HomeMy WebLinkAboutTCSP Oversight Committee Other (5)L OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE--GENERAL
Members of the Oversight Committee (OC) have been asked to serve by the Mayor or by
the Planning Board. Meetings will be the second Thursday of the Month at 7:00 PM in
the City Council Chambers. Members of the OC are:
Bud Johnson, City Councilman
Larry McCann, Public Works Director
Kate Stevenson, LRL
Gay Easton, City Councilman
John Smith, Planning Board Chair
Kathleen Baumgartner, Neighborhood Task Force
Ken Olson, City Councilman
Diana Walker, Neighborhood Task Force
Laurel Haggert, Planning Board
Debbi Ricci, LRL
Cal Cumin, Planning Director
C Ca""
C
,oA
Others: Anne Cossitt, Project Evaluation, and Kim Wombolt, Chamber of Commerce,
Secretary.
The function of the OC is to provide constructive input as community citizens and
representatives of their respective organizations or areas into the on-going TCSP process.
As part of this input, members will review the progress being made on the TCSP, up
coming activities and directions, and make recommendations to the City Council as
needed. The OC will also review and recommend action on project invoices.
H. OVERVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITY AND
SYSTEM PRESERVATION PROGRAM (TCSP) (This is a shortened version of the
complete project outline in the TCSP Proposal contained in the OC Notebook.)
As outlined in the approved project application, the primary product of this project will be
a "Transportation and Community Sustainability Plan" for the City of Laurel. This plan
will consist of seven primary elements: (1) an analysis of the traffic and community
impacts of the major transportation features; (2) an analysis of Laurel's overall
transportation system (current and planned) and its implications for sustainability; (3) an
analysis of Laurel's land use patterns and their
contributions to the traffic situation; (4) an analysis of the sustainability of the community's
commercial core in the face of transportation-related threats; (5) an analysis of non-
motorized travel in Laurel; (6) an analysis of how different assumptions in transportation
and land use can lead to more sustainable scenarios for Laurel's future; and (7) an action
plan for creating a more sustainable Laurel.
A. Public Involvement (Walkable Communities, CLC, NCAT, STPP, AERO,
and Main Street):
1. With assistance from the Center for Livable Communities (CLC)
and Walkable Communities, Laurel will host an initial visioning workshop, involving
residents of all ages to help Laurel create its own vision of a sustainable community
future. The primary components of the workshop will be a visual preference survey
and a charette on community design and transportation.
2. With assistance from the CLC, Walkable Communities, the
National Center for Appropriate Technology, the Surface Transportation Policy
Project, and the Main Street Center. Follow-up presentations on specific elements of
the Plan, including sustainable transportation options and sustainable land use practices
will be made.
3. Information will be provided on the progress of the project through
news releases, presentations to various groups, provision of key documents at
accessible locations around the community; and the creation and distribution a project
newsletter to update the community.
B. Transportation Analysis:
1. Motorized Travel Demand and Capacity:
(a) Collect available data for traffic growth, travel demand, and
proposed infrastructure improvements.
(b) Collect data from Montana Department of Transportation
(MDT), land use changes identified, City-County Planning efforts, development
projections, local school projections, safety route(s), etc. Additional data may be collected
by local sources which could include vehicle turning movement counts, tube counts, travel
time or route, existing access, truck routes and volumes, bicycle volumes, pedestrian
counts or route (especially near schools), inventory of vehicle and bicycle parking,
selective license plate surveys, etc.
(c) A detailed telephone survey of residents and small-scale trip
diary study in order to gain further insight into the community's travel behaviors, needs,
and desires will also be made. The results of this analysis will be used to project trends in
local travel and to explore alternative means of satisfying the community's resulting needs.
2. Analysis:
Typical roadway level-of-service will be analyzed for key
components of the transportation system for existing and future travel demands. Based on
proposed construction and projected growth, the transportation network will identify
sections with capacity or safety problems, with a focus on the links between rural and
urban, interstate and local and on intermodal links. Local streets will be reviewed to
determine which facilitates have capacity for non-motorized travel, parking, and additional
roadway capacity.
During the analysis of non-motorized travel Tracy-Williams will look at the extent of the
existing pedestrian and bicycle systems. For the pedestrian system the analysis includes a
2
walkability audit and NHTSA/EPA "Pedestrian Roadshow" with assistance from the
Montana Department of Transportation's bicycle/pedestrian coordinator, and compliance
with ADA regulations. For the bicycle system, elements of the Bicycle Compatibility Index
process (FHWA, 1998) will be used to determine basic suitability of the major street
system, combined with a mapping exercise to identify specific hazards.
To determine baseline levels of non-motorized travel, available data sources (e.g., the
1990 Census Journey to Work Survey) and data from the travel survey and trip diary
studies discussed earlier will be utilized. Opportunities for bicycle- and pedestrian-related
improvements such as potential trail corridors; possible links to particular destinations; and
particular roadways that have extra space will be studied. From this a set of
recommendations that are likely to lead to greater use of non-motorized modes for a
variety of purposes will be produced.
3. Define and Evaluate Alternatives: Develop conceptual long-term mobility
alternatives for east/west and north/south travel for both motorized and non-motorized
travel. Based upon public input and data analyses, route/strategies will be evaluated to
determine if they meet project goals for community sustainability. Evaluate conceptual
mobility alternatives based on development of preliminary screening criteria, develop in
conjunction with study goals and objectives. Agreement by the OC will confirm the
screening criteria and the relative weighting of the criteria. (For example, pedestrian
safety may rate stronger than intersection level-of-service at downtown sites but may have
equivalent ratings at interstate intersections.)
C. Analysis of Downtown Sustainability: The Main Street Assessment will
consider the impacts of transportation features on the viability of downtown; the physical
appearance of the district, including its buildings and public infrastructure; the downtown's
economic base and the impacts of highway-related commercial development; unique
opportunities presented by the downtown; and the level of community support of-and
visions for-the district. A set of recommended actions for revitalization of the district
will be made as well as helping set in motion the process for implementation.
D. Analysis of Land Use: Working with the Center for Livable Communities
and the National Center for Appropriate Technology, a baseline picture of existing and
projected land use in the Laurel community, both within the city limits and on the
periphery, will be made and integrated into local Geographic Information System
databases. Focus will be on those elements of land use that influence the sustainability of
a community, the vitality of its core, traffic generation rates, and the ability of residents to
choose among a variety of transportation modes. This includes consideration of residential
density and lot sizes, proximity between different land uses, and commercial density and
off-street parking.
In addition to analyzing current land uses, existing plans, codes, and policies to determine
how well the current regulatory framework fosters sustainability will be looked at. And,
using tools like the Smart Places program, the Local Government Commission's Compact
3
/'-, Development Survey, and the Case for Sustainability, a set of recommendations that are
likely to improve the sustainability of Laurel by minimizing adverse environmental impacts
and encouraging innovative development practices will be recommended. To this end, a
training session for local developers and others in order to highlight sustainable practices
will be considered.
E. Creation of Alternative Scenarios: Current trends, events, and processes
gives Laurel a relatively predictable set of future outcomes. To some extent, all of the
following characterize Laurel: high levels of motor vehicle travel and increasing need for
expensive infrastructure to accommodate such travel; a declining downtown core;
increased commercial development along major transportation corridors; primarily large
lot single use residential development on the outskirts; and few non-motorized trips and
little provision for such trips. This project will create a "build-out" scenario that projects
current trends into the future.
