|
Transportation Needs Assessment Guidance - Guidelines for MPO's in Assessing Street & Highway and Public Transit Improvement Needs in their Communities - Wisconsin TransLinks 21
Click HERE for graphic. MISSION STATEMENT TRANSLINKS21-Wisconsin's 21st century transportation plan-will outline a comprehensive transportation system that moves people and goods efficiently, strengthens our economy, protects our environment, and supports our quality of life. Working with DOT, the public will identify Wisconsin's transporatation needs-and help to make tomorrow's transporatation choices. Tommy G. Thompson, Governor Charles H. Thompson Secretary TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE Guidelines for Metropolitan Planning Organizations in Assessing Street & Highway and Public Transit Improvement Needs in their Communities Wisconsin Department of Transportation April, 1994 Acknowledgements This report was prepared by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Division of Planning and Budget. It was written by Joanne Lawz of the Bureau of System Planning, Urban System Planning Section, with valuable input provided by Doug Dalton and Chuck Thiede of the Urban System Planning Section and Linda Lovejoy of the Division of Transportation Assistance. The draft report was made available for review by the Urban System Planning Team, Metropolitan Planning Organizations and WisDOT Highway Districts. INTRODUCTION The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) requires MPOs to address fifteen specific factors in their transportation plans which must be completed by December of 19941. Among the fifteen are the "preservation of existing transportation facilities" and "methods to expand and enhance transit services and to increase the use of such services." In addition, Federal regulations for implementing ISTEA require that metropolitan transportation plans include a financial component that estimates the "costs of constructing, maintaining and operating the total transportation system over the life of the plan." It is further specified that this includes not only the expansion of current systems to accommodate increased demand, but also an assessment of "capital investment and other measures necessary to preserve the existing transportation system (including requirements for operational improvements, resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation of existing and future major roadways" and the "rehabilitation of existing and future transit facilities" [Section 450.322 (b)(5) of the Metropolitan Planning Rule]. The multimodal planning process in each urbanized area will identify those street/highway capacity expansions and transit system expansions necessary to meet mobility needs and provide mode choice within the area. This guidance details a process for estimating and summarizing the costs associated with meeting street/highway expansion needs and provides MPOs with a process for evaluating system preservation needs on roadways and assessing and summarizing their costs. It suggests a framework for specifying the details of improvements required to meet the transit system expansion/enhancement needs identified through the planning process and for assessing the costs of both on-going transit operations and system enhancements. As discussed in the Long-Range Plan Alternatives Guidance (February, 1994), metropolitan transportation plans should include a minimum of two plan alternatives. One of these should be a "base case" which assumes existing land use patterns, the existing transportation system and a continuation of current development and traffic growth trends. The other(s) should reflect different assumptions regarding future land use patterns, the use of alternative transportation modes and congestion management strategies. This document describes a method for assessing and summarizing both street/highway and transit system needs for the base case and then for additional plan alternatives. Following this guidance will ensure that metropolitan transportation plans comply with the requirements of ISTEA and provide MPOs with a sound basis for the formulation of their Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPS) and Transit Development Plans (TDPs). In addition, it will provide WisDOT with street and highway improvement needs data for urbanized areas which is consistent with that gathered for the state's small urban areas through the Urban Corridors Study update process. This information will assist WisDOT in the formulation of future Six Year Highway Improvement Programs and provide input into the state budget development process to help determine the necessary level of funding for urban transportation projects. 1 Plans in non-attainment areas must be completed by October 1, 1994. 