Public Meeting Comments
September 27, 2007

Written public comments submitted at or following the September 27, 2007, Open House Public Meeting. (Last updated 10/8/07)

[Download PDF document]

How do you view the changes made to the proposed roadway
concept:

• Reduction of speed limit:
  • Favorable: 17
  • Not Favorable: 20
  • Indifferent: 2
    
    
• Reduced right of way requirements:
  • Favorable: 18
  • Not Favorable: 18
  • Indifferent: 4
    
    
• Implementation of truck traffic restrictions:
  • Favorable: 19
  • Not Favorable: 16
  • Indifferent: 4
• Enhanced aesthetic features (bike paths, landscaping buffers):
  • Favorable: 21
  • Not Favorable: 28
  • Indifferent: 2

Please describe any other concerns you have:

• Speed limits can be changed at anytime. Right of way requirements can also change based upon circumstances at the time.
• I won't answer these questions. If I do, it means I'm okay with the roadway.
• Strongly against. Friends families ashes are by the church and the Memorial. We do not want any more traffic on road that doesn't support it.
• I'm afraid that if I circle any of these that you will put me down as being in favor of this project. I'm not! Less is better in this case. I moved to this area to get away from development. A road like this is a start to a much bigger problem. What about the commercial development that will spring up around the projected intersections. I
  really don't want to be looking at a Wal-Mart from my front porch.
• I oppose this road in its entirety.
• Reduction of speed limit/truck traffic restrictions — How do you think you are going to enforce? We already don't have enough Sheriff's to add to the extra patrol. Reduce right of way requirements — Have mixed emotions. You reduce the right of way, are you making it more dangerous if you have a crossover accident?
• Doesn't believe in reduction of speed and truck traffic restrictions. If the purpose is to move people — widen and improve 159th or 151st. They are the most used east/west roads. It looks like it is planned for trucks.
• We don't need this road. It is a issue of power with little concern for the well being of the citizen.
• How additional traffic and noise will influence the Timberlake Girl Scout Camp and how safety at the camp may or may not be hindered at the camp. Traffic blasting though the intersection at the interchange and causing an accident with a day camp bus filled with girls.
• There is no proven need for this project in Johnson County.
• 1. Truck restrictions could be removed in the future. 2. Enhanced features are "window dressing"
• Should not occur in South Johnson County.
• We are opposed to the parkway — we will drastically be effected by this parkway. All wildlife, young drivers, and established homes will suffer from this parkway. Air quality as well as the nature well-being will deteriorate for the surrounding area!
• I'm very disappointed that these groups held public meetings on the South Metro and Overland Park Annexation on the same night. My wife went to one and I the other. Once again — bad planning!
• The highway is a bad plan. You can adjust the speed and say no trucks but they will come and the sheriff’s department has told me that there is no way they can monitor it. There is no alternative truck route to/from the new ports. They will use this route.
• There are numerous concerns I have: a parkway through the 2 green spaces (what is left of park) what about wildlife, what about all the schools (buses and teenage drivers), noise and light pollution.
• No changes will help, because this project should not be built! Stopping this will help mitigate sprawl in southern Johnson County. If the road is built, development and severe decline in air quality will follow. Sprawl needs to be contained in the entire metro area, and
  this is a good place to start.
• No Road
• I understand that Miami County wants the road — I think once again — the $ were delegated to the subject area so you foolishly spend and waste your time and money one an area with huge opposition when you should be in Miami County where you area wanted. I think you are wasteful and foolish.
• Through this study you still have not addressed the real need for this in our community. We didn't ask for this and we don't want it!
