MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT Madison Area Transportation Planning Board A Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)

Transcription

1 August 3, 2011 MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT Madison Area Transportation Planning Board A Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Middleton City Hall, Council Chambers 7426 Hubbard Avenue 7 p.m. AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of July 6, 2011 Meeting Minutes 3. Communications 4. Public Comment (for items not on MPO Agenda) 5. Presentation on City of Middleton Land Use and Transportation Plans and Projects 6. Resolution TPB No. 53 Regarding Amendment #5 to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the Madison Metropolitan Area & Dane County W. Beltline (USH 12 Bypass) (Airport Rd. to Parmenter St.), Add Auxiliary Lanes [New project, const. in 2018] 7. Review of Draft Listing and Ranking of Candidate Projects for STP Urban Funding for Consideration of Release of Draft Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the Madison Metropolitan Area & Dane County for Public Review and Comment 9. Consideration of Letter Seeking Financial Support of the MPO in Update on the Madison Area Congestion Management Process Project and Schedule 11. Status Report on the Regional Transportation Plan Update 12. Status Report by Madison Area TPB Members on Other Projects Potentially Involving the TPB: USH 51 (USH 12/18 to I 90/94/39) Corridor Study USH 51 (McFarland to Stoughton) Corridor Study 13. Discussion of Future Work Items: Transportation Improvement Program Congestion Management Process Regional Transportation Plan Update Transit Development Plan (TDP) 14. Announcements and Schedule of Future Meetings 15. Adjournment Next MPO Meeting: Wednesday, September 7 at 7 p.m. Madison Water Utility, 119 E. Olin Ave., Room A-B If you need an interpreter, materials in alternate formats, or other accommodations to access this meeting, contact the Planning & Development Dept. at (608) or TTY/TEXTNET (866) Please do so at least 48 hours prior to the meeting so that proper arrangements can be made.

2 DRAFT Madison Area Transportation Planning Board (an MPO) July 6, 2011 Meeting Minutes 1. Roll Call Members present: Eileen Bruskewitz (arrived at Item #8), Mark Clear, Ken Dahl, Ken Golden, Chuck Kamp, Steve King, Al Matano (Chair), Mark Opitz, Paul Skidmore, John Vesperman Members absent: Jerry Mandli, Steve Ritt, Chris Schmidt Staff present: Bill Schaefer, Meredith Krejny 2. Approval of May 4, 2011 Meeting Minutes Moved by Skidmore, seconded by Kamp, to approve the May 4, 2011 meeting minutes. Motion carried with Dahl abstaining. 3. Communications Schaefer said there was one communication in the packet, a letter from WisDOT approving TIP Amendment #3 to the TIP. 4. Public Comment (for items not on MPO Agenda) None 5. Election of Officers Following some discussion, Clear moved, Golden seconded, to table the item until Bruskewitz arrived to the meeting. Motion to table carried. Following item #8, Golden moved, Clear seconded, to take up the item. Motion carried. Moved by Skidmore, seconded by Dahl, to nominate Matano for Chair. There were no other nominations. Moved by Skidmore, seconded by Golden, to close nominations and to cast unanimous ballot for Matano for Chair. Motion carried. Moved by Opitz, seconded by Kamp, to nominate King for Vice Chair. There were no other nominations. Moved by Opitz, seconded by Kamp, to close nominations and cast unanimous ballot for King for Vice Chair. Motion carried. 6. Recommendation Regarding the MPO s Representatives to the City of Madison s Long-Range Transportation Planning Committee Schaefer explained that the MPO Board was responsible for making a recommendation to the City of Madison Mayor regarding the appointment of two City of Madison-appointed MPO members to serve as MPO representatives to the City of Madison Long-Range Transportation Planning Committee (LRTPC). Currently, those representatives are King and Schmidt. King said both he and Schmidt were interested in continuing to serve on the LRTPC. Moved by Opitz, seconded by Kamp, to recommend that Schmidt and King continue to represent the MPO on the LRTPC. Motion carried. 7. Resolution TPB No. 52 Regarding Amendment #4 to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the Madison Metropolitan Area & Dane County Schaefer reviewed the projects included in the amendment. He said the Interstate 39/90 (Beltline to County Line) reconstruction and expansion project, which had been approved as part of amendment #3, was included due to revised costs and funding for the design and program control projects. New

3 DRAFT roadway projects included two pavement replacement projects on USH 51 and construction of a roundabout at the CTH MM and M intersection to go with the roundabouts being installed at the USH 14 and CTH MM interchange ramp terminals. The transit projects included a planning project for Metro to conduct a fleet analysis and four intercity bus service projects. Schaefer said the Metro planning project was a pass-through grant from WisDOT to examine whether Metro should add different sized vehicles both smaller ones for low ridership routes and times and larger ones for heavy use areas such as the UW campus. Kamp added that the mix of vehicles was discussed several years ago as part of the city s Ad Hoc Long-Range Transit Planning Committee study. In response to a question from Golden, Kamp said the study would consider the related facility, staffing, and peak hour implications of operating different sized buses, as well as potential maneuverability issues. In response to a question regarding where the intercity buses would stop, Kamp indicated he wasn t sure, but said a requirement of the grant was that the bus companies coordinate with the local transit agencies and on parking. WisDOT staff would be providing a presentation on the service to the City s Transit & Parking Commission. Schaefer added that he thought the buses would stop at the Memorial Union because he had heard they worked out the schedules with UW Transportation Services staff. He didn t know if there would be other stops. Moved by King, seconded by Skidmore, to approve Resolution TPB No. 52 regarding amendment #4 to the TIP. Motion carried. 8. Review of Preliminary Draft Listing and Ranking of Candidate Projects for STP Urban Funding for Schaefer said that staff had prepared an initial draft of the STP Urban priority project listings and the scoring and ranking table for the projects. Staff provided an initial presentation of the draft listings to the MPO s technical committee at its June meeting. Just as last year, the cost estimates for a number of projects had increased. That combined with the reduction in the MPO s funding starting in 2013 resulted in shortfalls in funding for several projects. He said there was some discussion at the technical committee meeting about potentially delaying one or more projects in order to fully fund all or most of the projects. Since most of the projects were either City of Madison projects or joint city/county projects, it would be up to the city and county to agree on any such change to the schedule for those projects. Schaefer said staff would review a final draft of the listings again at the board s next meeting, which would go into the draft TIP. The public hearing on the TIP would be in September and the board would then approve the final listings as part of action on the TIP at the October meeting. Schaefer then proceeded to review the project listings for He described the projects, noted any changes in project cost estimates and scope, and also mentioned the new project applications. The new projects were the reconstruction of the CTH M and Verona Avenue intersection, reconstruction of CTH Q from STH 113 to south of Woodland Drive, and a pavement replacement project on Gammon Road near the Beltline. He said these were the highest scoring projects below the funding cutoff line in Schaefer also mentioned the separate projects scoring table that indicates how each project was scored on the different criteria. He said an explanation of the criteria was in Appendix A of the TIP. Opitz asked if the Degree of Multi-Modal Use criterion evaluated use after the project improvement (e.g., addition of bike lanes) because he noticed many of the projects ranked low. Schaefer said yes. He said the amount of use was relative to other areas and acknowledged that it was in most cases a qualitative judgment due to the lack of data on pedestrians and bicyclists. Golden asked about the Supports Compact Land Use criterion under the External Impacts category. He pointed out the high densities planned for the Pioneer Neighborhood and said the CTH M project would support this. He wondered why the project didn t receive points under this criterion. Schaefer said that only TSM and TDM projects have historically been given points under the External Impacts category. He explained that the CTH M project had the highest score for Land Use and Transportation System Change Interrelationship for the reason that Golden noted. While the roadway project would enable the higher densities, Schaefer said he didn t think it promoted higher densities by itself. Golden also asked about the Air Pollution criterion under the same category. Schaefer said one could certainly argue the