1 STREET AND HIGHWAY NEEDS I. SCOPE System To Be Covered: As stated above, ISTEA requires that both capacity expansion and system preservation needs be assessed for all "major roadways" within each metropolitan area. While ISTEA does not define "major roadways," the Urban System Planning team2 felt that all streets and highways functionally classified as principal arterials should be included. However, because ISTEA requires that MPOs evaluate the costs of "constructing, maintaining and operating the total transportation system," it was felt that a method of estimating improvement needs on minor arterials, collectors and local streets should also be suggested. While ISTEA does not specify the level of detail required for cost analyses, the team felt that detailed assessments would not only result in more accurate cost estimates, but would be more useful for TIP and Six Year Program development. Because capacity expansion projects are, by far, the most expensive projects, it was felt that they should be as detailed as possible, regardless of the functional classification of the roadway. However, while it might be desirable to produce comparably detailed assessments of all system preservation needs, the workload would be prohibitive. As a result, it is suggested that a detailed assessment of preservation costs be undertaken only for principal arterials, the system on which needs are likely to be more frequent and more expensive. Therefore, this guidance will outline a process to meet the requirements of ISTEA by producing: A detailed assessment of (1) capacity expansion needs on all urban roadways; and (2) system preservation needs on. urban principal arterials3 only. A "level-of-effort" assessment of system preservation needs on minor arterials, collectors and local streets. Definitions of Capacity Expansion and System Preservation: Capacity expansion includes (1) the total rebuilding of an existing roadway to provide additional through travel lanes; (2) construction of a new roadway on new alignment to provide additional capacity in the system, including bypasses and relocations; (3) conversion of a roadway from an expressway to a freeway; and (4) the construction of new interchanges. System preservation includes all other improvements which are needed to keep roadways in good operating condition. Such projects involve resurfacing, reconditioning and 2 The Urban System Planning team is composed of representatives of MPOS, WisDOT district offices and WisDOT central office Divisions of Planning and Budget and Transportation Assistance. 3 In order to be consistent with the Urban Corridors Study update in the state's small urban areas, detailed improvement needs will also be collected for state highways which are not classified as principal arterials. 3 reconstructing existing roadways, and may include traffic operation and safety improvements, turning lanes, bicycle and pedestrian accommodations, minor realignments and minor widenings. Some of these projects may result in slight increases in roadway capacity. Relationship to Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans: A part of each MPO's bicycle plan should be a determination of what roadway improvements are required to provide the bicycle accommodations necessary to implement the plan. (See Wisconsin Bicycle Planning Guidance, September, 1993.) The needs assessment process for the principal arterial system will provide a means to detail those improvements and estimate their cost. In addition, it provides a place to record the need for bicycle accommodations on roadways which have (or are expected to have) at least 25 cyclists per day, but are not part of the region's bicycle plan. A record of those improvements necessary to provide bicycle accommodations on roadways other than principal arterials should be maintained separately as part of the area's bicycle plan. The process for assessing improvement needs on the principal arterial system should also reflect those improvements necessary to implement the MPO's pedestrian facilities plan by specifying where accommodations such as sidewalks, overpasses or underpasses are needed. Area To Be Covered: Analyses for all systems should cover the area within each Metropolitan Area Planning Boundary which denotes the region which will become urbanized by the year 2020. However, intermediate growth boundaries (for 2000 and 2010) should be established to reflect the staging of urban growth to help in the determination of when conversion to urban cross-section roadways is needed. Time Periods: Improvement needs should be assessed out to the year 2020. To provide information that will be useful for -short-term programming purposes (i.e. TIP and Six Year Program development) and be consistent with the Urban Corridors Study data being collected for the state's small urban areas, principal arterial needs data should be broken down into the following time periods: backlog (existing needs), 1994-2000, 2001-2005, 2006-2010, 201 1 2015 and 2016-2020. For other systems, capacity expansion needs should be assigned one of these same time periods, but because system preservation needs will be estimated on a level-of-effort basis, costs should simply be annualized over the 26 year planning period. (See discussion below.) 