|
|
Transportation Alternatives Analysis for the Dane County / Greater Madison Metropolitan Area
|
Minutes
JOINT MEETING/WORKSHOP
OVERSIGHT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (OAC) MEETING #15
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
Wednesday, August 22, 2001
5:15 pm
Madison Municipal Building, Room 260
215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard
Madison, WI
-- ROLL CALL
OAC Members Present: David Cieslewicz; Robert Cook (5:35); Kristine Euclide; Ann Falconer; Ald. Ken Golden; Rob Kennedy; Ken Leonard; Supv. Scott McDonell; Ald. Warren Onken; Rose Phetteplace; Dick Wagner.
OAC Members Absent: LaMarr Billups (notified); Supv. Michael Blaska (notified); Deloris Coaker; (notified); George Nelson (notified).
Staff/TAC Present: Jim Arts (Dane County Executive’s Office); Catherine Debo (Madison Metro); Michael Friedlander (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Ozone and SIP Development Section); Tom Hovel (City of Fitchburg Planning); Lori Kay (UW-Madison); Barbara Kipp (WisDOT District 1, Planning); Linda Lovejoy (WisDOT, Public Transit Section); 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); Judy P. Olson (City of Madison, Mayor’s Office); Sharon Persich (Madison Metro); Bill Schaefer (Madison Area Metropolitan Planning Organization); Tim Sobota (Madison Metro); David Trowbridge (Madison Planning and Development; Project Administrator for Transport 2020); Todd Violante (Dane County Planning and Development).
Others Present: Debby Lynn Aldrich; James R. Aldrich; Seth Ansorge (Fitchburg Star); Karen Baker (Bay Ridge Consulting); Fred Bartol (Dane Alliance for Rail Transit); Jerry Bridgman; Stephanie Eiler (Parsons Brinckerhoff; Project Manager for Transport 2020); Jay Ferm; Tom Fleming; Kim Lobdell (KL Engineering); Al Matano; Diane Paoni; Donald Pingel (Wisconsin & Southern Railroad); Kimon Proussaloglou (Cambridge Systematics); Peter Quigley (Transit and Parking Commission); Bob Schaefer; Marc Van Cleven; Mark Vivian (Mayor, City of Fitchburg); Phyllis Wilhelm (Madison Gas and Electric); Royce Williams.
1. REVIEW OF AGENDA
Co-Chairs Ken Golden and Scott McDonell welcomed Committee members to Meeting #15 of the Oversight Advisory Committee for Transport 2020. Project Manager Stephanie Eiler then provided a brief overview of the 8/22 agenda items.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM OAC/TAC MEETING #14 (JULY 18, 2001)
The Minutes for Meeting #14 of the Oversight Advisory Committee/TAC were approved, as submitted on a motion by Rob Kennedy/David Cieslewicz.
3. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
The first speaker was Fred Bartol, representing Dane Alliance for Rail Transit. Bartol stressed the importance of a regional rail system, but one that was also City-friendly (such as light rail). Bartol acknowledged the challenge of corridor sharing and urged the Committee to evaluate that issue. He added that a combination system would be desirable and that a streetcar trolley system might be worth pursuing.
Royce Williams praised the City for its web site and the information it provided. Williams said that he supported the concept of light rail and asked the OAC not to reject it at this time. He questioned whether or not the costs would be as high as stated in the materials and said that the benefits of that system for City circulation would be high as well. He said that changes to Madison Metro needed to be clearly understood. He also noted that the rail corridor may not be where people wish to go, so he supports further exploration of a street-running system.
Bob Schaefer stressed the importance of citizen input and asked for better ways to engage the public in dialogue. He said that 3 minutes is not enough time to get various points across to the OAC. He said that he supports a grade-separated mode of transit, although he acknowledged that it would be more expensive. He said that additional alternatives, such as an elevated system, should be considered.
Diane Paoni said that she is new to the City and does not own a car. She said that the needs of Madison Metro are very important and should be strongly considered as part of this study. She asked for additional service improvements for transit dependent populations. Paoni noted that she does not see this in the study materials thus far. She pointed out that Milwaukee and Madison are the only cities in Wisconsin that have decent transit service and said that Madison should attempt to build upon that.
Jay Ferm (153 Ohio Avenue) said that, in his opinion, public participation has been good with Transport 2020. He stressed the importance of land use planning and the changes that different land uses would have on transportation behavior. He said that these land use changes would likely affect the ridership projections. Ferm asked that the full life-cycle costs of these improvements be fully considered, as the costs of some of the alternatives would not seem as high. He said that a vision broader than just commuter rail or bus rapid transit needs to be brought forward. Ferm also said that it is better to start with a limited system and build upon that for the future.
