2011 tranplan21 stakeholder survey - montana …€¦ · · 2012-04-2410. state and federal ......
TRANSCRIPT
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
VOLUME IREPORT
SUBMITTED BYBureau of Business and Economic ResearchThe University of Montana–MissoulaSeptember 2011
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments
Vigorous thanks must go to the following individuals for the effort they put forth to make this project a success:
Sandy Waddell, Montana Department of Transportation, for her guidance and comments.
Douglas McBroom and Christopher Dorrington, Montana Department of Transportation for their help with the
questionnaire.
Thanks also go to Janet Stevens of BBER who worked diligently to supervise the data collection of this study. Finally, we
are most grateful to the BBER telephone survey supervisors and interviewers. Their dedication to careful research and
persistence made this study a success.
Acknowledgments
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Stakeholders’ Satisfaction with the Transportation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. County Commissioner Stakeholder Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4. Cities and Towns Stakeholder Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5. Economic Development Stakeholder Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6. Environmental Stakeholder Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
7. Intermodal Freight Stakeholder Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Stakeholder Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
9. Passenger Transportation Stakeholder Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
10. State and Federal Government Stakeholder Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
11. Tribal Planner Stakeholder Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Volume II
Appendix A: 2011 TranPlan 21 Public Involvement Survey Questionnaire
Appendix B: 2011 TranPlan 21 Public Involvement Survey Detailed Tables
Appendix C: 2011 TranPlan 21 Public Involvement Survey Open-Ended Responses
Appendix D: 2011 TranPlan 21 Public Involvement Survey Statistical Significance Charts
3
Acknowledgments
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
Executive Summary
In 2011 MDT’s stakeholder groups were:
• Generally satisfied with Montana’s transportation systems.
• Most satisfied with interstate highways and airports.
• Least satisfied with bus depots and intercity bus service.
• More satisfied with bicycle pathways, pedestrian walkways, rest areas, and bus depots.
Out of 16 possible actions to improve Montana’s transportation systems, stakeholders’ highest priorities were:
• Maintaining pavement condition.
• Keep current with new transportation technologies.
• Improve transportation safety.
Stakeholders’ lowest priority was reducing single-occupant vehicles.
When compared to stakeholder surveys since 2005:
• It appears that 2011 stakeholder groups are more satisfied with components of the transportation system than
were stakeholders in previous studies.
• Overall satisfaction with the transportation system remains at a relatively high level.
Stakeholders’ top priorities for possible actions to improve roadways are increasing shoulder and road widths.
Stakeholders’ lowest roadway improvement priority is increasing roadway lighting.
Stakeholders rate the following public communication tools highest:
• The MDT website
• Maps
Stakeholders rate the following general public communication tools lowest:
• Special mailings
• Surveys
• Brochures
Stakeholder grades of MDT performance are in the B to C+ range. These grades closely parallel those given by the public.
4
Acknowledgments
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
1. Introduction
The primary purpose of this report is to document data collected through the 2011 Montana Department of
Transportation Stakeholder Survey. It also references the 2011 Public Involvement Telephone Survey for comparisons
between the general public and transportation stakeholders. In addition, the report provides a limited number of
comparisons to the 2005, 2007 and 2009 Transportation Stakeholder surveys.
Stakeholder surveys are an important part of MDT’s public involvement process. They illustrate transportation
stakeholders’ perception of the current condition of Montana’s transportation system and consider possible actions and
priorities that could be taken by MDT to improve different areas of the transportation system. The public involvement
process provides citizens, constituency groups, transportation providers, local governments, Montana’s American Indian
tribes, and state and federal agencies the opportunity to participate in planning and project development. Public
involvement at the future planning level reduces potential for future controversy, results in a better statewide
transportation system, and allows for open communication between the Department and citizens of Montana. The
surveys also help MDT staff determine changes in public opinion that indicate a need to update Montana’s multimodal
transportation plan, TranPlan 21.
The stakeholder groups included in the 2011 survey were:
• County Commissioners;
• Mayors and Chief Executives of cities and towns;
• Economic development associations, business organizations, local development corporations and associations;
• Environmental organizations and associations;
• Commercial trucking, freight rail, air freight, and intermodal interests;
• Bicycle and pedestrian interests;
• Passenger transportation interests including local transit, intercity bus, rail, and air.
• Metropolitan Planning Organizations, urban area planners, and state and federal agencies;
• Montana’s American Indian Tribal Planners;
Stakeholders were selected from MDT’s mailing list database, which consists of over 761 individuals, organizations,
associations, businesses, and government agencies with an interest in transportation-related issues, and local
government officials.
5
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
1. Introduction
Survey Methods
The stakeholder questionnaire has four parts. Part 1 includes a wide range of transportation questions that are the same
questions asked of Montana residents in the 2011 Public Involvement Telephone Survey. Using the same questions
allows for relevant comparisons between stakeholders and the public. Questions in Part 2 focus on possible
improvements to Montana’s road and highway system and on methods used by MDT to communicate with the public.
Part 3 focuses on the Department’s customer service. Respondents grade MDT service areas using an A through F scale.
Part 4 includes items that examine transportation system security, information sources used by stakeholders, and the
priority of additional possible actions to improve the transportation system and roadways.
The survey was administered by the University of Montana’s Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER) using
the telephone during the period 05/11/11 through 07/11/11. A total of 761 stakeholders were included in the list of
respondents provided by MDT, but 67 were found to be verified out of business, no longer with the organization with no
replacement, or repeated names on the list. This yields 694 eligible respondents. Of those 694 respondents, 477 (69%)
completed the questionnaire. BBER documented case status in a manner that allowed calculation and reporting of a unit
response rate using the American Association for Public Opinion Research (2008) standard definition (RR1).1 A response
rate is the number of completed interviews divided by number of eligible respondents surveyed.
BBER achieved improved response rates in each of the iterations it has administered since taking over data collection
from MDT in 2005. The 2003 iteration of this survey was administered by MDT using mail methods. Using this method,
in 2003 a 36% response rate was achieved. The 2005 response rate of 65.2% represented a 29.2 percentage-point
increase over 2003. The initial 2007 response rate of 80.1% was a 14.9 percentage-point improvement over 2005. While
the 2009 response rate declined to just over the 2005 rate, the 2009 Stakeholder Survey response rate is significantly
higher than rates that are typically achieved in general population surveys. The greatly improved response rates
achieved by BBER significantly decrease the likelihood that the data are adversely affected by nonresponse bias.
1 American Association for Public Opinion Research. 2008. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for
Surveys.4th edition. Lexana, Kansas: AAPOR.
6
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
1. Introduction
Table 1.1 below shows the total number of responses received by stakeholder group.
Table 1.1: Number of Completions, TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey, 2003-2011
Structure of this Report
The primary purpose of Volume I of this report is to describe data collected by the 2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey.
Adequate description of these data requires presenting an extensive set of charts throughout the report. Analyses of
the data are also presented. The report examines three areas for the stakeholders overall. First, stakeholders’ attitudes
about the state’s transportation system are explored. Second, opinions about the customer service provided by the
Montana Department of Transportation are described. Finally, trends in stakeholders’ attitudes about transportation
are discussed. Following the overall stakeholder results, each stakeholder group is discussed.
Volume II contains the appendices. The text of the 2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey may be found in Appendix A
(Volume II). Tables of responses to each question are also found in Appendix B (Volume II), and can serve as a useful,
quick-reference tool. Appendix C (Volume II) includes the responses to open-ended questions. Appendix D (Volume II)
shows the statistical testing for each stakeholder group using graphical techniques.
To determine differences between group means and percentages, t-tests were calculated and are reported throughout
this document. T-test results reported here will use the .05 significance level unless stated otherwise. If a value is said
to differ from a second value at the .05 level, in 95 out of 100 samples the value will be found to differ from the second
value. When comparing group means for this report, a Bonferroni-adjusted t-test was used. The reason for using an
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
233 403 552 412 477
County commissioners 25 52 55 43 48
Cities & towns 52 109 105 83 102
Economic development 19 40 89 87 87
Environmental groups 10 18 21 25 27
Intermodal freight 28 55 78 46 57
Bicycle-pedestrian 20 50 58 36 41
Passenger transportation 53 55 113 70 84
State-Federal 19 20 25 19 18
Tribal planners 7 4 8 3 13
All Stakeholders
Number of Completions
7
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
1. Introduction
adjusted t-test is that when one makes many comparisons involving the same means, the probability increases that one
or more comparisons will turn out to be statistically significant, even when the population means are equal.2
For instance, if one compares mean satisfaction scores from five income groups using an unadjusted test, the probability
that at least one mean will be found significantly different is almost one in three, even if the population means are not
different.
The results are presented graphically using error bars (Appendix D) so that significant differences are easily seen. The
term slightly is used to describe differences that are not significant at the 0.05 level but are significant at 0.10 levels.
These slight differences are represented by a slight overlap in the bars. Error bars of groups with fewer respondents will
be much wider than those with more respondents. If an individual group has varied opinions, the width of the error bar
will also be affected.
The 2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey was designed to provide analysis of the trends in stakeholders’ attitudes and
perceptions about the transportation system. To the extent possible, the wording of the questions was repeated
exactly, so that responses from the 2011 survey can be compared to those from previous years. There were, however,
several question changes in 2003. In these cases, a non-parametric statistic (mean rank) that can be used to compare
questions with different metrics is provided.
The 2011 survey findings are compared in the following sections to the surveys conducted in 2005, 2007 and 2009.
Several questions were added in 2007 and 2011; thus in some cases comparisons can only be made for the later years.
2 Norusis, Marija: Guide to Data Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995, p. 291.
8
Acknowledgments
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
2. All Stakeholders’ Satisfaction with the Transportation System
Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with various aspects of the transportation system on a scale from one
to ten. Though the mathematical midpoint of the scale is 5.5, a response of 5.0 is considered a “middle response.”
Answers above a 5.0 represent an increasing level of satisfaction, while answers below 5.0 represent a decreasing level
of satisfaction. Results are shown as error bars around the mean (shown in black), so that significant differences among
groups are easily seen. Those groups with fewer respondents have large error bars. Also, if a group had varied opinions,
the error around the mean will be larger.
Overall, stakeholder respondents were moderately satisfied with the Montana transportation system (Figure 2.1.1).
They were slightly less satisfied than the general public as measured by the 2011 Public Involvement Survey; however
the difference is not significant. Environmental and non-motorized respondents were not nearly as satisfied when
compared to the general public and other stakeholder groups.
Figure 2.1.1: Stakeholder Satisfaction: Overall System
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Public Involvement Survey
All stakeholders
County commissioners
Cities & towns
Economic development
Environmental groups
Intermodal freight
Bicycle-pedestrian
Passenger
State-Federal
Tribal planners
Mean Satisfaction
9
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
2. All Stakeholders’ Satisfaction with the Transportation System
Stakeholder satisfaction with the physical condition of Montana’s transportation system is compared with the
satisfaction levels from the 2011 Public Involvement Survey in Figure 2.1.2. Stakeholders are less satisfied with the
physical condition of bicycle paths, pedestrian facilities and bus depots than those interviewed in the Public Involvement
Survey.
Figure 2.1.2: Physical Condition Satisfaction, Stakeholders and Public Involvement
County commissioners, the economic development group, the non-motorized group, and the State-Federal group all
were less satisfied with the physical condition of bicycle pathways and pedestrian walkways when compared to the
Public Involvement Survey respondents (Figure 2.1.3 and Figure 2.1.4). The other stakeholder groups with the exception
of intermodal and tribal were also less satisfied with bicycle paths but not significantly.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
air
po
rts
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
Inte
rsta
te
hig
hw
ay
s
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
rest
are
as
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
oth
er
ma
jor
hig
hw
ay
s
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
pe
de
stri
an
wa
lkw
ay
s
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
bic
yc
le p
ath
wa
ys
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
bu
s d
ep
ots
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
cit
y s
tre
ets
Me
an
Sa
tisf
act
ion
Public Involvment
All stakeholders
Error on Public Involvement
10
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
2. All Stakeholders’ Satisfaction with the Transportation System
Figure 2.1.3: Stakeholder Satisfaction: Bicycle Pathways Condition
Figure 2.1.4: Stakeholder Satisfaction: Pedestrian Walkways Condition
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Public Involvement Survey
All stakeholders
County commissioners
Cities & towns
Economic development
Environmental groups
Intermodal freight
Bicycle-pedestrian
Passenger
State-Federal
Tribal planners
Mean Satisfaction
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Public Involvement Survey
All stakeholders
County commissioners
Cities & towns
Economic development
Environmental groups
Intermodal freight
Bicycle-pedestrian
Passenger
State-Federal
Tribal planners
Mean Satisfaction
11
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
2. All Stakeholders’ Satisfaction with the Transportation System
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
OVERALL transportation system in
Montana
Physical condition of airports
Physical condition of interstate
highways
Physical condition of rest areas
Physical condition of other major
highways
Physical condition of pedestrian
walkways
Physical condition of bicycle
pathways
Physical condition of bus depots
Physical condition of city streets
Mean Satisfaction
2011
2009
2007
2005
Stakeholder satisfaction with the overall transportation system remains moderately high when compared over the 2005-
2011 time period (Figure 2.1.5). Satisfaction with the physical condition of the interstates declined slightly over the same
time but remains relatively high. The condition of city streets declined between 2005 and 2011 in the minds of
stakeholders. Bicycle pathways, pedestrian walkways, rest areas and bus depots all show higher satisfaction by
stakeholders.
Figure 2.1.5: Stakeholder Satisfaction: Overall System Condition
12
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
2. All Stakeholders’ Satisfaction with the Transportation System
Stakeholders were definitely less satisfied with the availability of intercity buses, taxis and air transportation to
destinations inside Montana compared to respondents in the Public Involvement Survey (Figure 2.1.6). Stakeholders
were less satisfied about the availability of other services than the general public but not significantly so.
Figure 2.1.6: Stakeholder and Public Satisfaction: Availability of Services
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Av
ail
ab
ilit
y o
f
fre
igh
t ra
il s
erv
ice
Av
ail
ab
ilit
y o
f a
ir
tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
to
de
stin
ati
on
s
ou
tsid
e M
on
tan
a
Av
ail
ab
ilit
y o
f
tra
nsi
t fo
r th
e
eld
erl
y o
r d
isa
ble
d
Av
ail
ab
ilit
y o
f lo
ca
l
bu
s o
r v
an
se
rvic
e
Av
ail
ab
ilit
y o
f a
ir
tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
to
de
stin
ati
on
s w
ith
in
Mo
nta
na
Av
ail
ab
ilit
y o
f ta
xis
Av
ail
ab
ilit
y o
f
pa
sse
ng
er
rail
serv
ice
Av
ail
ab
ilit
y o
f b
use
s
be
twe
en
cit
ies
an
d
tow
ns
Me
an
Sa
tisf
act
ion
Public Involvement
All stakeholders
Error on Public Involvement
13
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
2. All Stakeholders’ Satisfaction with the Transportation System
Dissatisfaction with the availability of air transportation to destinations within Montana was especially prevalent for the
economic development group (Figure 2.1.7).
