Report for Dane County, Wisconsin

(1)

Report for

Dane County, Wisconsin

North Mendota Parkway Alternative Screening

Prepared by:

STRAND ASSOCIATES, INC.® 910 West Wingra Drive

Madison, WI 53715

www.strand.com

In Association with: Vandewalle & Associates, Inc.

(2)

1.01-1 North Ring Corridor Committee Alignment Recommendation, 1997 ... 1-1 1.01-2 Study and Moratorium Boundaries ... 1-1 1.03-1 Johnson Creek Split Diamond Interchange ... 1-5 1.05-1 City of Middleton Growth Area ... 1-10 1.05-2 Town of Westport Land Use Plan ... 1-12 1.05-3 Select Link Analysis ... 1-13

(3)

TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued

Page No. or Following

ii

FIGURES (Continued)

2.01-1 Onken-Balzer North Mendota Parkway–Select Link Analysis ... 2-1 2.01-2 County K High Speed North Mendota Parkway–Select Link Analysis... 2-2 2.02-1 Planned Land Use 2030 Traffic Volumes, With and Without a North

Mendota Parkway ... 2-3 2.02-2 Buildout Land Use 2030 Traffic Volumes, With and Without a North

Mendota Parkway ... 2-4 3.01-1 Alternatives Considered... 3-1 3.01-2 Alternatives Brought Forward for Evaluation ... 3-2 3.02-1 West Alternatives ... 3-2 3.03-1 East Alternatives ... 3-4 4.02-1 Alternative 13W Impacts ... 4-1 4.02-2 Alternative 15W Impacts ... 4-3 4.02-3 Alternative 14W Impacts ... 4-4 4.02-4 Alternative 4W Impacts ... 4-6 4.03-1 Connector A Impacts ... 4-7 4.03-2 Connector B Impacts ... 4-7 4.05-1 Alternative 13E Impacts ... 4-9 4.05-2 Alternative 4E Impacts ... 4-10 4.05-3 Alternative 12E Impacts ... 4-11 4.07-1 Alternative Combinations ... 4-14

(4)

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

(5)

Dane County and Municipalities

North Mendota Parkway Screening Section 1–Introduction

Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.® 1-0

S:\MAD\1100--1199\1124\006\Wrd\Report\Section 1 V&A revisions 1-27-09.doc\013009

1.01 HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

For years county and municipal officials have discussed the possibility of creating a transportation corridor north of Lake Mendota that would connect the I 39/90/94 Interstate with the US 12 corridor. These discussions led to numerous committees and official acts by local governments. A summary of these acts is listed in the time table below.

1992 Dane 2020 Task Force recommends a broad study of alternative ways to respond to travel need in and through the North Ring Corridor area.

1995 North Ring Corridor Committee created by the County Board to conduct preliminary discussion related to transportation issues in the North Ring Corridor (part of Vision 2020). 1997 North Ring Corridor Committee’s Final

Report recommends a four-lane expressway/parkway alignment. Recommends more detailed planning. 2000 North Mendota Parkway Advisory

Committee created by County Board to provide recommendation for official mapping of corridor.

2001 County enlists Vandewalle & Associates to evaluate land use and transportation considerations of a North Mendota Parkway Corridor.

2004 County Board approves North Mendota Parkway report and recommendations that call for subsequent alignment studies and a development moratorium.

2007 Intergovernmental Agreement calls for Alignment Study and Development Moratorium.

2007 County enlists Strand Associates, Inc. to identify and study both an environmental and transportation corridor.

Figure 1.01-1 North Ring Corridor Committee Alignment Recommendation, 1997

Figure 1.01-2 2007 Study and Moratorium

(6)

1.02 PURPOSE

A. Broad Project Purpose

In the broadest sense, the purpose of the North Mendota Parkway is to find a safe and efficient transportation corridor from US 12 to I 39/90/94 for the following reasons::

1. The Madison Metropolitan Area is expanding both east and west, with both residential areas and major employment centers located on the far edges of the urban area.

2. East-west mobility to and from these residential/employment centers is substantially constrained through the Isthmus, and there are no imminent plans to add capacity through the Isthmus.

3. East-west traffic uses local and rural roadways north of Lake Mendota to travel between the east and west sides of Madison. These roadways were not designed to carry high traffic volumes. Regional growth will continue to expand, and the result is even more traffic on these local roadways.

4. If regional growth trends continue, an east-west arterial north of Lake Mendota will be needed to accommodate east-west travel. Proactively locating and mapping a transportation corridor instead of reactively allows:

a. The corridor to be placed where it will produce the least environmental damage. Conversely, if a corridor is not mapped, future residential, commercial, and industrial development may foreclose corridor opportunities with the least environmental damage.

b. Communities to plan development in light of future transportation investments. Without a mapped corridor, communities may approve residential and commercial development that is not well-served by future transportation improvements or eliminates some corridor options.

Local roadways north of Lake Mendota are already experiencing some strains caused by higher traffic volumes. Century Avenue in Middleton experiences high regional volumes that travel through a residential area. During many portions of the day, it is extremely difficult to enter County Road M from an unsignalized intersection or driveway. On local roads like Onken and Balzer, farm equipment must share the road with high levels of auto traffic.

In the midst of these needs, numerous values and priorities have been expressed by local governments. These include the preservation of farmland, conservation of natural areas, and the minimization of impacts to residential and commercial properties. These needs and concerns led to the following recommendation for a North Mendota Parkway that was incorporated in recommendation 8 from the 2004 North Mendota Parkway Advisory Committee report to the County Board.

(7)

“8) Select a Route for the North Mendota Parkway

Intermediate

By Consensus of Dane County and North Mendota Area Municipalities

Required by the Intergovernmental Agreement in Step 2, above.

a) Parkway route between CTH M and USH 12 to be determined by the findings of the Environmental Study from 5), above, with a western terminus at the under construction interchange of new USH 12 with old USH 12.

b) Add the Parkway route to the Interim North Mendota Official Map (4, above) immediately upon study completion

c) Parkway would have the following characteristics:

Route connecting from IH 39/90/94 at STH 19 westerly along STH 19 corridor to STH 113 at Waunakee; southerly along STH 113 corridor to CTH M at Westport; westerly along CTH M corridor to selected new alignment connecting to a free flow interchange with USH 12

Four-Lane configuration 55 mph speed limit between IH 39/90/94 and STH 113/CTH M interchange; 45 mph speed limit between STH 113/CTH M interchange and USH 12

Public road intersections no closer than ½ mile spacing and controlled by an access management plan and restrictions that would also restrict access to streets that intersect the Parkway, within a ¼ mile or more of the Parkway.