Jerry Bridgman said that he is concerned with Transport 2020 in that it seems to be prematurely concluding that commuter rail is the best option. He said that more opportunities for roadways has been dismissed as well, although commuter rail will not relieve congestion. He said that light rail has no real advantage over buses, but costs a great deal more. He supported the idea of exploring congestion pricing and high-occupancy/toll (HOT) lanes. Bridgman added that the argument of the rail system’s positive impact on land use is not valid, at least not supported by empirical research.
Al Matano said that he is a member of the Dane County Board and believes that Madison is highly conducive to rail transit. He said that the light rail vs. commuter rail argument is interesting, but that air quality differences need to be considered. He also felt that light rail serves the public’s origins and destinations better than commuter rail. Matano said that an elevated system should be considered, if not in the near-term, planned for the future. He said that a hybrid system might be a good compromise and would better serve the existing employment base. Matano said that the public participation process has been good so far, but could be improved. He also said that he would like to see materials in advance of the meetings, in order to be better prepared to comment on them.
Peter Quigley said that he is a member of the City of Madison’s Transit and Parking Commission and that he felt that a busway alternative should be kept on the table for Phase 2 analysis. He said that it is more cost effective and showed the highest ridership projections. He also felt that the impact of any of these systems on Madison Metro needed to be fully understood. He feared that Metro recently went through a round of cost cutting and that existing transit users were hurt by that. He hoped that the future high-capacity transit system would not cannibalize Metro, and hoped that a busway alternative would provide enhanced service to Metro users (by reducing travel times and not necessitating transfers).
4. REVIEW OF TRANSPORT 2020 TIMELINE AND BUDGET
Stephanie Eiler distributed a spreadsheet showing what amount of project funds were budgeted for Phase 1 and Phase 2, and how much has been spent to-date (by each firm on the project team). She said that the project could be completed within budget, if no new alternative were brought to the table for Phase 2 analysis.
David Trowbridge said that the purpose of showing this information to the OAC/TAC is that, as a result of the last Public Information Meeting and recent discussions among members, he felt that the Committee may bring new alternatives forward - and that they should know the budget implications of doing that. He added that, as had been pointed out in the past, the original budget for Transport 2020 was $1.4 million and it had been reduced to $1 million. At that time, former Project Manager Ken Kinney said that it would be important to reduce the number of Phase 1 alternatives quickly, in order to keep the project within the $1 million budget constraint. Trowbridge said that the rapid screening of Phase 1 alternatives has not occurred. However, he said that it was still possible to complete the project within the $1 million budget – unless a great deal of modification to the original alternatives (i.e., development of new alternatives) was requested by the OAC. He also said that, in response to the OAC’s request to enhance the public participation element earlier, the consultant team has essentially “maxed-out” the amount of project efficiencies that might be gained - primarily through in-kind work from project staff, changes in consultant travel, etc.
Kristine Euclide asked about the contract, and whether or not it was a “lump sum” contract. Euclide pointed out that she is a consultant and often puts in more hours than had been budgeted to get the job done. Euclide also asked about how many alternatives were scoped for Phase 1 and 2. Eiler said that the invoicing procedures had changed to a cost plus multiplier (CPM) and that 5 alternatives were scoped for Phase 2. She also said that Phase 1 alternatives had many more sensitivity runs than had been scoped for, at the request of the OAC. She also said that there were additional challenges with getting the model up and running.
Eiler said that the public participation element could be reduced in Phase 2, but she also said that much of the Phase 2 work was started in Phase 1 – and that this may help complete the project within budget. Eiler reiterated the point that a rapid screening of Phase 1 alternatives did not occur, and some additional analysis was requested of the consultant team – and that this added about $100,000 in costs to the project (between mid-May and late-August). Eiler also said that the consultant team has spent extra hours doing work as part of this project (that do not show up on the invoices).
Co-Chair Ken Golden said that the budget issue should primarily be the concern of the Management Team, and that their next meeting should get into the potential deficiency of project funds. Trowbridge said that he would schedule a meeting of that group and added that he simply wanted to make the OAC aware of the situation before it deliberated on Phase 2 alternatives (and potential modifications to the Phase 1 alternatives) this evening.
5. INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION: LAND USE PLANNING IN THE NINE SPRINGS GREEN-TECH AND SOUTH METRO CORRIDOR AREA
Fitchburg Mayor Mark Vivian thanked the OAC for reviewing the land use planning currently taking place and urged them to consider a high quality transit linkage to the City of Fitchburg. He said that the concept of a green-tech village and the proximity of that area to downtown Madison make it very attractive for transit, particularly commuter rail. Vivian said that the growth potential of this area in Fitchburg is very high and that he would like to see the development pattern be oriented toward transit, rather than the typical auto-oriented style of development seen elsewhere in the County.