Figure 2.1.7: Stakeholder Satisfaction: Availability of Air
Transportation within Montana
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Public Involvement Survey
All stakeholders
County commissioners
Cities & towns
Economic development
Environmental groups
Intermodal freight
Bicycle-pedestrian
Passenger
State-Federal
Tribal planners
Mean Satisfaction
14
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
2. All Stakeholders’ Satisfaction with the Transportation System
Stakeholder satisfaction of transportation service availability has changed since 2005. Figure 2.1.8 shows the satisfaction
for the four iterations of Stakeholder Survey. Satisfaction with local bus or van service and freight rail has improved over
2005 levels. Satisfaction levels for intercity buses show improvement, but are not significant. Stakeholder satisfaction
with air transportation service to destinations within Montana and outside Montana declined. Satisfaction with transit
for the elderly and disabled improved over 2009.
Figure 2.1.8: Stakeholder Satisfaction: Availability of Transportation Services
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Availability of intercity buses
Availability of taxis
Availability of local bus or van service
Availability of air transportation within
Montana
Availability of air transportation outside
Montana
Availability of passenger rail service
Availability of freight rail service
Availability of transit for the elderly or
disabled
Mean Satisfaction
2011
2009
2007
2005
15
Acknowledgments
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
2. All Stakeholders’ Satisfaction with the Transportation System
Actions to Improve the Transportation System
Stakeholders were asked to prioritize potential actions to improve the Montana Transportation System on a scale of one
to five where one means a very low priority and five means a very high priority. Figure 2.2.1 compares how all
stakeholders viewed various actions with respondents from the 2011 Public Involvement Survey.
Stakeholders thought that ensuring adequate bicycle facilities, increasing scheduled airline service, promoting the use of
local transit systems and improving transportation safety were higher priority than the general public; reducing traffic
congestion was lower.
Maintaining road pavement condition, ensuring adequate pedestrian facilities, reducing single occupant vehicles, using
new technologies, regulating highway access points and including wildlife crossings generated more support but not
significantly so.
Figure 2.2.2 illustrates how the various interest groups varied on their priorities for ensuring adequate bicycle facilities.
Environmental and non-motorized groups thought bicycle facilities were a very high priority while intermodal groups
assigned it a low priority.
Figure 2.2.3 shows that economic development groups view increasing scheduled airline service a higher priority than
mayors, environmental and non-motorized groups. Figure 2.2.4 shows that environmental, non-motorized and
passenger stakeholders view promoting use of local transit systems a higher priority than intermodal stakeholders.
Tribal planners viewed improving transportation safety as a very high priority (Figure 2.2.5).
16
Actio
ns to
Improve th
e Tran
sportatio
n System
2011
Tran
Plan
21
Stakeholder Su
rvey
Volume I
2. A
ll Stakeholders’ Satisfactio
n
with
the T
ransportatio
n System
Fig
ure
2.2
.1: S
tak
eh
old
er a
nd
Pu
blic: A
ction
s to Im
pro
ve
Sy
stem
Fig
ure
2.2
.2: S
tak
eh
old
er: E
nsu
re A
de
qu
ate
Bicy
cle F
acilitie
s
1 2 3 4 5
Maintain road pavement condition
Improving the physical condition of other
roads and streets
Supporting efforts to preserve existing
passenger rail service
Improving transportation safety
Keeping the public informed
Using new technologies
Taking appropriate measures with
roadside vegetation
Promoting the use of local transit systems
Including wildlife crossings and barriers
Supporting efforts to increase the
availability of scheduled airline service
Ensuring adequate pedestrian facilities
Improving the physical condition of the
interstates and major highways
Improving rest areas
Ensuring adequate bicycle facilities
Regulating the number of highway
approaches
Improving the physical condition of bus
depots
Reducing traffic congestion
Reducing the air quality impacts of
roadway use
Attempting to reduce single occupancy
vehicle use
Mean Priority
Pu
blic
Inv
olv
em
en
t
All sta
ke
ho
lde
rs
12
34
5
Pu
blic
Invo
lve
me
nt S
urv
ey
All s
take
ho
lde
rs
Co
un
ty c
om
mis
sio
ners
Citie
s &
tow
ns
Eco
no
mic
de
ve
lop
me
nt
En
viro
nm
en
tal g
rou
ps
Inte
rmo
da
l freig
ht
Bic
ycle
-pe
de
stria
n
Pa
sse
ng
er
Sta
te-F
ed
era
l
Trib
al p
lan
ne
rs
Me
an
Prio
rity
Erro
r on
Pu
blic In
vo
lve
me
nt
17
Actions to Improve the Transportation System
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
2. All Stakeholders’ Satisfaction with the Transportation System
Figure 2.2.3: Stakeholder: Increase Scheduled Airline Service
Figure 2.2.4: Stakeholder: Promote Use of Local Transit Systems
1 2 3 4 5
Public Involvement Survey
All stakeholders
County commissioners
Cities & towns
Economic development
Environmental groups
Intermodal freight
Bicycle-pedestrian
Passenger
State-Federal
Tribal planners
Mean Priority
1 2 3 4 5
Public Involvement Survey
All stakeholders
County commissioners
Cities & towns
Economic development
Environmental groups
Intermodal freight
Bicycle-pedestrian
Passenger
State-Federal
Tribal planners
Mean Priority
18
Actions to Improve the Transportation System
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
2. All Stakeholders’ Satisfaction with the Transportation System
Figure 2.2.5: Stakeholder: Improve Transportation Safety
1 2 3 4 5
Public Involvement Survey
All stakeholders
County commissioners
Cities & towns
Economic development
Environmental groups
Intermodal f reight
Bicycle-pedestrian
Passenger
State-Federal
Tribal planners
Mean Priority
19
Actions to Improve the Transportation System
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
2. All Stakeholders’ Satisfaction with the Transportation System
Figure 2.2.6 shows how little the priority of various actions to improve Montana’s transportation system over time.
Maintaining road pavement conditions is the most priority action since its introduction in 2007. Reducing single
occupant vehicles is the least priority.
Figure 2.2.6: Stakeholder Action to Improve Roadways Priorities
1 2 3 4 5
Maintain road pavement condition
Improving other roads and streets
Supporting existing passenger rail service
Improving transportation safety
Keeping the public informed
Using new technologies
Maintaining roadside vegetation
Promoting the use of local transit systems
Including wildlife crossings and barriers
Support increasing scheduled airline service
Ensuring adequate pedestrian facilities
Improving the interstates and major …
Improving rest areas
Ensuring adequate bicycle facilities
Regulating the number of highway …
Improving the condition of bus depots
Reducing traffic congestion
Reducing the air quality impacts of …
Attempting to reduce single occupancy …
Mean Priority
2011
2009
2007
2005
20
Acknowledgments
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
2. All Stakeholders’ Satisfaction with the Transportation System
Actions to Improve Roadways
Stakeholders assigned a similar priority to various actions to improve Montana’s roadways (Figure 2.3.1) with the
exception of increase shoulder widths for bicyclists. Stakeholders thought wider shoulder widths for bicycles a moderate
priority; environmental and non-motorized groups affected this result (Figure 2.3.2).
Figure 2.3.1: Stakeholder and Public Actions to Improve Roadways
The priority of actions to improve Montana’s roadways declined for most options between 2005 and 2011 (Figure 2.3.3).
More pavement markings exhibited the least change; wider roadways the most. Increasing shoulder widths both for
motorists and bicycles are the stakeholders’ highest priority over the time period the question was asked.
1
2
3
4
5
Inc
rea
se s
ho
uld
er
wid
ths
for
mo
tori
sts
Inc
rea
se s
ho
uld
er
wid
ths
for
bic
yc
list
s
Mo
re g
ua
rd r
ail
s
Mo
re p
av
em
en
t m
ark
ing
s
Wid
er
roa
dw
ay
s
Mo
re t
raff
ic l
igh
ts a
nd
le
ft t
urn
lan
es
Mo
re d
ire
cti
on
al/
info
rma
tio
na
l
sig
ns
Mo
re li
gh
tin
g o
f ro
ad
wa
ys
Me
an
Pri
ori
ty
Public Involvement
All stakeholders
Error on Public Involvement
21
General Communication Tool Ratings
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
2. All Stakeholders’ Satisfaction with the Transportation System
Figure 2.3.2: Stakeholder Increase Shoulder Widths for Bicycles
Figure 2.3.3: Stakeholder Actions to Improve Roadways
1 2 3 4 5
Public Involvement Survey
All stakeholders
County commissioners
Cities & towns
Economic development
Environmental groups
Intermodal freight
Bicycle-pedestrian
Passenger
State-Federal
Tribal planners
Mean Priority
1 2 3 4 5
Increase shoulder widths for
motorists
Increase shoulder widths for
bicyclists
More guard rails
More pavement markings
Wider roadways
More traffic lights and left turn
lanes
More directional/informational
signs
More lighting of roadways
Mean Priority
2011
2009
2007
2005
22
Acknowledgments
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
2. All Stakeholders’ Satisfaction with the Transportation System
General Communication Tool Ratings
Stakeholders also rated the usefulness of seven general communication tools. These ratings are compared with those of
respondents in the 2011 Public Involvement Survey. Stakeholders thought that the MDT website, community meetings
and special mailings were more useful than the general public (Figure 2.4.1). The toll-free number and radio-television
were not as useful compared to the general public.
Figure 2.4.1: Stakeholder and Public Usefulness of General Communications Tools
Economic development stakeholders thought the website was most useful (Figure 2.4.2). Mayors and county
commissioners thought that community meetings were useful (Figure 2.4.3).
1
2
3
4
5
Website Radio and
television
Community
public meetings
Newspapers Toll-free call-in
number
Surveys Special mailings
Me
an
Use
fuln
ess
Public Involvement
All stakeholders
Error on Public Involvement
23
General Communication Tool Ratings
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
2. All Stakeholders’ Satisfaction with the Transportation System
Figure 2.4.2: Stakeholder Website as a Communication Tool
Figure 2.4.3: Stakeholder Community Public Meetings as a
Communication Tool
1 2 3 4 5
Public Involvement Survey
All stakeholders
County commissioners
Cities & towns
Economic development
Environmental groups
Intermodal freight
Bicycle-pedestrian
Passenger
State-Federal
Tribal planners
Mean Usefulness
0 1 2 3 4 5
Public Involvement Survey
All stakeholders
County commissioners
Cities & towns
Economic development
Environmental groups
Intermodal freight
Bicycle-pedestrian
Passenger
State-Federal
Tribal planners
Mean Usefulness
24
General Communication Tool Ratings
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
2. All Stakeholders’ Satisfaction with the Transportation System
The ranking of general communication tools by stakeholders shows little change between 2007 and 2011 (Figure 2.4.4).
The MDT website remains the most useful and special mailings and surveys the least useful.
Figure 2.4.4: Stakeholder Usefulness of General Communication Tools
1 2 3 4 5
Website
Radio and television
Community public meetings
Toll-free call-in number
Newspapers
Special mailings
Surveys
Mean Usefulness
2011
2009
2007
25
Acknowledgments
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
2. All Stakeholders’ Satisfaction with the Transportation System
Planning and Project Communication Tool Ratings
Stakeholders rated the helpfulness of all six communication tools used by MDT higher than respondents from the 2011
Public Involvement Survey. The relative ranking of each tool was the same for both groups. Maps were most helpful,
followed by pictures and graphics and the MDT website. Newsletters were the least helpful.
Figure 2.5.1: Stakeholder and Public Helpfulness of Planning and Project Communication Tools
1
2
3
4
5
Maps Pictures or graphics Website Advanced
technology tools
Newsletters Brochures
Me
an
He
lpfu
lne
ss
Public Involvement
All stakeholders
Error on Public Involvement
26
General Communication Tool Ratings
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
2. All Stakeholders’ Satisfaction with the Transportation System
The same series of questions was also asked in previous surveys of stakeholders. The relative ranking remained the
same, but the usefulness of brochures and newsletters declined in the opinion of stakeholders between 2007 and 2011.
Figure 2.5.2: Stakeholders Helpfulness of Planning and Project
Communication Tools
1 2 3 4 5
Maps
Pictures or graphics
Website
Advanced technology tools
Newsletters
Brochures
Mean Helpfulness
2011
2009
2007
27
Acknowledgments
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
2. All Stakeholders’ Satisfaction with the Transportation System
MDT’s Customer Service and Performance Grade
Several measures of customer service and performance were graded on an A to F scale where F corresponds to 0 and A
to 4. Figure 2.6.1 compares the grades assigned by stakeholders with the grades assigned by respondents of the 2011
Public Involvement Survey. Stakeholders generally gave MDT slightly higher grades than the general public although
most differences were not significant. Stakeholders graded two categories higher than the general public: MDT’s overall
performance in the last year and MDT keeps customers fully informed.
Figure 2.6.1: Stakeholder and Public Customer Service and Performance Grades
0
1
2
3
4
Cu
rre
nt
qu
ali
ty o
f se
rvic
e c
om
pa
red
wit
h f
ive
ye
ars
ag
o
Se
nsi
tiv
ity
to
th
e e
nv
iro
nm
en
t
Re
spo
nsi
ve
ne
ss t
o c
ust
om
er
ide
as
an
d c
on
ce
rns
Qu
ali
ty o
f p
lan
nin
g
Ke
ep
cu
sto
me
rs f
ull
y i
nfo
rme
d
Qu
ality
of
serv
ice
Pu
bli
c n
oti
fic
ati
on
pro
ce
ss
Ov
era
ll p
erf
orm
an
ce
pa
st y
ea
r
Ov
era
ll h
igh
wa
y m
ain
ten
an
ce
an
d
rep
air
Co
nv
en
ien
ce
of
tra
ve
l th
rou
gh
pro
jec
ts
Me
an
Gra
de
Public Involvement
All stakeholders
A
F
D
C
B
Error on Public Involvement
28
Security for System Components
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
2. All Stakeholders’ Satisfaction with the Transportation System
Little change in how stakeholders grade MDT occurred between 2005 and 2011. The grade for current quality of service
compared with five years ago received a higher grade in 2011 than previous years, a B+. All other categories received
grades of B or B-.
Figure 2.6.2: Stakeholder Customer Service and Performance Grades
0 1 2 3 4
Current quality of service
compared with five years ago
Sensitivity to the environment*
Responsiveness to customer ideas
and concerns
Quality of planning
Keep customers fully informed
Quality of service
Public notification process
Overall performance past year
Overall highway maintenance and
repair
Convenience of travel through
projects
2011
2009
2007
2005
AF D C B* New item in 2011.
29
Acknowledgments
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
2. All Stakeholders’ Satisfaction with the Transportation System
Security for System Components
Stakeholders were asked about the importance of various security measures for Montana’s transportation system
(Figure 2.7.1). Stakeholders thought homeland security of interstate highways, other major highways, and airports were
more important than the general public as measured by the 2011 Public Involvement Survey. There was no difference
with homeland security at border crossings. Stakeholders viewed homeland security at public transportation facilities
less important than the general public.
Stakeholders viewed the five emergency response items more important than the general public. Tribal stakeholders
were particularly concerned about coordination with other agencies (Figure 2.7.2).
