Monthly Updates

• February 2006
• March 2006
• April 2006
• May 2006
• June 2006
• July 2006
• August 2006
• September 2006
• October 2006
• November 2006
• December 2006
• January 2007
• February 2007
• March 2007
• April 2007
• May 2007
• June 2007
• July 2007
• August 2007
• September 2007
• October 2007
• November 2007
• December 2007
• January/February 2008

February 2006

CURRENT STATUS

MARC issued a notice to proceed on February 2, 2006, to HNTB to begin the South Metro Connection. HNTB has begun collecting the necessary background information, such as traffic counts, land use, accident histories, aerial maps, etc… from the study team needed to assess and make projections for the area.

The study team has had discussions on the formation of the Leadership Committee which is proposed to be built around the same ideas as Johnson County’s CARNP Leadership group. This group will be used to help guide the study as well as a sounding board. It is proposed that each entity participating in the study will help select members for the group with the bulk of the membership coming from Johnson County.

UPCOMING ACTIVITIES

The study team will be working to collect the background information and will be holding meetings to discuss land use projections. A study team meeting is tentatively scheduled for March/April 2006 to kick off the project and review the submitted background information, discuss information dissemination, and identify and develop key messages/project issues.

(back to top)

March 2006

CURRENT STATUS

The South Metro Connection Study Kick-Off meeting was held on Thursday, March 23, 2006. The meeting was very productive and stimulated much discussion regarding:

1. project history and review
2. a review of the project work plan
3. public involvement
4. land use issues
5. environmental/traffic issues
6. purpose and need
7. other issues such as FHWA/agency coordination

HNTB will continue the process of collecting more of the necessary background information, such as traffic counts, land use, accident histories, aerial maps, etc. from the study team needed to assess and make projections for the area.

The Public Involvement Plan for the study has been created and MARC is in the final stages of procuring the website for the study. MARC has also proposed using the OneVoice KC infrastructure to help with public involvement and expressing the regional significance of the study.

The study team continued discussions on the formation of the Partnership Board which is proposed to be built around the same ideas as Johnson County’s CARNP Leadership group. This group will be used to help guide the study as well as a sounding board. It is proposed that each entity participating in the study will help select members for the group with the bulk of the membership coming from Johnson County.

UPCOMING ACTIVITIES

At the kick-off meeting HNTB and MARC proposed holding a meeting with planners from Cass and Johnson Counties, and the Cities of Overland Park, Olathe and Belton to discuss land use/traffic issues with the purpose of delving more deeply into land use issues and scenario development for land use and traffic forecasting. The study team will continue to collect background information in preparation for this meeting. In addition, this same meeting would include the study members taking a field trip of the study area to gauge the environs, aesthetics and present conditions. This meeting is targeted to occur around the third week of April.

MARC and HTNB have prompted the study team members to create an initial list of names for the Partnership Board. Once this list is formulated and submitted it would then be reviewed and a final list of names agreed upon. At this point it is targeted that the Partnership Board could be formed in the second to third week of April.

In an effort to engage the initial concerns that have been occurring from citizens near and/or within the study area in Johnson County, the study team reacted that they could meet with these citizens in the form of an open meeting to provide a project overview followed by a listening session where the study team would listen to citizens’ issues, thoughts, and concerns with the study, but don’t try to address them.

Transit agencies will be invited to participate in the study team.

A strategy will be created to provide a status report or introduction to people before the purpose and need workshop.

(back to top)

April 2006

CURRENT STATUS

More diligent progress was made toward:

1. data collection
2. delving into examination of the study area
3. activation of the public involvement plan
4. further progress toward procurement of the Partnership Advisory Board

The most substantial activity for April was a land use workshop held on Thursday, April 20, 2006. The larger and indirect intent of the land use workshop was to bring together the multi-state and multi-county jurisdictions’ planners and engineers to discuss land use and transportation proclivities that affect either side of the state line. The land use workshop convened in one meeting the representatives of the cross-state and cross-county jurisdictions of the study area and its immediate environs so that each could see and understand the patterns of development and discuss issues related to this cross-state and cross-county, incorporated and unincorporated development. study team members, planners and engineers were able to delve more deeply into land use and transportation issues and scenario development for land use and traffic forecasting, and were better able as group to gauge the environs, aesthetics, and present conditions of the study area.

The land use workshop meeting involved a morning driving tour of the entire study area and its environs. Planning and engineering members from Cass County, Johnson County, the Cities of Olathe, Overland Park, and Belton, MARC, KDOT, MoDOT and FHWA used two vans to examine the “state of the area” regarding settlement patterns, geography, topography, development, etc., and the potential of the study area regarding transportation and land use.. The group of 20-plus representatives then convened at the Blue Valley Public Works Facility at 6869 W. 153rd Street in Overland Park, KS to discuss their observations and participate in the actual workshop. This workshop involved using the desired and/or forecast land use observations from the representatives of Johnson County, Cass County, Olathe, Overland Park, and Belton in helping to define the scenarios that will ultimately be created and examined and thus input into the traffic model. The meeting was very productive and there were myriad points of view and observations. As well, agreements about the assumptions of land use were reached which will be used to further support the land use scenarios that are to be developed.

The Public Involvement Plan for the study has been refined and MARC is ready to go live with the project website. A fact sheet, questionnaire, and survey are also being refined and it is anticipated that the fact sheet will be sent out to all residents of the study area at least one week prior to the first Partnership Board meeting. MARC and Johnson County have met separately with members of the public who have requested meetings about the study to gain more information.

The study team continued coordination on the formation of the Partnership Advisory Board which is modeled around Johnson County’s CARNP Leadership group. This group will be used to help guide the study and will be used as a sounding board for interests and issues of the study area and its environs, alerting the study team to interests and issues that might otherwise go unnoticed, become marginalized, or overemphasized. The Partnership Advisory Board will ultimately help the study team to understand better both the “study area” and the actual “study” and its “process”. MARC has delegated the recommendations of these potential board members to the study team members representing the jurisdictions of the study area. It is the hope of the study team to create a board that includes members who represent the broad interests and geography of the study area and region. This includes residents, landowners, business owners, special interests, public officials, citizen activists/community leaders, regional & local travelers, people who might be for and/or against the study, etc.; these interests both within and to the four primary geographic directions of the study area. The ideal manageable size for this Board is anticipated to be between 20 to 25 members. Several study team members have submitted recommendations for the Board and we hope to finalize the Board by early to mid-May, holding the first Partnership Advisory Board meeting in mid-May.

UPCOMING ACTIVITIES

The study team will continue to collect background information and other data as needed and the consultant will continue to examine said data as well as the results of the land use workshop.

Continue refinement of the project website, fact sheet, questionnaire, and survey.

Hold the first Partnership Advisory Board Meeting. In an effort to engage the citizens who have concerns about the study it will be discussed whether this first meeting should also include a public aspect to its format. It is anticipated that members of the public will want to attend this first Partnership Board meeting, and it is likely that a public session at the end of the meeting will be held.

The Purpose and Need Workshop is on schedule to occur in late summer or early fall. There have been discussions about the public officials briefing as well as a separate public listening session to engage study area residents and the general public before the purpose and need workshop.

(back to top)

May 2006

CURRENT STATUS

The most notable aspect of study for the month of May was the formulation of the Partnership Advisory Board. Now that this Board has officially been appointed and has officially met, the public has yet another resource to engage the study. There has been further examination of the study area due to the excellent discussions at the first Partnership Advisory Board meeting. Further activation of the public involvement plan has also been realized now that a fact sheet has been disseminated to the study area and the website is being utilized more frequently.

As stated, the most substantial activity for the month of May was the final formulation of the Partnership Advisory Board and its first meeting. The local jurisdictions involved with making their respective recommendations for the Board made their final confirmations in mid-May. MARC staff then was able to submit these recommended members to the Chair of the MARC Board. Official invitation/appointment letters were then sent from MARC to those recommended. All 22 appointed members accepted their invitations and the formulation of the Partnership Advisory Board was complete.

The Partnership Advisory Board is modeled around Johnson County’s CARNP Leadership group. This group will be used to help guide the study and will be used as a sounding board for interests and issues of the study area and its environs. The Board members will assist with perspective and will inform the study team as to interests and issues that might otherwise go unnoticed, become marginalized, or overemphasized. The Partnership Advisory Board will ultimately help the study team to understand better both the “study area” and the actual “study” and its “process”.

The first Partnership Advisory Board meeting was held on Wednesday May 24, 2006. With the exception of two people, all members of the Board were present. About thirty members of the public also were present to observe the meeting and were given comment forms to submit to the study team. The study team welcomed the members and the study team and the board all introduced themselves. A presentation on the study was given followed by questions and comments from the Board. The meeting was very productive and each member of the Board was able to engage interactively with each other and the study team. It was clear from the discourse at the meeting that the majority of the members were quite familiar with issues regarding the study area and its environs, as well as past studies that have dealt with transportation in the study area. Board members were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding the study. The study team documented all of the questions and comments that the Board stated. At the conclusion of the meeting members of the public were given the opportunity to state their questions and were encouraged again to fill out and turn in the comment cards that were provided.
The study team made it clear that the questions and comments stated would be researched and answered and included for input into the study.

UPCOMING ACTIVITIES

The study team will continue to collect background information and other data as needed and the consultant will continue to examine data as well and the results of the land use workshop. In addition the many questions, observations and comments received from the Partnership Advisory Board and the public will be organized and researched. It is the intent of the study team to be able to address much of this information at a public listening session meeting in mid-June.

The study team will hold a Public Listening Session meeting on June 14, 2006 at Stilwell Elementary School from 7-9pm. This listening session will give the study team, members of the Partnership Advisory Board, and public officials the opportunity to engage the public directly on issues and ideas regarding the study area and the study process. It will be the role of the study team to listen to public comment on the study and answer questions as needed. Notice of this meeting will be sent to residents and landowners of the entire study area as will a questionnaire and survey to be filled out and submitted at the meeting.

The Purpose and Need Open House is scheduled to occur in late summer or early fall.

(back to top)

June 2006

CURRENT STATUS

Further examination of the study area has continued resulting from some excellent discussions held on land use, traffic, environmental issues, and public involvement at the first Partnership Advisory Board meeting on May 24. The many questions, observations and comments received at this meeting from both the Partnership Advisory Board and the public have been researched, organized and posted on the project website. This also has led to further discussion about the nature and progress of the study in light of new developments regarding some of the issues external to the study. The primary issues include the proposed Gardner logistics park and the Richards Gebauer development near Belton, MO; and the potential to expand the study area. Both the proposed Gardner facility and Richard Gebauer could have an impact on traffic and travel characteristics through the study area and the southern portion of the Kansas City metro. The study team has worked to engage this issue and this is summarized anon in this report.

