OPEN MEETING NOTICE TOTAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE The Honorable Chuck Adams, Kansas Co-Chair The Honorable Carson Ross, Missouri Co-Chair
There will be an online meeting of MARC’s Total Transportation Policy Committee on Tuesday, October 20, 2020, at 9:30 a.m.
A G E N D A
1. Welcome/Introductions 2. VOTE: September 15, 2020, Minutes* 3. VOTE: 2020 4th Quarter Amendment to the 2020-24 Transportation Improvement Program* 4. VOTE: Release of the Proposed 2021 UPWP for public review and comment* 5. VOTE: Release of the updated Public Participation Plan for public review and comment* 6. REPORT: KC Rising Pillars of Prosperity 7. REPORT: KC Streetcar Update 8. REPORT: Roeland Park Planning Initiatives Update 9. REPORT: 2020 Regional Trails and Bikeway Map 10. Other Business 11. Adjournment
*Action Items
Due to social distancing requirements stemming from the coronavirus pandemic, the meeting will be held via teleconference. Members of the public who wish to participate in this meeting please email [email protected] by Noon on Monday September 14, 2020 for instructions to join the teleconference.
Special Accommodations: Please notify MARC at (816) 474-4240 at least 48 hours in advance if you require special accommodations to attend this meeting (i.e., qualified interpreter, large print, reader, hearing assistance). MARC programs are non-discriminatory as stated by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For more information or to obtain a Title VI Complaint Form, call 816-474-4240 or visit our webpage.
Total Transportation Policy Committee September 15, 2020 Meeting Summary
Members, Alternates Present-Representing Steve Schultz, Bartlett & West Councilman Chuck Adams, Wyandotte County Allison Smith, KDOT Municipalities, KS Co-Chair Charles Soules, City of Smithville Mayor Carson Ross, Jackson County Municipalities, Mike Spickelmier, City of Lansing MO Co-Chair Eva Steinman, FTA Commissioner Jim Allen, Johnson County Kip Strauss, HNTB Perry Allen, MoDOT John Zimmerman, TranSystems Lauren Anderson, Leavenworth County Mike Brungardt, Johnson County Municipalities MARC Staff Present Cory Davis, KDOT Ron Achelpohl, Dir. Of Transportation & Environment Tom Gerend, KC Streetcar Karen Clawson, Principal Planner/Air Qual. Prog. Mgr. Richard Grenville, PortKC Beth Dawson, Senior Land Use Planner Bob Heim, Platte County Marc Hansen, Principal Planner Leslie Herring, Johnson County Municipalities Amanda Horner, Safety and Mobility Planner Damon Hodges, Jackson County Municipalities Laura Machala, Transportation Planner III Tony Hofmann, City of Overland Park Martin Rivarola, Asst. Dir. of Trans. & Land Use Plan. Dick Jarrold, KCATA Alex Rotenberry, Transportation Planner III Kent Lage, Johnson County Amy Strange, Public Affairs Coordinator II Nathan Law, Miami County Municipalities Patrick Trouba, Transportation Planner I Michael McDonald, Leavenworth County Municipal. Ray Webb, Manager of Traffic Operations Mayor Mike McDonough, Jackson County Municipal. Jermain Whitmore, Program Assistant J.R. McMahon, Miami County Caitlin Zibers, Transportation Planner III Jack Messer, City of Overland Park David Miller, City of Kansas City Eric Rogers, BikeWalk KC Greg Rokos, Cass County Municipalities Melissa Sieben, Unified Gov’t of WyCo/KCK Mayor John Smedley, Platte County Municipalities Griffin Smith, MoDOT Chad Thompson, City of Kansas City Councilman Reginald Townsend, Cass County Tim Vandall, Leavenworth County Municipalities Doug Whitacre, Johnson County Municipalities Beth Wright, City of Olathe Sabin Yanez, Northland Regional Chamber of Comm. Beccy Yocham, Johnson County Municipalities
Others Present Trent Dansel, Olsson Associates Ralph Davis, City of Kansas City Nicole Galemore Randy Gorton, BHC Rhodes Stacy Hutchinson, Kansas State University Cathy Monroe Clarence Munsch, GBA Britini O’Connor, MoDOT David Rowe, KC Regional Transit Alliance
1) Welcome/Introductions Mayor Carson Ross, MO Co-Chair, called the meeting to order and self-introductions followed.
2) Approval of August 18, 2020 Meeting Summary* There were no changes to the August 18, 2020, meeting summary. Commissioner Jim Allen moved to approve the meeting summary, Mayor John Smedley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
3) Planning Sustainable Places Program of Projects* The Sustainable Places Policy Committee (SPPC) worked with MARC staff earlier this year to refine the 2021 criteria for eligibility and the award process. MARC issued a call for projects that closed on June 19, 2020. MARC staff conducted an initial review and scoring of the 30 applications and worked with the Sustainable Places Policy Committee to develop a recommended list of awardees. The Committee approved the final recommended project list on September 11, 2020. The recommended is available on the Sustainable Places Policy Committee website at: https://www.marc.org/Regional-Planning/Creating-Sustainable-Places/Creating-Sustainable-Places/Sustainable- Places-Policy-Committee
These projects will be developed with a focus on the integration of transportation, land use and environment, and will include robust citizen engagement. The Committee weighed several considerations when developing the recommended list including project scores, scalability, local jurisdiction priorities, geography, eligibility, replicability and alignment with PSP program objectives. Local sponsors are responsible for local match requirements. The consultant contracts for the projects will be held by MARC, authorization for those individual contracts will be brought to the MARC board after they have been negotiated.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS: REVENUES KS Surface Transportation Program $ 600,000 MO Federal Transportation Admin. $ 349,000 Local Match from Project Sponsors $ 237,250* Transportation Fee $ 9,490 PROJECTED EXPENSES Personnel (salaries, fringe, rent) $ 71,175 Contractual $1,124,565* * The exact Local Match from Project Sponsors and Contractual Amount will be provided at the meeting.
Jack Messer inquired if lower scoring projects are being accepted over higher scoring projects, and Beth Dawson responded that while one higher scored project was passed over to allow more jurisdictions to receive funding, the remaining projects were recommended for funding in order of their scores.
Tom Gerend moved to authorize the Planning Sustainable Places Program of Projects and Mayor Mike McDonough seconded the motion. The motion passed with one dissenting no vote (Jack Messer).
4) Release the 2020 4th Quarter Amendment to the FFY 2020-2024 TIP for public review & comment* The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is the region’s short-range program, identifying projects to receive federal funds and projects of regional significance to be implemented over the next three to five-year period. MARC amends the TIP on both a quarterly cycle and as needed to accommodate changes to projects in the TIP.
The proposed 2020 4th Quarter Amendment to the 2020-24 Transportation Improvement Programs includes 30 projects:
• 25 new projects to be added, including but not limited to: 3
• #280168 – I-635; Bridge replacement at Metropolitan Avenue • #380189 – Ottawa Street; Reconstruction in the city of DeSoto • #420008 – Six At Park Complete Streets Improvements • #690595 – I-70; Bridge replacement at Prospect • #880010 – K-68, Crosswalk improvements in the city of Louisburg • 5 modified projects • FTA Section 5310 funding recommendations • Scope • Schedule • Budget
Details of these projects are available for review on the Internet at: http://www.marc.org/Transportation/Plans-Studies/Transportation-Plans-and-Studies/TIP/TIP-Amendment- Archive/Archive-assets/20Q4amend.aspx
MARC’s Public Involvement Plan requires that proposed amendments to the TIP be released for public review and comment prior to adoption.
Mayor John Smedley moved to approve the release of the 2020 4th Quarter Amendment to the FFY 2020-2024 TIP for public review and comment, Mayor Mike McDonough seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
5) Blue River Watershed Resilience Planning Key findings from the study were presented by Dr. Sarah Hutchinson from Kansas State University. Project analysis and findings were interwoven as appropriate through four separate but interrelated planning processes. These included the regional transportation plan, the regional hazard mitigation plan, the regional climate action plan, and the Integrated Blue River Watershed Feasibility Study.
These may be group into two groups: analytical methods and policy/planning implications.
Analytical methods From a methodological perspective, KSU analysis demonstrated how common hydrological modeling procedures may be modified to account for climate change. Common assumptions about the frequency, intensity and duration of storm events are likely to shift. Downscaled climate data reflects the probability of shorter duration and higher intensity storms, changes in the frequency of in future precipitation events, and storm “stacking” over multi-day periods.
In addition to shifts in hydrological modeling assumptions, future watershed analysis will require a shift from a wholly empirical basis to one that incorporates projected precipitation regimes using evolving downscaled modeling approaches. Further, the discipline will benefit from shifting from a focus on discrete design storms to an approach guided by risk assessment and mitigation.
Policy/Planning Analysis of alternative land use and development scenarios demonstrated two key findings, which reiterate conclusions from multiple studies in Kansas City and nationally. The study found the connected riparian corridors and the disconnection of impervious areas throughout the watershed create meaningful reductions in peak flows. While the study did not address water quality or geomorphological analysis, it can be reasonably projected that these measures also would create substantial benefits in those regards. Further, ongoing discussions with the APWA and municipal partners reflect a strong interest in revising area stormwater engineering standards and best management practice design to address these issues.
4
Finally, many opportunities exist to integrate project findings with other regional plans. For example, the newly adopted Connected KC 2050 highlights climate protection and resilience as one of five overarching strategies. The plan specifically highlights nature-based solutions and green infrastructure strategies as notable resilience strategies. (Climate plans routinely recognize green infrastructure as the low-hanging fruit of adaptation.) Further, from a transportation programming perspective, green infrastructure criteria may inform multiple strategies including green and complete streets, multi-purpose greenways, right-of-way management, native landscaping, riparian restoration and other stormwater best management practices.
6) Buck O’Neil Bridge Project Update Griffin Smith, district planning manager for MoDOT, provided an update on the project to the committee. MoDOT and the city have each secured their share of funding for the project and MARC and MoDOT have amended both the Kansas City regional Transportation Improvement Program and the Missouri Statewide Transportation Improvement Program to commit these funds. The Federal Highway Administration has issued a formal finding of no significant impact, completing the required analysis under the national Environmental Policy Act and, most recently, MoDOT has qualified five design build teams to submit formal proposals to complete the project, with final selection of the winning team expected in February of 2021.
More information about the project is available at: https://www.modot.org/buck-oneil-bridge-project
Someone asked how many schedule risks MoDOT foresees, and Perry Allen answered that they are currently discussing various issues with the railroads, coast guard, and other entities to eliminate any additional barriers to the design/build process.
Another committee member asked if they could elaborate on the maintenance of traffic and what parameters the contractors were provided to propose on, and Mr. Allen explained their process.
7) 2020 Sub-allocated Transportation Programming Update Marc Hansen provided summary details about the applications received and the next steps in the programming process. On August 3, 2020 MARC opened the second phase of the call projects for 2023-2024 federal Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ), Surface Transportation Block Grant (STP) and Surface Transportation Block Grant Program – Set Aside (TAP) programs. Funding available through these programs for 2023-2024 is estimated to total $60.4 million. MARC received 85 complete applications for projects by the September 4, 2020 application deadline.
Throughout the fall of 2020, the Active Transportation Programming Committee, Air Quality Forum, Kansas and Missouri STP Priorities Committees and the Regional Transit Coordinating Council will be working to develop funding recommendations for these programs.
TTPC adopted a programming policy statement for this funding cycle along with the new metropolitan transportation plan, Connected KC 2050 on June 16, 2020. MARC will collect a 1.0% project fee for all federal funds awarded through this call for projects.
8) Climate Action Plan – Draft Strategies Update Karen Clawson provided an update on development of the Climate Action Plan. MARC kicked off a process in the fall of 2019 to develop the region’s first Climate Action Plan. To date, the Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory and Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessment have been completed as initial steps in developing climate resilience actions. In May and June, MARC and Climate Action KC hosted an online engagement process to develop and prioritize actions across multiple sectors, including transportation and the built environment. Following this engagement, a series of work groups were convened to review feedback from stakeholders and the community 5
and assist in refining a set of draft strategies across multiple sectors. The overarching themes from the workgroups and the set of draft strategies that will be included in the plan include:
• Green infrastructure • Tree canopy coverage • Stream restoration • Composting • Building energy hub • Resilience web • Local food production • 15-minute neighborhood • Multi-modal transport/ Compact Growth • Renewable energy investment • Financing • Green workforce • Innovation • Regional governance • Equity engagement
TTPC members are encouraged to provide feedback on the strategies and indicate priorities.
9) Heartland Freight Technology Plan Update This item was deferred to a future meeting.
10) Complete Streets Network Assessment Alex Rotenberry reported that complete streets are streets, highways and bridges that are routinely planned, designed, operated and maintained with the consideration of the needs and safety of all travelers along and across the entire public right of way. This includes people of all ages and abilities who are walking; driving vehicles such as cars, trucks, motorcycles or buses; bicycling; using transit or mobility aids; and freight shippers. Complete streets are also green streets which incorporate natural systems to enhance the tree canopy, reduce stormwater runoff and improve water quality.
MARC staff has launched a complete street network assessment to measure “completeness” of roadways in the region. This is an extension of previous MARC work products such as the Complete Streets Policy and Handbook, the Greater Kansas City Regional Bikeway Plan, and the Regional Pedestrian Policy Plan. The assessment will identify and analyze parts of the road network in the region; look at existing corridors shared by many MARC plans, such as the ones mentioned above and others including Smart Moves 3.0 and freight networks; look for gaps in the system; make programmatic, project and policy recommendations to communities, and update the MARC Complete Streets Policy.
A stakeholder group with an emphasis on a diverse and multimodal members and users will help guide the project, as well as several of the planning committees and public outreach as well. This assessment is anticipated to be completed in mid-2021.
11) Vision Zero Summit The Pathways to Vision Zero Summit is a virtual series that will introduce policymakers, community representatives and change-makers to the importance of Vision Zero and examines focus areas that are working to achieve zero traffic fatalities in our region and beyond.
6
The summit focuses on four key components — policy, engineering, driver behavior, and bicycles and pedestrians — all of which are necessary for success in the Kansas City area. The goal of the Vision Zero Summit is to provide introductory information of Vision Zero to participants in the hopes that local representatives will consider implementing efforts within their communities, as well as inform them of existing efforts resources available across the region.
There is a $10 fee for access to all 13 session of the Vision Zero Summit, which will occur between Thursday, October 29 and Thursday, November 19. Due to changing the summit from in-person to virtual, costs for the summit are limited to two speaker fees and contract with GTI for facilitation.
Registration Link (to be activated soon): www.marc.org/VisionZeroSummit
Our plan also includes a follow up workshop that will be a practical experience for attendees to receive more tangible instructions on how to move forward in creating policy, resolutions, form partnerships, accessing and maintaining data, and other aspects of making Vision Zero priorities possible.
