CITY PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE-MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION

TUESDAY, JANUARY 29, 2002

5:00 p.m. – Regular Meeting

Conference Room 260 – Madison Municipal Building

215 Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard

MINUTES[1]

Present: Mark Shahan, Rob Kennedy, Shary Dye, LeAnne Johnson, Ald. Bellman, Ald. Borchardt, Ald. Sloan, Bob Schaefer (A2)

David Dryer, Executive Secretary

Lt. Cardarella, Lt. Sherrie Strand, Sgt. David Jugovich, MPD, Dan McCormick, TE; David Trowbridge and Tim Kabat, City Plan

Absent: Judy Bowser,* Mary Conroy,* Dick Mahal*

*Notified in advance.

[Meeting reported in order of agenda.]

A quorum being present, Chair Kennedy called the meeting to order at 5 p.m.

A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – 11/27/01 and 12/13/01

Motion was made by Shahan/Sloan to approve the minutes.

Schaefer requested clarification on page 11, 11/27/01 relative to the comments on Highway 51 and 30. His comments were not to be interpreted as he saying that a full interchange couldn’t be realized, but rather that the building of the UW Credit Union would seem to preclude that from happening.

With that clarification, the minutes were approved.

B. PUBLIC APPEARANCES –

Jesse Kaysen (814 Hiawatha Drive), requested that a future agenda include the issue of examining the snow shoveling policies for the southwest bicycle path. She lived in the vicinity of the park and was a regular user of it and the sidewalk crossing of the path and she described problems, including barriers for her in a wheelchair, which she saw with current policies on clearing the path. She urged that the issue be addressed before the end of this winter season. She had attended the neighborhood meetings in which the issue was discussed, she did not agree that a decision was made on the policy and she did not support what she understood the policy to be. In fact, she believed there needed to be a uniform snow plowing policy for all of the paths in the City.

Joseph King (4329 Bagley), a member of the Citizens Design committee for the Southwest path, first commended the City on the path and the asset it would be for the city. He, too, requested that a future agenda include the issue of the maintenance of this path. He contended that the current policy circumvented safety and engineering standards and suggested that something be done to avoid an injury due to the policy.

Matt Logan (114 N.Fourth St) asked that the clearing/maintenance of the southwest bike path be placed on a future agenda. He suggested that generally it was a nuisance and made the path less appealing; he provided photographs showing the situation. He noted some fairly dark areas with the lighting along the path, problems this created when a path surface was not clear, and suggested lighting also should be improved. He urged full width plowing of the path.

Robbie Webber (2613 Stevens) reiterated the prior requests for the commission to deal with the maintenance policies as it related to the southwest path. She urged that the full path be kept open and free from ice and debris. She emphasized the role it played as a transportation corridor. She, too, was at the neighborhood meeting and she did not remember anything being decided about the maintenance policy. In addition to this item, she asked that (1) the issue of the plans for Old Middleton Road and its bike accommodations be provided to the Commission and (2) an update on bike lanes on Monona Drive be provided.

Kennedy reported that he had asked staff to report back on the southwest bike path and since the City was a part of the decision-making process for the Monona Drive project, he expected the item to be on a future agenda.

C. ROUTINE ACTION ITEMS

1. ADOPT ID 31053, Ordinance, sponsored by Ald. Olson, amending 12.53(94)—Winnebago Street

Motion by Sloan/Shahan to approve carried unanimously.

D. MADISON POLICE DEPARTMENT REPORT ON TRAFFIC RELATED ISSUES (2001 Traffic Enforcement Activity Report enclosed)

Lt. Cardarella referred to the material sent with the agenda on the 2001 Traffic Enforcement Activity Report and he highlighted some of the trends. In summary, there was nearly an 85% increase in enforcement activity in the past three years.

He provided a copy of the “Review of Traffic Safety Initiatives conducted by TEST in 2001”.

Schaefer asked if they were able to make a correlation between enforcement activities and crash experience—including number of fatalities. Cardarella said they certainly looked at the data to see what conclusions could be drawn, e.g., in the first year of TEST there was a reduction in injury crashes. They saw their efforts and the data drawn from the experience as a useful tool in communicating with the public since he believed that the more informed citizens were helped the public understand their role in ensuring a safer community. He pointed out there were other things that had to be factored in when trying to make comparisons, such as increasing vehicle registration.

Shahan asked if there was any measurement of increased safety and compliance with increased enforcement. Cardarella commented that on their safety initiatives they conducted pre- and post-campaigns to see if they could draw any conclusions about the impacts of the effort. There would be a continuation of this effort for the projects, which would be undertaken in 2002. They planned to work with the Safe Communities Coalition on red light running, walk to school routes, and speed and intersection campaign. They would include pre- and post-studies to see if there is a greater awareness following the effort.

Schaefer asked that MPD give some attention to the intersection of East Springs and Zeier as it related particularly to pedestrian crossings.

