Look at the link I sent - it is the actual proposed capital budget. There is a category that is "pavement management." I just assumed that was things like potholes, however it turns out that there is a category in the operationg budget for potholes. So I guess anything above potholes is part of Major Streets.
Robbie Webber On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Bill Caplan <[email protected]>wrote: > Are minor repairs, such as pot hole filling and the patch on the Capitol > City Trail, included in the capital budget or the operating budget? I > assume major projects, like the Packers/Northport reconstruction are > capital. > > > On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 12:39:17 -0500, Robbie Webber **wrote: > > Engineering - Major > Streets<http://www.cityofmadison.com/finance/documents/2012CapBud/032-cip53m.pdf>is > the name of the category to distinguish it from: > > Engineering - > Other<http://www.cityofmadison.com/finance/documents/2012CapBud/034-cip53o.pdf>(whatever > the Engineering Dept has to buy or build that isn't a street or > bike/ped facility) > > Streets<http://www.cityofmadison.com/finance/documents/2012CapBud/042-cip63.pdf>- > The department that brings you snow plows, garbage/recycling trucks, > street sweepers, etc. > > Major Streets covers everything from huge intersedction and road rebuilding > - like the $20 million Junction Rd (Hwy M) & Mineral Point Rd (Hwy S) > intersection (aka the S & M intersection) - to filling potholes. "Major" is > really the size of the pots of money, not the size of the streets. And > Streets" just means it's not something else in Engineering. > > > Robbie Webber > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Monica H > <[email protected]<http://mailto:[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> Okay, so my ignorance is showing--what does "Major Streets" mean? Just >> the really high-volume streets? or does it mean "major" street projects >> regardless of street size? If it's the former, I'd like to see a budget-cut >> comparison between _all_ streets and bike/ped. projects. >> >> ------------------------------ >> From: [email protected] <http://mailto:[email protected]> >> Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 11:56:44 -0500 >> To: [email protected] <http://mailto:[email protected]> >> CC: [email protected] <http://mailto:[email protected]> >> >> Subject: Re: [Bikies] wait?! Increase in bike funding in cap budget? >> >> Interesting numbers . . . I'm always interested in that 25% number and how >> much of it is repairs and how much is new. >> Also, how much of this is driven by the federal funding? >> And yes, some staff are more aggressive than others in their requests. >> Not sure that is (or is not) a factor here, but it is a factor city wide. >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Matt Logan >> <[email protected]<http://mailto:[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> Yes, the C3k numbers do reflect the agency requests, although it is >> interesting that the difference between requests for Bike/Ped and Major >> streets is 36% cut versus 17% cut. Are the bike/ped planners more wild and >> crazy than the major streets planners? Another interesting number is to >> compare what the 2011 budget outlined for 2012 spending versus what the >> Mayor has proposed for 2012. In that case, Bike/Ped got cut 65% versus a >> cut of 14% for Major Streets. It seems that for some reason, the bike and >> ped future budget numbers are more fantastic than the major streets numbers >> – or is the city government just less responsive to the deficit between >> projects on the docket for ped and bike than for those in Major streets?* >> *** >> >> ** ** >> >> To answer that question, I looked at the trend from 2006 and found the >> following:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Comparing the Mayor’s Budget this year to 2006, bike/ped spending is up >> 7.5%, and Major Streets is up 25.1%. If I take the data since 2006 and fit >> a line, that works out to bike/ped spending having an annual increase of >> about 1.1%, and Major streets getting a 7.5% annual increase. Now the older >> budgets don’t break out ped/and bike spending directly, so the bike ped >> trend needs some revision, but given the data so far, there quite clearly >> seems to be greater willingness to up the spending on Major Streets than for >> Ped/Bike projects. For that reason, I am inclined to call the higher >> “fantasy” factor for ped/bike the result of a relatively unresponsive city >> government.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* >> [email protected]<http://mailto:[email protected]>[mailto: >> [email protected]<http://mailto:[email protected]>] >> *On Behalf Of *Brenda Konkel >> *Sent:* Thursday, September 08, 2011 9:01 AM >> *To:* Robbie Webber >> *Cc:* [email protected] <http://mailto:[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [Bikies] wait?! Increase in bike funding in cap budget?*** >> * >> >> ** ** >> >> Duh! Right! I'm guessing you are totally correct.**** >> >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Robbie Webber >> <[email protected]<http://mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote:**** >> >> After reading both articles on line, I'm going to take a guess. No >> guarantee this is correct.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> The Channel 3000 report says, **** >> >> Departments requested more than $231 million compared to the $196.5 >> million the mayor will propose. >> Major streets will see the biggest hit -- almost $15 million less than >> what was requested. >> Bike and pedestrian projects will also be cut back, at nearly $6 million. >> **** >> >> I'm going to guess that what they mean by that is that the Mayor's >> budget contains $6 million less for bicycle and pedestrian projects and >> programs than what was proposed by the departments.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Now, we both know that many departments over-ask, and none gets what they >> really want, even in good years. The amount that departments ask for is a >> nonsense number to use in a report like this, but it wouldn't be the first >> time a media report was misleading.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> The Madison.com article reports the levels that were in the Mayor's >> budget compared to the approved 2011 budget, a much more meaningful >> comparison. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Does that make sense?**** >> >> >> Robbie Webber >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Brenda Konkel >> <[email protected]<http://mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote:**** >> >> can anyone explain the difference between the channel three report of a >> $6M cut and this article? This one says there is an increase from $4.1M to >> 4.4M. Sorry, don't have to time chase all the details, thought someone on >> this list might explain. >> >> >> http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_19d8fc59-cae9-5b35-b0b1-b6971ee880a6.html >> **** >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Bikies mailing list >> [email protected] <http://mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list >> [email protected] <http://mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bikies mailing list >> [email protected] <http://mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org >> >> > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org<http://mail.giantmoose.org/hwebmail/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.danenet.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fbikies-danenet.org> > > > > > > ** > >
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
