Kansas Department of Transportation s 5-County Regional Transportation Study Stakeholder Advisory Panel Meeting

Transcription

1 Kansas Department of Transportation s 5-County Regional Transportation Study Stakeholder Advisory Panel Meeting October 6, :30-10:30 a.m. Kansas Department of Transportation Olathe District Office MEETING ATTENDEES Panel members in attendance: Steve Baru, Sierra Club Rich Caplan, K-10 Association/Caplan Associates Elaine Giessel, League of Women Voters Chris Gutierrez, KC SmartPort Lisa Harris, Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission/University of Kansas Steve Jack, Leavenworth County Development Corporation Steve Petrehn, Mid-America Regional Council Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee George Pretz, Kansas Farm Bureau/Miami County Commissioner Kise Randall, Kessinger-Hunter (Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant) Steve Schooley, City of Lenexa Public Works Marge Vogt, City of Olathe City Council KDOT, MARC, and Lawrence-Douglas County MPO Staff/Study Consultants in attendance: Thomas Dow, Kansas Department of Transportation Tom Gerend, Mid-America Regional Council Todd Girdler, Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Organization David Gurss, Kansas Department of Transportation Davonna Moore, Kansas Department of Transportation Erin Ollig, Shockey Consulting Services Clyde Prem, Olsson Associates Bart Rudolph, Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Organization Sheila Shockey, Shockey Consulting Services Jim Tobaben, Parsons Brinckerhoff Other People in attendance: Dan Miller, City of Overland Park, Kansas Tom Riederer, Southwest Johnson County Economic Development Corporation

2 MEETING NOTES I WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS Thomas Dow, Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) State Transportation Planner, welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked for the group to introduce themselves. II ISSUES PRESENTATION Jim Tobaben gave a presentation regarding the information gathered to date and the issues identified during the planning process. Process Jim reminded the participants of the study process. A community meeting was held in each of the five counties in which a facilitated discussion too place. The discussion was based on the participants values in transportation. A dot map exercise was also completed to find out where issues and problems were located. Additional public outreach has included a public opinion survey. The random sample survey was statistically significant and gave a good geographic representation. In addition, a more informal online survey was conducted, with a link provided on the homepage. The questions from the online survey differed from the questions in the statistically valid public opinion survey. The Project Study team additionally conducted 30 stakeholder interviews throughout the study area. Participant Question: How many responses did you receive? Response: We wanted at least 1,000 and we received 1,194. Findings Overall, the comments we ve heard say that the people want to maintain the existing infrastructure and provide good flow on the highways. The top satisfaction and dissatisfaction levels with the transportation services according to the public opinion survey were: 65% of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with traffic flow on highways and major roads

3 58% of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with maintenance of current roads between the cities 49% of respondents were dissatisfied with the availability of transit between cities 54% of respondents were dissatisfied with the availability of bicycle lanes and facilities According to public opinion survey respondents, the most important issues to address over the next 10 years were maintenance of current roads within the cities, traffic flow on highways and major roads, and maintenance of current roads between the cities. According to the survey respondents, the top choices for solutions to improve travel were widening existing roads, improving existing intersections, and adding improved bus transit. Survey respondents felt that the most important planning factors were: safety, environmental protection (air and water quality), and the cost to tax payers. From the more informal online survey, the most important transportation issue to address was more transit options and availability followed by taking care of existing transportation facilities. The online survey respondents stated that the best way to improve travel is to encourage transitoriented development, expand transit services, and improve existing roads and intersections. Online survey respondents felt that safety and environmental impacts were the most important factors to consider when evaluating transportation strategies. Nearly 70% of the online survey respondents said that when gas prices increased or the economy worsened they changed their transportation and travel habits. They changed their habits primarily by combining trips and making fewer trips. According to the online survey respondents, the top factors that make travel more difficult were sprawl and a lack of transit options. Participant Question: Did you get any data on age? I m curious to see how respondents answered based on age, particularly with transit. Response: Yes, we have age data. We ll take a look and see if there are any significant responses after factoring in age of respondent.