• 175 -179 could well stand 50-55mph with truck restrictions. The bike path network needs to be emphasized and part of the package. Hook up with Prairie Spirit and KATY.
• I am most definitely opposed to this and any other connection in this area. This will only benefit Cass County and their plans to develop extensively. Why should we foot the bill for this when it will benefit Missouri.
• Not in favor of any parkway in the area as presented!
• Primary concern is traffic intersecting with Metcalf(179th and Metcalf). A lot of traffic goes thru — school buses, etc. what are the prospects of controlled traffic lights here. 2. Still concerned about heavy trucks.
• I will not answer these questions because you will be able to tally my responses as "favorable" simply because things are better than they were. That does NOT mean I favor the road ANY PLACE in southern Johnson County.
• How many times do we have to express "no" to this. You have not listened to any of our suggestions or/and concerns. I assume HNTB is doing song and dances for what you got paid for. Shame on you!
• truck traffic
• A maximum of 26,000 lbs on trucks fully loaded or empty. No landscaping because of the money and maintenance. They will need to allocate money for and NO bike path(asphalt) — it cost.
• The same lies told over and over are still lies. They don't become more true with repetition.
• Still concerned a perceived need to build a "parkway" through Johnson County to access Cass County. Who's to say that the above changes won't be "changed again" in the future. This set of changes just seems like a disguise to sneak in the "back door.
• Property values will be drastically affected — already has and the road hasn't even been approved yet.
• MARC needs to LISTEN to the citizens of South Johnson County and Cass County — we do not want, we do not need this road. Still don't understand why MARC not investigating rail/monorail to move people.
  Concern — Road not wanted, not needed. Use I-435.
• When and where do you plan on building the north/south intersection/ing road? Don't think we don't know what else you are already planning and not discussion at this time. 2. Why do Johnson County residents need this? It is for Mo/Cass County: criminals for
  better escape routes.
• Primary issue is need! Since demand for path is nearly zero in Johnson County, since Cass County commuters would be better served by alternatives; since access by trucks is unacceptable to everyone and path is not what the transportation companies need, this is a
  continuation of poor judgment and week planning.
• There is no need for an east/west parkway or will there be in this part of the county. If an east/west road is built it should be in the southern part of the county where there is enough vacant land between 69 highway and State Line to spur the needed growth to justify it.
• This is not necessary. Existing roads are more than adequate, especially with current improvements underway on 199th.
• I think the changes to the roadway present a nice compromise to the obvious future need of east/west traffic control and the preservation of our community and environment.
• Almost every week, we read in the Star that highway funds in both Kansas and Missouri just aren't going to be available for many years to come and the 92 million dollars for the 1st phase (east of 69) doesn't cover condemnation costs. This is irresponsible. How can you do that?
• The whole project concept is 30 years too late. The patterns of projected population growth call for north/south improvements; this east/west link will not benefit Johnson County taxpayers.
• Please know that we continue to believe that this is poor planning and will become a deficit to the long term reputation of Southern Johnson County.
• As a resident and landowner in the area I'm concerned about improved access but also traffic volume, especially after completion of the northsouth access via Nall & Mission. Is there any information about anticipated construction time for both the parkway and the N/S access roads?
• The project proposal is a colossal waste of Johnson County taxpayer money in a time of shrinking ability to meet all citizens needs.
