City of Madison
Legislative File ID   11560
Type:   Resolution    Status:   Filed
Enactment Date:      Enactment No.:  
Title:  
Creating and implementing a comprehensive, multi-modal transportation and parking design for central Madison.
Controlling Body:   TRANSIT AND PARKING COMMISSION
Introduced:   8/5/2008    Version:   1
Final Action:   11/18/2008    Contact:   lveldran@cityofmadison.com
Name:  
Creating and implementing a comprehensive, multi-modal transportation and parking design for central Madison.
Extra Date 1:  
Requester:   DOWNTOWN COORDINATING COMMITTEE
Sponsors:  
Brenda K. Konkel, Michael E. Verveer, Marsha A. Rummel, Robbie Webber, Satya V. Rhodes-Conway, Eli Judge
Legislative History (* Unpublished Data)
DateActing BodyAction TakenMotion
8/5/2008COMMON COUNCILThis Resolution was Refer to the DOWNTOWN COORDINATING COMMITTEE
Notes: Additional Referral(s): Long Range Transportation Planning Commission, Pedestrian/Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Commission and Transit & Parking Commission
8/5/2008Council OfficeThis Resolution was Referred for Introduction
Notes: Downtown Coordinating Committee, Long Range Transportation Planning Commission, Pedestrian/Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Commission and Transit & Parking Commission
8/5/2008DOWNTOWN COORDINATING COMMITTEEThis Resolution was Refer to the LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMISSION
Notes:
8/5/2008DOWNTOWN COORDINATING COMMITTEEThis Resolution was Refer to the PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION
Notes:
8/5/2008DOWNTOWN COORDINATING COMMITTEEThis Resolution was Refer to the TRANSIT AND PARKING COMMISSION
Notes:
8/21/2008LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEEThis Resolution was Refer to the LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMISSION Brad Murphy (Planning Division Director) noted that the resolution calls for a major study but does not allocate resources to adequately fund it. He added that staff has some concerns about the need for this effort, given other priorities within the Planning Division. Ald. Paul Skidmore said that two of the resolutions sponsors (Ald. Robbie Webber and Ald. Satya Rhodes-Conway) were not present. He said that further discussion of the issue should take place when they could explain their objectives for the resolution and be available to answer questions from Commissioners. The Commission then voted unanimously to refer Resolution ID 11560 to a future meeting, on a motion submitted by Ald. Paul Skidmore/Ald. Tim Gruber. Pass
Notes:
8/26/2008Unpublished Meeting Data Pending*
9/2/2008COMMON COUNCIL
9/4/2008TRANSIT AND PARKING COMMISSIONPatrick McDonnell, 441 N. Paterson, 53703, representing the Tenney-Lapham Neighborhood Association, provided a statement in support of the resolution. [Electronic or hard copies of this statement are available by contacting the Recording Secretary, Anne Benishek-Clark, at 267-8751.] Durocher read McDonnell’s statement, which said that a comprehensive multi-modal transportation and parking design for central Madison was consistent with the transportation recommendations in the Tenney-Lapham Neighborhood Plan; and responded to needs expressed by the Marquette, SASY, Capitol Neighborhoods and to a recommendation in the East Washington Capitol Gateway Corridor BUILD Plan. The statement went on to say that the resolution would serve to integrate and implement recommendations from several mode-specific studies into a comprehensive design; and acknowledged that the resulting task might be costly, but that the potential benefit to the vitality and economic development of Madison was huge. Susan Schmitz, 210 Marinette Trail, 53705, representing Downtown Madison Incorporated (DMI), spoke before the Commission. While registered neither in support/against the resolution, she very much supported it and thought it well written, but was concerned that the proposal was moving too fast, getting ahead of some other initiatives that needed to be completed first. She pointed out that the Parking Strategic Plan was not yet been finished and had not been presented to the TPC. With DMI supporting regional transportation solutions such as an RTA, she thought the proposal represented an important piece, but that it had to fit into something that DMI thought was more regional in scope, vis á vis connectors and other issues. She didn’t want the community to get ahead of itself on this. Brad Murphy, Planning Division Director of the Department of Planning & Community & Economic Development, was invited to speak before the Commission about the resolution. He said staff was not involved in the drafting of the resolution and had no input into it, so wasn’t sure if he could speak to the intent of the resolution. But he said he could fill people in on what was contained inside the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the E. Washington Capitol Gateway Plan, and offer some comments on the proposed resolution. The City’s Comprehensive Plan included a recommendation to update the 1979 Traffic Redirection Study for the isthmus. In addition, the desire to prepare a comprehensive multi-modal transportation plan was also included in the E. Washington Capitol Gateway BUILD (EWCGB) Plan, in response to concerns expressed by neighborhoods about the potential magnitude of development that might occur as a result the scale and massing recommendations contained in the E. Washington Plan. As a part of the preparation of the EWCGB Plan, documents