Transportation Alternatives Analysis

for the

Dane County / Greater Madison Metropolitan Area

 

 

 

Minutes

 

JOINT MEETING/WORKSHOP

OVERSIGHT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (OAC) MEETING #13

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)

 

Thursday, June 28, 2001

5:15 pm

City/County Building, Courtroom 2E

201 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard

Madison, WI

 

 

--          ROLL CALL

 

Members Present:           LaMarr Billups; Supv. Michael Blaska; David Cieslewicz; Kristine Euclide; Ann Falconer; Rob Kennedy; Ken Leonard; Ald. Warren Onken; Michael Rewey (for Rose Phetteplace); Dick Wagner.

 

Members Absent:           Deloris Coaker; Robert Cook; Ald. Ken Golden (notified); Supv. Scott McDonell (notified); George Nelson (notified).

 

Staff/TAC Present:         Jim Arts (Dane County Executive’s Office); Catherine Debo (Madison Metro) Doug Dalton (Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Bureau of Planning); Michael Friedlander (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Ozone and SIP Development Section); Lori Kay (UW Transportation Services); Barbara Kipp (WisDOT – District 1); Linda Lovejoy (WisDOT - Public Transit); Rachel Martin (UW Transportation Services); Dan McCormick (City of Madison, Traffic Engineering); Bob McDonald (Madison Area Metropolitan Planning Organization); Mari McKenzie (WisDOT, Bureau of Planning); John Norwell (Dane County Highway and Transportation Department); Sharon Persich (Madison Metro); Bill Schaefer (Madison Area MPO); David Trowbridge (Madison Planning and Development; Project Administrator for Transport 2020); Todd Violante (Dane County Planning and Development).

 

Others Present:              Fred Bartol (Dane Alliance for Rail Transit; DART); Stephanie Eiler (Parsons Brinckerhoff; Project Manager for Transport 2020); Tom Fleming; Kim Lobdell (KL Engineering); Judy Siegfried; David Warner (Parsons Brinckerhoff).

 

 

1.         REVIEW OF AGENDA

 

Interim Co-Chair Dick Wagner welcomed Committee members to Meeting #13 of the Oversight Advisory Committee for Transport 2020.  Project Manager Stephanie Eiler then provided a brief overview of the 6/28 agenda items.

 

Ms. Eiler also introduced David Warner, Area Manager for the Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) office in Minneapolis.  Eiler said that Mr. Warner is the new “principal in charge” for this project, replacing Mark Miller.

 

 

2.         APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM OAC MEETING #12 (JUNE 12, 2001)

 

The Minutes for Meeting #12 of the Oversight Advisory Committee were approved, as submitted on a motion by Ald. Warren Onken/Supv. Michael Blaska.

 

 

3.         OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

 

The first member of the public wishing to speak was Fred Bartol (Dane Alliance for Rail Transit).  Bartol said that DART has supported the alternatives analysis process from the beginning.  He said that the costs to build the system may be high, but he said that the benefits to the community would be great as well.  He said that even a short starter system would be valuable – recognizing that a starting point is needed for a regional system.  He said that a starter system would add people-moving capacity to the isthmus and could also act as a catalyst to transit-oriented development.

 

The second member of the public wishing to speak was Tom Fleming (also from Dane Alliance for Rail Transit).  Fleming asked the OAC to reconsider the 1998 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study as a base system.  He said that the current operations plan (20 minute headways) is too aggressive for Madison, and would create the need for double track.  He cited other cities where freight, high speed rail and commuter rail share a single track (e.g., Boston, San Diego, Miami) and he hoped that this could be done here.  Fleming urged the Committee to consider a less ambitious operational plan, at least to start with.

