[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,98],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6177647,"mediaKeyId","5333709-627ecbc395498a542bceed8f854f7793","parentId",5333709,"title","MPO to compile record and scope alternatives for Valley Center Spur multimodal crossing","audioSeconds",670,"startMs",3368000,"endMs",4038000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5333709-627ecbc395498a542bceed8f854f7793&start=3368&end=4038","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5333709-627ecbc395498a542bceed8f854f7793/thumbnail_3368000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6177647/Bozeman-City/Gallatin-County/Montana/MPO-to-compile-record-and-scope-alternatives-for-Valley-Center-Spur-multimodal-crossing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6177647-691386496bab2ec689ee3694d1f33a73/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140959&Signature=iuQP5PRg9rD~npq12sT8Rs-XaLAAC8FSipnWgo-nNyIxFzNrrvRa63~cO86iHRf3vOh5DmIu-g~5yzeW62FCWzxJrzvj6ZQtHjgYUG-WV9HSOp5ujHLtifTmqgmcrvadPq~fBCnnI1J2m1GeZo0iQVZsji8m5~mM7ktVDgoKyVxIzirmXGECz1g0Ay5ed~h4to3xYK6IfyyO1xsh6WbSOsx37CGw5a7adpJZEHQjHy19Cp~iKjntwwua~~Xk6HzPkdShFV8FYpskmQRixmryhnusruX-W~F1~SexTupA3fjiu46kLZcsadwB~NK6pQL-LtHftAm39mIzCD8xhhCrCw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","MT / City of Bozeman ","date","2025-06-11T00:00:00Z","article","The Galton Valley MPO staff presented a proposed scope for a focused multimodal study of the Valley Center Spur crossing, a constrained crossing of Interstate 90 and railroad lines between Bozeman and Belgrade that lacks safe pedestrian facilities.

Why it matters: Valley Center Spur is the only non‑city interstate crossing in the triangle between Bozeman and Belgrade and is identified by community members as a barrier to multimodal connectivity. The site’s design constraints, including railroad operations and abutment geometry, complicate adding sidewalks or shared‑use paths.

Jeff Butts, MPO manager, described a three‑phase approach he proposes: (1) review existing studies and documentation to establish the current record and what work has been done with MDT and the railroad; (2) develop and evaluate alternatives (e.g., sidewalk fitting options, pedestrian signals, refuge islands, retaining solutions behind abutments) with an eye to structural constraints and railroad preemption issues; and (3) targeted community engagement including a TTAC site visit and a brief public survey. Butts said he preferred a measured site visit for TTAC members rather than a large public field event.

Committee members supported first compiling existing plans and engineering records. Chair Nick Ross said the MPO could serve as a “clearing house” to assemble and clarify the multiple viewpoints—city, county, MDT and the railroad—so the committee and public have a shared understanding of the technical issues. Members asked structural and operational questions: Brandon Jones asked whether abutments were concrete pads or vegetated slopes; Butts reported concrete stub walls on the abutments and that slope walls appeared to be graded. Members also noted the risk of vehicle preemption conflicts where vehicle queues could be trapped by both pedestrian signals and railroad crossings.

Several TTAC members expressed willingness to join a site visit in summer weather. The committee did not take formal action; staff will compile existing plans and return a proposed study scope and schedule. No public comments were submitted on the item during the meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of Bozeman Gallatin Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization June 11, 2025 ","oneSentenceSummary","Staff proposed a focused study to compile existing work, analyze alternatives and conduct targeted engagement for the Valley Center Spur crossing—an area with limited pedestrian accommodation and railroad/highway interactions—and TTAC recommended a literature review followed by a possible site visit.","taxTitle","Bozeman City, Gallatin County, Montana","taxId",48745,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6177652,"MPO outlines FY26 UPWP constraints; perimeter loop trail and pinch‑point studies discussed",717,2333000,3050000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5333709-627ecbc395498a542bceed8f854f7793&start=2333&end=3050","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5333709-627ecbc395498a542bceed8f854f7793/thumbnail_2333000.jpg","/articles/6177652/Bozeman-City/Gallatin-County/Montana/MPO-outlines-FY26-UPWP-constraints-perimeter-loop-trail-and-pinchpoint-studies-discussed","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6177652-3d43417617aa177d7a6f4f4509a5d629/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140959&Signature=TTJbTM~l0JYNjEJQCrXeEpTse3Qo27Ex4uk-oinalVFHxda5Wj67LgPxwSXQAJLiaTw1Qyi5Dfz~WvaqwgIZwq~SrJTKtt1YO4~qh1EhOwliWLCTUXASfBYM6YIT-lpBQNpHYf295Twsuytmg5bdKHrFbwu0UcPvCubvBxygO6rNxk2vZFYcIn901P9sSjIpDeSGMEm0o2cmPee5JuqJz~aD3LmDUS5J6WDFRg4ThOnLA9zf3lAw~vFD3B~cuDsllGmS15cvn2hTBebaVSXtteofjaWbFqGw1OsVa~PgvTsNl77zu0Rbt-Qp7cNcPivC2MzJ1LX22ZDOD-arf3aw3g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Galton Valley MPO staff presented a preliminary scope and budget outlook for the FY26 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and asked TTAC to provide direction on potential special projects that would require additional funding or cost sharing beyond base federal planning (PL) funds.

