing if needed. When the culverts require replacement, MDT will review the river crossing options (bridge or culvert) at that time. Response 1-B Local preferences for replacing the culverts with a bridge and making desired trail connections have been noted in the discussion of future improvement options for Spokane Avenue and for pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The Corridor Study notes future improvement options should include elements that support the community’s vision for its trail network where practicable. Response 1-C This topic was discussed at the April 26, 2010 CAC meeting. Specific design details for corridor improvement projects, including pedestrian and bicyclist accommodations, would be worked out if improvement options are forwarded into project development. Response 1-D Both improvement options allow for on street 5-foot bike lanes and a sidewalk. Response 1-E Thank you for your comment. ---PAGE BREAK--- A-2 2 Comment 1-F We currently have a narrow bike lane on Baker from the Whitefish River Bridge all the way south to 19th St. The two preferred alternatives funnel more traffic along Baker for different distances but for the sections of Baker carrying that additional load, for safety reasons, we again need a separated bike/pedestrian path as well as a separated path on the rebuild of the Baker St Bridge. Comment 1-G In the Contra Flow alternative the included section of 7th St. including the bridge needs a separated bike/pedestrian path. We have always had plans to provide such path on 7th St. from Geddes to Karrow and should this alternative be chosen we would undoubtedly plan to provide a path from Geddes east to the schools as that would become a major route for children getting to both the elementary and High school. I look forward to discussing all of these in the CAC meeting. Comment 1-H As you know I've always been a supporter of a By-pass, or at least a truck route, either of which, in my opinion, would make these hwy solutions easier to accommodate. 04/17/10 Don Spivey Email (to Dan Norderud) Dan-- Here are some additional comments. (primarily focused on the Executive summary) Comment 2-A Existing Transportation conditions-- No mention to Baker between 2nd and 6th, I would think it is nearing capacity as it, among other considerations, leads directly into the only practical way to get to the north side of town (the viaduct). Comment 2-B Community characteristics the projection of 6900 additional housing units seems excessive Comment 2-C Two preferred alternatives Both Baker and Spokane have long sections of 3 lane configurations and I wonder where you will get the space for those lanes plus separated bike paths and sidewalks on both Baker and Spokane. There is also the question of parking and on Spokane the "Trees". Additional right-of- Response 1-F The Corridor Study presents improvement options that seek to perpetuate and/or enhance existing pedestrian and bicyclist facilities within the corridor. If an improvement option is forwarded to project development you concerns will be forwarded. Response 1-G Thank you for your comment. Response 1-H Thank you for your comment. Response 2-A Thank you for your comment. Response 2-B This projection is from the growth assumptions generated for the Whitefish Growth Policy. Response 2-C Thank you for your comment. ---PAGE BREAK--- A-3 way will be hard to come by on both as well-for several reasons. With the increased traffic on Spokane and Baker, 5' bike lanes immediately adjacent to large truck traffic is not safe. Comment 2-D The Spokane Ave. "Bridge" The study talks about installing this bridge sometime in the future (maybe) but well beyond the scope of this study. Certainly the contra option and probably the modified alternative will require work on the current river crossing to accommodate the additional lanes, bike paths and sidewalks. If no bridge then a path from North to South on the west side with a pedestrian/bike tunnel to avoid an unsafe grade level crossing (not interested in bringing trail users up to street level and then sending them south to 13th across US93 and back up to the south side of the river and down to the trail at that point) Comment 2-E In 8.6.1 You use the term "grade-separated trail" Does that mean a hanging bike and pedestrian bridge under a new Spokane Ave, which is what we always wanted and have discussed with MDT? Comment 2-F I've already commented on 5' bike lanes on busy US highways--particularly for novice riders and children. Comment 2-G Truck turnings Truck turning lanes on 2nd at Baker and at Spokane (particularly at Baker). How are you going to achieve that without taking out Glacier Bank and potentially other businesses? Even today trucks pulling doubles have to take most of Spokane to safely execute a turn south at the Spokane/2nd St. intersection. Comment 2-H Corridor Study and the City "Tiger" grant Seems like you've included the "equivalent" of the Tiger grant funds to rebuild 2nd from Spokane to Baker in you cost estimates. That section will be completed long before any of this study is undertaken. I wonder if somehow that should not be reflected and acknowledged in this document. That's enough from me.....Don Spivey Response 2-D This study does not go into specific design details for corridor improvement options, including pedestrian and bicyclist accommodations. These would be investigated if improvement options are forwarded into project development. Response 2-E As stated the preference for the grade-separated pedestrian/bicyclist trail is the community’s goal. This study does not include the replacement of the culverts with a bridge. A grade-separated trail would be investigated at the time the culvert replacement project is forwarded into project development. Response 2-F Thank you for your comment. Response 2-G Future improvement options, if advanced, would include modifications to curb radii to accommodate turns by large trucks. This may require minor amounts of additional right- of-way from the corners at the noted intersections. Response 2-H The City’s TIGER grant award is to fund some of the recommended improvement options. The TIGER grant funding is acknowledged in the study under the funding discussion. ---PAGE BREAK--- A-4 3 04/19/10 Shelby Powell Email (to Necile Lorang – City of Whitefish) Comment 3-A I read in the Daily Interlake today about the planned proposal for Baker Avenue to be widened as a thoroughfare for trucks. May I just say, "that's just crazy"! That does not solve the problem at all of trucks going through town. Why is this plan even being considered? Comment 3-B The speed limit on Baker Avenue is 25 miles per hour, and with good reason. It's in the middle of town with a kiddie park, a bridge over the river, tennis courts and ducks crossing the street. It's a beautiful area with lots of pedestrians. Comment 3-C Whatever happened to the Karrow idea of re-routing Highway 93? Maybe even consider re-routing trucks even further out from town than Karrow. There has to be a better solution. Ugh. Back to the drawing board is my suggestion. Response 3-A This comment was received after an article about the Draft Corridor Study with a misleading title --“State Wants Baker Avenue for Truck Route”—appeared in the April 19, 2010 edition of the Daily Inter Lake. Improving the US 93 corridor through Whitefish should include the actions needed to accommodate current and future demands of all facility users. The Contra-Flow and Modified Alternative C (Offset) configurations provide alternate ways that traffic could be routed through the downtown to help reduce truck volumes on 2nd Street and make truck movements less difficult. If Baker Avenue and new east-west connections at either 7th or 13th Street were made part of US 93, there would be an obligation to ensure that the facility could accommodate use by all types of vehicles that might travel this NHS route. Response 3-B Thank you for your comment. Response 3-C The Whitefish Transportation Plan examined a variety of western route alternates (bypasses) around the southwestern portion of the community but did not recommend the development of a western bypass route for US 93. Travel demand modeling for the bypass options illustrated that a bypass would not solve the future traffic issues along US 93 corridor. 4 A question, comment or request has been submitted via the "Contact Us" web page. Name: No name provided Submitted: 04/19/2010 13:04:35 Comment or Question: Comment 4 Why are we even considering making Baker Avenue in Whitefish a thorough fare for trucks? The speed limit there is 25 miles per hour, and with good reason. It's in the middle of town with a kiddie park, a bridge over the river, tennis courts and ducks crossing the street. This doesn’t solve any problems of getting trucks out of town at all. What an idiotic idea! Response 4 This comment was received after an article about the Draft Corridor Study with a misleading title --“State Wants Baker Avenue for Truck Route”—appeared in the April 19, 2010 edition of the Daily Inter Lake. Improving the US 93 corridor through Whitefish should include the actions needed to accommodate current and ---PAGE BREAK--- A-5 future demands of all facility users. The Contra-Flow and Modified Alternative C (Offset) configurations provide alternate ways that traffic could be routed through the downtown to help reduce truck volumes on 2nd Street and make truck movements less difficult. If Baker Avenue and new east-west connections at either 7th or 13th Street were made part of US 93, there would be an obligation to ensure that the facility could accommodate use by all types of vehicles that might travel this NHS route. 5 A question, comment or request has been submitted via the "Contact Us" web page. Name: No name provided Submitted: 04/19/2010 09:38:07 Comment or Question: Comment 5 I just read where Whitefish is looking to use Baker Ave to re-route truck traffic. My comment is, the bypass is being worked on through Kalispell so why not at least plan to continue this for routing around Whitefish? To me it seems crazy to go around Kalispell only to T back into highway 93 and route all that traffic through Whitefish. Ideally, the bypass should be routed down Farm To Market Road and connected back to Highway 93 where Farm to Market road ends now. If land acquisition is a problem, there should be plenty of other options for connecting to highway 93 at some point North of Whitefish. Response 5 The Whitefish Transportation Plan examined a variety of western route alternates (bypasses) around the southwestern portion of the community but did not recommend the development of a western bypass route for US 93. Travel demand modeling for the bypass options illustrated that a bypass would not solve the future traffic issues along US 93 corridor. 6 04/20/10 Mary Jo Look Telephone Call (to Dan Norderud) Comment 6-A Mary Jo Look called and commented that past input from the Citizens Working Group was being ignored in the Corridor Study. Comment 6-B opposes the bridge at 7th Street for cost reasons and felt it was unnecessary. Comment 6-C supports efforts to improve signals on 2nd Street and reiterated the need for turn lanes on 2nd Street at Baker Avenue and Spokane Avenue. She said the CWG opposed double lanes on Spokane or Baker Avenues. Response 6-A Past input from the Citizen’s Working Group (CWG) established for MDT’s design projects in Whitefish was reviewed during the development of the Corridor Study. This input is acknowledged in several parts of the study including information that defines issues and overall corridor needs. Comment 6-B Thank you for your comment. Response 6-C Thank you for your comment. ---PAGE BREAK--- A-6 Comment 6-D advocates for a bypass and provided reasons why she favored the idea. Response 6-D The Whitefish Transportation Plan examined a variety of western route alternates (bypasses) around the southwestern portion of the community but did not recommend the development of a western bypass route for US 93. Travel demand modeling for the bypass options illustrated that a bypass would not solve the future traffic issues along US 93 corridor. 7 04/26/10 Jim Thompson Comment Form Comment 7-A What about the people living on Baker and right of way acquisition. Can the expansion to 3 lanes be accommodated with the current road width of Baker? Comment 7-B How will this impact Riverside Park? It seems a lot more traffic will go down Baker through Riverside Park where a lot of people walk. Comment 7-C It seems like these studies were done only on traffic flow, not including the impact of the people living on Baker Avenue and Spokane Avenue. To me, it seems like the problem on Spokane/93 will be spread to Baker, not really solving a traffic pattern but creating 2 main roads in Whitefish with traffic problems. Of course I am biased, I do live on Baker Avenue. Response 7-A If an improvement option is forwarded into project development, the right-of-way needs would be determined. Response 7-B If improvement options are forwarded in to project development the impacts would be investigated and if necessary mitigated through the environmental review and design process. Comment 7-C Thank you for your comment. 8 04/26/10 Jerry Luderman Comment Form Comment 8-A Long-time citizen recommends widening Spokane Ave. between 6th and 2nd St. as much as possible without impacting the trees. This could help to preserve on- street parking as the travel way is expanded to 3 lanes. Comment 8-B Also suggest prohibiting left turns on 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Streets at Spokane intersections to prevent congestion due to vehicles waiting to make those sorts of turns. Response 8-A Thank you for your comment. Response 8-B Thank you for your comment. 9 04/26/10 Karl Borchers Comment Letter Comment 9-A Reconstructing US 93 using Baker Avenue and 13th Comment 9-A Thank you for your comment. ---PAGE BREAK--- A-7 Street makes the most sense. Comment 9-B It is really a “no brainer” to avoid building a bridge at the widest point on the Whitefish River at 7th Street at the most environmentally sensitive place at a cost of about $9 million more than the alternate route would cost. The $9 million saved could be used on one or two other road projects in the area. Thus these funds could be put to better use. Traffic has been going a few blocks either way for many years to cross the river with no particular problems. Why change this at such a high cost? Comment 9-C I realize there are likely people in Whitefish who have an agenda to place a bridge at 7th Street. I would hope MDOT would see the bigger picture, avoid personal agendas, and environmental problems, and spend the highway funds in such a way as to construct the most miles of road for the money. Comment 9-B Thank you for your comment. Response 9-C Thank you for your comment. 10 04/26/10 Rebecca Norton Comment Form Comment 10-A I live near the WF River footbridge off of 6th so spend a lot of time in the Riverside Park & my office is only ½ mile away on Spokane between 4th and 5th Street so walk this corridor a lot. I’d rather not have the bridge off 7th unless you are using 7th to Karrow as a truck bypass to 93. Comment 10-B But I also already see people not stopping for pedestrians – even with florescent signs and marked crossing lines. And there is a lot of bike/walking traffic & kids, kids, kids on Baker. I also wonder how very large trucks will be turning and where. Kids around this corridor frequently and very often acting impulsively. Comment 10-C Also, I worry about dust/noise at my office and how much of the front of the property will be taken. Lots of parking on street already. Music school adds more kids, I like having a park for kids and families in the heart of town without excessive noise/traffic for the long run. Comment 10-D Was hoping trucks would have an alternative route. Thanks. Response 10-A Thank you for your comment. Response 10-B Thank you for your comment. Response 10-C Thank you for your comment. Response 10-D The Whitefish Transportation Plan examined a variety of western route alternates (bypasses) around the southwestern portion of the community but did not recommend the development of a western bypass route for US 93. Travel demand modeling for the bypass options illustrated that a bypass would not solve the future traffic ---PAGE BREAK--- A-8 issues along US 93 corridor. 11 04/29/10 John Chaney Comment Letter to RPA (Sheila Ludlow from MDT received a similar letter from Mr. Chaney on 4-29-10) Dear Mr. Norderud: I would like to make the following comments on the Whitefish Urban Corridor Study of US 93: Comment 11-A 1. A “spot” change should be made at the intersections of Spokane and Second and Baker and Second - A signal with left turn arrows. This is a change which could be made now that would provide immediate relief at these two intersections, Comment 11-B 2. I feel that both Spokane Ave. and Baker Ave. should be kept two way. One way streets will negatively affect the impact of traffic flows on the community. Comment 11-C 3. The bridge at 7th Street should be taken out of the plan for a number of reasons. First, the original plan was predicated on the City of Whitefish’s plan to extend East 7th Street to intersect with Spokane. It is unlikely that the City of Whitefish will be willing at this time to spend the considerable funds needed to make this extension. Without this extension, the need for the bridge will be greatly lessened. Second, the significant cost of this bridge will likely delay the funding of the overall project. Third, the building of this bridge will have significant negative environmental consequences as it crosses both a river and wetlands. For these reasons, the alternative routes on 13th and 19th Streets are preferred over the bridge option. I feel that these routes provide sufficient conductivity between Baker and Spokane Avenues. These viewpoints are reflected at several planning levels. In the Whitefish Urban Corridor Study of US 93 by Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc (pp 5-11 to 5-12) it is stated that “Comments heard during the development of the U.S. Highway 93 Somers to Whitefish West FEIS and the City’s Growth Policy suggest that not all community members support the concept of making this connection [the Seventh Street Bridge] because it would require a long and expensive bridge and cross the widest part of the Whitefish River’s floodplain and associated wetlands. Securing necessary environmental permits for a new 7th Street bridge may also be difficult if other options resulting in less impact to the river and wetland areas are viable.” In addition, both the Whitefish City Council and the Whitefish City-County Planning Board have agreed with the recommendation contained in the Whitefish Response 11-A The Corridor Study recommends improvement options to add appropriate left turn lanes and upgrading signals on 2nd Street. Response 11-B Both the recommended improvement options provide for two-way on Spokane Avenue and Baker Avenue. Response 11-C Your comments not supporting the 7th St bridge (Contra- flow configuration) are noted. ---PAGE BREAK--- A-9 Transportation Plan-2009 (pp 6-13 to 6-14) prepared by Robert Peccia & Associates where the 7th Bridge is placed in Implementation Category C (the lowest priority). In the Urban Corridor Study of US 93 (p ES-11) under the Contra-Flow Configuration, the 7th Bridge and 7th Street Connection are placed in Priority 4, the second lowest priority. In summary I feel that the construction of an approximately 575 foot bridge over the wetlands and Whitefish River at 7th Street would result in significant environmental damage. Thus I request that the decision makers reject the Contra-Flow Configuration and select the other configuration advanced to second level screening-the Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration. Thank you for your consideration of these ideas. 12 04/30/10 Jan Metzmaker Comment Form Comment 12 I am VERY much opposed to routing ANY truck traffic down Baker Avenue in Whitefish. With the Wave, medical offices, kiddie park, Riverside Park and other businesses on Baker, additional truck traffic would be hazardous. Keep the traffic on Highway 93 and leave Baker as it is. Baker is also a bike route and relatively safe to travel. Response 12 Thank you for your comment. 13 A question, comment or request has been submitted via the "Contact Us" web page. Name: Konrad Binder Submitted: 05/05/2010 14:44:56 Comment or Question: I would like to provide some feedback on the Whitefish Corridor Study: Comment 13-A As the town is so small, it seems to me that it makes sense to minimize the number of large roadways that go through the town, especially when one of the streets in consideration goes right through a town Park. Comment 13-B As Spokane is the main corridor today, the obvious thing to do is to improve Spokane, but keep Baker Ave as is, or even make it less traffic friendly (i.e. add roundabouts or speed bumps) to divert traffic to Spokane, where it should be. Response 13-A Thank you for your comment. Response 13-B Thank you for your comment. ---PAGE BREAK--- A-10 Comment 13-C From a high level I see how it looks like a good idea to have Baker take some of the flow, however as there is the Kiddie Park that Baker cuts right through today, any increase in lanes or any additional traffic there is a very bad idea. Studies show that increased lanes on a roadway add to increased speeds of vehicles (regardless of posted limits). If anything were to happen to increase traffic through a park area, a pedestrian bridge or tunnel should be added to the plan. I dont recall seeing any of that addressed in this doc. Let's not lose a kid or have a number of horrible accidents before the idea to put in a solution is addressed. It would appear to me that the plan was designed more for traffic flow patterns, without taking these community elements into account. This plan does not account for the livable access of the area, with people, kids, bikes and community overlooked. Comment 13-D This area is already a high pedestrian area (with the Post Office and Park), and bikes (with Bike lanes on Baker today). We should be building a plan to increase foot and bike usage, not more lanes for logging truck through the heart of our town and Parks. We must remember that it is very hard to go back, once we add lanes and pavement, they will be there forever. Let's keep the flow on Spokane, where it belongs. Two dangerous and busy streets are not better than one. Comment 13 –E And adding a bridge across the river on 7th? Waste of money, ugly and bad for the environment. Nothing good about that option. Response 13-C Pedestrian safety and crossing provisions on Baker Avenue would be examined if improvement options are advanced into project development. Response 13-D Thank you for your comment. Response 13-E This study does not make a decision on which configuration to use. Your comment is noted. 14 A question, comment or request has been submitted via the "Contact Us" web page. Name: Brian Schott Submitted: 05/13/2010 12:49:26 Comment or Question: The corridor study in Whitefish should be re-thought. Comment 14-A When Baker Avenue was recommended to be upgraded to 3 lanes and have truck traffic on it, there was no Whitefish WAVE and many other businesses in this zone where there is a lot of pedestrian and bike traffic. Comment 14-B Response 14-A Thank you for your comment. Response 14-B ---PAGE BREAK--- A-11 Trucks should be kept to Spokane. Improve that street and keep the trucks on the highway please rather than ruining a nice street through the heart of town. Comment 14-C Baker Avenue has 2 parks that it dissects a Kiddie Park on one side and the tennis courts and bike/pedestrian paths on the other by the river. Comment 14-D By widening Baker and putting trucks onto it, it will ruin a nice part of our town and increase chances for car/bike/ped collisions. Already cars do not yield to the crosswalk after the bridge. Comment 14-F The studies being done have not anticipated a change of consciousness where people need to be encouraged to get their cars off the road and walk or bike for short trips in town. Comment 13-G We should not always be building for more traffic, but looking at ways to keep things moving slowly and safely through town. Increasing speeds on Baker is not the right solution. Comment 13-H Spokane is the right place for trucks. Comment 13-I Also, the idea of a big bridge across the Whitefish River is environmentally questionable and too expensive. Thanks for your time. Thank you for your comment. Response 14-C Thank you for your comment. Response 14-D Pedestrian safety and crossing provisions on Baker Avenue would be examined if improvement options are advanced into project development. Comment 14-F Thank you for your comment. Response 13-G The study did not recommend increasing speeds on Baker. This study does not go into specific design details for corridor improvement options, including pedestrian and bicyclist accommodations. These would be investigated if improvement options are forwarded into project development. Response 13-H Thank you for your comment. Response 13-I Thank you for your comment. 15 A question, comment or request has been submitted via the "Contact Us" web page. Name: Schott Submitted: 05/13/2010 21:27:59 Comment or Question: Comment 15-A I think it's in the best interest of Whitefish to keep all of the traffic on Spokane Ave rather than to expand Baker Avenue and make that a truck route. Comment 15-B Seems like pushing traffic to Baker, not only separates the West side of Whitefish from the town center, but is Response 15-A Thank you for your comment. Response 15-B Thank you for your comment. ---PAGE BREAK--- A-12 going to be bad for the community. Comment 15-C Adding traffic to the already busy Baker will lessen the quality of our "pedestrian/bike friendly" community. Baker has a lot of foot traffic, whether it's bikers at the bike path crossing, folks going to the post office or banks, or parents taking their children to the Kiddie Park. Comment 15-D I think there needs to be a study about the non- automobile traffic that uses Baker or crosses Baker. If that were taken into account, I don't think you would be considering Baker as an option for an Urban Corridor. Response 15-C Pedestrian safety and crossing provisions on Baker Avenue would be examined if improvement options are advanced into project development. Response 15-D If an improvement option is forwarded into project development the Community of Whitefish would need to provide non-motorized vehicle data. 16 05/14/10 Mary Jo Look Comment Form Comment 16-A The US 93 Project has been studied since the EIS came out in 1994. During these 16 years Whitefish has had considerable growth. A Citizen Working Group of 14 people who lived in Whitefish started working with WGM on this EIS plan in 2005 until 2007, and it was determined that this plan was “outdated”, as even, at that time, Spokane and Baker Avenue were crowded, and it was determined that 2nd St. between Baker and Spokane needed to remain 2 lane road through town as there are businesses on both sides of the street that need the parking. This also applies to Baker and Spokane Ave. There really is no other alternative – through the business core. Comment 16-B The idea of building a 7th St. Bridge from Spokane to Baker would also require widening the existing Baker St. Bridge. This all is far too expensive to justify what it would accomplish. Comment 16-C Traffic on Baker is near maximum now, and if it were considered to be part of US 93, it would require at least 6 traffic signals (at 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 13th, 17th or 18th (whichever is the road to the new Fire-Police Station). It has pedestrian traffic as there are “2 Churches”, a “kiddie park” – tennis courts, 2 Banks, City Post Office, residential homes, and businesses, and needs on the street parking. The intersection at 2nd and Baker is too narrow for the Logging and long Semi-trucks to negotiate the turn. Safety, also, would be a big issue. Response 16-A Thank you for your comment. Response 16-B Thank you for your comment. Response 16-C The recommended configurations that have been examined in detail do not require traffic signals at all of the locations you identify. Future improvements options at 2nd and Baker recommend modifications to accommodate truck turning movements. ---PAGE BREAK--- A-13 Comment 16-D As I see it – as a temporary alternate, but the beginning of a permanent alternate road, and with the least amount of property disruption or impact on businesses and neighborhoods, would be to: Starting from the US 93-Highway 40 Intersection, south of Whitefish, build a 2 lane road going West until it reaches the Power Lines or Blanchard Lake Road, which turns into Karrow Ave-then meeting US 93N West of Whitefish, with a traffic signal with a left turn lane and left run signal. It is not the best- as a permanent bypass should go west of Grouse Mountain. This road is almost necessary as 2nd Street from Spokane to Baker is to be rebuilt soon and US 93 must remain open. Do hope this may be a consideration. It appears workable and, maybe, the least expensive. Response 16-D The Whitefish Transportation Plan examined a variety of western route alternates (bypasses) around the southwestern portion of the community but did not recommend the development of a western bypass route for US 93. Travel demand modeling for the bypass options illustrated that a bypass would not solve the future traffic issues along US 93 corridor. 17 05/14/10 Mary Jane Barrett Comment Form Comment 17-A 1) You will destroy Parks and river. We have a village atmosphere on Baker with high pedestrian, bike, water recreation, tennis courts. The use will be destroyed along with the visual & noise. A travesty after all the work on Baker. A health club – physician’s clinics – will impact emergency access onto Baker- parking destroyed- churches. Businesses will go out of business. Comment 17-B 2) Put more stop signs & widen highway already in use. Comment 17-C A very bad idea to make Baker a truck Route. Response 17-A Thank you for your comment. Response 17-B Thank you for your comment. Response 17-C Please review the responses provided in response 2-A. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B: Public and Agency Involvement During the Corridor Study ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL (04/24/07) Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 April 23, 2007 04/16/07 Public Information Meeting #1 Summary Page 1 of 8 Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 Public Information Meeting #1 Summary (04/16/07) Introduction A public open house informational meeting for the Whitefish Transportation Plan and Urban Corridor Study of US 93 projects was held on Monday, April 16, 2007 in the Whitefish City Council Chambers, 402 East Second Street. The meeting occurred between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. and included a PowerPoint presentation beginning about 5:15 p.m. The meeting was attended by the following agency and Consultant Team members: Karin Hilding City of Whitefish Sheila Ludlow MDT Statewide and Urban Planning Section (Helena) Shane Stack MDT Missoula District Office (Missoula) Susan Kilcrease MDT Environmental Services (Missoula) Jeff Key Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA - Helena) Dan Norderud Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA - Helena) Twenty-six (26) people signed the attendance sheets for the meeting, although more than a dozen other persons joined the meeting as it progressed. A copy of the sign-in sheets from the meeting is attached. Meeting Purposes The purposes of the public meeting were to: • Introduce the Whitefish Transportation Plan and Urban Corridor Study of US 93 projects currently underway in the community. • Introduce the project team and convey appropriate contact information. • Present the project schedule and development parameters. • Solicit input from the community on transportation-related issues and concerns. • Provide an opportunity for formal and informal contact with the various responsible parties for the Whitefish Transportation Plan and Urban Corridor Study projects. ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 April 23, 2007 04/16/07 Public Information Meeting #1 Summary Page 2 of 8 Meeting Summary The meeting began with the informal review of various display boards positioned around the meeting room depicting the study area for the Transportation Plan and Corridor Study and other known information about the Whitefish area road and street system. Displays provided information about functional classifications, existing traffic volumes and lane configurations, traffic signal locations, crash locations, pedestrian/bicycle facilities, and past transportation projects in the community. Another set of display boards illustrated known transportation issues related to the following: Traffic Operations, Safety, Trucks, Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities, Parking, Land Use/Growth, Aesthetics, and the Natural and Human Environments. Each board provided a broad issue statement for each topic and a list of specific conditions or concerns relating to the issue. The display boards served as contact points for informal conversations between the public and members of the Consultant Team. Jeff Key of Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA) began the meeting at 5:15 p.m. and introduced representatives of the City of Whitefish, MDT and Consultant Team members. He then asked those in attendance to introduce themselves before beginning his formal presentation about the Transportation Plan and Urban Corridor Study projects. Meeting Presentation: Mr. Key used a PowerPoint presentation to provide an overview of the Transportation Plan and Urban Corridor Study projects. He presented background information about each project, summarized major work tasks and milestones for the projects, and outlined planned public outreach activities. Additionally, the slides identified the study area boundary for the Transportation Plan (the same area considered in the community’s Growth Policy) and listed elements that will be emphasized in the plan. Mr. Key noted that while several transportation studies have been completed for specific areas, no comprehensive Transportation Plan has ever been completed for the City of Whitefish and its surrounding area. He stressed that the Urban Corridor Study will be developed within the context of and concurrent with the Whitefish Transportation Plan. This approach allows for a focused look at US 93 through Whitefish based on the consideration of existing and planned land use changes and a detailed evaluation of community-wide transportation needs and desires. The corridor study will allow for a “fresh look” at issues associated with US Highway 93 through Whitefish and offers the opportunity to examine a full range of design options for the facility. Mr. Key emphasized that these new planning efforts will be sensitive to prior community input and projects like: previous “subarea” transportation studies; the US Highway 93–Somers to Whitefish Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS); the Downtown Business District Master Plan; and the community’s current Growth Policy Update project. He emphasized the value of previous efforts by the Citizens Working Group (CWG)—a group previously established to provide design input for the “Whitefish Urban” and “Whitefish-West” projects under development by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT). Mr. Key indicated the Consultant Team’s intention was to acknowledge past work and build upon known transportation issues and concerns in the Whitefish area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 April 23, 2007 04/16/07 Public Information Meeting #1 Summary Page 3 of 8 Breakout Sessions: The presentation lasted about 35 minutes and was followed by a “breakout” session where those in attendance were encouraged to visit one of three stations to discuss issues with the Consultant Team related to: US 93 urban corridor, general transportation issues, and pedestrian/bicycle and transit issues. The breakout stations were manned by Mr. Key (General Transportation Issues), Dan Norderud (US 93 Urban Corridor) of RPA and Karin Hilding of the City of Whitefish (Pedestrians/Bicycles and Transit). The breakout sessions lasted about 30 minutes and key comments identified through discussions were documented at each station. Comments noted during the breakout sessions are summarized below: General Transportation Issues ƒ The 2nd Street Bridge over the Whitefish River has a very poor riding surface and the concrete is falling apart. This is a maintenance issue and should be addressed? ƒ There is a substantial seasonal variation in traffic volumes within the Whitefish area. The summer tourist season is generally the peak traffic condition, although during school year some of the intersections next to the school become quite congested. ƒ A potential bypass of the community will be met with resistance. It would make sense to remove big trucks from the downtown, but people living along existing roadways/corridors will resist. You will almost have to find a totally brand new corridor if a Bypass will; be seriously considered. ƒ Whitefish Stage Road has safety issues related to speed and no roadway expansion should be completed. People ride their bikes and walk along the roadway which compromises safety even further. There are three safety projects that will be completed to address curve and sight distance issues however. Pedestrians/Bicycles and Transit ƒ The City’s Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan needs to be made a part of this community-wide transportation plan. ƒ Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are critical elements of future improvements to the US 93 corridor through Whitefish and past Twin Bridges Road. US 93 Urban Corridor ƒ The highway corridor should be all commercial. ƒ Consideration should be given to a bypass that would draw truck traffic away from the corridor. (Truck bypass possibilities along Farm-to Market Road and an existing powerline corridor were mentioned). ƒ How will the corridor study interface with the recommendations in the Downtown Business District Master Plan? ƒ What is the timeframe for actually reconstructing US 93 through Whitefish? ƒ Reconstructing US 93 through Whitefish could result in the loss of on-street parking. On- street parking is critical to local businesses. The comments and issues heard at each station were then relayed to the entire group. ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 April 23, 2007 04/16/07 Public Information Meeting #1 Summary Page 4 of 8 Public Comments/Questions: Following the breakout session, Mr. Key opened up the meeting for comments and general questions from the audience. The following comments or questions were heard during this part of the meeting: ƒ What is the definition of urban? It was explained that incorporated areas in Montana are considered “urban” when they have a population of 5,000 or more. Montana has 15 designated urban areas and three communities with over 50,000 residents that fall under Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) guidelines for transportation planning. ƒ When will the next public meeting occur? Mr. Key explained that according to the schedule, the next series of meetings should occur near the end of May or in early June. Members of the audience suggested that August would be a poor time for a public meeting since many residents are not around during the month. ƒ Will the Consultant Team present more information at the next meeting? Mr. Key indicated that considerable information regarding the operation of the transportation system is known and new information will be generated over the upcoming months due to the aggressive schedule of the projects. This information will be summarized at the next public meeting. ƒ How will cost constraints be considered in the transportation plan? Can a realistic plan be developed without consideration of costs and affordability? Mr. Key explained that MPO’s (large urban areas in Montana) develop transportation plans that are fiscally constrained—i.e. projects identified in the transportation plan have firm costs and designated funding sources. He continued that most transportation plans for smaller urban areas are not fiscally constrained and identify projects that will benefit the community regardless of their cost. However, projects within transportation plans are often prioritized by local officials and a variety of funding sources can be pursued for individual projects. ƒ What is the timeframe for actually reconstructing US 93 through Whitefish? The reconstruction of US 93 will not occur until after the corridor study is completed and the recommendations from the study are duly considered and documented through the appropriate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Because the Whitefish Urban project was developed as the result of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS), the recommended design option(s) must be reviewed by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and MDT to determine how they relate to the decisions in the EIS and how to proceed. It is possible that a Supplemental EIS may be needed if design option(s) or potential impacts are substantially different than those in the original EIS. A decision regarding a preferred alternative for US 93 from by FHWA and MDT will be needed before a construction project can be developed and programmed for funding. It may take 3- to 5 years before a reconstruction project on US 93 will be ready for programming by MDT. The actual construction will then depend on the availability of funding. ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 April 23, 2007 04/16/07 Public Information Meeting #1 Summary Page 5 of 8 Conclusion: Mr. Key concluded the meeting by quickly summarizing upcoming activities for the projects and thanking those in attendance for their input. The meeting concluded at about 6:45 p.m. It is also noted that an abbreviated version of the powerpoint presentation was made to the Whitefish City Council at their regularly scheduled meeting the evening of April 16th. Although the meeting began at 7:10 pm, RPA did not make their presentation until 10:15 pm due to a wide variety of regular business being conducted at the evening’s City Council meeting. RPA’s presentation lasted about ten (10) minutes and gave the Council a summary of the two projects at hand and a brief assessment of the previous public meeting held earlier in the evening. ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 April 23, 2007 04/16/07 Public Information Meeting #1 Summary Page 6 of 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 April 23, 2007 04/16/07 Public Information Meeting #1 Summary Page 7 of 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 April 23, 2007 04/16/07 Public Information Meeting #1 Summary Page 8 of 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL (07/23/07) Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 July 23, 2007 07/17/07 Public Information Meeting #2 Summary Page 1 of 6 Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 Public Information Meeting #2 Summary (07/17/07) Introduction The second public open house informational meeting for the Whitefish Transportation Plan and Urban Corridor Study of US 93 projects was held on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 in the Whitefish City Council Chambers, 402 East Second Street. The meeting occurred between 6:00 and 8:00 p.m. and included a PowerPoint presentation beginning about 6:15 p.m. The meeting was attended by the following agency and Consultant Team members: John Wilson City of Whitefish Sheila Ludlow MDT Statewide and Urban Planning Section (Helena) Jean Riley MDT Statewide and Urban Planning Section (Helena) Jeff Key Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA - Helena) Dan Norderud Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA - Helena) Scott Randall Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA - Helena) Seven members of the public attended the meeting including Nancy Woodruff, a member of the Whitefish City Council. A copy of the sign-in sheet from the meeting is attached; however, not all signed the attendance sheets for the meeting since some joined the meeting as it progressed. Meeting Purposes The purposes of the public informational meeting were to: ƒ Describe work completed to date and review project scope and schedule; ƒ Discuss the land use assignments made for the planning horizon (year 2030) and how it influences transportation decisions; ƒ Present preliminary “future year” traffic volumes on the study area road system; ƒ Describe cursory findings of western route alternatives; ƒ Provide for open discussion on transportation issues in the Whitefish City Beach area and school areas; and ƒ Solicit input on the potential for expanding transit service in Whitefish and for an additional railroad crossing in the community. ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 July 23, 2007 07/17/07 Public Information Meeting #2 Summary Page 2 of 6 Meeting Summary Jeff Key of Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA) began the meeting at 6:15 p.m. and introduced representatives of the City of Whitefish, MDT and Consultant Team members. He then began a PowerPoint presentation focused on the Transportation Plan project. Mr. Key summarized major work tasks and milestones for the Whitefish Transportation Plan and Urban Corridor Study projects, and outlined planned public outreach activities. He presented a project schedule that showed completion of the Transportation Plan and Corridor Study documents before the end of 2007. Mr. Key provided an update of work progress to date for the Transportation Plan and indicated data collection activities began last spring and are ongoing. Some intersections were counted in May and numerous other locations will be counted during July and August to reflect peak seasonal traffic in the community. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes have been collected for major roadways in the Transportation Plan study area and accident data has been analyzed to help identify crash locations. Further, he stated future land use and employment projections have been made and incorporated into the “travel demand model” for the Whitefish area and preliminary model results have been obtained from MDT. Public outreach activities have continued. He stressed that work for the Whitefish Transportation Plan is taking priority over that for the Urban Corridor Study at this time. Defining overall transportation system needs and desires, recognizing future land use changes, and the travel demand modeling done for the Transportation Plan will provide important information needed to take a focused look at US 93 through Whitefish. Existing Conditions Summary: Mr. Key presented a series of slides showing existing traffic volumes on major roadways, existing levels of service at key intersections, and crash locations within the study area. He stated the level of service analysis for intersections has not yet been completed due to ongoing data collection at numerous locations. Land Use Forecasting: Mr. Key then discussed land use forecasting and its importance to the travel demand model. He stated that land use forecasting including the allocation of future dwelling units and the locations of non-retail and retail jobs is crucial to assessing transportation system needs in the future (year 2030 for the Transportation Plan). The projections are based on information from the US Census Bureau and local planning documents like the City’s Growth Policy Update, and Downtown Business District Master Plan. He stressed that the Whitefish community is growing and will continue to grow with an increasing impact on traffic volumes. Mr. Key indicated that projected future dwelling units and jobs are allocated to individual Census Blocks within the study area. The travel demand model used by MDT is sensitive to this information and can reliably predict travel patterns based on the location of dwelling units and jobs. He then presented a series of slides that showed how dwelling units and jobs have been allocated to each Census Block in the study area. He emphasized that projections through the year 2017 are consistent with the City’s Draft Growth Policy and other planning documents. Growth rates after the year ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 July 23, 2007 07/17/07 Public Information Meeting #2 Summary Page 3 of 6 2017 were assumed to remain similar to that recognized in the Growth Policy (3.6% per year). Mr. Key pointed out that this may or may not occur, but the growth rate is a reasonable assumption for the future. Preliminary Future Traffic Volumes (2030): Mr. Key then showed several slides illustrating year 2030 projected traffic volumes on Whitefish area roadways. The traffic volumes were generated by MDT’s travel demand model and reflect future volumes without any improvements to the road system. He stated that comparing future year traffic volumes against the capacities of roadway types in the community helps identify potential problems and roadway needs. Mr. Key selected several Whitefish roadways and presented existing versus future traffic volumes to illustrate notable changes. Western Route Alternatives: Mr. Key moved onto a series of slides depicting western route connections between US 93 south and US 93 west of Whitefish. He indicated that work directives for the Transportation Plan require RPA to identify and evaluate potential new western routes that might help alleviate traffic on US 93 through the City. He explained that RPA revisited four potential western alignments considered in the Somers-Whitefish Final EIS. The western route alternatives were modeled to determine potential future traffic volumes on each alignment and their impacts on US 93 and parts of the local road system. Model runs were completed both with and without alternate routes in place to determine their potential to reduce traffic on US 93. The preliminary modeling showed alternate routes would attract a notable amount of traffic (typically 7,000-15,000 vehicles in 2030); however, significant traffic volumes would likely continue on the existing US 93 corridor. John Wilson pointed out the importance of considering and planning for new connections on Whitefish’s east side. He felt such routes could help meet long term needs, link schools with the JP Road area, and provide important connections in the Haskill Basin area. Developing Issues/Open Forum: Jeff Key identified several emerging topics that will need to be considered in the Transportation Plan. These items are discussed below ƒ City Beach Area. Mr. Key showed an aerial photograph of the City Beach area and described existing traffic circulation and parking conditions and highlighted issues associated with pedestrian transportation in the area. He asked the audience for comments regarding improving traffic flows and pedestrian safety. A member of the audience pointed out that parking for vehicles with boats is limited in the area and that vehicles must negotiate steep roadway sections. John Wilson stated the City’s big motivation for looking at this area was to improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, skateboarders, and others. He felt there is a need to enhance trail connections from northeastern portions of Whitefish to City Beach. ƒ School Area Circulation Improvements. Mr. Key shared that RPA had reviewed conditions surrounding Whitefish High School and nearby Muldown Elementary School during May ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 July 23, 2007 07/17/07 Public Information Meeting #2 Summary Page 4 of 6 when school was in session. He listed several circulation and safety problems experienced in this area and described a proposal he was aware of to extend a portion of 8th Street to Ashar Avenue. John Wilson indicated the 8th Street extension has been considered in the past by the City Council. He was not certain the extension would provide many benefits in the area. ƒ Transit System Considerations. Mr. Key described a meeting held with staff from Glacier National Park (GNP) regarding partnering with communities surrounding the park and making use of GNP transit vehicles during the park’s off-season. He also asked the audience about how transit travel modes can be integrated into future transportation planning in the Whitefish area. Those in attendance generally felt that expanding transit services would be desirable; however, acknowledged conditions that contribute to low ridership levels. ƒ Additional Railroad Grade Separation. Mr. Key asked the group for ideas on where a new grade separation over the BNSF Railroad might be desirable. He pointed out that there is an existing at-grade crossing east of town on 2nd Street but enhancing the crossing is unlikely. He offered several potential locations for a new grade separation such as Columbia Avenue, East Texas Avenue/Pine Avenue, and in the Cow Coulee area. Those attending generally agreed that a new crossing was desirable and should be included in the Transportation Plan. John Wilson commented that another railroad overcrossing has been viewed as desirable for many years and locations like those discussed had been mentioned before. He also noted a structure may be hard to justify given its high construction costs and limited funding sources. A member of the audience asked about the possibility of an undercrossing instead of an overcrossing. John Wilson responded by stating high groundwater in the Whitefish area poses concerns for constructing an undercrossing. Jeff also said ensuring uninterrupted rail traffic could also add to the cost of an undercrossing. Conclusion: Mr. Key concluded his presentation by summarizing upcoming work efforts. These efforts will focus on developing appropriate long-range recommendations for roadways, intersections, non-motorized infrastructure and transit. The recommended transportation network improvements will be modeled and future model volumes will be used to evaluate design options for US 93 corridor through the City. Design options for US 93 will be developed to maintain efficient traffic flows, address safety for all users, preserve the character of the downtown area and community in general, and ensure compatibility with the Downtown Master Plan and Growth Policy Update. Public Comments/Questions: The following public comments or questions were heard during the meeting: ƒ Has anyone ever looked at the possibility of developing Farm to Market Road from Kalispell to Whitefish as an alternate to US 93? Mr. Key explained that while Farm to Market Road offers an opportunity for developing a parallel route to US 93, the corridor is ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 July 23, 2007 07/17/07 Public Information Meeting #2 Summary Page 5 of 6 located to far from Whitefish and would not reduce traffic on US 93 through the City. ƒ When will the next public meeting occur? Mr. Key explained that the next series of meetings should occur near the end of September or in early October. Members of the audience suggested ensuring an article about the Transportation Plan and the third public meeting appears in the Whitefish Pilot. The meeting concluded at about 7:30 p.m. ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 July 23, 2007 07/17/07 Public Information Meeting #2 Summary Page 6 of 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 January 30, 2008 01/10/08 Public Information Meeting #3 Summary Page 1 of 9 Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 Public Information Meeting #3 Summary (01/10/08) Introduction The third public open house informational meeting for the Whitefish Transportation Plan and Urban Corridor Study of US 93 projects was held on Thursday, January 10, 2008 in the O’Shaughnessy Center, 1 Central Avenue. The meeting took place between 7:00 and 9:15 p.m. and included a PowerPoint presentation beginning about 7:15 p.m. The meeting was attended by the following agency and Consultant Team members: John Wilson City of Whitefish Karin Hilding City of Whitefish Sheila Ludlow MDT Statewide and Urban Planning Section (Helena) Jeff Key Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA - Helena) Dan Norderud Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA - Helena) More than 80 people attended the meeting; however, not all signed the attendance sheets for the meeting since some joined as it progressed. Copies of the sign-in sheets from the meeting (attached) show that 50 people signed the attendance sheets. Prior to the meeting, the entries from the City’s Transportation Plan Kids Art Contest were available for viewing in the foyer of the O’Shaughnessy Center. Informal conversations with attendees occurred prior to and after the public meeting. Copies of the Executive Summary and a figure showing recommended major street network improvements from the draft Transportation Plan were used as handouts for the meeting. Meeting Purpose The primary purpose of this meeting was to present the first “Public Draft” of the Whitefish Transportation Plan document and highlight its major components to the public. The purposes of the informational meeting were to: ƒ Discuss how a community Transportation Plan is intended to be used and what value it brings to the process; ƒ Highlight key chapters in the Transportation Plan; ƒ Describe the process for public review of the document and how to submit written comments; and ƒ Provide an open forum for questions from the public and answers from the Consultant. ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 January 30, 2008 01/10/08 Public Information Meeting #3 Summary Page 2 of 9 Meeting Summary Karin Hilding of the City of Whitefish began the meeting by welcoming the public and announcing the winners of the Whitefish Transportation Plan Kids Art Contest. The contest was held to solicit visions about what transportation in Whitefish might be like in the year 2030. She then introduced Jeff Key of Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA), the engineering firm hired by the City and the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) to prepare the Whitefish Transportation Plan. Mr. Key began his presentation around 7:15 p.m. by introducing representatives of the City of Whitefish, MDT and the Consultant Team. He then began a PowerPoint presentation discussing the Transportation Plan document. Jeff began by advising the audience that the draft Transportation Plan is the “first cut” at a community-wide Transportation Plan and represents only the Consultant’s opinions at this time. He stressed that the Transportation Plan has not yet been adopted or endorsed by the City of Whitefish or the MDT. He commented that the Plan is intended to help guide major transportation system decisions in a community and should be used by elected officials, staff, planners, developers and the public. Since conditions can sometimes change quickly, the Plan needs to be regularly updated to reflect changes in the community and revisit planning assumptions. He pointed out that the Transportation Plan is intended to be in general compliance with other planning documents in the community. Mr. Key reiterated transportation-related goals outlined in the community’s recently adopted Growth Policy and indicated the recommendations contained in the Transportation Plan are generally consistent with these goals. Mr. Key advised the audience that a companion project—the US 93 Urban Corridor Study—is underway and involves a detailed analysis of conditions on Spokane Avenue, 2nd Street, and Baker Avenue. The Corridor Study should be completed several months after the Transportation Plan since defining overall transportation system needs and desires, recognizing future land use changes, and the travel demand modeling done for the Plan will provide important information for the Corridor Study. Summary of the Draft Transportation Plan: Mr. Key then presented a series of slides highlighting several key chapters from the Draft Transportation Plan including: ƒ Chapter 1 – Introduction & Background ƒ Chapter 3 – Travel Demand Forecasting ƒ Chapter 6 – School Transportation Considerations ƒ Chapter 8 – Recommended Projects ƒ Chapter 9 – Miscellaneous Transportation System Considerations Chapter 1 – Introduction & Background: Mr. Key commented that this chapter summarizes the history, need and value of transportation planning in the community. It presents the “transportation related goals, policies and objectives” currently in place in your community that are elaborated in a variety of planning documents including the Whitefish Growth Policy, Downtown Business District Master Plan, Big Mountain Neighborhood Plan, and others. He stressed that knowing the community’s goals and objectives are crucial in determining whether the Transportation Plan and its recommendations are “on target.” ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 January 30, 2008 01/10/08 Public Information Meeting #3 Summary Page 3 of 9 Chapter 3 – Travel Demand Forecasting: Mr. Key indicated that a crucial step in assessing future (year 2030) transportation system needs was the development of a travel demand model for the Whitefish study area. The travel demand model used by MDT is sensitive and can reliably predict travel patterns based on the location of dwelling units and retail and non-retail jobs. He explained that projected future dwelling units and jobs were allocated to individual Census Blocks within the study area consistent with US Census Bureau projections and assumptions in the Whitefish Growth Policy. He then presented several slides showing how future dwelling units and jobs have been allocated within the study area to each Census Block in the study area. The land use and employment projections suggest that growth will continue in the Whitefish area. Mr. Key pointed out that the travel demand model developed for the Plan provides a way to estimate future traffic volumes and identify potential roadway needs. He stressed that the traffic volumes generated by the model are not absolutes but allow for a planning level comparison of existing to future conditions. He then showed several slides illustrating year 2030 projected traffic volumes on Whitefish area roadways. The traffic volumes were generated by MDT’s travel demand model and reflect future volumes without any improvements to the road system. He stated that comparing future year traffic volumes against the capacities of roadway types in the community helps identify potential problems and roadway needs. Mr. Key stressed that without improvements, the traffic generated by this growth will likely continue to place substantial demands on the existing transportation system. Chapter 6 – School Transportation Considerations: Mr. Key said that along with peak tourism traffic, school traffic issues notably affect traffic flow in Whitefish. He related that this chapter of the Plan discusses a variety of issues experienced at or near schools and presents potential remedies or ideas to address the issues. He noted that the Plan includes considerable discussion about the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program and its potential benefits. Chapter 8 – Recommended Projects: Mr. Key then showed a series of slides discussing recommendations for transportation improvements. He pointed out that Chapter 8 of the Plan attempts is to provide a range of projects that will enhance the local transportation system. He stated that a fundamental philosophy of the Plan is to focus on creating a strong grid transportation network by increasing east-west and north-south connections. He advised the audience that recommendations show a variety of new corridors that may be desirable if and when development occurs in such areas. He emphasized that all projects recommended in the Plan are an attempt to strengthen the existing transportation system, prepare for the future, increase travel mobility and provide options. He indicated that the recommended improvements include relatively low cost Transportation System Management (TSM) projects like adding turn bays and making simple improvements at intersections, installing or modifying traffic signals, and doing access control studies. Mr. Key also stated that recommendations include large-scale projects—identified as Major Street Network (MSN) projects—involving roadway reconstruction, new roadway corridors, or other major undertakings. Jeff presented slides showing where MSN projects are proposed within the study area ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 January 30, 2008 01/10/08 Public Information Meeting #3 Summary Page 4 of 9 and highlighted recommended improvements in the Whitefish Beach area. He pointed out that there are a variety of projects previously identified in the City’s Capital Improvements Plan and in the City’s Pedestrian and Bicyclist Master Plan that are being carried forward in the Transportation Plan. Chapter 9 – Miscellaneous Transportation System Considerations: Mr. Key briefly highlighted the content of Chapter 9. He stated that many of the items discussed in the chapter don’t really fit into other chapters of the Plan and several topics help “plant the seed” for ideas that may be valid during the planning period. He highlighted the potential for a cooperative transit project between Glacier National Park and gateway communities near the park. Western Route Alternatives: Mr. Key moved onto a series of slides depicting western route connections between US 93 south and US 93 west of Whitefish. He indicated that work directives for the Transportation Plan required RPA to identify and evaluate potential new western routes that might help alleviate traffic on US 93 through the City. He explained that RPA revisited four potential western alignments considered in the Somers-Whitefish Final EIS. The western route alternatives were modeled to determine potential future traffic volumes on each alignment and their impacts on US 93 and parts of the local road system. Model runs were completed both with and without alternate routes in place to determine their potential to reduce traffic on US 93. Mr. Key indicated that the Transportation Plan does not recommend a “bypass” route around Whitefish. Although travel demand modeling suggests such a route would draw some traffic, a western route would not solve future traffic issues along the US 93 corridor through Whitefish. He pointed out that the western routes around Whitefish have numerous issues that would likely make such projects difficult to implement including environmental resource constraints, landowner opposition, and high construction and right-of-way costs. For these reasons, the Consultant believes the community is better served by strengthening the transportation grid system and focusing on other improvements. Commenting on the Draft Transportation Plan: Mr. Key advised the audience about locations in Whitefish and on line where the Transportation Plan can be read and reviewed. He encouraged the public and other interested parties to submit written comments on the Plan by January 31, 2008. Next Steps: Mr. Key concluded his presentation by stating that it is up to the City-County Planning Board and City Council to adopt the Transportation Plan. He stated that additional opportunities to receive public comments on the Plan will occur at Planning Board meetings on January 17 and February 21 and at a future City Council hearing on the Transportation Plan (possibly during March). He then requested comments or questions from the audience. Public Comments/Questions The following public comments or questions were heard during the January 10 public meeting: ƒ What is meant by a “parallel connector” and what is its purpose? Mr. Key explained that a parallel connector is an alternate route that parallels an arterial roadway (like Spokane ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 January 30, 2008 01/10/08 Public Information Meeting #3 Summary Page 5 of 9 Avenue). Jeff took the opportunity to provide information to the audience on functional classifications of roadways and the range of traffic volumes generally associated with each classification. However, it should be recognized that federal functional classification doesn't correlate volumes to classifications. ƒ A bypass route has been advocated for a long time in Whitefish. Would the need for a bypass be offset if Spokane and Baker Avenues were configured as one-ways? As indicated during the presentation, modeling done for the Transportation Plan suggests that future traffic volumes would still be significant even with a bypass in place. Mr. Key explained that the Corridor Study is taking a detailed look at a variety of potential configurations for Spokane and Baker Avenues. The work done for the Corridor Study will help establish the most desirable and effective long-term configuration for US 93. ƒ The presence of large trucks in the downtown is undesirable and should be addressed now. Continuing the existing situation over the planning horizon is unacceptable. Comment is noted. ƒ Is there sufficient existing right-of-way along Wisconsin and Karrow Avenues to accommodate the recommended upgrades suggested in the Transportation Plan? Mr. Key explained that he did not know for sure if existing rights-of-way would be sufficient to adequately improve these corridors. He noted that Wisconsin Avenue has a particularly narrow right-of-way. He also noted that the costs of right-of-way acquisition will be sizable for some projects but it may be possible to make some interim improvements without new right-of-way in some areas. ƒ All major roads in Whitefish feed into the downtown area. If development continues in the center of the community, the need for a bypass will be greater. Jeff commented that continuing development will point toward future revisions of the Transportation Plan and growth assumptions. ƒ If Karrow Avenue is improved, won’t it function as a “defacto” bypass? Jeff acknowledged that if Karrow were improved, some people would undoubtedly find and use the roadway as an alternate route to US 93. The recommendations for Karrow Avenue contained in the Plan call for “context sensitive” reconstruction as the area becomes more developed. The roadway can be designed in a manner that would help influence the type of vehicles that can use the roadway and travel speeds. ƒ I applaud you for putting recommendations forth in the Transportation Plan that can be commented on by the community. One of the original reasons that a bypass was suggested years ago was the potential for a major impact on the downtown. With the downturn in logging presently underway, maybe logging trucks won’t represent such a concern in the future. ƒ Karrow is quite busy on the section between 7th and US 93. Comment is noted. ƒ South of 7th to US 93 (south of Whitefish) receives light vehicle traffic. This area ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 January 30, 2008 01/10/08 Public Information Meeting #3 Summary Page 6 of 9 would be difficult and expensive to improve due to the presence of wetlands and the need for three or more residential relocations (these properties exist nearly adjacent to the existing roadway). Several large property owners along Karrow Avenue have no desire to sell property or develop. There is not a very desirable location to join US 93 south of town due to the rolling terrain. Comment is noted. Jeff asked if the audience saw the need for some improvements to Karrow Avenue. The general sentiment was that if development occurs, then it should be improved by the developers. ƒ Can you provide information about the type of non-motorized improvements being proposed in the Plan? Jeff stated that the Plan generally incorporates the recommendations and identified projects listed in the City’s Pedestrian and Bicyclist Master Plan. ƒ Baker and US 93 (2nd Street) poses a huge bottleneck due to the lack of a left turn lane. Adding such a feature could provide substantial traffic relief in the area. Comment is noted. ƒ Are there any short-term plans for addressing major issues like the congestion experienced at Baker and 2nd Street? Jeff noted that the Plan does recommend various interim measures like adding left turn bays on 2nd Street or changing signal timings. He noted that such improvements may result in the loss of some on-street parking near the intersection and that there are right-of-way limitations on one corner of the intersection. He also indicated that various interim improvements have been recommended on the Wisconsin Avenue corridor. ƒ Improving the south to north left turn movement at Baker and 2nd should be a high priority. There is more room on the south side of the intersection than on the northside. ƒ Is there any plan for removing police cars that routinely park along Baker Avenue? John Wilson indicated that the City has started the process for developing a new emergency services center and a new building is still more than a year away from happening. ƒ Is the Wisconsin Avenue bike path ever going to get built? Jeff indicated that the bike path project had to be rebid due to high costs and few bidders last year. He noted that the project has been awarded and construction will begin this spring. ƒ The proposed improvements to Old Morris Trail may not be viable as recommended due to the existence of a conservation easement on some property in the area. Comment is noted. ƒ A member of the audience suggested prioritizing those feasible measures that can help ease congestion in downtown Whitefish. Comment is noted. ƒ What kind of suggestions are in the Plan for public transportation? Jeff stated that ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 January 30, 2008 01/10/08 Public Information Meeting #3 Summary Page 7 of 9 public transportation is discussed in Chapter 9 and includes an idea for partnering with Glacier National Park to provide transit services in nearby communities like Whitefish. Glacier National Park will have a fleet of busses that won’t be used year round so there may be an opportunity to use these vehicles for part of the year. He also mentioned some opportunities to develop transit services around special events in Whitefish like the 4th of July. Eagle Transit is exploring twice per day bus service between Whitefish and Kalispell. Jeff commented that the Plan recommends planning for future transit (like bus pullouts) when new developments are being considered. The community could also consider establishing a bike rental program to enhance alternate transportation in the community. ƒ Does the Plan contain any language about bus transportation from Whitefish to Kalispell? Eagle Transit is exploring such service between Whitefish and Kalispell. ƒ What about another railroad overpass? There is a need for such a facility due to enhance emergency response times within the community. Proposed MSN-6 (Kalner Lane Extension) includes a new grade-separated crossing of the railroad. This location was chosen over several others because it crosses only a few railroad lines and other potential crossing locations would either have negative effects on residential neighborhoods or be too far out of town to provide much benefit. ƒ How do you connect Kalner Lane to Highway 40 without creating another problem intersection? The intersection of Kalner Lane and Highway 40 would require design modifications and reconfiguration to ensure it functions well for all traffic movements. This intersection would likely meet one of the eight required signal warrants and the installation of a signal or roundabout would accommodate traffic turning left or right from Kalner Lane. ƒ When making the proposed east-west connection between 13th Street and Voerman Road (MSN-10), what types of difficulties do you envision? This connection would require the construction of a new bridge across the Whitefish River. Acquiring right-of-way and constructing a bridge would be expensive. Road and bridge construction also have the potential to impact wetlands and the riparian habitat. ƒ Twenty years ago the general feeling in many communities (including Whitefish) was that a bypass could kill a small town. Now the situation has changed in Whitefish so that if we don’t get a bypass it will harm the downtown. Before the idea of a bypass is dropped, it is essential that folks recognize that through traffic from Canada and other growth areas north of Whitefish will continue to create traffic impacts in Whitefish. Comment is noted. ƒ I appreciate that the Transportation Plan does not support a bypass. Traffic from logging and chip trucks is slowing. Comment is noted. ƒ Wildlife populations need to be considered when planning for transportation since conflicts between wildlife and traffic can occur. Comment is noted. Jeff pointed out that current highway designs often contain accommodations for wildlife like over or under ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 January 30, 2008 01/10/08 Public Information Meeting #3 Summary Page 8 of 9 crossings and ensuring fish passage in culverts. ƒ Has anyone investigated Farm-to-Market Road as a truck bypass? Jeff stated that Farm-to-Market Road is generally too far west of Whitefish to have much of an effect on traffic flows in town. Such routes need to be convenient to be attractive alternatives to existing routes. ƒ If a bypass route is considered, it must connect to Highway 40 since trucks are often headed for destinations to the east and already use that highway. Comment is noted. ƒ How much would a bypass cost? Very preliminary cost estimates were prepared for the four western route alternatives evaluated in the Transportation Plan. These options had potential construction costs ranging from $4 to $10 million which could be low given the cost of land for right-of-way in the Flathead Valley. There are also considerable costs for preliminary design engineering activities that would be incurred, typically about 10-15% of the construction cost. ƒ What is the process from this point forward and how do projects recommended in the Plan get implemented? Jeff responded that the draft Transportation Plan will be reviewed at a Planning Board work session on January 17 and at a public hearing held by the Planning Board in February. The City Council will also conduct a public hearing on the Transportation Plan and will be asked to formally adopt the Plan. Implementing individual projects will require decisions from MDT, the City and the County depending upon the road system (state-maintained or local systems) affected by the projects. Projects under the jurisdiction of MDT would be subject to their project development procedures and activities. Major projects under the jurisdiction of the City would be advanced through the City’s Capital Improvements Program and budgeting processes. Public review and comment opportunities for individual projects would typically be available as projects are being developed by both MDT and the City. ƒ The figure showing recommended improvements (Figure 8-1) shows various lines going across lands where no roads exist. Would these lines affect the sale of property? Are these lines “set in stone”? Jeff stated that the lines represent potentially desirable transportation links for the community’s transportation network. However, if there is no development planned for a property crossed by one of the “lines” then nothing is likely to happen. John Wilson also commented that the City would not be involved in the sale of property where a new road was proposed. They would only be involved when a plan to develop the property came up for consideration by the City. In that case, the City would refer to the Transportation Plan recommendations and request that the developer provide right-of-way or at least plan for a future roadway. ƒ (Written Comment from Scott Sorenson left at the meeting) As a four-term (I was just appointed to my fifth term) Whitefish City-County Planning Board member, I think the two biggest needed major projects are 1) Wisconsin Avenue from the viaduct to Whitefish Mountain Resort Road and 2) a car/truck 93 bypass on the west ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 January 30, 2008 01/10/08 Public Information Meeting #3 Summary Page 9 of 9 side of town. Both have been needed for years. Everything else is less needed. Comments are noted. F:\trans\WHITEFISH\Minutes\WHITEFISH_011008_PUBMTG3MIN_FINAL.DOC ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 January 30, 2008 01/10/08 Public Information Meeting #3 Summary Attachment ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 January 30, 2008 01/10/08 Public Information Meeting #3 Summary Attachment ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 January 30, 2008 01/10/08 Public Information Meeting #3 Summary Attachment ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 January 30, 2008 01/10/08 Public Information Meeting #3 Summary Attachment ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 January 30, 2008 01/10/08 Public Information Meeting #3 Summary Attachment ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 January 30, 2008 01/10/08 Public Information Meeting #3 Summary Attachment ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 January 30, 2008 01/10/08 Public Information Meeting #3 Summary Attachment ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 August 26, 2008 08/19/09 Public Information Meeting #4 Summary Page 1 of 6 Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 Public Information Meeting #4 Summary (08/19/08) Introduction The fourth public information meeting for the Whitefish Transportation Plan and Urban Corridor Study of US 93 projects was held on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 in the Whitefish City Council Chambers, 402 East Second Street. The meeting occurred between 7:00 and 9:00 p.m. and included a PowerPoint presentation beginning about 7:10 p.m. The meeting was attended by the following agency and Consultant Team members: Shane Stack MDT Missoula District Sheila Ludlow MDT Statewide and Urban Planning Section (Helena) Karin Hilding City of Whitefish Dan Norderud Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA - Helena) Scott Randall Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA - Helena) Ten (10) members of the public attended the meeting including Nancy Woodruff, a member of the Whitefish City Council. Copies of the sign-in sheets from the meeting are attached; however, not all signed the attendance sheets for the meeting since some joined the meeting in progress. Meeting Purposes The purposes of the public informational meeting were to: ƒ Provide an update on the Whitefish Transportation Plan; ƒ Describe work completed to date and next steps; ƒ Describe identified corridor problems and needs; ƒ Present an overall “vision” for the US 93 corridor and outline goals for corridor improvements; ƒ Briefly discuss preliminary design and improvement options and other strategies under consideration; and ƒ Get comments on issues and the range of preliminary options under consideration for the corridor. ƒ Solicit input from the public on any new ideas (improvement options) not identified during the presentation that should be considered for the corridor. Meeting Summary Dan Norderud of Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA) began the meeting at 7:10 p.m. and introduced ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 August 26, 2008 08/19/09 Public Information Meeting #4 Summary Page 2 of 6 representatives of the City of Whitefish, MDT and Consultant Team members. He then began a PowerPoint presentation focused on the Corridor Study project. Mr. Norderud summarized the current status of the Whitefish Transportation Plan and highlighted major work activities completed since the Plan was presented at a January 2008 public meeting. He noted that as a result of comments received from the City-County Planning Board, the Transportation Plan will not be finalized until recommendations from the Corridor Study have been incorporated and discussed. He stated that the Transportation Plan and Corridor Study will be completed on a more parallel track than originally proposed. Mr. Norderud provided an update of work progress for the Urban Corridor Study and noted that an Environmental Scan and five Technical Memos supporting the study have been completed. The Environmental Scan identifies environmental resources and issues with the potential to influence the type, location, or design of future improvements to US 93 through Whitefish and documents the concerns of regulatory agencies early in the process. He explained the memos “mirror” chapters from the Corridor Study and present relevant background information about the corridor’s setting, the current and future operations of US 93, corridor issues and needs, and offer a vision for what US 93 improvements should accomplish. Further, he pointed out that one of the memos outlines a range of design and improvement options and other strategies to help meet identified corridor needs. Dan emphasized that no decision has been made yet about which design option or strategy may be best suited for the corridor. He indicated that travel demand modeling and operational analyses for the design options shown on the meeting handout have been completed with the next phase of the corridor study work focused on screening options against a detailed set of criteria to help identify the most reasonable option(s). Mr. Norderud outlined work to be completed over the next four months and highlighted major activities including a future public meeting to discuss the recommendations in the Draft Corridor Study. He stated that both the Corridor Study and Transportation Plan projects should be completed around the end of the year. Summary of Technical Memos: Mr. Norderud then presented a series of slides summarizing the content of five Technical Memos prepared for the Corridor Study. The topics of these memos and their general content are highlighted below: ƒ Analysis of the Existing Transportation System. The memo discusses the physical characteristics of the existing road and street network in the corridor, its operation (Level of Service) and its safety performance. It also describes other available transportation modes and facilities including non-motorized facilities, transit, and rail. ƒ Current/Planned Land Uses, Community Characteristics, and Environmental Setting. The memo examines current and planned land uses and land use controls within central Whitefish and discusses key demographic and socio-economic characteristics and trends in the Whitefish community and corridor study area. The memo also describes environmental considerations ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 August 26, 2008 08/19/09 Public Information Meeting #4 Summary Page 3 of 6 that could potentially influence the location or design of US 93 through the City of Whitefish. ƒ Analysis of Future Conditions on US 93 Through Whitefish. The memo summarizes the future traffic conditions and operations of the US 93 corridor in Whitefish expected to occur in the year 2030. The analysis described in the memo establishes a “baseline” of future traffic conditions that can be used to help evaluate potential design and improvement options in the US 93 corridor. ƒ Corridor Issues, Corridor Vision & Goals, and Statement of Purpose & Need. The memo discusses issues and a “vision” for the corridor and reviews past community input on corridor issues and needs from five planning efforts and projects undertaken in the community since 1995. Considered together, these planning efforts and projects generated a significant body of public and agency input on issues, problems, needs and desires for the US 93 corridor through Whitefish. ƒ Preliminary Conceptual Design and Improvement Options for the Corridor. The memo outlines the design and improvement options and other strategies under initial consideration for the US 93 corridor through Whitefish. These designs and strategies will be subject to a multi-step screening process to help determine those meriting further detailed study. Summary of Corridor Issues and Needs: Mr. Norderud then showed a series of slides highlighting the following fundamental corridor needs based on previous input from community planning efforts and MDT’s design projects: ƒ Need to Enhance Capacity and Improve Operational Efficiency ƒ Need to Improve Flow of Large Trucks in Corridor ƒ Need to Address Geometric and Design Deficiencies ƒ Need to Upgrade US 93 Infrastructure ƒ Need to Enhance Safety for Facility Users He also noted that corridor improvements need to consider local land use plans and the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; need to be conscious of environment and community character; and need to be feasible to implement. Corridor Vision: Dan presented a slide outlining a corridor vision and commented that the vision recognizes the identified needs for the corridor and highlights that US 93 serves as both a regional transportation route and as a local main street in Whitefish. Corridor improvements must attempt to balance the regional mobility needs with the local transportation functions of US 93. Dan then presented slides showing the goals developed to support the corridor vision and noted numerous objectives for achieving the goals have been developed. The goals and objectives for achieving the goals will form the basis for screening criteria used to help evaluate design and improvement options. ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 August 26, 2008 08/19/09 Public Information Meeting #4 Summary Page 4 of 6 Overview of Potential Design Options and Strategies for the Corridor: Mr. Norderud then showed a series of slides related to the conceptual design and improvement options and transportation strategies under initial consideration for the corridor. He explained the designs and options under consideration generally consist of: ƒ All alternatives for the Whitefish urban area described in the US Highway 93 Somers to Whitefish Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS); ƒ Design options developed after the Record of Decision (ROD) on the FEIS as part of project development activities for the MDT’s Whitefish Urban project; ƒ Recommendations from the Whitefish Downtown Business District Master Plan; and ƒ Other strategies that may potentially help relieve congestion and reduce future travel demands on the US 93 corridor. Dan pointed out the US Highway 93 Somers to Whitefish FEIS considered several groups of alternatives including: ƒ Improving a parallel corridor to US 93; ƒ Providing a bypass route around the City; ƒ Reconstruction to add capacity on US 93; ƒ Making minor “spot” improvements to existing US 93; ƒ Improving transit opportunities; ƒ Implementing measures to reduce demand for traffic to drive on US 93; and ƒ Taking no action (No Build). Mr. Norderud described the design alternatives evaluated in detail in the FEIS and the principal features of the Preferred Alternative for US 93 identified in the ROD. He then noted that MDT advanced two reconstruction projects on US 93 through Whitefish to implement the Preferred Alternative identified in the ROD. These design projects involved a local Citizens Working Group (CWG) to provide input on design matters for US 93. Based on the CWG input and work done for MDT’s Whitefish Urban project, several changed conditions in the community with design ramifications for US 93 were identified. MDT’s design consultant “updated” the design configuration for the Preferred Alternative to reflect new capacity needs on US 93 which resulted in a proposed “Modified ROD Configuration.” Dan commented that three additional design concepts were developed in response to newly identified concerns or community desires expressed in the ongoing Growth Policy and Downtown Business District Master Plan projects. These were identified as the “Contra-Flow Configuration,” the “Truck Route Configuration,” and the “Downtown Business District Master Plan Configuration.” Dan referenced a handout and displays available at the meeting showing 7 design configurations considered in the Somers-Whitefish FEIS and the 4 configurations developed after the ROD. He pointed out these options generally represent the most obvious ways to accommodate traffic flows within the corridor—two directional or one-way travel, couplet configurations using all or portions of Spokane and Baker Avenues, using 2, 3 or 4 lanes to accommodate traffic, and providing east ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 August 26, 2008 08/19/09 Public Information Meeting #4 Summary Page 5 of 6 west links between Spokane and Baker Avenues. He noted that without going substantially beyond this project area, no new or “previously undiscovered” design configurations are proposed for the corridor. Dan also briefly discussed the potential indirect benefits to the corridor that may result from locally implemented “off-system improvements and several options or strategies not applicable to the corridor. He pointed out the Transportation Plan examines other potential local street improvement projects that could help divert traffic from US 93 or offer alternate travel routes for some facility users. He stressed that these locally implemented projects should not be viewed as essential “add- ons” to corridor designs. Mr. Norderud stated that Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies (ridesharing, park and rides, telecommuting, transit-oriented development, etc.), Transportation System Management (TSM) projects (low cost, “tune-up” type improvements), transit improvements, and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) strategies will receive initial consideration in the Corridor Study. He also identified several options and strategies that do not appear to merit consideration for the corridor because they are too far removed from the corridor to divert traffic, have the potential to create unacceptable neighborhood impacts, or have a “regional” focus not suited to the US 93 corridor. Conclusion: Mr. Norderud concluded his presentation by summarizing upcoming work efforts for the Corridor Study. These efforts will focus on screening design options and transportation strategies and sharing recommendations for the corridor with interested agencies and the public. He then asked the audience to share their comments on the corridor issues and vision outlined during the presentation and the range of design options under consideration for the corridor. Public Comments/Questions The following public comments or questions were heard during the meeting: What is your opinion about one-way streets in the downtown? Mr. Norderud noted that option with one-way traffic configurations will be duly considered and the operational analyses presented in the Corridor Study. One-way streets can typically move lots of traffic in an efficient manner. However, there are other considerations for their use and some evidence that suggests one- ways may not be the “best” option for some downtown areas. Is it possible to build a new bridge across the Whitefish River (at 7th Street) and how much influence does permitting requirements potentially have on the design of such a structure? Dan explained that it is possible to design a bridge in a manner that minimizes impacts on the river and its associated riparian environment. A variety of federal, state and local water quality regulations will apply at highway crossings of the Whitefish River and these regulations would influence the design of a bridge. Impacts caused by such a project must also be mitigated—providing replacement wetlands is a good example of a typical mitigating measure for such impacts. Shane Stack from MDT noted that Section 404 regulations can be very stringent and the Corps of Engineers can require implementation of a design that does the “least harm” to surface waters. ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 August 26, 2008 08/19/09 Public Information Meeting #4 Summary Page 6 of 6 Karin Hilding commented about the potential benefits that might be realized if park-and-ride lots were paired with low cost bicycle rental service. She felt this could be a way to encourage summer peak season visitors to use alternate transportation modes and could help reduce the numbers of vehicles on the US 93 corridor. When can corridor improvements be built? Shane Stack addressed this question and commented that funding for improvements from MDT is extremely tight and providing a date when the project could be implemented is very difficult. It depends to a large extent on the availability of funding for corridor improvements. He explained that there are federal and state environmental compliance processes that must be followed and the complexity and time requirements associated with this task will depend on the design option selected. Implementing improvements will also require developing design plans, acquiring right-of-way (if needed), and programming the project based on available funding. Since it is unlikely that improvements to US 93 through Whitefish would be completed very soon given the current funding situation, a member of the audience asked why 2030 was being used as a planning horizon for the corridor study instead of a date much farther into the future (like 2050). These concerns were acknowledged and it was pointed out that using such a horizon year would require making uncertain assumptions about future growth and employment in Whitefish. This information is not readily available from local planning agencies and would be subject to many assumptions regarding community growth over the next 40+ years. Additionally, there is no certainty over what type and how much funding will be available in the long range future. Can traffic signals be adjusted to account for seasonal variations in traffic? Yes, software and sophisticated controllers associated with new signal systems allow great flexibility with regard to signal timing. To achieve optimum efficiency, traffic signals must be monitored and adjusted to serve changing traffic patterns or daily variations in traffic passing through the signalized intersection. Different signal timing plans can be developed to reflect the time of day, day of week, and season of the year. Traffic engineers typically collect detailed information about traffic patterns, volumes and speeds. Once this data is analyzed, new timing plans are developed and field adjustments are implemented as required. The meeting concluded at about 8:30 p.m. F:\trans\WHITEFISH\Minutes\WHITEFISH_081908_PUBMTG4MIN_FINAL.DOC ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL (04/24/07) Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 April 20, 2007 04/17/07 CAC Meeting #1 Minutes Page 1 of 6 Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 CAC Meeting #1 Minutes (April 17, 2007) Introduction The first of four anticipated meetings of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) was held at the Whitefish Public Library conference room on Tuesday, April 17th began at 5:30 p.m. The CAC is an ad hoc committee for the Whitefish Transportation Plan and Urban Corridor Study of US 93 projects appointed by the Whitefish City Council during March 2007. The following people attended the meeting: CAC Attendees Sabine Brigette Citizen Bridger Kelch Whitefish Police Department Mary Jo Look Citizen Shirley Jacobson Whitefish City Council Mary Person Business Owner George S. Gardner Citizen Don Spivey Citizen Fred Jones Big Mountain Resort Jerry House Whitefish School District Gary Stephens Whitefish Business Owner/Heart of Whitefish Agency/Consultant Team Karin Hilding City of Whitefish Sheila Ludlow MDT Statewide and Urban Planning Section (Helena) Shane Stack MDT Missoula District Office (Missoula) Jeff Key Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA - Helena) Dan Norderud Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA - Helena) Others Present Rick Cunningham Whitefish Snow Bus Appointed CAC members Monte Gilman and Dale Duff were not present. Bridger Kelch attended the meeting in place of Mike Ferda and will do so for the remainder of the project. Mary Jo Look, Mary Person, and George Gardner are designated as alternate members of the CAC. Meeting participants were provided with an agenda and other information to support and foster discussion during the meeting. ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 April 20, 2007 04/17/07 CAC Meeting #1 Minutes Page 2 of 6 Meeting Purpose The purposes of this initial meeting were to: 1) introduce Consultant Team and agency representatives to CAC members; 2) provide background on the community-wide Transportation Plan and Urban Corridor Study projects and project schedules; 3) establish and discuss the role of the CAC in the projects; 4) discuss known issues related to transportation in the community; and 5) solicit input on other issues or concerns relevant to transportation planning in the Whitefish area. Meeting Summary Jeff Key of Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA) began the meeting by asking those in attendance to introduce themselves and indicate what motivated their interest to participate in this transportation planning effort. Discussions at the meeting then focused on the following items: Overview of Projects: Jeff Key, RPA’s Project Manager, provided an overview of the Transportation Plan and Urban Corridor Study projects. Copies of slides from a PowerPoint presentation made to the Whitefish City Council on April 16 were provided to those in attendance. The slides presented background information about each project, summarized major work tasks and milestones for the projects, and outlined planned public outreach activities. Additionally, the slides identified the study area boundary for the Transportation Plan (the same area considered in the community’s Growth Policy) and listed elements that will be emphasized in the plan. Mr. Key noted that while several transportation studies have been completed for specific areas, no comprehensive Transportation Plan has ever been completed for the City of Whitefish and its surrounding area. He stressed that the Urban Corridor Study will be developed within the context of and concurrent with the Whitefish Transportation Plan. This approach allows for a focused look at US 93 through Whitefish based on the consideration of existing and planned land use changes and a detailed evaluation of community-wide transportation needs and desires. The corridor study will allow for a “fresh look” at issues associated with US Highway 93 through Whitefish and offers the opportunity to examine a full range of design options for the facility. Mr. Key emphasized that these new planning efforts will be sensitive to prior community input and projects like: previous “subarea” transportation studies; the US Highway 93–Somers to Whitefish Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS); the Downtown Business District Master Plan; and the community’s current Growth Policy Update project. He emphasized the value of previous efforts by the Citizens Working Group (CWG)—a group previously established to provide design input for the “Whitefish Urban” and “Whitefish-West” projects under development by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT). CAC Guiding Parameters: Mr. Key provided those attending with a handout discussing the CAC’s anticipated role in the Whitefish projects. He explained the CAC will act as an advisory group with a much broader focus than the former CWG. While the CWG generally focused on two specific reconstruction projects on Highway 93, the CAC will be asked to help the Consultant Team identify community-wide transportation needs and issues. The CAC will be asked to serve as a ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 April 20, 2007 04/17/07 CAC Meeting #1 Minutes Page 3 of 6 sounding board as recommendations to address identified needs and issues are developed. Mr. Key then outlined the anticipated roles and responsibilities of the CAC and the Consultant Team. CAC members acknowledged the anticipated responsibilities. Several members of the CAC who previously served on the CWG group indicated that considerable time and effort was spent in 2005 on issues that will be relevant to these new projects. The Consultant Team acknowledged this past work and indicated copies of the minutes from past CWG meetings are available. Several CAC members expressed an interest in viewing these minutes, so it was agreed that copies of all previous CWG meetings and a public open house meeting held during April 2005 will be provided to all CAC members. Gary Stephens requested that the Consultant Team provide relevant background materials to help CAC members during their review of project deliverables. Review of Transportation Issues Theme Boards: Mr. Key expressed that the Consultant Team recognizes that significant community input and discussion about transportation issues and the Highway 93 corridor has already occurred in Whitefish. He stated that in preparation for the April 16 Public Open House and first CAC meeting, RPA reviewed public comments received during several important projects in the Whitefish area including: ƒ US Highway 93 - Somers to Whitefish FEIS (1994) ƒ Downtown Business District Master Plan (approved by the Whitefish City Council in early 2006) ƒ Whitefish Urban & West Projects (MDT and WGM Group) - Minutes from the Public Open House Meeting (April 2005) - Minutes from Whitefish Urban & West Highway 93 CWG meetings (2005) ƒ Whitefish Growth Policy Update (2006/2007) - Draft Elements of Growth Policy Update - Summaries of comments obtained through community visioning sessions - Summaries of community surveys Mr. Key indicated the Consultant Team’s intention was to acknowledge past work and build upon known transportation issues and concerns in the Whitefish area. As a starting point, RPA developed several transportation issues “theme” boards focusing on the following topics: Traffic Operations, Safety, Trucks, Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities, Parking, Land Use/Growth, Aesthetics, and the Natural and Human Environments. Each board provided a broad issue statement for each topic and a list of specific conditions or concerns relating to the issue. The issues boards were made available to the CAC both as large display boards and as handouts. The issue statements and associated conditions or concerns listed on each issue board were then reviewed and verified with CAC. Input was solicited from members about new or additional concerns related to each topic before moving on to successive issues boards. ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 April 20, 2007 04/17/07 CAC Meeting #1 Minutes Page 4 of 6 Based on the review of the issues boards, the following new items were identified: Traffic Operations ƒ The real issue in Whitefish is the lack of alternate north-south routes (like Wisconsin Avenue) serving Big Mountain and areas north of the railroad. ƒ Whitefish needs another parallel north-south route east of US Highway 93 with a railroad crossing. Safety ƒ Pedestrian and bicyclist safety near schools in Whitefish is important. ƒ The center two-way left turn lane on Highway 93 at the south edge of Whitefish poses a safety concern. The design contributes to conflicts between opposing vehicles making left turns. ƒ The community hospital has moved to a new location and traffic patterns are changing. CAC members noted an emergency only access from Highway 93 to the hospital is being used for general access to the facility. Trucks ƒ Truck traffic generated by construction activities in the Whitefish area is substantial and contributes to congestion within the community. ƒ Several truck bypass possibilities were mentioned. Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities ƒ No additional comments from CAC. Parking ƒ No additional comments from CAC. Land Use/Growth ƒ The CAC recommended revising the last bullet item to say: “General support for managing growth in the community.” ƒ Neighborhoods (like the railroad district) in Whitefish are changing from traditional uses and zoning regulations allow for increases in densities. In some cases, single family dwellings are being replaced by duplexes or multi-family housing. The model developed to help forecast future traffic conditions needs to be sensitive to these types of land use changes. Aesthetics ƒ No additional comments from CAC. It was learned that a Walgreen’s drugstore is proposed for the Highway 93 South. Don Spivey indicated that there has been lots of interest in the design/appearance of Highway 93 South over the years and mentioned that Doug Adams has been involved in an effort to reconsider the idea of installing a raised median on this section of roadway. ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 April 20, 2007 04/17/07 CAC Meeting #1 Minutes Page 5 of 6 Fred Jones also commented that the current design of Highway 93 South does nothing for the appearance of the community. He stressed that changing the roadway’s appearance is important and can help visitors recognize they have left the highway and entered the City. Natural Environment ƒ No additional comments from CAC. Dan Norderud provided a brief explanation of the term “PM-10 nonattainment area” and explained how the community received the designation. Human Environment ƒ It was noted that efforts to clean up soil contamination at the former Big Mountain Tire site are underway. Identification of Traffic Counting Locations: Mr. Key related that the scope of work for the project included doing traffic movement counts at 27 intersection locations within the study area. He provided a list of critical intersections for evaluation and asked the CAC for help in identifying additional traffic count locations. As a result, the following potential count locations were identified: Signalized Intersections: 1. 2nd Street/Spokane Avenue 2. 2nd Street/Central Avenue 3. 2nd Street/Baker Avenue 4. Wisconsin Avenue/Edgewood Place 5. Spokane Avenue/13th Street Avenue 6. Spokane Avenue/18th Street 7. U.S. Highway 93/MT Highway 40 Unsignalized Intersections: 8. U.S. Highway 93/Blanchard Lake Rd. 9. U.S. Highway 93/JP Road 10. U.S. Highway 93/Karrow Avenue 11. U.S. Highway 93/State Park Road 12. Karrow Avenue/7th Street 13. Baker Avenue/4th Street 14. Baker Avenue/5th Street 15. Baker Avenue/7th Street 16. Baker Avenue/13th Street 17. Spokane Avenue/1st Street 18. Spokane Avenue/4th Street 19. Spokane Avenue/5th Street 20. Fir Avenue/2nd Street 21. Fir Avenue/4th Street 22. 2nd Street/Kalispell Avenue 23. Pine Avenue/2nd Street 24. Pine Avenue/4th Street 25. Pine Avenue/7th Street 26. Ashar Avenue/7th Street 27. Skyles Place/Wisconsin Avenue A map showing the potential count locations will be produced and forwarded to the City of Whitefish Public Works Director and Assistant City Engineer for review and approval. ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 April 20, 2007 04/17/07 CAC Meeting #1 Minutes Page 6 of 6 Other Miscellaneous Discussion Items Jerry House noted that there has been lots of time and effort spent on considering transportation in the community and volumes of information exist. Mr. Key acknowledged the comment and reiterated that the intent is to make use of and build upon existing information for the Transportation Plan and Corridor Study projects. Don Spivey believes that it is very important to ensure the public is involved in the process. The group then generally discussed ways to engage the public in the development of the transportation plan including targeting specific groups (like parent groups at schools) to enhance “word of mouth” knowledge of the project and ensuring the project is publicized in local newspapers. It was agreed that Press Releases summarizing CAC meeting discussions will be written and provided to the Whitefish Pilot and Whitefish Free Press after each meeting. Gary Stephens commented on his desire to see a transportation plan that was realistic and fundable. He noted many plans have been done within the community and seem to sit on the shelf. Conclusion Mr. Key concluded the meeting by summarizing what was accomplished and briefly outlining upcoming activities for the projects. Future meeting dates were generally discussed and it was determined that the next CAC meeting would be scheduled for early June. The group asked that no CAC meeting be scheduled for August. The meeting concluded at 7:35 p.m. Action Items for Consultant Team 1. Provide CAC members with copies of the following documents: o Minutes from the Public Open House Meeting for the Whitefish Urban & West projects o Minutes from Whitefish Urban & West Highway 93 CWG meetings o Downtown Business District Master Plan o Whitefish Pedestrian/Bicycle Plan 2. Write Press Release for April 17, 2007 CAC Meeting F:\TRANS\WHITEFISH\Minutes\Whitefish_CAC_041707_mtg1minutes_FINAL.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 July 23, 2007 07/16/07 CAC Meeting #2 Minutes Page 1 of 7 FINAL (07/23/07) Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 CAC Meeting #2 Minutes (July 16, 2007) Introduction The second meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) was held at the Whitefish Public Library conference room on Monday, July 16th, 2007 and began at 5:30 p.m. The CAC is an ad hoc committee for the Whitefish Transportation Plan and Urban Corridor Study of US 93 projects appointed by the Whitefish City Council. The following people attended the meeting: CAC Attendees Mary Jo Look Citizen Mary Person Business Owner George S. Gardner Citizen Don Spivey Citizen Nick Columbus Whitefish Mountain Resort Jerry House Whitefish School District Gary Stephens Whitefish Business Owner/Heart of Whitefish Monte Gilman Whitefish Chamber of Commerce Dale Duff Citizen Agency/Consultant Team Karin Hilding City of Whitefish Sheila Ludlow MDT Statewide and Urban Planning Section (Helena) Jean Riley MDT Statewide and Urban Planning Section (Helena) Shane Stack MDT Missoula District Office (Missoula) Jeff Key Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA - Helena) Dan Norderud Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA - Helena) Scott Randall Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA - Helena) Appointed CAC members Sabine Brigetta, Shirley Jacobsen, and Bridger Kelch were not present. Nick Columbus represented Whitefish Mountain Resort and will replace Fred Jones who recently retired. Meeting participants were provided with an agenda and other information a week in advance to support and foster discussion during the meeting. Meeting Purpose The purposes of this meeting were to: 1) update CAC members on the work status and project schedules for the Transportation Plan and Corridor Study projects; 2) discuss recent outreach ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 July 23, 2007 07/16/07 CAC Meeting #2 Minutes Page 2 of 7 activities; 3) discuss several Technical Memorandums providing background information relevant to the community-wide Transportation Plan and Urban Corridor Study projects; and 4) solicit input on potential system improvements in the western portion of the study area and several other focus areas of the Transportation Plan. Meeting Summary Jeff Key of Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA) began the meeting and asked those in attendance to introduce themselves. Discussions then focused on the following items: Overview of Project Status and Schedules Jeff Key provided an update of work completed for the Transportation Plan and Urban Corridor Study projects. Mr. Key referred to a graphic listing major work tasks and the expected duration of each task. He pointed out that work is generally on schedule although the need to conduct intersection turning movement counts during the peak summer visitation period has caused some delays. The traffic counts are ongoing and should be completed near the end of July. Mr. Key explained that the timing of the CAC meeting and Public meeting #2 has slipped somewhat from the original schedule. He stated that a CAC workshop to present Transportation Plan recommendations would likely be held around the end of September. Gary Stephens asked if Task 7 (Travel Demand Modeling of Existing and Projected Conditions) was behind schedule. Mr. Key acknowledged that work for Task 7 is not fully completed. However, the travel demand model of the existing network has been completed by MDT Planning and model runs have been made illustrating future conditions without any improvements. The task that looks at alternatives (Task 9) is in process and would desirably be completed by mid- to late-August. Task 19 should be modified to extend to the end of August. Review of Outreach Activities Mr. Key then summarized several outreach activities that have occurred since the first CAC and Public Information Meetings held at the end of May. These activities included meetings with the following individuals or groups: ƒ Gary Danzyk of Glacier National Park to discuss potential use of NPS transit vehicles in area communities ƒ Eagle Transit to discuss transit issues and future needs in the north Flathead Valley ƒ Doug Adams to discuss new local efforts to add raised medians on US 93 south of 13th Street ƒ Resource Agency Meeting held in Helena on May 24, 2007 ƒ Curt McIntyre to discuss the extension of Baker Avenue to JP Road ƒ Jerry House to discuss school district issues and concerns Presentation of Work To Date Mr. Key then referred CAC members to the Meeting Materials Booklet provided prior to the meeting containing working draft copies of numerous Technical Memoranda. These memos ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 July 23, 2007 07/16/07 CAC Meeting #2 Minutes Page 3 of 7 summarize key elements of the Transportation Planning effort and provide the results of analyses essential information that will be used to develop transportation system improvements. Study Area Boundary Memo – Mr. Key indicated that this memo documents the study area selected for the Transportation Plan and the reasons for its selection. Jeff stated that the study area is the same as the planning area being considered in Whitefish’s Growth Policy Update. CAC members had no comments on the memo. Goals and Objectives Memo – Mr. Key noted that the Goals and Objectives memo lists a variety of transportation goals contained in Whitefish planning documents including the existing Whitefish City-County Master Plan, Whitefish Downtown Business District Master Plan, Flathead County Growth Policy, Big Mountain Neighborhood Plan, and the Transportation Element from the City of Whitefish’s Draft Growth Policy. He stated the City’s directive to incorporate the three goals from the Transportation Element of the Draft Growth Policy and highlighted several specific objectives from the document that have influenced work on the Transportation Plan including: ƒ a mandate for no new development in the Monegan Road area without an additional east- west connection; ƒ the need to explore ideas for a new grade-separated crossing of the BNSF; and ƒ the need to assess an alternate western route to help alleviate traffic on US 93 through Whitefish. Gary Stephens commented that some additional goals or reframing of language is needed. Specifically, Mr. Stephens believes an overriding community goal is to preserve and enhance the character of Whitefish. He felt the goal listed in the memo under the Downtown Business District Master Plan that says “Accommodate increasing traffic volumes without degrading downtown businesses and the retail environment” is incompatible with the local goal of preserving the character of the community. He suggested changing the objective to read something like “traffic should be moved as efficiently as possible without detracting from the downtown.” Under objectives on page 3 of the memo, it was suggested that the sixth bullet be revised to be more far reaching instead of just referring to local residential streets. Monte Gilman questioned the need to take a look at bypass options as suggested by the Draft Growth Policy. This stimulated discussion among the group and it was generally agreed that bypasses (alternate west routes) need to be considered in the Transportation Plan to determine if the concept has merit and would provide general community benefits and help reduce traffic on US 93. This topic was discussed in more detail later in the meeting. Socioeconomic Data, Growth Trends and Land Use Assignments Memo – Mr. Key briefly described the content of the memo and the importance of assigning land use and employment data to the Travel Demand Model. His discussion then focused on page 12 of the memo where growth rates for the community and future populations are discussed. Jerry House commented that the use of a 2.5 persons per household rate may be low for Whitefish given his research for the Whitefish School system. He felt the persons per household number may increase somewhat in the future. ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 July 23, 2007 07/16/07 CAC Meeting #2 Minutes Page 4 of 7 Jeff then referred the group to various graphics showing year 2030 projected dwelling units and retail and non-retail employment by Census Block in the study area. He indicated these were essential inputs for traffic modeling. Don Spivey asked what non-retail employment included and noted that many such jobs are attributed to residential areas. Jeff said these were work at home type jobs which are becoming more common. Gary Stephens questioned the amount of retail employment attributed to the downtown area and felt it did not correlate to that projected for the area in the Downtown (WB-3 Zone). Gary cited a recognized employment statistic of 9 Full Time Employees (FTE) per 10,000 square feet (SF) of retail space and said that 144,000 SF of new retail space is called for in the Downtown Master Plan. Gary suggested that the number of retail jobs assigned to the downtown area may be on the order of 1,300 new retail jobs. Note: RPA followed up on this comment by revisiting the projected retail employment in the downtown area and the suggested FTE rate for retail space. The calculations showed that about 130 new retail jobs could be expected in the downtown area. The assignments of new retail employment presented for this area in the memo were shown to be consistent with projections for new retail space presented in the Downtown Master Plan. RPA provided this information to Gary Stephens on July 17 and he concurred with the employment projections for the downtown area being used in the model. RPA’s employment rate amounted to roughly 13 jobs (full or part-time) per 10,000 SF of retail space. Future Capacity Issues Memo – Jeff then directed the CAC members to the memo discussing future capacity issues. He said the memo was developed for the City of Whitefish to aid in their development of impact fees. He pointed out that the travel demand model generated traffic volumes on the local road system and it allowed calculate volume to capacity (V/C) ratios for road segments (areas between intersections). He highlighted several graphics presenting V/C ratios for road segments in the study area and a summary table highlighting roadways likely to experience capacity problems by 2030. There were several comments from CAC members about the results shown in the table and that the results did not indicate the worst areas for traffic—particularly in the downtown area. Jeff replied that the results do not consider intersections and that another type of level of service analyses will be done to address capacity problems at intersections. He emphasized that the results are indicative of areas where problems are or will be occurring in the future if no roadway improvements are ever contemplated. Jean Riley commented that all the road segments listed in Table 1-3 on page 18 of the memo show V/C ratios exceeding 1.00. Ratios over 1.00 suggests roadways are over capacity and operating at an extremely poor level of service (LOS It was also pointed out that fixing intersections along these routes could substantially improve the LOS on road corridors. Traffic Calming Memo – Jeff indicated that the Transportation Plan will include a chapter on Traffic Calming and described the purpose of such activities. Gary Stephens pointed out that the last paragraph on page 1 of the memo was not appropriate in his opinion since it implies traffic calming should only be used on lower function roads. The suggestion was made that some traffic calming techniques could be appropriate for “higher classification” roads (such as arterials) and used throughout the City to help maintain the character of the community. ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 July 23, 2007 07/16/07 CAC Meeting #2 Minutes Page 5 of 7 Overview of the Environmental Scan – Dan Norderud indicated that work on the corridor study is ongoing and that such work includes preparing an environmental scan. The purpose of the environmental scan is to identify environmental issues or conditions that have the potential to influence the location, design or construction of improvements to US 93. He pointed out that meetings with resource agencies occurred in May 2007 and summaries of the meetings can be found in the Meeting Materials Booklet. US Highway 93 Bypass Review – Jeff Key indicated that work directives for the Transportation Plan require RPA to identify and evaluate potential new western routes that might help alleviate traffic on US 93. He explained that RPA revisited four potential western alignments considered in the Somers-Whitefish Final EIS. The western route alternatives were modeled to determine potential future traffic volumes on each alignment and their impacts on US 93 and parts of the local road system. Model runs were completed both with and without alternate routes in place to determine their potential to reduce traffic on US 93. The preliminary modeling showed alternate routes would attract a notable amount of traffic (typically 7,000-15,000 vehicles in 2030); however, significant traffic volumes would likely continue on the existing US 93 corridor. Mary Person related that considerable discussion about a bypass was heard during the development of the Growth Policy. Concerns were expressed over the amount of construction-related heavy trucks on the US 93 corridor destined for ongoing developments in the Whitefish area. Mary also raised the idea of continuing the Kalispell Bypass and developing an entirely new route offering an alternate north-south route to US 93. Mary Jo Look commented that any bypass that is considered should connect at Highway 40 to have any chance of attracting through trucks. She also felt people would not want to “backtrack” (travel south on US 93) to access a westerly route like Alternative A. Mary Person commented that the intersection of US 93 and Blanchard Lake Road (at Coffee Traders) is a concern and that it is particularly difficult to see the intersection during the winter. Jeff acknowledged the comment and indicated that a turning movement count will be performed at the intersection during July. In general, the group felt Alternative D (Karrow Avenue) would be “politically impossible” in Whitefish and the neighborhood’s successful past resistance to new development proposals confirms a high level of engagement along the corridor. Alternative B, a route requiring a crossing of Blanchard Lake, may not be viable due to community Lakeshore Protection ordinances and likely opposition from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Alternative A does not connect to Highway 40 and its distance from the city may not attract much local traffic. Of the alternatives presented, Alternative C would probably be the most favorable since it follows a BPA powerline corridor. Mary Person pointed out that Alternatives B and C pass through the Blanchard and Lost Coon Lake area and both have the potential for substantial wildlife and wetland impacts. There was discussion about whether the word “bypass” should be used. The group generally agreed that it may be best to refer to such options as western alternate routes. Karin Hilding felt the Transportation Plan needs to identify important future road connections and emphasize the need for and the long-term benefits of making such connections. ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 July 23, 2007 07/16/07 CAC Meeting #2 Minutes Page 6 of 7 Jerry House commented that while discussing routes around the west side of Whitefish, it is important to recognize that other areas of the communities also have needs for alternate routes. He cited the need for new connections for those living on the north side of Whitefish. The group agreed with Jerry’s comment and that the Transportation Plan should address needs in all areas of the community. Other Items Discussed Jeff Key identified several emerging topics that will need to be considered in the Transportation Plan. These items are discussed below. Baker Avenue Extension. Jeff indicated he had met with a local business owner regarding a proposal to extend Baker Avenue from its current end point to JP Road. Extending Baker Avenue southward would provide an alternate access route into businesses and land uses along US 93 south. Don Spivey was aware of this proposal and suggested that such a route might be best developed following the zoning boundary. Raised Medians for US 93 South. Jeff stated he had recently talked with Doug Adams about a proposal to install raised and landscaped medians on US 93 from Highway 40 to 13th Street. He showed a set of preliminary concept plans. Don Spivey, a member of the committee for this effort, provided the group with a history of the local efforts to get medians installed on US 93 and stated the group will seek an endorsement of the proposal from the Whitefish City Council. Dale Duff said the median concept was presented during the development of the Somers-Whitefish EIS but the community was unsuccessful in getting the idea included with the Preferred Alternative. There was general discussion about how to address the median proposal in the Transportation Plan. Additional Railroad Grade Separation. Jeff asked the group for ideas on where a new grade separation over the BNSF Railroad might be desirable. He pointed out that there is an existing at- grade crossing east of town on 2nd Street but enhancing the crossing is unlikely. He offered several potential locations for a new grade separation such as Columbia Avenue and the East Texas Avenue/Pine Avenue area. Don Spivey suggested a new crossing in the Cow Coulee area. The group expressed concern that a crossing in the Columbia Avenue area would be undesirable since there is a potential to generate lots of traffic in a residential area. Gary Stephens indicated there is a real need for another way to and from Big Mountain. City Beach Area Circulation. Jeff indicated the City of Whitefish had asked RPA to review traffic circulation and parking issues in the City Beach area. Seasonal traffic volumes, narrow roadways and steep grades on some local streets, and the parking situation contribute to congestion and pose safety concerns for pedestrians and bicyclists in the area. Jeff highlighted these issues and asked for comments from CAC members. Don Spivey stated the Bike Committee had recommended that a one-way loop for traffic be established in the area to help improve safety. Karin Hilding described known circulation and parking issues near City Beach and pointed out a retaining wall along one of the roadways has started to fail. Jeff said RPA will take a detailed look at this area and will develop several improvement ideas that can be considered as part of the Transportation Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 July 23, 2007 07/16/07 CAC Meeting #2 Minutes Page 7 of 7 Next Meeting Date Jeff asked the group about a likely date for the next CAC meeting. George Gardner indicated that WGM has set September 19th as the date for the next meeting on the Whitefish-West project. After considering comments, Jeff indicated the next meeting would be scheduled for the end of September or early October. He will contact CAC members with several dates during that time and set the next meeting date. He also pointed out that the next meeting will be a workshop to discuss preliminary recommendations and could require between 2 and 4 hours to complete. The meeting concluded at 7:45 p.m. F:\TRANS\WHITEFISH\Minutes\WhitefishCAC_071607_mtgminutes_FINAL.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 January 30, 2008 01/08/08 CAC Meeting #3 Minutes Page 1 of 6 Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 CAC Meeting #3 Minutes (January 8, 2008) Introduction The third meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) was held at the Whitefish Public Library conference room on Tuesday, January 8th, 2008 and began at 4:00 p.m. The CAC is an ad hoc committee for the Whitefish Transportation Plan and Urban Corridor Study of US 93 projects appointed by the Whitefish City Council. The following people attended the meeting: CAC Attendees Mary Jo Look Citizen Mary Person Business Owner George S. Gardner Citizen Don Spivey Citizen Nick Polumbus Whitefish Mountain Resort Gary Stephens Whitefish Business Owner/Heart of Whitefish Monte Gilman Whitefish Chamber of Commerce Sabine Brigetta Citizen Shirley Jacobsen Whitefish City Council Bridger Kelch Whitefish Police Department Agency/Consultant Team Karin Hilding City of Whitefish Shane Stack MDT Missoula District Office (Missoula) Jeff Key Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA - Helena) Dan Norderud Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA - Helena) CAC members Jerry House and Dale Duff were not present. Meeting participants were provided with a copy of the draft Transportation Plan prior to the meeting. Meeting Purposes The primary purpose of this meeting was to present the draft Transportation Plan document and its major components to CAC members. This was accomplished through a chapter-by-chapter discussion highlighting the analysis, findings, and recommendations in the document. The meeting was also used to update CAC members on the current status of work for the Transportation Plan and Corridor Study and solicit general input from CAC members. ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 January 30, 2008 01/08/08 CAC Meeting #3 Minutes Page 2 of 6 Meeting Summary Jeff Key of Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA) began the meeting with a few remarks about the project schedule and thanked the CAC members for their patience. The original intent had been to hold this meeting in late September or early October. However, holidays and the receipt of internal review comments on an administrative draft of the document affected the schedule more than anticipated. He stated that the goal is to have the Transportation Plan completed by the end of February and a draft of the Corridor Study should follow closely after the Transportation Plan. He reiterated that significant work has been and continues to be completed for the Corridor Study. Jeff stated that the Plan will be presented for adoption by the City Council and meetings with both the Planning Board and City Council are planned within the next 4-6 weeks. Summary of the draft Transportation Plan Jeff then began a chapter-by-chapter orientation and synopsis of the Transportation Plan for CAC members. Comments were encouraged at any time during the summary of the Transportation Plan. Key discussion and comments regarding individual chapters of the Transportation Plan are highlighted below. Executive Summary No comments received. CHAPTER 1: Introduction and Background Don Spivey commented that the City’s Pedestrian and Bicyclist Trails Master Plan should be added to the list of community transportation planning documents listed on page 1-1. Don also asked about when the redesign work on the urban corridor section of US 93 in Whitefish might begin. Jeff responded that the corridor study and its recommendations must be completed and MDT must address the recommendations in a future NEPA process since this section of US 93 was addressed in the US Highway 93 Somers-Whitefish Final EIS (FEIS) and Record of Decision on the FEIS. CHAPTER 2: Existing Conditions Gary Stephens commented on Table 2-10 (2007 PM Peak LOS for Signalized Intersections) and wondered how an intersection with multiple approaches functioning at LOS C or better could result in an overall LOS of F for the intersection. Jeff indicated that the overall intersection LOS rating is not an average of the LOS on other approaches. One traffic movement, if impeded signigicantly enough, can adversely affect the overall LOS for an intersection. CHAPTER 3: Travel Demand Forecasting Jeff opened the discussion of this chapter by offering a caveat about the results of travel demand forecasting (i.e. traffic modeling). He indicated that the traffic volumes presented as the result of the modeling efforts for various scenarios should be viewed with caution. Although traffic volumes are ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 January 30, 2008 01/08/08 CAC Meeting #3 Minutes Page 3 of 6 readily interpreted and understood, he cautioned that they are only representative of future conditions and the actual volume could vary substantially from the numbers shown. He stressed that the best indication of changes can be gained by looking at the magnitude (percent) of change in traffic volumes between year 2030 traffic volumes with and without the improvements associated with various modeling scenarios. Considerable discussion occurred about modeling scenarios for western route alternatives (Scenarios 1-4). Jeff commented that traffic modeling allowed for a general assessment of the effects of a “bypass” on the community transportation system. He pointed out that modeling showed traffic would likely use such routes; however, the options fail to significantly reduce future traffic volumes through the core of the city. Additionally, the western route alternatives would be very costly projects with numerous environmental impacts and would likely meet substantial public opposition. For these reasons, the draft Transportation Plan does not include a recommendation for a new western route around Whitefish. Don Spivey commented that in his opinion, a bypass is not a recognized “cure-all” for Whitefish’s traffic issues but is one more piece of the puzzle that would help remove some of the trucks and RVs to reduce distractions and dangers on the US 93 corridor in the downtown. Mary Jo Look stated that truck traffic does not enhance the downtown and she felt that people would bypass Whitefish if there was an option. There was a general discussion of trucks in the downtown and the portions of the truck traffic comprised of through trucks and local construction vehicles. It was pointed out that an origin- destination (O and D) study would really be needed to accurately quantify through versus local truck traffic. Jeff pointed out that such efforts can be quite costly. Karin Hilding felt that the idea of an alternate route around Whitefish may be desirable to many residents. Gary Stephens suggested adding language somewhere in Chapter 3 that identifies the community growth scenario considered in the traffic model. CHAPTER 4: Projected Traffic Conditions (2030) Jeff pointed out that Chapter 4 provides information about where problems on the local transportation network may occur in the future and focused his discussion on the information presented in Table 4-3. The V/C ratios higher than 1.0 presented in the Table 4-3 suggest areas on the transportation network that may have insufficient capacity to accommodate future traffic. He pointed out that the information in the Table will likely be used by the City of Whitefish to help establish impact fees for new developments. CHAPTER 5: Problem Identification Jeff highlighted the signal warrant guidelines presented in section 5.2 of the Chapter and indicated that one or more warrants must be met before the installation of a signal can be considered. There ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 January 30, 2008 01/08/08 CAC Meeting #3 Minutes Page 4 of 6 were general discussions about a future signal installation on Spokane Avenue at JP Road and planning for new signal installations. CHAPTER 6: School Transportation Considerations Jeff indicated that traffic and parking related to schools notably affect community traffic flows. He pointed out that the Transportation Plan recommends that the City consider implementing a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program and indicated MDT has a funding program that may help. SRTS include actions to enhance pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure, activities to educate and encourage more students to walk or bike to school, and enforcement activities to increase safety. CHAPTER 7: Traffic Calming Jeff stated that Chapter 7 presents a variety of traffic calming strategies that may be applicable in some situations in Whitefish. CHAPTER 8: Recommended Projects Jeff highlighted the recommendations for network improvements described in the draft Transportation Plan. He advised that the recommendations include Transportation System Management (TSM) measures, major street network improvements (MSN), and Future MSN improvments. The TSM measures are relatively low-cost actions designed to address safety and operational improvements. The MSN improvements are actions that are needed to meet the anticipated traffic demands in 2030. MSN projects typically require more extensive efforts to develop and are notably more expensive than TSM projects. Jeff stressed that project cost estimates do not include right-of-way acquisition costs or costs associated with preliminary engineering, incidental construction and construction engineering. In some cases, these costs (particularly right- of-way acquisition costs) may be substantial. Karin Hilding commented that the Whitefish-West project on US 93 may be split into several projects for construction. She felt that consideration should be given to implementing a walkway project within the Whitefish-West corridor (from Grouse Mountain to the downtown) since lots of people walk in this area and there was a recent pedestrian accident recorded along this stretch of US 93. Shane Stack pointed out that the cost identified for the Whitefish-West is considerably higher than that shown in the draft Transportation Plan. He agreed to provide a current cost estimate for the project. CHAPTER 9: Miscellaneous Transportation System Consideratons Jeff stated that this chapter addresses several topics including a discussion of the pros and cons of several roadway typical sections identified in the Growth Policy and transit considerations in the community. Sections 9.2 and 9.3 are intended to “plant the seed” for developing a transit partnership with Glacier National Park and for ensuring new developments are designed with future ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 January 30, 2008 01/08/08 CAC Meeting #3 Minutes Page 5 of 6 public transit opportunities in mind. Funding has traditionally been a limiting factor for public transit services. CHAPTER 10: Financial Analysis Jeff commented that this chapter presents federal, state, and local funding sources for transportation related improvements. The chapter also identifies current and future funding for transportation projects that may be available to the City of Whitefish. Gary Stephens pointed out that the Whitefish Resort Tax should be included under the Local Funding Options discussion. The resort tax was recently extended through 2023 in Whitefish. General Comments and Discussion Jeff concluded his summary of the draft Transportation Plan by requesting CAC members to review the document and set the end of January as a target date for receiving written comments. Don Spivey stated that some of his written comments will likely pertain to the corridor as well as the Transportation Plan. Mary Person commented that knowing what the situation in Whitefish will be in 2030 is difficult given our dependence on gasoline. The price of gas could be so expensive in the future that our transportation modes change significantly. Jeff pointed out that Transportation Plans need to be revisited periodically (every 5 years or so) to keep current with changing conditions within the community. Gary Stephens stated that he would like to see the Plan include a table (like Table 2-13) that illustrated Level of Service conditions at key intersections in the community in 2030 since the data may help establish priority areas for transportation improvements. Jeff said that this information will be presented in the final version of the Plan. Gary also indicated that Figure 2-15 shows the intersections along Wisconsin Avenue function acceptably (LOS B/C) but in reality traffic backups are common during the AM and PM peak hours due to left turning vehicles along the roadway. He felt the LOS at these intersections should be lower. Jeff responded by noting that RPA did not conduct turning movements at these intersections since recent data was available through other Traffic Impact Studies (TISs). He stated that when the counts for the TISs were conducted could influence the results of the LOS analysis, particularly if there is a notable seasonal variation in traffic. Gary also commented that he felt it was necessary that the plan clearly depict the future transportation network and recommended adding a figure showing the future system based on functional class. It was agreed that such a figure would be added to the Plan. Gary concluded his comments by stating that some method of prioritizing recommended projects should be done to help direct future community efforts towards implementing improvement projects. He felt that prioritizing improvements by need, effectiveness, or timeframe is essential. ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 January 30, 2008 01/08/08 CAC Meeting #3 Minutes Page 6 of 6 Other CAC members agreed with the idea of setting priorities. Jeff responded by noting that other communities where RPA has completed plans have also asked for help setting priorities. For example, Kalispell did not want to set priorities for individual projects but rather establish priorities by group (projects with higher need versus long-term needs). Projects could then be advanced based on the availability of funding or other factors. Jeff acknowledged the benefits of setting priorities and agreed to do this for the final version of the Transportation Plan. Mary Person pointed out that the conservation easements exist in the some areas along the route where improvements to Old Morris Trail (Project FMSN-3 in the Plan) are proposed. Karin Hilding reiterated the need for pedestrian improvements as a short-term improvement within the Whitefish-West corridor close to the downtown. George Gardner asked if the 7th Street Bridge would be considered a collector. Jeff indicated it would likely be associated with the city’s arterial network. The meeting concluded around 6:00 p.m. F:\trans\WHITEFISH\Minutes\WhitefishCAC_010808_mtgminutes_FINAL.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 August 26, 2008 08/19/08 CAC Meeting #4 Minutes Page 1 of 8 Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 CAC Meeting #4 Minutes (August 19, 2008) Introduction The third meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) was held at the Whitefish Public Library conference room on Tuesday, January 8th, 2008 and began at 4:00 p.m. The CAC is an ad hoc committee for the Whitefish Transportation Plan and Urban Corridor Study of US 93 projects appointed by the Whitefish City Council. The following people attended the meeting: CAC Attendees Mary Jo Look Citizen Mary Person Business Owner George S. Gardner Citizen Don Spivey Citizen Nick Polumbus Whitefish Mountain Resort Gary Stephens Whitefish Business Owner/Heart of Whitefish Monte Gilman Whitefish Chamber of Commerce Agency/Consultant Team John Wilson City of Whitefish Karin Hilding City of Whitefish Shane Stack MDT Missoula District Office (Missoula) Sheila Ludlow MDT Statewide and Urban Planning Section (Helena) Dan Norderud Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA - Helena) Scott Randall Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA - Helena) CAC members Jerry House, Sabine Brigetta, Shirley Jacobsen, and Bridger Kelch were not present. Gary Stephens joined the meeting as it was in progress. Dale Duff arrived near the conclusion of the meeting and attended the public meeting. David Taylor, City of Whitefish Planning & Building Director, was also in attendance Meeting participants were provided with a series of Technical Memos prepared for the corridor study prior to the meeting and a meeting handout illustrating design concepts for the corridor previously identified in the Somers to Whitefish Final EIS and other configurations developed after the Record of Decision on the Final EIS. Meeting Purposes The primary purpose of this meeting was to present and discuss five Technical Memorandums prepared for work tasks associated with the Corridor Study. This was accomplished through a ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 August 26, 2008 08/19/08 CAC Meeting #4 Minutes Page 2 of 8 memo-by-memo review highlighting the key information, findings, and analyses from the following memos: • Analysis of the Existing Corridor Transportation System • Current/Planned Land Uses, Community Characteristics, and Environmental Setting • Analysis of Future Traffic Conditions on US 93 through Whitefish • Corridor Issues, Corridor Vision & Goals, and Statement of Purpose & Need • Preliminary Conceptual Design and Improvement Options for the Corridor The meeting was used to share and seek comments on a corridor vision with associated goals and conceptual improvement options and strategies under initial consideration for the corridor. CAC members were also updated on the current status of work for the Transportation Plan and Corridor Study and general comments were heard from CAC members on items of interest to both these projects. Meeting Summary Dan Norderud began the meeting with remarks about the status of the Whitefish Transportation Plan. He noted that a public meeting to present the Draft Whitefish Transportation Plan was held in January and numerous oral and written comments were received on the document. The Draft Plan was also the subject of reviews by Planning Department staff from the City of Whitefish and the Whitefish City-County Planning Board during February and March. Both entities provided written comments on the Draft Transportation Plan. Most notably, these reviews asked that the Transportation Plan not be finalized until recommendations from the Corridor Study have had a chance to be discussed and incorporated into the Plan. The original intent of the project had been to finalize the Transportation Plan and complete the Corridor Study shortly afterwards. Dan stated that both projects will be completed on a more parallel track with a revised version of the Transportation Plan being issued at or near the same time as the Corridor Study. Dan added that draft responses to all written comments on the Draft Transportation Plan are nearly complete and will soon be submitted to MDT and the City for review. The comments and responses will be included as an Appendix in the Transportation Plan. Dan said that considerable work has been performed for the Corridor Study including the completion of an Environmental Scan and a series of Technical Memorandums that will support chapters in the study document. He also indicated the evaluation and screening process for design and improvement options is underway and the results of this evaluation will be presented in a future Technical Memo. Dan noted that considerable work for the Corridor Study will occur this fall with a goal of substantially completing work on the Transportation Plan and Corridor Study by the end of the 2008. ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 August 26, 2008 08/19/08 CAC Meeting #4 Minutes Page 3 of 8 Summary of the Technical Memos Dan then briefly reviewed key information from each of the five Technical Memos previously provided to CAC members. He explained that the memos “mirror” chapters that will be in the Corridor Study document. Further, he noted that these memos have been subject to previous reviews and comments by staff from the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Comments were encouraged at any time during the review of the Technical Memos. Key discussion and comments about individual memos are highlighted below. Analysis of the Existing Corridor Transportation System The Memo discusses the characteristics of the existing road and street network in the corridor, its operation (Level of Service) and its safety performance. The memo also describes other available transportation modes and facilities including non-motorized facilities. Dan highlighted the dual functions of US 93—an arterial roadway serving both state and regional transportation needs and local traffic. He highlighted traffic growth trends (based on historical Average Annual Daily Traffic counts on US 93), briefly discussed traffic characteristics (daily, seasonal, and truck composition), and described locations on the corridor with capacity concerns and undesirable levels of service. Trends based on an analysis of motor vehicle crashes in the corridor during a recent 3-year period were described. Comments from CAC Members: Karin Hilding commented that the shuttle service between Whitefish and Kalispell offered this past winter by Eagle Transit operated on a schedule that was not particularly favorable for Whitefish residents. Dan asked if CAC members knew if any decisions had been made yet regarding continued shuttle transit service for Whitefish. Karin mentioned that Eagle Transit was still investigating this and was seeking some financial support from the City. In comments after the meeting, Gary Stephens highlighted several locations in the memos where information presented needed to be corrected. Text in need of corrections is highlighted below: Page 2 (1st Sentence of Last paragraph) – The sentence should be revised as follows: From south of the Montana Highway 40 intersection and extending to 13th Street, US 93 transitions from a five-lane rural highway with a painted center median/two-way left turn lane to a five-lane urban roadway consisting of two travel lanes in each direction and a center two-way left turn lane. The section… Page 9 (Last Sentence in the paragraph describing Baker Avenue) – The sentence should be revised as follows: …turn lane. The north approach to the Baker Avenue and 2nd Street intersection has been configured with a 12-foot wide through-right lane for southbound traffic, a 12-foot wide left turn lane for southbound traffic, and a 12-foot wide through lane for northbound traffic. A 7.4-foot wide shoulder marked to prohibit parking exists along the west side ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 August 26, 2008 08/19/08 CAC Meeting #4 Minutes Page 4 of 8 of the street on the north approach and a 9-foot wide parking lane exists along the east side of the street. Current/Planned Land Uses, Community Characteristics, and Environmental Setting The Memo examines current and planned land uses within central Whitefish, presents key demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the Whitefish community, and environmental considerations that could potentially influence the location or design of US 93 through the City of Whitefish. Dan noted that two planning documents—the Whitefish City-County Growth Policy and Downtown Business District Master Plan— address land uses in the corridor study area and that the Business District Master Plan has been adopted as part of the Growth Policy. Dan highlighted community growth trends and current and future populations for the City and Whitefish area. Dan also acknowledged several environmental conditions (the Whitefish River and associated wetlands, historic properties, and some hazardous materials concerns) that must be considered during project development and design activities for US 93. He also mentioned that the improvements to US 93 will be subject to the City’s newly adopted Critical Areas Ordinance. Comments from CAC Members: In comments after the meeting, Gary Stephens asked about the significance of the corridor study area boundary shown in Figure 1 of the memo since community wide travel patterns influence the amount and distribution of traffic on US 93. Dan indicated the study area boundary provides a general area of interest for the discussion of land uses and environmental conditions. Karin Hilding pointed out the City may face additional Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MPDES) discharge permit requirements when the community exceeds 10,000 residents. Analysis of Future Traffic Conditions on US 93 through Whitefish The Memo looks at the future traffic conditions and operations of the US 93 corridor in Whitefish expected to occur in the year 2030. This analysis establishes a “baseline” of future conditions which can then be used to help evaluate potential design and improvement options in the US 93 corridor. The future conditions are based on assumptions of future employment and housing within the community and travel demand modeling developed as part of the Whitefish Transportation Plan. Dan noted that the most apparent future deficiencies on the US 93 corridor will be: ƒ the poor operation of unsignalized intersections on Spokane Avenue caused by excessive side street vehicle delays; ƒ deteriorating LOS at the signalized intersections of Spokane Avenue and 13th Street and 2nd Street and Baker Avenue; and ƒ the continued inability for the intersection of 2nd Street and Baker Avenue to completely accommodate trucks. He stated the analyses suggest significant increases in delay and resulting decreases in Level of Service (LOS) are anticipated along Spokane and Baker Avenues in peak hours by the year 2030. ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 August 26, 2008 08/19/08 CAC Meeting #4 Minutes Page 5 of 8 Comments from CAC Members: No comments were offered specific to the content of this memo. Shane Stack asked if RPA optimized signal timing in our analysis of future conditions. Scott Randall responded that the analyses were done with and without optimizing signal timings. Karin Hilding stated that there are obvious problems at signalized intersections on 2nd Street and she wondered what data was necessary and if any of the data can be collected in advance to help facilitate signal improvements sooner than later. The data typically needed for a signal analysis include intersection geometrics lane configurations, lane widths, parking lanes) and turning movement counts during peak hours. Dan explained that much of this information exists and that turning movement counts have been conducted at various times during previous years at key signalized intersections. John Wilson followed Karin’s comments with a question about how soon a project could be developed to improve the signals and wondered if MDT could develop a separate project to undertake signal upgrades? Shane responded by stating that it may be possible to do a separate signal project and that a project addressing the three signals on 2nd Street could be accomplished in a relatively short timeframe (maybe a year) assuming there is no need for right-of-way acquisition. However, he noted that if NH (National Highway) System funds are very tight and MDT does not readily have the funding at this time for such a project. John suggested the Corridor Study (or Transportation Plan) discuss the process for undertaking an interim signal project on 2nd Street. Corridor Issues, Corridor Vision & Goals, and Statement of Purpose & Need The Memo highlights issues associated with the US Highway 93 corridor, reiterates past community input on corridor issues and needs from previous planning efforts and projects, and presents a corridor vision with goals to help identify and evaluate infrastructure improvement options for the corridor. He noted the goals and objectives for achieving the goals will form the basis for screening criteria used to help evaluate design and improvement options. Dan highlighted the following fundamental corridor needs based on previous input from community planning efforts and MDT’s design projects: ƒ Need to Enhance Capacity and Improve Operational Efficiency ƒ Need to Improve Flow of Large Trucks in Corridor ƒ Need to Address Geometric and Design Deficiencies ƒ Need to Upgrade US 93 Infrastructure ƒ Need to Enhance Safety for Facility Users He also noted that corridor improvements need to consider local land use plans and the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; need to be conscious of environment and community character; and need to be feasible to implement. Comments from CAC Members: In comments after the meeting, Gary Stephens highlighted a statement in the second bullet item under the “Safety” heading on page 2 of the memo that indicated crash rates were substantially higher than statewide averages for other urban areas. He indicated this contradicted a statement we made in the Analysis of the Existing Corridor Transportation System memo that says crash rates for a recent 3-year period are not considered high. A review of the ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 August 26, 2008 08/19/08 CAC Meeting #4 Minutes Page 6 of 8 referenced bullet item showed the statement made on page 2 of the memo is correct based on the data presented in Figure 1-9 of the FEIS. Preliminary Conceptual Design and Improvement Options for the Corridor The Memo outlines the design and improvement options under initial consideration for the US 93 corridor through Whitefish. Dan explained the designs and options identified in the memo will be subject to a screening process to ultimately help determine which ones merit further detailed study. The conceptual design and improvement options for the corridor generally consist of: ƒ All alternatives for the Whitefish urban area described in the US Highway 93 Somers to Whitefish Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS); ƒ Design options developed after the Record of Decision (ROD) on the FEIS as part of project development activities for the MDT’s Whitefish Urban project; ƒ Recommendations from the Whitefish Downtown Business District Master Plan; and ƒ Other strategies that may potentially help relieve congestion and reduce future travel demands on the US 93 corridor. Dan referenced a handout showing design configurations (build alternatives) considered in the Somers-Whitefish FEIS and four configurations developed after the ROD. He pointed out these options generally represent the most obvious ways to accommodate traffic flows within the corridor—two directional or one-way travel, couplet configurations using all or portions of Spokane and Baker Avenues, using 2, 3 or 4 lanes to accommodate traffic, and providing east west links between Spokane and Baker Avenues. He noted that without going substantially beyond this project area, no new or “previously undiscovered” design configurations are proposed for the corridor. Dan also briefly discussed the potential indirect benefits to the corridor that may result from locally implemented “off-system improvements and several options or strategies not applicable to the corridor. Comments from CAC Members: George Gardner commented that some of the options do not include portion of Baker Avenue south of 7th Street. He noted that the character of Baker Avenue will change notably (some of these changes are evident already) with corridor improvements making use of the street. In general discussion, it was noted that right-of-way is limited along portions of Baker Avenue and right-of-way acquisition may be difficult. Karin pointed out that during previous City improvement projects on Baker considerable time and effort was spent acquiring needed right- of-way. This discussion expanded to include potential right-of-way issues on Spokane Avenue. Some of the design configurations could require new right-of-way along the street and could potentially impact boulevards along the roadway. Don Spivey commented about the need for a safe pedestrian/bicyclist crossing of Spokane Avenue where the street crosses the Whitefish River north of 13th Street. He noted that the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee has requested that the culverts be replaced with a new bridge and provisions included that allow for a grade separated crossing of US 93 and for crossing from the east ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 August 26, 2008 08/19/08 CAC Meeting #4 Minutes Page 7 of 8 to the west side of the river as the city’s river corridor path is on the west side from that location down to the playing fields near Highway 40. He also pointed out that this had been discussed at a Citizens Working Group meeting in September 2005 and there appeared to be general agreement from MDT about including this design feature. Dan noted that he was aware that replacing the culverts with a bridge was part of the FEIS Preferred Alternative but dropped out of the Record of Decision due to cost reasons. Don Spivey suggested that it be made clear at the public meeting that a design configuration has not been selected and the options presented in the handout are all under consideration. Other General Comments and Discussion Karin Hilding commented about the potential benefits that might be realized if park-and-ride lots were paired with low cost bicycle rental service. She felt this could be a way to encourage summer peak season visitors to use alternate transportation modes and could help reduce the numbers of vehicles on the US 93 corridor. Mary Jo Look asked why a bypass cannot be considered for Whitefish? She believes a bypass from Highway 40 and to US 93 west of Whitefish will greatly benefit the community and would receive much use by traffic wishing to pass through town. Shane pointed out that a bypass can be considered and has been examined in the Transportation Plan. Travel demand modeling suggests a bypass would likely see use; however, significant traffic volumes would still be present on the US 93 corridor and improvements would still be needed. The time required to identify and develop a potential bypass route, the associated high costs of right-of-way and construction, environmental concerns, and the potential for local opposition to a bypass were mentioned as other considerations for implementing a bypass in the community. Shane noted that if a bypass were developed to “replace” US 93 through Whitefish, there would be a potential to lose federal funding for Spokane Avenue and 2nd Street. There was a general discussion about an enhancement to Karrow Avenue and whether the Whitefish-West project includes left turn provisions at the Karrow intersection. Monte Gilman noted that he believes the projects recommended in the Transportation Plan will provide a solution to many of Whitefish’s congestion problems. He supported the increased connectivity which is a basic philosophy of the Plan. Mary Person commented that in her opinion, many of the community’s transportation problems can be addressed through upgrades and more efficient use of existing facilities. Dave Taylor asked when a revised version of the Transportation Plan might be available. Dan explained that the document should be available at the same time or shortly after the release of the Draft Corridor Study. There was a general discussion of the newly completed bicycle and pedestrian path along Wisconsin Avenue. Issues discussed included the need for some minor signing revisions, the community’s use ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 August 26, 2008 08/19/08 CAC Meeting #4 Minutes Page 8 of 8 of the new path, and the conflicts caused by path users crossing in the vicinity of the Whitefish Lake Lodge. In comments after the meeting, Gary Stephens expressed his opinion that the planning horizon for the Corridor Plan should really be 2050 since it is unlikely that improvements to US 93 through Whitefish would be completed given the current funding situation. Gary’s concerns were acknowledged and it was pointed out that using such a horizon year would require making uncertain assumptions about future growth and employment in Whitefish. The meeting concluded around 6:10 p.m. F:\trans\WHITEFISH\Minutes\WhitefishCAC_081908_mtgminutes_FINAL.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 June 7, 2007 05/24/07 Resource Agency Workshop Summary Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 Resource Agency Workshop Meeting Summary Introduction A Resource Agency Workshop was held on Thursday, May 24th in Conference Room A at MDT’s Rail, Transit, and Planning Office at 2550 Prospect Avenue in Helena. The meeting took place between 1:30 to 3:00 p.m. and was attended by the following persons: Sheila Ludlow MDT Statewide and Urban Planning Section (Helena) Jean Riley MDT Statewide and Urban Planning Section (Helena) Carl James Federal Highway Administration Bob Burkhardt Federal Highway Administration Steve Potts U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Jeff Key Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA - Helena) Dan Norderud Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA - Helena) Scott Randall Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA - Helena) Other Agency Representatives Invited Scott Jackson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Allan Stienle U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Jeff Ryan Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Robert Ray Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Julie Dalsaglio U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Jim Satterfield Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) Glenn Phillips Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) Steve Knapp Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) Mark Baumler Montana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) In an effort to provide project information to invited agency representatives who did not attend the workshop, the PowerPoint presentation used for the workshop, and these meeting minutes, have been posted on the project website (http://www.mdt.mt.gov/pubinvolve/whitefish/) under the “Documents/Newsletters” link. All invited agency representatives were provided with an agenda and other project information prior to the workshop to support and foster discussion during the meeting. 05/30/07 Coordination Meeting with the USFWS Page 1 of 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 June 7, 2007 05/24/07 Resource Agency Workshop Summary 05/30/07 Coordination Meeting with the USFWS Page 2 of 8 Workshop Purpose The purposes of this workshop were to: 1) introduce the Consultant Team to agency representatives; 2) provide an overview of the community-wide Transportation Plan and US 93 Urban Corridor Study projects; 3) compare and contrast the corridor planning and NEPA processes; 4) discuss existing conditions within the US 93 corridor and identify known corridor resource issues and concerns; and 5) solicit input from agency representatives on environmental resources along and affected by the highway corridor through Whitefish and possible regulatory concerns. Workshop Summary Overview of the Whitefish Projects Jeff Key began the workshop by providing an overview of the Transportation Plan and Urban Corridor Study projects. He noted there are two distinct projects underway in Whitefish—the Whitefish Transportation Plan and an Urban Corridor Study focused on US 93 within the City. The projects are cooperative efforts funded by MDT and the City of Whitefish that should be completed near the end of 2007. Mr. Key explained that no comprehensive Transportation Study has been undertaken to date within the City and surrounding area and the time is right for such a study due to the land use changes and growth occurring in the community. The Transportation Plan will inventory and analyze the existing transportation system; forecast future development patterns and travel demands; and evaluate the forecasts to determine needed transportation improvements in the study area. He stated that design work for MDT’s “Whitefish Urban” and “Whitefish West” projects on US 93 began in 2005. These projects were developed based on the Preferred Alternative for US 93 outlined in the US Highway 93–Somers to Whitefish Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD). As part of the work for these projects, a Re-Evaluation of the findings and conclusions in the FEIS/ROD as they relate to the Whitefish Urban and Whitefish West project areas is underway. The preliminary results of this effort suggest unanticipated growth has changed traffic volumes and travel patterns within the community. Traffic analysis work also showed the Preferred Alternative for the Whitefish Urban project would not function as indicated in the FEIS/ROD. As a result, MDT and FHWA determined that additional studies and analyses of feasible alternatives are needed for US 93 through Whitefish and resulted in a decision to do a corridor study to take a fresh look at options for the US 93 corridor through Whitefish. Mr. Key stressed that the Corridor Study will be developed within the context of and concurrent with the Whitefish Transportation Plan. This approach allows for a focused look at US 93 through Whitefish based on the consideration of existing and planned land use changes and a detailed evaluation of community-wide transportation needs and desires. He emphasized that these new planning efforts will be sensitive to prior community input and projects like: previous “subarea” transportation studies; the Somers to Whitefish FEIS/ROD; the recently adopted Downtown Business District Master Plan; and the community’s current Growth Policy Update project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 June 7, 2007 05/24/07 Resource Agency Workshop Summary 05/30/07 Coordination Meeting with the USFWS Page 3 of 8 The Corridor Study is not being completed in conjunction with a NEPA document but it will be developed and documented in a manner consistent with NEPA. Recommendations and appropriate supporting information from the Corridor Study will be forwarded into a future NEPA process. Corridor Planning and NEPA Dan Norderud presented a series of PowerPoint slides that discussed Corridor Planning and how it relates to the NEPA process. The discussion identified elements of corridor studies and the potential benefits offered by undertaking corridor planning: reducing the cost of the environmental review process; speeding up project delivery time; and providing for early and ongoing involvement of agencies and the public. Mr. Norderud compared and contrasted Corridor Planning and the NEPA process and discussed how corridor planning can be used to “inform” the NEPA process through the identification of issues and system deficiencies, the development and screening of alternatives, and impact analyses. He explained that both processes have similar goals: • Make decisions in the best overall interest of the community through a collaborative process; and • Bring environmental considerations into agency planning and action. Roles and Responsibilities and Public Involvement Activities Jeff Key identified all parties involved in the projects and remarked that the City of Whitefish appears to be very engaged in the Transportation Plan and Corridor Study. The Consultant Team is working with a Project Oversight Committee composed of members from MDT, FHWA, and the City of Whitefish. Conference calls among members of the committee are held every other week. A Citizens Advisory Committee composed of various stakeholders in Whitefish has also been formed as a sounding board for the projects. Public involvement activities planned for the projects include four meetings with the Citizens Advisory Committee, four public information meetings, a presentation and a formal hearing for the Transportation Plan before the Whitefish City Council, and informal community meetings. The first public informational meeting and meetings with the Citizens Advisory Committee and the City Council were held in mid-April. Mr. Key explained that various public outreach efforts are underway and planned including project newsletters (with distribution to over 5,000 community residents), an online travel preference survey, and a project website. Existing Conditions Summary Mr. Key then presented an overview of the US 93 corridor and conditions within the community that have changed since the time of the Somers to Whitefish FEIS/ROD. He provided information about the functional classification of US 93, lane configurations and traffic controls, estimated traffic volumes, and land uses within the US 93 corridor. It was pointed out that large commercial motor vehicles accounted for 8-13% of traffic within the corridor at time of the Final EIS and that traffic ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 June 7, 2007 05/24/07 Resource Agency Workshop Summary 05/30/07 Coordination Meeting with the USFWS Page 4 of 8 analyses have generally verified that the percentage of large trucks in the traffic stream remains an issue. Mr. Key then identified notable changed conditions within the community and US 93 corridor including information documenting the notable growth, development, and land use changes within the Whitefish area. The information illustrated rapid growth rates and pointed out that migration of out-of-state residents into the area is a significant factor in this growth. Mr. Key advised the group that the City’s new Growth Policy assumes controlled growth would occur within the community and forecasted the addition of about 2,400 new dwelling units over the next 12 years (the planning horizon for the Growth Policy). He also highlighted key objectives of the Downtown Business Master Plan and described recommendations of the plan that could influence the design of the US 93 corridor. Mr. Key concluded by indicating that issues like livability issues and managing growth, alternate transportation modes (particularly pedestrian and bicycle facilities), aesthetics, environmental protection, and preserving the community’s character and “small town” feel are highly important to Whitefish residents based on comments heard to date and previous planning efforts. Dan Norderud then presented information about environmental resources present within the US 93 corridor including: air quality; surface waters/water quality/floodplains; threatened and endangered species; wetlands; general wildlife and fisheries; cultural resources; and hazardous materials. An aerial photo overlain with information about floodplains, wetlands, cultural resource sites, and hazardous materials sites was presented. The information presented was compiled from: previous resource documents prepared for the Somers to Whitefish FEIS; studies conducted in 2005 and 2006 that updated resource information for the Whitefish Urban and Whitefish West project areas; and new information generated for an environmental scan associated with the corridor study. Mr. Norderud explained that the environmental scan will be used to help identify fatal flaws, differences in potential impacts, and procedural requirements associated with alternatives considered for US 93. Next Steps Mr. Key concluded the workshop presentation by summarizing work in progress and briefly outlining upcoming activities for the projects. He indicated that only one agency workshop has been planned but agencies will be kept apprised of progress on the projects. Comments/Discussion Jeff Key indicated during his presentation that there are some differences regarding the City’s managed growth scenario for the community and growth assumptions made for traffic analyses done for the Whitefish Urban project. Bob Burkhardt of FHWA asked if it would be misleading to present two differing growth scenarios in the traffic modeling for the transportation plan. Jeff responded that a decision regarding the most appropriate growth scenario has not yet been made; however, he felt that the scenario representing the worst case for traffic should be used to help identify necessary system improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 June 7, 2007 05/24/07 Resource Agency Workshop Summary 05/30/07 Coordination Meeting with the USFWS Page 5 of 8 Steve Potts indicated that based on the materials presented at the workshop, he believed the issues of interest to EPA are known and will be addressed in the corridor planning effort. There was general discussion among the group about PM-2.5 non-attainment areas since monitoring has shown particulate levels in Whitefish over the 2002-2005 period approached the recently revised 24-hr average standard for PM-2.5. Steve Potts indicated Libby was the only PM-2.5 non-attainment area in Montana and identified Betsy Wahl as an EPA staff member that can provide further information about PM-2.5 non-attainment status. The group also discussed how recommendations from the corridor study may be incorporated into NEPA documents and that corridor planning may help identify less costly and phased approaches to resolving transportation issues. This may enable some projects to be more easily advanced through the environmental review process. Jean Riley also suggested that agencies be provided with advance copies of the corridor study. This would keep agencies up to date on the direction of the project and could help identify notable issues or concerns early in the process. Jean Riley also asked about if the City’s proposed Growth Policy could push growth outside Whitefish’s jurisdictional area. Jeff Key indicated that the Growth Policy has not yet been adopted and some resistance to a limited growth idea has been heard. He pointed out that if growth shifts beyond the jurisdictional area, the effect may not be too significant on US 93 since residents still have to use the roadway for travel within and through the community. Follow-Up Actions Scott Jackson of the USFWS was unable to attend the workshop due to prior commitments. Scott requested a meeting to be set on a different date to discuss the Whitefish projects and obtain input on potential Threatened/Endangered species issues. MDT will contact Scott and set up a meeting. The workshop concluded at 3:00 p.m. ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 June 7, 2007 05/24/07 Resource Agency Workshop Summary Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 May 30, 2007 Coordination Meeting with the USFWS A meeting with Scott Jackson of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was held on Wednesday, May 30th in Conference Room B at MDT’s Rail, Transit, and Planning Office at 2550 Prospect Avenue in Helena. The meeting was arranged because Scott Jackson was unable to attend the Resource Agency Workshop held on May 24, 2007. Scott was provided with a copy of the slides from the PowerPoint presentation made at the Agency Workshop. The meeting took place from 8:30 to 10:00 a.m. and was attended by the following persons: Sheila Ludlow MDT Statewide and Urban Planning Section (Helena) Jean Riley MDT Statewide and Urban Planning Section (Helena) Dan Norderud Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA - Helena) The purposes of this meeting were to provide an overview of the community-wide Transportation Plan and US 93 Urban Corridor Study projects and solicit input from the USFWS on environmental resources along and affected by the highway corridor through Whitefish and possible regulatory concerns. Meeting Summary Dan Norderud began with a brief overview of the Whitefish Transportation Plan and Corridor Study. He summarized MDT’s efforts to develop the “Whitefish Urban” and “Whitefish West” projects—developed based on the Preferred Alternative identified in the US Highway 93–Somers to Whitefish Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) completed in 1994. Dan pointed out that work done for these projects, suggests unanticipated growth has changed traffic volumes and travel patterns within the community. Traffic analysis work also showed the Preferred Alternative (a one-way couplet design) for the Whitefish Urban project would not function as indicated in the FEIS/ROD. Mr. Norderud indicated MDT and FHWA determined that additional studies and analyses of feasible alternatives for US 93 through Whitefish were needed. MDT and the City of Whitefish agreed to prepare a community-wide Transportation Plan and review design options for US 93 in Whitefish. This approach will allow for a focused look at the US 93 corridor considering existing land uses and planned land use changes; community-wide transportation needs and desires; and local planning efforts like the recently adopted Downtown Business District Master Plan and the ongoing Growth Policy Update project. Dan stated that recommendations and appropriate supporting information from the Corridor Study will be forwarded into a future NEPA process. 