 

The third member of the public wishing to speak was Bob Schaefer (of the Ridgewood Neighborhood Association).  Schaefer said that he was interested in how high speed rail affects the region.  He distributed survey results from his neighborhood and expressed concerns about how rail transportation would affect traffic on the east side of the City.  He also asked the Committee to suspend their rules to allow him to sit in on the discussion (as a non-voting participant), since he has a unique perspective as a member of the City’s Pedestrian-Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Commission (PBMVC).

 

Interim Co-Chair Dick Wagner said that the OAC were carefully appointed members and that changing the composition, even for discussion purposes, was not appropriate.  The OAC did not discuss the issues further.  Kristine Euclide said that the OAC would gladly accept and consider any written comments provided by Mr. Schaefer.

 

 

4.         UPDATE ON STATUS OF HIGH SPEED RAIL PROJECT

 

Stephanie Eiler informed the OAC that she and David Trowbridge met with representatives from the high speed rail preliminary engineering project, in order to learn more about their operating plan and infrastructure planning in the existing rail right-of-way.  She said that the feeling among those at the meeting is that there are some opportunities to coordinate the two services (intercity and commuter), but that the number of track needed would depend on how much commuter service is provided.  She said that with 20-minute peak period headways, double track would likely be needed from First Street out to Sun Prairie.  However, she said that at 30-minute headways, it was felt that single track could accommodate all of the services in that area.  Trowbridge pointed out that, from First Street to downtown, double track will be needed regardless – primarily due to the fact that there is significantly more freight service in that area.

 

David Cieslewicz asked if the high speed rail service would limit the future headways for commuter rail, because they have the priority for operation.  Eiler said that this is true.  Michael Rewey said that, in the future, if better headways are desired, double track would need to be added in certain locations.  Eiler pointed out that the Transport 2020 team would continue working with the high speed rail project team, in order to ensure maximum coordination and optimization of resources in that corridor.

 

 

5.         REVIEW/DISCUSSION OF PHASE 1 FINDINGS AND DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS OF ALTERNATIVES TO CARRY FORWARD INTO PHASE 2

 

Stephanie Eiler reviewed the Phase 1 transit alternatives.  She referred to the OAC packet that summarized the advantages and disadvantages of the various alternatives (relative to the Phase 1 screening criteria), and the PB team’s recommendation on which alternatives to move forward to Phase 2.

 

In summary, the PB team is recommending that the following transit alternatives advance to Phase 2:

- Alternatives 1 and 2 (Base Bus and Expanded Bus/TSM): will become benchmarks for FTA and community evaluation;

- Alternative 3, DMU Commuter Rail Starter System; and,

- Alternative 8, Busway Starter System.

 

She also noted that a discussion of potential roadway alternatives would need to be held at the next meeting of the OAC, after modeling information becomes available.  A roadway alternative may or may not move to Phase 2, depending on the outcome of the modeling.

 

Dick Wagner wished to discuss the busway starter system (Alt. 8).  He asked if the busway was even possible if high speed rail (HSR) is implemented, noting that the Phase 1 cost and ridership evaluation was based on the assumption that HSR would NOT be implemented.  Eiler said that WisDOT’s policy is to limit non-rail modes in the corridor, should HSR be implemented.  Rob Kennedy asked if a large physical barrier would be necessary if both modes were in the corridor.  Eiler replied that this would be needed.  David Cieslewicz questioned the need for a physical barrier at locations where the HSR train was traveling at low speeds.  Wagner said that from USH 51 to the east (at a minimum), there would be high speeds and the need for a barrier.  He also suspected that this barrier would be very costly, if even possible at all – since the barrier would need to be constructed at some distance from the tracks.

 

David Cieslewicz also questioned the notion that street-running rail is undesirable because there is scarce street space, stating that several other communities have LRT in their streets.  Eiler replied that Madison has geographic limitations for a street grid system and is unique in that regard.  She said that commuter rail (in the existing rail right-of-way) would not take any street capacity, and would add people-moving capacity.  Wagner agreed and said that the City’s Long-Range Transportation Planning Commission (LRTPC) has been exploring the notion of preserving the City’s limited street capacity.  He said that the LRTPC also supports the idea of adding “people-moving” capacity in the area.  Cieslewicz said that the street-running option also adds people-moving capacity.