Figure 2.7.1: Stakeholder and Public: Security for System Components
1
2
3
4
5
Em
erg
en
cy
resp
on
se p
lan
s
Ho
me
lan
d
sec
uri
ty a
irp
ort
s
Ho
me
lan
d
sec
uri
ty b
ord
er
cro
ssin
gs
Co
ord
ina
tio
n
wit
h o
the
r
ag
en
cie
s
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n
usi
ng
av
ail
ab
le
ad
va
nc
ed
…
Ho
me
lan
d
sec
uri
ty
inte
rsta
te …
Co
nn
ec
tiv
ity
of
roa
dw
ay
s
Ho
me
lan
d
sec
uri
ty o
the
r
ma
jor
hig
hw
ay
s
Ho
me
lan
d
sec
uri
ty p
ub
lic
tra
nsi
t fa
cil
itie
s
Av
ail
ab
ilit
y o
f
alt
ern
ati
ve
rou
tes
Me
an
Im
po
rta
nce
Public Involvement
All stakeholders
Error on Public Involvement
30
Security for System Components
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
2. All Stakeholders’ Satisfaction with the Transportation System
Figure 2.7.2: Stakeholder Communication and Coordination
with Other Agencies
In general, stakeholder rating of the importance of Homeland Security’s presence in the Montana transportation system
declined between 2007 and 2011, although it remains high. The importance of MDT’s emergency response issues also
declined over the same period.
1 2 3 4 5
Public Involvement Survey
All stakeholders
County commissioners
Cities & towns
Economic development
Environmental groups
Intermodal freight
Bicycle-pedestrian
Passenger
State-Federal
Tribal planners
Mean Importance
31
Security for System Components
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
2. All Stakeholders’ Satisfaction with the Transportation System
Figure 2.7.3: Stakeholder - Security for System Components
1 2 3 4 5
Emergency response plans
Home land security Airports
Homeland security Border
crossings
Communication and coordination
with other agencies
Communication with the public
using available advanced …
Homeland security Interstate
Highways
Connectivity of roadways
Homeland security Other major
highways
Homeland security Public transit
facilities like bus terminals
Availability of alternative routes
Mean Importance
2011
2009
2007
32
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
3. County Commissioner Stakeholder Group
This group consists of county commission chairpersons from across Montana. Forty-eight completed interviews were
collected from members of the counties group.
Transportation System Satisfaction
The county stakeholder group was generally satisfied with overall transportation system. Figure 3.1.1 compares
satisfaction with the physical condition of system components of the stakeholders and the general public as measured
by the 2011 Public Involvement Survey. There is general agreement between the two groups on the physical condition
of Montana’s roadways and airports. The county stakeholders are less satisfied with the condition of bicycle pathways
and bus depots and slightly less satisfied with the physical condition of rest areas and pedestrian walkways.
Figure 3.1.1: County Commissioner: Satisfaction with Physical Condition of System
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Ov
era
ll s
ati
sfa
cti
on
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
air
po
rts
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
inte
rsta
te
hig
hw
ay
s
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
rest
are
as
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
oth
er
ma
jor
hig
hw
ay
s
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
pe
de
stri
an
wa
lkw
ay
s
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
bic
yc
le
pa
thw
ay
s
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
cit
y s
tre
ets
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
bu
s d
ep
ots
Me
an
Sa
tisf
act
ion
Public Involvement
County Commissioners
Error on Public Involvement
33
4. Cities and Towns Stakeholder Group
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
3. County Commissioner Stakeholder Group
The county commissioners interviewed are generally less satisfied with the availability of various transportation service
than the general public (Figure 3.1.2). They are less satisfied with air transportation to destinations both within and
outside Montana. They are slightly less satisfied with the availability of intercity buses, taxis, local bus and van service,
and freight rail service.
Figure 3.1.2: County Commissioner: Satisfaction with Availability of System Services
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Tra
nsi
t fo
r th
e
eld
erl
y o
r d
isa
ble
d
Air
tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
ou
tsid
e M
on
tan
a
Fre
igh
t ra
il s
erv
ice
Lo
ca
l bu
s o
r v
an
serv
ice T
ax
is
Pa
sse
ng
er
rail
serv
ice
Av
ail
ab
ilit
y o
f a
ir
tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
wit
hin
Mo
nta
na
Inte
rcit
y b
use
s
Me
an
Sa
tisf
act
ion
Public Involvement
County Commissioners
Error on Public Involvement
34
4. Cities and Towns Stakeholder Group
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
3. County Commissioner Stakeholder Group
Actions to Improve the Transportation System
Figure 3.2.1 compares how the county stakeholder group and general public view a group of potential actions to
improve Montana’s transportation system. In general, they are similar. The stakeholders assign a higher priority to
improving the interstates and increasing scheduled airline service; a slightly higher priority to maintaining roadside
vegetation.
County stakeholders assign a slightly lower priority to ensuring adequate bicycle facilities, reducing the air quality
impacts of roadway use, and including wildlife crossings in projects.
Figure 3.2.1: County Commissioner: Actions to Improve System
1
2
3
4
5
Ma
inta
in r
oa
dsi
de
ve
ge
tati
on
Ma
inta
in r
oa
d p
av
em
en
t c
on
dit
ion
Pre
serv
e e
xis
tin
g p
ass
en
ge
r ra
il s
erv
ice
Imp
rov
e o
the
r ro
ad
s a
nd
str
ee
ts
Use
ne
w t
ec
hn
olo
gie
s
Ke
ep
pu
bli
c in
form
ed
Inc
rea
se s
ch
ed
ule
d a
irli
ne
se
rvic
e
Imp
rov
e t
ran
spo
rta
tio
n s
afe
ty
Imp
rov
e in
ters
tate
s a
nd
ma
jor
hig
hw
ay
s
Pro
mo
te u
se o
f lo
ca
l tr
an
sit
syst
em
s
Imp
rov
e r
est
are
as
Inc
lud
e w
ild
life
cro
ssin
gs
in h
igh
wa
y p
roje
cts
En
sure
ad
eq
ua
te p
ed
est
ria
n f
ac
ilit
ies
Imp
rov
e b
us
de
po
ts
Re
du
ce
tra
ffic
co
ng
est
ion
Re
gu
lati
ng
nu
mb
er
of
hig
hw
ay
ap
pro
ac
he
s
En
sure
ad
eq
ua
te b
icy
cle
fa
cil
itie
s
Re
du
cin
g t
he
air
qu
ali
ty i
mp
ac
ts o
f ro
ad
wa
y
use
Re
du
ce
sin
gle
oc
cu
pa
nc
y v
eh
icle
use
Me
an
Pri
ori
ty
Public Involvement
County Commissioners
Error on Public Involvement
35
4. Cities and Towns Stakeholder Group
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
3. County Commissioner Stakeholder Group
Actions to Improve Roadways
The county stakeholder group is less concerned than the general public in two actions to improve Montana roadways:
more lighting and wider roadways. They are slightly less concerned about more directional/informational signs, more
pavement markings, more guard rails, and increasing shoulder widths for bicyclists.
Figure 3.3.1: County Commissioner: Actions to Improve Roadways
1
2
3
4
5
Inc
rea
se s
ho
uld
er
wid
ths
for
mo
tori
sts
Mo
re g
ua
rd r
ail
s
Mo
re p
av
em
en
t m
ark
ing
s
Inc
rea
se s
ho
uld
er
wid
ths
for
bic
yc
list
s
Mo
re t
raff
ic l
igh
ts a
nd
le
ft t
urn
lan
es
Mo
re d
ire
cti
on
al/
info
rma
tio
na
l
sig
ns
Wid
er
roa
dw
ay
s
Mo
re li
gh
tin
g o
f ro
ad
wa
ys
Me
an
Pri
ori
ty
Public Involvement
County Commissioners
Error on Public Involvement
36
4. Cities and Towns Stakeholder Group
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
3. County Commissioner Stakeholder Group
General Communication Tool Ratings
The county stakeholder group finds radio and television to be the most useful general communication tool, the same as
the general public. They find the MDT website and community public meetings to be more useful, and special mailings
to be slightly more useful than the general public. They find surveys to be slightly less useful.
Figure 3.4.1: County Commissioner: Usefulness of General Communications Tools
1
2
3
4
5
Ra
dio
an
d
tele
vis
ion
We
bsi
te
Ne
wsp
ap
ers
Co
mm
un
ity
pu
bli
c m
ee
tin
gs
To
ll-f
ree
ca
ll-i
n
nu
mb
er
Sp
ec
ial m
ail
ing
s
Su
rve
ys
Me
an
Use
fuln
ess
Public Involvement
County Commissioners
Error on Public Involvement
37
4. Cities and Towns Stakeholder Group
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
3. County Commissioner Stakeholder Group
Planning and Project Communication Tool Ratings
The county stakeholder group ranks communication tools for planning and projects in roughly the same order as
respondents from the Public Involvement Survey, but find them all more useful. Brochures and newsletters are the least
useful.
Figure 3.5.1: County Commissioner: Helpfulness of Planning and Project Communication Tools
1
2
3
4
5
Ma
ps
Pic
ture
s o
r g
rap
hic
s
Ad
va
nc
ed
te
ch
no
log
y
too
ls
We
bsi
te
Ne
wsl
ett
ers
Bro
ch
ure
s
Me
an
He
lpfu
lne
ss
Public Involvement
County Commissioners
Error on Public Involvement
38
4. Cities and Towns Stakeholder Group
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
3. County Commissioner Stakeholder Group
MDT Customer Service and Performance Grade
The county stakeholder group gives MDT B’s and B-‘s for all the performance measures. Responsiveness to customer
ideas and concerns is the lowest grade (B-). They give sensitivity to the environment a higher B than the general public.
Figure 3.6.1: County Commissioner: Customer Service and Performance Grades
0
1
2
3
4
Se
nsi
tiv
ity
to
th
e
en
vir
on
me
nt
Qu
ality
of
serv
ice
Pu
blic
no
tifi
ca
tio
n
pro
ce
ss
Cu
rre
nt
qu
ali
ty o
f
serv
ice
co
mp
are
d
wit
h f
ive
ye
ars
ag
o
Ov
era
ll
pe
rfo
rma
nc
e p
ast
ye
ar
Co
nv
en
ien
ce
of
tra
ve
l th
rou
gh
pro
jec
ts
Ke
ep
cu
sto
me
rs
full
y in
form
ed
Qu
ali
ty o
f p
lan
nin
g
Re
spo
nsi
ve
ne
ss t
o
cu
sto
me
r id
ea
s a
nd
co
nc
ern
s
Ov
era
ll h
igh
wa
y
ma
inte
na
nc
e a
nd
rep
air
Me
an
Gra
de
Public Involvement
County Commissioners
A
B
C
D
FError on Public Involvement
39
4. Cities and Towns Stakeholder Group
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
3. County Commissioner Stakeholder Group
Security for System Components
The county commissioners are in general agreement with the general public regarding security of Montana’s
transportation system. They think that security of roadways and connectivity of roadways is slightly more important
than the general public.
Figure 3.7.1: County Commissioner: Security for System Components
1
2
3
4
5
Em
erg
en
cy
re
spo
nse
pla
ns
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty a
irp
ort
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty b
ord
er
cro
ssin
gs
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n a
nd
co
ord
ina
tio
n
wit
h o
the
r a
ge
nc
ies
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n w
ith
th
e p
ub
lic
usi
ng
av
ail
ab
le a
dv
an
ce
d
tec
hn
olo
gie
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty i
nte
rsta
te
hig
hw
ay
s
Co
nn
ec
tiv
ity
of
roa
dw
ay
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty o
the
r m
ajo
r
hig
hw
ay
s
Av
ail
ab
ilit
y o
f a
lte
rna
tiv
e r
ou
tes
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty p
ub
lic
tra
nsi
t
fac
ilit
ies
Me
an
Im
po
rta
nce
Public Involvement
County Commissioners
Error on Public Involvement
40
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
4. Cities and Towns
Stakeholder Group
This group consists of mayors and chief executives from across Montana. One hundred and two completed interviews
were collected from members of the cities and towns group. Eighty-three responses were collected in 2009.
Transportation System Satisfaction
The cities and towns stakeholder group was moderately satisfied with the overall transportation system. This group’s
satisfaction to the physical condition of the individual components was very similar to the general public’s as measured
by the 2011 Public Involvement Survey. These stakeholders were slightly more satisfied than the general public with the
physical condition of rest areas.
Figure 4.1.1: Cities and Towns: Satisfaction with System Physical Condition
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Ov
era
ll s
ati
sfa
cti
on
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
air
po
rts
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
inte
rsta
te
hig
hw
ay
s
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
rest
are
as
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
oth
er
ma
jor
hig
hw
ay
s
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
bic
yc
le p
ath
wa
ys
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
pe
de
stri
an
wa
lkw
ay
s
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
bu
s d
ep
ots
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
cit
y s
tre
ets
Me
an
Sa
tisf
act
ion
Public Involvement
Cities & towns
Error on Public Involvement
41
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
4. Cities and Towns
Stakeholder Group
The cities and towns stakeholders were somewhat dissatisfied with the availability of intercity buses and taxis. They
were less satisfied than the general public about the availability of local bus and van service. This group was slightly
more satisfied with passenger rail service compared to the general public.
Figure 4.1.2: Cities and Towns: Satisfaction with System Services Availability
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fre
igh
t ra
il s
erv
ice
Air
tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
ou
tsid
e M
on
tan
a
Tra
nsi
t fo
r th
e
eld
erl
y o
r d
isa
ble
d
Av
ail
ab
ilit
y o
f a
ir
tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
wit
hin
Mo
nta
na
Lo
ca
l bu
s o
r v
an
serv
ice
Pa
sse
ng
er
rail
serv
ice
Inte
rcit
y b
use
s
Ta
xis
Me
an
Sa
tisf
act
ion
Public Involvement
Cities & towns
Error on Public Involvement
42
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
4. Cities and Towns
Stakeholder Group
Actions to Improve the Transportation System
The cities and towns stakeholder group generally ranked the potential actions to improve Montana’s transportation
system in an order similar to the general public (Figure 4.2.1). They assigned a slightly higher priority to improving
interstate and major highways, improving other roads and streets, reducing single occupancy vehicle use, promoting the
use of local transit systems, preserving existing passenger rail, keeping the public informed, maintaining roadside
vegetation, and including wildlife crossing in projects.
They assigned a slightly lower priority to reducing the air quality impacts of roadway use.