An RFP for a workshop facilitator has been developed and is scheduled close September 17th.
12) Investible Strategies for Federal and Regional Funding Ron Achelpohl reported on progress for these activities. Given the pending reauthorization of federal transportation legislation and potential for additional federal infrastructure investment, MARC is currently engaged in three related initiatives to identify investment priorities for future federal and regional funding. Drawing on the recently adopted Connected KC 2050 plan, Smart Moves 3.0, the Heartland Freight Technology Plan and other resources, MARC staff have been participating in developing project priorities for:
1. The Heartland Civic Collaborative, an initiative of the Civic Council of Greater Kansas City with partner organizations in the Des Moines, Omaha and St. Louis metropolitan areas to identify potential enhancements to the transportation corridors connecting these regions together and to other markets. For the Kansas City region, these priorities may include improvements to I-29, I-35, I-49, I-70 and other major corridors for interstate commerce. This work is anticipated to be complete prior to the November election. 2. The Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce is also participating in the HCC work and is developing additional federal and regional priorities through their Transportation Big Five initiative. This work will focus on multimodal transportation and infrastructure investments for the Kansas City region with emphasis on job access and transportation safety strategies. Federal priorities should be identified this fall with other regional priorities to be identified by early 2021. 3. The Regional Transit Coordinating Council to identify regional priorities for public transportation and mobility investments consistent with Smart Moves 3.0. This work is also being coordinated with the initiatives above.
13) Other Business • Ron Achelpohl congratulated KCATA on receiving the Build Grant for the northern streetcar extension and KCMO for receiving a BUILD planning grant to study future improvements to the I-29/I-35 corridor in Clay and Platte counties.
14) Adjournment With no further business the meeting was adjourned. The next meeting of TTPC will be held October 20, 2020.
7
TTPC AGENDA REPORT
October 2020 Item No. 3
ISSUE: VOTE: 2020 4th Quarter Amendment to the 2020-24 Transportation Improvement Program*
BACKGROUND: The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is the region’s short-range program, identifying projects to receive federal funds and projects of regional significance to be implemented over the next three to five-year period. MARC amends the TIP on both a quarterly cycle and as needed to accommodate changes to projects in the TIP.
The proposed 2020 4th Quarter Amendment to the 2020-24 Transportation Improvement Programs includes 30 projects:
• 25 new projects to be added, including but not limited to: • #280168 – I-635; Bridge replacement at Metropolitan Avenue • #380189 – Ottawa Street; Reconstruction in the city of DeSoto • #420008 – Six At Park Complete Streets Improvements • #690595 – I-70; Bridge replacement at Prospect • #880010 – K-68, Crosswalk improvements in the city of Louisburg • 5 modified projects • FTA Section 5310 funding recommendations • Scope • Schedule • Budget
Details of these projects are available for review on the Internet at: http://www.marc.org/Transportation/Plans-Studies/Transportation-Plans-and- Studies/TIP/TIP-Amendment-Archive/Archive-assets/20Q4amend.aspx
MARC’s Public Involvement Plan requires that proposed amendments to the TIP be released for public review and comment prior to adoption. Fourteen comments were received regarding Overland Park project #350233 – 91st Street Bike Pedestrian Trail Improvements. The comments expressed concern regarding the removal of two traffic signals along 91st Street at Glenwood and Lamar as part of the construction of the trail project and about potential traffic controls that might be implemented at these locations in the future.
The comments received, the response from Overland Park and a proposed response from MARC are attached for your reference.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS: None.
COMMITTEE ACTION: None. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the 2020 4th Quarter Amendment to the FFY 2020-2024 TIP.
STAFF CONTACT: Marc Hansen My comment in relation to the pedestrian/bike trailway is that I think traffic lights should remain at 91st and Lamar and 91st and Glenwood because without traffic signals, it would be more difficult and dangerous for pedestrians to cross 91st Street at Lamar, and pedestrians would be unable to cross at 91st and Glenwood due to eastbound/westbound vehicles not stopping at Glenwood.
The point of a trailway is greater walkability, however pedestrians trying to cross without a light causes lesser walkability.
Also, since the 91st and Lamar intersection is at the top of a hill, it would be difficult for drivers to see a stop sign in time and thus more dangerous to pedestrians, versus a traffic signal which is more visible to drivers as they go up the hill and allows drivers to stop for pedestrians using the walk light.
The more limited visibility of a stop sign at 91st and Lamar increases the likelihood of drivers hitting pedestrians as drivers enter the 91st and Lamar intersection since drivers would not be slowing down until they're already at the top of the hill when drivers then see the stop sign.
If a roundabout is placed at 91st and Lamar, the danger to pedestrians of crossing would be greater than crossing where there is a traffic light and walk signals, since in a roundabout drivers would need to quickly decrease speed in order to avoid hitting a pedestrian, versus being at a complete stop if there was a traffic light.
If a pedestrian/bike trailway is built, it should allow pedestrians and bicyclists to have greater access to 91st Street, instead of lesser access that would be caused by removal of traffic lights, resulting in pedestrians and bicyclists trying to navigate busy intersections at 91st and Lamar and 91st and Glenwood without the benefit of basic traffic calming measures such as traffic lights.
Thank you, Donna Palatas Overland Park resident 6610 W 93rd Terrace #B Overland Park, KS 66212 913 269 4689
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my disagreement about the proposed round-a-bout at 91st and Glenwood St. and Lamar.
The lights have worked well at this intersection for years. Newer is not always 'better'.
I have lived in Overland Park since 1980, and the intersection that is of the greatest concern to those who live in this area, is at 89th and Metcalf. There have been numerous accidents at this intersection caused by the design of the turn lane on the North side of Metcalf. It is almost impossible to see oncoming traffic coming from the north, especially when there are larger vehicles in the turn lane.
The money and effort would be much better spent and utilized by re-designing these turn lanes to minimize and prevent future accidents.
I hope you will take the time to look into how many accidents have been reported at the 89th and Metcalf intersection, the Lamar and 91st intersection, and the Glenwood and 91st, and make a wise decision regarding this project.
Respectfully,
Julia Kempf
Leave it as is. We don’t need to spend taxpayer money on an unnecessary project like this. The current lights are just fine. Traffic Circles are dangerous.
I live in the neighborhood and see no need for a change.
Nelva F. May 5906 West 90th Terrace
I live off 91st between Lamar & Glenwood in Overland Park KS. With 2 big apartment complexes on 91st at that location a roundabout would be a disaster, as would stop ��signs!! No one knows the proper protocol for a 4 way stop sign & it takes twice as long to get thru it. Please leave the traffic lights as they work the best & are safest for motor vehicle & pedestrian traffic. Cyclists need to comply with traffic laws of autos too!! Thank you.
Jan Kirk
I understand that you are taking comments on Project #350233, the intersection at Lamar and 91st Street AND the intersection at 91st & Glenwood.
As a nearby resident to both of these intersections I agree that the light at 91st and Glenwood can be replaced with a 4-way stop given current traffic patterns. However, when the new office development opens on the SE corner of 95th and Metcalf that intersection could become more busy. Have you taken the increased traffic flow into consideration in your planning?
As for the light at 91st and Lamar I believe that it is needed. There is a lot of traffic that flows through that light each day.
Respectfully submitted, Dayna Vaczi
Anything but a roundabout! Stop sign is fine, but a light is okay.
Dr. & Mrs. J.Anthony Hockett 4031 W.98th St.,OP, KS 66207 913-642-7414
Re Project #350233, At 91st and Lamar, I would recommend either leaving the stop light or go to 4-way stop signs. But please do not put in another roundabout. Personally, I was hit by a driver while riding my bicycle at the existing roundabout at 109th & Lamar on May 1, 2015, giving me a concussion and broken collarbone, and breaking my bike. As a driver, I hate them, too, as they cause too much confusion both entering and exiting. I have seen folks going the same direction try to pass the car in front of them, causing close calls. Please no more roundabouts. Sincerely, William L. Crawford, O.D. [email protected]
comments regarding #350233
Please do not change the intersections at Lamar and 91st (4 way stop) and Lamar and Garnett ( stop light). There is a a lot of cars who speed thru there and need definitive stops to control speed. Also, as a cyclist in addition to being a driver, people around here are not careful or used to turnabouts. I've been on the ones in Lenexa, as a cyclist I felt very endangered and unprotected driving thru those - same way with the one west of Mission farms - drivers speed thru and dont stay in their lanes - also they seem to be more fiolled with gravel and debris which is TERRIBLY unsafe for cyclists.
Don't Change these intersections - keep them the same for the safety of Cyclists!!! thanks, Nancy Diehl
Prefer traffic light to roundabout or four way stop as this intersection is on a hill. Carolyn Shaffer [email protected]
I am writing concerning project # 350233 - installing a round-about at 91st Street and Lamar in Overland Park. This project is unnecessary to slow down traffic. The speed limit on Lamar in this area is 25 mph. I agree that a traffic light here is no longer needed, but a four-way stop will work very well for this intersection and eliminate all the unnecessary expense of the round-about, especially in these financially strapped times.
Round-abouts certainly have their place, but this intersection is not one of them. Simplicity can make so much sense as in the change made at 79th Street where it enters Downrtown OP. For years it was a you go, no you go situation with three converging streets and two stop signs. Just adding one more stop sign completely solved the problem.
Thank you for your consideration.
Dale Covey 6508 West 79th Terrace Overland Park, KS 66204
I am concerned with the proposed roundabout at 91 st and Lamar. There is heavy pedestrian traffic at this intersection. I believe the current stop lights are best to keep pedestrians safe. I hope the city of Overland Park will reconsider their decision to replace the stop lights with a roundabout.
John Gioia 9100 Lamar Ave, Overland Park, KS 66207
Project #350233:
This is an additional public comment, following my prior public comment in my email further below from September 23:
My comment is that I have started a petition for people opposed to removing traffic lights at 91st and Lamar, and 91st and Glenwood in Overland Park. Here is a link to the petition for your reference; so far it has 68 signatures: http://chng.it/B5KvYQy9
Thank you, Donna Palatas 6610 W 93rd Terrace #B Overland Park, KS 66212 913-269-4689 Overland Park resident
To: Mid America Regional Council October 2, 2020
From : Ralph Beck, 8515 Lamar Ave., OP, Ks 66207 913-530-2300 Reference - Project #350233
91st Street Trail project
This is the 1st of 2 emails, 2nd to follow.
I am adamantly opposed to the 91st St. Trail Project, and here is why:
I have lived in this neighborhood for over 30 years and I know this Lamar Street and 87th and 91st Street neighborhoods very well. It is predominately owner occupied with very little turn over, many of my neighboring homes have not changed ownership in over 20+ years.
Safety
We feel safe with our present traffic system, Lights at 83rd and 91st, 4way stops at 87th & etc., has worked well for us all these years, people are used to them, we depend on the traffic pauses they create so that during busy traffic periods we can safely back out of our driveways or cross the street by foot when needed.
Brian Shields, when asked at the 9/14 OP City Council meeting about how many accidents at these locations, he stated 1 or 2 a year at 91st & Lamar and 3 to 4 a year at the 4way stops, he said there are more at the 4ways stops vs fewer at the traffic lights. This is all on video at the 55 minute mark.
He also reported traffic count at 91st & Lamar at about 7,000 per day vs 4,000 per day at 87th & Lamar.
Lack of Public Information
I have been active within this community and have tried to keep abreast of city projects that are in the works that might have an affect on my community and I had no idea this project was even in the works until I read about it in the September 9th issue of the Overland Park City Source Weekly Newsletter that I received by email on that day, September 9th.
In my research to discover as to how this came about and when it was ever publicly discussed I found the first time it was ever publicly discussed was at the August 26th Public Works Committee meeting, where Brian Shields presented this 91st Street Trail project to the committee while discussing the removal of the Traffic Signals.
A video of such meeting is attached to my 2nd email. Details about the video discussion, times & etc., are also provided in the 2nd email I will provide you with.
It also appears there has never been any 'public participation' in any of these plans, the plans to remove the traffic signals, the plans for the 91st Street Trail, the plans for installing a Mini-roundabout, the designs or anything. That information is contained in the 2nd email.
Since this will have a direct affect on my community, to get feedback from the community I posted this news on NextDoor and found the majority of the surrounding community are opposed to the changes this project will cause to our neighborhood.
I also sent an email to the City of OP expressing the concerns and comments of our neighbors, all attached and contained in the 2nd email.
In addition, I have attached below, photos of what Brian Shields indicated is what we can expect in the form of a Mini-Roundabout for that intersection.
There are also other concerns we have about the Trail Project, that needs to be addressed.
MAINTENANCE OF THE TRAIL
Who is going to maintain the trail once it is completed and in service ?
The City of OP is NOT known for it's ability, nor it's willingness, to provide ongoing maintenance and upkeep of what it has now or has had in the past.
Council member Curt Skoog is even on record stating our city is not known for it's ability to even maintain fences, ref the WestLinks Golf Course discussion.
We have other issues as well that need to be addressed. These are just a few that quickly comes to mind.
I heard the Indian Creek Trail has maintenance issues. The Turkey Creek Trail has not been addressed, simply abandoned
The fence issue at WestLinks Golf Course, due to a legal loophole the City wants to abandon any responsibility to maintain that fence.
The gazebo that used to be in the downtown OP Santa Fe Commons Park, due to lack of maintenance and upkeep it developed some wood rot and other issues, when the City began considering the renovations to the park the City claimed it was in such bad shape that it was not worth saving. As a result it was destroyed and removed from the park during the recent park renovations. We have 'deteriorating sidewalks' in many of our older neighborhoods that needs replaced, mine is one of them.
91st Street Trail - NEED, USAGE AND BENEFITS
What is the driving factor for all these changes to our well established Traffic Safety system that is now in place ? Has a 'NEED' been established for this Trail ? Has a 'use and benefits study' been performed for this 91st Street Trail Plan ? It obviously cannot be because we have safety issues, per Brian Shields report as stated. However, due to comments Brian made regarding the Aug. 26th Committee meeting, that Federal Money was involved in the building the 91st St. Trail, is this the actual driving factor behind all this, the building of this Trail and all these changes to our street intersections ?
BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN USE
The City has just recently spent over a million dollars to have bike lanes and markings painted and installed on many of our city streets, Lamar Street included.
I witness bicycle usage mainly only on weekends, it seems to be mostly a Saturday morning thing, at least along my street.
COST OF PROJECT
I had to make a private inquiry to a Council member to even get the dollar numbers involved, no where was this publicly discussed that I am aware of, not in the Aug 26 meeting, not in the Sept. 14th Council Meeting.
The private response I received was an estimated total cost, 2.26 Million Dollars, $475k in funds from MARC and $800k in funds from KDOT's Cost Share program. Construction will start in Summer 2021 and finish by Fall 2021.
