ADVISORY COMMITTEES ON REGIONAL LAND USE ... of the Third Joint Meeting of the ADVISORY COMMITTEES...

Minutes of the Third Joint Meeting of the

ADVISORY COMMITTEES ON REGIONAL LAND USE PLANNING

AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLANNING DATE: January 15, 2014 TIME: 9:30 a.m. PLACE: Tommy G. Thompson Youth Center, Meeting Room 5 Wisconsin State Fair Park 640 S. 84th Street Milwaukee, Wisconsin Members Present Committee on Regional Land Use Planning Julie Anderson .................................. Director of Public Works and Development Services, Racine County

Chair Robert J. Bauman ............................................................................................ Alderman, City of Milwaukee Andy M. Buehler ............................................................ Director of Planning Operations, Kenosha County Harlan E. Clinkenbeard ................................................................................. City Planner, City of Pewaukee Michael P. Cotter ................................................................................................ Director, Walworth County

Land Use and Resource Management Department Brent DesRoches (alternate for Sheri Schmit) ....................................... Planning and Forecasting Engineer,

Wisconsin Department of Transportation Daniel F. Ertl ........................................................ Director of Community Development, City of Brookfield Vanessa Koster .................................................................................................................. Planning Manager,

City of Milwaukee Department of City Development Jeffrey B. Labahn ............................. Director, Community Development and Inspections, City of Kenosha Mark Piotrowicz ......................................................... City Planner/Operations Manager, City of West Bend Sandy Scherer (alternate for Jason Fruth) ............................................................................... Senior Planner,

Waukesha County Department of Parks and Land Use Karen Schmiechen (alternate for Sheri Schmit) ............................................... Program and Policy Analyst,

Wisconsin Department of Transportation Douglas Seymour ................................................. Director of Community Development, City of Oak Creek Todd Stuebe ............................................................ Director of Community Development, City of Glendale Randy Tetzlaff ......................................... Director of Planning and Development, City of Port Washington Mike Thompson (alternate for Eric Nitschke) ................. NR Region Program Manager, Southeast Region,

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Committee on Regional Transportation System Planning Fred Abadi .............................................................................. Director of Public Works, City of Waukesha John Bennett.................................................................................................. City Engineer, City of Franklin Scott Brandmeier .............................. Director of Public Works and Village Engineer, Village of Fox Point David E. Cox ............................................................................... Village Administrator, Village of Hartland Brent DesRoches (alternate for Sheri Schmit) ....................................... Planning and Forecasting Engineer,

Wisconsin Department of Transportation

-2-

Gary Evans .................................................................................... Highway Engineering Division Manager, Waukesha County Department of Public Works

Michael Friedlander (alternate for Bart Sponseller) .......................................... Bureau of Air Management, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Michael Giugno ...................................................... Managing Director, Milwaukee County Transit System Tom Grisa ........................................................... Director, Department of Public Works, City of Brookfield Nik Kovac ....................................................................................................... Alderman, City of Milwaukee Alexis Kuklenski ..................................................... Community Planner, Federal Highway Administration,

U.S. Department of Transportation Michael M. Lemens ...................................... Director of Public Works and City Engineer, City of Kenosha Michael Loughran (alternate for Ghassan A. Korban) ................................... Department of Public Works,

City of Milwaukee John Nordbo (alternate for Sandra Beaupré) ................................. Wisconsin Department of Transportation Jeffrey S. Polenske .................................................................................... City Engineer, City of Milwaukee William D. Sasse ................................................................ Director of Engineering, Village of Mt. Pleasant Jay Saunders (alternate for Michael Mayo Sr.) ................. Public Information Assistant, Milwaukee County Karen Schmiechen (alternate for Sheri Schmit) ............................................... Program and Policy Analyst,

Wisconsin Department of Transportation Leslie Silletti (alternate for Jennifer Gonda) .......................................... Mayor’s Office, City of Milwaukee Mike Thompson (alternate for Eric Nitschke) ................. NR Region Program Manager, Southeast Region,

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Dennis Yaccarino .......................... Senior Budget and Policy Manager, Budget and Management Division,

Department of Administration, City of Milwaukee Guests and Staff Present Stephen P. Adams ................................................... Public Involvement and Outreach Manager, SEWRPC Ann Dee Allen ............................................. Senior Public Involvement and Outreach Specialist, SEWRPC Eric D. Lynde ............................................................. Principal Transportation Planner/Engineer, SEWRPC Benjamin R. McKay .......................................................................................... Principal Planner, SEWRPC Kevin J. Muhs ............................................................................... Senior Transportation Planner, SEWRPC Susan Morrison ................................................................. Bureau of Planning and Economic Development,

Wisconsin Department of Transportation David A. Schilling ............................................................................................. Principal Planner, SEWRPC Kerry Thomas ............................................................................................ Executive Director, TransitNOW Kenneth R. Yunker ......................................................................................... Executive Director, SEWRPC CALL TO ORDER

Ms. Anderson called the joint meeting of the Advisory Committees on Regional Land Use Planning and Regional Transportation System Planning to order at 9:30 a.m., welcoming those in attendance. Ms. Anderson stated roll call would be accomplished through circulation of a sign-in sheet. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 2013 Ms. Anderson asked if there were any questions or comments on the November 18, 2013, meeting minutes. There were none. She then asked for a motion to approve the meeting minutes. On a motion by

-3-

Mr. Labahn, seconded by Mr. Clinkenbeard, the November 18, 2013, meeting minutes were unanimously approved. UPDATE ON VISION 2050 EFFORTS Ms. Anderson noted there are three sub-items under this agenda item, including discussion of results of visioning activities to date, the draft VISION 2050 Guiding Statements, and development of sketch land use and transportation scenarios. Results of Visioning Activities to Date Ms. Anderson asked Mr. Muhs of the Commission staff to provide an overview of the results of visioning activities to date. Mr. Muhs noted initial visioning activities had been completed since the last report to the Committees on November 18, 2013. He stated the additional results were similar to the results previously reported to the Committees. Mr. Muhs also noted the second series of visioning workshops are underway where attendees are given an overview of the results of the initial visioning activities and provided the opportunity to rate the draft series of VISION 2050 Guiding Statements. These workshops also include visioning stations where attendees can provide input on how to translate the Guiding Statements into sketch land use and transportation development scenarios. He noted the second series of workshops include seven public workshops and eight workshops hosted by community organizations. All of the public workshops and five of the eight workshops hosted by organizations have been held. Mr. Muhs stated staff will compile the results of the second series of workshops once they are complete and post the results on the VISION 2050 website. He noted the results of the initial visioning activities are also on the VISION 2050 website (http://vision2050sewis.org/Vision2050/TheResults). Draft VISION 2050 Guiding Statements Ms. Anderson asked Mr. Muhs to review the draft VISION 2050 Guiding Statements (see Attachment 1). Mr. Muhs stated the input obtained during the initial visioning activities resulted in the draft series of Guiding Statements, intended to facilitate development of sketch land use and transportation development scenarios. The sketch scenarios will, in turn, form the basis of detailed alternative land use and transportation plans. He noted a first draft of the Guiding Statements was e-mailed to members of the Committees prior to the meeting for comment, staff having adjusted the draft Guiding Statements based on these comments. He stated the Guiding Statements will be further revised based on input from the second series of visioning workshops and any additional comments from members of the Committees. A revised set of Guiding Statements will be reviewed at an upcoming joint meeting of the Committees. Development of Sketch Land Use and Transportation Scenarios Ms. Anderson asked Mr. Muhs to provide an overview of possible sketch land use and transportation scenarios. Mr. Muhs noted an outline of possible land use and transportation scenarios was distributed to members attending the meeting (see Attachment 2). He stated the scenarios are meant to be conceptual alternatives of how the Region might look and function in the future, representing a range of possible futures for land use and transportation development that could achieve the Region’s initial vision as generally identified by the Guiding Statements. He stated the third series of visioning workshops will focus on scenario planning. Members of the public could choose from the options shown in the outline or Commission staff could create pre-existing options and present them to the public at the workshops for comment. Mr. Yunker stated both the guiding statements and scenario outline will be revisited for approval by the Committees at a future meeting. He stated the Committees will be given the opportunity to review and comment on each individual guiding statement and the individual components of the scenario outline. Mr. Polenske asked if the data presented in Chapter II of the plan report will be used to

-4-

evaluate the scenarios. Mr. Yunker responded the data presented in Chapter II is inventory data and staff is developing indicators that will represent possible outcomes of various scenarios. He noted the scenarios are intended to be more broad and conceptual than the alternative plans and the evaluation of scenarios will not be as in-depth as the evaluation of alternative plans. REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY DRAFTS OF THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS OF SEWRPC PLANNING REPORT NO. 55, “VISION 2050: A REGIONAL LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN FOR SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN”

Volume I, Chapter II, “Existing Conditions and Trends: Population, Employment, and Land Use”

Volume I, Chapter III, “Review of Currently Adopted Regional Land Use and Transportation System Plans”

Ms. Anderson noted there are two sub-items under this agenda item, including a review of Volume I, Chapter II of the plan report and Volume I, Chapter III of the plan report. Volume I, Chapter II, “Existing Conditions and Trends: Population, Employment, and Land Use” Ms. Anderson asked Mr. Schilling of the Commission staff to review the preliminary draft of Volume I, Chapter II, “Existing Conditions and Trends: Population, Employment, and Land Use,” of the regional land use and transportation plan (the chapter is available on the SEWRPC website: http://www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPC/VISION_2050/2050RegLandUseTranspPlan.htm). The following comments and discussion points were made during the review:

1. Mr. Bauman asked if race/ethnicity data are available by County. Mr. Yunker responded that this data would be included in the Chapter.

2. Mr. Yaccarino asked if data on wage trends are available. Mr. Yunker responded that this data is available in SEWRPC Technical Report No. 10, The Economy of Southeastern Wisconsin, and it can be included in the Chapter. Mr. Yaccarino asked if the Technical Report includes property value data. Mr. Yunker responded that it does not. Mr. Polenske suggested presenting the wage data by County. Mr. Bauman suggested including data for the City of Milwaukee because of the disparity between the City and the rest of Milwaukee County and the Region. He noted data on the availability of personal vehicles as an example. Mr. Yunker stated the data requested on race/ethnicity and income will be presented by county and the City of Milwaukee. He noted data on personal vehicle availability will be presented in Volume I, Chapter IV, “Inventory of Travel Facilities and Services,” of the plan report.

