Is This Project Really Needed Right Now?

My name is Jack and I own a home on Sweetgrass Ave, the Fowler trail and open space is literally out my back gate.

In the Dec 12, 2021 Chronicle story: Lonsdale (city transportation engr.) said "he doesn’t know why the road wasn’t connected earlier but that it has been identified in transportation master plans over the years.”

Questionable statement – The current, 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan doesn’t identify this segment of Fowler for any work, extensions, etc. It does identify some intersection improvements at Babcock St. and Durston Rd (pg. 82) as well as extending Fowler between Garfield St and Stucky Rd but this project isn’t mentioned anywhere in that plan. Internet maps (Bing, Google) don’t show this ever happened, be worth verifying.

Why the city is committing to build this segment now?

Assuming the need for the project has been documented, it would be helpful to see the data such as traffic counts and projections, time delays for ER services, growth projections, etc.

Does this data support the current design alternatives being proposed? Can the city provide this so stakeholder have a better understanding of what’s driving theses designs?

What technical criteria are being used to evaluate and rank the appropriateness of the design alternatives? These should be provided to community stakeholders so they can better understand the planning and engineering process.

Why do the design alternatives (2-lane, 4-lane) include center medians? According to the Transportation Plan (pg. 41) this configuration accommodates significantly more vehicle traffic (6,000-8,000 respectively) than the 12,000 vehicle capacity of a simple 2-lane design. Are these the types of traffic volumes the city is expecting for the Fowler Extension project?

How About Clearly Articulating Project-specific Goals?

In addition to the Transportation Master Plan, the open house presentation identifies using goals from the Community Plan and the Climate Action Plan as decision making criteria for the project’s planning and design. These plans comprise 408 pages not including appendices. It seems disingenuous and disrespectful to expect stakeholders to comb through the documents in hopes of finding the applicable goals for the Fowler Ave. Connection project. The city and its consultants should be providing this to information at the start of this project.

More Context-sensitive Design Options Please

The stakeholder meeting summaries posted on the project website identify common preferences for a maximum of 2 or 3 travel lanes, slow (25 mph) speed limits, multiuse trails and wide xeriscaped boulevards / buffer areas between the new street and the existing back yards. So it’s concerning to be presented with only two design options, each of which include a 12 ft. wide center landscape median. I Is there a reason why there isn’t a design option that more directly illustrates community preferences?

Most of the existing segments of Fowler Ave. are 2-lanes without center medians. Why isn’t this type of street layout included as one of the design options?

Lucky for me, I’m currently on paternity leave so I’ve been able to devote several nap times to reading through the Transportation Master Plan. This plan identifies numerous goals and policies prioritizing walking, biking and transit and project design options include new facilities for walking and biking. Given that there’s also strong community support (identified in the meeting summaries) for this aspect the project I wonder if an “active transportation only” (road-free) design alternative could be considered? Besides being a bold and innovative endeavor an active transportation only alternative would be a tangible expression of the city’s Climate Action Plan. It could also be undertaken as an initial phased, pilot project with area preserved for a future street. Then performance data could be collected and evaluated to ascertain if and what type of vehicular facility is really needed.

The land surrounding the roadway connection project is comprised of fully developed residential neighborhoods well served by existing local street network. None of these stakeholders need another street running along their backyards to conduct their daily lives. So it’s only fair that a concerted effort be made to identify the impacts of this project, whether it’s changes in property values or access to emergency service.

Also, given all of the pressing needs currently facing the city is this the right time to be making this investment? If so then more detailed information regarding the project’s purpose, need, evaluation methodology and evaluation criteria should be provided to stakeholders before charging ahead with asking peoples’ opinions of roadway design options proposals.

Proposed alternatives: