Fork in the Road Will Wisconsin Waste Money on Unneeded Highway Expansion or Invest in 21st Century Transportation Priorities? Fork in the Road Will Wisconsin Waste Money on Unneeded Highway Expansion or Invest in 21st Century Transportation Priorities?

WISPIRG Foundation Frontier Group

Tom Van Heeke and Jeff Inglis, Frontier Group Bruce Speight, WISPIRG Foundation

September 2014 Acknowledgments

The authors thank: from the city of Ashland, Mayor Bill Whalen, Planning Specialist Elise Cruz and Public Works Director Ray Hyde; from the city of Madison, Metro Transit General Manager Charles Kamp and Planning Division Project Manager David M. Trowbridge, AICP; La Crosse Director of Public Works Dale Hexom, P.E.; City Manager Russell Van Gompel of the city of Eau Claire, Execu- tive Assistant to the Mayor Monica Rottman of the city of Madison, and Director of Intergovernmental Relations Jennifer Gonda of the city of Milwaukee for their invaluable help in describing local transporta- tion needs and necessary projects, offering the details thereof and providing relevant materials. Thanks also to Phineas Baxandall of U.S. Public Interest Research Group and Steve Hiniker of 1000 Friends of Wisconsin for their helpful review of this document. Additional thanks to Tony Dutzik and Elizabeth Ridlington of Frontier Group for editorial assistance.

WISPIRG Foundation thanks the Brico Fund, the Sally Mead Hands Foundation, and the RE-AMP Global Warming Strategic Action Fund for making this report possible.

The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those of WISPIRG Foundation. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review.

2014 WISPIRG Foundation. Some Rights Reserved. This work is licensed under a Creative Com- mons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 3.0 Unported License. To view the terms of this license, visit www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0.

With public debate around important issues often dominated by special interests pursuing their own narrow agendas, WISPIRG Foundation offers an independent voice that works on behalf of the public interest. WISPIRG Foundation, a 501(c)(3) organization, works to protect consumers and promote good government. We investigate problems, craft solutions, educate the public, and offer Wisconsinites meaningful opportunities for civic participation. For more information about the WISPIRG Foundation or for additional copies of this report, please visit www.wispirgfoundation.org.

Frontier Group provides information and ideas to help citizens build a cleaner, healthier, fairer and more democratic America. We address issues that will define our nation’s course in the 21st century—from fracking to solar energy, global warming to transportation, clean water to clean elections. Our experts and writers deliver timely research and analysis that is accessible to the public, applying insights gleaned from a variety of disciplines to arrive at new ideas for solving pressing problems. For more information about Frontier Group, please visit www.frontiergroup.org.

Design: Harriet Eckstein Graphic Design Cover photos: (clockwise from top left): Construction, Wisconsin Department of Transportation; road sign, Xstock Images, iStockphoto.com; bus, City of Madison Metro Transit; pothole, Craig Uglinica, iStockphoto.com; Wausau bridges, Antonia McGinn Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 7

Wisconsin’s Transportation Spending 9 Priorities Are Backwards More Money for New Highways, Less for Road 9 Repair and Transportation Alternatives Wisconsinites Are Driving Less and Using Other 10 Modes of Transportation More

Wisconsin Faces a Choice about 14 Future Transportation Spending Four Unnecessary Highway Construction Projects 14 Investment in Road Repairs, Transit, Biking and Walking 17

Policy Recommendations 22 Reassess Demand for Highways 23 “Fix It First” 24 Invest in 21st Century Transportation Infrastructure 25 Create Regional Transportation Authorities 26

Notes 27

Executive Summary

isconsin’s transportation spending dollars in each of the next five state priorities are backwards. In recent biennial budgets. This money could Wyears, despite ongoing fiscal chal- meet a series of unmet transportation lenges, the state has spent billions of dollars needs, including key transit projects, on highway expansion projects while slash- local road repair, and bicycle and ing transit funding and curbing assistance pedestrian projects. Wisconsin faces for local road repair. a choice: continue to shower money on The decision to spend massive amounts unnecessary highway expansions, or invest of taxpayer resources on new and expanded in critical projects to repair our existing highways appears especially out of step at a transportation infrastructure and provide time when Wisconsinites are driving less more transport options to citizens around than they did a decade ago—and when the state. citizens and local leaders in communities Wisconsin is spending heavily on across the state are clamoring for long- highway expansion projects—despite overdue investments in road repair, transit stagnating driving—even as it under- systems and infrastructure for bicycling funds a long list of pressing repair and and walking. investment needs across Wisconsin and Wisconsin’s municipalities are prevented cuts spending on transit and transporta- by state law from exercising all their pos- tion alternatives. sible options to meet these needs, such as levying local fuel taxes or banding together • Wisconsin’s previous two biennial to form regional transportation authorities. state budgets spent a combined $2.5 Without state support for local priori- billion on major new highway con- ties, Wisconsin’s communities are stuck struction. in a transportation funding bind. The $2.8 billion Wisconsin intends • Wisconsin spends almost as much to spend on four unnecessary highway money—and sometimes even more expansion projects could instead money—on building new highways as provide more than half a billion extra on fixing existing roads and bridges,

Executive Summary 1 despite the fact that 71 percent of Wisconsin plans to spend up to $2.8 Wisconsin’s roads are of “mediocre” billion on four particularly wasteful or “poor” quality and 1,157 bridges in highway expansion projects: Wisconsin are “structurally deficient.” In 2011, Wisconsin spent $349 mil- • Expanding Interstate 94 in Mil- lion on highway repairs compared to waukee – The state intends to spend $544 million on building new or wider as much as an additional $800 million highways. (above and beyond the cost of repair- ing the aging highway) to add capacity • Between 1998 and 2013, total state to Interstate 94, despite the opposition transit funding decreased by 2 percent of nearby residents and dropping traf- in constant 2011 dollars, while state fic levels on that stretch of highway. spending on highway construction rose 50 percent. • Adding lanes to Interstate 90 south of Madison – The plan to widen In- • Wisconsin’s lavish spending on terstate 90 from four to six lanes is ex- expanded highways has come even pected to cost $836 million. However, as the number of miles driven in the traffic is growing more slowly on the state has stagnated. Statewide vehicle- highway than predicted. Despite offi- miles traveled peaked in 2004. Mean- cial projections of a 29 percent surge in while, bicycle commuting has risen in traffic volumes between 2000 and 2010, Milwaukee and transit ridership has by 2012, the most recent year for which increased in a variety of communities, data are available, traffic volumes had such as Madison and La Crosse. inched up just 1 percent in 12 years.

Figure ES-1. Total Vehicle-Miles Traveled and VMT Per Capita, in Wisconsin, 1973-2013

70,000 12,000

60,000 10,000

50,000 8,000

40,000 capita 6,000  per  30,000 (millions) VMT 

VMT 4,000 20,000

VMT(millions) VMTpercapita 2,000 10,000

0 0 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

 Fork in the Road • Widening State Highway 23 The money Wisconsin intends to between Fond du Lac and Plym- spend on these four highway expansion outh – The state justifies this $128 projects, not to mention the hundreds million project in part by citing future of millions or more the Wisconsin traffic volumes on this rural highway. DOT plans to spend on other highway But the number of vehicles on the expansion projects, could comfortably highway barely changed between 2008 increase state funding for transit, local and 2012, the most recent year for road repair, and bicycle and pedestrian which data are available, calling into infrastructure. Some of the projects question state officials’ predictions of around Wisconsin that require support relentless annual increases in traffic include: through 2035. • Road maintenance – Like communi- • Expanding the Madison Beltline ties across Wisconsin, Ashland – State officials are studying, and requires regular investment in lo- seriously considering, an expansion of cal road maintenance to counter the Madison’s primary east-west freeway, effects of its harsh winters. Simply a project likely to cost $1 billion. maintaining the existing conditions While official documents predict that of the city’s streets would cost ap- by 2015 traffic will increase all along proximately $350,000 annually, while the 19-mile route, data collected in upgrading pavement conditions would 2012 show that traffic levels at several cost double that. But state reimburse- locations have not increased as quickly ment cutbacks have led the city of as WisDOT expected. Ashland to reduce road-repair

Photo: Wisconsin Department of Transportation

U.S. 41 construction.

Executive Summary 3 spending to just $150,000—less than through 2017. Green Bay also hopes half what is required. to encourage ridership growth by avoiding fare hikes, and even reduc- • Bicycle and pedestrian infrastruc- ing fares to encourage more people ture – Eau Claire has an ambitious to use transit at certain times. vision to become a more bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly city by add- o Madison has a forward-thinking ing on-street bike lanes to all of the plan to embrace the growing rider- city’s primary routes, constructing ship on its popular bus system. Not planned bicycle and pedestrian trails only does the city aim to grow its and paths, and building safe crossing fleet of buses and continue to replace structures for cyclists and pedestrians aging vehicles, but it is also study- at eight major roadways. Making the ing a new bus rapid transit line that vision into reality would cost approxi- would enable faster and better ser- mately $41 million. vice over a broader area. Together, these investments are projected to • Bridge repairs – Four of Milwaukee’s require approximately $21 million in iconic moving bridges require reha- annual operating costs and as much bilitation at a cost of $8 million to $13 as $262 million in up-front capital. million each. And less-famous bridges throughout the state are in similarly For about 40 percent of what is being dire straits. While localities have been spent just on the four highway projects hard pressed to support critical bridge highlighted in this report, Wisconsin work in the face of other local cuts, could make major progress in other additional funding would enable them transportation funding areas over the to better address these problems. next decade, accomplishing all the pro- posals made in 2013 by the bipartisan • Transit improvements – Transit Wisconsin Transportation Finance and systems around the state are overdue Policy Commission. (See Tables ES-1 and for investment. For example: ES-2, and Figure ES-2.)

o The Milwaukee County Transit System wants to restore old routes, Table ES-1. Estimated Cost of Four add new ones, provide more fre- Highway Expansion Projects quent service over a longer span of the day, and limit future fare Project Cost (millions increases to no more than the rate of dollars) of inflation. Those goals could be 1 achieved at the cost of $114 million Expand I-94 in Milwaukee $800 in capital investment and $160 mil- Widen I-90 $836 lion in annual operating funds. Widen State Highway 23 $128 The city of Green Bay needs to o Expand the Madison invest in bus replacement as aging Beltline $1,000 parts of its fleet reach the end of their service lives. The city aims to Total $2,764 replace five buses annually at a cost of approximately $2.6 million each year

 Fork in the Road Table ES-2. Investments in Road Repair, Transit and Bicycle-Pedestrian Projects Proposed by Wisconsin Transportation Finance and Policy Commission

Proposal Cost (millions of dollars)

Restore transit-funding cuts imposed in the $93 2011-2013 budget for the next 10 years

Increase annual transit support by $9.5 million a year $95 for the next 10 years

Invest $15 million a year more in transit capital $150 improvements for the next 10 years

Invest $10 million a year more in bicycle and pedestrian $100 infrastructure for the next 10 years

Increase funding for repairs to state-owned roads by 330 $33 million a year for the next 10 years

Increase funding for repairs to local roads by $400 $40 million a year for the next 10 years

Total $1,168

Figure ES-2. Comparing Wisconsin’s Options: Highway Expansion or Investment in Road Repair, Transit and Bicycle-Pedestrian Projects

$3,000

WidenHwy23 $2,500 ExpandIͲ94 in Milwaukee Boostrepairsto $2,000 localroads dollars)

 Boostrepairsto of

 stateͲownedroads $1,500 WidenIͲ90 BikeͲpedprojects (millions 

Cost $1,000 Transitcapital projects Expand $500 Madison Raisetransit Beltline funding

Restoretransitcuts $0 Highwayexpansion Roadrepair,transitandbicycleͲ pedestrianinvestments

Executive Summary 5 Wisconsin has its transportation • Adopt a “fix it first” approach to priorities backwards. Rather than spend the state’s highway infrastructure $2.8 billion on a handful of unnecessary by addressing pressing road highway expansions, the state should maintenance needs across invest in areas it has shortchanged Wisconsin. in recent years and move toward the balanced 21st century transportation • Restore and increase state system Wisconsin needs. To ensure transportation fund spending on that Wisconsinites’ tax dollars are spent public transportation, local road wisely, decision makers should: repair, and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, addressing • Reassess demand for highway expan- Wisconsin’s 21st century sion projects, using up-to-date traf- transportation needs. fic growth projections for proposed projects. State officials should scale • Empower municipalities to establish back or cancel projects that are no Regional Transportation Authorities longer justified, as they did in the case with the ability to raise revenue to of State Highway 38 in Caledonia. support local transit investments.

 Fork in the Road Introduction

n March 2010, the city of Eau Claire an- state officials acknowledged that, by the nounced a plan2 to make the city friend- state’s own design criteria, traffic volumes Ilier to the growing number of people on the western portion of the bypass only interested in walking or biking in the city. justified a two-lane rural road. But the de- The plan, which could cost an estimated cision was made to construct the entire by- $41 million,3 calls for on-street bike lanes, pass as a more expensive four-lane highway better street marking to improve sharing anyway. By 2011, the year after the bypass of the pavements, and underpasses and opened, traffic on the highway failed to bridges for cyclists and walkers to more meet even the initial modest projections, easily cross major roads. with a third fewer drivers using the new Eight months after Eau Claire released road than originally forecast.6 its vision of a future friendly to bicyclists Across Wisconsin, money has often and pedestrians, an 11-mile bypass opened flowed freely to highway expansion projects south of Burlington, in the southeastern of dubious merit, even as existing highways corner of Wisconsin, connecting State and bridges continue to crumble and lo- Highway 11 on the west side of town cal officials struggle to scratch together to State Highway 36 on the east. It was funding for local road repair, long-over- constructed as a rural four-lane divided due improvements in public transporta- roadway at the cost of $118 million4— tion, and infrastructure for bicycling and nearly three times the cost of Eau Claire’s walking—transportation options that are ambitious bicycling and pedestrian plan increasingly in demand in Wisconsin and and more than the total amount the state elsewhere across America. pays to support public transit throughout Wisconsin faces a choice: it can either Wisconsin every year.5 continue to plow billions of dollars into The need for the Burlington bypass was wasteful and unnecessary new highway justified by the state based on assumptions expansion projects, or it can channel that traffic heading through the Racine those resources into a more balanced County city of 10,000 would increase dra- set of transportation investments that matically in the years to come. Even then, preserve our existing infrastructure and

Introduction 7 meet the growing demand for transportation With Wisconsin residents driving less choices. As this report demonstrates, the per capita than they did a decade ago, and amount of money Wisconsin currently growing indications that the state’s future plans to spend on just a few major highway economic welfare depends on building at- expansion projects would be more than tractive, walkable communities with access sufficient to meet longstanding, critical, yet to a variety of transportation options, the currently neglected transportation needs time has come for the state to reevaluate its across the state. transportation investment priorities.

Photo: Warner Hocker, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

Milwaukee’s State Street Bridge.

 Fork in the Road Wisconsin’s Transportation Spending Priorities Are Backwards Photo: Warner Hocker, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

isconsin’s transportation spend- More Money for New ing priorities do not reflect cur- Wrent needs. The state is spending Highways, Less for Road heavily on highway expansions but un- Repair and Transportation derfunding a long list of pressing repair and investment needs across Wisconsin, Options all at precisely the moment when decision In recent years, Wisconsin has spent lav- makers should be reassessing the state’s ishly on new highways. Of the $6.5 billion transportation infrastructure in the face allocated to major highway development of changing behaviors. projects and road repairs in the two pre- Wisconsin’s municipalities are pre- vious biennial state budgets, $2.5 billion 9 vented by state law from exercising all went to building big new highways —an their possible options to meet these needs. amount that could have given a major Levying local fuel taxes—which could be boost to the effort of fixing Wisconsin’s used for road repairs—is banned by state existing roads. law,7 as is joining together to form regional And a mere fraction of that highway- transportation authorities that could raise construction money would have substan- revenue through other local-option taxes.8 tially increased funds available for transit 10 But with state funding for road repair and and bicycle and pedestrian projects. transit investments curtailed, Wisconsin’s Between 1998 and 2013, Wisconsin’s communities are stuck in a funding bind. spending on highway construction grew 50 percent in constant 2011 dollars, while total state transit funding decreased almost 2 percent over that period. And between 2010 and 2013, spending on bi- cycle and pedestrian facilities decreased approximately 30 percent in constant 2011 dollars. (See Figure 1.)

Wisconsin’s Transportation Spending Priorities Are Backwards 9 Photo: City of Madison

Madison cyclists “Ride the Drive” in 2012.

More than two-thirds of Wisconsin’s “poor” quality, a state of disrepair that leads transportation money is raised from to more than just a bumpy ride for drivers. Wisconsinites. A full 55 percent comes Bad road conditions cost drivers money from state gas taxes and vehicle registra- in accelerated depreciation, reduced fuel tion fees.11 Another four percent comes economy, and increased damage to tires from allocations from the state’s General and suspensions. Each year Wisconsinites Purpose Fund.12 Three percent are funds pay $281 in extra vehicle operating costs from local communities.13 Bonds supply due to poorly maintained roads.20 14 percent14—more than half of which is Additionally, 1,157 bridges in Wis- provided by state general obligation bonds, consin—approximately 8 percent of the which must be repaid by taxpayers.15 The total—are “structurally deficient.”21 To- rest of the bonds borrow against future gether, these bridges carry a daily average expected state income, which are called of 2.9 million vehicles.22 revenue bonds.16 Federal tax money pays for 24 percent of Wisconsin’s transporta- tion budget.17 Road maintenance is also underfunded, and its funding has grown more slowly, Wisconsinites Are Driving compared to new highway construction. In some years, such as 2006 and 2011, Less and Using Other Modes Wisconsin spent more on new construction of Transportation More than on highway repairs.19 The American Wisconsin’s lavish spending on new Society of Civil Engineers rates 71 percent highway capacity seems particularly of Wisconsin’s roads as “mediocre” or short-sighted in light of recent changes

10 Fork in the Road Photo: City of Madison Figure 1. State Spending on Transportation by Category, 1998-2013, in Constant 2011 Dollars (millions)18

