The URL can be used to link to this page

Full Agenda Packet JANESVILLE AREA MPO April 11, 2011 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Terry Nolan, Janesville Area MPO Coordinator RE: Janesville Area MPO Technical Advisory Committee Meeting A meeting of the MPO Technical Advisory Committee has been scheduled as follows: April 19, 2011 10am Janesville Municipal Building Room 416, Fourth Floor 18 N. Jackson Street Janesville, WI Agenda Items: I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of January 4th Minutes IV. New Business 1. Review and approval of amendment to 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program 2. Review and approval of amendment to 2011 Unified Work Program 3. Review and approval of 2005-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan Update memorandum V. Communications from members 1. None VI. Matters not on the agenda VII. Adjournment Note: The meeting and all business items have been advertised as a public hearing. If you are unable to attend or have any comments/questions prior to the meeting, please contact me at (608) 755-3095. CC: Duane Cherek J:\Development\Planning\MPO\Meetings of TAC & Policy Board\Technical Advisory Committee\2011\TAC.Min.Jan2011.doc 1 of 2 JANESVILLE AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Planning Services Department, 18 North Jackson Street, Janesville, WI 53545 Janesville Area MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting Tuesday, January 4, 2011 Room 416, Janesville Municipal Building Meeting Notes I. Call to Order. Duane Cherek, called the meeting to order at 10:04 a.m. II. Roll Call. Members Others Present: Terry Nolan (Janesville Area MPO Coordinator), Allan Arndt (LaPrairie Supervisor), Inga Jacobson (City of Milton), Chelsea Berg (citizen, LDA participant) III. Approval of October 5th minutes On a motion by Member Brandeen, seconded by Member Robinson the October 5, 2010 MPO meeting minutes were unanimously adopted. IV. New Business 1. Review and approval of amendment to 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program. Terry Nolan, MPO Coordinator, explained the projects to be added to the 2011 x Eric Levitt, City Manager, Janesville x Arun Rao , Bureau o f P lanning, WisDOT x Duane Cherek, JVL Planning Services Manager, (Chair) x Franco Marcos, Senior Planner, WisDOT x Carl Weber, Dir. of Public Works, Janesville (Vice Chair) x Dave Jolicouer, FHWA x Dave Mumma, Transit Director, Janesville Transit System x Marisol Simon, Region 5 Planning Director, FTA x Mike Payne, Engineering Manager, Janesville x Carolyn Brandeen, Rock Trail Coalition x Dennis Ryan, Asst. Engineering Manager, Janesville x Roger Fanning, Harmony Twp x Jerry Schuetz, City Administ rator, Milton x Edward Marshall, Janesville Twp x Howard Robinson, Director of Public Works, Milton x Mike Saunders, LaPrairie Twp x Paul Benjamin, Director of Planning, Rock County x Mark Gunn, Rock Twp x Ben Coopman, Highway Commissioner, Rock County x Bryan Meyer, Milton Twp x Alan Sweeny, Rock Co. Board of Supervisors x Freight Representative, Non-voting x Bob Soltau, SLATS MPO Coordinator Present /Absent Present /Absent J:\Development\Planning\MPO\Meetings of TAC & Policy Board\Technical Advisory Committee\2011\TAC.Min.Jan2011.doc 2 of 2 TIP. On a motion by Member Soltau, seconded by Member Robinson, the TAC unanimously approved amendments to the 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program. V. Other items for discussion. Terry Nolan gave an overview of the Long Range Transportation Plan update document and how environmental consultation and freight rail will be incorporated into the document. Members then discussed recommended projects included in the Plan and rail. Members Saunders and Sweeney oppose the east-west grade separation project due to its impact on agricultural industry. Member Cherek gave a history of why the project was originally proposed, and that the feasibility of the project would be determined during planning and design for the I-39/90 expansion. He added that both this project and the Milton-Shopiere project are long range planning recommendations and it is important to identify those possibilities well in advance. Member Benjamin asked if comments and concerns from the towns are considered in the planning of projects and Member Cherek stated all long range planning recommendations would occur with the major update to be completed in two years. Member Mumma discussed the South Central Wisconsin Commuter Transportation Study (SCWCTS) and the results that could benefit freight rail planning. The study also prompted a joint resolution by the Janesville area and Beloit area MPO’s to preserve rail corridors. Member Mumma talked about the possible disinvestment by Union Pacific, as they are seeing less traffic on the Janesville to Chicago line now that General Motors is closed. Member Benjamin suggested we receive a presentation by Fitchburg representatives regarding how communities go about owning railway. Previous to the meeting, Terry had asked Member Sweeney to help find a freight representative to serve on the Technical Advisory Committee and Member Sweeney asked Ken Lucht with WSOR. Ken Lucht is willing to serve and will be attending the next TAC meeting. Bryan Meyer, Chairman of Milton Township, requested the MPO extend its planning boundary to include Newville Road north of HWY 14. The Town has been unsuccessful in receiving funding for maintenance of the road. Member Cherek replied that the 2010 Census would result in a redrawing of planning boundaries, and this may be a good opportunity to explore the inclusion of the road. MPO staff will look further into the matter. Alan Arndt, LaPrairie Township Supervisor, brought up the need for interchanges at the intersections of HWY 11 and CTY G and HWY 11 and HWY 51. Member Cherek replied that a new study being conducted by WisDOT will consider improvements along state HWY 11 for that area located between Monroe and I-39/90. Within the Janesville are, those intersections will be studied. Member Marcos said the HWY 11/14 study will also consider improvements to the intersections, and the study may need to be sped up due to the approval of the I-39/90 expansion. VI. Adjournment A motion to adjourn was made by Member Coopman, with a second by Member Payne. The January 4, 2011 TAC meeting adjourned at 11:30 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Terry Nolan MPO Coordinator 1/4/11 Janesville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization April 11, 2011 MEMO TO: Janesville Area MPO Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Terry Nolan, MPO Coordinator SUBJECT: amendments to 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program New information since the adoption of the 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) has prompted the need for amendments. The City of Janesville intents to construct and open for traffic the first phase of McCormick Drive from STH 26 to Huntinghorne Drive in coordination with the 2012 improvements programmed by the State of Wisconsin for STH 26 at and near the intersection with McCormick Drive. The City will also similarly construct Huntinghorne Drive from Braxton drive to McCormick Drive. This will restore the access that will be partially lost at the intersection of Woodcrest Drive and STH 26 when the STH 26 median is closed as part of the highway improvements. This project will be funded with City of Janesville funding only. WisDOT requested Janesville include this project project in the 2011-2016 TIP. The City of Milton will utilize LRIP funds for the rehabilitation of Third Lane. The total cost of the project is $18,819, half of which will utilize LRIP. Jurisdiction/Sponsor RC = Rock County Project Description COJ = Janesville Cap Exp = E COM = City of Milton Sys Pres = P Type of 2011 2012 Cost January -December January -December C. Janesville PE --20 20 ----ROW --------52 UTIL --------371-11-08 CONST ------165 165 TOTAL --20 20 --165 165 Type P --COJ ---COJ -C. Milton PE --------ROW --------53 UTIL --------371-11-09 CONST -9 9 18 ----TOTAL -9 9 18 ----Type P -LRIP COM -----Third Lane McCormick: STH 26 to Huntinghorne; Huntinghorne: McCormic to Braxton After discussion, the TAC will forward a recommendation to the Policy Board regarding the 2011-2016 TIP. Fiscal Constraint Table created 4/11/2011 TABLE 2 -JANESVILLE AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY Funding Source Programmed Expenditures Estimated Available Funding Agency Program 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 -2016 Total 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 -2016 Total Federal Highway Administration National Highway System (NHS) $3,510 $8,665 $0 $0 $0 $12,175 $3,510 $8,665 $0 $0 $0 $12,175 Interstate Maintenance (IM) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 STP -Urban (URB) $212 $739 $895 $0 $0 $1,846 $212 $739 $895 $0 $0 $1,846 Bridge Replacement & Rehabilitation (BR) $189 $454 $5,320 $0 $0 $5,964 $189 $454 $5,320 $0 $0 $5,964 STP -Non Urban (RU-STP) $180 $0 $0 $0 $0 $180 $180 $0 $0 $180 STP -State Flexibility (FLX) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 STP -Safety (SAF) $0 $257 $3,379 $0 $0 $3,636 $0 $257 $3,379 $0 $0 $3,636 STP -Discretionary (STP-D) $554 $0 $3,487 $0 $4,983 $9,025 $554 $0 $3,487 $0 $4,983 $9,025 STP -Enhancements (EN) $24 $238 $0 $0 $0 $262 $24 $238 $0 $0 $0 $262 Other Federal (Section 167) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 WisDOT Level of Effort Projects (LE) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Safe Routes to School (SRTS) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) $0 $1,113 $0 $0 $0 $1,113 $0 $1,113 $0 $0 $0 $1,113 Total $4,669 $11,467 $13,081 $0 $4,983 $34,200 $4,669 $11,467 $13,081 $0 $4,983 $34,200 Federal Transit Administration Sec. 5307 -Operating or Capital Assistance $887 $878 $905 $994 $1,024 $4,688 $887 $878 $905 $994 $1,024 $4,688 Sec. 5309 -Capital** $3,727 $785 $1,056 $1,012 $1,083 $7,663 $3,727 $785 $1,056 $1,012 $1,083 $7,663 Section 16(b)(2) -Capital Assistance Program $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Section 5310 -Capital Assistance Program for Elderly & Disabled Riders $32 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32 $32 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32 STRAP -Operating & Planning $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 JARC & New Freedom -Operating & Capital $120 $0 $0 $0 $0 $120 $120 $0 $0 $0 $0 $120 Total $4,766 $1,663 $1,961 $2,006 $2,107 $12,503 $4,766 $1,663 $1,961 $2,006 $2,107 $12,503 Funding Summary for 2011-2016 TIP ($1,000) JANESVILLE AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MEMORANDUM April 11, 2011 To: Technical Advisory Committee From: Terry Nolan, MPO Coordinator Re: 2011 Work Program Amendment The Janesville Area MPO was awarded $16,000 in federal discretionary planning funding (80/20) in order to conduct additional planning activities for CY 2011. The MPO had originally intended to utilize the funding to conduct extensive traffic counts for future traffic modeling. However, faced with the possibility of future funding level reductions at the federal, state, and local level, the MPO believes it necessary to reprioritize urban street improvements. The Janesville Area MPO proposes to conduct a deeper level of planning analysis in order to set a tentative schedule for LRIP and STP projects. The MPO will set a tentative ten year schedule for STP and a four to six year schedule for LRIP projects. Information gathered, including pavement analysis for all roads within Janesville and Milton, will allow the cities, independent of the MPO, to develop a three year schedule for local capital improvement projects. While the cities of Milton and Janesville will not be strictly bound by these schedules, they will aid in developing the annual Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The cost of the planning project is roughly $16,000. The split in cost between the two cities is based upon percentage of rated road miles. Milton, with 8% of road miles, has a budget of $1,280; Janesville has a budget of $14,720. 80% of the cost of the project will be paid for through discretionary planning funding. JANESVILLE AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MEMORANDUM April 11, 2011 To: Technical Advisory Committee From: Terry Nolan, MPO Coordinator Re: DRAFT Long Range Transportation Plan update memorandum In order to remain in compliance with federal transportation regulations, the MPO must perform an interim update to the 2005 – 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, adopted May 2006. This plan update satisfies federal requirements by conducting a gap analysis of the 2005 Plan, as a review and reappraisal, using 2008 as a baseline. The review evaluates the forecasts supporting the plan, monitors system performance, and reviews the status of implementation to date to assess if the recommendations remain reasonable, particularly in light of the recent economic recession and the 2008 closure of General Motor’s Janesville location. One component of the process is a traffic model update and re-evaluation of traffic forecasts. Forecasting results were not provided to the MPO until April 6th. These results can be found in Appendix D: Streets and Highways. Staff has not had sufficient time to analyze these results in time for this mailing. An additional handout will be provided at the April 19th meeting. The Technical Advisory Committee has previously reviewed and made changes and suggestions to the following sections: Goals and Objectives, System Performance Indicators, and Environmental Consultation. A new section on Freight rail has been written with guidance from Dave Mumma, Ken Lucht, Vic Grassman, and James Otterstein. In summary, the update memorandum reaffirms the validity of the Plan. While the economic slowdown has delayed the need to program some short term projects, particularly new roads, long term projects are consistent with future land use. Amendments include adding three projects to the Streets and Highways section, adding two new trail segments to the Bicycle and Pedestrian section, and the insertion of some recommendations to enhance Freight rail transportation. No changes to the Transit section have been applied. JANESVILLE AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2005-2035 DRAFT LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE 2 2005 – 2035 Janesville Area Long Range Transportation Plan Update Memorandum Janesville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 18 North Jackson Street Janesville, WI 53545 Prepared by: Janesville Area MPO City of Janesville Community Development Department Duane Cherek, Planning Services Manager Terry Nolan, MPO Coordinator Dave Mumma, Transit Director Tera Barnett, Secretary Adopted: May 9, 2011 3 Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Methodology ................... ......................................................................................................................... 7 Review and Affirmation of Goals and Objectives ............................ ......................................................... 8 Review of System Performance .............................................................................................................. 15 Review of Implementation to Date ......................................................................................................... 30 Introduction and Purpose ............................. ...................................................................................... 30 Streets and Highways ........................................................................................ .................................. 30 Bicycle and Pedestrian ........................................................................................................................ 34 Transit ................................................................................................................................................ 38 Freight ................................ ................................................................................................................ 44 Review of Forecasts ............................................................... ................................................................ 45 Update of 2035 Plan ............................................................................................................... ................ 48 Committed and Recommended Street and Highway Projects ........................................................... 49 Committed and Recommended Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects ....................................................... 58 Committed and Recommended Transit Projects ................................................................................ 63 Recommendations for Freight Planning ............................................................................................. 73 Tables Table 1: Janesville Area MPO Bridge Sufficiency Ratings 2009 .................................................................. 18 Table 2: Average Age of Fleet ...................................................................................... ............................... 18 Table 3: Number of Active Fleet Vehicles ................................................................................................... 19 Table 4: Auto Vs. Auto Crashes 1995-2009 ................................................................................................. 19 Table 5: Auto Vs. Bicycle Crashes 1995-2009 ................... .......................................................................... 20 Table 6: Auto Vs. Pedestrian Crashes 1995-2009 .......................................................................... ............. 20 Table 7: Miles of Non-motorized Transportation Infrastructure in Janesville............................................ 21 Table 8: Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles ..................... ................................................................................. 22 Table 9: Annual Revenue Hours of Service ......................................................................... ........................ 22 4 Table 10: Annual Passenger Miles .............................................................................................................. 22 Table 11: Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips ................................................................................................ 22 Table 12: Freight Speeds along I-39/90 ...................................................... ................................................ 24 Table 13: Passengers Per Revenue Mile ..................................................................................................... 26 Table 14: Passengers Per Revenue Hour .................................................................................................... 26 Table 15: Ozone Levels in Rock County 1998-2008 .................................................................................... 27 Table 16: Particulate Matter in Rock County ......................................................... ..................................... 28 Table 17: Air Quality in Rock County 1998-2008 ........................................................................................ 28 Table 18: Street and Highway Projects Completed 2005-2010 .................................................................. 31 Table 19: Street Projects Funded by ARRA .................................... ............................................................. 33 Table 20: Phase 1: Short Range Trail Plan 2006-2015 ................................................................................ 34 Table 21: Street and Highway Deficiencies in 2001 .................................................................................... 45 Table 22: Janesville Area Projected Vs. Actual Population ......................................................................... 46 Table 23: Projects Listed in 2006-2011 TIP That Have Not Been Completed ....................................... ...... 49 Table 24: Street and Highway Projects Committed in 2011-2016 TIP or Recommended in LRTP ............. 52 Table 25: Federal Expenditures and Available Federal Funding 2011-2035 ............................................... 56 Table 26: Committed and Recommended Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects ............................................... 61 Table 27: Transit Operating Expenditures as listed in the 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program................................................................................................................... ................................... 64 Table 28: Transit Capital Expenditures as listed in the 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program 65 Table 29: Non-Fixed Route Transit Capital Expenditures as listed in the 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program ............................................................................................................................ ... 66 Table 30: JTS Projected Ridership 2010-2035 ............................................................................................. 67 Table 31: JTS Estimated Revenue and and Assistance 2011-2035 .................................................................... 69 Table 32: JTS Capital Projects 2011-2035 ............................................................. ...................................... 70 5 Figures Figure 1: PASER Ratings for Paved Streets in Janesville .............................................................................. 16 Figure 2: PASER Ratings for Paved Streets in Milton .................................................................................. 17 Figure 3: Bus Service Gaps in Janesville ...................................................... ................................................ 23 Figure 4: Off-Road Trail Built 2005-2010 and Committed Future Projects ................................................. 35 Figure 5: JTS Regular Routes ....................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 6: JTS Nightside Routes ....................... ............................................................................................. 40 Figure 7: Janesville Transit System Ridership 2000-2010 .............................................. ............................. 41 Figure 8: Future High Growth Areas ........................................................................................................... 47 Figure 9: Street and Highway Projects Committed in 2011-2016 TIP ......................................................... 54 Figure 10: Existing and Future Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ................................................................ 60 Figure 11: High Growth Areas and Existing Regular Routes ....................................................................... 68 Rail Figures from Southwest Wisconsin Commuter Study (SCWCS) Figure 1: Map of SCWCS ................................................................................................................ ............. 74 Table 1: Inventory of SCWCS Rail Lines ...................................................................................................... 75 Figure 2: Map of SCWCS Links by Track Condition ..................................................................................... 76 Figure 3: Map of SCWCS Rail Links by Level of Use ................................... ................................................. 77 6 Introduction The Janesville Area 2005-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan was adopted in May 2006 by the MPO Policy Board, as an update to the 1998-2020 Transportation Plan. The Long Range Transportation Plan is intended to provide a 30 year outlook of existing and projected capabilities of the transportation system, as well as the needs, goals, and objectives of the system, and seeks to create recommendations and policies to meet these goals. Major reviews are typically done on the Long Range Transportation Plan (the Plan) every ten years as the results of the decennial United States Census are released, with updates that are usually written at the five year interim. An amendment to the 2005 Plan was approved in November 2007, in order to ensure compliance with the new SAFETEA-LU legislation passed in 2005, replacing earlier TEA-21 legislation. This plan update seeks to conduct a gap analysis of the 2005 Plan, as a review and reappraisal, using 2008 as a baseline. An interim review of the Plan is needed to evaluate the forecasts supporting the plan, monitor system performance, and review the status of implementation to date to assess if the recommendations remain reasonable, particularly in light of the recent economic recession and the 2008 closure of General Motor’s Janesville location. New to the Plan, this update will establish baseline system performance indicators to be utilized in subsequent plans. These baseline indictors monitor system performance and chart progress made in areas such as roadway conditions, air quality, transit efficiency, freight movement, and bike and pedestrian facilities. This interim update will present information in the following chapters of this document: Chapter One: Methodology Chapter Two: Review and Affirmation of Goals and Objectives Chapter Three: Review of System Performance Indicators Chapter Five: Review of Implementation to Date Chapter Six: Review of Forecasts Chapter Seven: Update of 2035 Plan 7 Methodology The Janesville Area MPO is responsible for developing transportation plans and programming projects for the Janesville planning area. City of Janesville staff from the Community Development Department coordinates planning for the MPO area. The Janesville Area MPO is represented by the following units of government: City of Janesville City of Milton Rock County Janesville Township Harmony Township La Prairie Township Milton Township Rock Township The MPO encouraged the public and outside agencies to review the documents and provide input during all stages of plan development. The TAC and Policy Board meetings were key opportunities for review and decision-making. Each meeting was advertised as a public meeting and noticed as such in the local newspaper. All documents presented at the meetings were available for review at the local libraries, on the MPO website and at City Hall. Public participation followed the MPO procedures as outlined in the Public Participation Plan adopted 2004. All materials related to public participation are located in Appendix B. As part of SAFETEA-LU, the federal transportation legislation signed into law in 2005, the Janesville Area MPO (MPO) is required to initiate consultation efforts with federal, state, tribal and local environmental, regulatory and resource agencies when developing the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).The Janesville Area MPO recognizes the importance of considering the environmental impacts of transportation projects and the efficiencies that can be gained by engaging in this process in the early phases of plan development. To this end, the MPO developed the Environmental Consultation Plan to guide environmental coordination and consultation efforts during the LRTP development process. In order to fulfill the 1994 Presidential Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, the MPO performed an environmental justice analysis as part of the Environmental Consultation process. See Appendix C for all materials related to the environmental consultation conducted in relation to the production of this document. 8 Review and Affirmation of Goals and Objectives One of the first steps of the process was to review and evaluate the overall goals and objectives of the 2005-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. The Technical Advisory Committee reviewed the goals and objectives at the summer 2010 and fall 2010 meetings. Recommended revisions include language to stress the importance of environmental sustainability and the protection of agricultural lands. The objectives were also revised to be more mode specific. Below are the revised Goals and Objectives, as approved by the MPO Policy Board on May 9, 2011 Goal: To develop and maintain an increasingly energy efficient transportation system which includes and integrates all modes of travel and provides for the safe and effective movement of people and goods, while optimizing the financial resources of the communities. Objective: By utilizing existing transportation facilities and services to their full potential. (Transit, Freight, Bicycle & Pedestrian, Highway) Objective: By providing expanded facilities and services in accordance with the present and future demand to accommodate travel by auto, truck, bus, air, rail, bicycle, and foot with the intent of creating a balanced, coordinated and efficient transportation system. (Transit, Bicycle & Pedestrian, Highways). Objective: By minimizing the loss and damage to persons and property due to transportation-related accidents (Freight, Bicycle & Pedestrian, Highways) Objective: By developing and implementing programs which would lessen peak hour traffic congestion. (Freight, Transit, Bicycle & Pedestrian, Highways) Objective: By designing future street and highway improvements which are compatible with existing land uses, and which complement the land use plan. (Highways). Objective: By encouraging more detailed bikeway facility planning efforts which address the possible expansion of both on-road and off-road bike facilities. (Bicycle & Pedestrian). Objective: By supporting state, regional, and local efforts to preserve rail corridor lands for future transportation purposes. (Bicycle & Pedestrian). Objective: By supporting the agricultural economy through the protection of agricultural lands from segmentation, while maintaining an adequate road network to transport product to market. 9 Objective: By providing adequate intermodal connections within transportation system. (Bicycle & Pedestrian, Transit, Highways). Objective: By encouraging the provision of adequate privately owned or paratransit transportation services. (Transit). Objective: By reducing injuries and fatalities in all transportation modes. Objective: By raising safety awareness of both the transportation industry and users of the transportation system. Objective: By seeking to incorporate, through its technical advisory committee, input from the various jurisdictions represented by the MPO to ensure coordination of area-wide transportation planning efforts. Objective: By contributing to the economic vitality of the planning area through the provision of a transportation system that provides for the effective movement of people and goods to and from major commercial and employment centers and intermodal facilities. Streets and Highways Goal: To develop and maintain an increasingly energy efficient transportation system which includes and integrates all modes of travel and provides for the safe and effective movement of people and goods, while optimizing the financial resources of the community. Objective: By utilizing existing transportation facilities and services to their full potential. Objective: By providing expanded facilities and services in accordance with the present and future demand to accommodate travel by auto, truck, bus, air, rail, bicycle, and foot with the intent of creating a balanced, coordinated, and efficient transportation system. Objective: By minimizing the loss and damage to persons and property due to transportation related accidents. Objective: By developing and implementing programs which would lessen peak hour traffic congestion. Objective: By reducing injuries and fatalities in all transportation modes. 