388.041 2001 T6tss 2002 fRANSPORTATION STAKEHOLDER SURYEY MONTANA STATE LIBRARY t 3 E. 6th AVE. TranPlan A 55<9520 21 I 2001 I MONTANASTATELIBRARY 3 0864 1001 5333 DATE DUE V; 7 JHI : DEMCO 38-301 — TranPlan 21 — 2001 2001 TRANSPORTATION STAKEHOLDER SURVEY TranPlan Public Involvement 21 Prepared by: Montana Department ofTransportation & Rail, Transit, Planning Division Multimodal Planning Bureau MARCH 2002 2001 StakeholderSurvey Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from Montana State Library http://archive.org/details/2001transport10130mont 1 List ofTables and Figures ii Executive Summary 1 Introduction 2 Survey Format 3 Stakeholders Satisfaction with the 3 Prioritizing Actions to Improve the - Transportation System New Questions 7 MDT's Role in Economic Development 7 MDT's Customer Service and Performance Grades 8 Bicycle and Pedestrian Stakeholder Group 9 Economic Development Stakeholder Group 15 Environmental Group 20 Intermodal Freight Stakeholder Group 27 Local Government Stakeholder Groups 32 City Stakeholder Group County Stakeholder Group Passenger Transportation Stakeholder Group 4 State, Federal, and Local Government 7 Stakeholder Group Native American Tribes Stakeholder Group 53 Appendix A- . i Stakeholder Surveys 2001 StakeholderSurvey i Table 1: Stakeholder Groups 3 Table 2: Possible MDT Economic Development Actions 7 Table 3: MDT Customer Service Grades 8 Table 4: Possible MDT Economic Development Actions- 12 Bicycle/Pedestrian Group Table 5: Customer Service Grades-Bicycle/Pedestrian Group 13 Table 6: Possible MDT Economic Development Actions- 17 Economic Development Group Table 7: Customer Service Grades-Economic Development 18 Group Table 8: Possible MDT Economic Development Actions- 23 Environmental Group Table 9: Customer Service Grades-Environmental Group 24 Table 10: Possible MDT Economic Development Actions- 30 Intermodal Freight Table 11: Customer Service GradesTntermodal Freight Group 30 Table 12: Possible MDT Economic Development Actions-Cities 35 Table 13: Possible MDT Economic Development Actions- 36 Counties Table 14: Customer Service Grades-Cities 37 Table 15: Customer Service Grades-Counties 38 Table 16: Possible MDT Economic Development Actions- 44 Passenger Transportation Group Table 17: Customer Service Grades-Passenger Transportation 45 Group Table 18: Possible MDT Economic Development Actions- 50 Government Groups Table 19: Customer Service Grades-Government Group 51 Table 20: Possible MDT Economic Development Actions-Native 56 American Tribes Table 21: Customer Service Grades-Native American Tribes 57 2001 StakeholderSurvey ii 11 Figure 1: Stakeholder Group Comparison - System Satisfaction 4 Figure la: Stakeholder History - System Satisfaction 4 Figure 2: Overall Satisfaction with the Transportation System 5 Figure 3: Stakeholder Group Comparison - System Priorities 6 Figure 3a: Stakeholder History - System Priorities 6 Figure 4: Bicycle/Pedestrian Group - System Satisfaction 9 Figure 4a: Bicycle/Pedestrian Group History - System Satisfaction 10 Figure 5: Bicycle/Pedestrian Group - System Priorities 10 Figure 5a: Bicycle/Pedestrian Group History - System Priorities 1 Figure 6: Economic Development Group - System Satisfactions 15 Figure 7: Economic Development Group-System Priorities 16 Figure 8: Environmental Group - System Satisfaction 20 Figure 8a: Environmental Group History - System Satisfaction 2 Figure 9: Environmental Group - System Priorities 22 Figure 9a: Environmental Group History - System Priorities 22 Figure 10: Intermodal Freight Group - System Satisfaction 27 Figure 10a: Intermodal Freight Group History - System Satisfaction 28 Figure 1 1: Intermodal Freight Group - System Priorities 28 Figure 11a: Intermodal Freight Group History - System Priorities 29 Figure 12: Local Government-Cities - System Satisfaction 32 Figure 13: Local Government-Counties - System Satisfaction 33 Figure 14: Local Government-Cities - System Priorities 34 Figure 15: Local Government-Counties - System Priorities 34 200 StakeholderSurvey 1 hi Figure 16: Passenger Transportation Group - System Satisfac- 41 tion Figure 16a: Passenger Transportation Group History - System 42 Satisfaction Figure 17: Passenger Transportation Group - System Priorities 42 Figure 17a: Passenger Transportation Group History - System Pri- 43 orities Figure 18: Government Group - System Satisfaction 47 Figure 18a: Government Group History - System Satisfaction 48 Figure 19: Government Group - System Priorities 49 Figure 19a: Government Group History - System Priorities 49 Figure 20: Native American Tribes - System Satisfaction 53 Figure 21: Native American Tribes - Overall Satisfaction with the 54 Transportation System Figure 22: Native