Ms. Anderson asked if there were any further comments on the chapter. Hearing no further comments, Ms. Anderson asked for a motion to approve as revised the preliminary draft of Volume I, Chapter II, “Existing Conditions and Trends: Population, Employment, and Land Use.” Mr. Clinkenbeard moved and Mr. Cox seconded the motion to approve the chapter with the understanding that the revisions suggested by Mr. Bauman and Mr. Yaccarino will be incorporated. Mr. Bauman asked if the purpose of the chapter is to describe the physical condition of the Region and broad population levels or if it is to show the human condition of the Region, noting the Milwaukee area’s status as one of the most segregated large metropolitan areas in the Country. Mr. Yunker responded the chapter is intended to provide a high level snapshot of the Region, and the data requested will be added and presented for each County and the City of Milwaukee. Ms. Koster suggested waiting for the vote on approval of the chapter until a revised draft can be reviewed. Mr. Yunker stated the planning process is running on a tight

-5-

schedule; however, waiting for approval of this chapter will not delay the start of other work. Mr. Thompson noted WDNR staff would provide some suggested edits regarding the air quality section following the meeting. Mr. Yunker indicated that Commission staff would incorporate these suggested edits. Mr. Grisa noted additions to the chapters during past regional planning efforts have typically been handled through review and approval of the meeting minutes. Mr. Polenske noted these additions change the scope of the chapter, and it may be helpful to see them in the context of a revised draft of the chapter. Mr. Yunker stated staff appreciates the current motion and noted that the suggestions are for additions to the draft chapter and not for revisions to the existing text. He stated a full revised draft could be considered for approval at a future meeting if the current motion and second are withdrawn. Mr. Clinkenbeard withdrew the motion and Mr. Cox withdrew the second. Mr. Polenske moved and Mr. Bauman seconded to layover consideration of the chapter to a future meeting to address the additions as discussed. The motion was approved unanimously.

[Secretary’s Note: Following the meeting, Commission staff revised Chapter II as follows:

Added information on the total population and households in the four largest cities in the Region and the remainder of those cities’ respective counties.

Added information on the minority and non-minority population and personal income levels in each of the seven counties, the four largest cities in the Region, and the remainder of those cities’ respective counties.

Added information on the job/housing analysis conducted as part of the recently adopted regional housing plan.

Incorporated suggested edits to the air quality section received by WDNR staff following the meeting.]

Volume I, Chapter III, “Review of Currently Adopted Regional Land Use and Transportation System Plans” Ms. Anderson asked Mr. Lynde of the Commission staff to review the preliminary draft of Volume I, Chapter III, “Review of Currently Adopted Regional Land Use and Transportation System Plans,” of the regional land use and transportation plan (the chapter is available on the SEWRPC website: http://www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPC/VISION_2050/2050RegLandUseTranspPlan.htm). The following comments and discussion points were made during the review:

1. Mr. Kovac referred to Map III-2, and noted it shows growth between 2000 and 2010 that is both consistent and inconsistent with plan recommendations. He then noted that regional plan recommendations are advisory. Mr. Piotrowicz noted the need for town and county comprehensive plans to be consistent and asked if the county comprehensive plan has to be consistent with the regional transportation system plan. Mr. Yunker responded county comprehensive plans are not required to be consistent with the regional transportation plan. He noted the State comprehensive planning law does have language referencing consistency between county comprehensive plan transportation elements and the regional transportation plan, but it has not necessarily been followed. Mr. Clinkenbeard stated a regional level government would be needed to enforce consistency between comprehensive plans and regional plans. He stated that one purpose of the regional plans is to present basic planning data needed to develop local and county plans. He stated the regional land use plan is critical to the development of the regional

-6-

transportation plan, which is required by the Federal government. The land use plan, he noted, is advisory and must be realistic and take into account political feasibility. Mr. Yunker stated local and county governments must complete nine planning elements that are required by the State comprehensive planning law. He noted the Commission drafted a letter to the State Legislature urging the inclusion of a regional planning commission review requirement; however, no such requirement was included in the law.

2. Mr. Clinkenbeard referred to Map III-4, “Status of Major Parks Recommended Under the 2035 Regional Land Use Plan,” and asked why Ryan Park in Waukesha County is not shown. Mr. Yunker responded the status of Ryan Park will be addressed in the meeting minutes.

[Secretary’s Note: Major parks have an area of at least 250 acres and provide opportunities for a variety of resource-oriented outdoor recreational activities. Ryan Park is 204 acres in size and does not provide opportunities for a variety of activities. The development of Ryan Park will be monitored and its status will be updated at such time that it meets the major park criteria.]

3. Mr. Saunders referred to Map III-3 and noted the 76th/Brown Deer Road major economic activity

center (formerly known as Northridge) is shown as having dropped below the threshold employment level in 2010. He noted other uses for this area are under consideration and it may warrant a longer term analysis. Mr. Yunker noted this particular analysis considers employment status as of 2010. He stated the City of Milwaukee comprehensive plan will be consulted to determine whether the area should be identified as a planned major economic activity center in the 2050 regional plan.

4. Ms. Koster noted the Milwaukee River Corridor is in the Milwaukee River Greenway Overlay Zone in the City of Milwaukee, which differs from a traditional conservancy zoning district. Mr. Yunker responded the overlay will be addressed in the chapter text.

[Secretary’s Note: The following footnote has been added to the last full sentence on page

III-13 after the term “local conservancy zoning”:

“The portion of the Milwaukee River encompassed by primary environmental corridor in the City of Milwaukee between North Avenue and Hampton Avenue is covered by the Milwaukee River Greenway Overlay Zone. This overlay zone allows protection of the primary environmental corridor and sustainable development that is compatible with the City’s comprehensive plan.”]

5. Mr. Sasse referred to Map III-5, “Protection of Primary Environmental Corridors in the Region,” and noted the Pike River Corridor in Racine County is not shown.

[Secretary’s Note: The portion of the Pike River Corridor located in Racine County is

classified as Secondary Environmental Corridor.]

6. Mr. Bauman asked if it was necessary that a highway project be identified in the recommended regional transportation plan in order to receive Federal funding. Mr. Yunker indicated that the Commission prepares a transportation improvement program (TIP) which lists all transit and

-7-

arterial highway projects proposed to use Federal funding over a four-year period, and that projects in the TIP need to be consistent with the regional transportation plan.

7. Mr. Yunker referred to Map III-8, “Public Transit Element of the Regional Transportation System Plan: Year 2035,” and noted the recommended plan identifies high-speed rail and the Milwaukee Streetcar under fixed guideway routes. He then noted Map III-9, “Potential Rapid Transit Commuter Rail and Express Transit Bus Guideway/Light Rail Lines Under the Recommended Year 2035 Regional Transportation Plan,” shows potential corridors for upgrading rapid and express transit service from bus lines to fixed guideway facilities. Mr. Ertl asked about the status of high-speed rail in the regional plan. Mr. Yunker responded discussion will be added regarding its implementation status.

[Secretary’s Note: The following text has been added under a new subsection titled “High-Speed Rail Service” before the subsection titled “Rapid Transit Service” on page III-23:

“The planned high-speed rail line between Chicago, Milwaukee, and Madison will be developed and overseen by WisDOT, which received Federal funding for the project in January 2010. The planned high-speed rail line is intended to be part of an initial phase in the development of a Midwest high-speed rail network, developed in partnership with other Midwest states and Amtrak. Implementation of the planned Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison high-speed rail service will include improvements to Amtrak’s existing Hiawatha Service operating between Chicago and Milwaukee and infrastructure improvements to allow service to continue to Madison, with trains reaching maximum speeds of 110 miles per hour between Milwaukee and Madison.” In addition, the following text has been added as a new paragraph following the first paragraph on page III-42: “Implementation of WisDOT’s planned Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison high-speed rail line was indefinitely postponed following withdrawal of the majority of the Federal funding awarded to the project by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) in December 2010. Despite its postponement, this proposed service remains a part of WisDOT’s long-range state rail plan scheduled to be completed in 201. In addition, WisDOT is continuing efforts to increase service and improve travel times of Amtrak’s existing Hiawatha Service operating between Chicago and Milwaukee.”]

8. Mr. Kovac noted several communities prepared station area plans as part of the proposed Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee (KRM) commuter rail line, demonstrating the link between land use and transportation planning. Mr. Lynde noted the station area plans were endorsed by most of the communities. Mr. Yunker noted some communities may incorporate the station area plans into their comprehensive plans, based on their perception of the status of the KRM project. Mr. Clinkenbeard asked if the KRM project is still in the regional plan. Mr. Yunker responded it was not removed from the 2035 regional transportation system plan.

-8-

9. Mr. Yunker referred to text on page III-41 and noted the public transit element of the 2035 regional transportation plan recommends a near doubling of public transit service by the plan design year. He noted that the plan assumed local dedicated funding, a regional transit authority (RTA), and adequate State funding would be provided to achieve this recommendation. Mr. Bauman stated the State Legislature could provide adequate funding to implement the public transit element of the 2035 transportation plan, similar to State funding of highway expansions, and that an RTA may not be necessary to achieve the plan’s recommended transit service improvement and expansion. He noted the State committed to funding 10 percent of a proposed light rail line in the 1995-96 State biennial budget, and that the State had also committed to funding a certain portion of the proposed KRM project. Mr. Yunker noted local governments must provide a match to State funding from their property tax levies, and that the purpose of the text was to demonstrate that State legislation allowing for local dedicated funding and RTAs almost passed. He indicated that the minutes would include a discussion on State funding for the KRM project, and indicated that transportation funding would be considered during development of the recommended year 2050 regional land use and transportation plan.

[Secretary’s Note: The financial plan for the KRM commuter rail line—included in the New

Starts application submitted to the Federal Transit Administration in June 2010 and subsequently withdrawn in July 2011—assumed State capital assistance for the project under one or both of two State programs. The State Section 85.064 Commuter Rail Transit System Development program called for the State to pay up to half of the non-Federal share of annual project capital costs, at a maximum of 25 percent of project costs. The State Section 85.11 Southeast Wisconsin Transit Capital Assistance Program could have paid up to half of the non-Federal share of annual project capital costs or 25 percent of project costs, whichever is less, up to $50 million. The financial plan assumed State operating assistance for the project under the State Section 85.20 Mass Transit Operating Assistance Program, which has provided has provided about $100 million annually to fund local urban public transit system operations in Wisconsin.]

10. Mr. Yunker noted the text on the bottom of page III-41 and stated the amount of transit service in

the Region has declined from the time of plan adoption in 2006 to 2012. There was a decrease of 7 percent in fixed-route bus service and an increase of 17 percent in demand-responsive service, which resulted in an overall 4 percent decrease in service.

11. Mr. Stuebe noted Map III-13 does not show portions of Port Washington Road in the City of Glendale. Mr. Yunker responded Port Washington Road is likely lying under IH-43 on the map because of their close proximity. He stated staff will modify the map to make Port Washington Road visible (see Attachment 3).

12. Mr. Lynde referred to the second paragraph on page III-43 and noted Kenosha County adopted a comprehensive bike plan in 2013, which could be referenced in the chapter as a recent example of a plan intended to implement the recommendations of the 2035 regional plan’s bicycle and pedestrian element.