Sounds like the city still has to pay almost 1 million dollars to finish the trail.
Is this necessary since we have crumbling sidewalks & other issues the city says they do not have the funds for ??
MINI-ROUNDABOUT
Attached are 3 photos of the the Mini-roundabout that Brian Shields described in the video as what he has in mind for 91st & Lamar, except that this would be just a concrete center and not the decorative paving brick as these photos show. I found these at 154th Terr & Oakmont, rather than at 157th Terr that Brian initially indicated to find them at..
PUBLIC COMMENTS In addition to the NextDoor public comment responses I received to the NextDoor post I made earlier in September, which is attached to my 2nd email, another resident of this area along the 91st Street and Lamar/Glenwood corridor also reached out to receive public comment regarding the proposed traffic signal changes to these intersections, I have attached a PDF of those comments at the bottom of this email.
Please advise if you have any questions.
See below for current Public Comments, see attached.
Thank you
Ralph Beck
To: Mid America Regional Council October 2, 2020
From : Ralph Beck, 8515 Lamar Ave., OP, Ks 66207 913-530-2300
Reference - Project #350233
91st Street Trail project
This is the 2nd of 2 emails
notice attachments at bottom
To: Overland Park City Council
From : Ralph Beck, 8515 Lamar Ave., OP, Ks 66207 913-530-2300
Subject: Consent Agenda Item # 13 - Public Works Committee Report - Removal of Two (2) Existing Traffic Signals
ACTION REQUESTED
I hereby request this item to be removed from the Consent Agenda and sent back to the Public Works Committee for further consideration, for the following reasons as stated below.
DESCRIPTION
Removing a Stop Light and replacing it with a Roundabout, on the surface sounds like such a good idea, I am not surprised this was easily passed with a unanimous vote by the Committee.
However, in reality, please recognize that Lamar is a 'residential street', and that people and families actually live here.
Both sides of Lamar is lined with homes, churches and schools, everything that neighborhoods thrive on.
But, living on Lamar does have some challenges.
In order for us to be able to 'safely back out of our driveways', we need to retain these traffic lights in order to have the pauses in traffic flow these traffic signals create.
This is especially important to have these traffic pauses because sometimes Lamar can be a pretty busy street, especially during the rush hours it can get pretty dicey if you need to back out so you can leave and go anywhere.
Roundabouts essentially 'eliminate' these traffic pauses. and that is just what we 'don't need'.
The residents and the families who live here, on Lamar, depend on these Stop Lights.
In our neighborhood, we especially depend on those located at the 91st street intersection and the 83rd street intersection, they create the pauses in traffic flow that are needed.
LIVABILITY AND SAFETY
This is more than just simply a convenience issue for us who live on Lamar, it is a "Safety Issue".
Lamar is also a 'walkable community', and we would like to keep it that way.
It is the traffic pauses that helps make that possible.
The pauses are what gives us the time and opportunity to 'safely cross to the other side of the street'.
This is especially important for those with children and pets in tow.
A Roundabout will turn what should be a safe crossing into a mad dash and a hope for the best, especially during the rush hours.
Roundabouts are difficult to walk across and the crossing can easily turn dicey.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
It appears this is solely an Administrative Plan and Decision, made without any Public Engagement or Public Input.
Due to the lack of any Public Engagement, I took it upon myself to reach out to the public and our neighborhoods. I used NextDoor as the tool to reach out to them with.
RESULTS
In order to obtain results from a wide variety of the population I posted to a wide area of neighborhoods, a coverage map is attached, a PDF showing the Post and the responses received is also attached.
Perusing thru the responses and comments, it appears the "No" votes outweigh the "Yes" votes by about 67 No's to about 12 Yes's. So far I have received over 120 responses.
This decision, to remove traffic signals, will have a direct affect on many neighborhoods, especially those along the Lamar Avenue and 91st Street corridors,
I understand removing Traffic Signals and installing a Mini-Roundabout sounds like a good idea on the surface, but due to the nature and character of these neighborhoods and specifically those on and along the Lamar Avenue corridor, after further consideration I am positive that you will agree that maybe this is not such a good idea, once you understand the 'unintended consequences' of these changes to the safety and the livability of these neighborhoods.
And especially with such a wide margin of those responding are against changing the intersection to a Roundabout of any type.
SAMPLE RESPONSES
These are just a few of the many you can read in the attached PDF.
"As a walker I'd rather cross at a light than have to scurry through a round-about...while also maneuvering two leashed dogs."
"I vote No thank you. I live just north of 91st and Lamar. Cars already speed a lot. People use it as if it was commercial rather than residential. During both morning and evening rush hour the only way to back out of your driveway is to time it with the change of the traffic light from 91st due to the 4 way stop at 87th"
"I use that side street that's right next to the light maybe Horton and its almost impossible to get onto 91st without waiting for the light to turn. With no light it would be a long wait."
FUTURE USE AND TRAFFIC COUNT PREDICTIONS
Yes, during this time of the Covid 19 pandemic, traffic is lighter than usual.
However, once we return to a degree of normalcy, and traffic returns to normal, and then combined with the growing use of Lamar as an Alternate Route, plus the surrounding redevelopments as described in the following paragraphs.
It is any ones guess how much traffic the future holds for us.
These are just some of the reasons why we need to retain what Traffic Signals we currently have in our neighborhoods.
Consider the growth in density of downtown OP, over 1,100 new apartment units.
And then in addition, with the future growth and expansion along the Metcalf and 93rd Street and 95th Street corridor, Lamar is also expected to gain spill-over traffic from those projects once they are completed and occupied.
Lamar is already considered and used by some as an Alternative Route to Metcalf by those wanting to avoid driving on Metcalf and especially those wanting to avoid driving thru the downtown Metcalf area from 75th Street south to 89th Street, is the most common stretch I hear complaints about that people most want to avoid.
SUMMARY AND NEW TRAIL SYSTEM
In summary, it seems that our residents and their families that live here, are happy and satisfied with Lamar and 91st Street and the Traffic Light system we currently have now.
So the real question is, what is the problem and who is having a problem with what we currently have now, which seems to be working well for all of us who live here.
And why does anyone want to change all that is working well for us ??
The answer seems to be the City.
According to the taped testimony of the last Committee meeting, (see link to video pasted below, begin at about the 7 minute mark to hear)
it seems the City has 2 issues, as follows:
#1. the city does not want to maintain the Traffic Lights at 91st any longer, concerned about the future costs to maintain...... ?
#2 - those lights are apparently in the way of a 2.2 million dollar trail the city wants to install along 91st Street that apparently will go thru part of the 91st Street intersection, on its way from the Meadowbrook Country Club at 91st & Nall, then west to connect to the Cherokee Park Trail at about 91st and Lowell.
So it seems the new Trail System is taking precedence and being put above the needs of the people who live here.
I know that sounds crude, but I can't think of how to 'white wash' this and say it in any other way.
I would think that the City could figure out how to keep and maintain the Traffic Light system that we depend on as I have described that we need for our safety, and the public seems to be very happy with the way it is now.
At the same time I would think that it would be safer for users of the trail to be able to cross at a Traffic Light, rather than at an "uncontrolled Roundabout intersection", if that is the plan the city has for the trail crossing.
FINALLY
I simply ask, that in your deliberations, that you consider the people and the families who will be most affected by whatever decisions you make, we only ask that you 'do the right thing'.
Doing what's best for the people, is the one and only thing in life that really matters.
Sincerely
Ralph Beck
video link, go to 7 minute mark
Aug 26, 2020 Public Works Committee - Overland Park, KS
Aug 26, 2020 Public Works Committee - Overland Park, KS
154th and Oakmont Terrace - 5
154th and Oakmont Terrace - 2
154th and Oakmont Terrace - 1
Nextdoor Area
Roundabout Letter
Donna Palatas • 5 days ago
Do you prefer the traffic signals at 91st & Lamar, or 4 Way Stop Signs, or a Mini-Roundabout? . What do you think? You can also send comments to [email protected] (refer to project#350233 in your email). MARC (Mid America Regional Council) will be taking public comments until October 2nd on what to do with both this intersection at Lamar and the intersection at 91st & Glenwood. The City is planning on running a new Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail across 91st at both Lamar and Glenwood, so they think the intersections at both Lamar and Glenwood need to be changed. MARC is reviewing comments about the 91st Street Trail project due to MARC's role as our area's federally designated metropolitan planning organization. Posted in General to 59 neighborhoods 87 Comments
Bill Anderson • Cherbourg Signal or 4 way, no round about, they are a nightmare 5 days ago
Sharee Wiggins • Nall Hills 4-way Stop. NO roundabout. 5 days ago
Jo Blackburn • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates Keep traffic lights 5 days ago
Glen Bouchard • Bel-air Heights Definitely a roundabout. It only makes sense. Improved traffic flow and safety. 5 days ago
Elizabeth Ferguson • West Riding I’m also pro-roundabout. Once you’ve actually lived somewhere that has them, you get their efficiency. 5 days ago
David Colmer • Wycliff big round abouts are good. small ones not so much. 4 days ago
Add a reply...
Whitney Heinze • Downtown East Traffic lights are perfect! 5 days ago
Sue Belcher • Morning View Traffic lights, NO roundabout!!!! 5 days ago
Rob Wilson • Historic Overland Park The city IS adding a walking trail near 91st Street from Nall to Lowell, but that has nothing to do with the intersections at Glenwood and Lamar. The city says those traffic lights are at the end of their useful life, and need to be replaced, however they don't want to spend the $ to replace them, and felt roundabouts were more cost effective. They initially also planned on roundabout at 91st & Glenwood as well as Lamar, however I understand the Glenwood intersection will now feature 2 stop signs. I personally don't like roundabouts, however single-lane roundabouts are tolerable. When you get into multiple-lane roundabouts, well, that's where I detest them, as too many people cross over into other lanes as if they are the only drivers on the road. Edited 5 days ago
Bonnie Schwarzenholz • Historic Overland Park Meyer Circle? 5 days ago
Ralph Beck • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates Rob Wilson I understand your comments, however if you watch this video it definitely sounds like the New Trail is the driving factor to these changes, the age of the existing signals is only an excuse to cover for the real reason. Begin watching at the 7 minute mark, a 7 minute discussion - https://overlandparkks.new.swagit.com/videos/75118 5 days ago
Rob Wilson • Historic Overland Park I had heard about the removal of the traffic signals back in the Spring, and had only learned about the trail in August, so perhaps the federal funding for the trail threw a wrench into the plan, so they somehow merged the ideas together which would still provide the federal funds. Who knows? :-) 5 days ago Kris Petzold • Cherbourg I live between both intersections. Roundabout not good. Might cause more wrecks. People not used to them and how to merge. Leave the lights to many kids live near 91 st and Lamar. Lights safer 5 days ago
Cindy Gill • Cherbourg I frequently travel through both intersections and feel that the lights work well, keeping the traffic moving. Changes equal increased expenditures for the city, and I feel they are not necessary. 5 days ago
Diane Green • Elmhurst No roundabout! I say keep the light. 5 days ago
Julia Kempf • Cherbourg I don't understand why the money can't go to re-designing the 89th and Metcalf turn lanes, especially on the North side. I cannot count how many accidents we have both seen and heard at this intersection. I think the money would be better utilized in fixing a high accident area. I hope they do a comparison to see the numbers and leave the low accident areas alone. Lamar and 91st and Glenwood and 91st work just fine the way they are, imho. 5 days ago
Alana Hamilton • Cherbourg A 4-way stop at Glenwood, leave 91st and Lamar as is. NO ROUNDABOUTS! 5 days ago
Beth Jacobson • Empire Estates No roundabout. Leave the light. Money can best be used elsewhere. 5 days ago Doris Riley • Brookridge Estates Leave as it is. HATE those roundabouts. 5 days ago
Janine McPhee • Empire Estates Leave as is. 5 days ago
Michael Kissell • Glenwood Estates 4 way stop 5 days ago
Jennie Dirks • Nall Hills leave as is. we like it how it is! 5 days ago
Connie Oppitz • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates What about a couple of large speed bumps along 91st? That will wake them up when they hit them! 5 days ago
Nora Alexander • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates If it’s not broken, don’t fix it. Leave as is. Definitely no round about. 5 days ago
Connie Oppitz • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates What's wrong with the light as it is? Speed bumps! 5 days ago Sharon Monson • Bel-air Heights No speed bumps! 5 days ago
Tandy Ross • Downtown East Leave light as is. 5 days ago
Colette Hinson • Prairie Fields Leave light as is. Thanks for asking! 5 days ago
Rae & Paul Vargas/Cook • South Lakes Please no round abouts 5 days ago
Steven Kaskel • Trailwood at 99th If you don’t like a roundabout you probably don’t understand how they work. A roundabout has the advantage of allowing you to proceed as long as nobody else has the right of way first you don’t have to stop like you do for a stop sign or stop light unless somebody is already in your lane you’re about to enter it is efficient 5 days ago
Mi Do • Nall Hills Problem is, people pay less attention to a roundabout than even a 4 way stop 5 days ago Debbie Clark • Outlook No roundabouts 5 days ago
Sharee Wiggins • Nall Hills I understand exactly how a roundabout is supposed to work. We have one on Lamar down by the convention center. I travel that road multiple times per week and I cannot tell you how many times I’ve had to slow down hard or stop because somebody was inappropriately entering the roundabout. And that one is a two-lane roundabout. 5 days ago
Steven Kaskel • Trailwood at 99th I know it well as I use it daily. Have rarely ever seen any problems every now and then there’s a person who’s not really familiar with using one but it’s rare 5 days ago
Vicki Johnson • West Riding Traffic lights work well. A roundabout can cost $1 million and is not worth it. 5 days ago
Dominque Watkins • Cherbourg Mini round about. I agree with Steven Kaskel. As I’ve gotten older I’ve learned to appreciate them more so. Edited 5 days ago
Carol Stergos • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates Four way stop. No more roundabouts!!! 5 days ago Laurence Lavely • Historic Overland Park " Federally designated metropolitan Planning Organization" really.. 5 days ago
The Wrights • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates For the love of Pete, NO ROUNDABOUT!!! Leave it as is and save money Edited 4 days ago
Bob Oden • Cherbourg Traffic light, blinking red on Lamar & blinking yellow on 91st, same at Gleanwood. 4 days ago
Pat Miller • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates No round a bout. Consider the people who have to back out on Lamar. If you want to see what nightmares round a-bouts become go to Europe. Leave the lights. 4 days ago
Julie Heng • Library District No roundabout! 4 days ago