Figure 4.2.1: Cities and Towns: Actions to Improve System
1
2
3
4
5
Pre
serv
e e
xis
tin
g p
ass
en
ge
r ra
il s
erv
ice
Ma
inta
in r
oa
d p
av
em
en
t c
on
dit
ion
Imp
rov
e o
the
r ro
ad
s a
nd
str
ee
ts
Ma
inta
in r
oa
dsi
de
ve
ge
tati
on
Ke
ep
pu
bli
c in
form
ed
Inc
lud
e w
ild
life
cro
ssin
gs
in h
igh
wa
y p
roje
cts
Imp
rov
e t
ran
spo
rta
tio
n s
afe
ty
Use
ne
w t
ec
hn
olo
gie
s
Pro
mo
te u
se o
f lo
ca
l tr
an
sit
syst
em
s
Imp
rov
e in
ters
tate
s a
nd
ma
jor
hig
hw
ay
s
Inc
rea
se s
ch
ed
ule
d a
irli
ne
se
rvic
e
Imp
rov
e r
est
are
as
En
sure
ad
eq
ua
te p
ed
est
ria
n f
ac
ilit
ies
Imp
rov
e b
us
de
po
ts
Re
du
ce
tra
ffic
co
ng
est
ion
Re
gu
lati
ng
nu
mb
er
of
hig
hw
ay
ap
pro
ac
he
s
En
sure
ad
eq
ua
te b
icy
cle
fa
cil
itie
s
Re
du
ce
sin
gle
oc
cu
pa
nc
y v
eh
icle
use
Re
du
cin
g t
he
air
qu
ali
ty i
mp
ac
ts o
f ro
ad
wa
y
use
Me
an
Pri
ori
ty
Public Involvement
Cities & towns
Error on Public Involvement
43
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
4. Cities and Towns
Stakeholder Group
Actions to Improve Roadways
Both the cities and towns stakeholders and the general public assigned very similar priorities for potential actions to
improve Montana’s roadways. These stakeholders want more guard rails than the general public. They assign a slightly
higher priority to wider shoulders for motorists.
Figure 4.3.1: Cities and Towns: Actions to Improve Roadways
1
2
3
4
5
Mo
re g
ua
rd r
ail
s
Inc
rea
se s
ho
uld
er
wid
ths
for
mo
tori
sts
Inc
rea
se s
ho
uld
er
wid
ths
for
bic
yc
list
s
Mo
re p
av
em
en
t m
ark
ing
s
Mo
re t
raff
ic l
igh
ts a
nd
le
ft t
urn
lan
es
Wid
er
roa
dw
ay
s
Mo
re d
ire
cti
on
al/
info
rma
tio
na
l
sig
ns
Mo
re li
gh
tin
g o
f ro
ad
wa
ys
Me
an
Pri
ori
ty
Public Involvement
Cities & towns
Error on Public Involvement
44
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
4. Cities and Towns
Stakeholder Group
General Communication Tool Ratings
The cities and towns stakeholders find the general communication tools to be useful in the same order as the
respondents from the 2011 Public Involvement Survey with the exception of community public meetings (Figure 4.4.1).
Community public meetings are a somewhat useful tool, while the general public finds community public meetings less
so. The stakeholder group finds the MDT website, newspapers, surveys, and special mailings more useful than the
general public.
Figure 4.4.1: Cities and Towns: Usefulness of General Communications Tools
1
2
3
4
5
Ra
dio
an
d
tele
vis
ion
Co
mm
un
ity
pu
bli
c
me
eti
ng
s
We
bsi
te
Ne
wsp
ap
ers
To
ll-f
ree
ca
ll-i
n
nu
mb
er
Su
rve
ys
Sp
ec
ial m
ail
ing
s
Me
an
Use
fuln
ess
Public Involvement
Cities & towns
Error on Public Involvement
45
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
4. Cities and Towns
Stakeholder Group
Planning and Project Communication Tool Ratings
The six communication tools shown in Figure 4.5.1 are found more helpful by the cities and town stakeholder group
than the general public. They are ranked in the same order.
Figure 4.5.1: Cities and Towns: Helpfulness of Planning and Project Communication Tools
1
2
3
4
5
Ma
ps
Pic
ture
s o
r g
rap
hic
s
We
bsi
te
Ad
va
nc
ed
te
ch
no
log
y
too
ls
Ne
wsl
ett
ers
Bro
ch
ure
s
Me
an
He
lpfu
lne
ss
Public Involvement
Cities & towns
Error on Public Involvement
46
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
4. Cities and Towns
Stakeholder Group
MDT Customer Service and Performance Grade
The cities and towns stakeholder group and the general public grade MDT about the same, between B and B-. This group
gives responsiveness to customer ideas and concerns the lowest grade.
Figure 4.6.1: Cities and Towns: Customer Service and Performance Grades
0
1
2
3
4
Se
nsi
tiv
ity
to
th
e
en
vir
on
me
nt
Cu
rre
nt
qu
ali
ty o
f
serv
ice
co
mp
are
d
wit
h f
ive
ye
ars
ag
o
Qu
ali
ty o
f se
rvic
e
Pu
bli
c n
oti
fic
ati
on
pro
ce
ss
Ke
ep
cu
sto
me
rs
full
y in
form
ed
Ov
era
ll
pe
rfo
rma
nc
e p
ast
ye
ar
Ov
era
ll h
igh
wa
y
ma
inte
na
nc
e a
nd
rep
air
Qu
ali
ty o
f p
lan
nin
g
Co
nv
en
ien
ce
of
tra
ve
l th
rou
gh
pro
jec
ts
Re
spo
nsi
ve
ne
ss t
o
cu
sto
me
r id
ea
s a
nd
co
nc
ern
s
Me
an
Gra
de
Public Involvement
Cities & towns
A
B
C
D
FError on Public Involvement
47
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
4. Cities and Towns
Stakeholder Group
Security for System Components
Homeland security for the components of Montana’s transportation system is more important to the cities and towns
stakeholder group than the general public. Emergency preparedness is also more important to this group. Coordination
with other agencies, communication with the public, and emergency response plans are especially important.
Figure 4.7.1: Cities and Towns: Security for System Components
1
2
3
4
5
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty a
irp
ort
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty b
ord
er
cro
ssin
gs
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n a
nd
co
ord
ina
tio
n
wit
h o
the
r a
ge
nc
ies
Em
erg
en
cy
re
spo
nse
pla
ns
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n w
ith
th
e p
ub
lic
usi
ng
av
ail
ab
le a
dv
an
ce
d
tec
hn
olo
gie
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty i
nte
rsta
te
hig
hw
ay
s
Co
nn
ec
tiv
ity
of
roa
dw
ay
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty o
the
r m
ajo
r
hig
hw
ay
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty p
ub
lic
tra
nsi
t
fac
ilit
ies
Av
ail
ab
ilit
y o
f a
lte
rna
tiv
e r
ou
tes
Me
an
Im
po
rta
nce
Public Involvement
Cities & towns
Error on Public Involvement
48
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
5. Economic Development Stakeholder Group
This group is represented by various economic development interests from across Montana. Stakeholders include
representatives from:
• Economic development associations
• Business organizations
• Local development corporations and associations.
Eighty-seven completed interviews were collected from members of the economic development group, the same as
collected in 2009.
Transportation System Satisfaction
Economic development stakeholders rated the overall transportation system about the same as the general public,
moderately satisfied (Figure 5.1.1). Some differences are found among the physical condition of individual components
where stakeholders are less satisfied. These components are bicycle pathways, pedestrian walkways, and bus depots.
They also rated the physical condition of rest areas and airports slightly lower.
49
2011
Tran
Plan
21
Stakeholder Su
rvey
Volume I
5. Economic D
evelopment
Stakeholder G
roup
Fig
ure
5.1
.1: E
con
om
ic De
ve
lop
me
nt: S
atisfa
ction
with
Ph
ysica
l Co
nd
ition
of S
yste
m
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
Overall satisfaction
Physical condition
of airports
Physical condition
of interstate
highways
Physical condition
of other major
highways
Physical condition
of rest areas
Physical condition
of pedestrian
walkways
Physical condition
of bicycle
pathways
Physical condition
of city streets
Physical condition
of bus depots
Mean Satisfaction
Pu
blic
Inv
olv
em
en
t
Ec
on
om
ic d
ev
elo
pm
en
t
Erro
r on
Pu
blic In
vo
lve
me
nt
50
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
5. Economic Development Stakeholder Group
The economic development stakeholders were less satisfied with the availability of various services in Montana’s
transportation system than those responding to the 2011 Public Involvement Survey (Figure 5.1.2). Economic
development stakeholders were dissatisfied with intercity buses, taxis, air transportation to Montana destinations, and
passenger rail service. These respondents were neutral or slightly satisfied about local van service, air transportation to
destinations outside Montana, freight rail service, and transit for the elderly and disabled.
Figure 5.1.2: Economic Development: Satisfaction with Availability of System Services
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fre
igh
t ra
il s
erv
ice
Air
tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
ou
tsid
e M
on
tan
a
Tra
nsi
t fo
r th
e
eld
erl
y o
r d
isa
ble
d
Lo
cal b
us
or
va
n
serv
ice
Inte
rcit
y b
use
s
Pa
sse
ng
er
rail
serv
ice Ta
xis
Av
ail
ab
ilit
y o
f a
ir
tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
wit
hin
Mo
nta
na
Me
an
Sa
tisf
act
ion
Public Involvement
Economic development
Error on Public Involvement
51
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
5. Economic Development Stakeholder Group
Actions to Improve the Transportation System
Economic development stakeholders and the general public had similar opinions regarding the priority of various actions
to improve the Montana transportation system. Figure 5.2.1 shows a few actions that are exceptions. Promoting an
increase in scheduled airline service and using new technologies such as electronic signs are a higher priority of the
stakeholder group. Improving bus depots, reducing single occupancy vehicles and reducing congestion are lower
priorities.
Figure 5.2.1: Economic Development: Actions to Improve System
1
2
3
4
5
Ma
inta
in r
oa
d p
av
em
en
t c
on
dit
ion
Use
ne
w t
ec
hn
olo
gie
s
Incre
ase
sc
he
du
led
air
lin
e s
erv
ice
Imp
rov
e o
the
r ro
ad
s a
nd
str
ee
ts
Imp
rov
e t
ran
spo
rta
tio
n s
afe
ty
Ke
ep
pu
bli
c in
form
ed
Pre
serv
e e
xis
tin
g p
ass
en
ge
r ra
il s
erv
ice
Inclu
de
wil
dli
fe c
ross
ing
s in
hig
hw
ay
pro
jec
ts
Ma
inta
in r
oa
dsi
de
ve
ge
tati
on
Pro
mo
te u
se o
f lo
ca
l tr
an
sit
syst
em
s
Imp
rov
e r
est
are
as
En
sure
ad
eq
ua
te p
ed
est
ria
n f
ac
ilit
ies
Imp
rov
e in
ters
tate
s a
nd
ma
jor
hig
hw
ay
s
Re
gu
lati
ng
nu
mb
er
of
hig
hw
ay
ap
pro
ac
he
s
En
sure
ad
eq
ua
te b
icyc
le f
ac
ilit
ies
Re
du
ce
tra
ffic
co
ng
est
ion
Re
du
cin
g th
e a
ir q
ua
lity
im
pa
cts
of
roa
dw
ay
use
Imp
rov
e b
us
de
po
ts
Re
du
ce
sin
gle
oc
cu
pa
nc
y v
eh
icle
use
Me
an
Pri
ori
ty
Public Involvement
Economic development
Error on Public Involvement
52
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
5. Economic Development Stakeholder Group
Actions to Improve Roadways
No significant differences exist between the economic development stakeholders and the general public regarding
several possible actions to improve Montana’s roadways (Figure 5.3.1). These stakeholders assign a slightly higher
priority to more pavement markings and wider roadways and shoulders, but not significantly so.
Figure 5.3.1: Economic Development: Actions to Improve Roadways
1
2
3
4
5
Inc
rea
se s
ho
uld
er
wid
ths
for
mo
tori
sts
Mo
re g
ua
rd r
ail
s
Inc
rea
se s
ho
uld
er
wid
ths
for
bic
yc
list
s
Wid
er
roa
dw
ay
s
Mo
re p
av
em
en
t m
ark
ing
s
Mo
re t
raff
ic l
igh
ts a
nd
le
ft t
urn
lan
es
Mo
re d
ire
cti
on
al/
info
rma
tio
na
l
sig
ns
Mo
re li
gh
tin
g o
f ro
ad
wa
ys
Me
an
Pri
ori
ty
Public Involvement
Economic development
Error on Public Involvement
53
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
5. Economic Development Stakeholder Group
General Communication Tool Ratings
Economic development stakeholders think the MDT website is the most useful general communication tool with radio
and television second (Figure 5.4.1). The usefulness of these two tools is significantly different in the minds of the
stakeholders and general public. The MDT website is much more useful while radio and television are less useful.
Figure 5.4.1: Economic Development: Usefulness of General Communications Tools
1
2
3
4
5
We
bsi
te
Ra
dio
an
d
tele
vis
ion
To
ll-f
ree
ca
ll-i
n
nu
mb
er
Ne
wsp
ap
ers
Co
mm
un
ity
pu
bli
c m
ee
tin
gs
Su
rve
ys
Sp
ec
ial m
ail
ing
s
Me
an
Use
fuln
ess
Public Involvement
Economic development
Error on Public Involvement
54
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
5. Economic Development Stakeholder Group
Planning and Project Communication Tool Ratings
Major differences are apparent when comparing the usefulness of project and planning communication tools (Figure
5.5.1) between economic development stakeholders and the general public. The stakeholders view the MDT website,
maps, pictures or graphics, and advanced technology tools as more useful than the general public.
Figure 5.5.1: Economic Development: Helpfulness of Planning and Project Communication Tools
1
2
3
4
5
Ma
ps
Pic
ture
s o
r g
rap
hic
s
We
bsi
te
Ad
va
nc
ed
te
ch
no
log
y
too
ls Bro
ch
ure
s
Ne
wsl
ett
ers
Me
an
He
lpfu
lne
ss
Public Involvement
Economic development
Error on Public Involvement
55
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
5. Economic Development Stakeholder Group
MDT Customer Service and Performance Grade
Economic development stakeholders give MDT a B grade for overall performance in the last year and quality of service
where the general public gives MDT a B- for the two services. Other service and performance measures are very similar
between the two groups.
Figure 5.6.1: Economic Development: Customer Service and Performance Grades
0
1
2
3
4
Cu
rre
nt
qu
ali
ty o
f
serv
ice
co
mp
are
d
wit
h f
ive
ye
ars
ag
o
Qu
ali
ty o
f se
rvic
e
Ov
era
ll
pe
rfo
rma
nc
e p
ast
ye
ar
Ke
ep
cu
sto
me
rs
full
y in
form
ed
Qu
ali
ty o
f p
lan
nin
g
Se
nsi
tiv
ity
to
th
e
en
vir
on
me
nt
Pu
bli
c n
oti
fic
ati
on
pro
ce
ss
Ov
era
ll h
igh
wa
y
ma
inte
na
nc
e a
nd
rep
air
Co
nv
en
ien
ce
of
tra
ve
l th
rou
gh
pro
jec
ts
Re
spo
nsi
ve
ne
ss t
o
cu
sto
me
r id
ea
s a
nd
co
nc
ern
s
Me
an
Gra
de
Public Involvement
Economic development
A
B
C
D
FError on Public Involvement
56
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
5. Economic Development Stakeholder Group
Security for System Components
Security for Montana’s transportation system was slightly more important for the economic development stakeholders
when compared to the general public. Figure 5.7.1 shows these differences. Stakeholders were more concerned with
coordination and communication with other agencies and the connectivity of roadways during emergencies than the
general public. These stakeholders thought that homeland security was slightly more important with exception of public
transit facilities.