HNTB and the rest of the study team have continued coordination and study on land use, traffic, socioeconomic and environmental information, and public involvement. Regarding land use there have been continued efforts to finalize the future land use scenarios for effective use within the traffic model. HNTB continues to review the travel model and are working to identify areas within the model that will need modification. Work is also being done to prepare to input the future land use scenarios to the travel model. Background studies continue to be reviewed with respect to county population and employment growth for use in Purpose and Need information. The project GIS has been constructed with all data received to date. In addition HNTB has received the Overland Park Arboretum’s Master Plan and continue to review.

Most of the public involvement endeavors for this month have been focused on the Public Listening Session. The first two weeks of June primarily were focused on preparations for this session. Several discussions and meetings took place regarding the format and presentation of the meeting. A press release was issued, and notice of the session was sent to residents and landowners within the study area via flyer announcement. In addition a questionnaire and a survey were sent out to all residents and landowners in the study area.

The study team held the Public Listening Session meeting on June 14, 2006 at Stilwell Elementary School from 7-9pm. About 275 people attended the meeting. Several public officials and members of the Partnership Advisory Board were in attendance. The purpose of the listening session was to give the study team the opportunity to engage the public directly on issues and ideas regarding the study area and the study process. The meeting presented background information as well as the study's intent, and then opened up for comments and questions from the audience. Overall, the meeting was a success. Comment sheets were handed out at the beginning of the meeting and those present were encouraged to complete and turn these in either at the meeting or mail them to the project mailing address. It was clear from public comment at the session that the majority spoke in protest of the study, and more specifically against a “highway”. Many seem to assume that a “highway” has already been selected. The study team made it clear that the questions and comments stated would be researched and answered and included for input into the study. As such, the combined comments at the listening session, answers to the questionnaire, and results of the survey will be evaluated, summarized, and posted on the website.

While public feedback at the listening session conveyed an overall negative reaction, it is interesting that the community overall has expressed a high level of interest in the study. While some believe the character and uses of the area will remain basically the same in the future, others feel that there will be substantial growth and change in the coming years. Feedback so far includes these opinions about the area:

• Important that any future options maintain quality of life and the environment
• Utilize existing roads and improve what is already in the study area
• Move the project south, possibly to Miami County
• Gardner and Richards-Gebauer intermodal facilities need to be addressed
• Consider impacts on property and property value
• Regional issues are secondary to residential concerns
• Clear, honest and open communication is critical

Several questions and concerns arose from both the Partnership Advisory Board meeting and the Public Listening Session regarding the proposed BNSF Gardner intermodal logistics park. Several study team members have met with Gardner staff to discuss the history and progress of the proposed facility, the likely resulting ancillary development, truck trips, impacts on traffic, etc., and what this means with respect to the South Metro Connection Study. HDR, Inc. met with MARC staff to discuss MARC’s TIP, Workplan and LRTP process with regard to the BNSF project. To date a traffic study has been conducted by BNSF and most recently a Break in Access Study has been requested of KDOT by Johnson County and the City of Gardner. At present, BNSF is in the process of acquiring the site and construction of the proposed facility is proposed to begin in 2007 with opening operations presently scheduled for 2009.

We are currently on schedule and have completed roughly 12% of the entire project.

UPCOMING ACTIVITIES

The study team will continue to collect background information and any other data as needed and the consultant will continue to examine the comments and questions from the Public Listening Session. The study team will also continue to monitor the proposed BNSF facility and other externalities of the study. KDOT has invited MARC to attend a scoping meeting for the Break in Access Study, likely to occur in mid-July.

The study team will be examining the cost and logistics of expanding the resident/landowner notification area to the ½ mile buffer boundaries north to 167th Street and south 207th Street in response to members of the public commenting that they had received no notification of the Public Listening Session. The study team will look into utilizing county tax, utility, and fire district databases as sources for address notification. It could also be possible to notify homeowner’s associations, school newspapers, church congregations, and business organizations to capture more of the public.

The study team is beginning to have discussions about a regional telephone survey for the study and is also in discussions about engaging and supporting public officials’ concerns and ideas, and how to more effectively engage other study issues. Meetings concerning these endeavors will be held in July as we work toward the Purpose and Need and Public Officials briefings.

The Purpose and Need Open House is still on schedule to occur in late summer or early fall and discussions are underway regarding preparation, announcements, and format. It is proposed that a study team meeting occur in mid- to late July to update the study team, discuss the Purpose and Need approach, and to discuss any other issues and ideas the study team wishes to endeavor.

(back to top)

July 2006

CURRENT STATUS

Thus far the majority of the work and the larger intent of the progress made on the South Metro Connection Study has fallen under the umbrella of data and information collection, and developing the Purpose and Need of the study. This is being formulated by creating a format for input from

1. the public
2. the Partnership Board
3. public officials

It will include input received from the public listening session, through questionnaires/surveys, public comment, the future Purpose and Need Workshop, and a telephone survey, all of which will be supplemented with the necessary data and information analysis on both current conditions of the area and the future projections of demographics, land use, and travel supply/demand.

Since the Listening Session held in mid-June, HNTB and the rest of the study team have continued coordination on land use, traffic, socioeconomic and environmental information. Based on some excellent discussions held on these topics and public involvement at both the June Public Listening Session and the May Partnership Advisory Board meeting further examination of the study area has continued.

In the month of July there were two primary focus areas. The first area of focus was on the continued development of the traffic model and producing some preliminary outputs. The second area of focus was preparations and attendance at the second study team Meeting held in late July. More details by discipline are noted below.

LAND USE & TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

Initial evaluations of the current conditions of the area have begun. The study teamhas collected the necessary transportation/land use data and information related to the study area and its environs. An outcome of the study team meeting was a desire to review the land use assumptions under the low intensity development and adjust the land uses to match or be closer to the Johnson County Rural Development Plan. Land use refinements will be made as a result. The study team also began to develop a land use summary memorandum on the process utilized to create the two land use scenarios. The GIS is also fully set up and the future land use scenarios have been finalized to be used with the traffic model. HNTB staff has begun to input the future land use and continue to identify areas within the traffic model that will need modification. In addition, the consultant staff has input the future land use scenarios for the low and medium intensities in to the traffic model and producing initial outputs.

SOCIOECONOMIC / ENVIRONMENTAL

A review of the MoDOT and KDOT environmental data was conducted. Background studies also continue to be reviewed with respect to county population and employment growth. To gain a general consensus by the study team members on the direction for the future purpose and need workshop a draft purpose and need PowerPoint presentation was prepared for use and comment at the study team Meeting held in late July.

CORRIDOR / ALIGNMENT STUDIES

Summaries were created of all past studies regarding the South Metro study area. Now that the study GIS is fully set up its full potential is being utilized. The North Cass Parkway alignment was placed into the GIS. Several days of site visits to the study area also occurred to identify existing conditions, and elements for the constraints map were created. This field data was then placed into the study GIS (notes, photos, etc.). HNTB then began to develop a constraints map in the study GIS. This is a map showing areas containing any land uses of concern such as a school, cemetery, parks, etc. In addition, HNTB met with the City of Belton to discuss the North Cass Parkway study outcomes and current implementation activities. In addition, discussions were held concerning Belton’s and Cass County’s vision for their street network system and what it would ultimately look like in the future.

PUBLIC / AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

Through all of the previous coordinated events and information analysis the study teambegan focusing efforts more concisely toward development of a Purpose and Need statement. As such, discussions have continued on the format and content of the Purpose and Need Open House. Strategy and preparations were made to hold a late July study team meeting to discuss some of these issues. This meeting was held to:

1. provide a project status update to inform the jurisdictional representatives on the progress of the study
2. discuss the content and format of the Purpose and Need Open House
3. discuss engagement of public officials so they remain educated on the status of the project
4. discuss any other issues and ideas of interest to the study team.

Refinement of the phone survey to be conducted by ETC has also commenced.

The Listening Session held on June 14, 2006, was summarized and placed on the study website. The study team evaluated and organized public comment and this has resulted in formulation of a FAQ page on the study website. In addition, a survey results summary is being formulated and will be ready in early to mid- August.

In response to constituent inquiries and questions submitted to Kansas Congressman Dennis Moore’s office, MARC prepared a detailed response to Congressman Moore’s office summarizing the study’ intent. MARC has also sent a complementary notice to all of the Kansas and Missouri congressional and senatorial offices representing the region officially notifying them of the South Metro Connection Study. In this notice MARC extended the study team’s invitation and readiness to give a formal presentation on the South Metro Connection Study at congressional and/or senatorial offices’ request and convenience.

Demonstrating their attention and interest in the study’s progress, the Johnson County Board of County Commissioners has also engaged in some excellent in-depth discussion about the South Metro Connection Study at their regular Board meetings. The study team has reviewed the meeting minutes and position papers and these have been posted on the study website.

Staffs from the study team have answered expediently various questions and inquiries about varying issues related to the South Metro study area.

EXTERNALITIES & OUTSTANDING ISSUES

The many questions, observations and comments received at the both the Public Listening Session and the Partnership Advisory Board Meeting continue to stimulate discussion about the nature and progress of the study, especially in light of new developments regarding issues external to the study. These primary issues include:

1. the proposed Gardner logistics park and the Richards Gebaur development
2. the potential to extend the study area south of 199th Street

Both the proposed Gardner facility and the Richards-Gebaur facility could have an impact on traffic and travel characteristics through the study area and the southern portion of the Kansas City metro. Several study team members met in June with Gardner staff to discuss the history and progress of the proposed intermodal facility, the likely resulting ancillary development, truck trips, impacts on traffic, etc.; and what this means with respect to not only the South Metro Connection Study, but also traffic and travel patterns in Johnson County and beyond. Given this situation the study team will need to assess the level of effort desired in determining how the logistics park in Gardner will affect the study (primarily better origin-destination data on traffic). Expanding on further interest in, and to gain more knowledge on this project, in mid-July MARC and Johnson County staff attended a scoping meeting for a break-in-access study associated with the proposed Gardner intermodal facility. The meeting was hosted by KDOT at their Topeka offices to help determine the assumptions of providing a break in access on I-35 to help respond to increased traffic resulting from the proposed intermodal facility. To parallel the information regarding the proposed Gardner complex, the study team will also need additional information about the Richard Gebaur complex.