Rob Gottschalk of Vandewalle and Associates then presented some slides of land use planning in Fitchburg, pointing out that the plans complement and build upon high quality transit service. He pointed out that the rail line could be a major focal point to the land uses in that area – and would provide a direct linkage to Madison.
Rob Kennedy asked about current freight rail use that corridor. Vivian replied that there currently was not any. David Cieslewicz asked about the density of development in that area, and how that might affect ridership. Gottschalk said that there could possibly be approximately 4,000-5,000 residential units in that area, in addition to about 10,000 employees. Co-Chair Scott McDonell asked if there were any tech business anchors committed to developing in that area. Gottschalk said that there were not, at this time. Ken Golden asked about the timeline for development in that area. Gottschalk said that the development buildout could come about within 15-25 years.
The Co-Chairs thanked Mayor Vivian and Mr. Gottschalk for their presentation.
6. REVIEW OF PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING #2
Kim Lobdell of KL Engineering provided an overview of the outcomes and public feedback obtained at the August 15th PIM (held at the Alliant Energy Center). She distributed a summary of comments received and noted that additional comments continue to come in via email. Lobdell added that about 700 newsletters were distributed prior to the meeting and that the distribution list continues to grow.
Ken Golden said that there may be a need for a public hearing on the reduction of Phase 1 alternatives, due to the fact that members of the public have told him that they feel a bit left out of the loop – specifically in terms of their ability to read prepared statements before Committee members. Dick Wagner felt that the PIM was positive, but that more needs to be done. He said that there may be a need to take pause before storming into Phase 2 – to get a better sense of what the community feels about the Phase 1 alternatives.
Rob Kennedy said that the draft motion he submitted (to advance alternatives to Phase 2) engaged the general public and sparked some debate, which he felt was good. He said that the public has spoken and there may not be a need for a public hearing. Golden agreed, noting that the public has basically informed the OAC at this point. He also said that he would like to see better consideration of environmental justice issues, and how we might better reach out to the transit dependent community. He said that the Park Street corridor needs special consideration as well. Golden said that the memo forwarded to the OAC/TAC by County Executive Falk asks for a more refined and thorough public participation process, and that, in response to her request, it may be appropriate to appoint a Public Outreach Subcommittee at this time. Ken Leonard noted that the media could be engaged more as we move into Phase 2.
Ann Falconer echoed Golden’s concern about the transit dependent population and said that this area needs more focus in Phase 2. Kristine Euclide said that it is important to get information out to the public – in order to create the foundation for a good dialogue. Rob Kennedy asked about the federal regulations and whether or not we need a base bus and an expanded regional bus (TSM) alternative. Stephanie Eiler said that this is no longer required by federal regulations, but the consultant team strongly recommends taking both of those forward.
Rob Kennedy/Kristine Euclide submitted a motion: “To create the Public Outreach Subcommittee, to be appointed by the Co-Chairs, to explore ways to increase public outreach and input, to seek out volunteers to help with this effort, and to also address the project budget ramifications of doing that”. The motion carried unanimously.
The Subcommittee members appointed were Lori Kay (UW-Madison), Rob Kennedy, Ann Falconer and Catherine Debo (Madison Metro). The Co-Chairs noted that other members of the OAC and TAC were also welcome to participate.
7. REVIEW/DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED TRANSITWAY IMPROVEMENTS TO BENEFIT REGIONAL BUS SERVICES
Ald. Ken Golden suggested that agenda item 7 and 8 be combined, to allow for a full discussion of all of the alternatives, and their potential for Phase 2 analysis. The OAC agreed to that agenda modification.
8. REVIEW/DISCUSSION OF PRELIMINARY PHASE 2 ALTERNATIVES
Stephanie Eiler reviewed the new busway concept that had been suggested by Madison Metro, which basically utilizes a busway in the rail corridor from the Randall Avenue area west to Whitney Way and utilizes a number of diamond lanes in other parts of the City of Madison.
Ald. Warren Onken asked about the busway concept, and whether or not the rail corridor was a possibility – given that compliance with Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regulations are an issue. Ald. Ken Golden wondered whether or not past policies of staging ridership growth (before implementing rail transit) is a good approach to review.