$1,000

$900 (millions)  $800 dollars

 $700 2011

 $600

$500 constant  $400

$300

$200 expenditures, 

$100 WisDOT $0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

BigͲtickethighwayprojects Bicycle/pedestrianprojects Transitfunding Statehighwayrehabilitation Localroadandbridgeassistance

in transportation behavior. Wisconsinites Crosse, annual ridership of the bus system are driving less and relying more on non- rose from approximately 710,000 in 1997 driving modes of transportation such as to almost 1.26 million in 2013.27 walking, biking and transit. After growing Ridership gains have taken place in steadily year after year for decades, the smaller areas as well. According to the number of vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) state’s Transportation Finance and Policy in Wisconsin peaked in 2004 before en- Commission, between 2007 and 2011 tering an unprecedented era of decline.23 statewide ridership on “Tier C” transit Indeed, the average Wisconsinite today systems—those operating in areas with drives no more than he or she did in 1998 populations of less than 50,000—rose.28 and overall VMT in 2013—the most re- For example, at Bay Area Rural Transit on cent year for which data are available from the shores of Lake Superior, ridership more WisDOT—were down approximately 1.5 than tripled from 2007 to 2012; year-on- percent from the peak level of eight years year ridership was up 7.9 percent in 2011 prior (see Figure 2).24 and 13.4 percent in 2012.29 Communities At the same time, demand for non-driv- like Appleton, Janesville and Sheboygan ing modes of transportation is growing in have also seen transit ridership grow.30 Wisconsin. Transit ridership in Madison The one dark cloud in the statewide has risen 52 percent since 1995 and the transit picture has been the state’s largest city’s 14.7 million bus riders in 2013 were transit system: Milwaukee. Since 2000, the second largest number ever.26 In La the Milwaukee County Transit System

Wisconsin’s Transportation Spending Priorities Are Backwards 11 Figure 2. Total Vehicle-Miles Traveled and VMT Per Capita, in Wisconsin, 1973-201325

70,000 12,000

60,000 10,000

50,000 8,000

40,000 capita 6,000  per  30,000 (millions) VMT 

VMT 4,000 20,000

VMT(millions) VMTpercapita 2,000 10,000

0 0 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

has undergone six major bus route restruc- In Madison, 6.2 percent of all commuting turings, shedding 21 regular bus routes and in 2012 was done by bicycle, making the numerous route segments, and curtailing city one of the top bicycle commuting cit- both the frequency and hours of service ies in America.35 on the routes that remain.31 MCTS’s state As in Wisconsin, VMT per capita in the funding over that period declined nearly United States peaked in 2004.36 Nationally, 8 percent.32 At the same time, the cost of a transit ridership in 2013 increased by 1.1 single bus fare in Milwaukee has risen 67 percent over 2012 levels to reach its high- percent. According to testimony from the est level since 1956.37 The proportion of managing director of Milwaukee Transport Americans commuting by bicycle has risen Services (the company that operates the by 61.6 percent since 2000. In 2012, the most MCTS system) to the state’s Transporta- recent year for which data are available, 0.64 tion Finance and Policy Commission, these percent of all commutes nationwide were changes in service and fares “have been made by bicycle.38 major factors in reduced ridership.”33 The recent stagnation in the number of Bicycle commuting is also increasingly miles driven could be long-lasting. While popular in the state’s two largest cities. Be- temporary factors, such as the Great tween 2000 and 2012, the most recent year Recession, have undoubtedly reduced the for which data are available, the number number of drivers on the roads, other of people bicycling to work in Milwaukee factors—such as persistent high gas prices, grew 179 percent to 0.9 percent of the total the aging of the American population, commuting population, an all-time high.34 saturation in demand for vehicles and

12 Fork in the Road driving, and the renewed interest in behavior to persist. In light of the 2004 living in walkable, urban areas—point to peak in statewide VMT and Wisconsin’s a future of slower growth in driving than aging and increasingly transit-dependent was the case during the post-war Driving population, the state’s Transportation Fi- Boom.39 nance and Policy Commission predicts that Wisconsin’s older residents are increas- statewide VMT will remain stagnant for ingly dependent on transit and pedestrian the next decade.44 Even WisDOT expects access, as they outlive their driving ability VMT to grow much more slowly in the by six to 10 years.40 One in five Wisconsin- future than it has in the past.45 ites aged 65 and older does not drive;41 53 percent of them regularly stay home rather than asking friends or family members for “As the population grows and rides.42 Moreover, the biggest changes in shifts, transportation investment behavior, both nationally and in Wisconsin, must adjust or the system will not are occurring among the youngest Americans—those who will be the primary adequately support [Wisconsinites’] users of the transportation system 10 or 20 changing needs.” years from now.43 Wisconsin transportation experts — Wisconsin Transportation Finance and expect recent changes in transportation Policy Commission

Wisconsin’s Transportation Spending Priorities Are Backwards 13 Wisconsin Faces a Choice about Future Transportation Spending

ven as Wisconsinites have been driv- Four Unnecessary Highway ing less and despite the fact that Wis- EDOT has projected that the number Construction Projects of miles travelled by Wisconsinites is likely to stagnate for the next decade,46 the state Expansion of I-94 in Milwaukee has been spending heavily on new highway In 1963, Wisconsin built I-94, an east-west capacity based on the expectation that freeway, through downtown Milwaukee residents will drive ever more miles on and into the western suburbs. Today, it the state’s highways in the future. Those skirts the Marquette University campus, assumptions are justified by data that are runs through several neighborhoods and sometimes decades out of date. At times, directly abuts three cemeteries. WisDOT has indicated that highway ex- Now more than 40 years old, the free- pansion would proceed regardless of what way is aging. Since the mid-1990s the state the data say: in August 2013, WisDOT has eyed it for an overhaul. The state has a proclaimed that adding freeway lanes to variety of options for how to address a 2.85- two interstates in the Milwaukee area was mile stretch of the freeway just to the west “non-negotiable.”47 of downtown: it could simply rehabilitate Wisconsin is missing a tremendous op- the highway on its current footprint, an portunity to invest the billions it plans to option that would cost approximately $370 spend on road building on other transpor- million, or it could choose to expand the tation priorities that could deliver greater highway at far greater cost.48 value for Wisconsinites. This section of the In September 2013, the state dismissed report examines four recently proposed or the possibility of simply rebuilding the planned highway expansion projects, set to highway, keeping only the two most cost as much as $2.8 billion combined, and expensive and disruptive expansion op- the long-overdue transportation invest- tions in consideration for the freeway’s ments the state could support instead. overhaul.49

14 Fork in the Road These proposals would expand the high- dropping on that stretch of I-94 between way from six to eight lanes, either by nar- 2010 and 2012, the latest year for which rowing lanes and the shoulder or creating a data are available.52 (See Figure 3.) double-decked road.50 The most expensive Expanding the highway would also option would cost $1.2 billion—as much as impose costs on neighboring residents by $800 million more than the now-discarded displacing businesses and reducing qual- rebuild option. ity of life.54 Fearing neighborhood and WisDOT’s latest description of the need business disruption, city leaders such as for the project says, “This section of I-94 Alderman Bob Bauman have protested carries high traffic volumes, which currently the plans.55 Mayor Tom Barrett, though vary between 138,000 and 156,000 AADT open to the addition of new lanes to the (Average Annual Daily Traffic). These traf- freeway, has called for a reduction to the fic volumes are expected to grow to a range freeway’s speed limit to allow for expansion from 171,000 to 181,000 by 2030.”51 within a smaller footprint, saving money Those traffic count numbers are 2010 and minimizing neighborhood disruption. figures, however. WisDOT’s own data Barrett has long expressed concern over show more recent traffic not growing WisDOT’s neglect of local roads in favor toward the 2030 projection but instead of large construction projects.56

Figure 3. Annual Average Daily Traffic, I-94 in Milwaukee53

180,000

160,000

140,000

120,000 Traffic  100,000 Daily 

Average 80,000  Annual 60,000

40,000

20,000

0 WOF92NDSTMILWAUKEE BETWEENHAWLEY&MITCHELL AT26THSTMILWAUKEE AT119THSTWESTALLIS 1.0MIWOFMILWAUKEE ͲCEMETERYACCESS COUNTYͲSUNNYSLOPE TrafficCountLocation

2009 2010 2011 2012

Wisconsin Faces a Choice about Future Transportation Spending 15 Widening I-90 South of Madison traffic volumes.”63 But according to Interstate 90 carries interstate and local WisDOT’s own data, growth in traffic traffic from Chicago up to Wisconsin’s volumes between Fond du Lac and capital and westward through Minnesota. Plymouth has slowed to a crawl. Between State officials have been considering ex- 2008 and 2012, the number of cars driving pansion of the 45-mile stretch between on this stretch of State Highway 23 inched Madison and the Illinois state line for many up just 2.2 percent.64 Official forecasts years. The state Department of Trans- predict average increases in traffic of 1.4 portation formally decided to widen the percent each year until 2035 relative to a interstate from four to six lanes between 2012 baseline.65 2015 and 2021 at an estimated cost of $836 The advocacy group 1000 Friends of million,57 a decision based on a proposal Wisconsin has opposed the expansion as published back in the summer of 2008.58 unjustified by the traffic data and filed a However, Wisconsin is relying on out- lawsuit to halt the project alleging that of-date traffic data and unrealistic projec- WisDOT failed to hold appropriate pub- tions of future growth in traffic volumes lic hearings.66 Though WisDOT agreed to justify this costly project. Writing in to postpone construction, allowing time 2008, WisDOT expected the number of for full, public reconsideration of the cars on the highway to almost double by expansion plans, pressure from local leg- 2030 relative to 2000. Traffic volumes were islators prompted a reversal. Widening predicted to grow by 29 percent by 2010 of State Highway 23 is now due to begin compared with the year 2000 baseline.59 in 2015.67 But in reality, by 2012, the most recent year for which data are available, traffic on Expansion of the Madison I-90 had remained essentially flat, having Beltline 60 inched up just 1 percent in 12 years. The Madison Beltline, an east-west high- way in the Madison area touching more Adding New Lanes to State than a dozen municipalities, was con- Highway 23 between Fond du Lac structed in the 1950s as a two-lane road and Plymouth that has been expanded over time into a Wisconsin State Highway 23 makes a multi-lane urban freeway. quarter-circle around the southeast cor- In late 2011, WisDOT began studying ner of the state, running through rural how to address congestion on the road- landscapes for much of its route from way.68 News reports in 2013 indicated that Sheboygan on the shore of Lake Michigan WisDOT was preparing to solicit public to Wisconsin Dells, before turning south input on rebuilding a 19-mile portion of to Darlington on the Illinois border. From the Beltline, including a proposal to add Sheboygan to Plymouth, it is a four-lane new lanes to the freeway to tackle projected highway; after Plymouth, it drops down traffic demands, which officials warn will to two lanes for the 20-mile run to Fond exceed the road’s current capacity. Expan- du Lac.61 The state legislature enumerated sion of the freeway could cost as much as funds for expanding the highway in the $1 billion.69 1999 state budget and plans were drawn Recent traffic counts lead to questions up to double the number of lanes from about whether the increase in traffic that two to four.62 WisDOT’s forecasts for the highway WisDOT explained that the $128 will come to fruition. In a 2008 study, million expansion of this portion of State WisDOT relied on traffic data collected Highway 23 is required to serve “forecasted no later than 2005—the year after statewide