No intersecting driveways

Wide and attractive central median, where space allows

Accommodations for transit and park-and-ride facilities

Parallel recreation path with appropriate grade-separated connections across

Parkway

Generous landscaping and calm lighting

Advanced storm water quantity and quality management facilities

d) Determine appropriate funding for the North Mendota Parkway”. B. Specific Project Purpose

The intent of this portion of the study is to map a transportation corridor that: 1. Minimizes impacts.

2. Is consistent, to the extent possible, with local land use plans.

3. Does not preclude transportation options for future government actions implementing a corridor.

(8)

The last item states that corridor geometric characteristics are flexible enough to not inhibit the future decision making ability of designers and government officials. The previous study listed a series of specific roadway characteristics, yet characteristics are often interpreted differently. County PD in Dane County is thought of as a “Parkway,” yet the Lakeside Parkway in Milwaukee is also a “Parkway.” The former is an urban roadway with signalized intersections; the later is a low speed fully access-controlled freeway.

This report reviews a series of alternatives to aid in the selection of an alternative for further study.

1.03 FACTORS IN ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT

A. Design Speed

The design speed of a roadway dictates the design of the road and how fast it can safely be traveled. The design speed has its greatest influence on the typical cross section of a road and on the radius of roadway curves. The posted speed is typically 5 to 10 mph below the design speed. B. Access

The single greatest factor affecting traffic safety is the amount of access in the form of intersections and driveways. Access control also has the potential to have the greatest impacts to land use, above that of land acquisition. The adjacent graphic illustrates the relationship of access to roadway function. On the bottom, the function of local roads is to provide access, so they have the greatest number of driveways and intersections. On the top, the function of arterials is to provide mobility, and therefore they have fewer intersections and no driveways. Ultimately, a principal arterial only provides access at interchanges.

Often an arterial may go through different stages. Initially it is built with intersections, but as traffic volumes grow, the road is slowly converted to an expressway or freeway with access only at interchanges. This process is gradually occurring in the Madison metropolitan area on Stoughton Road and Verona Road.

Vehicles at any at-grade intersection will have difficulty crossing or entering the North Mendota Parkway. Therefore side roads may either need to be grade-separated (e.g., overpasses) or signalized. The type of treatment will correspond to the type of roadway that is implemented. C. Cross Section

As mentioned previously, the design speed helps dictate the typical cross section of the roadway. The cross section then determines the amount of right-of-way. Lower speed roadways often have curbs and medians of which a typical example might be County PD. This type of roadway typically requires about 200 feet of right-of-way. Higher speed roads do not have curbs but instead have shoulders. They also have clear zones free of obstructions so vehicles that inadvertently leave the roadway can recover. These roadways typically have right-of-way widths of 300 feet or more.

(9)

D. Interchanges 1. Spacing

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) has an interchange spacing policy, where service interchanges should be at least 2 miles apart in rural areas and 1.5 miles apart in urban areas. This policy exists to avoid the safety and operational problems associated with merging and exiting movements occurring close to each other. There are ways that allow interchanges to be constructed closer to each other through the use of a “split diamond” interchange. This type of interchange allows two local roadways to have access to the US 12 freeway. The south local road has the south ramps, the north local road has the north ramps, and one-way frontage roads connect the two roadways. The adjacent graphic illustrates the split diamond concept at the Johnson Creek interchange.

Example: Johnson Creek

0.3 miles

(10)

2. Interchange Ramp Terminal Spacing

WisDOT has a policy of not allowing any intersection or driveway within 1300 feet of a ramp terminal. This policy was prompted by numerous operational problems that exist throughout the state with intersections and driveways that are too close to interchange ramp terminals. 3. Application to the North Mendota Parkway

These two interchange premises influence the development of alternatives.

a. No North Mendota Parkway conventional diamond interchange connection to US 12 can be located south of the County K intersection.

b. Any North Mendota Parkway interchange connection south of the County K intersection must be of a split diamond type of configuration.

c. The North Mendota Parkway and County K cannot both have a connection with US 12 because they will be located too close together. Since the North Mendota Parkway is being planned as an arterial, it will have the connection with US 12, and County K will be grade-separated over US 12.

d. Because of the 1300 foot spacing required between an interchange ramp terminal to a local road connection, it is difficult to connect County K to the North Mendota Parkway. This study connects County K to the North Mendota Parkway west of US 12. This preserves the ability of the North Mendota Parkway to have limited access. Future designers and government officials may choose to provide a County K connection east of US 12.

e. North Mendota Parkway and County Q will have some type of connection. Initially it may be a signalized at-grade intersection. As traffic volumes rise, the connection may need conversion to an interchange. In either situation, the County K/County Q intersection will need relocation to provide appropriate intersection and/or interchange spacing between the two connections.

E. Funding Avenues

Currently the North Mendota Parkway does not have a designated funding source. Since this is a mapping project which seeks to preserve a corridor for future transportation improvements, a designated funding source is not needed. Ultimately, when the roadway is implemented the funding source will influence the type of roadway that is constructed, including the design speed, cross section, and access.

Urban surface transportation program (STP) funds are federal funds distributed to the Madison Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for road projects with the region. If this were a potential funding source, the North Mendota Parkway would require a substantial commitment of STP funds for multiple years to construct, making it difficult to fund other roadway projects in the area. With this funding source, local governments would have substantial influence on the character and type of roadway that is constructed so long is it met accepted design standards.

(11)

WisDOT has its “Majors” roadway program for longer roadway projects that serve regional mobility. Since the North Mendota Parkway is on or planned to be on the state highway system, WisDOT has made no commitment to funding or studying the North Mendota Parkway. However, if in the future the North Mendota Parkway were placed on the state highway system and/or funded by WisDOT, they have indicated that WisDOT would favor a higher mobility corridor with limited access and higher design speeds.

1.04 ALTERNATIVE BASE ASSUMPTIONS

As mentioned, this mapping study seeks not to preclude design alternatives or decisions. It also seemed to minimize impacts and remain consistent with local land use planning. To accomplish this, the following assumptions are made for the development of alternatives:

a. Design speed–The alignment corridors drawn for evaluation can accommodate both a high 60 mph design speed or a lower 45 mph design speed.

b. Right-of-way width–The mapped alignment corridors use a 300-foot width. This allows a higher speed roadway to be constructed, and/or allows for slight alignment adjustments that may be needed to minimize impacts for a lower speed corridor. The right-of-way impact difference between a 200-foot versus a 300-foot corridor are minor compared with the impacts associated with access control.

c. Driveways–No matter which type of Parkway configuration is implemented, both will require the removal of driveway access to or across the North Mendota Parkway. Therefore the corridor assume that driveways are removed and the property is either relocated or an alternate access is provided.

d. Side Road Intersections–Side road connections can be either at-grade or grade-separated. The mapped corridor alternatives can accommodate either.

e. Major intersections/interchanges–The North Mendota Parkway’s intersection with County Q will need some type of traffic control and may eventually need an interchange. All mapped corridor alternatives include enough room to implement an interchange should the need arise.

f. North Mendota Parkway/County K Connection–As mentioned, interchange terminal ramp spacing guidelines do not allow a County K connection to the North Mendota Parkway close to US 12. Because of this, the study is assuming a County K/North Mendota Parkway connection west of US 12. Future designers and government officials may evaluate connections east of US 12.