Cardarella reported that he would be retiring after 31 years and he introduced his replacement Lt. Sherrie Strand, who indicated that she had been with the department since 1984 and looked forward to working with the Commission. Additionally Cardarella introduced Sgt. David Jugovich, with the night TEST team, who indicated he had been with the department since 1994.

Cardarella thanked the commission for its support and interest in public safety and transportation safety. On behalf of the Commission, Kennedy extended their commendations for the efforts Cardarella had undertaken on behalf of a safer community.

E. PUBLIC HEARINGS – None

F. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - None

G. PROPOSALS OF MEMBERS AND/OR PRIOR ITEMS (Note: Items may require action.)

2. Traffic Calming Project Priority Ranking and Recommended Program for 2002

McCormick presented an overview of the process and explained that before the Commission was the recommendation for the priorities for projects for the coming year. He emphasized it was a recommendation subject to revision by the Commission. He noted that the program although initially designed for local streets soon found that requests for collector streets were taking precedence. As a result they had tailored the program to two tiers; one dealing with local streets and the other collectors. He pointed out that the higher volume, arterial/collector streets (for example, Thompson Drive) were never intended to be addressed in the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTM) and were dealt with separately through other efforts. The budget for NTM for 2002 had increased to $100,000 and projects were generally in the neighborhood of $15,000 per project. Their recommendation basically divided the budget equally between collector and local street projects. A factor they considered in making their recommendation was the number of years a project was on the priority list so as not to ignore projects which have had a neighborhood effort but which in the point assignment may fall somewhat below a first year project. Projects generally were removed from the list after three years (or they basically needed to be recertified to remain on the list). Other factors, which could be taken into consideration, are the preponderance of completed projects in one area of the City so as to be able to spread the limited funds/projects citywide. He emphasized that projects on the list were basically grassroots generated; staff did not solicit projects, rather it was a neighborhood-generated process. However, staff did look at the correlation of projects to planned reconstruction projects.

Primary criteria in the development of the point ranking were average weekday traffic, speed, presence of elementary or middle schools, presence of pedestrian facilities such as parks, whether it is a school walk route, whether it is a bicycle route, review of crash records, and pending street reconstruction projects.

Persons present and appearing were:

2500 Chamberlain[2]:

Margaret Krome and daughter Rosemary (2524 Chamberlain Avenue) registered in support.

Ms. Krome emphasized that the children of Chamberlain Avenue initiated and circulated the petition. Chamberlain Avenue had become a street handling increasing traffic amounts for those traveling between Regent Street to Old University Avenue. It was a way to avoid routes with traffic signals. The problems were aggravated at peak hours. The street was close to West High School and is used as a route to Franklin School. Speeds are a factor, some of which were attributed to the high school drivers. The street had a significant population of children (consistently running above 20 children in the block). The grade of the street is hilly and with children playing in yards, there were inherent dangers with play balls rolling into the street and down a hill. Krome added support to the Highland Avenue project and noted their children crossed Highland to go to Franklin school.

Harriet Brown (2515 Chamberlain) registered in support and spoke about efforts they had made to try to slow traffic. She, too, supported the Highland project.

Laurie Graham (2531 Chamberlain) registered in support and echoed comments made.

Eileen Terrien (2520 Chamberlain) registered in support and pointed out that as a high schooler, she knew there was a problem with student drivers exceeding the speed. She noted the challenge it was for her to cross Chamberlain in the morning, but more specifically in the afternoon when she was not only faced with crossing Highland but also Chamberlain. On two occasions she had to jump back to the curb to avoid being hit.

Fabian Fernandez and his mother Sandra (2542 Chamberlain) registered in support. He pointed out that the street had become a shortcut to the University and was used by High School Students and motorists were driving irresponsibly and at high rates of speed endangering the young children on the street. He used graphics to show routes used. Mrs. Fernandez pointed out that the public school bus travels down Chamberlain from the west, turns to the north and lets off children at Kendall and Grant. The children then have to walk back up Grant and cross at Chamberlain . On more than three occasions, she witnessed motorists not stopping at the stop sign because the motorist was travel too fast to be able to stop. Schaefer suggested she contact the Speeders Hotline when she witnessed such occasions and the woman said it was a good suggestion.

Persons registered in support and not speaking were Marina Depablo (2514 Chamberlain), representing their family and Mary Walker (2520 Chamberlain) who indicated on her registration: “The traffic speed on our street has increased exponentially in the 12 yrs. we’ve lived there. There are 25 minor children on the block. People pass us when we go slow on this residential street even when there are parked cars!”

Ald. Golden registered in support of the Chamberlain project, noting that it is in an area he formerly represented but with redistricting does not represent. He explained the general neighborhood was in the vicinity of West High, which had characteristics unique to neighborhoods with a high school sited within them. There was a demand for parking from high school users. He acknowledged it was not a high volume street, but because of the characteristics associated with a high school, he asked that it be considered. He noted the presence of pedestrians destined to Randall School and the likelihood of using alternative streets to Regent Street. He referred also to the bus stop. He understood that the street would be marginal on whether it qualified, but believed the walk-to-school issues needed to be reviewed and the pedestrian volumes had merit. He thought a project might be more appropriate when the street is reconstructed. He emphasized the degree of interest by the neighborhood in the project was unprecedented and he urged thoughtful consideration of the request.