The study team also recognizes the issue of extending the study area boundaries further south and is investigating this option. The South Metro Connection Study is derived from a history of planning for transportation investments in the southern portion of the Kansas City region and the study boundaries were created from the outcomes of these studies. One of the improvements recommended from these past studies was a connection between southern Johnson County and northern Cass County. Johnson County’s CARNP also identified a number of arterial corridor improvements, but left the area between 175th, 199th, Mission Road, and the Kansas/Missouri state line unresolved. The larger engaging intent of the South Metro Connection Study is to help fulfill the original purpose of CARNP and to help make transportation infrastructure recommendations for the designated area, left unresolved by CARNP. These are the primary reasons for designating the present study limits for the South Metro Connection Study. The Johnson County Board of Commissioners has discussed this issue and the study team recognizes that there are both positive and negative implications to extending the study limits. There are many factors that influence/effect such a decision as to extend the study area limits (of any study), and the implications of this endeavor will need to be weighed by all jurisdictions involved because there is the possibility that both the dynamic and scope of the study could change. If this option is found to be prudent for this particular study all of the jurisdictions involved will need to be in concurrence with such a decision.

UPCOMING ACTIVITIES

HNTB and the study team will continue to evaluate the data and information on land use and transportation. Background information and other data will continue to be collected as needed and HNTB will continue to examine the comments and questions received in the mail, over the phone, or from the study Web site.

It is likely that the Purpose and Need Open House will take place in September although an October workshop could be a reality. Discussions are underway regarding preparation, announcements, and format and these will need to be finalized well in advance of the workshop. Given the information and data that has been collected and reviewed, thus far it has been discussed that the study team needs to have a logical approach to understanding the study area’s reality today and that there are current needs in the study area, regardless of what develops in the future within or upon the environs of the area. Information about the study area today (surface type, traffic counts, connectivity, current land use) and some of the needs that show up today need to be understood. Then discussions can take place about the approach to predicting or projecting what the future might look like for the study area. Next, discussion should take place about the potential future information and the “needs” that are likely in the future.

In preparation for the notification effort of the upcoming workshop and for any other mailings, the study team will continue to examine the cost and logistics of expanding the resident/landowner notification area to the ½-mile buffer boundaries north to 167th Street and south 207th Street. Use of county tax and utility records, and fire district databases are being investigated as sources for address notification. In addition, notification to homeowner’s associations, school newspapers, church congregations, and business organizations are being considered to more broadly capture public awareness of the study. The study team will also need to finalize the expanded mailing list for meeting notification and how the expanded mailings will be handled (mailing house) and paid for (MARC). In addition, the study team will continue discussions and will work to finalize details of a regional telephone survey for the study.

The team will also continue discussions about how to best engage and support public officials’ concerns and ideas. Internal meetings concerning these endeavors will be held in August as work continues toward the Purpose and Need workshop and public officials’ briefings.

The study team will also continue to monitor the proposed BNSF facility and other externalities of the study area. During the first week of August MARC staff will be in Dallas, TX and as such have arranged a meeting with BNSF officials in Fort Worth, TX for a tour of BNSF’s Fort Worth Alliance Intermodal Complex and the AllianceTexas Corridor. Initial comparisons and observations can be made between BNSF Fort Worth Alliance Intermodal and the proposed Gardner intermodal facility because both complexes have the same purpose and are similar in size. Both facilities are located outside similar-sized metropolitan areas in rural/suburban areas of steadily growing counties near smaller-sized growing towns experiencing vast residential development. Both are located along a busy major interstate/rail corridor in relative close proximity to established warehousing, and as such both intermodal facilities have very similar transportation issues and influences. This visit will lead to further understanding of the operations and dynamics of the proposed Gardner intermodal facility and the local and regional development influences of such an industrial complex. More specifically, evaluation of BNSF’s Fort Worth Intermodal Complex will place in better context how the proposed Gardner project could influence future freight logistics, transportation, land use, and economic development in the southern Kansas City region.

(back to top)

August 2006

CURRENT STATUS

During August, focus has turned more directly to the actual Purpose and Need of the study, and the approach and format of the Purpose and Need Workshop. While data and information collection has for the most part commenced, discussions continue regarding land use, traffic, environment, socioeconomic issues, corridor alignment, public involvement and externalities. HNTB and the rest of the study team have continued coordination on all of these issues. The process of formulating and organizing input from 1) the public; 2) the Partnership Board; and 3) public officials has begun, and a strategy to incorporate this with the data and information analysis that is occurring will be incorporated into decisions regarding the approach and format of the Purpose and Need Workshop.

In August the two primary focus areas have been continued development of the traffic model and beginning preparations of the Purpose and Need Workshop. Discussions at the second study team Meeting held in late July provided a segway into more discussions about land use plans and fueled thought with regard to the format and approach to the future Purpose and Need Workshop.

LAND USE & TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

Evaluations of the current conditions of the area have continued. An outcome of the study team meeting held in late July was a desire to review the land use assumptions under the low intensity development and adjust the land uses to match or be closer to the Johnson County Rural Development Plan. Land-use refinements will need to be made as a result. These discussions have continued through August and will need to be finalized soon. The land-use summary memorandum on the process utilized to create the two land-use scenarios will need to be reviewed regarding the outcome of these discussions and decisions. HNTB staff continues to identify areas within the traffic model that may need modification.

SOCIOECONOMIC / ENVIRONMENTAL

Background studies continued to be reviewed with respect to county population and employment growth. A draft purpose and need PowerPoint presentation was prepared for use and comment at the study team Meeting held in late July, which stimulated discussion through August about the direction for the future Purpose and Need Workshop. These discussions evolved over which data and information should be included, the format, and the presentation.

CORRIDOR / ALIGNMENT STUDIES

Regarding the corridor/alignment studies detail mentioned in the July status update, further discussion and analysis has continued through August concerning the North Cass Parkway alignment, existing conditions, constraints and the street network system.

PUBLIC / AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

During August the study team began focusing efforts on development of a Purpose and Need statement. Based on all of the information and analysis collected thus far, discussions continued on the format and best approach of the Purpose and Need Workshop. The late July study team meeting where these issues were discussed yielded a general strategy to help formulate a successful workshop, and discussions continued through August to help qualify the details of an approach. This meeting also brought all of the jurisdictional representatives up to speed on the status and progress of the study. How to successfully engage public officials was also a topic of discussion.

Coordination with ETC Institute to refine the phone survey has continued and the survey should be ready for deployment in September.

EXTERNALITIES & OUTSTANDING ISSUES

The questions and comments submitted by the public thus far have kept the study team informed of external issues to the study area. These include: 1) a request to extend the study area south of 199th Street; 2) the proposed Gardner logistics park and the Richards Gebaur development; and 3) more recently, a proposed soccer and retail complex at the southwest corner of 159th Street and U.S. 69.

Based on the July status update about public comment and the history of previous planning studies that defined the South Metro study boundaries, the study team is considering extending the study area boundaries further south. There are both positive and negative implications to extending the study limits. However, it is logical at this phase of the study to gain further information through possibly more Partnership Board meetings and the future Purpose and Need Open House before a decision is made. In August discussions arose regarding the addition of more Partnership Board meetings but this will need to be weighed by all jurisdictions involved because it will change the scope and cost of the study.

Also discussed in the July status update, the study team recognizes that both the proposed Gardner facility and the Richard-Gebaur facility could have an impact on traffic and travel characteristics through the study area and the southern portion of the Kansas City metro.

Discussions have continued to assess the level of effort desired in determining how the logistics park in Gardner will affect the study (primarily better origin-destination data on traffic). In addition, the study team will stay up to date regarding KDOT’s Break in Access Study associated with the proposed Gardner intermodal facility. Assumptions are still being finalized regarding this Break in Access Study on I-35 to help respond to increased traffic resulting from the proposed Gardner intermodal facility.

During August the study team continued to monitor the proposed BNSF facility and other externalities of the study area. MARC staff traveled to Dallas, Texas, and arranged a meeting with BNSF officials in Fort Worth, Texas, for a tour of BNSF’s Fort Worth Alliance Intermodal Complex and the AllianceTexas Corridor. This tour included the history and progress of the AllianceTexas Corridor and BNSF’s Fort Worth Intermodal Facility, which more specifically explained 1) the freight logistics and expansion plans of the intermodal facility; 2) the resulting ancillary development that has occurred over a 15-year period; 3) truck trips; 4) impacts on traffic; 5) impact on development dynamics and traffic and travel patterns of the Dallas-Ft. Worth area, locally and regionally. Based on this tour, it is evident that several comparisons and observations can be made between the BNSF Fort Worth Alliance Intermodal facility and the proposed Gardner intermodal facility. Both complexes have basically the same purpose and are very similar in size and scope. Both facilities are located outside similar-sized metropolitan areas in rural/suburban areas of steadily growing counties near smaller-sized growing towns experiencing vast residential development. Both are located along a busy major interstate/rail corridor in relative close proximity to established warehousing, and both intermodal facilities have very similar transportation issues and influences. The visit has led to greater understanding of the operations and dynamics of the proposed Gardner intermodal facility and how this might affect the local and regional development influences of Johnson County and the southwestern Kansas City region. More specifically, this examination of BNSF’s Fort Worth Intermodal Complex has placed in better context how the proposed Gardner project could influence future freight logistics, transportation, land use, and economic development in the southern Kansas City region.

Other developments that are either being constructed or proposed in the area are a soccer and retail complex, a mall north of the study area, and a hotel/retail complex near Lions Gate. There is a proposal to construct a large soccer and retail complex at 159th and U.S. 69, which could affect the traffic and land use patterns along the northern and western environs of the study area. A mall with office and pad sites is being constructed at the southeast corner of 135th Street and Metcalf. Recently announced is a proposal to build a hotel/retail complex near Lions Gate to the east of the study area.

UPCOMING ACTIVITIES

HNTB and the study team will continue to evaluate the data and information on land use and transportation. Background information and other data will continue to be collected as needed and HNTB will continue to examine the comments and questions received in the mail, over the phone, or from the study Web site.

It is anticipated that the public Purpose and Need Workshop will take place in late October and that another Partnership Advisory Board Meeting will be held in early October to help prepare for the Purpose and Need Workshop. Discussions will continue regarding preparation, announcements, and format, and these will need to be finalized well in advance of the workshop. The study team will also need to have conversations about how to best engage and support public officials’ concerns and ideas related to the study and public input. It is likely that more Partnership Board meetings will be added to the scope to more effectively and more frequently engage the public.