1.05 ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION CRITERIA

In October of 2008, a set of evaluation criteria was distributed to the North Mendota Parkway Implementation Oversight Committee. This criteria was meant to provide a reasonable basis for evaluating the merits of different alignments. The list is not fully comprehensive because detailed

(12)

design, resource surveys, and other data collection have not been performed. The criteria is provided as a basis for planning decisions. The following paragraphs summarize this criteria.

A. Direct Impacts

Direct impacts are impacts that can be quantified. They typically consist of impacts to properties directly under the footprint of the corridor being evaluated. Specific impacts being considered include:

1. Amount and classification of right-of-way needed for the corridor. This includes agricultural, residential, business, and industrial.

2. Property relocations. When a primary structure of a parcel is needed, or that parcel’s access is being removed, it is termed a relocation. Owners of relocated properties are paid for their property and special relocation benefits under state statutes; however, the relocated parcel is an impact and corridor alignments seek to reduce relocations.

3. Property Severances–How many properties, particularly working farms and industrial parcels, are severed by the corridor being considered?

4. Direct Environmental Impacts–How much wetland is needed and being crossed for the corridor. Is the roadway crossing an environmental corridor? Are there other known environmental resources in the area?

5. Cultural Resource Impacts–Some historic buildings and archaeological sites have information and resource value great enough that they are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Special protections, often termed 106 protections, are offered to properties eligible for the NRHP. However, identifying historic and archaeological resources and determining their eligibility was beyond the scope of this preservation study. The team did consult with the Wisconsin Register to understand historic resources that have already been identified in the corridor. However, with most corridor studies, the register does not provide a full understanding of cultural resources in the area because previous historic and archaeological surveys have not been performed. Future environmental studies of the North Mendota Parkway will need to include both historic and archaeological surveys.

B. Consistency with Land Use Plans and Desires

Local communities that will be directly impacted by the construction of the North Mendota Parkway corridor have adopted comprehensive plans to help guide their future local land use and development decisions. These plans were either adopted or updated following the completion of the 2003 North Mendota Parkway Alternatives Study. Therefore, the plans generally acknowledge and support the eventual construction of the Parkway somewhere within the area proposed as part of the 2003 Study. Each of the alignment alternatives proposed in this report has been evaluated based on its consistency with local plans. Only the plans of those communities that would be directly impacted by the proposed

(13)

alternative will be used for the purposes of the analyses. These include plans for the City of Middleton, the Town of Springfield, and the Town of Westport. Below are summaries of the key relevant plan recommendations for each community, followed by a statement (in italics) of how consistency with these plans will be evaluated in Section 4 of this Report.

1. City of Middleton Plans

a. The City of Middleton Northwest Quadrant Plan (2005)

In this Plan, Dorn Creek was identified as Middleton’s northernmost growth boundary. Lands generally south of Balzer Road in the Town of Springfield were planned for future City residential development. This area was intended to remain in agricultural use until it is annexed to the City and City services are extended to serve new development. Land located between Balzer Road and Dorn Creek was planned for longer-term agricultural use until the area is appropriate for City annexation and development (>20 years). In the Town of Westport, future City residential development was also planned for the area south of Oncken Road, extending roughly a mile east of the town line. More intensive commercial and residential development was planned for the intersection of County Highway Q and Oncken Road.

Alternatives consistent with this plan would be located outside the City’s nearer-term residential growth area south of Balzer Road but would be close enough to this area that residents of these future City neighborhoods could benefit from access to the North Mendota Parkway corridor. A consistent alternative would also be located north of Oncken Road in the Town of Westport to avoid bisecting development planned for the area south of Oncken Road.

b. The City of Middleton Comprehensive Plan (2006)

The City’s Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted a year after the Northwest Quadrant Plan was adopted, reflected many of the same recommendations as the Northwest Quadrant Plan for this area outside the City. Residential and mixed use development was generally proposed for the lands south of Balzer Road in the Town of Springfield and south of Oncken Road in the Town of Westport. In this Plan, the City expressed a desire to support the construction of the North Mendota Parkway corridor somewhere in the vicinity of County Highway K.

Similar to the Northwest Quadrant Plan, alternatives consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan would be located outside the City’s nearer-term residential growth area and in the vicinity of County Highway K. The alternative would also be located north of Oncken Road to avoid bisecting development planned for this area.

(14)

c. City of Middleton/Town of Springfield Intergovernmental Agreement

In 2003, the City of Middleton and the Town of Springfield entered into an intergovernmental agreement which specified that within the 20-year agreement period the City would be permitted to annex lands shown in Area A (see Figure 1.05-1) Lands in Area C could not be annexed into the City until after the 20-year period has lapsed. This agreement is generally consistent with the City’s Northwest Quadrant Plan described above.

Alternatives consistent with this agreement would be located to avoid bisecting the nearer-term City growth area delineated by Area A.

Figure 1.05-1 City of Middleton/

(15)

d. The Bellefontaine Collector

The City of Middleton’s Official Map includes an east-west collector road to serve planned development north of the City. This route was generally recommended in the 2003 North Mendota Parkway Alternatives Study (referred to as the “North Middleton Collector”), as well as in the City’s Northwest Quadrant Plan. This corridor would connect US Highway 12 with Oncken Road.

Alternatives consistent with the City’s long-term transportation plans, as depicted on its Official Map, would be located farther from the Bellefontaine collector so these two corridors do not serve redundant functions.

2. Town of Springfield Comprehensive Plan (adopted 2002, updated 2007)

As recommended in this Plan, lands surrounding the alignment alternatives proposed in this report were designated for long-term agricultural preservation. The Town also emphasized a desire to direct the future North Mendota Parkway corridor as far south (toward the City of Middleton) as possible, in areas where the transition to urban development is more imminent and likely to occur. It was determined that locating the corridor south of County Highway K would help preserve large farm operations to the north. The Town was also interested in minimizing the number of farms severed or otherwise negatively impacted by North Mendota Parkway construction.

Alternatives consistent with the Town of Springfield Comprehensive Plan would be located south of County Highway K and would minimize severances to existing farms and otherwise negative impacts on farmland.