Through the public involvement process and in consultation with the Oversight Committee
and the Advisory Panel, the project will create two alternate visions of Laurel's future for
debate, discussion, and modification. Ultimately, one preferred scenario will be
incorporated into the TSCP's vision, goals, objectives, and performance criteria.
While the development of the specifics of the alternate scenarios will come through the
planning process, some typical elements that are likely to be discussed and may be
included in some way are:
• A more "community-fhendly" set of roadway design standards that emphasize
lower traffic speeds and a more flexible reliance on the functional roadway hierarchy
- Solutions to currently identified transportation problems and needs (e.g., the
elimination of major barriers) that balance transportation needs and community
sustainability
• Compact development patterns that emphasize easy access; a fine-grained
transportation system; a de-emphasis of large public works solutions to Laurel's
transportation problems
• Pedestrian-oriented commercial areas that include minimum setbacks for
storefronts; sidewalk-facing front doors and display windows; on-street parking; and
pedestrian amenities like benches
- Mixed commercial and residential land uses; this may include provision of
apartments adjacent to businesses and compatible business uses near most residential areas
• Mixed residential uses, combining, for example, accessory dwelling units and
carefully placed and well-designed multifamily dwelling units.
A growing body of literature showing the performance differences of alternate scenario
will be used to project differences in congestion, motor vehicle use, energy consumption,
infrastructure needs, and land consumption. For example, the LUTRAQ process
111-N developed in the Portland Metropolitan Region has identified a series of Pedestrian
Environment Factors that correspond with reduced numbers of motor vehicle trips.
4
Similarly, work conducted in the San Francisco Bay area has shown significant differences
between alternate development styles. Even here in Montana, preliminary research has
shown that residential areas close to employment centers and which adhere to a more
traditional community development pattern generate significantly lower levels of
motorized travel than nearby neighborhoods that are more auto-oriented.
In the development of the alternate scenarios, the study will explore the use of software
like the Smart Places package, as well as more traditional sketch plan approaches, to
generate a set of likely impacts for each scenario. To determine the most applicable
approach, the panel of advisors will help weigh the benefits vs. costs in light of the
availability of usable local data.
The scenarios will be presented to the public and a wide variety of local audiences. The
purpose will be to generate discussion of alternative Laurel futures and to learn how
residents of Laurel want the community to grow. Through survey work and extensive
public and oversight committee involvement, the project will prepare a preferred scenario
based on a consensus process. This scenario will then be compared with what is allowed
under existing regulations, plans, and policies in order to determine what needs to change
in order for it to happen. The outcome of this process will be an action plan that includes:
a list of changes; who must make them; and how they can be made. A key ingredient of
this process is to involve those bodies responsible for updating such plans, policies, and
regulations in the process from the beginning. As has been stated before, the OC contains
many of the key players and others may be approached to participate.
F. Action Plan for a Sustainable Laurel: Once a preferred alternative has been
identified and its components generally described, an Action Plan will be developed. For
transportation-related projects, this will mean preparing proposed modifications to long-
range transportation plans and a prioritized list of projects for the local TIP and State TIP,
or STIR For land use proposals, it means preparing a list of the major suggested changes
to the Comprehensive Plan and subdivision and zoning regulations.
A detailed timeline will be a key component of the Action Plan. The timeline will identify
tasks that must take place by certain times (e.g., TIP project proposals must generally be
submitted by a particular date in order to be considered) and tasks that must be addressed
as components of certain processes (e.g., comprehensive plans are typically updated on a
multi-year schedule). Preparing a timeline will assure that deadlines are met and projects
addressed as needed.
The Action Plan will also identify the agencies and groups that control implementation of
each proposed action. Since the OC membership includes many of the key players, this
task will help to assign responsibility. It will also help identify tasks for which the
responsible parties are external to the process. It will be critical, however, that these
parties be invited to participate early in the process. Hence, the importance of early and
.01N continuing outreach and public involvement.
5
/"'N M. BUDGET/TIME FRAME
The grant from Federal Highways is for $85,000; Laurel must spend this first and then be
reimbursed, and this can be done piecemeal or phase by phase, task by task, etc. The
federal grant had to be matched with $25,000 in local funds. Project timeframe is
approximately 18 months. The project as originally planned has the following budget:
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT (Walkable Communities, CLG, NCAT,
STPP, AERO, and Main Street) $14,000
ANALYSIS OF MAJOR TRANSPORTATION FEATURES
(Carter-Burgess, Inc.) $10,500
ANALYSIS OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
(STPP, Tracy-Williams, MSU Surveying) $24,500
ANALYSIS OF NON-MOTORIZED TRAVEL
(Tracy-Williams) $6,500
ANALYSIS OF DOWNTOWN (Main Street Center) $10,000
ANALYSIS OF LAND USE $13,500
CREATION OF ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS (STPP) $18,500
ACTION PLAN FOR A SUSTAINABLE LAUREL (STPP) $6,500
EVALUATION (Cossitt) $6,000
$110,000
IV. PROGRESS TO DATE
This is a new planning process, both for Laurel and nationally. We have started the
program by bringing in some community visioning experts to include the Center for
Livable Communities, the National Main Street Program, and Walkable Communities.
Paul Zykovski of the Livable Communities set up a Visual Preference Slide Program
which we can use before groups throughout the community. This program started people
thinking about how Laurel looks and how its citizens might like it to look.
National Main Street Center came up next and looked specifically at the downtown area.
They made several suggestions such as the need for a staff person concentrating on
downtown redevelopment and the need for a separate organization focusing on such
redevelopment.
Most recently we have had Dan Burden from Walkable Communities in for community
design presentation. Dan saw great opportunities in the great expanses of streets Laurel
has and suggested strongly that we consider diagonal parking in some areas and round-
abouts or turning circles. The latter both reduce congestion and traffic accidents and can
be used as focal points for downtown renewal.
11 't
6
Presently data is being collected on traffic patterns, standards, counts, and so on to be
given back to Dan Burden for round-about design and for the needed data base for the
traffic engineering being done by Carter-Burgess. Land use information is also being
mapped. Very importantly, the computer mapping process is being worked out between
the City and Yellowstone County so that all the data gathered can be manipulated
graphically for planning and community design purposes.
V. GOALS (FORMAL, PLANNING, SPECIFIC)
As specified by the TCSP Program: "To plan and implement strategies which improve the
efficiency of the transportation system, reduce environmental impacts of transportation,
reduce need for costly future expenditures, ensure efficient access to jobs, service and
trade, and examine development patterns and identify strategies to encourage private
sector development patterns achieving these goals. The program is intended to increase
the knowledge of costs and benefits of different approaches to integrating transportation
investments, community preservation, land development patterns, and environmental
protection; and to demonstrate transportation strategies incorporating short and long term
environmental, economic, and social equity needs of communities."
More succinctly:
1. Reduce use of motorized vehicular traffic and need for motorized
vehicles.
2. Reduce public dollars spent on motorized vehicular-related
infrastructure.
3. Coordinate with future area transportation plans.
Laurel planning specific: Revise ordinances, regulations, and standards to reflect TCSP
Plan results and recommendations to include:
1. Zoning Ordinance.
2. Central Business District (CBD) Building Codes.
3. Subdivision Regulations.
4. CBD Parking regulations.
5. Update Comprehensive Plan as needed.
VI. EVALUATION
The TCSP Program is intended as a pilot program, and the Federal government is very
interested in being able to replicate workable programs elsewhere under new funding or
assess why a particular project did not work. Therefore a complete evaluation program is
part of the Laurel TCSP Project. The complete Evaluation Plan requirement is included in
the TCSP Proposal in the OC Notebook. Cossitt Consulting has been retained to develop
the evaluation, and that contract is included in the Contracts portion of the Notebook also.