 

Kristine Euclide asked if the busway alternative takes street capacity as well.  Eiler said that it does, in some places.  Bob McDonald agreed, noting that the area east of USH 51 would have a severe impact on street capacity – should the rail corridor not be usable for a busway.

 

Doug Dalton asked if the Phase 2 analysis of the commuter rail alternative would have detailed ridership information.  Eiler said that it would, and that ridership boardings, by station, would be provided.

 

Ald. Warren Onken said that the busway seemed to be costly, and that the expanded bus (TSM) could be modified to get many of the same benefits.  He added that a large concrete barrier in the rail corridor would likely be fought hard by the community.

 

David Cieslewicz expressed concern about the air quality differences between the DMU (i.e., diesel multiple unit) technologies and electrified vehicles.  LaMarr Billups said that he recently witnessed an Amtrak diesel locomotive in operation on the west coast and said that it was loud and did not seem to be friendly (in terms of air quality).  Eiler said that the DMUs being evaluated for Dane County are much different and less noxious than the standard diesel locomotives currently used for long-distance Amtrak service.  Rob Kennedy said that there are many emerging DMU technologies that should be examined as Transport 2020 moves forward.

 

Lori Kay asked about the number of alternatives that could be advanced to Phase 2.  Eiler reminded the OAC that the PB team is scoped to carry five alternatives into Phase 2.

 

Rob Kennedy then distributed a draft motion, recommending alternatives to move to Phase 2 (text of draft motion is below).

 

 

Draft Motion – Phase 2 Recommendation  --  Revised 06.28.01

 

The OAC recommends that the four following alternatives with phasing variations proceed to Phase 2 of the alternatives analysis:

 

A. Alternatives automatically advancing to Phase 2 per FTA requirements:

·         Alternative 1, Base Bus; and,

·         Alternative 2, Expanded Bus (TSM): Express/Regional Bus Service.

 

B. Alternatives to be advanced after OAC screening:

·         Alternative 3, Commuter Rail Starter with the following additive variations: (Note: all alternatives assume express feeder bus service from park-and-ride lots and nearby villages/cities as appropriate, single track as possible, and HSR implementation.)

3a  - Starter System: Greenway Center to Sun Prairie and Airport to McFarland; and,

3b  - Phasing Option for Starter Alternative: Greenway Center to East Towne.

 

Ø       Other Phasing Options for Starter Alternatives (cost alternatives only):

-          Greenway Center to Sun Prairie; and,

-          Greenway Center to East Towne and Airport to Expo Center.

 

 

Kennedy said that his motion was developed after looking carefully into the issues and working with staff and other members of the advisory committees.  He said that, although the PB team recommended advancing the busway to Phase 2, he recommends leaving it out - in light of the recent information that has been learned about high speed rail.  He said that a busway in the rail corridor precludes future rail expansion and that he views this to be a fatal flaw of the busway alternative.  He also cited traffic impacts in the downtown area as a negative aspect of the busway.

 

Kennedy pointed out that the busway would likely not have the types of land use impacts that a rail alternative would and felt that bike path conflicts also seem to make the busway alternative fare poorly.  He said that, although the initial capital costs seem lower and the ridership performance very good (because of the non-transfer aspects of the busway service), the busway does not stand up well to the other important community goals and criteria that have been established by the OAC.

 

Kennedy said that he strongly recommended that Alt. 3 (commuter rail starter) move to Phase 2.  He also said that concepts of utilizing single track and providing good bus service linkages to park-and-ride lots on the periphery (and outer ring cities and villages) be incorporated into that alternative.

 

Rob Kennedy formally submitted his motion, which was seconded by Ald. Warren Onken.