3. Town of Westport Comprehensive Plan (2004)

The Town of Westport’s future land use plan includes recommendations from the Waunakee-Westport Joint Planning Area Comprehensive Plan (adopted 2003 and updated 2006) and the Middleton-Westport Joint Planning Area Comprehensive Plan (2000). The Plan also presents recommendations for areas of the Town outside of these two joint planning areas. According to this plan, lands surrounding the alignment alternatives proposed in this report have been designated for either open space preservation or long-term agricultural use. Some more intensive commercial uses are located around the intersection of County Highway K and County Highway M, which the Town wished to preserve. Within the plan, the Town also emphasized a desire for the future North Mendota Parkway corridor to be located north of Dorn Creek and away from Oncken Road to avoid the many sensitive natural features located south of Dorn Creek and to preserve Oncken Road as an important Town roadway.

Alternatives consistent with the Town’s Plan would be located so as to minimize negative impacts on farmland and areas designated for open space and would minimize severances to existing farms. The alternative would also preserve the more intensive

(16)

commercial uses surrounding the intersection of County Highway K and County Highway M and would be located north of Dorn Creek, a reasonable distance from Oncken Road.

C. Ability to Meet East-West Transportation Needs

The area’s transportation needs are generated by existing and planned land use. Transportation corridors that directly connect trip-generating land uses with other trip-generating land uses will be traveled, while corridors that are indirect or do not connect trip-generating land uses will not be used. As part of the 2003 North Mendota Parkway study, the Madison Area MPO used its demand model to understand how traffic would use a North Mendota Parkway. Called a select link analysis, the study

Figure 1.05-2 Town of Westport Land Use Plan

Waunakee/Westport Joint Plan Area: Rural

Preservation

Town of Westport Agriculture

Middleton/Westport Joint Plan Area: Open Space and Agricultural Preservation north of Oncken Road

(17)

identifies travel desires and provides an understanding of where traffic wants to go and does not want to go. Figure 1.05-3 illustrates some of the results from the analysis. Most traffic desires to go from west Madison/Middleton to east Madison via the County M/Northport Drive corridors. The travel desire is oriented close to the north side of Lake Mendota. This indicates that a corridor farther to the north will capture less east-west traffic than southern corridors. This is because of the indirection or extra travel associated with a northern corridor. Therefore, a North Mendota Parkway that is located farther south will have the ability to capture more east-west traffic from local roads than a North Mendota Parkway that is located farther north.

In 2008 the Madison Area MPO did a follow-up study trying to understand how implementation of a North Mendota Parkway would affect traffic volumes traveling on WIS 19 through Waunakee. The study found that a North Mendota Parkway would have a negligible effect on WIS 19 volumes through Waunakee. This indicates:

1. The majority of traffic on WIS 19 through Waunakee has Waunakee as an origin or destination. A North Mendota Parkway will not affect these volumes.

2. WIS 19 does not carry traffic from Middleton that is oriented to east Madison as it is too indirect. Improvement of WIS 19 will do little to relieve traffic on local roads.

Select Link Analysis

Land Use Scenario 1

CTH M (STH 113 to CTH K)

West to East - Normalized to Percentage ~2050 16% 38% 13% 28% 60% 20% 12%

Most Traffic Goes from North Madison to West Madison/Middleton

Select Link Analysis

Land Use Scenario 1

West to East - Normalized to Percentage ~2050 16% 38% 13% 28% 60% 20% 12%

Most Traffic Goes from North Madison to West Madison/Middleton

(18)

1.06 ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION CRITERIA NOT CONSIDERED

Throughout the process there have been many resources people and officials have suggested as being very important in the selection of a corridor. These resources include the following:

1. Affect to stormwater infiltration.

2. Affect to the Federick Springs recharge area. 3. Soil suitability for road construction.

These are important factors in the decision to construct or not to construct a North Mendota Parkway. These factors, however, would not be substantially different between the alternatives being evaluated and would not help differentiate better alternatives from poorer alternatives. For this reason, these and other factors are not considered in the review.

(19)

SECTION 2 TRAFFIC

(20)

North Mendota Parkway Screening Section 2–Traffic

2.01 HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

As part of the previous North Mendota Parkway Planning study in 2003, the Madison Area MPO performed a series of demand modeling scenarios to understand how a Mendota Parkway would perform and affect travel patterns in the metropolitan area.

The modeling used a 50-year growth scenario in which 50,000 persons were added to communities north of Lake Mendota. To provide a frame of reference, this amounts to locating three City of Middletons on top of the development that already exists north of Lake Mendota. This analysis was developed so that a truly long-range transportation view could be understood.

Part of that analysis included a select link analysis, described in Section 1, which shows the origins and destinations of vehicles traveling east-west on the County M segment. Figure 2.01-1 shows the results of that analysis assuming a more southerly North Mendota Parkway that has a moderate speed. Figure 2.01-2 shows the results of the select link analysis assuming a North Mendota Parkway that more closely follows the County K alignment and has a higher (55 mph) speed.

Alternative 3

Onken Balzer Connection

Land Use Scenario 1

West to East - Normalized to Percentage ~2050

16%

38%

13%

28%

60%

20%

12%

Century Ave No rthp ort WIS 19 U S 1₂

(21)

S:\MAD\1100--1199\1124\006\Wrd\Report\Section 2 Traffic.doc\013009

Key conclusions of that study include the following: A. East side

1. Four-lane improvements to County M between WIS 113 and County K primarily influence travel patterns on Northport.

2. Currently most County M traffic is oriented to Northport Drive. The lower speed alternatives maintain this orientation. (60 percent to 40 percent split).

3. With each successive improvement in terms of speed, access control, and mobility, more traffic is oriented toward STH 19 and on to the interstate.

4. With the higher speed parkway alternatives, traffic is attracted to County M from greater distances.

Alternative 5

4-Lane Higher Speed

West to East - Normalized to Percentage ~2050

65%

8%

53%

47%

17%

11%

34%

9%

Century Ave No rthp_ort WIS 19 U S 1₂

NORTH

(22)

North Mendota Parkway Screening Section 2–Traffic 10,800 17,200 29,600 14,400 9,000 15,6 00 8, 600 13, 40 0 40,70 0 1 3 ,900

2030 PLAN LAND USE

8,300 17,600 24,400 13,900 1,500 14 ,800 1, 10 0 2 3 ,300 35,20 0 8, 4 0 0

2030 PLAN LAND USE

WITH NORTH MENDOTA PARKWAY

21,900 28,800

Figure 2.02-1 Planned Land Use 2030 Traffic Volumes, With and Without a North Mendota Parkway

B. West side

1. In southerly alignments, a greater proportion of the County M traffic is drawn from the Century Ave corridor rather than County K or WIS 19.

2. In higher speed northerly alignments, volumes on County M from Century Ave remain relatively constant.

3. Higher speed and higher build alternatives draw more traffic from outside arterials.

2.02 RECENT MODELING EFFORTS

In 2008 the Madison Area MPO did a follow-up study trying to understand how implementation of a North Mendota Parkway would affect traffic volumes on WIS 19. This study used two scenarios. One scenario used the development likely to occur between now and the year 2030. The other was the “Build-Out” scenario and considered development that would occur if everything within each community’s land use plan was constructed. Both scenarios are substantially less than the 50-year

development horizon used in the 2003 analysis and represents the development this area might experience in the next 20 years. Figures 2.02-1 and -2 summarize the traffic volumes on area roadways with and without a North Mendota Parkway.