7
VII, OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE TASKS
Review and recommend needed action on progress, planned activities, and invoices
to City Council as presented by the Planning Director. Such oversight will include
recommendations as to the final proposals resulting from this TCSP Project.
r"'r
8
.10'1?
TCSP BUDGET
Element & Assignment (in addition to staff)
Budgeted; !
Committed)
Remaining
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT (Walkable
Communities, CLC, NCAT, STPP, AERO,
000 I
$14
$14,000 i
$0
Main Street) ,
ANALYSIS OF MAJOR TRANSPORTATION
;
500
$10
$10,700 '
($200)
FEATURES (Carter-Burgess) , I
ANALYSIS OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
(STPP, Tracy-Williams, MSU Surveying) $24,500 $24,500
ANALYSIS OF NON-MOTARIZED TRAVEL
(Tracy-Williams)
ANALYSIS OF DOWNTOWN (Main Street) I $6,500
$10,000 I
$8,000 $6,500
$2,000
ANALYSIS OF LAND USE (CLC) $13,500 I $4,000 $9,500
CREATION OF ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS i
(STPP) { $18,500 % I $18,500
ACTION PLAN FOR A SUSTAINABLE
LAUREL (STPP) $6,500 $6,500
EVALUATION (Cossitt) $6,000 $3,925 i $2,075
$110,000 $40,625 i $69,375
1999 Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program
Proposal:
A Transportation and Community Sustainability Plan for
Laurel, Montana
Type of Request: Planning grant
r""1 Project Name and Location: Transportation and Community Sustainability Plan, City of Laurel, Montana
Organization: The Incorporated City of Laurel, Montana
Key Contact: Cal Cumin, Planning Director
Phone/Fax/email: (406) 245-5843; fax: (406) 256-2777; email: cumin'd ?0P.Ilet
Grant Request: $85,000
s`\
?-IN
Introduction:
The Setting:
Laurel is an incorporated community of approximately 7,000 people. It is bisected by State Highway 10 west to east
which is also the frontage road to Interstate Highway 90. North and south, the community is divided by State
Highways 212/532. Between Highway 10 and the Interstate east and west is the southern main line of the Montana
Rail Link Railroad. In addition, a new interstate interchange for the largest community in Montana, Billings, is
under construction seven miles to the east.
Project Overview:
The project will address the impacts of the above-described transportation system elements on the short- and long-
term sustainability of the commercial and residential fabric of Laurel and the viability of the community to survive
the continuing influence of the in-place transportation system.
The primary product of this project will be a "Transportation and Community Sustainability Plan" for the City of
Laurel. This plan will consist of seven primary elements: (1) an analysis of the traffic and community impacts of
the major transportation features; (2) an analysis of Laurel's overall transportation system (current and planned)
and its implications for sustainability; (3) an analysis of Laurel's land use patterns and their contributions to the
traffic situation; (4) an analysis of the sustainability of the community's commercial core in the face of
transportation-related threats; (5) an analysis of non-motorized travel in Laurel; (6) an analysis of how different
assumptions in transportation and land use can lead to more sustainable scenarios for Laurel's future; and (7) an
action plan for creating a more sustainable Laurel. The evaluation process will be described in the separate Project
Evaluation Plan.
r"t Several of the processes this project will set in motion will have long-term ramifications outside the confines of the
project itself. For example, work with Walkable Communities and the Local Government Commission will help
Laurel citizens build their own vision of the community's future and may spawn new organizations and new
projects. Work with the National Main Street Center in assessing the downtown's sustainability will help train
local business leaders to build a strong commercial center. These leaders will broaden their task by perhaps
working on a downtown events calendar. Work with the National Center for Appropriate Technology and the LGC
will help local planners and developers incorporate sustainability into their planning and building processes.
Developers who participate may well produce examples that other communities will want to learn about and
emulate.
Oversight Committee:
The project will be overseen by a cooperative group which will take part in all major project decisions and will be
expected to help implement the action plan created through the process. Involved members will include Laurel-
Yellowstone City-County Planning Board, Planning Director, Mayor, three City Council members, Laurel
Revitalization Association, Laurel Public Works Director, District Engineer for the Montana Department of
Transportation, members of the North First Avenue Task Force, member of the Board of County Commissioners,
and business and industry leaders (including Cenex and Montana Rail Link) and commercial property owners.
,,....1\
Advisory Panel:
Because of the diversity of issues to be considered in the creation of the plan, project staff will be assisted by a
panel of advisors, whose primary role will be to offer guidance, suggest processes, and review progress. In some
instances, panel members and their organizations will provide additional assistance in the creation of specific plan
elements. Members of this panel will include:
Chris Allen, National CenterforAlternative Technology
Dan Burden, Walkable Communities
e-\ Hank Dittmar, Surface Transportation Policy Project
Kathy Harris, P.E., Carter Burgess, Inc., of Helena, Montana
Marla Larson, Montana Department of Environmental Quality
Barron Parks, P.E., Montana Department of Transportation
Stephanie Redman, National Main Street Center
John Williams, Tracy-Williams Consulting
Paul Zykofsky, Center for Livable Communities
Project Objectives:
Within the context of the development of Laurel's Transportation and Community Sustainability Plan, the project's
objectives are to:
1. Improve the efficiency of Laurel's transportation system by:
(a) Studying the impacts of the numerous barriers and discontinuities on the efficiency of the current system
and developing a set of recommendations for reducing the impacts of these problems on the community.
(b) Studying local transportation-related patterns, as well as agency and organization practices and policies
and developing a set of recommendations that will encourage greater efficiency in the system.
2. Reduce the need for motorized trips to satisfy basic needs by:
(a) Studying the strengths and weaknesses of Laurers downtown and preparing a set of recommendations for
enhancing its viability.
(b) Studying Laurel's land use patterns, particularly those elements likely to affect the community's
sustainability and developing recommendations based on sustainable development concepts.
3. Empower Laurel residents to more effectively create a sustainable future
for their own community by:
(a) Conducting a visioning process through an intensive workshop to help identify local visions for a
sustainable Laurel future and assisting in the recruitment and training of residents, business owners, local
government officials, and members of the development community to join the long-term effort to craft
detailed strategies for implementing a sustainable future for Laurel.
(b) Provide continuing opportunities for members of the public to get involved in the process and to have their
voices heard.
(c) Seriously consider input from members of the public in the development of the alternative scenarios and
the final preferred scenario.
(d) Conducting specialized outreach efforts on key aspects of the project, like sustainable development and
downtown revitalization.
The Process:
As has been shown in numerous communities, local ownership of the process is the most viable way to make things
happen. For this reason, the involvement of an inclusive oversight committee and an extensive outreach program
are key ingredients of the Laurel Transportation and Community Sustainability Plan.
' Public Involvement:
A successful public involvement strategy uses a variety of means to bring a broad range of participants to the table.
Beginning with the passage of ISTEA in 1991, transportation planning has had, as a major goal, providing the
public with full information in a timely fashion, access to the process at all key decision points, the involvement of
all affected parties-including the traditionally underserved, and meaningful opportunities to affect project
outcomes. To accomplish this purpose within the context of the Transportation and Community Sustainability
Plan, the Project Team will W complete the following activities.