were provided to Plan Commission and the Common Council, which outlined some of the elements that might be included in a comprehensive transportation plan for the central city, and some of the potential cost and staffing implications of undertaking such a project. Murphy agreed with McDonnell that it would be major project and multi-year effort, and would require the allocation of significant staff resources to the project, as well as the hiring of consulting services in order to complete the project. Planning would recommend that adequate funding be provided at the outset of the project, and adequate budget authority to undertake and complete the project. It wasn’t clear what the budget authority might be and how much. During the discussion of the EWCGB Plan, Planning contacted the City of Denver, which had prepared a comprehensive transportation plan for their downtown, for which they budgeted and spent about $1 million. About a third of that was spent on traffic modeling of intersections and streets that comprised the circulation system within the downtown. Murphy said that in order to update the Traffic Redirection Study of 1979 and to fully evaluate alternatives and potential modifications to the circulation system, a detailed operational model would be needed at the intersection level, prepared and calibrated so that alternatives could be considered and evaluated, and good, hard recommendations could be made. This would not be an inexpensive undertaking, and adequate funding would have to be considered. Murphy then commented on timing, wondering whether this was an appropriate time to start a project like this, given the availability of staff to support the effort. The resolution indicated that the Planning Division would provide staffing for the project along with Traffic Engineering support. Planning was currently involved in several major planning initiatives (preparing a downtown plan, rewriting the City zoning code, as well as preparing some major neighborhood plans throughout the City). The availability of Planning staff to support this effort was very limited, and Planning was concerned that staff might not be able to devote the type and kind of attention to the effort that it deserved. While not arguing that this was a desirable project that should be undertaken, Planning was concerned about the timing of the project and the availability of adequate resources to get it done. Murphy responded to questions. He didn’t know what the difference would be between a “transportation design district” and a “transportation plan”. He wondered about this as well, and could only speculate as to what it might be. To him, “district” implied it would be a geographic area, within which there would be some special initiatives or funding available or assessments or requirements that didn’t now exist. He thought of “overlay districts” in terms of zoning, where there might be basic zoning such as residential, which then might be overlaid by an urban design district, having additional regulations and requirements that would then be put in place. Flood plain districts were also examples of overlay districts. He wasn’t sure if this was what the resolution had in mind or not. He wondered if it might be a tool to be used to implement recommendations that may be included in the plan. But to include this implementation tool as a given, before the plan was prepared, seemed to pre-judge the recommendations that would be included in the plan, and the assessment of alternative methods that might be used to achieve the recommendations. Durocher appreciated the caveats expressed by Murphy regarding the resolution, and invited members to comment on the item. In discussion about the committee referrals and the referral process, Solomon observed that one of the secondaries, LRTPC, had referred the item back to itself. Noting that he and David Dryer attended the August meeting and offered similar comments, Murphy said that the LRTPC took this action because none of the sponsors were available at the meeting to discuss the item. Solomon hoped that some of the concerns raised about the resolution might be addressed (perhaps at LRTPC) before the TPC took action on it. Hoag stated that he had mixed feelings about the resolution: · The resolution would create a new group to work on this issue and which in some ways seemed redundant of the work of other groups, such as LRTPC. He questioned the idea of creating an ad hoc group to do that. In general, he was concerned about the hidden costs involved in this; though not paying people to do the work over and above what they got paid, there were hidden costs because other things were not getting done. Plus, all the listed representation was either represented at LRTPC, or had the opportunity to speak there. · He was concerned that apparently staff had not provided input into the resolution. · Though valuable, creating circulation and intersection models was very expensive. He observed that fuel prices had probably not yet peaked yet, but when they did, they would have a big impact on traffic patterns. He was concerned about spending a lot of money on things that could change very quickly; even with good consultants and modeling, the models would come apart when energy prices went up at a faster rate than now. As a result, he too was comfortable with deferring action on the resolution. Bergamini said she wanted to suspend discussion and refer the item. Streit suggested that the action to refer be conditional, until a fiscal estimate was