4 DRAFT roadway project would improve air quality in the short-term by reducing congestion, but there would also be much more traffic. Again, staff has only given points under the External Impacts criteria for TDM and TSM projects, but perhaps that is something that could be revisited in the future. Golden commented that he thought the prospect of receiving MPO funding for a roadway project would be a powerful inducement for communities to plan for higher density development. 9. Update on the Madison Area Congestion Management Process (CMP) Project and Schedule Schaefer said that the schedule had been to present the draft CMP report to the board at this meeting, but it had taken longer than expected to complete the draft report. He said a Congestion Management Committee meeting was scheduled for the following week to review the draft report and discuss the transportation system performance measure targets and the monitoring plan. A presentation to the technical committee was scheduled for July 27. Staff would also review it with the citizen advisory committee. The presentation to the board was now scheduled for the August meeting. The draft report would then be released for public review and comment. Schaefer said the draft report would be sent out before the next meeting to allow the board time to review it. The hearing would be held in September with adoption then or at the October meeting. Schaefer said a brief progress report was included in the packet, which included an outline of the report. Schaefer said he had pushed for the report to include a corridors analysis section that included information on current performance, issues, problems, and programmed or planned improvements for each congested corridor. Ideally, applicable short- and long-term strategies would also be listed for each. He pointed out the different corridor areas. He also pointed out the different performance measures and said the Congestion Management Committee would be discussing those and the appropriate targets for each. 10. Status Report on the Regional Transportation Plan Update Schaefer provided an update on progress with the plan update. He said most of the travel modeling work had been completed, but just needed a bit more analysis and review with the consultant. Staff had also completed work on the revenue side for the financial analysis. This involved calculating programmed federal and state funding and local government spending over the past five years (excluding one-time stimulus funding) and projecting that out over the plan period. He said MPO staff was working with WisDOT SW Region and local staff to develop project lists and costs, particularly for major preservation projects. Work had also started on developing a transit corridors map that would support the planned transit corridors/tod study to be done next year as part of the Sustainable Communities project. A minor update of the bikeway plan was also underway. Schaefer said most of the background data was collected and that part of the report written up. He said staff just completed creation of 2010 population and employment density maps. New Census 2010 data was also collected and a map created showing areas with concentrations of minority and Hispanic populations. This was needed for the environmental justice analyses to be done for the plan and TIPs. He mentioned that the percentage increase in minority and Hispanic populations from 2000 to 2010 was quite high. Bruskewitz asked for a copy of the maps, and Schaefer said he d send her page-size versions. Schaefer said the employment database still needed some work, but was sufficient for mapping purposes. 11. Status Report by Madison Area TPB Members on Projects Potentially Involving the TPB: USH 51 (USH 12/18 to I 90/94/39) Corridor Study USH 51 (McFarland to Stoughton) Corridor Study Vesperman said that for the first study staff had been concentrating their efforts on the Broadway intersection where two clinics were being built. He said three levels of alternative improvements had been developed, and those hadn t changed much. A report was being prepared outlining them. He said there had also been a request by a property owner/developer for a land purchase or swap that impacted the planned park-and-ride (PNR) lot expansion design. That project was ready for letting next week. He