16 Fork in the Road VMT peaked—to develop traffic forecasts recent years. It is not, however, the sum predicting future increases in vehicle total of Wisconsin’s planned or proposed numbers all along the 19-mile stretch highway expansion projects. by 2015 and also by 2030.70 Of 10 traffic The billions of dollars the state proposes count locations along the roadway where to spend on those unnecessary projects comparisons are possible, six saw traffic could comfortably fund an increase in state grow more slowly between 2005 and 2012 spending on transit operating assistance, than WisDOT projected for the 2005-2015 local road and bridge repairs, and infra- period.71 structure projects for the growing number of bicyclists and pedestrians across the state. In all, just to put this in perspective, Wisconsin could double spending on these categories of the transportation budget and Investment in Road Repairs, it would only cost $1.6 billion, relative to the $2.8 billion that the state plans to spend Transit, Biking and Walking on the aforementioned major highway proj- The four highway expansions mentioned ects alone.73 This report highlights some above could cost the public as much as $2.8 of the specific transit plans, maintenance billion. This is a huge sum of money: more needs and bicycle and pedestrian projects than enough, in fact, to support a signifi- such funding could support, and the ben- cant surge in investment in transportation efits they would deliver for communities options that have faced spending cuts in across Wisconsin.

Wisconsin Has a Track Record of Overestimating Traffic on New Highways

ew highway projects are often justified based on projections of worsening Ntraffic congestion or increased demand for travel. These projections—which guide the expenditure of hundreds of millions, or in some cases billions, of dollars of taxpayer money—have often proven to be overly optimistic, calling into question the accuracy of the forecasts used to support current highway expansion proposals. A May 2013 WISPIRG Foundation report highlighted seven cases from across the state in which traffic volumes on recently expanded highways are not on pace to meet the projections used to justify their construction. For instance, in 2010 WisDOT christened a new, $309 million six-lane freeway in Wausau shared by Interstate 39, U.S. Highway 51, and State Highway 29. In the year it opened, the highway served 3.8 percent fewer vehicles than WisDOT anticipated at the low end of its forecast range for the road’s inaugural year. In another example, this time in Burlington, a $118 million, four-lane bypass accommodates 29 to 33 percent less traffic than forecast. The four-lane bypass actually handles traffic numbers small enough that a two-lane road would be suitable.72

Wisconsin Faces a Choice about Future Transportation Spending 17 Road Maintenance in Ashland Bicycle and Pedestrian Like many communities across Wiscon- Infrastructure in Eau Claire sin, the city of Ashland, on the southern Spurred on by a growing number of pe- shore of Lake Superior, experiences long, destrian and bicycle commuters, cycling harsh winters typified by extreme cold and enthusiasts and tourism promoters, the heavy snowfall. Consequently, each spring city of Eau Claire, a mid-sized city of ap- as the snow and ice melt away, in a scene proximately 66,000, has in recent years put that is common all over the state, the city an increasing emphasis on bicycle and pe- of approximately 8,000 confronts local destrian infrastructure. 83 In 2005, the city’s streets and roads pitted with potholes and newly adopted Comprehensive Plan called in desperate need of repair.74 As the city’s for the creation of a bicycle and pedestrian planning specialist puts it, upkeep of city commission in order to spearhead the pro- roads is a “major concern” in Ashland.75 duction of a formal bicycle and pedestrian The city struggles to fund this neces- plan, ultimately released in 2010.84 sary maintenance and regularly spends less Eau Claire now boasts an ambitious vi- than what would be optimal on road repair sion for a bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly needs. According to Ashland’s public works future and hopes to invest in several kinds director, WisDOT has calculated the cost of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure of simply maintaining the existing condi- projects. The desired improvements in- tion of the city’s streets at approximately clude the construction of on-street bicycle $350,000 each year. If the city hoped to lanes; use of street markings to create safer, upgrade the pavement condition of these shareable roadways for cars and bikes; con- roads, the annual cost would be closer to struction of multi-use pathways alongside $700,000.76 existing streets or running through parks City spending on road work dropped or other open spaces; and the installation significantly in 2011,77 as Governor Scott of underpasses or bridges where multi-use Walker proposed a budget slashing state pedestrian and bike paths intersect with support for local road repairs and further major roads. City officials expect a number limiting municipalities’ power to raise of benefits for the community including their own taxes.78 Those cuts to General reduced automobile use, increased mobil- Transportation Aids, the program that ity for residents without access to a car and provides funding to help localities pay for improvements in safety for cyclists and maintenance and other costs,79 arrived the pedestrians.85 following year, and GTA funding has yet To construct all the multi-use trails to return to that pre-cutback level. 80 and paths proposed in the city’s Bicycle Ashland currently spends just $150,000 and Pedestrian Plan, add bike lanes to all annually on road repair, less than half what primary on-street routes, and build safe the city estimates its basic annual mainte- crossing structures for cyclists and pedes- nance needs actually require. 81 trians at eight locations, the city would Ashland is far from the only commu- need to spend approximately $41 million.86 nity in need of significant assistance. In But state funding is far from sufficient to La Crosse, there are 50 miles of roads support Eau Claire’s ambitious plan. Since in serious need of repair, but at current the passage into law of the state’s 2013-2015 funding levels it will take “about 25 years budget, a new Transportation Alternatives just to reconstruct those 50 miles. At the Program (TAP) has replaced the former same time, other streets continue to age Transportation Enhancements, Bicycle and deteriorate,” the city’s public works and Pedestrian Facilities, and Safe Routes director reports. 82 to School programs, which used to fund

18 Fork in the Road bicycle and pedestrian projects. TAP’s total percent choose to ride the bus despite the funding pool for the 2013-2015 biennium is availability of a car.94 just $19.9 million.87 State-imposed limits on The MCTS aims to compete with car municipalities’ ability to raise revenue lo- travel and increase ridership, delivering cally make it even harder for cities like Eau benefits for all Milwaukeeans, including Claire to make the investments necessary reduced congestion for drivers.95 In 2011, to realize their transportation plans.88 public transportation services spared commuters and other travelers 1.9 million Bridge Repairs and Transit Service hours of traffic delays in Milwaukee.96 Ex- in Milwaukee panding bus service could increase these Wisconsin’s largest city faces a number of savings, helping city residents get where transportation challenges, including the they need to go faster and at less expense, need to support a vibrant transit system to while benefiting the local economy and adequately serve the city’s residents while individual well-being. addressing pressing repair needs on the Yet funding challenges over recent years city’s streets and bridges. have led to route restructuring, curtail- The city’s infrastructure is crying out for ment of service and fare increases, all of reinvestment. Milwaukee has 21 movable which have made MCTS buses less con- bridges89—landmarks of which the city is venient and less useful, and have pushed proud—with rehabilitation costs of between down ridership.97 To reverse this trend, the $8 million and $13 million each.90 Based on MCTS has stated that it needs to add new their current state of repair, four of these local bus routes, extend service hours and movable bridges are in need of rehabilitation frequency, and limit fare increases to no now.91 Traditionally, the state-administered more than inflation over the course of the Local Bridge Improvement Assistance Pro- agency’s planning period. Local planning gram, funded primarily by federal dollars, documents estimate that these improve- would have supported as much as 80 percent ments would require approximately $160 of the cost of the work, but in recent years million in annual operating assistance the Program’s average annual funding con- and approximately $114 million in capital tribution to the city has fallen steeply, from investment.98 Standing in the way of these approximately $10 million per year between improvements are the transit agency’s 2004 and 2010 to just $3.6 million annu- financial difficulties. Writing in 2010 in ally between 2011 and 2014.92 In response, the most recent development plan for the the city has diverted funding from other MCTS, the Southeastern Wisconsin Re- municipal priorities to continue critical gional Planning Commission declared that maintenance work and ensure the structural current funding sources were “insufficient integrity of the city’s bridges.93 to maintain the current level of transit Milwaukee also needs to make forward- service, let alone make needed improve- thinking investments in public transpor- ments.”99 The situation has only partially tation. The Milwaukee County Transit improved: though the 2013-2015 biennial System (MCTS) carries commuters to state budget bumped up statewide transit work, provides a transportation lifeline aid, it failed to recover the full 10 percent for thousands who do not have another cut that hit local agencies in the previous means of getting around, and expands the budget. Reliable state funding that keeps transportation options available to all Mil- pace with increasing costs of fuel, para- waukee residents. Fully 43 percent of riders transit services and replacement of aging use MCTS buses to get to work, 52 percent buses would help prevent further cuts to do not have a valid driver’s license and 23 service and fare hikes and allow the agency