Joe Campana (1609 Glacier Hill), representing the Ridgewood Neighborhood Association, the Neighborhood Planning Grant, and Proposed East Side Neighborhood Planning Council spoke with respect to projects in Ridgewood. He referred to some discussions he had prior to speaking relative to some of the issues related to North Thompson Drive. With his association with the groups referenced above, he had an opportunity to interact with district 3 and 17 people. Traffic issues presented on November 27 are very dominant in the minds of these people. He referred to their proactive efforts to address traffic issues and the investments they had made—literally hundreds of people had attended their forums. Their concerns related to the increasing traffic pressures in neighborhoods, much of it due to the traffic situation on North Thompson. Another area in which they are directing their attention is the intersection of North Thompson, CTH T and USH 30 and he reviewed some of their efforts working with Ald. Rosas and County Supervisor Wiganowski. A public hearing is scheduled on 3/25 and it was expected that there would be State, County and City representative available to work on problems at that intersection.

Ald. Rosas, representing District 17, echoed comments made by Compana. He referred to the monies allocated some two and half years ago for the North Thompson Drive study. Part of the effort was to include the impacts of North Thompson issues on the surrounding neighborhoods, including streets such as Oak Valley Drive—a street being heavily impacted by truck traffic. He noted that in looking at the 2001 traffic calming projects there were two identified for the east side and he felt a need to look seriously at other traffic calming projects for the east and southeast sides of the City. He urged reconsideration on the Oak Valley Drive project.

Shahan asked about his comments on locations of traffic-calming projects noting it is a neighborhood driven process and to date the west and near west side neighborhoods had been more active in bringing projects forward. Therefore, he wondered about projects on the east side that should be considered. Rosas said he could provide this in follow-up correspondence.

Supervisor Darold Lowe (205 Crystal Lane) indicated that with redistricting, his area had expanded and it included the area of North Thompson Drive, specifically North Thompson Drive, CTH T, STH 30,and Swanton Road. The most significant problem related to issues with the Highway 30 off-ramp—a State facility. There was the City problem associated with North Thompson Drive, including Swanton Road and a County issue with CTH T. He pointed out the work done by the neighborhood associations over the past 2-3 years. He suggested that over these past few years basically only the neighborhood had been working on issues. He urged consideration of the recommendations from the neighborhood which had taken a proactive role. He said he would work with the County to enlist its attention to the County issues.

Gigi Holland (1117 Sherman Avenue), representing the Tenney-Lapham Neighborhood Association, spoke in support of traffic-calming for Sherman Avenue and noted their efforts since 1998-99. At a neighborhood meeting a worksheet had been distributed and she wanted to update some of the items. First in the Baldwin, Few and Sydney area of Sherman Avenue, she referred to the curve on Sherman Avenue in which it would be helpful to have a traffic island to slow traffic. The record showed that 77% of the people were traveling over the speed limit (between 35-40) and there were many pedestrians and children. She noted the worksheet did not give credit to the school walk route, and she claimed it was used as a school walk route. She noted the worksheet did not give credit to the pedestrian area—yet, it is a major area between the Capitol Square and Tenney Park. She thanked McCormick of City staff and his comments about keeping Sherman Avenue under consideration because of the replacement of the bridge decking at Tenney Park. She urged that traffic-calming project be undertaken before 2003.

Lori Kief (4413 Doe Crossing Trail), representing the Whitetail Ridge Neighborhood Association appeared in support of stop signs at Anhalt and Hollow Ridge since a traffic-calming project for this location was not recommended in the coming year. She noted the number of single-family homes and neighborhood park as factors in support of doing something at Anhalt and Hollow Ridge. She questioned the results of the worksheet for this location, since it did not factor in pedestrian and school route. She referred to the ADA-compliant path, which the Parks Department would be putting in crossing just past Prairie View Drive. She understood the process for traffic-calming might be a multi-year effort before a project was selected, and understanding that Anhalt and Hollow Ridge would not be recommended for 2002, she asked that stop signs be installed in the interim. The route was being used as a through route between Packers and Sherman Avenue and speeding was of significant concern.

Shahan pointed out that the location was listed as a pedestrian area, probably due to the park, but the school walk route had not been factored in because that factor is used for the designated route developed between the City and School District and their street was not listed. Kief contended that the number of students living in the neighborhood couldn’t get out of the neighborhood without using Anhalt and that is why she questioned it. Dryer pointed out that if the children in a neighborhood were bused, this factor would not be used. Kief said that students to Blackhawk were not bused and Dryer said it would be something they could check out further.

