Loading...
2006 NORTHERN JEFF CO TRANSPORTATION INFRACTRUCTION STUDY Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study j 4 M4 P t Al f .t3.{ Id .116 f +i1 } 4 �f?ppAY� SPEED 1 LIMIT ry 7 0 - — ••. _...srteo -- ' May 2006 ' Prepared for: ' Jefferson County and Montana Department of Transportation 4i r. Prepared by: � G=Wcst engineering 1 ' Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study Prepared for: Jefferson County and Montana Department of Transportation ' Adopted by: Jefferson County Commission, May 30, 2006 1 ' Prepared by: G=W�t engineering �u Acknowledgements The successful completion of this project was made possible through the cooperation and assistance of several individuals. The following people provided guidance and support ' throughout the course of this study: Jefferson County Transportation Study Committee Members ' Tom Lythgoe,Commissioner,Jefferson County Ken Weber,Commissioner,Jefferson County ' Chuck Notbohm, Commissioner,Jefferson County Ben Sautter,Road Supervisor,Jefferson County Lee Alt,Butte District Traffic Engineer, Montana Department of Transportation Carol Strizich,Planner,Montana Department of Transportation Bill Lloyd,Engineer,Great West Engineering Jeremiah Theys,Engineer,Great West Engineering List of Preparers ' The Transportation Group of Great West Engineering,Inc.,Helena,Montana prepared this study. The following members of our firm were major contributors to this study or helped prepare the document: Daniel McCauley,PE,Principal-In-Charge Bill Lloyd,PE,Transportation Group Manager Jeremiah Theys,EI,Transportation Engineer Jim McGowan,Senior Planner Jason Knopp,PE,Transportation Engineer ' April Carter,Project/Marketing Coordinator Stephanie Reinig,Engineering Intern WT ,a NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Table of Contents Acknowledgements 1. Introduction and Background ..........................................................................1 ' 1.1. Project Background..........................................................................................1 1.2. Study Area .......................................................................................................2 1.3. Transportation Planning Goals..........................................................................2 ' 1.4. Public Involvement...........................................................................................4 2. Existing Conditions..........................................................................................10 2.1. Existing Road System.....................................................................................10 2.2. Current Traffic Volumes..................................................................................13 2.3. Current Traffic Control....................................................................................13 2.4. Current Intersection Levels of Service(LOS).................................................... 13 2.5. Truck Traffic................................................................................................... 15 3. Transportation Demand Forecasting............................................................17 3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................... 17 3.2. Existing Population.........................................................................................17 3.3. Population Projection.....................................................................................20 1 3.4. Traffic Volume Projections..............................................................................22 4. Non-Motorized Transportation.......................................................................28 4.1. Obstacles Facing the Development of a Non-Motorized Travel System.............28 4.2. ADA Compliance............................................................................................28 4.3. Design Considerations....................................................................................29 ' 4.4. Recommended Bicycle Routes.......................................................................29 4.5. Implementation .............................................................................................30 4.6. Maintenance..................................................................................................30 5. Problem Identification ....................................................................................33 5.1. Road Condition ..............................................................................................33 5.2. Volume vs. Capacity .......................................................................................33 5.3. Transportation Network..................................................................................34 5.4. Intersection Level of Service...........................................................................34 ' 5.5. Accident Analysis...........................................................................................37 5.6. Emergency Services.......................................................................................38 5.7. Speeds...........................................................................................................38 5.8. Signing ..........................................................................................................39 6. Recommended Improvements......................................................................40 6.1. County Road Standards..................................................................................40 6.2. Right-of-Way Dedications ...............................................................................40 6.3. Committed Major Improvements....................................................................40 6.4. Proposed Major Improvements.......................................................................41 6.5. Proposed Transportation System Management (TSM) Improvements..............46 6.6. Pedestrian and Bicycle Recommendations.....................................................47 t q`� NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY ' TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY ' Table of Contents 7. Financial Analysis............................................................................................49 7.1. Background ...................................................................................................49 7.2. Federal Funding Sources................................................................................49 7.3. State Funding Sources ...................................................................................50 7.4. Local Funding Sources ...................................................................................51 7.5. Private Funding Sources.................................................................................52 7.6. Implementation Strategies.............................................................................53 Appendices Appendix A Jefferson County Road Standards Appendix B Public Input List of Tables Table 2-1 PASER Rating on County Roads Table 2-2 Existing Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Table 2-3 Percentage of Trucks Compared to Total Traffic Volume Table 3-1 Population by Census Year Table 3-2 Population Estimate 2000 Census Table 3-3 2000 Transportation Plan Study Area Build-out Analysis ' Table 3-4 Jefferson County Population 1990-2025 Table 3-5 Population Projection Table 5-1 Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Table 5-2 Accident Analysis Table 5-3 Traffic Speeds Table 6-1 Recommended Improvements to Accommodate Current Conditions Table 6-2 Recommended Improvements to Accommodate Future (2025) Traffic Volumes Table 7-1 Proposed Improvements Cost Estimate List of Figures ' Figure 1-1 Study Area Figure 1-2 Getting to and Leaving the Study Area Figure 1-3 Signing Within the Study Area Figure 1-4 Driving Around in the Study Area Figure 1-5 Traffic Congestion in the Study Area Figure 1-6 Road Conditions within the Study Area ' Figure 1-7 Impacts on Surrounding Neighborhoods Figure 1-8 Improvements to Roads Figure 2-1 Road Classifications Figure 2-2 Current Traffic Volumes Figure 3-1 Parcel Classification r i NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY ' Table of Contents Figure 3-2 Population Projections Figure 3-3 Parcel Layout Figure 3-4 Zoning Districts Figure 3-5 Topography Figure 3-6 Traffic Projections Figure 3-7 Traffic Projections Figure 4-1 Recommended Non-Motorized Routes Figure 5-1 Peak Hour Traffic Volume Figure 5-2 Peak Hour Traffic Volume Figure 6-1 Proposed Transportation Improvements I iI NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY ' TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Section 1 1. Introduction and Background 1.1. Project Background The Northern Jefferson County The northern region of Jefferson County has Transportation Infrastructure Study is undergone substantial population growth and I intended to serve as a guide for the development over the past two decades Jefferson County Commission and Road ending in the study year of 2005. The region Department when anticipating future focused on by this study,commonly referred I infrastructure improvements within the to as the South Hills area,has experienced a study area and their associated costs. significant increase in residential construction The planning document evaluates the that has resulted in heightened traffic volumes ' capacity of the transportation system, on the local infrastructure. The impact that both motorized and non-motorized, the proposed new South Helena Interchange using current and future traffic volumes. project will have on an already strained A substantial amount of effort was transportation system prompted the Jefferson dedicated toward projecting future County Commission to approach the ' growth and development through the Montana Department of Transportation 20-year(2025)planning horizon of this (MDT)in the spring of 2005. Jefferson study. The growth and development County requested MDT assistance in ' estimates were used to forecast traffic undertaking a comprehensive transportation volumes and identify future needs of the planning effort for the South Hills area. MDT transportation system. recognized the impact that the new interchange,in combination with current and ' This planning document is intended to future growth,could place on the existing identify the problems associated with system and agreed to participate in the 1 the various modes of transportation used planning effort. Great West Engineering was in the study area,and recommend selected by the Montana Department of improvements necessary to meet current Transportation and Jefferson County in June, and future demands. The improvements 2005 to prepare the infrastructure study. range from simple signing recommendations to the construction,or The South Hills area of Jefferson County and ' reconstruction,of roads necessary to adjacent areas toward Helena,East Helena, relieve existing problems and account and Montana City have experienced steady for future growth. growth in the form of residential developments. However,the South Hills area The study addresses the current offers very little in the form of employment, condition of the roads within the study resulting in travel patterns that indicate a area through the implementation of a heavy reliance upon jobs within the City of Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating Helena and its immediate fringe areas. Socio- (PASER)system for both paved and economic conditions such as this can place ' gravel-surfaced roads. The resulting heavy stresses on the collectors and road inventory provides a snap-shot of intersections in and around the study area current road conditions and allows for during peak traffic periods. This often results the planning and budgeting of future in higher traffic volumes on local roads as maintenance and upgrade projects. well;however,the rural nature of the study NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY TR ANSPORTATION N INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 1 Section 1 area will tend to discourage the use of 1.2. Study Area ' alternate routes that may occur in a more urban environment. The planning and The study area for this project was predicated mitigation measures necessary to on the rapid development experienced in the accommodate this situation are a northern portion of Jefferson County and the primary focus of this document. need to identify existing and future improvements within this area. The The recent completion and approval of boundaries for the study area consist of the Interstate 15 Corridor Final Colonial Drive (Frontage Road) to the east, Environmental Impact Statement and the Jefferson County line to the north and Section 4(f)/6(f) Evaluation was a key west,and Jackson Creek Road along the factor in the undertaking of the South south. The study area boundary is shown in Hills study. The I-15 EIS outlines the Figure 1-1. Lewis and Clark County was not preferred alternatives necessary to included in the study area,but consideration accommodate growth along the entire has been incorporated into the population corridor stretching from the Montana growth projections to include residential and City interchange on the south to the commercial development occurring along the Lincoln Road interchange on the north. Lewis and Clark County line. A key recommendation of the EIS was the construction of the new South For the purpose of this study,Jackson Creek Helena Interchange just north of the road was not analyzed for future roadway Jefferson County line. This caused improvements and growth. Incorporating concern among area residents in regard Jackson Creek Road into the study area to the potential for increased traffic would require the boundary to be expanded volumes and the associated effect on to the south to include development taking I local road capacities. The traffic place along the south side of Jackson Creek forecasts and recommendations set forth Road. in the 1-15 EIS were incorporated into this document. 1.3. Transportation Planning Goals The transportation planning effort for The end result of the transportation planning the South Hills study area was process is to provide the County with a guide coordinated through a Transportation for anticipating future projects necessary to ' Coordinating Committee(TCC) improve transportation infrastructure within consisting of the County Commission, the study area. The study will identify County Road Superintendent,Montana deficiencies within the current system and Department of Transportation prioritize recommended improvements such representatives,and Great West that the County can foresee upcoming Engineering. Members of the TCC were improvement projects and budget for the active at key points during the planning associated costs. The planning process process to comment on the findings and analyzes available funding options and their recommendations outlined in the study. application to the various projects outlined in the study. Jefferson County and MDT agreed NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Pa$e 2 a:. 6 �r , i ♦ 4 r s � r <-r � ,,,e `� �. •fit: �rM,�, h � 4 •, �1P ♦`S6 � -, s ��'irL ter; ; 6•-.�. � a E i N JTffm FIGURE I-1 Infreshucture Swdy GRn W� sc.,°•r�i Leo' SfUS1Y AREA Section 1 upon numerous goals as the primary ■ Identify roads and intersections with focus of the Northern Jefferson County high accident rates and propose Transportation Infrastructure Study: improvements to increase the safety ■ Identify the needs of the of the traveling public. iexisting transportation system ■ Identify a future transportation through comprehensive data network to support increased i collection and traffic growth over the 20-year planning forecasting. horizon. ■ Identify appropriate funding mechanisms and formulate an 1.4. Public Involvement implementation plan for the recommended improvements in Public involvement was a key component in the study area. the preparation of the Northern Jefferson ■ Provide adequate opportunity County Transportation Infrastructure Study. for public involvement The objectives of this component were to i throughout the development of integrate issues and comments identified by the transportation study. the public into the design approach. The methods that were used to solicit public input ' Evaluate the impact that the included: Public meetings,questionnaires, iSouth Helena Interchange will news releases and the formation of a have upon traffic volumes and Transportation Coordinating Committee. travel patterns in the study iarea. The first public meeting was held on October ■ Prepare population growth and 11,2005. The primary focus of the meeting i development trends and create was to inform the public about the study and estimated growth projections gather any comments and concerns about for use in forecasting future transportation problems in the study area. To traffic volumes. generate input from the public,comment ■ Recommend improvements to forms were made available to allow input on transportation infrastructure specific concerns and suggest potential i necessary to accommodate solutions or remedies. A majority of the key future traffic demands. issues and concerns generated from the public ■ Review needs of non-motorized fall into the following categories: i transportation users and recommend improvements ■ Road Conditions necessary to accommodate and ' Traffic Speeds ' promote bicycle and pedestrian ■ Emergency Services traffic. ■ Funding ' Provide recommendations for a efficient Bicycle and Pedestrian traffic safe and eff transportation system that A questionnaire was handed out during the respects the rural,residential public meeting to solicit input on a few nature of the South Hills area. �❑ NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY iTRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 4 ' Section 1 specific issues. Figure 1-2 through Figure 1-8 summarize public sentiment on these issues. Newspaper advertisements and mailers were used during the preparation of this study to generate interest in the project ' and invite the public to participate in the public meetings. Multiple articles were published in local newspapers ' discussing the transportation study and its findings. Two additional public meetings were held during the preparation of this study. A public presentation was given 1 on March 8,2006 to outline the findings and recommendations of the draft transportation study. The final 1 transportation study was presented to the public during a commission meeting on April 18,2006. Comments received during these public presentations were addressed and incorporated into the transportation study. A Transportation Coordinating Committee was established to review 1 and comment on the specific findings and project recommendations outlined within the study. This group met several times throughout the preparation of the study. The group consists of individuals ' representing the County Commission, County Road Department,Montana department of Transportation,and Great West Engineering. r NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 5 Section 1 Figure 1-2 Getting to and Leaving the Study Area 1 - ' Good 7% ' Poor 50% ' Fair 43%% Figure 1-3 Signing Within the Study Area Very Good Poor 7% ' 21% Fair ' 24% Good 48% ' o NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY ' � TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 6 Section 1 Figure 1-4 Driving Around in the Study Area Good ' 7% Fair 24% 1 Poor 69% i Figure 1-5 Traffic Congestion in the Study Area Poor Excellent Very Good 12% 4% 27% Fair 15°k mms !a Good 42% _ tNORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY ANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 7 Section 1 Figure 1-6 Road Conditions within the Study ' Area f Fair ' 17% 1 Poor 83% ' Figure 1-7 Impacts on Surrounding Neighborhoods 1 i — ' Major 70% Some ' 20% Idii None Very Little 5% I 5% i a NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY ' ' - TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 8 Section 1 r Figure 1-8 Improvements to Roads r rPave Main Roads ' 33% Gravel and Maintain Roads 50% rPave South Hills Rd Only r 17% r - r r r r r r r r NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 9 ' Section 2 2. Existing Conditions minor arterials are minor collectors. The ' Jefferson County Road Standards are included 2.1. Existing Road System as an appendix to this document. The road types and classes are depicted graphically in ' To aid in the evaluation of the existing Figure 2-1. road system,the roads within the study area were separated into three general The Jefferson County Road Department ' types and defined by their functional assigns levels of maintenance to each road classifications. segment based on the road classification designated for that facility. The maintenance ' The first road type involves levels used by Jefferson County are A,B,C,D, private/public access roads which and Z. Level A is the first response and top consist of all roads that are privately priority maintenance level,level B is regularly 1 owned and maintained. For the purpose scheduled maintenance,level C is infrequent of this study,only South Hills Drive and or annual maintenance,level D is maintenance North Quarry Road were evaluated as as required but no regularly scheduled ' these two road segments may be maintenance, and level Z is not maintained. incorporated into the County road Typically,major collectors receive a system in the future. The second and maintenance level A or B,minor collectors third road types consist of gravel and receive a maintenance level of B or C,and local paved roads that fall under County roads vary from B,C,D or Z. ' jurisdiction and are maintained by the County. The Paved portion of Colonial Road Network Drive is an exception to this as it is a The major roads analyzed under this study County paved road but is maintained were South Hills Road,Holmes Gulch Road, through the study area by the Montana Colonial Drive,South Hills Drive,North Department of Transportation. The Quarry Road,and Hill Brothers Road. All existing conditions of the County roads other roads within the study area were not were evaluated and are discussed further individually evaluated with the exception of in this section. South Quarry Road. This section of road is discussed further in Section 5 as a future The two functional classifications of transportation link through the study area. roads within the study area are ' collectors (Minor and Major) and local South Hills Road is an east-west,two-lane roads. The only major collector found in gravel minor collector that connects to the study area is Colonial Drive. Holmes Colonial Drive on the east and Lime Kiln Road Gulch Road and South Hills Road are all to the west. A portion of South Hills Road minor collectors within the study area. near the Lewis and Clark County line is All other roads in the study area are paved. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per considered local roads. The Jefferson hour(mph). County Road Standards define these classifications as principal arterial,minor 1 arterial and local roads. Principal ZAarterials are a ll major collectors and RTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY ANSPORTATION N INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 10 p,OP i 09NO3W06 09NO3W02 ROAD TYPE PRIVATE/PUBLIC Q �'dE COUNTY GRAVEL �o 'm COUNTYPAVED NOTE-OM STATE MONTANA OE ARTMENT OF Z 'P T SP ON.ORPATT BV r ROAD CLASSIFICATION COLLECTORS(MAJOR) : ' COLONIAL DRIVE COLLECTORS(MINOR): SOUTH HILLS RD. ' HOLMES GULCH 09NO3W11 LOCAL: ' O9NO3WO7 ALL OTHER ROADS NOT 1 ` LISTED ABOVE \ �1 r �iy 5 ' I s LL ' I o MdM1af •0r `< d9NO3W 18 STUDY AREA BOUNDARY 09NO3Wt4 lft�LP I 1 ' I I ( a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l 1 FIGURE 2-1 ( I NortLem Ieffessoa 11 "t County Transportation G,,,,t WEg I NO SCALE ROAD TYPES&CLASSIFICATIONS ' Infrastructure Study May: ' Section 2 Holmes Gulch Road is an east-west, Evaluation and Rating: PASER Manual, ' two-lane gravel minor collector that runs Gravel Roads,"which ranks gravel roads on a through the center of the study area. scale of one to five,one being the worst and The speed limit on Holmes Gulch Road five being the best and the"Pavement Surface ' is not signed on the eastern portion of Evaluation and Rating: PASER Manual, the roadway. West of South Hills Road Asphalt Roads,"which ranks paved roads on a the posted speed limit is 25 mph. scale of one to ten,one being the worst and ' ten being the best available roadway. The Colonial Drive is a two-lane,north- road evaluations rated conditions based on south major collector. Colonial Drive is the following criteria: ' paved from Montana City to South Hills Road and gravel into Lewis and Clark Gravel Roads County. The posted speed limit is 70 • Crown ' mph on the paved portion and 25 mph ■ Drainage on the gravel portion. ■ Gravel layer • Surface Deformation ' South Hills Drive is a two-lane,north- ■ Surface Defects south local private/public gravel road ■ Ride Quality that extends north from South Hills Road into Lewis and Clark County. The Paved Roads posted speed limit on South Hills Drive • Surface Defects is 25 mph. ■ Surface Deformation ' ■ Cracks North Quarry Road is a two-lane, ■ Patches and Potholes north-south local private/public gravel . Ride Quality road that connects to Holmes Gulch Road on the north and South Hills Road Field evaluation and data collection took to the south. This road is not posted for place in October,2005. Each road was driven, speed. measured for length,and evaluated based on a windshield/walking survey. Table 2-1 shows Hill Brothers Road is a two-lane,north- the PASER rating for the existing road ' south local gravel road that intersects conditions within the study area. The existing with Jackson Creek Road. The posted County gravel roads have an average PASER ' speed limit is 25 mph. rating of 2.7. This value equates to roadways that are in poor to fair condition and require The County roads in the study area were maintenance. The required maintenance on evaluated and rated based on current the County gravel roads may include road conditions. The inspection and regrading,drainage ditch maintenance,adding evaluation of the roads were based on gravel,surfacing and shaping the roadway ' guidelines set forth by the crown. The average rating for the paved roads Transportation Information Center, was 6.5. These roads are generally in good University of Wisconsin-Madison. The condition and require minimal maintenance University of Wisconsin-Madison has to extend the life of the pavement. The developed the"Pavement Surface maintenance required may include minor � NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY s TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 12 Section 2 crack and patch repair,chip sealing, and Additional data was collected by field minor overlays on poor or failed sections. inspections during peak hour traffic flow in September,2005. Traffic volume records from Table 2-1-PASER Rating on County Roads the Montana Department of Transportation ' Road section PASER Rating were also utilized in this analysis.The South Hills Road(Colonial Drive to Skyline Ddve) 2.0 existing volumes are shown graphically in ...............I----------------- __.. ................. South Hills Road(Skyllne Drive to Quarry Road) 24 Figure 2-2. South HlRsRoad(Quany Road to Holmes Gulch Road) i 25 South Hills Road(Holmes Gulch Road to Pavement) 2.5 2.3. Current Traffic Control .. ------- ....... .... ..... South Hills Road(Pavement to ......ne) 5.9 Currently there are no signalized South Hills Drive(South Hills Road to County lJne) _ 2.5 intersections within the study area. There is Nodh Quany Road(Holmes Gulch Road to SoutA Hills Road) 3.3 one four-way stop at the intersection of South ' HohnesGulch Road(colonief Grim to svieetgrass 23 Hills Road and Colonial Drive. All other Road) intersections are currently two-way stop Holmes Gulch-Road(Sw �eetgrass Road fo South Hills " j' y P Road) 2.6 controlled. Holmes Gulch Road(South Hills Road to MUleTrall) 2.4 Road)otllereRoad UacksohCreek Rand to Ertl of 41 2.4. Current Intersection Levels of Road) colonial Drive(South Hills Road to Jackson creek .___ 7.1 _.. Service (LOS) Road) Average Rating(Gravel Roads) 2.7 Current turning movement data was collected Average Rating(Paved Roads) 6.5 by Great West Engineering in September of ' 2005. Traffic movements were counted from The existing condition of Colonial Drive, 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.at several intersections from South Hills Road to the County within the study area. The data was used to ' line,was not evaluated as this road is analyze the P.M. peak hour traffic operations scheduled to be reconstructed in 2006- and determine a Level of Service (LOS) at 2007 as part of the South Helena each intersection. Interchange project. This project is discussed further in Section 6. The Level of Service (LOS)is a quality measure used to describe the operational ' 2.2. Current Traffic Volumes conditions,physical characteristics,and functionality of an intersection. The LOS Current traffic volume data was used in categorizes the conditions of the intersection this study to model existing road based on speed,travel time,traffic conditions,analyze current traffic flow, interruptions,as well as the motorists' ' and make recommendations for future perception of conditions,comfort,and improvements. Traffic volume data was convenience. The LOS is designated by letters collected by Great West Engineering ranging from A to F,where LOS A represents utilizing traffic counters that recorded the best operating condition and LOS F average daily traffic(ADT),traffic speeds,peak hour volumes,and percentage of traffic distribution at select locations within the study area. +� NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY TR ANSPORTATION N INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 13 n'f e"�yeYAt. Y � 9 CURRENT TRAFFIC VOLUME 0-100 ADT 100-200 ADT 200-300 ADT y - d �.. " 300-400 ADT - _.. 400-500 ADT !� 700-800 ADT 1000-2000 ADT a, _ a v, ZC yt a. T i FIGURE 2-2 ! Nord Count Jeffeem CURRENT TRAFFIC VOLUME C R� ca,wl W��giuo�g - acsa:r•wea Section 2 represents the worst condition. When The LOS shown is the average LOS of each leg evaluating unsignalized intersections, of the intersection. The control delay, the LOS is calculated for those measured in seconds per vehicle,is reported movements that must either stop for or as the worst delay within the intersection. yield to oncoming traffic and is based on average control delay for the particular 2.5. Truck Traffic movement. Control delay is a measure of ' all the delay attributable to traffic Field observations have shown a higher than control measures,including initial average percentage of truck traffic along some deceleration delay,queue move-up time, of the roads in the study area. Traffic ' stopped delay,and final acceleration distribution data was gathered as part of the delay. traffic volume collection done in September of 2005. The traffic distribution data separates ' Four major intersections within the the traffic volumes into various classes of study area were evaluated to determine vehicles ranging from cars and trucks to buses the peak hour traffic movement LOS: and 3 axle truck trailer combinations. For the purpose of this study,truck volumes were South Hills Drive-South Hills lumped together to include tractor-trailer Road combinations,dual axle and heavy single axle • Holmes Gulch Road- South trucks,recreational vehicles,and buses. Hills Road Table 2-3 shows the percentage of truck ' ■ Homes Gulch Road-Colonial traffic compared to total traffic volume at Drive select locations throughout the study area. ■ South Hills Road-Colonial Table 2-3 -Percentage of Trucks Compared to ' Drive Total Traffic Volume The LOS for each intersection was South Hills Road(East of Holmes Gulch Road s.s analyzed using the SYNCHRO computer Intersection) software program. This program South Hills Road(Near Ume Kin Road) 7.5 analyzes and optimizes the operation of South Hills Drin(Near Lewis and Clark County Une) 117 ' Holmes Gulch Road(NorthofSouth iiiiRuetl individual intersections,as well as a 12.3 Intersection) network of intersections. Tablet-2 Holmes GuldROaEISouNOfSou[hH111sROatl 8.3 shows the LOS for each of the Intersection) intersections analyzed in this study. Colonial Dmre(North of south Hills Road Intersection) 16.1 Colonial Ddve(Sadhof South Hills Road hnersection) 13.8 Table 2-2-Existing Intersection Level of Service (LOS) In rural settings similar to the study area,the Intersection LOS Delay average percentage of truck traffic varies from 6 to 10 percent. As shown in the table above, ' South Hills Dtive South Hills Road i A ___i 3.2 ,,,,,,,_ truck traffic is significantly higher than Holmes Gulch Hand South Hills Road .