It is anticipated that the study team will finalize the cost and logistics of expanding the resident/landowner notification area to the ½-mile buffer boundaries north to 167th Street and south to 207th Street. To finalize the expanded mailing list for this effort, other discussions regarding this strategy will need to take place on how these expanded mailings will be handled (mailing house) and paid for (MARC). The possibility of using county tax and utility records, and fire district databases will be investigated as sources for address notification. In addition, other ideas such as notification to homeowner’s associations, school newspapers, church congregations, and business organizations are being considered to more broadly capture public awareness.

Given the information and data that has been collected and reviewed, the study team needs to have a logical approach to understanding the study area’s reality today. It has been established through public comment, plans research, discussions with planning staff, and field observations that there are current needs in the study area, regardless of what develops in the future within or upon the environs of the area. Information about the study area today (surface type, traffic counts, connectivity, current land use) and some of the needs that show up today need to be understood. Discussions can then take place about the approach to predicting or projecting what the future might look like for the study area. It is anticipated that these issues will be reinforced through discussions with the Partnership Board and through input collected at the Purpose and Need Workshop. Next, discussion should take place about the potential future information and the needs that are likely in the future.

Further discussions will need to be finalized regarding land-use assumptions, plans and scenarios.

The study team will work to finalize the details of a regional telephone survey for the study.

(back to top)

September 2006

CURRENT STATUS

The study team focused on the Purpose and Need of the study, and the and format of the Purpose and Need Open House. September’s activities were involved preparing for a study team meeting on September 14, a Partnership Advisory Board meeting on October 3, and the Purpose and Need Open House on October 24. These meetings required continued efforts on to establish final land-use scenarios, traffic modeling on the existing roadway network, environment, socioeconomic issues, potential corridor alignment, public involvement and externalities, meeting logistics and preparations, and materials presentation.

A strategy to incorporate input from the public, the Partnership Board and public officials was discussed in depth along with the data and information analysis underway. These pursuits will be incorporated into the approach and format of the Purpose and Need Open House. More details by discipline are noted below.

LAND USE & TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

An important outcome of the study team meeting held in late July was a desire to review the land-use assumptions under the low-intensity development and adjust the land uses to match or be closer to the Johnson County Rural Development Plan. These discussions will be finalized as logical land-use scenarios of the study. These land-use scenarios are evolving beyond what was identified in HNTB’s scope of services. An additional meeting was held with Johnson County Planning and Overland Park on September 19 to finalize the land-use scenarios for modeling purposes.

Traffic modeling was hindered in part by the lack of finalizing the land-use scenarios. Modeling efforts focused on existing conditions using a medium-intensity scenario. Efforts were initiated to identify logical roadway networks to model in the stage after the Purpose and Need Open House. Concept 1 was identified as paving the existing gravel roads and improving their design characteristics (i.e.. the no-build scenario). Concept 2 was identified as completing the missing links in the existing roadway network. Concept 3 was a parkway/expressway connecting to the proposed North Cass Parkway. Finally, Concept 4 was a freeway connecting to the North Cass Parkway.

SOCIOECONOMIC / ENVIRONMENTAL

Information on county population and employment growth were further reviewed. Based on feedback on a draft purpose and need and a draft PowerPoint presentation at the study team meeting late July, discussion continued on which data and information should be included and how to present it at both the Partnership Advisory Board meeting and the Purpose and Need Open House. The draft purpose and need paper and the PowerPoint were revised accordingly.

CORRIDOR / ALIGNMENT STUDIES

Further analysis continued through September on the North Cass Parkway alignment, the existing conditions of the area, constraints, CARNP recommendations, and the street network system. Field trips were made to Missouri to review the North Cass Parkway and identify further constraints. To date, no alignments have been identified through the study area.

PUBLIC / AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

The study team prepared content and logistics for the September 14 and 19 team meetings, as well as the October 3 Partnership Advisory Board meeting, and the October 24 Purpose and Need Open House. Efforts focused on development of a Purpose and Need statement. Coordination for the Purpose and Need Open House included: 1) the details of an approach; 2) the amount, format and dissemination of the study information; and 3) public notice. How to successfully engage public officials was also a topic of discussion at the September 14 study team meeting.

The study team worked with ETC Institute to refine the regional telephone survey, which was conducted in mid-September.

EXTERNALITIES & OUTSTANDING ISSUES

The many questions, observations and comments submitted by the public have kept the study team informed of external issues to the study area. These include: 1) a request to extend the study area south of 199th Street; 2) the Gardner logistics park/intermodal facility and the Richards Gebaur development; 3) a break-in-access study along I-35 between Edgerton and southwest Olathe; 4) a proposed K-68 study through Louisburg; 5) a proposed soccer/hotel/retail complex at the southwest corner of 159th Street and U.S. 69; 6) a new mall with office and pad sites at the southeast corner of 135th Street and Metcalf; 7) other developments such as new housing areas, commercial and retail development, and a proposal to build a hotel/retail complex near Lion's Gate.

The study team discussed adding more Partnership Board meetings to the schedule. This is likely to be agreed on by members of the study team.

UPCOMING ACTIVITIES

The study team will continue to collect and evaluate the data and information on land use and transportation as needed. Comments and questions received in the mail, over the phone, and from the study Web site will continue to be examined.

The study team is targeting the Purpose and Need Open House to take place October 24, and another Partnership Advisory Board Meeting will be held October 3 to help all prepare announcements and format for the open house. Discussions continued on how to best engage and support public officials’ concerns and ideas related to the study and public input. It is likely that more Partnership Advisory Board meetings will be added to the scope to more effectively and more frequently engage stakeholders.

The study team will finalize the cost and logistics of expanding the resident/landowner notification area to the ½-mile buffer boundaries north to 167th Street and south 207th Street. These expanded mailings will be handled by a mailing house and will be paid for MARC.

It is important to reemphasize that the study team needs to have a logical approach to understanding the study area’s reality today. Through public comment, plans research, discussions with planning staff, and field observations, it has been established that there are current needs in the study area, regardless of what develops in the future. Discussions can then take place about the approach to predicting or projecting what the future might look like for the study area. It is anticipated that these issues will be reinforced through discussions with the Partnership Board and through input collected at the Purpose and Need Open House.

Land-use assumptions, plans and scenarios need to be finalized.

The study team will be ready to review the results of the regional telephone survey for the study.

(back to top)

October 2006

CURRENT STATUS

During the month of October the majority of the study team’s efforts went to finalizing the information, approach and format of the Purpose and Need Open House/Workshop held on October 24, 2006. This included in-depth discussion regarding previous September study team discussions on efforts to finalize land use scenarios, traffic modeling on the existing roadway network, environmental constraints identification, socioeconomic issues, historical growth trends, future growth projections, potential corridor alignment, public involvement and externalities, meeting logistics and preparations, and materials presentation in addition to a strategy to incorporate input from 1) the public; 2) the Partnership Board; and 3) public officials.

LAND USE & TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

Evaluations of the current conditions of the area have been iterative. Review of the land use assumptions under the low intensity development and adjustment of the land uses to match or be closer to the Johnson County Rural Development Plan continued to yield discussion to finalize the logical land use scenarios for the study. Based on more recent discussions held with Johnson County Planning and Overland Park to help finalize the land use scenarios for modeling purposes these land use scenarios continued to iterate and take additional effort beyond what was identified in HNTB’s scope of services. Modeling efforts focused on the existing conditions utilizing a medium intensity scenario. Land use refinements have been made as a result. As such, the land use scenarios for a rural, rural to low, and suburban were finalized and input into the traffic model. Efforts were also initiated to identify logical roadway networks to model in the stage after the Purpose and Need Workshop/Open House.

Traffic modeling was run for the existing roadway network with the three land use scenarios to assess the future demands that could be anticipated on the existing network. Continued initial efforts were made to identify logical roadway networks to model in the stage after the Purpose and Need Open House/Workshop. Concept 1 was identified as paving the existing gravel roads and improving their design characteristics (i.e. the no build scenario). Concept 2 completed missing links in the existing roadway network. Concept 3 was a parkway/expressway connecting to the North Cass Parkway. Finally, concept 4 was a freeway connecting to the North Cass Parkway.

The land use scenario assumptions and four facility type concepts were documented and displayed at the Purpose and Need Open House/Workshop meeting.

SOCIOECONOMIC / ENVIRONMENTAL

Information analyses on county population and employment growth were finalized. This information was presented at the October 24th Purpose and Need Open House/Workshop. The study team also worked to finalize the Draft Purpose and Need paper to present at the future November Partnership Advisory Board and study team meetings.

CORRIDOR / ALIGNMENT STUDIES

Further discussion and analysis has continued through October concerning the North Cass Parkway, the existing conditions of the area, constraints, and the street network system. As well, continued analysis of the existing roadway network and CARNP recommendations were reviewed for the study area. To date, no alignments have been identified through the study area.

PUBLIC / AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

Expanding on the discussions and results of the two September study team meetings efforts were continued through October toward development of a Purpose and Need statement and document as well as continued effort on the preparations, planning, content, format, approach, and logistics for the October 24th Purpose and Need Open House/Workshop. These efforts were reinforced by the second meeting of the Partnership Advisory Board on October 3, 2006.

There were several discussion points at this meeting:

• Discussion on a Draft Purpose and Need document and an associated PowerPoint presentation.
• Review projected land uses/development scenarios
• Review future traffic conditions on existing transportation network
• Review infrastructure scenario concepts and suggest refinements
• Format, content, scope, and publicity for the Purpose and Need Open House/Workshop.
• Merits of adding more Partnership Board meetings to the scope of the study

The meeting’s overall focus was to present the preliminary purpose for the project and the identified needs. These elements were then supported with data on what has been heard from the public, growth trends, employment, housing information, lack of roadway connectivity, sewer plans, land use scenarios, future traffic forecasts on the existing network, transit identification, and bike/pedestrian potential. Finally the meeting concluded with a presentation of potential future concepts that could be studied in the next phase of the project.

A presentation on the South Metro Connection Study was presented to the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce Surface Transportation Committee on October 5, 2006. The presentation was a summary of activities and future next steps.

The regional phone survey; conducted by ETC Institute, was also completed and the preliminary results were analyzed. A portion of the survey was displayed at the Purpose and Need Open House/Workshop. The full survey will be reviewed at the future November Partnership Advisory Board and study team meetings.