Rita Schaefer (6 Cottonwood Circle), registered in support of the Ridgewood Neighborhood Association’s recommendations and did not speak.

James Zernicke (1153 Glacier Hill), representing the Ridgewood Neighborhood Assn., indicated he was co-chair of the traffic and safety committee. He pointed out that issues of concern had been issues for a long time. He noted the growth in the neighborhood and noted that the street was now a through street. He said traffic from the east of the Madison area was using CTH T (Commercial) and rather than using the Commercial and Thompson intersection, motorists were using a route that directed them to Glacier Hill . He pointed out the park located on Glacier Hill. Additionally, he referred to the planning grant they had received for the neighborhood and a recommendation was for an integrated traffic study for the area. Referring to project 6 recommended for the year, he pointed out it was a project that came after Oak Valley Drive.

Howard Mandeville (2708 Regent Street), representing the Regent Neighborhood Association, appeared in support of the Highland project and agreed with the priority shown in the recommendation for the project. He noted the results of the study showing that 72% of the traffic was going over the speed limit, children needed to cross it on their way to Randall School, it was the border of the High School and was a main commuter route, particularly to the University. He pointed out the concern of the RNA for the north-south streets into the neighborhood to move from a collector to arterial street because of the traffic demands. By addressing the situation now, they hoped to deal with the increasing traffic demands.

Robert (1505 Glacier Hill) left the following statement: “Traffic-calming East Side. Problems are beginning to appear on east side. Three problems: 1) Highway 30 and Thompson, Swanton Road—dangerous intersection. 2) N. Thompson Drive itself (high traffic) and North Thompson and Sycamore and Oak Valley intersections. Long waits to turn. 3) Zeier Road, North Thompson and Lien Intersection. Positively an engineering problem needing a solution. This is in addition to speeding on N. Thompson and Oak Valley Drive. This is one final comment: In Ridgewood subdivision, we have many uncontrolled intersection. I can tell you many drivers don’t know or obey the rules. It makes for a potentially dangerous situation. “

Barb Sanford (1211 Garfield ) addressed the issues at the intersection of Garfield, Grant and Drake – entrance to the Vilas Park/Zoo. There were significant numbers of children. She referred to the difficulties gaining access from Garfield onto Drake or turning into Grant—due often to the number of motorists not stopping for the stop signs. In addition, they had to deal with speeding and it was used as a major commuter route in the a.m. and p.m. periods. Also she referred to the bike path. Considering these factors, and confusion related to the unusual intersection configuration, she believed some kind of traffic calming, such as pedestrian island or other device, was necessary.

Chuck Erickson (1541 Jefferson) addressed concerns similar to those of the previous speaker about Grant, Garfield and Drake intersection.

Tess Mulrooney (1628 Madison), resident of the Vilas Neighborhood Association, addressed the concerns at Grant, Garfield and Drake and wrote, “We often drive down Garfield to get to the Beltline. If anyone is at either of the other streets, they watch for traffic coming out of the zoo parking lot and barrel through without extending courtesy to those of us on Garfield.”

John Donahue (4414 Hollow Ridge Road) spoke in support of placing all-way stop signs at Anhalt and Hollow Ridge since the location did not qualify for a traffic-calming project this year. His concerns related to the number of children crossing to go to the park and school bus stop. He noted that he had obtained some 120 signatures from neighborhood residents in support of installing stop signs, but the neighborhood had been convinced to work toward a traffic-calming project instead. Now, however, since it did not rank high enough to move forward, he asked that the stop signs be installed until such time as traffic island could be installed.

Mitch Nussbaum (1615 Madison Street) noted he was an active in the Vilas Neighborhood Association. He indicated his pleasure in seeing Grant Street on the list since there were major problems at this location. He also wanted to ask that Oakland be reconsidered in the future. He suggested it was a location in which it was a walk to school route with a number of children and it was a route experiencing increasing and speeding traffic. There wasn’t a safe place to cross at Monroe Street. He pointed out the proposed reconstruction/expansion at Campus-Randalll gave more reason to reconsidering Oakland. He contended there was no safe place to cross Regent or Monroe in the area of Oakland. He emphasized the pedestrian and school-related characteristics. The proximity of the southwest bike path needed to be taken into consideration.

Candace Pantogo (813 West Lakeside) asked that Lakeside be seriously considered for a project in 2002. She pointed out the number of children living on the street and using it as route to school and increasing traffic volumes and speeds. It seemed that Lakeside was being used as an alternative route to Olin . Residents found it difficult to get in/out of driveways because of the traffic volumes.

John Robinson (953 Lawrence Street) reiterated concern for Lakeside Street. He understood the staff’s comments about giving some credit to older projects, but pointed out how from year to year dynamics of a location changed. The problems on Lakeside were current and threatened the livability of the residents. He strongly urged consideration of it as a project for 2002. In response to some issues raised about the school, Dryer explained that they would be addressed as a part of the Olin Bridge project as well as the rail crossing.