Catherine Debo stressed the importance of including a Phase 2 alternative that provides a significant increase in bus service for the transit user, such as a busway alternative. Bob McDonald said that the new busway concept (suggested by Madison Metro staff) is much different from the expanded bus alternative (TSM). He said that existing traffic lanes would need to be taken in some places on the system, and that this should be reviewed carefully.
Ald. Warren Onken suggested that the Transport 2020 Management Team work through the details of the alternatives and figure out how the budget would be affected. David Cieslewicz said that the light rail concept could be modified from its current alignment, etc. for Phase 2 analysis. Ann Falconer cautioned the Committees about the terminology being used to describe the alternatives, stating that it is important to keep the names and descriptions very clear.
The following motion was then submitted by Dick Wagner/Rob Kennedy:
===========================================================================
The OAC recommends that the following alternatives proceed to Phase 2 for further analysis:
1. Base Bus
2. Expanded/Regional Bus
3.a. Commuter Rail on Existing Right-of-Way (Starter: Greenway Center to East Towne)
3.b. Commuter Rail on Existing Right-of-Way (Extend north to Airport and south to McFarland)
4. Street-Running Rail
5. Transitway/Busway
The OAC directs the Transport 2020 Management Team, in collaboration with other interested members of the OAC and TAC, to refine the above alternative components (i.e., specific alignments, feeder bus relationships, station locations, etc.). The Management Team will also determine how the project budget will be affected by these refinements and identify sources for additional funding, should such funding be necessary to complete the project.
===========================================================================
Dick Wagner also noted that Fitchburg’s land use planning activities (in the area around the rail corridor) have a 25-year buildout period. He said that it is important for that area to be planned for transit, and not automobile travel – so that ridership can grow based on a transit-oriented land use pattern. Rob Kennedy said that it would be important to conduct some sensitivity runs of various alternatives, to see how Fitchburg ridership might be affected by a different type of land use pattern in that area. Bob McDonald said that the current model includes bus service extensions to Fitchburg, which provide direct linkages to the various high-capacity transit alternatives.
Ken Golden said that the bus linkages need to be shown more clearly. Rob Kennedy suggested that the Land Use Subcommittee meet soon to begin discussing land use relationships in the Phase 2 analysis. Bob Cook asked if a “yes” vote on the motion would be interpreted as putting light rail back on the table. Wagner said that it was not, and that confirmation of the Phase 2 alternatives would take place at the September OAC/TAC meeting.
Warren Onken asked if the Parsons Brinckerhoff team was even employable for Phase 2, since the project was originally to be completed by next month. Eiler said that they would be available for the Phase 2 analysis.
The motion was approved unanimously. Members of the OAC and TAC volunteering to work with the Management Team included Warren Onken, Bob Cook, Rob Kennedy, David Cieslewicz, and Catherine Debo – although other members are willing to participate.
Michael Friedlander from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Ozone and SIP Development Section) wished to emphasize the importance of the air quality analysis in Phase 2, noting that the DNR would like to evaluate various particulates (VOC, NOx, greenhouse gases, etc.). He said that the DNR has technical expertise that could be helpful in the Phase 2 analysis. Rob Kennedy asked if vehicle miles of travel (VMT) would be used. Friedlander said that it would, but that he would also like to see a dispersion model used – for various intersection analysis. Stephanie Eiler said that a VMT-oriented analysis would be conducted, but that a dispersion analysis was not in the Transport 2020 scope.
Ken Leonard asked if such analyses should be done as part of the alternatives analysis (i.e., Transport 2020) or in subsequent evaluation phases – such as the environmental impact statement (EIS) or environmental assessment (EA) process. Eiler said that it could be done as part of either process. Bob McDonald pointed out that the Tranplan model is fully capable of conducting a VMT-oriented analysis, but that an intersection dispersion analysis could not be done using Tranplan. He said that a dispersion analysis could be done as part of the EIS process, and that it may not be needed for Transport 2020 decision making.
9. TRANSPORT 2020 PROJECT SCHEDULE/NEXT STEPS
Committee members confirmed the next OAC/TAC meeting:
- Joint OAC #16/TAC Meeting: Wednesday, September 19th, 5:15 p.m., Room 260 Madison Municipal Building.
David Trowbridge noted that, as discussed earlier this evening, the Transport 2020 Management Team would meet next week:
- Transport 2020 Management Team: Tuesday, August 28th, 6:30 p.m., Room LL-110 Madison Municipal Building.
Trowbridge added that he would also be scheduling the first meeting of the Public Outreach Subcommittee, formed earlier this evening.
10. ITEMS BY OAC CO-CHAIRS AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS
There were no items by the Co-Chairs or Committee members.
11. ADJOURNMENT
The Committee adjourned its meeting at 8:25 p.m.