Wisconsin Faces a Choice about Future Transportation Spending 19 to implement its improvement plan to bet- from using federal funds for operating ter serve the Milwaukee area. expenses in most cases.) When the 2010 Census found that Green Bay outgrew this Transit Service in Green Bay grant program, the city’s transportation The Green Bay transit system, known as planners worried about losing up to $1 Green Bay Metro, operates full-service bus million in annual support.105 Federal leg- routes and a fleet of paratransit vehicles in islation passed in late 2012 established an the Green Bay area.100 While local officials exception allowing Green Bay and similar are not proposing major expansions of the cities to continue using up to 75 percent of transit system in the near future, they are their federal funds for operating costs, but hoping to replace aging equipment. The the law—and the valuable exception it codi- most recent Transit Development Plan for fies—expires in September 2014. (As of late Green Bay proposes that the city replace July 2014, Congress was only considering five buses annually between 2014 and 2018, allocations of federal transportation dollars as well as six paratransit vehicles, as the for a few months at a time, with no lon- top capital priority. This would cost $2.6 ger-term deal in sight.105) Green Bay finds million annually through 2017.101 Green itself, once again, on the brink of losing Bay also aims to increase ridership on the its federal transit operating dollars.107 The existing bus network by expanding exist- loss of this funding could force Green Bay ing promotional-fare programs (such as Metro to cut service, increase fares or both, Green Saturdays, where passengers ride putting downward pressure on ridership. free, and the U-Pass program, in which (Appleton’s transit system, Valley Transit, local universities pay discounted fares so suffers from a similar problem.108) their ID-holders can ride without paying Unless Wisconsin acts, state-level fund- at the farebox), as well as creating new ing is unlikely to make up the difference. partnerships with local employers, shop- Wisconsin’s 2011-2013 biennial state bud- ping destinations and potential owners of get cut state aid to transit agencies by 10 park-and-ride lots.102 percent, slashing the share of transit oper- An uncertain funding landscape threat- ating costs covered by the state to its lowest ens to undermine the agency. Historically, level in a 10-year period.109 Though the Green Bay Metro has relied on state and 2013-2015 biennial state budget increases federal funds to cover the majority of its transit funding by 4 percent, effective operating costs. Until 2004, the transit in 2015, this both delays the restoration agency was consistently covering slightly and does not recover all funding lost in more than 60 percent of its operating bud- the previous budget’s cutback.110 In 2012, get using state and federal money. How- Green Bay Metro operated with $100,000 ever, this figure began to decline in the less in state funding than it did prior to the second half of the last decade and Green cuts in 2011, a reduction of 6 percent.111 In Bay’s most recent long-term transportation the absence of reform, Green Bay Metro plan warned that the share of costs covered expects that state funding is “not likely by these entities could continue to decline [to] increase substantially” in the coming unless contributions began growing as fast years and that projected funding levels “are as or faster than expenses.103 not nearly enough to improve service” in At the federal level, a grant program order to see higher ridership.112 provides operating assistance to transit agencies serving urban areas with a popula- Bus Infrastructure in Madison tion of 200,000 or less.104 (Transit agencies Madison’s bus network, known as Metro, serving larger urban areas are prohibited is tremendously popular and drawing ever

20 Fork in the Road more patrons. The city is trying to think the goal of doubling Metro’s ridership, ahead and capitalize on its growth opportu- Madison also seeks to invest in a new bus nities, but at the moment is struggling just rapid transit system.118 The new 25-mile to keep enough buses on the road to handle network would use more direct routing, all the people who want to use them. fewer stops, dedicated travel lanes in Since 1995, ridership on the city’s some areas and traffic signal priority to buses has risen 52 percent, outpacing the improve travel times by up to 40 percent national increase in transit ridership by and provide additional capacity to the approximately 15 percentage points. In Metro network.119 2013, Madison’s buses served 14.7 million An uncertain funding landscape un- riders, the second highest number in the dermines Madison’s ability to invest in city’s history.113 Madison is now looking the bus infrastructure necessary to meet not just to improve service on its existing the city’s needs and goals for the future, bus routes, but also to embrace the increase which requires about $21 million in an- in ridership and expand Metro’s reach and nual operating costs and as much as $262 offerings with a new bus rapid transit line. million in up-front capital: To accommodate this growth, Madison’s Metro needs to expand its fleet, replace • The proposed bus rapid transit system old buses suffering from wear and tear, would require $192 million in capital and expand its bus garage, already well and a further $9.8 million in annual past capacity, to house a growing number operating funds.120 of vehicles.114 To meet future demand from a growing • A new bus garage at the current loca- number of riders and improve service, re- tion would cost approximately $70 cent studies have recommended increasing million; a smaller, satellite facility Metro’s fleet size to 285 vehicles, of which would require $35 million.121 40 would be larger buses for use on the city’s most popular routes.115 In addition, • The operating and annualized capital Metro needs to continue replacing older costs of acquiring 40 larger buses to buses as they reach the end of their service address overcrowding could add as lives. The transit authority seeks to replace much as $2 million to Metro’s yearly 15 buses each year in order to maintain expenses.122 safe, reliable and attractive service.116 To house the expanded fleet, Madison also • Replacement of aging standard needs to construct a new bus garage.117 buses at the typical rate of 15 per To meet other priorities, such as year costs approximately $9 million improving travel times and achieving annually.123

Wisconsin Faces a Choice about Future Transportation Spending 21 Policy Recommendations

isconsin needs to set priorities like public safety and education. These that are in keeping with shifting options should only be pursued if it is clear Wtravel trends and the state’s future that the new spending is worth it. needs. The state government has cut local Rather than increasing taxes or find- transportation aid, meaning that across ing other ways to increase transportation the state, pressing maintenance and repair revenues, Wisconsin policymakers should needs are going unmet and critical new reassess highway expansion projects and infrastructure investments are languishing get their priorities straight. Rather than fo- on the drawing board. Transit spending is cusing on highway expansion, they should down, as is financial support for bicycle and concentrate on maintaining our existing pedestrian infrastructure. Yet Wisconsin infrastructure, making sure local roads and continues to plan for major expansions of bridges are in good repair, and ensuring highway capacity that would command sev- that local transit and bike infrastructure eral billion dollars of public money—even that more and more Wisconsinites, espe- though the number of miles driven on cially Millennials, are gravitating towards, Wisconsin’s highways hasn’t increased in is adequate to meet community needs. nearly a decade. And its local communi- That shift will attract talent and advance ties are cut out of the decision-making economic prosperity. It’s worth noting process, unable to secure state support for that these principles will serve Wisconsin their priorities and prevented by law from well in both good and bad times; these pri- raising the money more creatively. orities should guide Wisconsin’s spending Some state leaders have argued that we decisions regardless of whether we have a should increase transportation revenues surplus of funding or funding is tight. to meet our transportation needs. To Wisconsin should rethink its trans- raise revenue, we have three options: raise portation priorities and implement the taxes or fees, incur more debt and increase following common sense measures to deficit spending, or take money away from make better use of taxpayers’ money and general fund revenues, which would de- build the 21st century infrastructure that crease funding for other public priorities is vital to future prosperity. For about 40

22 Fork in the Road percent of what may be spent just on the Reassess Demand for four highway projects highlighted in this report, Wisconsin could make major prog- Highways ress in other transportation funding areas Time and again in recent years, Wisconsin over the next decade. (See Tables 1 and 2, has overestimated future traffic volumes, and Figure 4.) leading the state to the erroneous conclu- sion that it must dramatically expand high- way capacity. With Wisconsinites driving fewer miles than a decade ago, now is the time for the state to reevaluate whether Table 1. Estimated Cost of Four realistic expectations of future traffic Highway Expansion Projects growth really justify massive investments in highway expansion. Project Cost To ensure highway construction in (millions of dollars) Wisconsin serves the public interest, the state should: Expand I-94 in Milwaukee $800124 • Reexamine future traffic projec- Widen I-90 $836 tions and review the case for all high- Widen State Highway 23 $128 way construction projects currently in the pre-construction phase. In light Expand the Madison of new information, highway projects Beltline $1,000 may no longer warrant the full- Total $2,764 scale expansion originally proposed. Wisconsin has already shown that it

Table 2. Investments in Road Repair, Transit and Bicycle-Pedestrian Projects Proposed by Wisconsin Transportation Finance and Policy Commission

Proposal Cost (millions of dollars)

Restore transit-funding cuts imposed in the $93 2011-2013 budget for the next 10 years

Increase annual transit support by $9.5 million a year $95 for the next 10 years

Invest $15 million a year more in transit capital $150 improvements for the next 10 years

Invest $10 million a year more in bicycle and pedestrian $100 infrastructure for the next 10 years

Increase funding for repairs to state-owned roads by 330 $33 million a year for the next 10 years

Increase funding for repairs to local roads by $400 $40 million a year for the next 10 years

