City of Madison
Legislative File ID   08224
Type:   Miscellaneous    Status:   Items Referred
Enactment Date:      Enactment No.:  
Title:  
Pedestrian/bicycle capital projects ranking
Controlling Body:   PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION
Introduced:   11/20/2007    Version:   1
Final Action:   9/23/2008    Contact:   gphillips@cityofmadison.com
Name:  
Pedestrian/bicycle capital projects ranking
Extra Date 1:  
Requester:   PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION
Sponsors:  
Legislative History
DateActing BodyAction TakenMotion
11/27/2007PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSIONA motion was made by Compton, seconded by Webber, to Refer to the PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION. The motion passed by voice vote/other.Pass
Notes:
2/27/2008PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION
3/25/2008PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSIONMotion by Skidmore/Conroy to refer until Shahan is present; carried unanimously.
Notes:
4/29/2008PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSIONA motion was made by Webber, seconded by Skidmore, to Refer to the PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION. The motion passed by voice vote/other.Pass
Notes:
5/27/2008PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSIONF.1. CAPITAL PROJECTS RANKING Shahan noted that the Platinum Biking City Planning Committee report is largely about policy, not necessarily the nuts and bolts of what can be built. This is a list of smaller projects that need to be done and is his attempt at prioritizing previous public hearing comments. Shahan reviewed the three tiers. Schulman wanted to see a ballpark cost estimate for each project. Shahan indicated the small capital projects would be under $100,000. Schulman thought cost estimates would still be useful, e.g., might be able to do three projects for the cost of one other one. Webber suggesting getting a fiscal note from the responsible agency for each item. When the Council looks at the City budget, they know what roads cost but they don’t know what these things cost. She would also like a timeline for ped/bike projects. Shahan reiterated that the list is his own perspective and welcomed PBMVC input. Motion by Compton/Skidmore to accept the list subject to a fiscal note from the departments. Once the PBMVC has the fiscal notes, it would be much simpler to prioritize the list. There are some projects that always get pushed back. Friendly amendment by Webber to request a fiscal note and timeline from the relevant departments/agencies. Motion carried unanimously.
Notes:
8/26/2008Unpublished Meeting Data Pending*
9/23/2008PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSIONShahan referenced the memo he had prepared for last month’s meeting in which he had identified his own priorities for trying to move along some of these projects. Larry Nelson, City Engineer, and Scott Langer, Traffic Engineering, were present to answer questions. Nelson indicated he was not quite sure of the priorities, noting the list has three tiers plus a list of large capital projects. Shahan identified the large cap projects as being more expensive and the PBMVC’s priorities for large cap projects basically mirror the TIP. His recommendations focused more on the small cap projects that tend to get forgotten. LARGE CAP Sherman Flyer: Nelson advised that the original plan was to strike out from the Yahara River/Johnson Street area and head northwest to Sherman Ave. However, the location required use of the railroad ROW and the City was unable to negotiate with the Union Pacific Railroad. Included in the 2009 budget is the alternative plan called the Huxley cut-off. Instead of the railroad ROW it would use Fordem Avenue, some local streets, a re-marked Commercial Avenue and then hopefully go along the Oscar Mayer/Kraft property line to Aberg where it would tie in with the existing bike route. Isthmus path to MATC: Nelson commented that he has heard that this project has been approved for WisDOT enhancement funding. Ross stated nothing official has been announced. Wisconsin River Rail Corridor Path: Nelson noted that the UW has put into service a section of this through the campus. He suggested the plan be extended to at least Stonefield Road and quite possibly to the vicinity of the intersection of Highway 12 and Highway 14 in the railroad corridor. This would involve the WisDOT, City of Middleton and Madison so the City could ask the MPO to put a slot in their work plan to convene a group to proceed on this. A schematic plan is absolutely necessary to get enthusiasm going for it. Ross understood that the City of Middleton is in the process of updating their Bicycle Transportation Plan and he got a call from their consultant asking about this project so he believes there is interest on Middleton’s part. Capital City Trail from Buckeye to east City limit: Nelson reported that the City was unable to get a response from the Union Pacific as to use of the railroad corridor, even with a $200,000 incentive offered to the railroad. The proposed alternative would build about 75-80% of that same extension but use one of the spur paths as an interim connection. It has been approved by the Board of Public Works and is going to the Common Council for