Transportation Alternatives Analysis for the Dane County / Greater Madison Metropolitan Area
|
JOINT MEETING/WORKSHOP
OVERSIGHT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (OAC) MEETING #12
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
Tuesday, June 12, 2001
7:00 pm
City/County Building, Room 201
201 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard
Madison, WI
-- ROLL CALL
Members Present: Supv. Michael Blaska; David Cieslewicz; Kristine Euclide; Ald. Ken Golden; Rob Kennedy; Ken Leonard; Supv. Scott McDonell; George Nelson; Ald. Warren Onken; Rose Phetteplace; Dick Wagner.
Members Absent: LaMarr Billups (notified); Deloris Coaker; Robert Cook; Ann Falconer (notified).
Staff Present: Jim Arts (Dane County Executive’s Office); Catherine Debo (Madison Metro) Doug Dalton (Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Bureau of Planning); Lori Kay (UW Transportation Services); Barbara Kipp (WisDOT – District 1); Linda Lovejoy (WisDOT - Public Transit); Rachel Martin (UW Transportation Services); Dwight McComb (Federal Highway Administration); Bob McDonald (Madison Area Metropolitan Planning Organization); John Norwell (Dane County Highway and Transportation Department); Judy P. Olson (Madison Mayor’s Office); Michael Rewey (WisDOT – District 1); Bill Schaefer (Madison Area MPO); Tim Sobota (Madison Metro); David Trowbridge (Madison Planning and Development; Project Administrator for Transport 2020); Michael Waidelich (Madison Planning and Development).
Others Present: Fred Bartol (Dane Alliance for Rail Transit; DART); John DeLamater (UW-Madison); Stephanie Eiler (Parsons Brinckerhoff; Project Manager for Transport 2020); Tom Fleming; Walter Friedrich; Ken Kinney (Cambridge Systematics); Kim Lobdell (KL Engineering); Al Matano (Dane County Board of Supervisors, District 11); Kimon Proussaloglou (Cambridge Systematics).
1. REVIEW OF AGENDA
Co-Chair Scott McDonell welcomed Committee members to Meeting #12 of the Oversight Advisory Committee for Transport 2020. Project Manager Stephanie Eiler then provided a brief overview of the 6/12 agenda items.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM OAC MEETING #11 (FEBRUARY 22, 2001)
The Minutes for Meeting #11 of the Oversight Advisory Committee were approved, as submitted on a motion by George Nelson/Ken Leonard.
3. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
Walter Friedrich (540 West Olin Avenue) wished to speak on the subject of intercity transit service between Madison and Chicago. He said that he doesn’t own a car and would like to see a transit linkage provided to Antioch, IL, where he could access the Metra commuter rail service into the City. He said that Van Galder bus company has considered the service, and he is much more supportive of that option, as opposed to the high speed rail option being proposed by WisDOT. Mr. Friedrich urged the OAC to strongly consider the cost-effectiveness of some of the options being evaluated.
4. UPDATE ON STATUS OF TRANSPORT 2020 CO-CHAIRS
Co-Chair Ald. Ken Golden informed the OAC that he would be unavailable for Committee meetings until September 1st (at the latest). As such, he noted that a substitute Co-Chair should be appointed in his absence, until his return.
A motion by Scott McDonell/Ken Golden to appoint Dick Wagner as temporary Co-Chair carried unanimously.
5. COMPARISON OF TRANSPORT 2020 PHASE 1 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES
Stephanie Eiler reviewed the initial transit alternatives that have been modeled in Phase 1 of Transport 2020. She said that these model run options have been developed to obtain information on capital cost, operating cost, ridership, etc. She then described the various options included on the 1-page summary sheets.
(Note: Copies of the handouts can be obtained by request)
Eiler said that these options have been discussed and that her brief summary of the alternatives would be just a “refresher”. She noted that the names of the alternatives have been changed slightly, to provide more clarity and distinction between the alternatives.
Kimon Proussaloglou of Cambridge Systematics then provided the OAC with an overview of the modeling of initial transit alternatives. He provided numerous details regarding the model variables and how they differed among the alternatives.
(Note: Copies of Mr. Proussaloglou’s handouts can be obtained by request)
Proussaloglou pointed out a number of key findings from the initial model runs. He said that the background bus service for all of the high-capacity transit alternatives is the transportation system management (TSM) express bus alternative. He said that the TSM bus alternative both complements and competes with the high-capacity transit alternatives.
Proussaloglou said that the variations in land use scenarios (i.e., density) do not produce much change in overall transit system ridership (total range of difference about 4,300 daily riders). He said that most of the transit ridership came from a geographic area between UW Hospital and the STH 30/51 area.
Proussaloglou said that the street-running rail alternative had many more stops than the other rail alternatives and covered a smaller geographic area. He also said that the changes in headway did not do much for overall transit system ridership. He also said that the hybrid rail alternative had slightly higher ridership, due to the fact that large employment activity centers in the central business district (CBD) are served more directly.
In terms of the busway alternative, Proussaloglou said that it performed very well with ridership, primarily due to the fact that it required few transfers and had a positive operating speed out of the congested traffic stream. He said that the Phase 2 model analysis would be more detailed and would include consideration of such issues as special event ridership, detailed traffic analysis and rail preference factors.
Scott McDonell asked if overlapping transit service was considered. Proussaloglou said that it was and that the model rationalizes human decision making as best it can. Ken Golden said that clustering of buses is a problem and wondered if that was considered. Proussaloglou said that the model assumes perfectly coordinated service and the headways that would result from that. Golden asked if school trips were considered in the base ridership. Bob McDonald said that they are considered separately from the ridership model.
Rob Kennedy asked if 0.7% ridership growth assumptions for Metro bus service might be too optimistic, given the trends. Proussaloglou said that this was a good assumption for modeling purposes, based on recent ridership experience. Bob McDonald also said that he was comfortable with that.
David Cieslewicz asked about other communities with rail service and if there were information about competing modes and ridership shares. Proussaloglou said that he felt that the balance among modes in the Madison model was good, based on other communities’ experiences. Cieslewicz asked if a fare premium (higher fare for better service) was common in other communities. Proussaloglou said that it was and that a 33% premium for the rail services, for example, was realistic. Doug Dalton asked if the street-running rail alternatives take roadway capacity. Proussaloglou said that they do, in some areas.
Stephanie Eiler then described the estimated capital and operating costs for the alternatives. She reminded the Committee that the point of Phase 1 was to start with a broad number of alternatives, with the full range of technologies and geographic coverage areas and narrow into a small number for Phase 2. She also said that the Phase 1 analysis assumed a very high level of service and infrastructure plan that is a “worst case” scenario. She said that this was done, as directed by the OAC, to ensure that there were no hidden costs or surprises later in the evaluation process. She pointed out the capital cost memo and table and said that the 1998 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study made much different assumptions. Eiler said that these could be revisited as the Phase 2 alternatives are crafted.
Rob Kennedy asked why the double-track scenario was more that 4-times the cost of the single-track scenario. Eiler said that the cost of moving from single to double track are more than double the cost, due to roadbed reconstruction, right-of-way needs, and other infrastructure issues. She said that Ted von Briesen (PB Team) would be better to answer that question. Mike Rewey said that street pavement maintenance issues should be considered in the operating and maintenance costs.
Kristine Euclide said that it is important to ensure that the public knows that the costs shown on the 1-pagers are at the high end, and assume a worst-case scenario. George Nelson expressed serious concerns with the cost numbers, and said that a quick cost per rider calculation would show the systems to be highly ineffective. Eiler said that Phase 1 is about visioning and looking at the full system. Now, she said, it is time to focus effort on what is feasible and getting a true “starter” system developed for Phase 2 analysis. Nelson agreed that the OAC needs to focus on a starter system in the core of the metropolitan area, and that additions to that can be considered at some later point. Dick Wagner said that the land use analysis in Phase 2 will show other value, besides the simple analysis of costs and riders. He said that the alternative of doing nothing has costs, and that these costs are significant.
Ken Golden said that the capital costs assume things that might happen anyway, and that this needs to be recognized. Scott McDonell said that double track basically kills the idea of commuter rail, and that single track could be made to work, as it is in other urban areas. Eiler said that this is possible, but that there are other costs. She said that this is a Phase 2 consideration.
Ken Golden recalled earlier OAC discussions and the idea that a light trolley system would be looked at. Golden thought that this type of system, which is under construction in Portland, is a fraction of the cost of LRT and should be considered. Eiler said that it could be, but that it has limitations (including FRA compliance). Ken Kinney added that a trolley system limits the regional system that could ultimately be developed. David Cieslewicz agreed that a less-expensive trolley system should be revisited. Golden also asked that the alternatives be given numbers as more clear identifiers.
Ken Leonard asked if the capital cost assumptions could be adjusted. Eiler said that they could for the Phase 2 analysis. Kennedy agreed and said that by dropping part of the route, the capital infrastructure needs would be reduced in many ways. Eiler said that link-by-link costs would be provided to help craft the Phase 2 alternatives. She said that the 1998 study would be revisited. McDonell said that the OAC should choose what goes into the system.
Golden said that he is comfortable reviewing the “worst case scenario” numbers, but that the public should not be presented those figures. He felt that the OAC is charged with crafting a better system for review, and that many of the costs could be recovered by other individuals/entities. He said that the system costs should be shown in a way that articulates a basic system and then identifies those items that would make the system operate and function better – i.e., separate out some of the non-essential infrastructure. Eiler said that this could be done.
Eiler said that she would bring additional capital cost information back to the OAC for discussion at its next meeting.
6. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS: UPDATE
Kim Lobdell said that she is beginning to plan for the next Public Information Meeting (PIM). She said that she needs four weeks to put materials together before the meeting. Lobdell asked the OAC if the Alliant Energy Center could be used as the next venue. The OAC said that this would be fine. However, the OAC asked that the scheduling of the PIM be put on hold until there is a better handle on the Phase 1 model and cost information (and how it would be presented at the PIM).
Lobdell added that she is putting together a newsletter that would announce the PIM. She said that the newsletter and would include maps and other information from the Phase 1 alternatives. Lobdell said that, at some point in the near future, she would like OAC/TAC feedback on how to present the information in the newsletter.
7. UPDATE ON TRANSPORT 2020 WORK PLAN AND PROJECT SCHEDULE/NEXT STEPS
Stephanie Eiler said that Phase 1 information would continue to be reviewed for development of the Phase 2 alternatives. She said that Phase 2 alternatives would automatically need to include the Base Bus alternative, the Express/Regional Bus (TSM) alternative, and some highway alternative. She said that a starter system of high-capacity transit would also be a Phase 2 alternative.
Eiler said that the next Public Information Meeting would need to be scheduled for some time in mid- or late-summer and that the draft Phase 2 alternatives should be presented for review and comment. She also said that information regarding how the Phase 1 alternatives were evaluated should be presented in some form, and that this should be discussed at the next OAC/TAC meeting.
8. NEXT OAC/TAC MEETINGS
The next meeting of the Joint Oversight Advisory Committee/Technical Advisory Committee was scheduled for Thursday, June 28th, 5:15 p.m. (changed from original 6:00 p.m.), Room 201 City/County Building.
9. ITEMS BY OAC CO-CHAIRS AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS
There were no items by the Co-Chairs or Committee members.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The Committee adjourned its meeting at 10:05 p.m.