The Purpose and Need Open House/Workshop was held on October 24, 2006. The meeting was organized with ten stations and a PowerPoint presentation conveying information on what we have heard from the public, historical growth, future growth, the purpose and need for the project, concepts to be studied in the next phase, the project schedule, and comment tables. Approximately 250 people were in attendance. Additional detailed information and summaries can be found on MARC’s website at http://www.marc.org/transportation/smc/documents.htm.

Preparations began for a Partnership Advisory Board meeting to be held on November 15, 2006 and a study team meeting to be held on November 16, 2006 that will provide a debrief on the Purpose and Need Open House/Workshop, the ETC phone survey, potential finalization of the Purpose and Need, traffic modeling options, and discussion of the freeway concept.

EXTERNALITIES & OUTSTANDING ISSUES

More discussions have taken place regarding the additional efforts associated with land use iterations, the June 14 Listening Session, survey summaries, and the addition of more Partnership Advisory Board meetings in an effort to promote prolonged and more frequent communication between the Board and the study team. A fee estimate was produced ($58,818.00) by HNTB to the study team regarding these endeavors. The study team funding partners have discussed and ultimately agreed to these additions to the study scope of services. As such, this supplement to the original scope of services will be submitted in November to the Total Transportation Policy Committee (TTPC) and MARC Board for their respective approval. This will then initiate into motion notice of the contract modification and a signature to the supplement.

As well, the many questions, observations and comments received from the public have kept the study team abreast of external issues to the study area. The study team will continue to monitor these issues, which include but are not limited to: 1) the potential to extend the study area south of 199th Street; 2) the Gardner logistics park/intermodal facility and the Richards Gebaur development near Belton, MO; 3) a Break in Access Study along I-35 between Edgerton and southwest Olathe; 4) a proposed K-68 Study through Louisburg; 5) a proposed soccer/hotel/retail complex at the southwest corner of 159th Street and U.S. 69; 6) a new mall with office and pad sites at the southeast corner of 135th Street and Metcalf; 7) other developments such as new housing areas, commercial and retail development, and a proposal to build a hotel/retail complex near Lions Gate.

UPCOMING ACTIVITIES

While the population, employment, land use and traffic data have been collected and analyzed, the study team will continue to collect and evaluate any data and information on land use and transportation as needed. Comments and questions received in the mail, over the phone, and from the study website will continue to be examined.

The study team has begun preparations for another Partnership Advisory Board meeting to be held on November 15, 2006 and a study team meeting to be held on November 16, 2006 that will provide a debrief on the Purpose and Need Open House/Workshop, the ETC phone survey, potential finalization of the Purpose and Need, traffic modeling options, and discussion of the freeway concept.

Discussions will also continue about how to best engage and support public officials’ concerns and ideas related to the study and public input. Preparations have begun on a presentation on the Study to debrief the Johnson County Board of County Commissioners. More Partnership Advisory Board meetings will scheduled more effectively and more frequently engage the public and the study team.

Final decisions will need to be made regarding the land use scenarios and the final Purpose and Need statement/document. It is anticipated that once these endeavors are accomplished more robust discussion can take place regarding concept development.

The study team will review the final results of the regional telephone survey for the study and the full survey will be presented at the future November Partnership Advisory Board and study team meetings.

(back to top)

November 2006

CURRENT STATUS

In November, the South Metro Connection study transitioned from the study and documentation of the Purpose and Need for the project to the examination and definition of concepts for future evaluation. Much of November was spent reviewing the input received at the Purpose and Need Open House held on October 24, 2006, as well as input from the study team and Partnership Advisory Board. This helped refine the final version of the Purpose and Need paper and the concepts for future consideration. The study team met twice to discuss further the telephone survey final report, the Draft Purpose and Need document and preparations for the November Partnership Advisory Board meeting.

Specific meetings throughout the month included a briefing with the Partnership Advisory Board on November 15, a study team meeting on November 16, MARC’s Total Transportation Policy Committee on November 21, and the Johnson County Board of County Commissioners on November 30.

LAND USE & TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

Traffic modeling was run for the existing roadway network with the three land-use scenarios to assess the future demands that could be anticipated on the existing network. Initial efforts were made to identify logical roadway networks to model in the stage after the Purpose and Need Open House.

Land-use efforts were completed by the Open House. Through study team discussions and input from the Partnership Advisory Board, final decisions have been made regarding the land use scenarios and the final Purpose and Need statement/document. As such, the study team has proposed to carry forth the “Rural to Low” Density (medium) development land-use scenario.

The “Rural to Low” density scenario is a blend of the “low” (rural) and “high” (suburban) land-use scenarios and is generally considered a conservative scenario. Future residential developments, commercial developments and sewer districts are being approved in the undeveloped areas of the study area that will create densities higher than the Rural Density land-use scenario. Therefore, it is unlikely that the rural development scenario will be maintained. Statistically, there is little difference between the traffic generated by the medium and high land-use scenarios, and carrying both of these land-use scenarios forward would be redundant.

The land-use scenario assumptions and four facility type concepts were documented and displayed at the Purpose and Need Open House meeting. Continued efforts were made to identify logical roadway networks (east-west and north-south) to model. These four roadway concepts were identified as follows:

Concept 1: Paving the existing gravel roads and improving their design characteristics (e.g., the no-build scenario)

Concept 2a: Fully implements CARNP and includes the future roadway network plans of Overland Park, Belton and Cass County

Concept 2b: Completed missing links in the existing roadway network (Missing links will be connected to create continuous east-west routes)

Concept 3: Parkway/expressway connecting to the North Cass Parkway

Concept 4: Freeway connecting to the North Cass Parkway

Concept 4 was discussed more in depth with the Partnership Advisory Board, the study team, and Cass County and Belton officials; and its viability is uncertain due to the North Cass Parkway not intended to ever become a freeway.

SOCIOECONOMIC / ENVIRONMENTAL

Analyses on county population and employment growth have been finalized. This information was presented at the October 24 Purpose and Need Open House. The study team continued work to finalize the Draft Purpose and Need paper and presented this at both the November 15 Partnership Advisory Board meeting and the November 16 study team meeting. Final input regarding the study Purpose and Need was sought during the meetings enabling final preparations for the Purpose and Need statement paper.

CORRIDOR / ALIGNMENT STUDIES

Discussions and analysis continued through November on the North Cass Parkway, the existing conditions of the area, constraints, and the street network system. Continued analysis of the existing roadway network, CARNP recommendations, and the Overland Park travel model were reviewed for the study area.

The Concept 2a and 2b roadway linkages were formulated through discussions regarding the roadway network.

The study team also began to formulate potential horizontal geometrics for the Concept 3 and Concept 4 alternatives connecting the North Cass Parkway to U.S. 69. To gain a better perspective of the future of the North Cass Parkway, members of the study team met with officials from Cass County and Belton to discuss the ultimate plan for the North Cass Parkway and the viability of the facility ever becoming a freeway. The conclusion of these discussions is that the North Cass Parkway is unlikely to ever become a freeway.

While a combination of concepts and theoretical potential alignments have been discussed, to date there have been no official alignments of any of the concepts finalized through the study area.

PUBLIC / AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

The study team began preparations in October for another Partnership Advisory Board meeting that was held on November 15 and a study team meeting that was held on November 16. Both meetings provided a debrief of the Purpose and Need Open House, the ETC regional telephone phone survey, finalization of the Purpose and Need, traffic modeling options (12 potential model runs > current scope), and discussion of the freeway concept and its viability.

The final results from the ETC phone survey were received and reviewed. The full survey was reviewed at the November 15 Partnership Advisory Board meeting and the November 16 study team meeting.

Additionally, at the study team meeting on November 16, the team was briefed on the Partnership Advisory Board’s input and comments. Final input regarding the study Purpose and Need was sought during the meeting enabling final preparations for the Purpose and Need statement paper.

The South Metro Connection project was presented to MARC’s Total Transportation Policy Committee on November 21. The presentation provided an overview of the project process, public involvement activities, historical information, draft purpose and need, preliminary concepts and next steps. The study was also presented at the Johnson County Board of County Commissioners meeting on November 30. The presentation provided the Board a debrief of the Open House, results from the ETC phone survey, the land-use selection that will be utilized moving forward, and the concepts being evaluated in the next stage of the project.

Discussions continued about how best to engage and support public officials’ concerns and ideas related to the study and public input. In response to the scope supplement more Partnership Advisory Board meetings will be scheduled in the future to more effectively and more frequently engage the Board, the public and the study team.

EXTERNALITIES & OUTSTANDING ISSUES

Discussions continued on land-use iterations, the June 14 Listening Session, survey summaries, and the addition of more Partnership Advisory Board meetings. The study team agreed to these additions to the study scope of services. This supplement to the original scope of services was submitted in November to the Total Transportation Policy Committee and MARC Board for approval. Contract modifications between MARC and the funding partners were pursued and signatures of both HNTB and MARC representatives will be needed to secure the supplement.

The study team will continue to monitor external issues, which include but are not limited to: 1) the viability of extending the study area south of 199th Street; 2) the Gardner logistics park/intermodal facility and the Richards Gebaur development near Belton, MO; 3) a Break in Access Study along I-35 between Edgerton and southwest Olathe; 4) a proposed K-68 Study through Louisburg; 5) a new mall with office and pad sites at the southeast corner of 135th Street and Metcalf; and 7) other developments such as new housing areas, and commercial and retail development.

UPCOMING ACTIVITIES

While the population, employment, land use and traffic data have been collected and analyzed, the study team will continue to evaluate any data and information on land use and transportation as needed. In the coming months the study team will be focusing more intently on the evaluation of the roadway concepts and corridor alternatives.

The scope of services supplement for the additional efforts associated with land use iterations, the Listening Session, survey summaries, and additional Partnership Advisory Board meetings has been approved and formal contract modifications and a signed supplemental is needed.

It is anticipated that over the holidays the study team will be able to bring the study forward to its original schedule timeline and a late February public meeting regarding corridor alternatives is foreseeable.

(back to top)

December 2006

CURRENT STATUS

In December, the South Metro Connection Study transitioned from the Purpose and Need for the project to more detailed examinations and definitions of concept development for future evaluation. Much of December was spent reviewing the roadway concepts and input from the study team and the November Partnership Advisory Board. Work efforts included establishment of the concepts within the traffic model, running initial model runs, creating the draft design criteria, and establishing preliminary hypothetical alignments for Concept 3 (parkway/expressway) and Concept 4 (freeway).