[Secretary’s Note: The second paragraph on page III-43 was revised as follows:

-9-

“A number of local and county plans have been completed or are in development that will help to implement the recommendations of the regional plan’s bicycle and pedestrian element. Examples include the Kenosha County Comprehensive Bike Plan completed in July 2013 and a bicycle plan for the City of Milwaukee that recommends a broad range of measures to improve conditions for bicycling in Milwaukee.”]

13. Mr. Giugno referred to the third bullet on page III-45 and noted the Milwaukee County Transit System will not be installing “next bus” information signing at bus stops, but will instead be making next bus information available using new mobile technologies.

[Secretary’s Note: The second sentence of the third bullet on page III-45 was revised as follows:

“Milwaukee County Transit System has initiated implementation of “next bus” information technology that is expected to be completed in 2014.”]

14. Mr. Bauman referred to the discussion of vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) forecasts starting on page III-47 and asked if the latest VMT estimate for the Region is from 2008. Mr. Yunker noted that data from 2011 will be available soon and will be incorporated into the chapter. Mr. Bauman noted there appears to be a nationwide trend of declining annual VMT. Mr. Yunker indicated that the year 2050 forecasts will likely include a flattening trend in VMT, and noted that a recent report had been published by WISPIRG concluding that there had been about a 21 percent decrease in VMT per capita between 2006 and 2011 in the Milwaukee urbanized area. He referred to a handout distributed by Commission staff presenting the data for 2006 and 2011 used by WISPIRG in its report (see Attachment 4). He indicated that data for the Milwaukee urbanized area are reported to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), and that between 2006 and 2011 WisDOT changed their method of estimating VMT. He pointed out that the data showed a decline in VMT in the Milwaukee urbanized area almost entirely due to a 77 percent decline in VMT on local streets, which would not appear to be reasonable.

[Secretary’s Note: Tables III-14 and III-15 were revised (see Attachment 5) and the last three sentences of the first paragraph on page III-48 were revised as follows:

“The latest regional vehicle-miles of travel estimate is for the year 2011, using WisDOT traffic counts in the Region for the years 2008 through 2012. In 2011, it is estimated that there were 40.9 million vehicle-miles of travel on the Region’s arterial street and highway system on an average weekday. Forecast year 2011 vehicle-miles of travel in the Region under the year 2035 regional transportation plan totaled 43.5 million arterial system vehicle-miles of travel on an average weekday, approximately 2.6 million vehicle-miles, or about 6.4 percent, less than the estimated Region arterial vehicle-miles of travel on an average weekday in 2011.”]

-10-

15. Mr. Bauman referred to the public transit bullet on page III-51 under the Summary and Conclusions Section for Part Three and stated the text regarding implementation of the public transit element of the year 2035 regional transportation system plan should be much stronger. He noted no new forms of public transit have been implemented and there was a 7 percent service decline in the existing fixed-route public transit system between 2006 and 2012. Mr. Bauman noted that implementation of the regional plan should result in positive outcomes, such as increased access to jobs and orderly growth. He suggested adding text that explains implementation is in the interest of the public good and there are negative consequences to not implementing the plan. Mr. Yunker responded discussion about the consequences of not implementing the 2035 regional plan will be added to the chapter and will be reflected in the meeting minutes (see Attachment 6).

16. Mr. Clinkenbeard stated county and local governments are largely responsible for implementing the regional land use plan and the regional transportation plan serves the land use plan. Mr. Yunker responded this will be included in the discussion about the consequences of not implementing the regional plan. Mr. Yunker also noted there have been some successes in implementing the regional plan that can also be included in the discussion. An example is the protection of environmental corridors, which was not embraced by communities when first proposed in the 1960s, but is now widely embraced. Mr. Piotrowicz asked if all elements of the 2035 plan would be included in the discussion. Mr. Yunker responded all elements will be included. Mr. Clinkenbeard suggested avoiding political factors. Mr. Yunker stated the discussion will only include the consequences of not implementing the 2035 regional plan, such as decreased job accessibility.

Mr. Yunker noted the chapter as presented to the Committees could be approved and the suggestions discussed today will be added to the chapter. He stated that chapter additions can be approved by the Committees through review of the meeting minutes. Ms. Anderson asked if there were any further comments on the chapter. Hearing no further comments, Ms. Anderson asked for a motion to approve as revised the preliminary draft of Volume I, Chapter III, “Review of the Currently Adopted Regional Land Use and Transportation System Plans.” Mr. Clinkenbeard moved and Mr. Stuebe seconded the motion to approve the chapter with the understanding that the suggestions will be added as discussed. The motion was approved unanimously. DISCUSSION OF SCHEDULE AND LOCATION OF FUTURE MEETINGS Mr. Yunker stated the next joint meeting of the Advisory Committees is scheduled for March 12, 2014. He noted the Tommy Thompson Youth Center is not available and staff is considering suggestions for alternative locations received from members of the Committees. Mr. Yunker also noted there may be a need to hold a separate meeting of the Advisory Committee on Regional Transportation System Planning in February. He stated staff will notify members of both Committees of the meeting date in the next few weeks. He noted members of the Advisory Committee on Regional Land Use Planning are welcome to attend. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Anderson asked if there were any public comments. There were none.

-11-

ADJOURNMENT Ms. Anderson thanked everyone for attending and asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Clinkenbeard moved and Mr. Sasse seconded the motion to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 11:38 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Benjamin R. McKay Recording Secretary

* * *

PCE/DAS/BRM/EDL VISION 2050 - Joint AC Minutes - Mtg 3 - 1/15/14 (00215994).DOCX (PDF: #216795)

Attachment 1

- FRONT -

DRAFT VISION 2050 GUIDING STATEMENTS

The following 15 draft VISION 2050 Guiding Statements express a preliminary vision for land use and transportation in the Region based on the key values and priorities expressed through initial visioning activities. These statements are intended to serve as a guide for how the Region should move forward and for developing “sketch” future land use and transportation scenarios. Note: no priority is implied by the order of these draft Guiding Statements. 1. Strengthen Existing Urban Areas

The individual character of desirable neighborhoods, including natural, historic, and cultural resources, should be preserved and protected and blighted neighborhoods should be renewed. New urban development and major job centers should occur through infill development, redevelopment, and development adjacent to existing urban areas.

2. Maintain Small Town Character Small town character is part of the Region’s identity. The individual character of communities in rural areas, including natural, historic, and cultural resources, should be preserved and protected.

3. Balance Jobs and Housing Links between jobs and workers should be improved by providing affordable housing near job centers, increasing job opportunities near affordable housing, and improving public transit between job centers and affordable housing.

4. Achieve More Compact Development Compact development creates desirable neighborhoods that are walkable and have a mix of uses, such as housing, businesses, schools, and parks. Future growth should occur in areas that can be readily provided with public services and facilities, and infill and redevelopment should be encouraged.

5. Preserve Natural Resources and Open Spaces Natural resources provide many environmental and recreational benefits that cannot be replaced if they are eliminated or disturbed. Future growth and transportation investments should preserve and protect valuable natural features, including lakes, rivers, wetlands, floodplains, groundwater, woodlands, open spaces, natural areas, and fish and wildlife habitats.

6. Preserve Farmland Productive farmland is vital to the health and economy of the Region. Future growth and transportation investments should preserve and protect productive farmland.

7. Be Environmentally Responsible Sustainable land and transportation development and construction practices should be used to minimize the use of nonrenewable resources and reduce impacts on the local, regional, and global environment, such as impacts on air and water quality.

216781 v1 12/6/13 EDL

- BACK -

8. Develop an Integrated, Multimodal Transportation System

Safe, efficient, and convenient travel in the Region requires an integrated, multimodal transportation system, which provides choices among transportation modes. This system should provide a sufficient level of service for all modes to effectively serve the travel demand generated by the Region’s land development pattern.

9. Develop an Expansive, Well-connected Bicycle Network Bicycle and pedestrian travel in the Region should be encouraged as an alternative to personal vehicle travel. The network should provide on- and off-street bicycle connections that are safe, secure, and convenient.

10. Achieve a Robust, Regional Transit System The Region’s transit services should accommodate the travel needs of all residents, including travel that crosses municipal or county boundaries. Transit service should be fast, frequent, safe, and convenient in order to provide an alternative to personal vehicle travel.

11. Provide a High-quality Network of Streets and Highways The Region’s streets and highways need to be well maintained in order to continue to carry the overwhelming majority of personal and freight traffic in the Region. As roadways are reconstructed, modern design improvements should be included, with a focus on improving the efficiency and safety of the roadway and incorporating bicycle, pedestrian, and transit accommodations.

12. Ensure that Goods Move Efficiently The considerable needs of the Region’s businesses, industries, and freight companies must be a factor in the development of a balanced transportation system. Barriers to the efficient movement of goods within the Region and between the Region and other areas should be identified and addressed.

13. Prepare for Change in Travel Preferences and Technologies New and expected trends in travel behavior should be considered when developing the Region’s transportation system. Technologies that improve the ability and capacity to travel should also be considered.

14. Make Wise Infrastructure Investments The benefits of specific investments in the Region’s infrastructure must be weighed against the estimated costs of those investments. The limited funding available to the Region for infrastructure investments must be spent wisely.

15. Work Together Toward Common Goals Cooperation and collaboration at the local, county, State, and Federal levels is necessary to address the land use and transportation issues facing the Region.

Attachment 2

(OVER)

DRAFT OUTLINE OF SKETCH VISION 2050 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS

The following provides an outline of initial possible “sketch” land use and transportation

scenarios developed by Commission staff for consideration by the Advisory Committees on

Regional Land Use Planning and Regional Transportation System Planning. These scenarios

are meant to be conceptual alternatives of how the Region might look and function in the

future, representing a range of possible futures for land use and transportation which could

achieve the Region’s initial vision, as generally identified by the Guiding Statements.

LAND USE OPTIONS

A. Baseline (Continuation of current trends.)

B. Orderly Urban Growth (Similar to adopted Year 2035 Regional Land Use Plan. New

development to occur largely as infill or redevelopment in existing urban centers, and at

the immediate outer boundary of existing urban centers. Medium and high urban

development densities will be emphasized, resulting in a reversal of trends in declining

urban density.)

C. Compact Transit-Oriented Development (New development to occur along major

transit lines and particularly at transit stations. Emphasis on high urban development

densities.)

HIGHWAY OPTIONS

A. Maintain Existing System (Improvements limited to modernization to current design

standards.)

B. Capacity Expansion (Beyond improvements to current design standards,

reconstruction of existing facilities to include additional traffic lanes and construction of

new arterial facilities to address existing and future traffic congestion.)

- 2 -

TRANSIT OPTIONS

A. Maintain Existing System (No improvements or expansion of service. Continuing

current trends would result in service reduction.)

B. Significant Improvement/Expansion of Existing Services (Near doubling of transit

service including expansion of service area, hours, and frequency of service.

Development of true express lines and service. Service to remain provided solely by

buses.)

