“However, none of the alternatives and options are expected to operate acceptably under year 2035 traffic conditions and meet the City and MDT’s operation standards per the projected traffic volumes…”.

But we must be cautious with “Projections” and “Levels of Service”, as summed up tidily in an article by John Williams in “Centerlines”:

“…Level of Service has long been a misnomer. What it actually measures is the level of comfort for drivers, who tend to like streets that have very few other cars and where they can drive fast without interruptions. To get a “good” LOS (i.e., an A or B), you needed to widen streets, add lanes, get rid of on-street parking, limit crossings, add turn lanes, etc. In the US, LOS was never intended to measure how well a road performed for all interested parties (e.g., the people who lived near it and worried about high speeds, the kids who wanted to cross it to get to school, the bicyclists who wanted to use it to get to work, transit users, etc.)”.

Also on page 52 of the Kittelson report, they go on to point out where the community could focus for more effective changes at managing traffic:

“For a reduction in traffic projections to occur, changes in current land use, mode split, population growth, and/or culture would need to occur.”.

In sum, we all need to change the way we practice living and moving about.

Coucilman Jason Wiener had some insightful reflections on what should come from this peer review process:

The purpose of the peer review is to get the enormous volume of comments received, and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement’s analysis, reviewed by people with the technical expertise to move the prime consultants and Montana Dept of Transportation to a different solution and no commitment to the conclusions that have already been drawn…

He continues on to defend the cost of the peer review:

$186,000 is a lot of money. In a $40 million project, however, it is less than .5% of the project budget. If even one turn lane drops out of the preferred alternative, the study pays for itself in eliminated construction costs.

Read his entire comment on his post on the MissoulaGov listserv.

For more background see:
The contract with Kittelson and Associates that passed council, or Keila Szpaller’s post at Missoula Red Tape.

Also a recent check along the River Road mobile home park irrigation ditch, slated for culvert-ization, revealed that the resident (50-strong!) flock of ducks has moved on for the season; but I was assured by a resident that they will be back when the water returns in spring. Quack !
Unfortunately, the buck that reportedly frequented the adjacent meadow was probably the same one that was illegally poached last fall.

Hope to see you tonight!

Comments are due no later than October 20th November 4th, and can be mailed to Gregg Wood, Dept. of Public Works, 435 Ryman St, Missoula, MT 59802. Comments can also be submitted online through MDT’s EIS website.

When Submitting You Public Comment, Be Specific!

Here are some suggestions, in addition to your own ideas and concerns:

1. Ask for a fair and substantive analysis of an improved Russell Street alternative that doesn’t remove any homes or businesses. State that you want an alternative that does not take any property.
2. Demand that neighborhood driving speeds remain comparable to what they are currently for safety in the corridor. Ask for an analysis of how speeds affect safety.
3. Indicate that the Purpose and Need statement was inappropriately shortened, excluding smaller alternatives from the beginning.
4. Ask for an updated analysis of biking, walking, carpooling, and transit options along the corridor. Insist that capacity is increased for these modes, as required by the Purpose and Need statement. Request funding for transit built in to the project to increase transit capacity.
5. Ask for analysis of the concept of induced demand. Request analysis of the impacts of additional traffic to surrounding neighborhoods.
6. Request that traffic projections be reconfigured using the latest methodology to reflect high gas prices, the flattening of traffic counts, and the desire use other modes.
7. Also, sign our petition, if you haven’t already. The petition will be submitted as public comment, and our goal is to submit well over 1,000 names. Strength in numbers!

For additional talking points, read our series, 3+ Design, 100+ Benefits. This series focuses on the strengths of the 3-Plus proposal. This series is updated regularly, so check back often!

Read the D-EIS, and then familiarize yourself with the citizens’ plan, 3-Plus for Russell Street. Then come make public comment tonight!

3-Plus for Russell Street links:

• Download a PDF version of the plan with maps and graphics.
• Read about some of the many benefits of 3-Plus for Russell Street.
• View more information on the roundabouts proposed in the corridor, included examples.
• Sign the petition in support of the 3-Plus for Russell Street plan.
• Contact us with questions, comments, or suggestions.

You may also want to reference these op-ed pieces from the Missoulian:

• 3-Plus plan is what’s best for Russell Street, written by Lin Smith, a Rose Park resident; John Wolverton, a Franklin-to-the-Fort resident; Nancy McCourt, a business owner interested in investing in the Russell Street corridor; Melissa Schmitt, a business owner and resident of the Riverfront neighborhood; and Jim Sayer, a Bike/Walk Alliance for Missoula board member.
• Now is the time to weigh in on Russell, South Third plan, written by Steve King, director of Public Works in Missoula.

3-Plus for Russell Street Saves Millions of Dollars of Public Money

On Monday afternoon, I was sitting in the City Council chambers as the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee tossed around a political football. The group was trying to deal out funding for transportation projects for the next Long Range Transportation Plan update — a federally mandated process. Despite attempts at compromise, everybody was uncomfortable with the $65+ million elephant in the room. Not only did we learn that the Russell project just got over $25 million more expensive, but we also learned that it would chew through almost all of the area’s discretionary road work money for 28 years! Needless-to-say, the issue got sent back to subcommittee yet again because nobody could agree on which other projects to axe from their wish lists.

Here’s what I gleaned from meeting: we are getting a project we don’t want crammed down our throats, at a price we can’t afford, to the detriment of every other transportation project this valley has ever dreamed of seeing through to fruition! If it seems like a bum deal, it is. Read on:

The 3-Plus for Russell Street citizens’ alternative could be funded for many millions of dollars less than the city’s preferred alternative. While we don’t have an exact figure, the documents at Monday’s LRTP meeting show the 3-lane South 3rd Street project costing $2 million.

South 3rd and 3-Plus for Russell have a few things in common. The 3-Plus plan fits within the existing right-of-way, and saves millions of dollars in ROW acquisition costs. It also saves money in utility relocation. At, not unsubstantially, it saves nearly $3 million dollars in pavement alone according to my calculations:

Broadway to Wyoming:
0.4 miles – 1 less lane than preferred alt. = 0.4 lane miles
Wyoming to S 7th St:
0.6 miles – 2 less lanes than preferred alt. = 1.2 lane miles
S 7th St to S 11th St:
0.3 miles – 3 less lanes than preferred alt. = 0.9 lane miles
S 11th St to Mount Ave:
0.2 miles – 2 less lanes than preferred alt. = 0.4 lane miles

A grand total of 2.9 lane miles (at ~$1 million/lane mile) less than the preferred alternative!

Some may also assert that funding from the federal government is like ‘free money’ in a way. This is only partially true. First, that ‘free money’ could go to fund many other transportation projects in the area. Second, every fiscally responsible bone in my body scoffs at the notion of building too much road, regardless of the funding source.

All throughout the Long Range Plan process, we’ve heard that there is a shrinking pool of money, and a growing backlog of needs. We can’t afford to build our way out of this problem. Instead we need to look towards innovative solutions like 3-Plus for Russell Street!