|
|
Transportation Alternatives Analysis for the Dane County / Greater Madison Metropolitan Area
|
Minutes
JOINT MEETING/WORKSHOP
OVERSIGHT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (OAC) MEETING #14
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
Wednesday, July 18, 2001
5:15 pm
Madison Municipal Building, Room 260
215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard
Madison, WI
-- ROLL CALL
Members Present: LaMarr Billups; Supv. Michael Blaska; David Cieslewicz; Robert Cook (5:50); Kristine Euclide; Rob Kennedy; Doug Dalton (for Ken Leonard); Supv. Scott McDonell; Ald. Warren Onken; Dick Wagner.
Members Absent: Deloris Coaker; Ann Falconer (notified); Ald. Ken Golden (notified); George Nelson (notified); Rose Phetteplace (notified).
Staff/TAC Present: Jim Arts (Dane County Executive’s Office); Catherine Debo (Madison Metro); Lori Kay (UW-Madison); Rachel Martin (UW Transportation Services); Mari McKenzie (WisDOT, Bureau of Planning); John Norwell (Dane County Highway and Transportation Department); Sharon Persich (Madison Metro); Bill Schaefer (Madison Area Metropolitan Planning Organization); David Trowbridge (Madison Planning and Development; Project Administrator for Transport 2020); Todd Violante (Dane County Planning and Development); Michael Waidelich (Madison Planning and Development).
Others Present: Karen Baker (Bay Ridge Consulting); Fred Bartol (Dane Alliance for Rail Transit; DART); Stephanie Eiler (Parsons Brinckerhoff; Project Manager for Transport 2020); Tom Fleming; Kim Lobdell (KL Engineering); Mike McConville (Wisconsin and Southern Railroad); Kimon Proussaloglou (Cambridge Systematics); Royce Williams.
1. REVIEW OF AGENDA
Interim Co-Chair Dick Wagner and Co-Chair Scott McDonell welcomed Committee members to Meeting #14 of the Oversight Advisory Committee for Transport 2020. Project Manager Stephanie Eiler then provided a brief overview of the 7/18 agenda items.
Dick Wagner said that the joint meeting would begin as a TAC-only meeting and when a quorum of the OAC arrived, the OAC portion could begin.
2. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
The first member speaker was Catherine Debo, General Manager of Madison Metro. She express concerns about removing the busway option from further consideration and requested that some fixed-guideway components and high-capacity bus improvements be made to the Expanded/Regional Bus Alternative (TSM) in Phase 2. Debo said that the following components should be reviewed: (1) additional diamond lane approaches, (2) signal pre-emption for buses, (3) strategic park-and-ride lot locations for express bus service, (4) busway in rail right-of-way, for short pieces of the corridor where useful, and (5) feeder bus services. She pointed out that Madison Metro is a large contributor to Transport 2020 and that these issues should be given careful consideration.
Rob Kennedy said that he generally supported the notion of a strong express bus alternative. Stephanie Eiler said that signal priority and a review of the park-and-ride lots could be explored. She said that the rail right-of-way treatments might be a problem, due to the fact that they are very costly and that the TSM alternative is intended to be a low-cost option. She also said that it would be useful for her to meet with Madison Metro staff to flesh these ideas out, but that overall, it seems like this request is possible. Dick Wagner said that there should be more discussion before these modifications are agreed upon.
The second speaker was Royce Williams. Williams said that he is a concerned citizen that served on the advisory committee for the 1992 Light Rail Study. He felt that the 1992 study was very good and that the approach seemed to benefit the City of Madison more than the current approach. He stressed the importance of the LRT technology, adding that the commuter rail options are not FRA-compliant and are diesel-powered. He felt that the corridors studied in the 1992 study made more sense and that the current study is geared more toward providing service to the suburbs, rather than the City of Madison. Williams concluded by saying that a decision of this importance (advancing Phase 2 alternatives ) should go to the Common Council.
Dave Cieslewicz said that he agrees with much of what Mr. Williams said, adding that he looks forward to a good debate of these issues at the next Public Informational Meeting (PIM). Dick Wagner wished to point out that the decision about Phase 2 alternatives (recommended at the June 28 OAC/TAC meeting) was a draft decision to be subject to broader review and discussion.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM OAC MEETING #13 (JUNE 28, 2001)
Given the fact that a quorum of the OAC was present, the Minutes for Meeting #12 of the Oversight Advisory Committee were approved, as submitted on a motion by Rob Kennedy/David Cieslewicz.
4. REVIEW/DISCUSSION OF PHASE 1 ROADWAY MODELING OUTPUT
Kimon Proussaloglou of Cambridge Systematics said that the Phase 1 roadway modeling was intended to show what impact various roadway improvements would have on transit ridership and how such improvements would affect general traffic flows. He said that two basic roadway improvement concepts were modeled - one focusing on facilities near the inner portion of the metropolitan area and another focusing on an outer ring of roadways. Proussaloglou said that these modeling efforts were basically sensitivity tests, conducted to provide information about the various Phase 1 alternatives.