American Tribes - System Priorities 55 2001 StakeholderSurvey iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2001, MDT's stakeholder groups are: Generally satisfied with Montana's transportation system Most satisfied with the interstate system Least satisfied with passenger rail service Out of a list of twenty-one possible actions to improve Montana's transporta- tion system, the highest priority actions for the stakeholders are: Improve other roads/streets Provide year round access to rest areas The lowest priority action for the stakeholders is reduce single occupancy ve- hicle use. When compared to the previous stakeholder surveys done since 1997: Satisfaction with the transportation system components has changed little. Overall satisfaction with Montana's transportation system has improved or stayed the same with the stakeholder groups, except for the bicycle/ pedestrian and environmental groups, whose satisfaction decreased. Possible system improvement priorities remain the same as mostly medium priorities, except for 'minimize impacts on environment from construction' and 'ensure adequate bicycle facilities' which have dropped to a low priority rating. The stakeholder groups' top priorities for possible actions for MDT involve- ment with economic development are: Maintain and modernize Montana's existing transportation system based on forecast needs Work to improve commercial air service to Montana The stakeholder groups' bottom priority for MDT's role in economic develop- ment is: Redirect funds from statewide improvement efforts to expansion projects on specific corridors to attract economic development MDT's overall customer service and performance grades are in the C to B- range, slightly lower than the public's customer service grades in the 2001 Telephone Survey. 200 StakeholderSurvey 1 1 INTRODUCTION and combining the urban area plan- ners into the state and federal govern- ment group. An economic development The primary purpose of this report interest group and local government is to document the data collected group consisting of city and county of- through the 200 Montana Department 1 ficials were added. Each group has di- ofTransportation Stakeholder Survey. verse transportation interests and It also references the 2001 Public In- gives a statewide representation. The volvement Telephone Survey for a com- groups included: parison between the general public Bicycle and pedestrian interests and transportation stakeholders. In Economic development associa- addition, the report provides a com- tions, business organizations, local parison to the 1997 and 1999 Trans- development corporations and as- portation Stakeholder Surveys. sociations Environmental organizations and Stakeholder surveys are an impor- associations tant part of MDT's public involvement Commercial trucking, rail freight, process. They examine transportation air freight, and intermodal interests stakeholders' perception of the current Passenger transportation interests condition Montana's transportation including local transit, intercity system and consider possible actions bus, rail, and air and priorities that could be taken by Metropolitan Planning Organiza- MDT to improve the transportation tions, urban areas, and state and system. The public involvement proc- federal agencies ess affords citizens, constituency County Commissions groups, transportation providers, local Mayors and Chief Executives of cit- governments, Montana's Native Ameri- ies and towns can tribes, and state and federal agen- cies the opportunity to participate in planning and project development. Stakeholders were selected from MDT's Newsline database, which con- Public involvement at the planning level reduces the potential for future sists of individuals, organizations, as- sociations, businesses, government controversy, results in a better state- wide transportation system, and al- agencies, and local government offi- lows for open communication between cials with an interest in transportation the Department and citizens of Mon- related issues. In addition to the tana. The surveys also help MDT staff stakeholder groups listed above, sur- determine changes in public opinion veys were also sent to Montana's Na- that indicate a need to update Mon- tive American tribes. Unlike respon- tana's statewide multimodal transpor- dents of the other groups, the tribes were not considered a homogeneous tation plan, TranPlan 21. stakeholder group. The analysis of the In 2001, the stakeholder groups data for each responding tribe was were changed from the 1997 and 1999 done separately to ensure that each surveys by adding three more groups was represented as a sovereign nation. 2001 StakeholderSurvey 2