5 DRAFT said WisDOT staff was considering this request, but had made it clear that visibility was a big issue for the PNR lot. He said the most WisDOT would be willing to delay the project would be six months, building it in the spring instead of fall. King commented on the desirability of moving forward with the project as soon as possible. Dahl asked how many spaces were being added, and Vesperman said 100 long-term spaces. Vesperman said the second study was proceeding as an EIS and that the alternatives were being reduced for further more detailed analysis. The draft EIS would be completed in about a year with a final EIS in spring of Schaefer said he participated in a panel evaluating indirect and cumulative impacts of the project. Schaefer asked if the board should appoint a representative to the policy advisory committee for the northern study. Vesperman said he didn t think it was necessary, but that instead staff could provide another presentation to the board before the study was completed. He mentioned some of the improvements being considered such as half-diamond interchanges at the Buckeye and Pflaum intersections, which have very high crash rates. 12. Discussion of Future Work Items: Transportation Improvement Program MPO Congestion Management Process (CMP) Regional Transportation Plan Update Transit Development Plan (TDP) Schaefer said the items had all been covered, except for the TDP. He said work on that would be started again towards the end of the year after the CMP and RTP update were completed. Much of the work on it had already been completed. He also provided an update on the MPO staff situation. He introduced Meredith Krejny, the new administrative staff person who had been hired. He said the new planner/travel modeler would be starting July 20. His name was Nick Vanderzwan. For the other planner position, interviews would he held in two weeks. 13. Announcements and Schedule of Future Meetings Schaefer asked if the board wanted to have some future meetings at different locations around the area as an outreach tool. He said the September meeting would need to be at the Water Utility or downtown because of the hearing on the TIP, but the August meeting could be held elsewhere. He said the board had done that in the past and usually included a presentation by local planning staff on local issues as part of the agenda. Clear said he thought it was important for the board to get around the area. Middleton was suggested for the August meeting. That meeting is scheduled for August 3, Adjournment Moved by Clear, seconded by Skidmore, to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 TPB (MPO) Agenda Cover Sheet Item No. 6 August 3, 2011 Re: Consideration of Resolution TPB No. 53 Regarding Amendment #5 to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the Madison Metropolitan Area & Dane County Staff Comments on Item: The Wisconsin Department of Transportation SW Region has requested a TIP amendment for a new project on the U.S. Highway 12 Bypass in the City of Middleton. The project would construct eastbound and westbound auxiliary lanes between the Airport Road and Parmenter Street interchanges. The project is part of continuing implementation efforts to improve the safety and operation of the Beltline. The amendment is being requested so design can begin later this year, but construction is not scheduled until Materials Presented on Item: 1. Resolution TPB No. 53 Regarding Amendment #5 to the TIP Staff Recommendation/Rationale: Staff recommends approval.

13 Resolution TPB No. 53 Amendment #5 to the Transportation Improvement Program for the Madison Metropolitan Area & Dane County WHEREAS, the Madison Area Transportation Planning Board (TPB) approved the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the Madison Metropolitan Area & Dane County on October 6, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Madison Area TPB approved four previous amendments to the TIP on January 5, March 2, May 4, and July 6, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Madison Metropolitan Planning Area transportation projects and some transportation planning activities to be undertaken using Federal funding in must be included in the effective TIP; and WHEREAS, the WisDOT SW Region office has requested a TIP amendment to add a West Beltline (USH 12 Bypass) project to construct auxiliary lanes between Airport Road and Parmenter Street with design starting in 2011, but construction not scheduled until 2018; and WHEREAS, the new USH 12 project will not affect the timing of any other programmed projects in the TIP, and the TIP remains financially constrained as shown in the attached revised TIP financial tables (Table B-2 and Table C-1); and WHEREAS, the MPO s public participation procedures for minor TIP amendments such as this have been followed, including listing the project on the Madison Area TPB meeting agenda; and WHEREAS, the project is consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan 2030 for the Madison Metropolitan Area and Dane County, the adopted long-range regional transportation plan for the Madison Metropolitan Planning Area: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Madison Area TPB approves Amendment #5 to the Transportation Improvement Program for the Madison Metropolitan Area & Dane County, adding the following project: 1. ADD a project to construct auxiliary lanes on the W. Beltline (USH 12 Bypass) between Airport Road and Parmenter Street in the City of Middleton. Date Adopted Al Matano, Chair Madison Area Transportation Planning Board

14 Primary Jurisdiction/ Project Sponsor Project Description MADISON METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA STREET/ROADWAY PROJECTS WisDOT PROJECT LISTINGS FOR AMENDMENT #5 TO THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Cost/ Type Jan-Dec 2011 Jan-Dec 2012 Jan-Dec 2013 Jan-Dec 2014 Jan-Dec 2015 Fed State Local Total Fed State Local Total Fed State Local Total Fed State Local Total Fed State Local Total W. BELTLINE (USH 12 BYPASS) Airport Road to Parmenter Street PE , -20, -21, -71 Construct EB and WB auxiliary lanes ROW * between the interchanges. CONST Construction planned in Comments TOTAL NEW NHS

15 Table B-2 Summary of Federal Funds Programmed ($000s) and Those Available in the Madison Metropolitan Planning Area Transportation Improvement Program Revised 8/3/11 Amendment #5 Agency Program * * Federal Highway Administration Interstate Highway Maintenance 1,289 13,868 10, ,338 1,289 13,868 10, ,338 National Highway System 14,656 19,567 41,227 4,749 8,183 14,656 19,567 41,227 4,749 8,183 Federal Transit Administration Funding Source Programmed Expenditures Estimated Available Funding Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Surface Transportation Program Madison Urban Area** Surface Transportation Program Flexible Surface Transportation Program Enhancements*** Highway Safety Improvement Program 244 2, ,930 unknown unknown unknown 6,555 12,368 3,743 7,517 5,841 12,585 12,369 6,339 8,934 7,756 23,609 6,309 3, ,816 23,609 6,309 3, , ,604 2, ,604 2,876 unknown unknown 875 5, ,272 unknown 131+ unknown Safe Routes to School Program*** unknown unknown unknown Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program**** 7,135 9,457 7,650 10,593 6,792 7,135 9,457 7,650 10,593 6,792 Sec Fixed Guideways**** Section 5309 Discretionary Capital Grants**** Section 5316 JARC & Section 5317 New Freedom Program Section 5304 PL, 5314 NRP & Section 5339 Alt. Analysis unknown unknown unknown unknown * Fifth year of funding (2015) is informational only. ** 2011 programmed and available funding includes special allocation of $1,609,000 for the Woodland Drive reconstruction and path project. *** Statewide discretionary programs for which projects haven't been selected beyond Funding for not yet programmed. **** Section 5309 discretionary grant reflects 2010 funding. For others, excludes carryover funding from previous year grants. Note: All state roadway projects using applicable funding sources (e.g., IM, NHS, STP State Flexible, BR) are programmed through Local BR and STP Rural projects are programmed through HSIP (other than annual small HES program) projects are programmed through SRTS projects are programmed through Transportation Enhancement projects are programmed through Local STP Urban (Madison Urban Area) projects are programmed through Transit funding is not yet programmed and is based on needs and anticipated future funding levels (See also Table C-4 Metro Transit System Projected Expenses and Revenues on page C-8). Programmed transit funding for 2011 excludes carryover projects for which the Federal funding is already obligated (except for the Section 5309 discretionary grant). B-8