Figure 5.7.1: Economic Development: Security for System Components
1
2
3
4
5
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty b
ord
er
cro
ssin
gs
Ho
me
lan
d s
ecu
rity
air
po
rts
Co
mm
un
icati
on
an
d c
oo
rdin
ati
on
wit
h o
the
r a
ge
nc
ies
Em
erg
en
cy
re
spo
nse
pla
ns
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n w
ith
th
e p
ub
lic
usi
ng
av
ail
ab
le a
dv
an
ce
d
tec
hn
olo
gie
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty i
nte
rsta
te
hig
hw
ay
s
Co
nn
ec
tiv
ity
of
road
wa
ys
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty o
the
r m
ajo
r
hig
hw
ay
s
Av
aila
bil
ity
of
alt
ern
ati
ve
ro
ute
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty p
ub
lic
tra
nsi
t
fac
ilit
ies
Me
an
Im
po
rta
nce
Public Involvement
Economic development
Error on Public Involvement
57
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
6. Environmental Stakeholder Group
This group is represented by various environmental interests from across Montana. Stakeholders include
representatives from:
• Wilderness coalitions
• Wildlife associations
• Audubon societies
• Preservation coalitions
• Sierra Club affiliates
• Resource centers
Twenty-seven completed interviews were collected from members of the environmental group.
Transportation System Satisfaction
The environmental stakeholder group was less satisfied with Montana’s overall transportation system than the general
public (Figure 6.1.1). This stakeholder group was satisfied with the physical condition of city streets while the general
public was dissatisfied. Environmental stakeholders were less satisfied than the general public with the physical
condition of pedestrian pathways and slightly less satisfied with the physical condition of bicycle pathways and bus
depots.
58
2011
Tran
Plan
21
Stakeholder Su
rvey
Volume I
6. Enviro
nmental
Stakeholder G
roup
Fig
ure
6.1
.1: E
nv
iron
me
nta
l: Sa
tisfactio
n w
ith P
hy
sical C
on
ditio
n o
f Sy
stem
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
Overall satisfaction
Physical condition
of airports
Physical condition
of interstate
highways
Physical condition
of other major
highways
Physical condition
of rest areas
Physical condition
of bicycle
pathways
Physical condition
of pedestrian
walkways
Physical condition
of city streets
Physical condition
of bus depots
Mean Satisfaction
Pu
blic
Inv
olv
em
en
t
En
viro
nm
en
tal g
rou
ps
Erro
r on
Pu
blic In
vo
lve
me
nt
59
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
6. Environmental Stakeholder Group
There are several differences between environmental stakeholders and the general public regarding the availability of
transportation services. Environmental stakeholders are very dissatisfied with the availability of passenger rail service
compared with slight dissatisfaction in the general public. They are slightly dissatisfied with the availability of intercity
buses and transit for the elderly and disabled. Environmental stakeholders are slightly less satisfied with the availability
of air transportation within Montana.
Figure 6.1.2: Environmental: Satisfaction with Availability of System Services
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fre
igh
t ra
il s
erv
ice
Air
tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
ou
tsid
e M
on
tan
a
Lo
ca
l bu
s o
r v
an
serv
ice T
ax
is
Av
ail
ab
ilit
y o
f a
ir
tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
wit
hin
Mo
nta
na
Tra
nsi
t fo
r th
e
eld
erl
y o
r d
isa
ble
d
Inte
rcit
y b
use
s
Pa
sse
ng
er
rail
serv
ice
Me
an
Sa
tisf
act
ion
Public Involvement
Environmental groups
Error on Public Involvement
60
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
6. Environmental Stakeholder Group
Actions to Improve the Transportation System
Environmental stakeholders definitely have different priorities (Figure 6.2.1) as to ways to improve Montana’s
transportation system compared to the general public. This group generally agrees with the general public regarding
scheduled airline service, using new technologies, keeping the public informed, and managing roadside vegetation, but
has opposite views on the remaining possible actions.
The environmental stakeholder group assigns a much higher priority on ensuring adequate pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, reducing single occupant vehicles, promoting use of local transit systems, reducing air quality impacts,
improving bus depots, and including wildlife crossings in transportation projects than the general public. This group also
assigns a slightly higher priority to improving transportation safety, preserving passenger rail, and regulating highway
approaches.
Environmental stakeholders are much less concerned than the general public about reducing traffic congestion by
building more roadways and slightly less concerned with improving interstates and other major highways, other roads
and streets, maintaining pavement condition, and improving rest areas.
61
2011
Tran
Plan
21
Stakeholder Su
rvey
Volume I
6. Enviro
nmental
Stakeholder G
roup
Fig
ure
6.2
.1: E
nv
iron
me
nta
l: Actio
ns to
Imp
rov
e S
yste
m
1 2 3 4 5
Include wildlife crossings in highway projects
Ensure adequate bicycle facilities
Reducing the air quality impacts of roadway
use
Promote use of local transit systems
Preserve existing passenger rail service
Ensure adequate pedestrian facilities
Improve transportation safety
Reduce single occupancy vehicle use
Improve bus depots
Maintain roadside vegetation
Keep public informed
Maintain road pavement condition
Improve other roads and streets
Use new technologies
Increase scheduled airline service
Regulating number of highway approaches
Improve rest areas
Improve interstates and major highways
Reduce traffic congestion
Mean Priority
Pu
blic
Inv
olv
em
en
t
En
viro
nm
en
tal g
rou
ps
Erro
r on
Pu
blic In
vo
lve
me
nt
62
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
6. Environmental Stakeholder Group
Actions to Improve Roadways
Improving roadways is also less of a priority for environmental stakeholders compared to the general public. They assign
a lower priority to more directional/informational signs and more guard rails than respondents from the Public
Involvement Survey. They also are slightly less concerned with improved lighting, wider roadways, more traffic lights and
left turn lanes, and increasing shoulder widths for motorists. Increasing shoulder widths for bicyclists is a very high
priority.
Figure 6.3.1: Environmental: Actions to Improve Roadways
1
2
3
4
5
Inc
rea
se s
ho
uld
er
wid
ths
for
bic
yc
list
s
Mo
re p
av
em
en
t m
ark
ing
s
Inc
rea
se s
ho
uld
er
wid
ths
for
mo
tori
sts
Mo
re t
raff
ic l
igh
ts a
nd
le
ft t
urn
lan
es
Wid
er
roa
dw
ay
s
Mo
re li
gh
tin
g o
f ro
ad
wa
ys
Mo
re g
ua
rd r
ail
s
Mo
re d
ire
cti
on
al/
info
rma
tio
na
l
sig
ns
Me
an
Pri
ori
ty
Public Involvement
Environmental groups
Error on Public Involvement
63
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
6. Environmental Stakeholder Group
General Communication Tool Ratings
The environmental stakeholder group finds MDT’s toll-free call number and radio/television to be less useful than the
general public. Surveys are slightly less useful. This stakeholder group ranks the MDT website as the most useful general
communication tool while the general public ranks radio and television number one.
Figure 6.4.1: Environmental: Usefulness of General Communications Tools
1
2
3
4
5
We
bsi
te
Ne
wsp
ap
ers
Ra
dio
an
d
tele
vis
ion
Co
mm
un
ity
pu
bli
c m
ee
tin
gs
To
ll-f
ree
ca
ll-i
n
nu
mb
er
Su
rve
ys
Sp
ec
ial m
ail
ing
s
Me
an
Use
fuln
ess
Public Involvement
Environmental groups
Error on Public Involvement
64
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
6. Environmental Stakeholder Group
Planning and Project Communication Tool Ratings
The environmental stakeholder group ranks communication tools for planning and projects in a similar order as the
general public. This group thinks that maps and pictures are slightly more helpful as tools than the general public;
advanced technology tools less so.
Figure 6.5.1: Environmental: Helpfulness of Planning and Project Communication Tools
1
2
3
4
5
Ma
ps
Pic
ture
s o
r g
rap
hic
s
We
bsi
te
Ne
wsl
ett
ers
Bro
ch
ure
s
Ad
va
nc
ed
te
ch
no
log
y
too
ls
Me
an
He
lpfu
lne
ss
Public Involvement
Environmental groups
Error on Public Involvement
65
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
6. Environmental Stakeholder Group
MDT Customer Service and Performance Grade
The environmental stakeholder group gives MDT a C+ for its overall performance in the last year, compared to a B- from
the general public. Other performance measures with lower grades are quality of planning (C+), responsiveness to
customer ideas and concerns (C), and sensitivity to the environment (C). The general public gives MDT a B for sensitivity
to the environment.
Figure 6.6.1: Environmental: Customer Service and Performance Grades
0
1
2
3
4
Co
nv
en
ien
ce
of
tra
ve
l th
rou
gh
pro
jec
ts
Cu
rre
nt
qu
ali
ty o
f
serv
ice
co
mp
are
d
wit
h f
ive
ye
ars
ag
o
Qu
ali
ty o
f se
rvic
e
Ke
ep
cu
sto
me
rs
fully
info
rme
d
Ove
rall
hig
hw
ay
main
ten
an
ce
an
d
rep
air
Pu
bli
c n
oti
fic
ati
on
pro
ce
ss
Ov
era
ll
pe
rfo
rma
nc
e p
ast
ye
ar
Qu
ali
ty o
f p
lan
nin
g
Re
spo
nsi
ve
ne
ss t
o
cu
sto
me
r id
ea
s a
nd
co
nc
ern
s
Se
nsi
tiv
ity
to
th
e
en
vir
on
me
nt
Me
an
Gra
de
Public Involvement
Environmental groups
A
B
C
D
FError on Public Involvement
66
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
6. Environmental Stakeholder Group
Security for System Components
Homeland security is less of an issue for the environmental stakeholder group compared to the general public.
Emergency preparedness is also less important to this stakeholder group, especially alternative routes and the
connectivity of roadways.
Figure 6.7.1: Environmental: Security for System Components
1
2
3
4
5
Em
erg
en
cy
re
spo
nse
pla
ns
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n a
nd
co
ord
ina
tio
n
wit
h o
the
r a
ge
nc
ies
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n w
ith
th
e p
ub
lic
usi
ng
av
ail
ab
le a
dv
an
ce
d
tec
hn
olo
gie
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty a
irp
ort
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty b
ord
er
cro
ssin
gs
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty i
nte
rsta
te
hig
hw
ay
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty o
the
r m
ajo
r
hig
hw
ay
s
Co
nn
ec
tiv
ity
of
roa
dw
ay
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty p
ub
lic
tra
nsi
t
fac
ilit
ies
Av
ail
ab
ilit
y o
f a
lte
rna
tiv
e r
ou
tes
Me
an
Im
po
rta
nce
Public Involvement
Environmental groups
Error on Public Involvement
67
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
7. Intermodal Freight Stakeholder Group
This group is represented by various intermodal and freight interests from across Montana. Stakeholders include
representatives from:
• Trucking
• Air freight
• Rail freight
• Freight forwarding associations
Fifty-seven completed interviews were collected from members of the intermodal freight group. Forty-six responses
were collected in 2009.
Transportation System Satisfaction
The intermodal freight stakeholder group has the same level of overall satisfaction as the general public (Figure 7.1.1).
There are no significant differences between the two groups as to the physical condition of various components.
There are a couple of differences between this stakeholder group and the general public regarding the availability of
transportation services in Montana (Figure 7.1.2). Intermodal freight stakeholders are dissatisfied about the availability
of air transportation to Montana destinations. They are slightly more satisfied about the availability of freight rail
service.
68
2011
Tran
Plan
21
Stakeholder Su
rvey
Volume I
7. In
termodal Freigh
t Stakeh
older G
roup
Fig
ure
7.1
.1: In
term
od
al F
reig
ht: S
atisfa
ction
with
Ph
ysica
l Co
nd
ition
Sy
stem
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
Overall satisfaction
Physical condition
of airports
Physical condition
of interstate
highways
Physical condition
of pedestrian
walkways
Physical condition
of bicycle
pathways
Physical condition
of other major
highways
Physical condition
of rest areas
Physical condition
of bus depots
Physical condition
of city streets
Mean Satisfaction
Pu
blic
Inv
olv
em
en
t
Inte
rmo
da
l freig
ht
Erro
r on
Pu
blic In
vo
lve
me
nt
69
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
7. Intermodal Freight Stakeholder Group
Figure 7.1.2: Intermodal Freight: Satisfaction with Availability of System Services
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fre
igh
t ra
il s
erv
ice
Air
tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
ou
tsid
e M
on
tan
a
Lo
ca
l bu
s o
r v
an
serv
ice
Tra
nsi
t fo
r th
e
eld
erl
y o
r d
isab
led
Tax
is
Pa
sse
ng
er
rail
serv
ice
Inte
rcit
y b
use
s
Av
aila
bil
ity
of
air
tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
wit
hin
Mo
nta
na
Me
an
Sa
tisf
act
ion
Public Involvement
Intermodal freight
Error on Public Involvement
70
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
7. Intermodal Freight Stakeholder Group
Actions to Improve the Transportation System
The intermodal freight stakeholder group has different priorities than the general public as seen in Figure 7.2.1. This
stakeholder group assigns a higher priority to maintaining road pavement conditions and a slightly higher priority to
improving the interstates and major roads and keeping the public informed.
On the other hand, intermodal freight stakeholders are less interested in ensuring adequate pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, reducing single occupancy vehicle use, and preserving existing passenger rail. They also assign slightly less of a
priority to promoting use of local transit systems, reducing the air quality impacts of road use, and maintaining roadside
vegetation.
Figure 7.2.1: Intermodal Freight: Actions to Improve System
1
2
3
4
5
Ma
inta
in r
oa
d p
av
em
en
t c
on
dit
ion
Ke
ep
pu
bli
c in
form
ed
Imp
rov
e o
the
r ro
ad
s a
nd
str
ee
ts
Use
ne
w t
ec
hn
olo
gie
s
Imp
rov
e t
ran
spo
rta
tio
n s
afe
ty
Inc
rea
se s
ch
ed
ule
d a
irli
ne
se
rvic
e
Inc
lud
e w
ild
life
cro
ssin
gs
in h
igh
wa
y p
roje
cts
Ma
inta
in r
oa
dsi
de
ve
ge
tati
on
Imp
rov
e in
ters
tate
s a
nd
ma
jor
hig
hw
ay
s
Imp
rov
e r
est
are
as
Pro
mo
te u
se o
f lo
ca
l tr
an
sit
syst
em
s
Pre
serv
e e
xis
tin
g p
ass
en
ge
r ra
il s
erv
ice
Re
du
ce
tra
ffic
co
ng
est
ion
Re
gu
lati
ng
nu
mb
er
of
hig
hw
ay
ap
pro
ac
he
s
Imp
rov
e b
us
de
po
ts
En
sure
ad
eq
ua
te p
ed
est
ria
n f
ac
ilit
ies
Re
du
cin
g t
he
air
qu
ali
ty i
mp
ac
ts o
f ro
ad
wa
y
use
En
sure
ad
eq
ua
te b
icy
cle
fa
cil
itie
s
Re
du
ce
sin
gle
oc
cu
pa
nc
y v
eh
icle
use
Me
an
Pri
ori
ty
Public Involvement
Intermodal freight
Error on Public Involvement
71
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
7. Intermodal Freight Stakeholder Group
Actions to Improve Roadways
The intermodal freight stakeholder group assigns a slightly lower priority to all the possible actions to improve
Montana’s roadways when compared to the general public. The ranking of each item is very similar though with
increasing the shoulder widths for motorists’ ranked number one.