1) With assistance from the Center for Livable Communities (CLC) and Walkable Communities, the Project
Team will host an initial visioning workshop, involving residents of all ages to help Laurel create its own
vision of a sustainable community future. The primary components of the workshop will be a visual preference
survey and a charette on community design and transportation.
2) With assistance from the CLC, Walkable Communities, the National Center for Appropriate Technology, the
Surface Transportation Policy Project, and the Main Street Center, the Project Team will give follow-up
presentations on specific elements of the Plan, mchudmg one that focuses on downtown revitalization, one on
sustainable transportation options, and one on sustainable land use practices.
3) Finally, the Project Team will, on a regular basis, provide information on the progress of the project through
news releases; give presentations to a variety of groups; provide key documents at accessible locations around
the community; and create and distribute a project update that will go out to interested groups and individuals.
Analysis of Laurel's Transportation System:
Currently, the circulation system is characterized by severe fragmentation, caused in large part by the presence of
major regional and national transportation corridors that bisect the community.
It is more than likely that the efficiency of Laurel's transportation system is seriously compromised by the effects of
this fragmentation, to the extent that many trips must be longer than otherwise needed. And, in some cases,
requiring travelers to use a motorized mode to reach a particular destination where a simple walking journey may
suffice.
1) Motorized Travel Demand and Capacity: This task will collect the available data for traffic growth, travel
demand, and proposed infrastructure improvements. The data collection will focus on utilizing available data from
sources including the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT); land use changes identified; City-County
Planning efforts, development projections, local school projections and safety route(s), etc.. After a review of the
available data, additional data may be collected by local sources. Additional data could include: vehicle turning
movement counts, tube counts, travel time or route, existing access, truck routes and volumes, bicycle volumes,
pedestrian counts or route (especially near schools), inventory of vehicle and bicycle parking, selective license plate
surveys, etc..
Typical roadway level-of-service will be analyzed for key components of the transportation system for existing and
future travel demands.
Based on the proposed construction and the projected growth, the transportation network will identify sections with
capacity or safety problems, with a focus on the links between rural and urban, interstate and local and on
intermodal links. Local streets will be reviewed to determine which facilitlss have capacity for non-motorized
travel, parking, and additional roadway capacity.
2) Define and Evaluate Alternatives: Develop conceptual long-term mobility alternatives for east/west and
north/south travel for both motorized and non-motorized travel. Based upon public input and data analyses,
route/strategies will be evaluated to determine if they meet project goals for community sustainability. Evaluate
conceptual mobility alternatives based on development of preliminary screening criteria, develop in conjunction
with study goals and objectives. Agreement by the Oversight Committee will confirm the screening criteria and
the relative weighting of the criteria. (For example, pedestrian safety may rate stronger than intersection level-of-
service at downtown sites but may have equivalent ratings at interstate intersections.)
The Team will also conduct a detailed telephone survey of residents and small-scale trip diary study in order to
gain further insight into the community's travel behaviors, needs, and desires.
The results of this analysis will be used by the Project Team to project trends in local travel and to explore
alternative means of satisfying the community's resulting needs.
Analysis of Downtown Sustainability
Working with the Laurel Revitalization Association, Laurel's Public Works Department, planned CDBG funding,
and the Main Streets Center of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Project Team will analyze the
strengths and weaknesses of Laurel's commercial core through the creation of a Main Street Assessment.
In preparing a Main Street Assessment, the Team will look at the impacts of transportation features on the viability
of downtown; the physical appearance of the district, including its buildings and public infrastructure; the
downtown's economic base and the impacts of highway-related commercial development; unique opportunities
presented by the downtown; and the level of community support of-and visions for--the district. The Project
Team will also produce a set of recommended actions for revitalization of the district and will help set in motion
the process for implementation.
Analysis of Land Use
Working with the Laurel-Yellowstone City-County Planning Office and the Board of County Commissioners of
Yellowstone County and with help from the Center for Livable Communities and the National Center for
Appropriate Technology, the Project Team will create a baseline picture of existing and projected land use in the
Laurel community, both within the city limits and on the periphery.
Much of the data gathering is taking place through current planning efforts and is being integrated into local
Geographic Information System databases. For the purposes of the Laurel Transportation and Community
Sustainability Plan, however, the Team will focus on those elements of land use that, according to the literature
and the Advisory Panel, influence the sustainability of a community, the vitality of its core, traffic generation rates;
and the ability of residents to choose among a variety of transportation modes. These include considerations like
residential density and lot sizes; proximity between different land uses; and commercial density and off-street
parking.
In addition to analyzing current land uses, the Project Team will look at existing plans, codes, and policies to
determine how well the current regulatory framework fosters sustainability. And, using tools like the Smart Places
program, the Local Government Commission's Compact Development Survey, and the Case for Sustainability, the
Team will prepare a set of recommendations that are likely to improve the sustainability of Laurel by minimizing
adverse environmental impacts and encouraging innovative development practices. To this end, the Project Team
anticipates hosting a training session for local developers and others in order to highlight sustainable practices.
Analysis of Non-Motorized Travel
During the analysis of non-motorized travel, the Project Team with the assistance of Tracy-Williams Consulting,
will look at the extent of the existing pedestrian and bicycle systems. For the pedestrian system, the Team will
?M perform a walkability audit and conduct an NHTSA/EPA "Pedestrian Roadshow" with assistance from the
Montana Department of Transportation's bicycle/pedestrian coordinator. The Team will also look at compliance
with ADA regulations. For the bicycle system, the Project Team will use elements of the Bicycle Compatibility
Index process (FHWA, 1998) to determine basic suitability of the major street system, combined with a mapping
exercise to identify specific hazards.
To determine baseline levels of non-motorized travel, the Project Team will use available data sources (e.g., the
1990 Census Journey to Work Survey) and data from the travel survey and trip diary studies discussed earlier.
The Project Team will also evaluate opportunities for bicycle- and pedestrian-related improvements such as
potential trail corridors; possible links to particular destinations; and particular roadways that have extra space.
From this study, the Project Team will produce a set of recommendations that are likely to lead to greater use of
non-motorized modes for a variety of purposes.
Creation of Alternate Scenarios
Current trends, events, and processes will give Laurel a relatively predictable set of future outcomes. To some
un extent, all of the following characterize Laurel: high levels of motor vehicle travel and increasing need for
expensive infrastructure to accommodate such travel; a declining downtown core; increased commercial
bi development along major transportation corridors; primarily large lot single use residential development on the
outskirts; and few non-motorized trips and little provision for such trips. The Project Team will create a "build-out"
scenario that projects current trends into the future.
Through the public involvement process and in consultation with the Oversight Committee and the Advisory
Panel, the Project Team will create two alternate visions of Laurel's future for debate, discussion, and modification.
Ultimately, one preferred scenario will be incorporated into the Plan's vision, goals, objectives, and performance
criteria.
While the development of the specifics of the alternate scenarios will come through the planning process, some
typical elements that are likely to be discussed and may be included in some way are:
• A more "community-friendly" set of roadway design standards that emphasize lower traffic speeds and a
more flexible reliance on the functional roadway hierarchy
• Solutions to currently identified transportation problems and needs (e.g., the elimination of major barriers)
that balance transportation needs and community sustainability
/" • Compact development patterns that emphasize easy access; a fine-grained transportation system; a de-
emphasis of large public works solutions to Laurel's transportation problems
• Pedestrian-oriented commercial areas that include minimum setbacks for storefronts, sidewalk-facing front
doors and display windows, on-street parking, and pedestrian amenities like benches
• Mixed commercial and residential land uses, this may include provision of apartments adjacent to
businesses and compatible business uses near most residential areas
• Mixed residential uses, combining, for example, accessory dwelling units and carefully placed and well-
designed multifamily dwelling units.
