Minutes

 

OVERSIGHT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (OAC) - MEETING #5

 

Thursday, June 22, 2000

4:45 pm

City/County Building, Room 201

210 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard

Madison, WI

 

 

--          ROLL CALL

 

Members Present: LaMarr Billups; Thomas Carlsen; David Cieslewicz; Ann Falconer; Ald. Ken Golden; Rob Kennedy; Douglas Dalton (for Ken Leonard); Supv. Scott McDonell; Ald. Warren Onken; Dick Wagner.

 

Members Absent: Supv. Michael Blaska; Robert Cook (notified); Darlene Horner; George Nelson (notified).

 

Staff Present: Charity Eleson (Dane County Executive’s Office); Michael Friedlander (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Ozone and SIP Development Section); Lori Kay (University of Wisconsin, Transportation Services); Linda Lovejoy (Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Public Transit Section); Bob McDonald (Madison Area Metropolitan Planning Organization); John Norwell (Dane County Highway and Transportation Department); David Trowbridge (City of Madison, Department of Planning and Development; Project Administrator for the Alternatives Analysis); Michael Waidelich (City of Madison, Department of Planning and Development).

 

Others Present: Fred Bartol (Dane Alliance for Rail Transit); Melissa Bordewin (Parsons Brinckerhoff); Kim Lobdell (KL Engineering); Ken Kinney (Parsons Brinckerhoff; Project Manager for the Alternatives Analysis); Sam Seskin (Parsons Brinckerhoff).

 

 

1.            WELCOME AND REVIEW OF AGENDA (KEN KINNEY, AA PROJECT MANAGER)

 

Co-Chair Ken Golden welcomed Committee members to Meeting #5 of the Oversight Advisory Committee for the Alternatives Analysis (AA).  Project Manager Ken Kinney then provided a brief overview of the 6/22 agenda items.  He noted that, time permitting, Sam Seskin of the PB Team would provide some thoughts on the transit and land use connection.

 

 

2.            APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM OAC MEETING #4 (MAY 3, 2000)

 

The Minutes for Meeting #3 of the Oversight Advisory Committee were approved, as submitted on a motion by LaMarr Billups, seconded by Ald. Warren Onken.

 

 

3.            OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

 

There were no public appearances

 

 

4.         AA GOALS & OBJECTIVES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

 

Ken Kinney noted that, at the last Oversight Advisory Committee, tentative approval had been given for a list of goals to guide the AA process.  Since that time, suggestions for objectives were provided to David Trowbridge and a composite list was developed, for your review and consideration.  He added that there was a great deal of similarity among the objectives submitted, and the draft composite list is intended to encompass all members’ thoughts, as best it can.

 

Kinney then provided a few comments on the objectives and added some concerns raised at the June 15^th Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting.  He said that the objective concerning “promoting relatively compact development” is intended to include all communities in the metropolitan area, and not just the isthmus area of Madison.  He also said that the objective concerning “developing competitive transportation alternatives” is intended to include many attributes for comparison, such as cost, convenience, travel time, etc.  In terms of geographic scope of transit, the objectives attempt to broaden the scope beyond the central isthmus.

 

He added that another objective was included to stress the aesthetic component of the alternatives being evaluated.  In addition, another objective concerning “road-rage free travel alternatives” was modified to “stress-free alternatives”, at the request of the TAC.  In terms of cost-effective transportation objectives, Kinney said that this is intended to state the need for a final alternative that can realistically be implemented.  In addition, the objective about recognizing “non-quantifiable benefits” was modified to meet the intent of that comment, and consider a very broad range of system benefits.  Kinney said that the cost-benefit evaluation will be more than the typical “quantifiable” approach.

 

Ann Falconer said that the list was very inclusive, but suggested adding a “time-of-day” and “day-of-week” component to the travel time and convenience objective (under goal #2).  Ken Golden asked that some consideration of parking be included in the objectives, since land use, transportation and parking are strongly related.  He said that promoting activity centers is good, but if it has too much parking it may be contrary to our community’s goals.  Kinney said that this will certainly be considered at later points in the study, when supporting policies are reviewed.  He also said that some of the alternatives (e.g., commuter rail) will have a strong parking component, such as supporting park-and-ride facilities.