10 Objective: By providing adequate intermodal connections within the transportation system. Objective: By designing future street and highway improvements which are compatible with existing land uses, which compliment the land use plan, and which consider ecosystem sustainability and the protection of natural resources. Bike and Pedestrian GOAL: Develop a multi-modal transportation network within the Janesville Metropolitan Planning area that accommodates all modes of transportation and recreation and provides for the safe, efficient movement of people and goods. Objective: Develop an on-street and off-street bicycle facility network that serves as a viable transportation option for beginning to advanced cyclists. Objective: Provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities between residential areas and existing and planned school facilities, parks and recreational facilities, other public facilities, and employment and commercial centers. Objective: Provide cyclists with safe and convenient travel by making streets “bicycle friendly” and well designed to accommodate both motorized and nonmotorized modes of transportation. Objective: Gain input from bicyclists and the general public in the planning and development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Objective: Develop education and safety programs aimed at children (for walking and biking), experienced bicyclists, and motor vehicle operators. Objective: Encourage active enforcement of existing laws for motor vehicle operators regarding the rights of bicyclists and pedestrians. Transit Goal I: To promote the role of public transit in the overall Janesville community transportation system. 11 Objective A: By encouraging the use of public transit as an alternative for work and shopping trips. Objective B: By including transit service considerations in all development projects and coordinating public transit improvements with other modes of transportation and parking improvements. Objective C: By providing a level of service consistent with the needs of the community and at a level of local subsidy as specified by the City of Janesville City Council. Objective D: By promoting ridership through a comprehensive marketing plan. Objective E: By maintaining and expanding efficient high capacity transit service oriented to major employment centers. Standard A: Evaluate the route and schedule structure at least every five years through the TDP, modify unproductive route segments and hours of service to match service with demand, or areas of high transit potential, identify the fiscal resources needed to operate the system, identify the resources that are available to meet those needs, and adjust service levels as necessary to stay within the fiscal constraints of the funding sources. Standard B: To provide adequate levels of service as expressed in hours of service, frequency of service, and accessibility. Service should operate at a minimum between 6:15 AM to 6:15 PM Monday through Friday and 8:45 AM to 6:15 PM on Saturdays; headways should be no greater than 60 minutes unless warranted by special circumstances. Standard C: The service should be operated within one quarter mile of at least 90 percent of the populated areas within the JTS service area unless restricted by natural or man-made physical barriers. Standard D: Except where expressly required by Federal regulations, service to areas outside the Janesville City limits should be provided only when the area or institution served provides the local share of the operating assistance for the service, and guarantees the farebox revenue. Goal II: To maintain a fiscally sound public transit system as a vital service worthy of public support similar to that provided for other basic City services. Objective A: By serving the greatest number of people to the greatest extent possible within the resources available. 12 Objective B: By maintaining an effective preventive maintenance program that ensures that 85% of the bus fleet is available for service at all times and maximizes the useful service life of the fleet. Standard A: To provide an equitable balance between City operating assistance and fare structure that meets the operating requirements of the system. Strive to maintain an operating ratio of fares to expenses no less than 20 percent. Standard B: To maintain a cost per vehicle mile not to exceed $4.85 (2005 dollars). Goal III: To serve the public transportation needs of senior citizens, disabled persons, children, and major employment centers in an efficient, safe, comfortable, and reliable manner as defined by industry standards. Objective A: By maintaining the efficient high capacity peak hour public transit service to all children in the community. Objective B: By providing amenities that will appeal to the elderly and disabled senior citizens with facilities and services that will meet the requirements of the American with Disabilities Act for transporting disabled persons. Objective C: By locating the transfer point(s) of the transit system at the most efficient location. Objective D: By providing service to businesses in commercial and industrial areas in concert with economic development activities. Objective E: By implementing a bikes-on-buses program to promote multimodal transportation options and increase ridership. Standard A: To minimize the transfer rate by direct routing reflecting major travel patterns. The transfer rate should be no greater than 30 percent. Standard B: To minimize the inconvenience of making transfers by ensuring that no passenger should be required to wait more than 30 minutes to transfer between buses. Standard C: To provide a reasonable average system speed that gets passengers between points in a timely, yet safe manner. The average system speed should be between 12 and 15 miles per hour. Standard D: To provide service on-time during peak and off-peak periods. No vehicle (0%) should be early, 95% of all trips should be no more than 0-5 minutes late. 13 Goal IV: To comply with all regulations and mandates set forth by the Federal Transit Administration and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. Objective A: By encouraging the participation of both public and private service providers in the provision of public mass transportation services consistent with JTS service quality, cost effectiveness, and reliability requirements. Objective B: By complying with all regulations and mandates associated with the American with Disabilities Act, Title VI Civil Rights requirements, federal Environmental Justice goals, and the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise participation goals. Standard A: To equitably distribute all operating and capital resources throughout the service area so as not to discriminate against any area due to its ethnic, racial or income make up. Standard B: To serve the disabled community through the provision of accessible buses on fixed-route service, and the process of ADA required paratransit service for eligible disabled persons. Standard C: To encourage the participation of the private service providers in the provision of new, existing, or restructured public mass transportation services consistent with JTS quality, cost effectiveness and reliability. Standard D: To encourage the participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) in the provision of contracted supplies and services in support of the operation of the JTS. Maintain the goal of 11% DBE participation. Freight Goal: To develop and maintain an increasingly energy efficient transportation system which includes and integrates all modes of travel and provides for the safe and effective movement of goods within and through the region, while optimizing the financial resources of the communities. Objective: By utilizing existing transportation facilities and services to their full potential. Objective: By supporting state, regional, and local efforts to preserve rail corridors for future transportation purposes. Objective: By providing adequate intermodal connections with transportation systems. 14 Objective: By contributing to a transportation system that provides for the effective and safe movement of goods to and from major commercial and employment centers and intermodal facilities. Objective: By minimizing and/or mitigating negative impacts of trucks on adjacent residential areas. 15 Review of System Performance The Janesville Area 2005-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan included measures used to evaluate the transportation system. This chapter updates performance measures where applicable, and establishes additional indicators that will be used to evaluate the transportation system in future plans and used in the context of policy discussions and project deliberation. Where historical data exists, this chapter compares current data to historic system performance to illustrate trends. Performance measures in this chapter are consistent with measures in the Unified Work Program. 16 System Preservation PASER Rating The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) maintains the Wisconsin Information System for Local Roads (WISLR), a website that helps local governments and WisDOT manage local road data to improve decision-making, and to meet state statute requirements. The Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating (PASER) system is used by County and local governments to evaluate the condition of the roads under their jurisdiction every two years as required under State Statute. The PASER system ranges from 1 (which is a failed roadway that needs total reconstruction) to 10 (which is a pavement in excellent condition and typically reflects new construction). Pavement rated 8 through 10 requires little to no maintenance; a rating of 7 indicates a pavement that requires routine maintenance such as crack filling; ratings of 5 or 6 indicate a pavement where preservative treatments such as sealcoating or overlays are considered; ratings of 3 or 4 indicate a pavement where structural improvement such as overlay is required; and ratings of 1 or 2 indicate a pavement which is severely deteriorated and requires reconstruction. According to a 2010 WISLR produced condition report for paved streets in Janesville, .76% of streets are severely deteriorated and 10.4% of streets require structural improvement. In Milton, .76% of streets are severely deteriorated and 19.69% require structural improvement. The City of Janesville switched over to PASER (1 – 10 scale) from PAVER (1 -100 scale) in 2009. The second round of complete PASER ratings will take place during summer 2011 and then trend data will be available for comparison. Figure 1: PASER Ratings for Paved Streets in Janesville • Based on 328.19 miles of rated roadways. • There are 1.06 miles of unrated roadways. 17 Figure 2: PASER Ratings for Paved Streets in Milton Based on 28.64 miles of rated roadways. Bridge Sufficiency WisDOT maintains an assessment of the sufficiency of the bridge structures within Wisconsin. Bridge sufficiency ratings are based on four separate factors: (1) structural adequacy and safety; (2)serviceability and functional obsolescence (including consideration of number of lanes, average daily traffic, approach roadway width, and bridge roadway width); (3) essentiality for public use; and (4) special reductions. Bridge structure sufficiency ratings range from 0 to 100, with 0 being a failing structure and 100 being a structure in perfect condition. A bridge structure is not eligible for Federal funds for rehabilitation if its sufficiency rating is between 80 and 100. A bridge structure is eligible for Federal funds to rehabilitate the bridge structure if its sufficiency rating is between 50 and 79. A bridge structure with a sufficiency rating less than 50 is eligible to receive Federal funds to replace the bridge structure. Table 1 lists bridges of concern within the Janesville MPO boundary. The table includes the year the structure was built, average daily traffic (ADT), the status as either Structurally Deficient (SO) or Functionally Obsolete (FO), and the Sufficiency Rating. This data is from 2009 and does not reflect the replacement of the Ruger Avenue Bridge over Spring Brook, completed in 2010. 18 Structure Number Features Desc. Facility carried Year Built ADT Status Sufficiency Rating B530007 Blackhawk Creek USH 14 1951 9100 FO 74.4 B530016 Rock River CTH M 1956 1060 SD 76.4 B530065 USH 14 IH 90 EB 1961 19700 SD 56.4 B530097 Rock River W. Memorial Dr 1969 19200 FO 65 P530087 Fisher Creek Mineral Point 1922 600 FO 57 P530097 BR Blackhawk Creek Miltion Shopier 1923 135 SD 62.6 P530118 Markham Creek Hannover Rd 1918 350 SD 50.7 P530122 Markham Creek Hayner Red 1915 100 SD 39.9 P530716 Spring Brook Ruger Ave 1965 5700 FO 43.9 P530717 Spring Brook Sharon Rd 1960 500 SD 48.3 P530727 Rock River S. Jackson St 1918 7600 FO 43 P530729 Rock River Dodge St (parking plaza) 1963 5000 SD 41.4 Source: Wisconsin Department of Transportation Table 1: Janesville Area MPO Bridge Sufficiency Ratings 2009 Transit Fleet Age and Number of Active Vehicles The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) maintains the National Transit Database (NTD). The NTD was established by Congress to be the Nation’s primary source for information and statistics on the transit systems of the United States. Recipients or beneficiaries of grants from the FTA under the Urbanized Area Formula Program (Sec. 5307) are required by statute to submit data to the NTD. The number and age of buses are indicators of the quality of infrastructure in place to serve the public. While the number of active buses has diminished due to service cutbacks, the age of the fleet has decreased due to regularly scheduled replacements. As of 2010, the average age of the Janesville Transit System fleet is 7.8 years. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) mandates a 12 year or 500,000 mile minimum service life for heavy duty transit buses. Table 2: Year 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 Bus 6.1 5.1 4.7 12.2 13.6 12.6 11.6 Demand Response 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.8 Year 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 Bus 20.8 19.8 18.8 17.8 16.8 15.8 Demand Response 2.5 4.5 3.5 3.2 3.8 4.6 Average Age of Fleet 19 Table 3: Year 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 Bus 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Demand Response 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Year 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 Bus 14 15 15 16 17 17 Demand Response 1 1 1 1 1 1 Number of Active Fleet Vehicles Safety Crash Data The Janesville Area 2005-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan contains traffic crash information from 2002 to 2005. On page IV-23, intersections involving a high number of automobile crashes were analyzed. The Plan also maps the locations of crashes involving automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The following tables include crash data from the Wisconsin Traffic Operations and Safety (TOPS) Lab. Table 4: Auto vs. Auto Crashes 1995-2009 Total 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Rock County 16,215 1,244 1,232 1,143 1,167 1,179 1,202 1,045 1,132 1,175 1,107 1,072 926 972 888 731 MPO Jurisdictions* 9,020 662 677 638 673 682 679 568 607 630 630 599 507 547 484 437 City of Janesville 6,730 519 506 473 536 504 524 428 445 436 465 449 370 370 392 361 322 City of Milton 217 9 21 15 10 19 8 15 13 10 22 12 17 22 13 11 Town of Harmony 325 22 24 26 27 30 28 15 24 22 18 13 14 28 18 16 Town of Janesville 465 46 38 31 28 45 30 27 32 37 33 29 34 21 16 18 Town of La Prarie 393 16 23 28 17 23 25 21 30 49 36 23 19 36 24 23 Town of Milton 425 21 26 32 28 32 32 28 28 35 30 32 20 23 29 29 Town of Rock 465 29 39 33 27 29 32 34 35 41 26 41 33 25 23 18 Injuries 15,968 1,229 1,208 1,137 1,156 1,166 1,186 1,028 1,114 1,149 1,091 1,051 907 951 875 720 Fatalaties 247 15 24 6 11 13 16 17 18 26 16 21 19 21 13 11 Janesville MPO Auto Crash Summary *Includes entirety of townships and does not end at the MPO boundary The following table updates Table III-2 Janesville MPO Bike Crash Summary 1995-2005 located on page III-19 of the Long Range Plan. 20 Table 5: Auto vs. Bicycle Crashes 1995-2009 Janesville MPO Bike Crash Summary Total 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Rock County 711 59 63 60 51 49 55 39 36 49 39 62 39 41 38 31 MPO Jurisdictions* 376 31 31 34 28 24 31 18 18 25 16 36 21 25 20 18 City of Janesville 352 30 30 31 25 22 29 17 16 24 15 36 18 23 20 16 City of Milton 10 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 Town of Harmony 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Town of Janesville 4 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Town of La Prairie 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Town of Milton 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Town of Rock 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 Injuries 697 59 67 59 50 48 54 37 38 46 39 58 37 41 36 28 Fatalities 9 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 Note: In some years there are a greater number of injuries than total accidents. This is a result of reporting multiple injuries for some accidents. Source: WisDOT MV4000 accident database *Includes entirety of townships and does not end at the MPO boundary The following table updates Table III-3 Janesville MPO Pedestrian Crash Summary 1995-2005 located on page III-23 of the Plan. Table 6: Auto vs. Pedestrian Crashes 1995-2009 Total 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Rock County 624 49 65 46 48 43 38 39 36 47 30 40 38 37 37 31 MPO Jurisdictions* 303 27 32 21 24 20 21 16 16 28 12 19 19 17 14 17 City of Janesville 274 21 30 20 22 18 21 14 15 25 11 19 14 16 14 14 City of Milton 11 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 Town of Harmony 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Town of Janesville 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Town of La Prairie 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Town of Milton 8 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 Town of Rock 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Injuries 665 53 71 47 47 48 38 42 40 47 34 46 42 37 39 34 Fatalities 14 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 0 1 Janesville MPO Pedestrian Crash Summary Transit related crash data is a new performance indicator that will be tracked annually. The following data comes from the Janesville Transit System: Crashes per 100,000 miles of service: 2007: 1.88 2008: 3.56 2009: 1.90 21 Accessibility and Mobility System Mileage One of the indicators of accessibility and mobility in the transportation system is system mileage. The Janesville Area MPO maintains road, rail, trail, and sidewalk GIS transportation layers. As of fall 2010, roughly 48% of roads in Janesville have sidewalks. This figure does not include future planned sidewalks. Other non-motorized transportation infrastructure is included below: Table 7: Miles of Non-motorized Transportation Infrastructure in Janesville Off road trail 22.74 miles (1.8 to be added fall 2010) On road bicycle lane 17.8 miles On road designated bike route 35.62 miles Sidewalk 313.5 miles Data Source: MPO According to WISLR, there are 330 miles of paved roads in Janesville. There are 29 miles of paved local roads in the City of Milton. According to MPO GIS data, there are 83 miles of rail within the MPO planning boundary, which includes rail spurs and yards. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) WisDOT maintains data on average daily traffic (ADT). Transit Data: Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles, Annual Revenue Hours of Service, Annual Passenger Miles, Annual Unlinked Passenger Trip, Geographic Area Served by Transit, Frequency of Service The National Transit Database (NTD) maintains data regarding annual vehicle revenue miles, annual revenue hours of service, annual passenger miles, and annual unlinked passenger trips. This data will be tracked as an indicator of transit level of service. 22 Year 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 Bus 458,006 457,963 455,590 456,576 453,941 452,570 453,218 Demand Response 22,430 20,162 19,654 15,701 10,661 11,597 13,406 Year 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 Bus 455,681 436,943 434,996 427,114 427,380 437,000 Demand Response 13,544 12,728 10,491 7,574 8,180 11,384 Table 8: Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles Year 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 Bus 29,222 29,246 29,115 29,140 29,345 29,260 29,266 Demand Response 2,024 1,786 1,731 1,415 2,001 2,191 2,517 Year 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 Bus 29,425 28,417 28,249 27,993 27,964 28,520 Demand Response 2,534 2,404 2,098 1,484 1,483 2,000 Table 9: Annual Revenue Hours of Service Year 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 Bus 1,944,111 1,770,520 1,914,520 1,849,108 -1,655,256 1,629,196 Demand Response 23,710 21,437 20,929 16,976 -11,478 13,334 Year 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 Bus 1,690,605 1,658,268 1,651,690 1,630,453 1,537,134 1,458,576 Demand Response 13,507 12,619 9,929 8,087 6,749 10,356 Table 10: Annual Passenger Miles Year 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 Bus 498,490 491,811 531,811 513,641 508,858 477,019 469,509 Demand Response 5,783 5,104 4,983 4,042 3,314 3,587 4,167 Year 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 Bus 487,206 477,870 475,496 469,880 495,825 470,520 Demand Response 4,221 3,934 3,122 2,508 2,352 3,640 Table 11: Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips Source: National Transit Database Mapping transit routes is an effective method for determining percent of urbanized area served by transit. Utilizing GIS data, ¼ and ½ mile buffers can be created around transit routes to identify areas underserved by transit. The yellow areas in the map below show areas of the City not served by transit. Current and future transit service is discussed further in Review of Implementation to Date. This mapping tool will be used in subsequent Transit Development Plans. 23 Figure 3: Bus Service Gaps in MPO Area 24 Frequency of service is an additional indicator of level of service. Transit service is described in The Janesville Area 2005-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan and has not changed. The Janesville Transit System (JTS) offers regular bus service Monday through Friday on six routes inside Janesville from 6:15am to 6:15pm and from 8:45am to 6:15pm on Saturdays. The Beloit-Janesville Express operates weekdays between the two cities. 6:15am to 6:15pm, Monday through Friday. Buses also operate weekday evenings until 10:15pm on three deviated fixed "Nightside" routes and provide extra service routes during peak travel periods. JTS buses are accessible to disabled persons, including those in wheelchairs. "Dial-A-Ride" paratransit van service is available for persons with disabilities who are unable to use regular buses. Truck Freight Speeds The American Transportation Research Institute has developed an online database that tracks truck speeds on highways. This is a new performance indicator to be used to monitor level of service and system performance along I-39/90 within the Janesville Area MPO planning boundary. Table 12 includes average truck speeds during the winters and summers in order to compare road conditions. Table 12: Freight Speeds along I-39/90 Direction* Year Summer Speed Winter Speed % Difference Eastbound 2008 54.65 53.48 2% Westbound 2008 55.42 54.09 2% Eastbound 2009 54.36 54.18 0% Westbound 2009 55.12 54.85 0% Eastbound 2010 55.81 55.35 1% Westbound 2010 56.35 55.90 1% *Located between Interstate 90 Highway Markers 170 and 175. Source: American Transportation Research Institute 25 Integration and Connectivity of the Transportation System Across and Between modes for People and Freight Intercity Bus Service The City of Janesville currently has one public and one private intercity bus services. The Beloit Janesville Express (BJE) provides 12 daily trips between 6:15am and the last trip beginning at 5:15pm. In 2009, there were 33,582 unlinked passenger trips made on the BJE. The Van Galder Bus Company provides between 9 and 11 daily service trips from Janesville to Madison, Chicago Downtown Amtrak Station, Chicago O'Hare Airport and Chicago Midway Airport. Bikes on Busses The 2005-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan recommends the MPO and the Janesville Transit System install bicycle racks on buses in order to facilitate bicycling. Between 2005 and 2010, 16 of 21 buses, or 76%, have been outfitted with front-mounted racks that can accommodate up to two bicycles. The style of rack is simple to use and is commonly mounted on transit vehicles. Free certification training is provided. Commodity Flow Analyzing freight movement within the MPO area is difficult, as much of the data is only available at the County level. The Janesville Area 2005-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan performed a detailed examination of the 2003 Commodity Flow Survey (CFS), starting on page V-9. The Unified Work Program establishes a 5-10 year schedule for utilizing the CFS to analyze freight. The next major Plan update will measure integration of freight within the transportation system. 26 Efficient Management and Operations Transit Indicators: Passengers Per Revenue Mile, Passengers Per Revenue Hour Two indicators of efficient management of operations in the transit system are passengers per revenue mile and passengers per revenue hour. From 1996 to 2008, both indicators have been relatively stable. For an analysis of passenger trips, see Implementation to Date. The following data from 1996 to 2008 comes from the National Transit database. Year 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 Bus 1.1 1.1 1 .2 1 .1 1.1 1.1 1.0 Demand Response 0.3 0.3 0 .3 0 .3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Year 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 Bus 1.1 1.1 1 .1 1 .1 1.2 1.1 Demand Response 0.3 0.3 0 .3 0 .3 0.3 0.3 Table 13: Passengers Per Revenue Mile Year 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 Bus 17.1 16.8 18.3 17.6 17.3 16.3 16.0 Demand Response 2.9 2.9 2 .9 2 .9 1.7 1.6 1.7 Year 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 Bus 16.6 16.8 16.8 16.8 17.7 16.5 Demand Response 1.7 1.6 1 .5 1 .7 1.6 1.8 Table 14: Passengers Per Revenue Hour 27 Environment EPA identifies mobile sources (on-road and non-road) as the predominant contributors to regional-scale air quality problems. "Mobile sources" is a term used to describe a wide variety of vehicles, engines, and equipment that generate air pollution and that move, or can be moved, from place to place. Nationwide, mobile sources represent the largest contributor to air toxics. Air toxics are pollutants known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health or environmental effects. Nationally, air quality has been improving since 1980. This is primarily due to higher-emitting vehicles being replaced with newer vehicles meeting more stringent emissions standards, and as cleaner (loweremissions) fuels have been developed. Efficient and effective land use and transportation planning plays an important role in reducing vehicle miles traveled and encouraging greater mode share. The number of days when ozone levels exceed air quality standards has decreased in Rock County. All data comes from the US Environmental Protection Agency Air Quality Reports. Table 15: Ozone Levels in Rock County 1998-2008 Ozone Levels Rock County 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2nd Max 1-hr 0.1 0.105 0.098 0.1 0.098 0.089 0.08 0.091 0.079 0.084 0.075 4th Max 8-hr 0.084 0.093 0.083 0.08 0.087 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.067 0.077 0.065 Data Source: USEPA-County Air Quality Report Measured in parts per million (ppm) EPA Air Quality Standard: 0.12 ppm (1-hour average), 0.075 ppm (8-hour average) Numbers in bold exceeds applicible air quality standard Particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers affects both the lungs and heart. Small particles of concern include "inhalable coarse particles" (such as those found near roadways and dusty industries), which are larger than 2.5 micrometers and smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter; and "fine particles" (such as those found in smoke and haze), which are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller. Because of limited data, a trend cannot be determined. 28 Table 16: Particulate Matter in Rock County 1998-2008 PM2.5 Rock County 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 98th Percentile -35 28.5 36.8 32.1 34.7 -----Median -14.34 13.3 13.6 11.8 13.58 -----Data Source: USEPA-County Air Quality Report Measured in micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) PM2.5 data not collected for years 1998, 2004-2008) EPA Air Quality Standard: 35 μg/m3 (24-Hour Average), 15.0 μg/m3 (annual mean) Number in bold exceeds applicible air quaility standard Rock County has experienced more days when air quality was unhealthy for sensitive groups when compared to the state. However, the number of days has decreased overall. Table 17: Air Quality in Rock County 1998-2008 Rock County 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 # of Days When Air Quality was: Good 129 157 168 171 165 162 176 139 170 156 180 Moderate 40 71 69 65 72 34 20 40 17 26 19 Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups 16 15 8 8 9 10 2 8 0 7 0 Unhealthy 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Air Quality Statistics: Maximum 140 154 147 137 150 116 114 124 97 116 77 90th Percentile 100 87 72 75 80 77 54 80 50 74 50 Median 45 43 43 42 42 42 36 41 38 39 38 Number of days AQI* taken 185 244 245 171 246 206 198 187 187 189 199 Statewide Average 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 # of Days When Air Quality was: Good 208 194 196 184 173 171 196 175 208 209 221 Moderate 31 37 35 34 36 30 21 37 27 36 23 Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups 7 11 3 7 6 5 1 7 2 6 1 Unhealthy 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Air Quality Statistics: Maximum 138 145 124 136 125 122 101 129 110 123 101 90th Percentile 66 73 57 65 65 64 50 72 56 64 51 Median 34 34 34 34 33 35 32 36 35 36 35 Number of days AQI taken 247 244 234 226 217 206 218 221 237 251 245 Data Source USEPA-Air Quality Index Report *Air Quality Index Value ** Number of days per year that measurments were taken vary by county 29 EPA Air Quality Standards: (Applies to Ozone level and PM2.5 Levels) Carbon Monoxide: 35 ppm (1-hour average), 9 ppm (8-hour average) Nitrogen Dioxide: 0.053 ppm (annual mean) Ozone: 0.12 ppm (1-hour average), 0.075 ppm (8-hour average) Sulfur Dioxide: 0.14 ppm (24-hour average), 0.030 ppm (annual mean) Particles < 10 micrometers diameter: 150 μg/m3 (24-hour average), 50 μg/m3 (annual mean) Lead: 1.5 μg/m3 (quarterly mean) ppm=parts per million μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter 30 Review of Implementation to Date Introduction and Purpose This chapter reviews progress made in accomplishing the Janesville Area 2005-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. The Plan was adopted by the Policy Board on May 10, 2006, and the evaluation begins from that date. The Plan is an ambitious one looking even beyond the 30 year planning horizon, and therefore implementation over the short term has been limited. Implementation has also been affected by the economic recession which has impacted the manufacturing sector particularly hard in the Janesville MPO area. This chapter is organized according to transportation mode: Streets and Highways, Bicycle and Pedestrian, Transit, and Freight. Streets and Highways Projects listed in the 2006 -2011 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and carried into the 2005 -2035 Plan completed between 2005 and 2010 are listed below in Table 18. A total of $18,439,100 in 2005 dollars has been invested in physical improvements to streets and highways within the MPO area. The State of Wisconsin spent $375,000 to perform an Environmental Impact Study for I-39/90 between Madison and the Illinois state line. Incomplete projects listed in the 2006 -2011 TIP are discussed in the chapter entitled Committed and Recommended Street and Highway Projects. 