388.13 T6FEAB ,JJNS3""Arc?0BTR0AD 2006 January 2006 LIS.DepartmentofTransportation Federal Highway ^/ ofTransportation Administration MontanaSlaleLibrai 3 0864 I10I0I3I 6I 2II90I 7 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT for MT Project Number: (009) Project Name: Billings - Airport Road Control Number: 4743 in City ofBillings Yellowstone County. Montana THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION HAS DETERMINED THAT THE "PREFERRED" ALTERNATIVE FOR THIS PROPOSED PROJECT AS DESCRIBED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DATED OCTOBER 2005 WILL HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT. THIS FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IS BASED ON THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WHICH HAS BEEN INDEPENDENTLY EVALUATED BY THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND DETERMINED TO ADEQUATELY AND ACCURATELY DISCUSS THE NEED, ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, AND IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND APPROPRIATE MITIGATION MEASURES. IT PROVIDES SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS FOR DETERMINING THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IS NOT REQUIRED. THE FHWA TAKES FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACCURACY, SCOPE, AND CONTENT OF THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. Federal Highway Administration Date Project Abstract and Location: The project is located along Montana 3/Airport Road from approximately the Billings Logan International Airport east to Main Street. The purpose of the project is to update the roadway facilities and intersections with designs that are more consistent with current design standards and projected travel demand. Digitized by the Internet Archive 2013 in http://archive.org/details/findingofnosigni13mont 743 SSSiS"* UllTOeS^lftPQOTRMB Exhibits A - NEPA/MEPA Coordination Process B - Clarification of Roundabout Design Concept C - Errata Sheet D - Comments and Responses These exhibits are included to provide further clarification to the attached Environmental Assessment, and to identify MDT's "Preferred Alternative" in the EA as the "Selected Alternative" that will proceed to final design and construction. Montana DepartmentofTransportation 7 1 Exhibit A - NEPA/MEPA Coordination Process The proposed project outlined in the attached Environmental Assessment (EA) has been coordinated with the appropriate federal, state, and local agencies in compliance with the requirements ofthe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), as well as guidelines provided by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the U.S. Department ofTransportation (FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A). Availability of EA for Review and Comment The Montana Department ofTransportation (MDT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approved the EA for distribution in October 2005, and a Notice ofAvailability was published in area newspapers as follows: • Yellowstone County News on November th and 24th 1 • Billings Gazette on November 20th and 27th An individual mailer was also sent out to 167 people who had either attended previous public meetings or expressed an interest in the project. Copies ofthe EA were available for public review at the following locations: • MDT - Billings District Office • Billings Public Works Department • Billings Public Library Copies ofthe EA were also available upon request from MDT and the EA could be viewed on MDT the website at http://www.mdt.mt.gov/pubinvolve/eis_ea.shtml. The EA was mailed to all agencies contained on the Distribution List on pages 45 and 46 ofthe EA on November 4, 2005. The public review and comment period began on November 7, 2005 and ended on December 21, 2005. Additional copies ofthe EA were mailed to private individuals upon their request. Montana Departmentof Transportation ExhibitA- Public Hearing A formal Public Hearing was held to present the Preferred Alternative and take comments on the EA. The Hearing was held on November 30. 2005 in the Ralston/Remington Ballrooms in the Student Union Building on the MSU-BillingS campus. Sixteen people were in attendance, and no written comments were received. A transcript ofthe Hearing is available upon request. Comments Received Three verbal comments were received at the Hearing, and 15 were submitted in writing during the comment period. Those comments and the official response from MDT and I HWA are contained in Exhibit D, following. Montana Departmentof Transportation ExhibitA-2 1 Exhibit B - Clarification of the Modern Roundabout Design Concept Upon review ofthe comments received on the Environmental Assessment (EA), it appears that there may be some general confusion about the proposed intersection design at the junction of Montana Highway 3 (MT 3) and Airport Road, at the Billings Logan International Airport. The following information is provided to clarify the intent to construct a modern roundabout at this intersection and supply additional background information on what this intersection concept entails. Common misperceptions are discussed in the following sections. Modern Roundabouts are