Commission asks staff to start public location analysis for grade‑separated rail crossing after decades of study

The Livingston City Commission directed staff to start an analysis and public outreach on possible locations for a grade‑separated rail crossing after City Manager Mister Gager presented the project history, funding options and a proposed work plan. The commission emphasized that a publicly vetted location analysis is a prerequisite to any future bond or grant application.

Gager reviewed past efforts: a 2008 voter approval of local funds for a Front Street/Star Road underpass that never reached construction after the federal match was lost, and a 2021 referendum seeking $20 million for a western crossing that voters rejected. He said there is no current community consensus on a preferred location and recommended a roughly eight‑month location analysis to evaluate all viable options and their constructability, costs and tradeoffs.

Gager outlined federal and state grant programs that typically fund such projects, including the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Rail Crossing Elimination program, the CRISI (Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements) program and the BUILD/previously RAISE program; he said state funding is very competitive and often goes to larger, faster‑growing Montana communities. He estimated a full project design and construction cost in the range of $25 million and said a $25 million project would yield roughly $2.2 million in annual debt service, which the city’s finance director estimated would translate to about $73 per $100,000 of taxable value (roughly $365 annually for a $500,000 home) if voters approved general obligation bonding.

Commissioners and members of the public raised multiple questions: whether the city could reuse the 2008 Front Street/Star Road engineering, whether an overpass (rather than an underpass) or a diagonal alignment might be feasible, how eliminating an existing at‑grade crossing would affect grant eligibility and how a new crossing would alter development pressure on the North Side. Gager said the 2008 documents still exist and could be reviewed, but staff recommended a modern alternatives analysis to reflect present‑day traffic, stormwater and constructability concerns.

Multiple public commenters urged the commission to proceed quickly, noting the project has been discussed for decades; others emphasized that voters have previously rejected general obligation funding and asked staff to bring clear cost and financing choices to the public before asking for new taxes. Gager said BNSF Railway has historically supported municipal crossing projects where elimination of an at‑grade crossing improves safety, and that private contributions and land transfers (BNSF and Northwestern Energy were mentioned as previous partners) can be part of the package but typically are tied to closure of an at‑grade crossing.

The commission discussed funding alternatives including a voter‑approved bond, a dedicated street assessment, or seeking federal/state grants; commissioner comments stressed the need to build public consensus before pursuing a bond. Several commissioners also asked staff to include land‑use and development impacts in any analysis because a new crossing could change accessibility and thereby accelerate development on the North Side.

Why this matters: a grade‑separated crossing is among the city’s most complex and costly transportation projects and would reshape traffic, emergency access and future growth patterns. Identifying a locally preferred alternative and documenting it in a planning report would make the city more competitive for federal grants that typically require prior planning work.

Commissioners did not vote to start design or to bond the project; they asked staff to begin a location analysis and public engagement process so the community can identify a preferred location before further funding decisions are made.