 

Kinney said that, in asking for the OAC’s recommendation for tentative approval of goals and objectives (and everything else discussed this evening), he wished to make clear the fact that all of these decisions would be brought through the public participation process, which will be underway very soon.  The general public and other key stakeholders will have many opportunities to modify what is produced in the study.  LaMarr Billups asked about goal #2, objective #2 and expressed concern about the “affordability” of the selected alternative, and asked that it be clarified to reflect the affordability for the transportation user – and not the cost to build the system.  Kinney added that the intent of the objective is in regard to the transportation system user.  Billups said that it is important that the use of the system be affordable to many segments of society, and the review by focus groups will likely bring this concern up.  Kinney said that establishment of transit fares and farebox recovery policy (conducted at later points in the study) will be an important part of that discussion.

 

Kinney said that this list of draft goals and objectives will be considered “tentatively” approved, and will be brought forward to help frame the upcoming stages of the study.  He thanked the OAC and TAC for their input.

 

 

 

 

5.            ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS PROBLEM DEFINITION

 

Ken Kinney said that a short “AA problem statement” is in the early stages of development, and that data evaluation and analysis are now being conducted as part of the problem definition process.  He added that this analysis is also helping to more clearly define the AA study corridor, which will be discussed later this evening.  He said that the analysis for defining the problem should be completed by July 7^th and added that this subject will be revisited, in detail, at a later time.

 

Kinney then provided an overview of the maps and the types of data that are considered in developing the problem statement and defining the AA study corridor(s).  Information evaluated in this process includes socioeconomic data for current and future years (2020).  Information includes population density and employment density.  He said that some employment dispersion has occurred (and is expected into the future), but the key activity centers will continue to be the central part of the City of Madison.  He showed a Dane County Regional Planning Commission map to illustrate this.  Dick Wagner asked how student activity was to be accounted for.  Kinney said that it is an important activity and will be included.

 

Ken Golden said that the activity centers could be changed, if our policies and strategies change.  Kinney said that the impact of doing that can be evaluated, to the extent that it is desired.  Rob Kennedy said that Verona and DeForest needed to be include, given their importance in system-wide travel, even if they would not be included in the first phase of the system.  He said that the secondary activity centers, such as these, are also important.  Kinney agreed with that approach and said that this should be done.

 

Kinney said that transportation and mobility factors are also evaluated, such as traffic congestion, and traffic, bicycle and pedestrian accidents.  He said that it is no surprise that most of the challenges/problems are in the isthmus area.  Kinney said that congestion is also occurring in outlying communities.  Kennedy said that traffic volumes should also be considered.  Kinney said that they are, but have not been included in the packet.  Kinney said that current bus service is a start to the transit evaluation, and added that Metro’s origin-destination information will also be analyzed.

 

 

6.            ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CORRIDOR DEFINITION

 

Kinney noted that, based on an initial review of the information (summarized above) and discussion at the TAC meeting, a tentative AA corridor is being recommended to the OAC at this time.  Kinney showed a map of a draft corridor and said that this was based largely on mobility concerns and expected development patterns.  He said that the current recommended AA corridor includes the City of Madison, Sun Prairie, DeForest, Middleton, McFarland and loops back to the City of Madison.  He said that the Beltline (and its cross streets) would be included in the evaluation corridor, but improvements on that facility would not be considered.  Billups asked if the corridor definition was based on the data just presented on the various maps.  Kinney said that it was, in addition to the collective judgment of the TAC.

 

Dick Wagner said that the east side of Madison should be included in the evaluation.  Kinney noted that budget concerns preclude the ability to include all areas of central Dane County.  Ald. Warren Onken expanded on that point, noting that the east side of Madison is a huge trip generator and should be included in the analysis.  He said that many of these people come downtown area and would potentially utilize one of these transportation system alternatives.  Onken said that his aldermanic district is significantly larger than McFarland, and the developing east side of the City will be important in the future.  He suggested including the Interstate.  Wagner said that it may not be the primary corridor, but it is strongly related to what happens in the primary corridor.

