Wisconsin Legislature: Trans 209.07(3)(b)7.

(1) General description. Candidate project identification is accomplished within the overall framework of developing the highway and bridge improvement program. The department shall identify both the surface, structure, safety, geometric or capacity deficiencies, singly or in combination, and the alternative improvement levels to correct or reduce the deficiencies.

(2) Responsibilities. The transportation region offices, with the guidance from the central office, shall take the lead role in identifying candidate projects for the resurfacing, reconditioning, reconstruction, interstate, major and bridge program areas. The regions shall provide the regional and local viewpoints and knowledge of unique local conditions to program development.

(3) Collect and develop data. The department shall maintain a system of uniform data collection for segments of the highway system. This data shall be used for comparison and evaluation purposes to assist in determining that the most appropriate and beneficial candidate projects and improvement levels are selected. This data shall be updated, as necessary, for the recycling of the program. The following data will be collected and developed where appropriate:

(a) Highway data

1. Pavement surface type

2. Year surfaced

3. Widths: right of way, travel lane, pavement, shoulders, median, and parking lane

4. Lanes: travel and parking

5. Driveways

6. Posted speed

7. Pavement serviceability index (PSI)

8. Accident information

9. Curves with limited stopping sight distance

10. Steep grades

11. Percent no passing zone

12. Average daily traffic

13. Forecast average daily traffic

14. Hourly vehicle data and hourly capacity

15. Parking restrictions

16. Terrain

17. Access control

18. Maintenance problems

(b) Bridge data

1. Deck condition: expansion and construction joints

2. Superstructure: main load carrying members, floor system

3. Substructure condition: abutments, piers, bents

4. Waterway condition: adequacy of opening, flooding, debris present

5. Approaches condition: roadway condition, horizontal and vertical sight distance

6. Capacity condition: design, inventory and operating load, posting, maximum vehicle weight, load rating basis, overburden depth

7. Field inspection and office appraisal rating

1. Land use

2. Right-of-way required

3. Housing and business units required

4. Farms affected

5. Land required: agricultural, wetland and upland habitat

6. Habitat replaced

7. Endangered species

8. Air quality effects

9. Noise level impacts

10. Energy consumption

(4) Identify candidate projects. Candidate projects may originate from the following sources:

(a) Segments which have one or more deficiencies based on the analyses of the data collected and developed.

(b) Projects considered or included in the last programming cycle.

(d) Projects recommended by elected officials, citizens, local units of governments, regional planning commissions, county highway committees, county traffic safety commissions, etc.

(e) Projects coordinated with planned development.

(f) Projects that must be coordinated with other projects.

(g) Projects identified as a part of the interstate cost estimate.

(h) Projects which constitute a gap in an existing system.

(i) Projects in high priority corridors with large past investment.

(j) Projects that are eligible for special discretionary federal funding.

(k) Projects that are compatible with and serve to implement state or local transportation plans.

(5) Project deficiency analysis. Candidate projects shall be analyzed at the transportation region office for resurfacing, reconditioning and reconstruction projects and at the central office for bridge, interstate and major projects. Primary criteria used to indicate deficiencies on candidate projects are:

(a) Accident rate or occurrence that is greater than the statewide average.

(b) Volume to capacity ratio that is greater than .8 in the 100th hour at level of service “C’.

(d) Pavement serviceability index that is less than 2.5 on the interstate system, less than 2.25 on a road functionally classified principal arterial or less than 2.0 on all other roads.

(e) Pavement age that is more than 20 years on portland cement concrete or more than 15 years on bituminous pavements.

(f) Pavement width that is less than 21 feet.

(g) Shoulder width that is less than 4 feet.

(h) Bridges that have a sufficiency rating less than 50 or have a condition or load rating of 3 (basically intolerable condition requiring high priority of repair).

(6) Develop alternative project improvement types and cost estimates. The department shall identify a range of practical improvement types for each candidate project. The range of alternatives for highway projects may include: patching and maintenance resurfacing (the equivalent of the “no build” option); improvement resurfacing; minor and major reconditioning; and reconstruction (See Figure 2). Alternatives for bridges shall be: maintenance; rehabilitation; or replacement.

(a) The department shall consider the following factors for the range of alternative improvement levels of a given project:

1. The nature, number and severity of the deficiencies present;

2. The overall budget available;

3. The cost estimate for each alternative;

4. The associated federal-aid eligibility requirements;

5. The existence of other related projects;

6. The probable project effects concerning safety, energy consumption, economic development and the social and natural environment;

7. The traffic volumes served by the proposed project.

History: Cr. Register, September, 1981, No. 309, eff. 10-1-81; corrections in (2), (5) (intro.) made under s. 13.92 (4) (b) 6., Stats., Register February 2013 No. 686.

Trans 209.08 Project evaluation and selection criteria. The evaluation and selection of projects shall be directed toward preserving, rehabilitating, and improving the physical condition and serviceability of the state trunk highways and bridges. A combination of both quantitative information and professional judgment shall be used to compare the merits of projects and improvement levels to achieve appropriate statewide consistency. Candidate projects shall be initially evaluated at the region level. At this level, projects are analyzed based on an assessment of local conditions and needs in accordance with the region target mileage guideline and the funding allocation. The candidate projects shall be evaluated by the following criteria where appropriate:

(1) Accomplishing sufficient surface renewal mileage necessary to preserve system serviceability and rideability. The target level of mileage renewal is established by the pavement serviceability index, pavement age and engineering field evaluation. The goal is to maintain an overall average pavement serviceability index of 3.0.

(2) Limiting the more extensive reconditioning, reconstruction, and new facility development projects to those projects where the number or severity of deficiencies exceed statewide averages for safety, geometry or capacity, or where roadbeds are so deficient structurally that resurfacing or minor reconditioning is not a feasible alternative.

(3) Correcting safety problems as defined by accident occurrences and rates exceeding the statewide average or to sites with severe accident potential.

(4) Maximizing the utilization of existing facilities through use of low capital investment projects or transportation system management techniques such as signalization, channelization, access control, park and ride lots, etc.

(5) Selectively rehabilitating or replacing, as appropriate, those bridges:

(a) With posted weight restrictions;

(b) That cannot be effectively maintained, based on the field inspections and office appraisals;

(c) That are functionally obsolete (geometric deficiencies of narrow width, restricted clearance, poor alignment, general safety) or expected to become unsatisfactory in structural or condition rating within the program period.

(6) Considering the project development lead time of 2-10 years and the complexity of the project.

(7) Utilizing the results of benefit/cost analysis or other cost effectiveness techniques to establish funding priorities for safety projects and for evaluating alternatives and relative merits of competing major projects.

(8) Determining the extent of public acceptability or local support through such things as informational hearings, local governmental meetings and correspondence.

(9) Identifying the nature and extent of environmental, energy, social and economic effects on high level recondition and reconstruction projects on an overall basis.

(10) Determining the community effects and benefits including traffic service, safety, air and noise quality and overall community improvement.

(11) Identifying the availability of and eligibility for federal, state and local funding to optimize use of all funds.

(12) Improving system continuity and safety.