Responses to Questions & Comments
South Metro Connection Partnership Board Meeting
May 24, 2006
Questions have been summarized and categorized based on similar issues/concerns.
1. What factors caused initiation of this study?
The trigger for beginning the current study was a request made by Cass County to work with Johnson County to examine a connection between the North Cass Parkway and U.S. 69.
Several studies completed in the last 10 years indicated that this area of the southern Kansas City metropolitan region needed to be examined for future consideration of transportation investments. Johnson County’s Comprehensive Arterial Road Network Plan (CARNP) identified the need to study the area, the Mid-America Regional Council’s (MARC) Perimeter Transportation Needs Assessment (PTNA) identified the need to study the area, and Cass County’s request initiated the action for this regional study. Presentations and discussions regarding the need for infrastructure in this area were made to many different groups including Olathe, Overland Park, Belton, Johnson County Board of Commissioners, and to the past CARNP leadership group. Johnson County, Overland Park, Olathe, Cass County, and Belton all supported the decision to proceed with a study.
Cass and Johnson County contacted the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) to help initiate discussion with local jurisdictions and agencies (Olathe, Overland Park, Belton, Kansas Department of Transportation, Missouri Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration) about the idea of future transportation connections between the two counties. MARC was asked to manage the study due to the cross-jurisdictional and bistate nature of the project.
2. Who is involved in this process?
The South Metro Connection study is being led by MARC in cooperation with its community partners of Johnson County, Cass County, Overland Park, Olathe, and Belton. The Kansas Department of Transportation, the Missouri Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration are also involved in the study process. HNTB Corporation has been hired as engineering and planning consultants for the study.
3. How will the public be engaged in the study?
The public will be engaged throughout the process to gather information and gain feedback on potential transportation options.
Partnership Advisory Board – Will serve as a study advisory committee to enhance two-way communication between the Study Team’s efforts and local issues. They will provide input on issues related to the study area, purpose and need and alternatives review. They will provide advice and insight about issues and concerns in the area and the region. The committee will meet at least four times during the life of the study. It is anticipated that the meetings will include:
- Introduction to the project, gather information on issues and concerns, and hold initial discussion on land use and transportation tradeoffs. (May 24, 2006)
- Education and input on purpose and need issues in order to help prepare for the purpose and need workshop. (July 2006 – tentative)
- Follow-up information on purpose and need — present initial corridor alternatives for review.
- Discuss input from corridor meeting and present the recommended alternative before the public meeting.
- Additional meetings will be identified and scheduled if needed.
Purpose and Need Workshop – A public workshop will be held to discuss and aid in the development of the purpose and need statement for the project. This workshop will provide specific information and allow for breakout groups to discuss values, attitudes, beliefs and tradeoffs in order to determine what issues are critical to people. (August 2006 – tentative)
Public Meetings – Public meetings will be held to provide interested parties and the general public with information about the project and solicit input on alternatives, effects, and issues of concern. The following meetings will be held:
- Public Listening Session – This meeting will gather public input and opinions early in the project. (June 14, 2006)
- Corridor Alternatives Public Meeting – This meeting will present the corridor alternatives to the public and gather public comments on the alternatives.
- Preferred Alternative Public Meeting – Once recommendations are developed, a public meeting will be conducted to present the preferred alternative and gather input on the preferred alternative.
Individual Meetings with Property Owners – Once a recommendation has been developed, meetings will be held individually with property owners to discuss specific concerns and issues.
With many of these meetings, information sheets will be prepared and made available to the public and added to the project website.
Public input is always welcome. [How to contact us]
The project Web site will provide information pertaining to the study. General information, project contacts, meeting schedule and project documents will be included as well as information related to meetings and associated materials. Johnson County, Olathe, Overland Park, Cass County and Belton may provide links from their web sites to the MARC South Metro Connection Study page.
4. How were members of the Partnership Advisory Board selected?
The Study Team representatives from Johnson County, Cass County, Overland Park, Olathe and Belton worked to identify people to represent different interests and views of the metro and study area to create a balanced group — including includes landowners, business owners, public officials, residents, community leaders and community interest groups. Representatives from both counties will participate in the Partnership Advisory Board. The Study Team proportioned membership based roughly on the study area size. Four members are from Cass County, with the remaining 18 from various Johnson County. At this point, no additional members will be added to the board, but all of their meetings will be open meetings. [See Partnership Advisory Board members and contact information]
5. What is the rationale for the study area? What process was used to decide to study 175th to 199th streets? Why aren’t you looking further south?
