|
|
Transportation Alternatives Analysis for the Dane County / Greater Madison Metropolitan Area
|
Minutes
JOINT MEETING/WORKSHOP
OVERSIGHT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (OAC) MEETING #25
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
Wednesday, May 22, 2002
5:15 pm
Madison Municipal Building, Room 260
215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard
Madison, WI
-- ROLL CALL
OAC Members Present: Supv. Michael Blaska; David Cieslewicz; Kristine Euclide; Ald. Ken Golden; Rob Kennedy; Ken Leonard; Supv. Scott McDonell; Rose Phetteplace; Dick Wagner.
OAC Members Absent: LaMarr Billups (notified); Ann Falconer (notified); Patrick Goss (notified); George Nelson (notified); Ald. Warren Onken.
TAC/Staff Present: Catherine Debo (Madison Metro); David Dryer (Madison Traffic Engineering); Lori Kay (UW-Madison); Bob McDonald (Madison Area Metropolitan Planning Organization); Mari MacKenzie (Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Urban Planning); John Norwell (Dane County Highway and Transportation Department); Brian Smith (Madison Traffic Engineering); David Trowbridge (Madison Planning and Development; Project Administrator for Transport 2020); Michael Waidelich (Madison Planning and Development).
Others Present: Debby Aldrich; James Aldrich; Fred Bartol (Dane Alliance for Rail Transit); Stephanie Eiler (Parsons Brinckerhoff; Project Manager for Transport 2020, conference call); Kim Lobdell (KL Engineering); Al Matano; Elizabeth Peart (Cambridge Systematics); Kimon Proussaloglou (Cambridge Systematics); Bob Schaefer.
1. REVIEW OF AGENDA
Co-Chair Scott McDonell welcomed Committee members to Meeting #25 of the Transport 2020 Oversight Advisory Committee/Technical Advisory Committee. There were no suggested modifications to the order of agenda items.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM OAC/TAC MEETING #24 (APRIL 29, 2002)
The Minutes for Meeting #24 of the Oversight Advisory Committee/TAC were approved, as submitted on a motion by Rob Kennedy/Ken Leonard.
3. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
The first registrant was Bob Schaefer. Mr. Schaefer said that the Public Informational Meeting on May 13th should have provided more ridership detail than it did. Schaefer also said that he was disappointed with the Transport 2020 process because the traffic impact analysis information was not considered in decisions about the draft preferred transit alternative. He said that many intersections would be impacted and some would fail as a result of the gate closures. He said that he supports a regional bus option, as it is more cost-effective. Schaefer said that if a rail system is needed, it should be grade-separated - in order to minimize impacts on the street system.
The next speaker was James Aldrich. Mr. Aldrich said that the commuter rail traffic, along with the high speed rail traffic, would create numerous problems on street circulation and vehicular movement. He pointed out that accidents will be a growing problem and that there will likely be injuries. He said that these issues need to be considered when debating the desirability of commuter rail.
The final public speaker was Dane County Supervisor Al Matano. Matano thanked the OAC/TAC for their work and said that he would soon become part of the decision making process, as the issue moves to the County Board. He said that the May 13th PIM should have had a larger panel addressing the audience. He also said that the street-running portion of the LPA should extend to Park Street first, as it has the most potential for redevelopment. Matano also asked to be invited to the outreach meeting with Shorewood Hills, when it is scheduled, as he now represents part of the Village. He finally noted that the southwest bicycle path may be an opportunity for future shared transportation use with rail service.
4. OVERVIEW OF MAY 13TH PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING AND PUBLIC FEEDBACK RECEIVED TO-DATE
Kim Lobdell (KL Engineering) summarized the responses she has received from the public, during and after the May 13th PIM. She distributed a packet that included the meeting sign-up sheet, a listing of all information presented, a summary of all questions raised, and a summary of all issues discussed on comment forms.
Lobdell also noted that she is scoped to produce one final newsletter, to announce the OAC's final recommendation, provide quantitative information, discuss how to get a copy of the final report, etc. She said that this could be sent out after the OAC makes its final recommendations.
Lobdell pointed out that the web site could be transferred to the City, County or other entity (and be hosted there). She said that the web site (and the www.transport2020.net domain name) could be useful for future outreach - if Transport 2020 moves to the preliminary engineering phase. Lobdell said that she and her staff would be willing to help with that transfer.
Rob Kennedy said that the web site transfer is a good idea. He also said that it would be important to develop a "frequently asked questions/responses" sheet to help guide the debate of the issue, likely to take place over the next several months. He said that he would be willing to help start drafting the FAQ document.