Rob Kennedy asked if cost estimates had been developed for the roadway improvement options. Stephanie Eiler said that cost estimated were not developed, noting that the Phase 1 screening was focused on the narrowing of transit options. Proussaloglou said that, in general, the roadway traffic flows changed a bit, but not tremendously. He said that, looking at the screenline counts for the roadway system, the isthmus traffic flows went down slightly and the traffic flows on the north side of Lake Mendota increased slightly - with both of the inner and outer roadway improvement packages. Kennedy observed that the percentages of changes were relatively small.
Dave Cieslewicz asked about the costs of driving being assumed. Proussaloglou said that they assume inflationary increases to 2020, but basically assume no real change in the price of fuel, insurance, etc. Dick Wagner said that, at some point, the OAC needs to decide whether or not to move forward with the roadway options. Eiler said that the roadway options do provide mobility benefits, but that they do not fare well under other criteria, such as land use. Wagner asked if roadways need to move into Phase 2. Eiler said that they do not, but that if they are removed from further consideration, the reasons need to be carefully documented. She said that the “consumer reports”-type of screening evaluation should be done for the roadway options.
Doug Dalton said that he has had discussions with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) officials about this issue. He said that he and FHWA share the concern about removing highways as valid alternatives. Dalton pointed out that the Alternatives Analysis should take a careful look at all transportation alternatives, and he felt that roadways may not have been evaluated in enough detail, to this point. Eiler said that federal transit officials will accept local decisions, provided that they do not neglect evaluating valid alternatives. She said that the studies need to have technical rigor and a good public involvement process.
Dick Wagner said that, in the southeastern part of the state, Phase 1 analysis eliminated roadways from their further consideration – based on their goals and criteria. He felt that this could be done in Transport 2020 as well, although he admitted that more refined roadway information would be needed before a decision can be made. Ald. Warren Onken asked if the roadway information would be presented at the PIM. Wagner said that it would, and added that the public’s input and the consumer reports evaluation would be needed before the OAC can make a decision on this issue. Onken stressed the importance of making expeditious decisions, after reviewing all of the pertinent information. Mari MacKenzie said that it would be helpful to present the roadway data in a more clear and concise way, adding that the screenline tables are somewhat hard to read.
5. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF MATERIALS TO BE PRESENTED AT PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING #2
Kim Lobdell of KL Engineering described the format and the various materials to be presented at the August 15th PIM (at the Alliant Energy Center).
In terms of the meeting format, the OAC decided that the meeting time would be 5:00 to 8:00 p.m., with a brief (20-30 minute) presentation at 6:00. Lobdell asked that the Co-Chairs be available to provide an introduction to the meeting. From 5:00-6:00, the meeting would be an “open house” format, with staff and OAC available to answer questions and engage in small group discussion. The OAC said agreed that there should also be many opportunities for direct public input, including a comment station, post-it notes near boards, sticky dots for indicating various preferences, etc.
The OAC also agreed that there is a need to allow people to speak in front of the entire group, and for the entire group to hear reactions to the discussion. This will be a question/answer session after the presentation. The OAC agreed that presentation materials should be as visual as possible, with good use of maps, pictures, diagrams and (possibly) videos. Handouts for individuals should also be provided. In terms of the materials to be presented at the PIM, the OAC requested that the Phase 2 recommendations be made clear, so people will understand the broad range of alternatives considered, the ones recommended to move forward to Phase 2, and the reasons for the decision.
In terms of the newsletter, Kim Lobdell was asked to make the message more clear on the first page – “we want your input on transportation futures !!”. Rob Kennedy asked for better pictures of the commuter rail technologies. Lobdell asked for specific comments on the newsletter to be provided to David Trowbridge by the end of the day Friday, July 20th.
6. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF PRELIMINARY PHASE 2 ALTERNATIVES
Stephanie Eiler reviewed the items to be discussed in future OAC/TAC meetings, when refining the Phase 2 transit alternatives. She said that the possible modifications to alternatives include service headways, hours of operation, number and location of stations, downtown parking costs, specific alignments, number and location of park-and-ride facilities, fares, linkages to express and local/feeder bus services and highway networks. She asked the OAC and TAC to start thinking about how they might wish to vary the assumptions.
Warren Onken asked for materials to be sent out in the packet, so that the OAC has time to review the information. Dick Wagner said that all materials presented (now and in the future) need to explain that 1990 information has been factored, and accurately reflects current conditions.
7. TRANSPORT 2020 PROJECT SCHEDULE/NEXT STEPS
David Trowbridge reminded Committee members that the next OAC/TAC meeting was scheduled for:
- Joint OAC #15/TAC Meeting: Wednesday, August 22nd, 5:15 p.m., Room 260 Madison Municipal Building.
Trowbridge also noted that, as discussed earlier this evening, Public Informational Meeting #2 was scheduled for:
- Public Informational Meeting #2: Wednesday, August 15th, 5:00-8:00 p.m., Alliant Energy Center.
Supv. Michael Blaska asked that the PIM be officially noticed, in the event that a quorum of the OAC is in attendance.
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 7:15 p.m.