Sections 2308h and 9152 (4v)
Section 2308h requires the Department of Transportation to give priority to funding applications under the Transportation Economic Assistance program for applicants that have expressed a willingness to accept a loan for all or part of the state share of the project. In addition, this section prohibits the department from allocating more than 80 percent of the total amount of state funds and loan repayments appropriated to the program for making grants. Section 9152 (4v) requires the department to waive a requirement for a local match and award a grant of $410,000 in January 2002 to Brown County, the city of Green Bay and the village of Ashwaubenon for reconstruction of a local road.
I am vetoing section 2308h because it places an unnecessary financial burden upon the department and any applicants requesting state assistance under the Transportation Economic Assistance program. In addition, I am vetoing section 9152 (4v) because it circumvents the approval process for projects funded by the Transportation Economic Assistance program and results in the inequitable distribution of program funds.
99.
Transportation Enhancements Projects
Sections 9152 (4c) and 9152 (4nk)
Section 9152 (4c) requires the Department of Transportation to award a grant from federal enhancement funds to the city of Wausau for the City Square Park Pedestrian Pathway project if the city contributes at least twenty percent of the project's cost. In addition, Section 9152 (4nk) requires the department to award a grant for the Clayton Pedestrian Facility if the town of Clayton contributes at least fifteen percent to the project's cost.
I am vetoing these sections because they undermine the department's authority to award grants under the federal transportation enhancements program. In addition, approval of these projects will delay completion of other projects that are eligible to receive funding.
100.
Roadway Improvements in the City of Ladysmith
Sections 654p, 654r, 9152 (3d) and 9152 (5g)
Section 9152 (3d) allocates $200,000 from the SEG-funded highway and local bridge assistance appropriation to fund a local road project in the city of Ladysmith if the city contributes an amount equal to at least twenty percent of the project's cost. In addition, the other sections allocate $480,000 from state and federal funds provided for railroad crossing improvement and protection projects to construct an underpass under the railroad tracks in the city of Ladysmith.
I am vetoing these sections because they are unnecessary. The provisions circumvent established policies, processes and eligibility requirements for funding local road projects and may impair the safety of other railroad crossings by reallocating funds from other high priority railroad crossing projects.
101.
Passenger Rail Restrictions
Section 2311g
This section prohibits the use of bond proceeds authorized for passenger rail improvements between Milwaukee and Green Bay or Milwaukee and Madison or for passenger rail station improvements on any project unless state funds are limited to twenty percent of the project's cost and Amtrak or another applicable railroad has agreed to provide passenger rail service along these routes.
S322
I am vetoing this section because it may adversely influence Wisconsin's ability to fully utilize federal funds for passenger rail development in this state and the Legislature already has oversight of passenger rail expenditures. This veto maintains the requirement that the Department of Transportation receive approval from the Joint Committee on Finance before using authorized bond proceeds along specified passenger rail routes.
102.
Safety Contracts
Sections 2340t and 9352 (3y)
These sections require the Department of Transportation to receive approval from the Joint Committee on Finance before entering any contract relating to alcohol or traffic enforcement activities that are funded with federal transportation safety funds.
I am vetoing these sections because they create an unnecessary administrative burden upon the department that may delay the approval and implementation of safety-oriented programs.
103.
Federal Highway Formula Aid
Section 2305m
Section 2305m requires the Department of Transportation secretary to submit a plan for approval to the Joint Committee on Finance if the department's most recent estimate of federal highway funds the department will receive are three percent more or less than amounts provided in the schedule for appropriations under s.
20.395 for that fiscal year.
I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary. Current law requires the department to submit a plan to the Joint Committee on Finance if the amount of federal funds received is five percent more or less than what was provided in the schedule for appropriations under s.
20.395.
104.
Major Highway Program
Sections 108o, 2297 and 2309
Section 108o requires the Department of Transportation to provide a life-cycle cost statement for each proposed major highway development project presented to the Transportation Projects Commission for consideration for enumeration. Sections 2297 and 2309 would limit the amount of revenue bond proceeds used in the major highway program to a maximum of 55 percent over any three consecutive fiscal years.
I am vetoing section 108o because life-cycle costs for highway projects are difficult to project and the existing major highway project approval process ensures projects are only recommended for enumeration if warranted. Furthermore, I am vetoing sections 2297 and 2309 since these provisions unnecessarily limit the department's flexibility in funding major highway construction projects.