(23)

S:\MAD\1100--1199\1124\006\Wrd\Report\Section 2 Traffic.doc\013009 11,900 18,900 34,100 16,300 8,800 14,6 00 8, 6 0 0 15 ,8 00 43,30 014, 300

2030 BUILDOUT LAND USE

10,100 18,500 37,200 13,900 2,100 15,4 00 2, 3 0 0 27,500 37,70 010 ,1 0 0

2030 BUILDOUT LAND USE

WITH NORTH MENDOTA PARKWAY

23,500 30,10

0

Figure 2.02-2 Build-out Land Use 2030 Traffic Volumes, With and Without a North Mendota Parkway

This analysis also focused on the effect on WIS 19 traffic volumes through the Village of Waunakee. It found that a North Mendota Parkway would have a negligible effect on WIS 19 volumes through Waunakee. This indicates:

1. The majority of traffic on WIS 19 through Waunakee has Waunakee as an origin or destination. A North Mendota Parkway will not affect these volumes.

2. WIS 19 does not carry traffic from Middleton that is oriented to east Madison as it is too indirect. Improvement of WIS 19 will do little to relieve traffic on local roads.

(24)

SECTION 3 ALTERNATIVES

(25)

North Mendota Parkway Screening Section 3–Alternatives

S:\MAD\1100--1199\1124\006\Wrd\Report\Section 3.doc\013009

3.01 ALTERNATIVE SCREENING

The Implementation Oversight Committee (IOC) has met nine times to review different transportation corridor alignments. Many new alternatives have resulted from the input of area residents and concerned stakeholders. About 15 alignments have been reviewed and discussed in efforts to screen alternatives to the most feasible and least environmentally

damaging. Figure 3.01-1 illustrates the alignments that have been

considered. It has been difficult to narrow the range of alternatives because all corridor alternatives impact properties. An alternative that has the support of some entities does not have the support of other entities that would be impacted by it. The range and variation of support for each alternative is great. It will be difficult to form a full consensus of support for any alternative. To address the competing support levels and interests, this report will evaluate a range of alternatives for the west end of the corridor and a range of alternatives for the east end of the corridor. County Q is the rough boundary between the west alternatives and the east alternatives. The west end of the corridor is primarily within the Town of Springfield and/or the City of Middleton growth areas. Therefore Middleton and the Town of Springfield interests focus on this corridor segment. The east end of the corridor is located within the Town of Westport, and therefore Westport interests will focus on this section.

Through multiple meetings, the IOC has narrowed the alignments under consideration. The west side has four corridor alternatives; the east side has three corridor alternatives. These alignment alternatives provide a reasonable range of alternatives for evaluation. Most of the west alternatives can be combined with most of the east alternatives, leading to several alternative combinations. In a couple of alternative combinations, a special connector component is needed to connect a west alternative with an east alternative. Additionally, each alternative has a set of local road modifications/realignments that would be necessary to implement the alternative. While the North Mendota Parkway would not have any driveways accessing it, these local roadways would have access to and across them. Figure 3.01-2 shows the alternatives brought forward for evaluation.

(26)

NOR TH M E N D O TA EN VI RO NM E N TA L AN D TR A N SP OR TA TI O N ST U D Y ALL ALIGNM ENTS D A NE CO UNTY PAR K D E PAR TME NT D A NE CO UNTY , W ISCO N SIN FIGURE 1 1-124.006 Fisher Road S h ill in g L a n e S u m ac _C irc le P a rm e n te r S tr_e e t Graber Road Upland Trail Riles Road Her on Trail Schneid_{er Road} Indianola _D riv e K County Highway

Fox Bluff Road

Bor cher s B ea ch R o a d Balzer Road M Co u n ty Hi g h w ay Q C o u n ty H ig h w a y Springton Drive Ra mp s Greenbriar Road Cobb leston e Lan e Sumac Road Oncken Road Perc h P ark R am ps Unnamed M a n s fie ld R o_a d Ra mp s Gra_s s l and_Tra il Briggs R oad Reis Road P h e a s a n t B ra n c h R o a d Redt ail P as s R o ck Crest R o a d Valle y R idg e R o a d S a n d h il l Drive 1 2 U n ite_d S ta te_s H ig_h w a_y H a rd y T ra il N o rth S h o re B a y D riv_e Fox fire Trai l P h e a s a n t B ra n c h R o a d Sig nature_Drive H ig h R o a d T o w n o f S p r i n g f i e l d L a k e M e n d o t a C i t y o f M i d d l e t o n C i t y o f M i d d l e t o n T o w n o f M i d d l e t o n T o w n o f W e s t p o r t 0 375 750 1,500 Feet

.

4E 4E Local Road 4W 4W Local Road 12E

12E Local Road 13E

13E Local Road 13W 13W Local Road 14W Local Road 15W 15W Local Road Connector A Connector B

(27)

S:\MAD\1100--1199\1124\006\Wrd\Report\Section 3.doc\013009

3.02 WEST ALTERNATIVES

Figure 3.02-1 illustrates the alignments of the west alternatives. This section briefly describes each west alternative. Section 4 provides a more detailed description of the impacts associated with each alternative.

A. Alternative 13W

Alternative 13W connects with the US 12 roadway about one-half mile north of the existing Parmenter Street interchange. Because this connection is so close, a split diamond interchange configuration would be needed, as described in Section 1. This alignment then travels easterly until it falls in line with Balzer Road. One-quarter mile west of Pheasant Branch Road, Alternative 13W veers north as it matches the north edge of the wetlands

4W 14W 15W 13W A 12E 4E 13E B US 12 B elle font aine C o u n ty Q C oun ty M Fisher County K County K Onken P h e a s a n t B ra n c h Pa rm en ter

Figure 3.01-2 Alternatives Brought Forward for Evaluation

4W 14W 15W 13W A B US 12 Bel lefo ntai ne C o u n ty Q Fisher County K P h e a s a n t B ra n c h Pa rm e nte r Balzer County K

(28)

associated with Dorn Creek. Alternative 13W needs either Connector A or Connector B to match any of the east alternatives. There are several local road modifications associated with Alternative 13W to preserve local connectivity. West of US 12 a new local road is constructed that travels west and then north to attach to County K. This would be County K’s connection to the North Mendota Parkway. Balzer Road is realigned to the south slightly to preserve its connection to Pheasant Branch Road. Pheasant Branch Road’s connection with County K is shifted to the west. Depending on the type of facility the North Mendota Parkway is, this may be a grade-separated crossing to ease travel across the roadway and preserve access for farmers.