Charlene Sweeney (114 East Lakeside), spoke in support of moving the Lakeside project to 2002 and pointed out it met the criteria due to speeds and accidents. She believed it was a school and pedestrian area. She referred to the through traffic traveling through the area during peak periods at very fast speeds. In response to a question from her, Dryer indicated that approximately $15,000 was budgeted for a project and this amount would likely not be adequate to deal with the entire lengthy of Lakeside. She said that while the Olin Avenue improvements were nice, they had funneled more traffic onto Lakeside Street. She added, in fact, that ambulance drivers used Lakeside since there weren’t any stops.

Richard Slayton (821 West Lakeside) registered in support of the Lakeside Street project and pointed out the difficulties he had egressing from his driveway due to the volume and speed of traffic. He asked that something be done to make it less of a thoroughfare.

Robert Prugh (404 S. Randall) said that Grant Street traffic-calming devices appeared logical considering the issues at the intersection. He also was pleased to see Randall on the list. As a resident of Randall Avenue for the past 26 years, he noted his and his wife’s concern about the increasing traffic demands, due to growth on the south side periphery of the City and desire of these motorists to reach the western Campus via Randall Avenue. He pointed out that at Drake Street where people made a right from Drake onto Randall, few motorists stopped—yet it is a school pickup stop. He questioned why Randall was not cited on the worksheet as a pedestrian area, pointing out the proximity to Vilas Park, and number of University students destined for the campus. He noted his experience with the City’s speed sign and the number of bicyclists and pedestrians during the periods of time he was there (20-30 pedestrians and 20-30 bicyclists). Although it may not be designated as a bike route, bicyclists were certainly using it. He urged further consideration of a project for Randall.

James Seals (717 West Lakeside) wrote, “I oppose the exclusion of Lakeside Street from the list of three collector streets being forwarded to the PBMVC for funding in 2002. This is the highest ranked neighborhood collector in terms of traffic problems, it is a bicycle route and the street on which Franklin School is located. I expect Lakeside Street’s problem to worsen with the reconstruction of the railroad bridge on Olin Avenue. This street should be included on the list of three forwarded for funding. I urge the committee to recognize the need to include Lakeside Street on the list of projects to be funded in 2002, even though it has not been on the list in past years. It makes no more sense to delay this work merely because the street has not before been listed than it would to make a newly-arrived patient with a broken leg wait until the person who has been suffering from a head cold for week receive treatment.”

Joe Walker (2918 Grandview Blvd), wrote ”I am here tonight to ask that the PBMVC please consider the implications of reinstalling the stop signs on Grandview Blvd at Nottingham Way. I live at the intersection in question and my neighbors and I have witnessed first hand on a daily basis the negative impact of the signs for the 1 year in which they were in place. These stop signs were installed by Ald. Bruer at the request of the Arbor Hills Neighborhood Assoc. in December of last year. No one in the immediate vicinity of the signs had any prior knowledge of their placement and it has been demonstrated in past PBMVC meetings that the majority of the residents on these blocks are opposed to the signs. In fact, it was admitted on 3 separate occasions to me and 2 of my neighbors that the Executive Board of the Arbor Hills neighborhood association pushed installation of the signs through as quickly and quietly as possible because they knew (from 2 previous attempts to install signs on Grandview Blvd) that there would be strong opposition to signs. The President of the AHNA, Nancy Woods, also admitted to this strategy for pushing installation of the signs at the annual Neighborhood Association meeting. In an attempt to settle the dispute between the AHNA Executive Board and the residents in the 2-3 blocks around the stop signs, Ald. Bruer worked with Traffic Engineering to come up with a compromise plan that involved reconfiguring the blvd. to address the concerns of the AH neighborhood association Executive Board. I want to make it clear that this ‘solution’ was a compromise we had agreed to as a safer alternative to stop signs. the majority of the residents in the area in question do not feel any sort of traffic control is needed. As I understand things now, Ald. Bruer plans to reinstall the stop signs. Again, I ask that the PBMVC please intervene in this matter to prevent the dangerous situation created by these signs and to address the concerns of the neighborhood traffic management program members who live near these signs and are most affected by them.”

Following the public comment, the item was tabled on motion by Sloan/Borchardt so as to take up other items on the agenda. After taking up items 3 and 4 the item was taken off the table on motion by Sloan/Shahan.

Shahan asked why projects higher on the list, for example, under collectors Lakeside and Westfield and Farmington, were not included in the recommended list of locations to do or be standby and questioned some that were included on the standby such as Randall and Grandview. The latter two he thought were lower priority than some of the other projects on the list. He also noted that personally he discounted collectors by 5-10 points when making comparisons with local streets because of the point assignment given for traffic volumes. He was reminded the program was initially designed for local streets but collector streets had been brought into it.