16 Attachment C Revised 8/3/11 Amendment #5 (Changes in bold) Table C-1 Projected Expenses and Revenues of Transportation Projects in the Madison Metropolitan Planning Area in Year of Expenditure Dollars Projected Expenses ($000s) Period Total State and Federal Highway Construction, Maintenance, etc. 61,364 62,397 68,972 6,881 26, ,116 STP Urban (Madison Urban Area) 4,946 12,714 3,956 8,166 6,523 36,305 STP Transportation Enhancements & SRTS 896 7,148 2, ,942 Other State 1,116 5, ,105 Subtotal 68,322 87,425 76,164 15,286 33, ,468 Dane County & Communities Street Operations and Maintenance 43,709 44,933 46,191 47,484 48, ,131 Street Construction 33,511 34,449 35,414 36,405 37, ,205 Street-Related Facilities 5,058 5,200 5,345 5,495 5,649 26,746 Subtotal 82,278 84,582 86,950 89,385 91, ,082 Metro Transit Capital Expenses 15,126 15,120 13,497 18,024 13,589 75,356 Operating Expenses 43,798 44,674 45,567 46,479 47, ,926 Subtotal 58,924 59,794 59,064 64,503 60, ,282 Total Projected Expenses 209, , , , ,155 1,018,832 Projected Revenues ($000s) 2 State and Federal Highway Construction, Maintenance, etc. 43,565 44,785 46,039 47,328 48, ,370 STP Urban (Madison Urban Area) 10,976 6,515 6,698 6,885 7,078 38,153 STP Transportation Enhancements & SRTS 2,857 2,937 3,019 3,104 3,191 15,108 Other State 10,048 10,329 10,619 10,916 11,222 53,133 Subtotal 67,446 64,567 66,374 68,233 70, ,764 Dane County & Communities Street Operations and Maintenance 43,709 44,933 46,191 47,484 48, ,131 Street Construction 33,511 34,449 35,414 36,405 37, ,205 Street-Related Facilities 5,058 5,200 5,345 5,495 5,649 26,746 Subtotal 82,278 84,582 86,950 89,385 91, ,082 Metro Transit Capital Expenses 15,126 15,120 13,497 18,024 13,589 75,356 Operating Expenses 43,798 44,674 45,567 46,479 47, ,926 Subtotal 58,924 59,794 59,064 64,503 60, ,282 Total Projected Revenues 208, , , , ,028 1,075,128 1 Roadway and transit inflation 2.8% per year applied to both expenses and revenues. Inflation rate not applied to state and federal highway construction, maintenance, etc. because all project cost estimates already include an annual inflationary adjustment. 2 State and Federal highway revenue estimates based upon spending levels from (adjusted for inflation to 2010 dollars) with annual averages estimated and then projected for eaching funding source. Local revenues assumed to continue at annual averages expended in the past (adjusted for inflation). C-1

17 TPB (MPO) Agenda Cover Sheet Item No. 7 August 3, 2011 Re: Review of Draft Listing and Ranking of Candidate Projects for STP Urban Funding for Staff Comments on Item: Each year as part of the annual process to update the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), it is the responsibility of the MPO to score, rank, and prioritize candidate projects for Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) - Urban funding. MPO staff reviewed a preliminary draft of the priority project listings with the Board at its July meeting. Since that time, an interagency staff meeting was held to discuss the STP-Urban project listings. As a result of that meeting, the only major change to the draft listings being proposed at this time is to move the funding for the Mineral Point Road/CTH M/Junction Road intersection Phase 2 project from 2012 to It was previously thought the funding would be obligated in 2012 even though Phase 2 construction isn t scheduled until The change does not affect the funding for any other projects. The City of Madison does not want to move back the schedule for either the CTH M (Cross Country to CTH PD) or East Johnson Street projects, which are currently programmed for Both have been delayed already. Moving one of those projects back (along with delaying other projects currently scheduled for 2015 and 2016) would be necessary to free up additional funds to cover the shortfall in funding for projects in 2012 and In the meantime, MPO staff realized it had apportioned the shortfall in funding for projects that aren t fully funded incorrectly. The funding shortfall (about $2.5 million total) has now been allocated based on the difference between the previously approved funding amount and the requested new amount based on the higher cost estimate. That provides some relatively small changes in the funding amounts for those projects. The July 27 MPO Technical Coordinating Committee meeting was cancelled due to the lack of a sufficient number of agenda items. MPO staff has not received any comments on the listings from TCC members. A public hearing regarding the draft STP-Urban priority listings and the Draft TIP is scheduled for the September 7 MPO Board meeting. MPO Board approval of the listings and the TIP is anticipated at the October 5 meeting. Materials Presented on Item: 1. Draft Priority STP-Urban Project Listings for the Madison Urban Area, dated 7/21/ Draft STP-Urban Projects Scoring and Ranking Table, dated 7/21/11. Staff Recommendation/Rationale: For information and discussion purposes only at this time

18 DRAFT 7/28/ Priority Project Listings Madison Urban Area STP Urban Funds (all dollars in $000s) A. Carryover from 2010 $4, STP Urban Allocation $6,338 Available for 2011 $10,976 Preliminary Total STP Urban Evaluation WisDOT B Priority Projects Improvement Cost 50% 1 Score 2 Project ID Comments 1. Planning $153 $ Rideshare $88 $ Madison Ped/Bike Safety Ped/Bike $ STP-U funding obligated in '10. Education Program TOTAL STP Urban $193 Carryover to 2012 $10, % cost share for major projects. Policy started in Note: Evaluation Score from Attachment A page A Funded annually per MPO policy irrespective of other project scores. ** Potential Capacity Improvement Project. 5