B. Alternative 15W

Alternative 15W connects with US 12 about 0.9 miles north of the Parmenter Interchange. Because of this, it also needs the split diamond interchange configuration described in Section 1. Alternative 15W travels easterly midway between Balzer Road and County K until a quarter mile west of Pheasant Branch Road. Then it follows the same alignment as Alternative 13W. As with 13W, Alternative 15W needs either Connector A or Connector B to match the east side alternatives. The local road connections with Alternative 15W are similar to those of 13W, including a connection west of US 12 to County K, and the relocation of the Pheasant Branch Road/County K intersection.

C. Alternative 14W

Alternative 14W connects with US 12 about 1.3 miles north of the Parmenter interchange. While not strictly meeting WisDOT interchange policy for service interchange spacing, this connection could likely be its own dedicated diamond interchange and would not be connected to the Parmenter Street interchange. This alternative then travels easterly one-quarter mile north of County K. It continues on this line until it reaches the northern edge of the wetlands associated with Dorn Creek where it veers to the northeast following the same alignment as Alternative 13W and 15W. It also needs either Connector A or Connector B to match the east alignments. Alternative 14W’s crossing of County K could either be a grade separation or an at-grade intersection. Local roads associated with this alternative include a local road connection to County K, west of the US 12 expressway. No other local road modifications are needed.

D. Alternative 4W

Alternative 4W connects with US 12 about 1.5 miles north of the Parmenter Street interchange. As with Alternative 14W, it also could have its own dedicated diamond interchange that would not be connected to the Parmenter Street interchange. Alternative 4W then travels one-half mile north of County K until it reaches the County K 90 degree turn. The alternative then veers to the northeast to avoid crossing County K, and then continues easterly one-quarter mile north of County K until it reaches County Q. Alternative 4W has a local road connection to County K west of the US 12 alignment. No other local road modifications are needed. This alternative does not need any Connectors to match east alignments.

(29)

NOR TH M E N D O TA EN VI RO NM E N TA L AN D TR A N SP OR TA TI O N ST U D Y WE S T A LI G N M E N TS D A NE CO UNTY PAR K D E PAR TME NT D A NE CO UNTY , W ISCO N SIN FIGURE 1 1-124.006 T o w n o f S p r i n g f i e l d C i t y o f M i d d l e t o n T o w n o f W e s t p o r t 1₂ U n ite_d S ta te_s H ig_h w a_y Fisher Road K County Highway Balzer Road Un n a m e d 1 2 U n ite_d S ta te_s H ig_h w a y Z ieg le r R oa d Unnamed Oncken Road P h e a s a n t B ra n c h R o a d Ra mp s We rgin Wa y H a rd y T ra il QC ount y H ighw ay Q C o u n ty H ig h w a y H ig h R o a d P h e a s a n t B ra n c h R o a d Ra m ps WAUNA-DAIRY LLC,; ET AL WAUNA-DAIRY LLC,; ET AL EICHM ANN, RONALD W; ZIEGLER, GREGORY L & CHERYL L ZIEGLER, REGINALD & CAROL ET AL ACKER LIVING TR, SYLVESTER J, ; ACKER LIVING TR, MARY ELLEN ACKE R, MARK T & J OA N C ACKER, RANDY R; ET AL ACKER, WILLIAM A & SALLY A BERNARDS LIVING TR, ANDREW H,; BERNAR DS, JOSEPH E & MARGUERITE L ET AL BERNARDS, NORBERT W& WILMA E ET AL ZIEGLER TR, MARIE L REV TR,; BROWN, BETTY R; BURCALOW, LARRY & KAREN J ET AL CARR, CHARLES E; ENDRES, RUSSELL H & JEAN M ENDRES, RUSSELL H; ESSER, PATRICIA L; H & E ASSETS LLC,; ET AL HENSEN JT REV TR, WILFRED JR & KIMBERLY,; HENSEN JT RE ET AL

KIPPLEY FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,; ET AL KRUSCHEK, GERVASE H & MARY A ET AL LAUFENBERG BROTHERS LLC,; LONG, THDODORE & AGNES B ET AL LONG, THEODORE & AGNES B MEINHOLZ LLC,; ET AL PARK, SHANE M; TERRA GROWERS LLC,; WAGNER, JOHN & WILLIAM E

WAGNER, WILLIAM E; WAGNER LIVING TR ET AL ACKER, LEO J & KIMBERLY M ACKER TR,; ET AL ACKER, LAWRENCE F & THARSILLA ACKER, LAWRENCE F & THARSILLA ACKER, ROGER J; HENSEN TR, WILFRED V & KIMBERLY J, ; HENSEN TR, JAMES R & SU ROTH, DANIEL & SHARON ET AL ROTH, DANIEL & SHARON ET AL ROTH, DANIEL & SHARON ET AL ROTH, DANIEL & SHARON ET AL WAGNER, WILLIAM E & JOHN G ET AL WAGNER, WILLIAM E & JOHN G ET AL

S:\MAD\1100--1199\1124\006\Data\GIS\Figures\Alignments\Alignment West All 11x17.mxd

0 250 500 1,000 Feet

.

Legend

4W 4W Local Road 13W 13W Local Road 14W Local Road 15W 15W Local Road Connector A Connector B

Connector B Local Road Wetland Boundary Proposed NRA Boundary Existing NRA Boundary

(30)

3.03 EAST ALTERNATIVES

Figure 3.03-1 illustrates the alignments of the east alternatives. This section briefly describes each of the three east alternatives. Section 4 provides a more detailed description of the impacts associated with each alternative.

A. Alternative 13E

Alignment 13E connects to Connector B on its west end. It then travels southeast along the north border of wetlands associated with Dorn Creek. This alignment generally travels south of County K. It matches into County M just west of Sixmile Creek. Alternative 13E connects with the west alternatives at the existing County Q/County K intersection. Therefore, County K would need to be relocated

about one-quarter mile to the north with this alternative. Alternative 13E’s connection with County Q could be either as an at-grade signalized intersection or as a partial cloverleaf interchange. On the east end of the alignment, County M would be realigned east to connect with the North Mendota Parkway near the current intersection of County M and North Shore Bay Drive, with the North Mendota Parkway receiving the through travel right-of-way. It is likely this intersection would need to be signalized.

B. Alternative 4E

Alternative 4E connects with either Alternative 4W or Connector A. It travels about one-eighth mile north of County K until it veers southeast to meet County M just west of Sixmile Creek. With Alternative 4E, County Q would be realigned to meet County K about 0.3 miles east of the current intersection. West of this realigned intersection, County K would probably remain as is. East of this County Q/County K intersection, the County K roadway would probably be converted to a local road and end in a cul-de-sac. The County Q/North Mendota Parkway connection could either be an at-grade signalized intersection or a diamond interchange. County M would be realigned to the west so that it intersects with the North Mendota Parkway at a tee intersection near Shilling Lane. It is likely this intersection would need to be signalized.