31 Table 18: Street and Highway Projects Completed 2005 – 2010 Project Segment Year Funding Source Estimated Total Cost (2005) Centerway N. Parker Drive/Five Points Intersection 2006 STH $1,551,000 Deerfield Sandhill /Rotamer Road 2006 COJ $1,070,000 Division Street HWY 59 /Lamer 2008 COM $43,600 E. Court Street Main /Garfield Avenue 2007 URB $1,553,000 East Milwaukee Lexington Dr. intersection signals 2006 SAF $122,000 East Rotamer Road N. Wright Rd /Town Hall Road 2008 URB $1,817,000 I-39/90 STH 26/USH 51 2006 STH $1,070,000 Mineral Point Avenue Parker H.S. /Austin Road 2007 COJ $170,000 N. Wright Road USH 14/E. Rotamer Road 2006 COJ $730,000 Ruger Avenue Bridge Also known as Spring Brook Bridge 2010 BR $1,817,000 S. Randall Avenue Ruger Ave /East Milwaukee Street 2007 LRIP $320,000 STH 11 pavement replacement Footville /Janesville Bypass 2010 STH $711,500 STH 11/14 Wright Road /CTH O 2008 STH $2,315,000 STH 26 – Phase 1 STH 59 Relocation 2009 MAJ $1,700,000 Memorial Drive N. Washington Street /Parker Drive Bridge 2010 BR $731,000 Garden Lane Greenhill to Cul-de-sac 2007 LRIP $8,000 Wallace Way Greenhill West to deadend 2007 LRIP $26,000 Homestead Greenhill West to deadend 2007 LRIP $28,000 First Street HWY 59 /Vernal 2007 COM $42,000 I-39/90 STUDY Illinois State Line /Madison 2010 MAJ $375,000 USH 14 resurfacing Janesville limits /STH 89 2010 FLX $2,239,000 32 There were ten planned expansion projects (PE C) to add road capacity and eleven planned new road segments (PE NR) recommended in the 2005 – 2035 Plan with a construction timeframe between 2012 and 2035. Of these recommended improvements, two have entered the 2011 – 2016 TIP. Austin Road has been included in the 2011-2016 TIP as an uncommitted project that will likely use Urban – STP funding. Planning Connections 2030 is the long-range transportation plan for the state of Wisconsin. This plan addresses all forms of transportation over a 20-year planning horizon: highways, local roads, air, water, rail, bicycle, pedestrian and transit. WisDOT officially adopted Connections 2030 in October 2009. Information regarding the Janesville Area MPO priority corridors in Connections 2030 is located in Appendix D. Preservation The 2005-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan identified the number of miles in need of rehabilitation each year based on the existing number of miles of roads and a life expectancy of 22 years. The Plan indicated that the City of Janesville has 321 miles of paved streets. In order to preserve the current system, 14.5 miles of street would need to be rehabilitated each year. However, between 1999 and 2004 Janesville was only able to rehab an average of 11.3 miles each year (see p. IV-26). As of 2010, there were 330 miles (WISLR) of paved streets in Janesville, of which 15 would need to be rehabbed each year. Between 2005 and 2010, Janesville rehabbed an average of 10.9 miles each year. In the 2005-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, the City of Milton had 27 miles of paved streets and .5 to 1.5 miles would need to be rehabilitated each year. As of 2010, there were 28.6 miles (WISLR) of paved streets in Milton. Between 2005 and 2010, Milton rehabbed an average of X miles each year. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) benefited the MPO area by providing additional funding for street repair and preservation. The City of Janesville received 2.7 million to resurface 4.5 miles of roadways. The City of Milton received $584,000 to recondition 1.3 miles of East High Street. Rock Township received $545,000 to resurface Happy Hollow Road. 33 Table 19: Street Projects Funded by ARRA Janesville Segment Cost Blackbridge N. Parker to Mayfair $189,000 East Milwaukee Ringold to Sumac $282,000 Kellogg Center to S. Jackson $218,000 Mt. Zion E. Milwaukee to Pontiac $208,000 North Oakhill W. Court to Higland $603,000 Ruger I-39/90 to Wright Rd. $764,000 Randall/Tyler St. Lawrence to Tyler: Randall to Fremont $415,000 Milton Segment Cost East High John Paul to Janesville St. $584,000 Town of Rock Segment Cost Happy Hollow S. River Rd to USH 51 $545,000 In the System Performance chapter, preservation of the existing road system is reviewed using PASER data. As noted in the chapter, the method of pavement rating changed two years ago, and therefore a trend in pavement condition cannot be determined. However, Janesville and Milton have not been able to meet the rehabilitation goals set forth in the Plan. 34 Bicycle and Pedestrian The 2005-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan recommends an aggressive approach to expanding the off-road trail network. Three of the seven short range projects were finished between 2005 and 2010, with a total of 2.3 miles of trail constructed in the MPO area. Table 20 below lists projects in order of completion. The City of Janesville was the sponsoring jurisdiction for all short range projects. Table 20: Phase 1: Short Range Trail Plan 2006-2015 #* Project 4 Jackson School Connector 2 Spring Brook Trail -E. Milwaukee St. crossing 3 Rotamer Connector East 4 Ice Age Trail -Racine to Wilson, Union to Van Buren 5 Westside Fisher Creek Trail 6 Valley Park Connector 7 Spring Brook Trail -Northeast Regional Park extension * project number listed in 2005-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan This project has not entered the Transportation Improvement Program. This project has not entered the Transportation Improvement Program. Listed in the 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program but no funding has been committed. Description The 1/2 mile connector was built in 2007 This project was modified to an at grade safety improvement constructed in 2010 This 1.8 mile project was built in 2010 using American Recovery and Reinvestment (ARRA) funding The Downtown portion of the Ice Age Trail has yet to be completed. However, River Street, which parallels the trail, is being reconstructed 2011-2012 to include bicycle lanes. The street also has sidewalks. While not intended to replace the off-street trail, River Street will provide a nearby parallel corridor for nonmotorized transportation. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) has committed to building the STH 26 Corridor Trail, a regionally significant long range bicycle and pedestrian project in the MPO area. The STH 26 Corridor Trail was listed as project number 17 in the 2005-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan as a Rock County project. WisDOT has committed to building the trail in 2012 as part of the STH 26 reconstruction from I-39/39/90 and STH 26 interchange to Fort Atkinson and Bus 26 interchange. The trail project will begin near the North Wright Road overpass and extend north to Fort Atkinson and will include a pedestrian bridge spanning STH 26 near the intersection of STH 26 and John Paul Road, listed as a City of Janesville project in the Plan. The City of Milton has received a Transportation Enhancement (TE) grant to construct the one mile segment of trail within Milton. 35 Figure 4: Off – Road Trail Built 2005-2010 and Committed Future Projects 36 The 2005-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan proposed a network of on-street facilities consisting of striped bike lanes, wide curb lanes, recommended on street routes, and recommended on street routes with high auto traffic. Implementation of on-street improvements is tied directly to street maintenance and reconstruction activities. Between 2005 and 2010, four streets were improved with bicycle facilities through retrofitting or reconstruction, as defined below: North Wright Road was re-striped from two driving lanes to one driving lane with a designated bike lane and on-street parking. The one – way portion of East Milwaukee Street between Garfield and Milton Avenue was reduced from two driving lanes in one driving lane accommodating two bike lanes along the traffic lane. East Milwaukee Street between North Wright Road and Highway 14 was converted from two driving lanes in each direction to a single lane in each direction, a two-way-left-turn-lane, and bike lanes along the curb lanes. East Rotamer Road was reconstructed in 2008 to include on-street bike lanes in both directions. The City of Janesville is in the process of reconstructing River Street from Racine Street to West Court Street. River Street, an important gateway to downtown Janesville, will be reconstructed with two driving lanes, two on-street bike lanes, and one lane of parking. New sidewalks will also be replaced where needed. River Street is the first project to be impacted by Wisconsin’s “Complete Streets” legislation, s. 84.01(35), Stats., which requires the Department of Transportation to ensure that bicycle and pedestrian facilities are included in all new highway construction and reconstruction projects funded in whole or in part with certain state or federal funds. The complete streets law, effective January 1, 2011, aligns with the goal of the Janesville MPO to develop a comprehensive off-street and on-street bicycle and pedestrian network that provides direct routes to major residential, employment, educational and recreational activity nodes. Local Planning and Policy The Janesville Area MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, incorporated in the 2005-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, served as a long range action plan for development and construction of on-street and off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the MPO area. Since then, a number of planning initiatives and new policies have gone further to support, encourage, and refine the development of such facilities. 37 During the summer of 2010, the MPO conducted a trail user survey. The purpose of the study was to estimate the number of users of the system, to assess the satisfaction level of users, and gather information about how to improve the system. An estimated 200,600 trips were taken on the trail in 2010; with 98% of users reporting satisfied or very satisfied with the trail system. Recognizing the importance of the downtown, Janesville and Milton have each developed downtown plans. Although the plans do not concentrate solely on pedestrian and bicycle facilities, the plans acknowledge the importance of enhancing the livability and connectivity of these places. The City of Janesville Downtown Vision and Strategy, published in 2007, presents a cohesive vision for the downtown by identifying gaps, opportunities, and catalytic projects. The plan sets forth a clear and achievable strategy which includes design standards and specific recommendations to enhance the aesthetics and navigability of the downtown, especially for pedestrians. Milton historically has two downtowns, one of which is adjacent to STH 26. Once the STH 26 bypass is constructed, the reduced traffic along Janesville Street will change the overall atmosphere of Goodrich Square. The bypass creates both challenges and opportunities by reducing traffic through the district. The Goodrich Square Master Plan is an effort to redefine and redevelop this downtown once the STH 26 bypass is constructed. The plan proposes to better utilize the downtown to attract new investment and make the area more pleasant and inviting to pedestrians, bicyclists, and visitors. Sidewalk is a key component to a complete transportation network. The Janesville Pedestrian Transportation Corridor Plan (PTCP) was adopted by City Council on January 14, 2008, and proposed to build 63 miles of planned unfunded sidewalk. A revised plan and schedule for construction was approved at the October 11, 2010 City Council meeting. The schedule fills sidewalk gaps in high priority areas first, such as commercial districts, along arterial and collector streets, and near schools and bus stops. A publicly available map depicts the schedule and allows property owners to determine if their property is part of the sidewalk program and the approximate year that sidewalk installation would be required. This allows for the maximum amount of time for property owners to plan for the expense of sidewalk installation. The map may be found on the City of Janesville website, at the City of Janesville Municipal Building and at the Hedberg Public Library. Both Janesville and Milton require sidewalks to be built on both sides of the street at the time of new construction. Costs are assessed at the time of development. 38 Transit The 2005-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan takes a conservative approach to expansion of service by the Janesville Transit System (JTS) during the planning period. This is an outgrowth of the long-held City philosophy to provide adequate service for transit dependent populations, but not extending service to areas of the community which are not likely to produce sufficient ridership to be fiscally sustainable by generating adequate passenger revenues. The plan recommends maintaining existing routes and services and continuing to examine the need for both existing and possible additional services on a periodic basis through the Transit Development Plan (TDP) process. It identifies areas of Janesville that are not sufficiently served, such as Janesville’s far northeast low-density residential neighborhoods, regional commercial development along the northern reaches of the Milton Avenue/USH 14 corridors, and light industrial development in the Wright Road/STH 11 area, to which has now been added a a major regional medical facility. These underserved areas have experienced growth and development over the last five years, thereby increasing the area and population not sufficiently served. In 2007, the Milton Avenue route was modified in order to serve Wal-Mart and other commercial developments newly constructed in the area. The following maps depict current routes for day and night. The Beloit – Janesville Express route changed in 2005 to route along Kennedy Road and serve Kandu Industries and Riverfront. The BJE delivers passengers to the new Beloit Transfer Center, opened May 2010. 39 Figure 5: JTS Regular Routes 40 Figure 6: JTS Nightside Routes 41 At the same time, ridership decreases brought about by the economic decline of 2008-2010, as well as dramatically increasing financial and political pressures on all funding sources for public transit; have called into question the City’s ability to even maintain existing levels of service, let alone contemplate any service expansions. The transit recommendations chapter will discuss this issue and others facing transit in the region. The Plan predicts a .6% annual increase in ridership. However, the recession has affected ridership in several ways. Daily regular routes within Janesville have experienced a decline in ridership. Extra Service or “Tripper” routes which primarily serve secondary school students have experienced a major loss of ridership, and consequent service reductions. The Beloit-Janesville-Express experienced increased ridership in 2009 and reached an all-time high with more people taking trips to the Rock County Job Center, Blackhawk Technical College, or the University of Wisconsin – Rock County to seek benefits or to go back to school to obtain additional job skills. Nightside evening service declined slightly in 2009, but was basically flat for 2010. After a large ridership increase to an all-time high in 2009, Paratransit service lost slightly in 2010. Figure 7: Janesville Transit System Ridership 2000-2010 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,0002000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 unlinked passenger trips Janesville Transit System Ridership 2000 -2010 The Plan recommends an increase in fares once every five years. However, the aforementioned fiscal pressures have caused a rapid escalation of fares over the past four years. At the time of the release of the Plan, base fare for all fixed route buses was $1.00, which had been stable since 1997. There was a 42 base fare increase effective in January 2007 to $1.25, with proportional increases in all other fares, and another increase effective January 2010 to a $1.50 base fare with other fares increased proportionally. As the result of increased economic pressures, the City introduced a special reduced fare token program in mid-2009 for disadvantaged families and youth, administered by certain private non-profit agencies and the School District of Janesville. All 5,000 reduced fare tokens authorized to be distributed annually under this program were used in 2010. The City is contemplating increasing the authorized distribution in 2011 to meet increased need. Continuing fiscal pressures, particularly the loss of 10% of state operating assistance and cuts in state aid to cities projected for 2012 will likely result in further fare increases. The level of fixed route transit service has remained unchanged since the Plan and the completion and implementation of the last Transit Development Plan in 2007. The next TDP TDP is currently scheduled for 2012 pending available funding. In response to budgetary pressures, the City Administration proposed a reduction in off-peak service on the West Court Street and Kellogg Avenue routes, planned to take effect in midyear 2011. However, due to public advocacy, the City Council maintained existing service levels. Additional major financial reductions at the state level proposed to begin in 2012, and possible federal program reductions are likely to cause extreme pressure for even greater service reductions and possibly outright elimination of some services in the near term, which may significantly alter the landscape of public transit service in the planning area for the foreseeable future. Capital repair and replacement projects have been implemented in accordance with the Plan, funded by the Federal Section 5309 Discretionary Capital program via statewide capital grants administered by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. Most of these projects have involved routine replacements of capital equipment for the day-to-day operation and maintenance of the transit system. The City received $1,658,000 in funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), a small portion of which, ($258,000) also supported routine capital equipment replacements. The largest portion of these funds, $1.4 Million, is being used to fund the design and a portion of the construction costs for a new Operations and Maintenance Facility for the Transit System. The City has also received another $1.46 Million in federal funding for this project, but lacks approximately $3.6 Million in funding to complete the estimated cost of construction. While design is on-going, implementation of the construction of this facility, which is expected to serve the City’s transit operation for the next 30-50 years, must await the receipt of additional funding. Beyond the building project, the Janesville Transit System has a long-range capital plan for bus replacement, with the next fleet replacements scheduled for 2014 when the current 2002 buses reach the federally mandated 12 year lifespan and qualify for replacement funding. Progress has been made in advancing transit planning initiatives. Following the implementation of the last TDP in 2007, the South Central Wisconsin Commuter Transportation Study (SCWCTS) was a joint planning effort by the Janesville Area MPO and the Stateline Area Transportation Study (SLATS). Initially designed as a study to examine the feasibility of extending existing METRA commuter rail service from Harvard IL to the Janesville/Beloit area, the study determined that the actual regional commuter 43 transportation need existed in the north-south corridor roughly defined by I-39/90 and expanded to include commuting to Madison and Rockford and a widened range of transit modes and infrastructure improvements. The SCWCTS has lead to actions that support transit goals. Van Galder Bus Company, a Coach USA affiliate based in Janesville, which operates intercity coach service between Chicago and Madison, made service changes based on the study findings. Van Galder now offers a special discounted rate for commuters traveling to Madison which has provided additional service at lower cost for those persons who buy multiple ride tickets. The study also highlighted a need for potential commuter bus service between the Janesville/Beloit area through Evansville in northwest Rock County, to the Madison metropolitan area. In another outgrowth of the study, the Janesville Area MPO and SLATS signed a joint resolution to preserve rail corridors in the region for both future commuter rail and rail freight use if they are abandoned by existing freight rail providers. Copies of the study may be obtained by contacting the Janesville Area MPO or SLATS. During the preparation of the Janesville Transit System (JTS) Transit Development Plan in 2006-2007, a concept for an intercity bus route between the UW – Whitewater and the north side commercial area of Janesville was brought to the attention of the study team. The concept was not able to be studied at the time but in 2009 the City of Janesville and the Janesville Area MPO obtained a planning grant from WisDOT under the Section 5314 Supplemental Transportation, Rural Assistance Program (STRAP) to study the demand for transit service in the region north of Janesville extending from the northern end of the City through the neighboring city of Milton and on to the city of Whitewater and the University of Wisconsin – Whitewater campus. Partners for the Janesville-Milton-Whitewater (JMW) study were the Janesville Area MPO, the cities of Milton and Whitewater, and the University of Wisconsin-Whitewat er. In addition to studying intercity bus service, the study examined the feasibility of establishing a shared-ride taxi service for the City of Milton and evaluated the City of Whitewater shared ride taxi service. The study concluded that intercity bus service is feasible, and recommended a start up service plan. The Janesville City Council and the Milton City Council each directed staff to continue negotiations between partners. In the fall of 2010, however , the UW – Whitewater Student Senate voted 12 – 7 to reject funding the service through the Segregated University Fee (SUF) process, by which similar transit services are provided to UW-system campuses throughout the state. This action essentially stopped negotiations for the foreseeable future. The project is not viable without University participation, a funding and ridership base. In addition, the City of Milton City Council decided not to develop a shared ride taxi service in that community due to budget local constraints, even though state and federal operating assistance for 2011 would likely have been available. While the service proposed by the study remains a potentially viable option for the region, without SUF funding from the University, and with serious questions about the ability of both the state and local communities to fund their share of the operating costs of existing services, let alone any service expansions in the immediate future, the future of the JMW proposal appears bleak. The study may be obtained through the Janesville Area MPO. 44 In June, 2009, the MPO assisted the Janesville Transit System in conducting an evaluation of the Beloit-Janesville Express (BJE). The Beloit-Janesville Express is the result of a successful 22 year public-private partnership between the two cities which operate transit service, the county government which oversees and funds many of the services provided by the consortium members, and various public and private agencies whose clients and programs are the direct beneficiaries of this unique intercity regional transportation service. Not only do the sponsors provide the local financial support which covers approximately 28% of the operating cost of the service; they also provide the overwhelming majority of the passengers who rely on the BJE on a daily basis for transportation to jobs, job training and job seeking; education, health care, and community services of all kinds, as well as personal business. BJE riders rated overall service as good (34%) or very good (64%), and consider the service to be clean, clean, convenient, and safe. The majority of riders desire more service on either Saturdays (46%), weeknights (30%) or earlier in the morning (4.5%). The Janesville Transit System commonly receives requests for more service for all bus lines. Results of the survey demonstrated BJE riders are predominately low-income and transit dependent. They rely heavily on the services provided by the sponsoring agencies. The majority of riders could not make their trip without bus service. The report may be obtained through the Janesville Area MPO or the Janesville Transit System. Freight While no specific recommendations for Freight are contained in the Freight element of the Plan, the South Central Wisconsin Commuter Transportation Study (SCWCTS) completed in 2008 supported the goal to “develop and maintain an increasingly energy efficient transportation system which includes and integrates all modes of travel and provides for the safe and effective movement of people and goods, while optimizing the financial resources of the communities”. Specifically, the SCWCTS advanced the following objectives: Supporting state, regional, and local efforts to preserve rail corridors for future transportation purposes. Contributing to a transportation system that provides for the effective movement of people and goods to and from major commercial and employment centers and intermodal facilities Although the study concentrated on commuter transportation, study products applicable to freight rail planning include an exhaustive inventory and analysis of all existing rail corridors and the preservation strategy and resolution for rail freight corridors subject to future abandonment petitions discussed in the previous section. Findings of the study have been incorporated into the freight recommendations chapter updating the 2035 Plan. 45 Review of Forecasts The 2005-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan utilized traffic modeling to identify current and future deficiencies. Travel demand forecasting uses current socioeconomic, land use, and highway data to create a model of the road network and its use in 2035. Current traffic is modeled by establishing a relationship between trip-making behavior and current socioeconomic and land use data. Traffic growth can then be estimated by projecting this data to a future year, and using these same relationships, to generate future trips. These current and future trips are loaded onto the current street network in order to determine deficiencies in the ability of the street system to carry traffic efficiently. The 2005-2035 Plan identified deficiencies current as of 2001. The original table is displayed below with a status update as of early 2011 next to it. The majority of US HWY 14, east of Janesville, is severely deficient, or deficient. Highway 26 (Janesville St) is deficient or severely deficient through a large portion of Milton. Along I-39/90, the highest deficiency ratings are between the US HWY 14 and the HWY 11 interchange. Outside of these segments, the network within the MPO experienced relatively little congestion in 2001. Further discussion regarding the status of these road segments may be found in the chapter entitled Committed and Recommended Projects. Table 21: Street and Highway Deficiencies in 2001 Severely Deficient Project status update Segment From/To E HWY 11/14 MPO Boundary/CTH O Under study S. Janesville St. (HWY 26) Storrs Lake Rd/E. High St. Bypass of this segment scheduled for construction 2012 -2013 Deficient E HWY 11/14 S. Henke Rd./S. Milton Shopiere Rd. Under study I-39/90 HWY 14/HWY 11 Interchange Committed (but not in 2011-2016 TIP) N HWY 26 E. Klug Rd/John Paul Rd. Committed N. HWY 26 S. Janesville St/N. Harmony Town Hall Rd. Committed 46 To update the traffic model, WisDOT, FHWA, consultant HNTB and MPO staff met in the fall of 2010 to discuss how to update the travel model to reflect the significant changes that have occurred since 2005, and in particular, the economic recession and loss of industry due to the closure of GM and support industries. Meeting participants discussed the lack of data measuring the impacts of the recession, and its effect on the travel model. In order to accurately update the travel model, employment and origin/destination data is needed. The number of workers must be consistent with the reduction in employment to prevent the model from generating work trips for the population no longer employed. Further, laid off workers must be assigned new destinations for work, or shown as unemployed. There is no accurate data documenting new destinations for former GM employees and others affected by the GM closure. Due to this lack of data it was determined 2008 should be set as the base year model, which will show GM and related industries as open. By setting the baseline year at 2008, the model will use travel estimates and socioeconomic data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. The next major update to be completed in 2015 will utilize data from the 2010 Census, which will include an exhaustive modeling effort. The MPO provided 2008 housing and school enrollment data for the cities of Janesville and Milton. Residential growth occurred in all regions of Janesville between 2000 and 2008, although the largest growth occurred around Interstate I-39/90 on the east side in TAZs 81, 72, 247, and 84. Milton’s growth was mostly concentrated in the southwest area of the city in TAZs 179 and 13, which included a multidwelling unit apartment building in TAZ 179 that added 96 households to Milton. Actual population growth has not kept pace with projections used in the 2005 – 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. While the cities of Janesville and Milton have not experienced as much growth as predicted, the surrounding towns have experienced more population growth than projected. See table X for a comparison. Table 22: Janesville Area Projected Vs. Actual Population Projected 2010 Population * Actual 2010 Population ** City of Janesville 67,316 63,575 City of Milton 5,739 5,546 Township Area 9,504 10,033 Total Population 82,559 79,154 * 2005 – 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, Page I -11, Table 1 ** U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census 47 The areas of expected growth remain the same for this update. See map. Actual growth between 2005 and 2008 has been slower than projections due to the economic recession. Figure 8: Future High Growth Areas 48 Results of forecasting HERE… One component of the process is a traffic model update and re-evaluation of traffic forecasts. Forecasting results were not provided to the MPO until April 6th. These results can be found in Appendix D: Streets and Highways. Staff has not had sufficient time to analyze these results in time for this mailing. Update of 2035 Plan Previous chapters discussing forecasts and implementation to date indicate that the 2005-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan largely remains valid, five years after adoption. This chapter assesses the short and long term projects, discusses their implementation, and considers whether the projects may be executed by 2035 within the financial constraints of available funding resources. This chapter also discusses recent political and budgetary developments and potential challenges and considers how these issues may affect the transportation system. The chapter is divided into sections on Streets and Highways, Bicycle and Pedestrian, Transit, and Freight. Freight. In Summary: New roads are still recommended in order to accommodate future growth. However, projects are expected to be delayed due to the economic slowdown and slower than anticipated development. This is a short range planning recommendation. Long range recommendations remain valid because they are based on land use, which has not undergone substantial change in the last five years. Roads experiencing deficiencies in 2005 that have not been improved are experiencing even greater deficiencies now. Decreasing federal and state operating assistance, state mandated controls on local government revenue generation, and expenditure restraint at the local level may require the need for JTS service reductions. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements include connecting neighborhoods to the existing trail system, and adding accommodations during reconstruction and rehabilitation where appropriate. 