• the impact on the environment.
• The cost involved.
• The study area residents want a north/south road not east/west.
• Needs to go further south.
• We do not need the South Metro Connection
• This whole project is a sham. This project has been rejected once. The project is driven by special interest: (1) HTNB - more revenue; (2) Johnson County - more tax base from future development along the road.
• I am concerned about the negative impact this roadway will have on housing values, the environment and the overall negative impact on the rural life we have chosen.
• location and amount of traffic
• Reduced speed and truck traffic restrictions is great, but as soon as the road is in and running the speed limit will be raised and the restriction on trucks will be taken off. It happens all the time. Just get your foot in the door and then do what ever you like. Make the reduced speed limit non changeable and truck traffic non changeable forever!
• There is NO NEED for this road! Please stop the madness.
• DO NOT WANT MISSOURI ROAD BUILT
• As a Johnson County resident who uses the parks and open lands left in our city, I am strongly opposed to this project. First the city wanted train/trolley type transportation system, then a loop like Chicago's was discussed now this. Penalize commuters not traveling with 2 or more people in the car and leave things alone.
• You can dress it any way you wish, I will never be in favor of the concept. You, as a study team, have yet to legitimately establish the need for this thoroughfare. It is amazing to me that the grid street connections work in northern Overland Park, Leawood, etc, but yet I
  was told at the meeting by a gentleman from OP Planning that this was needed to serve, primarily, development within Kansas in this general study area. That holds NO water when you look at a good share of OP where there are no such trafficways and the section line
  roads have carried the local development traffic just fine. 75th and Nall is a good example....in fact Nall is only 2 lane south of 75th. It makes far more sense to serve this area of the county with good north-south routes and improve Nall, Mission Road, Lamar, Metcalf, Antioch and each section line road west of Antioch to 4 lane. Don't wait until the development has already occurred as presently is the case on Nall from 143rd t o 151st Streets that is just now being improved far after the development has taken place all the way to 167th. What short-sightedness the Cities, County, and, particularly, MARC have demonstrated and then tried to justify by calling their prostituted engineer, HNTB, in to supposedly show evidence of the need. I don't buy it!
• Improve and use existing roads to facilitate traffic DO NOT CUT A NEW ONE!! 5 miles at the cost of 90 million?? Is that what you call fiscal responsibility?
• I would like to express my complete opposition to the proposed South Metro Connection linking transportation hubs in northwestern Cass County, Missouri with the existing north-south corridors, e.g., Mission Road, Nall and Metcalf Avenues, and 69 Highway in southeastern Johnson County, Kansas. Despite the characterization of this project
  as a "parkway", it is widely, and in my view, correctly, seen as, primarily, a truck route. Proposed speed and load limits and curfews will probably be poorly enforced or ignored, and, in any case, can be easily modified in the future to accommodate the commercial interests promoting this project. This roadway will contribute to urban sprawl and unregulated development, which will undoubtedly have an adverse environmental impact of the existing pristine natural suburban wildlife habitat, of which, the current residents along the proposed route have long been responsible stewards. As a concerned and involved citizen of Johnson County, I ask that this project be seriously reconsidered, and as currently outlined, not be implemented.
• My main concern is that it makes no difference what those of us who are opposed to the concept say.
• This is a unwanted roadway and the citizens of Johnson County have known reason to fund a project that is negative to our lifestyle and property values.
• I am opposed to this project for several reasons:

1) there is no clearly demonstrated need for the road. The major
support, it appears, comes from local business interests who want a
truck route to speed freight transfers between Grandview (the former
Richards-Gebaur AFB now used as a NAFTA north-south intermodal
hub by Kansas City Southern de Mexico), and Gardner, the site of a
new intermodal hub being built by Burlington Northern Santa Fe to
handle their NAFTA east-west freight network. They want the Johnson
County taxpayers to build them a road, basically, at over $15M per
mile.

there is also interest in the road from Cass County commissioners
acting on behalf of land speculators, who want to alleviate the backups
at the Grandview Triangle bottleneck by creating an alternative route
across Johnson County to US-69. If you love the Grandview Triangle,
you'll love the "South Metro Parkway," because US69 at 179th Street
will be backed up for miles each morning and evening to handle some
of the Cass County traffic currently using I-435 and US-71. Again, the
Johnson County taxpayers pay over $15M per mile for someone else's
road.

2) is there future growth for Johnson County to justify the new road?.
Not according to the County's own 2004 comprehensive road study,
called CARNP, which clearly shows the County's need for improving
north-south intra-County roads, not for anything like this high-speed
east-west truck highway proposed by big railroad and freight handling
businesses and Cass County land speculators.

3) The road will be an environmental disaster. It will bulldoze through
existing streamways and old growth forests, home to eleven identified
endangered species, as it snakes along a tortured pathway avoiding
future deed-restricted park lands. The area where the highway would
be built cuts in half what is today the last remaining deeded parks land
in Johnson County, destroying the rural environment that is in the
county master plan as park land.

4) There is only so much public money around. We all pay a lot of
taxes to live in Johnson County. This project is huge, and unfunded.
Estimates are that 85% of the money would have to come from local
Johnson County taxes, there's no federal money for this one. Cant
you think of a better way to spend those tax dollars? Your
commissioners apparently can't, they support this plan and have
already paid more than $600k of your tax dollars to study how to
overcome local opposition to this boondoggle. Oh, by the way, they
also want to build a new mega-courthouse, the sheriff wants a new
jail, mental health wants to double its budget, etc etc etc. The only
thing they've done lately regarding your tax dollars is to re-allocate an
expiring tax AWAY from your local schools, and give it to county
government instead. Screw the kids, we'll tell you later what we're
going to do with the tax.

What changes to the alignment concept do you like?

• Didn't know the 1st concept so cannot comment on this new concept in comparison.
• I like it swinging further north through fields between Mission and State Line rather than through homes but that is simply the lesser of 2 evils.
• looks good
• Do not like anything about it. Don't destroy more green space.
• Don't build it is the best "assumed" concept.
• Find a route further south that does not disturb wildlife, families, and air quality. Take into consideration Overland Park growing further south.
• Go south — County Line or 68 Highway.
• Go south into Miami County where the land is cheaper and wildlife won't be harmed. Beautiful trees and natural terrain will be forever destroyed. The housing market is way down now and who knows (not even the experts) what the future holds.
• I am opposed to a 4 lane parkway through ANY part of the "Study" area. Please consider dropping the entire project. Consider the true negative environmental impact of what you are doing to a pristine wildlife area.
• I do not like any aspect of this road and purposed study.
• I don't like it going between the parkland. It is unbelievable that this is the only route. The park doesn't want it through their land that should be a huge sign that is may not be the most beneficial route.
• I don't like the concept at all. There's no need for a roadway.
• I don't like the idea — period. If MARC really wants to move people, let's investigate mass transit — rail/monorail, etc. No more roads which means more trucks. Obviously you don't see the volume of trucks day and night traveling 159th and 179th.
• I guess it's just hard to accept the concept itself because it will dramatically effect the area — more development, zoning changes (lower density), streets curbs, lights, etc. I'm not ready for this to happen — why does it have to happen?
• I oppose this road in any alignment anywhere in southern Johnson County.
• It is amazing to me that planners have designed a major thoroughfare through the middle of a pristine green space. This has to be a first. What planning school teaches this? Has your environmental person endorsed this? I would like to read that endorsement.
• It's eating up Kansas and not Missouri.
• Move it out of Johnson County.
• Move this project south to Miami County. We don't care that Cass County needs this to enhance their parkway.
• Need to pave all roads that are gravel in Johnson County. Just make 175th a wide 4 lanes that connect with 179th and Metcalf.
• No matter how this project is implemented, it will destroy and fragment excellent bird habitats. Noise and human disturbance will decrease birds' use of any adjacent natural areas — for both nesting and migration. This will hurt already declining bird populations.
• No road
• None, don't like the road. Listen to the people.
• None.
• Project is not acceptable.
• Still don't understand why they keep changing the rules. It seems like they are trying to make everyone happy — problem is everyone is against the road — placation will not work.
• That the roadway doesn't go through the park and that the speed limit will be 45mph helps, but people often drive faster than 45mph.
• The "parkway" would be better further south; still preserving the environmental concerns regarding pollution, waterways, noise.
• The whole concept — it is not needed.
• This road is in the wrong place. It should not be building through a sensitive wildlife area. This is an area that should be preserved for all of Johnson County. This road will diminish the quality of the future Johnson County parks.
• We do not want road provision. State Line to Homes Road go south where there are no houses. Stop ignoring people's comment.
• What changes, no changes have been made.
• Whole road should move closer to Miami County or into Miami County where there is adequate vacant land.
• Minor changes to a fundamentally flawed idea are a misuse of public funds.
• Irrelevant entire project is a commercial benefit for Gardner and RG intermodals.
• Does least damage to park.
• The current alignment runs between and separates the park property and the Baum Nature Conservancy property. It is the last truly pristine habitat left in southern Johnson County and should be preserved.
• I would only accept a final commitment with 24 hour no trucks over 24M.
• This will congest the area because of Miami county traffic coming into Johnson County to pick up the roadway. We continue to not want the road in any form.
• The proposed roadway is not needed at all. It would only be acceptable if there is a total ban on trucks over 24M GVW.
• The South Metro is not acceptable to the majority of the residents living in the study area. However, you continue to push for this highway being place within the existing study area.
• Needs to go further south.
• DO NOT BUILD IT!!!
• Give it up....move further south to Louisburg, follow Highway 2.
• I don't like the existence of the roadway at all. There is no funding for it and it is a waste of taxpayer money. The amount of traffic projected to utilize this roadway is overstated, especially the traffic moving eastward from Johnson County to Cass County.
• anyone driving the area understands the logic of moving the traffic around the area in the easiest and most convenient way — if you are trying to move overall traffic from 71 to the Kansas side why not use what exists on both sides — utilize 199th which already has an
  interchange on 69 highway and is a direct link and some semblance of a road already there. 175th has to present more in cost factors due to the land terrain and building of access factors that don't exist.
• It comes closer to more homes and is destroying just as much, if not more of the rural nature to this area.
• Take it away and I'll like it.
• This whole concept is a bad one.
• There is such a tiny segment of Johnson County that is so unique with abundant wildlife, rivers, bluffs and rock formations, old growth trees and history. Protecting this should be a major priority. Ks and Mo both have plenty of flatland that can offer a much better option for a highway. This alignment goes out of it's way to disrupt and destroy a very special piece of the world.
• I don't like anything about the whole thing and will not detract from the real issue of a road that is not needed.

Do the changes shown at the meeting today make you feel
differently about the project? Yes or no? Why or Why Not?

Yes: 6
No: 52

• Did not know that it was projected for the future. They are guessing on the future about projected cars in the future.
• I like it.
• I'm okay with things now as long as the powers to be don't change the deal in the future, such as an interstate loop.
• You all are trying very hard to satisfy everyone.
• Always have supported it, but I think the latest changes are very good.
• It's still wrong. Everyone working at this meeting is dishonest.
• I get the feeling that this is being ram rotted through no matter what we say in opposition.
• It is still a bad idea.
• We love the country look of this area that you are destroying, not many areas remain.
• They have changed the route, speed, etc. too many times. I feel if 175th is the main road that needs improving it is shocking that it won't be used for trucks. I don't feel anyone believes that trucks won't use this road. What about the intermodal trucks. We do not want trucks. Please consider the alternatives especially where development and parkland has not taken place. (Hint: further south)It's more of the same. The citizens input has marginal effect. MARC is determined to build the road to benefit Cass County at Kansas' expense.
• Alignment should no occur in Johnson County.
• I still feel the same as stated in above statements. Opposed to parkway.
• It's a terrible plan on a variety of fronts. The need is not proven. The population "studies" are terribly flawed. A truck route is needed somewhere — Miami County say they want one. Build the truck route then come back and pave this road when traffic is used to the other
  route.
• It's not for the people that live in the area — the ones that will have to live with the mess.
• Increased traffic in this rural setting is not only disturbing it is an outrage. Keep the rural area untouched and move it further south if you could honestly prove this is even needed!
• You guys are not listening to people at all.
• It should be further south — Miami County.
• Cosmetic changes to this doesn't make it better. Gigantic waste of tax dollars.
• For all the reasons that many have expressed a major thoroughfare does not belong in Southern Johnson County.
• Still have not proven the need — if trucks are not being allowed than why build it.
• I am still opposed to the entire concept.
• A major road is a major road — we've been going around for a long time to get through this area; why change it? I do feel that if it has to happen someday, the changes made are favorable to maintain some degree of natural beauty.
• Same stuff, different day really.
• This road will only damage the area and bring no benefits.
• I still don't want this!
• I feel the same way today that I felt 2 years ago and yes even 20 years ago when the 21st Century Parkway was defeated. Leave us alone. We don't want the South Metro Connection and we don't want Overland Park.
• Not sure — traffic congestion concerns us.
• No Road
• I am still undecided.
• Still don't like the project.
• We do not need another Los Angeles in Johnson County.
• I oppose the concept of an east/west connector. The character of southern and southeastern Johnson County has been established. Residents on both sides of the border have voted with their feet and with their assets. This project is an unprecedented departure from prior, uncommonly good judgment.
• I was opposed before and still am.
• Still not a good value for Johnson County, no payback for the high cost of putting a second Grandview Triangle in my backyard.
• This is still not favorable for the community of Southern Johnson County.
• still concerned about making the roads as high speed access for MO residents
• The project does not benefit Johnson County taxpayers, it only transfers the overloaded Grandview Triangle MESS to US69 and 179th Streets without solving the real issues of north-south transit within Johnson County.
• This is the wrong area to place any east/west highway.
• BECAUSE WE DO NOT NEED IT
• project too disruptive to residents in affected areas. Will increase noise and pollution and will decrease home values and quality of life.
• A slight realignment does not make the project economically or environmentally feasible.
• I still do not feel logic is being used in moving traffic — you already have 150 going across — it would seem more practical in long term thinking to move the "new road" farther down and make it a full 4 lane access similar to 150 so you provide a better functioning road for all types of vehicles.
• It less than a block from my house
• NO one will be monitoring these restrictions and it is only a false-front for when the roads are in place, the changes will then be made to meet your real reason for this road.
• I don't believe that it's needed, and I don't care if Cass County residents have access to Olathe...if they work there, they can move there.
• This whole project is based on potential commercial gain for a few. Let the commissioners represent the people who voted them into office and not be "influenced" by the power of a few.
• It's just the wrong place for a highway.