05/30/07 Coordination Meeting with the USFWS Page 6 of 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 June 7, 2007 05/24/07 Resource Agency Workshop Summary 05/30/07 Coordination Meeting with the USFWS Page 7 of 8 The discussion then focused on threatened and endangered species. Scott related that the following endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species are listed for Flathead County: • Canada lynx – Listed Threatened with Designated Critical Habitat • Gray wolf – Listed Endangered • Grizzly bear – Listed Threatened • Bald eagle – Listed Threatened • Bull trout – Listed Threatened with Designated Critical Habitat • Spalding’s Campion – Listed Threatened Habitat availability, species distribution, the potential impacts associated with improving US Highway 93, and measures to minimize impacts to potentially affected species were discussed among those attending the meeting. These discussions are summarized below. Bull Trout. Scott stated that Whitefish Lake and tributaries above the lake have been designated as critical habitat for bull trout. The Whitefish River, which flows southeasterly from Whitefish Lake to join the Stillwater River, is within bull trout range but does not provide high quality habitat for the species. He pointed out that water quality and temperature are the principal reasons for the habitat limitations in the river. Scott indicated that he had previously discussed the reconstruction of US 93 through with biological resources consultants assisting with the Whitefish Urban and Whitefish West projects. He was aware of the need to cross the Whitefish River at several locations. Jean Riley pointed out that the Preferred Alternative in the FEIS/ROD called for a new bridge across the river at 7th Street linking Spokane and Baker Avenues. Scott noted that USFWS has not had to consider many “new” bridges across bull trout waters in recent years. He said building a new bridge presents a concern but would not be a “deal stopper” given the quality of habitat being crossed in Whitefish. Scott recommended that design efforts should attempt to minimize impacts and encroachment on the Whitefish River through measures like minimizing the number of piers and adequately accommodating flood flows. He also wondered if consideration could be given to replacing the existing culverts with a bridge where Spokane Avenue crosses the river in the southern portion of the corridor. Dan mentioned that a bridge on Spokane Avenue at the identified crossing was being discussed for the Whitefish Urban project. He also said the community had an interest in developing a pedestrian/bicycle trail along the river and some type of crossing under the highway would be desirable at this location. Bald Eagles. Scott indicated that bald eagles could potentially be found foraging along the Whitefish River. He was not aware of any bald eagle nests in the immediate Whitefish area and that information on nesting can be obtained through a request to the Natural Heritage Program. Scott said that bald eagles are becoming more frequent in urban areas and there are some instances of bald eagle nests being established in urban areas. Limitations on construction activities could be possible if a nest were In general, Scott felt that the same type of minimization measures discussed for bull trout would generally benefit foraging eagles and other aquatic species. ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish Transportation Plan Urban Corridor Study of US 93 June 7, 2007 05/24/07 Resource Agency Workshop Summary 05/30/07 Coordination Meeting with the USFWS Page 8 of 8 Grizzly Bears. Scott provided a map showing the boundaries of the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem and the distribution of grizzly bears in 2002. The species distribution map showed that grizzly bears could occur in Whitefish. He felt there are no notable issues related to grizzly bears if US 93 improvements occur along the existing urban corridor. There could be some concern if work for the Transportation Plan and Corridor Study suggest the development of a new bypass route through a more rural area of the community. The principal issue related for grizzly bears for the area was ensuring “good housekeeping” practices and sanitation during construction. Canada Lynx and Gray Wolf. Scott does not there are any issues associated with these species within the US 93 Corridor or the remainder of the study area for the Transportation Plan. The nearest critical habitat for Canada lynx is in Glacier National Park. Spalding’s Campion. Scott indicated the project does not pose a concern for this threatened plant species since suitable habitat for the species does not occur in the immediate Whitefish area. Follow-Up Actions Jean Riley suggested that RPA contact Montana FWP staff in the Whitefish area for their input on wildlife/fisheries resources and relevant issues. RPA will contact Tim Their, Mark Delaray, and Tim Manley and document their comments. F:\TRANS\WHITEFISH\Minutes\Whitefish_agencyworshop_052407_mtgminutes_final.DOC ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C: Transportation Planning Requirements and Their Relationship to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Approvals (July 17, 2008 Letter from FHWA) ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX D: Screening Considerations Used for Assessments of Corridor Improvement Options ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX D: Screening Considerations Used for Assessments of Corridor Improvement Options GOALS AND OBJECTIVES TO SUPPORT THE CORRIDOR VISION A set of goals and associated objectives were developed to support the vision for the US 93 corridor. These goals and objectives provided the basis for identifying the screening considerations used in the evaluation of improvement options and strategies for the corridor. GOAL 1: CAPACITY AND TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Preserve the role of US 93 as regional transportation route while ensuring its future performance and level of service as an urban principal arterial. OBJECTIVES ƒ Provide adequate connectivity to the regional and local transportation network. ƒ Provide adequate capacity and an acceptable Level of Service to the year 2030 or beyond. ƒ Minimize congestion and delays for vehicles at intersections. ƒ Provide a design that manages truck traffic through the community in a safe and efficient manner and accommodates large vehicle movements at key intersections. ƒ Reduce the number of driveway access points existing along the corridor where traffic conflicts are possible. ƒ Accommodate multimodal transportation opportunities within the corridor. GOAL 2: SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS Design improvements that provide a safe roadway and transportation environment for all facility users and those abutting the roadway. OBJECTIVES ƒ Provide a design that addresses conditions at identified high crash locations in the corridor. ƒ Provide a design that reduces opportunities for traffic conflicts within the corridor. ƒ Provide a design that manages truck traffic through the community in a safe and efficient manner. ƒ Reduce the number of driveway access points existing along the corridor where traffic conflicts are possible. ƒ Provide a design that presents a safe and accessible pedestrian environment for all users regardless of age or ability. Appendix D D-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- ƒ Provide roadway design treatments to accommodate bicyclists in a safe manner consistent with guidance from the City of Whitefish’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. GOAL 3: CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE GEOMETRIC DESIGN CRITERIA Ensure improvements are consistent with MDT’s geometric design criteria for urban principal arterials wherever practicable. OBJECTIVES ƒ Eliminate deficient roadway features through the application of basic design controls and geometric design criteria appropriate for the corridor and its setting. ƒ Seek a design exception if the proposed corridor design includes elements which do not meet MDT geometric design criteria for urban principal arterials. GOAL 4: AVOID OR MINIMIZE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Provide transportation solutions that avoid or minimize adverse impacts to the natural, cultural and social environment in the corridor where practicable. OBJECTIVES ƒ Avoid/Minimize impacts to wildlife or fisheries habitat , including Threatened or Endangered Species. ƒ Avoid/Minimize impacts to Wetlands, Waters of the US, floodplains, and City of Whitefish “critical areas.” ƒ Ensure conformity with Air Quality standards. ƒ Avoid/Minimize potential Noise impacts ƒ Avoid/Minimize involvement with Hazardous Materials Sites. ƒ Avoid/Minimize effects to important cultural sites and Section 4(f) properties. ƒ Avoid/Minimize socio-economic impacts. ƒ Attempt to minimize Right-of-Way (ROW) and utilities impacts. ƒ Ensure reasonable access to properties adjoining the highway. GOAL 5: FEASIBILITY/AFFORDABILITY Ensure corridor improvements are feasible to implement, represent a reasonable expenditure of limited public funds, and are acceptable to the community. OBJECTIVES ƒ Ensure improvements are feasible to be implemented by MDT and FHWA. ƒ Ensure improvements can be constructed while maintaining traffic operations. ƒ Ensure relative construction and maintenance costs are in line with likely availability of funding. ƒ Ensure improvement strategy has a reasonable degree of public and political support. Appendix D D-2 ---PAGE BREAK--- GOAL 6: COMPATIBILITY WITH LOCAL PLANS AND COMMUNITY IDEALS Provide transportation improvements in the corridor that are compatible with local land use and transportation plans and that are sensitive to aspects of the community valued by Whitefish’s residents while maintaining mobility along the arterial. OBJECTIVES ƒ Design transportation improvements within the corridor to consider the recommendations made in local plans. ƒ Accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists in a safe manner consistent with the City of Whitefish’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. ƒ Attempt to balance transportation improvements with the preservation of Whitefish’s unique “character” and quality of life. ƒ Identify opportunities to enhance the continuity of the adjoining street network and improve local mobility. ƒ Consider context sensitive solutions (CSS) to enhance the appearance of the corridor. Appendix D D-3 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- SCREENING CONSIDERATIONS USED FOR ASSESSMENTS OF CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS CAPACITY CONSIDERATIONS GOAL OBJECTIVES First Level Screening Criteria Second Level Screening Criteria Preserve the role of US 93 as regional transportation route while recognizing the need for the portion of US 93 within the corridor to adequately function as an urban principal arterial. Provide adequate connectivity to the regional and local transportation network. Does the option provide new and desirable connections to local street network? Trip length and travel time. Provides new and desirable connections to local street network. Provide adequate capacity and an acceptable Level of Service (LOS C or higher) in the year 2030 or beyond. V/C, LOS, average travel time and delay, other measures of effectiveness V/C, LOS, average travel time and delay, other measures of effectiveness Minimize congestion and delays for vehicles at intersections. Does the option have potential to reduce congestion and delay for facility users? V/C ratios, LOS, and travel time and delay. Changes in traffic volumes, VMT, and vehicle hours of travel. Provide a design that manages truck traffic through the community in a safe and efficient manner and accommodates large vehicle movements at key intersections. Would the option change the manner in which trucks are accommodated on US 93? Would the option improve traffic flows for trucks through the City? Would key intersections be designed to better accommodate truck traffic and turning movements? Reduce the number of driveway access points existing along the corridor where possible. Could the option reduce the number of driveway intersections along corridor? Number of driveway access points combined or eliminated in corridor. Accommodate multimodal transportation opportunities within the corridor. Would the option potentially support increased multimodal transportation facilities? Would the option potentially support increased multimodal transportation facilities? Appendix D D-4 ---PAGE BREAK--- SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS GOAL OBJECTIVES First Level Screening Criteria Second Level Screening Criteria Design improvements that provide a safe roadway and transportation environment for facility users and those abutting the roadway. Provide a design that addresses identified safety and design deficiencies. Does the option meet MDT’s geometric design criteria for urban principal arterials? Does the option meet MDT’s geometric design criteria for urban principal arterials? Provide a design that addresses identified high crash locations in the corridor. Does the option address identified common factors identified in crash analysis? Number of locations benefited Provide a design that reduces opportunities for traffic conflicts within the corridor. Does the option have the potential to reduce traffic conflicts? Number of locations benefited Provide a design that manages truck traffic through the community in a safe and efficient manner. Would the option change the manner in which trucks are accommodated on US 93? Would the option improve traffic flows for trucks and improve overall safety? Reduce the number of driveway access points existing along the corridor where possible. Does the option have the potential to reduce the number of driveway access points along the corridor? Number of driveway access points combined or eliminated in corridor Provide a design that presents a safe and accessible pedestrian environment for all users regardless of age or ability. Does the option include improvements to enhance safety for pedestrians? Does the option include improvements to enhance mobility for pedestrians? Does the option include improvements to enhance safety for pedestrians? Does the option include improvements to enhance mobility for pedestrians? Provide roadway design treatments to accommodate bicyclists in a safe manner consistent with guidance from the City’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Trails Master Plan. Does the design option include features that enhance safety for bicyclists? Does the design option include features that enhance safety for bicyclists? CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE GEOMETRIC DESIGN CRITERIA GOAL OBJECTIVES First Level Screening Criteria Second Level Screening Criteria Ensure improvements are consistent with current MDT geometric design criteria for Urban Principal Arterials wherever practicable. Eliminate or reduce the number of existing non- standard features or other physical deficiencies associated with the facility. Does the option meet MDT’s geometric design criteria for Urban Principal Arterials? Does the option meet MDT’s geometric design criteria for Urban Principal Arterials? Appendix D D-5 ---PAGE BREAK--- POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS GOAL OBJECTIVES First Level Screening Criteria Second Level Screening Criteria Provide transportation solutions that minimize impacts to the natural, cultural and social environment in the corridor where practicable. Minimize impact to Wildlife/Fisheries Habitat. Would wildlife or fisheries habitat be affected? Number of streams affected. Potential acres of habitat loss. Minimize impact to Wetlands and Waters of the US. Are wetlands or Waters of the US affected? Estimated acres of wetlands impacted. Number of waters crossed. Estimated length of affected bank areas. Minimize impact to Floodplains. Would FEMA-designated 100- year floodplains be crossed or encroached upon? Estimated length of transverse or longitudinal floodplain encroachment Minimize impacts to Whitefish “critical areas.” Would City of Whitefish “critical areas” including storm water conveyances, streams, wetlands, lakes, or areas with steep slopes be affected? Estimated acres of wetlands impacted. Affects areas with high groundwater, streams, lakes, or areas with steep slopes or geologic hazards. Ensure conformity with Air Quality standards. Is there a potential to increase pollutant emissions? Peak hour vehicle miles of travel/emissions Minimize potential Noise impacts to sensitive receptors. Are noise sensitive receptors present? Number of sensitive receptors Minimize encroachment on Hazardous Materials Sites. Are Hazardous Materials Sites affected? Number of sites and area impacted Minimize impact to Cultural Resources. Are cultural resources affected? Number of sites potentially impacted Minimize impact to Section 4(f) Resources. Are 4(f) Resources affected? Number of sites potentially impacted Minimize socio–economic impacts. Would the option likely cause notable socio-economic effects? Loss of on-street parking? Number of businesses directly affected, Number of on-street parking spaces lost? Minimize Right-of-Way (ROW) impacts. Would new right-of-way be required? Acres of potential ROW impact; Number of potential displacements. Appendix D D-6 ---PAGE BREAK--- FEASIBILITY AND AFFORDABILITY GOAL OBJECTIVES First Level Screening Criteria Second Level Screening Criteria Ensure corridor improvements are feasible to implement and, represent a reasonable expenditure of limited public funds. Ensure improvements are feasible to implement by MDT and FHWA. Relative expense and ease of procedural requirements for MDT/FHWA to advance the option trough a future NEPA process. Does a precedent exist for similar strategies? Would the option be less expensive or procedurally less difficult for MDT/FHWA to advance through a future NEPA process than other options? Does a precedent exist for similar strategies? Estimated Construction Cost. Ensure improvements can be constructed while maintaining traffic operations. Could the option be constructed under traffic? Could the option be constructed under traffic? Ensure relative construction and maintenance costs are in line with likely availability of funding. Is the option potentially fundable by FHWA/MDT? What is the relative cost of the option? Estimated Construction Cost, Estimated Maintenance Costs, Would construction cost be reasonable as compared to other MDT projects? Ensure improvement strategy has a reasonable degree of public and political support. Does the option include components or design features that would likely result in agency or public opposition or generate controversy? Compatibility with local land use and transportation plans; Citizens Advisory Committee/Public response to alternative; Strategy would not face insurmountable opposition. COMPATIBILITY WITH LOCAL PLANS AND COMMUNITY IDEALS GOAL OBJECTIVES First Level Screening Criteria Second Level Screening Criteria Provide transportation improvements in the corridor that are compatible with local land use and transportation plans and that are sensitive to aspects of the community valued by Whitefish’s residents. Design transportation improvements within the corridor to consider the recommendations in local plans. Would the option be compatible with or support recommendations from local plans? Extent to which the option is compatible with recommendations from local plans. Accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists in a manner consistent with the City of Whitefish’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Trails Master Plan. Would the option be consistent with the City of Whitefish’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Trails Master Plan? Does the option provide desired trail connections or enhance trail components? Balance transportation improvements with the preservation of Whitefish’s unique “character” and quality of life. Would enhancements be consistent with features recommended in local plans or desired by the City of Whitefish and local residents? Would enhancements be consistent with features recommended in local plans or desired by the City of Whitefish and local residents? Identify opportunities to enhance the continuity of the adjoining street network and improve local mobility. Does the option provide new and desirable connections to local street network? Degree to which the option makes new and desirable connections to the local street network Consider context sensitive solutions (CSS) to enhance the appearance of the corridor. Does the option have the potential to enhance the appearance of the corridor? Would enhancements be consistent with features recommended in local plans or desired by the City of Whitefish and local residents? Appendix D D-7 ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX E: Technical Materials Relevant to the Operational Review of Corridor Improvement Options ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary of Network Wide Measures of Effectiveness for Each Alternative Under Existing (2003) Conditions Measure of Effectiveness Alternatives from EIS Report Alternative A (4-Lane) Alternative C (Couplet 1) Alternative C (Couplet 2) Record of Decision Preferred Alternative C (Couplet 4) Alternative C (Offset) Number of Intersections 19 19 20 20 19 19 Total Delay / Vehicle (sec/veh) 7 8 7 7 8 8 Total Delay (hr) 51 55 53 52 59 49 Stops / Vehicle 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.29 0.33 0.31 Total Stops 7925 6914 7189 7642 8362 7142 Total Travel Time (hr) 135 134 134 130 137 120 Distance Traveled (mi) 2463 2231 2284 2270 2249 2068 Fuel Consumed (gal) 177 164 166 170 178 155 CO Emissions (kg) 12.4 11.48 11.61 11.87 12.41 10.85 Unserved Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unsignalized Intersections at or above a LOS 8 6 10 11 6 10 Signalized Intersections at or above a LOS 3 5 7 6 6 4 Unsignalized Intersections at or below a LOS 7 8 3 3 7 4 Signalized Intersections at or below a LOS 1 0 0 0 0 1 Measure of Effectiveness Alternatives from WGM Report Downtown Master Plan Modified Record of Decision Contra-Flow Truck Route Number of Intersections 20 20 20 20 Total Delay / Vehicle (sec/veh) 6 6 7 7 Total Delay (hr) 46 45 54 52 Stops / Vehicle 0.28 0.27 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 7539 7019 8332 8179 Total Travel Time (hr) 124 119 134 131 Distance Traveled (mi) 2270 2189 2347 2305 Fuel Consumed (gal) 165 159 179 174 CO Emissions (kg) 11.53 11.08 12.49 12.17 Unserved Vehicles 0 0 0 0 Unsignalized Intersections at or above a LOS 11 10 10 10 Signalized Intersections at or above a LOS 6 6 5 6 Unsignalized Intersections at or below a LOS 3 4 4 4 Signalized Intersections at or below a LOS 0 0 1 0 ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary of Network Wide Measures of Effectiveness for Each Alternative Under Future (2030) Conditions Measure of Effectiveness Alternatives from EIS Report Alternative A (4-Lane) Alternative C (Couplet 1) Alternative C (Couplet 2) Record of Decision Preferred Alternative C (Couplet 4) Alternative C (Offset) Number of Intersections 19 19 20 20 19 19 Total Delay / Vehicle (sec/veh) 403 356 36 84 197 214 Total Delay (hr) 5151 4098 [PHONE REDACTED] 2425 Stops / Vehicle 0.46 0.35 0.37 0.4 0.41 0.47 Total Stops 21205 14487 15040 17097 13665 19168 Total Travel Time (hr) 5289 4229 522 1108 1926 2551 Distance Traveled (mi) 4093 3685 3476 3663 2954 3668 Fuel Consumed (gal) 4057 3223 [PHONE REDACTED] 2030 CO Emissions (kg) 283.6 225.32 35.36 67.27 106.73 141.91 Unserved Vehicles 475 877 844 963 109 340 Unsignalized Intersections at or above a LOS 3 1 1 1 4 0 Signalized Intersections at or above a LOS 3 3 4 3 5 4 Unsignalized Intersections at or below a LOS 12 13 12 13 9 14 Signalized Intersections at or below a LOS 1 2 3 3 1 1 Measure of Effectiveness Alternatives from WGM Report Downtown Master Plan Modified Record of Decision Contra-Flow Truck Route Number of Intersections 20 20 20 20 Total Delay / Vehicle (sec/veh) 84 28 84 214 Total Delay (hr) 984 [PHONE REDACTED] Stops / Vehicle 0.4 0.42 0.41 0.42 Total Stops 17097 17306 17603 17819 Total Travel Time (hr) 1108 448 1114 2631 Distance Traveled (mi) 3663 3595 3673 3653 Fuel Consumed (gal) 962 [PHONE REDACTED] CO Emissions (kg) 67.27 33.42 67.7 145.39 Unserved Vehicles [PHONE REDACTED] 602 Unsignalized Intersections at or above a LOS 1 1 1 3 Signalized Intersections at or above a LOS 4 4 3 4 Unsignalized Intersections at or below a LOS 13 13 13 11 Signalized Intersections at or below a LOS 2 2 3 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Delay LOS v/c Stops / Vehicle Total Travel Time (hr) Distance Traveled (mi) Fuel Consumed (gal) CO Emissions (kg) Baker Avenue / 2nd Street 27.0 C 0.76 0.53 18 152 20 1.39 Eastbound Left 16.6 B 0.27 0.60 1 10 1 0.09 Eastbount Thru/Right 19.5 B 0.48 0.64 3 27 4 0.27 Westbound Left 10.8 B 0.09 0.41 0 2 0 0.02 Westbound Thru 11.4 B 0.20 0.40 1 11 1 0.08 Westbound Right 9.7 A 0.09 0.09 0 9 1 0.04 Northbound Left 18.1 B 0.18 0.60 0 3 0 0.03 Northbound Thru/Right 29.9 C 0.79 0.76 6 41 7 0.48 Southbound Left 129.2 F 1.07 0.81 2 9 2 0.14 Southbound Thru/Right 19.5 B 0.31 0.29 3 39 3 0.24 Baker Avenue / 7th Street 13.5 B 0.61 0.56 10 139 16 1.09 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 23.4 C 0.70 0.72 2 17 2 0.17 Westbound Left/Thru 20.9 C 0.65 0.82 2 34 4 0.27 Westbound Right 25.0 C 0.11 0.21 1 21 1 0.08 Northbound Left 5.2 A 0.12 0.53 0 3 0 0.02 Northbound Thru/Right 8.0 A 0.52 0.56 2 35 5 0.32 Southbound Left 5.5 A 0.14 0.46 0 3 0 0.02 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 8.1 A 0.52 0.48 2 26 3 0.21 Central Avenue / 2nd Street 15.2 B 0.43 0.45 7 71 8 0.59 Eastbound Thru/Right 13.5 B 0.49 0.49 3 31 4 0.25 Westbound Thru/Right 9.1 A 0.31 0.27 2 19 2 0.12 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 21.7 C 0.22 0.54 1 7 1 0.08 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 23.5 C 0.30 0.56 2 14 2 0.14 Spokane Avenue / 2nd Street 13.1 B 0.39 0.39 7 71 8 0.53 Eastbound Left 6.0 A 0.05 0.23 0 2 0 0.01 Eastbound Thru/Right 6.7 A 0.42 0.10 2 26 2 0.13 Westbound Left 13.0 B 0.24 0.52 1 6 1 0.05 Westbound Thru/Right 13.3 B 0.29 0.48 2 17 2 0.14 Northbound Left 21.3 C 0.05 0.72 0 1 0 0.01 Northbound Thru/Right 22.1 C 0.07 0.30 0 5 0 0.03 Southbound Left 20.0 B 0.04 0.71 0 1 0 0.01 Southbound Thru/Right 22.4 C 0.29 0.65 2 14 2 0.14 Spokane Avenue / 7th Street 14.9 B 0.60 0.36 10 142 14 0.95 Eastbound Left/Thru 37.6 D 0.32 0.79 1 10 1 0.10 Eastbound Right 47.1 D 0.07 0.34 1 24 2 0.11 Westbound Left 52.6 D 0.68 0.93 2 7 2 0.13 Westbound Thru/Right 41.8 D 0.41 0.83 1 7 1 0.10 Northbound Left 8.5 A 0.58 0.46 2 21 2 0.17 Northbound Thru/Right 2.7 A 0.17 0.12 1 32 2 0.13 Southbound Left 1.9 A 0.03 0.24 0 1 0 0.01 Southbound Thru/Right 3.6 A 0.45 0.25 2 40 3 0.20 Spokane Avenue / 13th Street 3.3 A 0.34 0.13 8 239 11 0.80 Eastbound Left/Thru - D - - 0 0 0 0.00 Eastbound Right 46.8 D 0.02 0.00 0 3 0 0.01 Westbound Left/Thru 48.6 D 0.21 1.07 0 2 0 0.02 Westbound Right 46.7 D 0.01 0.50 0 2 0 0.01 Northbound Left 1.2 A 0.03 0.14 0 1 0 0.00 Northbound Thru/Right 1.3 A 0.26 0.12 2 63 3 0.23 Southbound Left 1.4 A 0.02 0.25 0 2 0 0.01 Southbound Thru/Right 2.0 A 0.33 0.12 5 167 7 0.52 Contra-Flow Alternative Existing (2003) Conditions Signalized* Intersection Level of Service (PM Peak Hour) *Signal timing was determined by optimizing the network operation through ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Delay LOS v/c Stops / Vehicle Total Travel Time (hr) Distance Traveled (mi) Fuel Consumed (gal) CO Emissions (kg) Baker Avenue / 3rd Street 2.9 C - 0.19 4 75 5 0.34 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 23.7 C 0.22 1.00 0 3 1 0.04 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 21.1 C 0.27 1.00 1 4 1 0.06 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 0.2 A 0.01 0.04 2 41 2 0.14 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 1.8 A 0.04 0.16 1 27 2 0.11 Baker Avenue / 4th Street 2.5 C - 0.18 4 74 5 0.33 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 17.8 C 0.20 1.00 0 4 1 0.05 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 23.2 C 0.20 1.00 0 3 1 0.04 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 0.5 A 0.02 0.09 2 40 2 0.14 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 0.8 A 0.02 0.07 1 27 1 0.09 Baker Avenue / 5th Street 4.2 D - 0.23 6 104 7 0.47 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 26.3 D 0.40 1.00 1 4 1 0.08 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 23.8 C 0.29 1.00 1 3 1 0.05 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 0.5 A 0.02 0.11 3 71 3 0.24 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 0.8 A 0.02 0.07 1 27 1 0.09 Baker Avenue / 6th Street 3.2 C - 0.31 5 97 7 0.47 Eastbound Left/Right 16.2 C 0.38 1.00 1 12 2 0.13 Northbound Left/Thru 1.7 A 0.07 0.32 2 35 3 0.18 Southbound Thru/Right 0.0 - 0.15 0.00 2 49 2 0.16 Baker Avenue / 8th Street 0.4 B - 0.06 4 121 5 0.36 Eastbound Left/Right 11.8 B 0.03 1.00 0 1 0 0.01 Northbound Left/Thru 0.4 A 0.02 0.08 3 86 4 0.26 Southbound Thru/Right 0.0 - 0.32 0.00 1 34 1 0.09 Baker Avenue / 10th Street 1.1 C - 0.11 5 165 7 0.51 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 0.0 A 0.00 1.00 0 0 0 0.00 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 18.8 C 0.14 1.00 0 3 0 0.03 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 0.0 - 0.00 0.00 3 88 3 0.23 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 0.9 A 0.03 0.17 2 74 4 0.25 Baker Avenue / 13th Street 20.0 D - 1.00 10 126 17 1.18 Westbound Left 8.9 A - 1.00 0 0 0 0.00 Westbound Right 9.0 - - 1.00 0 6 1 0.04 Northbound Thru 25.4 D - 1.00 5 44 8 0.57 Northbound