Total $1,168

Policy Recommendations 23 Figure 4. Comparing Wisconsin’s Choices: Highway Expansion or Investment in Road Repair, Transit and Bicycle-Pedestrian Projects $3,000

WidenHwy23 $2,500 ExpandIͲ94 in Milwaukee Boostrepairsto $2,000 localroads dollars)

 Boostrepairsto of

 stateͲownedroads $1,500 WidenIͲ90 BikeͲpedprojects (millions 

Cost $1,000 Transitcapital projects Expand $500 Madison Raisetransit Beltline funding

Restoretransitcuts $0 Highwayexpansion Roadrepair,transitandbicycleͲ pedestrianinvestments

is willing and able to reassess planned installation of demand management highway projects in light of new data. strategies, expansion of carpooling, After WisDOT proposed widening transit or other alternatives or State Highway 38 in rural Caledonia technological improvements such from two to four lanes at a cost of as improved signal timing can save $125 million, Caledonia city officials taxpayers money and may prove criticized the project.125 State docu- sufficient to mitigate problems on ments showed that the expansion to a a roadway in a more cost-effective four-lane highway was justified only manner than the construction of by unrealistic predictions of future additional capacity.128 demand.126 Ultimately, the state took a second look and called off the project in the summer of 2013.127 Wiscon- sin should actively reconsider other projects in a similar manner, taking steps to pare back or even abandon “Fix It First” construction plans where the most Wisconsin should adopt a “fix it first” recent evidence suggests those plans policy that focuses on repairing existing are unnecessary. roads and bridges before engaging in massive highway expansion projects that • Investigate all alternatives to themselves increase the state’s long-term road widening. In some cases the highway maintenance burden. Already,

24 Fork in the Road fully 71 percent of Wisconsin’s roads are assistance to local communities for road rated “mediocre” or “poor” quality,129 repair by $40 million a year.137 costing vehicle owners hundreds of extra dollars each year.130 State bridges also need attention. All told, 1,157 bridges in Wisconsin—approxi- mately 8 percent of the total—are classified Invest in 21st Century as structurally deficient.131 Together, these bridges carry a daily average of 2.9 million Transportation Infrastructure vehicles.132 Though Wisconsin’s 2013-2015 biennial Yet, Wisconsin continues to spend less budget increased transportation spending on maintenance and repair work than on relative to the previous budget—reaching building new roads. According to Smart a total of more than $7 billion—it failed to Growth America and Taxpayers for Com- allocate the funding in forward-thinking mon Sense, in 2011 Wisconsin spent $349 or common-sense ways. By redirecting, million on highway repairs compared to where possible, the $2.8 billion Wiscon- $544 million on construction of new or sin may spend on just four unnecessary widened highways.133 highway expansion projects, the state could The sooner Wisconsin attends to its comfortably double spending on transit, deteriorating roads, the better. Accord- local road and bridge maintenance, and ing to the American Association of State bicycle and pedestrian projects to support Highway and Transportation Officials, the state’s existing infrastructure. the per-lane-mile cost of rebuilding a road As a down payment, the state should after 25 years of neglect is three times as implement the recommendations of the high as the financial commitment required state’s bipartisan Transportation Finance for regular upkeep on a well-maintained and Policy Commission, published in highway.134 2013, by: The state should also recommit itself to helping local governments address the • fully restoring the transit fund- wear and tear on their infrastructure. Both ing cuts implemented as part of the in small places like Ashland and big cities 2011-2013 budget and providing an like Milwaukee, officials are worried about additional $9.5 million in annual how to pay for pressing maintenance needs, support to return transit funding to from routine pothole repairs to rehabilita- historic levels;138 tion of large bridges. Before spending increasing sums of • appropriating $10 million annually public money on new highways and bigger to create a competitive, state-funded roads, Governor Scott Walker and his ad- program to fund bicycle and pedes- ministration should look again at the state’s trian projects;139 pressing repair needs and increase funding for General Transportation Aids. Since • investing $15 million a year in capi- 1988, the share of local transportation costs tal improvements for the state’s transit that this program covers has declined from systems.149 24 percent to 13 percent.135 The bipartisan Transportation Finance The state should also heed the calls and Policy Commission called for increas- of the League of Wisconsin Municipali- ing maintenance spending on state-owned ties to fully restore the cuts to the GTA roads by $33 million a year,136 and upping program enacted in the 2011-2013 budget,

Policy Recommendations 25 and ultimately shift more state money into cities and towns to come together to form the program to ensure that the share of Regional Transportation Authorities local costs covered by GTA returns to its (RTAs), public bodies with the authority historic high.141 to provide public transportation services, With Wisconsin’s population of older, such as bus transit, and raise local revenue more transit-dependent residents growing to support it.142 and an increasing desire to use transporta- RTAs can help communities and regions tion alternatives among younger people, maintain optimal levels of service, plan investing in the state’s transit systems and for the future and make key investments bicycle and pedestrian facilities is crucial in equipment and infrastructure. Officials if the state’s transportation infrastructure in Madison point out that supporting the is to keep pace with the changing needs of proposed bus rapid transit system the city Wisconsinites. needs will be more challenging without the reliable revenue generated by an RTA.143 In addition, RTAs can foster cooperation among several neighboring communities, allowing more efficient and coordinated Create Regional multi-community services. The state has authorized and supported Transportation Authorities RTAs in the past. In 2009 the state legis- Investment in transportation alternatives lature enabled local governments to create requires significant investments that are RTAs, but this was repealed in 2011 as part often assembled from multiple sources of state budget deliberations.144 Wisconsin at different government levels. Even if should reinstate the authority of cities and Wisconsin were to direct a greater share of towns to come together to address and state transportation funding to transit, the support regional transit needs. backlog of unmet needs and uncertainty By updating spending priorities to of future federal transportation funding meet today’s travel trends, Wisconsin would result in the need for new transit can move confidently toward a trans- funding options at the local level. portation future that meets our most Wisconsin municipalities, however, are urgent local needs while conserving hamstrung by their limited ability to taxpayer money and better protecting raise local taxes. Wisconsin should allow the public purse.

26 Fork in the Road Notes

1 This figure reflects the additional million figure for the purposes of this cost beyond rehabilitating the existing calculation. highway, which would cost $370 million. Wisconsin Department of Transporta- 4 Highway design: Wisconsin Depart- tion, I-94 East-West Corridor, Draft ment of Transportation and the U.S. Environmental Impact Statement, February Department of Transportation Federal 2014. Highway Administration, Burlington Bypass, State Trunk Highway (STH) 36, 2 City of Eau Claire, Bicycle and Pedes- STH 11 and STH 83, Racine and Walworth trian Plan: Eau Claire Comprehensive Plan, Counties, Wisconsin: Final Environmental March 2010. Impact Statement, I-3; Cost: Paul Sloth, “Getting around Burlington—Bypass 3 This is an approximate figure only and Opens in Its Entirety,” The Journal was derived by adding project cost esti- Times, 1 November 2010. mates provided by Russell Van Gompel, an official with the City of Eau Claire, 5 State of Wisconsin, 2013 Wisconsin Act via email communication, 3 March 2014. 20, 1 July 2013. He estimated that construction of grade- separated structures at eight intersections 6 Traffic counts: though forecast traffic would cost at least $16 million; installa- levels for the bypass were unavailable in tion of on-street bike lanes on primary the Final Environmental Impact Statement, routes would cost at least $2 million each a 2006 road safety audit reported that the year for the course of the city’s current bypass expected to handle average daily five-year Capital Improvement Plan; and traffic of 7,000 vehicles on its western that construction of all of the multi-use segment and 11,000 vehicles on the paths and trails proposed in the Bicycle middle portion (Wisconsin Department and Pedestrian Plan would cost $10 mil- of Transportation and Opus Internation- lion-$15 million. We adopted the $15 al Consultants, Inc., Burlington Bypass:

Notes 27 Road Safety Audit, November 2006); 11 Wisconsin Department of Transpor- two-lane roadway design capacity: Wis- tation, How Does Wisconsin Fund Trans- consin Department of Transportation, portation? (Transportation Fact Sheet Facilities Development Manual Attachment Series), accessed at www.dot.wisconsin. 1.1: Design Criteria for Rural State Trunk gov/about/budget.htm, 15 July 2014. Highways Functionally Classified as Arteri- als, 4 March 2013. 12 Ibid.

7 Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bu- 13 Ibid. reau, Wisconsin Statutes and Annotations, 1 July 2014, Chapter 78, “Motor Vehicle 14 Ibid. and General Aviation Fuel Taxes,” sec- tion 82, “Municipalities not to tax motor 15 Wisconsin Transportation Finance vehicle or alternate fuels.” and Policy Commission, Bond Financing for Transportation Programs (PowerPoint 8 Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bu- presentation), accessed at www.dot.wis- reau, Regional Transit Authorities (RTAs), consin.gov/about/tfp/docs/mtg2-bond- 2009; “Legislature Should Bring Back pres.pdf, 31 July 2014. Regional Transit Authorities,” Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, 26 December 2013. 16 Ibid.