Why it matters: The UPWP defines MPO staff work and how federal PL planning funds are allocated. PL funds are population‑based and intended to cover core MPO operations; additional studies or capital work typically require using reserves or local cost share to proceed.

Jeff Butts, MPO manager, explained PL (federal planning) funding is allocated by urbanized‑area population and rose about 2% this year with growth, producing a modest increase in PL funds. The City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade and Gallatin County hold a cost‑share agreement for expenses outside PL funds (Bozeman 50%, Belgrade 25%, Gallatin County 25%). Butts said the draft UPWP budget closely matches PL revenues and staff operations, membership, training, travel, rent and utilities, with a small reserve used for continuous traffic count station installation and office setup.

Butts identified reserve funding of about $250,000 available and noted the mayor of Bozeman had discussed a multi‑jurisdictional perimeter loop trail; Bozeman City has identified $70,000 toward that study and staff suggested the MPO could manage a regional study if partners cost‑share. Other potential special projects raised included an MSU campus access study, Main Street corridor concepts in Belgrade (including 4‑to‑3 lane conversion discussions), and targeted “pinch‑point” congestion studies (for example along Jackrabbit Lane and 19th & Main).

Nick Ross, TTAC chair, said LRTP updates often cost less than the initial plan and that if future LRTP updates required less consultant funding, the MPO could free budget capacity for special projects. Committee members recommended collecting priorities and returning a draft UPWP and funding options to TPCC and TTAC for subsequent review. Sunshine Ross expressed support for the perimeter loop study being managed by the MPO because it is multi‑jurisdictional. Jason Karp and others supported a site visit and further engagement for projects that are location‑specific.

No formal action was taken; staff will prepare the draft UPWP and return with funding scenarios and potential cost‑share options for TTAC and TPCC consideration. Public comment was solicited; none was received.","Staff presented the FY26 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) draft scope and funding outlook: PL funds nearly cover base operations and staff requested guidance on using reserves or cost shares for special studies such as a perimeter loop trail, MSU campus access study, and pinch‑point analyses.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":42,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6177657,"TTAC backs using Missoula‑style timelines to clarify public participation for major MPO documents",1209000,1879000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5333709-627ecbc395498a542bceed8f854f7793&start=1209&end=1879","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5333709-627ecbc395498a542bceed8f854f7793/thumbnail_1209000.jpg","/articles/6177657/Bozeman-City/Gallatin-County/Montana/TTAC-backs-using-Missoulastyle-timelines-to-clarify-public-participation-for-major-MPO-documents","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6177657-9c974c74a79cde2b4790fe02ab571a40/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140959&Signature=HJRdcJ9eIy2aZJ2jGoyzJ-3IePcS0gEet8XlYP22Fcqt-dgSE8Nvab3strTrxCrSJG4FE5VVrpCrse8X1Uc~1J1etqt4bGULxDXgfFoYZVX6nzti6f9fIIcFMy~ikJxpPSduZUvvFy~uoYJ3tRf53M7v817CvpDBfw1huEZpLT254ftZITLvpvwj749OGp9aasG7ijp704QX3uZEJBlbu7y-skQTVKtPshg1k0wDz2Xx-5WmIbZwKcqrxiEa1STc~noIqHpu1S0AZbvfPkJwWjudeYbIgexwk~rtcL5UbyYFh9MXK6i7R0z-kulOUjdDxA6~xoUa0sf7HOPIJwlTog__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Galton Valley MPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee discussed a public comment received on the draft public participation plan and directed staff to draft revisions that incorporate defined timelines for recurring, major planning documents while retaining flexibility for other items.

Why it matters: The public participation plan (PPP) sets when and how the public may comment on MPO products. Committee discussion focused on balancing predictable, formal comment windows for cyclical, high‑impact documents—like the Long‑Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP)—with staff flexibility for shorter or topic‑specific outreach where appropriate.

Jeff Butts, MPO manager, said the MPO had completed a 45‑day public comment period on the PPP and received a substantive suggestion to add “more defined times and periods” for structural items. Butts proposed adopting procedures similar to the City of Missoula’s approach: full TTAC/TPCC review and the standard comment period for major products and a reduced (Missoula uses seven working days) comment period for certain administrative or non‑capacity‑expanding TIP amendments.

Committee members raised clarifying points. Chris Saunders asked about coordination between MPO schedule changes and jurisdictional development reviews, cautioning that timing changes could affect developers’ construction coordination with transportation projects; staff replied that MPO influence is limited to on‑system routes where federal funding and TIP actions apply and that development review and MDT’s system impact process remain primary. Sean O’Callaghan said a seven‑day reduced comment window felt too short and suggested a longer reduced period (for example, 14 days) to provide meaningful public input.