Figure 7.3.1: Intermodal Freight: Actions to Improve Roadways
1
2
3
4
5
Inc
rea
se s
ho
uld
er
wid
ths
for
mo
tori
sts
Mo
re g
ua
rd r
ail
s
Wid
er
roa
dw
ay
s
Inc
rea
se s
ho
uld
er
wid
ths
for
bic
yc
list
s
Mo
re p
av
em
en
t m
ark
ing
s
Mo
re t
raff
ic l
igh
ts a
nd
le
ft t
urn
lan
es
Mo
re d
ire
cti
on
al/
info
rma
tio
na
l
sig
ns
Mo
re li
gh
tin
g o
f ro
ad
wa
ys
Me
an
Pri
ori
ty
Public Involvement
Intermodal freight
Error on Public Involvement
72
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
7. Intermodal Freight Stakeholder Group
General Communication Tool Ratings
The intermodal freight stakeholders rate the MDT website as the most useful general communication tool; the general
public ranks radio and television number one. This stakeholder group does not find the other communication tools
particularly useful.
Figure 7.4.1: Intermodal Freight: Usefulness of General Communications Tools
1
2
3
4
5
We
bsi
te
Ra
dio
an
d
tele
vis
ion
Co
mm
un
ity
pu
bli
c m
ee
tin
gs
To
ll-f
ree
ca
ll-i
n
nu
mb
er
Su
rve
ys
Ne
wsp
ap
ers
Sp
ec
ial m
ail
ing
s
Me
an
Use
fuln
ess
Public Involvement
Intermodal freight
Error on Public Involvement
73
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
7. Intermodal Freight Stakeholder Group
Planning and Project Communication Tool Ratings
The intermodal freight stakeholders rank the website, maps, and pictures and graphics as the most helpful tools for
communication planning and project information. Advanced technology tools are also considered helpful. These four
tools are all related as the MDT website is able to incorporate the other tools. Brochures and newsletters are considered
particularly helpful.
Figure 7.5.1: Intermodal Freight: Helpfulness of Planning and Project Communication Tools
1
2
3
4
5
We
bsi
te
Ma
ps
Pic
ture
s o
r g
rap
hic
s
Ad
va
nc
ed
te
ch
no
log
y
too
ls
Ne
wsl
ett
ers
Bro
ch
ure
s
Me
an
He
lpfu
lne
ss
Public Involvement
Intermodal freight
Error on Public Involvement
74
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
7. Intermodal Freight Stakeholder Group
MDT Customer Service and Performance Grade
The intermodal freight stakeholder group gives MDT grades of B to B- for all of the performance measures, very similar
to what the general public gave MDT. The lowest grade was given for responsiveness to customer ideas and concerns, a
grade of high C+ or low B-.
Figure 7.6.1: Intermodal Freight: Customer Service and Performance Grades
0
1
2
3
4
Se
nsi
tiv
ity
to
th
e
en
vir
on
me
nt
Qu
ali
ty o
f se
rvic
e
Cu
rre
nt
qu
ali
ty o
f
serv
ice
co
mp
are
d
wit
h f
ive
ye
ars
ag
o
Ke
ep
cu
sto
me
rs
full
y in
form
ed
Pu
bli
c n
oti
fic
ati
on
pro
ce
ss
Ov
era
ll
pe
rfo
rma
nc
e p
ast
ye
ar
Qu
ali
ty o
f p
lan
nin
g
Co
nv
en
ien
ce
of
tra
ve
l th
rou
gh
pro
jec
ts
Ov
era
ll h
igh
wa
y
ma
inte
na
nc
e a
nd
rep
air
Re
spo
nsi
ve
ne
ss t
o
cu
sto
me
r id
ea
s a
nd
co
nc
ern
s
Me
an
Gra
de
Public Involvement
Intermodal freight
A
B
C
D
FError on Public Involvement
75
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
7. Intermodal Freight Stakeholder Group
Security for System Components
Homeland security was important for the intermodal freight group especially border crossings and airports. Homeland
security was somewhat important for interstate highways and other major highways; less so for other transit facilities.
The intermodal freight stakeholders were somewhat concerned about emergency response plans.
Figure 7.7.1: Intermodal Freight: Security for System Components
1
2
3
4
5
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty b
ord
er
cro
ssin
gs
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty a
irp
ort
s
Em
erg
en
cy
re
spo
nse
pla
ns
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty i
nte
rsta
te
hig
hw
ay
s
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n a
nd
co
ord
ina
tio
n
wit
h o
the
r a
ge
nc
ies
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n w
ith
th
e p
ub
lic
usi
ng
av
ail
ab
le a
dv
an
ce
d
tec
hn
olo
gie
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty o
the
r m
ajo
r
hig
hw
ay
s
Co
nn
ec
tiv
ity
of
roa
dw
ay
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty p
ub
lic
tra
nsi
t
fac
ilit
ies
Av
ail
ab
ilit
y o
f a
lte
rna
tiv
e r
ou
tes
Me
an
Im
po
rta
nce
Public Involvement
Intermodal freight
Error on Public Involvement
76
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Stakeholder Group
This group is represented by various bicycle and pedestrian interests from across Montana. Stakeholders include
representatives from:
• Bicycling clubs
• Community development groups
• Bicycle/pedestrian advisory boards
• County planning offices
• Cops on Bikes
• City park and recreation organizations.
Forty-one completed interviews were collected from members of the bicycle/pedestrian group.
Transportation System Satisfaction
Even though bicycle and pedestrian stakeholders were moderately satisfied with the overall transportation system, they
were slightly less satisfied when compared to the general public (Figure 8.1.1). The physical condition of bicycle
pathways and pedestrian walkways stand out as icons of dissatisfaction by bike and pedestrian stakeholders, especially
when compared to the general public. Bicycle and pedestrian stakeholders’ level of satisfaction with the physical
condition of airports and city streets is slightly higher but not significantly so.
77
2011
Tran
Plan
21
Stakeholder Su
rvey
Volume I
8. B
icycle and Pedestrian
Stakeh
older G
roup
Fig
ure
8.1
.1: B
icycle
an
d P
ed
estria
n: S
atisfa
ction
with
Ph
ysica
l Co
nd
ition
of S
yste
m
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
Overall satisfaction
Physical condition
of airports
Physical condition
of interstate
highways
Physical condition
of other major
highways
Physical condition
of rest areas
Physical condition
of city streets
Physical condition
of pedestrian
walkways
Physical condition
of bus depots
Physical condition
of bicycle
pathways
Mean Satisfaction
Pu
blic
Inv
olv
em
en
t
Bic
yc
le-p
ed
estria
n
Erro
r on
Pu
blic In
vo
lve
me
nt
78
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Stakeholder Group
The rating of bicycle and pedestrian stakeholders is shown in Figure 8.1.2. This stakeholder group generally rates service
availability below the general public, but not significantly so except for passenger rail service, where this group is very
dissatisfied compared to moderate dissatisfaction of the general public.
Figure 8.1.2: Bicycle and Pedestrian: Satisfaction with Availability of System
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Air
tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
ou
tsid
e M
on
tan
a
Lo
ca
l bu
s o
r v
an
serv
ice
Tra
nsi
t fo
r th
e
eld
erl
y o
r d
isa
ble
d
Fre
igh
t ra
il s
erv
ice
Av
ail
ab
ilit
y o
f a
ir
tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
wit
hin
Mo
nta
na
Inte
rcit
y b
use
s
Ta
xis
Pa
sse
ng
er
rail
serv
ice
Me
an
Sa
tisf
act
ion
Public Involvement
Bicycle-pedestrian
Error on Public Involvement
79
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Stakeholder Group
Actions to Improve the Transportation System
The bicycle and pedestrian stakeholder group has different priorities to improve the transportation system compared to
the general public (Figure 8.2.1). Ensuring adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities, reducing single occupant vehicles,
promoting use of local transit systems, and regulating the number of highway approaches all have higher priorities with
this group. This group is less concerned with reducing traffic congestion by building more roads. The bicycle and
pedestrian stakeholders are less concerned with interstates and rest areas, but not significantly so.
Figure 8.2.1: Bicycle and Pedestrian: Actions to Improve System
1
2
3
4
5
En
sure
ad
eq
ua
te b
icy
cle
fa
cil
itie
s
Pro
mo
te u
se o
f lo
ca
l tr
an
sit
syst
em
s
En
sure
ad
eq
ua
te p
ed
est
ria
n f
ac
ilit
ies
Pre
serv
e e
xis
tin
g p
ass
en
ge
r ra
il s
erv
ice
Imp
rov
e o
the
r ro
ad
s a
nd
str
ee
ts
Ma
inta
in r
oa
d p
av
em
en
t c
on
dit
ion
Inc
lud
e w
ild
life
cro
ssin
gs
in h
igh
wa
y p
roje
cts
Ke
ep
pu
bli
c in
form
ed
Ma
inta
in r
oa
dsi
de
ve
ge
tati
on
Imp
rov
e t
ran
spo
rta
tio
n s
afe
ty
Use
ne
w t
ec
hn
olo
gie
s
Re
gu
lati
ng
nu
mb
er
of
hig
hw
ay
ap
pro
ac
he
s
Imp
rov
e b
us
de
po
ts
Inc
rea
se s
ch
ed
ule
d a
irli
ne
se
rvic
e
Re
du
ce
sin
gle
oc
cu
pa
nc
y v
eh
icle
use
Re
du
cin
g t
he
air
qu
ali
ty i
mp
ac
ts o
f ro
ad
wa
y
use
Imp
rov
e in
ters
tate
s a
nd
ma
jor
hig
hw
ay
s
Imp
rov
e r
est
are
as
Re
du
ce
tra
ffic
co
ng
est
ion
Me
an
Pri
ori
ty
Public Involvement
Bicycle-pedestrian
Error on Public Involvement
80
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Stakeholder Group
Actions to Improve Roadways
The bicycle and pedestrian stakeholder group rates increasing shoulder widths for bicycles the highest priority much
higher than the general population (Figure 8.3.1). In contrast they show a much lower desire for wider roadways and
more traffic lights and left turn lanes. More lighting and directional information also have less priority with this group
compared to the general public but not at significant levels.
Figure 8.3.1: Bicycle and Pedestrian: Actions to Improve Roadways
1
2
3
4
5
Inc
rease
sh
ou
lde
r w
idth
s fo
r
bic
ycli
sts
Inc
rease
sh
ou
lde
r w
idth
s fo
r
mo
tori
sts
Mo
re p
av
em
en
t m
ark
ing
s
Mo
re g
uard
rail
s
Wid
er
roa
dw
ay
s
Mo
re li
gh
tin
g o
f ro
ad
wa
ys
Mo
re d
ire
cti
on
al/
info
rma
tio
na
l
sign
s
Mo
re t
raff
ic l
igh
ts a
nd
le
ft t
urn
lan
es
Me
an
Pri
ori
ty
Public Involvement
Bicycle-pedestrian
Error on Public Involvement
81
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Stakeholder Group
General Communication Tool Ratings
MDT’s toll-free call-in number and newspapers are not seen as particularly useful communication tools by the bicycle
and pedestrian stakeholders when compared to the general public (Figure 8.4.1). They are ambivalent about radio and
television. The MDT website is seen as the most useful.
Figure 8.4.1: Bicycle and Pedestrian: Usefulness of General Communications Tools
1
2
3
4
5
We
bsi
te
Rad
io a
nd
tele
vis
ion
Su
rve
ys
Co
mm
un
ity
pu
blic
me
eti
ngs
Ne
wsp
ap
ers
To
ll-f
ree
ca
ll-i
n
nu
mb
er
Sp
ec
ial m
ailin
gs
Me
an
Use
fuln
ess
Public Involvement
Bicycle-pedestrian
Error on Public Involvement
82
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Stakeholder Group
Planning and Project Communication Tool Ratings
The bicycle and pedestrian stakeholder group rates the helpfulness of communication tools for planning and projects
nearly the same as the general public. Figure 8.5.1 shows how each item was rated. Advanced technology tools and the
MDT website are slightly more helpful to these stakeholders.
Figure 8.5.1: Bicycle and Pedestrian: Helpfulness of Planning and Project Communication Tools
1
2
3
4
5
Ma
ps
Pic
ture
s o
r g
rap
hic
s
Ad
va
nc
ed
te
ch
no
log
y
too
ls
We
bsi
te
Ne
wsl
ett
ers
Bro
ch
ure
s
Me
an
He
lpfu
lne
ss
Public Involvement
Bicycle-pedestrian
Error on Public Involvement
83
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Stakeholder Group
MDT Customer Service and Performance Grade
The bicycle and pedestrian stakeholders graded MDT’s customer service and general performance slightly lower than
the general public (Figure 8.6.1). The only item where there was significant difference was MDT’s sensitivity to the
environment, where the stakeholders gave MDT a C+. The bicycle pedestrian group graded how MDT kept its customers
fully informed slightly higher than the general public.
Figure 8.6.1: Bicycle and Pedestrian: Customer Service and Performance Grades
0
1
2
3
4
Ke
ep
cu
sto
me
rs
full
y in
form
ed
Cu
rre
nt
qu
ali
ty o
f
serv
ice
co
mp
are
d
wit
h f
ive
ye
ars
ag
o
Qu
ali
ty o
f se
rvic
e
Qu
ali
ty o
f p
lan
nin
g
Ov
era
ll
pe
rfo
rma
nc
e p
ast
ye
ar
Ov
era
ll h
igh
wa
y
ma
inte
na
nc
e a
nd
rep
air
Co
nv
en
ien
ce
of
tra
ve
l th
rou
gh
pro
jec
ts
Se
nsi
tiv
ity
to
th
e
en
vir
on
me
nt
Re
spo
nsi
ve
ne
ss t
o
cu
sto
me
r id
ea
s a
nd
co
nc
ern
s
Pu
bli
c n
oti
fic
ati
on
pro
ce
ss
Me
an
Gra
de
Public Involvement
Bicycle-pedestrian
A
B
C
D
FError on Public Involvement
84
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Stakeholder Group
Security for System Components
How the bicycle and pedestrian stakeholder group views the importance of security for system components is shown in
Figure 8.7.1. This group rated homeland security at public transit facilities and the availability of alternative routes lower
than the general public. The ranking of each item was very similar, with homeland security at airports and border
crossing the most important for both groups.