19 DRAFT 7/28/ Priority Project Listings Madison Urban Area STP Urban Funds (all dollars in $000s) A. Carryover from 2011 (est.) $10, STP Urban Allocation $6,338 Available for 2012 $17,122 Preliminary Total STP Urban Evaluation WisDOT B Priority Projects Improvement Cost 50% 1 Score 2 Project ID Comments 1. Planning $153 $ Rideshare $90 $ CTH S/Mineral Point Rd. Reconstruct** $5,417 $2, Includes CTH M/Junction (Valley View (CTH M/Junction Intersection) Phase 1 w/bike to Isaac Rd.) and CTH S (Beltline to Pleasant View Rd). Total cost includes $311 TCSP funding earmark. Agreement needed on local share $$. 4. University Ave./CTH MS Reconstruct $11,300 $4, ,-79 Cost estimate increased by $900. (Allen Blvd. To Segoe Rd.) w/bike $749 additional local share funding beyond 50% min. needed. Agreement needed on local share $$. Spring Harbor ped/bike underpass to be let w/ project ($350 in SRTS funding) 5. Monona Dr. Phase 2 Reconstruct $3,788 $1, Cost estimate increased by $160. (Winnequah Rd. to Cottage Grove Rd.) w/bike $66 additional local share funding beyond 50% min. needed. 6. CTH D/Fish Hatchery Rd. Resurfacing $3,100 $1, ,-57 Cost estimate increased by $600. (Wingra Dr. to Emil St.) w/bike $369 additional local share funding beyond 50% min. needed. Agreement needed on local share $$. Includes RR improvements. 7. Madison Ped/Bike Safety Ped/Bike $78 $ Also includes 2013 STP-U funding, Education Program which will be obligated in TOTAL STP Urban $10,939 Carryover to 2013 $6, % cost share for major projects. Policy started in Note: Evaluation Score from Attachment A page A Funded annually per MPO policy irrespective of other project scores. ** Potential Capacity Improvement Project. 6

20 DRAFT 7/28/ Priority Project Listings Madison Urban Area STP Urban Funds (all dollars in $000s) A. Carryover from 2012 (est.) $6, STP Urban Allocation $5,861 Funding allocation reduced by $477 Available for 2013 $12,044 compared to 2011-'12 Preliminary Total STP Urban Evaluation WisDOT B Priority Projects Improvement Cost 50% 1 Score 2 Project ID Comments 1. Planning $153 $ Rideshare $93 $ CTH S/Mineral Point Rd. Reconstruct** $12,834 $6, Includes CTH M/Junction (Valley View (CTH M/Junction Intersection) Phase 2 w/bike to Isaac Rd.) and CTH S (Beltline to Pleasant View Rd.). Agreement needed on local share $$. 4. Monona Drive Phase 3 Reconstruct $9,142 $3, Cost estimate increased by $2,050. (Nichols/Pflaum Rd. to Winnequah Rd.) w/bike $856 additional local share funding beyond 50% min. needed. 5. Madison Ped/Bike Safety Ped/Bike $ STP-U funding obligated in Education Program TOTAL STP Urban $10,329 Carryover to 2014 $1,715 C. Candidate Projects if Further Funding: STP Urban Supplemental 6. Parmenter Street Reconstruct** $4, Move to (Century Ave. to Greenbriar Rd.) w/bike 7. Mendota Avenue Resurfacing $ Move to (University Ave. to Allen Blvd./CTH Q) 1 50% cost share for major projects. Policy started in Note: Evaluation Score from Attachment A page A Funded annually per MPO policy irrespective of other project scores. ** Potential Capacity Improvement Project. 7

21 DRAFT 7/28/ Priority Project Listings Madison Urban Area STP Urban Funds (all dollars in $000s) A. Carryover from 2013 (est.) $1, STP Urban Allocation $5,861 Funding allocation reduced by $477 Available for 2014 $7,576 compared to 2011-'12 Preliminary Total STP Urban Evaluation WisDOT B Priority Projects Improvement Cost 50% 1 Score 2 Project ID Comments 1. Planning $153 $ Rideshare $96 $ CTH M Reconstruct** $9,030 $4, Joint City of Verona & Madison project. (Cross Country Rd. to 2,500' N of CTH PD) w/bike Includes CTH PD 1,000' E & W of intersection. 4. E. Johnson St. Reconstruct $4,870 $2, ,-11 Segment from Baldwin to First St. (N. Butler St. to Baldwin St.) w/bike dropped from project. 5. Allen Blvd./CTH Q Resurfacing $550 $ ,-81 Cost estimate increased by $123. (University Ave. to Lake St.) w/bike $51 additional local share funding beyond 50% min. needed. Agreement needed on local share $$. 6. Madison Ped/Bike Safety Ped/Bike $82 $ ,-29 Also includes 2015 STP-U funding, Education Program which will be obligated in TOTAL STP Urban $7,507 Carryover to 2015 $69 C. Candidate Projects if Further Funding: STP Urban Supplemental 7. CTH Q Resurfacing $1, Move to (Main St. to 1,500' S of Woodland Dr.) w/bike 8. Park Street Reconstruct $ Move to (Park Lawn Pl. to Century Ave.) w/bike 1 50% cost share for major projects. Policy started in Note: Evaluation Score from Attachment A page A Funded annually per MPO policy irrespective of other project scores. ** Potential Capacity Improvement Project. 8

22 DRAFT 7/28/ Priority Project Listings Madison Urban Area STP Urban Funds (all dollars in $000s) A. Carryover from 2014 (est.) $ STP Urban Allocation $5,861 Actual allocation uncertain at this time Available for 2015 $5,930 Preliminary Total STP Urban Evaluation WisDOT B Priority Projects Improvement Cost 50% 1 Score 2 Project ID Comments 1. Planning $153 $ Rideshare $99 $ CTH M Reconstruct** $8,150 $4, Agreement needed on local share $$. (N of CTH PD to S of Valley View Rd.) w/bike 4. Cottage Grove Rd./CTH BB Reconstruct** $4,210 $1, Cost estimate increased by $1,080. (I-39/90/94 to Relocated Sprecher Rd.) w/bike $452 additional local share funding beyond 50% min. needed. Agreement needed on local share $$. Coordinate w/ Interstate bridge project. 5. Madison Ped/Bike Safety Ped/Bike $ STP-U funding obligated in Education Program TOTAL STP Urban $5,929 Carryover to 2016 $1 C. Candidate Projects if Further Funding: STP Urban Supplemental 6. Branch Street Resurfacing $ Move to (University Ave. to Century Ave.) w/bike 7. High Road Resurfacing $ Move to (Century Ave. to Well #4/Tower) w/bike 1 50% cost share for major projects. Policy started in Note: Evaluation Score from Attachment A page A Funded annually per MPO policy irrespective of other project scores. ** Potential Capacity Improvement Project. 9