Butts recommended copying Missoula’s procedures closely and returning a document to TTAC for final review. Chair Nick Ross and staff agreed to have Butts produce a revised draft incorporating feedback; the committee did not take action on the item and will consider the revised PPP at a subsequent meeting.

Public comment on the item was solicited; none was received.","Staff will draft a revised public participation plan that keeps flexible outreach for routine items but adopts defined timelines (patterned after Missoula) for major, cyclical documents such as the LRTP, TIP and UPWP; the draft will return to TTAC for review.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6177662,"TTAC forwards Bozeman-focused Transportation Alternatives grants to policy committee",950,247000,1197000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5333709-627ecbc395498a542bceed8f854f7793&start=247&end=1197","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5333709-627ecbc395498a542bceed8f854f7793/thumbnail_247000.jpg","/articles/6177662/Bozeman-City/Gallatin-County/Montana/TTAC-forwards-Bozeman-focused-Transportation-Alternatives-grants-to-policy-committee","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6177662-7de6f0077be1a61f70a455e8fb332328/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140959&Signature=VrHF4aDO3hyXsUwuzKn0xJReRBldpGMc5BatwsMHSq9xNy9XPJOv6cG8rHHHV-rfsbNOeCQj5P38~HjAqQJbkXOI9mo0HRvaK-cy6NiYs460wrPCR9Ywsad2XsbL3dpvUJnhyWVVDxF1xRpAGb40T-PO5LFtYX1x5226ijH7HxKxYO~LFRc~RlxByptUnkocNx3VVgkmFe64zrjnJ0kMpNePD0WtgfFPmEo5hxx4Q3TQgktpjKY9ALgMkAOMUWV2GY9fXrtcNcAx7KFIUDYP9Kyd06VoGKv-ezKlwpLMelOAhCJoWTFJUrghesbs6gH~trV3KsSuoXSlH3aDuxuf-g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Galton Valley MPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee voted to forward the scoring committee’s recommendation on Transportation Alternatives grants to the MPO policy committee for approval. The motion, made by John Howe and seconded by Sean O’Callaghan, passed with 11 votes in favor.

The Transportation Alternatives (TA) program funds non‑motorized and multimodal projects. Jeff Butts, MPO manager, told the committee the MPO had “just under $1,400,000 available” for competitive grants within the MPO’s urbanized area and that three applications were recommended by the project scoring committee and reviewed by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) for fatal flaws.

Why it matters: TA funds are federal dollars intended for pedestrian, bicycle, safe routes to school and related investments. Advancing projects to the policy committee is the next formal step before state processing and contract execution; sponsors could begin implementation in 2027, depending on scheduling and contracting.

The three projects the scoring committee recommended are:
- Bozeman Safe Routes to School: a programmatic request for a little over $60,000 in federal funding to support roughly 48 events across two years (bike‑to‑school events, bike rodeos), school coordinator support, two stakeholder meetings, partnerships with Western Transportation Institute, and licensing for shared carpool technology. Butts noted some line items, such as snacks, “would not be reimbursable” under federal rules.
- ADA, transit and pedestrian improvements: a package including 22 ADA ramps, seven transit stop improvements, two pedestrian refuges, two flashing beacons and one pedestrian hybrid (HAWK) signal; multiple small sidewalk infill segments across Bozeman; and targeted work near the hospital, the surgery center and other nodes.
- Flanders Middle sidewalk infill: roughly a half‑mile of new 6‑foot‑wide sidewalk, curb and crossings to connect a new park and nearby schools and sports fields; the concept includes culvert replacements across an irrigation ditch within a master‑planned area.

Committee members asked clarifying questions about program details and delivery risks. John Howe asked who would serve as school coordinators and which schools would be included; Butts said coordinators are typically teachers who partner with the city’s transportation demand management coordinator and that he would review the application details to identify specific schools. Sean O’Callaghan raised a timing and design concern for the Flanders sidewalk: if on‑street event parking occurs before the parking plan is built, “we’re gonna have some conflict there with on‑street parking blocking the sidewalk,” and he urged staff to coordinate timing or consider offsetting the sidewalk.

Butts said the scoring committee recommended all three projects and that the requested total was about $4,000 less than available funds, so there were no funding shortfalls at this stage. The committee voted to forward the recommendation to the policy committee (TPCC) for final action; if TPCC approves, the projects would then be processed through the statewide Transportation Commission and sponsor contracting.

The committee solicited public comment on the TA item; none was received. Next steps: TPCC consideration, then state review by MDT and the Transportation Commission; sponsors would sign contracts and pursue implementation if awarded.","Galton Valley MPO technical committee voted to forward three recommended Transportation Alternatives (TA) projects—Bozeman Safe Routes to School program, an ADA/transit/pedestrian improvements package, and a Flanders Middle sidewalk infill—to the MPO policy committee for final approval and subsequent statewide processing.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

MPO to compile record and scope alternatives for Valley Center Spur multimodal crossing

MPO outlines FY26 UPWP constraints; perimeter loop trail and pinch‑point studies discussed

TTAC backs using Missoula‑style timelines to clarify public participation for major MPO documents

TTAC forwards Bozeman-focused Transportation Alternatives grants to policy committee