C. Significant Improvement/Expansion Including Fixed-Guideway Network (Beyond a

near doubling of transit service—including areas, hours, and service frequency—fixed

guideway transit systems—rail or bus—would be developed.)

BICYCLE OPTIONS

A. Incremental Accommodation and Off-Street Network (Bicycle facilities—bike lanes,

wider curb lanes, paved shoulders—would be provided as arterials are reconstructed,

and a regional system of off-street facilities would be developed.)

C. Expanded Accommodation and Off-Street Network (Beyond bicycle facilities

provided as part of arterial reconstruction, higher levels of bicycle accommodation

would be provided—such as protected bicycle lanes—in key bicycle corridors. A

regionwide system of off-street bicycle facilities would also be developed.)

#216782

I:\Tran\WORK\RTSP2050\Inventory\Maps\Ch 3\Map III-13 - Revised Milw Funct Plan.mxd

Map III-13 (Revised)

FUNCTIONAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ARTERIAL STREET AND HIGHWAY SYSTEM IN MILWAUKEE

COUNTY: PROPOSED AMENDED YEAR 2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN

ARTERIAL STREET OR HIGHWAY

NEW

WIDENING AND/OR OTHERIMPROVEMENT TO PROVIDESIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL CAPACITY

RESERVE RIGHT-OF-WAY TOACCOMMODATE FUTURE IMPROVEMENT(ADDITIONAL LANES OR NEW FACILITY)

RESURFACING OR RECONSTRUCTION TO PROVIDE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME CAPACITY

FREEWAY INTERCHANGE

4 NUMBER OF LANES(2 WHERE UNNUMBERED)

NEW!

HALF NEW

M

EXISTING!

THE FOLLOWING NOTES SUPPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS PORTRAYED ON THIS MAP:1. Each proposed arterial street and highway improvement, expansion, orpreservation project would need to undergo preliminary engineering andenvironmental studies by the responsible State, county, or municipal governmentprior to implementation. The preliminary engineering and environmental studies willconsider alternatives and impacts, and final decisions as to whether and how a planand project will proceed to implementation will be made by the responsible State,county, or municipal government (State for state highways, County for countyhighways, and municipal for municipal arterial streets) at the conclusion ofpreliminary engineering.

2. The 127 miles of freeway widening proposed in the plan, and in particular the 19miles of widening in the City of Milwaukee (IH 94 between the Zoo and Marquetteinterchanges and IH 43 between the Mitchell and Silver Spring interchanges), willundergo preliminary engineering and environmental impact statement by theWisconsin Department of Transportation. During preliminary engineering,alternatives will be considered, including rebuild as-is, various options of rebuild tomodern design standards, compromises to rebuilding to modern design standards,rebuilding with additional lanes, and rebuilding with the existing number of lanes.Only at the conclusion of preliminary engineering would a determination be madeas to how the freeway would be reconstructed.

3. The plan also provides further recommendations with respect to freeway half-interchanges. The plan recommends that the Wisconsin Department ofTransportation, during the reconstruction of the freeway system:

--Convert the S. 27th Street with IH 94 interchange to a full interchange;

--Consider as an alternative (where conditions permit) combining selected half-interchanges into one full interchange. (For example, STH 100 and S. 124th Streetwith IH 43.)

--Retain all other existing half-interchanges and examine during preliminaryengineering the improvement of connection between adjacent interchanges.

4. The plan also recommends that during preliminary engineering for thereconstruction of STH 100 from W. Forest Home Avenue to IH 43, consideration begiven to alternatives without additional traffic lanes, alternatives with additionaltraffic lanes or auxiliary lanes, and alternatives with frontage roads.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

M ! ! !

! ! L !!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

L

!

LL

L

N

O

!

N

N

M

M

N

L!M!

!

!

!

!

!

!

L

R 21 E R 22 E

T 8 N

T 7 N

T 6 N

T 5 N

R 21 ER 23 ER 22 E

T 5 N

T 6 N

T 7 N

T 8 N

OZAUKEE CO.

WA

UK

ES

HA

CO

.

RACINE CO.

ST.

SOUTH

CUDAHY

FRANCIS

FRANKLIN

GLENDALE

OAK

MILWAUKEE

WAUWATOSA

MILWAUKEE

GREENFIELD

WEST ALLIS

CREEK

WEST

BAYSIDE

GREENDALE

MILWAUKEE

SHOREWOOD

BROWN DEER

RIVER HILLS

CORNERS

BAY

FOX

WHITEFISH

HALES

POINT

MIL

WA

UK

EE

CO

.

MILWAUKEE CO.

MILWAUKEE CO.

,-43

,-43

,-94

,-43

,-94

,-94

,-43

,-43

,-94

,-894

,-794

,-894

M I

C H

I G

A N

RIVER

L A

K E

ME

NO

MO

NE

E

RIVE

R

MILWAUKEE

ROOT

ROOT RIVER

ROOT RIVER

RIVER

MENOMONEE

RIV

ER

RO

OT

OAK

BRANCH

FISH

PARK

CREEK

RIV

ER

CR

EE

K

HO

NE

Y

RIV

ER

CREEK

LITT

LE

WIL

SO

N

LIN

CO

LN

MENO

MO

NEE

CREEK

INDIA

NCREEK

RIV

ER

LY

ON

SP

AR

KCREEK

NO

RT

H

OF

BRANCHEAST

OF

RIV

ER

RO

OT

CREEK

KINNICKINNIC

CAN

ADI A

N

CAN

ADIA

N

RAILR

OAD

AND

RAI

LRO

AD

RAILROAD

RAILR

OAD

RAILROAD

RAILR

OAD

PAC

IFIC

PAC

IFICSYSTEM

UNION

PAC

IF IC

UNION

UN

ION

UN

ION

UNION

RAILW

AY

UNION

UN

ION

COMPANY

CEN

TRAL

PACIFIC

PACIFIC

RAI

LWA

Y

PACIFIC

PACIFIC

PACIFIC

RAILROAD

SOUTHERN

RAILROAD

PACIFIC

WISCONSIN

WISC

ON

SIN

")Y

")W")F

")G

")S

")W

")E

")S

")U

")N

")Y

")T

")V

")U

")A

")H

")V

")PP

")EE

")PP

")NN

")ZZ

")BB

")ZZ

")BB

")MM

")OO

")J

")D

QR57

QR32

QR32

QR32

QR24

QR36

QR32

QR57

QR59

QR38

QR59

QR24

QR100

QR100

QR145

QR175

QR181

QR190

QR181

QR38

QR100

QR190

QR100

QR181

QR100

QR119

QR32

QR100

QR145

QR794

QR32

QR36

QR100

QR32

QR57

QR145

QR57

QR341

QR241

QR241

,-43

,-43

,-94

,-43

,-94

,-94

,-43

,-43

,-94

,-894

,-794

,-894

0145

0145

0141

0145

0141

0118

01410145

0118

0145 0141

0141

0141

0145

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

6

8

8

8

88

8

8

6

88

8

8

8

8

6

8

8

888

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

6

8

8

88

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

6

8 4

4

4

44

4

4

4

4

4

4

44

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

6

4

8 4

6

4

44

66

66

44

6

8

4

4

4 4

4

4

8

4

88

8

44

44

4

6

4

4 4

4

GRAPHIC SCALE

0 4,000 8,000 12,000 16,000 FEET

0 1 2 MILES

p

#216351ATTACHMENT 3

UR

BA

NIZ

ED A

REA

S -

200

6M

ILES

AN

D D

AIL

Y V

EHIC

LE -

MIL

ES T

RA

VELE

D

TAB

LE H

M-7

1

OC

TOB

ER

200

7S

HE

ET

1 O

F 9

MIL

ES

DA

ILY

VE

HIC

LE-M

ILE

S O

F TR

AV

EL

(TH

OU

SA

ND

S)

STA

TEE

STI

MA

TED

OTH

ER

OTH

ER

FED

ER

AL-

AID

LOC

ATI

ON

PO

PU

LATI

ON

FRE

EW

AY

SO

THE

RM

INO

RFR

EE

WA

YS

OTH

ER

MIN

OR

UR

BA

NIZ

ED

AR

EA

1/

(1,0

00)

INTE

RS

TATE

AN

DP

RIN

CIP

AL

AR

TER

IAL

CO

LLE

CTO

RLO

CA

LTO

TAL

INTE

RS

TATE

AN

DP

RIN

CIP

AL

AR

TER

IAL

CO

LLE

CTO

RLO

CA

LTO

TAL

EX

PR

ES

SW

AY

SA

RTE

RIA

LE

XP

RE

SS

WA

YS

AR

TER

IAL

New

Yor

k-N

ewar

k

18,2

24

506

70

6

2,60

1

4,82

7

3,88

0

30,9

70

43,4

90

57

,297

60

,945

64,7

24

56,4

00

24,0

77

47,4

70

31

0,91

3

N

Y12

,056

25

1

477

1,

498

2,

635

2,

126

15

,749

22

,736

28,0

78

37,3

65

32

,336

37

,725

15

,388

25

,868

176,

760

NJ

6,16

8

25

5

229

1,

103

2,

192

1,

754

15

,217

20

,750

29,2

19

23,5

80

32

,388

18

,675

8,

688

21

,601

134,

151

CT

--

--

--

4

4

--

--

1

1

2

Los

Ang

eles

-Lon

g B

each

-San

ta A

na C

A12

,345

35

6

319

2,

472

3,

148

2,

639

15

,899

24

,833

80,4

12

53,0

41

70

,477

49

,166

11

,429

14

,021

278,

546

C

hica

go

8,

453

463

55

1,

831

2,

533

2,

581

18

,090

25

,553

51,2

75

2,78

2

44,8

07

32,7

97

18,8

68

21,0

79

17

1,60

8

IN

491

66

16

17

4

24

4

28

9

1,

708

2,49

7

4,17

5

578

3,38

8

1,

802

712

2,46

4

13,1

19

IL

7,96

2

39

7

39

1,65

7

2,28

9

2,29

2

16,3

82

23,0

56

47

,100

2,

204

41

,419

30

,995

18

,156

18

,615

158,

489

M

iam

i F

L5,

379

131

20

0

705

952

1,32

3

13,6

70

16,9

81

21

,872

18

,488

28,4

26

24,4

85

14,7

74

25,9

15

13

3,96

0

Phi

lade

lphi

a

5,27

5

27

0

198

1,

347

1,

715

1,

962

13

,891

19

,383

25,1

64

10,7

81

30

,196

17

,715

11

,092

12

,596

107,

544

PA

3,63

3

16

3

112

90

3

97

2

1,

318

8,

844

12,3

12

16

,535

5,

704

17

,751

11

,210

7,

893

6,

948

66

,041

NJ

1,13

3

65

78

30

3

61

6

43

4

3,

655

5,15

1

4,91

2

4,70

1

8,03

7

4,

907

1,81

4

3,33

7

27,7

08

M

D26

1

2

11

15

19

75

12

3

83

36

21

8

77

53

49

516

DE

483

41

6

130

112

191

1,31

7

1,

797

3,

634

34

0

4,

190

1,52

1

1,

332

2,

262

13

,279

D

alla

s-Fo

rt W

orth

-Arli

ngto

n T

X4,

377

291

23

1

984

1,16

1

2,09

3

13,0

50

17,8

10

34

,082

19

,162

27,6

11

18,0

27

10,8

72

5,23

1

114,

985

A

tlant

a G

A4,

361

298

59

58

3

2,

020

1,

291

15

,515

19

,766

42,8

41

5,21

4

15,5

80

28,8

53

9,44

0

25,2

96

12

7,22

4

Was

hing

ton

4,

308

185

14

3

705

1,11

1

1,13

9

8,34

9

11

,632

29,2

41

9,00

4

25,2

24

17,3

57

7,14

2

8,04

6

96,0

14

V

A2,

038

90

48

304

575

529

3,64

3

5,

189

13

,823

3,

437

12

,103

9,

631

3,27

3

3,45

0

45,7

17

M

D1,

689

82

75

300

371

454

3,66

1

4,

943

14

,270

4,

504

10

,257

5,

706

3,03

5

2,59

6

40,3

68

D

C58

1

13

20

101

165

156

1,04

5

1,

500

1,

148

1,

063

2,

864

2,02

0

83

4

2,

000

9,

929

Bos

ton

4,

101

279

16

7

1,12

1

2,11

2

1,84

5

11,2

66

16,7

90

29

,588

10

,502

20,7

73

14,5

19

5,67

7

12,6

65

93

,724

RI

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

-

NH

111

10

2

23

63

92

556

74

6

81

2

82

431

72

4

447

298

2,79

4

MA

3,99

0

26

9

165

1,

098

2,

049

1,

753

10

,710

16

,044

28,7

76

10,4

20

20

,342

13

,795

5,

230

12

,367

90,9

30

Det

roit

MI

3,91

8

22

0

84

1,11

3

1,47

3

1,08

6

10,8

27

14,8

03

26

,136

6,

930

33

,663

18

,908

6,

501

10

,083

102,

221

P

hoen

ix A

Z3,

350

53

160

86

4

89

5

56

3

9,

840

12,3

75

9,

778

19

,674

22,7

62

11,5

62

4,47

7

9,30

9

77,5

62

San

Fra

ncis

co-O

akla

nd C

A3,

162

142

12

5

451

857

850

4,70

1

7,

126

22

,897

15

,997

12,0

52

11,8

48

4,49

8

2,23

9

69,5

31

Sea

ttle

WA

3,05

6

13

9

181

71

6

1,

155

1,

137

8,

662

11,9

90

20

,913

9,

551

14

,970

12

,350

5,

507

7,

823

71

,114

S

an D

iego

CA

2,95

1

15

0

130

28

6

75

6

76

8

2,

989

5,07

9

27,6

69

11,5

03

8,

591

13,8

77

4,55

2

2,02

8

68,2

20

Hou

ston

TX

2,80

1

13

7

240

69

3

1,

488

1,

410

11

,586

15

,554

24,2

95

22,4

04

20

,239

21

,072

9,

022

4,

139

10

1,17

1

Min

neap

olis

-St.

Pau

l M

N2,

519

198

13

1

197

1,55

9

1,19

4

7,82

9

11

,108

20,0

05

8,65

9

5,72

1

17

,844

4,

916

6,

534

63

,679

S

an J

uan

PR

2,30

6

96

56

24

2

53

9

63

0

5,

718

7,28

1

9,02

9

3,16

4

7,26

6

6,

027

3,97

3

3,51

4

32,9

73

Tam

pa-S

t. P

eter

sbur

g F

L2,

293

118

51

40

9

55

1

82

7

7,

567

9,52

3

11,6

74

1,91

1

16,0

86

13,2

69

7,34

5

14,3

47

64

,632

S

t. Lo

uis

2,

212

255

11

6

602

767

1,15

5

7,45

8

10

,353

23,0

08

4,85

3

11,2

93

7,47

1

5,

203

12

,306

64,1

34

M

O1,

770

166

99

36

0

46

6

84

3

5,

297

7,23

1

19,1

22

4,61

2

7,97

5

5,

109

4,07

7

10,7

79

51

,674

IL44

2

89

17

242

301

312

2,16

1

3,

122

3,

886

24

1

3,

318

2,36

2

1,

126

1,

527

12

,460

B

altim

ore

MD

2,14

9

14

1

150

39

3

66

3

72

4

5,

062

7,13

3

17,7

87

8,69

5

10,0

52

8,32

2

3,

835

3,

805

52

,496

D

enve

r-A

uror

a C

O2,

133

108

15

0

502

595

685

6,23

6

8,

276

12

,148

7,

787

16

,336

7,

193

4,03

5

5,27

8

52,7

77

Riv

ersi

de-S

an B

erna

rdin

o C

A1,

917

106

62

20

1

69

1

73

2

3,

254

5,04

6

15,7

01

8,80

9

4,36

7

8,

579

3,30

9

2,88

0

43,6

45

Sac

ram

ento

CA

1,85

8

64

59

35

5

33

0

52

7

3,

410

4,74

5

8,40

2

7,40

1

10,0

30

4,47

2

2,

895

97

4

34

,174

P

ittsb

urgh

PA

1,81

6

17

0

131

55

0

90

6

87

2

6,

656

9,28

5

8,36

4

3,79

1

9,83

5

7,

442

3,84

4

4,76

8

38,0

44

Por

tland

1,77

4

90

61

29

9

59

6

89

0

5,

002

6,93

8

9,93

2

3,67

0

7,46

1

6,

478

3,89

8

3,95

0

35,3

89

W

A33

9

22

34

66

131

148

844

1,

245

1,

736

1,

227

1,

247

823

48

2

68

2

6,

197

O

R1,

435

68

27

233

465

742

4,15

8

5,

693

8,

196

2,

443

6,

214

5,65

5

3,

416

3,

268

29

,192

C

leve

land

OH

1,74

5

19

2

52

356

643

656

5,33

7

7,

236

15

,740

2,

466

5,

632

6,27

9

2,

822

6,

293

39

,232

S

an J

ose

CA

1,70

3

41

85

31

7

39

1

36

7

2,

779

3,98

0

6,74

1

9,96

7

10,8

00

6,05

9

1,

523

2,

034

37

,124

C

inci

nnat

i

1,64

7

16

9

39

350

548

568

5,02

1

6,

695

17

,358

1,

462

6,

210

5,89

4

3,

285

6,

802

41

,011

OH

1,33

3

12

7

38

271

440

449

3,95

7

5,

282

12

,760

1,

426

4,

687

4,64

3

2,

721

6,

105

32

,342

KY

314

42

1

79

108

119

1,06

4

1,

413

4,

598

36

1,

523

1,25

1

56

4

69

7

8,

669

IN

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

- V

irgin

ia B

each

VA

1,52

8

11

6

68

304

555

557

4,32

3

5,

923

10

,921

2,

280

7,

216

8,11

2

2,

663

4,

274

35

,466

K

ansa

s C

ity

1,

520

204

17

7

353

814

677

6,44

4

8,

669

14

,909

5,

907

6,

044

6,99

3

2,

315

7,

549

43

,717

MO

875

12

5

112

23

4

50

1

33

6

3,

534

4,84

2

8,71

0

3,84

9

3,56

1

3,

905

932

4,84

3

25,8

00

K

S64

5

79

65

119

313

341

2,91

0

3,

827

6,

199

2,

058

2,

483

3,08

8

1,

383

2,

706

17

,917

S

an A

nton

io T

X1,

407

135

76

27

9

46

7

57

9

3,

580

5,11

6

14,1

18

6,10

6

6,21

6

5,

904

3,37

2

2,12

9

37,8

45

Milw

auke

e W

I1,

399

95

53

660

796

481

4,04

7

6,

132

8,

373

2,

577

9,

292

5,52

0

1,

174

7,

044

33

,980

O

rland

o F

L1,

376

39

142

20

8

34

2

52

7

4,

340

5,59

8

6,06

1

6,91

9

8,18

3

8,

515

5,40

6

6,23

2

41,3

16

Pro

vide

nce

1,

238

84

100

39

5

52

2

71

9

4,

515

6,33

5

7,38

8

3,89

1

6,53

4

4,

568

2,45

8

1,82

4

26,6

63

R

I98

7

50

82

347

329

588

3,61

4

5,

010

4,

862

3,

213

5,

915

3,02

1

1,

984

75

7

19

,752

MA

251

34

18

48

19

3

13

1

90

1

1,32

5

2,52

6

678

619

1,

547

474

1,06

7

6,91

1

C

olum

bus

OH

1,20

3

12

7

37

197

494

425

4,01

8

5,

298

13

,183

2,

247

4,

069

6,16

5

2,

446

3,

417

31

,527

B

uffa

lo N

Y1,

071

75

68

325

518

462

2,89

2

4,

340

4,

829

2,

042

5,

830

4,82

6

2,

128

2,

968

22

,623

M

emph

is

1,

021

81

39

275

572

410

2,53

2

3,

909

6,

879

1,

674

6,

983

6,73

7

1,

892

2,

945

27

,110

TN

887

57

24

21

6

51

5

35

9

1,

972

3,14

3

5,77

4

1,26

3

5,96

4

6,

256

1,64

4

2,50

6

23,4

07

For f

ootn

otes

, see

Foo

tnot

es P

age.