The limits of the South Metro Connection Study were identified initially by the Johnson County Comprehensive Arterial Road Network Plan (CARNP), which recommended further study to identify the need for east-west routes in the area between 199th, 175th, Mission Road and State Line. The study area limits were further supported by MARC’s Perimeter Transportation Needs Assessment (PTNA) study. If, through the evolution of the project’s process, an expanded study area is needed, that will be carefully considered.
6. Are you also looking at community impacts in the study? What is the policy of CARNP/South Metro Connection Study to avoid/limit impact on established residential areas to increase property values and rural ambience within study area?
The first step of the project is to determine what is needed in the study area. This will be determined as part of the purpose and need phase of the project. Once a need has been identified, a range of alternatives will be examined that will address these needs. Those alternatives could range from limited upgrades of the existing county road network to a new freeway. Whatever alternatives might be considered, the Study Team intends to avoid or mitigate significant impacts to the community and the environment. We will use these comments as we develop criteria for evaluating possible project alternatives.
7. How do you plan to compensate homeowners for significant drops in property value?
The South Metro Connection study is being conducted on an aggressive schedule in an effort to minimize impacts to the study area. It is planned to have a recommendation by summer of 2007.
The impact of this study on property values cannot be accurately evaluated at this time because the study’s recommendations are not known. As part of the study, and based on the study’s recommendation, an analysis of its effects on property values will be made.
8. Where are the high-density places of employment in southern Johnson County?
Specific to the southern Johnson County area is the Bayer Research facility, employers in the Stilwell area, employers at the U.S. 69/199th Street interchange, and employment in Spring Hill. These represent existing employment centers; future growth may bring additional places of employment.
High-density places of employment do not have to be located in southern Johnson County to have an impact on travel. Johnson County attracts employees from all areas of the region. In addition, the study is looking at future land-use patterns and will address not only the existing development but future employment, residential, commercial and industrial development.
9. Where are the entertainment/recreation destinations in southern Johnson County?
The Overland Park Arboretum is a significant recreation destination in southern Johnson County. It has a significant master plan for guiding additional facilities over the next 20 years.
10. Is truck traffic and the need for infrastructure to support truck traffic driving the project?
The study will focus on current trends and likely future conditions. The trend in Johnson and Cass counties suggests continued increases in jobs and employment. More employment increases the population of the area in response to job opportunities. Local truck traffic will most likely increase in the area as a result of the projected growth.
Interstate truck traffic on local roads can be an issue depending on the location and type of facility recommended. The likelihood trucks using local roads as a cut-through route will be reviewed by the study.
11. What impact and how much will plans for Richards-Gebaur and Gardner Intermodal facilities have on this study?
The Gardner intermodal site was identified as a potential site after this study was initiated, and was not considered part of the need for the South Metro Connection Study. We understand that decisions related to the intermodal site location have not been finalized. However, a traffic study has been prepared for the Gardner intermodal location. We will review that report and any similar reports on the Richards-Gebaur redevelopment. We also will monitor the status of the Gardner intermodal facility as this study proceeds, as it could have an impact on traffic conditions. Richards-Gebaur is located close to the study area and will potentially have traffic impacts.
The traffic study will include information on current and predicted future truck travel on the existing roadways. We will also look at how any of the project alternatives developed as part of the study change how truck traffic operates. We will examine traffic impacts west of U.S. 69, but will not propose projects for the area west of U.S. 69. We will consider this and similar information as we document existing transportation conditions. The information will be available at the purpose and need workshop in late August. Traffic impacts will be weighed with other factors as transportation options are considered in the study area.
12. Is Missouri driving how the study will impact Johnson County? How do the existing plans in Cass County affect the current study?
While Cass County has completed the M-58 Relocation Study, resulting in the recommended alternative of the North Cass Parkway, this does not dictate nor preclude the type of investment or connection that may be appropriate for Johnson County. While the North Cass Parkway will need to be taken into consideration, we don’t know yet what kind of connection might be needed or appropriate. The data and information regarding lan- use scenarios and traffic analysis, together with public inpu, will help answer what kind of connection needs to exist, the type of facility, and its location.
The connection point between the North Cass Parkway and any potential routes in Johnson County will be examined as part of the South Metro Connection Study. the South Metro Connection will consider alternatives that support and potentially connect to the North Cass Parkway. The study is looking at the geographic area between Holmes Road on the east and U.S. 69 to the west, and 175th St. on the north and 199th St. to the south. A brief macro-level examination to the east of Holmes Rd. and to just west of U.S. 69 will be conducted so as not to dictate or preclude future options in these areas. The results of this examination could range from connecting a facility in the South Metro Connection study area to the North Cass Parkway at its current location to recommending that the North Cass Parkway terminating point at 183rd and Holmes be modified.