 

Billups said that Verona and Oregon are important corridors as well, and should be considered as important trip generators/markets affecting the primary corridor.  Kinney agreed and said that this could be done.  Scott McDonell said that he thought that the original corridor was stretched to some degree, and adding corridors may not be the best approach at this time.  Rob Kennedy said that it makes sense to have an approach that includes primary and secondary corridors.  He said that dotted lines could delineate secondary corridors, based on expected future growth and travel.  Ald. Golden said that there is a lack of understandable criteria that creates the study corridors.  Wagner said that we don’t want to send a message that shows that certain areas are not as important as others, because people will look at a map.  Kinney said that trip patterns are included, even if the corridor facilities may not be.  He added that it will be made clear that the corridors with facilities that address the problems are separate from the “trip generation” area, which includes all of Dane County.

 

Kinney summarized this approach and said that a map will be modified to show this.  Kennedy asked for a matrix, or something, that shows why certain facility corridors were included and others were not.  Kinney said that he would do this, and noted that the document that conveys this will be massive.  Kinney also added that future corridors could be added, as warranted by the analysis.

 

Kinney said that the Cross Plains corridor was discussed at the TAC, but that no decision was made.  He said that this corridor has a congested highway (USH 14), but also has numerous environmental concerns.  Ken Golden said that Cross Plains is geographically constrained and Verona is growing very fast, begging the question of which corridor is most appropriate.  However, he said that the communities stop supporting a study if they are not included in the corridor, and he suggested adding dotted lines to numerous outlying communities.  Golden asked why DeForest would be included but not Verona, for example.  Kinney said that the potential for high-speed rail through the DeForest area was an important consideration that might influence the feasibility of commuter rail in that area.  Kennedy said that facilities do drive some corridor analyses, to some degree, but asked for a clear set of criteria for our decisions about corridors.

 

Dick Wagner preferred keeping dotted lines as “potential corridors”, depending on future analyses and choices, but not devoting a great deal of consultant resources to them at this time.  Wagner said that Cottage Grove and Waunakee may also be appropriate for an initial corridor analysis.  Kinney agreed, but said that a “core corridor” would need to be more clearly defined at a later time.  Doug Dalton said that some of this discussion seems premature, until more data about growth is provided.  Kinney said that some general guidance is still needed at this time.  Bob McDonald agreed and said that the solid line should be Sun Prairie to Middleton (through the isthmus, including the east side of Madison) and that the dotted lined should be DeForest, Cross Plains, Verona, and McFarland.

 

Kinney said that he would rework the map and distribute it to OAC members soon, in order to obtain their tentative concurrence on this initial corridor concept.  Kennedy said that this is fine, but would like to see more information about the outlying communities and the corridors that extend out to those areas.

 

On a separate but related topic (concerning public participation element of the study), Kim Lobdell of KL Engineering needs some input on the AA’s web page.  Ken Golden said that it would be helpful if we could post some of the information we have been working with, such as the goals and objectives, to a web page.  He said that one question in setting this up would be where to access it.  Another issue is the name of the web page - and related to that - the name of this study, which could be better than “Alternatives Analysis”.  Golden asked Committee members about new names for the study and ways to access the web page.  Rob Kennedy suggested a new name – “TransDane 2000”.  Bob McDonald (and Tom Carlsen) thought that “Trans 21” might work.

 

In terms of access to the web page, Golden asked for Committee thoughts.  Kim Lobdell said that her computer specialist had contacted the City and the County.  She thought that the best way to go would be to have a separate web site, hosted somewhere, and have direct links from various locations – such as WisDOT, County, City, Dane Alliance for Rail Transit, etc.  She said that to have a web site set up would cost $15 per month and $35 for the domain name, which she thought was reasonable for this study and was good in that it would minimize the potential for a number of administrative problems.  Golden said that, unless Committee members had concerns, he felt that this would be the way to go with the web site.

