Link to MDT Home Page

For questions about this project, e-mail our Project Consultant .

For questions about this web site, e-mail CH2M HILL's webmaster


Public Meeting 3: December 12, 2001

The third of a series of public meetings to discuss the proposed reconstruction of Highway 212 between Rockvale and Laurel was held on December 12, 2001, at the Graff Elementary School in Laurel from 4:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. The purpose of the meeting, hosted by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT), was to update the public, solicit additional comments on preliminary alternative road locations and review the Technical Reports. The meeting followed up on the November 13, 2000, meeting whose purpose was to update the public and solicit comments on preliminary alternative road locations. Attendees were asked to review displays and comment on three alternative alignments. The meeting format was an open house with informational displays from 4:30 to 8:30 and a presentation at 5:30 and 7:30 p.m. Meeting advertisements were developed by the consultant and forwarded to MDT for placement. Press releases were sent to local newspapers as well as television and radio stations.

Approximately 132 people attended, including many property owners, local government representatives from Yellowstone and Carbon Counties, as well as the towns of Laurel, Red Lodge, Silesia, Fort Rockvale, Boyd, Joliet, and Roberts.

Exhibits included those displayed at the first and second public meetings along with new materials. New exhibits included:

  • A revised project schedule

  • Three alignment alternatives displayed on the large aerial photo that was used in the previous meeting to describe alternative corridors

  • Displays summarizing comments recorded after the Scoping Report.

  • Prototypical cross sections exhibit illustrating a 64-foot, 80-foot, and 100-foot sections.

  • Comparison Table outlined by alternative

  • List of available technical reports

  • Questions pertaining to the "planning and width," where the information for the comparison matrix came from and what it’s purpose was, and the next step in the planning process.

  • Land use, biological and environmental maps

  • Large aerial photo of the three proposed alignments

At two points of the evening, formal presentations were made. Speakers included Bruce Barrett, MDT District Administrator and Steve Alters, Project Manger for CH2M HILL. Following the presentation, a question and answer session provided attendees an opportunity to ask questions. Bruce Barrett answered most of the questions.

Steve Alters explained that CH2M HILL is the author of the DEIS and is responsible for the preliminary design. The process to date was reviewed including:

  • NEPA process
  • Public input
  • Field work
  • Alternative development
  • Technical studies
  • Comparison matrix
  • Selection of preferred alternative
  • DEIS, draft environmental impact statement

Bruce reviewed the three alternative cross sections, explaining the final design may include a mixture of these alternatives.

64-Foot Section

This section is similar to the road South of Laurel. It included four travel lanes and a continuous center turn lane. This type of road does not work as well as roads with medians in high-speed environment.

80-Foot Section

This is not a typical cross section. It was developed specifically for this project. We assume we will need a turning lane each mile for the first 6 miles. Each turning lane will require transitions and storage bays, approximately 3/4 mile long. The 16-foot-wide median will provide beautification and safety.

Refer to the attached question and answer section of this summary for questions and responses.

100-Foot Section

The 100-foot-wide section is similar to but not quite as wide as a typical interstate.

Bruce Barrett answered most questions (see Questions and Answers).

The meeting was designed to allow several formats and opportunities for public comment.

  • All attendees were encouraged to sign in at the registration table. The registrants’ names were added to the master mailing list if they were not previously added. They will receive future meeting notices and newsletters.

  • A member of the design team manned groups of displays at each of four stations. Comments were recorded and incorporated into the comment record.

  • Four formats for comments were provided at the public meeting including a lap top computer, a person to transcribe comments, a tape recorder to record verbal comments, and a survey form.

Products of the third public meeting include the following:

  • Comment Record
  • An expanded mailing list
  • Meeting record
  • Responses to questions

Commitments/Next Steps

  • Comments on specific alignments will be reviewed to help determine if additional alignments should be developed and assessed.

  • New information will be posted on the web site

  • All attendees of the previous meeting will be notified of any future meeting

  • A newsletter will be prepared upon completion of the draft EIS document or at the point in time a preferred alternative is selected by MDT. All meeting attendees and those on the mailing list will be a newsletter recipient.

  • A record of public comment will be maintained

  • Questions, answers and comments will be summarized for inclusion in the newsletter and on the web site

  • The team will continue to accept comments via telephone, e-mail, or mail for the duration of the planning and environmental documentation phases.

Questions and Answers from Third Public Meeting

How will the "Preferred Alternative" be decided upon?

The department and the consultant team will work together on selecting a Preferred Alternative; however, NEPA does not require selection of a Preferred Alternative prior to issuing the DEIS. Public comment will be considered in selection of preferred alternative. A 45-day public comment period will follow the release of the DEIS. A public hearing will be held after the comment period prior to writing the Final EIS.