49 Committed and Recommended Street and Highway Projects Several projects listed in the 2006-2011 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) have not been completed to date. Project implementation is affected by changing needs and funding availability. Some projects listed below have experienced delays or the scope of work has been revised. Below is a table of the status of those projects. The table includes the cost estimate derived in 2005 and the total cost of the project in the year it is expected to be completed. Table 23: Projects listed in 2006-2011TIP that have not been completed Project Segment Funding Source Status Estimated Cost in Year of Expenditure N. John Paul Road Madison Avenue Intersection COM Unfunded, scheduled completion 2012 $319,000 STH 26 – Phase 2 CTH Y /Town Line Road MAJ Scheduled completion 2012 $16,567,500 STH 26 – Phase 3 & 4 Phase 3: Townline to Storrs Lake Phase 4: Storrs to CTH N MAJ Scheduled completion 2013 & 2014 $40,890,000 STH 26 – Phase 5 CTH N to S. Fort Interchange MAJ MAJ Scheduled completion 2014 $23,652,750 Pearl Street Court Street /Rockport Road LRIP Scheduled completion 2011 $461,000 Jackson Street Bridge Bridge over Rock River BR Scheduled completion 2013 & 2014 $7,222,000 Palmer Drive Racine /Mohawk Road COJ (local funds only) Scheduled reconstruction 2011 $140,000 East Milwaukee Street Bridge Bridge over Rock River BR Unfunded, scheduled completion 2015 $5,000,000 CTH M CTH MM /COM limits RU – STP Unfunded, scheduled completion 2015-2016 $1,380,000 50 Committed Street and Highway Projects 2011-2016 All of the projects that the MPO Policy Board has already reviewed and approved through the 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) have been included in the LRTP update as they are listed in the TIP, and make up the recommended projects for the first 5 years of the LRTP update. Projects beyond the first 5 years are planned but not programmed elements of the LRTP. Major short term projects include: The Highway 26 bypass (project number 12) around the eastern edge of the City of Milton. The project began construction in 2009 and will conclude in 2014. The study of the costs and benefits associated with creating a highway bypass extension on the west and south sides of the City of Janesville (project number 19). The study examines the merits of three projects that have the potential to be implemented individually or as a group. One project is the expansion of Highway 11/14 from County Highway O east to Highway 89 in Walworth County. The other two projects examine the benefits of new connections; one between the Avalon Road interchange and Highway 11/14, the other is a north-south connection between the Highway 11 bypass and Highway 14 that would create a west side bypass around Janesville. The west side bypass was formally included in the larger 11/14 corridor study in 2010, and will be included in the Environmental Impact Statement currently being performed by WisDOT. It should be noted that environmental consultation performed in an earlier Long Range Transportation Plan noted wetlands in the area where the corridor is proposed. Additionally, the expansion of I-39/90 to six lanes (project number 63) and the installation of noise barriers along the residential areas may be considered a committed project, although it is not included in the 2011-2016 TIP. This project received approval by the state Transportation Projects Committee in fall 2010. As of Spring 2011, funding is appropriated in the Governor’s draft 2012-2014 biennium budget. The MPO will be working closely with WisDOT on the entire project, including the placement of noise barriers. Recommended Street and Highway Projects 2017 -2035 There are several projects in the 2005 – 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan recommended to occur between 2017 and 2035. However, these projects will need to receive approval from their sponsor jurisdiction(s) and committed funding before they can be implemented. This section evaluates the continued validity of these projects. Projects are listed in Table 24 with year of construction. The major projects scheduled for this period are: 51 The Plan recommends a feasibility study of an east-west grade separated underpass be included in the I-39/90 project between Avalon Road and Delavan Drive. The intent of the recommendation is to examine local access needs in the area. See Appendix C for correspondence regarding this project. A study of the options for the reconstruction of the USH 51 Intersection also known as Five Points (project number 75). The expansion of Town Hall Road to four lanes (project number 67). The expansion of County Highway G to four lanes (project number 60) in coordination with the Beloit MPO. A study of the costs and benefits of expanding either all or portions of Highway 14 to four or six lanes in the City of Janesville (projects 61 & 62). A study of the costs and benefits of expanding all or a portion of Highway 51 from Black Bridge Road to Russell Road to four lanes (projects 68 & 69). Towards the later years of the plan, we will want to begin preparing for the next set of major improvements. Due to the difficulties difficulties associated with estimating needs 30 years out, these projects may overlap this planning cycle and the next. The major projects planned within the final phase are: The study of the benefits of creating a north side bypass connecting to I-39 using portions of Highway 14, Highway 51, Kidder Road and County Highway M (projects 73) and its possible implementation. If the north side bypass is constructed, there is the potential to continue the connection to Highway 26 (project number 70), creating an east-west corridor north of the Cities of Milton and Janesville. The preservation of Milton-Shopiere Road (project number 72) to allow for a long term northsouth transportation corridor on the east side of the MPO area. See Appendix C for correspondence regarding this project. 52 Table 24: Street and Highway Projects Committed in 2011-2016 TIP or Recommended in LRTP proj # Type Project Segment Year Funding Source Status 1 CP River St. reconstruction E. Racine to Court 2012 URB COJ Funding in first 3 years of TIP 2 CE Milwaukee/Wuthering Hills roundabout intersection Milwaukee/Wuthering Hills 2011 HSIP COJ Funding in first 3 years of TIP 3 CP N. Main St. resurfacing Centerway to St. Lawrence 2013 URB COJ Funding in first 3 years of TIP 4 CE Austin Rd. reconstruction Mineral Point to W. Court 2015 URB COJ Funding in first 3 years of TIP 5 CP Jackson St. bridge bridge over Rock River 2011 BR COJ Funding in first 3 years of TIP 6 CP S. Pearl St. reconstruction Court to Rockport 2011 LRIP COJ Funding in first 3 years of TIP 7 CP CTH F resurface/reconstruction USH 14 to S. limits of Edgerton 2011 RU-STP --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 8 CP Hayner Rd. bridge bridge over Markham Creek 2011 BR --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 9 CP CTH G Philhower to Sunny Lane 2011 RU-STP --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 10 CP Elizabeth St. resurfacing Elizabeth termini to Rainbow Dr. 2012 LRIP COM Funding in first 3 years of TIP 11 CP S. Read Rd. bridge Woodman Rd. to Avalon Rd. bridge 2011 BR --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 12 CE STH 26 expansion I-39/90 to Ft Atkinson Bus 26 2011-2012 NHS --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 13 US STH 11 preservation and access plan Monroe-Janesville 2012 NHS --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 14 CP Ramp: cloverleaf to diamond I-39/90 at STH 11 2013 SAF --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 15 CP USH 14 pavement replacement Lexington to Deerfield Dr. 2015-2016 STP-D --Funding in first 5 years of TIP 16 CP CTH J railroad crossing improvements Wright Rd. 2013 SAF --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 17 CP USH 14 maintenance and overlay CTH M to USH 51 2013 STP-D --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 18 CP USH 51 railroad crossing improvements USH 51 and Union Pacific RR 2012 SAF --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 19 US USH 11/14 corridor study and EIS Janesville to I-43 2011 STUDY --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 20 CP I-39 guardrail treatments STH 106 to Illionois state line 2011-2012 HSIP --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 21 CP USH 51/STH 11 median improvements intersection of USH 51 and STH 11 2011 WIS --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 22 CP STH 26 reconstruction Parker Dr. to 800' N of Randolph Rd. TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 23 CP E. Milwaukee St. bridge replacement bridge over Rock River TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 24 CP Sharon Rd. bridge replacement bridge over Spring Brook TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 25 CP USH 51 structure replacement structure over Union Pacific Railroad TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 26 CP S. Jackson St. resurfacing Milwaukee to Rock River TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 27 CP W. Milwaukee St. resurfacing Center to bridge TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 28 CP S. Arch St. resurfacing Rockport to 400' N. Salisbury TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 29 CP N Crosby Ave. resurfacing Court to Mineral Point TBD COJ COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 30 CP W. State St. resurfacing Willard to Oakhill TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 31 CP N. Pearl St.resurfacing Court to Highland TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 32 CP Rockport Rd. resurfacing Center to Lincoln TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 33 CP S. Wright Rd. resurfacing Racine to Palmer TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 34 CP S. Oakhill Ave. resurfacing Kellogg to State TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 35 CP Kennedy Rd. resurfacing HWY 14 to 1650' North of HWY 14 TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 36 CP Beloit Ave. resurfacing TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 37 CP STH 11/Midland intersection intersection of STH 11 and Midland Rd. 2011 COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 38 CP STH 11/Wright Rd. intersection intersection of STH 11 and Wright Rd. 2011 COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 39 CP Beloit Ave. reconstruction STH 11 to approx. 1,500 ft. south TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 40 CP E. Milwaukee St. resurfacing N. Sumac to Wright Rd. TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 41 CP USH 51 reconstruction from 400' north of Court to Nicolet TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 42 CP CTH M reconstruction CTH MM to city of Milton limits TBD RC Funding Not Programmed in TIP 43 CP Parkview Dr. reconstruction HWY 59 to Townline Rd. TBD COM Funding Not Programmed in TIP 44 CP Traffic light installation John Paul Rd. and W. Madison Ave. TBD COM Funding Not Programmed in TIP 45 CE E. Sunset Connector St. Sunset termini to Lukas Lane termini TBD COM Funding Not Programmed in TIP 46 CE Sunnyside Dr. installation East High to Gateway Dr. TBD COM Funding Not Programmed in TIP 47 CP Merchant Row reconstruction HWY 59 to Vernal Ave. TBD COM Funding Not Programmed in TIP 48 CP Goodrich Square reconstruction Area surrounding Goodrich Park TBD COM Funding Not Programmed in TIP Projects listed in approved 2011-2016 Transportation Plan and carried into LRTP 53 proj # Type Project Segment Year Funding Source Status 49 PE NR Kettering St. W of Whitney/N. Brentwood Dr. 2012-2035 URB --Recommended in LRTP 50 PE NR McCormick Dr. McCormic Dr. Termini./New Wright Rd. 2012-2035 COJ --Recommended in LRTP 51 PE NR NEW ROAD by airport HWY 51/CTH G 2012-2035 COJ --Recommended in LRTP 52 PE NR North Wuthering Hills Dr. Mackinac/HWY 14 2012-2035 COJ --Recommended in LRTP 53 PE NR Randolph Rd. Holly Dr./Wuthering Hills Dr. 2012-2035 COJ --Recommended in LRTP 54 PE NR Sandhill Rd. Wuthering Hills/Townhall 2012-2035 COJ --Recommended in LRTP 55 PE NR Sandhill Rd. Deerfield/Sandhill termini 2012-2035 COJ --Recommended in LRTP 56 PE NR Todd Dr. Todd Dr. termini/Conde St. 2012-2035 COJ --Recommended in LRTP 57 PE NR Venture Dr. Venture Dr. termini/HWY 51 2012-2035 COJ --Recommended in LRTP 58 PE NR Waveland Rd. Waveland Rd./CTH A 2012-2035 COJ --Recommended in LRTP 59 PE NR Wright Rd. E. Rotamer Rd./CTH Y 2012-2035 COJ --Recommended in LRTP 60 PE C CTH G HWY 11/South MPO boundary boundary 2012-2035 COJ --Recommended in LRTP 61 PE C HWY 14 (Rec. For Study) HWY 11/Wright Rd. 2012-2035 COJ --Recommended in LRTP 62 PE C HWY 14 (Rec. For Study) Wright Rd./HWY 51 2012-2035 COJ --Recommended in LRTP 63 PE C I-39/90 Through Rock County 2012 MAJ --Recommended in LRTP 64 PE C Ryan Rd (part of I-39 project) Morse/Deerfield 2012 MAJ --Recommended in LRTP 65 PE E Ruger Ave. reconstruction S. Wright to Wuthering Hills 2012-2035 URB --Recommended in LRTP 66 PE E Ruger Ave. reconstruction Wuthering Hills to USH 14 2012-2035 URB --Recommended in LRTP 67 PE C Town Hall Rd. HWY 14/HWY 26 2012-2035 URB --Recommended in LRTP 68 PE C USH 51 North (Rec. for Study) Russell Rd./USH 14 2012-2035 STH --Recommended in LRTP 69 PE C USH 51 North (Rec. for Study) Blackbridge Rd./USH 14 2012-2035 STH --Recommended in LRTP 70 LR E Klug Rd. Extension HWY 26/I-39 2015-2045 N/A --consideration in LRTP 71 LR E HWY 14 HWY 51 to future HWY 11 bypass 2015-2045 N/A --consideration in LRTP 72 LR E Milton-Shopiere E Hwy 11/14/Townline Rd. 2015-2045 N/A --consideration in LRTP 73 LR E North Bypass USH 51 to Kidder Rd. to CTH M: HWY 14/I-90 2015-2045 N/A --consideration in LRTP 74 LR E Town Line Rd. Milton-Shopiere/County Y 2015-2045 N/A --consideration in LRTP 75 LR E Westside Gateway 5 points expansion 2015-2045 N/A --consideration in LRTP TYPES CP Committed Preservation CE Committed Expansion SR P Short Range Preservation PE NR Planned Expansion (New Road) PE C Planned Expansion (Capacity Expansion) LR E Long Range Expansion US Under Study Projects recommended in LRTP that may move into a future Transportation Improvement Program 54 Figure 9: Street and Highway Projects Committed in 2011-2016 TIP or Recommended in LRTP 55 Financial Constraint Funding resources that can be used to implement the recommendations in this plan come from a variety of programs at the federal, state and local levels. The estimate of revenues available for plan implementation is based upon an assessment of existing and historic funding levels, and assessment of potential funding sources. WisDOT provided estimated funding levels for General Transportation Aids, Connecting Highway Aids, and Local Road Improvement Program (LRIP). All estimated revenues and expenditures are given in 2011 constant dollars. Table 25 demonstrates the remaining 24 years of the Plan continue to be valid and fiscally constrained. 56 Table 25: Federal Expenditures and Available Federal Funding 2011-2035 Funding Source Program Fed/State Local Fed/State Local Fed/State Local Fed/State Local Fed/State Local STP -Urban (URB)*** $1,557,322 $191,000 $904,463 $316,000 $904,463 $318,000 $8,140,167 $2,035,042 $11,506,415 $2,860,042 STH Preservation $3,904,000 $69,000 $3,904,000 $69,000 $3,904,000 $69,000 $35,136,000 $621,000 $46,848,000 $828,000 Majors Program $73,164,000 $28,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 **** $0 $73,164,000 $28,000 Bridge Replacement & Rehabilitation (BR) $643,000 $161,000 $5,320,000 $1,333,000 $0 $0 $4,000,000 $1,000,000 $9,963,000 $2,494,000 Local Road Improvement Program (LRIP) $301,312 $301,312 $301,312 $301,312 $301,312 $301,312 $2,711,808 $2,711,808 $3,615,744 $3,615,744 CHA $744,158 $186,040 $744,158 $186,040 $744,158 $186,040 $6,697,422 $1,674,356 $8,929,896 $2,232,474 STP -Non Urban (RU-STP) $1,330,000 $266,000 $1,330,000 $266,000 $1,330,000 $266,000 $11,970,000 $2,394,000 $15,960,000 $3,192,000 SAF $2,423,333 $484,667 $2,423,333 2,423,333 $484,667 $2,423,333 $484,667 $21,810,000 $4,362,000 $29,080,000 $5,816,000 Local Projects** $0 $800,333 $0 $800,333 $0 $800,333 $0 $7,203,000 $0 $9,604,000 Total $84,067,125 $2,487,352 $14,927,266 $3,756,352 $9,607,266 $2,425,352 $90,465,397 $22,001,205 $199,067,055 $30,670,260 87% 13% Funding Source Program Fed/State Local Fed/State Local Fed/State Local Fed/State Local Fed/State Local STP -Urban (URB) $1,557,322 $191,000 $904,463 $316,000 $904,463 $318,000 $8,140,167 $2,035,042 $11,506,415 $2,860,042 STH Preservation $554,000 $187,000 $4,359,000 $0 $6,229,000 $20,000 $35,136,000 $621,000 $46,278,000 $828,000 Majors Program $73,164,000 $28,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 **** $0 $73,164,000 $28,000 Bridge Replacement & Rehabilitation (BR) $643,000 $161,000 $5,320,000 $1,333,000 $0 $0 $4,000,000 $1,000,000 $9,963,000 $2,494,000 Local Road Improvement Program (LRIP) $300,000 $406,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,711,808 $2,711,808 $3,011,808 $3,117,808 CHA $744,158 $186,040 $744,158 $186,040 $744,158 $186,040 $6,697,422 $1,674,356 $8,929,896 $2,232,474 STP -Non Urban (RU-STP) $180,000 $45,000 $0 $0 $1,149,000 $231,000 $11,970,000 $2,394,000 $13,299,000 $2,670,000 SAF $2,423,333 $484,667 $2,423,333 $484,667 $2,423,333 $484,667 $21,810,000 $4,362,000 $29,080,000 $5,816,000 Local Projects** $0 $800,333 $0 $800,333 $0 $800,333 $0 $7,203,000 $0 $9,604,000 Total $79,565,813 $2,489,040 $13,750,954 $3,120,040 $11,449,954 $2,040,040 $90,465,397 $22,001,205 $195,232,119 $29,650,324 * Does not include GTA, or STH O & M funds. These may be used to cover funding shortfalls. 87% 13% **Projects have the potential to be funded with GTA funds. Average of all local preservation projects in 2011-2016 TIP not funded with federal/state ***available funds 2011-2012 include $540,774 carried over from previous STP cycles **** I-39/90 expansion total estimated cost $1,000,000,000 but not programmed in Janesville Area MPO at this time Total Available * Estimated Available Funds 2011-2012 2013-2014 2015-2016 2017-2035 2017-2035 Expenditures From Recommended Recommended Projects 2011-2012 2013-2014 2015-2016 Total Programmed 57 Amendments to the Streets and Highways Chapter of the 2005-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan 1. Huntinghorne Drive. The City of Janesville intends to construct and open for traffic the first phase of McCormick Drive extended east from STH 26 to Huntinghorne Drive in coordination with the 2012 improvements programmed by the State of Wisconsin for STH 26 at and near the intersection with McCormick Drive. The City will also similarly construct a segment of Huntinghorne Drive north of Braxton Drive as part of this improvement. The connection will help restore access that will be partially lost at the intersection of Woodcrest Drive and STH 26 when the median is closed to eliminate south bound turning movements onto STH 26. This project will be funded with City of Janesville funding only. It is being added to the 2011-2016 TIP Spring 2011. 2. Bell Street. This proposal includes an extension of Bell Street to the north under I-39/90 within the railroad viaduct (underpass) owned by the State Department of Transportation. The Bell Street improvement would extend north adjacent to the existing rail line operated by WSOR and connect to Fulton Street providing greater connectivity in Janesville’s northeast commercial area for motorists, bicycles, and pedestrians. This project is not included in the 2011-2016 TIP and is not programmed. The improvement would be timed with the reconstruction of I-39/90. 3. Third Lane. The City of Milton intends to use LRIP funds to rehabilitate Third Lane in year 2011. The total cost of the project is $18,819, half of which will utilize LRIP funds. It is being added to the 2011-2016 TIP Spring 2011. 58 Committed and Recommended Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects The Janesville Area MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan was developed to serve as a long range action plan for development and construction of on-street and off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the planning area. Projects 2 through 4 have already been reviewed and approved by the MPO Policy Board through the 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and have been included in the LRTP update as committed projects. Additionally, projects 1 and 5, which do not utilize state or federal funds and therefore do not require MPO approval, are described below to provide information. E. Racine Trail from Wright Road to Springbrook Trail (1 & 5) In 2011, The City of Janesville will build .7 miles of trail along E. Racine Street to connect the Spring Brook Trail (at Wuthering Hills) to St. Mary’s Hospital. As part of the new development, the hospital will build .2 miles of trail along its property. HWY 26 Corridor and Overpass at CTH Y (2 & 3) The state trail project will begin near the North Wright Road overpass and extend north to Fort Atkinson and will include a pedestrian bridge spanning STH 26 near the intersection of STH 26 and John Paul Road (CTH Y). Milton Glacial River Trail (4) The City of Milton is responsible for the portion of the HWY 26 Corridor Trail within the City of Milton limits. Milton received a $305,000 Transportation Enhancement Grant (80/20) to assist with this effort. The Milton segment of the trail will be designed by WisDOT and constructed at the same time as the HWY 26 bypass. 59 Changes and amendments to off-street facilities in the 2005 – 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan are described below. Projects number 13 and project number 14 are new opportunities identified since 2005. Following the project descriptions, Figure 10 and Table 26 show all recommended projects for the 2011 update. Project schedules have been updated and estimates have been inflated from 2005 to 2011. The Plan proposes recommendations in two phases for the City of Janesville. Phase I has general completion dates falling between 2011-2016, and Phase II falling between either 2017-2025 or 2017-2035. The timing of these projects are dependent upon multiple factors such as grant awards, availability of local matching funds, and ability to secure easements and development rights. There are no new sources of funding or funding availability changes since the previous Plan. Spring Brook Trail Extension Northeast to HWY 14 Underpass (13) This extension of the Spring Brook Trail branches off from the main trail near near Brunswick Lane and travels northeast along the greenbelt and terminates at HWY 14. An underpass at HWY 14 is planned for construction at the time of improvement to HWY 14. E. Racine Trail from Palmer Park to Midland Road (14) This .9 mile segment of trail will finish the loop serving Palmer Park and Blackhawk Golf Course, Youth Sports complex, and St. Mary’s Hospital. This segment may be all or partially on-street, and will be constructed at the time of the reconstruction of the I-39/90 ramp. 60 Figure 10: Existing and Future Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 61 Table 26: Committed and Recommended Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Committed in 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program Map ID Project Name Timeframe Estimated Cost in Year of Expenditure 1 E. Racine (Wright to Wuthering Hills) 2011 $70,000 2 Bike/Ped overpass at CTH Y and approaching paths 2012 $421,200 3 HWY 26 Corridor (Wright Rd. to Town Hall) 2012 $196,560 3 HWY 26 Corridor (Town Hall to STH 59) 2012 $218,160 3 HWY 26 Corridor (Storrs Lake Rd to CTH N) 2013 $402,840 4 Milton Glacial River Trail (STH 59 to Storrs Lake Road 2013 $305,000 $1,308,760 Private Trail Projects -Committed 5 St. Mary's Hospital -Wright Rd. to Midland 2011 unknown Janesville Projects Phase 1 Map ID Project Name Timeframe Estimated Cost $2011 6 Ice Age Trail -Racine to Wilson, Union to Van Buren 2011-2016 $97,086 7 Westside Fisher Creek Trail 2011-2016 $2,032,031 8 Valley Park Connector -crushed rock 2011-2016 $79,023 $2,208,141 Phase 2 Map ID Project Name Timeframe Estimated Cost $2011 9 Spring Brook Trail -NE Regional Park Extentions 2017-2025 $194,172 10 NE Regional Park 2017-2025 $207,154 11 NE Regional Park to HWY 26 2017-2025 $207,154 12 Spring Brook Trail -Extension NE to (not including) HWY 14 Underpass 2017-2025 $225,000 13 E. Racine -Palmer Park to Midland Road 2017-2025 $235,000 14 Westside connector -W. Court to Arboretum 2017-2035 $321,738 15 Ice Age Trail -River Street 2017-2035 $383,828 $1,774,047 $3,982,188 Milton Projects Map ID Project Name Timeframe Estimated Cost $2011 16 Highway 26/59 Recreation Area 2017-2035 $547,520 17 Clear Lake Trail 2017-2035 $366,895 18 Bowers Lake -Sunset Drive Trail 2017-2035 $733,789 $1,648,203 Rock County Projects Map ID Project Name Timeframe Estimated Cost $2011 19 Peace Trail -Rock River Connector 2017-2035 $581,387 20 Janesville-Milton Trail -upgrade to crushed rock 2017-2035 $293,516 $874,902 Committed Total Rock County Total Milton Total 2017-2035 Total City of Janesville Total 2011-2016 Total 62 On – Street Facility Construction There are no specific on-street facility amendments to the Bicycle and Pedestrian element to the 2005 – 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan at this time. Two committed off-street trail improvements will create gaps which will likely be connected in whole or in part through on – street facilities. The E. Racine Street segment, previously described as project number 12, will be timed with the reconstruction of the I-39/90 Interstate ramp. The construction of the HWY 26 Corridor Trail (project #3) and overpass spanning HWY 26 at CTH Y (project #2) leaves a 1.3 mile gap along HWY 26. An off-street trail along HWY 26 to fill the gap is not feasible due to developed properties along the highway. Instead, the connection between the two trail segments will be developed on-street using portions of John Paul Road, McCormick Drive, and other possible future streets. Further study is needed to determine the connection, and may be timed with safety improvements. 63 Committed and Recommended Transit Projects There are no major changes to transit operations or capital plans at this time. Ridership, operating revenues and expenditures, and capital needs have been updated. Mainly, this chapter looks at recent developments and suggests how the 2012 Transit Development Plan will evaluate service needs. Funding for transit projects in the Janesville urbanized area is available from federal, state, and local sources. The Janesville urbanized area receives operating and capital assistance under Section 5307 of the Federal Transit Act, which is received and distributed by WisDOT. Over the 6 year TIP period, it is anticipated that up to $6,000,000 in operating assistance funds will be available, depending on JTS’ annual operating budgets and any potential changes in distribution formulas. The total federal share of transit operating projects in the transit element of the TIP does not exceed the apportioned Section 5307 funds available to the urbanized area. Capital projects are proposed to be funded primarily by Section 5309 funds, with some backfill from Section 5307. WisDOT provides transit operating assistance to urbanized area through Section 85.20 of the Wisconsin Statutes. JTS can recover a portion of the total transit system operating costs through this program. This program does not provide a statutory percentage of expense coverage. However, for planning purposes, it is assumed that a maximum of 25% of costs will be covered under this program over the life of the Plan; with austerity measures brought about by policy changes at the state level in the near term probably resulting in lower percentages of cost coverage in the next decade. All of the projects that the MPO Policy Board has already reviewed and approved through the 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) have been included in the LRTP update as they are listed in the TIP. The most significant projects scheduled for the first five years of the plan are: Construction of a new Transit System Operations Operations and Maintenance Facility. The City of Janesville is in the design phase of the building project, awaiting additional federal capital assistance before proceeding to construction. Refurbish Janesville Transfer Center. This project to update this 12 year old facility begins in 2011. Replace Radio Base Station and System Components. This is a phased program to bring transit radio system into compliance with FCC narrow banding rule by January 2013. This project begins in 2011. Transit Development Plan 2012. Update of the plan adopted in 2007. Rock County Mobility Manager. The Rock County Council on Aging received a Section 5317 grant to hire a mobility manager for calendar year 2011. This position was filled as of April 1, 2011. This position works with the Rock County Transportation Coordinating Committee. 64 Table 27: Transit Operating Expenditures as listed in the 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program The City of Milton began developing a shared ride taxi service in 2010, as part of the Janesville –Milton-Whitewater planning project, and included a listing in the 2011 – 2016 TIP in the amount of $34,000 (Sec. 5307), $26,000 (Sec. 85.20), and $45,000 in local funding. Milton’s shared ride taxi program will be discussed further in the recommendations section of this chapter. Major capital projects are funded by Section 5309 federal discretionary capital funds, administered by WisDOT. The normal annual funding amount is dependent upon the political process, making the annual amount variable. Should funding run out in a given year, projects are reprogrammed to later years. This is evidenced in Table 28, which lists projects in the 2011-2016 TIP. Projects highlighted in yellow were listed in the 2006-2011 TIP but have not been completed to date. Some projects listed below have experienced delays or the scope of work has been revised. The MPO does not program capital transit projects in the TIP until funding is secured. fed state local total fed state local total fed state local total fed state local total fed state local total 853 768 1222 2843 878 791 1259 2928 905 814 1297 3016 994 777 1335 3106 1024 800 1376 3200 Janesville Transit System Operations Planned Operations Expenditures Using Section 5307 and Section 85.20 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015-2016 65 Table 28: JTS Transit Capital Expenditures as listed in the 2011 – 2016 Transportation Improvement Program fed local total fed local total fed local total fed local total fed local total Transit System Operations and Maintenance Facility 3542 376 3918 Refurbish Transfer Center 32 8 40 Replace Radio Base Station and Components 40 10 50 40 10 50 Replace Supervisory Vehicle 28 7 35 28 7 35 Replace Shop Service Truck 60 15 75 Replace Buses 640 160 800 960 240 1200 960 240 1200 960 240 1200 Capital Repair Parts 32 8 40 32 8 40 32 8 40 32 8 40 Purchase/install bus stop signs 7 2 9 10 2 12 Shop Equipment 48 12 60 8 2 10 20 5 25 32 8 40 Replace Computers 6 2 8 8 2 10 Replace office copier/printer/fax 5 1 6 5 1 6 Replace Passenger Shelters 70 70 140 Planned Capital Projects using Section 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015-2016 5309 ($1,000) Public and private non-profit transit providers serving the elderly and disabled populations within the Janesville Urbanized Area submit projects to be listed in the TIP. Below are the projects listed in the 2011 – 2016 TIP. Changes to operating expenditures for paratransit service are reflected in the JTS long range operating expenses. Capital expenditures are not predicted to change. Rock County receives capital assistance under FTA Section 5310 for the replacement of vehicles and equipment. These projects require approval by the MPO policy Board as part of the annual TIP, and are administered at the state level by WisDOT. 