Art Doyle • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates Lived near this location 25 years, the current stop light works just perfect. I wish the City would start thinking ways to reduce escalating Property Taxes vs. wasting money on something like this that isn't needed. 4 days ago The Wrights • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates Agreed!! 4 days ago ruth morrison • Cherbourg Leave light as is! 4 days ago
MICHAEL BORN • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates Lights, most drivers don't understand a roundabout, and a agressive drivers. 4 days ago
MJ Matthews • Nall Hills No Roundabout 4 days ago
Mike Fallin • Cherbourg I prefer the roundabout. I find them to be efficient traffic movers. 4 days ago
Susan Watkins • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates Plz leave the lights! 4 days ago
Jim Breneman • Normandy Square 4-way stop like 87th &Lamar. No roundabout! 4 days ago
Jackie Morino Mais • Nall Hills I think they should leave the light. I don’t really understand the need to change it. I have been at that intersection when there has been quite a bit of traffic and feel a roundabout would be a challenge for a lot of people. 4 days ago
Jo Ann Ofak • Corinth Hills Lights 4 days ago
Celeste Aronoff • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates 4-way stop. Folks around here don't use round-a-bouts very well. 4 days ago
Jamie Heck • Pinehurst Keep the light there 4 days ago
John Fuller • Prairie Fields Leave it the way that it is. 4 days ago
Jody Drake • Cherokee Hills Lights please. No roundabout. 4 days ago Ginger Roberts • Grantioch Same - lights please. No roundabout. 4 days ago
Cynthia Riggins • Nall Hills Four way stop 4 days ago
Allison Kramer • Glenwood Estates Statistics show a roundabout is the safest and most effective for all users (vehicles, bikes, pedestrians) than a traditional intersections. Pro roundabout-ask an engineer! 4 days ago
John Fuller • Prairie Fields Why not just put the trail inside of Osage park at 87th & Lamar? That way it wouldn't impact traffic. 4 days ago
Donald Strausbaugh • Nall Hills Just leave the signals. I do not like roundabouts. They are more dangerous than people think. 4 days ago
Donna Carper • Cherbourg No I prefer stop lights as a busy intersection. 4 days ago John Fuller • Prairie Fields Roundabouts are ok for motor vehicles... not so sure if a bike and pedestrian trail is going to be thrown into the mix. I have traveled 91st Street between Nall and Metcalf quite a bit over the years... aren't there already sidewalks existing for pedestrians? I don't recall seeing many people walking... and I don't remember ever seeing anyone riding a bicycle along this stretch... Is something new being developed that would increase non-motorized traffic? 4 days ago
Paula slyker • Cherbourg Stoplights are needed. That is a small intersection and I would not want to be a school bus driver trying to get around a roundabout. 4 days ago
Frank Strada • Cherbourg I'm ok with either a 4 way stop or keeping the light. My main concern about a roundabout is that is would be less safe for cyclists. I, for one, will be riding that trail and roundabouts can be problematic for cyclists. Depends on the design. 4 days ago
Dan Mcgrath • Bel-air Heights Keep the light 4 days ago
Donald Strausbaugh • Nall Hills No roundabout Keep the light 4 days ago
Susan Wolfe • Corinth Hills Roundabout. 4 days ago
Gail Tucker • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates Lights for me. Not a big fan of roundabouts. 4 days ago
Jami Felver • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates Roundabout 4 days ago
Lyla Hoyland • Kenilworth Please leave the traffic signals. 3 days ago
Drucie Peterson • Cherbourg There is no light at 91st and Lamar! Several people have commented about leaving the light! There is a 4 way stop sign at 91st and Lamar and it works just fine. I’ve lived a block from this intersection for over three years and have not seen traffic problems. I drive to and from work daily. 3 days ago
Elizabeth Ferguson • West Riding There is a traffic light at 91st and Lamar. Maybe you’re thinking of 87th and Lamar stop signs?? 3 days ago
Celeste Aronoff • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates Total WASTE of money to re-design the intersection. Make a 4-way if it needs to be changed. 2 days ago
Ginger Roberts • Grantioch Good comment about buses navigating roundabouts - same for fire engines! 2 days ago
Janet Casida • Prairie View I will go out of my way to AVOID a roundabout. Thank you for asking for community feedback. 1 day ago
Stevie Armstrong • Historic Overland Park LOL! And I am just about there myself!! 1 day ago
Terry Shadley • Cherbourg think of the 5 way stop sign at 91st and Lowell, what a mess! I can't tell you how many times I almost got hit going to work every day. 1 day ago
Janet Casida • Prairie View Totally agree about 91st and Lowell 5-way stop being a mess. I've been through that intersection only once and witnessed an accident...avoided that intersection ever since. 1 day ago
Deb Harper • Sylvan Grove No mini-roundabouts!! Stop signs please. 1 day ago
Deb Harper • Sylvan Grove No roundabouts!! Stop signs please. 1 day ago
Terry Shadley • Cherbourg I have had many wrecks over the years and all have been from people running stop signs and in broad daylight. 1 day ago
David Martin • Cherbourg Stop lights, please. 1 day ago
Mark Johnson • Nall Hills I drive through there daily and haven't had any problems. I'm in favor of leaving it as is. I'm also familiar with roundabouts, including the one Sharee mentioned. I have no problem with that one. It's large and 2 lanes. Traffic usually flows smoothly. Some roundabouts function well, but to keep traffic moving smoothly and to keep pedestrians and bikes safe in a roundabout, it needs to be designed large enough for big vehicles to get through efficiently and to maintain a safe speed. I understand this proposal is for a mini roundabout. Think small circle of curb in the middle of the intersection. It slows down emergency vehicles and is much more dangerous for pedestrians and bikes, because many people wont stop. The mini roundabouts in the neighborhoods on the side streets south of 75th Street and west of Metcalf are terrible! The tire marks on the curbs are a visible indication of how difficult they are to navigate. That was a huge waste of money. This project would be similar and should be stopped. 15 hr ago
Deb Laughery • Prairie Fields Please keep the stoplights. There is enough traffic to support having them. 15 hr ago
Beth Jacobson • Empire Estates This seems to be is a 'solution' looking for a problem 5 hr ago
Joan Norman • Historic Overland Park Traffic signal!! Ralph Beck
Poll - OP announced a Mini-Roundabout at 91st & Lamar. City of OP just announced a Mini-Roundabout to be installed at 91st & Lamar, to replace the existing Traffic Signals.. Do you want Roundabout's on Lamar ?? Roundabouts seem to have a habit of multiplying, when one is installed soon it seems to become two and then three & etc., is this what you want ? Feel free to express your opinion, either way !! Love-em or Hate-em.....
Posted in General to 47 neighborhoods 121 Comments
Christine Taddeo • Cherbourg I think a round about might work at 91st & Lamar ... but can’t imagine at 91st & Metcalf. 1 day ago
Karla Dallas • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates Im in this intersection at least once per day and sometimes many. My concern is that this intersection has alot of traffic from 4 to 6 pm. 91st has 2 lanes each way , Lamar 1 lane.People already speed through it. The traffic circles with one lane seem safer than ones with 2.Sometimes cars on inner lane cross over to outer when they need to exit.I prefer the light, but it does take time in early morning. 1 day ago
Clint Armistead • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates Both streets are two lane roads (meaning one lane each way). 1 day ago
Terry Shadley • Cherbourg it is pretty busy at that light already. 1 day ago
Elizabeth Ferguson • West Riding I lived in Australia and roundabouts are everywhere. Once you get the hang of them, they are a far more efficient and safe way to deal with traffic. Love them! I’ve seen several wrecks at 91st and Lamar, so I’d be happy to see a roundabout there. 1 day ago
Ron Popp • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates So is it 91st and Metcalf or Lamar?? 1 day ago
Ralph Beck • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates 91st & Lamar 1 day ago
Mary and Dave Joyce • Nall Hills Getting rid of light at 91st and Glenwood too. This I read on City page. 1 day ago
Deb Ad • The Ridge Waste of money and so disruptive. 1 day ago
Neal Nichols • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates I agree with Diane, except for the 4-way stops. I've found that roundabouts do help smooth out the traffic flow. 1 day ago Edy Garrison • Glenwood Estates I wish we'd gotten a roundabout at 89th and Hardy when OP tore down many, many 60-year old trees and put in sidewalks. We were promised a full stop at that intersection by Paul Lyons. Not only is there no full stop, there's no stop sign at all. 1 day ago
Sandy Siecgrist • Historic Overland Park The usual empty promise from the empty source named, right? Lol Only if it bothers him or his neighborhood. 1 day ago
Brenda Shriner • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates I vote No thank you. I live just north of 91 and Lamar. Cars already speed a lot. People use it as if it was commercial rather than residential. During both morning and evening rush hour the only way to back out of your driveway is to time it with the change of the traffic light from 91st due to the 4 way stop at 87th. 1 day ago
Linda Wei • Cherokee Hills I also would say no 1 day ago
Rose Grimes • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates The Overland Park City's letter (below) states that these streets haven't been busy and no longer need the stop lights. Of course they haven't been because of COVID-19, a lot of Johnson County residents have been working from home. This is why our car insurance companies gave us a discount this year because people aren't driving much with COVID-19. Once the residents start going back to work and these streets become busy again, what will happen? Since 91st Street and Lamar are main streets that the fire departments ambulances and police department, these roundabouts would slow them down. Which is what roundabouts are for to slow traffic down in neighborhoods. Personally I don't want to slow down the fire department etc. 1 day ago
Megan Zlateff • Bel-air Heights Great points, Rose. I also vote no thank you for the roundabout. 1 day ago
Laurence Lavely • Historic Overland Park Sounds like its already been decided. I hear blow horns are effective. 1 day ago
Sandy Siecgrist • Historic Overland Park Laurence Lavely You know from experience right Larry?!? Lol We use them on our street with the two roundabouts and speed table!! Edited 1 day ago
Heather Byers • Prairie Ridge Emergency response vehicles slow down at intersections for safety regardless of the light color. A roundabout will not slow them more than they already do... Unless you're referring to an irresponsible emergency response driver who speeds through intersections contrary to safety protocol and in such a case, the roundabout would be a positive slow down requirement. In fact, anyone who becomes proficient in using roundabouts can maintain a decent speed while navigating safely through. Edited 1 day ago
Philip Newman • Prairie Fields Heather Byers that's nice... But does this justify the added expenses to the tax payers? All cities have a budget shortfall because of the lack of commerce. Why not either push the project back? Or scrap the project to save the tax payers some money? 1 day ago
Laurence Lavely • Historic Overland Park Sandy Siecgrist And the narrowing islands with those parking in front and behind them. lol 1 day ago
Laurence Lavely • Historic Overland Park Philip Newman You mean public funds aren't an open Bank account Phillip? lol Sorry man that ship has sailed. 1 day ago
Sandy Siecgrist • Historic Overland Park Laurence Lavely Right?!? Hey and what about our one roundabout with the caution sign that gets plowed through every few months...lol 23 hr ago
Laurence Lavely • Historic Overland Park Sandy Siecgrist Is it still there? think its gone. 22 hr ago
Sandy Siecgrist • Historic Overland Park Laurence Lavely probably gone from the last person who took it out with their car....OR the one who left their fender...lmao 19 hr ago
Add a reply...
Matt Schnug • Trailwood at 99th I love round abouts 1 day ago
Mi Do • Nall Hills No way, there’s already one roundabout too many on Lamar 1 day ago
Stuart Storrs • Nallwood Heights Not a fan of small roundabouts. Maybe just that I’m old, but 4-way stops have worked at a lot of places for a lot of years. 1 day ago
Donna Pal • Cherbourg No to the roundabout at 91st & Lamar and no to the 2 way stop sign at 91st & Glenwood. 1 day ago
Clint Armistead • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates I’m not a fan of light at 91st and Glenwood. It seems to be on a timer rather than sensor as I often get a red light on 91st when there’s absolutely no one on glenwood. 1 day ago
Amy Scheuerman • Bel-air Heights Clint Armistead This happens to me ALL the time. So frustrating. 1 day ago
Alana Hamilton • Cherbourg No! I dislike roundabouts. 1 day ago Jeff Todd • Prairie Fields Bad idea 1 day ago
Donna Pal • Cherbourg I have emailed OP city council members that in my opinion the removal of traffic signals at 91st & Lamar and 91st & Glenwood should be reconsidered due to: a new nearby multi story office building near 93rd and Glenwood will further increase traffic on 91st. 1 day ago
Mary and Dave Joyce • Nall Hills Good point! 1 day ago
Susan Stuckey • Cherbourg Very BAD Idea! 1 day ago
Meridith Rokosz • Cherokee Hills No to roundabouts 1 day ago
Chris Regan • Nall Hills Why?? Seems to work just fine the way it is!!!! 1 day ago Gary Foos • Nall Hills Really dislike them. Especially the mini ones. 1 day ago
Peggy Baker • Pinehurst How busy is 91st and Lamar? Roundabouts are to slow down traffic... total waste of tax payer money.... use money for schools 1 day ago
Heather Byers • Prairie Ridge I agree this does not seem to be a necessary expense to rise in priority above so many other worthy needs. 1 day ago
Chuck Stinson • Cherokee Hills Stop Signs are alot cheaper than a traffic circle 1 day ago
Add a reply...
Stevie Armstrong • Historic Overland Park I agree to every comment! I hate roundabouts!! The one by Santa Fe Towers apartment building is a joke! NOBODY slows down! 1 day ago
Heather Byers • Prairie Ridge I've driven all over this country and roundabouts keep traffic flowing where there would otherwise be a lot of cars stopping and idling. I enjoy them except when people who don't understand them or haven't become adept at using them are clogging them up or generally posing a safety hazard by using them incorrectly. We have a lot of people around here who hate and resist modernization (and change in general) so I'm not entirely sure the local population would be a good fit; however, commuters would gladly slip through the zone and your not have anymore red light runners crashing into unsuspecting travelers. At the same time, people who cannot adapt to change will make this an unsafe intersection until they avoid it the way they do the Roe crossing over 435... Which will mean easier traffic flow for everyone else. Edited 1 day ago
Peggy Baker • Pinehurst I don’t resist change at all.. round abouts have their place.. 91st and Lamar doesn’t seem high traffic to me.. that’s my point.. and it’s tax payer money that might be used for schools etc 1 day ago
Brenda Shriner • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates Thank you for your comments Heather. I don’t resist change, I think roundabout have their place I just don’t think this is the intersection of choice. I would be curious about the data. I don’t see that this should be a commuter street. People can use Metcalf, 95th etc for that. I do appreciate your comments on safety but as I mentioned earlier I am concerned about speeding. I have lived near this intersection for 12 years and am not seeing a back up of traffic as you mentioned. Again I would be curious about the data, the time frame for the collection of the data (during Covid?) and how the selection process was made for this intersection. There may be others where there is more back up such as near some of the newer high rise dwellings. 1 day ago
Bill Buckner • South Lakes I too have driven a LOT in all but 7 states in this country and frankly I find roundabouts pretty useless, especially in places where they're really not needed. I love change myself except in situation where it's change just for the sake of change. Pointless change is usually costly and inefficient. 1 day ago
Add a reply...