4 II. RECOMMENDED PROCESS Principal Arterials - Interstate Preservation needs on the urban Interstate system will be determined through an update of WisDOT's Interstate Highway System Improvement Needs study and the Milwaukee Freeway Preservation study. Capacity expansion needs will be cooperatively determined by WisDOT and MPOs through both MPO and statewide intercity modelling processes. Principal Arterials - Other In 1989, WisDOT conducted an urban corridors needs study which produced a detailed assessment of capacity expansion, system preservation and spot operational improvement needs on state highways and locally-owned principal arterials in all of Wisconsin's urban and urbanized areas. The data sets and cost estimation procedures developed for this study provide a ready means to produce detailed needs analyses which meet the requirements of ISTEA. The Department is in the process of updating the Urban Corridors Study as part of its TRANSLINKS 21 planning effort. Updated data are currently being collected for the state's 51 small urban areas, and WisDOT staff will work with MPO planners to update urbanized area needs in a comparable manner. This process will produce improvement needs estimates which will both assist MPOs in meeting the requirements of ISTEA and provide WisDOT with the information needed to complete the Urban Corridors Study update statewide. Because final or interim transportation plan updates must be completed by December of 1994, it is important that all Urban Corridors data be updated to the extent possible within the next few months. However, the process will differ depending on whether a final or interim plan is being prepared. Final plans: In metropolitan areas where final transportation plan updates will be completed this year, the 1989 Urban Corridors Study data sets will first be modified by WisDOT to reflect a "base case" situation and then, ultimately, altered to reflect the plan alternative adopted by the MPO. The suggested approach to this process is as follows: 1. Urban Corridor results from 1989 should first be modified to reflect a true "base case" situation (i.e. continuation of current land use trends and the existing transportation system). Urban System Planning staff will review improvement needs in the 1989 data sets to remove capacity expansion needs and substitute resurfacing projects instead. 2. All system preservation needs should then be reviewed to (1) either verify or change improvement types and timing, and (2) reflect bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. (See section on Community Meetings below.) The result of this process will be an estimate of the costs of preserving the existing street and 5 highway system. These figures can then be used by MPOs as a starting point for assessing the costs of all other plan alternatives. 3. Capacity expansion needs for each plan alternative will be identified by the MPO's multimodal planning process. The costs of these projects will be estimated as described on page 7. MPOs should combine these expansion costs with preservation costs to produce total costs for each plan alternative. 4. After a preferred plan has been adopted, the Urban Corridors data sets will be revised to incorporate the necessary capacity expansion projects and preservation needs will be modified as appropriate. Interim plans: In areas where only an interim plan will be completed by December, it is not necessary to produce a "base case" assessment of street and highway needs. In those areas, the following procedure should be followed: 1. Any differences between the capacity expansion needs shown in the existing metropolitan plan and those shown in the 1989 Urban Corridors Study must be reconciled. Because Urban Corridors needs were determined relatively recently by the consensus of a group which included MPO staff, they should generally be used for the interim plan update unless it can be shown that they are no longer deemed appropriate. 2. System preservation needs determined through the Urban Corridors process should then be reviewed to either verify or change improvement types or timing and, where necessary, be coordinated with capacity expansion projects. (See section on Community Meetings below.) The following pages describe a process for updating the Urban Corridors study and providing MPOs with data needed for their cost- revenue comparisons. Revising Expansion Needs for Interim Plans: WisDOT will provide MPOs with segment-specific listings of improvement needs data from the 1989 Urban Corridors Study. MPO planners should meet with WisDOT district staff to modify those listings to reconcile the 1989 data with the existing MPO plan. Community Meetings: MPO planners and WisDOT staff should meet with appropriate representatives of the involved communities (e.g. planners, public works directors, city engineers, highway commissioners, transit officials, etc.) to: 1. Adjust the 2000 and 2010 growth boundaries established in 1989, if necessary, to reflect the continuation of current development trends (Scenario I described in the Long-Range Plan Alternatives Guidance). These boundaries should 6 consider such factors as location of development areas, timing of future development, local land use plans and sewerage system expansion plans. 2. Determine whether it will be necessary to adjust the existing principal arterial system for future time periods. The starting point for the update should be the principal arterial (PA) systems resulting from the recent re-evaluation of all functional systems. However, PA's can be added or removed for future time periods if the change can be justified. WisDOT's functional classification criteria can be consulted for guidance. 