Matt - I note that the Cap Time <http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/state-debate/state-debate-scott-walker-budget-gets-rapped-praised/article_178b4520-ad41-11e4-a118-f3e647a91979.html>s linked to your blog post in their roundup of reactions to the Gov's budget. Also, Streetsblog <http://streetsblog.net/2015/02/05/scott-walker-wants-to-eliminate-complete-streets-in-wisconsin/> did a little piece that linked to your blog. Nicely done.
Dave Cieslewicz told me that he was interviewed on Wisconsin Public Radio. I've been at work, so haven't heard it. Bike Fed put out an action alert on the hits to bike funding in the budget: http://wisconsinbikefed.org/2015/02/04/governors-budget-hits-biking/ Oh, and one more place WisDOT could cut a few dollars would be the needless expansion of I-39/90 from Madison to the Illinois stateline, or as I like to call it, the Weekend Reliever. With family in Chicago and occasional Megabus trips for business into the Loop, I can tell you the only time that section of road is crowded is northbound on Friday afternoon and southbound on Sunday afternoon during the summer. What a waste of money! Robbie Webber Transportation Policy Analyst 608-263-9984 (o) 608-225-0002 (c) [email protected] All opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer or any other group with which I am affiliated. On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Matthew Logan <[email protected]> wrote: > My interactions with the Zoo Interchange Staff suggests a savings of $200 > million could be realized by dropping the extra lanes that the City of > Milwaukee didn’t want added. > > My research into WISDOT traffic projection methodology revealed that > WISDOT staff do not consider accurate estimates to be a priority – they are > much more concerned about being consistent with Federal guidelines and > industry standards. However, at the end of January, AASHTO put out a > report of trends that in part suggests: > > > http://www.aashtojournal.org/Pages/NewsReleaseDetail.aspx?NewsReleaseID=1437 > > The final brief > <http://traveltrends.transportation.org/Pages/default.aspx#table> points > to slowing growth in commuting due to the aging of the American worker and > declines in the number of younger people entering the workforce. U.S. > Census Bureau projections suggest the population in the working age group > 18–64 will see a sharp decline over the next 20 years—approximately 6 > million new potential workers from 2015 to 2030, in sharp contrast to 26 > million during the period 2000 to 2012. > > In addition to age demographics, the authors point to potential impacts of > technology and land use decisions that are likely to affect future > commuting trends. For instance, recent growth of wireless devices allows > transit riders to work or communicate while on buses or subways, and > fast-developing technology for autonomous cars and connected vehicles could > soon let roadway commuters tend to other tasks while their cars drive > themselves. "Regardless of how these phenomena play out, the boom in > commuting growth is behind us, at least at the national level," the brief > claims. > > In spite of some rather significant changes in demographics, the economy, > technology, and the culture and values of residents, a long-term study of > available transportation data shows that commuting behaviors have changed > modestly over the past decade. > > > > ### > > > > This new data suggests there may be room to revise the 50-year traffic > projections used to justify the expansions. > > Additionally, the most recent studies on highway return on investment > suggest continued declines and we may be at the point where it is more > productive to leave the money in the hands of taxpayers rather than turn it > into more concrete: > > http://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1118&context=reports > > > > Mamuneas addresses the question of the contribution of highways to the > national > > economy by estimating the value placed on highways by consumers and > producers. He > > finds that from 1949 through 2005, the net rate of return of highways > averages 28.7 > > percent. He compares this rate with the return on private capital (as > reflected in interest > > rate on the 10-year U.S. Treasury security) averaged over the same time > period. Finding > > that the net rate of return on highways (28.7 percent) is higher than the > average long-term > > interest rate (6.2 percent), he concludes that highways make a > contribution to the > > economy and the country has been underinvested in highway capital stock > until recently > > when the net rate of return fell below the interest rate. > > ### > > > > While there is a growing body of evidence that the value of highways is > decreasing, few legislators seem aware of the trends. It is my hope that > transportation advocates can pick up on this message and spread the word! > > *From:* Mike Neuman [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 