ATTACHMENT 4#215881

ELYNDE

Highlight

UR

BA

NIZ

ED A

REA

S -

201

1M

ILES

AN

D D

AILY

VEH

ICLE

- M

ILES

TR

AVEL

ED

TAB

LE H

M-7

1

FEB

RU

ARY

2013

SH

EE

T 1

OF

8

MIL

ES

DAI

LY V

EH

ICLE

-MIL

ES

OF

TRAV

EL

(TH

OU

SAN

DS

)

CE

NS

US

OTH

ER

OTH

ER

FED

ER

AL-A

IDP

OP

ULA

TIO

NFR

EE

WAY

SO

THE

RM

INO

RM

AJO

RM

INO

RFR

EE

WAY

SO

THE

RM

INO

RM

AJO

RM

INO

R

UR

BAN

IZE

D A

RE

A 1

/IN

TER

STA

TEAN

DP

RIN

CIP

ALAR

TER

IAL

CO

LLE

CTO

RC

OLL

EC

TOR

LOC

ALTO

TAL

INTE

RS

TATE

AND

PR

INC

IPAL

ARTE

RIA

LC

OLL

EC

TOR

CO

LLE

CTO

RLO

CAL

TOTA

L

EXP

RE

SS

WAY

SAR

TER

IAL

EXP

RE

SS

WAY

SAR

TER

IAL

New

Yor

k--N

ewar

k, N

Y--N

J--C

T18

,351

,295

50

7

70

8

2,59

5

4,81

5

3,83

7

-31

,431

43

,893

55,1

77

58,8

13

61

,651

43

,357

16

,757

-50

,346

286,

101

Los

Ange

les-

-Lon

g B

each

--An

ahei

m, C

A12

,150

,996

35

3

31

7

2,48

4

3,11

8

2,60

7

-16

,000

24

,877

78,8

25

51,3

43

69

,314

46

,770

11

,384

-13

,171

270,

807

Chi

cago

, IL-

-IN8,

608,

208

48

3

52

1,

920

2,

643

2,

889

0

17

,919

25

,905

52,7

00

2,51

7

43,0

55

32,1

56

19,2

98

-

22,9

82

17

2,70

8

M

iam

i, FL

5,50

2,37

9

131

207

70

7

96

8

1,

349

-

1 2,2

79

15,6

41

22

,927

18

,314

27,1

08

21,9

33

13,3

03

-

22,3

15

12

5,89

9

P

hila

delp

hia,

PA-

-NJ-

-DE

--M

D5,

441,

567

27

0

20

8

1,33

9

1,71

6

1,96

7

-14

,366

19

,867

22,5

35

11,0

64

28

,034

16

,839

9,

664

-

11,0

54

99

,190

D

alla

s--F

ort W

orth

--Ar

lingt

on, T

X5,

121,

892

31

5

31

6

1,06

8

1,65

8

2,93

9

-15

,315

21

,610

35,4

68

27,5

07

22

,318

20

,818

13

,874

-5,

403

12

5,38

9

H

oust

on, T

X4,

944,

332

15

1

33

8

835

1,68

5

1,78

8

-13

,588

18

,385

26,0

38

26,4

77

19

,208

20

,662

10

,732

-4,

630

10

7,74

6

W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C--

VA-

-MD

4,58

6,77

0

183

127

73

0

1,

124

1,

170

-

8,99

6

12

,330

29,3

58

7,76

3

26,8

22

17,6

16

7,73

0

-8,

447

97

,736

At

lant

a, G

A4,

515,

419

29

7

76

56

3

2,

072

1,

378

-

16,6

49

21,0

36

39

,710

6,

344

14

,782

26

,938

9,

351

-

32,5

17

12

9,64

1

B

osto

n, M

A--N

H--

RI

4,18

1,01

9

279

176

1,

123

2,

102

1,

838

-

11,5

86

17,1

03

29

,904

10

,679

20,2

05

14,7

55

5,19

2

-12

,984

93,7

19

Det

roit,

MI

3,73

4,09

0

220

83

1,10

2

1,47

6

1,07

5

-10

,863

14

,819

23,8

78

6,17

9

27,7

05

17,5

47

4,95

3

-10

,144

90,4

06

Pho

enix-

-Mes

a, A

Z3,

629,

114

53

16

8

872

890

564

-10

,029

12

,577

9,55

7

19,9

38

21

,194

12

,658

4,

621

-

9,56

2

77,5

30

San

Fra

ncis

co--

Oak

land

, CA

3,28

1,21

2

139

124

45

7

84

9

85

5

-

4,72

5

7,

150

20

,554

15

,454

11,3

81

11,3

05

4,36

1

-3,

874

66

,930

S

eattl

e, W

A3,

059,

393

13

9

18

2

738

1,27

3

1,25

1

-8,

936

12,5

19

20

,788

9,

472

14

,730

12

,527

5,

468

-

7,78

4

70,7

69

San

Die

go, C

A2,

956,

746

15

1

11

7

294

731

842

-3,

117

5,25

2

25,5

50

10,5

01

8,

360

13,2

41

5,73

2

-2,

453

65

,837

M

inne

apol

is--

St.

Pau

l, M

N--

WI

2,65

0,89

0

210

133

18

6

1,

626

1,

196

0

8,

932

12,2

83

19

,845

8,

635

5,

737

17,9

00

4,71

8

0

7,97

2

64,8

07

Tam

pa--

St.

Pet

ersb

urg,

FL

2,44

1,77

0

117

53

414

548

823

-7,

734

9,68

9

12,1

60

1,90

9

15,8

14

11,2

09

5,70

6

-14

,075

60,8

72

Den

ver-

-Aur

ora,

CO

2,37

4,20

3

108

143

50

3

59

5

68

6

-

6,39

4

8,

430

12

,893

7,

719

13

,679

6,

557

3,

694

-

4,94

9

49,4

92

Bal

timor

e, M

D2,

203,

663

14

1

15

1

392

664

726

-5,

288

7,36

1

17,6

45

9,06

9

9,83

5

8,

455

3,

964

-

3,77

3

52,7

41

St.