3. Review the type and timing of system preservation and spot improvement needs and revise them where necessary. Improvements should be modified, as necessary, to address the need for bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. In areas where a base case needs assessment is being done, it is necessary to look at the resurfacing needs that were substituted for capacity expansions and determine the appropriate improvement type. 4. Additional steps needed where interim plans identify capacity expansion needs: As part of the statewide Urban Corridors Study update, WisDOT is asking that the justification for each capacity expansion project be recorded. A list of possible reasons has been developed and the most important reasons for each project should be selected and noted. (See Appendix, page 21.) Also needed for each capacity expansion improvement is information on the types of land uses that will be impacted by the project. This data will be used in the preparation of a System- level Environmental Evaluation (SEE) which will assess the environmental consequences of implementing the recommendations of the Urban Corridors Study statewide. Capacity expansion projects should be reviewed to determine how to integrate accommodations necessary to implement the region's bicycle and pedestrian plans. Appendix Table I on pages 15 and 16 describes the improvement types used in the Urban Corridors Study. MPOs are being asked to use these improvement types to ensure consistency between MPO plans, the Urban Corridors Study and WisDOT's Six Year Improvement Program. Because WisDOT district planners have had experience with this process in updating data for the state's small urban areas, it might be appropriate for them to take the lead in this needs update process. 7 Cost Estimation: WisDOT will be responsible for estimating the costs associated with all improvements. Capacity Expansion Projects: WisDOT district staff will prepare cost estimates for all capacity expansion projects. Where MPOs are completing interim plans, expansion costs will be integrated into the Urban Corridors data sets. Where final plans are being produced, MPOs will be provided with lists of cost estimates for all capacity expansion projects specified under each plan alternative. Expansion costs will include the total cost of constructing or expanding the facility, including right-of-way acquisition, utility relocations and hazardous material removal if known to be necessary. Only preliminary engineering costs will be omitted from the estimates. Costs of new facilities will include bridge construction, but the costs of new or widened bridges associated with expanding existing roadways will be recorded separately. Costs will include modifications to projects to provide bicycle and pedestrian accommodations where appropriate. Estimates will necessarily be more accurate in the shorter term since locational studies and design work will have been completed. Estimates for projects needed further into the future will necessarily be less accurate since less is known about exact location and facility design. System Preservation Projects: Costs for system preservation improvements will be based on unit costs (i.e. cost/mile) supplied by WisDOT Division of Highways. (See Appendix Table 11.) If actual project cost is known or a community feels the unit costs are not reflective of their experience,.figures based on the cost/mile tables can be overridden by other specified amounts. Spot Improvement Needs: Costs for spot improvements (e.g. signalization, railroad crossings, bus turnouts, intersection improvements) will also be estimated by WisDOT district staff. Like expansion costs, they will include the total cost of the improvement, including right-of-way acquisition, utility relocations and hazardous material removal if known to be necessary. Only preliminary engineering costs will be omitted from the estimates. Processing and Summarizing Data: WISDOT Urban System Planning staff will be responsible for updating the Urban Corridors data sets and producing summaries of miles and costs by improvement type and time period. MPOs preparing interim plans will be provided with data listings and summaries of both system preservation and expansion costs for use in drafting their plan documents. Those completing final plans will be provided with base case (preservation) data listings and cost summaries for use in their plan documents and with listings of capacity expansion costs for use in evaluating plan alternatives. 