Wednesday, December 18, 2024
44.0°F

Mixed feelings emerge about bypass plan

by WILLIAM L. SPENCE The Daily Inter Lake
| August 11, 2005 1:00 AM

Local residents both praised and scolded the Montana Department of Transportation on Tuesday for its work on the U.S. 93 bypass west of Kalispell.

More than a hundred people attended a four-hour open house on the 7.6-mile project.

The event gave the public an opportunity to see the latest design proposal for the roadway, which is intended to provide a faster route around Kalispell.

Following a lengthy presentation by agency officials and consultants, a question-and-answer period was held.

One woman was applauded when she complained about the "Future Home of the U.S. 93 Bypass" billboards that were put up a few months ago near the north and south ends of the project.

"I'm trying to sell a house and can't because of those signs," she said.

Dwane Kailey, district administrator for the Department of Transportation, said the agency put the signs up because a lot of newcomers are moving here and it felt obligated to let them know that a bypass was planned.

The crowd also applauded when Brent Higgins noted that the U.S. 93 bypass would serve as a U.S. 2 bypass as well.

Traffic would use West Reserve Drive to get from La Salle Road to the west side of Kalispell, he said, thereby avoiding Idaho Street and the Main Street intersection.

Given that the bypass doesn't include any provisions for upgrading West Reserve, this could cause problems at the north end of the project.

"It's going to be a mess," Higgins said.

Rather than simply update the initial environmental impact study that was done on the bypass in 1994, Higgins and others suggested a more thorough analysis was needed - including exploring the possibility of moving the project's north end farther north.

Kailey said it's ultimately up to the Federal Highway Administration to decide whether a more thorough impact analysis is needed.

Brian Werle with Carter Burgess, the consulting firm that's doing the EIS update, pointed out that a new environmental analysis could take a few years to complete - thereby adding to what's already been a 12-year process.

Other speakers said the faster the bypass can be built, the better.

"We need to make a concerted effort to move forward as fast as possible," said Mike Fraser. "We need it tomorrow … or maybe yesterday. I think local residents need to lobby our Congressional delegation [for more money] to get this done."

Former Kalispell businessman Jim Lynch, now the director of the Department of Transportation, said the project funding continues to be an issue.

Despite a recent special appropriation of $30 million (see related story), Lynch said the state is still $50 million shy of the total estimated construction cost.

"I wish I could give you a better answer, but right now funding is a dilemma," he said.

Lynch suggested that the project could be built in phases. It might also be possible to build a cheaper version at first - one that has traffic lights at all the intersections, rather than a free-flowing version with overpasses - and "upgrade" to the more expensive version in the future, as additional federal dollars become available.

"That's something the community needs to decide," he said. "It's your roadway, your decision. Our job is to make sure we get a lot of public input regarding what you want, and then figure out how to pay for it."

Other details regarding the bypass that were made available on Tuesday:

. Current design proposal - To handle projected traffic flows over the next 25 years, the agency is proposing a free-flowing bypass that would only have traffic lights at the north and south ends.

The project would have four 12-foot wide driving lanes - two north-bound, two south-bound - separated by a 10-foot paved median. There would be 8-foot shoulders, no curbs, and a bike path separated from the roadway.

The "design speed" would be 65 mph; however, it would be up to the state transportation commission to set the actual speed limit.

The south end of the bypass would be south of Four Corners; the north end would be at U.S. 93 and West Reserve Drive.

In between, the highway would cross over or under seven other roadways. Full-access intersection (with on-ramps and off-ramps) are proposed at Foys Lake Road, U.S. 2, Four Mile Drive and just west of the Lowe's Home Improvement store, in the middle of the Section 36 school trust parcel. Partial-access intersections are proposed at Airport Road, Sunnyside Drive and Three Mile Drive; no access is proposed at Two Mile Drive.

Finally, in an effort to avoid gridlock at the north end of the bypass, a new loop road is proposed. It would start at West Reserve, just west of the Stillwater River, and run south behind Home Depot and Target, reconnecting with U.S. 93 just north of Flathead Valley Community College.

It would then continue west, tying into the bypass at the intersection located behind Lowe's.

. Traffic projections - By 2030, the bypass is projected to handle an annual average of 18,00 to 23,000 vehicles per day.

That's approximately the same amount of traffic that now uses U.S. 93 between Idaho Street and West Reserve.

This forecast is based on an estimated 2030 county population of 120,000. While that seems low, given recent growth rates, it corresponds with independent population projections from NPA Data Services.

Without a bypass, average traffic flows along Main Street, Idaho Street, Meridian Road and other local roads are projected to be higher by anywhere from 2,000 to 15,000 vehicles per day - 10 to 70 percent - depending on location.

These projections do not take into account seasonal peaks, which can be as much as 30 percent higher than the annual average.

. Timetable - A tentative schedule posted at Tuesday's open house indicated that the preliminary design and environmental re-evaluation would both be completed by March of 2006.

Final construction plans, right-of-way acquisitions and utility relocations are scheduled to be completed by the end of 2007.

Construction would begin in the spring of 2008, depending on funding.

However, Lynch suggested it would be "four years at best" before construction could actually start.