- A I 4.Z average on most roads in the study area. The Holmes Gulch Road-Colonial Odw; A 2.0 overall increase in truck traffic can be South HIIW Road-Colonial Drive A 7.5 attributed to the recent spike in development -;% N.all, NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 15 Section 2 and construction occurring in and around the study area. Currently there is a major development under construction adjacent to the City of Helena water tank which is impacting Colonial Drive as heavy trucks are hauling from Montana City to the development site. There is a significantly high percentage of truck traffic in the southeast ' boundary of the study area due to the Ashgrove commercial gravel pit located in this area. As the pit is expected to be ' in operation well into the future,the high percentage of truck traffic can be expected to continue for the duration of ' planning horizon. 1 1 1 m �ti NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY ,�,� TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 16 Section 3 3. Transportation Demand facilitate a general comparison of trends in the ' Forecasting rural vs.incorporated areas. 3.1. Introduction As shown in Table 3-1,the trend for Jefferson ' County since 1970 has been for an overall The existing population of Jefferson increase while the cities of Boulder and County and the distribution and Whitehall have fluctuated slightly with both ' characteristics of population centers are experiencing a loss since 1990. A large key indicators of the type and extent of portion of the population gain in the rural services that are needed to serve the area of the County can be attributed to the community today, and when compared subdivision activity in the Montana City area to recent and past trends,land over the last 15 years. According to the ' development demands and the need for Census Bureau,the Montana City CDP had transportation facilities of the future can 2,094 persons at the time of the last census. be more accurately anticipated. An Since population in the CDP area was not awareness of recent population trends summarized in previous census years,the provides a valuable guide for planning, trend or extent of recent growth in the area is budgeting,and financing decisions. not apparent in the table below. ' Population forecasts are used to Table 3-1-Population by Census Year determine future needs for infrastructure 1990 r r I improvements,land development, Jefferson County 5,238 7,029 7,939 10,049 housing and community facilities. As Montana City CDP 2,094 ---- ..... ...... changes in population occur,the impact Boulder 1,342 1,441 1,316 1,300 ' of these changes must be evaluated and -- -------- ---- - g Whitehall 1,035 1,030 1,067 1,044 provisions made to accommodate the needs of the community,including the Some:uscea�a5 impact on the local road system. The population represented by the Montana The following discussion includes a City CDP data includes only a portion of the reference to population data showing study area in question,generally the east one trends for Jefferson County indicated by fourth near the interstate,as well as all of the U.S. Census historical data and for the Montana City area west of the highway and North Jefferson County study area south to the Clancy CDP. More complete northwest of Montana City. Census population figures for the study area were population and housing figures for the obtained through census block level data, study area were derived from census Department of Revenue records for residential ' land, and estimates used in the Jefferson block level data and compared to a County Growth Policy. dwelling unit count that was developed in a build-out analysis for North 3.2. Existing Population Jefferson County as part of the Jefferson County Growth Policy. The census data Data for Census Blocks included within the ' includes a reference to corresponding study area shows that there were figures for cities in the County to approximately 364 persons living in the area NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY PAte 17 1 Section 3 at the time of the 2000 Census. Some Table 3-3 - 2000 Transportation Plan Study Area ' interpolation was necessary for Census Build-out Analysis* Block 1006 since it includes some area Number of Dwelling south of the study area boundary.As ' shown in Table 3-2,the 2000 Census 3 24 181 3 205 study area population corresponds to 126 4 51 49 100 - ...... housing units or 2.89 persons per unit. 5 62 147 209 6 0 24 24 10 Table 3-2-Population Estimate 2000 Census 7 1 9 ............ . - --_ -..-." Censusl3locks Study Area Population 8.-. 2 50 52 .. ..... _-._. 1000-1005 _ 80 9 8 201 209 ..--- --- ---- ---- 10 15 124 139 1006(Part In StudyArea) 160(238 BlockTatal) - -- -------- ----- .. -._.- ...... -... ....-... ._-.-. 11(Part) (25)10 (16)(5) 41(15) ID07-1009 124 --"" "" ."." --"- 14(Part) (99)0 (567)(0) 666(0) Total Study Area 15(Part)a 364 ...... 2 -...-.-... art) (16)0 (26)(0) 42(0) Total Housing Units-126 -.......'�—' .......".....-..._-. I6(Part) (14)10 (12)(5) 26(15) Person/Dwelling Unit(D.U.)°2.89 - - 17 22 -14(0) 8(22) " Additional information re ardin the 18 0 10 10 g g 21(Part) 4(0) 8(0) 12(0) population within the study area was 205 e05 1,010 obtained from the Growth Policy -Table does not Include the entire Ind ld-outstudyarea adopted in 2003 for the County. In order (See Figure 3-4 for section number locations within the study area) to estimate changes taking place since the census,the Build-out Analysis for the As a means of validating the existing dwelling North Jefferson County area was used as unit estimate obtained from the build-out ' a reference. This study was completed in survey,Department of Revenue data (CAMA) 2000 and incorporated estimates for the for parcels in the area was mapped to show number of dwelling units in 54 sections the distribution,size,and occupancy status of at the north end of the County. The data parcels. The data allowed for a count of was summarized by section and included residential and commercial parcels and estimates for the existing situation and whether or not the parcel was included in the ' the potential for number of units at total vacant classification in the state data base. build-out. Considerations for growth Parcel information derived from the state potential included the effect of existing Cadastral Mapping Project is shown in Figure zoning for permitted density and 3-1 for the study area. Current residential, adjustments to figures based on natural commercial and vacant land classifications are constraints to development. Using data shown on the map. A count of existing ' from the buildout survey for sections residential parcels showed that there are included in the study area,there were a approximately 200 occupied residential land total of 205 dwelling units in 2000. The units in the area. When compared to the 1 total number of additional dwelling build-out survey estimate of 205 dwelling units at total build-out is estimated at units,this number is slightly low,especially 805 as shown in Table 3-3. considering that some housing has been 1 NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Pao is WN jjj� ISM 111. 111• ..� K 0 IwIa- owl immillwar SON.ir�r Sim •►�\ICI — �.—�,u►��� ei f �. rl ' i Section 3 added since the build-out survey was estimated at an average of 8%per year ' estimate was done. For estimating overall by the census. According to the purposes,we will use 240 dwelling units estimate for potential build-out in the area for the 2005 study area estimate. This is (see Table 3-3),there could be as many as 805 ' a conservative figure that is higher than additional dwelling units in the area when it the CAMA data summary,but lower is completely developed subject to existing than the projected 2005 estimate using zoning and natural constraints. However,it is the build-out survey. Using the census not likely that this situation would occur block average density figure of 2.89 given the fact that rural areas are rarely persons per dwelling,the population is developed to full potential as allowed by ' 650 persons for the study area in 2005. zoning density. It is more likely that the growth in this area will continue at its current 3.3. Population Projection pace for a limited period of time and grow at a ' more normal rate approaching the County Census estimates for Jefferson County average after that. The current growth rate of and the incorporated vs. rural areas are 14%per year in the study area appears to be a ' shown in Table 3-4. The County reasonably conservative estimate to use for estimates show a steady increase for the next five years. The projection from 2010 both the incorporated and rural areas to 2025 should be a considerably lower from 2000 through 2004 and that a growth rate because of the influence of an steady growth is forecast for the entire expected decline in the rate of natural ' County from 2005 through 2025. The increase and uncertainty regarding future census projected trend reflects an migration patterns. Since this area of the average growth rate of 2%per year County has clearly been under greater ' during this period for Jefferson County. pressure for development than any of the rural This compares to an average growth rate areas to the south,the long term growth will of 2.7%per year for the County from be estimated at an average of 4%per year for ' 1990 to 2000. the study area,or double the expected growth rate for the County. Table 3-4-Jefferson County Population 1990-2025 Census Census 990 rr0 " (2000-2004) r (20 10) r 00 r Jefferson County 7937 10049 ;(10857) (8.0%) (11,023) ( (12,011) (13,019) (14020) (15,024) ---- -.... ........... .. ..-- — .....__._..... Boulder 1,300 ;(1398) (7.5%) Whitehall 1,044 (1134) __—_ - ................ . .... . ..._.__�—_ .-j _._ BaWnce of County 7,705 t(8,325) 18.0%) tSource:US Census The population projection for Jefferson The number of housing units in the County is shown in Table 3-5 and Figure 3-2. Transportation study area in North The table shows the projection based on Jefferson County from the 2000 Census recent growth patterns as previously to 2005 increased by an average of discussed. The estimate shows an overall ' approximately 14%per year over the growth of 1,194 persons for the 20 year period while the rural area of the County J ORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY ANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 20 ' Northern Jefferson Great West Engineering County Transportation May 2006 Infrastructure Study 15,500 ' e,0P4 15,000 14,500 - - ' 14,000 // 14,010 13,500 00 � �� 13,000 - E +aow 12,500 -+ sE�e0�// I.. 0/ 12,000 - / 11,500 i 11,000 - - n 10,500 - 10,000 Z O 9500 - Of 9000 . 111 8500 .111111 . 0 0 8000 _ .lid IIIIIII - SON . 0 EFF�� �� .�� _]1111111 LL' 7500 - 7000 :.illllllllllllllll Z 6500 .44C IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ! 5500 AIII11111111111111111111111 _ 5000 '�!'�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII _ _ _. 4500 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII _ _ 111111111111111111111111111111 _ 4000 111111111111111111111111111111 000 111111111111111111111111111111 _. _ .. 111111111111111111111111111111 200 111111111111111111111111111111 _. .f P, 1500 '"�Illlll r'!jII Pi!,1111111 , t,4m 1000 500 L r.o�^ r � WHITEHALL J L ° 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 ' CENSUS CENSUS CENSUS CENSUS Y E A R �f� °Jccf/on 1 FIGURE 3-2 ' NOSCAU POPULATION PROJECTION Section 3 period since 2005 to a level of 1,888 show that traffic volumes will increase ' persons. The trend shown assumes a significantly in the next 5 years on most continuation of growth for the study collectors within the study area. area with an initial growth rate near ' current levels. Conditions resulting in a It should be noted that the traffic volumes more dramatic increase in the long term shown on Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7 are based are possible within the planning period, on the existing road network and currently but are not included in this projection. planned transportation projects. Effects of future transportation projects could Table 3-5-Population Projection significantly impact traffic patterns within Population the study area. Future„ 2010 , , should be fully evaluated,prioort�tion projects implementation,to define impacts to traffic ' studyara ssa 1,180 1 tats 1s52 t,ase volumes and effects to the road network. i Source:Great West Engineering,Inc. ' Figure 3-3,3-4,and 3-5 show the existing parcel layout,zoning districts, and topography in the study area. 3.4. Traffic Volume Projections ' Traffic volumes were forecasted using the two levels of growth discussed in Section 3.3. The growth level was projected at 14%through 2010 and 4% from 2010 to 2025. Engineering judgment was used to determine which roads could see the greatest increase in traffic due to future growth and ' development as well as planned transportation projects. The South Helena interchange is estimated to have ' the greatest impact on traffic volumes. Under this project,Colonial Drive will be improved and paved from the ' interchange,located just north of the county line,to South Hills Road. This project will significantly increase the ' volume of traffic on Colonial Drive as this will function as a major collector route. The traffic volume projections for ' the study area are presented in Figure 3- 6 and Figure 3-7. These projections NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 22 g4 '�\ " +v: .° °'� � fir' ,t � r•�'�'`` / STUDY AREA BOUNDARY Lim It ' � .k ' �, ' ''S.�"�R"�n , IF•�3'1'�"�MtlC;ts q 1.:. . � � f.d,�„ _,�IIWIICI*e J• -/q�'i te�.q�J�$l ' 't .�.... PARCEL B69NDARY V. ( ) 7 pp J Y .44 •f+'r� '� 4i��rA!ir� � 7 � t_:- ..'•I<Nr^ ill0��t_ - 1G.. ..:A ��'�` r tK `3i.'+:�'�� ✓T" +91Y (•.:�'. 'Mfi4'..- tk: Northern Jefferson FIGURE 3-3 County Transportation Great West Engineering PARCEL BOUNDARY Infrastructure Study May 2006 NO SCALE North Jeff rson County Zoning Districts 9N3W 9N2W 8 t 8 5 4 � t141 I2 18 1 i � 14 to 17 16 1 19 20 21 / '_ _! r 19 1 21 22 73 24 30 29 27 6' 29 29 27 ?g 45 Njef o zoning.shp Low Density Residential#2 Basic Resource#1 Low Density Residential 43 3 37 6851C Resource#2 Low Density Residential#4 3< _ 35 38 Commercial Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Residential Interface#1 Industnal Residential Interface#2 e 5 3 2 1 - Low Density Residential 01 FIGURE 3 xo171wmJeffe�on 4 CrnmtyTrenapormtion crearw y2006�ros Noscnce ZONING Infrastructure study �yzoa S DARK --� _ ,-LEWIS 10,D UAR_RK Co - Xacenaioh / +:'—JEFFERSON CO - +t••••, ,EFFERS gd CO - _`.� lZ 0 C r �,,tE$ u _ fion _ 1 1 • r 1 _ !�- _ STKUqhBOUNDARY AREA, J FIGURE 3-5 'r,r �. anthem Jefferson County Transportation Cmelwestnn —mg sctita t •tea TOPOGRAPHY Tnfr?vch++ndnE Study May 2006 ------ �. c �. . *,. ;w r _ _ ''� - L.' +� ' .p ,p 1;. '♦ 2010 TRAFFIC VOLUME 1 ..` ♦ ,{7.-r:�•♦ . 100-200 ADT is - `♦ 200-300 ADT .. _y_.., V., ''`. �S�Sy,, k ,, t� .t a� ,i, s'1. ♦♦ / 400-500 ADT *pit "St; 2 ,',♦ 600-700 ADT d ="� !"�` '` c5 900-1000 ADT �' x��_ •*, t �'-�, 4 - `� 2000-3000 ADT All f j ♦ i k �� �♦ 3000-4000 ADT IO al/ lid Auffillpm;`4 f w x�« �� � • `e�m++e.+'casrXS .C` r ...-�_�_y '. � xya _i.. ^c'k-a F.±sr_._i° Nor0 m; lielfercou FIGURE 3 6 County Tteneponation a�az w�ena — }, t76v 2010 TRAFFIC VOLUME Infiwhuctm Study 1Ney 2006 � Ia±+i��� � � 1 I f•� f � ,,� '• "b ��� - ,_, f r r, „ .. • �••y r i 4 Ss\•-�. a, '4+'".... `�"`}` F".-�<•.. Y,J..t'. F . -.�`.'.���\ - 10-200 AD T 30-400 ADT 00-500 T 2025 TRAFFIC VOLUME 4 AD 70 80 T- 0 AD 100- 000 2A T 000-5000 4 T ! 1 to. -6000 ADT It em a , g� y �`trs �• �R r" Y � •�•' ! t .• - c > t�.: • '� Y itl'a'4�'i -f.;•1, f . f 1 f � f ... r w -6 t r ex s . Yk a$ # Y �• � III - lk IL -- NoCLemloffeson FIGURE 3-7 county Transportation cw�Easms 2025 TRAFFIC VOLUME tntiaBtlnCtlnC$way Mey 2006 SCAM 1•-t7E0' Section 4 4. Non-Motorized Transportation The rural nature of the region,coupled with ' the lack of paved roads,leads to the absence This section of the study is dedicated to of sidewalks in and around the area. enhancement of the existing However,the construction of the South ' transportation network in the South Helena Interchange and subsequent widening Hills area through the implementation of and paving of Colonial Drive will result in non-motorized transportation,primarily sidewalks adjacent to the roadway north of ' in the form of pedestrian and bicycle the County line. paths. Currently,there are no trails in the study area dedicated solely for the The current signing does not delineate purpose of walking and bicycling. specific bicycle lanes and/or routes. However, Pedestrians and cyclists are forced to most of the network consists of local roads utilize roads primarily intended to serve and many recreationalists limit their activities ' motorized traffic resulting in potential to collectors such as South Hills Road, safety and liability concerns. Holmes Gulch Road,and Colonial Drive. Jackson Creek Road immediately south of the ' The South Hills region is a popular study area boundary,also sees high usage recreation area for the City of Helena from pedestrian and bicycle traffic. and adjacent residential developments. ' Hikers and cyclists are common sights As previously discussed,most hiking and on the road network throughout the bicycling activities are enjoyed during the study area,particularly during the more temperate months from May through t summer and fall seasons. However,the October. Non-motorized use drops rural nature of the area in combination significantly during the winter months as with long distances to places of plowed snow constricts the shoulders and ' employment limits the amount of non- narrows the travel lanes,the road surface motorized utilitarian travel. becomes muddy and the temperatures drop. Future development of non-motorized trails ' 4.1. Obstacles Facing the and paths would need to consider the Development of a Non- maintenance and repair of the system. Motorized Travel System ' 4.2. ADA Compliance The primary barrier to the progression of non-motorized travel within the study The development of a non-motorized trail ' area is the lack of a trail network. While system would likely need to address the basic numerous hiking and bicycling trails requirements of the Americans with originate within the South Hills locale, Disabilities Act(ADA). The trails should ' the infrastructure necessary to promote provide sufficient access at intersections with use of the trail heads is lacking. roads as well as comply with ADA regulations Pedestrians and bicyclists are forced to relating to maximum grades and minimum ' share the road with motorized traffic widths. Given the rugged nature of the when navigating through the study area. terrain,it is likely that the construction of any new trails would require exceptions to ADA trequirements. f;. ajr I NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 28 1 Section 4 Figure 4-1 outlines the recommended Bicycle ' 4.3. Design Considerations Route System. The system is designed to accommodate the current and future needs of Bicyclists,particularly those within the non-motorized traffic. A primary objective ' study area,tend to follow the established when laying out the system was to provide routes for motorized travel out of continuous routes through the study area necessity. Due to the inherent risks both in the east-west and north-south ' involved with assimilating bicycle traffic directions. The incorporation of a bicycle into predominantly motorized travel,it route along South Hills Road accomplishes would be beneficial to establish a bicycle the goal of an east-west conduit and would ' route system. While dedicated bicycle increase bicyclist safety. The construction of paths are not necessary on the local road a bicycle route adjacent to Colonial Drive will network,it would be in the best interest allow for a physical separation of bicycle ' of motorists and bicyclists alike if traffic traffic from the high traffic volumes on these could be separated on the collectors roads. The addition of a bicycle route along where traffic volumes and average the south boundary of the study area adjacent ' speeds tend to escalate.As previously to Jackson Creek Road will provide a safe discussed,the majority of the bicycle use conduit for non-motorized travel as future in the South Hills area is recreational in development causes traffic volumes to ' nature versus utilitarian. As such,the escalate in the area west of Montana City. implementation of bicycle routes will have little impact on traffic volumes. In order to promote continuity within the The benefits of designated routes will non-motorized transportation network,new ' come in the form of enhanced safety for paths should be constructed such that they non-motorized traffic and alleviation of integrate properly with adjacent trail systems. ' traffic capacity concerns resulting from The South Helena interchange project motorized vehicles encountering slower involves the construction of a sidewalk bicycle traffic. adjacent to Colonial Drive north of the ' County line. The bicycle route recommended 4.4. Recommended Bicycle Routes along the Colonial Drive corridor south of the county line should properly tie into the trail The following corridors are system constructed in Lewis&t Clark County. recommended for consideration in the The proposed bicycle routes adjacent to development of recreational bicycle Colonial Drive and Jackson Creek Road ' routes: should allow for a proper tie into the proposed roundabout located at the Jackson • South Hills Road,County line to Creek Road/Colonial Drive intersection. ' Colonial Drive Consideration given to the continuity of the ■ Colonial Drive,Jackson Creek non-motorized system during the planning Road to County Line and design phase will ensure a safe,effective network that will promote bicycle and • Jackson Creek Road,study area pedestrian use throughout the study area. boundary to Colonial Drive t NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY �� TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 28 1 ' Section 4 4.5. Implementation policy should address issues such as the ' agency(s) responsible for maintaining the The initial step in implementing and trails,maintenance standards,and reporting constructing a non-motorized trail of maintenance requests. At a minimum the ' system within the study area involves County should address the following the formation of a local trails working concerns related to trail maintenance: group. The working group would be ' responsible for soliciting input from Snow removal-Accumulations of local residents regarding pedestrian and snow can present safety concerns to bicycle travel networks. Input should pedestrians and bicyclists using the ' also be solicited from open-space, system. Removal of snow from the bicycling, and hiking organizations. trails will also promote year-round Organizations such as the Prickly Pear usage of the system. ' Land Trust have been instrumental in Vegetation control-Trees and shrubs acquiring open-space in the areas should be trimmed back from the adjacent to Helena's southern boundary trails in order to ensure adequate sight ' and developing the trail network in this lines and reduce potential conflicts area. The County should also consider with trail users. Roots should be requiring developers of land adjacent to removed from the path surface to ' the recommended bicycle route corridors maintain a smooth traveling surface. to address how their projects will Drainage-The trail system should be expound upon the system. ' inspected on a regular basis for Serious consideration should be given to plugged culverts and other drainage non-motorized travel when evaluating related issues that may result in water future road improvement projects in the collecting on the trail system. South Hills area. Incorporating Repair and upkeep-The trails should ' pedestrian and bicycle travel into be inspected regularly and repairs preliminary design can often lead to made as necessary to maintain a safe innovative solutions to constructing an trail free from irregularities such as ' area wide network. Constructing potholes,ruts,etc. The paths should pedestrian and bicycle facilities in be policed for litter and road debris on conjunction with larger road a regular schedule. The County may ' construction projects often proves to be consider enacting a trail adoption a cost-effective means of adding to the program similar to the Adopt-A- non-motorized transportation system. Highway Program implemented by MDT as a means of controlling litter on the non-motorized trail system. 4.6. Maintenance Signing-The trails should be properly ' In order to promote the use of non- designated as non-motorized paths. motorized routes throughout the South The recommended improvements proposed in ' Hills area,the County must implement a this section are intended to enhance the safety system-wide maintenance policy. The of pedestrian and bicycle travel throughout ' tt NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY AN SPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 30 ' Sect ion 4 the study area. The implementation of a ' non-motorized trail system will also enhance motorized travel through the reduction of traffic congestion caused by ' slower bicycle travel and pedestrian traffic. The proposed trail system will provide access to various hiking and bicycling paths originating in the area and encourage alternate means of transportation. 1 1 1 �v �~ f - NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY ^ l, ' TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Pegg 31 ` ! ��_ " LEGEND -. ? i•- ,g Y<. .. RECOMMENDED NON-MOTORIZED ROUTES r > >y �, a Ste, r a � a. ��� '�af,�{-9<•' r � i x .p pRj t rs t t` Fx J Cj�Y rs � "-44 �;t y�K«,•a >. p TP \ � 4�. ai f'' � y(l .. a �';;I > � Md�s�it t2 '•� Y }' �iR'� '\-"'F!Ki�".�C `_ �b'�b � . 4 `5v k .: y. i Y rt+� •Pa?gH'Yr �e'f.'kda w.:y }"!\!t� .: . �. s.�:. -..�__��.�i �-Y ...� - •I ', ��,. v FIGURE 4-1 ' }¢ Northern Jefferson RECOMMENDED Conn y Tian portation G.'wm rn g t. t NON-MOTORIZED ROUTES �y �� InfrasWCtare Stody May2o06 ' Section 5 5. Problem Identification affecting the response time of emergency ' services as well as school bus traffic accessing The overall road network was analyzed the study area. This is a major concern to to define current problems associated people living in or around the South Hills with road condition,volume vs.capacity, area. Recommended improvements necessary transportation network connectivity, to improve the existing road network are and intersection Level of Service(LOS). discussed further in Section 6. ' The road network was also analyzed for the year 2010 and 2025 traffic volumes to The majority of roads in the study area are determine future problems and surfaced correctly to meet current traffic ' maintenance issues associated with volumes with the exception of South Hills growth and development in the study Road and Colonial Drive. South Hills Road area. from Quarry Road to Colonial Drive and ' Colonial Drive from South Hills Road to the 5A. Road Condition County line are presently over the recommended hard surfacing trigger specified The majority of the existing County by the County Road Standards. Future traffic roads are in poor condition and many are volumes dictate that a majority of the roads ' in need of improvements. The existing will require hard surfacing during the County gravel roads have an average planning horizon. Recommended PASER rating of 2.7. This value equates improvements are discussed further in Section ' to roadways that are in poor to fair 6 condition and require maintenance. The average rating for the County paved 5.2. Volume vs. Capacity roads is 6.5. These roads are generally in good condition and require minimal The capacity of the existing road network was maintenance to extend the life of the analyzed to determine whether improvements ' roadway. The PASER ratings calculated or expansion should be implemented to are based on current traffic volumes. As accommodate future traffic volumes. The development and growth occur in the overall capacity of a given roadway is directly study area these roads will continue to related a number of factors such as the deteriorate resulting in lower ratings. number of travel lanes,traffic speed,road condition,access points,road alignment, t Maintenance and improvements are vehicle type,and land uses. All of the roads warranted on the majority of roads analyzed in the study area have sufficient within the study area to improve the capacity to facilitate the 2025 projected traffic ' overall condition as well as safety. The volumes with the exception of two current condition of the gravel roads is intersections in the study area. The South affecting traffic traveling on these roads Hills Road—Colonial Drive and the Holmes ' as well as residential access in the study Gulch Road—Colonial Drive intersections area. Many of the existing roads are in decrease in overall condition to a level of poor condition and have developed service F by the year 2025. The decrease in ' excessive potholes,washboards,and LOS is a result of insufficient capacity at the ruts. The current road condition is intersections which cause significant delays in ' ±� jNORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY ANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 33 Section 5 traffic flow. These intersections are acquiring right-of-way for a new road corridor ' discussed further in Section 5.4. in this area may not be cost effective. 