Loui

s, M

O--

IL2,

150,

706

30

6

99

63

0

83

8

1,

361

0

8,

390

11,6

24

26

,114

3,

348

11

,367

7,

796

5,

295

0

11

,919

65,8

39

San

Jua

n, P

R2,

148,

346

10

0

44

25

1

53

8

63

5

-

6,14

6

7,

714

8,

498

2,

668

7,

298

5,53

6

3,74

7

-3,

502

31

,249

R

iver

side

--S

an B

erna

rdin

o, C

A1,

932,

666

10

5

71

25

1

66

4

73

9

-

3,16

7

4,

998

14

,782

7,

832

7,

145

8,74

5

3,47

5

-2,

579

44

,557

La

s V

egas

--H

ende

rson

, NV

1,88

6,01

1

65

41

167

535

-58

5

3,

163

4 ,55

7

7,39

1

3,41

4

5,13

3

9,

763

-

4,27

4

3,87

7

33,8

52

Por

tland

, OR

--W

A1,

849,

898

91

61

31

0

62

8

91

1

-

5,15

4

7,

156

9,

849

3,

539

7,

102

6,59

8

4,00

7

-3,

734

34

,829

C

leve

land

, OH

1,78

0,67

3

192

52

357

643

659

-5,

358

7,26

1

14,9

64

2,26

2

5,50

0

6,

868

3,

853

-

6,28

0

39,7

26

San

Ant

onio

, TX

1,75

8,21

0

142

86

274

634

571

-4,

390

6,09

7

14,0

38

6,22

0

5,48

1

7,

484

3,

225

-

1,69

9

38,1

47

Pitt

sbur

gh, P

A1,

733,

853

20

8

91

55

0

90

7

87

3

-

6,82

1

9,

451

7,

032

1,

704

8,

568

7,17

1

3,61

2

-4,

993

33

,079

S

acra

men

to, C

A1,

723,

634

64

57

38

3

34

2

55

0

-

3,71

3

5,

109

7,

959

7,

076

10

,008

4,

200

2,

855

-

2,86

2

34,9

61

San

Jos

e, C

A1,

664,

496

41

85

29

9

37

1

34

2

-

2,55

5

3,

693

6,

449

10

,385

9,78

1

5,

721

1,

517

-

2,13

2

35,9

85

Cin

cinn

ati,

OH

--K

Y--IN

1,62

4,82

7

176

39

360

562

650

-5,

164

6,95

1

16,9

95

1,50

6

6,65

7

6,

684

4,

789

-

6,93

0

43,5

61

Kan

sas

City

, MO

--K

S1,

519,

417

21

8

19

1

349

836

713

-7,

041

9,34

8

14,8

15

6,35

1

5,82

9

6,

834

2,

555

-

7,61

4

43,9

97

Orla

ndo,

FL

1,51

0,51

6

39

148

22

8

36

1

62

9

-

4,22

5

5,

629

5,

282

6,

738

7,

727

8,16

2

5,83

6

-7,

650

41

,394

In

dian

apol

is, I

N1,

487,

483

15

4

22

40

5

62

7

75

9

-

4,82

4

6,

792

12

,887

61

5

9,

216

6,91

7

4,49

6

-12

,292

46,4

24

Virg

inia

Bea

ch, V

A1,

439,

666

11

4

58

34

5

59

6

62

9

-

4,92

4

6,

665

10

,857

2,

160

7,

845

8,43

0

2,42

0

-4,

716

36

,427

M

ilwau

kee,

WI

1,37

6,47

6

95

62

654

795

491

-4,

073

6,17

0

8,48

3

2,66

9

9,61

8

4,

282

1,

165

-

1,58

9

27,8

06

Col

umbu

s, O

H1,

368,

035

12

7

38

19

8

51

7

42

0

-

4,04

4

5,

342

12

,752

2,

345

3,

897

5,85

8

3,34

9

-3,

411

31

,613

Au

stin

, TX

1,36

2,41

6

41

133

30

3

27

3

68

5

-

3,59

9

5,

035

5,

463

6,

682

7,

332

3,03

9

4 ,61

1

-1,

889

29

,016

C

harlo

tte, N

C--

SC

1,24

9,44

2

123

26

210

296

284

-3,

619

4,55

9

10,8

60

1,21

8

5,10

6

4,

503

2,

429

-

8,85

2

32,9

67

Pro

vide

nce,

RI--

MA

1,19

0,95

6

84

102

39

6

52

1

71

9

-

4,54

8

6,

369

7,

308

3,

835

5,

910

4,05

1

2,54

1

-1,

846

25

,490

Ja

ckso

nville

, FL

1,06

5,21

9

113

48

166

256

438

-4,

416

5,43

7

9,15

1

2,24

5

4,68

4

4,

116

3,

503

-

7,76

9

31,4

68

Mem

phis

, TN

--M

S--

AR1,

060,

061

84

39

27

5

58

9

44

6

1

3,

371

4,80

5

6,89

1

1,58

8

6,26

4

6,

387

1,

793

2

3,

687

26

,611

S

alt L

ake

City

--W

est V

alle

y C

ity, U

T1,

021,

243

66

10

12

6

28

5

25

2

0

2,

420

3,15

9

7,56

4

605

3,53

3

4,

658

1,

960

0

3,

612

21

,933

Lo

uisv

ille/J

effe

rson

Cou

nty,

KY-

-IN97

2,54

6

-

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

-N

ashv

ille-D

avid

son,

TN

969,

587

129

49

276

437

459

-4,

362

5,71

2

12,8

77

2,12

6

6,03

2

5,

230

2,

412

-

6,00

1

34,6

78

Ric

hmon

d, V

A95

3,55

6

13

4

64

23

0

46

8

46

8

-

3,67

1

5,

035

8,

928

2,

605

5,

407

4,36

3

1,88

6

-3,

225

26

,414

B

uffa

lo, N

Y93

5,90

6

74

68

32

2

52

0

45

1

-

2,93

8

4,

372

4,

615

2,

017

5,

378

4,23

2

1,50

7

-2,

968

20

,717

H

artfo

rd, C

T92

4,85

9

80

67

21

1

44

2

53

4

7

2,

784

4,12

5

7 ,69

4

2,86

0

3,38

8

4,

143

2,

220

13

1,

920

22

,239

B

ridge

port-

-Sta

mfo

rd, C

T--N

Y92

3,31

1

51

71

13

9

43

3

42

2

9

2,

834

3,95

8

6,21

8

4,12

1

2,30

6

3,

632

1,

592

18

2,

088

19

,976

N

ew O

rlean

s, L

A89

9,70

3

51

17

21

3

27

0

21

0

-

2,77

3

3,

533

3,

652

1,

242

4,

845

2,80

5

1,04

6

-1,

162

14

,751

R

alei

gh, N

C88

4,89

1

70

30

15

3

34

5

25

6

-

3,43

9

4,

293

6,

467

1,

615

4,

341

5,10

6

2,03

8

-6,

050

25

,618

O

klah

oma

City

, OK

861,

505

106

37

283

545

355

-3,

604

4,93

0

8,40

3

1,93

2

6,34

5

6,

588

1,

845

-

6,50

6

31,6

19

Tucs

on, A

Z84

3,16

8

39

8

238

265

326

-2,

978

3,85

5

3,42

4

310

7,03

6

3,

589

1,

315

-

2,59

6

18,2

70

El P

aso,

TX-

-NM

803,

086

44

60

227

200

243

1

1,73

1

2,

506

4,

041

1,

693

4,

339

1,81

7

1,52

2

4

925

14,3

42

Urb

an H

onol

ulu,

HI

802,

459

41

28

64

73

143

-76

8

1,11

6

4,60

0

1,19

5

1,89

5

1,

201

1,

069

-

3,01

6

12,9

77

Birm

ingh

am, A

L74

9,49

5

12

4

11

12

9

39

0

48

4

0

3,

862

4,99

9

9,27

7

278

3,73

0

4,

104

2,

531

0

6,

023

25

,943

Al

buqu

erqu

e, N

M74

1,31

8

59

-

249

203

-28

7

1,

745

2,54

3

4,99

6

-5,

334

1,84

8

-1,

403

1,

586

15

,167

M

cAlle

n, T

X72

8,82

5

-

52

291

201

625

-2,

594

3,76

2

-3,

176

4,

390

1,50

2

2,56

1

-1,

210

12

,839

O

mah

a, N

E--

IA72

5,00

8

47

35

18

2

25

3

22

0

-

2,05

1

2,

789

3,

418

1,

600

3,

531

2,42

2

844

-1,

697

13

,512

D

ayto

n, O

H72

4,09

1

89

24

21

0

26

0

48

1

-

2,76

6

3,

829

6,

030

87

3

3,

509

2,72

7

2,94

8

-3,

075

19

,162

R

oche

ster

, NY

720,

572

65

46

98

418

299

-2,

292

3,21

9

3,81

0

2,00

6

1,87

5

4,

492

1,

365

-

2,28

4

15,8

31

Alle

ntow

n, P

A--N

J66

4,65

1

61

36

18

5

20

3

40

6

-

2,19

2

3,

084

3,

140

1,

929

3,

315

2,07

6

1,66

3

-1 ,

468

13

,590

Tu

lsa,

OK

655,

479

51

101

18

7

49

5

18

3

-

2,54

5

3,

562

2,

650

4,

737

3,

405

4,69

7

558

-4,

470

20

,518

Fr

esno

, CA

654,

628

-53

12

1

31

2

21

3

-

1,69

3

2,

392

-

3,79

2

2,59

7

3,

472

95

6

-

1,38

2

12,1

99

Sar

asot

a--B

rade

nton

, FL

643,

260

28

-12

7

11

5

37

9

-

2,73

1

3,

380

2,

369

-

4,05

6

2,

141

2,

904

-

4,97

0

16,4

39

For f

ootn

otes

, see

Foo

tnot

es P

age.

ELYNDE

Highlight

EDL/CTA/cta/edl #215617v2 2/25/14

Table III-14 (Revised)

AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH RATE OF AVERAGE WEEKDAY VEHICLE-MILES OF TRAVEL IN SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN

Time Period Annual

Growth Rate

Historic

1960’s 4.9

1970’s 2.7

1980’s 2.6

1990’s 1.9

2001-2005 1.5

2005-2011 -0.5

Forecast 2000-2007 1.5

2007-2020 1.0

2020-2035 0.6 Source: SEWRPC.

Table III-15 (Revised)

ARTERIAL VEHICLE-MILES OF TRAVEL WITHIN THE REGION ON AN AVERAGE WEEKDAY

Year Vehicle-Miles of Travel

(millions)

Estimated

Historic

1963

1972

1991

2001

2005

2011

13.1

20.1

33.1

39.7

42.2

40.9

Forecast 2011

2035

43.5

54.0 Source: SEWRPC.

ATTACHMENT 5(PDF#216692)

- 1 -

ATTACHMENT 6

Summary and Conclusions for Part Two (replace this section in Chapter III starting on page III-16)

Part Two of this chapter has provided an overview of the currently adopted year 2035 regional land use plan and

assessment of how well that plan is being implemented, focusing on the key plan recommendations. That

assessment indicated the following:

Substantially Implemented Recommendations

The regional plan recommends that urban development primarily occur in existing urban centers as infill

development and redevelopment and within defined urban growth areas adjoining these centers. About

74 percent, or 40 square miles, of the 54 square miles of urban incremental development that occurred in

the Region between 2000 and 2010 was consistent with regional plan recommendations.

The vast majority of housing units constructed in the Region between 2000 and 2010—an estimated

72,100 housing units, or about 86 percent of the estimated total of 84,100 housing units built in the

Region during the 2000s—was provided with public sanitary sewer service consistent with regional plan

recommendations.

The regional plan envisions a total of 60 major economic activity centers in the Region in the year 2035.

By definition, these sites accommodate at least 3,500 total jobs or 2,000 retail jobs. Forty-five such sites

existed in the Region in 2000. The regional plan recommended that these sites continue to serve as major

centers and recommended an additional 15 major centers, all but one of which were at some stage of

development when the regional plan was adopted. Of the 45 existing major centers in 2000, 44 retained

their major center status in 2010.

The regional plan recommends 32 major parks to serve the Region. Such parks have an area of at least

250 acres and provide opportunities for a variety of resource-oriented outdoor recreation activities. Of the

32 major parks identified in the plan, 24 sites had been substantially acquired and developed for park

purposes by 2000. Six other sites experienced significant additional facility development in accordance

with the plan during the 2000s, and land was acquired for two new sites recommended in the plan.

The regional plan recommends the preservation in essentially natural, open use of the Region’s primary

environmental corridors. About 456 square miles, representing 94 percent of the total of 487 square miles

of primary environmental corridors in the Region, were substantially protected from incompatible urban

development in 2010.

- 2 -

Partially Implemented Recommendations

The regional land use plan recommends an increase in residential land consistent with the forecast growth

in the Region’s population and households. Under the plan, about 23 square miles of land were

anticipated to be converted to urban (high-, medium-, and low-density) residential use during the 2000s.

The actual increase was about 26 square miles. Less new medium density residential development and

more new low density residential development occurred than recommended in the plan. The plan

envisioned an increase of almost 18 square miles in medium density residential land during the 2000s; the

actual increase was about 10 square miles. The plan envisioned an increase of about four square miles of

low density residential land; the actual increase was about 13 square miles. The plan also envisioned an

increase of about one square mile of high density residential land, and the actual increase was just under

three square miles.

The regional plan would accommodate additional residential development in rural areas on a limited

basis, recommending that such development occur at a density of no more than one housing unit per five

acres, and be located outside prime agricultural lands. The plan recommends clustering homes at these

densities using conservation subdivision design principles. An increase of two square miles of rural

density residential land was envisioned during the 2000s; the actual increase was about seven square

miles.

The regional plan recommends that the most productive soils for agricultural purposes—agricultural

capability Class I and Class II soil as classified by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service—be

preserved for agricultural use insofar as practicable. Under the plan, the conversion of Class I and Class II

agricultural land to urban use would be confined, for the most part, to locations within planned urban

service areas. Monitoring data indicate that about 15.5 square miles of Class I and Class II agricultural

land were converted to urban use during the 2000s in locations consistent with the regional plan, with

most of this occurring within planned urban service areas. The data further indicate that about 5 square

miles of Class I and Class II agricultural land were converted to urban use in locations not consistent with

the plan.

Recently, the six counties in the Region that have substantial amounts of agricultural land (Kenosha,

Ozaukee, Racine, Walworth, Washington, and Waukesha Counties) updated and extended their farmland

preservation plans, identifying farmland preservation areas that are intended to be reserved for agriculture

and agricultural-related uses. While large blocks of Class I and Class II agricultural land have been

included in these farmland preservation areas, many farming areas with concentrations of Class I and

Class II soils have been excluded. In general, the county farmland preservation plans identify farmland

- 3 -

preservation areas only where local government support for this has been demonstrated. In their local

comprehensive plans, many communities have opted for less restrictive agricultural planning districts,

often relying on agricultural-rural residential districts, which accommodate more residential development

than would be allowed in an exclusive farmland preservation area. While such planning districts serve to

maintain rural densities and rural character, they are not as effective as exclusive farmland preservation

districts in preserving farmland.

Unimplemented Recommendation

The regional plan recommends that new sub-urban density residential development, characterized by

single family homes on lots of two to three acres, should be limited to development that is already

committed in subdivision plats and certified surveys. About three square miles of undeveloped land were

committed to sub-urban density residential development when the plan was prepared. Over six square

miles were converted to sub-urban density residential development during the 2000s.

Conclusions

Implementation of the year 2035 regional land use plan would benefit the Region in several ways. Development

would occur in a compact and efficient pattern that is readily served by basic urban services and facilities and

maximizes the use of existing urban service and facility systems. Mixed use development would be

accommodated in urban areas to provide for convenience and efficiency in day-to-day activities, including ease

and efficiency in travel. The land development needs of the Region would be met while preserving the best

remaining elements of the natural resource base and preserving productive farmland.

Several of the key regional plan recommendations were substantially implemented between 2000 and 2010.

Almost all of the Region’s primary environmental corridors, which contain most of the best remaining woodlands,

wetlands, and wildlife habitat areas in the Region, were substantially protected from incompatible urban

development in 2010. In addition, most of the new housing units built in the Region between 2000 and 2010 were

provided with public sanitary sewer service in accordance with the regional plan and major economic activity

centers and regional parks experienced continued development.

Other key recommendations were only partially implemented or not implemented. Much of the new urban

development that occurred in the Region between 2000 and 2010 was located in accordance with regional plan

recommendations; however, more residential development occurred at lower densities than recommended. New

urban development in areas not in accordance with the regional plan was typically low density and sub-urban

density residential development. Over development of lower density housing has several negative consequences,

including:

- 4 -

Urban development that cannot be efficiently served by urban services such as public sanitary sewer,

water supply, and transit services;

Sub-urban residential density development that is neither truly urban nor rural in character that would not

generally occur in planned neighborhood units; would not be provided with public sanitary sewerage and

water supply facilities; and would receive only minimal public services, such as public safety services;

Higher conversion of agricultural and open land to urban development;

Housing that may not be affordable to area workers because multi-family housing, two-family housing,

and smaller single-family homes on smaller lots tend to be more affordable to a wide range of households

than larger single-family homes on larger lots.