Figure 8.7.1: Bicycle and Pedestrian: Security for Transportation System Components
1
2
3
4
5
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty a
irp
ort
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty b
ord
er
cro
ssin
gs
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n a
nd
co
ord
ina
tio
n
wit
h o
the
r a
ge
nc
ies
Em
erg
en
cy
re
spo
nse
pla
ns
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n w
ith
th
e p
ub
lic
usi
ng
av
aila
ble
ad
va
nce
d
tec
hn
olo
gie
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty i
nte
rsta
te
hig
hw
ay
s
Co
nn
ec
tiv
ity
of
roa
dw
ay
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty o
the
r m
ajo
r
hig
hw
ay
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty p
ub
lic t
ran
sit
fac
ilit
ies
Av
ail
ab
ilit
y o
f a
lte
rna
tiv
e r
ou
tes
Me
an
Im
po
rta
nce
Public Involvement
Bicycle-pedestrian
Error on Public Involvement
85
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
9. Passenger Transportation Stakeholder Group
This group is represented by various passenger transportation interests from across Montana. Stakeholders include
representatives from:
• Public transit agencies
• Social service agencies
• Intercity bus agencies
• Rail passenger interests
• Air passenger interests
Eighty-four completed interviews with passenger transportation group members were obtained in 2011. Seventy
interviews were obtained in 2009.
Transportation System Satisfaction
In general, the passenger transportation stakeholder group is satisfied with Montana’s transportation system. Like the
general public, they are dissatisfied with the physical condition of city streets. Although satisfied with the physical
condition of airports, they are less so than the general public.
The passenger transportation stakeholders are dissatisfied with the availability of intercity buses and taxis. Like the
general public, they are also dissatisfied with passenger rail service in Montana. This group is neutral about air
transportation to destinations within Montana.
86
2011
Tran
Plan
21
Stakeholder Su
rvey
Volume I
9. P
assenger T
ransportatio
n
Stakeholder G
roup
Fig
ure
9.1
.1: P
asse
ng
er T
ran
spo
rtatio
n: S
atisfa
ction
with
Ph
ysica
l Co
nd
ition
of S
yste
m
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
Overall satisfaction
Physical condition
of airports
Physical condition
of interstate
highways
Physical condition
of rest areas
Physical condition
of bicycle
pathways
Physical condition
of pedestrian
walkways
Physical condition
of other major
highways
Physical condition
of bus depots
Physical condition
of city streets
Mean Satisfaction
Pu
blic
Inv
olv
em
en
t
Pa
ssen
ge
r tran
spo
rtatio
n
Erro
r on
Pu
blic In
vo
lve
me
nt
87
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
9. Passenger Transportation Stakeholder Group
Figure 9.1.2: Passenger Transportation: Satisfaction with Availability of System Services
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Lo
ca
l bu
s o
r v
an
serv
ice
Tra
nsi
t fo
r th
e
eld
erl
y o
r d
isa
ble
d
Air
tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
ou
tsid
e M
on
tan
a
Fre
igh
t ra
il s
erv
ice
Av
ail
ab
ilit
y o
f a
ir
tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
wit
hin
Mo
nta
na
Pa
sse
ng
er
rail
serv
ice
Inte
rcit
y b
use
s
Ta
xis
Me
an
Sa
tisf
act
ion
Public Involvement
Passenger transportation
Error on Public Involvement
88
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
9. Passenger Transportation Stakeholder Group
Actions to Improve the Transportation System
In general, the passenger transportation stakeholder group ranks the priority of various actions about the same as the
general public (Figure 9.2.1). This stakeholder group assigns a higher priority to improving roadways of all types,
maintaining pavement conditions, ensuring adequate pedestrian facilities, and promoting the use of local transit
systems. Local transit systems are very important to this group.
They assign a slightly higher priority than the general public to reducing single occupancy vehicle use, ensuring adequate
bicycle facilities, improving transportation safety, preserving existing passenger rail, using new technologies, improving
bus depots, and improving rest areas. They assign a slightly lower priority to maintaining roadside vegetation.
Figure 9.2.1: Passenger Transportation: Actions to Improve System
1
2
3
4
5
Ma
inta
in r
oa
d p
av
em
en
t c
on
dit
ion
Imp
rov
e o
the
r ro
ad
s a
nd
str
ee
ts
Pro
mo
te u
se o
f lo
ca
l tr
an
sit
syst
em
s
Pre
serv
e e
xis
tin
g p
ass
en
ge
r ra
il s
erv
ice
Use
ne
w t
ec
hn
olo
gie
s
Imp
rov
e t
ran
spo
rta
tio
n s
afe
ty
Ke
ep
pu
bli
c in
form
ed
Inc
lud
e w
ild
life
cro
ssin
gs
in h
igh
wa
y p
roje
cts
Ma
inta
in r
oa
dsi
de
ve
ge
tati
on
En
sure
ad
eq
ua
te p
ed
est
ria
n f
ac
ilit
ies
Inc
rea
se s
ch
ed
ule
d a
irli
ne
se
rvic
e
Imp
rov
e in
ters
tate
s a
nd
ma
jor
hig
hw
ay
s
Imp
rov
e r
est
are
as
Imp
rov
e b
us
de
po
ts
Re
gu
lati
ng
nu
mb
er
of
hig
hw
ay
ap
pro
ac
he
s
En
sure
ad
eq
ua
te b
icy
cle
fa
cil
itie
s
Re
du
ce
tra
ffic
co
ng
est
ion
Re
du
cin
g t
he
air
qu
ali
ty i
mp
ac
ts o
f ro
ad
wa
y
use
Re
du
ce
sin
gle
oc
cu
pa
nc
y v
eh
icle
use
Me
an
Pri
ori
ty
Public Involvement
Passenger transportation
Error on Public Involvement
89
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
9. Passenger Transportation Stakeholder Group
Actions to Improve Roadways
The passenger transportation stakeholder group assigns the highest priority to more guard rails and wider shoulder
widths as the best ways to improve roadways. The other action priorities are similar to the general public.
Figure 9.3.1: Passenger Transportation: Actions to Improve Roadways
1
2
3
4
5
Mo
re g
ua
rd r
ail
s
Inc
rea
se s
ho
uld
er
wid
ths
for
mo
tori
sts
Inc
rea
se s
ho
uld
er
wid
ths
for
bic
yc
list
s
Wid
er
roa
dw
ay
s
Mo
re p
av
em
en
t m
ark
ing
s
Mo
re t
raff
ic l
igh
ts a
nd
le
ft t
urn
lan
es
Mo
re d
ire
cti
on
al/
info
rma
tio
na
l
sig
ns
Mo
re li
gh
tin
g o
f ro
ad
wa
ys
Me
an
Pri
ori
ty
Public Involvement
Passenger transportation
Error on Public Involvement
90
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
9. Passenger Transportation Stakeholder Group
General Communication Tool Ratings
The passenger transportation stakeholder group finds the MDT website and radio and television the most useful general
communication tools. The website is more useful to the stakeholders than the general public; radio and television less
useful. Special mailings and surveys are the least useful.
Figure 9.4.1: Passenger Transportation: Usefulness of General Communications Tools
1
2
3
4
5
Ra
dio
an
d
tele
vis
ion
We
bsi
te
To
ll-f
ree
ca
ll-i
n
nu
mb
er
Ne
wsp
ap
ers
Co
mm
un
ity
pu
bli
c m
ee
tin
gs
Su
rve
ys
Sp
ec
ial m
ail
ing
s
Me
an
Use
fuln
ess
Public Involvement
Passenger transportation
Error on Public Involvement
91
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
9. Passenger Transportation Stakeholder Group
Planning and Project Communication Tool Ratings
The passenger transportation stakeholders rank planning and project communication tools the same as the general
public with the exception of the MDT website. The MDT website is tied with pictures and graphics. Brochures and
newsletters are the least useful communication tools.
Figure 9.5.1: Passenger Transportation: Helpfulness of Planning and Project Communication Tools
1
2
3
4
5
Ma
ps
Pic
ture
s o
r g
rap
hic
s
We
bsi
te
Ad
va
nc
ed
te
ch
no
log
y
too
ls
Ne
wsl
ett
ers
Bro
ch
ure
s
Me
an
He
lpfu
lne
ss
Public Involvement
Passenger transportation
Error on Public Involvement
92
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
9. Passenger Transportation Stakeholder Group
\MDT Customer Service and Performance Grade
MDT receives grades between C+ and B for the various performance measures. Responsiveness to customer ideas and
concerns was the lowest grade at C+. Convenience of travel through projects and the public notification process
received somewhat lower grades (C+/B-).
Figure 9.6.1: Passenger Transportation: Customer Service and Performance Grades
0
1
2
3
4
Se
nsi
tiv
ity
to
th
e
en
vir
on
me
nt
Cu
rre
nt
qu
ali
ty o
f
serv
ice
co
mp
are
d
wit
h f
ive
ye
ars
ag
o
Qu
ali
ty o
f se
rvic
e
Ov
era
ll
pe
rfo
rma
nc
e p
ast
ye
ar
Ke
ep
cu
sto
me
rs
full
y in
form
ed
Pu
bli
c n
oti
fic
ati
on
pro
ce
ss
Qu
ali
ty o
f p
lan
nin
g
Ov
era
ll h
igh
wa
y
ma
inte
na
nc
e a
nd
rep
air
Co
nv
en
ien
ce
of
tra
ve
l th
rou
gh
pro
jec
ts
Re
spo
nsi
ve
ne
ss t
o
cu
sto
me
r id
ea
s a
nd
co
nc
ern
s
Me
an
Gra
de
Public Involvement
Passenger transportation
A
B
C
D
F
Error on Public Involvement
93
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
9. Passenger Transportation Stakeholder Group
Security for System Components
Homeland security was more important to the passenger transportation stakeholder group than the general public.
Border crossings were slightly less important. Emergency preparedness measures were important to this stakeholder
group than the general public. Emergency response plans and connectivity of roadways were more important.
Coordination with other agencies and communication with the public were slightly more important.
Figure 9.7.1: Passenger Transportation: Security for System Components
1
2
3
4
5
Em
erg
en
cy
re
spo
nse
pla
ns
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty a
irp
ort
s
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n a
nd
co
ord
ina
tio
n
wit
h o
the
r a
ge
nc
ies
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n w
ith
th
e p
ub
lic
usi
ng
av
ail
ab
le a
dv
an
ce
d
tec
hn
olo
gie
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty i
nte
rsta
te
hig
hw
ay
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty b
ord
er
cro
ssin
gs
Co
nn
ec
tiv
ity
of
roa
dw
ay
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty o
the
r m
ajo
r
hig
hw
ay
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty p
ub
lic
tra
nsi
t
fac
ilit
ies
Av
ail
ab
ilit
y o
f a
lte
rna
tiv
e r
ou
tes
Me
an
Im
po
rta
nce
Public Involvement
Passenger transportation
Error on Public Involvement
94
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
10. State and Federal Government Stakeholder Group
This group is represented by non-elected state and federal government officials from across Montana. Stakeholders
include (but are not limited to) representatives from:
• MT Department of Commerce
• MT Department of Environmental Quality
• MT Department of Justice (Highway Patrol)
• MT Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
• Federal Highway Administration
• Federal Aviation Administration
• U.S. Forest Service
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Eighteen completed interviews with state and federal government group members were obtained in 2011; Nineteen
interviews were completed with this group in 2009. Readers of this report should exercise caution when interpreting the
data presented for this stakeholder group due to the low number of respondents.
Transportation System Satisfaction
The state and federal government stakeholders are moderately satisfied with the overall transportation system (Figure
10.1.1). These stakeholders are slightly more satisfied with the physical condition of the various components. Like the
general public they are least satisfied with the physical condition of city streets. These stakeholders are less satisfied
with the physical condition of bicycle pathways and pedestrian walkways.
The state and federal stakeholder group is somewhat dissatisfied with the availability of intercity buses, taxis, air
transportation within Montana, and passenger rail service. The state and federal government stakeholders are less
satisfied with transit for the elderly and disabled. They are slightly less satisfied with local bus or van service, air
transportation to destinations outside Montana compared to the general public.
95
2011
Tran
Plan
21
Stakeholder Su
rvey
Volume I
10. State an
d Fed
eral Govern
ment
Stakeholder G
roup
Fig
ure
10
.1.1
: Sta
te a
nd
Fe
de
ral G
ov
ern
me
nt: S
atisfa
ction
with
Sy
stem
Ph
ysica
l Co
nd
ition
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
Overall satisfaction
Physical condition
of interstate
highways
Physical condition
of airports
Physical condition
of other major
highways
Physical condition
of rest areas
Physical condition
of pedestrian
walkways
Physical condition
of city streets
Physical condition
of bus depots
Physical condition
of bicycle
pathways
Mean Satisfaction
Pu
blic
Inv
olv
em
en
t
Sta
te &
fed
era
l
Erro
r on
Pu
blic In
vo
lve
me
nt
96
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
10. State and Federal Government Stakeholder Group
Figure 10.1.2: State and Federal Government: Satisfaction with Availability of System Services
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fre
igh
t ra
il s
erv
ice
Air
tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
ou
tsid
e M
on
tan
a
Lo
ca
l bu
s o
r v
an
serv
ice
Tra
nsi
t fo
r th
e
eld
erl
y o
r d
isa
ble
d
Av
ail
ab
ilit
y o
f a
ir
tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
wit
hin
Mo
nta
na
Ta
xis
Inte
rcit
y b
use
s
Pa
sse
ng
er
rail
serv
ice
Me
an
Sa
tisf
act
ion
Public Involvement
State & federal
Error on Public Involvement
97
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
10. State and Federal Government Stakeholder Group
Actions to Improve the Transportation System
The state and federal government stakeholders and the general public rank the actions to improve the Montana
transportation system in similar order; however, they have stronger opinions on several items. They assign a higher
priority to ensuring adequate pedestrian facilities, improving transportation safety, regulating the number of highway
approaches, keeping the public informed, and including wildlife crossings. They assign a slightly higher priority than the
general public to ensuring adequate bicycle facilities, increasing scheduled airline service, promoting local transit
systems, reducing air quality impacts of roadway use, preserving exiting passenger rail, using new technologies,
maintaining roadside vegetation. They assign a slightly lower priority to improving the bus depots.
Figure 10.2.1: State and Federal Government: Actions to Improve System
1
2
3
4
5
Imp
rov
e t
ran
spo
rtati
on
sa
fety
Ke
ep
pu
bli
c in
form
ed
Inc
lud
e w
ild
life
cro
ssin
gs
in h
igh
way
pro
jec
ts
Pre
serv
e e
xis
tin
g p
ass
en
ge
r ra
il s
erv
ice
Use
ne
w t
ec
hn
olo
gie
s
Ma
inta
in r
oad
sid
e v
eg
eta
tio
n
Main
tain
ro
ad
pa
ve
me
nt
co
nd
itio
n
Imp
rov
e o
the
r ro
ad
s a
nd
str
ee
ts
En
sure
ad
eq
uate
pe
de
stri
an
fa
cil
itie
s
Pro
mo
te u
se o
f lo
ca
l tr
an
sit
syst
em
s
Re
gu
lati
ng
nu
mb
er
of
hig
hw
ay
ap
pro
ach
es
Inc
rease
sc
he
du
led
air
lin
e s
erv
ice
En
sure
ad
eq
ua
te b
icy
cle
fa
cil
itie
s
Imp
rov
e in
ters
tate
s a
nd
ma
jor
hig
hw
ay
s
Imp
rov
e r
est
are
as
Re
du
ce
tra
ffic
co
ng
est
ion
Re
du
cin
g th
e a
ir q
ua
lity
im
pa
cts
of
road
wa
y
use
Re
du
ce
sin
gle
oc
cu
pa
nc
y v
eh
icle
use
Imp
rov
e b
us
de
po
ts
Me
an
Pri
ori
ty
Public Involvement
State & federal
Error on Public Involvement
98
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
10. State and Federal Government Stakeholder Group
Actions to Improve Roadways
Increasing shoulder widths for bicyclists is the highest priority action to improve roadways in the opinion of state and
federal stakeholders. They assigned a slightly higher priority to wider roadways than the general public. They assigned a
slightly lower priority to more lighting.