provided. And if there weren’t extra money, he wanted to know what other projects would not get done, and to what extent the proposal overlapped. He felt that members were not ready to discuss the item until at least those three things were addressed. Bergamini then suggested some language for the motion: To refer until such time a fiscal analysis has been completed and staff has been consulted about a reasonable implementation schedule for conducting such study. Sanborn thought it might be difficult for staff to track and determine when these conditions had been met. He suggested that the item be referred to the next meeting, and if the action requested by members wasn’t taken, then the item could be referred again. A motion was made by Bergamini, seconded by Solomon, to Rerefer to the TRANSIT AND PARKING COMMISSION. Hinz offered a friendly amendment that the Chair send a letter to the Lead committee (DCC) to relay the various concerns expressed by members. Durocher echoed previous comments, as follows: · He found it difficult to support anything that appears to be replicating other bodies and efforts that are already under way. · As the Transit and Parking Commission, the TPC by its very title and charge, had some responsibility for taking the overview that this study committee would attempt to take. · There might be some sense of usurpation of responsibility by setting up something, to do what the TPC had been set up to do, in a more difficult sort of way because of the replication in that additional committees did require more staff time. · He was completely supportive of the idea of taking a look at parking in a more comprehensive way than looking at one ramp and its merits, at a time. · He was aware that there were competing ideas about moving people around in public transit – BRT, commuter rail. So the idea of having a comprehensive overview of transportation and multi-modal approaches was understandable. · However, he was not entirely convinced that yet another body was needed to do that. He thought people could move ahead with those questions with the commitments that had been made in existing bodies. A vote was taken and the motion passed by voice vote/other.Pass
Notes:
9/18/2008Unpublished Meeting Data Pending*
9/18/2008LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEEMark Shahan/Ald. Satya Rhodes-Conway submitted a motion to make some specific edits to the resolution: (1) directing LRTPC to develop an RFP and work plan and to delete the final “Be It Further Resolved” clause. (2) specifying “central Madison” as bounded by First Street, Park Street, Lake Mendota, West Washington Avenue and Proudfit Street. The Commission unanimously approved the motion to make these edits. The Commission then voted unanimously to refer Resolution ID 11560 to the next meeting, and asked staff to revise the text as appropriate (on a motion submitted by Michael Basford/Ald. Paul Skidmore).Pass
Notes:
9/23/2008PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSIONA motion was made by Compton, seconded by Skidmore, to Rerefer to the PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION. The motion passed by voice vote/other. DISCUSSION Shahan reported that LRTPC had a lengthy discussion on the resolution and is working with Planning staff to draft a Substitute. Staff will come back with suggested language. He would like PBMVC to refer the resolution and wait for the Substitute. Compton/Skidmore moved referral. Ald. Konkel, one of the sponsors, was present and wished to speak. She was not at the LRTPC meeting due to another commitment so wasn’t sure of the issues but thought staff was confused as to what the sponsors were trying to do. The BUILD for the East Washington corridor includes some pretty high densities, and approval of those densities included an acknowledgement by all parties that there needs to be a very good transportation and transit plan for the corridor. One problem is that there are a lot of plans but each is piecemeal and there’s no oversight as to how they interrelate. The resolution sponsors are trying to ensure that instead of addressing transportation issues for each individual project and having each developer do a traffic impact plan, they want to look at how the entire corridor is affected, how these plans work together and how the City ensures that transportation issues are part and parcel of every development in the corridor. They did not want the situation where one development did not provide enough parking and then the next development has to bear the brunt of something done by another developer. Konkel thought some of the confusion is that staff thinks the sponsors are asking for an expensive plan. However, the sponsors are trying to take this to the higher level—how does the development impact the neighborhoods. That is the concept and plan, but some seem to think there’s more to it. She felt it was pretty straightforward. Shahan reported that at the LRTPC meeting, Alder Rhodes-Conway explained that the sponsors were not asking staff to write a plan; it was more about the timeline, scope and possibly a RFP. But the resolution talks about actually doing a plan, which would require modeling and would be expensive. Konkel reiterated that the sponsors are not talking about a plan that includes modeling and such; they’re talking about a higher-level plan that looks at the big picture, what are the needs for the planned densities. Shahan commented that perhaps the confusion is coming from the how the resolution is worded. Suggestions