Jonal Brabec • Cherokee Hills Wouldn't 4-way stop signs be cheaper? 1 day ago Bill Buckner • South Lakes Yes it's much cheaper to dig a hole and install a sign rather than hire a street crew to reconfigure an intersection. I think they're much better too, even if half the population doesn't understand the concept of "right of way" when approaching a 4 way stop. 1 hr ago
Philip Newman • Prairie Fields I feel like that money could be much better spent on repaving existing roads Or updating parks. 1 day ago
Philip Newman • Prairie Fields Will the city have to claim eminent domain to install the around about? If so i am definitely against the seizing of private property because a city planner wants to try something. How many accidents even occur at that intersection? 1 day ago
Gwen Faherty • Cherbourg Love them. 1 day ago
Terry Shadley • Cherbourg If the city has money to spend I wish they would come over to my street and widen it so I can at least back out of my own driveway. I called the city years ago & found out that my section of the street is a lot smaller than pretty much any street in OP. That's what they told me. When someone parks across the street on the street which is every day and every night I have no room to back out! There are times I would like to leave and just give up. The people that live there don't care, I've been cussed out before. They see no problem with parking at the end of their driveway either which is directly across from mine. Their answer to me is it's a pubic street and the cops don't care either. There is also no room to park on both sides of the street so heaven help me if I have anyone over. Edited 1 day ago Jen Black • Prairie View I'm surprised they haven't made your part of the street no parking. Maybe you've tried that already but it might be a good thing to raise again to the city, especially since they've acknowledged that you're on a really narrow road. I used to live on a narrow road and hated it, so I feel your pain. 5 hr ago
Msrsha Killian • Bel-air Heights No thanks. 1 day ago
Ruth Jackson • Cherbourg I hate those mini roundabouts. I came to appreciate large ones when living in Africa & they work. But the mini ones like on Marty? Ugh! 1 day ago
Jackie Wolf • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates I am not in favor of them. 1 day ago
Kris Petzold • Cherbourg I hate round snouts if not broke don’t fix 1 day ago
Paulo Martinez • Cherbourg Leave the streets alone. No need for them! 1 day ago Diane Garvey • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates What is the point? Absolutely NOT. The traffic signals work just fine. Will these responses here reach the decision makers or should we contact OP directly? 1 day ago
Philip Newman • Prairie Fields Even if these responses did reach the city's decision makers I'm sure they would be ignored. This seems to be the usual arrangement amongst local municipalities. 1 day ago
Steven Kaskel • Trailwood at 99th I like 1 day ago
Bobbie Becker • Corinth This is my opinion. OPKS should go look at how the round-abouts are designed up near Zona Rosa. The round-abouts there work much btr than those I've seen arnd here. The area I'm referring to is near Congress Ave. 1 day ago
Bobbie Becker • Corinth I'm adding to my previous comment. If I had to choose, I'd rather not have a round-about, but they decide to put one in, I think they should go look at the ones up by ZR. Those 20 hr ago
Bobbie Becker • Corinth Sorry, I didn't get to finish my sentence, (puppy jumped on lap), The round-abouts north of Zona Rosa flow nicely. But the ones I've seen arnd here are horrible. 20 hr ago
Add a reply...
Andrew Lyman • Trailwood at 99th I vote roundabout! Like Natl. Lampoon's Euro Vacation! 1 day ago
Gary Schaefer • Kenilworth Big Ben, Parliament House...(repeat) 1 day ago
Sandy Siecgrist • Historic Overland Park I’ve been waiting for the reply!!! 19 hr ago
Sandy Siecgrist • Historic Overland Park Gary Schaefer Look kids....Big Ben...Parliament! Lol 19 hr ago
Add a reply...
Joe H. Vaughan • Corinth Hills Too many people are driving too fast on narrow residential streets where children and pets often play. I support such roundabouts IF the neighbors along the block agree with the traffic calming concept. Thank you! 1 day ago Philip Newman • Prairie Fields If the objective is to slow people down why not speed bumps? Much more cost effective. 1 day ago
Stan Ingersol • 75th and Metcalf I love roundabouts. I live near the ones north of downtown OP, and I work near the ones on Renner between 87th and 95th. What I like is the fact that I don't have to stop at those intersections unless someone else has the right-of-way. 1 day ago
William Bonnie • Historic Overland Park Definently keeps traffic speeds regulated 1 day ago
John Ritz • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates Roundabouts have been proven to enhance traffic flow, especially on streets like Lamar & 91st. The ones in Marty allow you to keep moving, and I feel like they control speed in those type of neighborhood streets because drivers know a roundabout is coming up. 1 day ago
Donna Pal • Cherbourg Diane, I've emailed the city council members with my concerns; if you would like to email them, it is [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; and [email protected] 1 day ago
Thomas Flanders • Cherokee Hills No roundabout at 91 and Lamar. Besides being a nuisance makes it difficult for snow removal 1 day ago
Gary Schaefer • Kenilworth No, I dislike them! 1 day ago
M.A. Haik • Pinehurst I visited England last year and the part of the country I was in used almost only roundabouts. I found them helpful because they kept the traffic moving much better than having to wait every quarter mile or so at a traffic light. 1 day ago
Jake Marshall • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates As a walker I'd rather cross at a light than have to scurry through a round-about...while also maneuvering two leashed dogs. 1 day ago
Bill Buckner • South Lakes Large traffic circle type roundabouts are okay when needed for large intersections. However the small ones like OPKS loves to put on less traveled streets and residential areas are a pain and pointless. I much prefer 4 way stops even though it seems most people don't know the proper order / way to uses them. This particular one in question on 91st & Lamar seems pointless and changing it just for the sake of change. Probably someone somewhere is going to make some money by doing this. 1 day ago
Connie Orman • Prairie Fields I take my trailer down Lamar to Home Depot regularly. Mini roundabouts are not easy navigation with a tow. 1 day ago Suzanne McCullough • Downtown East No 1 day ago
Deanna Raithel • Prairie Fields That’s a no for me. They are less safe to cross on foot and honestly give me pretty bad car sickness. 1 day ago
Linda Carr • Cherbourg Is this a done deal or can we contact someone to protest? I think this is a bad idea, especially at that location. 1 day ago
Kris Petzold • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates No 1 day ago
Lori Bennett • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates FYI to all interested – we were recently notified by the city that the traffic signal at that intersection, as well as at 91st and Glenwood, are being removed. I think a roundabout at the Lamar intersection would be good to keep speeds down. 1 day ago
Bryon Deen • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates Hate it 1 day ago Connie Oppitz • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates Not needed. Don't spend the money! 1 day ago
Janet Oliver • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates Agree with Bryon & Connie. 1 day ago
Rick Bartel • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates I find it interesting that this a part of the 91st Street walkway project and yet it appears that pedestrian safety is not taken into consideration (or really been thought through) for a roundabout. 1 day ago
Leslie Schulte • Historic Overland Park I love roundabouts. It's so much faster than stop signs. We drove them every morning in Lenexa to school and it made the long trip for us much faster. 1 day ago
Jim Breneman • Normandy Square Please don't do this! Large roundabouts similar to those on 110th & Lamar are ok, but the "mini- roundabouts" are just as disruptive as stop signs or traffic lights!!! 1 day ago
Andrew Goldblatt • Nall Hills BOO!!!!!!!!! 1 day ago Susie Benson • Bel-air Heights If it's not broke don't fix it. I live on this street. There is not a problem at this intersection. The problem is 2-3 blocks down because cars pick up speed going down the hill. Don't waster money on things that we don't need. 1 day ago
Angie Scharnhorst • Nall Hills This is awful! 1 day ago
Ada Wright • Glenwood Estates Hate those things. And to make them work requires a multitude of signs! Turn right turn left yield stop do not enter, so much so it becomes an eyesore rather than the intent of beauty. 1 day ago
Sharon Monson • Bel-air Heights Terrible idea! No one uses them correctly. 1 day ago stu LEWIS • Prairie Ridge I can't see what we would gain. Apparently it is to speed up traffic by avoiding the stop signs or traffic light. But you have to slow down at these roundabouts anyway, and it would seem that they would be more prone to accidents with people entering and exiting without stopping. 1 day ago
Chris Kirk • Bel-air Heights NO 23 hr ago Joan Norman • Historic Overland Park I vote NO. Don't like them, got hit in one when driver tried to exit from inside lane. DO NOT LIKE THEM. 23 hr ago
Joan Norman • Historic Overland Park Why doesn't the city wait until all those new homes and businesses that are going in in that area get filled up and then check what the traffic is like. Again, it sounds like the city is trying to put the cart before the horse. 23 hr ago
Kathy Lobner • Prairie Fields I vote no 23 hr ago
Gina MAlashock • Bel-air Heights There is a lot of traffic at 91 and Lamar going fast. No to the roundabout 22 hr ago
Mary and Dave Joyce • Nall Hills We don't feel this is a good idea. Your adding all that new housing at the old Meadowbrook country club site. We believe this is a very bad much like adding on street parking on College Blvd. Near the convention center. If federal funding will no longer support stop lights add low cost stop signs. 22 hr ago
Mike Vaughn • Bel-air Heights As someone who lives on Lamar. I welcome the roundabout and hope it decreases the traffic as most will think it’s an inconvenience. Might keep the speeders down too. 22 hr ago Cindy Rubaie • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates I can think of no good reason for a roundabout at 91st and Lamar. If there were more than 2 streets intersecting there (like the roundabouts on Santa Fe or Ward Parkway) I'd understand, but this proposal is senseless and a waste of taxpayer money 22 hr ago
Mary Traxler • Bel-air Heights I am voting no. We can use the money allocated for this project for maintaining the streets we have instead of another property tax increase. 21 hr ago
Chris Regan • Nall Hills No and No is our vote!!!! 20 hr ago
Donna Pal • Cherbourg For those who didn't see the city's letter earlier in these comments, below is a link to the letter. The city has made its decision, so if you're opposed, let your council people know. https://d3926qxcw0e1bh.cloudfront.net/post_photos/c0/49/c049b9bc3bd807f6485e0b29a15b856f.JPE G.crop100x100.jpeg 20 hr ago
Donna Pal • Cherbourg My link to the city's letter wasn't very legible so if someone has a photo of the city's letter, could you please post it here. Thanks. 20 hr ago
Ralph Beck • Round Hill-Beverly Hills Estates Donna Pal - Is this the letter you are talking about? You may write to the council using this address - [email protected]
20 hr ago
Donna Pal • Cherbourg Yes, thanks very much Ralph Beck! FYI, I've written to the city council to ask them to reconsider, but they are proceeding with the plan described in the letter and say they will monitor to see how it goes. 20 hr ago
Mary-Louise Poquette • 75th and Metcalf NO to any more roundabouts in old neighborhoods not designed for those kinds of obstacles. Besides, it's like a sign announcing that the neighborhood is unfriendly. 19 hr ago
Bill Crawford • Nall Hills No to roundabouts! I hate them I was hit by a car while on my bike at the roundabout at 110th & Lamar. Not safe. 7 hr ago
Mi Do • Nall Hills That one is really dangerous, I’ve seen a number of accidents and even seen people going the wrong way on it 7 hr ago
Phyllis Morris • Prairie View NO! Dangerous! Spend taxpayer monies for roads! 7 hr ago
Terry Shadley • Cherbourg they also don't make them wide to get a full size truck around. 6 hr ago
Donald Strausbaugh • Nall Hills Do not want them at all 5 hr ago virginia haley • Colony West Coming from the east, it is a little difficult to see far enough for a roundabout to be safe. It's uphill. 5 hr ago
Add a comment...
RESOLUTION NO. 4647
A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE INTENTION OF THE GOVERNING BODY TO CONSTRUCT AN INTERMODAL TRAIL; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS TO PAY THE COSTS THEREOF. (PR-2051)
WHEREAS, Article 12, Section 5 of the Kansas Constitution empowers cities to determine their local affairs by charter ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Overland Park Charter Ordinance No. 53 authorizes the Governing Body to issue its general obligation bonds to pay for public buildings and facilities; and
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Governing Body to construct an intermodal trail along West 91st Terrace and West 91st Street from Nall Avenue to Lowell Avenue, and linking with the existing trail at Cherokee Park, and to pay for a portion of the same by the issuance of its general obligation bonds.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS:
Section 1. That the Governing Body intends to construct a trail along West 91st Terrace and West 91st Street from Nall Avenue to Lowell Avenue, and linking with the existing trail at Cherokee Park, including benches, curb and gutter, restoration, landscaping and other appurtenances and items incidental to construction, City project number PR-2051, hereinafter, the “Improvement.”
Section 2. The estimated cost for the Improvement is Two Million Two Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($2,240,000.00) based on construction in 2020. Should construction be delayed, a revised construction estimate will be required.
Section 3. That a portion of the cost of the Improvement will be paid with General Obligation Bonds.
Section 4. That the City expects to incur expenses in connection with the Improvement prior to the issuance of the general obligation bonds and temporary notes which will be used to finance the Improvement. The City reasonably expects to reimburse a portion of the expenditures in connection with the Improvement from the proceeds of the general obligation debt. This declaration is a declaration of official intent of the City under the Treasury Regulations. The maximum principal amount of debt expected to be issued is Nine Hundred Eighty Five Thousand Dollars ($985,000.00).
ADOPTED by the Governing Body this 14th day of September, 2020.
APPROVED AND SIGNED by the Mayor this 14th day of September, 2020.
CITY OF OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS
By: Carl Gerlach, Mayor
ATTEST:
By: Elizabeth Kelley City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: Trevor L. Stiles Senior Assistant City Attorney
2 RE: TIP AMENDMENT 91ST ST BIKE PEDESTRIAN TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS PUBLIC COMMENTS
The City of Overland Park appreciates the opportunity to respond to various comments that have been made regarding the TIP amendment for 91st St Bike Pedestrian Trail Improvements. Here is some background for further consideration.
During the last round of federal funding, Overland Park was successful in obtaining funding for the construction of a bike-hike trail along 91st Street from Lowell Avenue to Nall Avenue. This route has been shown on the City's Greenway Linkage Plan for many years. This will provide a connection between Cherokee Park and Meadowbrook Park, one of Johnson County's newest regional parks. This connection will serve residential interests along the route and make for a more walkable and bikeable community. Bikeability and walkability were both identified as two key issues for Overland Park to consider in the future as part of a citywide visioning process over the last few years.
Specific to this trail project, there are two signalized intersections that will need modifications should the signals remain in place, 91st/Glenwood and 91st/Lamar. This is mainly due to the current locations of poles and other traffic signal equipment compared to the intended placement of the trail and new sidewalk ramps.