 

Michael Blaska said that he supported eliminating the busway at this time (Alt. 8).  Rob Kennedy noted that he felt it important to include a “starter” commuter rail system that extended beyond the boundaries of the City of Madison.  Ken Leonard expressed concern about eliminating the busway, given its high ridership performance and the uncertainty of federal monies to implement high speed rail.

 

Dan McCormick said the it is important to consider transit linkages to the west and southwest side of the City of Madison, not just the isthmus corridor shown in the starter system.  Dick Wagner said that diamond lanes could be considered, but that the construction of busway facilities should not.  Kennedy said that he hoped that a strong bus component could be integrated into the commuter rail option - including the use of diamond lanes and preferential signal treatments for buses, where appropriate.  Catherine Debo expressed concern about foreclosing options to get buses off of the roadway (where that might be possible).  She said that express buses off of the roadway could be an interim approach, before commuter rail implementation.

 

Kristine Euclide wondered whether or not Alt. 3 was 1 alternative.  Eiler said that 3a and 3b are two separate alternatives and would each be provided a full evaluation in Phase 2.  She added that the capital cost components could be broken out for the segments of those alternatives.

 

David Cieslewicz hoped that the electrified, street-running option could be kept alive.  He said that it has many important advantages, including the fact that the vehicles are cleaner and quieter.  He also said that the street-running option is more urban-friendly and seems to integrate into the built environment better (as opposed to exclusively running in the rail corridor).  He said that numerous transit stops help make this a very good alternative and he felt that a hybrid system of some sort should be carried forward.

 

Warren Onken felt that the OAC should utilize the PB team’s resources wisely and focus on the Phase 2 alternatives that are the best.  He said that the consultant should spend time evaluating station options and park-and-ride approaches, rather than extra alternatives.  He also felt that the busway option should be eliminated at this time.

 

Rob Kennedy said that it is important to make a decision about this, adding that Alt. 3 has two distinct sub-alternatives for evaluation.  He said that there will be opportunities for sensitivity analysis later in the process.

 

Ann Falconer said that she supports the motion, adding that the busway linkages are very important to her and need full consideration.  She expressed concern about eliminating the busway alternative, noting that the reasons of traffic impacts and HSR implementation/conflicts needed to be good enough to stand scrutiny (from various fronts).

 

Michael Rewey also expressed concern about eliminating the busway alternative, wondering if the objectivity of the study would be questioned.  Stephanie Eiler said that it is important for the community to make the decision of what alternatives move forward, and if the reasons for eliminating other alternatives are thoroughly evaluated and documented, this is appropriate.

 

Lori Kay (for LaMarr Billups) said that she supports the motion.  David Cieslewicz expressed concern about eliminating the street-running alternative at this time, saying that it is unlikely to come back at a later time.  Kennedy replied that the commuter rail option (within the existing rail corridor) is a starting point and that later phases could add street-running components.  He also added that the system cannot be a Madison-only system, and that the street-running option would be just that (because of the costs).

 

Kristine Euclide said that she supports the motion.  She said that the busway alternative should be eliminated because it is unclear if the rail corridor can support all modes of travel.  She also pointed out that the busway alternative fared poorly when evaluated against several of the Phase 1 criteria – particularly the important land use criteria.  She felt that this justified its elimination from further study.  Euclide also agreed that we need to begin narrowing the alternatives and get toward a starting point, particularly when we begin explaining this to the general public.  Dick Wagner agreed that land use considerations are very important and that the busway alternative does not perform as well as the rail alternatives.

 

Michael Blaska said that he supports the motion and is pleased that the commuter rail option is moving forward.  He also said that the busway option is not realistic at this time.  He also acknowledged that the street-running options have advantages but that, as a starting point, the commuter rail option seems better for this community.

 

David Cieslewicz reiterated his support for a street-running option and felt that it is a mistake to not take it forward to Phase 2.  As such, he said that he would be voting “no” on the motion.