The study team worked to bring the project back to its targeted schedule milestones. Meetings throughout December were internal and focused on the roadway concepts and alignments (Concepts 1, No-build; Concepts 2a and 2b, Concept 3, Parkway; and Concept 4, Freeway), and on preparing the traffic model to run the Concept 2a, 2b, 3 and 4. In addition, a meeting was held to discuss the overall project schedule and preliminary alignments. Finally, preparations were begun for the January 2007 study team and Partnership Advisory Board meetings and to tentatively schedule project meetings and milestones that should occur over the next three months.

LAND USE & TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

The traffic model was developed for Concepts 2a, 2b, 3 and 4. The study team began to analyze initial output from the traffic model runs and identify the desired measures of effectiveness to compare the roadway concepts.

The four roadway concepts are identified as follows:

Concept 1: Paving the existing gravel roads and improving their design characteristics (e.g., the no-build scenario)

Concept 2a: Fully implements CARNP and includes the future roadway network plans of Overland Park, Belton and Cass County

Concept 2b: Completed missing links in the existing roadway network (missing links will be connected to create continuous east-west routes)

Concept 3: Parkway/expressway connecting to the North Cass Parkway

Concept 4: Freeway connecting to the North Cass Parkway

It is anticipated that more robust discussions will take place through January 2007 regarding concepts, potential alignments and potential design sections for future development.

SOCIOECONOMIC / ENVIRONMENTAL

The study Purpose and Need paper was posted on the MARC Web site and initial discussions were held with KDOT on their environmental review of the above-stated concepts.

CORRIDOR / ALIGNMENT STUDIES

Further discussion and analysis continued on the North Cass Parkway, the existing conditions of the area, constraints, and the street network system. Continued analysis of the existing roadway network, CARNP recommendations, the Overland Park travel model, and Cass County Comprehensive Plan also continued to be reviewed for the study area.

The study team began to design the potential horizontal geometrics for the Concept 3 alternatives connecting the North Cass Parkway to the 179th Street interchange, and a hypothetical new interchange in the 191st Street vicinity. The study team also began to design the potential horizontal geometrics for Concept 4 alternatives connecting the North Cass Parkway to a hypothetical new interchange between 191st Street and 183rd Street. The draft design criteria and typical sections were formulated and presented to the study team.

Expanding on the discussions held with Cass County and Belton representatives, the study team discussed the ultimate plan for the North Cass Parkway and the viability and logic of the facility ever becoming a freeway. These discussions further included more robust dialogue regarding the planned U.S. 71 service interchange that will connect the North Cass Parkway with U.S. 71. The conclusion of these discussions still remains that is unlikely that North Cass Parkway will ever become a freeway.

While a combination of concepts and theoretical potential alignments have been discussed, to date there have been no official alignments finalized for any of the concepts through the study area.

PUBLIC / AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

The study team discussed the main talking points from November meetings including the Partnership Advisory Board meeting that was held on November 15, the study team meeting that was held on November 16, and the Johnson County Board of County Commissioner’s briefing delivered on November 30, 2006. [These meetings provided a debrief of the Purpose and Need Open House, the ETC regional telephone phone survey, finalization of the Purpose and Need, traffic modeling options (12 potential model runs > current scope), and discussion of the freeway concept and its viability.]

The study team also began preparations and logistics for the study team and Partnership Advisory Board meeting to be held in January 2007. The study team also reviewed and discussed the concerns outlined in Mr. Richardson’s letter regarding the Partnership Advisory Board’s role regarding their ability to have influence on the study outcomes.

In response to the finalized scope supplement more Partnership Advisory Board meetings will be scheduled in the future to more effectively and more frequently engage the Board, the public and the study team.

EXTERNALITIES & OUTSTANDING ISSUES

The study team will continue to monitor external issues, which include but are not limited to: 1) the viability of extending the study area south of 199th Street; 2) the Gardner logistics park/intermodal facility and the Richards Gebaur development near Belton, MO; 3) a Break in Access Study along I-35 between Edgerton and southwest Olathe; 4) a proposed K-68 Study through Louisburg; 5) a new mall with office and pad sites at the southeast corner of 135th Street and Metcalf; and 7) other developments such as new housing areas, and commercial and retail development.

UPCOMING ACTIVITIES

In the coming months, the study team will be focusing more intently on the evaluation of the roadway concepts, corridor alternatives, design criteria and section options for the concepts. Through January 2007 traffic modeling for the remaining concepts (2a, 2b, 3 and 4) will be run, and the development and evaluation of the section options and horizontal and vertical geometrics for Concepts 3 and 4 will continue.

While the study team tried to bring the study forward to its original schedule timeline over the holidays, more time was needed to evaluate the corridor alternatives, design criteria and section options. This process is scheduled to continue through January 2007 and a mid-February Partnership Advisory Board meeting and a late February public meeting regarding corridor alternatives are both foreseeable.

The scope of services supplement for the additional efforts associated with land-use iterations, the Listening Session, survey summaries, and additional Partnership Advisory Board meetings has been approved and a signed supplemental has been completed.

(back to top)

January 2007

CURRENT STATUS

In January, the Study Team continued work to finalize the project design criteria, typical sections, traffic modeling, refinement of the horizontal and vertical alignments for Concepts 3 and 4, and preliminary cost estimates for the roadway concepts.

Internal meetings focused on preparing the traffic model to run Concepts 3 and 4, discussing design criteria, typical sections, preliminary traffic results, and preliminary alignment locations. A Partnership Advisory Board meeting was held on January 11, 2007, to update the Board on the status of the study, discuss the traffic modeling concepts and preliminary outcomes, discuss Concept 4 and the draft evaluation matrix. Follow-up study team meetings were also held to discuss additional input on the engineering alignment, design criteria and typical section.

LAND USE & TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

Since the traffic model was developed for Concepts 2a, 2b, 3 and 4 in December, the study team has continued to analyze initial output from the traffic model runs that have been conducted. The study team has continued discussions to identify concept screening factors and the desired measures of effectiveness (MOE’s) to compare the roadway concepts. Presently, these include but are not limited to average daily traffic volumes, travel time, difference plots, and volume-to-capacity ratios. Regarding traffic analysis these screening factors and MOEs can be used interchangeably. During the month of January the study team began running the traffic model for Concepts 3 and 4.

Regarding land use and traffic analysis, the Partnership Advisory Board has continued to emphasize that north-south roadways are important, and the study team has taken this element into consideration. At the January Partnership Advisory Board meeting, the study team showed the transition between the no-build scenario and other concepts to emphasize the north-south dynamic of the traffic element and what has changed.

The study team also discussed the viability of continuing with the Concept 4 freeway (see “Corridor/Alignment Studies). The study team has not completed traffic modeling for a freeway concept. The Partnership Board requested more information on this topic.

Discussion will continue through February 2007 regarding concepts, potential alignments, design sections for future development, and the freeway concept.

SOCIOECONOMIC / ENVIRONMENTAL

The study team continued talking with about their role in the environmental review. KDOT has conducted a preliminary environmental review of the study area. Discussion will continue on whether more detailed reviews are needed.

CORRIDOR / ALIGNMENT STUDIES

More discussions in January about the North Cass Parkway, the existing conditions of the area, constraints, and the street network system.

The study team continued to design the potential horizontal geometrics for the Concept 3 alternatives connecting the North Cass Parkway to the 179th Street interchange and a hypothetical new interchange in the 188th Street to 191st Street vicinity. The study team also continued to design the potential horizontal geometrics for Concept 4 alternatives connecting the North Cass Parkway to a hypothetical new interchange between 191st Street and 183rd Street.

Draft design criteria and typical sections were presented to the study team and discussed. The study team worked to reach consensus on the typical section for a potential parkway option based on design criteria that the entire study team agreed upon. Included in these discussions the North Cass Parkway typical section will be reviewed as well as others relevant to the study area. It is anticipated that the study team will review of all of the concepts for the parkway and discussions will be held about why or why not each concept was carried forward and/or eliminated.

The study team further discussed the viability of Concept 4 (Freeway). Based on discussions with Cass County, the North Cass Parkway is not planned to be a freeway but more of a parkway-like expressway, similar to 135th Street. In addition, the interchange being designed to connect U.S. 71 with the North Cass Parkway will not preserve right-of-way for a freeway or a system-to-system interchange, but is planned as a diamond interchange, or service interchange. The conclusion remains that it is unlikely the North Cass Parkway will become a freeway. The Study Team and Partnership Board will need to discuss the wisdom and/or feasibility of connecting two different facility types, if indeed the South Metro Connection Study finds that either a “parkway” or “freeway” facility type is warranted. The study team has not yet completed traffic modeling for a freeway concept. The artnership Board requested more information on this topic.

While a combination of concepts and theoretical potential alignments have been discussed, to date there have been no official alignments finalized for any of the concepts through the study area.

It is anticipated that the discussions regarding model output, potential alignments, design criteria, typical sections and cost estimates will likely continue over the next couple of months.

PUBLIC / AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

In January, the primary event regarding public involvement was the fourth Partnership Advisory Board on January 11. The Board was updated on the study status since its last Board meeting, the traffic modeling concepts and preliminary outcomes, discussion of Concept 4 (freeway), and a draft evaluation matrix.

The January Partnership Advisory Board Meeting concluded with a discussion of letters/e-mails received from members about the Partnership Board’s role. The general content of the letters/e-mails was that the Partnership Board wanted to make sure their comments were being addressed and that they were having an impact on the decision making for the project. The role and responsibilities of the Partnership Board were reiterated and the study team assured them that the Partnership Board is an important component to the project. It was emphasized at the meeting that Partnership Board’s role is to be an advisory group and sounding board rather than directing the project or voting on outcomes. The Partnership Board will provide input on the decisions, but not act as the project decision-maker.

The study team began preparations for a potential Partnership Advisory Board meeting in mid-February 2007 and a potential Corridor Alternatives Public Meeting in late February.

EXTERNALITIES & OUTSTANDING ISSUES

The study team will continue to monitor external issues, which include but are not limited to:

1. the viability of extending the study area south of 199th Street;
2. the Gardner logistics park/intermodal facility and the Richards Gebaur development near Belton, MO;
3. a Break in Access Study along I-35 between Edgerton and southwest Olathe;
4. a proposed K-68 Study through Louisburg;
5. a new mall with office and pad sites at the southeast corner of 135th Street and Metcalf; and
6. other developments such as new housing areas, and commercial and retail development.