Summary and Conclusions for Part Three (replace this section in Chapter III starting on page III-48)

Part Three of this chapter has provided an overview of the Commission’s currently adopted year 2035 regional

transportation system plan and assessment of how well that plan is being implemented, focusing on the key plan

recommendations. The currently adopted plan is its fifth generation plan, which was originally adopted in 2006

and amended on five occasions, including a review and reaffirmation of the plan that was completed in 2010.

The following are key concepts of the adopted regional transportation system plan as amended to date:

The regional transportation system plan is designed to serve the travel demand generated by the year 2035

regional land use plan. The year 2035 regional land use plan was developed to represent a desired pattern

of regional land use and not a projection of current land use development trends toward further

decentralization of population, employment, and urban land uses.

There are five elements of the year 2035 regional transportation system plan adopted in 2006: bicycle and

pedestrian facilities, public transit, transportation systems management, travel demand management,

arterial streets and highways. In addition, elements relating to transportation safety and transportation

security were added in 2011 as refinements to the regional transportation system plan.

Highway capacity additions were recommended in the regional transportation system plan to address the

traffic congestion which may not be expected to be alleviated by land use, systems management, travel

demand management, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, or public transit measures. The potential of transit,

bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transportation system management, and travel demand management plan

elements to alleviate congestion was first explicitly identified. Highway capacity additions were then

- 5 -

recommended to be added to the regional transportation plan to resolve, to the extent considered

practicable, the residual existing and probable future traffic congestion.

The year 2035 regional transportation system plan was based upon forecasts of personal vehicle availability,

weekday person trips and vehicle trips, vehicle-miles of travel, and transit ridership. The chapter included a

review of these forecasts and comparison to actual current estimates, which indicates that the forecasts underlying

the plan remain valid for long range planning.

Substantially Implemented Recommendations

Bicycle and pedestrian facilities: The bicycle and pedestrian facilities element of the plan is designed to

provide for safe accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian travel, encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel,

and to provide modal choice. The plan element recommends that as the surface arterial street system of

approximately 3,300 miles is resurfaced and reconstructed segment-by-segment, bicycle accommodation

should be considered and implemented, if feasible, through bicycle lanes, widened outside travel lanes,

widened shoulders, and separate bicycle paths. Additionally, the plan element also recommends

development of 586 miles of off-street bicycle and pedestrian paths, along with 147 miles of surface

arterial and non-arterial connections.

Approximately 203 miles of the planned 586 miles of off-street paths existed in 2006, and another 47

miles of the planned paths have since been constructed as of 2012. Also, with respect to recommended

accommodation of bicycle travel on the regional arterial street system, WisDOT and FHWA now require

such consideration during preliminary engineering conducted for State, county, and local arterial

construction and reconstruction using Federal funds.

Transportation systems management: The transportation systems management element of the plan

included measures intended to manage and operate existing transportation facilities to their maximum

carrying capacity and travel efficiency. The transportation systems management element of the plan

includes the following four measures: freeway traffic management, surface arterial street and highway

traffic management, major activity center parking management and guidance, and the preparation of a

Regional Transportation Operations Program.

Implementation has included the expansion of freeway ramp-meters, variable message signs and closed

circuit television cameras, and installation of a 511 travel information system. Other implementation has

included additional traffic signal interconnection and coordination.

- 6 -

Travel demand management: The travel demand management measures included in the recommended

year 2035 regional transportation plan include measures intended to reduce personal and vehicular travel

or to shift such travel to alternative times and routes, allowing for more efficient use of the existing

capacity of the transportation system. Seven categories of travel demand management measures were

recommended in the year 2035 plan: high-occupancy vehicle preferential treatment, park-ride lots, transit

pricing, personal vehicle pricing, travel demand management promotion, transit information and

marketing, and detailed site-specific neighborhood and major activity center land use plans.

Implementation has included expansion of park-ride lots, transit system internet trip planners, and

automatic bus location systems, and development of site specific transit-oriented development

neighborhood plans for the nine potential KRM commuter rail station areas.

Partially Implemented Recommendations

Arterial street and highway system: The adopted regional transportation system plan as amended

recommended three types of functional improvements to the arterial street and highway system: system

preservation, consisting of the resurfacing and reconstruction necessary to properly maintain existing

arterial roadways; system improvement, consisting of the widening of existing facilities to provide

additional traffic lanes; and system expansion, consisting of the construction of new arterial facilities.

About 3,209 miles, or 88 percent, of the total arterial street and highway system would require only

preservation; about 360 miles, or about 10 percent, would require improvement; and about 93 miles, or

about 2 percent, would constitute new facilities.

About 57.3 miles, or 13 percent, of the plan-recommended 453 miles of arterial capacity expansion have

been completed and are open to traffic as of 2012. Also, a 30-mile segment of IH 94 between the Mitchell

Interchange in Milwaukee County and the Wisconsin-Illinois State line is currently being reconstructed

with additional traffic lanes and is planned to be completed in 2021. Reconstruction of the Mitchell

Interchange and the portion of IH 94 from the Wisconsin-Illinois State line to STH 50 in Kenosha County

was completed in 2012. With respect to the other major freeway-to-freeway interchanges in Southeastern

Wisconsin, reconstruction of the Marquette Interchange—the largest and most complicated interchange—

was completed in 2008. Reconstruction of the Zoo Interchange began in 2013 and is planned to be

completed in 2018.

Transportation safety: The safety element contained a review of the transportation safety objectives,

principles, and standards documented in the adopted year 2035 regional transportation plan adopted in

2006, along with presenting a proposed expanded set of transportation safety objectives, principles, and

- 7 -

standards. The safety element also included listing and discussion of the recommendations of the year

2035 regional transportation plan which advance transportation safety. In addition, the element included

recommendations for improved traffic crash and safety data, and recommendations for further study and

improvements on those roadway segments with the most severe safety problems. The safety element was

recently added to the plan (in 2011), so there has not been enough time to track its implementation.

Transportation security: The security element provided an overview of transportation security and

considered security-related issues and efforts that are ongoing to protect transportation networks and

facilities at the Federal, State, and regional levels. The element also provided affirmation of the

Commission’s role in regional coordination of transportation security-related projects, along with the

incorporation of security considerations into future transportation system preservation, improvement, or

expansion projects. The security element was recently added to the plan (in 2011), so there has not been

enough time to track its implementation.

Unimplemented Recommendations

Public transit: The public transit element of the 2035 regional transportation system plan envisioned

significant improvement and expansion of public transit in Southeastern Wisconsin, including

development within the Region of a high-speed rail line, rapid transit and express transit systems,

improvement of existing local bus service, and the integration of local bus service with the recommended

rapid and express transit services. Altogether, service on the regional transit system would be nearly

doubled from service levels existing in 2005 measured in terms of revenue transit vehicle-miles of service

provided, from about 69,000 vehicle-miles of service on an average weekday in the year 2005 to 137,300

vehicle-miles of service in the year 2035.

Since adoption of the regional transportation plan in 2006, the amount of transit service has declined by

about 4 percent (7 percent decrease in fixed route bus service and 17 percent increase in shared-ride taxi

service) and transit fares have increased by amounts greater than general price inflation. The plan

envisioned transit service increases beginning in 2008 at an annual rate of about 2 percent through the

year 2035, and transit fare increases at the general rate of price inflation. It was recognized, however, that

these plan recommendations may only occur upon achieving State legislation for dedicated funding and

would be assisted by creation of a regional transit authority. State legislation was enacted in mid-2009

creating a commuter rail authority with dedicated local funding, and State legislation for a regional transit

authority with dedicated local funding was considered but not adopted in 2009 and again in 2010. In

2011, the regional authority responsible for implementing the commuter rail line was dissolved. In

addition, implementation of the planned high-speed rail line was indefinitely postponed following

- 8 -

withdrawal of Federal funding in December 2010, although high-speed rail remains a part of WisDOT’s

long-range state rail plan.

Conclusions

The year 2035 regional transportation system plan was guided by a vision for “a multimodal transportation system

with high quality public transit, bicycle and pedestrian, and arterial street and highway elements.” When

implementation of any transportation plan element is not realized, this vision is not achieved and can have

significant negative consequences.

This chapter has indicated that several of the key regional transportation system plan recommendations have been

substantially implemented. Significant progress on the bicycle and pedestrian element was made as new off-street

paths were constructed and on-street accommodation on highway construction and reconstruction projects has

been required. Numerous transportation systems management and travel demand management measures have

been continued, implemented, or expanded in accordance with the plan. Planned improvement and expansion of

the arterial street and highway system has progressed, although implementation has generally been slower than

anticipated due to limited available funding. In contrast to the other transportation plan elements, the public transit

element has not been implemented. Instead, transit service levels have been declining since the year 2000 due to

inadequate funding.

Insufficient funding, which has delayed implementation of arterial street and highway system recommendations,

can have negative impacts associated with worsening pavement conditions and with traffic congestion, such as

increased automobile-related emissions, vehicle crashes, and travel times. However, insufficient funding more

severely affects public transit than highways because highway funding is largely capital funding for construction

projects, while transit funding is largely operating funding for providing service. Lagging highway funding may

result in project deferral or delay, but lagging transit funding results in service elimination or passenger fare

increases. This is what has occurred for more than a decade in the Region, and may occur to an even greater

extent in the future as Federal funding now in operating budgets may need to be used for capital projects, unused

“banks” of Federal capital funding have been exhausted, and local funding through increases in property taxes is

currently significantly constrained by State law. Recent and continuing service reductions and fare increases have

significant negative consequences, including:

Reduced access to jobs, health care, shopping, education, and other basic travel needs of those unable to

use or afford a personal automobile;

Reduced ability of public transit to provide congestion relief in the Region’s most heavily travelled

corridors, urban areas, and activity centers, in which it is not possible or desirable to accommodate all

travel by automobile;

- 9 -

A less-balanced, inefficient transportation system, which does not support higher development density

and infill development and redevelopment;

Increased air pollution and energy consumption, which is particularly important given recent and

expected increases in gasoline prices; and

Fewer transportation choices, as high-quality public transit helps to improve quality of life and to

maintain and enhance the Region’s economy.

#216409v2

ADVISORY COMMITTEES ON REGIONAL LAND USE ... of the Third Joint Meeting of the ADVISORY COMMITTEES...

Documents

Transcript of ADVISORY COMMITTEES ON REGIONAL LAND USE ... of the Third Joint Meeting of the ADVISORY COMMITTEES...