A growing body of literature can help show the performance differences of alternate scenarios. This literature will
be used to project differences in congestion, motor vehicle use, energy consumption, infrastructure needs, and land
consumption.
For example, the LUTRAQ process developed in the Portland Metropolitan Region has identified a series of
Pedestrian Environment Factors that correspond with reduced numbers of motor vehicle trips. Similarly, work
conducted in the San Francisco Bay area has shown significant differences between alternate development styles.
Even here in relatively rural Montana, preliminary research has shown that residential areas that are close to
employment centers and adhere to a more traditional community development pattern generate significantly lower
levels of motorized travel than nearby neighborhoods that are more auto-oriented
In the development of the alternate scenarios, the Project Team will explore the use of software like the Smart
Places package, as well as more traditional sketch plan approaches, to generate a set of likely impacts for each
scenario. To determine the most applicable approach, the panel of advisors will help weigh the benefits vs. costs in
light of the availability of usable local data.
Next, the scenarios will be presented to the public and a wide variety of local audiences. The purpose will be to
generate discussion of alternative Laurel futures and to learn how residents of Laurel want the community to grow.
Through survey work and extensive public and oversight committee involvement, the project team will prepare a
preferred scenario based on a consensus process.
6
This scenario will then be compared with what is allowed under existing regulations, plans, and policies in order to
determine what needs to change in order for it to happen. The outcome of this process will be an action plan that
includes: a list of changes; who must make them; and how they can be made. A key ingredient of this process is to
involve those bodies responsible for updating such plans, policies, and regulations in the process from the
beginning. As has been stated before, the Oversight Committee contains many of the key players and others will be
approached to participate.
n
Action Plan for a Sustainable Laurel
Once a preferred alternative has been identified and its components generally described, the Project Team will
work with the Oversight Committee to create an Action Plan. For transportation-related projects, this will mean
preparing proposed modifications to long-range transportation plans and a prioritized list of projects for the local
TIP and State TIP, or STEP. For land use proposals, it means preparing a list of the major suggested changes to the
comprehensive plan and subdivision and zoning regulations.
A detailed timeline will be a key component of the Action Plan. The timeline will identify tasks that must take
place by certain times (e.g., TIP project proposals must generally be submitted by a particular date in order to be
considered) and tasks that must be addressed as components of certain processes (e.g., comprehensive plans are
typically updated on a multi-year schedule). Preparing a timeline will assure that deadlines are met and projects
addressed as needed.
The Action Plan will also identify the agencies and groups that control implementation of each proposed action.
Since the Oversight Committee membership includes many of the key players, this task will help to assign
responsibility. It will also help identify tasks for which the responsible parties are external to the process. It will be
critical, however, that these parties be invited to participate early in the process. Hence, the importance of early and
continuing outreach and public involvement.
Evaluation
The evaluation component of this project will be described in detail in the Project Evaluation Plan.
Relationship with the TCSP Purpose and Criteria:
#1: Improve the efficiency of the transportation system
The Project will analyze the impact of the existing transportation system and the new interstate interchange with
the focus of maintaining the integrity of Laurel as a residential community. There are historical, current, and future
assessments that must be completed before determining how to best improve the movement of people within and to
and from the community. Because of the location of the existing transportation systems, extreme fragmentation
exists with the old downtown in decline and haphazard new interstate-oriented commercial development sapping
the traditional strength of the core community.
#2: Reduce the impacts of transportation on the environment
Non-motor vehicle transportation will be analyzed to determine possible mitigation of the fragmentation problem
created by the existing transportation system. Links necessary to alleviating adverse existing impacts of
transportation circulation will be studied in conjunction with land development patterns and regional circulation
needs and influences.
#3: Reduce the need for costly future investments in public infrastructure
Traditional transportation infrastructure improvements dictate expensive underpass or overpass needs at the
railroad interface and additional interstate interchange access ramp construction. The project will analyze
community growth patterns, core community sustainability requirements, and land development anticipation to
determine methods of minimizing costly public transportation infrastructure requirements.
7
#4: Ensure efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade
The project will focus on the sustainability of Laurel as a community in which people-not necessarily vehicles-
can work, obtain necessary services, and provide for the interaction required to maintain a viable and vital`
community core. The existing transportation system and the new interstate interchange affect the provision of jobs,
services, and regional economic patterns of trade. Without this project, most of the impacts will be negative, and
Laurel as an integrated community will decline-without costly infrastructure improvements.
$5: Examine development patterns and identify strategies to encourage private sector development which
achieves the goals of the TCSP.
The land use pattern around and in Laurel will be analyzed Most important among the land uses is transportation
and its paramount influence on commercial, industrial, and residential patterns. The private sector responds to
existing or perceived needs or provisions mostly generated by the availability of public infrastructure. Project
results will, among other objectives, promote land use patterns that sustain sound community growth without
requiring the constant infusion of expensive public infrastructure.
Project Logistics:
Coordination
A primary purpose of this project is to develop projects for inclusion in local long-range transportation plans and
Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPS). For this reason, staff from the Laurel-Yellowstone City-County
Planning Office, Yellowstone County Commissioners, and the Billings District of the Montana Department of
Transportation are included on the Oversight Committee.
/0"*N Partners
As mentioned earlier in this proposal, the project will be coordinated by an Oversight Committee, consisting of
agencies and organizations representing a broad range of constituencies.
Budget and Resources:
Non-Federal resources include $10,000 that Laurel has budgeted to initiate planning analysis of continued
community sustainability and viability. The Laurel Business Improvement District is raising an additional $10,000
to provide on-going budgetary assistance to determining direction for the commercial community to address the
fragmentation and possible opportunities caused by the transportation system-induced community fragmentation.
The Public Works Department of Laurel is putting $5,000 into the study.
Project Element:
Public Involvement:
Personnel costs: $4,000
Travel: $1,000
Professional Services (Walkable Communities) $9,000
Evaluation Services: $500
Subtotal: $14,500
Analysis of Major Transportation Features:
Personnel costs: $1,000
Travel: $500
Professional Services (Carter-Burgess, Inc.) $9,000
,.? Evaluation Services $300 *L
Subtotal: $10,700
s--N Note: Laurel Public Works' $5,000 contribution to be used on this element.
Analysis of Laurel's Transportation System:
Personnel costs: $3,000
Travel: $2,000
Professional Services (STPP, Tracy-Williams, MSU surveying) $19,500
Evaluation Services: $500
Subtotal: $25,000
Note: City of Laurel's $10,000 contribution to be used on this element.
Analysis of Downtown Sustainability.
Personnel costs: $1,000
Travel: $1,000
Professional Services (Main Street Center): $8,000
Evaluation Services: $300 Z D
Subtotal: $10,200
Note: Laurel Revitalization Association's $10,000 contribution to be used on this element.