Borchardt agreed with the comments made. Borchardt asked why Thompson Drive was listed in the program when it had been mentioned that it was a higher level street to be dealt with outside the NTM program. Dryer pointed out the section of Thompson Road on the list was between Buckeye and Vondron which is a local street at that point. For North Thompson Drive, funding had been secured for a planning study and a recommendation from that effort had been the restriping of Thompson and insertion of center left-turn lanes. Now, some in the neighborhood wanted to see that striping carried through to its current termination at Sycamore further south and staff was looking into this request.

Borchardt asked what number was given for the years on the list (currently none). Dryer responded that in a perfect world they would do the projects with problems. Because funding did not permit that, some evaluation had to be undertaken. Based on past discussions there was a suggestion that projects which had been carried over be given some additional consideration vs. a new project on the list. Borchardt expressed concern about projects on the list for some time being bumped by newer projects.

Sloan offered some suggestions in assigning points which he thought could be used in the formula. 1) Assign points based on years on the list, e.g, 3-5 points each year, so as to ensure a project would move forward. 2) Address the issue of preponderance of work being done in one section of the City rather than spreading out the benefits of the program citywide. He wondered about doing a project where there is no other project in the aldermanic district, or census district and possibly to assign points on this basis. Dryer interjected that the idea had been broached in previous years and had resoundly been dismissed. 3) Suggested a column be added for the year in which a street is to be reconstructed. 4) Suggested they reduce the point rating given for average weekday traffic—it puts local streets at a disadvantage. He understood the role of the commission to basically perform triage; and due to the funding limitations, they needed to have a way to measure the more critically needed projects.

Kennedy said he generally agreed with the direction Sloan was recommending for the program. He felt the geographic distribution was important, demonstrated neighborhood interest was important, the number of years was important. However, for the latter, he said it shouldn’t be the only criteria and that a project more recently on the list should be able to be undertaken over a project longer on the list.

Dye commented that she too agreed with comments being made, especially the one about giving points for the number of years on the list, but with some kind of a cap. Dryer pointed out now that if a project was on the list longer than three years, it was to be removed from the list unless the neighborhood came forward to show that there was sustained interest. Dye wondered about quantifying efforts made by a neighborhood to address the problems outside of the NTM process, e.g., using speeders hot line, sign boards, etc. Dryer pointed out that items being offered were getting somewhat subjective (e.g., it was difficult to quantify level of support) and that needed to be taken into consideration when developing a point rating system.

Bellman noted concerned about a criteria being based on numbers appearing at public hearings and felt it was contrary to a rationale, objective criteria for the ranking. She saw the effort made by staff as a tool to be used by the Commission in developing the program for a year based on the available funds. She was concerned about moving to a political process. She said that the number of years on a waiting list might not be a good measure since a project still might not warrant moving forward when considered against other City needs.

Borchardt asked how projects got on the list; Dryer responded that it is not something where staff proactively recruits projects, rather it is a neighborhood driven process. When citizens contact the agency, they are apprised of the program and provided with materials related to it and then it is up to the citizens to follow up. She asked about the criteria needed. Dryer said there was the 30 point benchmark to participate.

Shahan agreed with the idea of assigning points for years on the list but felt there needed to be a cap as well as a number of years a project remains on a list without renewing the process. Dryer said the latter was in the procedure; projects are now to be removed or renewed after three years. Shahan suggested that in the yearly consideration the program related to NTM be provided as part of the process since it answered some of the questions. In terms of location of projects, he referred to Ald. Golden’s prior comments about it being a subjective factor and Shahan said he would likely consider location if there were similar projects and a decision on only one had to be made. He didn’t support using a numerical ranking. Shahan wondered the impact in future years considering current budget discussions; Dryer responded that certainly dollars available could be impacted in future years.

Schaefer noted he is a member of the Ridgewood Neighborhood Association and as a result in evaluating the process he had made a special effort to look at his role on the commission as a citywide role and not specific to the neighborhood. Referring to the North Thompson situation, he referred to a May 12, 2000, report in which the Traffic Engineering did an extensive study. The neighborhood had wanted the speed limit reduced to 25 mph and the neighborhood was convinced by staff that restriping would be an approach they should try first. At that time, much of South Thompson was not finished curb to curb so a decision was made to delay continuing the striping on the South end of Thompson. A plan was prepared and people in the neighborhood were asking when it would be completed. Although he understood that North Thompson was outside the NTM program, he didn’t want that to mean that nothing would be done to improve conditions on North Thompson. He did not believe it was clear to the neighborhood that North Thompson was outside the NTM program. As a part of the planning grant efforts, there was a desire for a larger area study because of the impacts changes on North Thompson will have on other areas. Oak Valley concerns hadn’t been furthered then, because of the planning grant efforts and a desire to tie things together. They wanted the Commission to receive a copy of the planning grant and traffic recommendations for the wider study so that something is done with the wider investment of the City and neighborhood. Referring to Oak Valley, he noted handouts given on October 17, 2001, where candidate and potential locations were listed, and said that a number of the streets listed on the recommendations for 2002 were not on the 2001 list and, for example, Oak Valley which had been listed in the potential list earlier was listed as a first year while others which appeared on the same list were shown as being in a second year. Dryer said it could be looked at. Schaefer added that Oak Valley exceeded the point value of some of the others selected, and a reason given was that it was not on its second year. Additionally Schaefer said that in looking at the list of recommended locations there was only one east side (McLean) and one north side (Tennyson Lane) with the rest being west or southwest. He also understood in November the position of not wanting to deal with streets as a group, yet Chapel Hill, Piping Rock and Saybrook were a group of streets that were interconnected so it appeared as if it was dealing with what they had wanted considered on the east side. Dryer said the three projects were separate potential streets which ranked high. Schaefer pointed out they were not on the list for consideration for 2001.