4 Participant Question: What is access management? I don t think people know what that means. Response: It means managing where driveways are entering onto a highway. Sheila Shockey noted that the online survey questions were worded differently than the mail survey. The online survey is just another tool that we can use, but the decisions that will be made will not be based exclusively off the survey results. They will just help us get ideas. Participant Comment: It would have been interesting to see the same questions asked for both surveys. Mr. Tobaben then discussed some main themes of discussion and some detailed data and feedback received for each theme. He also included some geo-coded maps from the public opinion survey results. Safety Issues Increasing numbers of trucks- there is a perception that there are an increasing number of trucks although there are not as many trucks on the road as of late due to the economy. Congested roadways Railroad/street grade separations needed at key locations Adequate shoulders on rural roads Bike lanes/paths along major roads Expand KC Scout system According to the public opinion survey, 39% of respondents were satisfied with the effect the transportation system has on safety and 38% were neutral. 53% of respondents said that safety was an important planning factor. Participant Comment: I m surprised to not see aging drivers on there as a safety issue. Participant Question: Are you discussing these in order of priority? Response: No.

5 Participant Question: Can you explain bike lanes along major roads? Response: We have heard that there is a desire for a regional bike plan. We need to think about that more than automobile and also to think beyond bicycle paths for recreational purposes and more for commuting. Participant Comment: I m not sure if we need to build paths, but at least we need to have a plan. Participant Comment: I read that as I can ride my bike to the same places that I would on the highways and roads. Participant Question: Where there any specific concerns about safety, specifically about congestion? Response: No, the congestion comments we received were more general. Participant Comment: I think a lot of the safety concerns can be solved by the Safe Routes to Schools program. Participant Comment: I think we need to look at the data to focus on the areas and intersection types that are of main concern or issue. Participant Question: Don t cities and counties already consider safety when doing projects? Response: To some extent, but that doesn t mean there will never be an accident. Should we focus more on the severity of accidents or the quantity of accidents? Participant Comment: I think we need to be careful about weighing fatality accidents with less severe accidents. It doesn t necessarily mean that an intersection is unsafe if someone dies there. Participant Question: T-LINK has already come up with a formula for evaluating projects and safety is included in that. What are we looking for here? Response: That is on a higher level of discussion. The priorities of this project will weigh in to subsequent projects. The first few years of project implementation will follow the formula outline in T-LINK, but we need priorities after that. Participant Comment: We need to assume that we will have $8.00 per gallon gasoline.

6 Participant Comment: I think we should require that paths be built. Participant Comment: We don t just need bike paths, but bike connectivity to transit. Efficiency Issues Congestion on highways Provide better route for trucks Encourage higher density development Consider managed lanes The traffic volume from the travel-demand model shows significant growth on the turnpike, K-10 and I-35 south to Gardner; all are areas where traffic volumes will be an issue. Participant Question: In the Mid-America Regional Council s Transportation 2040 plan there are two different development scenarios that were considered, should we consider that we may change our development patterns? Response: That was not included as part of our scope. We focused on current and historic trends. That includes current or planned projects and information in area land use plans. Tom Gerend, Mid-America Regional Council, told the participants that the Transportation 2040 Study has been a two-year project. Those scenarios have not yet been approved and they are still working on the final projections and forecast. Participant Question: Is anyone looking at incentives to reverse historical development patterns? Response: That is part of Mid-America Regional Council s plan. Mobility Issues Widen key highways Support light rail / commuter rail Support high-speed rail between cities Fund bus rapid transit / express bus Need seamless transit connections Develop a regional bicycle trail plan Peak hours focus on moving people not just vehicles

7 When the public opinion survey respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with the amount of truck traffic, 41% responded that they were neutral, while 26% responded that they were dissatisfied. When respondents were asked whether projects should be promoted that enhance Kansas City s role as a freight hub, there were mixed sentiments depending upon the area of the region, however a majority agreed. Participant Question: Were the respondents given any information about what a freight hub was? Response: No. Participant Comment: We already are a freight hub. Participant Question: Did you hear anything about truck-only lanes? Response: Not specifically. Tom Gerend expressed that Mid-America Regional Council has concerns on how that will impact our already congested system. Congestion Issues Mr. Tobaben presented some preliminary results from the travel-demand model. In general terms, congestion is expected to get worse along K-10 as well as I-35, I-435 and 69 Highway around 119 th Street. The model includes projects that are funded to be built for the future. According to the travel-demand model, congestion is predicted to increase along the major routes, but most of the roadways will remain uncongested. According to the survey respondents, 65% were satisfied with the flow of traffic on highways and roadways. Independence Issues Need seamless regional transit system