Analysis of Land Use:
Personnel costs: $7,500
Travel: $1000
Professional Services (Center for Livable Communities, Nat'l
Center for Alternative Technology) $5,000
Evaluation Services: $500
Subtotal: $14,000
Analysis of Non Motorized Travel:
Personnel costs: $1000
Travel: 300
Professional Services (Tracy-Williams Consulting): $5,200
Evaluation Services: $300
Subtotal: $6,800
Creation ofAlternate Scenarios:
Personnel costs: $3,500
Travel: $1,000
Professional Services (STPP) $14,000
Evaluation Services: $500
Subtotal: $19,000
Action Plan for a Sustainable Laurel:
Personnel costs: $3,000
Travel: $0
Professional Services (STPP): $3,500
Evaluation Services: $500
Subtotal: $7,000
Evaluation:
Personnel costs: $1,800
Travel: $1,000
9
r"\ Professional Services: $0
Evaluation Services: $0
Subtotal: $2,800
Note: Does not include Evaluation Services listed under other elements.
Total Budget: $110,000
Local Contribution: $25,000
Grant Request. $85, 000
Project Schedule
The planning phase of this project will take eighteen months to complete along the following timeline:
1. Startup, analysis team selection, and public coordination: 3 months
This step will include the preparation of a detailed workplan, production of the initial visioning workshop, and
initial public outreach. A report on the workshop and an evaluation of that process will be prepared for
submission at the end of the period.
2. Analysis and mapping: 4 months
This step involves gathering the data and resources for the development of the scenarios, preparing the analyses
on transportation (motorized and non-motorized), land use, and downtown viability. The three scenarios will be
prepared for presentation. And a brief evaluation of the data gathering and analysis process will be prepared for
submission at the end of the period.
3. Community presentation and education: 3 months
This step includes publicizing the scenarios and their meanings and soliciting comment from a wide range of
residents, business owners, and others with a stake in the process. A report on the preferences of the various
publics will be prepared, as will an evaluation of the communication processes used.
4. Refinement and plan consensus building: 6 months
Further work on the scenarios and the preferred alternative will take place in this step and will particularly
involve working with the Oversight Committee to develop the Action Plan.
5. Publication of the Action Plan: 2 months
The details of the preferred scenario will be further clarified, based on feedback from the previous step, and will
be presented to the community in a widely-available publication. At this point, the final evaluation of the project
will be prepared and will include a compilation of the previous reports as well as a report on the process as a
whole.
Evaluation Plan
Introduction:
The evaluation processes described below will be conducted by the Project Team, in particular Cal Cumin, Laurel's
Planning Director, Hank Dittmar, Campaign Director for the STPP's Transportation and Quality of Life
Campaign, and John Williams, vice president of Tracy-Williams Consulting.
Much of the basic evaluation work will involve counting participants; summarizing comments received; producing,
distributing and analyzing questionnaires for participants in the various sub-processes of this project; and
cataloguing local agency and group decisions. These evaluation processes will be conducted on an on-going basis
as part of the project.
10
10-IN More involved evaluation processes, like the analysis of long-term changes in land use patterns or travel demand,
will be conducted as part of on-going planning function of the Laurel Planning Office and will be aided through
the increasing use of the City's Geographical Information System.
At this time, the City is starting to build a GIS database, and the current grant will help staff collect particular
kinds of data relating to the linkage between transportation and land use. These data will help form the basis of
forecasting future trends and effects of changes introduced through this project.
Evaluation Reporting:
The Project Team will prepare monthly progress reports on the project and will compile an initial evaluation report
for delivery at the end of the grant period This report will describe the entire process and discuss results of the
various elements.
In the longer term, the Laurel Planning Office will produce an annual summary of trends (e.g., land use changes,
downtown viability, and travel patterns). In addition, the Planning Office will include evaluations of land use and
transportation aspects in future long-range transportation plan updates and comprehensive plan updates.
Evaluation and Project Objectives:
The following section presents each of the project objectives listed in the main body of the proposal and discusses,
generally, how each will be evaluated.
Project Objectives:
Within the context of the development of Laurel's Transportation and Community Sustaimbility Plan, the project's
objectives are to:
1. Improve the efficiency of Laurel's transportation system by:
(a) Studying the impacts of the numerous barriers and discontinuities on the efficiency of the current system and
developing a set of recommendations for reducing the impacts of these problems on the community.
Process evaluation:
How successfully have the general public and key implementors been included in the process?
Performance Measures. effectiveness of outreach (e.g., newspaper articles, letters to key organizations); level
of involvement (e.g., attendance at important meetings); satisfaction with the process (e.g., letters from
constituents, comments at public meetings).
How do the project recommendations compare to earlier concepts put forth as solutions?
Performance Measures. innovativeness of approaches (e.g., solutions that satisfy goals through non-standard
public works projects); low cost (e.g., compared to estimated costs of previous approaches); consideration of
sustainability impacts (e.g., involves comparatively little disruption of downtown).
Product Evaluation:
How completely did the study identify the major barriers and discontinuities?
Performance Measures. satisfaction of key decision-makers (e.g., all barriers identified by the Oversight
Committee have been included); satisfaction of public (e.g., all barriers identified through public processes
have been included)
1'"',
11
How satisfactory are the solutions proposed?
Performance Measures: acceptance of the report by key decision-makers (e.g., adoption by City Council;
approval by Oversight Committee; inclusion in local long-range transportation plan and TIP); acceptance by
the public (e.g., letters in support of projects, resolutions ofgroups in support of projects)
Outcome Evaluation:
How do the solutions, once implemented, improve the efficiency of Laurel's transportation system?
Performance Measures: traffic changes at key locations (e.g., volume changes, accident records, violation
records)
Roles/Responsibilities/Commitments.
The evaluation of this task will be performed by the Project Team as part of this grant. Effects of implemented
projects will be evaluated by the Laurel Planning Office in cooperation with the Laurel Public Works
Department as part of the long-range planning and TIP preparation process.
(b) Studying local transportation-related patterns, as well as agency and organization practices, and policies and
developing a set of recommendations that will encourage greater efficiency in the system.
Process evaluation:
How successfully have the general public and key implementors been included in the process?
Performance Measures: effectiveness of outreach (e.g., newspaper articles, letters to key organizations,
adequacy of survey sample sizes); level of involvement (e.g., attendance at important meetings, rates of
completion of surveys); satisfaction with the process (e.g., letters from constituents, comments at public
meetings).
How do the project recommendations compare to more traditional transportation planning processes?
Performance Measures: breadth of approach (e.g., includes solutions other than just large public works
projects); range of scales (e.g., includes small projects that `;fine tune " system); considerate ofsustainability
impacts (e.g., involves comparatively little disruption of downtown and gives travelers options).
Product Evaluation:
How completely did the study deal with Laurel's transportation system?
Performance Measures: satisfaction of key decision-makers (e.g., all major traffic concerns identified by the
Oversight Committee have been discussed and resolved); satisfaction of public (e.g., all major traffic
concerns identified through public processes have been discussed and resolved)
How satisfactory are the solutions proposed?
Performance Measures. acceptance of the report by key decision-makers (e.g., adoption by City Council;
approval by Oversight Committee; inclusion in local long-range transportation plan and TIP); acceptance by
the public (e.g., letters of support for major initiatives, resolutions of groups in support)
Outcome Evaluation:
How do the recommendations, once implemented, improve the efficiency of Laurel's transportation system?
Performance Measures. changes in travel patterns (e.g., reduction in vehicle miles traveled, reduction in
number of trips per household); changes in overall traffic congestion (e.g., general improvement in level of
service)
RoleslResponsibilities/Commi tments:
1'_1
12
The initial evaluation of this task will be performed by the Project Team as part of this grant. Changes in
long-term patterns will be evaluated by the Laurel Planning Office as part of its on going transportation
planning function.