Over the past several years, city staff has been monitoring traffic volumes at several traffic signalized intersections across the city to determine whether they still meet traffic signal warrants as outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, (MUTCD). We have also been looking at the ages of our existing traffic signals to determine when the equipment has reached the end of its useful life and would need to be entirely replaced. The traffic signal at 91st Street and Glenwood was constructed in 1990 and is currently 30 years old while the traffic signal at 91st Street and Lamar was constructed in 1980 and is 40 years old. Neither of these two locations meet established traffic signal warrants based on the MUTCD and traffic volumes that were taken prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Since the city is in the design phase of the 91st Street bicycle and pedestrian trail that will extend from 91st St and Lowell to 91st St and Nall, it makes sense to consider how best to deal with these unwarranted traffic signals now as opposed to spending money on them that ultimately will be thrown away. Since these two locations no longer meet traffic signal warrants and have been identified as traffic signals that would not be replaced at the end of their useful life, we have proposed to our Governing Body to remove them with the trail project and not expend any additional funds in an attempt to modify them for the project.
Our analysis for 91st Street and Glenwood indicates that it meets the warrants for a two-way stop for northbound and southbound traffic. When analyzed with the Highway Capacity software, the intersection would operate at a level of service (LOS) B, as a two-way stop controlled intersection. The analysis at 91st Street and Lamar Avenue shows that it meets the warrants for a multi-way stop and all approaches would operate at a LOS B. We propose to operate it in this condition as a temporary situation until a previously approved City project for a mini roundabout can be constructed at this location. The mini-roundabout at 91st Street and Lamar Avenue was scheduled to be funded and constructed in 2021 until the cutbacks due to the COVID-19 outbreak. No design work has yet been undertaken and our normal public input opportunity will take place during that process.
City staff has a procedure for removal of traffic signals that includes public notifications, placing the signals in flashing mode for a time to evaluate the operation and follow up traffic studies. Signs will ALSO be installed notifying drivers of the change in the traffic control. The Overland Park Governing Body approved this process and staff is currently proceeding forward with preparing the signals to be converted to flashing operation. After a 90-day evaluation period, we will seek final approval from the City Council based on results of the trial period.
Several objections have been raised to making changes in this area by nearby residents, specifically about the elimination of the two traffic signals. Specific concerns centered around safety, walkability, bikeability and future traffic. At both locations the number of recent crashes is fairly small. Between 2015 and 2018 (the last four full years of crash data we currently have available), we recorded three crashes at 91st/Lamar and seven crashes at 91st/Glenwood. These crash rates are in line with similar crash rates we see across the city for similar types of intersection controls as we are proposing (i.e., two-way stop at Glenwood and all-way stop at Lamar). In terms of future crashes with a mini-roundabout at 91st and Lamar, the research is abundant that roundabouts in general lead to fewer crashes of all types and less injuries. Roundabouts virtually eliminate right angle collisions and opposing left turn crashes which are often the most impactful and consequential types at any intersection. Also, pedestrian safety and vehicular safety are both improved due to the elimination of a number of conflict points. This promotes both walkability and bikeability.
The final area of concern was with our traffic counts and the growth potential for the future. The counts we took to examine the need for the traffic signals was, as previously indicated, based on a pre-pandemic timeframe and were not influenced by the current drop in traffic overall (currently about 20% less than what we would normally see).We do fully expect that these traffic volumes will rebound eventually, but the time horizon for that is unknown. It should also be noted that there is a major office building under construction at the northeast corner of 95th and Metcalf and other future office space planned as the need develops at that site. However, staff does not anticipate any significant traffic diversion onto the local street network (91st Street, Glenwood, or Lamar). Convenient access has been provided to the new office development using 93rd Street, 95th Street, and Metcalf Avenue so as to minimize the need for drivers to find alternative routing through the nearby neighborhoods. There are several traffic signal warrants that we analyze, including an eight hour minimum volume warrant, a four hour peak warrant and a one hour peak warrant. It is highly unlikely that the development would meet the thresholds required for any of these warrants.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these additional details for consideration of this TIP Amendment Update. Please let us know if you have follow-up questions.
Sincerely,
Eric Keenan P.E. Civil Engineer, Senior Public Works
City of Overland Park 8500 Santa Fe Dr Overland Park, KS 66212
(w) 913-895-6028 | (m) 913-238-9850 [email protected] | www.opkansas.org
PROPOSED RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON 2020 Q4 TIP AMENDMENT
Thank you for your recent comment regarding the proposed 2020 4th Quarter Amendment to the 2020-2024 Transportation Improvement Program. We shared your comments with the MARC Total Transportation Policy Committee and the MARC Board of Directors for their consideration on the proposed amendment. Additionally, your comment was forwarded to the City of Overland Park, Kansas, the project sponsor for the 91st Street Bike Pedestrian Trail Improvement project you referenced. Their response is enclosed for your convenience.
The 91st Street Bike Pedestrian Trail is an important project from both a local and regional perspective. Locally, it will improve conditions for both bicycling and walking for residents along the route and provide connections to recreational facilities in the area. Regionally, the project increases connectivity to routes identified on MARC’s Regional Bikeway Plan.
Construction of trail will impact the traffic signals along the route at 91st/Glenwood and 91st/Lamar as both locations will require modifications to the placement of traffic signal poles and other equipment. As part of the design process for the trail project, the city analyzed pre-pandemic traffic conditions and determined that the traffic signals no longer met the criteria required under federal standards for traffic signals and that replacement with traffic sign stop controls would not negatively impact the safety at or the operation of the intersections. It is also noted that the equipment at these locations was nearing the end of its useful life. Based on these factors, the city has elected to remove the signals as part of the trail construction.
Although a mini roundabout was planned for the intersection of 91st Street and Lamar as a project separate from the 91st Street Bike Pedestrian Trail, those plans have been delayed due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and no design work has taken place for that project. Should the project move forward in the future, the city has indicated that there will be opportunity for additional public input.
Moving forward the city has indicated it will follow its approved processes for the removal of traffic signals and design/implementation of any new traffic controls. Since these processes will include additional analysis, public notifications, public input opportunities and approval by the City Council before implementation, MARC staff recommends approval of the amendment.
We encourage your continued participation in the regional transportation planning process and have included an internet link to A Guide to Transportation Decision Making for your information. This booklet is designed to help area residents understand the complex process of transportation decision-making and learn how they can provide input to the process more effectively.
Sincerely,
Marc Hansen, AICP Principal Planner Mid-America Regional Council
TTPC AGENDA REPORT
October 2020 Item No. 4
ISSUE: VOTE: Proposed 2021 Unified Planning Work Program*
BACKGROUND: The Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) 1) describes the transportation planning activities MARC and other agencies will undertake during the year; 2) documents the proposed expenditures of federal, state and local funds in support of applications for various planning grants; and 3) provides a management tool for MARC and the funding agencies in scheduling major transportation planning activities, milestones and products. A draft of the 2021 UPWP is available at:
http://marc.org/Transportation/Plans-Studies/Transportation-Plans-and-Studies/Unified- Planning-Work-Program/UPWP-assets/Draft_2021UPWP_Oct2020.aspx
Major Transportation Planning Initiatives proposed for 2021 include:
• Respond to the FAST Act – Tasks 1.1, 2.2, 3.9, 4.1, and 5.5 • Creating/Planning Sustainable Places – Task 2.1 • Performance Measures and Targets – Tasks 2.2, 3.9, 4.1 • Travel Demand Model Calibration with results of 2019 Household Travel Study – Task 3.1 • Implementation of a Transportation Data and Technology Strategic Plan – Task 3.2 • Development of the 2022-2026 Transportation Improvement Program – Task 4.1 • Smart Moves Implementation – Task 5.1, 5.2 • Implementation of the RideKC NEXT System Redesign – Task 5.2 • Expansion of the Kansas City Streetcar – Task 5.3 • Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project Development – Task 5.3
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS: The Draft 2021 UPWP has been developed based on funding levels resulting from the passage of FAST Act and the 2010 Census counts for urbanized area populations in Kansas and Missouri.
COMMITTEE ACTION: MARC hosted a virtual meeting on July 30,2020 with its planning partners to coordinate development of the 2021 UPWP. An initial version of the 2021 UPWP was circulated among the planning partners for comment in September 2020.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the release of the proposed 2021 Unified Planning Work Program for public review and comment.
STAFF CONTACT: Marc Hansen TTPC AGENDA REPORT
October 2020 Item No. 5
ISSUE: VOTE: Release Public Participation Plan for public review and comment*
BACKGROUND: MARC’s Public Participation Plan (PPP) provides a framework that guides public involvement in transportation planning projects. It specifies goals, strategies and techniques that encourage successful public participation. This plan is updated every three years and MARC staff has completed a draft update.
MARC uses a range of public involvement strategies throughout the development of its core transportation plans. The PPP sets a consistent standard across different planning efforts but recognizes that strategies may vary by project.
Highlights of changes from the previous version include: • A shorter plan that uses plain language. • A catalog of strategies that preserve flexibility in how to engage public. • A focus on finding a balance of various and diverse techniques tailored to the plan or program that aim to reach specific audiences using a variety of formats, platforms and channels. • A focus on building relationships with stakeholders and community organizations that work with vulnerable populations in order to create targeted feedback opportunities and ongoing conversations around our planning processes.
The draft plan will be available during a 45-day public review and comment period.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS: None
COMMITTEE ACTION: MARC’s Regional Association of Public Information Officers was consulted in the development of this update.
RECOMMENDATION: Release the Public Participation Plan for public review and comment.
STAFF CONTACT: Amy Strange, Public Affairs Coordinator Public DRAFT ParticipationDRAFTDRAFT Plan
Mid-America Regional Council Transportation Department INTRODUCTION We are committed to Public participation is based on the belief a public participation that people whose lives are affected by planning and investment decisions have a process that: right to be involved in the decision-making • Involves the public in decisions that process and influence choices that are affect their lives. made. Directly engaging people in this • Communicates how the public’s process promotes successful problem contribution will influence decisions. solving, yields diverse voices and new ideas, and gives the public a sense of • Is adaptable and sensitive to diverse ownership of the developed solutions. audiences. Successful public participation educates • Promotes respect. the public and facilitates multiple ways of • Provides equitable access to collecting useful feedback. In order to be opportunities, information and successful, public participation efforts need education. to reach and engage diverse audiences. • Ensures timely response to A variety of techniques are necessary to participants. make public participation a success. • Is consistent and reliable. The Role of Mid-America • Promotes continued engagement. Regional Council • Allows for flexibility and use of MARC is designated by the federal creative and innovative approaches. government as the Metropolitan Planning • Maintains honesty and integrity Organization (MPO) for the bistate throughout the process. Kansas City region. Our MPO boundary includes Cass, Clay, Jackson and Platte • Continuously strives to educate counties along with a small portion of and inform affected and interested Lafayette County in Missouri, and Johnson, parties to give them a more Leavenworth, Miami and Wyandotte meaningful participatory experience. counties in Kansas. • Encourages early and active As the MPO, we are responsible for participation. coordinating transportation planning activities to keep people and goods moving along our roads and interstates, aspects of all that we do — transportation, on buses and the streecar, and on trails climate resilience, water and air quality, and bikeways within our region. We work aging and adult services, workforce with federal and local governments, state development and early learning — into departments ofDRAFT transportation, transit all of our planning work. Continuous agencies, area stakeholders and the public collaboration with communities, elected to ensure that the plans and projects officials, advocates, subject matter experts, developed are aimed at achieving a rising local leaders and interested parties is the quality of life for everyone foundation upon which this comprehensive planning happens. As an organization, our work reaches beyond transportation so we incorporate
2 Mid-America Regional Council GOALS
It is our goal to have significant Goal 1 — Inform and Educate the Public and ongoing public participation It is our responsibility to make information in the transportation planning easily accessible to the public in a timely way. process. In addition providing We will provide information that is accurate, information, we also seek understandable and pertinent using a variety of to empower and improve communication tools. opportunities for the public to voice their ideas and values Goal 2 — Reach Out and Build Connections regarding transportation. We recognize that large segments of the population rarely participate in the transportation planning process, including disabled, minority, Public health and non-English speaking and low-income groups. It public engagement is a priority to increase the diversity and number of participants in engagement activities through The COVID-19 pandemic building new relationships with organizations and had a significant impact on communities that serve these under-represented public engagement, ending populations. most face-to-face meetings and shifting interactions Goal 3 — Engage the Public and Encourage to virtual setting. While it Continued Participation will be possible to go back to traditional, in-person We will encourage continued public participation engagement in the future, by ensuring a meaningful engagement process. it is also true that virtual This includes providing various ways to engage and digital engagement and communicate with the public, responding to techniques can often solicit all comments and questions in a timely manner, feedback from more people presenting a clear process for incorporating because they allow more public input into our plans, and providing other flexibility. Going forward, opportunities for further engagement and we will focus on virtual education. meetings, online surveys and social media posts Goal 4 — Use Input to Shape Policies, Plans while always providing the and Programs option to call staff for those We will document and review all input received who aren’t comfortable from the public. The process of incorporating with technology or have public input into transportation planning limited online access. Once documents will be transparent and open to the it is safe to do so, we may public. DRAFT resume in-personDRAFT meetings when appropriate. Goal 5 — Evaluate Public Participation Strategies In order to sustain best practices in public participation, we will continually monitor the public engagement process and seek ways to evaluate and improve how we engage the public.
Public Participation Plan 3 OVERVIEW OF APPROACH
Reach and Gather Input from Diverse of ways and places across the Kansas Audiences City region. We will do this by having The main way that a public participation one-on-one conversations with staff/ process can be successful is to include a representatives/members of these groups diverse segment of the community. ahead of a public engagement process to ask for suggestions on how to engage Diversity includes people of varying: communities they represent.
Ages Inform and Educate Socioeconomic backgrounds For any planning process, it is important Races/ethnicities to educate the public as to the nature of
Genders the plan or policy being updated, what the steps will be in the update process, as well Educational attainment as what opportunities will exist to learn Disability statuses about it and offer feedback.