Dryer responded that years on the list was not the only factor used by staff in their recommendation, there were some subjective factors taken into account. With respect to the issue of east vs. west, he said the commission could make that determination. Schaefer said his comments were clarification of what people observed and he was not saying that it was a value to be looked at.

As a last comment, Schaefer referred to the public input process and said they needed to maintain it and to take into consideration the concerns brought to their attention by citizens.

Bellman questioned considering the projects one by one vs. the recommendation. If that were the case, she suggested it be referred back to staff with direction. She clarified that her earlier comments were related to her personal concern about giving credence to shear numbers of people or e-mails sent on a project. In her district, she discouraged people from showing up with repetitive arguments and sought instead a consolidated voice.

Bellman moved approval of the staff report; motion failed for lack of a second.

Sloan/Dye moved that they approve the top three projects from each list and following two as standbys; i.e., Collectors: Lakeside, Westfield/Farmington Way and Highland. Standbys: Gilbert Road and Grant. Locals: Chapel Hill, Tennyson and Vilas. Standbys: Piping Rock and Churchill.

Sloan added that he wanted to refer the way the numbers are derived to a future discussion. He believed that based on the “rules” in the process, they could defend using the top ranked projects for the coming year’s projects. He also pointed out there was a need for the other streets listed, but they had to factor in the budget realities. He urged that before next year they review the scoring process for change.

Shahan said the motion was acceptable even though he had been prepared to offer a variation. He asked staff if by doing this was there anything else they should be aware of in terms of those projects in which staff had recommended they move forward on.

Schaefer similarly supported the motion since it dealt with the projects based on an evaluation of the criteria given to staff to do the analysis.

Although he supported the motion, Kennedy added it was worthwhile to consider the closeness of the ranking and that the commission should not feel compelled to have to strictly adhere to the end result of the ranking.

Sloan indicated he would have no objection to the neighborhood association making the determination on whether Grant or Vilas be switched as it related to a project or standby project. He offered this as an amendment. Schaefer wondered the impact if the neighborhood would select the standby (Grant) as the project to proceed in 2002 knowing that the action project (Vilas) was high in its ranking and would believe then that the following year they would be assured of both projects proceeding in a two year period. Sloan referred to his desire to review the ranking system/analysis and thought it might have an impact on project rankings, particularly where other traffic calming projects exist in close proximity such as Highland. Sloan said he was willing to transpose a neighborhood’s priorities over two projects for the Commission’s. Dryer could see some problems due to the organizational differences between neighborhood organizations with some being more organized and aware of City processes than others. Also there could be a problem with moving a lower point project up within one neighborhood but using the point score for a higher potential project. Sloan decided to withdraw the suggestion.

Motion to approve the projects listed by Sloan carried unanimously.

Borchardt took the opportunity to commend staff on their efforts of going into neighborhoods to inform them of NTM alternatives to address concerns.

The issues referred to about reviewing the ranking and factors considered was to be referred to a future meeting in the near future. Schaefer suggested the public hearing for the process be held earlier. There was the question of whether there be a public hearing to solicit projects or just a public hearing on the recommended program. Shahan suggested that an effort be made to give the public a clearer understanding of the process when the public hearing is scheduled.

H. ITEMS FOR ACTION

3. ID 30631 Resolution providing for the study of the feasibility of relocating railroad tracks in the East Rail Corridor

Dick Wagner, Chair of the Advisory Committee, referred to the WisDOT efforts for intercity rail and as a result of the timetable to move forward on the East Rail Corridor they had looked at the relocation of rail lines. A reason for looking at relocation is to consolidate the rail facilities and to make land available for development.

David Trowbridge, City Planning, indicated he was available to respond to questions. A Second Substitute Resolution had been provided which revised the last BIR paragraph to indicate, “regardless of source of funding, the City will select the consultant and manage the contract. Fifteen Thousand Dollars had been identified to do survey work and would be necessary before any feasibility study.

In response to a question from Shahan, Trowbridge indicated that if the high-speed project moved forward, the corridor would be fenced off and this rail traffic and other would serve as a barrier. By moving the rail lines to the north would open up an opportunity for different linkages for the neighborhood and land uses in the corridor.

Motion by Borchardt/Shahan to approve the second substitute resolution carried unanimously.