 

Kim Lobdell asked about the domain name, and added that it should be something that people might logically search for.  She thought that Trans 21 was OK, but that it is too close to TransLinks 21 and doesn’t allow for locational identification.  Golden said that using the word “rail” in the title, although perhaps controversial, might be readily identifiable to the public.  Kennedy said that “TransDane 21” would be a good name, but the longer name in the web page could include such words as bus, rail, etc. that would help for the public, who would be searching for the site.  Lobdell agreed that this can be done.

 

Ann Falconer suggested using the word “travel” in the title.  Scott McDonell said that suggestions could be provided over email.  Wagner moved (Kennedy seconded) that the Co-Chairs be given authority to choose the name, based on input from Committee members through email.  The Committee unanimously voted in favor of that motion.

 

Lobdell asked about the potential links to the web page and whether or not some groups would be excluded.  Golden said that we should try to be as inclusive as possible with access to the web page, with some level of scrutiny in place.  Wagner felt that all of the represented organizations and municipalities should have access, if they wish.

 

 

7.         RANGE OF INITIAL ALTERNATIVES TO BE STUDIED: PROCESS TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVES

 

Project Manager Ken Kinney said that he would like to give a brief overview of the process used to develop the initial set of alternatives being evaluated in Phase I of the AA.  He said that a series of technical workshops would be held to develop land use scenarios, transit system alternatives and street/highway system alternatives.  The schedule for the first three technical workshops (and a bus tour) is as follows:

 

§         Land Use Subcommittee/Technical Workshop: Friday, June 23, 9:00 a.m., Room GR-120 MMB;

§         Highway Technical Workshop: Wednesday, June 28, 9:00 a.m., Room LL-130 MMB;

§         Land Use/Transit Bus Tour: Thursday, July 6, approx. noon-2:00 p.m., meet at MMB/CCB area (exact time and location to be determined); and,

§         Land Use/Transit Technical Workshop: Friday, July 7, 9:00 a.m., Room 260 MMB.

 

Kinney said that, although the workshops are technical in nature, OAC members are welcome and encouraged to attend and participate.

 

Kinney also noted that Sam Seskin (from the PB Portland office) was in attendance tonight and would be hosting tomorrow morning’s Land Use Subcommittee/Technical Workshop.  He asked Seskin to say a few words about the transit/land use connection, best practices around the country, and what he saw as key issues in the transit/land use debate here in Madison and Dane County.

 

Seskin said that he was rather struck by the first goal of this study – a land use goal, which he acknowledged was a very important issue here.  He said that it will be useful for us to take a close look at what other communities throughout the country are doing to address land use issues.  He added that we need to understand what it would take to achieve the objectives that have been laid out so far.

 

Seskin said that there are a number of places throughout the U.S. that are taking on the governance issue, particularly how communities work together for common goals and how they attempt to avoid the competition for tax base.  He gave the example of Atlanta, where they’ve created a super-agency to address regional land use and transportation issues.  Portland had a similar exercise, 5-8 years ago, that led to a regional governance structure for land use.  He said that we should think about what it takes to get to where we want in terms of land use.

 

Seskin also gave examples, from California, where the public are going directly to the ballot box (via referenda) to create urban growth boundaries, to try to achieve what their elected officials have not been able to.  The success/failure rate of this has been about 50/50 so far.  He said that this approach may not be as workable here as it is in California, but the point is that the public have been a powerful force and are taking charge of situations that elected officials have not.

 

He also said that a third approach are with financially-strapped local governments that are attempting to pass along the full costs of growth to the developers that create the need for new infrastructure.  In essence, impact fees are lower in developed areas, creating an incentive to build in developed areas rather than in cornfields.  Finally, Seskin said that the “smart growth” movement at the state level has progressed – further in some areas than others.  He said that Maryland provides state incentives to encourage growth to occur in desirable areas.  He summed up the national examples by saying that many communities are grappling with some very difficult problems, and are coming up with creative solutions – solutions that work best for them.