Figure 10.3.1: State and Federal Government, Actions to Improve Roadways
1
2
3
4
5
Inc
rea
se s
ho
uld
er
wid
ths
for
bic
yc
list
s
Wid
er
roa
dw
ay
s
Inc
rea
se s
ho
uld
er
wid
ths
for
mo
tori
sts
Mo
re p
av
em
en
t m
ark
ing
s
Mo
re g
ua
rd r
ail
s
Mo
re t
raff
ic l
igh
ts a
nd
le
ft t
urn
lan
es
Mo
re d
ire
cti
on
al/
info
rma
tio
na
l
sig
ns
Mo
re li
gh
tin
g o
f ro
ad
wa
ys
Me
an
Pri
ori
ty
Public Involvement
State & federal
Error on Public Involvement
99
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
10. State and Federal Government Stakeholder Group
General Communication Tool Ratings
The MDT website was the most useful general communication tool in the opinion of state and federal stakeholders.
They thought the toll-free call-in number was less useful than the general public. Radio and television were slightly less
useful.
Figure 10.4.1: State and Federal Government: Usefulness of General Communications Tools
1
2
3
4
5
We
bsi
te
Co
mm
un
ity
pu
bli
c m
ee
tin
gs
Ra
dio
an
d
tele
vis
ion
Ne
wsp
ap
ers
Su
rve
ys
Sp
ec
ial m
ail
ing
s
To
ll-f
ree
ca
ll-i
n
nu
mb
er
Me
an
Use
fuln
ess
Public Involvement
State & federal
Error on Public Involvement
100
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
10. State and Federal Government Stakeholder Group
Planning and Project Communication Tool Ratings
Maps and the MDT website are the most helpful tools for planning and project communication according to the state
and federal contacts interviewed. Brochures were the least helpful.
Figure 10.5.1: State and Federal Government: Helpfulness of Planning and Project Communication Tools
1
2
3
4
5
Ma
ps
We
bsi
te
Pic
ture
s o
r g
rap
hic
s
Ad
va
nc
ed
te
ch
no
log
y
too
ls
Ne
wsl
ett
ers
Bro
ch
ure
s
Me
an
He
lpfu
lne
ss
Public Involvement
State & federal
Error on Public Involvement
101
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
10. State and Federal Government Stakeholder Group
MDT Customer Service and Performance Grade
The state and federal government stakeholders give MDT grades from C+ to B on the performance measures shown in
Figure 10.6.1. The highest grade was for quality of service now versus five years ago. The lowest grade was a C+ for
sensitivity to the environment. They gave overall highway maintenance and repair a B compared to B- from the general
public.
Figure 10.6.1: State and Federal Government: Customer Service and Performance Grades
0
1
2
3
4
Cu
rre
nt
qu
ali
ty o
f
serv
ice
co
mp
are
d
wit
h f
ive
ye
ars
ag
o
Ov
era
ll h
igh
wa
y
ma
inte
na
nc
e a
nd
rep
air
Qu
ali
ty o
f p
lan
nin
g
Ov
era
ll
pe
rfo
rma
nc
e p
ast
ye
ar
Qu
ali
ty o
f se
rvic
e
Co
nv
en
ien
ce
of
tra
ve
l th
rou
gh
pro
jec
ts
Pu
bli
c n
oti
fic
ati
on
pro
ce
ss
Ke
ep
cu
sto
me
rs
full
y in
form
ed
Re
spo
nsi
ve
ne
ss t
o
cu
sto
me
r id
ea
s a
nd
co
nc
ern
s
Se
nsi
tiv
ity
to
th
e
en
vir
on
me
nt
Me
an
Gra
de
Public Involvement
State & federal
A
B
C
D
FError on Public Involvement
102
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
10. State and Federal Government Stakeholder Group
Security for System Components
Both the state and federal stakeholder group and the general public had similar opinions about homeland security and
system components. The stakeholder group thought that homeland security at public transit facilities was of lower
importance than the general public.
Emergency preparedness plans and communication with the public were the most important emergency preparedness
concerns. They thought the connectivity of roadways was slightly more important than the general public.
Figure 10.7.1: State and Federal Government: Security for System Components
1
2
3
4
5
Em
erg
en
cy
re
spo
nse
pla
ns
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n w
ith
th
e p
ub
lic
usi
ng
av
ail
ab
le a
dv
an
ce
d
tec
hn
olo
gie
s
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n a
nd
co
ord
ina
tio
n
wit
h o
the
r a
ge
nc
ies
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty a
irp
ort
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty b
ord
er
cro
ssin
gs
Co
nn
ec
tiv
ity
of
roa
dw
ay
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty i
nte
rsta
te
hig
hw
ay
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty o
the
r m
ajo
r
hig
hw
ay
s
Av
ail
ab
ilit
y o
f a
lte
rna
tiv
e r
ou
tes
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty p
ub
lic
tra
nsi
t
fac
ilit
ies
Me
an
Im
po
rta
nce
Public Involvement
State & federal
Error on Public Involvement
103
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
11. Tribal Planner Stakeholder Group
This group is represented by tribal planners from across Montana. Thirteen tribal representatives completed interviews
in 2011. Only three completed questionnaires were obtained in 2009. To maintain the confidentiality of the
respondents, the tribes for which they work are not named in this document. Readers of this report should exercise
caution when interpreting the data presented for this stakeholder group due to the low number of respondents.
Transportation System Satisfaction
Tribal planners were generally satisfied with the overall transportation system. There was very little difference in their
level of satisfaction regarding the physical condition of various components of the system.
These stakeholders were also generally satisfied with the availability of various transportation services.
Figure 11.1.1: Tribal Planners: Satisfaction with Physical Condition of System
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Ov
era
ll s
ati
sfa
cti
on
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
air
po
rts
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
bic
yc
le
pa
thw
ay
s
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
pe
de
stri
an
wa
lkw
ay
s
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
inte
rsta
te
hig
hw
ay
s
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
rest
are
as
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
oth
er
ma
jor
hig
hw
ay
s
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
bu
s d
ep
ots
Ph
ysi
ca
l co
nd
itio
n
of
cit
y s
tre
ets
Me
an
Sa
tisf
act
ion
Public Involvement
Tribal planners
Error on Public Involvement
104
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
11. Tribal Planner Stakeholder Group
Figure 11.1.2: Tribal Planners: Satisfaction with Availability of System Services
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fre
igh
t ra
il s
erv
ice
Air
tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
ou
tsid
e M
on
tan
a
Lo
ca
l bu
s o
r v
an
serv
ice
Tra
nsi
t fo
r th
e
eld
erl
y o
r d
isa
ble
d
Pa
sse
ng
er
rail
serv
ice
Inte
rcit
y b
use
s
Ta
xis
Av
ail
ab
ilit
y o
f a
ir
tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
wit
hin
Mo
nta
na
Me
an
Sa
tisf
act
ion
Public Involvement
Tribal planners
Error on Public Involvement
105
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
11. Tribal Planner Stakeholder Group
Actions to Improve the Transportation System
Improving transportation safety was the highest priority action of the tribal planner stakeholder group followed by
promoting use of local transit systems. Both these actions and ensuring adequate bicycle facilities were significantly
different from the general public. Tribal planners assigned a slightly higher priority than the general public to ensuring
adequate pedestrian facilities, keeping the public informed, and maintaining roadside vegetation.
Figure 11.2.1: Tribal Planners: Actions to Improve System
1
2
3
4
5
Imp
rov
e t
ran
spo
rta
tio
n s
afe
ty
Pro
mo
te u
se o
f lo
ca
l tr
an
sit
syst
em
s
Ma
inta
in r
oa
d p
av
em
en
t c
on
dit
ion
Ke
ep
pu
bli
c in
form
ed
Ma
inta
in r
oa
dsi
de
ve
ge
tati
on
Imp
rov
e o
the
r ro
ad
s a
nd
str
ee
ts
Use
ne
w t
ec
hn
olo
gie
s
Inc
lud
e w
ild
life
cro
ssin
gs
in h
igh
wa
y p
roje
cts
En
sure
ad
eq
ua
te p
ed
est
ria
n f
ac
ilit
ies
Pre
serv
e e
xis
tin
g p
ass
en
ge
r ra
il s
erv
ice
En
sure
ad
eq
ua
te b
icy
cle
fa
cil
itie
s
Imp
rov
e b
us
de
po
ts
Imp
rov
e r
est
are
as
Inc
rea
se s
ch
ed
ule
d a
irli
ne
se
rvic
e
Imp
rov
e in
ters
tate
s a
nd
ma
jor
hig
hw
ay
s
Re
du
cin
g t
he
air
qu
ali
ty i
mp
ac
ts o
f ro
ad
wa
y
use
Re
gu
lati
ng
nu
mb
er
of
hig
hw
ay
ap
pro
ac
he
s
Re
du
ce
tra
ffic
co
ng
est
ion
Re
du
ce
sin
gle
oc
cu
pa
nc
y v
eh
icle
use
Me
an
Pri
ori
ty
Public Involvement
Tribal planners
Error on Public Involvement
106
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
11. Tribal Planner Stakeholder Group
Actions to Improve Roadways
Tribal planners differed significantly in their opinions regarding actions to improve Montana roadways. Wider roadways,
more guard rails, more traffic lights and left turn lanes, and increasing shoulder widths for motorists were higher
priorities for the tribal planners compared to the general public.
Figure 11.3.1: Tribal Planners: Actions to Improve Roadways
1
2
3
4
5
Mo
re g
ua
rd r
ail
s
Inc
rea
se s
ho
uld
er
wid
ths
for
mo
tori
sts
Mo
re t
raff
ic l
igh
ts a
nd
le
ft t
urn
lan
es
Wid
er
roa
dw
ay
s
Inc
rea
se s
ho
uld
er
wid
ths
for
bic
yc
list
s
Mo
re p
av
em
en
t m
ark
ing
s
Mo
re d
ire
cti
on
al/
info
rma
tio
na
l
sig
ns
Mo
re li
gh
tin
g o
f ro
ad
wa
ys
Me
an
Pri
ori
ty
Public Involvement
Tribal planners
Error on Public Involvement
107
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
11. Tribal Planner Stakeholder Group
General Communication Tool Ratings
Tribal planners found the MDT website to be the most useful general communication tool. The stakeholders’ opinions
corresponded to the general public’s regarding the other communication tools.
Figure 11.4.1: Tribal Planners: Usefulness of General Communications Tools
1
2
3
4
5
We
bsi
te
Ra
dio
an
d
tele
vis
ion
To
ll-f
ree
ca
ll-i
n
nu
mb
er
Ne
wsp
ap
ers
Co
mm
un
ity
pu
blic
me
eti
ng
s
Sp
ec
ial m
ailin
gs
Su
rve
ys
Me
an
Use
fuln
ess
Public Involvement
Tribal planners
Error on Public Involvement
108
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
11. Tribal Planner Stakeholder Group
Planning and Project Communication Tool Ratings
Maps, advanced technology tools, and the MDT website were the most helpful communication tools for planning and
project communication. In contrast to the general public, newsletters were a more helpful tool to tribal planners.
Figure 11.5.1: Tribal Planners: Helpfulness of Planning and Project Communication Tools
1
2
3
4
5
Ma
ps
Ad
va
nc
ed
te
ch
no
log
y
too
ls
We
bsi
te
Pic
ture
s o
r g
rap
hic
s
Ne
wsl
ett
ers
Bro
ch
ure
s
Me
an
He
lpfu
lne
ss
Public Involvement
Tribal planners
Error on Public Involvement
109
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
11. Tribal Planner Stakeholder Group
MDT Customer Service and Performance Grade
Tribal planners gave MDT B’s for each of the performance measures shown in Figure 11.6.1.
Figure 11.6.1: Tribal Planners: Customer Service and Performance Grades
0
1
2
3
4
Cu
rre
nt
qu
ali
ty o
f
serv
ice
co
mp
are
d
wit
h f
ive
ye
ars
ag
o
Qu
ali
ty o
f se
rvic
e
Se
nsi
tiv
ity
to
th
e
en
vir
on
me
nt
Ov
era
ll
pe
rfo
rma
nc
e p
ast
ye
ar
Qu
ali
ty o
f p
lan
nin
g
Ov
era
ll h
igh
wa
y
ma
inte
na
nc
e a
nd
rep
air
Co
nv
en
ien
ce
of
trav
el t
hro
ug
h
pro
jec
ts
Ke
ep
cu
sto
me
rs
full
y in
form
ed
Pu
bli
c n
oti
fic
ati
on
pro
ce
ss
Re
spo
nsi
ve
ne
ss to
cu
sto
me
r id
ea
s a
nd
co
nc
ern
s
Me
an
Gra
de
Public Involvement
Tribal planners
A
B
C
D
FError on Public Involvement
110
2011 TranPlan 21 Stakeholder Survey
Volume I
11. Tribal Planner Stakeholder Group
Security for System Components
Homeland security was important to the tribal planner stakeholder group. The stakeholders thought that homeland
security on interstates and other highways, border crossings, and airports were more important than the general public.
Emergency preparedness was also important to tribal planners. Coordination with other agencies was the most
important followed by communication with the public, emergency response plans, connectivity of roadways, and the
availability of alternate routes. Opinions about these items may have been affected by the timing of the survey; there
was flooding occurring on four of the seven Indian reservations during the survey period.
Figure 11.7.1: Tribal Planners: Security for System Components
1
2
3
4
5
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n a
nd
co
ord
ina
tio
n
wit
h o
the
r a
ge
nc
ies
Em
erg
en
cy
re
spo
nse
pla
ns
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty b
ord
er
cro
ssin
gs
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty a
irp
ort
s
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n w
ith
th
e p
ub
lic
usi
ng
av
ail
ab
le a
dv
an
ce
d
tec
hn
olo
gie
s
Co
nn
ec
tiv
ity
of
roa
dw
ay
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty i
nte
rsta
te
hig
hw
ay
s
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty o
the
r m
ajo
r
hig
hw
ay
s
Av
ail
ab
ilit
y o
f a
lte
rna
tiv
e r
ou
tes
Ho
me
lan
d s
ec
uri
ty p
ub
lic
tra
nsi
t
fac
ilit
ies
Me
an
Im
po
rta
nce
Public Involvement
Tribal planners
Error on Public Involvement
MDT attempts to provide accommodations for any known disability that may interfere with a person participating in any service, program or activity of the department.
Alternative accessible formats of this information will be provided upon request. For further information call (406) 444-3423 TTY (800) 335-7592, or Montana Relay at 711
or by contacting the ADA Coordinator at (406) 444-9229
25 copies of this public document were published at an estimated cost of $0.85 per copy for a total of
$21.25 which includes printing and distribution.