4. ID 30839, Resolution adopting the land use recommendations of the East Rail Corridor Planning Advisory Committee

Tim Kabat, City Planning and lead staff person, referred to the process. The area for the East Rail planning area was bounded by East Washington, South Blair, east Wilson and the Yahara River. The Advisory Committee undertook a two-phase process: 1) General land use plan update, including the best and most efficient uses for the planning area. 2) Prepare a detailed physical development plan for the planning area, including the functions of park and open space, linkages with bicycle facilities, character and design of buildings, housing, etc. In the second phase, they would look at funding commitments to implement the elements of the plan. He reviewed the recommendations using a color-coded map to identify the various land uses, e.g., employment areas, open space, etc. Linkages for the pedestrian and bicycle facilities were important elements and he reviewed the linkages and connections. Housing recommendations were essentially to provide 25-50 dwelling units per acre and he identified the different recommendations relative to densities.

Schaefer asked about the area identified as housing which is currently a State office building; Kabat pointed out that some of their recommendations might not come into play until 20 plus years from now. They were to be used as a development guide as opportunities presented themselves.

Shahan referred to something he had seen in LRTPC minutes about street closings and he asked about Brearly. Kabat said that would be something looked at in phase 2. As a part of the high-speed rail, there was some thought about super-elevation of some tracks so as not to require a street crossing. Brearly might be a place where they could take advantage of the urban square concept and in addition would make it available to MG&E to consolidate some of their outdoor storage.

Kennedy pointed out that Paterson was a street with some 3,000 ADT whereas most the other streets were in the neighborhood 1,000 or so.

Wagner said that one of the most important things the committee worked on was to balance its regional resources to the City needs—i.e., balance neighborhoods needs while recognizing the regional services of the area, e.g., employment and transportation linkages. The timing of adopting the land use recommendations was good considering the State’s rail plans and other development opportunities. It was important to give thought to a 20-50-year build out for the planning area.

Schaefer asked if the recommendations were valuable regardless of whether there is inner City or high-speed rail. Wagner responded he believed it was appropriate in either event.

Ald. Judy Olson, District 6, was available to respond to questions.

Motion by Shahan/Bellman to approve the resolution carried unanimously.

5. ID 30941 Petition dated 10/11/01 from Krome and Winokur regarding speed humps on Chamberlain

See public testimony which was given under item 2.

Motion by Sloan/Shahan to approve the staff report to add the street to the traffic calming project listing and data collection for review in the Fall 2002 carried unanimously.

6. Request of Ald. Golden, re. Transportation Commissions Reorganization Proposals (See 12/11/01 memo)

Motion by Bellman/Sloan to refer the item to the next meeting carried unanimously.

I. REPORTS OF SUBCOMMITTEE AND/OR AD HOC GROUPS

7. LRTPC –January 2002

Minutes were provided and no additional items were discussed. Shahan asked if the Elderberry Neighborhood would be coming before PBMVC; Kennedy understood that request had been made.

J. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS

8. Plan Commission –

Although Bowser could not attend, she passed along a report that the General Development for Grandview Commons had been approved. This is the first development within the Sprecher Neighborhood (developer Don Simon homes). There are some street location issues, which need to be settled prior to the submittal, and subsequent approval of the Specific Implementation Plan which she thought PBMVC ought to have a say on.

Dryer commented that staff was working with the developer on the street issues and they expected to be able to work them out.

Schaefer asked what determines when PBMVC has input and when it doesn’t. Dryer commented that it is not a formalized process—sometimes things were specifically referred either by the Council or the Plan Commission. The representative from PBMVC on the Plan Commission (Bowser) could request referral of issues that she felt were of interest to PBMVC. Additionally, Traffic Engineering staff was directly involved in the Plan Commission items.

9. Executive Secretary Report

Dryer indicated they had had an initial meeting with the Mayor about the State Budget implications on the City and a hiring freeze had been put into effect.

10. Items by Chair – None

11. Commission Member Reports/Memos/Items for Future Agendas

Items under public appearances above were noted as being future items, and specifically the southwest path.

ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned on motion at 7:45 p.m.

Evelyn Fahrbach

Recording Secretary

Informational Enclosures

ü Article excerpted from Nov. 2001 Governing Magazine “Dead-End Revolt; Cul-de-sacs have fallen out of favor with many urban planners”

ü 12/20/01 Memo by City Attorney, re. Delegating approval authority to individual Council members

ü Resolution ID 30920 Resolution authorizing TE to apply for and accept grant funds of up to $45,136 from WisDOT to continue development of a City GIS and to develop a computer survey system. [Note: This resolution was introduced on 1/8/02 and referred to BOE and adopted by the Council on 1/22/02.]

---

[1] Copy of agenda provided to City Clerk’s office on 1/24/02. Agenda and minutes are posted on the Internet. Go to Madison’s Home Page (http://www.ci.madison.wi.us), (Agenda, Minutes, etc.) (City Committee/meetings).

[2] See Item 5 on agenda.