from LRTPC included: (1) defining the area boundaries, (2) have the LRTPC be the committee rather than establishing a new committee since the LRTPC includes members from other transportation-related committees; (3) focus on getting a scope and timeline to flesh out what it is that’s being requested in the resolution. If an RFP comes out of this, then that gets put out for additional Planning help. But as written, the resolution seems to be asking staff to do a plan. Shahan reported that regardless of what is being requested, Planning staff indicated they are busy until the zoning code rewrite gets finished. If it’s anything very involved, staff won’t have time to devote to it. If it’s pared down, or it’s made clear that it’s not the full-blown thing that people think it is, it might fit on staff’s plate. Webber suggested that the sponsors get together and clarify the language before it comes back to LRTPC. Wittke remarked that as the PBMVC has worked through the different plans such as the Tenney-Lapham Neighborhood Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, the East Washington BUILD, etc., what is striking is how separate transportation planning and land use planning seem to be. Her sense from the resolution is that they’re trying to pull together these two pieces that are so integrally related. She didn’t understand how these land use plans could move forward if this type of process envisioned in the resolution is not undertaken. People “wig out” when they hear about another plan, but it’s to ensure that existing plans are coordinated and don’t sit on the shelf. There needs to be discussion about the impacts across different plans, and she thought that was what this resolution is trying to accomplish. If it’s just a matter of clarifying language, that’s one thing; but if it’s a matter of pushing this off to be looked at in the future, independent of other things that are happening, she can’t support that. Shahan relayed that staff’s perspective is that the way the resolution is worded requires impact studies that will take a lot of work. Konkel felt staff is still stuck on issues related to last year’s Tenney-Lapham Neighborhood Plan recommendation to make Johnson and Gorham two-way. This is a completely different issue. The reason the sponsors suggested creation of a new committee rather than going through LTRPC is that there are a significant number of people who have already put the time into planning for this area and they know what the other land use issues are. If it’s limited to LRTPC members, we will lose a lot of the expertise that developed from creating these plans. Skidmore said that a number of LRTPC members had a different version of the resolution than what Konkel described tonight; and if they get language that reflects Konkel’s explanation of what the sponsors are looking for, the resolution would probably go through without problems. Compton clarified her motion to refer was to refer to the next meeting. Shahan felt that was reasonable. Planning staff was meeting with Rhodes-Conway on proposed changes. The resolution needs to be wordsmithed to make the intention clearer. The resolution doesn’t reflect what Konkel said tonight. Motion to refer to the next meeting carried unanimously. Pass
Notes: Since the LRTPC is working on a substitute resolution, the PBMVC agreed to refer this to a future meeting.
10/2/2008TRANSIT AND PARKING COMMISSIONWebber said that LRTPC had a long discussion about this item. She thought the LRTPC would take this effort on, as the committee to do this. LRTPC had members from various key committees, so could represent all of them. She said that the resolution was not about doing a study; it was about what should be done by a study. She said this issue would be clarified by LRTPC. Durocher suggested that with other committees still working on the proposal, the Commission could refer the item. A motion was made by Bergamini, seconded by Webber, to Rerefer to a future meeting of the TRANSIT AND PARKING COMMISSION. The motion passed by voice vote/other.Pass
Notes:
10/16/2008DOWNTOWN COORDINATING COMMITTEE
10/16/2008LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEEA motion was made by Rhodes Conway, seconded by Schaefer, to Refer to the LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMISSION. The motion passed by voice vote/other. Ald. Satya Rhodes-Conway/Ald. Tim Gruber submitted a motion to recommend approval of Resolution ID 11560, with the following amendments (see Legistar attachment for strikeouts and added text): - add a new “Be It Further Resolved” clause, inserted after the first BIFR clause: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it is the desire of the Common Council to provide guidance both to neighborhoods as they develop and implement neighborhood plans and to any future development in the plan area with respect to transportation access and accommodation. - revise the (now) third BIFR clause to read: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, understanding that such an endeavor must be undertaken in phases, the Common Council directs the Long Range Transportation Planning Commission (LRTPC) to review all current land use and transportation plans covering the plan area for areas of disagreement or conflict and to consider: a. Policies, principles and mechanisms that will govern transportation investment decisions within the study area, b. Design principles for transportation facilities and services in the study area. The LRTPC shall report back to the Common Council on these issues and make a recommendation whether or not to proceed to an RFP to continue this work. - revise the final BIFR clause to read: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the LRTPC shall consult with representatives from central City neighborhood associations, Downtown Madison Inc., major property and business owners, the University of Wisconsin, Madison Metro, the Downtown Coordinating Committee, the Transit and Parking Commission and the Pedestrian/Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Commission. The Commission unanimously approved the motion to make these edits. The Commission then voted unanimously to refer Resolution ID 11560 to the next meeting, and asked staff to revise the text as recommended (on a motion submitted by Ald. Satya Rhodes-Conway/Bob Schaefer). Pass