66 Table 29: Non – Fixed Route Transit Capital Expenditures as listed in the 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program fed local total fed local total fed local total fed local total fed local total 32 8 40 31 8 39 Sec. 5310 RC Sec. 5310 RC 120 119 239 WETAP COM Action 86 18 104 Sec. 5317 RC Rock County Council on Aging/Specialized Transit -Mobility Manager 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015-2016 Elderly, Disabled, & Other Non -Fixed Route Transit Rock County Council on Aging/Specialized Transit -Replace 1 van Community Action -car loan program Projected Ridership and Underserved Areas As discussed in the Implementation to Date chapter, overall JTS ridership has declined by 19.9% in terms of unlinked trips, since 2006, due to a combination of the economic recession and fare increases in 2007 (the first in 10 years) and again at the beginning of 2010. Fares were increased as a result of the inability of the City’s General Fund to absorb a higher percentage of Transit operating costs and as such to avoid the alternative of a service decrease; and to maintain an appropriate relationship of the proportion of operating costs paid by users of the service versus that paid by City taxpayers. Based on experience after previous fare increases in the 1990’s, ridership may be expected to rebound slowly as customers adjust to the new economic conditions and fares. Evidence of this began to be seen in the 4th calendar quarter of 2010 and the first calendar quarter of 2011, when ridership exceeded that of the same period of the preceding year. In addition, a reduced-fare token program instituted by the City Council in 2009 as a response to the effects of the economic downturn has also helped to bolster ridership. In the near term, this recovery may be threatened by potential losses of state transit operating assistance and further erosion of the General Fund’s ability to pay its portion of even the current level of service, as the result of policy changes and related budgetary actions at the state level as this report is being written. Austerity measures reducing the level and scope of service which may have to be enacted as a result of this situation, as well as further fare increases to support even a reduced level of service, would likely further impact ridership and the ability of the transit system to meet community needs. Longer term, with a return of a more robust local economy and other initiatives that could support a higher level of investment in transit, service levels and ridership may return to pre-2007 levels by the end of the mid-range of the planning period in 2021. Table 30 updates projected ridership by resetting the actual ridership in 2010. Ridership includes transfers and Paratransit customers. Projections include a .6% increase in ridership per year, the same percent increase assumed in the 2005 Plan. Although short term service cuts are possible, the unknown future of JTS service makes it impossible to accurately predict ridership changes. 67 Table 30: JTS Projected Ridership 2010 -2035 Actual 2010 429,823 2015 442,953 2020 456,484 2025 470,429 2030 484,799 2035 499,609 An important transit goal is to serve major employment centers and serve areas of high transit potential. The MPO will assist JTS in researching and designing alterations to regular route service on the east side of the City in order to reach Dean/St. Mary’s Hospital, a new medical facility opening in fall 2011. These changes will modify existing routes to serve an important new community facility, but not add service or increase the cost of operation in any way. Service will be reduced in one or more areas of the city in order to provide service to the hospital. Due to slow growth and development of Janesville over the last five years, underserved areas have not grown in the manner projected in the 2005 Plan. While the areas of future growth remain; the rate of growth is expected to remain slow over at least the next five years. 68 Figure 11: High Growth Areas & Existing JTS Regular Routes Major expansion of JTS service is not expected to occur over the three planning periods between 2011 and 2035. Future TDP’s may identify the need for the expansion of service to underserved areas, however this will be tied directly to the availability of additional funding sources. At this time transit service, in terms of fixed routes operated, bus miles, hours of service, and ridership are anticipated to be similar to that which currently exists through 2035. Alterations may result to provide service to major industrial and commercial developments and new schools from areas of the city that exhibit high transit potential for those sites. It is expected that new residential developments, particularly those of lower 69 density and higher cost, will not necessarily be provided with regular fixed-route service due to funding constraints and limited transit potential. Funding constraints, travel demand, and demographic shifts will remain the controlling factors in determining whether some sections of the city will continue to receive regular fixed-route service. In general, financial limitations drive operating constraints which limit the ability to offer transit service to all parts of the city or to expand the hours and days of service; however the strategies outlined in this plan should enable JTS to maintain an effective system for the majority of its currently identified user groups through the life of the plan. Two long term transit issues, extension of intercity service to Milton, Whitewater, and UW-Whitewater, and shared ride taxi within the City of Milton, are transit opportunities that would benefit the community and economy. These transit services are long term recommendations. Financial Plan The following financial updates do not assume any major changes in service or capital plans. Tables reset the planning horizon by providing actual data for programmed years 2011 through 2016 and then projecting beyond to the 2035 horizon. Table 31: JTS Estimated Revenue and Assistance 2011 -2035 2011-2016 2017-2025 2026-2035 Farebox, Advertising, Paratransit & Misc. Revenue $ 3,310,554 $ 5,895,942 $ 8,755,839 Federal Operating Assistance $ 5,643,691 $ 10,751,424 $ 15,966,530 State Operating Assitance $ 4,840,722 $ 9,364,144 $ 13,906,333 Local $ 4,597,992 $ 8,670,503 $ 12,876,234 Total Revenue: $ 18,392,959 $ 34,682,014 $ 51,504,937 Annual Average $ 3,065,493 $ 3,853,557 $ 5,150,494 Operating Assistance Source: 2011-2016 TIP (2011 dollars plus 3% annual increase) Assume State and Federal share 57%, farebox 17% and local 25%. 70 Table 32: JTS Capital Projects 2011 -2035 2011-2020 2021-2035 Total Capital Repair Parts $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 4 5 0,000 $750,000 Replace/Purchase Shop Equipment $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 Purchase Utility Vehicle $ 4 5 , 0 0 0 $45,000 $90,000 Rehabilitate Downtown Transfer Center $250,000 $100,000 $350,000 Rehabilitate JTS Buses $885,500 $1,518,000 $2,403,500 Replace bus signs $34,000 $42,500 $76,500 Replace Computer Equipment $22,500 $15,000 $37,500 Replace Garage Sweeper $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 $30,000 $60,000 Replace JTS Buses and Paratransit Van(s) $2,610,000 $4,640,000 $7,250,000 Replace Maintenance Shop Truck $60,000 $60,000 $120,000 Replace Office Copier/Printer/Fax $12,000 $18,000 $30,000 Replace Passenger Shelters/Benches $66,000 $66,000 $132,000 Replace Radio Equipment $75,000 $100,000 $175,000 Replace Service/Supervisory Vehicles $56,000 $84,000 $140,000 Construction of Transit Systems Maintenance Garage $7,000,000 Refurbishment of Transit Systems Maintenance Garage $500,000 $500,000 Capital Totals: $11,496,000 $7,718,500 $12,214,500 Average $2,299,200 $1,543,700 $2,442,900 Capital Expenditures 71 Funding Implementation of the transit recommendations will be contingent on continued funding support of service. State Assistance: Wisconsin has been a national leader in supporting public transit services, with the state operating assistance program dating to 1975. Janesville has been part of this program since the outset. Innovative programs, such as shared ride taxi public transit services in small communities, have resulted in statewide coverage and a total of 71 transit systems in communities large and small across the state. The amount of state assistance has varied over the years, reaching a high of 42% of operating expenses in the early 1990’s, and currently covering 26% of expenses for transit systems in cities the size of Janesville. Funding comes from the state’s segregated Transportation fund, which is supported by transportation user fees; primarily the state’s motor fuel tax. As of this writing, proposals to significantly alter the program in the name of fiscal necessity, including removing transit assistance from the Transportation Fund and reducing the level of funding have been made by the Governor, with legislative action pending. The outcome could significantly alter the long-term fiscal picture for JTS. Federal Assistance: a. Operating: In recent years, federal operating assistance provided under Section 5307 of the Federal Transit Act has covered up to 31% of JTS’ annual operating expenses. The authorizing legislation underlying the program expired in 2009 and has been extended year-to-year since then. Attempts to develop and pass new authorizing legislation have thus far been unsuccessful. It is anticipated that federal assistance will continue to cover a significant portion of JTS’ operating expenses through the planning period. However, changes in authorizing legislation and appropriations actions driven by the policies of the party in power at the time make an accurate long-term estimate impossible. b. Capital: The Wisconsin Department of Transportation has developed an annual capital funding request for Section 5309 discretionary funds for over two decades. These requests were coordinated with the state’s congressional delegation and funded through an annual “earmark” of funds sponsored by the delegation. In recent years, the earmarking process for capital funds has become politically unpopular and discredited to the point where it no longer represents a viable means of funding the state’s annual transit capital program. Unfortunately, neither the Congress nor the FTA has developed a viable alternative to earmarking, and as a result, as of this writing no replacement mechanism able to provide a somewhat reliable source of annual capital funding exists. For Janesville, this presents a significant problem both immediately and into the future, as the major project to replace the City’s transit operating and maintenance facility is stalled with less than half of the needed funding allocated and obligated in FTA grants. The situation may also affect impending bus replacements within the next 5 years. Absent passage of renewed authorizing legislation, and a reliable means of funding transit capital needs, over time JTS’ ability to operate and maintain its bus fleet and provide reliable service to the community will increasingly be called into question. 72 Locally Generated Funding: After state and federal assistance, the balance of funding to support public transit operating and capital expenses is generated locally. Passenger fares have already been addressed earlier in this document. In Janesville, fares are set by City Ordinance, requiring a public hearing and affirmative vote of the City Council to be enacted. These actions usually, but not exclusively, occur as part of the annual City budget process. The balance of local funding presently comes from the City’s General fund, supported by property taxes, municipal fees and state shared revenues. The ability of the General Fund to underwrite its share of transit operating costs as well as the full range of municipal programs is directly related to the state of the local and state economy and resultant tax collections. Again due to fiscal austerity policies proposed at the state level and awaiting legislative consideration, the future ability of the City’s general fund to support the current level of transit service, at least in the short term, is in doubt. Regional Transit Authorities: Attempts were made to pass state wide Regional Transit Authority (RTA) enabling legislation in June of 2009 during the preparation of the 2009-2011 Wisconsin State budget, and in April of 2010 during the regular session of the Wisconsin State legislature. This legislation would permit local governments in a region (such as Rock County or a more ad-hoc grouping of local governments) to band together to jointly provide public transit service that they now provide individually through the institution of an RTA. To support this effort, the RTA would have the authority to levy a sales tax of up to 0.5% in the region, with the proceeds being used to defray the local share of operating and capital costs. Such a sales tax would likely require a positive referendum vote in the area to be served by the RTA. In turn, this would remove local share costs for transit service from the property tax in the various municipalities sponsoring transit service. RTA’s would also presumably be able to provide service beyond municipal boundaries in rural areas and smaller communities, addressing the transportation needs of citizens currently unable to access transit services. In each case, the legislation came very close to passing, but was not adopted into State law. Meanwhile, the State Legislature has begun authorizing Regional Transit Authorities on a case-by-case basis, with 4 authorized as of late 2010. These RTA’s are politically controversial, however, with certain legislators vowing to push through legislation to rescind their formation. As of this writing, their future is somewhat in doubt. 73 Recommendations for Freight Planning Introduction and Purpose The movement of people and goods is vital to the everyday life of those who live in the MPO area and the businesses that operate here. In response to the loss of General Motors and other freight rail customers, the MPO is turning its attention to the preservation and maintenance of rail corridors in the area. This update is an opportunity to better integrate freight rail planning and preservation with economic development. This Chapter updates the existing rail inventory cataloged in the 2005-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, identifies issues, and offers recommendations and resources for rail planning. The availability and quality of rail infrastructure creates a competitive economic development advantage for Rock County. With significant basic infrastructure in place, maintenance and improvement to this investment is critical to the expansion of rail users and the attraction of new business. The quality of this resource directly impacts the creation of jobs, business investment and tax revenues for the incorporated areas of Rock County as well as making these local lines more profitable for the railroads. Increased profitability for rail owners encourages continued investment and improvement to rail infrastructure. This chapter does not cover truck or air freight. The infrastructure needs of freight transportation by truck are generally addressed in the Freight section of the 2005 Plan. Previous highway planning efforts by the MPO have resulted in significant enhancements of the road network in the planning area to facilitate ease of access and egress to the area for truck freight. The MPO has not previously dealt with air freight; although it recognizes that the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, located in the planning area, is an important resource in this regard and possesses significant capabilities for air freight service. Rock County, which owns and operates the airport, has made significant infrastructure and equipment investments in the airport in recent years to ensure that it is capable of hosting such service; including provision of sufficient runway, taxiway and ramp capacity to host large jet aircraft. The next major Plan update will measure integration of all freight modes within the transportation system. Railroad Facilities An inventory of existing railroad facilities and corridors is provided in the South Central Wisconsin Commuter Transportation Study (SCWCTS), published in 2007. The study includes a comprehensive inventory and analysis of rail facilities in order to assess the capacity for passenger rail. The maps and tables included in this chapter have been copied out of the SCWCS. Table 1 is up to date as of 2011. 74 A map of the rail links coded by identification number is included on Figure 1. A list of the individual links is provided on Table 1, including various attributes associated with each. Terminal points, length in miles, prior and current ownership, and current rail operators of actively used lines are provided. A full profile for each link is provided in the SCWCS document in Appendix A. 75 Table 1: Rock County Rail Corridor Inventory # Corridor Code Rail Corridor Description Dist. In Miles Prior Railroad Present Ownership Present Operator(s) Railroad Intact? Track Condition Usage Factors 1 RMMJV Madison-Milton Jct. -Janesville 41.0 CMStP &P/UPRR Various UPRR, WSOR Yes Fair -Good High 2 RMAEV Madison -Evansville 19.5 C & NW Various WSOR in Madison only No Fair -Good Low 3 REVJV Evansville -Janesville 19.0 C & NW UPRR UPRR Yes Good Low 4 RFAJV Fort Atkinson -Janesville 19.0 C & NW Various UPRR, WSOR No 5 RJVFL Janesville -Fox Lake 49.5 CMStP & P WisDOT & counties WSOR Yes Fair -Good High 6 RFLCU Fox Lake -Chicago 49.5 CMStP & P Metra (NIRC) Metra/WSOR/CPR/ATK Yes Excellent High 7 RJVHA Janesville -Harvard 28.7 C & NW UPRR UPRR and WSOR/IC &E in Janesville Yes Excellent Moderate 8 RHACO Harvard -Chicago 63.1 C & NW UPRR UPRR/UP Metra NW Yes Excellent High 9 REVAF Evansville -Afton 17.0 C & NW Various None No 10 RJVBE Janesville -Afton -Beloit 14.0 C & NW UPRR/bike path UPRR in Janesville only only No Fair -Good Low 11 RJVBJ Janesville -Beloit 13.8 CMStP & P IC & E IC & E/UPRR in Beloit Yes Poor Low 12 RBERF Beloit -Rockton -Rockford 18.0 CMStP & P IC & E IC & E/UPRR in Beloit Yes Fair Low 13 RBACJ Bardwell -Clinton Jct. 7.0 CMStP & P bike path None No 14 RCJBE Clinton Jct. -Beloit 10.2 C & NW UPRR UPRR/IC & E in Beloit Yes Fair Low 15 RWXHA Walworth Crossing Harvard 8.0 CHGL Various None No 16 RBECH Beloit -Chemung 23.8 C & NW UPRR/bike path UPRR to Rockton Rd. No Fair -Good Low 17 RCHHA Chemung -Harvard 4.1 C & NW UPRR/CCCR UPRR/CCCR Yes Excellent Low 18 RBVWC Rockford -Belvidere -Elgin -West Chicago 62.7 C & NW UPRR UPRR Yes Fair -Good Moderate 19 RRFCU Rockford -Genoa -Chicago 83.8 ICRR CNR CNR Yes Good Moderate 20 RHTHA Hebron Tower -Harvard 10.3 C & NW Various None No 21 RCALP Caledonia -Loves Park 6.2 C & NW Various None No 22 RLPRF Loves Park -Rockford 5.8 C & NW UPRR/bike path Yes Poor -Fair Low 23 RRFEL Rockford -Davis Jct. -Elgin Big Timber Station 43.0 CMStP & P IC & E Yes Poor -Fair Moderate 24 RELCU Elgin Big Timber Station -Chicago 41.1 CMStP & P Metra (NIRC) Yes Excellent High 25 RMOJV Monroe -Janesville 35.2 CMStP & P WisDOT & counties WSOR Yes Good High 26 RMJWW Milton Jct. -Whitewater 13.2 CMStP & P WisDOT & counties WSOR Yes Good High 76 77 78 Railroads Serving the Planning Area: The City of Janesville and Rock County are served by the Union Pacific (UP), the Iowa, Chicago and Eastern Railroad (ICE), and the Wisconsin & Southern Railroad Co. (WSOR), on track owned by Union Pacific, Iowa Chicago and Eastern, and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), respectively. Milton is served by WSOR. The Janesville area utilizes rail primarily to haul agricultural commodities, plastic, ethanol, and aggregate. In Janesville, at-grade crossing are located along major arterial streets such as West Court Street, Delavan Drive, Beloit Avenue and South Jackson Street, and USH 14. Many of the rail lines cross other arterial streets, making maintenance and repair essential. Planning to avoid trains blocking roads is very important for emergency services. Union Pacific Railway Union Pacific (UP), one of the major Class 1 railroads in the western US, has tracks across the state of Wisconsin, from Superior in the northwest through Milwaukee and the southeast corner of the state to the Chicago hub. Main line tracks run from the Twin Cities area on the western border, east across the state to Milwaukee and south along Lake Michigan into Chicago. The line serving Janesville was formerly the main line of the Chicago and Northwestern Railway (CNW) and at one time was a major corridor for freight and passenger service from Chicago to the Twin Cities and other points west, as well as to Fond du Lac and east-central Wisconsin. The destinations served by this line were reduced by abandonments over the years, and after the UP acquired the CNW in 1995, the portion of the line from Evansville to Madison was abandoned (although still rail-banked by the state), severing the line as a through track to the north. The Janesville General Motors assembly plant was one of Union Pacific’s top three Wisconsin customers, and as a result the line was maintained in excellent condition until the plant closure in late 2008. The track south of Janesville still represents the highest highest quality railroad serving the area, (FRA Class 3-4) despite drastically reduced traffic volumes. From Harvard, IL, about 26 rail miles south-east of Janesville, the line accommodates METRA commuter rail service to Chicago. UP maintains service between Janesville and Evansville to serve two very large grain elevators in Evansville and several smaller industries on the line. Major commodities handled by the railroad statewide are coal, autos, auto parts, potash, and supplies for malt houses and flourmills; with the local line now primarily handling grain, agricultural products, lumber and general freight. UP maintains a terminal and freight yard in far southeast Janesville, and provides switching service to on-line industries. 79 Wisconsin & Southern Railroad Co. Wisconsin & Southern (WSOR), a well managed Class II Regional railroad, operates freight service on state-owned rail lines in the southern half of Wisconsin, and through northeast Illinois over more than 600 miles of former Milwaukee Road and CNW branch and mainline track, with Janesville serving as the southern hub. On any given day, 100-300 WSOR rail cars travel through the JATS area and are reconfigured at their rail yard in Janesville. The WSOR connects to all the western Class One railroads within the state – Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Canadian National, Canadian Pacific and Union Pacific. WSOR has direct access to Chicago and connections to the eastern Class One's – CSX and Norfolk Southern through the Belt Railway in Chicago. WSOR also has access to harbor facilities in Prairie du Chien for transload to/from Mississippi River barges. The WSOR transports the following commodities: corn and grain, coal, canned goods, lumber, paper, fertilizer, aggregate, ethanol, ethanol, plastic, gasoline, sugar, pulp board, metal scrap, auto parts, military vehicles, lube oil and steel. Wisconsin & Southern currently serves nearly two dozen rail users in Rock County alone, and provides local switching service for on-line industries. A variety of commodities and finished products originate or terminate on the WSOR in Rock County every year including ethanol, corn, beans, wheat, aggregate, plastic, fertilizer, animal feed products, canned goods, lumber and chemicals. The WSOR forecasts rail demand in Rock County will increase 25% by 2020, and considers this a conservative estimate. Transload Facilities: WSOR has rail to truck transload facilities in Janesville, Milwaukee, Oshkosh, and Madison, WI., and maintains a piggy-back loading ramp in Janesville. Iowa, Chicago and Eastern Railroad The Iowa, Chicago and Eastern Railroad (ICE) is a subsidiary of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The ICE operates on the former Milwaukee Road and Soo Line trackage between Janesville and South Beloit, IL, with this short branch line representing the only presence of this railroad in the area. Since its former major customer, the Alliant Energy Rock River Generating Station in Beloit Township, ceased receiving coal deliveries in the mid-1990’s, the line sees minimal traffic with perhaps one train per week to Janesville. Since assuming ownership of the line, ICE has made capital improvements to replace deteriorated ties, add ballast and resurface the railroad as well as repairing damage suffered in the 2008 Rock River flood; but the track is still a slow speed (FRA Class 1) line. However, the ICE provides the only direct north-south rail access between Janesville and Beloit and to the Rockford area and points south from the region, so it represents an important corridor, providing direct rail service not available from 80 other sources. The ICE utilizes the WSOR yard in Janesville for switching and to turn its trains for the trip south. Issues and Opportunities Connections 2030 is a long range transportation plan for the state of Wisconsin. Adopted by WisDOT in 2009, the plan identifies the following rail challenges in the state: >>Preserving local rail service >>Preserving abandoned corridors >>Improving intermodal connections >>Funding track upgrades on publicly owned lines to meet market standards for heavier railcars >>Addressing security in rail yards >>Coordinating passenger rail and freight rail >>Coordinating shipping companies and freight rail >>Addressing crossing safety and closures >>Addressing weight limits on publicly-owned track >>Minimizing trespassing Janesville Area MPO Issues The most serious issue facing rail in the Janesville area is the loss of manufacturing and subsequent reduction of rail freight. Of particular concern is the existing privately-owned Union Pacific line between Evansville and Harvard, IL, which provides the only relatively high speed (FRA Class 3-4) rail access to the region, but suffered a great loss of traffic with the closure of the Janesville General Motors plant in 2009. Union Pacific maintains a large terminal and freight yard in Janesville which is now underutilized with the loss of GM traffic. The closing of this terminal, the downgrading or abandonment of this line by the UP would be a serious blow to the area economy which would require a response in line with the adopted policy of the MPO. Also of concern is the Iowa, Chicago and Eastern line owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway between Janesville and South Beloit, IL. The line sees minimal traffic and is a slow speed (FRA Class 1) line, but provides the only direct north-south rail access between Janesville and Beloit and to the Rockford area and points south from the region. Again, any proposed abandonment of this line would require a response under the adopted policy of the MPO to maintain this unique transportation corridor. All other rail lines in the region are state-owned by one of two Regional Rail Transit Commissions and operated by their contracted operator, WSOR, which maintains a terminal facility and freight yard in Janesville. The state owned lines connect Janesville with Madison, Baraboo and Reedsburg to the north 81 and the greater Milwaukee area to the east; with extensions to the Mississippi River at Prairie du Chien and the Fox Valley at Oshkosh. The state and the WSOR, with both state and private funding, have engaged in an on-going systematic effort to maintain and upgrade these lines to improve safety, increase train speeds and increase the capacity of the tracks to accommodate current and future standard railcars up to 315,000 pounds. This will be an on-going effort requiring continued major capital expenditures for as long as the railroad remains in operation; which in turn will require repeated state appropriations (and federal capital grants if available in the future) to continue to ensure the viability of this regional rail system. Janesville Area MPO Opportunities WSOR has undertaken major upgrades of infrastructure in the Town of Milton, Town of Fulton and Town of Rock areas within the MPO planning area, as well as from Avalon to the Illinois state line. The WSOR has future planned upgrades to their lines from Janesville to Whitewater, Janesville to Brodhead and Janesville to Avalon. Upgrades will be consistent with Class 3 railroad standards allowing for 315,000 lb rail cars – tomorrow’s railroad industry standard. As previously indicated, these continued capital improvements will require on-going grants from the state freight railroad program, supported over time by appropriations by the legislature. Rail Transit Commissions (RTCs) purchase rail lines and manage rail service. They generally provide matching funds for the purchase and rehabilitation of rail corridors and contract with private operators to provide freight service. Rock County has been a member of the Wisconsin River Rail Transit Commission (WRRTC) since 1982 and is also a member of the Pecatonica Rail Transit Commission (PRTC) since its founding in the early 1980’s. These Commissions own the rail lines radiating north and west from Janesville that are operated by the WSOR. The Rail Commissions work with WSOR and WisDOT on regional capital capital improvement programs, which generally fall along the lines of acquisition and/or rehabilitation. Historically, funding for these programs has been shared among WisDOT (80%), WSOR (10%) and the Commissions (10%). Recommendations: Execute adopted policy by Janesville MPO and Stateline Area Transportation Study to preserve rail corridors in abandonment proceedings for future transportation use. Develop a rail portfolio to be used as a tool for economic development agencies and personnel in Rock County. The portfolio would contain an inventory of track, track conditions, and areas of the MPO served by rail facilities. This portfolio would assist efforts to develop rail served assets by acquiring locate and expand businesses needing rail service. The portfolio should be updated at a minimum of every five years. Identify and prioritize shipping lanes for preservation and maintenance. 