23 DRAFT 7/28/ Priority Project Listings Madison Urban Area STP Urban Funds (all dollars in $000s) A. Carryover from 2015 (est.) $ STP Urban Allocation $5,861 Actual allocation uncertain at this time Available for 2016 $5,862 Preliminary Total STP Urban Evaluation WisDOT B Priority Projects Improvement Cost 50% 1 Score 2 Project ID Comments 1. Planning $153 $ Rideshare $102 $ McKee Rd./CTH PD Reconstruct** $9,540 $4, Agreement needed on local share $$. 1,000 E of CTH M to Maple Grove Rd. w/bike 4. Madison Ped/Bike Safety Ped/Bike $88 $ Also includes 2017 STP-U funding, Education Program which will be obligated in TOTAL STP Urban $5,116 Carryover to 2017 $746 C. Candidate Projects if Further Funding: STP Urban Supplemental 5. CTH M/Verona Ave. Intersection Reconstruct $2, Agreement needed on local share $$. w/bike 6. CTH Q Resurfacing $1, Moved from (Main St. to 1,500' S of Woodland Dr.) w/bike Agreement needed on local share $$. 7. S. Gammon Rd. Reconstruct $3, (Seybold Rd. to Mineral Point Rd.) 8. Buckeye Road Reconstruct $2, Agreement needed on local share $$. (Monona Dr. to Stoughton Rd./USH 51) w/bike 9. Lacy Rd. Reconstruct $1, (City Hall to Fahey Glen) w/bike 10. Branch Street Resurfacing $ Moved from (University Ave. to Century Ave.) w/bike 11. Park Street Reconstruct $ Moved from (Park Lawn Pl. to Century Ave.) w/bike 12. Parmenter Street Reconstruct** $4, Moved from (Century Ave. to Greenbriar Rd.) w/bike 13. High Road Resurfacing $ Moved from (Century Ave. to Well #4/Tower) w/bike 14. Mendota Avenue Resurfacing $ Moved from (University Ave. to Allen Blvd./CTH Q) w/bike 1 50% cost share for major projects. Policy started in Note: Evaluation Score from Attachment A page A Funded annually per MPO policy irrespective of other project scores. ** Potential Capacity Improvement Project. 10

24 DRAFT TIP/STP-URBAN PROJECTS SCORING Jul-11 Roadway 2012 Ped/Bike Other Roadway 2013 Ped/Bike Other Roadway 2014 Ped/Bike Other CTH D/Fish Hatchery Rd. (Wingra Dr. to Emil St.) CTH S/Mineral Pt Rd (CTH M/Junction Intersection) Phase 1 Monona Dr. Segment 2 (Winnequah to Cottage Grove Rd.) University Ave./CTH MS (Allen Blvd. To Segoe Rd.) Madison Ped/Bike Safety 2012 Ridesharing 2012 Planning 2012 CTH S/Mineral Pt Rd (CTH M/Junction Intersection) Phase 2 Mendota Ave. (University Ave. to Allen Blvd./CTH Q) Monona Dr. Phase 3 (Pflaum Rd. to Winnequah Dr.) Parmenter St. (Century Ave./CTH M to Greenbriar Rd.) Madison Ped/Bike Safety 2013 Ridesharing 2013 Planning 2013 Allen Blvd./CTH Q (University Ave. to Lake St.) CTH Q (Main St. to 1,500' S of Woodland Dr.) CTH M (Cross Country Rd. to N of CTH PD) E. Johnson St. (N. Butler to Baldwin St.) Park Street (Park Lawn Pl. to Century Ave.) Madison Ped/Bike Safety 2014 Ridesharing 2014 Planning 2014 A -13 I. Consistency A. Must Be Based On Management Systems, Plans, TDP, RTP, Etc. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * B. Prevents System Breakdown or Key System Element (High=6, Med=4, Low=2) II. Improve Efficiency and Effectiveness of Reg. Transp. Sys. A. Safety and Security (High=6, Med=4, Low=2) B. Congestion Relief (High=6, Med=4, Low=2) C. Congestion Prevention (High=6, Med=4, Low=2) D. Cost Effective/Life Cycle Cost: Cost/# of people affected daily, then normalize (0-6) E. Multi-modal (>two modes=6, two modes=4, one mode=2) F. Degree of Multi-modal Use (High=6, Med=4, Low=2) G. Preserves Existing System (6 points if applicable) III. System Expansion A. Demand: examples include volumes, load factors, etc. (High=6, Med=4, Low=2) B. Transp. Corridor Preservation ROW (endangered=6, major=4, minor=2) IV. External Impacts A. Federal and State TCM Effectiveness (High=6, Med=4, Low=2) B. Supports Land Use: 1. Promotes increased density around transit stations; 2. Promotes more efficient land use; 3. Reduces auto dependence (all three=6, two=4, one=2) C. Energy Conservation/Modal Shift: Directly promotes shift from SOV (rail, bus, HOV, or ped/bike)=6; indirect shift (park&ride lots, signal intercon., etc.)=4; low impact=2 D. Air pollution reduction (High=6, Med=4, Low=2) E. Noise Reduction (High=6, Med=4, Low=2) V. Complexity of Project Prepartation High=6, Medium=4, Low= VI. Land Use and Transportation System Change Interrelationship High=6, Medium=4, Low= VII. Intermodal Connectivity > 3 modes=6, 3 modes=4, 2 modes=2 TOTAL POINTS RANK Note: Shaded columns are non-programmed projects seeking STP-Urban supplemental funding should it become available.