 

The OAC voted 9-1 in favor of the motion.

 

Stephanie Eiler thanked the Committee for their recommendation and said that further refinement of the alternatives would be necessary.  She said that the next OAC/TAC meetings would begin to discuss these refinements - including station locations, service plans, linkages with express and local bus service, fares, parking costs, etc.

 

 

6.         TRANSPORT 2020 PROJECT SCHEDULE/NEXT STEPS

 

The Committee scheduled the next two Joint OAC/TAC meetings for:

 

- Joint OAC #14/TAC Meeting: Wednesday, July 18th, 5:15 p.m., Room 260 Madison Municipal Building; and,

 

- Joint OAC #15/TAC Meeting: Wednesday, August 22nd, 5:15 p.m., Room 260 Madison Municipal Building.

 

Eiler said that the next Public Informational Meeting would need also to be scheduled.  The OAC scheduled that meeting for:

 

- Public Informational Meeting #2: Wednesday, August 15th, 5:00-8:00 p.m., Alliant Energy Center.

 

Kim Lobdell asked how web page updates should be facilitated, in order to ensure that the information placed on the page was accurate and not in too rough of a draft form.  The OAC said that the Management Team could confirm the appropriateness of web page material.

 

Rob Kennedy asked that the outreach efforts be documented and that later outreach be discussed on a future agenda.  Dick Wagner alerted OAC members to an open house regarding the East Rail Corridor planning efforts, which have an impact on the Transport 2020 alternatives being looked at.  He said that this open house would be held Saturday, July 14th, 9:00 a.m., at Research Products (130 South Ingersoll).

 

 

7.         ITEMS BY OAC CO-CHAIRS AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS

 

There were no items by the Co-Chairs or Committee members.

 

 

8.         ADJOURNMENT

 

The Committee adjourned its meeting at 7:40 p.m.

 

 

 

 

Mesin Slot RTP Online Gacor: Tempat Cari Keberuntungan

Slot RTP online gacor jadi idaman banyak orang karena bisa bikin kemenangan besar jadi lebih sering kejadian. RTP tinggi emang bikin beda, karena tiap putaran terasa berarti dan penuh harapan buat bawa pulang cuan. Main di mesin slot RTP tertinggi ini bikin kamu merasa diuntungkan, seolah-olah jackpot udah di depan mata. Sensasi main di rtp live slot gacor itu nggak bisa ditandingin, bikin siapa aja betah duduk lama-lama.

Memulai permainan slot kini lebih mudah dengan opsi Deposit 5k. Anda tidak perlu lagi mengeluarkan modal besar untuk menikmati berbagai jenis permainan slot terbaik. Dengan minimal deposit hanya 5 ribu rupiah, Anda bisa langsung bergabung di platform yang terpercaya dan aman. Proses transaksi juga sangat cepat, sehingga Anda dapat segera memulai perjalanan bermain slot yang seru. Jangan lewatkan kesempatan ini untuk mencoba keberuntungan Anda dengan modal kecil!

Mahjong Ways 2 menawarkan banyak peluang menang, tetapi strategi yang tepat tetap diperlukan. Pemain perlu memahami pola simbol dan cara memicu fitur bonus. Selain itu, mengelola taruhan Mahjong Slot dengan bijak juga bisa meningkatkan peluang kemenangan. Dengan pendekatan yang tepat, hadiah besar bukan lagi sekadar mimpi. Mahjong Ways 2 adalah permainan yang menyenangkan sekaligus menantang.

Metode Efektif Untuk Meningkatkan Peluang Kemenangan Dengan 10 2d Togel

Strategi bermain togel bisa sangat beragam, dan salah satu yang sering digunakan adalah bermain dengan kombinasi angka terbatas. Metode seperti 10 2d Togel memberikan peluang lebih baik karena fokus pada angka-angka dengan kemungkinan keluar yang tinggi.

Related Link