Section 209.08. Project evaluation and selection criteria.

  The evaluation and selection of projects shall be directed toward preserving, rehabilitating, and improving the physical condition and serviceability of the state trunk highways and bridges. A combination of both quantitative information and professional judgment shall be used to compare the merits of projects and improvement levels to achieve appropriate statewide consistency. Candidate projects shall be initially evaluated at the region level. At this level, projects are analyzed based on an assessment of local conditions and needs in accordance with the region target mileage guideline and the funding allocation. The candidate projects shall be evaluated by the following criteria where appropriate:

(1)  Accomplishing sufficient surface renewal mileage necessary to preserve system serviceability and rideability. The target level of mileage renewal is established by the pavement serviceability index, pavement age and engineering field evaluation. The goal is to maintain an overall average pavement serviceability index of 3.0.

(2)  Limiting the more extensive reconditioning, reconstruction, and new facility development projects to those projects where the number or severity of deficiencies exceed statewide averages for safety, geometry or capacity, or where roadbeds are so deficient structurally that resurfacing or minor reconditioning is not a feasible alternative.

(3)  Correcting safety problems as defined by accident occurrences and rates exceeding the statewide average or to sites with severe accident potential.

(4)  Maximizing the utilization of existing facilities through use of low capital investment projects or transportation system management techniques such as signalization, channelization, access control, park and ride lots, etc.

(5)  Selectively rehabilitating or replacing, as appropriate, those bridges:

(a) With posted weight restrictions;

(b) That cannot be effectively maintained, based on the field inspections and office appraisals;

(c) That are functionally obsolete (geometric deficiencies of narrow width, restricted clearance, poor alignment, general safety) or expected to become unsatisfactory in structural or condition rating within the program period.

(6)  Considering the project development lead time of 2-10 years and the complexity of the project.

(7)  Utilizing the results of benefit/cost analysis or other cost effectiveness techniques to establish funding priorities for safety projects and for evaluating alternatives and relative merits of competing major projects.

(8)  Determining the extent of public acceptability or local support through such things as informational hearings, local governmental meetings and correspondence.

(9)  Identifying the nature and extent of environmental, energy, social and economic effects on high level recondition and reconstruction projects on an overall basis.

(10)  Determining the community effects and benefits including traffic service, safety, air and noise quality and overall community improvement.

(11)  Identifying the availability of and eligibility for federal, state and local funding to optimize use of all funds.

(12)  Improving system continuity and safety.

(13)  Ensuring compatibility with various local, regional and state plans through cooperation with local units of government, county and regional planning and review agencies and other state agencies.

History: Cr. Register, September, 1981, No. 309 , eff. 10-1-81; correction in (intro.) made under s. 13.92 (4) (b) 6. , Stats., Register February 2013 No. 686 .