82 Once adopted, work with WisDOT to implement Wisconsin Rail Plan 2030. Support upgrading and maintenance of trackage within and contiguous to the MPO area identified by WSOR’s 3-5-7 Plan, published 2002. Support agencies and organizations seeking rail funding, including Freight Rail Loan Repayments (FRIIP Program), Freight Rail Preservation Program (FRPP), Rail service assistance, and other funding sources. Evaluate future requests for potential commuter rail service within the Planning area and connections to destinations outside the planning area for impacts on existing freight rail service, and necessary improvements to allow both modes to operate in shared corridors. Additionally, the Janesville Comprehensive Plan, adopted March 9, 2009, contained the following recommendations: Encourage continued maintenance, preservation, and expansion of freight rail lines to serve existing and potential future industry in the City. Reserve key redevelopment and new development sites with excellent rail access or potential access for rail-oriented land uses. Appendix A: Janesville Area MPO Organization as of May 9, 2011 MPO ORGANIZATION COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF MILTON WisDOT CITY OF JANESVILLE ROCK COUNTY FTA Marisol Simon George Brunner Tom Chesmore John Vesperman Eric Levitt Paul Benjamin Mayor Planning Chief -City Manager Planning Director Tom McDonald District 1 Policy Board -Chair ROCK COUNTY Carl Weber Ben Coopman BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN Director of Public Works Highway Commissioner Sam Liebert Alan Sweeney (Vice Chair) Carolyn Brandeen Rock County Alan Sweeney Rock Trail Coalition Yuri Rashkin Board of Supervisors David Mumma Rock Co. Board Transit Director of Supervisors TOWN CHAIRPERSONS Russ Steeber TOWN CHAIRPERSONS CITY OF BELOIT Roger Fanning Deb Dongarra-Adams Roger Fanning Director of Community Development Town of Harmony Town of Harmony (Chair) Bob Soltau Kathy Voskuil MPO Coordinator Mike Saunders Vice Chair Mike Saunders Mike Payne Town of La Prairie Town of La Prairie Engineering Manager WisDOT CITY OF JANESVILLE Edward Marshall Edward Marshall Dennis Ryan Arun Rao Town of Janesville Eric Levitt Town of Janesville Assistant Engineering Manager Bureau of Planning City Manager Mark Gunn Mark Gunn CITY OF MILTON Franco Marcos Town of Rock Town of Rock District 1 Jerry Schuetz Bryan Meyer Bryan Meyer City Administrator FHWA Town of Milton Town of Milton Howard Robinson Dave Jolicoeur FREIGHT PREPARED BY: Janesville Area MPO Director of Public Works Plan. and Prog. Devel. Engineer Ken Lucht The Janesville Area MPO includes the following units of government: City of Janesville, City of Milton, Rock County, and the Towns of Harmony, Janesville, LaPrairie, Milton and Rock. The work of the Janesville Area MPO is directed by a Policy Board which is advised by a Technical Advisory Committee. The City of Janesville Community Development is the staff for the MPO. Policy Board TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE The printing of this report was financed in part through a joint planning grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Federal Transit Administration and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation Region 5 -Regional Administrator Appendix B: Public Participation Materials The MPO encouraged the public and outside agencies to review the documents and provide input during all stages of plan development. The TAC and Policy Board meetings were key opportunities for review and decision-making. Each meeting was advertised as a public meeting and noticed as such in the local newspaper. All documents presented at the meetings were available for review at the local libraries, on the MPO website and at City Hall. Public participation followed the MPO procedures as outlined in the Public Participation Plan adopted 2004. Comments in response to Environmental Consultation are located in Appendix C. The MPO held public meetings on the following days: October 5, 2010 January 4, 2011 April 19, 2011 May 9, 2011 Public Notice published in Janesville Gazette September 20, 2010 PUBLIC NOTICE The Janesville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) will be conducting a meeting of the MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The MPO TAC is a coordinating committee which reviews major transportation projects in the City of Janesville, City of Milton and the towns of Janesville, Harmony, La Prairie, Milton and Rock. MPO staff will be discussing amendments to the 2010-2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), reviewing the 2011-2016 TIP, reviewing the 2011 Unified Work Program, and making recommendations regarding chapters of the update to the Long Range Transportation Plan. The documents being presented to the TAC are available for public review in the Community Development Department, 18 North Jackson Street, Janesville, between 7:30 & 4:30 p.m., Monday – Friday, at the Hedberg and Milton libraries, and on the MPO’s web page, www.ci.janesville.wi.us. For information on the meeting or to receive an agenda, please please contact the Planning Department at 755-3095, FAX 755-3196 or email nolant@ci.janesville.wi.us. The meeting will be held on October 5, 2010 in room 416, 18 North Jackson Street, Janesville, WI at 10 a.m. Publish once: Monday, September 20, 2010. JANESVILLE AREA MPO September 24, 2010 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Terry Nolan, Janesville Area MPO Coordinator RE: Janesville Area MPO Technical Advisory Committee Meeting A meeting of the MPO Technical Advisory Committee has been scheduled as follows: October 5, 2010 10am Janesville Police Services Conference Room 100 N. Jackson Street Janesville, WI Agenda Items: I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of June 22nd Minutes IV. New Business 1. Review of Long Range Transportation Plan Goals and Objectives and Performance Measures 2. Review and approval of amendment to 2010-2015 Transportation Improvement Program 3. Review and approval of 2011 Unified Work Program 4. Review and approval of 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program V. Communications from members 1. Update on travel model to be used for LRTP update 2. Update on status of Janesville-Milton-Whitewater planning study 3. Update on status of State improvements and studies VI. Matters not on the agenda VII. Adjournment Note: The meeting and all business items have been advertised as a public hearing. If you are unable to attend or have any comments/questions prior to the meeting, please contact me at (608) 755-3095. CC: Duane Cherek J:\Development\Planning\MPO\Meetings of TAC & Policy Board\Technical Advisory Committee\2010\fall meeting\TAC.Min.Oct2010.doc 1 of 2 JANESVILLE AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Planning Services Department, 18 North Jackson Street, Janesville, WI 53545 Janesville Area MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting Tuesday, October 5, 2010 Room 416, Janesville Municipal Building Meeting Notes I. Call to Order. Duane Cherek, called the meeting to order at 10:08 a.m. II. Roll Call. Members Others Present: Terry Nolan (Janesville Area MPO Coordinator), Steve Schraufnagel (Rock County Planning) III. Approval of June 22nd Minutes On a motion by Member Weber, seconded by Member Mumma the June 22nd, 2010 MPO meeting minutes were unanimously adopted. IV. New Business 1. Review of Long Range Transportation Plan Goals and Objectives and Performance Measures Terry Nolan, MPO Coordinator, explained this review is part of a minor update of the Long Range Plan due in May 2011. Goals and Objectives have been revised revised based upon x Eric Levitt, City Manager, Janesville x Arun Rao , Bureau o f P lanning, WisDOT x Duane Cherek, JVL Planning Services Manager, (Chair) x Franco Marcos, Senior Planner, WisDOT x Carl Weber, Dir. of Public Works, Janesville (Vice Chair) x Dwight McComb, FHWA x Dave Mumma, Transit Director, Janesville Transit System x Marisol Simon, Region 5 Planning Director, FTA x Mike Payne, Engineering Director, Janesville x Carolyn Brandeen, Rock Trail Coalition x Dennis Ryan, Senior Engineer, Janesville x Roger Fanning, Harmony Twp x Jerry Schuetz, Act ing City Administ rator, Milton x Edward Marshall, Janesville Twp x Howard Robinson, Director of Public Works, Milton x Mike Saunders, LaPrairie Twp x Paul Benjamin, Director of Planning, Rock County x Mark Gunn, Rock Twp x Ben Coopman, Highway Commissioner, Rock County x Brian Meyer, Milton Twp x Alan Sweeny, Rock Co. Board of Supervisors x Freight Representative, Non-voting x Bob Soltau, SLATS MPO Coordinator Present /Absent Present /Absent J:\Development\Planning\MPO\Meetings of TAC & Policy Board\Technical Advisory Committee\2010\fall meeting\TAC.Min.Oct2010.doc 2 of 2 suggestions made during June 22nd TAC meeting. Performance measures are a new element to the Long Range document, and will be included in subsequent planning documents. Member Robinson offered to provide PASER data for Milton. On a motion by Member Soltau, seconded by Member Robinson, the TAC unanimously agreed to approve Long Range Plan Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures. 2. Review and approval of amendment to 2010-2015 Transportation Improvement Program. Terry Nolan, MPO Coordinator, explained the projects to be added to the 2010 TIP. Member Soltau added that SLATS has added the guardrail project because it extends into their MPO also. On a motion by Member Soltau, seconded by Member Payne, the TAC unanimously approved amendments to the 2010-2015 Transportation Improvement Program. 3. Review and approval of 2011 Unified Work Program. Terry Nolan, MPO Coordinator, gave a brief summary of the main tasks to be undertaken by the MPO in 2011. No discussion. On a motion by Member Payne, seconded by Member Weber, the TAC unanimously approved the 2011 Unified Work Program. 4. Review and Approval of 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program. Terry Nolan, MPO Coordinator, gave a brief overview of the 2011-2016 TIP, noting corrections to the draft sent to members and highlighting key new projects. Member Mumma pointed out Janesville bus replacements and the Rock County Council on Aging application for a mobility manager. Member Brandeen asked about the River Street TE project, which is a streetscaping project. On a motion by Member Mumma, seconded by Member Weber, the TAC unanimously approved the 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program. V. Other items for discussion. Terry Nolan and Dwight McComb explained the update to the travel model and the purpose of using a 2008 model. Member Mumma gave an update of the progress to establish inter-city bus service between Janesville, Milton, and Whitewater. Member Marcos gave an update on the status of four studies: USH 14 from Oregon to Janesville; USH 14 from Janesville to I-43; USH 11 from Monroe to Janesville; I-39/90. Member Rau mentioned that the 2030 Rail Plan is available for review and comment on WisDOT’s website. Member Soltau explained the notice of proposed rulemaking regarding urbanized boundaries. The proposed rule potentially has a significant impact on transit funding. VI. Adjournment A motion to adjourn was made by Member Weber, with a second by Member Mumma. The October 5, 2010 TAC meeting adjourned at 11:00 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Terry Nolan MPO Coordinator 10/5/10 Public Notice published in Janesville Gazette December 27, 2010 PUBLIC NOTICE The Janesville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) will be conducting a meeting of the MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The MPO TAC is a coordinating committee which reviews major transportation projects in the City of Janesville, City of Milton and the towns of Janesville, Harmony, La Prairie, Milton and Rock. MPO staff will be discussing amendments to the 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The documents being presented to the TAC are available for public review in the Community Development Department, 18 North Jackson Street, Janesville, between 7:30 & 4:30 p.m., Monday – Friday, at the Hedberg and Milton libraries, and on the MPO’s web page, www.ci.janesville.wi.us. For information on the meeting or to receive an agenda, please contact the Planning Department at 755-3095, FAX 755-3196 or email nolant@ci.janesville.wi. us. The meeting will be held on January 4, 2011 in room 416, 18 North Jackson Street, Janesville, WI at 10 a.m. Publish once: Monday, December 27, 2010 JANESVILLE AREA MPO December 27, 2010 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Terry Nolan, Janesville Area MPO Coordinator RE: Janesville Area MPO Technical Advisory Committee Meeting A meeting of the MPO Technical Advisory Committee has been scheduled as follows: January 4, 2011 10am Janesville Municipal Building Room 416, Fourth Floor 18 N. Jackson Street Janesville, WI Agenda Items: I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of October 5th Minutes IV. New Business 1. Review and approval of amendment to 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program V. Communications from members 1. Environmental consultation for the LRTP update 2. Opportunity to expand freight rail chapter in LRTP update VI. Matters not on the agenda VII. Adjournment Note: The meeting and all business items have been advertised as a public hearing. If you are unable to attend or have any comments/questions prior to the meeting, please contact me at (608) 755-3095. CC: Duane Cherek J:\Development\Planning\MPO\Meetings of TAC & Policy Board\Technical Advisory Committee\2011\TAC.Min.Jan2011.doc 1 of 2 JANESVILLE AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Planning Services Department, 18 North Jackson Street, Janesville, WI 53545 Janesville Area MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting Tuesday, January 4, 2011 Room 416, Janesville Municipal Building Meeting Notes I. Call to Order. Duane Cherek, called the meeting to order at 10:04 a.m. II. Roll Call. Members Others Present: Terry Nolan (Janesville Area MPO Coordinator), Allan Arndt (LaPrairie Supervisor), Inga Jacobson (City of Milton), Chelsea Berg (citizen, LDA participant) III. Approval of October 5th minutes On a motion by Member Brandeen, seconded by Member Robinson the October 5, 2010 MPO meeting minutes were unanimously adopted. IV. New Business 1. Review and approval of amendment to 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program. Terry Nolan, MPO Coordinator, explained the projects to be added to the 2011 x Eric Levitt, City Manager, Janesville x Arun Rao , Bureau o f P lanning, WisDOT x Duane Cherek, JVL Planning Services Manager, (Chair) x Franco Marcos, Senior Planner, WisDOT x Carl Weber, Dir. of Public Works, Janesville (Vice Chair) x Dave Jolicouer, FHWA x Dave Mumma, Transit Director, Janesville Transit System x Marisol Simon, Region 5 Planning Director, FTA x Mike Payne, Engineering Manager, Janesville x Carolyn Brandeen, Rock Trail Coalition x Dennis Ryan, Asst. Engineering Manager, Janesville x Roger Fanning, Harmony Twp x Jerry Schuetz, City Administ rator, Milton x Edward Marshall, Janesville Twp x Howard Robinson, Director of Public Works, Milton x Mike Saunders, LaPrairie Twp x Paul Benjamin, Director of Planning, Rock County x Mark Gunn, Rock Twp x Ben Coopman, Highway Commissioner, Rock County x Bryan Meyer, Milton Twp x Alan Sweeny, Rock Co. Board of Supervisors x Freight Representative, Non-voting x Bob Soltau, SLATS MPO Coordinator Present /Absent Present /Absent J:\Development\Planning\MPO\Meetings of TAC & Policy Board\Technical Advisory Committee\2011\TAC.Min.Jan2011.doc 2 of 2 TIP. On a motion by Member Soltau, seconded by Member Robinson, the TAC unanimously approved amendments to the 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program. V. Other items for discussion. Terry Nolan gave an overview of the Long Range Transportation Plan update document and how environmental consultation and freight rail will be incorporated into the document. Members then discussed recommended projects included in the Plan and rail. Members Saunders and Sweeney oppose the east-west grade separation project due to its impact on agricultural industry. Member Cherek gave a history of why the project was originally proposed, and that the feasibility of the project would be determined during planning and design for the I-39/90 expansion. He added that both this project and the Milton-Shopiere project are long range planning recommendations and it is important to identify those possibilities well in advance. Member Benjamin asked if comments and concerns from the towns are considered in the planning of projects and Member Cherek stated all long range planning recommendations would occur with the major update to be completed in two years. Member Mumma discussed the South Central Wisconsin Commuter Transportation Study (SCWCTS) and the results that could benefit freight rail planning. The study also prompted a joint resolution by the Janesville area and Beloit area MPO’s to preserve rail corridors. Member Mumma talked about the possible disinvestment by Union Pacific, as they are seeing less traffic on the Janesville to Chicago line now that General Motors is closed. Member Benjamin suggested we receive a presentation by Fitchburg representatives regarding how communities go about owning railway. Previous to the meeting, Terry had asked Member Sweeney to help find a freight representative to serve on the Technical Advisory Committee and Member Sweeney asked Ken Lucht with WSOR. Ken Lucht is willing to serve and will be attending the next TAC meeting. Bryan Meyer, Chairman of Milton Township, requested the MPO extend its planning boundary to include Newville Road north of HWY 14. The Town has been unsuccessful in receiving funding for maintenance of the road. Member Cherek replied that the 2010 Census would result in a redrawing of planning boundaries, and this may be a good opportunity to explore the inclusion of the road. MPO staff will look further into the matter. Alan Arndt, LaPrairie Township Supervisor, brought up the need for interchanges at the intersections of HWY 11 and CTY G and HWY 11 and HWY 51. Member Cherek replied that a new study being conducted by WisDOT will consider improvements along state HWY 11 for that area located between Monroe and I-39/90. Within the Janesville are, those intersections will be studied. Member Marcos said the HWY 11/14 study will also consider improvements to the intersections, and the study may need to be sped up due to the approval of the I-39/90 expansion. VI. Adjournment A motion to adjourn was made by Member Coopman, with a second by Member Payne. The January 4, 2011 TAC meeting adjourned at 11:30 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Terry Nolan MPO Coordinator 1/4/11 Public Notice published in Janesville Gazette April 11, 2011 PUBLIC NOTICE The Janesville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) will be conducting a meeting of the MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The MPO TAC is a coordinating committee which reviews major transportation projects in the City of Janesville, City of Milton and the towns of Janesville, Harmony, La Prairie, Milton and Rock. MPO staff will be discussing minor updates to and reaffirmation of the 2005-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, amendments to the 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and amendment to the 2011 Work Program. The documents being presented to the TAC are available for public review in the Community Development Department, 18 North Jackson Street, Janesville, between 7:30 & 4:30 p.m., Monday – Friday, at the Hedberg and Milton libraries, and on the MPO’s web page, www.ci.janesville.wi.us. For information on the meeting or to receive an agenda, please contact the Planning Department at 755-3095, FAX FAX 755-3196 or email nolant@ci.janesville.wi.us. The meeting will be held on April 19, 2011 in room 416, 18 North Jackson Street, Janesville, WI at 10 a.m. Publish once: Monday, April 11th 1 Appendix C: Environmental Consultation In order to meet the requirements of SAFETEA-LU and facilitate the environmental review of the proposed projects in the LRTP, the MPO reviewed the recommended new roadway and expansion projects against key environmental features. Key environmental features examined were: • Public and Managed Lands • Scenic Features • Hydrology • Watersheds • Floodplains • Steep Slopes • Soil Capability • Cemeteries • Archeological Sites • Wetlands • Forested Wetlands • Woodlands • Endangered Species The MPO mapped the recommended roadway projects against key environmental features and sent them to interested environmental agencies and asked them to respond regarding the potential impacts of the projects on significant environmental features. The following groups were sent environmental consultation packets and invited to respond. 2 Group Point of Contact City of Janesville City Council Kathy Voskuil, President City of Milton Tom Chesmore, Mayor DATCP Peter Nauth, AIS Program, Land Resources Bureau FHWA Stephanie Hickmann, Environmental Coordinator Historic Preservation -Public History Rm: 308 Michael Stevens, SHPO National Park Service Mary Tano, Manager Rock County Al Sweeney, County Supervisor Rock County Craig Knutson, County Administrator Rock County Land Conservation, USDA Service Center Thomas Sweeney, County Land Conservationist Rock County Land Conservation, USDA Service Center Roger Allan, County Natural Resource Conservationist Town of Harmony Roger Fanning, Chair Town of Janesville Edward Marshall, Chair Town of La Prairie Michael Saunders, Chair Town of Milton Bryan Meyer, Chair Town of Rock Mark Gunn, Chair US Army Corps of Engineers Stacy Marshall, Regulatory Project Manager US Environmental Protection Agency Newton Ellens, Environmental Review Branch US Fish and Wildlife Louise Clemency, Fish and Wildlife Biologist WisDOT -Southwest Region Jenny Grimes, Environmental Coordinator DNR South Central Region Russ Anderson, Wisconsin DNR USDA-Natural Resourc Conservation Service Patricia Leavenworth Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians Edith Leoso Forest County Potowatomi Community Mike Alloway Ho-Chunk Nation William Quackenbush Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians giiwegiizhigookway Martin Menominee Indian tribe of Wisconsin Dave Grignon Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation Joseph Hale Jr. Red Cliff band of lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Larry Babler Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska Jane Nioce Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma Sandra Massey Sac and Fox of the Mississippi in Iowa Honathan Buffalo City of Janesville Duane Cherek, Planning Services Manager City of Janesville Carl Weber, Director of Public Works City of Janesville Tom Presny, Parks Director City of Janesville Eric Levitt, City Manger City of Milton Jerry Schuetz, City Administrator Rock County Planning and Development Paul Benjamin, Director WisDOT -Southwest Region Franklin Marcos FHWA Dave Jolicoeur, Planning Liaison 3 All comments received via email or mail were compiled and delivered to the Technical Advisory Committee as part of the agenda packet for the January 4, 2011 meeting. Members of the Technical Advisory Committee were also sent the environmental consultation packet. Minutes from the January 4th meeting are located in Appendix B. Response by Mark Vesperman to November 24, 2010 letter from Stacy Marshall, Army Corps of Engineers Stacy, The bike path project being proposed on the east side of Milton will be constructed with the highway 26 bypass and will be located within the highway 26 corridor. I reviewed the highway 26 corridor in this area and there are no waterways or wetlands(wetland investigation and delineation was done in 2009). Mark Vesperman Project Manager WisDOT, SW Region/Madison office 12/15/2010 email from Russ Anderson, WI Department of Natural Resources Terry, thank you for the opportunity to review the Long Range Transportation Plan that your agency has developed. We have no specific comments at this time. When plans are developed for designing these roadways, please contact us again and we will be happy to work with you on environmental matters that will arise. Russ * Russ Anderson Environmental Analysis & Review Program Supervisor, South Central Region Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 3911 Fish Hatchery Road Fitchburg, WI 53711 (*) phone: (608) 275-3467 (*) fax: (608) 275-3338 12/15/2010 email from Paul Benjamin, Rock County Planning Director Terry, Thank you for providing me with a copy of the2005-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan Executive Summary and the accompanying maps. I have a few comments that I will submit now and look forward to discuss at them at the January 4, 2010 TAC meeting. The first comment I have has to do with the complete absence of any discussion of rail transportation in the LRTP. It’s a curious omission given the presence of both the Union Pacific and the Wisconsin Southern (WSOR) in Janesville and in Rock County. Rock County has more WSOR trackage than any county in Wisconsin, with the exception of Dane County. I’ve asked our Economic Development Coordinator, James Otterstein, to review the LRTP. Here are his comments. The LRTP approved /written by the MPO is intended to address the area's entire transportation system's efficiencies, effectiveness and safety related concerns. However, it appears as though the priority has been placed on roads and bicycle connections as they relate to growth sectors. Virtually no mention of railroads exists, except for the courtesy freight references. Freight related issues extend well beyond the road network, which is why the WSOR has been investing millions of dollars to upgrade various track segments throughout SC WI -with a hefty bill tagged for Rock County improvements. The amount of freight volume, as well as its velocity, has changed dramatically and it will likely continue to increase as the demands for bulk commodities and other specialized raw materials rise. Approximately 25% of all the econ development projects that surface through my office have a rail component. While there are rail served properties available, many of these reside outside Janesville. Historically, the City's rail relationship was anchored and driven by GM. Today, that relationship no longer exists and Janesville has become known as a location with a very lean rail property portfolio. Whether by design or default, this is a trend that will continue unless the City actively makes rail corridor preservation a priority. WSOR has longer term plans to extend its lines along unused track all the way to Gratiot in Lafayette County and then to Shullsburg, from Gratiot to Darlington, Calamine, Belmont and perhaps even to Mineral Point. This line of newly re-utilized track will come through Monroe and from there to Janesville. WSOR has been active in restoring track within its system including in the line between Milton and Madison. WSOR has reported that in the past five years, 24 new industries have located near or along Wisconsin’s public railroad system and there are 11 other large-scale industries in the planning stages of becoming rail-served. Included in these new industries are Cargill Feeds and United Ethanol in Milton and Elk Industries in Edgerton. Forty per cent of the Wisconsin Southern’s tonnage comes from hauling grain. This facility to ship by rail benefits Rock County farmers and that in turn benefits Janesville. To the northwest of Janesville, two communities, the Village of Oregon and the City of Fitchburg own 15 miles of rail line between the Dane County Regional Airport and Brooklyn. They see large economic benefits from the redevelopment of that rail line for rail transportation. That line connects with Evansville in Rock County and thence to Janesville over Union Pacific track. Important in their thinking is revitalizing the link to Janesville. We have a confluence of rails into Janesville. We ought to take advantage of it. Given this enthusiastic expansion of freight-rail service in the region, it behooves the Janesville Area MPO to consider the economic benefits that this will bring to the city. Beyond that, our neighbor to the north, Dane County, has formed a Regional Transit Commission with interests in rail transit. Given the numbers of commuters plying highways US 14 and I-90 between Janesville and Madison, if we can restore track for freight purposes between Madison and Janesville, we might consider passenger rail again. The other comments I have to do with proposed projects to the east through the T. of La Prairie. I do not understand the purpose of either the underpass (on Pearl, on think) into the T. of La Prairie nor do I understand an interest in widening Milton-Shopiere. The net effect of these activities plus a by-pass further east into the T. of La Prairie would serve to isolate agriculture in the town to an important ag related industry, Seneca Foods. Seneca Foods is one of the largest private employers in Janesville and they depend on the rich harvests off the land in the T. of La Prairie to sustain themselves as one of the most important locations in the company. They have optimal location for transportation of their products and they are able to reap additional economies through the irrigation of neighboring farmlands with the “wash water” they’ve used to wash the vegetables before they’re canned and shipped. One would think it would be in the interests of the City of Janesville to protect these lands, Seneca Foods, and similar ag related industries. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 608-757-5583. Sincerely, Paul Benjamin JANESVILLE AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MUNICIPAL BUILDING • 18 N. JACKSON ST., • P.O. BOX 5005 • JANESVILLE, WI • 53547-5005 • (608) 755-3095 • FAX (608) 755-3189 November 15, 2010 To Whom It May Concern: As part of SAFETEA-LU, the federal transportation legislation signed into law in 2005, the Janesville Area MPO (MPO) is required to initiate consultation efforts with federal, state, tribal and local environmental, regulatory and resource agencies when developing the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The MPO is currently undertaking a minor update of the LRTP, due May 2011. To facilitate SAFETEA-LU’s required consultation process, the MPO has prepared the attached documentation illustrating the road expansion projects recommended in the adopted 2005-2035 Janesville Area Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), along with the known environmental factors in the MPO area. An executive summary of the LRTP and a description of the process the MPO followed to develop the plan are also included. The entire LRTP document is available on the MPO’s webpage, http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/citysite/mpo.html. Please review the attached materials and note any potential environmental concerns your agency might have, mitigation steps that may need to be pursued should the projects proceed, and any other issues of significance to your organization. Please submit your comments to the MPO by December 15th. You may email comments to nolant@ci.janesville.wi.us or mail to: Terry Nolan 18 N. Jackson St. P.O. Box 5005 Janesville, WI 53547-5005 Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Terry Nolan Janesville Area MPO Coordinator JANESVILLE AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MUNICIPAL BUILDING • 18 N. JACKSON ST., • P.O. BOX 5005 • JANESVILLE, WI • 53547-5005 • (608) 755-3095 • FAX (608) 755-3189 Map Discussion Attached are several maps illustrating the road projects recommended within the Janesville Area 2005-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) compared to key environmental factors within the region. Page 6 of the enclosed Executive Summary describes the projects, and their development timeframe. Due to the long-range nature of the plan, many of these projects have NOT entered into the study phase, they have not been awarded funding, or undergone any design work. These projects are labeled as “Plan. Exp. – New Road”, “Plan. Exp. – Add Capacity”, “Rec. for Future Consideration” and “Rec. for Study”. Based on your review and comments, the MPO will develop mitigation recommendations and general policies to be incorporated into a future amendment of the LRTP. Projects labeled as “committed” on the map are those that have already been identified for funding within the near future, and in some cases work has begun. Some of these projects are preservation projects, and some are expansion projects, as indicated on page 6 of the enclosed Executive Summary. Maps and tables included in the Executive Summary have been reprinted in a larger size and included in this packet for ease of reading. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Terry Nolan MPO Coordinator 608-755-3095 1 JANESVILLE AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2005-2035 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 I. PURPOSE OF UPDATE TO 2005-2035 JANESVILLE AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN ............................................ 2 II. SUMMARY OF 2005-2035 JANESVILLE AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN ........................................................................ 2 III. UPDATE OF 2005-2035 PROJECTS .................................................... 3 STREETS & HIGHWAYS ................................................................................................................................................... 3 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ........................................................................................................................................... 7 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE .................... ....................................... 10 V. IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................... 10 2 I. PURPOSE OF UPDATE TO 2005-2035 JANESVILLE AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN The update to the 2005-2035 Janesville Area Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) seeks to conduct a gap analysis of the 2005 Plan, as a review and reappraisal, using 2008 as a baseline. An interim review of the Plan is needed to evaluate the forecasts supporting the plan, monitor system performance, review the status of implementation to date, and reaffirm recommendations. II. SUMMARY OF 2005-2035 JANESVILLE AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN The 2005 -2035 Janesville Area Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) identifies the Janesville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) existing transportation conditions and those areas where improvements are needed to adequately provide a cost effective and efficient transportation system over the next 30-years. A multimodal combination of capital investment and infrastructure improvement projects should maintain existing levels of transit service, preserve existing roads, and and provide for new major roads and bicycle connections to the highest growth sectors of the planning area. The 2005 – 2035 Janesville Area MPO Long Range Transportation Plan is organized into the following sections: Introduction – outlines the MPO’s transportation planning process, the adopted land use plan, and the public participation process used for developing and reviewing transportation documents. Transit – identifies transit issues, existing operating characteristics, safety, projected conditions and funding sources. Bicycle and Pedestrian – outlines planning criteria for developing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, existing conditions, proposed facilities, safety and education policies, implementation and funding. Streets & Highways – summarizes existing conditions of the Janesville Area MPO’s road network, safety, travel demand and system deficiencies status, and project recommendations and funding requirements for 2005-2035. Freight -identifies freight issues, existing facilities, and proposed facilities. Environmental Justice – identifies concentrations of minority and poverty populations and examines the impacts of the recommended projects on those groups. 