105.
Long-Range Surface Transportation Investment Planning Committee
Section 9152 (3b)
This section creates a Long-Range Surface Transportation Investment Planning Committee that will gather information relating to state and local needs for surface transportation planning, involve the participation of relevant groups, assess the long-range funding needs for surface transportation programs, develop a multiprogram state surface transportation investment plan, and prepare a report containing the committee's evaluation, findings and recommendations. Members of the committee are to be nominated by the Assembly speaker and Senate majority leader and appointed by the Governor from specified transportation related groups.
I am vetoing this section because the Department of Transportation is currently completing twenty-year plans for all major modes of transportation in the state. Creating the proposed planning committee would replicate this process and place an unnecessary administrative burden on department staff.
106.
Highway Development Projects
Sections 2302c, 2302e, 2302g, 2302gg, 2305k, 9152 (3e), 9152 (3h) and 9152 (6bg)
These sections require the Department of Transportation to complete construction of USH 10 by December 31, 2013, and construct an interchange at the intersection of STH 57 and CTH P and at the intersection of USH 141 and CTH B as part of major highway projects. In addition, the sections do the following:
•
Exempt a portion of USH 12 from being widened until December 31, 2011, during any reconstruction or repair;
•
Widen a portion of USH 12 to five lanes without requiring a local matching contribution for project costs;
•
Require reconstruction of a portion of STH 100 by June 30, 2003, and completion of the Hanson Road bridge project by December 31, 2003; and
•
Allocate up to $300,000 of federal funding for specified improvements to a project on USH 51 in the city of Madison.
I am vetoing these sections because approval of these projects may delay and increase costs and safety concerns associated with other important projects that have already been scheduled for completion. In addition, modifications to major highway projects that have already been enumerated may adversely affect the design and environmental processes used in selecting these projects for enumeration. The USH 51 project in Madison poses safety concerns. Regarding the Hanson Road bridge, I recognize that thousands of jobs and economic growth will be served by the project and I am requesting the Department of Transportation secretary to expedite the time line. I am also requesting that the secretary review the timetable for the USH 10 project to ensure that construction is completed as soon as possible.
107.
Corridor Grant Program
Sections 654t and 2310m
S323
These sections require the Department of Transportation to administer a highway corridor grant program that awards grants from the Major Highway Development program to local governments for highway corridor planning activities. The department may not expend more than $500,000 in any fiscal year under this program.
I am vetoing these sections because this program is unnecessary. Local planning grants are currently available through the Office of Land Information Services in the Department of Administration. Funding these new grants from the Major Highway Development program will limit the amount of funding available for enumerated major highway projects and may delay the construction of these projects.
108.
Southeast Wisconsin Freeway System
Sections 656k, 657k, 658t, 2303b and 9152 (5x)
Section 2303b provides definitions for "interim repair," "Marquette Interchange," "reconstruction," "rehabilitation" and the "Southeast Wisconsin freeway" to specify that any southeast Wisconsin freeway rehabilitation projects may only be funded from the Department of Transportation's appropriations under s.
20.395 (3) (cr),
(cw) and
(cy) as created under this act. In addition, this section limits expenditures under these appropriations by the Department of Transportation to no more than $160,643,900 in the 2001-03 biennium and no more than $45,918,500 in any fiscal year thereafter, for the Marquette Interchange reconstruction project, unless the expenditure of more funds is approved by the Joint Committee on Finance.
The department may exceed the expenditure limit for the 2001-03 biennium or for fiscal years thereafter to meet project deadlines if the department makes a subsequent reduction in allocations for the Marquette Interchange reconstruction project by an equal amount. In addition, the department may transfer funding for the southeast Wisconsin freeway rehabilitation project between the state and federally funded appropriations to minimize project costs. However, the department must receive approval from Joint Committee on Finance before transferring funds from appropriations supporting the state rehabilitation program to the southeast Wisconsin rehabilitation program. The department is also required to submit its proposed relocation agreement with Aldrich Chemical Company, Inc., to the Joint Committee on Finance for approval. This agreement is to include a provision identifying the responsible party for remediation of any environmental contamination on the property.