8 The following two steps pertain only to those areas where a final plan is being prepared. Estimating the Cost of Plan Alternatives: For each alternative, MPOs should adjust base case system preservation needs as appropriate to ensure consistency with the capacity expansion needs identified for that alternative. The adjusted preservation costs, together with expansion costs and the level-of-effort assessment of needs on other functional systems, constitute the total cost of street and highway needs for that alternative. Finalizing data for the Preferred Plan Alternative: After a publicly-preferred plan alternative has been selected, MPOs should furnish WisDOT with information on the how the base case should be modified to include needed capacity expansion projects and any other required changes to system preservation needs. Wherever a capacity expansion project is added, data on project justification and land use impacts must be recorded. (See step 4 above.) WisDOT will update the Urban Corridors data sets to reflect the preferred alternative and provide the MPOs with final miles and cost summaries. Minor Arterials, Collectors and Local Streets While most capacity expansion needs will be on the principal arterial system, the planning process may indicate some expansion needs on other roadways. When this occurs, WisDOT will produce cost estimates in the same manor as described above. System preservation needs can be estimated through a level-of-effort type analysis. The following is a suggested method for arriving at those estimates for each of the three systems. Minor Arterials (MAs): 1. Based on the type and extent of work done in the area over the past few years, estimate what percent of the area's minor arterials will need a resurface/recondition project by 2020 and what percent will require reconstruction by that date. 2. Calculate the average cost per mile of each of the two improvement types using either the unit costs listed in Appendix Table 11 or data more reflective of local costs, if available. 3. Calculate the total minor arterial mileage within the Metropolitan Area Planning Boundary. WisDOT can provide MA mileage for the current urbanized area. For the area which is outside the current urbanized area, it would be reasonable to assume that rural major and minor collectors will become urban minor arterials as 9 the region urbanizes. It is not likely that any routes which might require capacity expansion between 2000 and 2010 will also require an additional preservation improvement before 2020. Therefore, those miles should be subtracted from total minor arterial mileage to arrive at the total MA miles which will need some type of preservation improvement. 4. Calculate the total cost estimate for minor arterial preservation projects and annualize it over the 26-year planning period. Collectors and Local Streets: 1. Use a similar process to estimate needs on collectors and local streets. 2. Calculate the total collector and local street mileage within the Metropolitan Area Planning Boundary. Miles of collectors in the currently rural parts of the area can be estimated by using the same ratio of collectors to minor arterials as is found in the lower density parts of the current urbanized area. Miles of local streets in the currently rural parts of the area can be estimated by using the ratio of local streets to collectors in the lower density parts of the current urbanized area. 10 TRANSIT SYSTEM NEEDS Final Plans: Metropolitan plans should identify transportation solutions for serving each of the land use scenarios being modeled. The planning process should first assess how well the existing transportation system (streets/highways and transit) serves existing and projected land use patterns and travel demand. The continuation of existing land use trends, the continuation of the existing level of transit service and the preservation of the existing highway system comprise a "base case" scenario against which other plan alternatives can be compared. Transportation solutions to each alternative land use scenario should include at least one alternative transit scenario. Any reduction in existing transit service should be considered as an alternative to the base case. For each land use scenario, the planning process should first evaluate whether TDM and low-cost transit improvements are likely to result in sufficient mode shift to achieve the community's multimodal, social and environmental objectives. The next step should be to evaluate the extent to which the -addition of higher-cost transit actions would help meet community objectives. ISTEA requires that the financial component of the plan demonstrate "consistency of investments and projected revenue" and that "existing and proposed revenue shall cover all forecasted capital, operating and maintenance costs." This guidance, therefore, proposes-a process for identifying and summarizing those costs. The types of transit needs to be included are: Base case The base case transit scenario should reflect a continuation of the current transit service without any major modifications to either increase or decrease service. It should be looked at along with the base case land use scenario and the base case street and highway improvement scenario to get a complete view of the costs of continuation of trends in land use and transportation system expenditures. Components of the base case transit scenario include: 1. Costs to maintain the current level of transit service Operating costs (e.g. labor, fringe benefits, materials and supplies, utilities and insurance) On-going capital costs (e.g. rolling stock, facilities and equipment) 11 2. Minor service modifications, as deemed appropriate Isolated expansion of service Isolated increase of express bus service Isolated increase in service frequency Minor communications improvements