approval. The money has been reauthorized in the 2009 budget. It will get bicyclists to Buckeye Road where there are marked bike lanes. TIER 1 T.1.1. – Nelson said the connectors at Manor Cross and Tocora have been evaluated. The City has submitted a schematic drawing to the Research Park Director and he has agreed to the location. Just need to work out an easement. Would be built with City funds. T.1.3. – Nelson commented that there’s always been a desire to have a parallel path system between East Washington and Johnson utilizing shopping center but it doesn’t appear to be in the cards right now because of the conflicting needs of the shopping center. However, there is a widened walkway along Johnson Street and a paved connection between Johnson and across the Yahara River hooking up to the Yahara Parkway Path. Langer indicated another difficulty is the railroad, which doesn’t want to grant an easement. Shahan wanted to keep this project on the back burner. The PBMVC gets requests every year for an official trail. Nelson commented that getting to Mifflin Street would be progress. Shahan: T.1.6. – Shahan indicated there needs to be a safer connection into Olin Turville Park, the current alignment throws you out into the street in an unexpected way. Langer stated the ultimate design would be to align with Edgewater Court. Ross advised that staff from TE, Parks, and Engineering need to meet and agree upon an alignment. T.1.2: -- Langer said staff now have an inventory of most of the libraries and parks and will review that to determine the worst ones to be addressed. He noted that Ross is working on some commercial areas to improve bike racks and if any money is left over from that, it might be used to upgrade a couple libraries. Ross said he is looking at commercial areas with zero lot line development and no off-street parking so the only place to do bike parking is in the public ROW terrace. He will look first at those areas where there have been requests and then look at some of the City locations. There is $10,000 for this project that was an amendment to the 2008 budget. T.1.4.—Langer said staff’s recommendation is that whatever is done be grade-separated. This is a very congested area. He was not sure a grade-separated facility is possible given the houses. There is an existing easement towards the Beltline that has been pursued in the past but no political or residential support. Shahan indicated that the neighborhood plan for the Westmorland and Midvale Heights area recommended connecting both east-west and north-south under the Beltline to get to Medical Circle and east to get to the Odana Lane bike lanes or the Southwest Path. Mike Rewey thought it could be done at-grade but Shahan was skeptical and recognized this might be a large cap project. Langer noted the one further to the south that would cross at the signals but probably would not have political support. T.1.5.—Langer said staff have tried to identify where the signs could be placed on existing poles but didn’t find good locations. Every intersection does have a Keep Right and it might be possible to replace those poles with a slighter higher pole and then attach the wrong way signs since they’re not that large. There is some concern they could cause a visibility problem but the signs are small enough he didn’t think it would cause a problem. Strawser asked about installing pavement markings instead. Langer indicated it could be looked at but markings are a maintenance issue and are also covered by snow. A sign is more permanent and he felt more effective. The key is finding a location where the sign will be seen. City Traffic Engineer Dryer has approved doing a couple signs a year. T.1.7. – Nelson remarked that this is an unusual connection to a path – you go up a driveway and then on a short section of sidewalk onto the path. It does keep cars off the path, which might be a problem with a direction connection. T.2.2. – Currently under construction. T.2.4. – Currently under construction. T.2.3. – Shahan noted this project keeps coming up. The estimate from staff s $25,000. Is that for a sidewalk, a bike path, or something else? Is it more involved than just a sidewalk? Ross indicated the issue is what kind of structure is needed to bridge the drainage area. This is an undeveloped area without curb and gutter. More planning needs to be done to see what’s needed and where. Would be a good connector. T.2.1. – Shahan wanted a short little connector from the West Washington bike lane eastbound to West Shore, something that would not allow cars but that would provide a ped/bike connector. Referencing his memo and what he heard tonight, Shahan asked staff if it was reasonable to move forward on T.1.1., T.1.5., T.1.2, and T.2.1. Langer indicated that T.1.1. is in the process and staff can start on T.1.5. The inventory for T.1.2. will be done in the next couple of weeks and staff will then know what the needs are and how much can be done with the available funding. The other two projects from his list are T.1.6. which has alignment issues that need to be worked out with other agencies, and T.2.3. which at this time appears to be a no. Motion by Compton/Strawser to request staff to move forward on T.1.1., T.1.5., T.1.2., and T.2.1., carried unanimously.
Notes:

  powered by Daystar Computer Systems, Inc.