not the same as "traffic circles" A modern roundabout is not the same as the older-style rotary traffic circle like those found in some east coast and European cities. Although the United States was home to the first one-way rotary system in the world (implemented around New York City's Columbus Circle in 1904), traffic circles had fallen out of favor in this country by the 1950s. Older traffic circles, located primarily in the northeastern states, encountered serious operational and safety problems, including the tendency to lock up at higher volumes. Based in large part on this country's experience with the older and existing traffic circles built prior to 1990. the modern roundabout has been notably less popular in the United States than abroad. The modern roundabout has been successful in several countries in Europe and Australia, where the roundabout has changed the practice of intersection design. Just in the last decade, communities in the United States have experimented with the modern roundabout, and based on their success, a growing interest in roundabout development across the country has evolved. The main difference between older style traffic circles and roundabouts is in how traffic enters the circle and which vehicle has the right-of-way. With roundabouts, drivers wishing to enter the circle must yield to vehicles already in the circle. With many of the older traffic circles, drivers inside the circle must yield to the vehicles entering the circle. Roundabouts can be designed to handle fire trucks, buses, and various sizes of emergency vehicles, as well as truck and trailer combinations. To accommodate these larger vehicles, the center island of a roundabout is often built with a gradually sloped and flat curb. called a truck apron. This apron makes it easier for long vehicles to make the turns as demonstrated in the photo at right. Roundabouts: An Informational Guide U.S. Department ofTransportation, Federal HighwayAdministration Publication No. FHWA-RD-00-067. To provide further background and information, the following has been excerpeted from the FHWA roundabout guide: Roundabouts have been demonstrated to be generally safer for motor vehicles and pedestrians than other forms ofat-grade intersections, (p. 23) Montana DepartmentofTransportation Exhibit B- . Ifachieved by good design, then in principle, lower vehicle speeds should provide the following safety benefits: Reduce crash severity for pedestrians and bicyclists, including older pedestrians. children, and impaired persons; Provide more time for entering drivers to judge, adjust speed for. and enter a gap in circulating traffic; Allow safer merges into circulating traffic; Provide more time for all users to detect and correct for their mistakes or mistakes of others; Make the intersection safer for novice users, (p. 24) Reduce in severity or eliminate many severe conflicts that are present in traditional intersections, (p. 25) Compared to signalized intersections, a roundabout does not have signal equipment that requires constant power, periodic light bulb and detection maintenance, and regular signal timing updates. Roundabouts, however, can have higher landscape maintenance costs, depending on the degree of landscaping provided on the central island, splitter islands, and perimeter. Illumination costs for roundabouts and signalized intersections are similar. Drivers sometimes face a confusing situation when they approach a signalized intersection during a power failure, but such failures have minimal temporary effect on roundabouts other than the possible loss ofillumination. The service life of a roundabout is significantly longer, approximately 25 years, compared with 10 years for a typical signal, (p. 30) Roundabouts offer the opportunity to provide attractive entries or centerpieces to communities. The portions ofthe central island and, to a lesser degree, the splitter islands that are not subject to sight-distance requirements offer opportunities for aesthetic landscaping. Some are exhibited as a "signature" feature on community postcards, advertisements, and travelogues, (p. 30) Costs associated with roundabouts include construction costs, engineering and design fees, land acquisition, and maintenance costs. Benefits may include reduced crash rates and severity, reduced delay, stops, fuel consumption, and vehicle emissions. . . At new sites, and at signalized intersections that require widening at one or more approaches to provide additional turn lanes, a roundabout can be a comparable or less expensive alternative, (p. 36) [A] proposal to install a roundabout may initially experience a negative public reaction. However, the history ofthe first few roundabouts installed in the United States also indicates that the public attitude toward roundabouts improves significantly after construction. A recent survey conducted ofjurisdictions across the United States reported a significant negative public attitude toward roundabouts prior to construction (68 percent ofthe responses were negative or very negative), but a positive attitude after construction (73 percent of the responses were positive or very positive), (p. 40) Montana Departmentof Transportation Exhibit B-2