Minor improvements in security Limited us of down-sized vehicles Provision of schedule/route info at bus stops Alternatives In addition to assessing the costs to maintain the current level of transit service and make minor improvements in service provided, alternative transit scenarios should be evaluated. Those alternatives should include the consideration of such improvements as: 1. Low-cost transit improvements Extensive use of express service Major expansion of service into new or previously unserved areas Major improvement in security Construction of transit center Construction of transit hubs Service extensions and/or reconfigurations to serve intermodal facilities such as airports, train stations, intercity bus stations and park-and-ride lots Initiation of commuter bus service Systemwide use of down-sized vehicles Provisions of kiosks with real-time transit information 2. High-cost transit improvements Use of locator systems to improve communications and security Development of a light rail system Development of a commuter rail system Increased frequency of service systemwide Capital and operating costs should be estimated for each transit alternative. The affected transit operator is likely to be in the best position to do this. Interim Plans: As stated above, MPOs completing interim plans, rather than comprehensive plan updates, will not be evaluating alternative plan scenarios. WisDOT's forthcoming guidance on Short and Long-term Planning Procedures for Metropolitan Planning Organizations suggests that interim plans outline how the planning process currently considers expanded/enhanced transit use. In addition, Mpos may wish to review and update all or portions of their Transportation Development Plans. 12 FINAL COST SUMMARIES Where final plan updates are being completed, cost summaries for the base case and each additional alternative should include the components listed below. Interim plans, which many not address all components, should include them as appropriate. Streets and Highways System Preservation System Expansion Transit Cost to Maintain Current Level of Service Operating Capital System Expansion/Enhancement Operating Capital TDM Measures (not covered in Street and Highway or Transit element) Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (not covered in Street and Highway element) 15 APPENDIX Table I IMPROVEMENT TYPES System Expansion Reconstruction and Expansion of Existing Facility Total rebuilding of an existing roadway to provide additional through travel lanes. May include geometric improvements. Requires considerable right-of-way acquisition. Construction of a New Roadway on New Alignment Includes bypasses and relocations necessary to provide additional capacity in the system. Requires considerable right-of-way acquisition. Conversion to Freeway May require additional right-of-way acquisition. Construction of a New Freeway Interchange Requires additional right-of-way acquisition. System Preservation Resurface - Placement of a new surface on an existing pavement. Does not include changes in cross-section or geometries. May include some elimination or shielding of roadside obstructions, culvert replacements, signals, marking, signing and minor intersection improvements. Includes diamond grinding. No additional right-of-way is required, except possible minimal acquisition for drainage and intersection improvements. Minor Recondition - Resurfacing plus some other work. Other work may include: gravel lifts; widening of existing lanes (rural cross-section) or shoulders; shoulder paving; improvements to isolated curb sections, grades, curves, sight distance or intersections. Some small amounts of additional right-of-way may be required. Major Recondition - Resurfacing plus more substantial improvements. Additional work must not exceed 50% of the length of the project. May include: improvements in grades, curves, sight distances and intersections; the construction of passing, climbing or turning lanes; curb replacement; and spot reconstructions. Additional intermittent right-of-way is frequently required. 19 Reconstruction - Total rebuilding of an existing street or highway. May include: improvements in grades, curves, sight distance and intersections; drainage improvements; widening of existing travel lanes; widening to accommodate bicycles; construction of sidewalks and conversion from rural to urban cross-section. Widening is generally less than 10 feet. Additional right-of-way is usually required, but is often limited to narrow strips or spot locations. Spot Improvements - Often spot improvements are done in conjunction with a recondition or reconstruction project and their costs are absorbed as part of the larger project costs. When the spot improvement need is not part of a larger project, it should be listed separately. As indicated by the following list, most spot improvements are considered part of system preservation. Intersection improvement/channelization Intersection relocation Signalization Grade separation Railroad crossing improvement Railroad crossing removal Construction of bus turnouts Construction of weigh station Park and Ride lots Pedestrian over/underpass 20 Table II URBAN CORRIDORS STUDY: 1994 IMPROVEMENT COSTS (1994 Dollars) COST/MILE CODE IMPROVEMENT TYPES (1000s) 0002 Resurface: Urban Cross-Section (20-29 ft) $250 0003 Resurface: Urban Cross-Section (30-39 ft) 350 0004 Resurface: Urban Cross-Section (40-49 ft) 450 0005 Resurface: Urban Cross-Section (50-59 ft) 550 0006 Resurface: Urban Cross-Section (60-69 ft) 650 0007 Resurface: Urban Cross-Section (70-79 ft) 750 0008 Resurface: Urban Cross-Section (80-89 ft) 850 0009 Resurface: Urban Cross-Section (90-99 ft) 950 0012 Resurface: Rural Cross-Section (2 Lanes) 170 0013 Resurface: Rural Cross-Section (3 Lanes) 255 0014 Resurface: Rural Cross-Section (4 Lanes) 340 0015 Resurface: Rural Cross-Section (5 Lanes) 425 0016 Resurface: Rural Cross-Section (6 Lanes) 510 0018 Resurface: Rural Cross-Section (8 Lanes) 680 0022 Minor Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (20-29 ft) 283 0023 Minor Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (30-39 ft) 397 0024 Minor Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (40-49 ft) 510 0025 Minor Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (50-59 ft) 623 0026 Minor Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (60-69 ft) 737 0027 Minor Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (70-79 ft) 850 0028 Minor Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (80-89 ft) 963 0029 Minor Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (90-99 ft) 1,077 0032 Minor Recondition: Rural Cross-Section (2 Lanes) 200 0033 Minor Recondition: Rural Cross-Section (3 Lanes) 300 0034 Minor Recondition: Rural Cross-Section (4 Lanes) 400 0035 Minor Recondition: Rural Cross-Section (5 Lanes) 500 0036 Minor Recondition: Rural Cross-Section (6 Lanes) 600 0038 Minor Recondition: Rural Cross-Section (8 Lanes) 800 042 Major Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (20-29 ft) 514 0043 Major Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (30-39 ft) 719 0044 Major Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (40-49 ft) 925 0045 Major Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (50-59 ft) l,131 0046 Major Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (60-69 ft) 1,336 0047 Major Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (70-79 ft) 1,542 0048 Major Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (80-89 ft) 1,747 0049 Major Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (90-99 ft) 1,953 21 COST/MILE CODE IMPROVEMENT TYPES (1000s) 0052 Major Recondition: Rural Cross-Section (2 Lanes) $ 395 0053 Major Recondition: Rural Cross-Section (3 Lanes) 593 0054 Major Recondition: Rural Cross-Section (4 Lanes) 790 0055 Major Recondition: Rural Cross-Section (5 Lanes) 988 0056 Major Recondition: Rural Cross-Section (6 Lanes) 1,185 0058 Major Recondition: Rural Cross-Section (8 Lanes) 1,580 0062 Reconstruction (Non-Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (20-29 ft) 1,083 0063 Reconstruction (Non-Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (30-39 ft) 1,517 0064 Reconstruction (Non-Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (40-49 ft) 1,950 0065 Reconstruction (Non-Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (50-59 ft) 2,383 0066 Reconstruction (Non-Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (60-69 ft) 2,817 0067 Reconstruction (Non-Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (70-79 ft) 3,250 0068 Reconstruction (Non-Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (80-89 ft) 3,683 0069 Reconstruction (Non-Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (90-99 ft) 4,117 0072 Reconstruction (Non-Capacity): Rural Cross-Section (2 Lanes) 920 0073 Reconstruction (Non-Capacity): Rural Cross-Section (3 Lanes) 1,380 0074 Reconstruction (Non-Capacity): Rural Cross-Section (4 Lanes) 1,840 0075 Reconstruction (Non-Capacity): Rural Cross-Section (5 Lanes) 2,300 0076 Reconstruction (Non-Capacity): Rural Cross-Section (6 Lanes) 2,760 0078 Reconstruction (Non-Capacity): Rural Cross-Section (8 Lanes) 3,680 ON82 New Construction (Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (20-29 ft) Specified ON83 New Construction (Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (30-39 ft) " ON84 New Construction (Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (40-49 ft) " ON85 New Construction (Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (50-59 ft) " ON86 New Construction (Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (60-69 ft) " ON87 New Construction (Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (70-79 ft) " ON88 New Construction (Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (80-89 ft) " ON89 New Construction (Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (90-99 ft) " 0082 Reconstruction (Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (20-29 ft) Specified 0083 Reconstruction (Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (30-39 ft) " 0084 Reconstruction (Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (40-49 ft) " 0085 Reconstruction (Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (50-59 ft) " 0086 Reconstruction (Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (60-69 ft) " 0087 Reconstruction (Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (70-79 ft) " 0088 Reconstruction (Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (80-89 