You must have a pretty good idea of where the new road is going.

There are numerous issues that have not been discussed, such as the railroad and possible overpass. We do not have any knowledge at this time of where the road will be located. A cost analysis is yet to be considered. There will be a 2-day meeting in Helena late January or early February to review all the information gathered to date.

Has an underpass versus an overpass been decided?

Bruce Barrett, MDT speculates that it would be a preference to use an overpass and that an underpass may be considered depending on the alternative selected.

Could the current highway be used as the southbound lane and build a new two-lane for the northbound lane across the railroad tracks?

This was considered and safety crossing the railroad tracks was an issue that could not be safely resolved. There is not enough distance between the tracks and the road to stack vehicles. We also looked at relocating the rail tracks at an estimated cost of $1,500,000 plus the cost of construction of the tracks. This was deemed not a reasonable alternative.

Why isn’t it being proposed to bring Highway 310 from Wyoming up to through the Rockvale intersection and connect onto one of the proposed west bench alternatives?

This was considered and there were difficulties with the steep grade, excessive right of way requirements and impacts to businesses. Ideally the design grade on the hill should not exceed 4 percent. In addition to the excessive cost of earthwork, it was difficult to make the intersection work. This suggestion will continue to be looked at and will be included in the DEIS.

Will there be left and right turning lanes and deceleration lanes associated with the 64-foot cross section?

There would be transitions to accommodate left turn lanes at intersections and the shoulder width should accommodate for right turns. Inclusion of extra lanes depends on the number of people turning. The current traffic volumes do not indicate a need for right turn lanes. The right turn lanes can be added later. Center lanes need to be included in the initial design and construction. The 64-foot road section is similar to Highway 212 south of Laurel. A four-lane road with a continuous turn lane does not work well in a high-speed environment.

If the near west alternative were chosen, what would happen to the existing roadway and would the same amount of accesses be available?

The existing roadway would remain for local access. It will be maintained by the State. It is a National Highway System Route (NHS).

How much access will be allowed to the new road?

All three county roads will have access. State statutes mandate "reasonable access" We would envision 1 per mile for 6 miles. Agricultural access remains a concern. MDT will work with landowners on final access plan.

Are you concerned about the water and aquifer around the underpass?

There is concern and the intent is to avoid any disruption.

How will we cross four lanes of traffic in a tractor safely?

The wide medians will help. Farm field underpasses may be used depending on grades.

Will underpasses be looked at?

That depends on the relationship to the terrain. This would be dealt with on a landowner by landowner basis.

Looking at the Comparison Matrix, it looks like a "no brainer" to delete Alternative 3A and 3B. Would you agree?

This summary of impacts is not complete. We would like to complete a full cost estimate and more detailed engineering prior to deciding. There still might be other issues to consider. The process moves slowly because MDT must look at everything and be able to defend their decision

Are you in communication with the pipeline companies? Exxon is about to relocate a pipeline.

Since the preferred alternate has not been chosen, it would be premature to contact them.

Can the utilities be placed in the right-of-way? Is that typical?

Utility companies have a legal right to occupy rights of ways.

What will happen to the irrigation ditches running through Alternative 2 (near west)?

We would look at shifting the centerline if need be but this would not be looked at until the preferred alternative is established and may not be an issue depending on the outcome of that. MDT’s policy is to perpetuate irrigation and utility services with anything we construct. Please keep in mind these are planning lines within a 260-foot band, not actual centerlines. It is sometimes possible to shift lines to minimize impacts to improvements.

Will there be one more public meeting when the alternative is selected? Who selects it?

This is the last public information meeting. MDT selects the preferred alternative. There will be a 45-day public comment period following publication of the DEIS. If the document identifies a preferred alternative, the DEIS will describe how we arrived at this. The comment period will conclude with a formal public hearing. We will continue to update the web site as decisions are made.

Will the bike path be included for the length of the project? Could a path similar to the separate bike path associated with Highway 93 south of Missoula be included in this project? How was this path funded?

This will be researched and we’ll come up with good answers.

Has a Park and Ride system been considered?

Bruce acknowledged that these could be considered and they have reduced traffic counts significantly on other projects.

Why and who decided to drop the one alignment?

MDT eliminated this alternative from further analysis, with FHWA’s concurrence, due to lack of public support and concern from the participating agencies.

Will you take pieces of the alternatives and make one road?

It is a possibility. MDT will weigh all impacts along with all public comment when making the decision and will choose the best possible project with the least impact and one that is the most cost effective.