missoula long range transportation plan 11 december 2008 open house
TRANSCRIPT
Missoula Long Range Missoula Long Range Transportation PlanTransportation Plan
11 December 200811 December 2008
Open HouseOpen House
Tomorrow’s roads, transit lines, Tomorrow’s roads, transit lines, bike and pedestrian improvements bike and pedestrian improvements
are born hereare born here
• Many millions of dollars will be spent in the next few decades to keep Missoula mobile
• These investments will follow the Missoula Long Range transportation plan
About the Transportation PlanAbout the Transportation Plan
• Federal Government requires a long range transportation plan be conducted by a designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO)
• Missoula's MPO is guided by the Transportation Policy Coordinating Committee
TPCCTPCC
• BILL CAREY Board of County Commissioners• ALEX TAFT Missoula Urban Trans. District
(MUTD) • JOHN ENGEN Mayor, City of Missoula• STACY RYE City Council• LARRY ANDERSON Board of County Commissioners• DOUG MOELLER Montana Department of
Transportation (MDT-Missoula) • DON MACARTHUR Missoula Consolidated Planning
Board • LLOYD RUE Federal Highway Administration • KATHLEEN DRISCOLL Ravalli County Commissioner• DR. GARON SMITH Missoula City/County Health Board
Tonight’s PresentationTonight’s Presentation• Key Plan Ingredients
– Envision Missoula Scenarios– UFDA and Missoula’s Future– Summit & Surveys– Agency Input
• Plan Goals and Objectives
• Costs, Revenues and Constraints
• Projects
Gathering Plan Ingredients
Transportation Goals
Anticipated Costs and Revenues
List of Projects
Decision
Gathering Plan Ingredients
Transportation Goals
Anticipated Costs and Revenues
List of Projects
Decision
Planning for 2035Planning for 2035
• Envision Missoula
• 3 Scenarios for Visioning Workshops were used in Missoula’s Urban Fringe Development Area Study (UFDA)
• UFDA Defines future development assumptions and affects accruing transportation needs– Programmatic (Modal) Allocations– Nominated Projects (Needs Vs. Wants)
Envision Missoula Scenarios
Scenario A: Business As Usual
– Extend today’s housing trends into the future
Scenario B: Suburban Satellites
– Growth happens in accessible mixed use town centers
Scenario C – Focus Inward
– Compact growth occurs contiguously and compactly near central Missoula
– Downtown intensifies by building on parking lots and low value commercial sites
Urban Fringe Development Area Urban Fringe Development Area Study (UFDA)Study (UFDA)
Considerations for UFDA 2035 Planning ScenarioConsiderations for UFDA 2035 Planning Scenario• Open House Comments• Agency Comments• Community Goals based on the Growth Policy• Existing Zoning• Constrained Lands• Entitled Lots• Infrastructure investment• Suitability Analysis
Where the Where the Trips Will BeTrips Will Be
High Concentrations of New High Concentrations of New Trips DowntownTrips Downtown
In Selected Centers In Selected Centers Consistent with Envision Consistent with Envision MissoulaMissoula
These patterns do not change These patterns do not change today’s needs or “Backlog”today’s needs or “Backlog”
Location of Future Trips Location of Future Trips Frames Assessment of Frames Assessment of Potential Accruing LRTP Potential Accruing LRTP ProjectsProjects
If County follows UFDA future travel needs are mitigatedIf County follows UFDA future travel needs are mitigatedEven with UFDA, many roads exceed capacity if based on Even with UFDA, many roads exceed capacity if based on today’s committed projectstoday’s committed projects
Planning SummitPlanning SummitFebruary & March 2008February & March 2008
• Vision Scenarios Presented
• Public Input Taken About key LRTP and UFDA Issues Including:– Development Choices– Modal Balance– Transportation Investments
Development PreferencesDevelopment Preferences
• Encourage town centers
• Focus growth inward
• Encourage growth downtown
• Allow more attached and multi-unit homes
• Encourage development near public transportation
Transportation Mode PreferencesTransportation Mode Preferences
• Public input supports a balance of roadway and non-roadway projects
• Majority of people use a non-auto mode at least once a week
• The most desirable transit features are short wait times and frequent service
Transportation Investment Transportation Investment PreferencesPreferences
• Desire to add more transportation options on existing infrastructure
• Desire for increased investment in transit
• Prefer a network approach (many small streets) rather than just a few large trunk lines.