2. Reduce the need for motorized trips to satisfy basic needs by:
(a) Studying the strengths and weaknesses of Laurel's downtown and preparing a set of recommendations for
enhancing its viability.
Process evaluation:
How successfully have the general public and key implementors been included in the process?
Performance Measures: effectiveness of outreach (e.g., newspaper articles, letters to downtown businesses);
level of involvement (e.g., attendance at important meetings); satisfaction with the process (e.g., letters from
constituents, comments at public meetings).
How successful was the project in coordinating with other downtown initiatives?
Performance Measures. level of cooperation (e.g., with the CDBG process); little duplication of effort (e.g.,
study not reproduced in other grant processes)
Product Evaluation:
How completely did the study identify the downtown's strengths and weaknesses?
Performance Measures. satisfaction of key decision-makers (e.g., elements identified by the Laurel
Revitalization Association have been included); satisfaction ofpublic (e.g., elements identified through public
processes have been included)
How satisfactory are the solutions proposed?
Performance Measures: acceptance of the report by key decision-makers (e.g., adoption by City Council;
approval by Laurel Revitalization Association; inclusion of public elements in Laurel's CIP, approved by the
County Commissioners); acceptance by the public (e.g., letters in support ofprojects, resolutions ofgroups in
support of projects)
Outcome Evaluation:
How do the solutions, once implemented, reduce the need for motorized trips?
Performance Measures: expansion of downtown 's ability to meet basic needs (e.g., increases in business
diversity, reduction in distances required to satisfy key needs); increases in use of downtown among residents
(e.g., greater numbers of residents reporting trips to downtown destinations)
Roles/Responsibilities/Commitments.-
The process and product evaluation of this task will be performed by the Project Team as part of this grant.
Effects of long-term outcomes will be evaluated by the Laurel Planning Office in cooperation with the Laurel
Revitalization Association as part of the downtown revitalization process and the long-range transportation
planning process.
(b) Studying Laurel's land use patterns, particularly those elements likely to affect the community's sustainability
and developing recommendations based on sustainable development concepts.
Process evaluation:
/1-I` How successfully have the general public and key implementors been included in the process?
13
XI-1 Performance Measures: effectiveness of outreach (e.g., newspaper articles, letters to key organizations,
adequacy of survey sample sizes); level of involvement (e.g., attendance at important meetings, rates of
completion of surveys); satisfaction with the process (e.g., letters from constituents, comments at public
meetings).
How do the land use recommendations compare to more traditional community planning processes?
Performance Measures. breadth of approach (e.g., effectively links land use recommendations with
transportation implications); considerate of sustainability impacts (e.g., takes into account long-term costs of
land use development patterns).
Product Evaluation:
How completely did the study deal with Laurel's land use planning process?
Performance Measures. satisfaction of key decision-makers (e.g., all major livability concerns identified by
the Oversight Committee have been discussed and resolved); satisfaction of public (e.g., all major livability
concerns identified through public processes have been discussed and resolved)
How satisfactory are the solutions proposed?
Performance Measures., acceptance of the report by key decision-makers (e.g., adoption by City Council;
approval by Oversight Committee; inclusion in the comprehensive plan); acceptance by the public (e.g.,
letters of support for major initiatives, resolutions of groups in support)
Outcome Evaluation:
How do the recommendations, once implemented, reduce the need for motorized trips?
Performance Measures. changes in development patterns (e.g., different mixtures of land use) changes in
travel patterns (e.g., reduction in vehicle miles traveled, reduction in number of trips per household)
Roles/Responsibilities/Commitments:
The initial evaluation of this task will be performed by the Project Team as part of this grant. Changes in
long-term patterns will be evaluated by the Laurel Planning Office as part of its on going land use planning
function.
3. Empower Laurel residents to more effectively create a sustainable future for their
own community by:
(a) Conducting a visioning process through an intensive workshop to help identify local visions for a sustainable
Laurel future and assisting in the recruitment and training of residents, business owners, local government
officials, and members of the development community to join the long-term effort to craft detailed strategies
for implementing a sustainable future for Laurel.
Process evaluation:
How successfully have the general public and key implementors been included in the process?
Performance Measures: effectiveness of outreach (e.g., newspaper articles, letters to downtown businesses);
level of involvement (e.g., attendance at visioning workshop); satisfaction with the process (e.g., letters from
constituents, comments at public meetings).
14
^ How successful was the project in ensuring participant buy4n?
Performance Measures: level of acceptance (e.g., adoption of key visions by local agencies and groups),
inclusion of elements in local budgets); creation of "spin-q6r' efforts (e.g., groups working on individual
elements, volunteer efforts involving creation of vision-related new projects)
Product Evaluation:
How well did the workshop identify a cohesive vision that came from the participants?
Performance Measures: satisfaction of participants (e.g., letters and workshop evaluations testifying to the
genuine nature of the process and the result); high ratings of project' value); satisfaction of key decision-
makers (e.g., identification of vision as right for Laurel rather than imported,• adoption as part of City
charter); satisfaction of public (e.g., letters identifying vision as uniquely appropriate for Laurel)
How satisfactory are the visions proposed?
Performance Measures: acceptance of the visioning process results by key decision-makers (e.g., adoption of
vision-related projects by City Council, approval of results by Oversight Committee modification of current
and future projects as a result of the process); acceptance by the public (e.g., letters and resolutions ofgroups
in support of vision)
Outcome Evaluation:
How do the visions empower the residents of Laurel to create a more sustainable future?
Performance Measures: expanded involvement in local processes (e.g., increased participation in local
government and issues, creation of new organizations devoted to community affairs, creation of task forces
devoted to community affairs within existing groups)
Roles/Responsibilities/Commitments:
The process and product evaluation of this task will be performed by the Project Team as part of this grant.
Effects of long-term outcomes will be evaluated by the Laurel Planning Office in cooperation with the Laurel
Revitalization Association as part of the comprehensive planning process and the long-range transportation
planning process.
(b) Provide continuing opportunities for members of the public to get involved in the process and to have their
voices heard
Process evaluation:
How successfully have the general public and key implementors been included in the process?
Performance Measures: effectiveness of outreach (e.g., newspaper articles, letters to community groups);
level of involvement (e.g., number of people requesting notification and documents); satisfaction with the
process (e.g., letters from constituents, comments at public meetings).
Product Evaluation:
How well do the on going opportunities reflect a commitment on government's part to take public opinions
into account?
Performance Measures: satisfaction of participants (e.g., letters testifying to the satisfactory resolution of
issues); standard procedures for dealing with concerns (e.g., records of concerns received and actions taken);
satisfaction of public (e.g., letters expressing satisfaction with local government responsiveness)
Outcome Evaluation:
r•-? How do the on going involvement activities empower the residents of Laurel to create a more sustainable
future?
15
Performance Measures. expanded involvement in local processes (e.g., increased participation in local
government and issues, creation of new organizations devoted to community affairs, creation of task forces
devoted to community affairs within existing groups); inclusion of involvement activities in an expanded range
ofgovernmental activities (e.g., use of announcement and literature outlets for other kinds of announcements,
newspaper articles about other local issues)
Roles/Responsi bili ti es/Commi tments.
The process and product evaluation of this task will be performed by the Project Team as part of this grant.
Effects of long-term outcomes will be evaluated by the Laurel Planning Office as part of the comprehensive
planning process and the long-range transportation planning process.
(c) Seriously consider input from members of the public in the development of the alternative scenarios and the
final preferred scenario.
