Missoula Long Range Transportation Plan 11 December 2008 Open House

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