25 DRAFT TIP/STP-URBAN PROJECTS SCORING Jul Roadway Ped/Bike Other Roadway Ped/Bike Other Branch St. (University Ave. to CTH M/Century Ave.) Cottage Grove Rd./CTH BB (I-39/90/94 to Relocated Sprecher CTH M (N of CTH PD to S of Valley View Rd.) High Road (Century Ave. to Well #4/Tower) Madison Ped/Bike Safety 2015 Ridesharing 2015 Planning 2015 Branch St. (University Ave. to CTH M/Century Ave.) Buckeye Rd. (Monona Dr. to Stoughton Rd./USH 51) CTH M/Verona Ave. Intersection CTH Q (Main St. to 1,500' S of Woodland Dr.) S. Gammon Rd. (Seybold Rd. to Mineral Point Rd./CTH S) High Road (Century Ave. to Well #4/Tower) Lacy Rd. (City Hall to Fahey Glen) McKee Rd./CTH PD (1,000 E of CTH M to Maple Grove Rd.) Mendota Ave. (University Ave. to Allen Blvd./CTH Q) Park Street (Park Lawn Pl. to Century Ave.) Parmenter St. (Century Ave./CTH M to Greenbriar Rd.) Madison Ped/Bike Safety 2016 Ridesharing 2016 Planning 2016 A -14 I. Consistency A. Must Be Based On Management Systems, Plans, TDP, RTP, Etc. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * B. Prevents System Breakdown or Key System Element (High=6, Med=4, Low=2) II. Improve Efficiency and Effectiveness of Reg. Transp. Sys. A. Safety and Security (High=6, Med=4, Low=2) B. Congestion Relief (High=6, Med=4, Low=2) C. Congestion Prevention (High=6, Med=4, Low=2) D. Cost Effective/Life Cycle Cost: Cost/# of people affected daily, then normalize (0-6) E. Multi-modal (>two modes=6, two modes=4, one mode=2) F. Degree of Multi-modal Use (High=6, Med=4, Low=2) G. Preserves Existing System (6 points if applicable) III. System Expansion A. Demand: examples include volumes, load factors, etc. (High=6, Med=4, Low=2) B. Transp. Corridor Preservation ROW (endangered=6, major=4, minor=2) IV. External Impacts A. Federal and State TCM Effectiveness (High=6, Med=4, Low=2) B. Supports Land Use: 1. Promotes increased density around transit stations; 2. Promotes more efficient land use; 3. Reduces auto dependence (all three=6, two=4, one=2) C. Energy Conservation/Modal Shift: Directly promotes shift from SOV (rail, bus, HOV, or ped/bike)=6; indirect shift (park&ride lots, signal intercon., etc.)=4; low impact=2 D. Air pollution reduction (High=6, Med=4, Low=2) E. Noise Reduction (High=6, Med=4, Low=2) V. Complexity of Project Prepartation High=6, Medium=4, Low= VI. Land Use and Transportation System Change Interrelationship High=6, Medium=4, Low= VII. Intermodal Connectivity > 3 modes=6, 3 modes=4, 2 modes=2 TOTAL POINTS RANK Note: Shaded columns are non-programmed projects seeking STP-Urban supplemental funding should it become available.

26 TPB (MPO) Agenda Cover Sheet Item No. 8 August 3, 2011 Re: Consideration of Release of Draft Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the Madison Metropolitan Area & Dane County for Public Review and Comment Staff Comments on Item: Staff has received TIP project submittals from WisDOT, Dane County, and local units of government and is compiling them into a complete coordinated listing of projects programmed or planned for implementation in the next five-year period. A meeting was held with WisDOT, Dane County, and City of Madison staff to review and work out discrepancies in joint projects or local projects partially funded with federal and/or state funds. The draft TIP is expected to be ready to release for review and comment on August 8 or 9. A public information meeting is scheduled for August 17 and a public hearing on the TIP will be held at the Board s next meeting on September 7. Action on the TIP is anticipated at the Board s October meeting. Materials Presented on Item: None Staff Recommendation/Rationale: Staff recommends approval to release the draft TIP for public review and comment.

27 TPB (MPO) Agenda Cover Sheet Item No. 9 August 3, 2011 Re: Consideration of Letter Requesting Financial Support of the MPO in 2012 Staff Comments on Item: The 2007 MPO redesignation agreement provides that the City of Madison shall be responsible for providing the local matching contribution for the Federal and state funding the MPO receives. However, the agreement also states that other units of government within the MPO planning area are strongly encouraged to make proportionate contributions based on their population to cover a share of local costs in support of the MPO. Following the prior November 1999 redesignation agreement, the City of Madison Mayor sent a letter to all local units of government in the MPO planning area at the time requesting their participation in financially supporting the MPO. Since that time MPO staff has informally discussed the issue with staff of some of the other communities, but another formal request for financial support has never been made. The Cities of Monona and Fitchburg and the Village of McFarland have provided financial support for the MPO based on their proportionate share of the population back in Dane County has also provided financial support of the MPO for specialized transportation coordination services, printing of the county bike map, and supporting the guaranteed ride home program that is available for participation in the MPO s Rideshare Etc. program. MPO staff is asking the Board whether it wishes to send a letter to communities in the MPO planning area requesting them to consider financially supporting the MPO in A draft letter and table showing the proportionate share of the required local match funding by each municipality for the MPO based upon the preliminary draft 2012 budget are attached. Materials Presented on Item: 1. Draft letter to chief elected officials of local units of government in the MPO planning area seeking their consideration of financially supporting the MPO in [Note: A different letter would be sent to those municipalities that currently contribute thanking them for their support and letting them know the new proportionate contribution based on the 2010 population data and the draft 2012 MPO budget.] 2. Table with 2010 population of municipalities in the MPO planning area and the estimated proportionate share of local match funding for the MPO based on the draft 2012 budget. Staff Recommendation/Rationale: The amount of funding involved is small. However, a request for financial support would ensure that communities are aware of the recommendation in the MPO agreement that all communities support the MPO. The recent release of new 2010 population data makes it timely to renew the MPO s request for financial support. It would be more equitable if additional communities supported the MPO. It could also perhaps make communities feel more ownership of the MPO. It is up to the Board to decide whether to make the request for financial support.