C. Alternative 12E

Alternative 12E is very similar to Alternative 4E, except that it is located one-quarter mile north of County K instead of one-eighth mile north of County K. All other characteristics are the same as Alternative 4E. Bel lefo nta ine C o u n ty Q Onken County K 12E 13E 4E C o u n ty M

(31)

NOR TH M E N D O TA EN VI RO NM E N TA L AN D TR A N SP OR TA TI O N ST U D Y EAST ALIGNME N TS D A NE CO UNTY PAR K D E PAR TME NT D A NE CO UNTY , W ISCO N SIN FIGURE 1 1-124.006 K County Highway

Mary Lake Road

Zie g ler R oa d Oncken Road Nor th S ho re Ba y D rive Rey nold s A venu e M a n s fie ld R o a d Reis Road M ari a W a y S u ns e t T ra il W o o d lan d D ri v e Q C o u n ty H igh wa y Sur rey L a n e M Count y Highwa y M C o u n ty H ig h w a y S h ill in g L a n e N o rth S h o re B a y D riv e T o w n o f W e s t p o r t C i t y o f M i d d l e t o n ELLIOTT, JOHN E; HELLENBRAND, KENNETH J & JACQUELINE ANNE KIPPLEY AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES LLC, ; KRUSCHEK, GERVASE H & MARY A ET AL

MCCARTHY, SALLY DEA; MEFFERT, RANDAL J & LAURA C OLSON, DONALD G & LINDA K PROCHASKA, JAMES E; PURDY, LORI A & DANA C RLM HOLDINGS LLC,; ET AL SCHILTZ, SCOTT A & SUSAN M ET AL SHILLINGLAW TR, DARLENE A,; ET AL SMITH, RICHARD G & NANCY M WESTPORT CORNERS LLC,; ZIEGLER, DAVID R & RUTH K HELLENBRAND, BRUCE ALLEN; KIPPLEY FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP, ; WI DNR,; YAHARA MATERIALS INC,;

ZIEGLER, ROMAN & ALICE R ZIEGLER, ROMAN & ALICE R ANDERSON, DONALD L; CARR, CHARLES E; KIPPLEY FAMILY LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP,; ET AL

WI DNR,;

S:\MAD\1100--1199\1124\006\Data\GIS\Figures\Alignments\Alignment East All 11x17.mxd

0 250 500 1,000 Feet

.

Legend

4E 4E Local Road 12E

12E Local Road 13E

13E Local Road Wetland Boundary Proposed NRA Boundary Existing NRA Boundary

(32)

SECTION 4 ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS

(33)

North Mendota Parkway Screening Section 4–Impacts

S:\MAD\1100--1199\1124\006\Wrd\Report\Section 4- V&A revisions 1-27-09.doc\013009

4.01 GENERAL

Impacts described in this section are approximate only. They are based on ownership information based on tax records. Many farms have property owned under different names and entities. Additionally, many farm operations depend on rented land for their productivity. The impact review is not able to consider farm assemblages in either of these instances, so the full impact to farms and businesses is not described in this section. Yet property ownership and field rental are dynamic and will change in the coming years. Therefore, while this impact review is not able to account for these factors, it does provide a reasonable assessment of how a certain alternative may affect farm operations.

Similarly, this section generally states whether an alignment is consistent with a municipality’s land use plan. The application and interpretation of land use plans falls within the jurisdiction of each municipality and opinions of those on the planning commission. This section does not intend to speak for these planning commissions or municipalities but instead generally states whether an alternative meets objectives described in Section 1.

4.02 WEST ALTERNATIVES

A. Alternative 13W

1. Direct Impacts The direct impacts associated with Alternative 13W are shown in Figure 4.02-1.

Mapping this alternative will cover

about 132 acres and Connector A or B would add 19 to 21 additional acres. Most of this land is agricultural. It would require 3 agricultural relocations. Connector A or B would require another two

relocations. Alternative 13W traverses the north end of a quarry near the US 12 connection and limits expansion of the quarry to the north unless some type of grade separation was constructed for quarry equipment. The alternative severs the south portion of the Roth farm. The alternative also severs the Acker farm and will require the relocation of three operations near the intersection of High Street and Balzer Road. To the east, Alternative 13W would sever property owned by Hensen, Bernards, and the Wagners. The alternative does fall on the north edge of land designated for the Natural Resource Area, yet this

13W U S 1₂ Be llef onta ine County K P h eas an t Br a n ch

(34)

should not hinder its function. West of US 12, the local road associated with Alternative 13W would border land owned by the Roths as it connects to County K.

2. Consistency with Land Use Plans

See Section 1.04 for summaries of the plans referenced below and a statement regarding how consistency with each plan was evaluated.

a. The City of Middleton Northwest Quadrant Plan: Alternative 13W is generally consistent with the City’s Northwest Quadrant Plan because it would skirt the northern edge of the City’s nearer-term (≤ 20 years) growth area, but it is still close enough to this area to efficiently serve residents of these future neighborhoods. This alternative would, however, be located roughly one-quarter mile south of the conceptual route illustrated in the City’s Plan.

b. The City of Middleton Comprehensive Plan: Alternative 13W is generally consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan because it avoids bisecting the City’s nearer-term (≤ 20 years) growth area. However, the route is located about one-half mile south of County Highway K, which was identified by the City as the general preferred location for the North Mendota Parkway corridor.

c. City of Middleton/Town of Springfield Intergovernmental Agreement: Alternative 13W is generally consistent with the City and Town’s intergovernmental agreement because it skirts the northern edge of the area planned for annexation within the 20-year agreement period.

d. The Bellefontaine Collector: Alternative 13W is generally consistent with the City’s Official Map with respect to the proposed location of the Bellefontaine Collector because the Parkway alternative would be located roughly three-quarter mile north of this planned collector.

e. Town of Springfield Comprehensive Plan: Alternative 13W is generally consistent with the Town’s Comprehesnive Plan because although it would result in several farm severences, it is located the farthest south of any of the west alternatives, placing it in the closest proximity to the City of Middleton’s growth area and separating it from larger farming operations north of County Highway K.

3. Ability to Meet Transportation Demands

Alternative 13W is the farthest south of the western alignments and closely mirrors the travel desire lines described in Section 1. Therefore, this alignment probably has the greatest ability to capture east-west travel and take it off local streets such as County K and Century Avenue.