This section also includes several requirements that must be met during reconstruction of the Marquette Interchange. These requirements include constructing and keeping open during the reconstruction project, interchanges at the intersection of 13th Street and I-94 and the intersection of Plankinton Avenue and I-794; requiring reconstruction work to be performed on a 24-hour basis; and requiring the redesign of the Marquette Interchange and I-94 in Milwaukee and Waukesha counties to allow for vehicle capacity expansion for up to thirty years.
Section 9152 (5x) requires the department to submit to the Joint Committee on Finance a request to transfer monies from the SEG, SEG-L and SEG-F appropriations that allocate funds for the state highway rehabilitation program to the southeast Wisconsin freeway rehabilitation appropriations to account for expenditures associated with rehabilitation of the freeway system. The department's request, and the committee's action on the request, may not include funding allocated for projects in other parts of the state or other funding that is not allocated to rehabilitation of southeast Wisconsin freeways.
The Department of Transportation needs to maintain flexibility to properly fund reconstruction projects that are part of the southeast freeway system. Therefore, I am partially vetoing section 2303b and vetoing section 9152 (5x) to remove provisions that limit the department's ability to reallocate expenditures from the southeast Wisconsin freeway rehabilitation appropriations created under this act to provide the department with more flexibility in allocating these funds towards projects identified as having the greatest need. I am also vetoing provisions that limit expenditures for the Marquette Interchange, after the 2001-03 biennium, to ensure that reconstruction of the Marquette Interchange is not delayed. In addition, I am vetoing provisions requiring the department to construct interchanges, allow expansion capacity to meet projected traffic capacity needs and requiring 24-hour construction of the Marquette Interchange. These provisions work against the department's efforts to reach a consensus with community members on the Marquette Interchange's reconstruction plan and could further delay reconstruction and increase costs associated with this project.
109.
West Canal Street Reconstruction Funding
Sections 655 and 9152 (5y)
This section requires the Department of Transportation to request up to $5,000,000 in tribal gaming revenues in its 2003-05 biennial budget request if additional funds are needed in the 2003-05 fiscal biennium to complete the West Canal Street project. The section specifies that if a request for additional funds is made, the department's request shall include a recommendation for statutory changes to require the city of Milwaukee to make a matching contribution equal to the amount of the grant to be awarded by the department in the 2003-05 biennium.
S324
I am partially vetoing this section to eliminate the requirement for the department to request additional funding for the West Canal Street reconstruction project in the 2003-05 biennium. In addition, I am partially vetoing the provision that specifies that the city of Milwaukee will be required to make a matching contribution if additional funds are received in the 2003-05 biennium for the West Canal Street reconstruction project. I am vetoing these provisions because they limit flexibility in addressing funding for this critical project. The level of future local government contributions will be dependent on the scope of the project and the capacity of other funding sources to address this important infrastructure need. I remain committed to the funding goals included in my original budget proposal and intend to ensure completion of this project in the 2003-05 biennium.
110.
Locations of Highway Rest Areas
Sections 2307f, 9152 (3wy) and 9352 (3wy)
These sections prohibit the construction of rest areas along a state trunk highway at a location that is within five miles of an exit from the highway that provides access to motorists' services. In addition, the Department of Transportation is required to use any savings realized under this provision to reopen previously closed rest areas or to keep areas proposed for closure that do not meet these restrictions open. This restriction does not apply to rest areas located within five miles of the state border or to any rest area near the village of Belmont in Lafayette County.
I am vetoing this provision because it may adversely affect our efforts to maintain public safety on state roadways by requiring the removal of existing rest areas as those facilities become inadequate to meet public demand. In addition, this provision is inefficient because it would prohibit the construction of rest areas that are already scheduled for construction and require reopening other facilities that have been closed.
111.
Traffic Signals and Streetlights
Sections 9152 (6dd), 9152 (6dg) and 9152 (6x)
These sections require the Department of Transportation to install traffic signals at the intersection of USH 63 and West Beaver Brook Avenue in the city of Spooner and STH 38 and Oakwood Road in the city of Oak Creek. In addition, the sections require the department to install a streetlight at the intersection of STH 27 and STH 71 in the town of Little Falls.
I am vetoing these sections because they circumvent normal approval processes and may impose additional safety hazards for motorists without full review and study by the department. Therefore, I am requesting that the department to work in cooperation with local officials to determine if the installation of the traffic signals and streetlight is warranted.
