01043943

Component

The Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission’s Northside Traffic Circulation Study final report evolved out of a controversy in the northern fringe of the City of Sheboygan and adjacent portions of the Town of Sheboygan, Wisconsin. Wilbur Smith Associates was contracted in 1999 to undertake an 18-month study to recommend the most efficient and effective thoroughfare plan for the region. Almost immediately several basic tenets of the standard transportation planning process were challenged. Three years later the project was completed, albeit with a much different scope. From the initial steering committee meeting non-technical study members criticized the limits of the scope of the project. They rejected the notion that social, economic, and ecological (SEE) impacts would be investigated during later phases of project development. It was their opinion that good investment decisions, even long-term ones, could only be made when as many of the overall positive and negative impacts as possible were known beforehand. While a complete National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis was beyond the resources (and requirements) of the funding agencies, adjustments in both the scope and budget were eventually made. After a change in project staffing to bring in environmental impact staff, what evolved was a blend of traditional long-range planning and order of magnitude NEPA-type evaluation of SEE impacts. Additional transportation goals and objectives were developed by the Steering Committee, along with supporting policies. These goals and objectives were used to evaluate the alternatives. Supplementary data gathering, accompanied by an expansion of the study area to become more inclusive of SEE resources, also occurred. Membership of the final Steering Committee included the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WisDNR), the Local Chapter of the Audubon Society, and several other stakeholders. The representative from WisDNR provided detailed data about wetlands and federal and state Endangered, Threatened, and Species of Concern that are known to occur or have habitat in the project area. Detailed water quality, air quality, hazardous materials, cultural and historic resource, and floodplain information were also gathered from existing sources. After great initial controversy about not considering SEE factors in planning transportation facilities, this process produced recommendations that some disagreed with, but all acknowledged were inclusive, fair and, by providing decision-makers with the likely consequences of each segment, led to more informed decision-making.

01043941

English

14p

2004

9th National Conference on Transportation Planning for Small and Medium-Sized Communities

CD-ROM

Bibliography; Figures (2) ; Tables (2)

Air quality; Cultural resources; Decision making; Economic impacts; Endangered species; Environmental impacts; Flood plains; Hazardous materials; Historic preservation; Long range planning; Social impacts; Stakeholders; Transportation planning; Water quality; Wetland conservation

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

Project development

Sheboygan (Wisconsin)

Economics; Environment; Highways; History; Planning and Forecasting; I72: Traffic and Transport Planning

TRIS, TRB

Mar 9 2007 10:31AM

• "What Do 3rd Graders and Volunteer Fire Chiefs Have in Common?": Public Outreach Experience on Planning Studies in Bowling Green, KY
• 2002 Congestion Management Report: Travel Time and Delay Study
• A Spatial Economic Model to Forecast External Trips in Small Communities
• Accomplishing Alternative Access on Major Transportation Corridors
• Addressing Rural Development Needs with Transportation Corridor Improvements
• Applications of TRIMM for Small and Medium Communities
• Congestion Mitigation Resources & Strategies for Arizona's State Highway System
• Crash Analyses of Raised Medians and Driveway Density: How Access Management Makes Communities Safer
• Duluth Urbanized Area Growth Impact Study
• Duluth-Superior Wayfinding Plan
• Economic Development Highways Initiative: Lessons Learned, and a Framework in the Sky
• Evaluating the Impacts of a New Bypass Segment Using a Travel Demand Model
• Evaluating the Impacts of Service Changes for a Mid-Size Transit System: Case Study of Columbia, South Carolina
• Four Decades of Travel Modeling and Forecasting in North Carolina--Lessons Learned
• Go for Health! Partnership-Supporting the Link Between Transportation Choices and Routine Physical Activity
• Integrating Multi-Modal Transportation into the Development Review Process
• Level of Service Analysis for Two-Lane Uninterrupted Flow Facilities in Developed Areas
• Linking Land Use and Transportation Planning in Aquidneck Island, RI: A Regional Perspective
• Linking Transportation & Economic Vitality; Kalamazoo, Ml
• New Digital Imaging Systems for Small and Mid-Sized Metropolitan Areas
• Regional Transportation Impact Fees as a Viable Financial Strategy in Growing Communities
• Roadway Project Prioritization for Ada County Highway District's Five-Year Work Program
• Safe Routes to School Through Safe Communities: Results of a Community Planning Grant Program in California
• Should Larger Time Penalties Be Applied for Modeling Internal-External Trips?
• Small and Medium-Sized Communities and the University Transportation Centers Program — Public/Academic Partnerships That Work!
• Small City Funding Partnerships: A Report from Washington State
• Small Urban Area Travel Demand Modeling in Oregon
• The 2002 Parkersburg West Virginia Household Travel Survey - What Went Right and What Went Wrong
• The Return of the Streetcar — An Experience from Middle America
• The Successful Implementation of a Quiet Rail Project
• TransCAD Tools for Managing Network Data
• Transportation Planning - Changes in North Carolina
• Transportation Utility Fees: The Oregon Experience
• Variations in Hispanic Travel Based on Urban Area Size