5. PRESENTATION OF TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR SELECTED PHASE 2 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES
Kimon Proussaloglou and Elizabeth Peart (Cambridge Systematics) presented some slides from the recently-completed traffic impact analysis. Proussaloglou said that the objective of this analysis was to show what types of delays might be expected at various intersections as a result of future gate closures (as part of the commuter rail system and other rail operations). He said that this analysis is not intended to be a full-fledged operational analysis that looks at signal optimization and other possible mitigation techniques, and that a more detailed study may be necessary to address those issues.
Liz Peart noted that the analysis looked at 20 intersections in the urban area. She summarized the intersection delay impacts that might be expected with rail gate closures (for the commuter rail 4-line system) and also taking traffic lanes in some places (as with street-running rail system). She also showed future delays if no rail system were implemented.
In summary, she pointed out that future delays can be expected with normal projected traffic growth, and showed the intersection level of service (LOS) under each of the scenarios (A through F). For example, LOS A, B, or C has delay below 35 seconds. LOS D has average delays of about 35 seconds. LOS E and LOS F have average delays much longer, with a vehicle possibly waiting more than one signal cycle to get through the intersection. At these levels, she said, traffic flow begins to break down very quickly.
Of the 20 intersections, she showed how conditions would change, in terms of the number of intersections at various levels of service. She also described a bar graph that showed the intersection delay analysis results.
Year 2000 - Existing - LOS A, B or C: 12 - LOS D: 5 - LOS E: 3 - LOS F: 0
2020 No-Build - LOS A, B or C: 9 - LOS D: 4 - LOS E: 3 - LOS F: 4
2020 Commuter Rail 4-Line - LOS A, B or C: 2 - LOS D: 3 - LOS E: 3 - LOS F: 12
2020 Street-Running Rail - LOS A, B or C: 2 - LOS D: 5 - LOS E: 5 - LOS F: 8
Peart then showed, as an example, a traffic simulation of the First Street/East Washington Avenue and Johnson Street/Fordem Avenue intersections. She first showed a simulation of the existing conditions at the intersections. Peart then showed what would happen in 2020 with commuter rail when the gate is closed at the peak traffic hour (to let the train go through) and how traffic queues would form as a result.
Dick Wagner noted that there would be modifications to this intersection and wondered if they were included in the model analysis. Peart said that they were not. David Dryer (City Traffic Engineer) said that the closure of all East Washington lanes would not be helped by the intersection modifications planned at that location.
Rob Kennedy noted that the traffic backups shown in the simulation would only occur for the 2-3 minutes when the gate is closed, not during the entire hour. Supv. Scott McDonell pointed out that the modeling is for the 4-line system, and that the Minimal Operable Segment (MOS) does not cross East Washington Avenue or Johnson Street. Kimon Proussaloglou pointed out that the intersections in the analysis are those that would likely be affected the most, and that this is showing the highest traffic period of the day.
Ald. Ken Golden asked about air quality impacts at the intersections Proussaloglou replied that this could be calculated. McDonell asked how many train operations were modeled in the peak hour. David Trowbridge pointed out that the modeling includes freight rail, high speed rail and commuter rail, with each gate closure averaging 1 minute (with the exception of the freight trains - a closure of 3 minutes). Golden said that the incremental impact of just commuter rail is needed, for OAC/TAC decision making purposes. McDonell said that buses also cause delay impacts, should a bus lane be considered. Trowbridge said that roughly 80% of the delay impacts can be attributed to the commuter rail operations.
Peart said that all traffic is considered to be stopped at the intersections, although in reality some movements would be still be possible - such as First Street traffic moving straight through the intersection or turning right. She said that this is a limitation of the computer analysis that should be considered. Brian Smith (City of Madison Traffic Engineering) agreed, but pointed out that the stoppage of the East Washington and Johnson traffic is the biggest problem - and this is still shown in the simulation.
David Dryer said that the analysis is indeed the worst-case scenario. However, he noted that the synchronization of the signal system, when thrown out of whack, will be very difficult to restore if there is a gate closure every 6 minutes. Rob Kennedy asked if the gate closures could be timed to minimize disruption to the street traffic. Dryer said that it is difficult, but could be explored. Brian Smith said that, at this time, it is hard to know when the rail pre-emption begins and ends, and this presents many challenges to getting the traffic signals back into synch. Rob Kennedy said that the off-peak impacts would not be nearly as severe, since the traffic volumes are much less. Kimon Proussaloglou agreed with that assessment.
Rob Kennedy said that mitigation measures would need to be explored. David Dryer pointed out that grade-separation is the only real high-quality solution to gate closure impacts. Ken Leonard said that other cities should be contacted as a resource, to find out how they deal with similar impacts.