5.3. Transportation Network South Quarry Road could potentially serve as ' a north-south connector through the study The study area was analyzed to evaluate area. It is currently an unmaintained the current transportation network and primitive gravel private/public road. With ' determine where additional corridors significant improvements,this road could may be developed to encourage traffic serve as a connector from South Hills Road to flow throughout the study area. Jackson Creek Road near Montana City. ' Jefferson County should monitor Currently, South Hills Road and Holmes development and growth along this road Gulch Road are the only east-west segment to allow for future expansion and ' networks within the study area. These upgrades to the road. corridors extend through the center of the study area and have good 5.4. Intersection Level of Service ' connectivity for traffic traveling east or west into locales outside of the study Four major intersections within the study area. Colonial Drive is the only north- area were evaluated to determine the peak ' south network in the study area. This hour traffic Level of Service (LOS)for existing network functions sufficiently to as well as future traffic movements. The peak connect traffic in the eastern side of the hour traffic volume data used in the analysis is ' study area. The study area does not shown in Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2.The currently have a good north-south intersections evaluated include: transportation corridor in the western ' portion. ■ South Hills Drive-South Hills Road ■ Holmes Gulch Road-South Hills The existing roads within the study area Road ' were evaluated to determine where • Homes Gulch Road-Colonial Drive future transportation networks could be • South Hills Road-Colonial Drive located. Based on current zoning, ' residential growth,and the topography in the area,most areas are not conducive to new road construction. Much of the ' western portion of the study area is very steep and rugged and would be difficult and expensive to develop a road ' network. Environmental considerations may hinder the development of new road corridors in the western regions of the study area as well. Much of the eastern portion of the study area is zoned ' residential and is developing quickly. As significant development has occurred, �y �u NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 34 2010 Granth Rate= 14.0% 2025 GraMh Rate= 4.00/6 2[]C4 2010 2025 E>ostirg Peak Hou Irtersedon Direction Movemert Volunes Peak Hour Volumes PeakHouVolunes 1. SOUTH HILLS DR,/SOUTH HILLS RD. NB LT 2 4 7 THRU 3 6 11 RT 1 2 4 SIB LT 1 2 4 THRU 3 6 11 RT 3 6 11 EB LT 1 2 4 THRU 16 31 56 RT 1 2 4 VAB LT 2 4 7 THRU 8 15 27 RT 2 4 7 2 HOLMES GULCH/SOUTH HILLS RD. NB LT 1 2 4 THRU 5 10 18 RT 1 2 4 SIB LT 1 2 4 THRU 3 6 11 RT 2 4 7 EB LT 4 8 14 THRU 13 25 45 RT 3 6 11 4u8 LT 6 12 22 THRU 6 12 22 RT 1 2 1 4 Northern Jefferson FIGURE 5-1 County Transportation Grem We lEngmeenng L11116mi Infrastructure Study May 2006 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME 2010Grvnkh Rate= 140% 2025Grcwh Rate= 4.0% 2005 2010 2025 Egislirg PeakHou Irrersection Direction Movemert Volunes Peak HouVolunes PeakhlouVolunes a HOLMES GULCH/CAPITOL DR. EB LT 15 37 117 THRU RT 8 20 63 SS LT - - THRU 42 144 457 RT 12 41 130 NB LT 12 41 130 THRU 62 213 676 RT - 4. SOUTH HILLS RD/HIGHVAY 282 EB LT 15 34 142 THRU 8 18 75 RT 14 32 134 \ne LT 29 25 104 THRU 4 9 3B RT 11 66 276 SIB LT 9 31 93 THRU 23 79 251 RT 22 76 241 NB LT 23 64 267 THRU 24 55 230 RT 23 66 276 Z' ,tLNorthcm Jefferson FIGURE 5-2 County Transportation Great West Engineering Infrastructure Study May 2006 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME 1 Section 5 The LOS analysis evaluates the condition congestion through the intersections. of an intersection and provides an Upgrades that should be evaluated include operational evaluation expressed as a expanding the intersections with additional letter designation ranging from A to F. through lanes and or turning lanes,or t The LOS letter designation A represents controlling traffic with either a roundabout or the best conditions and equates to very a signalized intersection. As traffic volumes little or no delay,sufficient capacity, and increase to reflect the 2025 projected volumes, ' smooth overall operation. The LOS each intersection should be analyzed to letter designation F represents the worst determine which upgrade best meets the overall condition and equates to needs of the area. ' unreasonable delays and poor intersection operation. LOS B or C are The LOS of each intersection studied in this both considered acceptable levels of report may be impacted should traffic flow service and typically do not require patterns or traffic volumes change improvements to the intersection. A significantly within the study area. Should ' LOS of D represents an intersection that significant changes be witnessed at any of has average control delay of 25 to 35 these sites,the intersections should be seconds per vehicle which means the reevaluated to determine if improvements are intersection is at or beyond capacity and warranted. improvements ate recommended. Table 5-1 shows the intersection LOS for 5.5. Accident Analysis current and future operating conditions. An accident analysis was conducted Table 51-Intersection Level of Service(LOS) on the major roads within the study ' area. Five years of accident data South Hills Drive-South Hills Road A A A _ records (2000-2004)were obtained Holmes Gulch Road-South Hills Road A A _ A from the Montana Department of Holmes Gulch Road Colonial Drive A A F Transportation for use in the .... —_ South Hills Road-Cobnlal Drive A A F analysis. The analysis evaluated each road segment to determine whether As shown in Table 5-1,the existing there was a high accident history,the general intersections function sufficiently accident characteristics, and to identify through the 2010 growth projection probable road deficiencies. ' analysis. The South Hills Road- Colonial Drive and the Holmes Gulch Accident rates were calculated for each road Road-Colonial Drive intersections segment to determine whether the roadway decrease in overall condition to LOS F by has a significantly high percentage of the year 2025. The decrease in LOS is a accidents. The accident rates are based on the result of insufficient capacity in the number of accidents compared to the number ' intersections which causes significant of vehicle miles driven in a given time period. delays in traffic flow. To meet future The rates are typically expressed as the traffic capacity demands,these number of accidents per million vehicle miles intersections will require upgrades and traveled. Table 5-2 shows the number of enhancements to improve traffic 7t NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY ' 1 TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY page 37 Section 5 accidents and the accident rates for the providers within the study area. The major major road segments in the study area. problem associated with the response time is the overall condition of the roads. The Table 5-2-Accident Analysis emergency vehicles are carrying vital Laotian' Numberof equipment that can be damaged easily when Accident Rate Accidents rough roads are encountered. Another Colon al O Road-connry Line ro a 2.65 problem contributing to the response time is ' Holmes Drive _ ! Holmes Gulch Road-Colonial Drheto i-� the width of the roadways. Many roads in the Mule Trail 1 ' 0.66 study area have little or no shoulder and do Colonial Drive County line to cowl z T zai not meet width requirements specified by the ' Hills Road County Road Standards. These 1SSUeS Create a Colonial Drive South HlllsRoadto a 1.06 problem when the larger emergency service Jackson Creek Road P g g Y SouN Hills Drive South Hills Road to vehicles encounter oncoming traffic. The road ' County Line 2 r 30.75 _ conditions result in slower response times Hm ermneB Roaa-Jackson creek 2' T 666 that could lead to wildfires spreading through Road to End of Road the area. In the case of a health emergency,a ' quick response time could result in the The accident rate values listed above are difference between life and death. Many of at or near average for each type of road the road condition issues listed above will be segment with the exception of South addressed by implementation of the Hills Drive. The South Hills Drive recommended improvement projects. accident rate is significantly higher than t other road segments within the study 5.7. Speeds area. The high value is directly related to the short section of road and the low Traffic speed data was collected on select road ' volume of traffic. There were only two segments within the study area to determine accidents along this section of road in a whether traffic was traveling at or near the five year time frame,this is not a posted speed limits. An average speed and ' significant number of accidents and 85 h percentile speed was calculated from the further analysis is not warranted. data recorded. The 85th percentile speed is ' used to determine the recommended posted The majority of accidents reported in the speed limit for a given roadway. Table 5-3 study area were attributed to poor road shows the average speeds and 85th percentile conditions or were alcohol related speeds for each road segment studied. ' incidents. One fatality was reported along the paved portion of Colonial Drive. Implementation of the proposed ' improvements discussed in section 6 may help to reduce the accident rates in the study area. ' 5.6. Emergency Services ' Concern has been raised about the response time for emergency service 'y mm ij NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY ' TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY It$!38 1 Section 5 5.8. Signing Table 5-3 -Traffic Speeds Average 85th% Rod Location Sp ed A thorough inventory of the existing signs ' within the study area was conducted during South Hills Road(East of Holmes Gulch 27 35 the data collection process. The signs were Road Intersection) - — evaluated in accordance with the Manual of South Hills Road(Near Lime Kiln Road) 29 1 35 Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MUTCD) ' south Hills Drive(Near Lewis and clad 1 for size and placement. Each road segment County Line) is ! 23 was also studied to determine if new signs ......... .--- ---.. Holmes Go"Road(NOM of South Hills 25 32 were necessary to improve safety or meet ' Road Inters-- ------ ------- ...._..._ _...a_.__..____ current standards. Holmes Gulch Road(South of South Hills I 22 32 Road Intersection) --------------------- ----------------- - The general condition and placement of most ' Colonial Drive(North of South Hills Road ' Intersection) I 25 A 33 existing signs within the study area were in Colonial Drive(South of South Hills Roatl 82---- compliance with current traffic engineering 54 Intersection) i standards. There are a few locations were Hill Brothers Road estoflackson 1 (W 23 33 new signs should be installed to improve Cheek Road Intersection) safety or meet current standards. Signing recommendations are discussed further in The roads in the study area are currently Section 6.5,Transportation System signed at 25 mph with the exception of Management Improvements. the paved section of Colonial Drive ' which is signed at 70 mph. The average speed calculated for each roadway was at or below the posted speed limit with ' the exception of South Hills Road. The average speed on South Hills Road is two to four miles per hour over the posted speed limit. The 85th percentile speeds calculated were all above the posted speed limit with the exception of ' the paved section of Colonial Drive. The average traffic speed and 85th percentile speed calculated for Colonial Drive is ' significantly lower than the posted speed limit. As road improvements are constructed,the average travel speed ' may increase. Speed studies should be conducted to recommend signing changes as improvements are ' implemented. 1 1� Sri NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY ' TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 39 Section 6 6. Recommended given to the dedication of Right-of-Way Improvements (ROW)for future road improvements and upgrades. Consideration should be given to 6.1. County Road Standards the existing road conditions,horizontal and ' vertical alignment,intersection layout,and The Jefferson County Commission proposed new roadways. County Road adopted Road Standards in August of Standards specify a 60 foot minimum ROW 2005. The standards outline specific width for all roads. This width should be criteria that should be applied to all evaluated for all proposed transportation ' future road improvement projects in the projects to ensure that there is sufficient land County. to construct future improvements. Allocating sufficient ROW in the development phase of a ' The County Road Standards specify that land use change will minimize the need to roads with an Average Daily Traffic acquire ROW as roads are upgraded to meet (ADT)volume of 400 or greater must be future traffic demands. The suggested right- ' hard surfaced with an approved material of-way dedications,based on road Current ADT's on a portion of South classifications,are as follows: Hills Road as well as Colonial Drive ' exceed this value and require hard Major Collector- 120 feet surfacing. The projected traffic volumes Minor Collector- 100 feet displayed in Figure 3-6,estimate that by Local Road-60 feet ' the year 2010 traffic volumes on the entire length of South Hills Road along The recommended widths will ensure that with a portion of Holmes Gulch Road future upgrades can be constructed within ' will exceed 400 ADT,and shall require a ROW limits and will minimize the need for hard surfacing. Figure 3-7 represents additional right-of-way allocations. projected traffic volumes for the year 2025. As shown by this figure,the The South Hills Road-Colonial Drive and majority of roads analyzed as part of this the Holmes Gulch Road-Colonial Drive study are at or near 400 ADT by the year intersections will require improvements as ' 2025 and warrant hard surfacing. Traffic traffic volumes escalate. When evaluating volumes should be monitored land use changes or development adjacent to periodically throughout the study area to these intersections,sufficient ROW should be determine whether significant traffic acquired to allow for future expansion and pattern changes have occurred due to improvements. growth and development. The County ' Roads Standards are included as an 6.3. Committed Major Improvements appendix to this document. Currently there are two major projects ' 6.2. Right-of-Way Dedications scheduled for construction within the study area. The Montana Department of During the review of subdivision Transportation has programmed a project to ' proposals or planning for land use construct a new interchange in the southern changes,special consideration should be portion of Lewis and Clark County. The NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY ' Page 40 Section 6 "South Helena Interchange"project of approach culverts. Right-of way t involves a new interchange on Interstate acquisition costs were not included in the 15 with appropriate connections to estimates,however a 15 percent construction Saddle Drive and Colonial Drive. The contingency and a 25 percent ' project would improve and pave engineering/administration cost for design Colonial Drive from South Hills Road to and management was incorporated into each the County line. Curb and gutter will be estimate. All costs are based on 2006 dollars ' extended on Colonial Drive to the and assume that the projects will be Jefferson County line. This project is in constructed by a contractor and all materials the final design stages and is scheduled purchased commercially. Should County to start construction in late 2006 or crews and County material sources be 2007. utilized,the estimated costs may fluctuate ' slightly. MDT has also programmed a project to improve and upgrade the Jackson Creek County Road Standards allow hard surfacing ' —Colonial Drive intersection. The road improvements to include a double chip project includes replacing the current 4- seal(double shot)or asphalt millings. way stop controlled intersection with a Estimates for double shot and asphalt millings single-lane roundabout. The project is in are $150,000 and$250,000 per mile the design stage and is scheduled for respectively. Double shot and asphalt construction in 2007. millings are typically only used on lower ' volume roadways with minimal truck traffic. 6.4. Proposed Major Improvements These alternatives generally do not have the life expectancy of an asphalt mat and typically ' The proposed improvements were require more maintenance. The double shot broken into two phases based on and asphalt milling alternatives should only upgrades necessary to improve current be used in special circumstances and a t road conditions as well as improvements thorough evaluation of the roadway required to accommodate future traffic conducted to determine whether the options volumes. are cost effective. For estimating purposes, ' double shot and asphalt millings were not An estimated cost for each project has included. been provided for planning purposes. The costs are based on the current Recommended Improvements to County Road Standards. The gravel road Accommodate Current Conditions estimates include upgrades to the road The following list is ranked in order of ' base,grading and shaping,widening,and priority. adding a gravel surface course at a cost of $90,000 per mile. The hard surface road 1. South Hills Road(Colonial Drive to estimates include road base North Quarry Road) improvements,a 3 inch asphalt mat,and Problem: The road segment is exhibiting a chip seal cover at a cost of$300,000 per advanced signs of deterioration including ' mile. The estimates include minor washboarding,rutting,and major potholing. drainage improvements and installation Drainage is a contributing factor to the NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY ' - TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 41 Section 6 advanced deterioration as there are 3. Holmes Gulch Road(Colonial Drive minimal drainage ditches adjacent to the to North Quarry Road) road. Problem:This section of Holmes Gulch Road is in poor overall condition and in need of t Recommendation: It is recommended major improvements. The road exhibits that this section of South Hills Road be severe washboarding and does not meet improved and paved to meet County minimum width requirements specified by Road Standards. The recommended the County Road Standards. Portions of this improvements include flattening the road segment are hard surfaced,which is vertical profile at the intersection with deteriorating beyond repair. Major potholes Colonial Drive,widening the roadway to have developed in the hard surfacing sections. provide two 12-foot driving lanes, improving drainage ditches, adding Recommendation: It is recommended that culverts at approach roads,improving this section of Holmes Gulch Road be the road base course,and providing a improved and paved. The recommended ' hard driving surface with a minimum of improvements include widening the roadway 3 inches of asphalt pavement and chip to provide two 12-foot driving lanes, sealing. improving drainage ditches,adding culverts at ' approach roads,improving the road base Estimated Cost: $190,000 course,and providing a hard driving surface with a minimum of 3 inches of asphalt ' 2. South Hills Road(North pavement and chip sealing. Quarry Road to Holmes Gulch Road) Problem:This section of South Hills Estimated Cost: $160,000 ' Road is showing signs of deterioration and is in poor overall condition. The 4. South Hills Road(Holmes Gulch road has excessive potholes,major Road to End of Gravel) ' washboarding,and does not meet Problem:This section of South Hills Road is minimum width requirements specified in poor overall condition and in need of by the County Road Standards. improvements. The road segment is showing ' advanced signs of deterioration including Recommendation: It is recommended washboarding,rutting,and major potholing. that this section of South Hills Road be ' upgraded to meet County Road Recommendation: It is recommended that Standards. The recommended this section of South Hills Road be improved improvements include regrading the to meet County Road Standards. The roadway to provide two 12-foot driving recommended improvements include lanes,improving drainage ditches, regrading the roadway to provide two 12-foot adding culverts at approach roads,and driving lanes,improving drainage ditches, ' providing an aggregate road surfacing adding culverts at approach roads,and that is a minimum of 6 inches thick. providing an aggregate road surfacing that is a minimum of 6 inches thick. t Estimated Cost: $55,000 Estimated Cost: $125,000 NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY ' TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 42 Section 6 5. South Hills Road(Beginning of ditches,adding culverts at approach roads, ' Pavement to Lewis and Clark County and providing an aggregate road surfacing line) that is a minimum of 6 inches thick. Problem:This is a paved section of South Hills Road that exhibits signs of Estimated Cost: $55,000 deterioration. Improvements are needed to extend the life of the pavement. TOTAL MAJOR IMPROVEMENT COSTS ' Cracks and potholes are developing in = $695,000 many areas along the roadway. The road is currently paved to an average width of The projects listed above are the highest ' 20 feet along this segment. priority projects within the study area and are required to improve and upgrade roads to ' Recommendation: It is recommended meet current traffic volumes and conditions of that this section of South Hills Road be the roads. widened and improved to comply with ' County Road Standards. The Two public/private roads were evaluated recommended pavement improvements under this study as directed by the County include adding a thin structural overlay Commission. The following is a brief and chip sealing the pavement. The description of the deficiencies observed with roadway should be widened to provide each road,recommended improvements,and two 12-foot driving lanes and an associated cost estimate. improvements made to the drainage ditches to improve runoff conveyance. South Hills Drive(South Hills Road to Lewis and Clark County line) Estimated Cost: $110,000 Problem: South Hills Drive is a steep,narrow roadway that does not meet road standards. 6. Holmes Gulch Road(North This road section exhibits signs of Quarry Road to South Hills Road) deterioration and is in poor overall condition. Problem:This section of Holmes Gulch The road has excessive potholes and does not Road is showing signs of deterioration meet minimum width requirements specified ' and requires improvements to meet by the County Road Standards. County Road Standards. The existing road does not meet minimum width Recommendation: It is recommended that ' requirements specified by the County this section of South Hills Drive be improved Road Standards and is developing to minimize safety issues. The recommended washboards and potholes in many areas improvements include regrading the roadway ' along the roadway. to improve the horizontal and vertical profile and provide two 12-foot driving lanes, Recommendation: It is recommended improving drainage ditches,and providing an that this section of Holmes Gulch Road aggregate road surfacing that is a minimum of be widened and improved. The 6 inches thick. recommended improvements include ' regrading the roadway to provide two Estimated Cost: $95,000 12-foot driving lanes,improving drainage iT. -I� NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 43 Section 6 North Quarry Road(Holmes Gulch Recommended Improvements to ' Road to South Hills Road) Accommodate Future Traffic Volumes Problem:This section of North Quarry Road is showing signs of deterioration The existing road network was analyzed ' and requires improvements to meet using future traffic forecasts to evaluate current road standards. The existing improvements and upgrades necessary to road is developing washboards and alleviate future traffic capacity and safety ' potholes in many areas along the concerns. Figure 3-7 represents projected roadway. traffic volumes for the year 2025. As shown by this figure,the majority of roads analyzed Recommendation: It is recommended under this study are at or near 400 ADT by that this section of roadway be widened the year 2025 and warrant hard surfacing. ' and improved. The recommended Additionally,the intersections at South Hills improvements include regrading the Road-Colonial Drive and the Holmes Gulch roadway to provide two 12-foot driving Road-Colonial Drive decrease in overall lanes,improving drainage ditches, condition to LOS F by the year 2025. To meet adding culverts at approach roads,and future traffic capacity demands,these providing an aggregate road surfacing intersections will require upgrades and ' that is a minimum of 6 inches thick. enhancements to improve traffic movement. Upgrades may involve expanding the Estimated Cost: $30,000 intersections with additional through lanes and or turning lanes,or controlling traffic Projects recommended for improvement with either a roundabout or a signalized based on current conditions are intersection. Widening of the paved section t displayed in Figure 6-1 and outlined in of Colonial Drive should be addressed as Table 6-1. traffic volumes increase along this section of Table&1- Recommended Improvements to Accommodate roadway. This section of road is 1 current conditions currently a two-lane facility with mmunal shoulders and out-slopes. Pt*d Recommended improvement ccst South Hills Road(Colonial Drive to North Base improvements&Hard As traffic volumes increase, Quarry Road) Surfacing $190,000 widening the roadway to include ' loath ants Road(North Quarry Road io----.-. Base improvements a--- 995,x00 shoulders will enhance safety. Holmes Gulch Road) Graveling Holmes Gulch Road(Colonial Ddveto Base Improvements&Hard $190,000 Table 6-2 outlines the ' North Quarry Road) Surfacing southHiiRoadMoin;esculchROaaw Baseimn�emems& - recommended projects necessary EndofGmvel) Groveling $125,000 uN Hills Roatl(Pavement to L&C County -_.-. ...-.-._......-..... to accommodate future capacity Sc Une) Pavement improvements $110,000 and safety concerns. The projects -- . Holmes Gulch Road --(North Quarry Road to Base no 555,..00 00 and costs assume that previous South Hills Road) Graveling improvement recommendations ' Total- $695,000 were implemented and maintained. For the purpose of estimating South Hills Dow(South Hills Road to L&C Base Improvements& $95,000 costs,a signalized intersection was County Une) Graveling North Quarry Road(Holmes Gulch Roadto Base improvements& $30 000 included as the intersection South Hills Road) Graveling upgrade alternative. U NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY ' TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Pete COMMITTED MITTED MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS tom ' _ II � � a, 3�'"' ':+ -1♦ < '", �.�� ® SOUTH HELENA INTERCHANGE '`7' i� i �' Fd i ,♦�, - f i j �I JACKSON CREEK ROAD-OLD STATE HIGHWAY 282 TC'. , ^''� +'cr A ♦, ..'{' Jfi y,,i '. ROUNDABOUT PROPOSED MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS -+P ♦ ♦ - ;• R. � � - " - � .` s � • -' '� �' iC �',,, ♦� � -. O SOUTH HILLS ROAD (STATE HIGHWAY 282 50 SOUTH a ,�, 'aa +- c " ♦ `� T QUARRY ROAD) WWI ' �� �•y 4 ` y,.+` a i'�"'^ � ♦♦ - O SOUTH HILLS ROAD (SOUTH QUARRY ROAD TO t ' +'g 4s .`f 'g .4.` .e .{ ' ♦♦ HOLMES GULCH ROAD) �11es b tiff. . R ♦i - �"` " y g �( + - ♦A b'�' �, • HOLMES GULCH ROAD (CAPITOL DRIVE TO NORTH � Ys � ! wa - '� � la,a. .2 i. - ♦♦ �: Isr+� QUARRY ROAD) yym. 47 SOUTH HILLS ROAD (HOLMES GULCH ROAD TO END OF GRAVEL) Au— SOUTH HILLS ROAD (BEGINNING OF PAVEMENT TO 'MF . . +Mt;' T �.� '.c,_ 2 F ♦ LENTS & CLARK COUNTY LINE) 'w r- °� c n >; .:c�a T l r i 1 n • HOLMES GULCH ROAD (NORTH QUARRY ROAD TO SOUTH HILLS ROAD) V 2 L `'' r.4 x„ .- - t _ _ ',i " • SOUTH HILLS DRIVE (SOUTH HILLS ROAD TO LEWIS & f _- x 's ''� - ♦ ^* ax i �P... CLARK COUNTY LINE) \pi i� - ♦�' ( N ,y� NORTH QUARRY ROAD (HOLMES GULCH ROAD TO b t � SOUTH HILLS ROAD) At i { e 'r•ii�tT »vz - ,�°-- ° it �a. # Xl- -� �As FIGURE&I onL®leff'daon FO"FD T RANSPORTATION 0oO° °ia'�M ZCA ;P 171' IMPROVEMENTS ' Section 6 Table 6-2 - Recommended Improvements to relatively small projects that can often be I Accommodate Future (2025)Traffic Volumes implemented by County personnel. Typical Project Recommended Cost TSM projects that will improve Improwunent transportation facilities within the study area South Hills Road-Colonial Signalized Intersection $150,000 include signing and road maintenance. These Drive Intersection low cost improvements are discussed further Holmes Gulch Road-Colonial Signalized Intersection $120,OD0 in the following sections: ' Drive Intersection ... .".".".". __"."."_... .............".".."