Additional Comments

• I think that this road is to help Cass County for jobs. Most Johnson County people move north and south for jobs not east and west.
• Because of this road, the north south roads will be turned into 4 lane roads. When this happens you will be destroying the entire town. You don't seem to care. Why is that? Endangered species are living in this area. What will happen to them? What about the particles? Tire particles from 4 lane roads and highway cause sever asthma in children. People will lose their homes, animals will die and the number of children with asthma will increase. All because you want tax dollars. Have you said it out loud? Everyone involved in this knows this is wrong. If I were involved in something like this I wouldn't be able to sleep at night. What do you put next to a four land roadway? A Burger King.
• This road is a bad idea. The long-term population growth trends for South Johnson County project one home for every two to ten acres, that will not support a road.
• This project is supposed to be to improve Kansas traffic as well as Missouri. Why aren't they move involved and why area Kansans paying such a larger percentage?
• Please allow notification on upcoming meetings concerning this troubling issue. I have not received anything in the mail.
• This road is not needed here. A truck route is needed. If this is not the needed truck route, where is it? If a truck route is build in Miami County, where it is wanted, all we need to do here is improve the roads we have.
• Alignment should no occur in South Johnson County.
• I have the same opinion about this as I did about the failed 21 Century Parkway — NO.
• Forget it! Do not need this project. No evidence presented for the actual need of a parkway in this area. Use 435.
• You guys need to be stopped from this ridiculous plan!
• I feel this is driven by Missouri. Kansas will have almost all of the expense of this road which is wrong.
• Why don't you look between 215th and 223rd and get land now for 10 years from now. You'd be more apt to affect fewer homes! That should have been done 10 years ago.
• The elected officials need to listen to their constituents. And what we want for our area — they need to serve our needs — not what Cass County thinks they want us to do.
• Who will pay for this project?
• How long will 179th St. be shut down. Forces us to drive extremely out of our way as experienced with other construction this summer.
• We oppose the alignment of this road — you are going through private land and environmental sensitive areas — move this road to Miami County — you need to talk with Jim Wise, Miami County Commissioner— he wants this east-west corridor.
• We will all continue to fight this — you are destroying peoples lives, healthy homes. Why would you destroy one of the last pristine areas of Johnson County.
• I do not believe this road is needed — if you must have an east/west route — go further south — there is no way you can say this will stop truck traffic — the commissioners have lied before, this is a route for the railroad from Gardner to Gebaur. One the way over here we saw trucks (semis). Several years ago Surbaugh stood in front of the residents of Glad Acres and said that 179/175 would never be a four land highway and already a 4 lane highway. Whatever happened to the wishes of the taxpayers that voted you into office?
• The South Metro Connection needs to go away. Quit wasting time, money and other resources trying to push this project through. Have you driven Bruce Watkins Parkway? It is as bad/worse that I-35 and I-435. Don't do this to us!
• We do not need another LA here. Before putting this project to life, someone should study why Los Angeles has such a bad traffic problem.
• Please refer to the opposition website — www.nosouthmetro.com
• There seems to be very little support in Cass County for this either.
  What will it take to get this (white elephant) scrapped.
• There is no documented need (now or future) for a truck route through south Johnson County. Use Rt. 58 in Miami County — don't destroy more environment.
• If this becomes reality, I sure hope the money is there to promptly buy out all of the people whose homes you are taking, my wife and I among them.
• This continues to be a negative option for the community and we resent re-spending our tax dollars for something that only benefits Cass County.
• When I bought my property on the north side of the Little Blue I was told that the cost of bridging the river at Nall was so cost prohibitive that it would never happen. Construction costs do not seem to have gone down. What has changed to now make this viable?
• Stop this study now, reset the study area to include the TRUE proposed growth profile, and look south as far as K68 to build an eastwest loop.
• The County Commissioners are not representing the interest of their constituents. This will become their legacy.
• Go further south
• DO NOT BUILD IT BECAUSE NOBODY HERE WANTS IT OR NEEDS IT.
• Put this roadway through your own backyard!
• Let's quit trying to force feed this roadway on a community that does not want or need it. The existing traffic does not support the expense and your ability to project traffic patterns 20 years in the future is guess work at best. Let's not make an expensive mistake that our
  children will have to pay for.
• The push to utilize 175th does not present the best possible alternative for full access for all vehicles — if the reality of what you are trying to accomplish is really to move traffic efficiently and provide logical traffic flow then you need to move it farther south to offset the high growth from areas south of Belton area in the most cost effective direct route
  possible utilizing what already exists on both sides of the state line — 175th does not provide the solution.
• Please stop insulting our intelligence by asking for our opinions when you don't listen or do anything to stop this insanity, especially in light of the fact that the vast majority of people are in opposition to this whole thing!
• DO NOT WANT THIS BUILT..... THANKS.
• I vote no on this project.
• What you are doing is a travesty and you have no precedence for this kind of development. You have hired a consulting firm that will spin and sell whatever your foregone conclusions are and it's evident this is NOT truly open to the public for their input, but simply a sell job to the public with minor adjustments to the plan to try to appease the public. New flash for you: the public doesn't want it on either side of the state line!
• Why was this meeting held on the same night of the annexation meeting?
• This road is not needed. Find a different way to spend my tax dollars.
• Please consider that just because it is taking the path of least human resistance in numbers of ownerships, that shouldn't be all that matters. Let the few stewards of the land continue to look after this unique area. Please, leave this area for the wildlife, and the people that will preserve it.