3 Implementation – identifies the status of the major projects recommended in the last plan, the, funding requirements and sources to implement recommendations, and implementation plan for preferred alternative. The Janesville Area MPO’s 2005-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan has an overall transportation goal of developing and maintaining an increasingly energy efficient transportation system which includes and integrates all modes of travel and provides for the safe and effective movement of people and goods, while optimizing the financial resources of the communities. This goal reflects the MPO’s focus on efficient and integrated local transportation planning. III. UPDATE OF 2005-2035 PROJECTS The update to the LRTP will examine projects recommended in the 2005-2035 Plan and discuss implementation of projects from 2005 to 2010. The update memorandum will discuss the economic slowdown and its effect on implementation to date, as well as the potential effect on projects recommended in the next ten years ((2010-2020). As of fall 2010, a list of projects recommended from 2016-2035 is not available. STREETS & HIGHWAYS All of the projects that the MPO Policy Board has already reviewed and approved through the 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) have been included in the LRTP update as they are listed in the TIP, and make up the recommended projects for the first 5 years of the LRTP update. Projects beyond the first 5 years are planned but not programmed elements of the LRTP. The most significant projects scheduled for the first 5 years of the plan are: The Highway 26 bypass (project number 12) around the eastern edge of the City of Milton. The project began construction in 2009 and will conclude in 2014. The study of the costs and benefits associated with creating a west and southeast bypass around the City of Janesville (project number 19). The study examines the merits of three projects that have the potential to be implemented individually or as a group. One project is the expansion of Highway Highway 11/14 from County Highway O to Highway 89. The other two projects examine the benefits of new connections; one between Highway 11 and Highway 11/14, the other is a north-south connection between the Highway 11 bypass and Highway 14 that would create a west side bypass around Janesville. The west side bypass was formally included in the larger 11/14 corridor study in 2010, and will be included in the Environmental Impact Statement. Between 2012 and 2030 there are several projects recommended. However, these projects will need to receive approval from their sponsor jurisdiction(s) and committed funding before they can be implemented. The major projects scheduled for this period are: The expansion of I-39 to six lanes (project number 63) and the installation of noise barriers along the residential areas. 4 A study of the options for the reconstruction of the Five Points Intersection (project number 75). The expansion of Town Hall Road to four lanes (project number 67). The expansion of County Highway G to four lanes (project number 60) in coordination with the Beloit MPO. A study of the costs and benefits of expanding either all or portions of Highway 14 to six lanes in the City of Janesville (projects 61 & 62). A study of the costs and benefits of expanding all or a portion of Highway 51 from Black Bridge Road to Russell Road to four lanes (projects 68 & 69). Towards the later years of the plan, we will want to begin preparing for the next set of major improvements. Due to the difficulties associated with estimating needs 30 years out, these projects may overlap this planning cycle and the next. The major projects planned within the final phase are: The study of the benefits of creating a north side bypass connecting to I-39 using portions of Highway 14, Highway 51, Kidder Road and County Highway M (projects 73) and its possible implementation. If the north side bypass is constructed, there is the potential to continue the connection to Highway 26 (project number 70), creating an east-west corridor north of the Cities of Milton and Janesville. The expansion of Milton-Shopiere Road (project number 72) to create a north-south corridor on the east side of the MPO. 5 Figure 1: COMMITTED AND PROPOSED STREETS AND HIGHWAYS PROJECTS 6 Table 2: COMMITTED AND PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECTS proj # Type Project Segment Year Funding Source Status 1 CP River St. reconstruction E. Racine to Court 2012 URB COJ Funding in first 3 years of TIP 2 CE Milwaukee St. Wuthering Hills roundabout intersection of Milwaukee and Wuthering Hills 2011 HSIP --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 3 CP N. Main St. resurfacing Centerway to St. Lawrence 2011 URB COJ Funding in first 3 years of TIP 4 CE Austin Rd. reconstruction Mineral Point to W. Court 2013 URB COJ Funding in first 3 years of TIP 5 CP Jackson St. bridge bridge over Rock River 2011 BR --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 6 CP S. Pearl St. reconstruction Court to Rockport 2011 LRIP COJ Funding in first 3 years of TIP 7 CP CTH F resurface/reconstruction USH 14 to S. limits of Edgerton 2011 RU-STP --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 8 CP Hayner Rd. bridge bridge over Markham Creek 2011 BR --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 9 CP CTH G Philhower to Sunny Lane 2011 RU-STP --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 10 CP Elizabeth St. resurfacing Elizabeth termini to Rainbow Dr. 2012 LRIP COM Funding in first 3 years of TIP 11 CP S. Read Rd. bridge Woodman Rd. to Avalon Rd. bridge 2011 BR --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 12 CE STH 26 expansion I-39/90 to Ft Atkinson Bus 26 2011 NHS --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 13 US STH 11 preservation and access plan Monroe-Janesville 2012 NHS --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 14 CP Ramp realignment cloverleaf to diamond I-39/90 at STH 11 2011 SAF --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 15 CP USH 14 pavement replacement East of STH 26 to Deerfield Dr. 2011 STP-D --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 16 CP CTH J railroad crossing improvements Wright Rd. 2013 SAF --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 17 CP USH 14 maintenance and overlay CTH M to USH 51 2011 STP-D --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 18 CP USH 51 railroad crossing improvements USH 51 and Union Pacific RR 2012 SAF --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 19 US USH 11/14 corridor study and EIS Janesville to I-43 2011 STUDY --Funding in first 3 years of of TIP 20 CP I-39 guardrail treatments STH 106 to Illionois state line 2011 HSIP --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 21 CP USH 51 and STH 11 median improvements intersection of USH 51 and STH 11 2011 WIS --Funding in first 3 years of TIP 22 CP STH 26 reconstruction Parker Dr. to 800' N of Randolph Rd. TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 23 CP E. Milwaukee St. bridge replacement bridge over Rock River TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 24 CP Sharon Rd. bridge replacement bridge over Spring Brook TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 25 CP USH 51 structure replacement structure over Union Pacific Railroad TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 26 CP S. Jackson St. resurfacing Milwaukee to Rock River TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 27 CP W. Milwaukee St. resurfacing Center to bridge TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 28 CP S. Arch St. resurfacing Rockport to 400' N. Salisbury TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 29 CP N Crosby Ave. resurfacing Court to Mineral Point TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 30 CP W. State St. resurfacing Willard to Oakhill TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 31 CP N. Pearl St.resurfacing Court to Highland TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 32 CP Rockport Rd. resurfacing Center to Lincoln TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 33 CP S. Wright Rd. resurfacing Racine to Palmer TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 34 CP S. Oakhill Ave. resurfacing Kellogg to State TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 35 CP Kennedy Rd. resurfacing HWY 14 to 1650' North of HWY 14 TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 36 CP Beloit Ave. resurfacing TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 37 CP STH 11/Midland intersection improvements intersection of STH 11 and Midland Rd. TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 38 CP STH 11/Wright Rd. intersection improvements intersection of STH 11 and Wright Rd. TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 39 CP Beloit Ave. reconstruction STH 11 to approx. 1,500 ft. south TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 40 CP E. Milwaukee St. resurfacing N. Sumac to Wright Rd. Rd. TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 41 CP USH 51 reconstruction from 400' north of Court to Nicolet TBD COJ Funding Not Programmed in TIP 42 CP CTH M reconstruction CTH MM to city of Milton limits TBD RC Funding Not Programmed in TIP 43 CP Parkview Dr. reconstruction East High to Townline Rd. TBD COM Funding Not Programmed in TIP 44 CP Traffic light installation John Paul Rd. and W. Madison Ave. TBD COM Funding Not Programmed in TIP 45 CE E. Sunset Connector St. Sunset termini to Lukas Lane termini TBD COM Funding Not Programmed in TIP 46 CE Sunnyside Dr. installation East High to Gateway Dr. TBD COM Funding Not Programmed in TIP 47 CP Merchant Row reconstruction HWY 59 to Vernal Ave. TBD COM Funding Not Programmed in TIP 48 CP Goodrich Square reconstruction Area surrounding Goodrich Park TBD COM Funding Not Programmed in TIP proj # Type Project Segment Year Funding Source Status 49 PE NR Kettering St. Kennedy Rd./N. Brentwood Dr. 2012-2035 URB --Recommended in LRTP 50 PE NR McCormick Dr. McCormic Dr. Dr. Termini./New Wright Rd. 2012-2035 COJ --Recommended in LRTP 51 PE NR NEW ROAD by airport HWY 51/CTH G 2012-2035 COJ --Recommended in LRTP 52 PE NR North Wuthering Hills Dr. Mackinac/HWY 14 2012-2035 COJ --Recommended in LRTP 53 PE NR Randolph Rd. Holly Dr./Wuthering Hills Dr. 2012-2035 COJ --Recommended in LRTP 54 PE NR Sandhill Rd. Wuthering Hills/Townhall 2012-2035 COJ --Recommended in LRTP 55 PE NR Sandhill Rd. Deerfield/Sandhill termini 2012-2035 COJ --Recommended in LRTP 56 PE NR Todd Dr. Todd Dr. termini/Conde St. 2012-2035 COJ --Recommended in LRTP 57 PE NR Venture Dr. Venture Dr. termini/HWY 51 2012-2035 COJ --Recommended in LRTP 58 PE NR Waveland Rd. Waveland Rd./CTH A 2012-2035 COJ --Recommended in LRTP 59 PE NR Wright Rd. E. Rotamer Rd./CTH Y 2012-2035 COJ --Recommended in LRTP 60 PE C CTH G HWY 11/South MPO boundary 2012-2035 COJ --Recommended in LRTP 61 PE C HWY 14 (Rec. For Study) HWY 11/Wright Rd. 2012-2035 COJ --Recommended in LRTP 62 PE C HWY 14 (Rec. For Study) Wright Rd./HWY 51 2012-2035 COJ --Recommended in LRTP 63 PE C I-39/90 Through Rock County 2012 MAJ --Recommended in LRTP 64 PE C Ryan Rd (part of I-39 project) Morse/Deerfield 2012 MAJ --Recommended in LRTP 65 PE E Ruger Ave. reconstruction S. Wright to Wuthering Hills 2012-2035 URB --Recommended in LRTP 66 PE E Ruger Ave. reconstruction Wuthering Hills to USH 14 2012-2035 URB --Recommended in LRTP 67 PE C Town Hall Rd. HWY 14/HWY 26 2012-2035 URB --Recommended in LRTP 68 PE C USH 51 North (Rec. for Study) Russell Rd./USH 14 2012-2035 STH --Recommended in LRTP 69 PE C USH 51 North (Rec. for Study) Blackbridge Rd./USH 14 2012-2035 STH --Recommended in LRTP 70 LR E Klug Rd. Extension HWY 26/I-39 2015-2045 N/A --consideration in LRTP 71 LR E HWY 14 HWY 51 to future HWY 11 bypass 2015-2045 N/A --consideration in LRTP 72 LR E Milton-Shopiere E Hwy 11/14/Townline Rd. 2015-2045 N/A --consideration in LRTP 73 LR E North Bypass USH 51 to Kidder Rd. to CTH M from HWY 14/I-90 2015-2045 N/A --consideration in LRTP 74 LR E Town Line Rd. Milton-Shopiere/County Y 2015-2045 N/A --consideration in LRTP 75 LR E Westside Gateway 5 points expansion 2015-2045 N/A --consideration in LRTP Projects listed in approved 2011-2016 Transportation Plan and carried into LRTP Projects recommended in LRTP that may move into a future Transportation Improvement Program 7 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN All of the projects that the MPO Policy Board has already reviewed and approved through the 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) have been included in the LRTP update as they are listed in the TIP, and are listed as committed in the LRTP update. The Long Range Transportation Plan proposes recommendations in two phases for the City of Janesville. Phase I has general completion dates falling between 2011-2016, and Phase II falling between 2017-2035. Figure 2: COMMITTED AND PROPOSED BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS 8 9 Table 3: COMMITTED AND PROPOSED TRAIL PROJECTS Committed in 2011-2016 Transportation Improvement Program Map ID Project Name Timeframe Estimated Cost 1 Milton Glacial River Trail 2011-2012 $300,000 2 HWY 26 Corridor (part of HWY 26 expansion) 2011-2012 cost included in road project 3 Overpass -West Rotamer Rd. at HWY 26 2011-2016 cost included in road project $300,000 Janesville Projects Phase 1 Map ID Project Name Timeframe Estimated Cost 4 Ice Age Trail -Racine to Wilson, Union to Van Buren 2011-2016 $86,000 5 Westside Fisher Creek Trail 2011-2016 $900,000 6 Valley Park Connector 2011-2016 $70,000 7 Spring Brook Trail -NE Regional Park Extentions 2011-2016 $172,000 8 NE Regional Park 2011-2016 $183,500 9 NE Regional Park to HWY 26 2011-2016 $183,500 $1,595,000 Phase 2 Map ID Project Name Timeframe Estimated Cost 10 Westside connector -W. Court to Arboretum 2017-2035 $1,800,000 11 Ice Age Trail -River Street 2017-2035 $340,000 $2,140,000 $3,735,000 Milton Projects Map ID Project Name Timeframe Estimated Cost 12 Highway 26/59 Recreation Area 2017-2035 $485,000 13 Clear Lake Trail 2017-2035 $325,000 14 Bowers Lake -Sunset Drive Trail 2017-2035 $650,000 $1,460,000 Rock County Projects Map ID Project Name Timeframe Estimated Cost 15 Peace Trail -Rock River Connector 2017-2035 $515,000 $515,000 Committed Total Rock County Total Milton Total 2017-2035 Total 2011-2016 Total City of Janesville Total 10 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE The Environmental Justice Element identifies the areas within the MPO that have a high proportion of lowincome and minority persons, and evaluates whether or not the negative impacts to those areas, resulting from the recommended projects, is disproportionate to the rest of the community. In addressing environmental justice, the MPO has identified areas within the urbanized boundary with a significant low-income or minority population, and then analyzed and addressed, when appropriate, the impact of the recommended projects on the target groups. The City of Janesville was the only area to have census block groups with a concentration of low-income or minority persons1 . All of these areas are served by public transportation, and a majority has retail, recreation, schools and job opportunities, within their immediate vicinity. Public transportation will take residents to medical facilities, and other major destinations within an average of five to 20 minutes. Expansion and new road projects have the potential to negatively impact these sensitive populations. There are no expansion projects or new roads planned in block groups with a concentration of low-income persons. There are several projects that have the potential to impact minority persons. They are: The reconstruction of Austin Road (project number 4) from Mineral Point to W. Court Street. Project will upgrade the rural cross section to an urban cross section and will add bicycle lanes, potentially requiring the purchase of additional right of way. A recommendation to study expansion of Highway 51 (project numbers 68 and 69) from Blackbridge Road to Russell Road. The expansion of I-39/90 (project number 63) through Rock County. The Governor’s Transportation Projects Committee met in October 2010 and approved the expansion from four lane divided freeway to six lane divided freeway. A proposed new road by the airport (project number 51). A recommendation to study the expansion of HWY 14 (project numbers 61 and 62) from HWY 51 to HWY 11. A proposed new road extending Waveland Road (project number 58) to connect to CTH A. V. IMPLEMENTATION Recommendations in the long range plan will be implemented over the planning period through planning and monitoring activities such as local budgets, capital improvement programs, land use planning, pavement management systems, and the ongoing process of data collection and analysis. The responsible jurisdiction(s) will need to review each project and approve its funding prior to a projects implementation. The Elements contained in the plan have been designed to meet the goals and objectives that Janesville, Milton and the surrounding townships in the planning area have been striving to maintain in regards to transportation planning over the past two decades. In addition, the overarching goals and objectives of the plan address the seven factors that long range plans are required to consider as part of the metropolitan 1 One block group within both the Town of Janesville and the City of Janesville Janesville had a concentration of minority persons, however further investigation indicated that this was most likely due to the presence of the Rock County Jail. 11 planning process, as outlined in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) of 2005. The seven planning factors are: 1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency. 2. Increase the safety and security of the transportation systems for motorized and non-motorized users. 3. Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and freight. 4. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve quality of life. 5. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight. 6. Promote efficient system management and operation. 7. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. The revenues needed to implement the projects recommended throughout the plan are expected to be available, should funding levels remain consistent with historical trends. Implementation of the plan, continued evaluation of its elements, and updates of the information contained within the plan will provide the Janesville Area MPO with extensive opportunities over the next 30 years to meet its transportation planning goal of a safe, effective, and energy efficient transportation system for all modes. & Proposed Noise Barriers Studying Potential Alignment Between HWY 11 and 11/14 Concept Under Study East-West Grade Separation Under Study 17 Proposed Concept Study for N. Side Bypass Concept Under Study 19 37 25 63 13 17 7 72 12 19 70 9 62 67 61 74 71 73 55 60 42 69 31 22 11 59 41 43 57 68 34 51 56 15 26 4 58 29 49 33 48 44 24 8 20 63 31 40 3 6 18 18 50 1 5 65 27 52 66 14 36 54 30 28 32 39 64 47 10 38 23 25 46 2 75 45 53 16 21 20 35 55 S:\Projects\MPO\Env ironmentalConsultati on 22 41 34 56 3 26 6 29 1 5 27 36 30 28 32 23 24 25 75 31 18 Janesville Area MPO Road Projects Recommended In 2005-2035 LRTP or Committed in 2011-2016 TIP 1 0 4,000 8,000 16,000 Feet *Projects under or proposed for study have not been appoved, nor has their final alignment been identified. The colored area indicates the potential location of the corridor, should the project be approved. 10/25/10 ° Downtown Inset S:\Projects\MPO\Environmental Consultation Recommended Projects Committed Planned SR Preservation Plan. Exp. -New Road Plan. Exp. -Add Capacity ! ! Rec. For Future Action Under Study* Recommended For Study* 5 Project Number MPO Planning Boundary MPO Urbanized area 1 10/30/10 0 0.5 1 2Miles 2 Natural Features ° Janesville Area MPO City of Milton Inset *Projects under or proposed for study have not been approved, nor has their final alignment been identified. The colored area indicates the potential location of the corridor, should the project be approved. MPO Boundary townships Railroads Local Roads Interstates Recommended Projects Committed Planned SR Preservation Plan. Exp. -New Road Plan. Exp. -Add Capacity ! ! Rec. For Future Consideration Sources: Rock County, City of Janesville Areas Under Study Ecologically Significant Land* Wetlands Floodplains Under Study Recommended for Study TOWN OF ROCK TOWN OF HARMONY TOWN OF MILTON TOWN OF LA PRAIRIE TOWN OF FULTON TOWN OF JANESVILLE TOWN OF BELOIT TOWN OF TURTLE TOWN OF PYMOUTH TOWN OF CENTER TOWN OF PORTER TOWN OF NEWARK 5/20/10 0 0.5 1 2Miles Endangered Species & Steep Slopes Janesville Area 3 Sources: Rock County, City of Janesville ° MPO City of Milton Inset *Projects under or proposed for study have not been approved, nor has their final alignment been identified. The colored area indicates the potential location of the corridor, should the project be approved. Steep Slopes Sections Containing Rare or Endangered Species 12% -20% 20% + Terrestrial Both Aquatic MPO Boundary townships Railroads Local Roads Interstates Recommended for Study Under Study Recommended Projects Committed Planned SR Preservation Plan. Exp. -New Road Plan. Exp. -Add Capacity ! ! Rec. For Future Consideration 10/30/10 0 0.5 1 2Miles 4 Soil Suitability for Agriculture ° Janesville Area MPO City of Milton Inset *Projects under or proposed for study have not been approved, nor has their final alignment been identified. The colored area indicates the potential location of the corridor, should the project be approved. MPO Boundary townships Railroads Local Roads Interstates Recommended Projects Committed Planned SR Preservation Plan. Exp. -New Road Plan. Exp. -Add Capacity ! ! Rec. For Future Consideration Sources: Rock County, City of Janesville Areas Under Study Capability Class -I Capability Class -II Capability Class -III Capability Class -IV or lower Under Study Recommended for Study 10/30/2010 0 0.5 1 2Miles Historical and Archeological 5 Points of Interest ° Sources: Rock County, City of Janesville Janesville Area MPO City of Milton Inset *Projects under or proposed for study have not been approved, nor has their final alignment been identified. The colored area indicates the potential location of the corridor, should the project be approved. Under Study Recommended for Study Recommended Projects Areas Under Study Committed Planned SR Preservation Plan. Exp. -New Road Plan. Exp. -Add Capacity ! ! Rec. For Future Consideration !. Cemetery Sites Archeologically Significant Site MPO Boundary ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! W COURT ST CENTER AV MILTON AV E MILW ST HUMES RD HWY 14 HWY 11 E RACINE ST Minority Population & Recommended LRTP Projects 2000 US Census Bureau data. Environmental justice target areas are those with minority population levels greater than 7.8% (>1 Standard Deviation form the MPO mean). 12.1 11.3 14.2 3.3 3.2 3.11.3 13.01.2 12.5 Janesville Area MPO ° 6 LRTP Recommended Projects Committed Planned SR Preservation Plan. Exp. -New Road Plan. Exp. -Add Capacity ! ! Rec. For Future Action 0 0.3 0.6 1.2 1.8Miles 10/30/10 MPO Planning Area 1/4 Mile Minority Pop. Buffer 3.1 Census Tract and Block Group Number 0-7.7% 7.8-10.9% >11% % Minority ! W COURT ST CENTER AV MILTON AV E MILW ST HUMES RD E RACINE ST Poverty Level & Recommended Projects 2000 US Census Bureau data. Environmental justice target areas are those with percent poverty levels greater than 12% (>1 Standard Deviation form the MPO mean). 4.4 4.1 3.2 3.1 1.3 7.3 5.2 Percent Below Poverty Level 0-11.9% 12.0-17.3% >14.4% Recommended Projects Committed Planned SR Preservation Plan. Exp. -New Road Plan. Exp. -Add Capacity ! Rec. For Future Action ° 0 0.15 0.3 0.6Miles 10/30/10 Janesville Area MPO 7 1/4 Mile Poverty Level Buffer MPO Planning Area 3.1 Census Tract and Block Group Number Appendix D: Streets and Highways 1. Methodology: Inflation Factors The majority of projects in the 2005-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan were not updated beyond inflating cost estimates from 2005 to 2011. In order to remain consistent methodologically, the MPO used Robert Sahr’s inflation factors, Conversion Factors 1774 to Estimated 2020, available through Oregon State University. The tool is available at: http://oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/downloadconversion-factors 2. Methodology: Forecasting HNTB submitted to the MPO the following text describing forecasting analysis methodology. Primary and Secondary Deficiency Analysis – Wisconsin MPO Models The WisDOT TP+ travel demand models conduct deficiency analysis using a two-tiered approach. The primary analysis utilizes a numeric Level of Service (LOS) value and a Level of Service threshold as described in the Facilities Development Manual (FDM) Procedure 11-5-3 to determine roadway deficiency. This method incorporates an adjusted traffic forecast value, an operationally sensitive roadway capacity and a sliding deficiency determination based on the importance of the roadway within the overall transportation system. The secondary approach uses the raw model assignment and the operational capacity on a link by link basis to determine the relative deficiency. The secondary approach is intended as a supplement to the primary approach and should only be used at locations where a primary deficiency is not available. Primary Deficiency Analysis -LOS Deficiency The LOS value is a measure of the amount of the link’s available capacity used by the volume of traffic on the link segment and is calculated on a link-by-link basis within the TP+ model script. Table 1 correlates LOS with a numeric value and an approximate volume to capacity ratio. Table 1, LOS Alpha/Numeric Level of Service (Alpha Value) Level of Service (Numeric Value) A-(Not congested) 1.01 to 2.00 B-(Not congested) 2.01 to 3.00 C-(Minimal congestion) 3.01 to 4.00 D-(Moderate congestion) 4.01 to 5.00 E-(Severe congestion) 5.01 to 6.00 F-(Extreme congestion) 6.01 to ~ Source: Wisconsin Department of Transportation Facilities Development Manual 11-5-3, Page 2, December 30, 2002 and HNTB Corporation The capacity used in for traffic assignment in long-range planning models represents generalized values. Operationally, the amount of available capacity on a model link is influenced by many factors; therefore each link is assigned a ‘LOS Lookup’ value which is determined by the following factors: Facility Type Area Type Number of Lanes Posted Speed Signal Density Cross-Section Type The TP+ script contains 48 different LOS Lookup values. The LOS Lookup value provides the TP+ script with a text file containing a link’s lower and upper bounds of directional traffic within each LOS bin. The LOS value is then interpolated from these LOS bin values using the directional base year count or the directional future year traffic estimate using the following equation: LOS Value = LOS Bin + [(Count-Lower Bound)/(Upper Bound – Lower Bound)] For example, a four-lane undivided urban principal arterial designated as a Corridors 2020 Connector with a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour and a signal density less than 1.5 signals per mile is given a LOS Lookup value of 17. The lower and upper bounds of LOS Bins for LOS Lookup 17 are shown in Table 2. Table 2, Lower and Upper Bounds of LOS Bins for LOS Lookup 17 LOS Bin Allowable Directional Volume Lower Bound Upper Bound 4.0 (or D) 15,800 17,700 5.0 (or E) 17,700 21,000 6.0 (or F) 21,000 Source: HNTB Corporation In this example, if the link’s base year count was 17,250 in each direction (34,500 ADT), then the LOS value would be calculated as: 4.0 + [(17,250-15,800) /(17,700-15,800)] = 4.76 A level of service value by itself does not indicate definitively whether a link is deficient. A given level of congestion and corresponding LOS value may be acceptable on an urban corridor, while the same level of congestion may not be acceptable on a rural freeway segment. Therefore, an acceptable LOS threshold has been established for various roadway classes. The LOS threshold is determined by the link’s overall importance to the transportation system as a whole and is based on the state truck highway sub-system attribute entered into the model network. These sub-system attributes reflect the Wisconsin TransLinks 21, Corridors 2020 Review and Update, June 1994. Table 3 defines the attributes entered into the TP+ model networks to indicate the STH sub-system. Table 3, Link Attributes in TP+ network depicting STH Sub-Systems STH Sub-System Rural & Small Urban Areas (Population <50,000) Urbanized Areas (Population >50,000) C2020 Backbone Routes BACKBONE C2020 Connector Routes R_C2020 U_C2020 Other Principal Arterials R_OPA U_OPA Minor Arterials R_MA U_MA Collectors & Local Function Roads R_OTHER U_OTHER Source: HNTB Corporation The Facilities Development Manual provides the LOS threshold for each sub-system component as shown in Table 4. LOS values that exceed the LOS threshold trigger the need to consider improvements. Table 4, Level of Service Thresholds STH Sub-System Rural & Small Urban Areas (Population <50,000) Urbanized Areas (Population >50,000) C2020 Backbone Routes 4.0 4.0 C2020 Connector Routes 4.0 4.5 Other Principal Arterials 5.0 5.5 Minor Arterials 5.0 5.5 Collectors & Local Function Roads 5.0 5.5 Source: Wisconsin Department of Transportation Facilities Development Manual 11-5-3, Page 2, December 30, 2002 Finally the TP+ script compares the LOS value to the LOS threshold to determine the deficiency status of the link. The TP+ output reports one of five possible values depending on the ratio between the LOS value and the LOS threshold. Table 5 shows the five levels of deficiency status reported by the TP+ script. Table 5, Reporting of Primary Deficiency Status Volume to Threshold Capacity Ratio Reported Status <0.75 Sufficient 0.75 to 0.89 Approaching 0.90 to 0.99 Potential 1.00 to 1.09 Deficient >1.10 Severely Deficient Source: HNTB Corporation The primary deficiency value for the example link would be calculated as follows: LOS Threshold for Urban C2020 Connector Route = 4.5 LOS Value = 4.76 4.76/4.5 = 1.06 , therefore the link would be assigned a deficiency value of ‘Deficient’. The following exhibit shows the results of the MPO model deficiency analysis as calculated using the Primary Analysis for the existing Fox Valley area transportation system. Secondary Analysis – Raw Assignment Similar to the Primary Analysis, the secondary analysis is a measure of the amount of the link’s available capacity used by the volume of traffic on the link segment and is calculated on a link-by-link basis within the TP+ model script. Unlike the Primary Analysis, the Secondary Analysis utilizes only the raw model assignment and with the operational roadway capacity. Table 1 is repeated below to correlate LOS with a numeric value. Table 1(repeated), LOS Alpha/Numeric Level of Service (Alpha Value) Level of Service (Numeric Value) A-(Not congested) 1.01 to 2.00 B-(Not congested) 2.01 to 3.00 C-(Minimal congestion) 3.01 to 4.00 D-(Moderate congestion) 4.01 to 5.00 E-(Severe congestion) 5.01 to 6.00 F-(Extreme congestion) 6.01 to ~ Source: Wisconsin Department of Transportation Facilities Development Manual 11-5-3, Page 2, December 30, 2002 and HNTB Corporation The Facilities Development Manual provides the LOS threshold for each sub-system component as shown above in Table Table 4. Finally the secondary deficiency level of service is compared to the deficiency threshold of the link. The Secondary Analysis then outputs one of five possible values depending on the ratio between the level of service and the threshold capacity. Table 7 shows the five levels of deficiency status reported by the TP+ script. Table 7, Reporting of Secondary Deficiency