112.
Erection of Signs
Sections 9152 (6b), 9152 (6e), 9152 (6h), 9152 (6pp), 9152 (6q) and 9152 (6s)
These sections require the Department of Transportation to erect several signs, including:
•
A specific information sign on I-94 for Tenuta's Delicatessen and Liquors if the word "liquor" does not appear on the sign;
•
Directional signs for the Wayland Academy along USH 151 and the Clear Lake All Veterans' Memorial and Cemetery along USH 63;
•
Signs along I-43 identifying the city of Delavan as a "Historic Downtown";
•
Signs along STH 29 and STH 107 identifying the area known as "Little Chicago"; and
•
Directional signs along I-43/894 for downtown Greendale.
I am vetoing these sections because these items circumvent established policies, processes and eligibility requirements in statutory and administrative law. In addition, the installation and ongoing operating costs to maintain these signs will place an additional burden on the transportation fund.
113.
Agricultural Tourism Facilities
Section 2340y
This section requires the Department of Transportation to develop and implement a plan to promote and maximize the erection of agricultural tourism signs along highways in Wisconsin to identify and provide directional information to any agricultural tourism facility located in Wisconsin. The section also requires the department to consult with the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection while developing and implementing the plan.
I am vetoing this section because it is overly broad and could reduce safety on Wisconsin's highways. However, I recognize the importance of these facilities to the state and request the Departments of Transportation; Tourism; and Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection to consider these facilities when promoting Wisconsin's agricultural and tourism industries.
114.
Speed Limit Restrictions
Sections 3442g, 3442h, 3442j, 3442k, 3442m, 3456m and 3456p
These sections designate the speed limit along portions of STH 58 in the city of Mauston as 35 miles per hour and 45 miles per hour along certain portions of STH 58 in the town of Lisbon. In addition, the sections prohibit the Department of Transportation from modifying these established speed limits and extend current law provisions related to the posting of speed limits and forfeitures for exceeding those limits to these newly established speed limits.
I am vetoing this provision because it bypasses current law for designating speed limits on highways and is not appropriate for inclusion in the budget bill. I encourage the department to assess the speed limits in this area in order to address the safety concerns of the communities along this transportation corridor.
115.
Highway Reports and Studies
Sections 2296m, 2302k, 2302m, 2305g and 9152 (5yq)
S325
These sections require the Department of Transportation to submit to specific entities the following reports: a biennial report showing transportation revenues and funding for transportation programs for at least fifteen years preceding the report; an annual report on the schedule for construction of enumerated major highway projects; and a biennial report on the condition and performance of state trunk highways. In addition, the department is required to do a study on the STH 11/USH 14 transportation corridor and allocate $200,000 in fiscal year 2001-02 from appropriations for major highway projects to conduct a location study and environmental assessment for a STH 15/USH 45 project. The sections also waive the current law provision requiring the department to get approval from the Transportation Projects Commission before conducting an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment on a potential major highway development project.
I am vetoing the provisions requiring the department to provide reports because they are unnecessary and place an additional administrative burden on the department. I am vetoing the provision requiring the department to conduct a study of STH 11/USH14 and STH 15/USH 45 because these projects undermine the Transportation Projects Commission's authority to oversee the development of potential major highway projects. In addition, appropriating funds from the major highway appropriations to fund a study for STH 15/USH 45 may delay the construction of other enumerated major highway projects. However, I recognize the need for these and other critical mobility projects around the state. As such, I request the Department of Transportation secretary to consider alternatives to accelerate Transportation Projects Commission's review of these important projects.
116.
Stillwater Bridge Project
Section 2296p
Section 2296p requires the Department of Transportation to develop and submit a proposal to the Joint Committee on Finance specifying the amount of anticipated expenditures to be made by the department for mitigation in connection with the Stillwater Bridge project across the St. Croix River. This section also specifies that, if the department determines expenditures will exceed the amount anticipated, it must submit a proposal to the Joint Committee on Finance for unanticipated expenditures.
I am vetoing this section because it adds an unnecessary step in the process of approving the Stillwater Bridge project and could further delay or jeopardize the completion of a new bridge.
117.
Bridge Designations
Sections 2307k and 2307r
