Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rail Crossing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission weighs years of studies and a new location analysis for a possible grade‑separated rail crossing
Summary
City Manager Mister Gager proposed an eight‑month location analysis and outlined funding options (federal grants, BNSF participation, GO bonds, special assessments) for a proposed $25 million grade‑separated rail crossing; commissioners and dozens of residents urged public outreach and questioned prior failed referenda, lost federal funding and tradeoffs such as closing an existing crossing to secure grants.
The Livingston City Commission devoted a large portion of its Sept. 25 meeting to a staff presentation and extended public comment about whether and where the city should pursue a grade‑separated rail crossing.
City Manager Mister Gager summarized past attempts and funding history: a 2008 local match was designed but the federal match was lost; a 2021 referendum for $20 million in general obligation bonds to build a western crossing failed. Gager said the city had already paid for some engineering work in past cycles but that no community consensus exists on a preferred location. He proposed an eight‑month alternatives and location analysis to identify viable landing sites, constructability issues and cost implications before seeking capital funds.
Funding options and scale: Gager outlined federal programs that commonly fund grade separations — the USDOT rail crossing elimination and CRISI programs and the BUILD (formerly RAISE) program — state competitive programs (citing MCA 15‑70‑102 for MDT’s priority selection via gasoline and vehicle tax allocations), and private railroad grants from BNSF, noting the railroad typically ties financial participation to elimination of an existing at‑grade crossing. Based on comparable Montana projects and inflation, staff estimated a total project cost in the ballpark of $25 million and annual debt service near $2.2 million if fully locally financed.
Public concerns and options: Residents, several past study participants and commissioners raised multiple points: some urged immediate action and cited past engineering and safety concerns (fire egress from the north side); others said the community has repeatedly voted no and recommended robust public outreach before advancing a ballot measure. Several commenters asked whether the city could instead invest in upgrading the existing 5th Street crossing, or whether eliminating an at‑grade crossing (as many grant programs require) might unlock federal funds. Speakers also highlighted land‑entitlement hurdles, stormwater and drainage constraints, and the potential for a crossing to change land‑use and real‑estate pressures on the north side.
Why it matters: a new separated crossing would alter travel patterns, emergency access and development potential; it also is a multi‑million dollar capital project that could require voter approval or alternative local revenue mechanisms. Staff estimated the median property would face a substantial assessment increase if funded via assessments (an illustrative median assessment rising to about $523 per year under one scenario) and offered alternative funding pathways for consideration.
Next steps: staff recommended conducting a formal location alternatives analysis, including engineering feasibility, constructability, cost implications and public engagement, then returning to the commission with a preferred alternative and funding plan. Commissioners broadly supported a transparent public process; several warned that, while analysis will take months, costs will continue to rise if action is delayed.
Ending: The commission directed staff to pursue the proposed location analysis and public outreach so the community can weigh options before any funding decisions are made.