Public Survey SummaryPublic Survey Summary
Summit ParticipationSummit Participation
Points of Consistency Points of Consistency Among the PublicAmong the Public• Summit
– 27 Percent Favor Expanding Roadway Capacity
– 23 Percent Favor Modernizing Existing Infrastructure (intersection/safety/ITS type improvements)
• Survey– 28.6 Percent Favor
Expanding Roadwy Capacity
– 21.2 Pecent favor improvemetns aimed at Safety (auto, bike, pedestrian)
Agency InputAgency Input
• Montana Department of Transportation (MDT)• City of Missoula• Missoula County• Mountain Line Transit• Safety Agencies• Resource Agencies• Security Agencies• MRTMA
Gathering Plan Ingredients
Transportation Goals
Anticipated Costs and Revenues
List of Projects
Decision
Plan Goal AreasPlan Goal Areas
• Safety– Higher Rank at High Crash Location– Higher Rank for “Vulnerable Connections (transit,
bicycle, pedestrian)
• Multi-Modalism– Complete Streets– Expanded Options (trails, new routes)– Increased Transit Funding– Increased Enhancements and Bicycle/Pedestrian
Funding
Plan Goal Areas (Contd)Plan Goal Areas (Contd)
• System Preservation– Limit Roadway Expansion Investment, Manage Maintenance
Costs
• Demand Management– Utilize UFDA to manage number and length of trips/demands on
the system– Do not use roadway expansion to open new land for
development– Invest in Collectors, not development along arterials
• Transit Accessibility– Coordinate new job centers around public transportation
Supporting PoliciesSupporting Policies
Gathering Plan Ingredients
Transportation Goals
Anticipated Costs and Revenues
List of Projects
Decision
From Goals to InvestmentsFrom Goals to Investments
• Project Ideas are Unlimited but Funds Are Limited – $1.1 Billion in projects have been suggested by state and local
transportation agencies– $400 Million in projected revenues are available
• UFDA, Visioning, Modeling and Geographic Development Patterns defined geographic “Needs” vs. Wants
• Survey Results LRTP Goals and Ranking Criteria determined which needs are to be funded
Gathering Plan Ingredients
Transportation Goals
Anticipated Costs and Revenues
List of Projects
Decision
How the Project list was developedHow the Project list was developed
• Projects submitted by:– Montana Department of Transportation (MDT)– City of Missoula– Missoula Urban Transportation District
(Mountain Line)– Missoula County– Missoula Redevelopment Authority– Missoula-Ravalli Transportation Management
Association (MRTMA)
How the Project list was developedHow the Project list was developed
• Broad list of projects scored based on ranking criteria derived from:– Public Survey– Public Workshops and Missoula Planning
Summit
• Assumes Growth occurs consistent with UFDA 2035 Development Projection
Project MapProject Map
Backlog projectsBacklog projects
Recommended (funding anticipated Recommended (funding anticipated in the next 30 years)in the next 30 years)
IllustrativeIllustrative
2008 LRTP REVENUE by Mode(All Revenue Sources)
TRANSIT + TDM,
$139,000,891 , 35%
ROAD, $245,129,013 ,
61%
BIKE/ PED, $17,988,552 ,
4%
SummarySummary• Key Plan Ingredients
– Envision Missoula Scenarios– UFDA and Missoula’s Future– Summit & Surveys– Agency Input
• Plan Goals and Objectives
• Costs, Revenues and Constraints
• Projects
Missoula Long Range Missoula Long Range Transportation PlanTransportation Plan
11 December 200811 December 2008
Open HouseOpen House