Notes:
10/29/2008PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSIONA motion was made by Webber, seconded by Conroy, to Refer to the PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION. The motion passed by voice vote/other. The PBMVC moved referral to their next meeting pending a redraft from the LRTPC and requested that the resolution lead referral be changed from the Downtown Coordinating Committee to the LRTPC. DISCUSSION Shahan reported that the LRTPC is working on substitute language, including a recommendation that the LRTPC take the lead on developing the Request for Proposals. Motion by Webber/Conroy to refer this to the next meeting. Further, that the PBMVC recommends to the lead (Downtown Coordinating Committee) that the LRTPC be the new lead on the resolution. The PBMVC feels strongly that this is an important topic to be undertaken and it looks forward to a multi-modal transportation and parking recommendation to come out of the effort. De Vos reiterated testimony offered at the TPC meeting that Planning staff is not ready to take on this work and there are other things that need to be done before this. She was uncomfortable with the fact that there are no representatives from the disabled community on the LRTPC. Someone from the Commission on People with Disabilities should be on any body that develops the transportation plan. Webber commented that the LRTPC had a long discussion and did talk about the composition of the body that would be taking this up. She also mentioned that apparently there was some misunderstanding at the staff level as to what was being requested in the resolution; staff thought they were being asked to do the study. The LRTPC is recommending that there be a RFP, with staff looking at what needs to be included in the study. Webber noted that the original resolution proposed the creation of a new committee and listed the groups to be included. The LRTPC is recommending that it be the lead body rather than forming a new committee. While the LRTPC does not have a member from the disabled community, the LRTPC would seek input from many sources, including downtown residents, users of all modes of transportation, the disabled community, business groups, etc. There will be a mechanism to get input from all these groups without forming a new committee. Shahan pointed out that it will be a phased process. The first phase will be determining whether a RFP is necessary and if so, what the scope should be. Compton felt that someone from the CPD should be on the LRTPC and encouraged the CPD to request the Mayor to change the composition of the LRTPC. It was noted that the legislative file history showed that the LRTPC had taken final action on the resolution at its 10/16/08 meeting and this action had been reported to the Downtown Coordinating Committee. Shahan and Webber, who are also members of the LRTPC, were of the understanding that final action had not been taken and that the suggested substitute language was to come back at the LRTPC’s next meeting. The LRTPC’s 10/16/08 action will be clarified with LRTPC staff. Webber accepted a friendly amendment by Compton to rephrase the motion as “to refer pending a redraft from the LRTPC and to request that the LRTPC be the lead referral on this resolution.” Motion carried unanimously. Staff will check with the Clerk’s office as to the process for changing the lead referral. [Skidmore left at 6:30 p.m., at the end of discussion on item E.1.] Pass
Notes:
11/6/2008TRANSIT AND PARKING COMMISSIONWebber updated members about the status of this proposal. LRTPC had a long discussion about it at its last meeting, esp. as regards DCC being the Lead on the resolution. It seemed that all parties (sponsors, LRTPC and staff) involved felt that it would be more logical for LRTPC to be the Lead. So Planning staff was re-drafting a new resolution, which would have to go back to Council to change the Lead to LRTPC. A clearer version of the resolution was currently being re-drafted, at which point it would return to Council where LRTPC would likely be named Lead. A motion was made by Webber, seconded by Sanborn, to Refer the item to the TRANSIT AND PARKING COMMISSION, until the proposal was re-drafted and sent back to the Common Council for re-referral. The motion passed by voice vote/other.Pass
Notes:
11/18/2008COMMON COUNCILA motion was made by Ald. Konkel, seconded by Ald. Bruer, to Place On File. The motion passed by voice vote/other.Pass
Notes:
11/20/2008LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE
Notes:
12/18/2008Unpublished Meeting Data Pending*
Approvals
ApproverDateApproval Status
Daniel Bohrod8/11/2008Approved

  powered by Daystar Computer Systems, Inc.