The Committee thanked Mr. Proussaloglou and Ms. Peart for their presentation. Rob Kennedy asked that copies of the power point presentation be provided to the OAC/TAC.
6. REVIEW/DISCUSSION OF NEXT STEPS IN TRANSPORT 2020 PROJECT
Stephanie Eiler noted that she and the rest of the consultant team are now busy working on the many deliverables for the Transport 2020 project. Eiler said that a draft of the final report would be ready for OAC/TAC review by Friday, June 7th. She added that most of the materials has already been reviewed by the OAC/TAC in some form, but the textual descriptions in the final report will largely be new material.
Rose Phetteplace asked if traffic mitigation measures would be included in the draft final report. Eiler replied that this would be looked at in the next phase of analysis - the preliminary engineering/NEPA phase. At this time, Eiler suggested that Cambridge Systematics work with City Traffic Engineering to document the impacts and include this in the final report.
Ald. Ken Golden said that the PIM had some new faces, which was good. He said that the report's narrative should reflect some of the comments he heard at that meeting, in some way. He said that the issue of addressing low-income areas should be included in the report - particularly the Park Street, Vera Court and Allied Drive areas. Golden said that the report's text should also stress the importance of bus riders and improvements to the local transit system. He said that the relationship to Madison Metro and the governance of the entire system needs to be addressed in the report. Finally, he said that connectivity to the airport needs to be included in the final report, stressing the importance of a multi-modal transportation system and these important linkages.
Dick Wagner said that, in terms of social justice, the low-income neighborhoods are being served very well by the recommended LPA. He felt that the street-running options should be discussed in the final report as an important future service to those areas. Rob Kennedy also said that the report should discuss the rail attractiveness factor, where evidence has shown that there is a difference among modes.
Ken Leonard said that it is important for the report to be clear that the OAC/TAC recommendations do not imply a commitment to funding, etc. from the sponsoring agencies and that more work needs to be done in that area, for example. Golden said that the OAC is advisory to the sponsoring agencies. He said that a resolution would likely be prepared for later review by the policy bodies.
Dick Wagner said that language could be put into a resolution from the OAC that approves the final report, describes the fact that the OAC has come to a Locally-Preferred Alternative (LPA) and Minimal Operable Segment (MOS), and that the OAC recommends that the bodies of the major sponsoring agencies (i.e., City of Madison, Dane County, WisDOT, MPO, UW) continue to work on developing the next stages of the project - including addressing issues of governance and whether or not to move forward to the preliminary engineering (PE)/NEPA phase.
Golden suggested that a body similar to the OAC may need to be created to take the ball from this point and move forward. Trowbridge said that the Transport 2020 Management Team could take on some of these continuing functions.
Kristine Euclide asked Stephanie Eiler about specific language that was necessary for the next steps. Eiler said that there needs to be documentation about plans to address finance and governance issues, in order to receive permission from FTA to go into the PE/NEPA phase. Eiler also said that there needs to be inclusion of the MOS in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the LPA needs to be included in the MPO's Regional Transportation Plan.
7. TRANSPORT 2020 PROJECT SCHEDULE/NEXT STEPS
Ald. Ken Golden noted that there are two major functions left for the OAC before the end of the project: (1) incorporate public comments, and (2) endorse/adopt the final Transport 2020 report/deliverables to forward on to our sponsoring agencies.
Stephanie Eiler said that a draft Transport 2020 final report would be provided to committee members on Friday, June 7th. Golden said that the Management Team should meet shortly after that, to discuss initial comments on the draft report and work through any disagreements that may exist. David Trowbridge said that he would arrange this.
The Committee members then confirmed the final two Transport 2020 OAC/TAC meetings:
- OAC Meeting #26/TAC: Monday, June 24th, 5:15 p.m., Room 201 City/County Building; and,
- OAC Meeting #27/TAC: Wednesday, July 17th, 5:15 p.m., Room 260 Madison Municipal Bldg.
Trowbridge reported that individual meetings with outer-ring Dane County communities have been ongoing and very helpful in getting the word out to elected officials and planners ion those communities. He also said that a Business Community Focus Group will need to be planned fairly soon, with George Nelson helping with that. Scott McDonell said that he would like to involve the hospitals in that meeting, since he has heard from Meriter Hospital recently. Trowbridge said that this could be arranged. Trowbridge also said that meetings with the print and television media were recently held, and these meetings were helpful in providing key information prior to the May 13th PIM.
8. ITEMS BY OAC CO-CHAIRS AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS
There were no items by the Co-Chairs or Committee members.
9. ADJOURNMENT
The Committee adjourned its meeting at 6:45 p.m.