ft) " 0089 Reconstruction (Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (90-99 ft) " 0090 Reconstruction(Capacity): Convert to Freeway Specified 0091 New Construction (Capacity): Rural Cross-Section (New 2 Lanes) Specified 0092 New Construction (Capacity): Rural Cross-Section (New 4 Lanes) " 0094 Reconstruction(Capacity): Rural Cross-Section (Expand to 4 Lanes) Specified 0096 Reconstruction(Capacity): Rural Cross-Section (Expand to 6 Lanes) " 0098 Reconstruction(Capacity): Rural Cross-Section (Expand to 8 Lanes) " 22 COST/MILE CODE IMPROVEMENT TYPES (1000s) 0110 Intersection Improvement Specified 0120 Signalization " 0130 Grade Separation " 0140 New Intersection " 0150 Relocate Intersection " 0210 Improve Railroad Crossing " 0220 Remove Railroad Crossing " 0310 Construct Bus Turnouts Specified 0320 Construct Weigh Stations " 0710 Construct New Interchange " 0720 Upgrade Existing Interchange " 0730 Widen Interchange Ramps " 23 DISTRICT #2 EXCEPTIONS COST/MILE CODE IMPROVEMENT TYPES (1000s) 0002 Resurface: Urban Cross-Section (20-29 ft) $ 361 0003 Resurface: Urban Cross-Section (30-39 ft) 506 0004 Resurface: Urban Cross-Section (40-49 ft) 650 0005 Resurface: Urban Cross-Section (50-59 ft) 794 0006 Resurface: Urban Cross-Section (60-69 ft) 939 0007 Resurface: Urban Cross-Section (70-79 ft) 1,083 0008 Resurface: Urban Cross-Section (80-89 ft) 1,228 0009 Resurface: Urban Cross-Section (90-99 ft) 1,372 0022 Minor Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (20-29 ft) 386 0023 Minor Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (30-39 ft) 541 0024 Minor Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (40-49 ft) 695 0025 Minor Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (50-59 ft) 849 0026 Minor Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (60-69 ft) 1,004 0027 Minor Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (70-79 ft) 1,158 0028 Minor Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (80-89 ft) 1,313 0029 Minor Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (90-99 ft) 1,467 0042 Major Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (20-29 ft) 722 0043 Major Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (30-39 ft) 1,011 0044 Major Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (40-49 ft) 1,300 0045 Major Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (50-59 ft) 1,589 0046 Major Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (60-69 ft) 1,878 0047 Major Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (70-79 ft) 2,167 0048 Major Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (80-89 ft) 2,456 0049 Major Recondition: Urban Cross-Section (90-99 ft) 2,744 0062 Reconstruction (Non-Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (20-29 ft) 1,250 0063 Reconstruction (Non-Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (30-39 ft) 1,750 0064 Reconstruction (Non-Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (40-49 ft) 2,250 0065 Reconstruction (Non-Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (50-59 ft) 2,750 0066 Reconstruction (Non-Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (60-69 ft) 3,250 0067 Reconstruction (Non-Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (70-79 ft) 3,750 0068 Reconstruction (Non-Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (80-89 ft) 4,250 0069 Reconstruction (Non-Capacity): Urban Cross-Section (90-99 ft) 4,750 24 POSSIBLE REASONS FOR CAPACITY EXPANSIONS 1. Capacity expansion needs along existing route. Need is determined by existing traffic volumes or an extrapolation of past and current trends. 2. New development/land use change. Need to expand an existing route or construct a new route is based on a significant recent or planned development. 3. Relieves congestion on another route. This would include bypasses and other relief routes. 4. Corridors 2020 determined. Improvement need is determined by the Corridors 2020 plan. (Economic development is underlying reason.) 5. Removes truck traffic from route through town. Allows re-routing of truck traffic to solve problems of noise, safety, pollution, etc. 6. Improves intra-urban area mobility. Applies to routes wholly within an urban area. Improves connection from one part of the community to another. 7. Improves tie to other facility. Improvement can be due to the construction or realignment of another facility, or to the need for a more direct or improved connection to another roadway. This would include new interchanges. 8. Urban portion of a larger rural project. Improvement is justified based on a rural need. 9. Safety. Must be used in combination with one of the above reasons. 10. Pavement need. Must be used in combination with one of the above reasons. Could affect timing of the expansion project. 11. Improvement called for in local and regional plans. Generally used in combination with one of the above reasons. 25 TRANSLINKS21 FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS TOPIC, CONTACT: DOUGLAS F. DALTON CHIEF, URBAN SYSTEM PLANNING WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 7913 MADISON, WI 53707-7913 608/266-3662 FOR ADDITIONAL COPIES, CALL: OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, 608/266-3581