13. Is North Cass Parkway consistent with the Perimeter Transportation Needs Assessment (PTNA)? Does the PTNA route shown on the North Cass Parkway slide fall within the study area? If not, why was it excluded?
A facility similar to the North Cass Parkway is indicated as a future planned transportation investment in MARC’s 1997 Perimeter Transportation Needs Assessment (PTNA). “Cass County residents expressed a desire for improved access to 50 Hwy and U.S. 71 and Johnson County. Johnson County residents expressed a need for improved connectivity to K-10, and U.S. 71.” Those desires were reflected in PTNA’s Preferred Option Design chapter, which recommended: “M-58 realigned from Pleasant Hill to U.S. 69 (the Johnson County alignment is approximately between 189th and 203rd Streets). Also note that all portions of this roadway in Cass County already are included in the Long-Range Transportation Plan. Further studies were assumed to more precisely define the specific investments and their locations.
14. Why don’t you just pave/improve the existing roads instead of adding additional roads?
At this point, no decisions have been made on what type of transportation projects should be done in this area. The South Metro Study will evaluate the need for road investments in this area. The idea of paving the existing roads is certainly an option that will be evaluated. We are not far enough along in our process of studying the traffic and land use to determine if this will meet the future needs of the area or not.
15. Please identify those areas, entities or people who will benefit from Metro Connection.
We will be describing area transportation conditions in the next part of the study: the “purpose and need." At that time, we will be addressing your suggestion.
16. What was Aubry Township's recommendation?
We anticipate scheduling a meeting with the region's public officials soon to provide them background information, the study process, and major milestones where data will be available so that reasonable decisions can be made based on the data presented. Aubry Township has not made a recommendation.
17. How can I get a copy of the PowerPoint file used at the Partnership Advisory Board meeting?
The powerpoint files from the meeting have been posted online.
18. Who received the fliers you are sending out?
Using the study boundaries, we identified and mailed fliers out to over 1,200 addresses gathered from Johnson and Cass counties’ GIS databases, which identify property owners in the area. We also included those individuals who have requested to be on our mailing list.
19. Will we also receive info by e-mail that the Board receives?
If we are able to send the information out by e-mail, we will make it available to those that have provided email addresses. We do not have the ability to mail hard copies to the entire mailing list for each Partnership Board meeting.
20. I would like the notes from the land-use workshop on April 20.
21. What is your time frame to complete this study?
The study is targeted to be completed in an 18-month time frame.
22. How is this study being funded? What specific public and private organizations funded this study and in what proportion? Are the proposed intermodal terminals in Belton and Gardner contributing to this study? Has BNSF funded any part of this study and/or given any money to MARC?
The study is being funded by public jurisdictions (see list and amounts below). Neither the existing Richards-Gebaur nor proposed Gardner intermodal terminals have provided funding for the study. BNSF has given no money to MARC for this project or any other activities.
| Johnson County | $290,000.00 | |
| Kansas Department of Transportation | $75,000.00 (15% of the total study cost, up to $100,000) | |
| Cass County | $75,000.00 | |
| Overland Park | $35,000.00 | |
| Olathe | $ 25,000.00 | |
| Total | $500,000.00 |
23. Who hired HNTB? Was HNTB hired in a competitive environment?
HNTB was hired by MARC in cooperation with Johnson County, Cass County, Olathe, Overland Park, Belton, KDOT and MoDOT to conduct the study. It was a competitive process that involved a proposal submittal, interview and contracting process.
24. Which public and private organizations fund MARC and in what proportion?
MARC is an association created by the region’s cities and counties in the 1970s to allow them to work cooperatively to address regional issues and concerns. MARC’s 2006 Budget reflects anticipated revenues of just over $77 million dollars. The largest portion of those dollars, 83%, are from various local, state, federal, and foundation grants that MARC receives and administers related primarily to transportation planning, aging programs, early learning/Head Start, homeland security and emergency preparedness, and environmental planning. An additional 15% represents services contributed by grant subrecipients, area non-profits, volunteers and member governments to the MARC programs, which serve as local match for the federal and state funds. The remaining portion of MARC’s budget comes from local government dues, charges for services, interest income and other miscellaneous fees. Details are available in MARC’s annual budget report.
25. What will happen with the recommendations/results of the study?
Each governing body that currently has jurisdiction in the study area or could potentially have jurisdiction in the study area will have the opportunity to either approve and adopt or reject the recommendations of the study.