Process evaluation:
How successfully have the general public and key implementors been included in the process?
Performance Measures: effectiveness of outreach (e.g., newspaper articles, letters to community groups);
level of involvement (e.g., number of people requesting information on scenarios); satisfaction with the
process (e.g., letters from constituents, comments at public meetings).
Product Evaluation:
How well do the consideration of scenario comments reflect a commitment on government's part to take
public opinions into account?
Performance Measures: satisfaction of participants (e.g., letters testifying to the satisfactory resolution of
?....? issues); standard procedures for dealing with concerns (e.g., records of concerns received and actions taken)
Outcome Evaluation:
How do the on-going involvement activities empower the residents of Laurel to create a more sustainable
future?
Performance Measures: expanded involvement in local processes (e.g., increased participation in local
government and issues, creation of new organizations devoted to community affairs, creation of task forces
devoted to community affairs within existing groups); inclusion of involvement activities in an expanded range
ofgovernmental activities (e.g., use of announcement and literature outlets for other kinds of announcements,
newspaper articles about other local issues)
Rol es/Responsi bi li ti es/Commi tments.
The process and product evaluation of this task will be performed by the Project Team as part of this grant.
Effects of long-term outcomes will be evaluated by the Laurel Planning Office as part of the comprehensive
planning process and the long-range transportation planning process.
(d) Conducting specialized outreach efforts on key aspects of the project, like sustainable development and
downtown revitalization.
Process evaluation:
How successfully have the general public and key implementors been included in the process?
Performance Measures: effectiveness of outreach (e.g., newspaper articles, letters to community groups);
level of involvement (e.g., number of downtown business owners or local developer participating); satisfaction
with the process (e.g., letters from participants, comments at public meetings).
10"\ Product Evaluation:
How well did the specialized outreach efforts meet the needs of the participants?
16
? Performance Measures: satisfaction of participants (e.g., positive participant evaluations, letters); interest in
future workshops (e.g., suggestions in evaluations, follow-up letters)
Outcome Evaluation:
How did the specialized outreach efforts change development patterns and downtown characteristics?
Performance Measures: new kinds of project proposals (e.g., more sustainable developments, new downtown
project proposals, new businesses that serve more sustainable development patterns); interest in inclusion of
sustainability factors in local plans and codes (e.g., letters from constituents, creation of task forces)
Roles/Responsibilities/Commitments:
The process and product evaluation of this task will be performed by the Project Team as part of this grant.
Effects of long-term outcomes will be evaluated by the Laurel Planning Office as part of the comprehensive
planning process and the long-range transportation planning process.
About the Advisory Panel Members:
Chris Allen has ten years of experience in management and communications for sustainable development. He is a
project manager in the National Center for Appropriate Technology's (MCAT) Sustainable Energy Program. Since
its founding in 1976, the goal of NCAT"s energy-related work has been to efficiently research, synthesize, and
convey usable technical information to a national audience to help advance the understanding and applications of
renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. This focus complements NCAT's mission to serve primarily
low-income audiences through national technical assistance services, training programs, demonstration programs,
and clearinghouse projects.
Dan Burden is the founder of Walkable Communities, Inc. a non-profit consulting firm in High Springs, Florida.
He has spent the last twenty-five years developing, promoting and evaluating alternative transportation and
sustainable communities at national, regional, state and local levels. He specializes in transportation and land use
planning, research and implementation of pedestrian, bicycle traffic calming and street improvement projects. He
has communications expertise in public involvement, design charrettes and visioning. He serves as an expert
witness and has produced videos on street design process.
Hank Dittmar is Campaign Director for the Surface Transportation Policy Project's Transportation and Quality of
Life Campaign. Mr. Dittmar was the executive director of STPP from 1993 until TEA-21 passed in 1998, when he
moved to New Mexico, and was formerly Manager of Legislation and Finance for the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) in Oakland, California. STPP is a non-profit, public interest coalition of over 200 groups
devoted to ensuring that transportation policy and investments help conserve energy, protect environmental and
aesthetic quality, strengthen the economy, promote social equity, and make communities more livable.
Kathy Harris, P.E., of Helena, Montana is a senior transportation engineer with Carter & Burgess, Inc., and will
provide traffic analysis and transportation engineering. Her fifteen years in the transportation field provides a
background encompassing planning, design, and environmental analysis of highway, roadway, transit, and
pedestrian transportation projects in Montana, Colorado, and Nevada. Recent relevant projects include: Colorado
Springs, Phase 2, Downtown Business Improvement Project; Traffic engineering for pedestrians and vehicles
during reconstruction of Denver's Broadway Viaduct; Traffic Engineering for the Pedestrian Grade Separation on
the Las Vegas Strip, which included defining pedestrian needs during construction; Kathy is past president and
one of the founding members of the Montana Chapter of the Institute of Traffic Engineers and is active in the
Intermountain Section.
Marla Larson is an economist with the Pollution Prevention Bureau of the Montana Department of
Environmental Quality, where she works on transportation issues including alternative fuels and vehicles,
transportation system issues including community design, planning and zoning, and on the economics of pollution
prevention. Projects include participating in steering committee for the Greater Yellowstone-Teton Clean Cities
Coalition; working with the city of Bozeman on the pilot testing of the Smart Places system for creating resource
and fiscal impact scenarios of different types of development; and serving on the multi-agency core planning team
for the Greening of Yellowstone Workshops, held in Oct 1996 and May 1998.
17
Barron Parks, P.E., is the Billings District Engineer for the Montana Department of Transportation.
Stephanie Redman is the program manager for technical services for the National Trust's National Main Street
Center. Her work with more than 250 diverse communities in 33 states across the country has included a variety of
commercial district revitalization technical assistance and training. The National Trust for Historic Preservation's
National Main Street Center provides assistance to states and communities in establishing comprehensive
downtown revitalization programs. Since 1980, the Center has helped more than 1,300 communities, ranging in
size from a few hundred to several million people.
John Williams of Tracy-Williams Consulting, has edited Bicycle Forum since 1979. He spent seven years as the
Missoula, Montana, bicycle coordinator, has taught bicycle and pedestrian planning courses for the National
Highway Institute and numerous state departments of transportation, and has consulted with many local
governments on their bicycle and pedestrian needs. Tracy-Williams Consulting works on bicycle and pedestrian
projects and programs with agencies, ranging from the North Carolina DOT, to Carson City, Nevada.
Paul Zykofsky is the Director of the Center for Livable Communities (CLC). He is author of Building Livable
Communities: A Policymaker's Guide to Transit Oriented Design and has worked in land-use, air quality, and
transportation planning at the New York City Economic Development Corporation, the Sacramento Metropolitan
Air Quality Management District, and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments. The CLC is a branch of the
Local Government Commission, a non-profit, non-partisan membership organization with over 16 years
experience helping local government officials identify cost-effective solutions to diverse environmental and social
problems.
1,,..N
10-*N
18
1999 Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program
/? ??*? _! ?^T?/aWr LAwJ
P
cSP. co,'&.
Proposal:
A Transportation and Community Sustainability Plan for
Laurel, Montana
Type of Request: Planning grant
Project Name and Location: Transportation and Community Sustainability Plan, City of Laurel, Montana
Organization: The Incorporated City of Laurel, Montana
Key Contact: Cal Cumin, Planning Director
Phone/Fax/email: (406) 245-5843; fax: (406) 256-2777; email: curtiiii a N% tp- 'let
Grant Request: $85,000
/"*N
1