Sexual orientations In addition, since our work is most often Feedback and Input regional in nature, we will strive to inform In addition to providing information about and include residentsDRAFT from all parts of the plan and policy development, we will region. engage the public at several junctures during the process to gather feedback and Build Relationships with Community input that can inform the content of the Organizations plan or policy. In order to hear diverse opinions, we Therefore, when designing activities for will strive to build relationships with in-person meetings, paper and online organizations that work in a variety surveys, or other ways of soliciting input
4 Mid-America Regional Council We will convey information
In a variety of formats To audiences of varying
Text Charts and Images Video Abilities Races and Languages Social and graphs ethnicitiesCONNECTEeconomicDKC status CONNECTEDKC On a variety of platforms Through a variety of channels
Print Online Mobile- Social Email Website Partner Paid friendly media organizations advertising
from the public, we will drill down to those questions that not only collect information, but also help staff modify the policy/plan Was a public participation development process or even influence the process successful? content of the policies. There are no specific metrics that can reflect the success of a public Providing Multiple Ways to Learn and participation process. In cases where Offer Feedback it is very difficult to get a lot of people Providing a variety of avenues to learn to show up to meetings or answer about and provide feedback on a MARC surveys, quality engagement, perhaps plan or policy being developed makes it via a focus group with a small number possible to reach and hear from a larger of people, can provide meaningful and more diverse group of people. Some feedback. people really appreciate and are able to attend in-person meetings, while it is much Each process will need to be tailored, easier for others to provide feedback often as it is going on, to reach and during an online event or survey. Pop- hear from diverse audiences. For most up events at grocery stores, libraries plan or policy development processes, DRAFT and on transitDRAFT vehicles are great ways more than one engagement technique to gather quick input from people who will be needed. A successful process otherwise might not be likely to attend results in staff being able to articulate more traditional public meetings. Providing how feedback was integrated to help multiple ways for the public to learn shape the outcome and the public and offer their feedback is critical to the being able to see the results. success of any engagement process.
Public Participation Plan 5 Involving Participants with Limited English Proficiency Title VI of the Civil Right As a recipient of federal funds, we are Act of 1964 responsible for involving and providing meaningful access to the benefits, Our planning activities and services, information, and other important programs, including those for the portions of programs and activities for purposes of public engagement, individuals who are considered limited must be sensitive to the region’s English proficient (LEP). LEP persons are diverse audience. individuals who do not speak English as their primary language and who have a We ensure that no person will — on limited ability to read, speak, write, or the ground of race, religion, age, understand English. These individuals may gender, disability, national origin, be entitled to language assistance. or economic status — be excluded from participation in, be denied In compliance with federal LEP regulations the benefits of, or be subjected to (Title VI of the Civil Right Act of 1964) and discrimination under any of our to guide MARC staff through assessing programs or activities. We also whether certain requirements for providing promote the full and fair participation language assistance for any given public of all affected populations in the participation process is required, we have transportation decision-making adopted an LEP plan for our transportation process. Any information, education program. This plan describes the analysis and participation opportunities will we must follow in order to assess what be equally accessible. translation and interpreter requirements, if any, must be followed. If it is determined For additional information regarding that special services are required, the the Title VI program and to learn plan will also guide staff in the process for about the process to file a complaint, fulfilling these requirements. The LEP plan please visit marc.org/TitleVI. can be found on MARC’s website at marc. org/LEPP. Our transportation-related public Interpreters and translating services will be participation processes will strive to identified and readily available to serve the improve contact and communication needs of this population. Tools will be used with non-native English speakers. We will to help identify areas that predominantly continue to identify and use channels of speak other languages so they will have communication that are frequented by an equal chance to participate in planning non-native speakers, including newspapers discussions. These tools include the and radio stations. We will continue Modern Language Association Language to foster relationships with businesses Map and geographic mapping data and organizationsDRAFT that serve immigrant available through the U.S. Census. populations.
6 Mid-America Regional Council Involving Environmental Justice Populations Environmental Justice (EJ) is the assertion that no group of people — by race, ethnicity or socioeconomic status — should receive unfair treatment or bear a disproportionate share of negative environmental consequences as a result of decisions made at the federal, state, regional or local levels. With regard to funding for transportation projects and programs, EJ communities should also receive proportionate benefit. In terms of the public participation process, we will make a concerted effort to provide educational and feedback opportunities to EJ communities. Environmental Justice Principle
When targeting participation efforts To ensure the full and fair participation towards communities with concentrations by all potentially affected communities of low-income and minority populations, in the transportation decision-making we will work to gain insight about how best to communicate and engage residents in process; these areas from community organizations To avoid, minimize or mitigate and leaders within these communities. disproportionately high and adverse It is important to consider how and where advertisement and notifications human health and environmental of engagement opportunities are carried effects, including social and economic out. We will identify local publications effects, on minority or low-income and media outlets that are important to populations. targeted communities. If applicable, MARC will identify bus routes for the distribution To prevent the denial of, reduction in of on-bus flyers. or significant delay in the receipt of Public meeting locations should be in benefits by minority or low-income neutral locations that are frequented by populations. community members in target areas, such as churches, community centers, or libraries. Past transportation decisions have had These locations should be ADA-accessible negative impacts on low income and and within walking distance of bus routes, minority neighborhoods. The perception if available. We will consider providing that feedback will not be considered in childcare and nutritious snacks at meetings, future decision-making or that decisions DRAFT when applicable.DRAFThave already been made is common. In order to build trust, we must be clear Building and maintaining trust among about project objectives, what kind community members in environmental of feedback can influence the project, justice areas is essential in order to demonstrate that feedback and concerns encourage continued participation in are being documented and communicated the transportation planning process. to decision-makers, and how feedback ultimately shaped final plans and studies.
Public Participation Plan 7 cycle. Special amendments may also be OUR PLANS processed at other times throughout the year. Early and continuous public We rely on several core plans to guide our participation should be done for the TIP work. including calling for public review and comments on projects submitted by Metropolitan Transportation Plan local governments. TIP full plan updates The Metropolitan Transportation Plan and amendments require a 14 day public (MTP) is the centerpiece of our planning comment period. process and serves as a blueprint for the long-term management of In the event of declared state and/or the region’s transportation system. It federal emergencies, or at the discretion identifies improvements for the next 20 of MARC’s executive director, MARC may to 30 years and sets goals, policies and elect to process any emergency-related strategies ranging from road and transit TIP revisions through an expedited public improvements to projects that enhance participation process — a seven-day review bike, pedestrian and freight movement. instead of 14 days.
The MTP must be updated every five Unified Planning Work Program years while in air quality attainment and The Unified Planning Work Program every four years when in non-attainment. (UPWP) is a document that describes all When an update is being developed, the work we plan to take on in the coming a specific public participation strategy year. The plan describes each major will be developed to outline the public activity, who will perform the work and participation process. The final public the schedule for completing it. The UPWP review and comment period will last at also contains information on the proposed least 30 days, as federally required. budget for each activity. Between major updates, amendments MARC develops the UPWP with input from can be made to the plan as new projects, local governments, area transit providers, funding, or programs arise. The process for the Kansas Department of Transportation MTP amendments is a 14 day review period (KDOT), and the Missouri Department of to allow for simultaneous public comment Transportation (MoDOT). periods for amendments impacting both the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and The UPWP is updated annually in August/ Transportation Improvement Program. September, and released for public review and comment for a minimum of 14 days. Transportation Improvement Program Final approval is made in November/ The Transportation Improvement Program December. Amendments are made (TIP) contains major surface transportation throughout the year and are released for projects planned to receive federal, state public comment when projects are either and local funding in the next five years. added or deleted, or when significant DRAFTchanges are made to the document. Project examples include new roadways, additional through lanes to existing streets, Public Participation Plan interchange construction or modification, improvements to intersections, transit The Public Participation Plan specifies amenities and bicycle/pedestrian facilities. goals, strategies and techniques to be considered when engaging the public in We update the TIP every two years and our planning process. process amendments on a quarterly
8 Mid-America Regional Council CONNECTEDKC
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Metropolitan TIP Transportation Plan Transportation Blueprint for long-term Improvement Program management of system. Short-term list of projects Includes vision, goals and prioritized based on vision strategies for all modes. and goals of MTP
30 days for 14 days for adoption adoption, 14 days for and amendments amendments Updated every two Updated at least every years five years marc.org/ ConnectedKC.org transportation/tip
Unified Planning Work Program Public Participation Plan MARC staff’s work plan and proposed Outlines how MARC staff will inform budget for the year and gather feedback on all planning processes 14 days for adoption and amendments 45 days for adoption
Updated every year in early fall Updated every three years
marc.org/transportation/upwp marc.org/transportation/ participation
The plan requires a 45-day public review This additional planning work may include and comment period. All comments will be developing a more detailed plan for a considered in the final review by the TTPC, particular mode of travel, like a regional prior to its adoption. The adopted plan will bike or freight plan, or assisting local DRAFT be posted onDRAFT the MARC website and be governments in developing a corridor available in both English and Spanish. or area plan. The processes to develop these will include a public participation Special Plans and Studies process in most cases. Project managers We sometimes develop or facilitate the will develop a public participation development of special plans and studies strategy with guidance from this Public beyond those that are federally required. Participation Plan.
Public Participation Plan 9 TOOLS & TECHNIQUES
We will use a variety of techniques to encourage early and continuous public participation throughout the development of our plans. The following techniques and strategies will serve as a guide for project managers to consider when developing the public participation component of a project. Finding a balance of various techniques and strategies will be key, resulting in a tailored mix of approaches that ensure early, continuous, and accessible public participation. We will collaborate with the Public Affairs department and other transportation agencies to help deploy these techniques and strategies. Surveys Surveys are a great way to receive feedback and input on a Resource usage multitude of issues. They help us develop a valid representation of public opinion. The best method for delivering surveys is online, Staff although some paper surveys may be handed out at in-person Time functions. Surveys are delivered during or after meetings or open houses, and on social media. A statistically significant survey Financial requires more time and financial investment, usually working with a consultant. Pros Cons How to measure
Reaches a wide audience May not allow people to Analysis of data provide further input or Can be representative of Demographics of survey public opinion raise other questions participants
Can miss important Questions are consistent Number of participants feedback Easy to share & access May not be statistically valid Online public meetings Online public meetings are a flexible alternative to in-person Resource usage meetings and are especially important when in-person meetings are not advised due to public health concerns or other reasons. Online Staff engagement allows for a broader engagement with people that may Time have not attended in person. Meetings may or may not include a formal presentation, breakout-rooms (functions available in video Financial conferencing toolsDRAFT like Zoom), polling, and other interactive media. Pros Cons How to measure
Can be more accessible Some may not have Number of attendees/ for those with home technology or skills to participants Internet access meetings Demographics of
Time and cost saving for Possible technical issues attendees public & staff Online feedback survey from attendees 10 Mid-America Regional Council Website Just as social media and online surveys build upon the inclusion Resource usage of technology in our everyday lives, other online platforms can maximize engagement by allowing people to access information at Staff their convenience. Ensuring we have information open, available, Time and up to date is important in keeping the public informed. In addition to providing information, the MARC website may also Financial include interactive tools to provide feedback. Pros Cons How to measure
Can reach a wide Some may not have the Number of website visits audience technology or skill to Number of website access information Provides convenient interactions
access to information on Doesn’t allow for your own time interpersonal interaction
Easy to share with family or friends
Social media With the use of social media, MARC can actively engage a diverse Resource usage audience across multiple platforms. A well-marketed social media campaign engages more people and is easy to access. MARC has Staff several social media feeds that provide important information about Time events, projects and public comment opportunities. While MARC primarily uses these tools for communicating information to the Financial public, the public can communicate back to MARC with comments or questions. Pros Cons How to measure
Requires less resources Some may not have the Number of website visits technology or skill to Convenient way to Number of website access information access information interactions
Anonymity can People can access information on their own sometimes lead to toxic time behavior
Can reach a wide DRAFT audience DRAFT Gives voice to those who might not be comfortable speaking up in person
Public Participation Plan 11 Focus group Focus groups are typically smaller groups that zero in on specific Resource usage topics and issues. They can be used to identify barriers to participation and solutions. A focus group can be particularly useful Staff in gathering feedback from those less likely to participate in other Time forms of engagement. These groups can be held traditionally in an in-person setting, public health permitting, or online. Financial
Pros Cons How to measure
Helpful to get feedback Might not always Demographics of from people who accommodate those who attendees traditionally would not want to participate Number of participants participate Online focus groups Survey feedback Personal, face-to-face may exclude people interactions with staff who do not possess and other community the technology, skill, or members knowledge to access it
Focus on specific issues and gather more in- depth feedback
Online focus groups can increase attendance and save resources
Stakeholder interviews Stakeholder interviews are typically small groups or one-on-one Resource usage interviews with people such as housing developers or neighborhood association leaders who have a lot of knowledge of particular issues. Staff They’re more informal and because they’re in a relaxed setting Time it encourages people to speak up and participate. Interviews are helpful in building trust and alignment on projects. Financial
Pros Cons How to measure
Personal, comfortable Lower number of Number of participating groups participants stakeholder organizations Helps develop trust and Doesn’t reach a wide transparencyDRAFTaudience Demographics of attendees Helpful in answering
specific questions Feedback from surveys
12 Mid-America Regional Council Presentations/speakers bureau Speakers bureaus are speaking engagements made up of experts on Resource usage specific topics and issues. They are used to educate and inform the public, so they are more prepared to engage in the process. There Staff may be one speaker or an entire panel. Speakers may use real-time Time polling and engagement software to gather feedback from the audience. Speakers are available to discuss transportation planning Financial at local meetings and events. To schedule a speaker or for more information, contact MARC’s Transportation Department at 816-474-4240. Pros Cons How to measure
Attracts a wide audience May not be a Number of attendees comfortable setting for Easy way to share Demographics of information those afraid to speak in attendees large groups Provides an opportunity to build positive Can be difficult to ask relationships in the questions if there is a community and educate large group about the breadth of work we do.
In-person meeting or open house In-person meetings and open houses are community meetings. Resource usage Open houses are convenient for people to come and go as their schedule allows. These meetings can be formal or informal. These Staff meetings are a great way to inform the public of the planning Time process and to solicit ideas, input and feedback. MARC prioritizes open and honest communication and listening to the public. Financial
Pros Cons How to measure
More convenient In-person meetings may Number of attendees personal, face to face not be as flexible due to Demographics of contact a set meeting schedule attendees
Allows for easy, Can be resource DRAFT DRAFT Post-meeting surveys impromptu conversation intensive between MARC staff and the public.
Public Participation Plan 13 Piggyback meetings Community members have previously identified they are more Resource usage likely to attend meetings by well-known and established community organizations (YMCA, neighborhood association, Rotary Clubs, etc.) Staff more than a formal meeting. Piggybacking off already established Time meetings in the community helps spread awareness, builds legitimacy, and increases participation. Financial
Pros Cons How to measure
Reaches a wide audience Might not be at a Demographics of convenient location or attendees Uses fewer resources time Number of attendees Informal nature is more comfortable Not everyone at the meeting may be interested
Pop-up meetings Pop-up meetings are useful to engage the community and obtain Resource usage feedback on specific planning projects. Pop-ups are a great option for engaging with people where they are and should be used as a Staff complement to online engagement or public meetings. Meetings Time generally target areas that will be impacted by specific transit planning projects. Financial
Pros Cons How to measure
Provides feedback from Meetings may not be at Demographics of targeted audiences a convenient time for attendees and those who might participants Number of attendees not attend a traditional public meeting
Meets people where they are
Informal in nature, may be more comfortable for people to share their thoughts DRAFT
14 Mid-America Regional Council DRAFT
600 Broadway, Suite 200 • Kansas City, MO 64105-1659 Phone: 816-474-4270 • www.marc.org • [email protected] TTPC AGENDA REPORT
October 2020 Item No. 6
ISSUE: REPORT: KC Rising Pillars of Prosperity
BACKGROUND: KC Rising, the region’s initiative for boosting economic performance, was organized by a partnership of the Civic Council of Greater Kansas City, the Kansas City Area Development Council, the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce, and MARC. The effort now involves many organizations and countless business and civic leaders.