9 “Highway development projects” com- 17 See note 11. bines spending on both the Major High- ways Program and Southeast Wisconsin 18 Wisconsin Department of Trans- Megaprojects Program, per Wisconsin portation, Transportation Budget Trends Department of Transportation, Office 2012-2013, 2014. of Policy, Budget and Finance, 2011-13 Biennial Budget Highlights: 2011 Wisconsin 19 Ibid. Act 32, 2011; and Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Office of Policy, Bud- 20 American Society of Civil Engineers, get and Finance, 2013-15 Biennial Budget 2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastruc- Highlights: 2013 Wisconsin Act 20, 2013. ture: State Facts: Wisconsin, accessed at “Road repairs” combines spending on www.infrastructurereportcard.org, 1 April State Highway Repair and Maintenance 2014. and Traffic Operations, per Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 2013-15 21 Structural deficiency indicates that Biennial Budget Highlights: 2013 Wisconsin a bridge requires “significant mainte- Act 20, 2013. nance, rehabilitation or replacement,” per Transportation for America, The Fix 10 Transit: Al Runde, Wisconsin Legis- We’re In For: The State of Our Nation’s lative Fiscal Bureau, Urban Mass Transit Bridges 2013, 2013. Assistance, Informational Paper 40, Janu- ary 2013, 1. Bicycle-pedestrian: Paul M. 22 Transportation for America, The Fix Hammer and Robert G. Kranz, Wis- We’re In For: The State of Our Nation’s consin Department of Transportation, Bridges 2013, 2013. Office of Policy, Budget and Finance, Transportation Budget Trends: 2012-2013, 23 Except where otherwise indicated, all 2013. VMT data in this section of the report

28 Fork in the Road were sourced from Wisconsin Depart- Been Worse,” Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, ment of Transportation, Road Mileage and 6 July 2011. Annual VMT in Wisconsin, 2014. 32 National Transit Database, Federal 24 Ibid. Transit Administration, “NTD Data” for 2000-2012 downloaded from ntdpro- 25 Ibid. Where a Census count was gram.gov, 29 April 2014. available (i.e. in 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2010), the count was used rather than 33 Lloyd Grant, Jr., Managing Director, the estimate (as in other years when the Milwaukee Transport Services, “Com- official population estimate was the only ments to the Wisconsin Commission on available figure). Transportation Finance and Policy,” 22 March 2012. 26 City of Madison, Metro Transit Expe- riences Second Highest Ridership of All Time 34 The League of American Bicyclists, (press release), 12 March 2014. 70 Largest Cities for Bike Commuting, ac- cessed at www.bikeleague.org/content/bi- 27 “La Crosse Bus Ridership Rises, cycle-commuting-data, 1 April 2014. Bucks State Trend,” La Crosse Tribune, 12 March 2014; Individual transit agency 35 The League of American Bicyclists, data through 2012 collected from the Where We Ride: Analysis of Bicycling in National Transit Database, Federal Tran- American Cities, 2013. sit Administration, “Annual Database,” downloaded from ntdprogram.gov. 36 Benjamin Davis and Tony Dutzik, Frontier Group, and Phineas Baxandall, 28 Tier C definition: Wisconsin Trans- U.S. PIRG Education Fund, Transporta- portation Finance and Policy Com- tion and the New Generation: Why Young mission, Keep Wisconsin Moving: Smart People Are Driving Less and What It Means Investments, Measureable Results, January for Transportation Policy, April 2012. 2013, 35; Ridership: Wisconsin Trans- portation Finance and Policy Com- 37 American Public Transportation As- mission, Keep Wisconsin Moving: Smart sociation, Record 10.7 Billion Trips Taken Investments, Measureable Results, January on U.S. Public Transportation in 2013 2013, 76. (press release), 10 March 2014.

29 National Transit Database, Federal 38 The League of American Bicyclists, Transit Administration, “Rural NTD ACS: Bike Commuting Continues to Rise, Data” for 2007-2012 downloaded from 25 September 2013, accessed at www. ntdprogram.gov, 16 April 2014. bikeleague.org, 1 April 2014.

30 National Transit Database, Fed- 39 Steven Polzin and Xuehao Chu, Cen- eral Transit Administration, “Monthly ter for Urban Transportation Research, Module Adjusted Data Release, February University of South Florida, “Peak VMT 2014,” downloaded from ntdprogram.gov, and Post Peak Consequences?” presented 15 April 2014. at Transportation Research Board’s 93rd Annual Meeting, January 2014; Tony 31 Larry Sandler, “State Budget Cuts Dutzik, Frontier Group, and Phineas Transit Funding, But It Could Have Baxandall, U.S. PIRG Education Fund,

Notes 29 A New Direction: Our Changing Relation- 52 Wisconsin Department of Transpor- ship with Driving and the Implications for tation, Continuous Count Data, accessed America’s Future, May 2013. at www.dot.wisconsin.gov/travel/counts/ continuous.htm, 19 June 2014. 40 Linda Bailey, Surface Transportation Policy Project, Aging Americans: Stranded 53 Ibid. without Options, April 2004, 4. 54 Low-end cost projection from the 41 Greater Wisconsin Agency on Aging “Replace-in-kind” map distributed by the Resources, 2014-2015 GWAAR Legislative Wisconsin Department of Transporta- Platform and Policy Priorities, 3. tion, I-94 East-West Corridor – Public Involvement, at dot.wisconsin.gov, down- 42 See note 40. loaded 14 April 2014; Lydia Mulvany, “I-94 Expansion Plan Riles Milwaukee 43 See note 36. Residents, City Leaders,” Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, 2 September 2013; 44 Wisconsin Transportation Finance Joyce Abinader and Sandy Zein, Opus and Policy Commission, Keep Wisconsin International Consultants, for Wisconsin Moving: Smart Investment Measurable Department of Transportation, IH-94 Results, January 2013. North-South Reconstruction, Milwaukee County: Road Safety Audit, June 2008. 45 Wisconsin Department of Trans- portation, Connections 2030: Statewide 55 See note 49. Long-Range Transportation Plan, October 2009. 56 Dave Umhoefer, “Mayor Barrett: Cut Speed Limit on I-94 East-West to 46 See note 45. Help Avoid Major Widening,” Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, 4 March 2014. 47 Sean Ryan, “Drive Time Drama: DOT Says Adding Freeway Lanes ‘Non- 57 Wisconsin Department of Trans- Negotiable,’” Milwaukee Business Journal, portation, Environmental Evaluation of 30 August 2013. Facilities Development Actions: IH 39/90, July 2008. 48 Wisconsin Department of Trans- portation, I-94 East-West Corridor, Draft 58 Ibid. Environmental Impact Statement, February 2014. 59 Ibid.

49 Lydia Mulvany, “I-94 Expansion Plan 60 The official environmental assess- Riles Milwaukee Residents, City Lead- ment for the project reports and forecasts ers,” Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, 2 Sep- traffic volumes at several locations along tember 2013. the study corridor, including a midpoint near Newville, Wisconsin. Traffic data 50 Ibid. for this location are compared here using a 2012 traffic count measured just north 51 Wisconsin Department of Transpor- of Newville at site 130513, I-39-90 SE of tation, I-94 East-West Corridor – Need/ STH 73, Dane County, sourced Purpose, 25 July 2013. from Wisconsin Department of

30 Fork in the Road Transportation’s Interactive Traffic Improvement Study: Presentation to MPO Count Map, accessed at www.trust.dot. Policy Board, 2 April 2008. state.wi.us/roadrunner, 1 April 2014. 71 Data for traffic count locations 61 Wisconsin Department of 131107, 130589, 130972, 130593, 130359, Transportation, Wisconsin State Highway 130655, 130011, 130601, 130639 and 23, Fond Du Lac to Plymouth, Fond Du 130387 from Wisconsin Traffic and Op- Lac and Sheboygan Counties, Wisconsin: erations Safety Laboratory, Hourly Traffic Limited Scope Supplemental Draft Data for Dane County, accessed at trans- Environmental Impact Statement, August portal.cee.wisc.edu/products/hourly-traf- 2013. fic-data/bysiteid/dane.html, 31 July 2014.

62 The Office of State Representative 72 Tom Van Heeke and Tony Dutzik, Mike Endsley, Area Legislators Get High- Frontier Group, and Bruce Speight, way 23 Back on Schedule (press release), WISPIRG Foundation, Road Overkill: downloaded from www.legis.wisconsin. Wisconsin Spends Big on Questionable High- gov/assembly/endsley, 1 April 2014. ways, Even As Driving Declines, May 2013.

63 Laurie Ritger, “Highway 23 Project 73 Local road and bridge, and bicycle Back On Track,” Fond Du Lac Reporter, 2 and pedestrian projects: Wisconsin January 2014; Wisconsin Department of Department of Transportation, Office Transportation, WIS 23 Expansion Project of Policy, Budget and Finance, 2013-15 – Need/Purpose, downloaded from www. Biennial Budget Highlights: 2013 Wisconsin dot.state.wi.us/projects, 1 April 2014. Act 20, 2013; transit spending: State of Wisconsin, 2013 Wisconsin Act 20, 2013 64 See note 61. Assembly Bill 40, as enacted, 1 July 2013.

65 Ibid. 74 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.

66 1000 Friends of Wisconsin, Wisconsin 75 Elise Cruz, Planning Specialist, City DOT to Reconsider Highway 23 Widening of Ashland, email communication, 26 (press release), 21 November 2011. February 2014.