_— South Hills Road(North Quarry Hard Surfacing $435,000 Road to End of Gravel) Signing: The general condition and placement of most existing signs within the Holmes Gulch Road(North " P g g ' Quarry Road to Mule Trail) Hard Surfacing $325000 study area are in compliance with current HlU Brothers Road(End of Road Hard Surfacing $220,000 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices so to)ackn Creek Road) (MUTCD) standards. The MUTCD sets ' Colonial driveOadtson Creek Widening $235,000 guidelines p for the location and placement of Road to South Hills Rom) Total- i $1,405,000 signs as well as the overall size and height. The following list delineates the The County should evaluate both recommended signing improvements for current and future conditions when study area. 1 recommending implementation of a project. A proactive approach,and often Stops Signs: times a cost savings measure,would ■ Holmes Gulch Road at Colonial involve upgrading the current Drive recommended projects to meet future ff Holmes Gulch Road at South Hills demands. This will result in higher Road upfront costs,but would eliminate the ■ South Hills Drive at South Hills need to construct multiple Road improvements over the planning period. t This study should be revisited regular weed Limit Signs: basis in order to acknowledge the effects 25 mph sign for East and West of projects as they are implemented and ' evaluate significant changes to planning bound traffic on Holmes Gulch Road parameters. Hills Colonial Drive and South Hills Road 6.5. Proposed Transportation ■ 25 mph sign on South Hills Road System Management (TSM) enteringjefferson County Improvements ' Street Name Si=s: Transportation System Management ■ Street name sign at the Holmes (TSM)improvements are relatively low Gulch Road-Colonial Drive cost projects that enhance current intersection transportation facilities. TSM projects • Street name sign at the Holmes can improve the overall condition of a Gulch Road-South Hills Road ' road,improve the level of service,and intersection improve safety. These projects are NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page Section 6 Estimated Signing Cast: $5,000 The following recommendations will not only Road Maintenance: Road maintenance bolster the pedestrian and bicycle is an ongoing process that should be infrastructure,but will enhance overall traffic incorporated into all road systems. flow by reducing congestion on collectors ' Routine maintenance can improve the within the study area. The planning level overall road condition,improve safety, estimates assume the trails projects will be and extend the life of the road. Routine constructed within existing County right-of- ' gravel road maintenance practices way and no additional right-of-way will need should include the following: to be purchased. As road projects are • Road grading and shaping implemented throughout the study area, ' • Drainage ditch maintenance special consideration should be taken to incorporate the recommended trail projects • Base course improvements within County right-of-way. This may be ■ Applying gravel as needed accomplished by shifting the roadways to one • Dust control side of the right-of-way to allow for future ' • Brush and weed control trails projects. Routine pavement maintenance 1. South Hills Road (County Line to activities should include the following: Colonial Drive) Problem: Pedestrian and bicycle traffic ■ Crack repair currently share the existing road with ■ Chip sealing motorized traffic. The road does not have ■ Structural overlays adequate shoulder width to accommodate ■ Minor subgrade repair this use and presents inherent safety 1 concerns. ■ Striping ■ Brush and weed control Recommendation: It is recommended that a pedestrian path be constructed adjacent to The recommended TSM's should be the existing road. The path would be implemented on all proposed available to bicycle traffic,but may not meet improvement projects to upgrade the all AASHTO code requirements for bicycle 1 overall condition of the roads,extend the paths. The path should be constructed with life of the roads,and improve safety an 8-foot top width and surfaced with a within the study area. minimum of 3-inches of crushed gravel road ' base. Miscellaneous drainage improvements 6.6. Pedestrian and Bicycle will be necessary. It is assumed that the Recommendations pedestrian path would be constructed within ' existing County right-of-way. The non-motorized transportation ' improvements recommended by this Estimated Cost: $145,000 study are intended to provide an interconnected trail system that enables 2. Colonial Drive(Jackson Creek Road ' pedestrian and bicycle traffic to access to County line) the recreational opportunities offered by this region in a safe and efficient manner. v 'F ❑ NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY Mix INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 47 Section 6 Problem: Pedestrian and bicycle traffic Recommendation: It is recommended that a ' currently share the existing road with pedestrian path be constructed adjacent to motorized traffic. The road does not the existing road. The path would be have adequate shoulder width to available to bicycle traffic,but may not meet ' accommodate this use and presents all AASHTO code requirements for bicycle inherent safety concerns. The existing paths. The path should be constructed with non-motorized use also increases an 8-foot top width and surfaced with a ' congestion on a major collector roadway minimum of 3-inches of crushed gravel road with high traffic volumes and travel base. Miscellaneous drainage improvements speeds. will be necessary. It is assumed that the pedestrian path would be constructed within Recommendation: It is recommended existing County right-of-way. ' that a pedestrian path be constructed adjacent to the existing road. The path Estimated Cost: $130,000 would be available to bicycle traffic,but ' may not meet all AASHTO code The estimated costs for the pedestrian and requirements for bicycle paths. The path bicycle trail projects listed above include an should be constructed with an 8-foot top average trail width of 8 feet and a 3-inch ' width and surfaced with a minimum of crushed gravel road base. The 3-inch gravel 3-inches of crushed gravel road base. road base does not meet current ADA Miscellaneous drainage improvements requirements for pedestrian and bike trails. will be necessary. It is assumed that the ADA requires all non motorized trails to pedestrian path would be constructed include a non slip hard surfacing. This within existing County right-of-way. surfacing may include concrete,pavement, compacted cold millings,or double shot. To Estimated Cost: $150,000 accommodate ADA requirements for the recommended trail projects,the estimated ' 3. Jackson Creek Road (Colonial cost would be approximately 2.5 times higher Drive to Study Area Boundary) than the costs shown above. As these trail Problem: Pedestrian and bicycle traffic projects are implemented,each one should be currently share the existing road with evaluated to determine whether meeting ADA motorized traffic. The road does not requirements is warranted and the increase in have adequate shoulder width to cost can be justified. ' accommodate this use and presents inherent safety concerns. The existing During the implementation of future non-motorized use also increases pedestrian/bicycle trail projects,continuity t congestion on a major collector roadway with trail systems in adjacent areas should be with high traffic volumes. The areas considered. In particular,the proposed trail served by Jackson Creek Road are prime system adjacent to Colonial Drive and Jackson ' for residential development and will Creek Road should be constructed to tie into undoubtedly see significant increases in the pedestrian facilities proposed under the daily traffic volumes throughout the next South Helena interchange and Montana City decade and beyond. roundabout projects. 4 NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY ' Page 48 Section 7 7. Financial Analysis 7.2. Federal Funding Sources ' 7.1. Background The funding sources discussed in this section reflect monies allocated to the State under the ' The intent of this chapter is to identify Transportation Equity Act for the 21st potential funding sources that can be Century (TEA-21). The TEA-21 funding tapped to finance the transportation authorization has since expired and the Safe, ' system improvements identified in Accountable,Flexible,Transportation Equity previous chapters of this study. Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) Historically,road improvements in the funding authorization was signed into law on ' study area have been financed out of August 10,2005. SAFETEA-LU differs from the County's general road fund. The TEA-21 in several areas,many of which are ' majority of the federal and state still being evaluated by MDT at this juncture; funding programs are intended for however,the funding mechanisms presented improvements to the interstate and in this section are included in the new state highway systems;thus,most transportation bill. roads evaluated by this study are not eligible. Bearing this in mind,there are CTEP - Community Transportation ' still a variety of funding mechanisms Enhancement Program available to the County that can be Federal funds available under this unique applied to transportation improvement Montana program are used to finance projects outside of those on state transportation projects that enhance the maintained roads. present surface transportation system in accordance with the Federal requirement With the exception of the local funding that 10%D of the STP funds each state receives alternatives,the information relating to must be spent on projects in the following federal and state funding programs was categories: ' assembled with the aid of the ■ Pedestrian and Bicycle facilities Statewide and Urban Planning Section ■ Acquisition of scenic easements and of the Montana Department of historic or scenic sites Transportation. The Statewide and Urban Planning Section maintains a Scenic or historic highway programs comprehensive list of funding sources, Landscaping and other scenic ' associated eligibility criteria,required beautification matching funds,and the agency(s) Rehabilitation and operation of responsible for overseeing historic transportation buildings, administration of the funds. The structures or facilities (including funding mechanisms discussed in the railroads) following sections outline common Historic preservation funding sources applicable to N Archaeological planning and transportation improvement projects research in rural areas. ' M Mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Pag6 49 Section 7 • Preservation of abandoned sites through the analysis of law enforcement ' railway corridors(including accident reports. Sites with a cluster of the conversion and use for accidents over time are field reviewed and an pedestrian or bicycle trails) appropriate type of corrective action is ' • Control and removal of outdoor determined.The cost of the proposed Hazard advertising Elimination project is compared to the • Safety education activities for potential benefit of the action. Once the ' pedestrians and bicyclists a benefit/cost ratio is calculated for all high Establishment of hazard sites statewide,the projects are transportation museums prioritized from highest to lowest and the ' projects are funded in this order until the • Projects that reduce vehicle- yearly funds are exhausted. caused wildlife mortality 1 7 The Federal share for CTEP .3. State Funding Sources projects/activities is 86.58%with a The State offers two funding programs that required local match of 13.42%. Eligible may provide alternative financing for some local and tribal governments select the projects recommended by this study. The projects. Jefferson County is allocated details of each program are discussed below. ' about$47,000 annually(total dollars, federal plus local match based on FFY SFC - State Funded Construction 2004 allocation). The Pavement Preservation Program funds ' construction projects with State funds. STPHS - Surface Transportation Projects not eligible for Federal funding Program - Hazard Elimination participation are funded with these funds. The purpose of the Federal Hazard The program funds projects on the Primary Elimination Program is to identify and Secondary Highway Systems to preserve hazardous locations throughout the the condition and extend the service life of the states highway system,assign pavement.The type of work consists entirely benefit/cost ratio priorities for the of overlays and/or seal and covers. Eligibility correction of these hazards,and requirements are that the highway be implement a schedule of projects for maintained by the State.The Transportation their improvements.Hazard Elimination Commission establishes the priorities for the projects are funded with 90% Federal program.This program is totally State funded, funds and 10% State funds. requiring no match. MDT staff nominates the projects based on pavement preservation Projects eligible for funding under the needs. ' Hazard Elimination Program include any safety improvement project on any State Fuel Tax - City and County public road;any public surface Montana assesses a tax of$.27 per gallon on transportation facility or any publicly gasoline and diesel fuel used for owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or transportation purposes. Each incorporated trail;or any traffic calming measure. city and town receives a portion of the total MDTs Traffic&c Safety Bureau selects the projects by identifying high hazard NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY ' TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page go t Section 7 tax funds allocated to cities and towns streets on the Primary,Secondary,or Urban tbased on: Systems. 1. The ratio of the population priorities for the use of these funds are ' within each city and town to the total population in all cities and established by the cities and counties towns in the State. receiving them. ' 2. The ratio of the street mileage For State Fiscal Year 2005,Jefferson County within each city and town to the received$93,000 in state fuel tax funds.The total street mileage in all amount varies annually,but the current level ' incorporated cities and towns in provides a reasonable base for projection the State.The street mileage is throughout the planning period. exclusive of the Federal-Aid ' Interstate and Primary Systems. 7.4. Local Funding Sources Each County receives a percentage of the Counties have numerous alternatives available ' total tax funds allocated to counties to generate funds for road improvement based on: projects. The various financing options and ' 1. The ratio of the rural population their intended uses are discussed in the of each County to the total rural following sections. population in the state,excluding the population of all incorporated Road Fund cities or towns within the The Road Fund is intended for the County and state. construction and maintenance of all County- ' maintained roads. The road fund is typically 2. The ratio of the rural road financed through allocations from other mileage in each County to the County funds,such as a local vehicle option total rural road mileage in the tax and state gas tax revenues. The road fund ' state,less the certified mileage of is also supported by a mill levy assessed on all cities or towns within the property tax statements. The road fund is County and state. currently limited to a maximum of 14.5 mills. ' 3. The ratio of the land area in each Currently,Jefferson County receives County to the total land area of approximately$93,000 per year from the state ' the state. gas tax apportionment. All fuel tax funds allocated to the city Due to fiscal constraints,the road fund is and County governments must be used typically used for maintenance activities with for the construction,reconstruction, very little emphasis placed on new road maintenance, and repair of rural roads or improvement projects. As the roads within city streets and alleys.The funds may the study area are but a fraction of the overall also be used for the share that the city or quantity of County maintained roads,local county might otherwise expend for road improvement projects are forced to 1 proportionate matching of Federal funds compete for funding with projects in other allocated for the construction of roads or areas of the County. It is unlikely that the NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY ' TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 51 Section 7 road fund could bear the cost of a large typically constructed by private contractors. road improvement project without Revenues for RID's are generated through the supplemental financing. sale of bonds or warrants,the costs of which are repaid through assessments placed on the ' Bridge Fund property tax statements of land owners in the The Bridge Fund allocates money for the district. Transportation projects eligible for design,construction and maintenance of construction through the RID process include ' all structures located on off-system road improvement,sidewalk and roads. Off-system roads are typically pedestrian/bicycle path construction, defined as those not on the interstate or installation of curb&c gutter,drainage ' state highway system. As with the road improvements,etc. fund,the bridge fund is typically financed through transfers from other Rural Maintenance Districts are typically ' County funds as well as through mills formed in conjunction with an RID as a means levied against property tax statements. of generating on-going revenue for the County bridge mills are incidental to the maintenance of the improvement project. ' overall 80-mill ceiling and are adjusted Transportation-related RMD's are commonly on an annual basis.Currently,the used to finance the regular grading,plowing County is assessing a 3.5-mill levy. and gravelling of roads not maintained by the County. Special Revenue Funds Special revenue funds are utilized to Special Bond Funds allocate monies that are legally restricted Special bond funds may be used to finance to distinct applications. A variety of large,capital-intensive projects that are not common transportation-related funds eligible for other funding. The special bond are discussed in the following sections. must be authorized by the voters prior to issuance. The bonds may be repaid through a Capital Improvement Fund. Capital variety of mechanisms, the most common ' improvement funds are a common being an assessment on property tax mechanism for funding major road statements. improvement projects. However,they can be used to fund a variety of County 7.5. Private Funding Sources infrastructure projects. These accounts are typically financed through loans from Private financing of road improvement ' other County funds and must be paid off projects has become an increasingly common within ten years. funding mechanism in recent years. Commercial and residential developers realize ' Rural Improvement District that infrastructure improvements which (RID)/Rural Maintenance District improve access to their investment are often (RMD). Rural Improvement Districts profitable measures. Several private funding are commonly implemented to finance alternatives applicable to the study area are infrastructure improvements that benefit discussed below. the residents of a specific area. RID's are administered by the County and are ' _", ' NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNT/ TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 52 Section 7 ' Developer Financing the levying of fees against developers. They ' Developer(development)financing often allow the growth generated by new involves the donation of land for current development to finance itself rather than or future transportation improvements. placing the burden for road improvements ' The cost of the intended improvements upon the general public. would be the responsibility of the local government. The implementation of an exaction or impact ' fee program must be thoroughly researched in Cost Share order to establish an equitable fee structure Cost share involves the participation of that is fair assessed. For instance,average ' the private sector in the construction daily traffic generated by the new and maintenance of infrastructure development could be used in evaluating the improvement projects. The projects are impact a new subdivision would have upon typically initiated through the the transportation system. construction of a new commercial or residential development. 7.6. Implementation Strategies tPrivate Donation Securing the necessary funding to finance Private donations are typically used to large transportation infrastructure projects is ' off-set potentially negative impacts a problem common to many counties resulting from the development of throughout Montana. The road inventory commercial or residential property. conducted incidental to this study suggests ' Donations are often in the form of cash that the roads throughout the study area are or property,similar to development in need of maintenance and,in some financing. instances,substantial improvements. The ' County road department,at current funding General Obligation Bonds levels,is unable to keep pace with increased General obligation(G.O.)bonds may be demands for maintenance and improvement ' sold in order to fund major projects. In order maximize the number of transportation infrastructure recommended projects constructed during the improvement projects. G.O.bonds are planning period,the County will need to ' intended for a specific purpose and evaluate alternative funding mechanisms and require voter approval prior to issuing. maximize revenues generated from road mills, This financing mechanism is intended to motor vehicle taxes,and the state gas tax ' generate revenue for initial construction, apportionment. with public debt being relieved once the bond is retired. The acquisition and preservation of roadway ' corridors and rights-of way often present a Development Exactions and Impact great deal of difficulty in planning and Fees implementing transportation infrastructure ' Exactions and impact fees are an improvement projects. Given the rural nature increasingly common means of of the region and the geographic barriers generating funds for transportation present throughout the study area,it is ' infrastructure improvements through unlikely that either of these issues will ' NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Pa&5$ 1 Section 7 become an obstacle in the future. ' Colonial Drive provides an adequate The County currently receives $47,000 north-south collector system that is annually from the Community Transportation capable of accommodating additional Enhancement Program(CTEP)administered ' traffic generated by commuters to and by MDT. The CTEP funds are an excellent from the Montana City and Clancy areas. source of revenue for non-motorized vehicle South Hills Road is capable of improvement projects and could be leveraged ' functioning as the east-west collector against other public and private funding when one considers that traffic will sources to maximize their value. However, largely consist of local residents. Future CTEP financed projects must meet ADA construction in the area will likely be requirements,which can dramatically limited to local roads where rights-of- increase construction costs. way can be set aside during the ' subdivision review process. Developer financing and cost sharing should be evaluated when reviewing applications for The County should give strong new subdivisions within the study area. The ' consideration to the various alternative County and developer will both benefit from funding sources outlined earlier in this improved safety and access to the proposed section. In particular,the subdivisions. It is also reasonable to expect implementation of rural improvement the developer to participate in road ' districts (RID) and rural maintenance improvement projects resulting from the districts (RMD)should be seriously proposed subdivision. t evaluated. RID's are a commonly accepted means of generating revenue It is suggested that the County review the necessary to undertake transportation recommendations set forth by this study on a infrastructure improvement projects regular basis to evaluate and reprioritize the that are too costly to finance through the projects. Periodic adjustments are often county road fund. Improvements necessary to reflect fluctuations in county financed through RID's typically serve a finances,changes in land use,and impacts local road system with a small from transportation infrastructure percentage of traffic generated outside of improvements in adjacent areas. ' the district boundaries. With the exception of Colonial Drive,local Funding Strateev residents generate the majority of the The development of a Capital Improvement traffic on the roads within the study Plan(CIP)for transportation infrastructure area.This would be an excellent improvements is highly suggested. CIP's mechanism for funding nearly all of the identify the County's immediate needs and improvements recommended for South analyze the available funding sources for each Hills Road and Holmes Gulch Road. project. Immediate needs can range from road RMD's are typically implemented in improvements and equipment acquisition to t conjunction with an RID as a means of building remodels,depending upon the scope generating on-going revenue necessary of the CIP. The CIP serves as link between to properly maintain the infrastructure the County's finances and investment needs, created under the RID. NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Pap 54 Section 7 1 and is an important instrument for 2. South Hills Road(North Quarry 1 future planning. Road to Holmes Gulch Road) Reconstruct and improve this gravel section Private funding sources are a viable of South Hills Road to meet County Road 1 source of financing for many of the Standards. recommended improvements outlined in Section 6 of this study. The County 3. Holmes Gulch Road(Colonial Drive 1 should evaluate each project and identify to North Quarry Road) potential beneficiaries within the private Reconstruct and pave this section of roadway sector. Beneficiaries may include to meet County Road Standards. 1 developers and land owners adjacent to the projects as well as commercial 4. South Hills Road(Holmes Gulch interests such as the Ashgrove Cement Road to End of Gravel) 1 quarry in the southeast corner of the Reconstruct and improve this gravel section study area. of South Hills Road to meet County Road Standards. 1 The County should investigate potential sources of matching funds as well. The 5. South Hills Road(Beginning of availability of matching funds for a Pavement to Lewis and Clark County line) 1 specific infrastructure improvement Widen roadway to meet County Road project may lead to a higher or lower Standards and improve condition of prioritization during the next review pavement. 1 period. Obviously,projects with available matching funds would be given 6. Holmes Gulch Road (North Quarry stronger consideration during future Road to South Hills Road) 1 planning discussions. Reconstruct and improve this gravel section of roadway to meet County Road Standards. The County must clearly identify the 1 highest priority transportation A summary of the recommended improvement infrastructure improvement projects and projects as well as potential funding sources is develop a funding plan to address their provided in Table 7-1. 1 implementation. At present,the following projects should receive the highest priority: 1 Recommended Improvements Projects 1 (Shown in order of priority) 1. South Hills Road (Colonial drive to North Quarry Road) Reconstruct and pave this section of roadway to meet County Road 1 Standards. NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 55 1 Section 7 ' Table 7-1-Proposed Improvements Cost Estimate Proposed Projects Estimated Cost state Low] Prate ' South Hills Road(Colonial Drive to $190,000 ✓ ✓ ✓ North Quarry Road) South Hills Road(North Quarry Road $55,000 ✓ ✓ ✓ to Holmes Gulch Road) Holmes Gulch Road(Colonial Drive —j E160,OOD ✓ ✓ ✓ to North Quarry Road) ... ....... ' South Hills Road(lolmes Gulch $125000 ✓ - ✓ ✓ Road to End of Gravel) --.. .,_..... .....__... ............... South Hills Road(Beglnning of i $310,000 ✓ ✓ ✓ Pavemerrtte L&C County Une) ............... .._........_.... ... ___ Holmes Gulch Road(North Quarry $55,000 ✓ ✓ ✓ Road to South Hills Road) t 1 ' NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY �Y fi TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY Page 56 r r r r Appendix A r r 1 r r r r r r r r r r r1 r _ ' JEFFERSON COUNTY ROAD STANDARDS (ADOPTED) ' August 9,2005 Section I tWHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County are charged with the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the people of Jefferson County; and WHEREAS, growth and development within Jefferson County results in new roadways, approaches and bridges being built to provide access to subdivision and lots for residential and ' commercial use; and WHEREAS,these roadways, approaches, and bridges will be privately built and maintained for ' the public use,they must be constructed adequately for several types of transportation and safe for all users; and ' WHEREAS a standard is also needed to which existing roads should be upgraded as time and resources permit; ' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County hereby adopts the following Street and Road design Standards: ' STREETS AND ROADS Road design standards can be complex. Developers and the public are encouraged to contact the ' Jefferson County Road Department for additional information or clarification. A. Designs I. The arrangement, type, extent, width, grade and location of all streets shall be considered in their relation to existing and planned streets, to topographical ' conditions and to public convenience and safety, and in their relation to the proposed uses of the land to be served by them. ' 2. Any and all public access road construction or reconstruction, in Jefferson County must be designed in accordance with the Jefferson County Road Standards and stamped by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Montana. ' The public access road design plans are to be submitted to the County for approval after the Preliminary Plat application has been approved by the County ' and prior to any construction activities for the proposed project. At a minimum, ' JEFFCOROADSTDS 07-25-051.DOC -1- the plans shall contain the following information: , All road construction or reconstruction work must be certified by a licensed engineer as having been completed according to the Jefferson County Road , Standards. Plan View: Topographic information, right-of-way(R.O.W.) lines,horizontal ' alignment of roadway in relation to R.O.W.,horizontal curve information (radius, length, Dc, PC, PT, PI, etc.), angle and point of intersection of connecting streets or roads, underground and overhead utilities, and stormwater drainage/detention ' facilities. Profile View: Finished grade lines (centerline and one or both flow lines), ' vertical curve information (VPC, VPI, VPT, k value, curve length, etc.), location of underground utilities, and proposed culverts/ drainage structures. Typical Section: R.O.W. width, street width, base course type and thickness, ' surface course type and thickness, subgrade compaction density, super elevation or crown slope, cut/fill slopes, borrow ditches,number of driving lanes, driving ' lane width and shoulder width. 3. Roads in low-density areas will meet the design specifications in Table 1. 4. Streets and roads in high density and commercial areas shall meet the design specifications in Table 3. ' 5. All streets or roads within a new development shall be dedicated to the public and owned and maintained by an approved property owners' association or individual ' property owners utilizing the roadways. 6. Any public access roads within a high density development or a development area with a minimum projected average daily traffic (ADT) of 400 or greater must be hard surfaced with an approved material such as double chip seal, minimum 10" of compacted cold asphalt millings with a chip seal, or a minimum 3" of hot ' asphalt paving. All public access roads shall be built with the minimum standard road base course material per these Road Standards. ' 7. Any development that proposes further development to an adjacent property or to an existing development that will access or utilize public access roads within the existing evelopment will be required to meet the standard A6 above for all roads g 9 ' in the existing subdivision that have a resulting ADT of 400 or greater. All public access roads shall be built with the minimum standard road base course material ' per these Road Standards. JEFFCOROADSTDS 07-25-051.DOC -2- ' ' 8. All roads for schools, churches, or other public facilities must be hard surfaced with a County approved material such as double chip seal, 10 inches of compacted ' cold asphalt millings with chip seal, or minimum 3" of hot asphalt paving, and be built with the minimum standard road base course material per these Road Standards. t9. All public access roads in or to any development for commercial or industrial use must be paved with a minimum of 3" compacted lift of hot asphalt paving with ' the minimum standard road base course material per these County Standards. 10. Residential driveways shall not have direct access to primary highways. For ' extreme circumstances, the Montana Department of Highways may issue a road approach permit. 11. Local streets shall be designed so as to discourage through traffic. 