MDT denies proposed approach on Airport Loop Road; county, landowner and state weigh engineering and funding options

The Montana Department of Transportation told the Pondera County Commission during a public discussion that it would not approve a new vehicle approach directly onto S-534 (Airport Loop Road) at the location proposed by landowner Conrad Bachman, citing safety concerns from closely spaced approaches and constraints tied to FAA grant assurances.

MDT systems-impact and traffic staff summarized the technical and funding reasons the department recommended denial and outlined potential alternatives including relocating the approach farther down Bachman’s property, widening or reconfiguring a joint approach on Airport Loop Road, a frontage-road solution, or a possible lease/agreement to preserve FAA funding eligibility.

Why it matters: MDT said the safety risk stems from multiple conflicting access points on both sides of the road and the agency’s practice of minimizing ‘‘conflict points’’ where drivers make unpredictable turns or stops. MDT staff also said portions of the Airport Loop Road project were funded through FAA grants and the agency’s grant assurances require that airport-funded pavement be used for airport purposes; mixed private use could trigger prorating of project costs or a requirement to reimburse federal funds.

Stan Braylen, traffic and safety (MDT), said the department ‘‘try[s] to limit the number of conflict points’’ and that ‘‘every time we have an approach... that’s just an area of conflict’’ that can contribute to rear-end and turn‑movement crashes. Gene Riley (systems impact oversight) and Leroy Wasova (systems impact) explained approach applications are reviewed by MDT systems impact, hydraulics, traffic and safety and environmental staff and that those offices coordinated the determination in this case.

County and MDT staff discussed several practical alternatives. An MDT staff member estimated that constructing a new approach in a different, longer location off Airport Loop Road could lower the county’s local share to roughly $81,000 for the approach work (estimate provided during the meeting; final amounts would depend on design and right-of-way). MDT also noted that moving an approach nearer to Airport Loop Road’s existing pavement could reduce construction cost, but that irrigation features and a borrow pit at the site would affect final design and cost.

Attorney Bill Levine, representing Mr. Bachman, said Mr. Bachman uses the approach infrequently for moving grain in and out of on‑site bins, and suggested possible negotiated arrangements with the county (for example a lease or payment to sustain airport funding eligibility) as a potential path to permit some use while protecting grant status. MDT staff said a lease or documented agreement for a defined period (MDT cited typical pavement useful-life timeframes of 15–20 years during discussion) might be one administrative approach to study, but legal review and FAA coordination would be required.

Commissioners and MDT traffic engineers discussed engineering options: a joint-use approach that provides separate turning geometry for airport and private truck turning movements; shifting or widening the existing Airport Loop approach so a truck could turn into private property without tracking onto the FAA-funded pavement; or moving the approach farther along the property line so it does not overlap the grant‑funded segment. MDT asked for a concept sketch or plan so staff could evaluate turning templates and the geometrics before committing to approval.

MDT staff confirmed the agency uses a guideline of keeping approaches separated by a minimum distance (commonly referenced by staff in the meeting as about 300 feet) to reduce conflicting vehicle movements. The panel also recommended a speed study as a separate mitigation tool; MDT said a speed reduction would not change the minimum‑separation guideline but could reduce crash risk and will perform a study if the county requests one in writing.

Next steps recorded in the discussion: MDT offered to review a concept-level sketch showing potential approach location(s) and turning templates; staff agreed to check encroachment/right-of-way boundaries and to verify whether county-owned strips of land could be used to reconfigure the approach. Commissioners asked county staff to perform a cost‑benefit analysis comparing the expense of a new, farther approach versus the potential loss of FAA grant eligibility if the pavement serves mixed private and airport uses.

Ending: Commissioners and MDT staff left the meeting with two clear options to explore further: (A) design and seek approval for a relocated approach that remains on Bachman’s property and respects MDT separation standards, or (B) prepare and evaluate a joint-use or widened approach, with concept plans and cost estimates to be returned to MDT for review. MDT emphasized any resolution would require documentation to ensure FAA grant assurances were preserved or that appropriate cost apportionment was formalized.