E-mail Comments Received

• Would like to know what the financial impact will be per Johnson County household in the way of taxes.
• There are two issues that residents in southern Jo Co are extremely concerned with (So Metro and OP annexation), and wouldn't you know, presentations for both issues overlap! MARC (Mell Henderson), what were you thinking??? That was very poor. That never should have happened. I feel the "parkway" is being crammed down our throats. How many times do we have to tell you "NO"? If you really want to hear what the public is saying about this issue, listen a little better to the organized opposition. More public meetings w/ more
  pretty boards, saying the same things, is a waste of your time and ours. The proposed "parkway" is not in the right location — nowhere in Jo Co! Letting the two meetings overlap tells me a lot...
• I am opposed to this parkway for a variety of reasons. One reason that I am opposed to the current plan is that I believe Johnson Countians will be asked to approve a slower moving 45 mph road only to have the plan altered after approval. Sorry if this offends any of you ... there are numerous disingenuous and "non-transparent" forces that are driving this proposed connector. If the planners are sincere with regard to newly published planned speed limits than adding curbs to provide some assurance of this speed would be "fiscally
  responsible". In other words, local taxpayers would be happy to absorb any additional cost for the added assurance that politicians and planners will not change the plan in short order.
• The project is far enough away from me that I was fairly comfortable with the first plan, except for possible traffic noise from trucks. With the lower speed limit, truck traffic restrictions AND the more southerly route, I'm okay with the plan as now drafted.
• I live fairly far away from this proposed "South Metro" connection, but I have a number of friends who live in this area and I have seen development over the last 12 years, especially in south Johnson County. Here are the comments I hear over and over from friends and I believe these comments have validity:
  
  1. There is a promise of 45 mph speed limit — yet all of us know that no one will monitor this speed limit and people will indeed be driving 55 to 60, without any penalty at all. It is happening NOW on all the area roadways. For example, the University of Missouri, Kansas City, just did a study of 35 mph streets near the campus. Results? A majority of drivers were speeding in these zones. Or try driving Route 350 east, where speed is 50 mph — you will be left behind by all the other drivers. Or consider 159th Street east of Metcalf all the way to Kenneth road, which has a posting: No trucks allowed (not a truck route). Yet, one can routinely meet 18-wheel semi-trailer trucks using this little two-lane road — because trucks don't want to be waste time driving the proper routes. A citizen complaint requires an extreme amount of time and documentation to even report a truck breaking the rules. Police do not patrol this roadway.
  
  Point: Good intentions are useless because there will be no enforcement.
  
  2. The promise is a scenic 4-lane, moderate speed roadway. The reality: people believe this will definitely turn into a much bigger, more heavily traveled roadway in the future. Just remember: 119th Street in Overland Park was slated for only half of its present development in the master plan (testimony from Roger Peterson, head of Overland Park Planning). But, as time progressed, everyone ignored the master plan promise and 119th street grew into one of the heaviest-developed roadways in the county. When Overland Park annexed the Stanley area (151st street and south) many years ago, it promised, with a resolution, that it would preserve the character and density of the area. This resolution has been ignored from day one--in spite of citizens trying to fight heavy development by using this resolution. It is simply ignored.
  
  Point: Promises today get ignored tomorrow!
  
  3. Sorry, but no one believes that truck restrictions will work. People can connect the dots between the Richard Gebaur industry hub to the east and the BNSF Gardner industry hub to the west. How curious that the proposed roadway easily connects the two. It would be more honest to tell the public that industry needs shipping and workers between the two points than the present pretense that the "public" needs better transportation options. I have heard this point raised over and over and unless it is honestly addressed, the
  public will continue its cynicism over this roadway.
  
  Point: Is this roadway being built for citizens or for industry lobbyists?
  
  4. Who's paying for all of this? Why should Johnson County be worried about the transportation of Cass County workers? This issue needs to be addressed up front and quickly too. The entire financing of this roadway needs to be open to the public.
  
  In conclusion, these four comments are heard repeatedly about the proposed South Metro Connection.
  
  These concerns need to be honestly addressed.

(back to top)