Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Post Falls council tables 2025 Transportation Master Plan after debate over north–south capacity
Summary
After a detailed staff and J‑U‑B presentation on traffic modeling, multimodal priorities and a 91‑project list through 2045, the council voted unanimously to table the 2025 Transportation Master Plan for further review amid questions about north–south travel and funding priorities.
The Post Falls City Council on April 21 heard a multi-hour presentation on the proposed 2025 Transportation Master Plan and voted to table the item for further deliberation.
City Engineer Robert Paulus opened the public hearing and asked the council to consider adopting the TMP, which replaces the city’s 2017 plan and uses 2023 traffic counts and a refined KMPO regional model. Paulus said staff and consultants from J‑U‑B Engineers had incorporated nearly 900 public participants, technical advisory group input and a travel‑demand model refined for Post Falls to produce a prioritized list of projects through 2045.
Sean Heusgen and Rhiannon of J‑U‑B walked council through the plan’s methodology, public‑outreach approach and performance metrics. They told the council the plan identifies about 91 projects — including corridor projects, signal work, roundabouts and multimodal improvements — and presented short‑, mid‑ and long‑term cost estimates. Staff said the short‑term implementation table totals just over $10 million (in 2025 dollars), the mid‑term bucket about $53 million and the long‑term list roughly $262 million; staff emphasized the long‑range totals exclude regular maintenance costs.
Consultants explained how performance measures were calculated for horizon years (2030, 2035, 2045), showing estimated PM‑peak delays and fuel consumption as a way to compare mitigation options. Presenters described efforts to prioritize multimodal investments with a GIS ‘heat map’ that combines population and job density, sidewalk gaps and public interest to identify corridors where bike and pedestrian projects are most likely to be used.
Several council members pressed staff about a perceived lack of a continuous, higher‑capacity north–south thoroughfare across the city. Councilors asked whether the TMP had an intention to create a long, signal‑free north–south route and whether the plan left too much reliance on signal coordination instead of access control or a principal arterial. Staff responded that the plan prioritizes corridors such as Greensferry and Pleasant View for north–south movement, that some segments are programmed as five‑lane widenings, and that ultimate needs could change based on regional outcomes (the Rathdrum Prairie Transportation Study and I‑90 projects).
Councilors also requested clearer documentation of how public input changed consultant recommendations and additional detail on funding sources (impact fees, developer contributions and grant assumptions) for short‑term projects.
After discussion, one council member asked for more time to review the roughly 700‑page plan that had been placed on Friday’s packet. The council closed the public hearing and voted on a motion to table the Transportation Master Plan for continued deliberation; the motion passed on a roll call vote.
What happens next: The council returned the TMP to unfinished business and directed staff to bring the plan back for further consideration at a future meeting. Because the TMP contains prioritized projects and cost estimates that can guide development reviews and capital planning, staff said further council questions on corridor prioritization and funding will be addressed before a final vote.