67 Laurie Ritger, “Highway 23 Project 76 Ray Hyde, Public Works Director, Back on Track,” Fond Du Lac Reporter, 2 City of Ashland, via email communica- January 2014. tion with Elise Cruz, Planning Special- ist, City of Ashland, 5 March 2014. 68 Wisconsin Department of Trans- portation, Madison Beltline Study, Mid- 77 Wisconsin Department of Transpor- dleton-Cottage Grove, Dane County, 26 tation, General Transportation Aids: Six September 2013. Year Cost History, downloaded from www. dot.wisconsin.gov/localgov/highways, 69 Dean Mosiman, “$1 Billion To 16 April 2014. Rebuild Beltline?” Wisconsin State Journal, 16 July 2013. 78 Jason Stein, Patrick Marley and Lee Bergquist, “Walker’s Budget Cuts Would 70 Wisconsin Department of Trans- Touch Most Wisconsinites,” Milwaukee portation, Madison Beltline Needs and Journal Sentinel, 1 March 2011.

Notes 31 79 Wisconsin Department of Trans- 90 Jennifer Gonda, City of portation, General Transportation Aids, Milwaukee,email communication, 13 downloaded from www.dot.wisconsin. March 2014. gov/localgov/highways, 1 April 2014. 91 Ibid. 80 Wisconsin Department of Transpor- tation, General Transportation Aids: Previ- 92 Ibid. ous Calendar Year Payments, 2007-2013, downloaded from www.dot.wisconsin. 93 Ibid. gov/localgov/highways, 16 April 2014. 94 Public Policy Forum, Milwaukee Coun- 81 See note 76. ty’s Transit Crisis: How Did We Get Here and What Do We Do Now?, May 2008. 82 Dale Hexom, Director of Public Works, City of La Crosse, email commu- 95 Southeastern Wisconsin Regional nication, 24 February 2014. Planning Commission, Milwaukee County Transit System Development Plan, October 83 Population: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, 238. 2010 Census. 96 David Schrank, Bill Eisele and Tim 84 See note 2. Lomax, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, 2012 Urban Mobility Report, 85 Russell Van Gompel, City of Eau December 2012. Claire, email communication, 3 March 2014; City of Eau Claire, Bicycle and 97 See note 94. Pedestrian Plan: Eau Claire Comprehensive Plan, March 2010. 98 Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Milwaukee County 86 See note 3. Transit System Development Plan, October 2010, 239. 87 Wisconsin Department of Transpor- tation, Office of Policy, Budget and Fi- 99 Southeastern Wisconsin Regional nance, 2013-15 Biennial Budget Highlights: Planning Commission, Milwaukee County 2013 Wisconsin Act 20, 2013. Transit System Development Plan, October 2010, 240. 88 Russell Van Gompel, City of Eau Claire, email communication, 3 March 100 Green Bay Metro, Our Services, 2014. downloaded from www.greenbaymetro. org/en-us/about, 1 April 2014. 89 Lydia Mulvany, “Milwaukee’s Historic Bridges Are Expensive to 101 Brown County Planning Com- Operate,” Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, mission, Metropolitan Planning Or- 24 September 2013. Movable bridges ganization (MPO) for the Green Bay typically Urbanized Area, 2014-2018 Transit span waterways. The traffic carrying Development Plan, November 2013, 80. portion can be vertically lifted or otherwise raised in order to allow for 102 Brown County Planning Commis- ships to pass underneath. sion, Metropolitan Planning

32 Fork in the Road Organization (MPO) for the Green 111 See note 29. Bay Urbanized Area, 2014-2018 Transit Development Plan, November 2013, 85; 112 Brown County Planning Com- Brown County Planning Commission, mission, Metropolitan Planning Or- Metropolitan Planning Organization ganization (MPO) for the Green Bay (MPO) for the Green Bay Urbanized Urbanized Area, 2014-2018 Transit Area, Green Bay Metropolitan Planning Development Plan, November 2013, 84. Organization (MPO) Long-Range Transportation Plan Update, 3 November 113 Patricia Johnson, “Metro Transit 2010. Acknowledges Second Highest Ridership Record in 2013,” The Daily Cardinal, 12 103 Brown County Planning Com- March 2014. mission, Metropolitan Planning Or- ganization (MPO) for the Green Bay 114 See note 26. Urbanized Area, Green Bay Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Long-Range 115 285 fleet size: Metro Transit, RNL Transportation Plan Update, 3 November Design, Maintenance Design Group, 2010. A&O, Metro Transit Space Needs Study, n.d. and Monica Rottman, Executive 104 Ibid. Assistant to the Mayor, City of Madison, and Charles Kamp, Metro Transit, City 105 Scott Williams, “Census Could of Madison, email communication, 18 Cost Green Bay Metro Nearly $1 Million March 2014; 40 larger buses: Nelson/ in Funding,” Green Bay Press Gazette, 17 Nygaard Consulting Associates, Madison June 2010. Bus Size Study: Final Report, February 2014 and City of Madison, Metro Transit 106 Burgess Everett, “Busy Last Day Experiences Second Highest Ridership of All of School for Congress,” Politico, 31 July Time in 2013, 12 March 2014, download- 2014. ed from www.cityofmadison.com/news, 1 April 2014. 107 Kathryn A. Wolfe, “New Transpor- tation Bill, Same Old Funding Ques- 116 Charles Kamp, Metro Transit, City tions,” Politico, 24 March 2014. of Madison, via email communication with Monica Rottman, Executive 108 Nick Penzenstadler, “Fox Valley Assistant to the Mayor, City of Madison, Transit Bill Clears Senate, But Won’t 18 March 2014. Get Past Assembly,” Appleton Post- Crescent, 11 February 2014. 117 Charles Kamp, Metro Transit, City of Madison, via email communication 109 Al Runde, Wisconsin Legislative with Monica Rottman, Executive As- Fiscal Bureau, Urban Mass Transit As- sistant to the Mayor, City of Madison, sistance, Informational Paper 40, January 18 March 2014; Metro Transit, Metro 2013. Transit: 2013 In Review, 2013.

110 Wisconsin Department of Trans- 118 See note 116. portation, Office of Policy, Budget and Finance, 2013-15 Biennial Budget High- 119 The Capital Region Sustainable lights: 2013 Wisconsin Act 20, 2013. Communities Initiative and the Madison

Notes 33 Area Transportation Planning Board, 130 See note 20. Madison Transit Corridor Study: Investi- gating Bus Rapid Transit in the Madison 131 Structural deficiency indicates that a Area, May 2013; City of Madison, Metro bridge requires “significant maintenance, Transit, BRT – Frequently Asked Questions, rehabilitation or replacement” per Trans- downloaded from www.cityofmadison. portation for America, The Fix We’re com/metro, 1 April 2014. In For: The State of Our Nation’s Bridges 2013, 2013. 120 The Capital Region Sustainable Communities Initiative and the Madison 132 See note 22. Area Transportation Planning Board, Madison Transit Corridor Study: Investigat- 133 Smart Growth America and Taxpay- ing Bus Rapid Transit in the Madison Area, ers for Common Sense, Repair Priorities May 2013. 2014: Transportation Spending Strategies to Save Taxpayer Dollars and Improve Roads, 121 See note 116. March 2014.

122 Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associ- 134 American Association of State High- ates, Madison Bus Size Study: Final Report, way and Transportation Officials, Rough February 2014, 1-12. Roads Ahead: Fix Them Now or Pay for It 123 See note 116. Later, 2009, vi.

124 See note 1. 135 League of Wisconsin Municipalities, Legislative Agenda: 2013-2014 Legislative 125 Christine Won, “Caledonia Officials Session, n.d. Oppose Proposed Highway 38 Expan- sion,” The Journal Times, 16 August 2011. 136 Wisconsin Transportation Finance and Policy Commission, Keep Wisconsin 126 Wisconsin Department of Trans- Moving: Smart Investments, Measureable portation, Environmental Evaluation of Results, January 2013, 67. Facilities Development Actions: STH 38 Corridor Study, August 2005. 137 Wisconsin Transportation Finance and Policy Commission, Keep Wisconsin 127 Alison Bauter, “State Kills Highway Moving: Smart Investments, Measureable 38 Expansion,” The Journal Times, 31 July Results, January 2013, 70. 2013. 138 Wisconsin Transportation Finance 128 The addition of passing lanes to a and Policy Commission, Keep Wisconsin rural two-lane road is cheaper than the Moving: Smart Investments, Measureable wholesale widening of a highway and Results, January 2013, 77. increases traffic capacity by 38 percent per Wisconsin Department of Trans- 139 Wisconsin Transportation Finance portation, Facilities Development Manual and Policy Commission, Keep Wisconsin Attachment 1.1: Design Criteria for Rural Moving: Smart Investments, Measureable State Trunk Highways Functionally Classi- Results, January 2013, 84. fied as Arterials, 4 March 2013. 140 Wisconsin Transportation Finance 129 See note 20. and Policy Commission, Keep Wisconsin

34 Fork in the Road Moving: Smart Investments, Measureable 143 Dean Mosiman, “Bus Rapid Results, January 2013, 79. Transit Plan Greeted Favorably by Madison Officials, Despite High Price 141 League of Wisconsin Municipali- Tag,” Wisconsin State Journal, 11 April ties, State Surplus Could Help Fund $121 2013. Million Shortfall for Municipalities (press release), 20 January 2014; League of Wis- 144 Wisconsin Legislative Reference consin Municipalities, Legislative Agenda: Bureau, Regional Transit Authorities 2013-2014 Legislative Session, n.d. (RTAs), 2009; “Legislature Should Bring Back Regional Transit 142 Wisconsin Legislative Reference Authorities,” Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Bureau, Regional Transit Authorities 26 December 2013. (RTAs), 2009.

Notes 35