Skip navigation Wisconsin State Legislature
This is the preview version of the Wisconsin State Legislature site.
Please see http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov for the production version.
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.
(c) Projects which address problem areas identified by departmental staff.
(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’.
(c) No passing zone that is greater than 50% of the project length.
(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.
(13) Ensuring compatibility with various local, regional and state plans through cooperation with local units of government, county and regional planning and review agencies and other state agencies.
History: Cr. Register, September, 1981, No. 309, eff. 10-1-81; correction in (intro.) made under s. 13.92 (4) (b) 6., Stats., Register February 2013 No. 686.
Trans 209.09 Program development and evaluation.
(1) The department shall maintain information on a range of alternative dollar level programs. This information illustrates a range of options and offers the secretary, as well as the governor and the legislature, choices as to the appropriate funding levels for the highway program.
(2) Based on the analysis performed in s. Trans 209.08, the department shall select candidate projects and the appropriate level of improvement. The level of improvement proposed for a candidate project may vary dependent upon the dollar level of the program.
(3) The department shall accomplish both project level and program level evaluations. Evaluations shall assist in the identification of appropriate projects, improvement levels and program dollar levels.
(4) The central office shall review and evaluate the region’s program recommendations with several iterations of development and review necessary to produce a single statewide program.
(5) Project level evaluation shall include comparing the extent and severity of deficiencies:
(a) Between projects;
(b) To region and state average for such deficiencies;
(c) To program level average (region and state) for such deficiencies;
(d) And to the proposed improvement level rationale of Figure 2.
(6) The department shall accomplish program level evaluation statewide and between regions by evaluating the:
(a) Extent and severity of project deficiencies corrected;
(b) Changes in accident and system capacity that result;
(c) And the environmental and energy implications of the programs.
(7) The department shall maintain a file of information which specifies the deficiencies of projects analyzed for the program.
History: Cr. Register, September, 1981, No. 309, eff. 10-1-81; corrections in (4), (5) (b), (c), (6) (intro.) made under s. 13.92 (4) (b) 6., Stats., Register February 2013 No. 686.
Trans 209.10 Program selection. The alternative programs and their costs and benefits shall be documented and reviewed by the secretary who shall select a program level and recommend it to the governor. After the enactment of the biennial budget by the legislature and the governor, the program shall be adjusted to be consistent with the approved funding level for the current biennium.
History: Cr. Register, September, 1981, No. 309, eff. 10-1-81.
Trans 209.11 Public review.
(1) The department shall seek public review and comment concerning the program.
(2) Such review shall include an informational presentation of the proposed program of major projects by the department to all transportation related legislative committees at a time mutually agreeable to the department and the committees prior to February 15 of the odd numbered years.
(3) After the enactment of the biennial budget, the department shall make the program document available to interested individuals and organizations and will also inform the general public of this availability. Informational hearings shall be held after the release of the program document at times and locations determined by the secretary and publicized through the local media. These hearings shall serve both to inform the public and to obtain reactions for use in the ongoing program development activities.
(4) The public review of the program shall be supplemented by public reviews of policy and system planning efforts and of individual projects.
History: Cr. Register, September, 1981, No. 309, eff. 10-1-81.
Trans 209.12 Program recycle. Program development shall be maintained as a continuous process. Upon the completion of one program cycle, a new program development cycle shall begin. Recycling the program normally involves: extending it 2 years; updating data, project alternatives, and project cost estimates; reassessing the underlying policies; and refining methods and procedures.
History: Cr. Register, September, 1981, No. 309, eff. 10-1-81.
Trans 209.13 Program adjustments. Programs are estimates and are not absolute. Adjustments to the program are necessary due to changes in project design, the time to acquire the right-of-way and obtain the required clearances and completion of the environmental impact statement procedure. These adjustments shall be continual in order to assure the most optimum use of resources. The goal of the adjustments shall be consistent with s. Trans 209.04.
History: Cr. Register, September, 1981, No. 309, eff. 10-1-81.
Loading...
Loading...
Published under s. 35.93, Stats. Updated on the first day of each month. Entire code is always current. The Register date on each page is the date the chapter was last published.