 

Seskin said that this community needs to think of creative solutions to better link the land use and transit connection, and start moving in the right direction.  He said that, often times in studies like this AA, communities want the benefits of a new system but not the costs.  He said that illustrative planning could help communities understand a possible vision for this region, and why we are taking some of these land use and transit approaches forward.  This may help create some buy-in to the vision.  However, he said that the scope of work may need to be slightly modified to accomplish this.  He asked for the Committee’s thoughts on this issue.

 

Dick Wagner said that there have been numerous past discussions on this subject and asked how Seskin could get the public to understand the transit/land use linkage and design concepts for new development.  Wagner asked about the broader regional benefits of such an urban form and how those benefits could be conveyed to the general public and the various affected communities.  Seskin said that the illustrations need to be as graphic as they can be, to help show why the land use form benefits people in terms of transit - and transportation in general.  Wagner said that local polls show tremendous support for transit, but there seems to be a piece missing.  Tom Carlsen said that people need to know what difference this makes.  Wagner agreed and said that people need to understand what difference it makes and what it means to them.  Scott McDonell said that the public sometimes thinks that skyscrapers are needed to support transit, which is not true.

 

Golden said that the difference between something theoretical and something tangible will be important for this study.  Seskin said that this study will be a good way to gauge public interest in these concepts, and not think of transit as “the other guy”.  Ann Falconer agreed that the common person needs to know how this system works for them, and address why people think they need the auto to do everything.  Wagner said that the need to communicate density and other concepts to the public is important here, and we should think about transit issues similarly.  He said that many of these concepts can be achieved in a way that is desirable to the general public, and density can be achieved with very nice designs and neighborhood orientation.  Seskin said that this can be illustrated and something more meaningful than the status quo could be achieved, with public consensus.  He added that many of those in the room probably know what can be achieved, instinctively.

 

Rob Kennedy agreed with the need for illustrative concepts.  He recalled the Light Rail Study of 1992 and the land use policies that were recommended.  He said that the policies are hard to do, and many were not done.  Kennedy asked for ways to show how the policies could be done, with incentives, bonuses, etc.  What this community could support may be quite different than what other places have implemented.  And within our region, he added, what the City of Madison can do may be quite different than what Sun Prairie could do.

 

Scott McDonell said that, although there are policy and land use thresholds for what we might accomplish here, there are also federal thresholds and benchmarks that need to be respected.  He asked for some details on how we might score, within the federal criteria, in terms of land use policies.  Seskin said that the criteria are largely about implementation, and existence of plans, ordinances, etc.  He said that the federal agencies are challenging the local units to show them their level of commitment, through the existence and implementation of some of these ordinances, plans, etc.  Seskin said that federal authorities feel better about the value of their dollars going into a community that has made some of these commitments.  Wagner said that different approaches (in various communities) need thoughtful consideration, and can be beneficial through a number of means.  Golden suspects that we can do more, in regard to land use policies.  He said that if we have to anticipate a “bulking up” of the land use, the public needs a picture of what it will be in order to be successful.

 

Lori Kay agreed with the idea of giving people a better sense of what these futures would look like, and what difference it would mean to them.  People need to be engaged in a meaningful way.  Golden agreed and said that there are numerous spots throughout the City where problems exist and people can look to as examples of what could happen if we don’t think differently in the future, in terms of our land use policies and transportation investments.

 

Seskin wondered whether or not the illustrative approach or the quantitative approach will be most valuable for this process, but said that we don’t need the answer to that this evening.  He said that numbers are good, but we may need something more if the land use vision is to be achieved.  Kennedy felt that this system should not be set up as a reliever to congestion, but rather an option to a congested form of travel.

 

 

8.            OVERSIGHT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING #6

 

The Committee agreed that OAC Meeting #6 will be held Wednesday, August 30^th, 4:45 pm, in Room 260 of the Madison Municipal Building.

 

McDonell reiterated the point that all OAC members are welcome to attend the technical workshops that were discussed earlier this evening.  Golden promised not to discuss the potential new name for the study until July 1^st, and asked that all suggestions on the new name be provided by then.

 

 

9.            ADJOURNMENT

 

The Committee adjourned its meeting at 6:45 p.m.