Status Volume to Threshold V/C Ratio Reported Status <0.75 Sufficient 0.75 to 0.89 Approaching 0.90 to 0.99 Potential 1.00 to 1.09 Deficient >1.10 Severely Deficient Source: HNTB Corporation Usage of Primary and Secondary Analyses The Primary Analysis is a more complex deficiency calculation incorporating adjusted traffic forecasts, operationally sensitive roadway capacity and a sliding deficiency determination based on the importance of the roadway within the overall transportation system. This approach is the preferred method of deficiency analysis and should be used whenever available. However, due to the need for an existing traffic count to calculate an adjusted traffic forecast, the Primary Analysis is conducted at limited locations. Professional judgment must be used to determine the appropriateness of applying a deficiency value to links in close proximity and of similar operating characteristics to links with a Primary Analysis rating. The Secondary Analysis is a less complex deficiency calculation which utilizes only the raw model assignment with the operational capacity and sliding deficiency determination. This approach provides a deficiency estimate for every link in the model network. However, due to the less exact data used to determine the Secondary Analysis, it should only be used in locations where the Primary Analysis could not generate an actual or inferred deficiency calculation. Example One: A series of four links bounded on either side by two links with a Primary Analysis rating of ‘Deficient’. If the six links would be expected to all operate in a similar manner, the entire six link series should be considered ‘Deficient’. In this case, the Secondary Analysis would not be utilized to supplement the Primary Analysis. Example Two: A series of four links bounded on either side by two links with a Primary Analysis of ‘Approaching’ and ‘Potential’, east to west respectively. Two minor north-south corridors intersect the four link series between the two Primary Analysis links. The Secondary Analysis confirms the values at the Primary Analysis locations and also shows higher volume to capacity ratios between the two minor north-south corridors. The Secondary Analysis is indicating that the four links between the two Primary Analysis locations are at least as deficient as the two Primary Analysis locations, and depending on the severity of the volume to capacity ratio, could be considered to be ‘Deficient’. Rock County MPO Travel Demand Model Future Existing plus Committed Network -2035 Forecast Volumes Licensed to HNTB Corporation Year 2035 Forecast Volumes Less than 5,000 vehicles per day (two-way) or Less than 2,500 vehicles per day (one-way) Between 5,000 and 10,000 vehicles per day (two-way road) or Between 2,500 and 5,000 vehicles per day (one-way road) Between 10,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day (two-way road) or Between 5,000 and 10,000 vehicles per day (one-way road) Between 20,000 and 40,000 vehicles per day (two-way road) or Between 10,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day (one-way road) More than 40,000 vehicles per day (two-way) or More than 20,000 vehicles per day (one-way) 1800 1800 5400 5400 1700 1700 500 500 4700 4700 33600 7000 7000 200 200 2100 2100 2700 2700 2200 2200 5800 5800 200 200 10100 1100 1100 700 700 2000 2000 400 400 300 300 2000 2000 3000 3000 1000 1000 800 800 1200 1200 1800 1800 5400 5500 3100 3100 2000 2000 900 400 400 1200 1100 1500 1400 34300 2000 2000 1700 1500 1900 2300 1200 1500 1500 200 100 2200 2000 1700 2000 3400 3400 3000 3000 2600 3200 5500 7100 4100 4100 2100 2200 1700 1700 500 500 4100 4200 3200 3400 500 500 1800 2200 700 600 3100 2900 2900 2800 100 100 200 200 200 200 2100 2000 500 500 500 2000 2200 3100 3300 600 700 100 100 1300 1400 2100 2100 2900 2600 2200 2200 5600 5400 5200 4600 7100 8300 48800 800 800 600 1900 8400 2600 2700 9600 1100 1100 0 1000 1100 1000 1000 4900 7300 1600 1600 5400 5200 48000 3100 2900 5400 5300 3100 2900 9500 9000 2900 2900 5000 4900 9300 8400 12400 800 1000 1200 1400 33600 34600 48300 51500 50200 49700 9700 10500 10100 14500 Rock County MPO Travel Demand Model Future Existing plus Committed Network -2035 Forecast Volumes Licensed to HNTB Corporation Year 2035 Forecast Volumes Less than 5,000 vehicles per day (two-way) or Less than 2,500 vehicles per day (one-way) Between 5,000 and 10,000 vehicles per day (two-way road) or Between 2,500 and 5,000 vehicles per day (one-way road) Between 10,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day (two-way road) or Between 5,000 and 10,000 vehicles per day (one-way road) Between 20,000 and 40,000 vehicles per day (two-way road) or Between 10,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day (one-way road) More than 40,000 vehicles per day (two-way) or More than 20,000 vehicles per day (one-way) 8200 8200 8100 8100 10200 9100 6100 5500 7100 7300 6700 9500 10700 7100 8300 4300 4100 98009000 3600 3600 7500 6900 2900 2800 8400 8500 8300 8400 15100 11900 4900 7300 14400 14100 6400 2500 3900 40900 6400 6000 13200 12400 15200 15600 17900 14500 16500 17200 16300 15700 4100 4100 25300 9500 11300 4600 4200 3200 3400 2300 2500 2200 2900 2700 3400 6200 6500 12800 11800 4500 5600 10400 10300 2500 2700 5200 4700 800 800 1500 1500 4000 4000800 900 3600 4200 8000 1800 1900 4300 1900 6700 6000 7100 5100 3600 4000 7300 6600 7500 7400 6100 5700 7800 9100 6600 7800 8200 8700 3000 2900 4700 4100 4000 3900 2700 3200 6800 5400 6200 5200 6400 65004400 6200 2100 2300 31003100 6700 5400 5200 48000 8000 7700 3100 2900 5000 6900 11300 40300 6800 48300 51500 3300 2500 4900 50200 00 Rock County MPO Travel Demand Model Future Existing plus Committed Network -2035 Forecast Volumes Licensed to HNTB Corporation Year 2035 Forecast Volumes Less than 5,000 vehicles per day (two-way) or Less than 2,500 vehicles per day (one-way) Between 5,000 and 10,000 vehicles per day (two-way road) or Between 2,500 and 5,000 vehicles per day (one-way road) Between 10,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day (two-way road) or Between 5,000 and 10,000 vehicles per day (one-way road) Between 20,000 and 40,000 vehicles per day (two-way road) or Between 10,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day (one-way road) More than 40,000 vehicles per day (two-way) or More than 20,000 vehicles per day (one-way) 4100 4400 8100 8100 10200 9100 7300 6700 9500 10700 7100 8300 00 8300 8400 15100 11900 4900 7300 14400 14100 6400 2500 3900 40900 6400 6000 13200 12400 15200 15600 17900 14500 16500 17200 16300 15700 3900 4800 4300 4500 4100 4100 4900 4800 5200 6900 25300 9500 8900 8800 11300 5200 3800 4600 4200 6200 6500 12800 11800 2600 2800 4500 5600 2500 2700 8900 9000 3600 4200 4400 8700 8800 900 7600 6800 5700 2100 8000 12100 4000 600 11100 7600 5200 1800 1900 6900 7200 4300 1900 4900 3700 6300 3900 3500 6700 4600 4700 4600 4000 1300 1900 6000 7100 5100 3600 4000 6100 6000 2900 3200 4300 5600 4900 5000 7800 9100 5100 5100 6600 7800 8200 8700 3000 2900 4400 5000 0 4000 3900 9500 3200 6000 5200 6800 5400 4700 5200 6200 5200 6400 65006500 7400 2100 2300 3100 3100 6700 38002900 11300 40300 6800 13300 48300 51500 3300 2500 4900 Rock County MPO Travel Demand Model Future Existing plus Committed Network -2035 Forecast Volumes Licensed to HNTB Corporation Year 2035 Forecast Volumes Less than 5,000 vehicles per day (two-way) or Less than 2,500 vehicles per day (one-way) Between 5,000 and 10,000 vehicles per day (two-way road) or Between 2,500 and 5,000 vehicles per day (one-way road) Between 10,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day (two-way road) or Between 5,000 and 10,000 vehicles per day (one-way road) Between 20,000 and 40,000 vehicles per day (two-way road) or Between 10,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day (one-way road) More than 40,000 vehicles per day (two-way) or More than 20,000 vehicles per day (one-way) 4300 4100 9800 9000 3600 3600 7500 6900 3200 3400 9000 9000 1500 1500 10400 10300 8900 9000 5200 4700 1700 1700 800 800 1800 1800 1800 1800 3800 4000 7400 6400 600 600 1500 1500 2600 2700 4000 4000 800 900 9300 9000 6800 5700 2700 2100 8300 4600 4000 4000 3700 1300 1900 6000 7100 3600 4000 7200 6000 9800 10300 11500 10800 10100 9300 2100 2100 7300 6600 5700 6100 7500 7400 5200 5300 7800 7700 7700 7200 9100 9500 8200 8100 6300 6000 6100 5700 1800 1600 5100 5100 3900 3500 8300 9400 12000 11600 8900 8700 Rock County MPO Travel Demand Model Future Existing plus Committed Network -2035 Forecast Volumes Licensed to HNTB Corporation Year 2035 Forecast Volumes Less than 5,000 vehicles per day (two-way) or Less than 2,500 vehicles per day (one-way) Between 5,000 and 10,000 vehicles per day (two-way road) or Between 2,500 and 5,000 vehicles per day (one-way road) Between 10,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day (two-way road) or Between 5,000 and 10,000 vehicles per day (one-way road) Between 20,000 and 40,000 vehicles per day (two-way road) or Between 10,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day (one-way road) More than 40,000 vehicles per day (two-way) or More than 20,000 vehicles per day (one-way) 12800 11700 9800 9000 3600 3600 7500 6900 15100 11900 1500 1500 2300 2500 6100 49002200 2900 4700 4600 3200 2900 2700 3400 6200 6500 8500 9500 12800 11800 2600 2800 4500 5600 1500 1500 9000 9000 1500 1500 10400 10300 2100 3000 2500 2700 8900 9000 5200 4700 3800 4000 7400 6400 4200 4400 8700 8800 3600 7400 900 3300 7600 9300 9000 6600 6600 6800 5700 2700 2100 8000 12100 5800 9500 4000 5700 6400 2900 3000 4000 600 4700 8300 11100 3700 7400 7600 5200 6900 7200 4300 1900 6300 6700 4600 4700 12000 6300 6200 8200 7600 8100 4600 4000 3900 5400 4000 3700 1300 1900 6000 7100 3600 4000 7200 6000 9800 10300 2100 2100 7500 7400 5200 5300 7800 7700 Rock County MPO Travel Demand Model Future Existing plus Committed Network -2035 Forecast Volumes Licensed to HNTB Corporation Year 2035 Forecast Volumes Less than 5,000 vehicles per day (two-way) or Less than 2,500 vehicles per day (one-way) Between 5,000 and 10,000 vehicles per day (two-way road) or Between 2,500 and 5,000 vehicles per day (one-way road) Between 10,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day (two-way road) or Between 5,000 and 10,000 vehicles per day (one-way road) Between 20,000 and 40,000 vehicles per day (two-way road) or Between 10,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day (one-way road) More than 40,000 vehicles per day (two-way) or More than 20,000 vehicles per day (one-way) 34300 1200 1100 4400 4400 23002500 500 5000 4300 4200 3100 3300 600 700 100 100 2800 2400 4300 8800 10700 5700 900 900 2900 2000 800 600 0 3300 15500 10900 34600 Rock County MPO Travel Demand Model Future Existing plus Committed Network -Future Deficiencies Licensed to HNTB Corporation Future E+C Deficiencies Sufficient (secondary) Approaching (secondary) Potential (secondary) Deficient (secondary) Severely Deficient (secondary) Sufficient (primary) Approaching (primary) Potential (primary) Deficient (primary) Severely Deficient (primary) Rock County MPO Travel Demand Model Future Existing plus Committed Network -Future Deficiencies Licensed to HNTB Corporation Future E+C Deficiencies Sufficient (secondary) Approaching (secondary) Potential (secondary) Deficient (secondary) Severely Deficient (secondary) Sufficient (primary) Approaching (primary) Potential (primary) Deficient (primary) Severely Deficient (primary) Rock County MPO Travel Demand Model Future Existing plus Committed Network -Future Deficiencies Licensed to HNTB Corporation Future E+C Deficiencies Sufficient (secondary) Approaching (secondary) Potential (secondary) Deficient (secondary) Severely Deficient (secondary) Sufficient (primary) Approaching (primary) Potential (primary) Deficient (primary) Severely Deficient (primary) 3. State Priority Corridors Connections 2030 is the long-range transportation plan for the state of Wisconsin. This plan addresses all forms of transportation over a 20-year planning horizon: highways, local roads, air, water, rail, bicycle, pedestrian and transit. WisDOT officially adopted Connections 2030 in October 2009. Part of WisDOT’s long-range transportation plan, Connections 2030, is the identification of a series of system-level priority corridors. These corridors are critical to Wisconsin’s travel patterns and support the state’s economy. 90 94 39 43 894 9439 43 94 39 43 53 51 41 8 12 45 151 2 61 63 14 41 41 10 18 8 45 61 53 10 141 14 63 151 12 41 8 18 53 53 51 10 45 29 13 11 23 57 35 93 81 21 54 35 57 47 16 13 11 26 26 29 11 26 Existing Backbone Existing Connector New Connector Existing Connector, New Backbone Corridors 2030 routes: Backbone & Connector Source: Connections 2030 Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan adopted October 2009 CONNECTIONS 2030 LONG-RANGE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Janesville Metropolitan Planning Area The State Line Area Transportation Study (SLATS) is the Janesvillle Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) which is the designated policy body responsible for continuing, cooperative and comprehensive urban transportation planning and decision making for the Janesville Metropolitan Planning Area. The Janesville Metropolitan Planning Area consists of the City of Janesville and the Janesville Urbanized Area, including all or portions of the 7 contiguous villages, cities, and towns that are or are likely to become urbanized within a 20-year planning period. The planning area currently consists of: •• Cities of Janesville and Milton •• Towns of Harmony, Janesville, LaPrairie, Milton and Rock •• Rock County Lake Koshkonong Rock River 11 39 39 11 14 51 26 14 90 59 90 51 26 59 Janesville Milton Edgerton Janesville Metropolitan Planning Area Airport project Intercity bus stop Priority route Park and ride Port, channel or waterway project Ferry project Trail connection or extension Rail-to-trail Commuter, rapid or express bus route Study future route Commuter rail route Commuter rail, proposed station Airport Park and ride Intercity bus stop Rail station Fixed guideway (commuter rail station) Port or harbor Mississippi River lock and dam Ferry Bicycle/pedestrian trail Rail-to-trail Railroad – private ownership Railroad – public ownership State trunk network State/county boundary Waterway City/village Metropolitan Planning Area Native American land Reconstruct existing or construct new Study and/or preserve right of way Study and construct new Reconstruct existing Provide urban connection Provide rural connection Proposed station Proposed station with intercity bus stop Study future route Priority route Construct capacity project Prepare corridor plan Reconstruct existing Construct passing lane Convert to Interstate standards Study bypass/new arterial For more information, refer to the Corridor Map Legend Definitions document at www.wiconnections2030.gov. p —1 CONNECTIONS 2030 LONG-RANGE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Janesville Metropolitan Planning Area Current and Proposed Future Activities These activities may not occur in the time frame identified due to budget constraints, changing conditions or shifting priorities. Refer to the “Important Notes about What is Depicted” for more information or contact the WisDOT Region Office. Overlapping Corridors Cheese Glacial Plains Rock River South Central Southern Tier Short-Term (2008 – 2013) l US 14 Prepare corridor plan from WIS 92 (Dane Co) to I-39/90 (Janesville) l WIS 11 Prepare corridor plan from WIS 35/US 151 to I-39/90 l WIS 59 Relocate 0.25 miles south of present location between WIS 26 and Vickerman Rd (Milton) l l l l l Commuter Bus/Fixed Guideway Support studies of commuter bus or rail service in Dane, Rock and Walworth counties with potential links to Rockford, IL and Chicago, IL l l l l l Public Transit Support regional service expansion to include Janesville and Beloit in Wisconsin, and Rockton, Roscoe, Roscoe, Rockford and Belvidere in Illinois l l l l l Public Transit/Fixed Guideway Transit Implement results of the South Central Wisconsin Commuter Transportation Study. Transit alternatives include commuter rail service from Janesville and/or Beloit to the Harvard, IL Metra station; commuter rail service from Madison to Rockford, IL via either Milton or Evansville; bus rapid transit between Madison and northwestern Cook County, IL; express bus service from Madison to Rockford, IL; and feeder bus service from Beloit and/or Janesville to the Harvard, IL Metra station Mid-Term (2014 – 2019) l US 51 Prepare corridor plan from US 14 to I-39 l WIS 26 Construct enumerated Major project from I-39/90 (Janesville) to WIS 16 (Watertown), which may include bypassing Milton, Jefferson and Watertown, adding lanes and/or capacity, constructing candidate expressway upgrades and/or converting to freeway, constructing new bridges, and constructing new interchanges l l Bicycle/Pedestrian Provide urban accommodations along US 14/WIS 11 in Janesville from I-39 to S Milton Shopiere Rd l Bicycle/Pedestrian Provide urban accommodations along US 51 from US 14 to WIS 11 l Bicycle/Pedestrian Support trail connection from Janesville north to the existing Highway 26 corridor path l l l l l Intercity Bus Support new intercity bus service between Janesville and Kenosha with stops in Delavan and Lake Geneva; and between Janesville and Milwaukee with stops in Whitewater and Waukesha l l l l l Intercity/Feeder Bus Support new intercity bus service between proposed Madison passenger rail station and Chicago, IL passenger rail station with stops in Janesville and Beloit l Park & Ride Support proposed park and ride construction near the intersection of US 14 and I-39/90 Overlapping Corridors Cheese Glacial Plains Rock River South Central Southern Tier Long-Term (2020 – 2030) l I-39/90 Replace railroad bridge south of the I-39/90 and US 14/WIS 11 intersection and bridges over Ruger Ave, Kennedy Rd and Newville Rd if supported by environmental document l US 14 Prepare corridor plan from US 51 to WIS 11/US 14 (southeast Janesville) l l US 14/US 51/WIS 11 Prepare corridor plan for future North/West Bypass from WIS 11 to US 14 to US 51 to I-39/90 and begin to implement results of the study if supported by environmental document l US 51 Prepare corridor plan from WIS 11 (Janesville) to WIS 81 (Beloit) l US 51 Prepare corridor plan from Black Bridge Rd (Janesville) to US 14 p —2 CONNECTIONS 2030 LONG-RANGE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Janesville Metropolitan Planning Area Current and Proposed Future Activities These activities may not occur in the time frame identified due to budget constraints, changing conditions or shifting priorities. Refer to the “Important Notes about What is Depicted” for more information or contact the WisDOT Region Office. Overlapping Corridors Cheese Glacial Plains Rock River South Central Southern Tier Entire Planning Period l I-39/90 Complete corridor plan from Illinois/Wisconsin state line to US 12/18 and study interchanges at I-39/90 and WIS 26; I-39/90 and US 14 West; and I-39/90 and US 14 East/WIS 11. Implement plan/study results, which may include reconstructing interchanges, adding lanes and/or capacity, if supported by environmental document and process leading to candidate Major project enumeration l l l US 14/WIS 11 Complete corridor plan from I-39 (Janesville) to I-43 (Walworth Co) and implement results, which may include adding lanes and/or or capacity, constructing candidate expressway upgrades and/or converting to freeway if supported by environmental document and process leading to candidate Major project enumeration l US 51/WIS 81/WIS 213 Study bypass alternatives along I-39 to WIS 81 around west side of Beloit to WIS 213 to Town Line Rd l l l l WIS 11 Construct candidate passing lanes from WIS 104 to County Rd D (Rock Co) if supported by environmental document l l l l l Airports Support continued preservation, maintenance, and infrastructure projects at State Airport System Plan airports l l l l l Airports Support projects that benefit airports with scheduled passenger service l l l l l Bicycle/Pedestrian Add key linkages into metropolitan areas l l l l l Bicycle/Pedestrian Support accommodations and linkages to create a connected network that provides accessibility along and across facilities l l l l l Fixed Guideway Support studies and implementation of potential new commuter rail service from Rock, Walworth, Racine and Kenosha counties counties to Chicago, IL l l l l l Intercity Bus Support continued service between Madison and Chicago, IL with stops in Janesville and Beloit; and between Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN and Chicago, IL with stops in Eau Claire, Tomah, Wisconsin Dells, Madison and Beloit l l l l l Local Roads Support continued preservation, maintenance and infrastructure projects l l l l l Public Transit Support continued service and vehicle replacement for Janesville l l l l l Public Transit Support regional service expansion in Janesville l l l l l Public Transit Work with counties and transit service providers to coordinate and expand rural transit service l l l l l Rail Freight Preserve existing freight services and corridors l l l l l Specialized Transit Support continued service and encourage improved service coordination l l l l l State Highways Preserve and maintain infrastructure l l l l l State Highways Construct grade separations at rail crossings if supported by environmental document l l l l l State Highways Improve traffic movement with traffic operations infrastructure strategies l l l l l TDM Support implementation of TDM in urban areas About Multimodal Corridors and Planning Areas The Connections 2030 planning process identified statewide multimodal, intercity corridors as visual communication tools to view existing conditions, transportation features and future recommendations. In some cases, these corridors have endpoints in or pass through metropolitan planning areas. These corridors collectively represent a starting point toward long-term implementation of Connections 2030 and the corridor management process. These multimodal corridors: •• Serve critical sectors of the economy or major population centers •• Carry significant travel activity for passenger and/or freight traffic •• Show significant growth in travel or economic development •• Serve an important role for other transportation modes Corridor selection was also influenced by local land use and development plans. Each corridor is a broad geographical band that follows a general directional flow connecting trips that may include streets, highways, rail, pedestrian, bicycle facilities and routes and transit route alignments. A corridor generally follows the directional flow of a state highway alignment. It includes parallel state and local roads, service roads and facilities for other transportation modes such as rail, pedestrian, transit, etc., which influence the mobility, capacity, safety and other functional elements of the corridor. Important Notes about What is Depicted The map shows currently programmed and proposed future activities (as of December 31, 2007) that have significant impacts on the planning area. Not all projects or initiatives are mapped, and additional analyses, including an environmental document, will be conducted before any of the projects or activities are completed. These analyses may include studying alternatives (including a no build/no change alternative) with public involvement opportunities as appropriate. Resources and shifting priorities may impact WisDOT’s implementation of any proposed activity within the time frames identified. WisDOT will remain flexible in the implementation of Connections 2030 recommendations. The map and table activities on the following page reflect actions identified in: •• Connections 2030 policies ••WisDOT’s Six-Year Highway Improvement Program (2008 -2013) ••Other WisDOT program data ••Other WisDOT plans and studies ••Metropolitan planning organizations’ (MPOs), regional planning commissions’ (RPCs) and tribal long-range transportation plans For information on funding and implementation priorities, see those Connections 2030 chapters. For more information on transportation projects, contact the WisDOT Region Office (see Connections 2030 or www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/for a map of region offices). MPO, RPC and tribal long-range transportation plans offer recommendations on all transportation modes within their boundaries. p —3 CONNECTIONS 2030 LONG-RANGE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Planning Area Map – Data Definitions and Sources Data Definitions Corridors 2030 (See Connections 2030 Chapter 5, Preserve and Maintain Wisconsin’s Transportation System, for more information.) •• Backbone system: Multilane, divided highways interconnecting all major population and economic centers of the state and linking them to the national transportation network •• Connector system: Two-and four-lane highways directly linking other significant economic and tourism centers to the Backbone system State Access Management Plan vision (See Connections 2030 Chapter 9, Promote Transportation Efficiencies, for more information.) •• Tier 1: By 2030, in rural areas (outside of city and village boundaries), access to the highway will primarily be at interchanges (with some existing safely spaced, locked and gated emergency vehicle driveways and a few isolated field entrances possible at select locations) •• Tier 2A: By 2030, in rural areas (outside of city city and village boundaries), access to the highway will primarily be at at-grade public road intersections (with some existing safely spaced, locked and gated emergency vehicle driveways and few isolated field entrances) •• Tier 2B: By 2030, in rural areas (outside of city and village boundaries), access to the highway will primarily be at at-grade public road intersections with some existing safely spaced, lower volume private, residential, field or emergency service driveways •• Tier 3: By 2030, in rural areas (outside of city and village boundaries), access to the highway will primarily be at at-grade public road intersections with some existing safely spaced, higher volume private, residential and field or emergency service driveways •• Tier 4: By 2030, in rural areas (outside of city and village boundaries), access to the highway will be at safely spaced driveways and roads State Airport System Plan classifications •• Air carrier (passenger)/air cargo: Designed to accommodate virtually all aircraft up up to and, in some cases, including wide body jets and large military transports •• Transport/corporate: Intended to serve corporate, small passenger and cargo jet aircraft used in regional service, and small airplanes (piston or turboprop) used in commuter air service •• General utility: Intended to serve virtually all small aviation single and twin-engine aircraft (both piston and turboprop) with a maximum take-off weight of 12,500 pounds or less •• Basic utility: Intended to serve all small-engine piston aircraft and many of the smaller twin-engine piston aircraft with a gross takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or less Truck volume descriptions •• Low (0 – 501 trucks per day), Medium (501 – 2,500 trucks per day), •• High (2,501 – 8,000 trucks per day), Very High (more than 8,000 trucks per day) Urban/urbanized areas •• Urban areas: Areas with populations between 5,000 and 49,999 •• Urbanized areas: Areas with populations of 50,000 or more Data Sources Annual average daily traffic (AADT) •• Current data: WisDOT, 2005 Wisconsin Highway Traffic Volume Data, December 2006 •• Forecast data: WisDOT, August 2007 Enplanements •• Current data: WisDOT, 2006 Wisconsin Aviation Activity, April 2007 •• Forecast data: Flight Transportation Associates, Inc., Updated Wisconsin State Airport System Plan Aviation Activity Forecasts, September 2005; Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning Commissions, Review and Update of Regional Airport System Plan Forecasts, 2005 National Highway System (NHS) intermodal terminals •• Federal Highway Administration, October 2007 Passenger rail ridership •• Current data: WisDOT, 2007 •• Forecast data: ǻǻTransportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc., Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Project Notebook, 2004 ǻǻ Forecast year 2020 ǻǻ Forecast Milwaukee station data includes all Milwaukee area stations (Milwaukee Intermodal Station, General Mitchell International Airport and Granville) Population •• Current population: Wisconsin Department of Administration, January 1, 2007 Preliminary Population Estimates for Wisconsin Counties, August 10, 2007 •• 2030 Population: Wisconsin Department of Administration, Final Population Projections for Wisconsin Counties by Age and Sex: 2000 – 2030, January 2004 •• Current Age 65 and older population: 2000 US Census, Summary File 1, Variable P12: Sex by Age •• 2030 Age 65 and older population: Wisconsin Department of Administration, Final Population Projections for Wisconsin Counties by Age and Sex: 2000 – 2030, January 2004 Public and specialized transit ••WisDOT, January 2008 Truck volume ••WisDOT, August 2007 Wisconsin Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) •• Chippewa – Eau Claire Metropolitan Planning Organization, Long Range Transportation Plan 2005 – 2030, October 2005 •• Dubuque Metro Area Transportation Study, 2031 Long-Range Transportation Plan •• Duluth – Superior Metropolitan Interstate Council, Access and Mobility for People and Freight 2030, September 2005 •• Fond du Lac Metropolitan Planning Organization, Long Range Transportation/Land Use Plan for the Fond du Lac Urbanized Area, October 2005 •• Fox Cities Metropolitan Planning Organization, Long Range Transportation/Land Use Plan for the Fox Cities Urbanized Area, October 2005 •• Green Bay Metropolitan Planning Organization, Long Range Transportation Plan, November 2005 •• Janesville Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2005 – 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, December 2005 •• La Crosse Area Planning Committee, 2030 La Crosse and La Crescent Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan, August 2005 •• Madison Area Transportation Planning Board, Regional Transportation Plan 2030, November 2005 •• Oshkosh Metropolitan Planning Organization, Long Range Transportation/Land Use Plan for the Oshkosh Urbanized Area, October 2005 •• Sheboygan Metropolitan Planning Organization, Year 2035 Sheboygan Area Transportation Plan, January 2006 •• Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Planning Report 49, A Regional Transportation System Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin 2035, March 2006 •• Stateline Area Transportation Study, 2006 – 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan, December 2005 ••Wausau Metropolitan Planning Commission, Wausau Area Metropolitan Area Long-Range Transportation Plan – 2035, December 2005 Wisconsin Tribal Transportation Plans •• Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Long Range Tribal Transportation Plan, July 2006 •• Forest County Potawatomi Community, Long Range Transportation Plan, March 2008 •• Ho-Chunk Nation, Ho-Chunk Nation Long Range Transportation Plan, June 2005, amended March 2007 •• Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, 2006 Transportation Plan, March 2006 •• Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Long-Range Transportation Plan, February 2007 •• Menominee Nation, Menominee Indian Reservation Long-Range Transportation Plan, May 2007 •• Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, Transportation Improvement Plan, December 2003, amended March 2007 •• Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Long Range Transportation Transportation Plan for the Red Cliff Reservation, February 2006 •• St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, St. Croix Tribal Council 2007 Long Range Transportation Plan, March 2007 •• Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Long Range Transportation Plan, March 2007 •• Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians, 2006 Tribal Long-Range Transportation Plan Update, May 2007 The information contained in this data set and information produced from this data set was created for the official use of WisDOT. Any other use, while not prohibited, is the sole responsibility of the user. WisDOT expressly disclaims all liability regarding fitness of use of the information for other than official WisDOT business. p —4