Right 7.0 - - 1.00 0 0 0 0.00 Southbound Left 8.3 C - 1.00 0 10 1 0.07 Southbound Thru 17.0 - - 1.00 4 65 7 0.50 Spokane Avenue / 3rd Street 3.0 B - 0.26 2 41 3 0.20 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 13.4 B 0.16 1.00 0 4 1 0.05 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 13.1 B 0.11 1.00 0 3 0 0.03 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 2.4 A 0.01 0.17 0 5 0 0.02 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 0.2 A 0.01 0.05 1 29 1 0.10 Spokane Avenue / 4th Street 3.0 C - 0.24 2 47 3 0.22 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 13.8 B 0.13 1.00 0 3 0 0.03 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 16.0 C 0.19 1.00 1 5 1 0.05 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 2.5 A 0.02 0.16 0 8 0 0.03 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 0.2 A 0.01 0.05 1 32 2 0.11 Spokane Avenue / 5th Street 1.8 C - 0.16 2 51 3 0.21 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 13.7 B 0.09 1.00 0 2 0 0.02 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 15.5 C 0.09 1.00 0 2 0 0.02 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 2.7 A 0.02 0.21 1 14 1 0.06 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 0.1 A 0.00 0.02 1 32 2 0.11 Spokane Avenue / 6th Street 4.1 D - 0.27 4 78 5 0.36 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 17.5 C 0.34 1.00 1 5 1 0.09 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 32.8 D 0.11 1.00 0 1 0 0.01 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 5.7 A 0.11 0.37 1 18 1 0.09 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 0.0 - 0.00 0.00 2 53 2 0.17 Contra-Flow Alternative Existing (2003) Conditions Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service (PM Peak Hour) ---PAGE BREAK--- Spokane Avenue / 8th Street 1.0 E - 0.03 4 117 5 0.35 Westbound Left/Right 39.2 E 0.31 1.00 1 3 1 0.05 Northbound Thru/Right 0.0 - 0.32 0.00 2 54 2 0.14 Southbound Thru/Left 0.0 - 0.36 0.00 2 61 2 0.16 Spokane Avenue / 9th Street 0.0 A - 0.00 3 94 4 0.25 Westbound Left/Right 0.0 A 0.00 1.00 0 0 0 0.00 Northbound Thru/Right 0.0 - 0.34 0.00 1 33 1 0.09 Southbound Thru/Left 0.0 - 0.38 0.00 2 61 2 0.16 Spokane Avenue / Riverside Avenue 0.1 B - 0.01 5 186 7 0.50 Westbound Left/Right 11.4 B 0.30 1.00 0 2 0 0.01 Northbound Thru/Right 0.0 - 0.34 0.00 4 150 6 0.40 Southbound Thru/Left 0.0 - 0.35 0.00 1 35 1 0.09 ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Delay LOS v/c Stops / Vehicle Total Travel Time (hr) Distance Traveled (mi) Fuel Consumed (gal) CO Emissions (kg) Baker Avenue / 2nd Street 34.5 C 1.05 0.64 36 201 37 2.58 Eastbound Left 26.0 C 0.44 0.70 2 12 2 0.14 Eastbount Thru/Right 32.0 C 0.70 0.77 6 34 6 0.43 Westbound Left 24.2 C 0.42 0.74 1 5 1 0.06 Westbound Thru 21.3 C 0.28 0.64 2 14 2 0.14 Westbound Right 21.1 C 0.26 0.22 1 18 2 0.11 Northbound Left 14.9 B 0.17 0.57 0 2 0 0.02 Northbound Thru/Right 27.2 C 0.80 0.80 8 49 9 0.60 Southbound Left 208.3 F 1.31 0.71 11 12 9 0.60 Southbound Thru/Right 17.8 B 0.48 0.53 6 57 7 0.48 Baker Avenue / 7th Street 175.0 F 1.66 0.71 82 231 76 5.30 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 131.5 F 1.23 0.77 26 43 22 1.53 Westbound Left/Thru 15.2 B 0.72 0.77 4 56 6 0.43 Westbound Right 8.8 A 0.16 0.16 1 29 2 0.11 Northbound Left 10.5 B 0.39 0.81 0 4 1 0.05 Northbound Thru/Right 30.9 C 0.93 0.72 8 46 10 0.72 Southbound Left 161.9 F 1.24 0.71 9 9 7 0.50 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 457.9 F 1.97 0.75 34 44 28 1.96 Central Avenue / 2nd Street 16.6 B 0.54 0.57 12 99 14 0.97 Eastbound Thru/Right 17.4 B 0.57 0.65 5 34 5 0.37 Westbound Thru/Right 12.0 B 0.57 0.44 3 33 4 0.26 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 18.7 B 0.33 0.61 2 11 2 0.13 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 21.6 C 0.45 0.62 2 21 3 0.21 Spokane Avenue / 2nd Street 14.2 B 0.48 0.47 11 107 12 0.86 Eastbound Left 7.4 A 0.20 0.25 0 4 0 0.02 Eastbound Thru/Right 8.2 A 0.50 0.18 2 28 2 0.16 Westbound Left 12.5 B 0.20 0.55 0 4 0 0.03 Westbound Thru/Right 15.0 B 0.49 0.61 3 27 4 0.25 Northbound Left 19.2 B 0.27 0.66 1 6 1 0.06 Northbound Thru/Right 18.8 B 0.32 0.52 2 16 2 0.14 Southbound Left 15.8 B 0.06 0.73 0 2 0 0.01 Southbound Thru/Right 18.7 B 0.39 0.62 2 20 3 0.18 Spokane Avenue / 7th Street 12.1 B 0.86 0.57 17 253 26 1.84 Eastbound Left/Thru 13.0 B 0.34 0.71 1 21 2 0.15 Eastbound Right 16.1 B 0.67 0.48 5 99 8 0.58 Westbound Left 13.5 B 0.39 0.73 1 8 1 0.09 Westbound Thru/Right 12.6 B 0.28 0.59 1 10 1 0.09 Northbound Left - - - 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 Northbound Thru/Right 7.4 A 0.53 0.49 4 66 7 0.51 Southbound Left - - - 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 Southbound Thru/Right 13.6 B 0.80 0.71 5 48 6 0.43 Spokane Avenue / 13th Street 14.7 B 0.79 0.57 29 495 44 3.10 Eastbound Left/Thru 32.1 C 0.10 0.84 0 3 0 0.03 Eastbound Right 31.7 C 0.05 0.23 0 7 1 0.04 Westbound Left/Thru 64.9 E 0.88 0.88 4 24 4 0.30 Westbound Right 32.5 C 0.15 0.33 1 12 1 0.07 Northbound Left 10.7 B 0.21 0.29 0 3 0 0.01 Northbound Thru/Right 7.8 A 0.67 0.48 7 134 13 0.94 Southbound Left 16.3 B 0.40 0.56 0 9 1 0.05 Southbound Thru/Right 13.3 B 0.75 0.65 15 303 24 1.66 Contra-Flow Alternative Future (2030) Conditions Signalized* Intersection Level of Service (PM Peak Hour) *Signal timing was determined by optimizing the network operation through ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Delay LOS v/c Stops / Vehicle Total Travel Time (hr) Distance Traveled (mi) Fuel Consumed (gal) CO Emissions (kg) Baker Avenue / 3rd Street 84.0 F - 0.35 43 112 36 2.51 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 439.5 F 1.72 1.00 19 10 15 1.03 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 352.0 F 1.59 1.00 20 10 16 1.11 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 0.6 A 0.02 0.11 2 44 2 0.16 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 2.8 A 0.22 0.24 2 48 3 0.20 Baker Avenue / 4th Street 88.7 F - 0.34 47 112 39 2.69 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 317.1 F 1.44 1.00 13 9 10 0.71 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 494.1 F 1.90 1.00 30 10 23 1.62 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 0.9 A 0.03 0.17 2 41 2 0.17 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 2.0 A 0.24 0.17 2 51 3 0.20 Baker Avenue / 5th Street 56.2 F - 0.31 31 130 27 1.89 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 275.8 F 1.35 1.00 11 5 9 0.60 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 255.5 F 1.38 1.00 16 9 12 0.87 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 0.5 A 0.02 0.10 3 67 3 0.20 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 1.7 A 0.25 0.15 2 49 3 0.19 Baker Avenue / 6th Street 27.5 F - 0.61 21 159 22 1.57 Eastbound Left/Right 143.5 F 1.18 1.00 14 22 12 0.85 Northbound Left/Thru 5.5 A 0.22 1.05 3 42 6 0.41 Southbound Thru/Right 0.0 - 0.27 0.00 4 95 4 0.30 Baker Avenue / 8th Street 13.3 F - 0.43 12 182 17 1.16 Eastbound Left/Right 98.9 F 0.98 1.00 6 13 6 0.39 Northbound Left/Thru 3.5 A 0.14 0.67 4 120 9 0.64 Southbound Thru/Right 0.0 - 0.46 0.00 1 49 2 0.13 Baker Avenue / 10th Street 16.0 F - 0.49 14 239 20 14.00 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 0.0 A 0.00 1.00 0 0 0 0.00 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 140.8 F 1.06 1.00 7 13 6 0.41 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 0.0 - 0.00 0.00 3 112 4 0.30 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 4.5 A 0.19 0.85 4 114 10 0.69 Baker Avenue / 13th Street 72.7 F - 1.00 36 180 4.5 2.81 Westbound Left 10.3 B - 1.00 0 2 - 0.01 Westbound Right 10.3 - - 1.00 1 9 - 0.07 Northbound Thru 91.6 F - 1.00 18 56 3 1.33 Northbound Right 7.3 - - 1.00 0 5 - 0.05 Southbound Left 8.9 F - 1.00 0 11 10.1 0.08 Southbound Thru 78.1 - - 1.00 16 96 5.3 1.28 Spokane Avenue / 3rd Street 7.9 D - 0.40 5 65 6 0.42 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 25.5 D 0.53 1.00 2 8 2 0.14 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 23.1 C 0.39 1.00 1 7 1 0.09 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 3.2 A 0.09 0.24 1 21 1 0.09 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 0.4 A 0.01 0.07 1 28 1 0.10 Spokane Avenue / 4th Street 13.7 F - 0.36 8 82 9 0.62 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 34.3 D 0.59 1.00 2 8 2 0.14 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 90.6 F 0.83 1.00 3 8 3 0.21 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 4.0 A 0.15 0.30 2 33 2 0.16 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 0.3 A 0.01 0.05 1 34 2 0.11 Spokane Avenue / 5th Street 5.2 F - 0.27 6 105 7 0.52 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 25.8 D 0.35 1.00 1 4 1 0.07 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 51.2 F 0.49 1.00 1 4 1 0.08 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 3.7 A 0.17 0.32 3 60 4 0.25 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 0.1 A 0.00 0.02 1 37 2 0.12 Spokane Avenue / 6th Street 9.0 F - 0.35 9 121 10 0.73 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 40.5 E 0.67 1.00 2 7 2 0.17 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 182.0 F 0.67 1.00 2 2 1 0.09 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 4.7 A 0.18 0.44 3 51 4 0.28 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 0.0 - 0.21 0.00 2 61 3 0.19 Contra-Flow Alternative Future (2030) Conditions Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service (PM Peak Hour) ---PAGE BREAK--- Spokane Avenue / 8th Street 6.5 F - 0.08 12 212 14 0.96 Westbound Left/Right 362.0 F 1.25 1.00 5 4 4 0.29 Northbound Thru/Right 0.0 - 0.59 0.00 3 99 4 0.26 Southbound Thru/Left 1.8 A 0.65 0.12 3 109 6 0.40 Spokane Avenue / 9th Street 2.8 F - 0.01 7 167 8 0.58 Westbound Left/Right 375.1 F 0.95 1.00 2 1 2 0.13 Northbound Thru/Right 0.0 - 0.62 0.00 2 61 2 0.16 Southbound Thru/Left 0.0 - 0.66 0.00 3 105 4 0.28 Spokane Avenue / Riverside Avenue 0.1 C - 0.01 10 342 13 0.92 Westbound Left/Right 16.6 C 0.08 1.00 0 3 0 0.02 Northbound Thru/Right 0.0 - 0.62 0.00 8 275 10 0.73 Southbound Thru/Left 0.0 - 0.66 0.00 2 64 2 0.17 ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Delay LOS v/c Stops / Vehicle Total Travel Time (hr) Distance Traveled (mi) Fuel Consumed (gal) CO Emissions (kg) Baker Avenue / 2nd Street 30.1 C 0.73 0.53 17 162 20 1.40 Eastbound Left 9.5 A 0.26 0.51 1 10 1 0.07 Eastbound Thru/Right 10.8 B 0.43 0.52 3 30 3 0.23 Westbound Left 2.7 A 0.08 0.17 0 2 0 0.01 Westbound Thru 3.1 A 0.28 0.21 1 20 1 0.10 Westbound Right 1.0 A 0.13 0.04 1 13 1 0.05 Northbound Left 26.2 C 0.38 0.72 0 3 0 0.03 Northbound Thru/Right 42.6 D 0.87 0.87 5 32 6 0.41 Southbound Left 234.9 F 1.31 0.81 1 7 1 0.08 Southbound Thru 34.0 C 0.76 0.85 4 28 5 0.35 Southbound Right 22.9 C 0.17 0.09 1 17 1 0.07 Baker Avenue / 13th Street 18.7 B 0.47 0.27 6 157 9 0.66 Westbound Left 103.1 F - 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 Westbound Right 103.1 F 0.14 0.08 1 20 1 0.07 Northbound Thru 2.7 A 0.29 0.30 1 31 2 0.16 Northbound Right 1.8 A 0.01 0.38 0 1 0 0.00 Southbound Left 3.0 A 0.32 0.33 2 67 4 0.28 Southbound Thru 2.3 A 0.20 0.28 1 37 2 0.14 Central Avenue / 2nd Street 11.8 B 0.43 0.47 7 81 9 0.62 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 10.2 B 0.52 0.46 3 35 4 0.25 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 10.1 B 0.53 0.49 3 35 4 0.27 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 20.4 C 0.05 0.38 0 2 0 0.02 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 22.3 C 0.20 0.50 1 9 1 0.08 Spokane Avenue / 2nd Street 14.6 B 0.55 0.56 10 105 13 0.88 Eastbound Left 4.1 A 0.06 0.20 0 2 0 0.01 Eastbound Thru/Right 7.6 A 0.56 0.49 2 32 3 0.21 Westbound Left 12.9 B 0.20 0.56 0 4 0 0.03 Westbound Thru/Right 14.0 B 0.36 0.58 2 20 3 0.18 Northbound Left 20.6 C 0.36 0.68 1 10 1 0.10 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 21.4 C 0.46 0.62 3 23 3 0.22 Southbound Left 16.0 B 0.05 0.64 0 1 0 0.01 Southbound Thru/Right 17.8 B 0.28 0.58 2 14 2 0.12 Spokane Avenue / 13th Street 7.4 A 0.52 0.37 13 267 21 1.46 Eastbound Left 8.6 A 0.10 0.61 0 3 0 0.02 Eastbound Thru 8.6 A 0.09 0.58 0 4 0 0.02 Eastbound Right 10.3 B 0.53 0.53 2 31 2 0.17 Westbound Left 14.3 B 0.39 0.72 1 16 1 0.10 Westbound Thru 12.7 B 0.12 0.69 0 7 1 0.04 Westbound Right 12.3 B 0.04 0.26 0 7 0 0.03 Northbound Left 5.5 A 0.15 0.59 0 5 1 0.04 Northbound Thru 6.2 A 0.39 0.54 3 60 6 0.44 Northbounc Right 5.0 A 0.12 0.13 1 15 1 0.06 Southbound Left 4.8 A 0.05 0.67 0 3 0 0.01 Southbound Thru 5.8 A 0.33 0.51 4 112 7 0.52 Southbound Right 4.5 A 0.01 0.37 0 4 0 0.01 Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration Existing (2003) Conditions Signalized* Intersection Level of Service (PM Peak Hour) *Signal timing was determined by optimizing the network operation through ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Delay LOS v/c Stops / Vehicle Total Travel Time (hr) Distance Traveled (mi) Fuel Consumed (gal) CO Emissions (kg) Baker Avenue / 3rd Street 2.6 C - 0.17 4 75 5 0.32 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 18.2 C 0.10 1.00 0 2 0 0.02 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 20.5 C 0.31 1.00 1 5 1 0.07 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 0.2 A 0.01 0.05 1 32 2 0.11 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 0.8 A 0.17 0.07 1 36 2 0.13 Baker Avenue / 4th Street 3.5 C - 0.21 4 76 5 0.36 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 18.8 C 0.22 1.00 1 4 1 0.05 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 24.8 C 0.36 1.00 1 4 1 0.07 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 0.4 A 0.01 0.07 1 30 2 0.11 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 1.0 A 0.17 0.09 2 37 2 0.13 Baker Avenue / 5th Street 5.1 D - 0.26 6 96 7 0.47 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 26.4 D 0.40 1.00 1 4 1 0.08 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 25.8 D 0.42 1.00 1 5 1 0.09 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 0.4 A 0.01 0.09 2 51 2 0.17 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 1.1 A 0.19 0.09 2 37 2 0.13 Baker Avenue / 6th Street 2.5 C - 0.24 5 103 6 0.44 Eastbound Left/Right 15.5 C 0.31 1.00 1 9 1 0.10 Northbound Left/Thru 1.6 A 0.06 0.29 1 26 2 0.13 Southbound Thru/Right 0.0 - 0.21 0.00 3 68 3 0.21 Baker Avenue / 7th Street 4.9 C - 0.36 5 86 8 0.56 Eastbound Left/Right 24.2 C 0.57 1.00 2 15 3 0.18 Northbound Left/Thru 2.9 A 0.11 0.53 1 37 4 0.27 Southbound Thru/Right 0.0 - 0.21 0.00 1 34 2 0.11 Baker Avenue / 8th Street 0.5 - - 0.08 4 132 6 0.41 Eastbound Left/Right 11.1 B 0.06 1.00 0 2 0 0.02 Northbound Left/Thru 0.6 A 0.02 0.11 3 85 4 0.26 Southbound Thru/Right 0.0 - 0.28 0.00 1 46 2 0.12 Baker Avenue / 10th Street 0.8 - - 0.08 6 192 8 0.57 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 0.0 A 0.00 1.00 0 0 0 0.00 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 18.7 C 0.14 1.00 0 3 0 0.03 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 0.0 - 0.00 0.00 2 86 3 0.23 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 1.0 A 0.21 0.10 3 103 4 0.31 Spokane Avenue / 3rd Street 2.3 C - 0.19 4 72 4 0.31 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 17.6 C 0.14 1.00 0 2 0 0.03 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 20.5 C 0.21 1.00 0 4 1 0.04 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 1.7 A 0.04 0.15 2 38 2 0.15 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 0.2 A 0.17 0.05 1 29 1 0.10 Spokane Avenue / 4th Street 4.5 E - 0.23 5 83 6 0.42 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 19.9 C 0.24 1.00 1 3 1 0.05 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 43.1 E 0.49 1.00 1 6 1 0.09 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 2.0 A 0.06 0.17 2 44 2 0.17 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 0.2 A 0.22 0.05 1 31 1 0.10 Spokane Avenue / 5th Street 3.2 E - 0.20 6 113 7 0.48 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 21.2 C 0.21 1.00 0 3 1 0.04 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 38.7 E 0.37 1.00 1 4 1 0.06 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 2.1 A 0.07 0.19 3 74 4 0.28 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 0.2 A 0.23 0.03 1 32 2 0.11 Spokane Avenue / 6th Street 5.9 F - 0.15 9 171 10 0.72 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 20.7 C 0.28 1.00 1 3 1 0.06 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 87.5 F 0.69 1.00 2 5 2 0.13 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 0.7 A 0.02 0.06 4 110 5 0.36 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 0.2 A 0.28 0.04 2 53 2 0.17 Spokane Avenue / 8th Street 2.0 E - 0.06 5 143 7 0.45 Westbound Left/Right 37.9 E 0.44 1.00 1 5 1 0.08 Northbound Thru/Right 0.0 - 0.33 0.00 2 55 2 0.15 Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration Existing (2003) Conditions Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service (PM Peak Hour) ---PAGE BREAK--- Southbound Thru/Left 0.2 A 0.20 0.03 2 83 3 0.23 Spokane Avenue / 9th Street 0.7 F - 0.01 3 80 3 0.23 Westbound Left/Right 52.3 F 0.21 1.00 0 1 0 0.02 Northbound Thru/Right 0.0 - 0.35 0.00 1 36 1 0.10 Southbound Thru/Left 0.0 - 0.20 0.00 1 43 2 0.11 Spokane Avenue / Riverside Avenue 0.3 C - 0.02 6 188 7 0.52 Eastbound Left/Right 17.0 C 0.09 1.00 0 3 0 0.02 Northbound Thru/Right 0.0 - 0.36 0.00 5 159 6 0.42 Southbound Thru/Left 0.0 - 0.18 0.00 1 26 1 0.07 ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Delay LOS v/c Stops / Vehicle Total Travel Time (hr) Distance Traveled (mi) Fuel Consumed (gal) CO Emissions (kg) Baker Avenue / 2nd Street 23.3 C 0.82 0.67 28 214 32 2.23 Eastbound Left 21.6 C 0.47 0.75 2 10 2 0.12 Eastbound Thru/Right 24.5 C 0.69 0.76 5 36 6 0.41 Westbound Left 17.5 B 0.59 0.71 1 7 2 0.11 Westbound Thru 13.0 B 0.45 0.57 2 23 3 0.21 Westbound Right 9.5 A 0.36 0.28 2 25 2 0.14 Northbound Left 20.1 C 0.43 0.73 0 2 0 0.03 Northbound Thru/Right 23.0 C 0.73 0.76 5 40 6 0.43 Southbound Left 25.3 C 0.63 0.72 1 7 1 0.08 Southbound Thru 38.1 D 0.92 0.86 9 50 9 0.66 Southbound Right 14.3 B 0.16 0.18 1 12 1 0.06 Baker Avenue / 13th Street 15.6 B 0.99 0.37 18 335 25 1.78 Westbound Left 42.6 D 0.07 1.09 0 1 0 0.01 Westbound Right 78.9 E 0.21 0.30 2 32 3 0.19 Northbound Thru 3.0 A 0.39 0.25 2 48 3 0.23 Northbound Right 1.7 A 0.08 0.04 0 10 0 0.03 Southbound Left 11.6 B 0.84 0.56 9 145 13 0.93 Southbound Thru 3.4 A 0.46 0.27 4 99 6 0.39 Central Avenue / 2nd Street 16.0 B 0.74 0.53 14 122 16 1.12 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 7.7 A 0.49 0.36 3 37 3 0.23 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 10.8 B 0.75 0.52 5 54 6 0.44 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 32.2 C 0.62 0.80 3 11 3 0.19 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 34.9 C 0.60 0.71 3 20 4 0.26 Spokane Avenue / 2nd Street 19.5 B 0.68 0.66 17 136 20 1.39 Eastbound Left 12.4 B 0.13 0.58 0 2 0 0.02 Eastbound Thru/Right 18.4 B 0.67 0.66 4 33 5 0.33 Westbound Left 16.1 B 0.23 0.64 0 3 0 0.03 Westbound Thru/Right 19.4 B 0.56 0.72 4 28 4 0.30 Northbound Left 26.4 C 0.67 0.78 3 19 4 0.26 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 20.1 C 0.56 0.64 4 31 4 0.29 Southbound Thru/Right 13.3 B 0.07 0.67 0 1 0 0.01 Southbound Left 15.3 B 0.32 0.51 2 19 2 0.15 Spokane Avenue / 13th Street 27.6 C 0.99 0.49 5062 3937 3890 271.94 Eastbound Left 10.7 B 0.11 0.38 0 6 1 0.04 Eastbound Thru 11.0 B 0.18 0.41 1 15 1 0.09 Eastbound Right 37.3 D 0.98 0.94 13 75 14 0.95 Westbound Left 18.4 B 0.59 0.71 3 39 4 0.28 Westbound Thru 12.8 B 0.13 0.52 1 13 1 0.07 Westbound Right 13.0 B 0.15 0.47 1 14 1 0.08 Northbound Left 26.6 C 0.49 0.76 1 8 1 0.10 Northbound Thru 36.6 D 0.93 0.86 17 109 23 1.58 Northbound Right 17.3 B 0.24 0.08 1 29 2 0.11 Southbound Left - - - 0.70 8 133 12 0.81 Southbound Thru 20.0 C 0.50 0.35 0 3 0 0.01 Southbound Right 14.9 B 0.01 0.72 47 444 59 4.11 Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration Future (2030) Conditions Signalized* Intersection Level of Service (PM Peak Hour) *Signal timing was determined by optimizing the network operation through ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Delay LOS v/c Stops / Vehicle Total Travel Time (hr) Distance Traveled (mi) Fuel Consumed (gal) CO Emissions (kg) Baker Avenue / 3rd Street 132.0 F - 0.35 72 123 57 3.98 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 518.2 F 1.88 1.00 21 10 16 1.14 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 683.0 F 2.32 1.00 46 12 35 2.45 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 0.7 A 0.02 0.13 2 36 2 0.14 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 2.1 A 0.30 0.19 3 65 4 0.26 Baker Avenue / 4th Street 1388.1 F - 0.33 755 126 558 38.97 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 438.5 F 1.69 1.00 16 9 13 0.88 Westbound Left/Thru/Right - F 3.02 1.00 734 12 539 37.67 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 0.8 A 0.03 0.15 1 34 2 0.13 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 1.8 A 0.33 0.17 3 71 4 0.28 Baker Avenue / 5th Street 1390.4 F - 0.33 774 145 572 40.01 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 568.6 F 1.96 1.00 21 5 16 1.13 Westbound Left/Thru/Right - F 3.06 1.00 748 11 549 38.38 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 0.7 A 0.02 0.14 2 57 3 0.20 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 1.8 A 0.36 0.17 3 72 4 0.29 Baker Avenue / 6th Street 52.7 F - 0.51 40 199 37 2.55 Eastbound Left/Right 335.3 F 1.61 1.00 32 22 25 1.73 Northbound Left/Thru 6.2 A 0.22 1.19 2 34 5 0.37 Southbound Thru/Right 0.0 A 0.42 0.00 6 143 6 0.45 Baker Avenue / 7th Street 2261.4 F - 1.28 1766 167 1321 92.35 Eastbound Left/Right - F 6.54 1.00 1754 41 1291 90.23 Northbound Left/Thru 18.6 C 0.52 3.67 6 54 27 1.90 Southbound Thru/Right 0.0 A 0.46 0.00 3 72 3 0.22 Baker Avenue / 8th Street 31.0 F - 0.80 30 252 42 2.91 Eastbound Left/Right 371.0 F 1.62 1.00 21 13 16 1.12 Northbound Left/Thru 10.8 B 0.27 2.15 7 134 22 1.51 Southbound Thru/Right 0.0 A 0.62 0.00 3 105 4 0.28 Baker Avenue / 10th Street 49.0 F - 0.45 47 389 50 3.48 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 0.0 A 0.00 1.00 0 0 0 0.00 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 809.4 F 2.49 1.00 35 13 27 1.85 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 1.3 A 0.03 0.26 4 132 7 0.48 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 4.8 A 0.49 0.50 8 245 16 1.14 Spokane Avenue / 3rd Street 14.7 F - 0.35 10 95 10 0.72 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 80.2 F 0.84 1.00 3 7 3 0.22 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 72.1 F 0.73 1.00 2 7 2 0.10 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 3.1 A 0.10 0.26 3 55 3 0.24 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 0.5 A 0.24 0.09 1 26 1 0.09 Spokane Avenue / 4th Street 1837.6 F - 0.38 958 123 707 49.41 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right - F 6.52 1.00 406 7 298 20.84 Westbound Left/Thru/Right - F 4.33 1.00 548 1 402 28.13 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 3.5 A 0.14 0.28 3 73 5 0.33 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 0.6 A 0.38 0.12 1 30 2 0.11 Spokane Avenue / 5th Street 114.6 F - 0.36 71 177 58 4.02 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 957.6 F 2.73 1.00 33 6 25 1.74 Westbound Left/Thru/Right 1032.6 F 2.82 1.00 30 7 23 1.59 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 3.8 A 0.16 0.36 6 130 8 0.56 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 0.5 A 0.39 0.10 1 34 2 0.12 Spokane Avenue / 6th Street 576.5 F - 0.36 388 281 292 20.43 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 539.7 F 1.94 1.00 24 6 18 1.28 Westbound Left/Thru/Right - F 12.48 1.00 353 9 259 18.13 Northbound Left/Thru/Right 3.9 A 0.17 0.37 9 209 12 0.85 Southbound Left/Thru/Right 0.0 A 0.48 0.00 2 57 3 0.18 Spokane Avenue / 8th Street 10.5 F - 0.21 13 209 16 1.14 Westbound Left/Right 158.5 F 1.08 1.00 7 10 6 0.39 Northbound Thru/Right 0.0 A 0.59 0.00 3 99 4 0.26 Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configuration Future (2030) Conditions Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service (PM Peak Hour) ---PAGE BREAK--- Southbound Thru/Left 2.5 A 0.34 0.49 3 101 7 0.48 Spokane Avenue / 9th Street 6.0 F - 0.01 7 112 7 0.49 Westbound Left/Right 778.3 F 1.38 1.00 4 1 3 0.20 Northbound Thru/Right 0.0 A 0.62 0.00 2 62 2 0.16 Southbound Thru/Left 0.0 A 0.32 0.00 1 49 2 0.13 Spokane Avenue / Riverside Avenue 0.4 B - 0.06 9 290 12 0.84 Eastbound Left/Right 10.5 B 0.05 1.00 0 3 0 0.02 Northbound Thru/Right 0.0 A 0.56 0.00 7 257 10 0.68 Southbound Thru/Left 0.7 A 0.30 0.13 1 30 2 0.14 ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX F: Cost Estimates for Improvement Projects Associated with Contra-flow and Modified Alternative C (Offset) Configurations ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX F: Planning Level Cost Estimates for Corridor Improvements Associated with the Configurations of Interest CONTRA-FLOW CONFIGURATION Total Estimated Construction Costs for Corridor Improvements Contra-Flow Configuration Improvements Current Cost (in millions) 1. 2nd Street Improvements and Signal Upgrades $2.02 2. Add Capacity to the Baker Avenue Bridge $1.45 3. Baker Avenue Reconstruction/Upgrades $2.07 4. 7th Street Bridge and 7th Street Connection $11.22 5. Spokane Avenue Reconstruction/Upgrades* $4.05 TOTAL $20.81M * Does not include a bridge on Spokane Avenues at Whitefish River Crossing 1. 2nd Street Improvements and Signal Upgrades Cost Item Estimated Cost (2010) Road Surface (Assumes Pavement Reconstruction) $120,200 Curb and Gutter $25,000 Sidewalk and Landscaping $99,500 Drainage/Utilities $109,700 Traffic Signals and Electrical $922,500 Signing and Striping $16,700 Right-of-Way (SW/SE corners at 2nd Street and Baker Avenue and SE corner of 2nd Street and Spokane Avenue) $43,500 Traffic Control $12,300 SUBTOTAL $1,349,400 Mobilization and Contingencies (50%) 674,700 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $2,024,100 2. Add Capacity to the Baker Avenue Bridge Cost Item Estimated Cost (2010) Whitefish River Bridge (56 feet wide x 115 feet long) $966,000 SUBTOTAL 966,000 Mobilization and Contingencies (50%) 483,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $1,449,000 Appendix F F-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Baker Avenue Reconstruction/Upgrades Baker Avenue (2nd Street to 7th Street) Cost Item Estimated Cost (2009) Road Surface $342,500 Curb and Gutter $65,500 Sidewalk and Landscaping $135,100 Drainage/Utilities $287,500 Traffic Signals at 7th Street and Electrical $358,900 Signing and Striping $43,700 Right-of-Way $114,000 Traffic Control $32,300 SUBTOTAL $1,379,500 Mobilization and Contingencies (50%) 689,750 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $2,069,250 4. 7th Street Bridge and 7th Street Connection Cost Item Estimated Cost (2010) Road Surface Costs 142,000 Curb and Gutter 33,500 Drainage/Utilities 183700 Signing and Striping 22,400 Sidewalks and Landscaping 112,100 Bridge 6,882,700 Electrical 30,100 Traffic Signals (attributed to Spokane and Baker Avenue costs) 0 Right-of-Way 58,300 Traffic Control 16,500 SUBTOTAL 7,481,300 Mobilization and Contingencies (50%) 3,740,700 TOTAL COST 11,222,000 Appendix F F-2 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Estimated Costs for Spokane Avenue Improvements* Cost Item Estimated Cost (2010) Road Surface Costs $700,100 Curb and Gutter 125,300 Drainage/Utilities 609,900 Signing and Striping 83,600 Sidewalks and Landscaping 154,100 Medians/dedicated left turn lanes for northbound traffic between 8th and 13th Streets 35,800 Electrical 112,700 Traffic Signal Modifications at 13th Street and New Signal at 7th Street 600,000 Right-of-Way 218,100 Traffic Control 61,800 SUBTOTAL $2,701,400 Mobilization and Contingencies (50%) 1,350,700 TOTAL COST $4,052,100 * Does not include a bridge on Spokane Avenues at Whitefish River Crossing Appendix F F-3 ---PAGE BREAK--- MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE C (OFFSET) CONFIGURATION Total Estimated Construction Costs for Corridor Improvements Modified Alternative C (Offset) Improvements Current Cost (in millions) 1. 2nd Street Improvements and Signal Upgrades $2.02 2. Add Capacity to the Baker Avenue Bridge $1.45 3. Baker Avenue and 13th Reconstruction and Upgrades 3A. Baker Avenue Improvements 3B. 13th Street Improvements $3.42 $0.37 4. Spokane Avenue Reconstruction/Upgrades* $3.60 TOTAL $10.86 M * Does not include a bridge on Spokane Avenues at Whitefish River Crossing 1. Estimated Costs for 2nd Street Improvements Cost Item Estimated Cost (2010) Road Surface (Assumes Pavement Reconstruction) $120,200 Curb and Gutter $25,000 Sidewalk and Landscaping $99,500 Drainage/Utilities $109,700 Traffic Signals and Electrical Work $922,500 Signing and Striping $16,700 Right-of-Way (SW/SE corners at 2nd Street and Baker Avenue and SE corner of 2nd Street and Spokane Avenue) $43,500 Traffic Control $12,300 SUBTOTAL $1,349,400 Mobilization and Contingencies (50%) 674,700 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $2,024,100 2. Add Capacity to the Baker Avenue Bridge Cost Item Estimated Cost (2010) Whitefish River Bridge (56 feet wide x 115 feet long) $966,000 SUBTOTAL 966,000 Mobilization and Contingencies (50%) 674,700 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $1,449,000 Appendix F F-4 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Baker Avenue and 13th Reconstruction and Upgrades 3A. Estimated Costs for Baker Avenue (2nd to 13th Streets) Cost Item Estimated Cost (2010) Road Surface Costs $626,600 Curb and Gutter 126,700 Drainage/Utilities 566,600 Signing and Striping 84,500 Sidewalks and Landscaping 261,400 Electrical 113,900 Traffic Signal at Baker and 13th 300,000 Right-of-Way 138,600 Traffic Control 62,500 SUBTOTAL $2,280,800 Mobilization and Contingencies (50%) 1,140,400 TOTAL COST $3,421,200 3B. Estimated Costs for 13th Street Improvements (Spokane Avenue to Baker Avenue) Cost Item Estimated Cost (2010) Reconstruct Road Surface with Minor Widening $74,600 Curb and Gutter 15,500 Drainage/Utilities 68,300 Signing and Striping 10,300 Sidewalks 29,800 Electrical 13,900 Right-of-Way 27,000 Traffic Control 7,600 SUBTOTAL $247,000 Mobilization and Contingencies (50%) 123,500 TOTAL COST $370,500 Appendix F F-5 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix F F-6 4. Estimated Costs for Spokane Avenue Improvements* Cost Item Estimated Cost (2010) Road Surface Costs $700,100 Curb and Gutter 125,300 Drainage/Utilities 609,900 Signing and Striping 83,600 Sidewalks and Landscaping 154,100 Medians/dedicated left turn lanes for northbound traffic between 8th and 13th Streets 35,800 Electrical 112,700 Traffic Signal Modifications 300,000 Right-of-Way 218,100 Traffic Control 61,800 SUBTOTAL $2,401,400 Mobilization and Contingencies (50%) 1,200,700 TOTAL COST $3,602,100 * Does not include a bridge on Spokane Avenues at Whitefish River Crossing