12. Specific requirements for depth of road base, aggregate materials, compaction, and type and depth of surface materials shall be as follows: a. Grading: All roads, streets and alleys shall be excavated or filled to within ' one tenth (0.1) of a foot of the grade established by an approved design plan. ' b. Sub-grades: Roadway sub-grades must be free of topsoil, sod, vegetation, organic matter, or other unsuitable soil foundation material which is not able to be adequately compacted. Sub-grades must be properly bladed, ' shaped,and rolled to the minimum specified compaction and subject to approval by the Jefferson County Authorized Representative. ' C. Base Course: Base course material placed immediately below a crushed top surfacing or asphalt paving shall meet the requirements of Section II of these Road Standards and the approved design. ' d. Surface Course: Aggregate surface course material shall consist of crushed gravel, stone, or other similar material consisting of hard, durable ' particles or fragments of stone, free of excess or flat, elongated, soft or disintegrated pieces, dirt or other deleterious matter. This is the surface course on gravel roads and streets. The material shall meet the ' requirements of Section II of these Road Standards and the approved design. ' e. Asphalt Paving: Asphalt shall consist of a bituminous hot plant mix JEFFCOROADSTDS 07-25-051.DOC -3- 1 asphalt concrete consisting of mineral aggregate and asphalt material ' mixed at a central hot plant. The mineral aggregate and asphalt material shall meet the requirements of the appropriate sections of the latest addition of the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications (MPWSS). t f Compaction efforts for subgrade and all aggregate base and surface courses on all public access road construction shall be a minimum of 93% ' of standard maximum density. Density testing shall be at the developer/contractor's expense and performed by an independent agency as approved by the Jefferson County's Authorized Representative. ' g. Road Surface: (1) For aggregate road surfacing,the entire roadway shall consist of a ' minimum 6" of 1/4"minus crushed aggregate surface course material meeting the requirements of Section 11 of these Road Standards. The surfacing will be shaped,watered, and rolled to ' obtain the minimum specified compaction. (2) Chip-seal road surfacing shall meet the requirements of Section Ill ' of these Road Standards placed over a minimum of 6" of minus crushed aggregate base course material properly bladed, shaped, watered, and rolled to the minimum specified compaction. Use of , 1"minus or 1-1/2"minus crushed aggregate base course material may be used in an approved design. (3) Asphalt surfacing shall consist of a minimum of 3" of compacted ' bituminous hot mix over a minimum 6" of an approved crushed aggregate base coarse material properly bladed, shaped, watered, , and rolled to the minimum specified compaction. Use of I"minus or 1-1/2"minus crushed aggregate base course material may be used in an approved design ' (4) Road shape will consist of a crown in the middle of the road with not less than 3% cross slope. See Figure 1 and 2. ' (5) Ditch in-slopes shall be between 3:1 and 6:1 with a maximum back-slope of 2:1. The ditch shall be a minimum of 1 foot in depth ' from the edge of subgrade elevation. See Figure 1 and 2 13. All new public access roads, including subdivisions,will be inspected for , compliance with the approved design and these Road Standards by the Jefferson County Authorized Representative. JEFFCOROADSTDS 07-25-051.DOC -4- ' 14. Whenever a subdivision abuts or contains an existing or proposed arterial roadway ' or major thoroughfare, the County Commission may require frontage roads. 15. Dead-end streets are discouraged. Where a future street extension is proposed, a ' cul-de-sac will be provided. Streets ending in cul-de-sacs will be no longer than 1,500 feet. ' 16. Half streets are prohibited except when essential to the development and where the County Commission is assured that it will be possible to require the dedication of the other half of the street when the adjoining property is subdivided. ' Whenever an existing half street is adjacent to a tract to be subdivided, the other half of the street shall be platted within such a tract. ' 17. Horizontal alignment of streets must ensure adequate sight distances. When street centerlines deflect more than five degrees, connection must be made by horizontal curves 18. Intersections. The following items apply to intersections: ' a. Streets must intersect at 90-degree angles, except when topography precludes, and in no case will the angle of intersection be less than 60 degrees to the centerline of roadway being intersected. ' b. Two streets meeting a third street from opposite sides must meet at the same point. ' C. No more than two streets may intersect at one point. ' d. Intersections of local streets with major arterial or highways must be kept to a minimum. e. Intersection design must provide acceptable visibility for traffic safety as dictated by the designed operating speeds on the individual roadways. f. When a new road intersects an existing principal arterial, minor arterial or local road at an inclining or declining angle greater than five percent, the new road approach will include a thirty-foot landing for sight distance and ' drainage. A culvert may be required. g. Hilltop intersections are prohibited, except where no alternatives exist. ' Intersections on local roads within 100 feet of a hilltop are prohibited. Intersections on arterial and collector roads within 200 feet of a hilltop are prohibited. h. Approach permits will be required for construction of approaches to 7EFFCOROADSTDS 07-25-051.DOC -5- I 1 county roads prior to any construction. 19. Names of new streets aligned with existing streets will be named the same as ' those of the existing streets. Proposed street names will not duplicate or cause confusion with existing street names, in conformance with the county addressing ' system. The lettering on street or road identification markers will not be less than 3 inches high and not less than one half inch in stroke. All street markers shall be at least 5 feet but no more than 7 feet above ground level so as to be visible to , emergency vehicles for a minimum distance of 100 feet. 20. Driveways to building sites must access ingress/egress roads at right angles and ' have a 12'minimum traffic lane with a 13' 6" height clearance. The ends of driveways exceeding 150'must have a turnaround area for emergency vehicles, which are designated as a cul-de-sac with minimum 50' driving surface radius. t The following are minimum design standards: TABLE 1. ROAD DESIGN STANDARDS FOR LOW DENSITY AREAS Low Density Areas: ' An area in which the density of development is not more than one dwelling unit per acre exclusive of public roadways, and which is located one mile or more from a third class city, two ' miles or more from a second class city, or three miles or more from a first class city. Principal Minor Local Minimum Design Standards Arterial Arterial Road 1. Minimum right-of-way width 60 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft. ' 2. Minimum roadway width 24-28 ft. 24-28 ft. 24-28 ft. 3. Minimum curb radius or edge of pavement at intersection 30 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 4. Maximum grades a. flat and rolling terrain 6% 8% 8% b. hilly terrain 8% 10% I0% ' 5. Minimum vertical curve 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. 6. Minimum stopping sight distance 300 ft. 200 ft. 200 ft. 7. Curvature ' a. at design speed of road 40 mph 35 mph 35 mph JEFFCOROADSTDS 07-25-051.DOC -6- ' - T b. maximum curve 12.50 230 230 ' c. minimum radius 460 ft. 249 ft. 249 ft. 8. Minimum intersection spacing 500 ft. 250 ft. 250 ft. ' 9. Minimum encroachment/approach spacing 100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft. 10. Cul-de-sacs a. maximum length 1500 ft. 1500 ft. 1500 ft, ' b. minimum outside right-of-way radius 60 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft. c. minimum outside ' roadway radius 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. 11. New bridges ' All new bridge design must meet American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO)* and be designed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of ' Montana. a. Curb to curb widths 36 ft. 26 ft. 24 ft. b. AASHTO design HS-20 HS-20 HS-20 c. Vertical clearance 14.5 ft. 14.5 ft. 14.5 ft. ' (1) When parking on a bridge is permitted, eight feet of width will be added on each side. ' (2) If guardrail installation is required or a shoulder is desired, add an additional two feet to each side of roadway. (3) Bridge and roadway widths shown are minimums. Depending on Average Daily Traffic (ADT) count, the width should be increased. (4) Flat and rolling terrain is land with a cross slope of less than 15%. (5) Hilly terrain is land with a cross slope of 15% or greater. (6) Horizontal curvature is based on a minimum super elevation of 0.08/ft. (7) Width of the roadway surface on the bridge should match the width of the roadway system it connects to. American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials may be used as a further ' JEFFCOROADSTDS 07-25-05 LDOC -7- authority. Right-of-way and road width requirements shall be specified by the County Commission at the time of Preliminary Plat approval based upon site conditions and project ' design within the design specifications ranges outlined in these regulations. The standards presented should be considered"minimum standards,"and may be increased if conditions warrant. ' TABLE 2. MINIMUM ROADWAY WIDTHS Roadway width according to Average Daily Traffic Count(ADT) and Topography ' ADT Count Flat Rolling Mountainous ' 0-400 24 ft. 24 ft. 24 ft. 400-700 24 ft. 24 ft. 24 ft. 700+ 28 ft. 28 ft. 28 ft. , For design speeds in ' excess of 40 mph Over 700 28 ft. 28 ft. 28 ft. Note: ADT counts are available from the Montana Department of Transportation, ' Preconstruction Section, for most major collectors. Right-of-way and road width requirements shall be specified by the County Commission at the , time of Preliminary Plat approval based upon site conditions and project design within the design specification ranges outlined in these regulations. The standards presented should be considered "minimum standards", and may be increased if conditions warrant. , TABLE 3 STREET DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HIGH DENSITY, MAJOR AND ' COMMERCIAL AREAS High Density Areas: ' An area in which the density of development is.greater than one dwelling unit per acre exclusive of public roadways, or which is located within one mile of a town or third class city, two miles of ' a second class city, or three miles of a first class city. Principal Minor Local , Minimum Desian Standards Arterial Arterial Road 1. Minimum right-of-way width 60 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft. ' 2. Minimum roadway width 24-28 ft. 24-28 ft. 24-28 ft ' 3. Minimum curb radius or edge JEFFCOROADSTDS 07-25-051.DOC -8- ' of pavement at intersection 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. ' 4. Maximum grades a. flat and rolling terrain 6% 8% 9% ' b. hilly terrain 8% 9% 9% 5. Minimum intersection spacing 500 ft. 250 ft. 150 ft. ' 6. Minimum stopping sight distance 375 ft. 200 ft. 150 ft. 7. Curvature a. at design speed of road 40 mph 35 mph 35 mph b. maximum curve 100 190 530 C. minimum radius 561 ft. 300 ft. 100 ft. 8. Minimum intersection spacing 500 ft. 250 ft. 150 ft. ' 9. Minimum encroachment/approach spacing 100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft. 10. Cul-de-sacs a. maximum length 1500 ft. b. minimum outside right-of-way radius 60 ft. C. minimum outside roadway radius 50 ft. ' 11. New bridges All new bridge design must meet AASHTO and be designed by a professional ' engineer licensed in the State of Montana. a. Curb to curb widths 36 ft. 26 ft. 24 ft. ' b. AASHTO design HS-20 HS-20 HS-20 C. Vertical clearance 14.5 ft. 14.5 ft 14.5 ft. ' (1) When parking on a bridge is permitted eight feet of width will be added on each side. ' (2) If guardrail installation is required or a shoulder is desired, add an additional two feel to each side of roadway. ' (3) Bridge and roadway widths shown are minimums. Depending on ADT count, the width could be increased. ' (4) Flat and rolling terrain is land with a cross slope of less than 15%. ' JEFFCOROADSTDS 07-25-051.DOC -9- t 1 (5) Hilly terrain is land with a cross slope of 15% or greater. (6) Horizontal curvature is based on a super elevation of 0.04/ft to , 0.08/ft per foot. (7) Width of the roadway surface on the bridge should match the width ' of the roadway system it connects to. Right-of-way and road width requirements shall be specified by the County Commission at the ' time of Preliminary Plat approval based upon site conditions and project design within the design specification ranges outlined in these regulations. The standards presented should be considered ' "minimum standards", and may be increased if conditions warrant. B. Definitions ' 1. Principal Arterial: a through road providing service to corridors with or travel densities greater than those served by minor arterial or local roads. ' 2. Minor Arterial: exhibiting lower travel distances and speeds than roads included on the arterial systems. Minor arterials are primarily for land use and are spaced ' at intervals consistent with population density to provide service to smaller county travel generators such as local roads. 3. Local Road: These are the remaining roads not classified under a higher system. ' The purpose of rural local roads is to provide land access and serve short distance travel. ' C. Improvements I. All roadway improvements including pavement, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and drainage features shall be constructed in accordance with the specifications in these Road Standards,using materials approved by the Jefferson County ' Authorized Representative. 2. Roadway subgrades shall be free of topsoil, sod,vegetation, organic matter, or ' other unsuitable soil foundation material, which cannot be adequately compacted. Subgrades must be properly bladed, shaped, and rolled to the minimum specified compaction and subject to approval by the Jefferson County Authorized ' Representative. 3. Where access to a development will be by an easement across privately owned ' property, the developer must provide evidence that the necessary easement has been acquired and that the easement encompasses the nature and intensity of the use which will result from development. ' 7EFFCOROADSTDS 07-25-051.DOC -10- , 1 4. Street or road signs and traffic control devices shall be placed at all intersections ' by the developer in accordance with the "Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways", available from the Montana Department of Transportation. ' D. Mail Delivery ' 1. The developer shall provide an off-road area for mail delivery within the development as approved by the Jefferson County Authorized Representative. 2. All mailboxes are to be set a minimum of 12 feet off the edge of the county road driving surface in a location approved by the Jefferson County Authorized Representative. E. Encroachment and Approaches ' L Any person who encroaches upon any county road right-of-way within Jefferson County must obtain a permit from the Jefferson County Road Department prior to any construction. t2. All approaches will enter the county road with a negative degree of slope not more than three percent(3%) for a minimum of 25 feet back from the edge of roadway of the county road. Variances to be approved by the County Commission on an individual basis,but can not exceed a positive slope of three percent (3%) for a minimum of 25 feet back from the edge of roadway of the county road. See ' attached Figure 1 and 2. 3. All approaches shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. 4. On paved roads the approaches should be paved for 15' from the shoulder of the road. S. Any encroachment upon state owned and maintained roads must be authorized by the Montana Department of Transportation. The developer must obtain an approach permit and comply with state standards prior to Final Plat approval. 6. Failure to obtain a permit prior to any construction will result in a two hundred dollar($200.00)late charge. F. Drainage Features 1. The drainage features required for any surface run-off or run-off affecting the development shall meet the minimum standards of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and all regulations adopted pursuant thereto, and are subject to the approval of the governing body. The intent of these regulations is to JEFFCOROADSTDS 07-25-05 LDOC -11- I assure that proper drainage facilities are provided for any runoff in addition to historic amounts, caused by the development of the property. ' 2. Public access roads shall be designed to ensure proper drainage. 3. Culverts shall be designed of an adequate size and spacing to pass the flow from a 25-year storm event. They shall be provided and installed by the developer where any proposed roadway intersects a drainage channel or feature. Minimum culvert , size shall be 15" in diameter for driveways and 24" in diameter for public access roads. Culverts shall extend a minimum of 1' beyond the toe of the roadway fill. The minimum fill cover over culverts shall be determined by the manufacturer's recommendations for HS-20 loading. 4 Bridges shall be designed of an adequate size and elevation to pass the flow from ' a 100-year storm event. They shall be provided and installed by the developer where any proposed roadway intersects a drainage channel or feature of sufficient size and flow to warrant the use of a bridge. Bridges shall meet the design , standards as specified in Tables 1 and 3 of these Road Standards and will not be narrower than the approaching roadways. 5. Drainage facilities shall be located in County road rights-of-way or in perpetual ' drainage easements of appropriate widths and are subject to approval by the Jefferson County Authorized Representative. ' 6. Drainage features shall not discharge into any sanitary sewer facility or any identified hazardous materials. ' 7. The grading and drainage features shall be designed in accordance with these Road Standards and applicable regulations, and stamped by a Professional ' Engineer registered in the State of Montana, except where a property is at the head of the drainage area and all natural historic drainage channels will be protected by perpetual easements as approved by the Jefferson County Authorized ' Representative. 8. Any and all maintenance,replacement, or repair of irrigation culverts and/or , drainage structures within County road rights-of-way will be the responsibility of the appropriate water users. Cattle Crossings and Gates ' 1. Cattle guards will be of new construction and designed for HS-20 loading. ' 2. Cattle guards will have a concrete footing of 10" width and 16" height. 3. Cattle guards will provide a minimum of twenty-four(24) feet of opening. ' 7EFFCOROADSTDS 07-25-051.DOC -12- ' 4. A wire or steel gate providing eighteen (18) feet of opening will be constructed adjacent to any and every cattle guard. 5. All encroachment or approach gates shall be located a minimum of 30 from the edge of the roadway and shall operate inward with a clear opening of 12 feet. ' H. Variances: 1. Hardship ' The County Commission may grant variance from the Jefferson County Road Standards when strict compliance would result in undue hardship and when it is ' not essential to the public welfare. Such variances shall not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of these regulations. An innovative alternative proposal, which does not circumvent the purpose of these regulations, may be ' reason for granting of a variance by the County Commission. The County Commission shall not approve variances unless it makes findings based upon the evidence in each specific case that: ' a. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare. b. Because of the particular physical surrounding, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved,and undue hardship to the owner would result if the strict letter of the regulations were enforced. ' C. The variance will not cause an increase in public costs. 2. Procedure The developer shall include with the submission of the Preliminary Plat a written statement describing the requested variance and the facts of hardship upon which ' the request is based. The County Commission shall consider each requested variance at the public meeting or hearing on the Preliminary Plat. ' 3. Conditions In granting variances,the Jefferson County Commission may impose such conditions as will in its'judgment substantially secure the objectives of these road standards. ' SECTION 11 tJEFFCOROADSTDS 07-25-051.DOC -13- Aggregates A. Aggregate for Road Mix Bituminous Base 1. Aggregates for road mix bituminous base construction shall be crushed ' stone, crushed slag, or crushed or natural gravel meeting the quality requirements of table 703-3 unless shown otherwise in the approved , specific project specifications. 2. The gradation shall be as described in the approved specific project ' specifications. When crushed gravel is used, not less than 50 percent by weight of the particles retained on the Number 4 sieve shall have at least one fractured face. , B. Aggregate for Base or Surface Courses Aggregate materials shall conform to the requirements shown below unless shown otherwise in the approved specific project specifications. 1. Pit-Run Aggregate. Pit-run aggregates shall consist of native materials of a size and grading that can be taken directly from the source and placed on the road without crushing or screening. No gradation, other than a ' maximum size, will be required. The maximum size shall be as shown in the approved specific project specifications. 2. Grid-Rolled Aggregate. Grid-rolled aggregate shall consist of native materials of a quality that can be taken directly from the source, without crushing or screening, and broken down on the road by grid rolling. No ' gradation other than a maximum size will be required. The maximum size shall be as shown in the approved specific project specifications. 3. Screened Aggregate. Material shall consist of gravel, talus, rock, sand, shale, or other suitable material, and be reasonably bard and durable and reasonably free of organic material, mica, clay lumps, or other deleterious ' materials. The gradation requirements shall be as shown on the approved specific project specifications. 4. Crushed Aggregate. Aggregate for crushed base or surface courses shall , be crushed stone, slag, or gravel meeting the requirements shown in table 703-3 unless shown otherwise in the approved specific project ' specifications. Unless shown otherwise in the approved specific project specifications, the ' crushed aggregate gradation shall meet the requirements of table 703-4. JEFFCOROADSTDS 07-25-051.DOC —14- t 1 Aggregate shall be well graded from coarse to fine within the gradation ' band. Table 703-3—Crushed aggregate quality requirements for base or surface courses. AASHTO Requirement Description Test Method Base Surfacing approved specific project specifications ' T 96 50 max. 50 max. Durability Index, Coarse and Fire T 210 35 min. 35 min. ' Liquid Limit T89 25 max. 25 max. ' Plasticity Index T 90 6 max. 2-9 max. Dust Ratio: % Passing No. 200 T 11 2/3 max. 2/3 max. % Passing No. 30 T27 ' Sand Equivalent (alternate Method T 176 35 mm. -- Number 2 When crushed gravel is used, at least 40 percent by weight of the particles retained on the Number 4 sieve shall be at least one fractured face. Naturally fractured faces may be included in the 50 percent requirement,provided the roughness and angularity produce ' strength characteristics equivalent to mechanically fractured faces. Table II-1 Sj2ecification for Crushed Surface Course Table of Gradations Percentage by weight passing square mesh sieve _ .. Sieve Size- - . Cratlel` 1 Inch Sieve 3/4 Inch Sieve 100% ' %Inch Sieve No. 4 Sieve 40-80% No. 10 Sieve 25-60% ' No. 200 Sieve 8-20% Table 11-2 ' S12ecification for Crushed Base Course Table of Gradations ' JEFFCOROADSTDS 07-25-051.DOC —15— Percentages 4 �- - °--57 .,_- r.-l'-EnjIl175= 2 Inch Sieve 1 '/2 Inch Sieve 100% 1 Inch Sieve -- 100% ' '/a Inch Sieve -- -- No. 4 Sieve 25-60% 40-70% 40-70% No. 10 Sieve -- 25-55% 25-55% No. 200 Sieve not more than 0-8% 2-10% 2-10% Table II-3 , SL3ecification for Select Sub-Base Material , Gradations Table of Percentages by Weight passing square mesh sieve v� -Ps �f'"A�fmus* 3" ia LL� } �•2�z' `r �" !s" ` 4Inch Sieve 100% 3 Inch Sieve -- 100% ' 2 '/�" Sieve -- 100% 2 Inch Sieve -- 100% I % Inch Sieve - -- -- -- 100% ' No. 4 Sieve 25-60% 25-60% 25-60% 25-60% 25-60% No. 200 Sieve not more than 2-12% 2-12% 2-12% 2-12% 2-12% t SECTION III Specifications for Chip Seal Surfacing and Cover A. Material Requirements: ' 1. The chip seal surfacing design shall be a double bituminous surface treatment , (double shot) consisting of a first application of 0.40 gallons per square yard of MC3000 or equal and 25 pounds of chips per square yard. The second application shall be .3 8 gallons per square yard of CRS2 or equal and 25 pounds of chips per , square yard. Any variation from this spec must be an engineered design. 2. The specification for chips material ' JEFFCOROADSTDS 07-25-051.DOC -16- , ' Table II-1 S ecification for Chi s Material Table of Gradations Percentage by weight passing square mesh sieve i _+eiad 0 1/2 Inch Sieve 100% 3/8 Inch Sieve 100% No. 4 Sieve 0-30% No. 8 Sieve 0-15% ' No. 200 Sieve 0-2% 2. The composite aggregate must not have adherent film or clay, vegetable matter, ' frozen lumps and other extraneous matters that prevents through coating with bituminous material. Bituminous material must remain adhered to the material upon contact with water. No combination of shale, clay, coal and soft particles ' can exceed 1.5 percent. 3. A wear factor not exceeding 30 percent at 500 revolutions. ' 4. A minimum of 70 percent by weight, of coarse aggregate for grade 4A must have at least one fractured face. 1 B. Construction Requirements: ' 1. Sampling,Testing and Acceptance. a. Furnish at least 2 aggregate sampling pans, each a minimum of 2 feet x 2 feet x 2 inches. Leg mount or support the pans to prevent disturbing the fresh asphalt when sampling. ' b. Take samples while spreading chips at locations randomly selected by the project manager. Place 2 sample pans on the roadway immediately ahead of the spreader between the spreader wheel paths. Stagger the pans 3 to 6 ' feet apart. Once the spreader passes, retrieve the sample pans and turn them over to the project manager for review. ' C. Replace or correct all asphalt removed or disturbed by the sampling and place cover aggregate over the sampling area at the specified rate. ' 2. Seasonal and Weather Limitations. a. Performance chip seal operations between June 1 and August 30. ' b. Do not perform chip seal work during the 48-hour period immediately 7EFFCOROADSTDS 07-25-051.DOC -17- 1 preceding a holiday or a holiday weekend. C. Do not perform chip seal work if local weather forecasts includes a 1 predicted temperature lower than 45°F (70 C) within 12 hours after the intended close of the work for the day. , d. Do not perform chip seal work if the local weather forecast includes a probability of precipitation greater than 45%within the intended schedule ' of operations for the day. Chip seal work may be suspended if impending adverse weather conditions occur in the vicinity of the work site. C. Do not apply chip seal to damp or wet road surfac es. f Immediately stop chip seal work if the wind velocity affects the ' distribution of chips and oil or if current weather conditions prevent providing the specified results. g. Stop chip seal work at least 1/2 hour before sunset. ' 3. Rolling Requirements. ' a. Begin rolling immediately behind the spreader. Provide the number of rollers needed to cover the full width of the aggregate spread in one pass. , b Make at least 4 complete passes with each roller. Do not allow the speed to exceed 7 mph on the initial coverage. Additional rolling may be , required. 4. Opening to Traffic. ' a. Open the roadway to traffic within one week after the chip seal work is completed. ' b. Broom within 48 hours of the completion of chip seal work. Broom in the early morning to minimize dust and reduce loosening or displacing of ' embedded aggregate. Provide water for dust control. Provide additional rolling if necessary. ' C. If the chip seal fails to cure properly, or inclement weather interrupts the 48-hour curing period, continue traffic control as appropriate. ' d. Correct surface irregularities affecting the ride quality at contractor's expense. ' JEFFCOROADSTDS 07-25-051.DOC -18- ' t 5. Traffic Control. ' a. Traffic control is the contractor's responsibility and must be in accordance with MUTCD standards. ' b. All Flaggers must have a current certification. 1 t ' JEFFCOROADSTDS 07-25-051.DOC -19- m c a� a a Q .1"� � � � � � � � r � � � i � � � � � � � 7 Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA ' Public Meeting Comment Form Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line 4 NAME, r (- -[ ---- - — —^ ------------------------------ ADDRESS:--Ji1M_�L-411�-----i� -1) -----------------j------ ' PHONE NUMBER:_= REPRESENTING-� 0 y /�_�Z --- V COMMENTS A 21 ' --- ------ - 11---- -� --u� --- 12L1 ---= 1 ----- -- '-L----- ���---1 --------- --- ----- - _-----9�LL- - --r-0-4-----a----sic -- 1 1lu ----- --ham W----r -r -- �n --= ----- 1 Use additional pages ifnecessary ' Please send, fax, or email comments to: Great West Engineering Jeremiah Theys ' PO Box 4817, 2030 7 7 h Ave, Helena, 114T59604 ph: (406) 449-8627, fax: (406)449-8637 jtheys9greatwesteng,com E Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study JEFFERSON COUKTY, MONTANA , Public Meeting Comment Form ' Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson �^ County Line NAME.__ 6��& _ _ _ _ _ I -- --------------- ------------------- ----- ------ PHONE NUMBER:_ _--------- REPRESENT/NG_� COMMENTS 2 - ��� ---- ---- ----- --- ---- 1 _ ----------------------- -------------------- --------------------------------------- Use additional pages if necessary Please send, fax, or email comments to.' Great West Engineering Jeremiah Theys PO Box 4877, 2030 11th Ave, Helena, MT 59604 ph: (406) 449-8627, fax: (406)449-8637 jtheys9greatwesteng.com ' �7 f ' Northern Jefferson County r-n4v+ iii Transportation ' Infrastructure Study ' JEFFERSON COUNTY. MONTANA ' Public Meeting Comment Form Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line i NAME:--- ---C?o`}cy�y�-v--- D�7/Q`:-r 6_-- ------- --------------- ADDRE5S.--- ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- PHONE NUMBER: -----—-------------- REPRESENTING ------------------- COMMENTS T Use additional pages if necessary ' Please send, fax, or email comments to: Great West Engineering Jeremiah Theys tPO Box 4877, 2030 7 P,Ave, Helena, MT 59604 ph. (406)449-8622 fax: (406)449-8637 jthey56Dgreatwesteng.com Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA ' Public Meeting Comment Form ' Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road Highway 282 (Frontage Road and the Jefferson County Line ----------------------- ----- ADDRE55:----...--..........—...----............—...--...—....—....... ---—-------—------------—--------------------------------------- PHONE NUMBER:___-------------------- REPRESENTING --------------------- COMMENTS -_�E-`°' rL!�_-1i� 2�-LZ '� '.L�.dL✓"�� �s�=�j�✓�'^-"^`-���--�T'-C-L T_" '"�- 7 � - - - �i------------------ -------------------------- ----------- -------------- - - ------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- Use additional pages if necessary Please send, fax, or email comments to: Great West Engineering Jeremiah Theys PO Box 4817, 2030 17th Ave, Helena, MT 59604 ' ph. (406) 449-5627, fax. (406)449-8631 jtheys(Pgreatwesteng.com ' i�� 3 • ; Northern Jefferson County Transportation i Infrastructure Study JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA Public Meeting Comment Form Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282.(Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line NAME._�`J _VV✓L +_ _ \,J Cl/V\ ` q � !�L _ - ----- --t----- �dil� �— -------------- --------------- -------------------------------------�—.