UPCOMING ACTIVITIES

Tthe study team may need more time to evaluate the model output, corridor alternatives, design criteria and section options. In the coming months the study team will continue to focus more intently on the evaluation of the roadway concepts, corridor alternatives, design criteria and section options associated with the various concepts. Through February and March, traffic modeling for Concepts 3 and 4 should be completed, and the development and evaluation of the section options and horizontal and vertical geometrics for Concepts 3 and 4 will continue in addition to preliminary cost estimates.

(back to top)

February 2007

CURRENT STATUS

During February the study team furthered efforts described in the January status report. The traffic model continued to be run for the Concepts 3 and 4, and discussion continued on finalizing the design criteria, screening factors, and the initial development of the alignments. Other discussions have also continued for additional input on the engineering alignment and typical section for the Concept 3.

There were no Partnership Advisory Board meetings or public meetings held in February. The jurisdictions in the study decided that a February schedule for these meetings was too aggressive and that much more time was needed to evaluate the dynamics associated with the traffic model runs, the various roadway concepts, screening factors, the design criteria, typical sections, alignments development, corridor alternatives, and cost estimates.

LAND USE & TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

In general, month of February generally continues the efforts discussed in the land use and traffic analysis section of the January status report. Further discussions have continued regarding concept screening factors, desired measures of effectiveness, traffic analysis, potential alignments, potential design sections, cost estimates, running the traffic model and associated analyses for Concepts 3 and 4, and the viability of Concept 4 (freeway). Discussion will likely continue through March 2007 and beyond regarding these elements of the study.

The Partnership Advisory Board had requested at their January 11 meeting more information on traffic analyses associated with Concept 3 (parkway) and Concept 4 (freeway) and north-south traffic accommodation. In addition to the Partnership Advisory Board’s request, all traffic modeling should be complete in March.

SOCIOECONOMIC / ENVIRONMENTAL

The study team has continued talking with KDOT about their role in the environmental review of the study area.

CORRIDOR / ALIGNMENT STUDIES

Tthe month of February generally continued the efforts discussed in the corridor and alignments section of the January status report.

Much of this discussion has concerned the viability of Concept 4 (freeway). The Study Team will need to discuss further with the Partnership Advisory Board the wisdom and/or feasibility of connecting two different facility types, if indeed the South Metro Connection Study finds that either a “parkway” or “freeway” facility type is warranted. This also could be a topic of presentation and discussion at a future Corridor Alternatives Public Meeting.

The Partnership Advisory Board had requested more information on traffic model output, especially for freeway and parkway concepts and north-south movement of traffic. The study team should complete traffic modeling for a freeway concept in March. While a combination of concepts and theoretical potential alignments have been discussed, to date there have been no official alignments finalized for any of the concepts through the study area.

It is anticipated that the discussions regarding model output, potential alignments, design criteria, typical sections, cost estimates, etc., will continue through March and April.

PUBLIC / AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

In February, the primary event regarding public involvement was discussion surrounding initial and tentative preparations for a February Partnership Advisory Board meeting and a potential late February Corridor Alternatives Public Meeting.

Discussions continued through phone conversations, conference calls and e-mail regarding the outcome and details of the January Partnership Advisory Board Meeting, which included traffic modeling concepts and preliminary outcomes, discussion of Concept 4 (freeway), and a draft evaluation matrix. In addition discussions occurred regarding the pace and progress of the study related to the details and outcomes of the more recent January meetings and how they relate to the details and outcomes of past December meetings, the November Partnership Advisory Board meeting outcomes, the Purpose and Need Open House/Workshop, the ETC regional telephone phone survey, finalization of the Purpose and Need, traffic modeling, and discussion of the viability of the parkway and freeway concepts.

In response to the discussions, the study team decided that a February Partnership Advisory Board meeting and Corridor Alternatives Public Meeting was too aggressive a schedule to maintain for the amount of information that still needed to be analyzed for such meetings.

On February 22, 2007, several members of the South Metro Connection Study Team attended the U.S. 71/North Cass Parkway Interchange Public Hearing held in Belton, Missouri, by MoDOT and its engineering consultant.

EXTERNALITIES & OUTSTANDING ISSUES

The study team will continue to monitor external issues, which include but are not limited to: 1) the viability of extending the study area south of 199th Street; 2) the Gardner logistics park/intermodal facility and the Richards Gebaur development near Belton, MO; 3) a Break in Access Study along I-35 between Edgerton and southwest Olathe; 4) a proposed K-68 Study through Louisburg; 5) a new mall with office and pad sites at the southeast corner of 135th Street and Metcalf; and 7) K-7 and K-68 Corridor Studies; and 8) other developments such as new housing areas, and commercial and retail development.

UPCOMING ACTIVITIES

The study team agreed that more time is needed to evaluate the details and dynamics associated with the traffic model output, the various roadway concepts, the design criteria, typical sections, alignments development, corridor alternatives, and cost estimates, especially as these relate to decisions concerning any outcomes or organized presentation of results.

In the coming months, the study team will continue to focus more intently on the collective evaluation of the above-stated elements of the study. In March traffic modeling for the remaining Concepts 3 and 4 should be completed. Efforts regarding the development and evaluation of the section options and the horizontal and vertical geometrics for Concepts 3 & 4 will continue in addition to preliminary cost estimates.

It will likely take a month to finalize potential alignments and a process that describes the screening of options and the cost estimates associated with the roadway concepts. It is anticipated that toward the beginning of May informal briefing meetings with public officials could take place. It is also anticipated that a 5th Partnership Advisory Board Meeting could take place around mid-to-late May. Once the Partnership Board Meeting is held it is foreseeable that a Corridor Alternatives Public Meeting could be held toward the end of May or beginning-to-mid-August. The preceding is a tentative outlook on the study’s progression and is subject to change.

(back to top)

March 2007

CURRENT STATUS

In the month of March, the South Metro Connection study team continued to work on the design criteria, screening factors, finalizing the traffic forecasting, refining the alignment studies, and tabulating the environmental impacts. Project status and preliminary results of each work area were discussed at study team meetings held on March 1 and March 30, 2007. Summaries of each meeting and work area are provided below.

No Partnership Advisory Board meetings or public meetings were held in March. It was agreed by all jurisdictions involved in the study that a March or April schedule for these meetings to occur was too aggressive and that much more time would be needed to evaluate the dynamics associated with the traffic model runs, the various roadway concepts, screening factors, the design criteria, typical sections, alignments development, corridor alternatives, and cost estimates.

LAND USE & TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

In general, the month of March continues the efforts discussed in the February status report. Further discussions have continued regarding concept screening factors, desired measures of effectiveness (MOE’s), traffic analysis, potential alignments, potential design sections, cost estimates, running the traffic model and associated analyses for Concepts 3 and 4, and the actual viability of Concept 4 (freeway). Discussion will likely continue through April 2007 and beyond regarding these elements of the study.

The Partnership Advisory Board had requested at their January 11, 2007 meeting more information on traffic analyses associated with Concept 3 (parkway) and Concept 4 (freeway) and north-south traffic accommodation. Regarding this request, the study team has finalized the traffic model outputs for the Concept 3(Parkway) and Concept 4(Freeway). Specifically, Concept 3 was run with a higher operating speed of 55mph. Concept 4 modeling data was summarized and measures of effectiveness documented. Regional benefits in user costs were also created and documented.

SOCIOECONOMIC / ENVIRONMENTAL

The study team has continued discussions with KDOT on their role in the environmental review and their cursory/preliminary environmental review of the study area. The study team discussed and formulated the preliminary evaluation matrices. Matrix one is a broad “pros and cons” evaluation matrix and the second matrix has more detailed information on impacts that will be used primarily in the environmental document. The study team also identified a large nature conservation area and a future-planned Johnson County park, both located in the far northern portion of the study area along 175th Street. MARC has also initiated the air quality and environmental justice analysis of the study.

CORRIDOR / ALIGNMENT STUDIES

In general, the month of March continues the efforts discussed in this section of the February status report. Further discussions have continued regarding development of the North Cass Parkway.

Following the March 1, 2007 study team meeting the team has reviewed the design criteria refinements, typical sections, and preliminary initial alignment comments. The Concept 3 (Parkway) and Concept 4 (Freeway) alignment options were also refined further. Specific refinements were primarily to Concept 3, Option 1in the State Line Road intersection. In addition, alternatives for realignment of Mission Road were evaluated.

Preparations for the March 30 study team meeting included final refinements to the model output; section options; the alignments and profiles; horizontal and vertical geometrics; preliminary cost estimates, and development of two evaluation matrices.

The viability of Concept 4 (freeway) was discussed further. The Partnership Advisory Board requested more information on traffic model output, specifically on the freeway and parkway concepts and north-south movement of traffic. The study team has completed the traffic modeling for both the freeway and parkway concepts.

At a future meeting, the study team will likely need to discuss with the Partnership Advisory Board the wisdom and/or feasibility of connecting two different facility types, if indeed the South Metro Connection Study finds that either a “parkway” or “freeway” facility type is warranted. This also could be a topic of presentation and discussion at a future Corridor Alternatives Public Meeting.

While a combination of concepts and theoretical potential alignments have been discussed, to date there have been no official alignments finalized for any of the concepts through the study area.

PUBLIC / AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

In March, discussions continued regarding initial preparations for a potential April or May Partnership Advisory Board meeting and very brief preparations for a potential May Corridor Alternatives Public Meeting.

Discussions continued through phone conversations, conference calls and e-mail regarding the outcome and details of the January Partnership Advisory Board Meeting, which included traffic modeling concepts and preliminary outcomes, discussion of Concept 4 (freeway), and a draft evaluation matrix. These issues were discussed in detail at the March study team meetings.

Also, continued from discussions in February on the pace and progress of the study, further conversations took place at the March study team meetings regarding the overall information details and outcomes of the more recent January meetings, and past December and November meetings, the Purpose and Need Open House/Workshop, the ETC regional telephone phone survey, finalization of the Purpose and Need, traffic modeling, and discussion of the viability of the parkway and freeway concepts.

The overall outcome of the above-stated conversations was generally the same as for the February discussions. Due to the amount of information organization and analyses that still needed to be conducted, it was the study team’s observation that a March or April Partnership Advisory Board meeting and a April Corridor Alternatives Public Meeting was too aggressive a schedule to maintain for the amount of information that still needed to be analyzed and organized for such meetings. The conversations yielded that a May Partnership Board meeting would be a more realistic timeframe for such a meeting; and that a late May or early June Corridor Alternatives Public meeting would be a more realistic endeavor for this meeting.

