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
These sections require the Department of Transportation to designate and mark the I-43 bridge across the Fox River as the "Leo Frigo Bridge" and to designate and mark the USH 45 bridge across the south branch of the Embarrass River as the "Gateway to the North."
I am vetoing these sections because they are policy items that should be addressed through separate legislation.
118.
Outdoor Advertising
Sections 2308sr, 2308st and 2340vg
Section 2340vg allows for the trimming or removal of vegetation located in a highway right-of-way under the Department of Transportation's jurisdiction if the vegetation prevents an operator of a vehicle traveling on the highway from seeing, for six uninterrupted seconds, a business or sign located adjacent to the highway right-of-way. In order to trim or remove vegetation the person must obtain a permit from the department, pay the cost of trimming or removing the vegetation, and replace any removed vegetation with comparable vegetation along the same highway right-of-way. In addition, the section specifies that no state funds may be expended for the trimming or removal process. The section requires the department to grant or deny any application for a permit within thirty days of receipt of the application. Sections 2308sr and 2308st require the department to exempt an advertising sign that is owned by a religious organization and a sign that has been permanently removed, even if the department is not notified, from being assessed an annual sign permit fee as established in administrative rule.
I am vetoing these provisions because the public and other interested parties have not been allowed adequate input in the development of this policy. Many of the proposed changes can be addressed through administrative rules. Therefore, I am requesting the department improve its current permit review and approval process, and solicit and review comments from the public, affected businesses and landowners, and state agencies to determine if changes to the department's administrative rules are necessary.
119.
Motor Vehicle Studies and Reports
Sections 2340k, 9152 (3k) and 9152 (5z)
Section 9152 (3k) requires the Department of Transportation to conduct a study and report on implementing a statewide automated drivers' license testing program. In addition, sections 2340k and 9152 (5z) require the department to study and prepare a report, in consultation with the Department of Electronic Government, on the department's computerized information systems and the department's plan for utilizing its data processing resources. The department is required to report its findings to the Joint Committee on Finance in fiscal year 2001-02. As part of its approval of the report, the committee may transfer up to $2,000,000 from appropriation under s.
20.395 (5) (cq) to the appropriation under s.
20.395 (4) (aq) for the purposes of a consultant study of the department's computerized information systems and information technology needs.
S326
I am vetoing sections 2340k and 9152 (3k) because they are unnecessary and provide too much legislative oversight of the department's operations. In addition, I am partially vetoing section 9152 (5z) to allow the Department of Administration secretary to transfer up to $2,000,000 from the Department of Transportation's appropriation under s.
20.395 (5) (cq) to the Department of Transportation's appropriation under s.
20.395 (4) (aq) in fiscal year 2002-03 for the purpose of conducting a consultant study of the Department of Transportation's computerized information systems and information technology needs. I am requesting the Department of Transportation to submit a report analyzing its computerized information systems and its plan for utilizing its data processing resources to the Department of Administration secretary upon its completion.
120.
Low Speed Vehicles
Sections 2114c, 2972k, 3020q, 3020r, 3020s, 3020t, 3020u, 3219L, 3219v, 3390u, 3390v, 3390x, 3390y, 3407e, 3407h, 3407p, 3407r, 3407v, 3408t, 3408v, 3408y, 3409n, 3409r, 3442d, 3445be, 3445bk, 3445bp, 3456mg, 3456nm, 3456s and 3816m
These sections create a new classification of motor vehicle called a "low-speed vehicle." A low-speed vehicle is a motor vehicle, as defined by federal law, which complies with applicable equipment standards, but does not include a golf cart. This provision generally makes low-speed vehicles subject to the same regulations applicable to other motor vehicles including the following: requiring vehicles to be manufactured to meet federal safety standards; subject dealers, distributors, manufacturers and transporters to the same regulations that apply to motorcycles; exempt low-speed vehicles from the state's property tax; and requires low-speed vehicles to be registered with the Department of Transportation. The provision treats low-speed vehicles differently from most other motor vehicles in the following respects: low-speed vehicles are operable on roadways having a speed limit under 25 miles per hour, except that local authorities may allow their operation on highways having a speed limit between 25 and 35 miles per hour; low-speed vehicles are prohibited from operating on state trunk highways or connecting highways unless they are operated in a designated crossing zone.
I am vetoing this provision because of safety concerns associated with operating a low-speed vehicle on local streets even if the speed limit is 25 miles per hour or less. I also object to the circumvention of the authority of local governments to regulate the use of these vehicles on local roads. While I support the creation of a new classification for low-speed vehicles, this policy should be developed with input from local governments and the public and be addressed in separate legislation.
121.
Motorcycle Requirements
Sections 395 [as it relates to s.
20.395 (4) (aq)], 3390yd, 3390yw, 3406p, 3445dg and 3445dm
Section 395 [as it relates to s.
20.395 (4) (aq)] provides $406,000 annually for the motorcycle, moped and motor bicycle safety program and sections 3390yd, 3390yw and 3406p establish specifications for the color and size of a motorcycle license plate. In addition, sections 3445dg and 3445dm specify that the stop lamp on a motorcycle must be red and may be able to emit a blue light in the center of the lamp.
While I support the motorcycle, moped and motor bicycle safety program, this use of taxpayer dollars is unwarranted during this period of tight transportation revenues. Therefore, I am partially vetoing section 395 [as it relates to s.
20.395 (4) (aq)] to eliminate $406,000 SEG in fiscal years 2001-02 and 2002-03. The effect of this veto is to provide $53,900,000 in fiscal year 2001-02 and $53,892,200 in fiscal year 2002-03 for departmental management and operations expenditures.
I am vetoing the provisions pertaining to the size and color of a motorcycle license plate and color of a motorcycle stop lamp because these policy issues should be addressed as separate legislation. In addition, current federal motor vehicle safety standards indicate that the blue dot in the middle of the red motorcycle brake light is not permissible for sale or use.
122.
Vehicle Extrication Training Grants
Sections 395 [as it relates to s.
20.395 (5) (ds)], 671h, 2337k, 3410k, 3411k, 3412k, 3413k, 3414k and 9452 (2f)
These sections create an appropriation to make an annual grant of $375,000 beginning in fiscal year 2002-03 to a nonprofit corporation that has experience in providing training to teach vehicle extrication techniques. In addition, these sections increase the fee for vehicle operator's license search requests by $2.20.
I am vetoing section 2337k that requires the Department of Transportation to make an annual grant for vehicle extrication since the grant would duplicate similar services already provided by the Wisconsin Technical College System. Therefore, I am partially vetoing section 395 [as it relates to s.
20.395 (5) (ds)] and section 671h to eliminate the appropriation used for allocating these grants.
In addition, I am vetoing sections 3410k, 3411k, 3412k, 3413k, 3414k and 9452 (2f) to remove twenty cents of the fee increase, thereby reducing the fee increase to $2.00 per request. Since the intended use of the twenty cent fee increase was to fund the vehicle extrication grant program, it is no longer necessary and would only serve to place an additional cost upon persons eligible to receive this information.
123.
Designation of Overlength Truck Routes
Section 9152 (5c)
Section 9152 (5c) lifts restrictions on motor truck lengths for portions of STH 107 and other specific county trunk highways until the Department of Transportation has had an opportunity to review these routes to determine if the routes should be designated as overlength truck routes under administrative rule.
S327
I am vetoing section 9152 (5c) because it bypasses the administrative rule process that designates truck routes as overlength truck routes. Allowing overlength truck travel on these routes before requiring a full assessment by the department and a public hearing may lead to premature wear on the roadway and other driver safety problems.