{-�-------------- PHONE NUMBER:_= _—------— REPRESEAMNG_��-- G------—------- COMMENTS ' ----------- ----- -= ----- - t --------------------------------------------------------p------------------=------------- -- --- ------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- Use additional pages if necessary ' Please send, fax, or email comments to: Great West Engineering Jeremiah Theys PO Box 4817, 2030 11th Ave, Helena, MT 59604 ph. (406) 449-8627,' fax: (406)449-8631 jtheys4greatwesteng.corn Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study )EEFERSON COUNTY. MONTANA Public Meeting Comment Form Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line NAME- �—� ------------------ F �__ ii — ' --------- -Rn f'u\ tea --- - ------------------------- PHONE NUMBER:__ �a=_(Q�` c 0 REPRESENTING---------- —__—____ COMMENTS -- �---- 'r--Y L�--- -- - - !-! loy-�-------- -- I �— ---SRS- - - ---- yl - - ----- �'-r�-,sa. �_---� _ ��� -��--- • . --� - --t��f-----amp_ �� - ----- -`��1•--- ------ - 1-- - �v�! --C)Y_1----------- _ ��G -Y CD- ----------------------------- Use additional pages if necessary Please send, fax, or email comments to: Great West Engineering Jeremiah Theys PO Box 4877, 2030 7 Ith Ave, Helena, MT 59604 ph: (406) 449-8627, f7x: (406)443-8631 jtheys47greatwesteng.com t i 1 Northern Jefferson County Transportation -" Infrastructure Study JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA. Public Meeting Comment Form Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson 1 County Line INAME.= - Jr -----------------------------------—...... ADDRE55.�----� -�-------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- PHONENUMBER:__`t f —_---------- REPRESENT/NG__--__--____—_ —_ COMMENTS `D------------- ---------= C _-�' '--=�' - ?- ------------------ ------ ------ -- "- --4i - - - !!S-- f =------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ ----------------------------- -------------------- -------- -------------------------------------------------------- ----------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Use additional pages if necessary Please send, fax, or email comments to: Great West Engineering Jeremiah Theys PO Box 4817, 2030 77117 Ave, Helena, MT 59604 ph. (406) 449-8627, fax: (406)449-8631 jtheys9greatwe5teng.com Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA Public Meeting Comment Form , Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson / County Line NAME--------- C�2(i J S)1121 L, - ADDRESS:------- ��I//� __ � C {Z2 --} Y---yT-------------- PHONE NUMBER:----q-Z----IE�LjC _ REPRESENT/NG_ _-_-- _Pow n c:��,�L_ 1 COMMENTS -----ate ------ ----`� ---41-0- ---- -- _ _ _ - i V(L � ---- J _ ------- _-- ---1_5----I ti a - G r2_ �------------------------------------------------------- ----- - ------ ------ ---- ---------------- �--------- - - --------ee-r--_---- M____G� --- U --�`-- --------, -�-1-C UiYc�g�-}-----��--- cvr -C_---� t---S---- �C orC l �o - _- - - - -- -------------------------- ------ ---��------��----- ^ =---------------------------------------------- Use)additional pages if necessary t S 4cc, ( in .� F�oM� —� l�f `� — NHS IJ Please send, fax, or email comments to: Great West Engineering vnk-f�4( c)r` c' �— Jeremiah Theys f� PO Box 4817, 2030 71 m Ave, Helena, MT 59604 C��r\- 1 `-,j o, ph: (406) 449-8627, fax: (406)449-8637 - �v c) ( D N jthey560greatwesteng.com 1 Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study JEFFERSON COUN'.TY,. MONTANA Public Meeting Comment Form Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line ---------- ADDRE55:---L(-tL),�i - ' ------------- ------- ---------- ------------- --------- -- PHONENUMBER:___L-j-43-±E16-a-------- REPRESENT ING-- 'I LLL5LL'!2�L_� COMMENTS ----- L ��=---- � _JJt I i r y2 -- G-�-- ��_� k��2��---�✓ ��-Fi�J--�CC-�'-J'�5, __ �._�r1�G1_�c�� J__/�7lOFG'lt o"i Lti�'_ �LS"� .__/ J % -'J' ��-___jJL ,_ , L11.L+�.�__°-°�-_�,•_- -- '� � L ?L�i - , Use additional pages if necessary ' Y� f1 K, ; / 7 ease send, fax, or email comments to. Great West Engineering S _ic.:.at-✓ '-f:,. / - Jeremiah Theys I U{1�'ic,h'1.�v1 L �•�. � �( ,'L� Irc.'Ltee PO Box 4877, 2030 11th Ave, Helena, MT 59604 ph (406) 449-8627,- fax-- (406)449-8631 jtheysLPgreatwesteng.com Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study JEFKRSON COUNTY, MONTANA Public Meeting Comment Form � Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line NAME.----L `--M t �I-s {Z -- ------ ---- -------------------------- ADDRE55.-L --- ---!2 h, _�_ __ I - ti _Y----- t PHONE NUMBER.--�J_S EkY —------ REPRESENTING----------—_— COMMENTS _- - '-�' - ___+ rte C �� ----- , y - --�-L -- 111 ------ �---����---�-re � �----- ry - _S_- 115 -- - --------------- ---- �? -- -- -- - -- z'� - = --- ----- r ------------------------ 1 -------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Use additional pages ifnecessary Please send, fax, or email comments to: Great West Engineering , Jeremiah Theys PO Box 4877, 2030 7 Ph Ave, Helena, MT 59604 , ph: (406)449-8627, f7x: (406)449-8637 jthey5(0greatwe5teng.com 1 I , 7� Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA ' Public Meeting Comment Form Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line NAME._c - --------—------------------------- ADDRESS=1 - --- ��st--�'-<<S-- � --------------------------—------ ' ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PHONE NUMBER:__`_ LL2 Z2l __________ REPRESENT ING _—------------------- COMMENTS �;J�Cc-�_Gv��_C'�i`2�oi�Le_-�����_cc./,c��zf c?f"2 _�?c.�?��L�e_lls_✓�r�r�_Co�!_�jans LuZL2f 2---L e2-'f-�AL-=_ _,1�CL.I'1���!?C�lz�r' _ I/✓�_`��.c'__ 2�1L'�%C �� �?/_�1�� � t?y�--�-�-�S �-��-`�_ , _// c-lcl-L/_-/ �� "_L 1 G!_L-1 7 ------------ AtC } l Use additional pages ifnecessary rv / Please send, fax, or email comments to. Great West Engineering Jeremiah Theys 7t PO Box 4877, 2030 7 Ph Ave, Helena, MT 59604 ph: (406) 449-8627,' fax (406)449-8631 JtheY59greatwe5teng.corn Northern Jefferson County , 4� }` Transportation Infrastructure Study JEFFERSON COUNTY,. MONTANA ' Public Meeting Comment Form Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line ,moo �/tfiSoti/ NAME.----------- —_------ ADDRESt-�;Y_� ----------------------------------- -------- L.(,f}NL,lL I✓ —�tL ----------- -------- ----- PHONE NUMBER:-_-`f`�,2-4�-75 COMMENTS -------------------- :&I = ?----------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------' -------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ----_ Use additional pages if necessary Please send, fax, or email comments to: Great West Engineering Jeremiah Theys PO Box 4817, 2030 7 7th Ave, Helena, MT 59604 ph: (406) 449-8627, f7x: (406)443-8637 jthey5LOgreatwe5teng.com ;„ , Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study ' JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA i Public Meeting Comment Form J77udy Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line ' NAME.:_!_-_ ✓_ jl �i_ /✓! �e r �N"j Lc�G (. ADDRESS._ M_ _ L ---------- ---/--------------------------------- ' ----------- --- ----- -- ----- PHONE NUMBER:_,�Zl5==9 W9 7 REPRESENT ING------ `�1 COMMENTS ` -- - -- ---- ----- r=- �...a ------- ___ _ 't"�_ x___� !�- __1 5_ .r __ Y_-_ _ t` ----- ---------- �/? --- -------- X'-';:'/ /7 1_iN --- C _f✓ __1X1' 7 _C � ____ - _ l,� T_ / G�._fI/_✓�'___Y� \ 0.d - �di[ /� 1.=="�i.0-�__5 L4_✓_ �'�� _/�___L�L `� TC'�/� _ 9Y SSt�Y_e� r �� / - - -- --- -------------- ----- --------------------------------------------------------- ' Use additional pages if necessary tPlease send, fax, or email comments to: Great West Engineering Jeremiah Theys ' PO Box 4877, 2030 77th Ave, Helena, MT 59604 ph (406) 449-8627,fax: (406)449-8631 ' jtheys4a)greatwesteng.com £} Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study JEFFERSON COUNTY,. MONTANA , Public Meeting Comment Form t Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line NAME.-__kLC7-W LO/C � _- ADDRE55:_—_2-'-1- 0------------------------------------- —__M U N (!fd✓!f C�i---_--------------__�—___—___—_____ PHONE NUMBER: v�_ `1�7_�1 ----- REPRESENTINC-------—--------__---- COMMENTS -C-9 ---$-� 2 T--r-��1L Z_--- (!fit --- - --S 1� ------------- L /l 7:1......... ' -------------6 e/�u o GzlfeA=(=--- -�/--''j 't s-'---- !� f ------ ---------------------- � '-6----- v 7 _��1 L C _/�U //------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Use additional pages if necessary Please send, fax, or email comments to: Great West Engineering , Jeremiah Theys PO Box 4817, 2030 17th Ave, Helena, MT 59604 ph. (406) 449-8627, fax: (406)449-8631 jtheysCOgreatwesteng.com ' Northern Jefferson County Transportation 1 Infrastructure Study ' JEFFERSON COUN.TY,. MONTANA 1 Public Meeting Comment Form 1 Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line 1 N A M E.-!' ---z u i c ---- :---- /.l°t- --- `= - 7 _ —�C1 ------ - _------ ADDRESS 1 ----------------- - -------------------------------------- ----- -- ---- ----- ----------- PHONE NUMBER:-_--I-Y!2 -�L y 7 i�------_- REPRESENTING-- 1 COMMENTS r ----S0_ 71� _ .� S 4 o u P ---G -= --�� `-1 L----7' L •s .�r /' 1ta_. ----- ---� -- _ �__nt ----�`- ` =------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------ -------------------- 1 Use additional pages if necessary 1 Please send, fax, or email comments to: Great West Engineering Jeremiah Theys 1 PO Box 4877, 2030 7 M Ave, Helena, MT 59604 ph. (406) 449-8627, fax: (406)449-8631 ' jtheys(Ogreatwesteng.com • � Northern Jefferson County 14 i Transportation Infrastructure Study JEFFERSON COUNTY,. MONTANA , Public Meting Comment Form Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line NAME..---- �i��� N _ _ _ _ ADDRESS:- -------------- --�U� /7rY�wr� O�%�------- ----- ------ , ------------------- ------- - --�--- ----------------- PHONENUMBER.-___�/�_ Cp7s�� REPRESENTING-_5�f��_ ;l��pry r---gy�p—p - COMMENTS i r� /trams _e� , Ow-e 14v k, 1,e -;77L(-2 ---v ----Se-----------_--_-_-_----------------------------- - -- - - 7S f l C b 6r --/fit H i 1:� }___________ __ - -- 1 Use additional pages if necessary Please send, fax, or email comments to- Great West Engineering Jeremiah Theys PO Box 4877, 2030 77Th Ave, Helena, MT 59604 , ph: (406) 449-8627, fax: (406)449-8637 JtheysCOgreatwesteng.com 71 Northern Jefferson County t - ��T l � , Transportation `?1 Infrastructure Study JEFFERSON COUNTY. MONTANA ' Public Meeting Comment Form Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line ADDRE55.�----- ��_�=----LO ----- \T57-V ---- —------------ -- vv- PHONE NUMBER. —`_��l_1 _ l��h REPRESENTING_C? ^' S 3� k, Coca r �nI COMMMENTS Caw S�s�ar ��rp Gnaq�, cis I�U�1l lyr. a✓� C.—LA vA'. _--¢.n�ir�r r 4 5-- -- 1 C L _-`�- ��- - -- ` 1- �• rte" �------°----- IL1 -1_C----- ----------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------- ------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------f--------------------- Use additional pages if necessary ' Please send, fax, or email comments to: Great West Engineering Jeremiah Theys PO Box 4877, 2030 77 h Ave, Helena, MT 59604 ph. (406) 449-8627. f3x: (406)449-8631 ' jthey54vgreatwesteng,com Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study 1 JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA. 1 Public Meetinb Comment Form 1 Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line ------------ - - - — - ----- - -- - ----------- - PHONE NUMBER:_—_— _ REPRESENTING-- ---—--------- COMMENTS - - -- -------------------------------------- -------------- --- ----- - -- -- �an_�- a �? -'------ ----------------------------------------------------- 1 --------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ 1 --------------------------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------------------------- 1 Use additional pages if necessary Please send, fax, or email comments to: Great West Engineering 1 Jeremiah Theys PO Box 4877, 2030 7 7th Ave, Helena, MT 59604 , ph: (406) 449-8627, f7x: (406)449-8637 Jtheys(Pgreatwesteng.com ' Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA RECEIVE 1 OCT 2 4 2005 ' Public Meeting Comment Form I-aZ a t VV 8� ' Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line NAME--------------------------- ----—------------—----------—--------- ADDRESS.----------- - -- ---------------------- ' 1- r PHONE NUM8ER.•_W_Y�Z- l`__° ______ REPRESENTING--__— Se l L -------- COMMENTS ______ ,i'J?-� / r _J /r/ 1 G!t .. --------------- _ r I _ ____-L �_ ___ ! r__ r_!_�___- _t r 1 __r__" ! f t I � � ( /✓ I ✓! 'C_. / �. '. 9at ___� v t- �,r'i!- _�f ----- Y - - -- -- ---- ----- -------------- /1 ell w rr ---------- ------ i ' Use additional pages if necessary ' Please send, fax, or email comments to: Great West Engineering Jeremiah Theys ' PO Box 481,', 2030 170,Ave, Helena, MT 59604 ph. (406) 449-8627, fax: (406,)449-8631 ' jtheys(Ogreatwesteng.com I £� Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study JEFFERSON COUNTY,. MONTANA R E C E I VEI OCT 2 5 2005 , Public Meeting Comment Form G re a t We 8 j Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line ----- -------------------------- ------ ------------r+--------------- PHONE NUM8ER.-4 4-Z-_--ZL&-qS--------- REPRE5ENT1NC S COMMENTS r1C1 --` 1L'_6-? k � e s =--4-- - -- -- �li_� __ Li 1��` �LIZ_1z ZIP • ----------------- - ---------------------- ------ --------------;--- '--c3-1 L -k n 1 -4'2c-Lr1�--C2rz.v!0- L a eL t-e 51 _-r'n cr?_1 r11C-�'-C'C--�--- n Use additional pages if necessary ` f _ r59604 Please send, fax, or email comments to: Great West Engineering %Jeremiah They5 PO Box 4817, ?030 I I rh Ave, Helena, , ph: (4061' 449-8627,- fax (406)449-8631 jtheys9grea twe5teng.com 4 £� Northern Jefferson County 7 Transportation Infrastructure Study JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA.. RECEIVE OCT 2 5 2005 ' Public Meeting Comment Form reafes ' Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson iCounty Line NAME.----i' jP i �—/ �� i i d�L -- �y�--------------------------- ADDRES5: --- --- Lks4� — — ------------------------------ / L PHONE N (MBER: SL __q-�1_=�—`I`l.7_ REPRESENT/NG___L1� 1_� ______ f COMMENTS ``=yam -- OL ---� - - 7e --- e � + 2 -=------------- ---------------------------------------- ' __L1!��(� 3uLQ �-- /�6c�_c�tln_ Y J �t2-- L L� r` ----0d �c=��l!fY�2^ --L^z rL?�2 _ Z� --- 71 / ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------- Use additional pages if necessary Please send, fax, or email comments to.Lf gineering ys ' 2030 7 7th Ave, Helena, MT 59604 9-8627, fax: (406)449-8637 westeng.com Comments on Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study October 25, 2005 Name: Betsy Wahl , Address: 35 Hill Brothers Rd., Clancy, MT 59634 Phone Number: 443-7725 , Comments: Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the public comment period. ' I live off of Jackson Creek Road on the southern boundary of the study area. I understand that traffic counts have been conducted on Jackson Creek Road, near the , store, and on Hill Brothers Road. I also understand that the focus of this study is the South Hills and Holmes Gulch areas. I am requesting that the transportation study focus on the primary area, but also detail information from the traffic counts and projected growth on the southern boundary of the study area (Jackson Creek Road). In addition to traffic counts, it would be beneficial to collect data on average speeds on the roads in the study area. We are fortunate that the timing of the Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study coincides with the recent Greater Helena Area Transportation Plan ' — 2004 Update. This plan incorporates planning for a walkable and bikeable Helena, and ties into the study area on the southern end of Lewis & Clark County. I encourage you to include provisions for walking/biking paths in the study area. A small network of paths ' has recently been constructed in the Montana City area, and I encourage you to evaluate options on connecting these paths to the northern end of the county, and to proposed paths in southern Jefferson County. The northern end of Jefferson County continues to ' grow at an explosive rate, and the County needs to look at the cumulative impacts of this growth. The impacts can be mitigated by designing alternative transportation routes into the infrastructure now. I am proposing that impacts fees be collected to pay for right-of- ' way or easements, and design and development of walkingfbiking paths. I appreciate your attention to detail in this study, and would welcome the opportunity to , provide comments on the draft plan. Thank you for you consideration ' Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA RECEIVED OCT 2 6 2005 Public Meeting Comment Form GreatWeSt Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (f=rontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line 6(r)_ C(Qx�---------- - - --------------------------- ' PHONE NUMBER.--- =L7j-__LL .ice-------- REPRESENTING} i �� ���er_fCt�i He m-[ C 6w n a `at do Cfoss F r2 � 0 COMMENTS 1 toss ------- ---lik�la?'1h1 �( Cy w#y_ Y-0 as: ; _ l - �}� wL { f��J wufr �-- ---- --- ---------------- --- ------------------------------------------T-------------------- ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- -------- ------------------------ -- - ---------- ---------------------- Use additional pages ifnecessary ' Please send, fax, or email comments to. Great West Engineering Jeremiah Theys ' PO Box 4817, 2030 77th Ave, Helena, MT 59604 P17_ (406)449-8627, fax: (406)449-8637 ' Jtheys6v9reatwesteng.com / Northern Jefferson County 4 Transportation Infrastructure Study JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA RECEIVED, OCT 2 8 2005 Public Meeting Comment Form GreaffleSt j Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line C NAME._l �1G b — --------- ----------------- ---- }K C a—dADDRESS PHONE -------------------------------- NUMBER REPRESENT/NG------ _______—__—____ COMMENTS j _ 4-4 �� �` Cl �_ 1 C 7 —4-- ci_L Al Icy --------- -------------------------------------------- ' ---- — -- --- -------------- ------- ------------ ------------ _ 4� � ` ' --------------------- - ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------\------------ Use additional pages if necessary Please send, fax, or email comments to: Great West Engineering Jeremiah Theys PO Box 4877, 2030 7 7rh Ave, Helena, MT 59604 , ph: (406) 449-8627, fax: (406)449-8637 jthey54greatwe5teng.com , Northern Jefferson County Transportation --- InfrastructureStudIT ' RPEYCEIVEI ' JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA OCT 2 8 200w ' Public Meeting Comment Form re t'"A es, Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line NAME.------ n '�' - -- r+ ---�--- ---------------------------------- ADDRESS---- ( --C ---------- ----------------------- 1 --------------- �`- --EST___--=- --�'-3, ------------ ---------- PHONE NUMBER:— 5_-7_= 5�_ REPRESENTING_. L S f_L �J COMMENTS �,�L �Pic!__l-C LL'-e-_La- �'fv k1L� v1LLt=_i�YLt�__f1�1— r�1 ?1c� " ll i 1 r�n f' _ �------- // �JY ------ -- ------------------------------ ----------------------------- Use additional pages if necessary ! YY-'a'Z r u ' — L'2 t° 1 Please send, fax, of email comments to. Great West Engineering Jeremiah Theys CJ ' PO Box 4877, 2030 7lt^ Ave, Helena, MT 59604 ph. (406 449-8627, fax: (4 0 )4 49-863 1 C y jthey560greatwesteng com,�7 J .;���1 �C✓� e'IC�C 6'Yl I,X ' S Vje Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study � fEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA RECEIVED OCT 2 8 2005 Public Meeting Comment Forte re a t UVe s t Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line NAME----'L l< L�-- 2LL L i�� t' � �'�r /< ADDRE55._- G J r i 7 ') . IL ---—-----------— --- PHONE NUMBER__'_y'?— --- " ___ REPRESENT ING _ '7777 3_—___- --------- COMMENTS a Af __— —_ -------------------- / .`^('� "�:.� 0 -------- J — ----r_c_i_ ---------- ------ ---------- ---------------------- - - ---,-w ------- -- - ---- _ _ ___-----_—__ __ ___------! ____ __------__ ___ ------------------------------ s Use additional pages if necessary Please send, fax, or email comments to: Great West Engineering Jeremiah Theys PO Box 48]7, 2030 J T th Ave, Helena, MT 59604 , ph. (406)449-8627, fax: (406)449-8637 jtheys4Dgreatwesteng.com , • `� Northern Jefferson County Transportation - Infrastructure Study ' JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA Public Meeting Comment Form Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson ' County Line NAME.__�fP I-------------------—--------—---------------- ADDRE55:_1L -------------------------------------- ' 16',ex !T �y63y----------------------------- ----- PHONE N MBER:_Yy�_`[ 1Y_____________ REPRESENTING__S -------------- ' COMMENTS ti.�:�er__��_ - roc _tn�r�_fs� �� 9_ _ ' _!1 ht��r`--�S �tSt _c�_�--rrt( !__P(Fn_g''.� rCG�yri {__2�L_9,� [c+ i•f_ r1e/ _' -- -e��--f/�`--------- ' �L�, --- ' 'v �21C�-k=--�3- Ca ✓i L—A-en L �r .n Sgr/_v_:Si?__�rc_c�1+_�ir��l��c�s[1-5�.4_�Lf l��-'"_--�{-``-�-L('��_--- ' i 4I 5 o ed h"Ite �s�t�k74 ��n /l on f ��tF i n:<4 it av�fi Use additional pages if necessary ' Please;send, fax, or email comments to Great West Engineering Jeremiah Theys ' PO Box 4817, 2030 71 m Ave, Helena, MT 59604 ph- (406) 449-8627, fax. (406)449-8631 jtheysCPgreatwesteng.com Lr Northern Jefferson County Transportation ' Infrastructure Study JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA ' Survey Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line Please rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor., Excellent Good Poor Getting to and leaving the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: y-- 1- --- --- {� --=1--- -- -t�`---- Signing within the Study Area: 0 0 o List any specific concerns: ---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' Driving around in the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: _� e� Lsr _ ----_ -U Traffic Congestion in the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 0 List specific street and intersection problems: ' Road Conditions within the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 0 List any specififc,, concerns: _�_�__��f_��> � ���� -�-- S�F=_ham__ " None Minor r✓Major�y' " Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods: 0 0 0 0 >Z� ' List any specific sconcerns: -ne--a-a �rf _ 4 ^LLB_ d__�il` �v�_____ ----------- �, What "mprovements would you recommend within the Study Area: _________ Northern Jefferson County ' Transportation Infrastructure Study ' JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA ' Survey , Study Area Sounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line IFPlease rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor: Excellent Good Poor ' Getting to and leaving the Study Area: �o , 0 List any specific concerns: Signing within the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 List any specific conc s: --'------------- -------------------------- ---------- -=- - Driving around in the Study Area: � _ I o 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: _ 1 1 �___ I'�A_C!-L 4- ' - ------S� LS_Y� a --=------------------------------------------------ ' Traffic Congestion in the Study Area: o 0 0 List specific street and intersection problems: Road Cori itions within the Stu4 Area 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: 11� �Lti' �SL1L --------------- 1 None Minor Major Impacts on surrounding neighbor\hoods: 0 0 0 o Listspecific concerns: =---------------- What road improvements would d you recommend within the Study Area ____-_ __ ' �� —L �!_-�-Vim-' C-k �---a S--------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ z Northern Jefferson County 1 Transportation 1 Infrastructure Study 1 JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA Survey 1 Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line 1 Please rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor: 1 Excellent Good poor Getting to and leaving the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 -,< —� 1 List any specific concerns: >Y1C � -------------------------------------- ------------ ------- ------� o o---- --- -- - Signing within the Study Area: o 1 List any specific concerns: —*+?ALL-yL_____________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Driving around in the Study Area: c� 0 0 0 0 �6 ----P List any specific concerns: ---------------------- 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Traffic Congestion in the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 0 1 List specific street and intersection problems: � tY7<S1111_11I �CC 1__----- --------C Yle — r611C -! --- '-Z� -- --------------------------- 1 Road Conditions within the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 X List any specific concerns: LW________ 1 ------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- None Minor Ma'or Impacts on surrounding neighborhoo s: 0 0 0 0 1 List any specific concerns: S __________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 What roa morovements would ou recommend within the Study Area: ----- --- _ �► -- ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- 1 -------------------------- ----------------------- 1 r j Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study , JEFFERSON COUNTY,. MONTANA , Survey ' Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line P/ease rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor.- , Excellent Good Poor ' Getting to and leaving the Stud Area: o o Q 0 Li any specific c nceins: G�?` I�_ Signing within the Study Area: o 0 0 o ncers: -List any specific co -- --- Driving around in the Study Area: �- o 0 0 0 ' List any specific co erns: s___Cr __-( Y-L_ Traffic Congestion in the Study Area: 01 f o 0 0 List specific street and intersection probfllems:`_ -----LTI=L"T ---J��C_ �s��_G� �__ _%1 ---------- ---- - ---------------------- -_ - 0 0 0 Road st any s ecif within the lncernstudy Area-- - -- hcov tom- �- i5� -- --- ti-- --------------------------------------------------- None Minor Major Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods: o jk 0 0 List any specific concerns: __________________________________________________________ , What road improvements would you recommend within the Study Area _________________ ' Lk-- --- c3 --- j --hn_c _ �� I_���__LY1G�S 1�L_ L����S --- `' Northern Jefferson County b� ;� Transportation Infrastructure Study JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA Survey Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson ' County Line Please rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor. ' Excellent Good Poor Getting to and leaving the Study Area: 0 0 0 a 0 List any specific concerns: ___�� �s 55_ 2_Ai�p c(�es---- ---------- Signing within the Study Area: 0 0 0 e o .f. List any specific concerns: ___________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ' Driving around in the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: � = _ .�Q� � c, ( 1 ' S� ,.n n ( \ --------,-yp- --`�-"- r�«-- ------ Traffic Congestion in the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 o ' List specific street and intersection problems:_______________________________________ Road Conditions within the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 it List any specific_Ipncerns:____0 = ' None Minor Major Impacts on surrounding neighborhood ,: .I o 0 0 I 0 IF ' List any specific concerns: �___ __ 1At�j_ ' What road improvements would you recommend withi the Study Area: _________________ --- -- ' __7_� _ _ _____ _ ---- - ---------- --- 1 _ } ` --- n ------ ---- ---- fZo q---5----- ti Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study JEFFERSON COUNTY. MONTANA ' Survey ' Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line Please rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor. ' Excellent Good Poor ' Getting to and leaving the * 0 0 0 List yanys ific co te rns: _--- `- -�- - �----------------- Signing ud Area: 0 0 0 0 Y �` List any specific concerns: ------------------------ --- ---/_ _ - _------------------- - - - - - - --- - - - ---- ------ --------------- Driving around in the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 ' List any specific concerns: 4 � c Q -c c----____ Traffic Congestion in the Study Area: o o 0 0 , List specific street and section problems: _0W- /-i4-!�4sL�' ? ---- , ------------ ----- � 9—Q------------------- -------------------- Road Conditions with n the St dy Area: 0 0 _ /70 0 0 ' List any specific concerns: -__ c�i2LZ1!- caa _________-- GC =.. --- --------- - = - !4-� -- - - --------------- None Minor Major Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods: 0 0 0 o List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ -- What road i rovements would you recommen,4 with the Study Area.• ___-___ _ ' ----------------------------------------------------------- ------ Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study ' JEFFERSON COUNTY,. MONTANA ' Survey J77dy=rea Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line Please rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor.- ' Excellent Good Poor Getting to and leaving the Study Area: 0 0 0 o r-N List an specific concerns: __ ?« d___M a ,t�ee �� s a zu ' y p -- -- ----- -------------- ------------- 5 Al c -?-vX0u ( ----------------------------- Signing within the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: r � a_ J ,v S� -^ �= �-r e !UG�__ Via_ -11CLV_-(VCL �� ��__��_��r��s _� //'L'�--.ea-------------------------- Driving around in the Study Area: B o 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: __ u�r S, u I ti`�jti ------------------------------- --------------------------------------- TrafficCongestion in the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 0 List specific street and intersection problems: SUC L� d c_ Cr ee « ............ -----� = - 22---------------------------------------------------- ------------- ' Road Conditions within the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: __________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------- --------------- None Minor Major Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods: 0 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ' What road improvements would you recommend within the Study Area: _________________ =----- _ - 6� rcG, S GU t ti 1c�,G ---' � c , , e�f G � c 54, 1 Northern Jefferson County t Transportation Infrastructure Study , JEFFERSON COUNTY,. MONTANA. , Survey ' Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line Please rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor: ' Excellent Good Po r ' Getting to and leaving the Study Area: 0 0 C 0 List any specific concerns: _ }Yll� D_1/� S_o_c�C�1i�� _AC_i_ --_-- _ AA.-_ 2_u-sILU_ _= -__sQ!r i61 --- 14 _-------- Signing withine Study Area: 0 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: ---�1i_7,yl. . LIJ � ' ---------- ------------ ------- -------------------------------------------------- Driving around in the Study Are o 0 0 0 , List any specific concerns: __ _il �V\ly��=Y1 _ �llTl1__ tA �1 Traffic Congestion in the Study Aret 0 0 0 0 0 List specific street and intersection problems: _ y _Cr _�1v4 _ ---------- ' --WM3'-1' ------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Road Conditions within the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns:. _� � QLL_ s_L7------- 1�1_✓_� None Minor M ' Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods: 0 0 0 0 7 List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- , ------------------------------------------------------- ------------ -------------- What road improvements IWO you recommend within the Study Area. _ l _ ------- , ��1s_ riu- ==----- �-, l k - =-- � ---ne_-E---------- --- Ut Northern Jefferson County 1 Transportation 1 Infrastructure Study 1 JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA 1 Survey Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson 1 County Line 1 Please rate the following features within the srudy area from Excellent to Poor: 1 Excellent Good Poor Getting to and leaving the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 19. List any specific concerns: 1 - --- � ---` --------------------------------------------------------------- Signing within the Study .Area: o 0 0 0 1 List any specific concerns: __t _? _______ ------------------------------------- 1 Driving around in the Study Area: o 0 0 0 0- List any specific concerns: !k? n_s_dm c� � _ c _ --------- ---- in--------------the----Study------Area:----- Traffic ------------------0-------0------0------0-----®,--------- List specific street and intersect/i}o-�'nay/problems: 'd__�3��= Road Conditions within the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 1 List any specific concerns: --_!2�3?ZaS_1�?! _1?