KC Rising arose from a joint analysis by the Brookings Institution and MARC that analyzed the region’s economic competitiveness relative to peer metros with respect to three drivers of regional prosperity: the performance of its traded sectors (TRADE), its capacity for innovation and entrepreneurship (IDEAS), and quality of its human capital (PEOPLE). These drivers are, in turn, supported by enablers that include high-impact PLACE investments, such as quality, affordable housing choices and transportation systems; effective governance and POLICY decisions; and improving social and economic INCLUSION.
The KC Rising Steering Committee is comprised of business and institutional leaders from across the region. Independence Mayor Eileen Weir and Unified Government Mayor David Alvey represent the MARC Board on the Steering Committee. MARC Chairman Rob Roberts also regularly meets with KC Rising leadership to coordinate efforts.
Earlier last year, as KC Rising completed its fourth year, its leaders undertook an assessment of the initiative’s progress and overall direction. The assessment concluded that while much has been accomplished, KC Rising needs to reorient itself to scale up the impact of its efforts by: 1) moving from launching initiatives to strengthening systems; 2) being more intentional about fostering inclusive opportunity and prosperity, and 3) more fully addressing economic enablers, including place-oriented strategies.
To achieve these objectives, KC Rising has undertaken a series of efforts over the last year to more fully develop a shared vision for regional prosperity that aligns various strategies and initiatives to advance that vision. KC Rising has conducted numerous discussions with civic organizations, conducted surveys, and convened more than 40 public forums across the region. The result of this effort is a series of statements that summarize the key aspirations voiced by regional leaders and citizens. These have been shaped into seven “Pillars of Prosperity” that will guide the work of KC Rising and inform and align the efforts of companies, organizations, and communities across the region to advance prosperity.
KC RISING PILLARS OF PROSPERITY
ENTERPRISE A robust entrepreneurial ecosystem sparks scalable business and leads to breakthroughs that can transform our economy. INDUSTRY Building on our strengths enables our region to attract, grow, and retain globally competitive businesses. INCLUSION Economies thrive through increased participation when everyone has equitable opportunities to advance. CONNECTIVITY Effective, accessible transportation and internet options open doors to economic mobility. CULTURE Cultural assets are an integral component of our economy, as well as a force to unify and inspire our region. NEIGHBORHOODS Healthy, safe, and attainable housing options allow people to build better futures. EDUCATION Learners of all ages need equitable access to continuous, innovative, quality education to meet evolving workforce needs.
A more complete statement is enclosed that elaborates on each of the pillar statements. KC Rising is in the process of sharing these pillars with groups across the region, beginning with seeking endorsements from the organizing partners. The MARC Board voted to endorse these pillars at the September 22, 2020 meeting.
These statements are entirely compatible (and in some cases completely aligned) with many of the goals embedded in various MARC initiatives and adopted plans, notably Connected KC 2050, the recently adopted regional long-range transportation plan. To a large degree, the pillars amplify and underscore the core principles that have guided the work of MARC for many years.
Sheri Gonzales, formerly a member of the MARC Staff, now Vice-President and Director of KC Rising at the Civic Council of Greater Kansas City, will present an overview of the pillars and the process by which they were developed.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS: None.
COMMITTEE ACTION: None.
RECOMMENDATION: None. Information only.
STAFF CONTACT Frank Lenk Beth Dawson ENTERPRISE A robust entrepreneurial ecosystem sparks scalable business toward breakthroughs that can transform our economy.
INDUSTRY Building our strengths enables our region to attract, grow, and retain globally competitive businesses.
INCLUSION Economies thrive through increased participation when everyone has equitable opportunities to advance.
CONNECTIVITY Effective, accessible transportation and internet options open doors to economic mobility.
CULTURE Cultural assets are an integral component of our economy, as well as a force to unify and inspire our region.
NEIGHBORHOODS Healthy, safe, and attainable housing options allow people to build better futures.
EDUCATION Learners of all ages need equitable access to continuous, innovative, quality education to meet evolving workforce needs. Kansas City is a community of communities. Millions of lives woven together, across borders and neighborhoods, sharing one future.
Every aspect of our region contributes its own history, perspective, and energy. The challenges posed by the area’s diverse nature are surpassed by what it brings in unmatched potential. KC Rising is how KC’s leaders forge new approaches toward greater collaboration to guide us forward.
KC’s businesses are positioned to lead this charge by nurturing partnerships and cultivating innovation. We amplify our efforts by aligning corporations, foundations, nonprofits, governments, educational institutions, human services groups, civic leaders, and other members of the public square, accelerating a future of inclusive regional prosperity.
When we imagine a greater future for our city, it’s not just for one institution, one industry, or one community. It’s for all. A robust entrepreneurial ecosystem sparks scalable business and leads to breakthroughs that can transform our economy.
Salaries at KC’s new entrepreneurial firms surpass the area’s average in less than two years, demonstrating that startup culture enables true upward mobility. For cities in America’s Heartland, the level of employment at companies five years old or less is a core indicator of economic vitality: the higher the share, the greater the potential for future growth.
Growth is also created when private companies team up with universities, nonprofits, and individuals to transform research into revenue in the marketplace. Established businesses that encourage and invest in intrapreneurship, research and development, and idea exchange also expand our possibilities.
When companies of all sizes embrace a culture of working together, have an array of capital options, remove barriers to technology transfer, and are connected with relevant networks and resources, they generate scale, create new markets, and produce quality jobs. This ecosystem of economic stewardship lays the groundwork for the next generation of business, with exponential rewards in the immediate future and beyond. Building on our strengths enables our region to attract, grow, and retain globally competitive businesses.
Shaping our region’s economic identity in the decades to come means boosting our current sectors of excellence to encourage outside investment, internal expansion, and innovative entrepreneurship to reinforce larger industries. Successful specialization relies on recognizing and nurturing those areas of differentiation in which KC leads and can advance, then unabashedly leveraging those strengths to amplify Kansas City’s profile worldwide.
At the same time, our community must purposefully identify and invest in emerging fields that will shape the broader economy in the years ahead. This will help KC remain relevant and robust even amid rapid technological and societal change. Significant exploration occurs in our academic and research institutions, but can only have meaningful impact if boosted and accompanied by commercialization strategies. Linking research activity with critical public and private funding today will lead to transformative discoveries tomorrow.
Intentional and cohesive regional strategies to develop clusters are vital to effectively demonstrate expertise and produce results. As we do so, we will recruit workers and other businesses driven by options and opportunity, further strengthening a virtuous cycle. Economies thrive through increased participation when everyone has equitable opportunities to advance.
Economic inclusion is not just the right thing to do: Growing economies rely on broader- based opportunity that proactively recruits and elevates women and people of color. Resilient industries require a commitment to inclusion across the primary and secondary dimensions of diversity and their intersectionality. Dynamic firms draw upon the largest possible local community of talent, which simultaneously cultivates a welcoming reputation that appeals to workers of every demographic.
For decades, the gap between lower- and higher-income households has steadily widened ¬– a trend KC must reverse to achieve wider prosperity for those at every level. Increased participation creates achievable paths toward building stable wealth to sustain individuals and neighborhoods. True inclusion means investing in potential everywhere it lives – in every classroom, every ZIP code, and every business plan.
As we lay the foundation of a more inclusive community, we are called upon to face and overcome our troubling past, and confront the discriminatory policies and systemic practices that have shaped the institutional obstacles to equality still affecting KC. Achieving measurable, equitable economic mobility requires listening and leading by example, aligning public policy with tangible personal change, being transparent and accountable, and making space at the table for historically marginalized voices at every step. Effective, accessible transportation and internet options open doors to economic mobility.
Of the million jobs in the KC metro area, only about half are located within a quarter-mile of a transit stop. Sprawling urban footprints, fragmented public funding, and a lack of widespread connectivity serve as barriers to a city’s advancement. But KC has the chance to harness current momentum toward true regional access, based on integrated transit and broadband solutions that reach across state, county, and district borders.
The time has come to bridge the digital divide. The explosion in remote working, training, and learning has made reliable, affordable high-speed networks even more essential, on a level with other public utilities. The need for universal access, skills, and equipment holds true across the region – from rural areas to urban, from startups to schoolchildren.
As KC grows, creative thinking can help us avoid further congestion, environmental harm, and the geographical isolation that can splinter a region.
Thoughtful land use policies must be put into practice, alongside investment in more seamless, multimodal transit options and authentic collaboration between industry, individuals, government, and civic institutions. This is how we will ultimately connect earners with jobs, learners with educators, neighborhoods with amenities – through pathways both efficient and equitable. Cultural assets are an integral component of our economy, as well as a force to unify and inspire our region.
The collective arts and entertainment industry is our third-largest employer, contributing hundreds of millions in household income annually. It’s a leading factor driving our multibillion-dollar tourism draw.
KC’s burgeoning arts districts and concentration of quality creative jobs are also attractors that feed into one of our greatest assets: our pool of talent. In addition, Kansas City has a proud history of demonstrating how partnerships between a city’s entrepreneurs and creative professionals can spawn yet another level of innovation.
Our exceptional character encompasses more than just a deep and distinct heritage in music, arts, architecture, and food. In addition to the jobs, revenue, and pride generated by our sports teams, winning has translated to greater national visibility. It’s all part of a one-of-a-kind narrative that defines our quality of life and makes us who we are. Healthy, safe, and attainable housing options allow people to build better futures.
The variety, livability, and affordability of KC’s housing market have long served as a leading factor for firms moving jobs to the region. Central districts, rural towns, and suburbs near and far already make us an attractive option for both young workers and growing families – as well as their employers.
As our city grows, it must stay within reach for the people we will need to fuel our aspirations and our culture, regardless of their income level. KC's neighborhoods need dedicated strategies that provide a true range of quality choices for our residents to live, work, and play. This means collaborative, intentional planning and follow-through for infrastructure and schools, transit and walkability, safety and health initiatives, and amenities and essential resources that all provide a solid foundation for communities to prosper.
We have an opportunity to focus on long-term sustainability as we create and revive the distinctive areas in our city to meet evolving needs. Success also includes maintaining a culture of shared history and viability for both new and established residents of every background and generation. A brighter economic future can best come to life with stable, safe, and inclusive places for everyone to call home. Learners of all ages need equitable access to continuous, innovative, quality education to meet evolving workforce needs.
Because the rate of technological advancement and change in our global economy continues to increase, more than half of today’s schoolchildren will soon have careers in occupations that don’t currently exist. Meanwhile, businesses struggle to find the talented workers they need to fill high-quality jobs now and create more in the future.
To effectively address this gap, talent and potential must be recognized, maximized, and met with resources and attention across the learning continuum. A foundation of technical knowledge, along with critical thinking and communication skills, allows learners of all ages to remain competitive. Building an agile culture of enduring, well- rounded education will keep involved citizens inventing, creating, and thriving.
Industry-led cooperation, alongside flexible credentialing, creates trailblazing regional talent-to-work pipelines by connecting classroom and real-world learning with hiring. This system should strive to remain nimble and responsive as our economy evolves. KC is proudly at the forefront of this movement, with engaged stakeholders focused on measurable outcomes. We must continue to reimagine, disrupt, and transform. As we pursue systemic progress across these seven dimensions, we look outside – learning from the triumphs and failures of other American cities – and then apply those lessons locally to our own imaginative solutions, creating KC ‘s unique success story.
We are realizing Kansas City’s full potential with transparency, accountability, and collaboration. Our community’s best days lie ahead, and we rise together. INDIVIDUAL PILLAR GRAPHICS
Overarching Pillar Graphic
Partnership Graphic
Partnership Graphic and Badge Lockup INDIVIDUAL PILLAR GRAPHICS
Color Linear Icon
Color Solid Icon TTPC AGENDA REPORT
Oct 2020 Item No. 7
ISSUE: REPORT: KC Streetcar Update
BACKGROUND: The KC Streetcar has been a significant catalyst for economic development and redevelopment in downtown Kansas City, Missouri and has been among the highest performing systems in the US in terms of ridership per mile. Two new streetcar projects have recently been awarded significant federal grants to support extending the system from its current 2.2 mile length to nearly 6.5 miles, ultimately connecting the Berkley Riverfront area to UMKC’s Plaza campus via the current downtown route. At the same time, ridership and operations have been impacted by the coronavirus pandemic and economic downturn.
Tom Gerend, executive director of the KC Streetcar Authority, will provide an update on the system.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS: None.
RECOMMENDATION: None. Information only.
STAFF CONTACT: Ron Achelpohl
TTPC AGENDA REPORT
October 2020 Item No. 8
ISSUE: REPORT: Roeland Park Planning Initiatives Update
BACKGROUND: Periodically local jurisdictions are invited to provide an update to the Committee on how recent activities that impact transportation within their community. Roeland Park, Kan., will provide an update on their recent 2019 Roe Boulevard and Johnson Drive Corridor Plan Planning Sustainable Places project and associated transportation and land use impacts.
Updates will be provided by Keith Moody, City Manager.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS: None.
COMMITTEE ACTION: None.
RECOMMENDATION: None. Information only.
STAFF CONTACT Beth Dawson Martin Rivarola TTPC AGENDA REPORT
October 2020 Item No. 9
ISSUE: REPORT: 2020 Regional Trails and Bikeways Map
BACKGROUND: Every two years, MARC updates the Regional Trail and Bikeways Map. The 2020 update has recently been completed and a new map has been printed and is also available online at: https://www.marc.org/Transportation/Programs/Active-Transportation/Regional-Trails-and-Bikeways- Map.html.
Several significant enhancements have been made to the 2020 map including updated data about bikeway facilities, changes in the appearance of the new map to incorporate the regional wayfinding sign design and changes to the iconography, text, and the colors of the different bicycle infrastructure making it easier to read. KCATA and other transit transfer facilities were also added to facilitate connections between bike and transit modes. MARC Public Affairs did final editing and production of the map for a professional and inviting look to bicycle riders in the region.
The initial purchase was for 25,000 maps. Over half have already been accounted for by interested parties and jurisdictions. Maps are available for additional interested parties. These can be distributed in boxes of 240 and are available for pickup with advance notice or for delivery at some point in the future.
Please contact Alex Rotenberry ([email protected]) if you are interested in receiving copies of the 2020 regional trails and bikeways map.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS: None.
COMMITTEE ACTION: None.
RECOMMENDATION: None. Informational purposes only.
STAFF CONTACT: Alex Rotenberry