28 DRAFT August 4, 2011 Dear Mayor or Village President or Town Chair: The purpose of this letter is to request you to consider financially participating in supporting the work of the Madison Area Transportation Planning Board (TPB) A Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in In May 2007, the MPO for the Madison Urban Area was redesignated through an agreement between the Governor and units of local government together representing over 75 percent of the population within the MPO Planning Area. Attached is a copy of the agreement. It modified the composition of the MPO Policy Board to increase the representation of the smaller cities and villages to reflect the expansion of the MPO planning area following the 2000 Census. The requirements for MPO Board appointments were also changed to meet Federal requirements. The name was changed from Madison Area MPO to the Madison Area TPB. The 2007 agreement maintained the same structure as the original 1999 redesignation agreement for staffing and funding the MPO. The City of Madison provides staff for the MPO and the local matching contribution for the Federal and state funding the MPO receives. However, the agreement states that other local units of government are strongly encouraged to make proportionate contributions [based on their population] to cover a share of the local costs in support of the MPO. As part of preparation of the 2012 budget, the MPO Policy Board is respectfully requesting each local unit of government within the Metropolitan Planning Area that is represented by the Board to consider contributing a portion of the local share financing based on the community s proportionate share of the population within the Planning Area. With the recent release of the new 2010 Census population numbers, the Board felt it was a good time to renew the request to consider financially supporting the MPO. The estimated local share of the 2012 MPO budget is $111,313. Attached is a table which shows the population of each unit of government within the Planning Area and the proportionate share of the local match funding which would be attributed to the municipality. The MPO Policy Board would very much appreciate your consideration of including your proportionate share of local funding to support the MPO in your 2012 operating budget. We would like to thank you in advance for your consideration of this request.

29 DRAFT If you have any questions, please contact Bill Schaefer, the MPO s Transportation Planning Manager (PH: ; wschaefer@cityofmadison.com). Sincerely, Al Matano, MPO Board Chair Enclosures (2) Cc: Brad Murphy, City of Madison Planning Division Director William Schaefer, MPO Transportation Planning Manager [MPO TCC Member or Administrator/Clerk]

30 2010 Census Population of Muncipalities in the Madison Area MPO Planning Area 2010 Population % of 2010 Population 2012 Draft Budget Municipality Within MPO Within MPO Estimated Planning Area Planning Area Local Participation C. Madison 233, % $64,582 C. Fitchburg (99.1%) 25, % $6,932 C. Middleton 17, % $4,830 C. Monona 7, % $2,086 C. Stoughton 12, % $3,492 C. Sun Prairie 29, % $8,132 C. Verona 10, % $2,941 Small Cities Total 102, % $28,413 V. Cottage Grove 6, % $1,715 V. Maple Bluff 1, % $364 V. McFarland 7, % $2,162 V. Shorewood Hills 1, % $433 V. Waunakee 12, % $3,350 Villages Total 28, % $8,024 T. Blooming Grove 1, % $503 T. Bristol (part) (49.7%) 1, % $518 T. Burke 3, % $909 T. Cottage Grove (part) (59.0%) 2, % $633 T. Dunkirk (part) (64.0%) 1, % $345 T. Dunn (part) (89.8%) 4, % $1,226 T. Madison 6, % $1,739 T. Middleton 5, % $1,628 T. Pleasant Springs (part) (44.0%) 1, % $384 T. Rutland (part) (14.5%) % $79 T. Springfield (part) (34.6%) % $262 T. Sun Prairie (part) (65.2%) 1, % $420 T. Verona (part) (77.8%) 1, % $420 T. Westport (part) (98.4%) 3, % $1,076 T. Windsor (part) (8.6%) % $151 Towns Total 37, % $10,293 Total for MPO Planning Area 401,956 $111,313

31 TPB (MPO) Agenda Cover Sheet Item No. 10 August 3, 2011 Re: Update on the Madison Area Congestion Management Process and Schedule for Draft Report Staff Comments on Item: Ayres & Associates has been hired to assist MPO staff in developing an enhanced Congestion Management Process (CMP) for the Madison Metropolitan Area that remedies current deficiencies in the process and meets all Federal requirements. A newly created Congestion Management Committee is overseeing the project. The committee is a subcommittee of the MPO s Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC). The Congestion Management Committee met on July 13 to review an initial draft of the CMP report and discuss the transportation system performance measure targets and the performance monitoring plan. However, the draft report wasn t completed in time to distribute before the meeting and the committee needed more time to review and comment on the report and the performance measure targets and monitoring plan. MPO staff and the committee members are preparing comments on the initial draft report. The committee is scheduled to meet on August 10 to review all of the comments and finalize the draft report. Presentations are scheduled to be made to the MPO TCC on August 17 and to the City of Madison Long-Range Transportation Planning Committee on August 18. A presentation will be made to the MPO Board at its September 7 meeting after which the final draft report will be released for public review and comment. The public hearing on the CMP will now be held at the Board s October 5 meeting. A copy of the power point presentation from the July 13 Congestion Management Committee meeting is enclosed. Materials Presented on Item: 1. July 13 presentation to the Congestion Management Committee Staff Recommendation/Rationale: For information and discussion purposes only at this time

32 Steering Committee Meeting #4 July 13, 2011

33 Review of Existing Transportation System Performance Congested and very congested arterials

34 Transportation Corridor Areas East Isthmus Transportation Corridors West/Southwest Transportation Corridors Northwest Transportation Corridors East/Southeast Transportation Corridors South Transportation Corridors North/Northeast Transportation Corridors Central Transportation Corridors

35 Congestion Duration

36 Travel Speed

37 Bus On-time Performance

38 Transit Service Frequencies 2010 Transit Service Average Peak Headways Less than 5 Minutes Summary Corridor Average Headway East Transfer Point Less than 5 minutes USH 151 from Milwaukee Street to Pinckney Street Less than 5 minutes Aberg Avenue to North Transfer Point Less than 5 minutes Capital Square Streets (Pinckney St., Carroll St., Mifflin St.) Less than 5 minutes State Street Less than 5 minutes Gorham Street to University Avenue to Campus Drive to University Avenue from State Street to Midvale Road Less than 5 minutes Johnson Street from State Street to Campus Drive Less than 5 minutes Park Street from Dayton Street to Regent Street Less than 5 minutes Observatory Drive from Park Street to Highland Drive Less than 5 minutes West Transfer Point Less than 5 minutes

39 Review of Existing Transportation System Performance Transit system average peak headways