EXTERNALITIES & OUTSTANDING ISSUES

The study team continues to monitor external issues, including but not limited to: 1) the viability of extending the study area south of 199th Street; 2) the Gardner logistics park/intermodal facility and the Richards Gebaur development near Belton, MO; 3) a Break in Access Study along I-35 between Edgerton and southwest Olathe; 4) a proposed K-68 Study through Louisburg; 5) a new mall with office and pad sites at the southeast corner of 135th Street and Metcalf; and 7) K-7 and K-68 Corridor Studies; and 8) other developments such as new subdivisions, and commercial and retail development.

UPCOMING ACTIVITIES

In the coming months the study team will continue to focus more intently on the organization and presentation of the numerous analyses conducted. In April environmental elements of the study will take form, which include the air quality and environmental justice elements.

Informal briefing meetings with public officials will take place to keep them at pace with the study. It is also anticipated that a 5th Partnership Advisory Board Meeting could take place around mid-to-late May. Once the Partnership Board Meeting is held it is foreseeable that a Corridor Alternatives Public Meeting could be held toward the end of May or beginning-to-mid-June. The preceding is a tentative outlook on the study’s progression and is subject to change.

(back to top)

April 2007

CURRENT STATUS

In the month of April, the South Metro Connection study team continued to work on organizing the traffic data analyses, potential alignments, and tabulating the environmental impacts. Project status and preliminary initial alignments of each roadway concept were discussed at study team meetings held on April 16 and April 20, 2007. Summaries of each meeting and work area are provided below.

No Partnership Advisory Board meetings or public meetings were held in April. More detailed discussion ensued regarding a mid-May Partnership Advisory Board meeting and an early June public meeting (see Public Involvement section). These discussions continued from past February and March conversation that a March or April schedule for these meetings to occur was too aggressive for the amount of information and data that needed to be analyzed and organized for presentation.

LAND USE & TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

In general, the month of April continued the efforts discussed in the March status report. The study team also met to discuss the issues, circumstances and influences of a future Johnson County park and the Baum Nature Conservancy on the various roadway concepts. Both of these reserved areas are in the northern portion of the study area along 175th Street.

Further discussions continued regarding potential alignments, cost estimates, screening matrices, presentation of the traffic model data and associated analyses for Concepts 3 and 4, and the viability of Concept 3 (Parkway) and Concept 4 (freeway). Discussion will likely continue through May 2007 and beyond regarding these elements of the study.

The Partnership Advisory Board had requested at their January 11, 2007 meeting more information on traffic analyses associated with Concept 3 (parkway) and Concept 4 (freeway) and north-south traffic accommodation. The study team has finalized the traffic model outputs for the Concept 3 (Parkway) and Concept 4 (Freeway) and this information will be presented at the next Partnership Advisory Board meeting.

SOCIOECONOMIC / ENVIRONMENTAL

The study team has continued discussions regarding the environmental review of the study area. The study team discussed the legalities and dynamics of the environmental influences of the Baum Nature Conservancy and a future Johnson County park along 175th Street as they relate to roadway changes and/or additions in the area. The study team also continued some discussion of the preliminary evaluation matrices. (Matrix one is a broad “pros and cons” evaluation matrix and the second matrix has more detailed information on impacts that will be used primarily in the environmental document.) MARC has also continued work on the air quality and environmental justice analyses of the study.

CORRIDOR / ALIGNMENT STUDIES

In general, conversations and analyses in the month of April have focused on the Concept 3 (Parkway) and Concept 4 (Freeway) options, which continue the efforts discussed in the March status report. Further discussions have also continued regarding development of the North Cass Parkway. There has been some discussion in Cass County about the North County Parkway Environmental Assessment (EA). It was identified that this EA may be reopened to resolve issues with a farm that has recently been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It was discussed how this might affect the termini of the South Metro project.

The Concept 3 (Parkway) alignment options were discussed at length with regard to the future Johnson County Park, the Baum Nature Conservancy in the northern portion of the study area; the North Cass Parkway EA; and a future service interchange in the vicinity of a future North Cass Parkway at U.S. 71.

The viability of Concept 4 (freeway) continued to be discussed further. The Partnership Advisory Board had requested more information on traffic model output, specifically on the freeway and parkway concepts and north-south movement of traffic. The study team has completed the traffic modeling for both the freeway and parkway concepts and this will be presented at the next Partnership Advisory Board meeting.

Also at the next Partnership Advisory Board meeting the study team will likely need to discuss the wisdom and/or feasibility of connecting two different facility types, if indeed the South Metro Connection Study finds that either a “parkway” or “freeway” facility type is the roadway type selected or warranted as the preliminary initial alternative. This also could be a topic of presentation and discussion at the future Corridor Alternatives Public Meeting.

While a combination of concepts and theoretical potential alignments have been discussed, to date there have been no official alignments finalized for any of the concepts through the study area. Any alignments that will be presented will be preliminary initial alignments that will need to be commented on by the public at the next public meeting.

PUBLIC / AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

Discussions continued in April regarding the outcome and details of the January Partnership Advisory Board Meeting and the pace, progress and dynamics of the study. This generally led to consensus among the study team members that the next Partnership Advisory Board meeting should be scheduled for mid-May and that the team should target early June for the Corridor Alternatives Public Meeting. As such, the study team has made dedicated preparation for a May 16, 2007 Partnership Advisory Board meeting and has dedicated more preparation for a June 5, 2007 Corridor Alternatives Public Meeting.

Study team staff continued to meet with their elected officials to keep them informed about the study as it progresses. To date, public officials, the Partnership Advisory Board, and the study team have taken no official position on the concepts presented during the South Metro Connection Study.

EXTERNALITIES & OUTSTANDING ISSUES

The study team continues to monitor external issues, including but not limited to: 1) the viability of extending the study area south of 199th Street; 2) the Gardner logistics park/intermodal facility and the Richards Gebaur development near Belton, MO; 3) a Break in Access Study along I-35 between Edgerton and southwest Olathe; 4) a proposed K-68 Study through Louisburg; 5) a new mall with office and pad sites at the southeast corner of 135th Street and Metcalf; and 7) K-7 and K-68 Corridor Studies; and 8) other developments such as new subdivisions, and commercial and retail development.

UPCOMING ACTIVITIES

The study team will continue to focus more intently on the organization and presentation of the numerous analyses conducted to be presented at the May 16, 2007 Partnership Advisory Board meeting and the June 5, 2007 Corridor Alternative Public Meeting. A meeting location for the Corridor Alternative Public Meeting will need to be confirmed before public notice is given of this meeting.

In May more significant efforts will elevate the environmental elements of the study, which include air quality and environmental justice elements.

Informal briefing meetings with public officials will continue to take place.

(back to top)

May 2007

CURRENT STATUS

The study team continued to finalize analysis of the traffic forecasting and refine preliminary alignments, cost estimates and environmental impacts. The team began preparations for the fifth Partnership Advisory Board meeting on May 16 and a June public meeting on corridor alternatives. The study status and preliminary results of each work area were discussed at length at study team meetings held on May 8 and May 30.

LAND USE & TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

Work focused on identifying an alignment concept to take forward to the Partnership Advisory Board and a June public meeting. Significant time was spent on discussion related to the North Cass Parkway and issues related to a new subdivision just north of the planned alignment as well as an environmental issue east of U.S. 71 that could potentially move the planned North Cass Parkway alignment slightly to the south in this area east of U.S. 71. Study team members discussed how these issues might affect traffic in the South Metro area. After discussions with Belton and Cass County, the team agreed that neither issue would affect the present tie-in location of the North Cass Parkway at Holmes Road. Once the Partnership Advisory Board meeting was concluded, the study team responded to questions and requests, which required additional traffic research and traffic modeling.

Further discussions continued on potential alignments, preliminary cost estimates, the screening matrices, traffic model data and analyses for Concepts 3 alignments, and the viability of Concept 3 (Parkway) and Concept 4 (freeway).

SOCIOECONOMIC / ENVIRONMENTAL

The study team discussed the legalities of the environmental influences of the Baum Nature Conservancy and a future Johnson County park along 175th Street, and included the influences on the selected preliminary alignment. The study team also finalized the evaluation matrices. Both the preliminary initial alignment and the evaluation matrices were presented at the Partnership Advisory Board meeting. MARC has also continued its preliminary work on the air quality and environmental justice analyses of the study.

CORRIDOR / ALIGNMENT STUDIES

Discussion focused on the Concept 3 (Parkway) option as the traffic analysis, preliminary environmental constraints, and public involvement have all helped shape this initial option as one that best addresses issues in the study area. Refinements continued on the Concept 3 (Parkway) as requested by members of the study team and Partnership Advisory Board. This included discussion about a future Johnson County Park; the Baum Nature Conservancy; the North Cass Parkway EA; and a future service interchange in the vicinity of a future North Cass Parkway at U.S. 71. Discussions continued on the North Cass Parkway Environmental Assessment, which may need to be reopened to resolve issues with a farm that has recently been listed on the National Register of Historic Places east of U.S. 71. It was determined that this would not affect the present termini and tie-in of the South Metro study.

At the May 16 Partnership Advisory Board meeting the study team presented traffic modeling for both the freeway and parkway concepts and also presented the initial preliminary corridor alignment for a Concept 3 (Parkway). The Partnership Advisory Board had requested more information on traffic model output, specifically on the freeway and parkway concepts and north-south movement of traffic. The wisdom and/or feasibility of connecting two different facility types (North Cass Parkway to a Concept 4 Freeway) were also discussed. This information helped discourage the Concept 4 (Freeway) option, which was decided would present too much of a negative impact in the study area.

Cost estimates for the Concept 3 (Parkway) were reworked, incorporating changes to the alignment, and for Johnson and Cass Counties respectively. The evaluation matrix was also updated to reflect cost estimates and environmental changes. In addition, field visits were conducted to review property access issues. Displays were created for Johnson County and Cass County to use to present to impacted property owners.

PUBLIC / AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

Discussions continued about the pace, progress and dynamics of the study, especially on how the data, information and public involvement pointed to the Concept 3 (Parkway) option. The fifth Partnership Advisory Board meeting was held on Wednesday, May 16, 2007, from 5 to 8 p.m. at Blue Valley Middle School in Overland Park.

The study team presented an initial preliminary corridor alignment for Concept 3 (Parkway) and a recap of the study. Traffic modeling for the Concept 3 (Parkway) was presented, highlighting the t