(35)

B. Alternative 15W

1 Direct Impacts

The direct impacts associated with Alternative 15W, are shown in Figure 4.02-2. Mapping of this alternative will cover about 114 acres. Connector A or B will add another 19 to 21 acres. Most of the land it is agricultural. This alternative borders the north portion of a quarry near the US 12 connection, generally

avoiding serious impacts to the operation. The alignment bisects the Roth farm and severs the Acker farm as it veers northeast. At this point, it diagonally severs the Hensen, Bernard, and Wagner properties. With this alternative, the north-south portion of County K is converted to a local road and travels around the Long property. Similarly, the realignment of Pheasant Branch Road will sever the Hensen property, triangulating the fields, but preserving access to and from the properties. Alternative 15W requires 5 relocations, most of them occuring near the US 12 interchange. Connector A or B would require another two relocations. As with Alternative 13W, this alternative also falls on the north edge of land potentially designated for the Natural Resource Area, but this should not pose a problem. West of US 12, the local road associated with Alternative 15W travels through and bisects land owned by the Roths as it connects to County K.

a. The City of Middleton Northwest Quadrant Plan: Alternative 15W is generally consistent with the City’s Northwest Quadrant Plan because it would be located outside (north) of the City’s nearer-term (≤ 20 years) growth area but still south of County Highway K. This alternative closely matches the conceptual route for the North Mendota Parkway depicted by the City on the Northwest Quadrant Plan map. b. The City of Middleton Comprehensive Plan: Alternative 15W is generally consistent

with the City’s Comprehensive Plan because it would be located outside (north) of 15W US 12 Bel lefo ntai ne County K P h e a s a n t B ra n c h Balzer

(36)

the City’s nearer-term (≤ 20 years) growth area and in the vicinity of County Highway K.

c. The City of Middleton/Town of Springfield Intergovernmental Agreement: Alternative 15W is generally consistent with the City and Town’s intergovernmental agreement because it is located north of the areas planned for annexation with the 20-year agreement period.

d. The Bellefontaine Collector: Alternative 15W is generally consistent with the City’s Offical Map with respect to the location of the Bellefontaine Collector because the Parkway alternative would be located roughly a mile north of this planned collector. e. Town of Springfield Comprehensive Plan: Although not located as far south as

Alternative 13W, Alternative 15W is generally consistent with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan because it is located south of County Highway K, separating it from larger farming operations to the north. This alternative does result in more farm severances than Alternative 13W making it slightly less consistent with the Town’s long-term objective of preserving existing farms.

Alternative 15W is one of the southwestern alignments and is south of County K. It also closely mirrors the travel desire lines described in Section 1. Therefore, this alternative should be capable of capturing a large portion of east-west travel and remove it from local streets such as County K and Century Avenue.

C. Alternative 14W

1. Direct Impacts The direct impacts associated with Alternative 14W are shown in Figure 4.02-3.

Mapping this alternative will cover

about 103 acres and Connector A or B will add another 19 to 21 acres. Most of the land

is agricultural.

Alternative 14W travels one-quarter mile north of County K and, in doing so, bisects several farms. These include the Roth farm, H&E Assets, and the Ackers. Alternative 14W also travels along the south border of two Wagner properties. Access will not be provided across the North Mendota Parkway, so it will be difficult for these farms to continue to operate

US 1 2 County K P h e a s a n t B ra n c h County K Fisher Co u n ty Q 14W

(37)

without rearranging ownership of fields. Alternative 14W requires 4 relocations, most of them occuring around the US 12 interchange. Connector A or B would require another two relocations. This alternative also falls on the north edge of land designated for the Natural Resource Area. West of US 12, the local road associated with Alternative 14W would travel through and sever land owned by the Roths, resulting in triangulated fields.

a. The City of Middleton Northwest Quadrant Plan: Alternative 14W is less consistent with the City’s Northwest Quadrant Plan than Alternatives 13W and 15W because even though it does not bisect the City’s nearer-term growth area, it would be located one-quarter mile north of County Highway K, making it less likely that the corridor will efficiently serve the City.

b. The City of Middleton Comprehensive Plan: Alternative 14W is less consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan than Alternatives 13W and 15W because it would be located one-quarter mile north of County Highway K and would not abut future City growth areas, making it less likely that the corridor will efficiently serve the City. c. The City of Middleton/Town of Springfield Intergovernmental Agreement: Alternative

14W is generally consistent with the City and Town’s intergovernmental agreement because it is located outside (north) of the area planned for City annexation within the 20-year agreement period. Nevertheless, as described in paragraphs a. and b. above, the location of Alternative 14W north of County Highway K is likely too far north to efficiently serve the City.

d. The Bellefontaine Collector: Alternative 14W is generally consistent with the City’s Official Map with respect to the location of the Bellefontaine Collector because the Parkway alternative would be located roughly one and one-half miles north of this planned collector and, therefore, would not interfere with or duplicate its function. e. The Town of Springfield Comprehensive Plan: Alternative 14W is inconsistent with

the Town’s Comprehensive Plan because it is located north of County Highway K, away from the City’s term growth area and in an area designated for very long-term agricultural preservation.

Alternative 14W is north of County K and therefore increases the travel distance for east-west traffic. If it is built as a highly mobile roadway (e.g., expressway or freeway without signals) it would probably capture a reasonable portion of east-west traffic and remove it from local roads. If however it is constructed as an urban arterial, most traffic would continue to use area roadways, such as County M and County K that are more direct.

(38)

D. Alternative 4W

1. Direct Impacts The direct impacts associated with Alternative 4W are shown in Figure 4.02-4. Mapping this alternative will cover about 128 acres, most of it being agricultural land. It follows a section line

about one-half mile north of County K. Because of this, Alternative 4W does not sever farms until it nears the 90 degree bend on County K. Here it turns northeast, diagonally severing the Wauna Dairy property. It then turns easterly bisecting the Wagner and Kippley farm operations. Alternative 4W does not require any relocations, which is one main advantage of this alternative.

a. The City of Middleton Northwest Quadrant Plan: Alternative 4W is generally inconsistent with the City’s Northwest Quadrant Plan because it would be located more than a mile north of the City’s northernmost growth boundary and would not adequately serve the City.

b. The City of Middleton Comprehensive Plan: Alternative 4W is generally inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan because it is located a mile north of County Highway K and would not adequately serve the City.

c. City of Middleton/Town of Springfield Intergovernmental Agreement: Alternative 4W is generally consistent with the City and Town intergovernmental agreement because it would not bisect the area identified for nearer-term City growth. Nevertheless, as described in paragraphs a. and b. above, the location of Alternative 4W is likely too far north to efficiently serve the City.

d. The Bellefontaine Collector: Alternative 4W is generally consistent with the City’s Official Map with respect to the location of the Bellefontaine Collector because the Parkway alternative would be located roughly one and three-quarter miles north of this planned collector and, therefore, would not interfere with or duplicate its function. US 1₂ County K P h e a s a n t B ra n c h County K Fisher Co u n ty Q 4W