�1$i' __1�? _�2aat• �f?��1_________ 1 -------------------------------- ----------------------- -------- None Minor Major Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods: 0 0 0 0 0 1 List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- - 1 What road improvements would you recommend within the Study Area: ------------------------------------ l ----------------------- --------------------------------------- 1 Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA ' Survey ' Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line Please rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor- ' Excellent Good Poor ' Getting to and leaving the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 2-� List any specific concerns:----------------------------------------------------------- ' Signing within the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 P-� List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Driving around in the Study Area: o 0 0 0 , List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- --o-------- ' Traffic Congestion in the Study Area: 0 0 0 -- List specific street and intersection problems: _______________________________________ ' Road Conditions within the Study Area: 0 C 0 0 , List any specific concerns: -_-_____ la-'61� _ �? -----------------------______________- --------------------------------------------------------------------------J�- �-=- None Minor Major ' Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods: 0 0 C 0 0 List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What road improvements would you recommend-within the Study Area: _--__ _____ ' h}---� rll�� 1 2 yz 7_s-ri < -')1-L1.1 _ f2, t Z ------ , ----------- -------- ----- Northern Jefferson County gun °' Transportation ' Infrastructure Study 1 JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA ' survey Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson ' County Line ' Please rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor: Excellent Good Poor Getting to and leaving the Study Area: o 0 0 0 0 ' List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Signing within the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- --------------------------------------------- ' Driving around in the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Traffic Congestion in the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 D List specific street and intersection problems: _______________________________________ ------------------------ Road Conditions within the Study Area: D 0 D o 0 List any specific concerns: --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------j-------- None Minor Major Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods: 0 D 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- ------------------ ----------------- ' What road improvement- Id y u recommend within the Study Area: _________________ ----------- _��- �� � ----� }------------------------------ Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study ' JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA. Survey ' Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line P lease rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor• t Excellent Good Poor ' Getting to and leaving the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: _____�O�MPS --------------------------- ' � -------------------------- Signing within the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 0 --------�� u� List any specific concerns: _______ d_ !S � 5 ____________________ Driving around in the Study Area: 0 0 0 0-' 0 , List any specific concerns: _______ 5 LLc4 I /�2°��c e �.a a �., Traffic Congestion in the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 List specific street and intersection problems: --------------------------------------- ' ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Road Conditions within the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 @�-� ' List any specific concerns: _____ Sz k �- -C' --.e------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- None Minor Major Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods: 0 0 0 0 0 , List any specific concerns: __________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What road improvements would you recommend within the Study Area.-: __ ' --------------- G 9/'Y6 --------6 ei4ol ire u- ? --- -- �c'� --------- --------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Northern Jefferson County 1 �11 � Transportation ' Infrastructure Study ' - JEFFERSON COUNTY. MONTANA ' Survey Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line Please rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor: ' Excellent Good Poor Getting to and leaving the Study Area: o 0 0 )9y 0 List any specific co�nlcerns: -_�1uJ _t '�--- --V'YAc LZ? _C K_�L�Cf_� �>�� 1L ✓_L� r S 1° �2C!� Signing within thStudy Area: + �� 0 r Of7-1 ..o 0 -0--- ---- ' List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ' Driving around in the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: _!�� C4L �?� ----------- -------------------------- Traffic Congestion in the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 0 ' List specific street and intersection problems: --------------------------------------- Road Conditions within the Study Area: I I o 0 0 0 ' List any specific concerns: Y, - =-- --� ;�j-- =---- None Minor Major Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods: 0 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: k'e'[ �-�2�_�_ _________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- What road improvements,would you recommend within the Study Area: ----------------- ---}�a ----------------------- --------------------------------------- ------------------------------ l�jryl1 - Northern Jefferson County 3 Transportation Infrastructure Study JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA , Survey , Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line Please rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor: ' Excellent Good Poor Getting to and leaving the Study Area: o o iW o List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ' Signing within the Study Area: 0 0 )9 0 0 List any specific concerns: __________________________________________________________ ' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Driving around in the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 1$ ' List any specific concerns: .:' , _ � -- � wt --�� s- -= _`' 4-- � �-------------------------------------------------- Traffic Congestion in 6e Study Area: 0 0 0 0 0 List specific street and intersection problems: _______________________________________ ' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Road Conditions within the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 11, 4 x ,X List any specific concerns: �f ��«� � _ �� 1s --- ---- No�ne Majo r�F��-�J Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods: 0 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What road improvements would you recommend within the Study Area. ----------------- ' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ t �� Northern Jefferson County i1 Transportation Infrastructure Study ' JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA Survey Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line ' Please rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor ' Excellent Good PP Getting to and leaving the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: __________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Signing within the Study Area: o o �< 0 0 tList any specific concerns: ____________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ' Driving around in the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns:iCC zvL GL�_ I _�2t 'p.�,��� � ------------------------ Traffic Congestion in the Study Area: o o �4 0 0 List specific street and intersection problems: ________________________ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Road Conditions within the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: -------------- None Minor Major Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods: X 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------- -- ' What road improvements o Id you recommend within the Study Area: ______________ ------------------------------ Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study t JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA ' Survey , Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line Please rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor.- ' Excellent Good Poor Getting to and leaving the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 `34 List( a�,`ny specific c(o�ncerns:=�����_(�-!1�5-�� =_-� 4_��ir�f�� _� Signing within the Study Area: 0 0 gt 0 0 List any specific concerns: ---h- -- -- `ems-- -f--S' ---`------ Driving around in the Study Area: // o 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: _ S' h_ %l�5 �o�c�' ------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ------------------ ' Traffic Congestion in the Study Area: o 0 0 0 0 List specific street and intersection problems: �_V__f____ =c ' 6 5_ _ =s -------------------- C 6 Lti t- `�T r e� Road Conditions within the Study Area: � 0 C 0 0 ;- ' List any specific concerns: _1Ujb ✓__ ��_ - --__-__ None Minor Major ' Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods: C 0 0 0 0 ' List any specific concerns: _____--_-__ -- --- _________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What r ad improvements would you recommend within the Study Are , A. ---� =-- ----- ----------y------------------- -------=------------ Northern Jefferson County -j 'transportation 1 Infrastructure Study ' JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA 1 Survey Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the .Jefferson County Line Please rate the fo/%wing features within the study area from Excellent to Poor.- ' Excellent Good Poor Getting to and leaving the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 ' ---���� List any specific concerns: _____ J -----_ &- ____________________ 1 --------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Signing within the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 1 List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- ------------------- ------------------------ ' Driving around in the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 X List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ Traffic Congestion in the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 List specific street and intersection problems: --------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' Road Conditions within the Study Area: // 0 0 0 X List any specific concerns: -____Ss2 �L� ±L111. __________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ 1 None Minor Major Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods: 0 0 0 1 List any specific concerns: _ _____________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 What, road inprovem nts would you re mn, d ithin tf Study Area: ----------------- << �_ i,1s---- ---- - ------------ 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study , JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA Survey ' Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line Please rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor. ' Excellent Good Poor Getting to and leaving the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: -_______ �c�lK��c� rE _______________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Signing within the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: ---�- 61Jc---------------------------------------------- ' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Driving around in the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 a ' List any specific concerns: _____� _ � _______________________________ -------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- 1 Traffic Congestion in the Study Area: 0 0 0 ® 0 List specific street and intersection problems: --- Co - - - - ------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Road Conditions within the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 V ' List any specific concerns: I�1Z _ `_ -D9L� �dw N - fuck�N AI LLE - - ------------------------------------ None Minor Major Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods: n C 0 0 0 ! ip List any specific concerns: -�(�k�'- � 0 (`1 OZA LTI�_L_SAFL t - What road improvements would you re ommend within the Study Area;----------------- , ,I, to - ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ L1 �t� Northern Jefferson County Transportation t Infrastructure Study ' JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA Survey ' Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line ' Please rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor.• ' Excellent Good Poor Getting to and leaving the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- Signing within the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Driving around in the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ' ----------------------------------------------------------- — ---------------------- - Traffic Congestion in the Study Area: 0 N l 0 0 0 ' List specific street and intersection problems: --------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Road Conditions within the Study Area: I // /. 0^ 0 List any s cific concern : ____ ��11� �tl_c_5 ��_ [U!0u)S _�%re-s 4PW ------------ ' ----'1�Q6-'--�� --------- ----------------------------------------------- None Minor Major Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods: 0 0 0 0 ' List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- --- -- --------------------- What . road imorro,( emenr would yo reqo e�id Ithin the Stu y rea: ' I vlrigne�� (y---`- fJ--- --- --- -- -- ---------------------- -- ------------- ----------------------- Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study ' JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA. ' Survey , Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line Please rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor' Excellent Good Poor ' Getting to and leaving the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns:---------------------------- ----- --------------------------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------------------- ' Signing within the Study Area: o 0 0 0 ' List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Driving around in the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 K 1 List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Traffic Congestion in the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 0 List specific street and intersection problems: --------------------------------------- ' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Road Conditions within the Study Area: nn 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: = kiPf-90-C K 4__SS__ Q/�<LI /�L f= ------------ ' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------J-------- , None Minor Major Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods: 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ' What road improvements would you recommend within --- _ �. th_e LY Stud =--Ar a ----------------- -f{/ pE y i/ t ------- V Ei�t7 U1!�-L--Y-° _LL F------ , ------------------------------------------ 1 R - Northern Jefferson County Transportation t ; Infrastructure Study ' JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA ' Survey ' Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line Please rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor- ' Excellent Good Poor Getting to and leaving the Study Area: 0 0 0 1 o List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Signing within the Study Area: 0 0 >r 0 0 List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- Driving around in the Study Area: 0 0 0 J9 0 List any specific concerns: ----_-__ _________________ ------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Traffic Congestion in the Study Area: . 0 0 )t 0 0 List specific street and intersection problems: _______________________________________ ' Road Conditions within the Study Area: 0 0 0 'Ii� 0 List any specific concerns: __________________________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------N-one-------------M---inor-------Ma�--Jo-------- r ' Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods: 0 0 0 0 'Q- List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ' What road/ improvements would youp recommend within the St{udy,Area: -__----___- [-__-_ ' ------------------------------------------ I I�� 1 Northern Jefferson County ' Transportation Infrastructure Study JEFFERSON COUNTY,. MONTANA. , Survey , Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line Please rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor. ' Excellent Good Poor 1 Getting to and leaving the Study Area: 0 0 0 % o List any specific concerns: +sdtLi_ ?_S_ler��tiLc _�L� � =---------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Signing within the Study Area: 0 0 k' 0 0 List any specific concerns: __________________________________________________________ ' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Driving around in the Study Area: 0 0 0 A o , List any specific concerns: ___ ----------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Traffic Congestion in the Study Area: 0 'K 0 0 0 List specific street and intersection problems: --------------------------------------- ' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Road Conditions within the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 X , List any specific concerns: �!1_c�_�o /�_ P _ L _ � µ-�� ?_,.__-_-_-_-___ None Minor Major Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods: 0 0 0 0 0 ' List any specific concerns: ___________ _________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ' What road improvem ents would(you Grecommend within the study Area: _________________ ' J 1 Northern Jefferson County U Transportation - Infrastructure Study JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA ' Survey Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson ' County Line Please rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor.- ' Excellent Good Poor Getting to and leaving the Study Area: 0 0 0 'K, o List any specific concerns: _________ ________________________________________________ 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Signing within the Study Area: 0 0 0 < o ' List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ' Driving around in the Study Area: 0 0 0 Cl-- o List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ Traffic Congestion in the Study Area: o 0 0 0 ' List specific street and intersection problems: --------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Road Conditions within the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 -_ ' List any specific concerns: --------- ------- - -- --- ---_-___-_____ ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ None Minor Major Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods: 0 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ' What road improvements would you recomme/jd within he Study Area: _______ _ ------------ ----- - 1 ------------- y 1 Northern Jefferson County 1 'Transportation Infrastructure Study ' JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA 1 Survey 1 Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line Please rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor.- 1 Excellent Good Poor 1 Getting to and leaving the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: _ t _ �►'L_[ +_--` Z15 f - - �- - ----------- 1 Signing within the study Area o o 0 If List any specific concerns: _ ____ __ ___ __________ ' ---- -- -------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Driving around in the Study Area: ;' o p , 0 0 0 - 1 List any specific conce ns: fNl ��t�%�� - �?_ l $- ---------- _1Y1�%3G -' ------------------------------------------ Traffic Congestion in the Area: 0 0 0 0 Y List specific street and intersection problems: _______________________________________ 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Road Conditions within the Stuclv Area: 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: A LM---4,�0f 1625-.l2 a�/---_------ 1 ruicrr ----------------------------- None Minor Major , impacts on surrounding neighborhoods: 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: d-M ' h� zd-6&&-----------------`-1------------------------ ------------- what road improveme is wou/d ou rec mmend within the Study Area. _ _ ____ _______ -6"---and---�aa�_E-�l ��------------------------------------------- - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- i 1 Northern Jefferson County N %/ Transportation _:. ' Infrastructure Study ' JEFFERSON COUNTY,. MONTANA ' Survey ' Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line Please rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor: ' Excellent Good Poor Getting to and leaving the Study Area: o o Q o 0 List any specific concerns: _ C� ` d ri. ' '` a', - -- -- - ------------- 1 c � " Signing within the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 ' List any specific concerns: --------- _____ !—_______---------------------------------- ------------------- ---- -------- Driving around in the Study Area: o o 0 0 List any specific concerns: ------- ----------------- Traffic Congestion in the Study Area: U v o o - 0 0 0 List specific street and intersection problems: __________1Fc_1 r^ s ,_n EF.__` 4 ' Road Conditions within the Study Area: o 0 0 o - --- ! .. . List any specific concerns: ____z_________ _ __________________________ - ------------------------------------------------------------------J-------- None Minor Major ' Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods: o 0 0 X List any specific concerns: ___________________________________________ -------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ' What road improvements would you recommend within the Study Area: _________________ 1 1 ­V1 Northern Jefferson County Transportation qiL Infrastructure Study ' JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA. ' Survey , Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line Please rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor: ' Excellent Good Poor , Getting to and leaving the Study Area: 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: n! ___ Signing within the Study Area: o o 0 0 List any specific concerns: _�cufh P3c�. c ciLI��5 6_L [cG _-_ F ,n4-rr's � ' -- vK- Y---S'( ---------------------- Driving around in the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 ' List any specific concerns: Traffic Congestion in the Study Area: o oC 0 0 List specific street and intersection problems: Road Conditions within the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 /)K�' List any specific concerns: -/_____ ' - - --izrr�S-:t-A t< _---__�� ���t Cic�_Py�C��L_t Ll• t��'y� T None Minor Major 1 Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods: 0 0 0 0r List any specific concerns: _� ± ' t? _Lc-Q _�1��L✓ S �-�c��_ -N_!� ' What road improvements would you recommend within the Study Area: __-_ _______- ' 2A_ �as:� L__ __ ti 1 F1 <} Lc OC_rsL �yr�r1_ rL �__ �_ SA-C C .ti __ 14 _`1 Northern Jefferson County Transportation ' Infrastructure Study ' JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA ' Survey Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line ' Please rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor.- Excellent Good Poor Getting to and leaving the Study Area: 1 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: ----fit'--car- _ tQ-- —�1 --fin! 22= ­ __Cc ---------------------- Signing within the Study Area: 0 0 0 o List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------/-------- Driving around in the Study Area: pp o� 0 0 0 // List any specific co erns: L ?` � ltii�k_---- .. "i [L'I _ Traffic Congestion in the Study Area: o 0 0 0 ' List specific street and intersection problems: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Road Conditions within the Study /Area: -� 0 0 0 0 List any specific con rns _ None Minor Major Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods: p o 0 0 ,f List any specifi concerns: __L=Qc� __y -� cx -------- ---- ----- ----- ' What road i pro e�m}entsi wo)))uld you recomm�e( �(/l n within toe Study Area. .-- �+b �t -} 1 —`fy=== /I1G_•._1� c=a.c=Y-- =..4u-97i Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study , JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA ' Survey ' Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line Please rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor: ' Excellent Good Poor , Getting to and leaving the Study Area: 0 0 0 o y List any specific concerns: _�o±lta�cS}b lLm�s 02uthil61LnfS_ !� f------ --------------------------- ------------ -------------- ----------------------------- Signing within the Study Area: o o C� 0 0 List any specific concerns: __________________________________---------------------------------------------------------- ' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Driving around in the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 ty, , List any specific concerns: ___ '---------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Traffic Congestion in the Stud Area: 0 0 c/ 0 0 9 Y List specific street and intersection problems: _______________________________________ ' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Road Conditions within the Study Area: 0 C 0 0 d List any specific concerns: P6 �o�esf�6abkPLBsI _ )J S __-_ r-- - ----------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ------- None Minor Major Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods: 0 0 0 C V ' List any specific concerns: _______________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What road improvements would you recommend within the Study Area: _________________ ' ---�gue josh �-lls- �Cc�± n o�� � f _�o1_ s�' � ----------- ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- q ' Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study ' JEFFERSON COUNTY,. MONTANA. ' Survey Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line Please rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor: Excellent Good Poor Getting to and leaving the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 X List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- Signing within the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 ' List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Driving around in the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Traffic Congestion in the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 List specific street and intersection problems: _______________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- ' Road Conditions within the Stud Area 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: -L1iiti None Minor Major Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods: 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns:`] ----------- -------------- ' What road improvements would you recommend within the Study Area.- E ---�N-- � - PS ------------------------------------------ 1 Northern Jefferson County L _ 'I, T- � Transportation Infrastructure Study JEFFEF:SON COUNTY, MONTANA Survey Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line Please rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor: Excellent Good Poor ' Getting to and leaving the Study Area: 0 0 0 o List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Signing within the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- ' ---- ---------- ---- ----- -- --- Driving around in the Study Area 0 0 o q o ' List any specific concerns < ^ 7 ! ----- - - �the Study�- TrCongestion _,,� _G z - n udy Area: 0 0 ,o 0 0 List specific street and intersection problems 11 77 Road Conditions within the Study Area: 0 0 0 [ 0 List any specific concerns: ________________________ _7 None Minor Major ' Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods 0 0 C 0 f , List any specific concerns: What road improvements would you recommend within the Study Area: ----------------- ' y 11!� y I - - Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study ' 'EFFERSQN COUNTY, MONTANA Survey Study Area Bounded by Jackson Creek Road, highway 282 (Frontage Road), and the Jefferson County Line ' Please rate the following features within the study area from Excellent to Poor: ' Excellent Good Poor Getting to and leaving the Study Area: 0 0 0 k List any specific concerns: {hcc__fj,_ _r Ic- - ,—C;f _----------- Signing within the Study Area: 0 0 0 1 ' List any specific concerns: _Rsr,;, ni___Khs S_( fy. _ f�_�ac(•`_ _1_-_hr2Y_ --EZ� <------------------------------------- Driving around in the Study Area: 0 0 0C 0 List any specific concerns: �'r c.�_��r��s f�� =�5 h bcss_CrL�-Lr-- ------------------------------------------------ ' Traffic Congestion in the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 List specific street and intersection problems: ��t_1 �_� 11, . (_ c_,>s •s_� C��:,, -- '121---- -------- -------- ------ Road Conditions within the Study Area: 0 0 0 0 ' List any specific concerns. e�__ � tNone Minor Major Impacts on surrounding neighborhoods: 0 0 0 0 0 ' List any specific concerns: ---------------------------------------------------------- What road improvements Jwould you recommend within the Study Area: _PrJL�5-1r.c"'f64lk<4 �l✓_L_4�'Y SC+MPCieL_�C,�3-�{{--1�p�LC�I�i 2?_U.�Ii-3'� 1J=_1'i'_t_ /?E�L_L{�Cii�_���X__ Z�_'L'___�2c•�1�__CILc[ds-- pGy_C_7(2r_�_f�_�-��_�ie<1�_ c�,�_T�-�4dn�{5_���:L�i,��r�.;. on iuvnta°t ae d s ve olun itv a ven more -theesstle .ofn- �' ! (MCVFD) was conducting of fact that 269 of;these homes do driveways(um the street.) Brass 5M: homes in its district,171 ip was nec- not have reffective addressing.at and black numbers on-homes, essary trecause of rapidgr"jrr 14e endof their uitir�waysthat;is »� or�ene�s are�linreljydis- s' ST Northern Jefferson County. The easily visible for emergency re- ible from the road in daylight and s i department needed to know what sponders - whether ambulance, even then,firelighters hadto take on is being built, where it is being fire or the sheriff, time to search for them during the s n it built and whether residents,are This is a deep concern for the survey.There.wilt not be time to ' ft building structures that outstrip fire department, winch strives to waste in an emergency. the the capabilities of the department. arrive on scene in the shortest Another concern uncovered the Some survey results were alarm- possible amount of time after a during the survey was the fact ir 0 ing.