04, 2015 10:28 PM > *To:* Matthew Logan > *Cc:* Bikies > *Subject:* Re: [Bikies] Governor cuts bike funding $7M > > > > Anyone know how many new road expansions are planned for this or how many > miles of "new" roads are in the works? Must be a lot of unnecessary highway > expansions to save that much by not accommodating non-motorized bicycling. > No wonder they are asking for $1.3 billion in the budget. I like my plan > much better. It doesn't result in the planet (and all things on it) turning > into toast. www.allthingsenvironmental.com > > > > Mike > > > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Matthew Logan <[email protected]> wrote: > > The relevant statute seems to be SS 84.01(35) and Trans 75.02 (which I > believe is referred to as “complete streets”): > > > > > http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/state/docs/complete-streets-presentation.pdf > > > > > > http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/state/docs/complete-streets-rules.pdf > > > > Trans 75.02 When bikeways and sidewalks are required. > > > > (1) Except as provided in this chapter, the authority shall include > bikeways and sidewalks in all new highway construction and reconstruction > projects funded in whole or in part from state funds or federal funds > appropriated under s. 20.395 or 20.866, Stats. > > > > (2) In this chapter, sidewalks and bikeways shall be considered > separately. If sidewalks and bikeways cannot both be accommodated, > consideration shall be given to sidewalks before adding bikeways. > > > > (3) Paths can be used to supplement on−road bicycle accommodations. In > exceptional situations a path may substitute for on− road bicycle > accommodations if the use is consistent with the department’s Bicycle > Facility Design Handbook and the department’s Facilities Development Manual > and the substitution is approved in writing by the secretary’s designee who > has knowledge of the purpose and design of bicycle and pedestrian > accommodations. A path may be considered along a controlled access highway, > as defined in s. 990.01 (5r), Stats., having a speed limit of 45 miles per > hour or higher > > > > (4) The department shall refuse to provide any state funds or federal > funds appropriated under s. 20.395 or 20.866, Stats., for any highway > construction or reconstruction project that does not include bikeways and > sidewalks required under s. 84.01 (35), Stats., and not excepted by this > chapter. If an authority determines to omit any bikeway or sidewalk under > this chapter, the department may request from the authority a written > justification for the omission and shall deny state funds or federal funds > appropriated under s. 20.395 or 20.866, Stats., for the project if the > department determines the omission is not justified under this chapter. > > > > (5) Notwithstanding sub. (1), bikeways and sidewalks are not required to > be included in any highway construction or reconstruction project that is > any of the following: > > (a) Has a program level scoping document consistent with life cycle 11 of > the department’s Facilities Development Manual or, for projects undertaken > by a local unit of government, a similar document as determined by the > department, in place as of January 1, 2011. > > (b) Let for bid that is first advertised before January 1, 2011, or for > projects for which no bid is advertised or undertaken under a contract > signed before January 1, 2011. > > (c) Described in a final environmental impact statement that is approved > before January 1, 2011. > > (d) Documented in an environmental report, as defined in s. Trans 400.04 > (10), completed before January 1, 2011, that fit the criteria or conditions > for approval as a categorical exclusion in 23 CFR 771.117, April 1, 2000. > (e) The subject of a finding of no significant impact made under ch. Trans > 400 before January 1, 2011. > > [ Although Trans 75.04,05, 06, and 07 create exceptions to this > requirement for circumstances including disproportionate cost, physical > constraints, lack of need in semi-urban districts, or community > unwillingness to maintain. ] > > > > > > *From:* Bikies [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of > *Matthew > Logan > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 04, 2015 8:12 AM > *To:* Bikies > *Subject:* [Bikies] Governor cuts bike funding $7M > > > > “Finally, the Governor recommends several statutory changes including > repealing the requirement that > > the department must construct bicycle and pedestrian facilities on new > highway construction. > > Projected savings from this action are $7,400,000 over the biennium” > > > http://www.doa.state.wi.us/Documents/DEBF/Budget/Biennial%20Budget/2015-17%20Executive%20Budget/2015-17_Executive_Budget.pdf > > page 553. > > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [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 > >
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