(No pun intended.) page final,Jefferson County dis- that;there are 163 homes;with a At the beginning of the snr- patch In all fires seconds count. red'OrT44 M atdrey which cannot rz ntl vey, it was estimated there were .:Sadly, when-die fire is atnal1.and be ;reached; by;tieparmuain per- 825 I the homes in the Montana City easily,pm out;fire trucks may be sonnel using existing department fire district(compared to apprm- : :wasting ,precious moments just equipme tt. Fifteen had no drive- mately 250 homes when the de_ looking for a home-because the way access to the home..This is fL", partment was first formed.)When homeowner,does pot )rave 1 ad- See.FIRE SURVEY, p 12 1w DRAFTWORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY IP TRANSPORTATION P. N lN�RASTR CT U URE STUDY s t i a -PUBLIC WEARING Jefferson County is conducting a'Public Hearing-to discuss the,findings and recom- mendations of the Draft Northern Jefferson County Transportation infrastructure Study..The study area is bounded by Jackson Creek Road High-way 282.(Frontage-Road),and the Jefferson Conrtty line.The study presents recommendations for traffic control, signipg,-and potential future street improvements within the study.area The public open house will be held Wednesday, March 8, 2006, between 6 P.M. and 8 t. ui ICI i. ! i p.m. at the Montana City School Library.The public is invited to attend and discuss their ' V comments or ooncdrns regarding the draft shady.As of February 27; 2006;the study,will be 1A ^ �� available forviewing and downloading at Hiww.areatwesteng.com For moreinformation or to oomment on this study,please contact the project consultant ; 1r n Bali Lloyd and Jeremiah Theys, Great West Engineering,2030 11th Avenue, Helena,fete- � �I phone 449-8627 or Ben Sautter, Jefferson County Road Supervisor, 225-4241_ To arrange special accommodations for persons with disabilities,call Jefferson County at(406)225-4025. Legal 06-017 Published in the Jefferson County Courier March t and 8;2006 - - e po' hot TNERffPE,S,`T': T ' SiJt�]TY, Lipking netgltbt) #a Qrge rr strong eo m*nity Eg: COUN f 1f'SYAWARb .. to the shadow o tke.l lkh grits J `GVINATi1-1G 4W T<L JT dd seeds f or� narti end bY.JBRiAndarsen,editov ;9'QAtIA,`"1�1118 i]Atl"„ 'Hfi�eS FY[11R1}''`R[fed Aced`, St ''� tbattbe oadS .. �Ol�rao sek*'aeeommadateeu to taee�d� "� 6�o ]i+aiFt �psEAT41 : ujwed f�eased ==week concluded: �` of"pYailn;enaaes and;�n so�tre insl'ances, wor . at9t dy+t!sugP,est�t{�ataliemads tlp;@yg6out»tbesardy+ t ', SII4&t�atial, ,,p�!1�penls." eaoauaw�rMr�a[ . a t in needso pga€uieASACe and soma i}batanees; Dra} rePc r3,AtaY a "lg� rsan'00*VY 7�awportation which has increased from,-364-in-MW to as estimated'694 �nbstautial:iaApr 4vemanta t aaiQ.tbe draft m1#ott lijrastructam Study in 2005, could reach 1186 by4he year 2010 and 1888 by l�w7tng atwue}.taearry ou[those igraveuieAts cau1d`: ZO25.accordittg to tke reps : aorcballeHgeaAdmayAeed toipall[daPpymevtshy the public stayed away iudroves. Nta one.turned out to AAOther $x.485 else tnill[olt,AP upprovements is reeonk repRtLSpggests. suggest.ways for the needed'$695,6W is [pprovements .,mended by theist[cdy to acpomtutit7itre 'traffl.v volumes aCciciut 'madd9pattmept;a{.curregt futidw levels, to be�jmsted.' expected in 7A25 along South F3ills Roan,Ildlmes:Cn[lch t8}a�Yleto:ke4ppAra:y tpngdg[gr iA �a4,$$95,,Gw,doesndhi 0uft costs of upgrading Road, Hills Brothers 'Road and'Highway 282 boween XemWpt pmjt�pts, Ra[d klroapE rt. the ad as€yture-Ecaff[o;�tilti[txgstige.saw the report by Jackson Creek Road an&South Hft Road, ±&-hOI&Mawq 9 to W+veil'the re port;. 6=f West,Engineedng,POpulat�otrwifbip'the study area See RQ1 i1 S ftJD1( B, 6.Wednesday,March f5,2006 COURIER IRO AP. STUDY: draft report shows needs, from p, 1 The study,funded primarily. e great from the Montana De-.. �j��y. f,�7a Lfa.y tit of Tkaasportan was - Other study find' - .ommissioned by the Jefferson wpplt6YlalaEtevr00Wt1'. , Comty Commission to establish --� Among other findings of the Northern Jefferson County Trans- ties for,road work in the .. porfatim Infrastructure Study F : noidu of Jackson Creek Road _ � � •tmf6c volumes-wrtbm the study area is projected to increase d west of Intetsiate 15. The 14 percent through 2010 and 4 percent from 2010 to 2025. study also was mtended to proj- •four major intersections within the study area are currently .growth and identify associ- Speed survey on area roads offering a high level of service,but two of those'intersections- ttynspoan.I needs d well.. Rena toulbn Holmes GulchfCapitol Drive and South FTillaRoadlflighway 282 fundutg sources for addresshtg Asata i,ppeed 11 -will fall to9adthg levels of service by 2025 without changes. those needs. South Hills Road Gnat •safety and emergency response times are both issues wi thin Six projects intended to ac- of Ho "s Gtach l terse eon '.27 '.�36 the study area and could be addressed:by carrying.out recom-. mmodate current conditions on South Hate aearllme Kpa -:29 35 mended improvemeorproJxfs. - SouthHiae nuez nnarcou ;o -18 X28 •while the average speed on roads in the area,except for �����tyro::= were identified. In _ oknea ukl+:noM p . �d�e� of recommended. priority,- Of So UN Hips intGTSSCtien 25 :32 South Hills Road east of its intersection with Holmes Gulch,is they area. a - below the posted flank the 95th percentile speed is above the South Hills Road from High- of 66uth His IMereGciwn 22 32 posted limit throughout the area except on'Highway 282(see ay 282 W 1VOrth VaoM Road `Ceaaoluye rlor>n - char). at tree R In . 'on 25 -,33 . ,king.South Hills Road improving the base and hard Hills Road - g pedesman.and b6ycle friendly surfacing $190;OOt1. of Jackson Creek A. d 28 33 would take$145,000 above.and beyond othe fmprovemenrsto •South Hills RPadfremNoitti `H19 'd the road.Similar WQ*on highway 2g2berween Jackson Creek uarry_Road [Q Homtes'(iuich of C-Plie "latersecdon 64 .62 Road and South Hills Road would cost$95,000.$55,000 would. ad--pnptoving the base and be needed for pedestrian and bike paths along CaprmlDrive and graveling,$55,000. widen.Highway 252,hard surface in other arras of the County It is $130,000,for non motorized have)along Jack- ' •Holmes Gulch Road from Jackson Creek Road gal portions unlikely that the road fund could son Creek Road. tot T3nve to North Quarry of Holmes Gulch and South Hills bear the cost of a large road im- - .:rutroving the base end Road,and install traffic signals at paevement p%ject without sup- , _ in urfed' $760,000 the intersections of South Hills plemental finding." mended for South Hills Road and maintenance,"wroft'Aother. •Spol Hills R'6ad between Road)Highway 282 and Holmes So,where is the money to come Holmes Gulch Road." '"Me county-wide rax base olmd;OplcL Read and the end Gulch Road/Capi[ol Drive. from tobrtug reads in.northwest Tharepuut advised the county should be used"W `Ve'Hd1- flhe grayel mapm,09 the base Funding those needs is not Jeffmos County to higher star- to-evaluafeeachprujectandiden- men Gulch Rued a special graveling,$125,PW. likely m be found in,counry cof- lards? tify potemial tienefioiareswidun nnprovemem d3B'hrKxu e�ctra fee •SPOtli A,ala Roan from the fers,says the report,adding that The report of rem a few Weal the private sector Bene¢warks. on adjacent ]`r�tjZ btvpih's,' ��aad 9f titepavemen[to J�f Lewis "aectning the necessary funding • level in a Ca__ptial I� may include deYGlbpars agiF i8od stated yu anntlten-— . Cjark'(;ountyline-imftroving to finance large transportation prov ,.: :, r„� owitpra adjacent to 'be-09", fufiue Shan s, I'd pavement,$110,'000,", fpfmstmetiire projects is a prob- •fu ai soprc- m well as commercial interests, was filled nut b.vn, who •Holmes Gulch Road between lent common to many counties d of matcldn8 funds;. said the rePoit•. suggested N rfy Road and South throughout Montana'• and creating ram]impmvo- That finding is not likely two taxes unN road vHpiovrny the base.: "@ae SP'GstaJ nice with oLIG response Wtukdpneuhaura_r Prsp pep t : d grayehng,$55,000 road fund is typically used for inure ,r fl from-a6' ts;ivaadl;.nn 4nF" f4 tine is Two taim ubli. vale maintenance activities with very 'With 8 eacepfigp of Old public comments aeceived ax and plson6d'a'a eft ''study=s . .proles p. c✓Pri roads were also recommended by little emphasis placed on now State`Highway 2$2•and Capital after a public meeting hold early meeting to present the Amu-study estudy.Those includeamprove- road improvement projects,"the Drive,local residents'generate the in the study in October 2005-Tb repeat.Then ye will is uoethsg$45,000 on Soutti report says.`As the roads within majgri expect homeowners to pay-for be up m,llte s Dnve aril$30,000 w Nri't(h the study area are but a fiactiun within.. - road rnaGr.above and:bm °_Which wjllrecommea- Quarry:Road. of the overall quantity of County stadyl-li. yon) laud is "sinOtt, said one datnws iind o pro The$1485 mullion m projects maintained roads,local road im- and commenter: ce$xt.1p mans- ended to accommodme paevement projats are forced m lent gn "We pay tales like eveayone t `e amk -affic�expeard by 2025 would compete for funding with projects ly all of the' ejtts ; Glee in Jeff Co and deserve some 1 1 INnrrenmErrr ltrcoau Saturday,April 8, 2006•Page 5A A n — 4 ��� TANA NORTHERN JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY FINAL DRAFT PRESENTATION The Jefferson County Commission will host a presenta- tion of the final draft of the Northern Jefferson County Transportation Infrastructure Study. The study area is bounded by Jackson Creek Road, Highway 282 (Front- age Road), and the Jefferson County line. The study pres- ents recommendations for traffic control, signing, and .po- tential future road improvements within the study area. The presentation will be held at 2;00 pm,Tuesday, April 18, ' 2006 at the Jefferson County Courthouse in Boulder, MT. The public is invited to attend and discuss their comments or concerns regarding the final study. The study is available ' for viewing and downloading at www.greatwestena.com. For more information or to comment on this study please contact the project consultant, Bill Lloyd and ' Jeremiah Theys, Great West Engineering, 2040 11th Avenue, Helena, telephone 449-8627 or Ben Saut- ter, Jefferson County Road Supervisor, 225-4241. ' Jefferson County attempts to provide accommodations for any know disability that may interfere with a person participating'in any service,program or activity of the County.Alternative ac- ' cessible formats of this information will be provided upon re- quest.Forfurther information call(406)225-4025.Accommo- dation requests must be made within 48 hours of the meeting. 1 1 April 12,2006 WHITEHALL LEDGER PAGE 9 Jefferson County Commission meeting agenda ' The Jefferson County the Jefferson County Court- action or review: 1:45 PM — Commissioners will meet on house in Boulder. The partial Ron Pierson,roads;2:00 PM— Tuesday,-April 18, 2oo6, at agenda is as follows: Great West Engineering, ' 1:30 PM in the courtroom of Items for commissioners' northern Jefferson County, transportation infrastructure Company!i Good i i laflood study,final draft(power point presentation)rdiscusg'and de- tide on reimbursement funds for Jaws-of-Life as well as new { tires for the unit; discuss and I decide on settlement offer of granting a variance for S&C#1, #z,#3 and#4.Subdivision re- ' i view, 2:30 PM —final plat ap- provals for Southern Views Minor Subdivision(amended) and FenskeMinor Subdivision.., Public comment The commission welcomes and en- courages public comment,and A ' comments related to agenda items will be taken at the time the item is dealt with. 1 INSIM THIS ISSUE: p - COUNTY RECORDS TELL <,," e ff e rsUI . wtIf� HISTORICAL TALES, P. 9 V - Two IRS STuDENTs HEADED FOR NATIONAL COMPETITION, P. Linkirt neighbors , g g _ . to forge n strong cotnnuntity J EFFERSON COUNTY'S AWARD WINNING WEEKLY in the shadow of the Elkhorns I South Hills Road to be discussed at commission by Jan Anderson, editor while about the maintenance of leased in March found that South those improvements could be a stayed away in droves. No one A resident of the South Hills heavily traveled roads in northern Hills Road and Holmes Gulch major challenge and may need to turned out to suggest ways for ,area says he has a plan for fund- Jefferson County. In discussions, Road need $695,000 in work just include payments by affected land the needed $695,000 in inmmve- ing maintenance of South Hills the county commission has made to accommodate current use. owners, the report suggests. means to be funded. Road by means other than clang- it clear that the road budget is al- The Northern Jefferson Court "The County road department, That$695,000 does n:.a inuir.�4. ing individual lot owners, and he ready challenged to keep up, said ty Transportation Infrastructure at current funding levels, is un- costs of upgrading the roads as fu- intends to reveal that plan in a Pearson. Study "suggests that the roads able to keep pace with increased tune traffic volumes rise, said the meeting with the Jefferson Coun- The county recently hired an throughout the study area are in demands for maintenance and report by Great West Engineer- o Commission April 13 engineering fine to look into the need of maintenance and,in some improvement projects," said the ing. Population within the study Ron Pearson, who lives just traffic infrastnlcntfe needs in .instances, substantial improve- report. area, which has incrcascd from off of South Hills Road, said lie northwestern Jefferson County, ments,"said the draft report. At a public meeting held March 364 in 2000 to an estimated 694 has been concerned for quite a and a draft report of that study re- Finding money to catr; out 9 to unveil the repots, the public See ROADS, p. 12 vQS debate on tunding will Re faced by commission, from p. 1 05,could reach 1180 by the • South Hills Road from the and RMDs would be "an excel- v 2010 and 1888 by 2025, ac- end of the pavement to the Lewis lent mechanism for funding near- o mg to the report. &Clark County fine—improving ly all of the improvements mcom- Another$1.485 million in im- the pavement,$110,000. mended for South Hills Road and »'fements is recommended by •Holmes Gulch Road between Holmes Gulch Road." 'tli,'mdy to accommodate traffic North Quarry Road and South The report advised the county iolumes expected in 2025 along Hills Road—improving the base to"evaluate each project and iden- s th Hills Road, Holmes Gulch and gaveling,$55,000. tify potential beneficiaries within Hills Brothers Road and Two projects on public/private the private sector. Beneficiaries way 282 between Jackson roads were also recommended by may include developers and land :reek Road and South Hills Road. the study.nose include improve- owners adjacent to the projects &P resentation of the final report merits costing $95,000 on South as well as commercial interests;' s eduled for Tuesday,April 18 Hills Drive and$30,000 on North said the report. n .m.at the courthouse. Quarry Road. That finding is not likely to The study, funded primarily The$1.485 million in projects meet with a favorable response ),U grant from the Montana De- recommended to accommodate from affected residents,based on n ent of Transportation, was traffic expected by 2025 would public comments received at and AMEnissioned by the Jefferson widen Highway 282,hard surface after a public meeting held early :ounty Commission to establish Jackson Creek Road and portions in the study in October 2005.To ties for road work in the of Holmes Gulch and South Hills expect homeowners to pay for north of Jackson Creek Road Road,and install traffic signals at road maintenance above and be- mu west of Interstate 15. The the intersections of South Hills _ yond taxes is "sinful," said one study also was intended to proj- Road/Highway 282 and Holmes commenter rowth and identify associ- Gulch Road/Capitol Drive. "We pay taxes like everyone ie transportation needs as well Funding those needs is not else in Jeff Co and deserve some is funding sources for addressing likely to be found in county cof- maintenance,"wrote another. needs. fern, says the report, adding that "The county-wide tax base Six projects intended to ac- "securing the necessary funding should be used to improve Hol- odate current conditions on to finance large transportation rues Gulch Road, NOT a special :ounty roads were identified. In infrastructure projects is a prob- improvement district or extra fee Iof recommended priority, lem common to many counties on adjacent property owners," are: throughout Montana." stated yet another. South Hills Road from High- "Due to fiscal constraints,the More than one comment sheet vay 282 to North Quarry Road road fund is typically used for was filled out by someone who proving the base and hard maintenance activities with very suggested residents stop paying cmg,$190,000. little emphasis placed on new taxes until there is more road South Hills Road from North road improvement projects," the work done in the area. warty Road to Holmes Gulch report says."As the roads within Pearson said he does not be- - improving the base and the study area are but a fraction lieve it is necessary for funding eling,$55,000. of the overall quantity of County for improvements on South Hills • Holmes Gulch Road from maintained roads, local road im- Road to come from the residents a rtol Drive to North Quarry provement projects are forced to who would most directly ben- d — improving the base and compete for funding with projects efit from those improvements. t surfacing,$160,000. in other areas of the County.It is Instead,he said,he has a plan that • South Hills Road between unlikely that the road fund could would come up with the funding Ifles Gulch Road and the end bear the cost of a large road im- without tapping those lot owners. t e gravel—improving the base provement project without sup- He declined to elaborate on veling,$125,000. plemental funding." that plan, however, saying he So,where is the money to come wanted to reveal it at the com- ' from to bring roads in northwest mission meeting. He expressed Jefferson County to higher sum- hope that other concerned county dards? residents would attend the com- The report offers a few ideas: mission meeting to hear his ideas. developing a Capital Im- He is scheduled to address the provement Plan; commission at 1:45 p.m. in the •investigating potential sourc- district courtroom of the county ' es of matching funds; courthouse in Boulder. •and creating rural improve- After the final report of the ment districts (RIDS) and rural infrastructure study is submitted, maintenance districts(RMDs). the next move will be up to the ' "With the exception of Old county commission, which will State Highway 282 and Capitol review the recommendations and Drive,local residents generate the discuss how to proceed in an at- majority of the traffic on the roads tempt to meet the transportation within the study area,"found the needs of the study area and the study. It recommended that RIDS rest of Jefferson County. t COURIER Wednesday,April 26,2006 Page 3 a Pill lip would affiect Sourn Hills and Forest Parini Blue Sky Heights residents by Jan Anderson, editor tersection with the frontage road cerns, he said. Jefferson County should swap to the beginning of pavement at Pearson's proposal was present- South Hills Road with the state in Lime Kiln Road to the state. The ed at the same meeting at which ' exchange for Highway 282 from county would take over respon- the county heard an oral report on the Montana City interchange to sibility for Highway 282, which the findings of a traffic infrasttuc- Blue Slay Heights/Forest Park officially runs from the interstate lure study conducted recently in ' Estates, a resident of the South overpass at Montana City south northwest Jefferson County. The Hills told the county commission to Haab Lane and along Haab study produced recommenda- �,pril 18. Lane to the mailboxes at Forest tions for addressing current needs Ron Pearson advanced the Park/Blue Sky Heights.That path and malting future improvements ' Proposal as a way to pave South follows old state highway right within the area served by Jackson ['Jls Road without having to col- of way from about three decades Creek Road and west of High- lect money from the northern.Jef- ago, before the subdivisions ex- way 282 to the county line. Pav- t lesson County residents served by isted. ing South Hills Road was among the road. Pearson said state law allows those recommendations. Calling the proposal "legiti- the county to request such a trade. All three Jefferson County inare to pursue'and vowing to do He said he has been told by MDT commissioners said the study w,ass ' so,Jefferson Ccunty Commission representatives that "this is done only the first it, what they hope Chair Tom Lythgoe said he had by counties all over the state of- will address road needs through- already engaged in some convey- ten as a means to get State help in out the county. They said they cations about the proposal with upgrading roads in need." are interested in providing the Montana Department of Trans- In arguing for the proposal, best road services the county can. portation officials and "wasn't Pearson listed several points: most evenly distributed through- ' terribly encouraged" by their re- •South Hills Road serves 130 out the county. sponse. properties with structures and is "We want improvements to If comments by an unidenti- the only northern Jefferson Coun- happen in all parts of the county," fied Whitehall area resident at ty road serving that many proper- said Lythgoe. the meeting are any indication, ties that is not paved, he said. Commissioner Chuck Not- though, the idea will not be uni- • The South Hills Road gen- bourn said he is confident that all versally popular throughout Jef- erates "a fair amount of tax rev- parts of the county have been fair- ' ferson County, enue,"he said. ly served in the last dozen or so "This gentleman here was re- • The road serves as a thor- years. The county's road budget questing that his road be paved. oughfare between Helena and has"been spread out real evenly," ' I'd like to have his rock,"said the Montana City,he said. he contended. speaker. •Fire fighting issues are of ma- Lythgoe said he would pursue , Under Pearson's proposal, the jor concern in the area, and im- Pearson's proposal and thanked - county would trade the mileage proving access by paving South Pearson for his efforts on the of South Hills Road from its in- Hills Road would ease those con- matter. t leffco road upgrades Min forward To fund the improve- ' ments,the commission will By MARRA Lhllblll recommend forming two !R Staff Writer Rural Improvement Dis- tricts,one along South MONTANA CITY— Hills Road and another Hazardous,deplorable and along Jackson Creek Road. . dangepus we just a few of These are subject to ' the ward northern Jeffer- approval by the affected son Countyresidents used property owners. j to describe their roads in a The RIDs will levy taxes o recent survey. to residents in the vicinity ' Relief could be on the specifically for road way,—but—the price,tag is. improvements. ab6u_$700,000 for the first Once the road recon- phase of work struction and repairs are ' On May 30 Jefferson completed the two areas County comaiissiohers are would combine into one expected to adopt the rural maintenance district No'rgii"' Teffi �'dlltitY that would levy taxes Trans�ortatuini strictly for road mainte f tore&tt �i13Es" nance,said Lythgoe. ro ad improvements,R9iiiil Currently,area home 4 public comment is being owners pay varying sums ' accepted at the May 23 and of money to their Home- May 30 commission meet- owners'associations for road maintenance,which, in Commissioner$are dike- in most cases,hasn't been ly to make a few minor effective,he said. revisions to the plan,said Public comment has Commission Chairman been 'very,very positive," Tom Lythgoe. said Lythgoe about the If all goes smoothly,, plan. road improvements could Project engineer Jere- be under way by spring of miah J.Theys with Great 2007 West Engineering of Hele- The commission is also na has also received favor- ready to take action on able feedback from the phase II of the transporta- public. tion plan that recommends 'Everyone was pleased improvements to Jackson that the county commis- Creek.Road and roads sion was being proactive;': adjoining it said Lythgoe. i he said. However,no printed docu- More ROAR,page 3C ment on phase II has been released yet. 1 ' www.holoneir.com INDEPENDENT RECORD ' Proposed road improvements in northern Jefferson County Lewts and Clerk County Jet6er8aa;..0004t9 M 4 4�q V 4 South Nllle Road Holmes OuN;h Roetl �� �r�,,sr��w '� � XolfMe Ouloh Road 0 Soutlt NIIM arhN � �"j � �„ c South NINe Hoed ®Muth Quarry Road Boureer Northam Jefferson County ttansportatlon Infrastructure Study Srephb:Matthew Wohe-Is : Road `Roads are in pretty poor condition' oon.onued ............I,0 . . ................................ Priority-from iC Protects ■reconstruct and improve with read improvements. The The priorities, totaling gravel section of Holmes paths could also link with "It may come as a shocker $695,000 include; Gulch Road from North trails in Lewis and Clark ' when people see the price ■reconstruct and pave Quarry Road to South Hills County. tag,but it's more justifiable South Hills Road from Old Road(cost$55,000). Priority pedestrian and when you look at the road State Highway 282 to North bicycle projects,total conditions. These roads are Quarry Road(cost$190,000); Recommended changes $425,000.They include: in pretty poor condition," ■reconstruct and improve The commissioners will ■a pedestrian(bike)path Theys said. the gravel section of South likely approve the priority adjacent to South Hills Road He said he was surprised Hills Road from North Quar- projects(listed above), said from the county line to Old ' to learn of the large volume ry Road to Holmes Gulch Lythgoe,but will recommend State Highway 282(cost of traffic the roads are han- Road to meet county road hard surface(double chip $145,000); tiling, standards(cost$55,000); seal)to the following roads: 0 a pedestrian(bike)path The transportation plan ■reconstruct and pave ■the entire length of along Old State Highway 282 ' focuses solely on the north- Holmes Gulch Road from South Hills Road to Lime from Jackson Creek Road to ern part of the county Capitol Drive to North Quar- Kiln Road; South Hills Road(cost because it has the worst road ry Road(cost$160,000); ■Holmes Gulch from $95,000); conditions and highest traffic ■reconstruct and improve South Hills Road north-north- ■a pedestrian(bike)path ' volumes, said Lythgoe. the gravel section of South west to Colonial Drive adjacent to Capitol Drive The scope of the trans- Hills Road from Holmes (Frontage Road);and from South Hills Road to portation plan was also limit- Gulch Road to the end of ■South Hills Drive to Sad- County Line Road/Colonial ed by the$60,000 in funding gravel to meet county road dle Drive. Drive(cost$55,000);and ' from Montana Department of standards (cost$125,000); ■a pedestrian(bike)path Transportation,said Lythgoe. ■widen and improve Bike/pod Improvements adjacent to Jackson Creek The commissioners intend existing paved portion of The plan also recommends Road from the Old State 1 to do additional plans for South Hills Road up to the building a network of pedes- Highway 282 to the boundary other areas of the county,he Lewis and Clark County line trian and bicycle paths that of the transportation plan said. (cost$110,000); could be done in conjunction study area(cost$130,000). k. r, 13111 Lloyd of Great West Engineering, left, listans to com- ments during an open house last October on the Infra- structure study.An Initial report on the study is ready for public review. (Photo by Jan Anderson) ItIta City fifth graders Kpyoe products to ern and money Report o n county erdng knit away,.creating products to raise money for sal shelter. (Photos by-Jan Anderson) roach study ready fritters, Stud Students peen house set, or March 8 by Jan Anderson,editor t humane societye draft findings and recommendations of a study of northern Jefferson County's transportation infrastructure will be presented on Wednesday,March 8. 3 Qy The report,prepared by Great West Engineering for the county,is available online at www.greatwesteng.com. An open house to share the findings and accept public comment H-. will be held between 6 and 8 p.m. in the Montana City School li- brary. = The purpose of the:0t04�1 was to,review the traffic loads and lists wtttiin th e study arelt and make recbmmet datioas'for traffic control, signing,and potential future street improvements. Pedestrian needs f du cts--hats, ryes, hot pads and as well as the needs for bike paths or non-motorized travel ways were also reviewed as part of the process.Also parr of the study is atopus—knit by the group are ready for sale suggesting ways to fund those improvements. The study area runs north and west from the intersection of Jack- jDn to the food, toys and she noted. son Creek Road and Highway 282 to the Jefferson County line. To help them remember the As part of the study,an open house was held in October 2005 to t on their work on the stitches, they have little sayings, gather public input.More than fifty area residents turned out to share ent Wednesday, they said Callaway. "Under the fence, one message loud and clear— in an area where new subdivisions v noticed and did not stop catch the sheep, back we come, have been popping up like mushrooms in a wet spring,something f rter and photographer off we leap," recited a group of needs to be done about the roads,and the sooner the better oom. students. Bill Lloyd,Great West Engineering project consultant,said after very dedicated little Scarves are fun and hats,cre- the October meeting that the"vast majority of the comments relate ;rs,"said teacher and group ated with the assistance of a plas- to South Hills Road and its current condition." Callaway.At the same tic frame called a nifty knitter, Besides accepting public comment,the study included an average ho we helping the animals, are "really fun," said Loryn An- daily traffic count at several locations around the study area. The ire learning a lifelong skill, See KNITTERS,p. 12 See ROAD .STUDY, p. 12 1 5 COURIER f 1.n % NTttl}11 4 ff x i 3# ♦ �' r�� iq;a lescue � ,r,�; �. � .. f ventila- allow short- �y amage to that is longer ks to KalleySheklonA4xWs a hat ✓ arrow she prude and a. Matching ould hin- LIDto Anderson 106 PG td scarf by a clsasmete. (Pho- Twnegr rrinChart from previdus oM house. her'is relit g, _ to$by 4h Artdarson) m ■ d] rather ROAD STUDY. KNITTEf� Mbnta na �e� nn from p , City students kn t r s the traffic count found that more than 1200 vehicle trips take place on Highway 282 on an average day,and critters,o coed, more than 489 trips occur daily on South Hills Road the Critters, f r*4:ti ! Y v Only as it nears Highway 282. derson,adding that she has prob- Callaway, lost track o$ time un- n ac- The study is funded pr!Warily by a grant from ably knit seven or eight items this til another teacher stopped in to t a de- the Montana Department of Transportation received year., say the students were needed in interface by the Jefferson County C00000104• With tight t?thetknitimson hand lot we& class. Quickly the half-'finished inMit- county toad budgets, continual requests for mote besides Anderson included Alex hats and scarves were stowed, e cut service,and voter rejection of art Increased mill levy Askin, Justin Homing, Danee waiting for more creativity next lees and for roads,the commissioners agreed to'apply for the Kaltenbach,Rickey Nash, Cassie , week. 4aptead grant as a first step to address road issues in north= Smith, Kayce Btestkem, Maddie So, they=tvere late for class OP of western Jefferson County. Scheiting, Sarah Bryson, Kailay — but the animals at the Lewis Mutters The draft study repeat was slated to be posted on Sheldon, Kylie Maobonalti, Jed- andiClatk Humane Society would home — the Great Nest website February 27 at www.great- sle Reber,anti Austin Young. pit bk* say the students had a westeng.com: All of them; along witb-Mrs, good exeitse.