8 Need transit service for aging population and for persons with disabilities Need a regional transit call center where you can call to find out about transit opportunities (i.e. Google Transit) According to the public opinion survey results, 43% of respondents said that they were dissatisfied with the availability of transit within their city and nearly 50% were dissatisfied with transit options between cities. Additionally, 46% of respondents felt that transportation services for elderly and disabled are inadequate. Accessibility Enhance transit hours of operation Better connect transit systems Bike racks needed on all buses Bicycle/pedestrian facilities needed along all major streets According to the public opinion survey respondents, 54% were dissatisfied with the availability of bicycle lanes and facilities. Respondents in Kansas City and Edwardsville were more dissatisfied than other areas in the 5-County area. Equal Opportunity Need increased funding for transit Need dedicated funding source for bicycle/pedestrian facilities Need a regional transit system According to the public opinion survey respondents, over half agreed that a regional transit system is needed. This was widespread throughout all five counties. Over two-thirds of respondents felt that projects should support healthy lifestyles. Connectivity Complete key roadways Preserve roadway right-of-way in key corridors Need multimodal connections between population centers Create system of park and ride lots Need regional bicycle trail plan

9 Consider bike/pedestrian needs crossing rivers and major highways Environmental Protection Priority to projects that reduce carbon footprint Protect environmentally sensitive areas Define better planning areas Protect air and water quality Protect prime agricultural land Over half of the public opinion survey respondents felt climate change was an important issue. Loss of farmland was viewed as an important environmental issue to 67% of survey respondents and 75% of respondents felt that priority should be given to projects that helped to reduce our dependency on oil. Almost 75% of respondents felt that protection of local plant and animal life was important and nearly 40% of respondents felt current traffic congestion has an impact on the environment. Participant Question: Are any of the five counties actively discussing protecting farm land? Response: Yes, Douglas and Leavenworth counties. Mr. Tobaben told the participants that there will be another round of public meetings where we can talk about specific trade-offs and ask people what they feel is more important. III CRITERIA DISCUSSION Sheila Shockey asked the participants to give some additional details on what some criteria may be for how projects may be prioritized for Phase 2. She posed the following question to help spur discussion, The five-county transportation system should Be safe for pedestrians, bicyclists and especially children going to and from school (even if we don t have the issue there now). Consider safety data and trends when developing cost/benefit of projects. Consider aging population and potential impacts on safety of the system. Invest in safety prevention. Consider transportation system as they function rather than just emphasizing locations with fatalities only.

10 Be responsive to local safety issues as defined by local governments. Consider where schools should be sited in relationship to the state highway system. Be responsive to changing demographics and economic realities. Include a plan for bicycle and pedestrian travel and plan for connectivity. Include and plan for transit facilities. Maximize public health opportunities. Ms. Shockey stated all of the comments will be compiled and summarized with what the Working Groups also said. She stated that the recommendations from the T-LINK process will also be reviewed to see if there are any common recommendations or conflicts. IV ANTICIPATED PROJECT OUTCOMES Sheila Shockey spoke to the group about the intended work products from the Working Groups and the Advisory Panel. She stated that some of the products may overlap. A lot of information will be fed to the Advisory Panel where the participants will come up with a recommendation. The Working Group work products will include: Environment and Social Equity High priority natural resource areas Conflicts with key corridors map and does it promote prosperity for all Freight Movement Bottlenecks in the system Key corridors for freight Strategy for movement between two intermodal facilities Land Use/Economic Development Process to improve planning Key connections map Corridor that supports or could support multi-modal solutions due to density Mobility/Accessibility/Connectivity Evaluate map for connections between counties Recommend potential strategies Participant Question: This group will come up with a recommendation? Response: Yes, a recommendation of an approach for selecting projects in Phase 2.

11 Thomas Dow updated the participants on the status of Phase 2 of the study. He explained that the current economic situation has resulted in declining state revenues, and KDOT has had to make some difficult budget decisions. Because additional budget cuts may be necessary, KDOT is suspending Phase 2 until further notice. Phase 2 has not been canceled and the funding remains in the budget for now. He stated, however, that Secretary Miller has asked for one study to move forward. Some state legislators are interested in the feasibility of constructing an outer loop connecting I-35 to I-70 west of I-435 that would be a toll road. That study has recently started. Participant Question: Have there been any discussions about future funding? Response: If we end up identifying projects we ll have to have that discussion, particularly if they exceed current funding. We have a lot of expensive improvements in the works (i.e. I-435 corridor) and we may have to get creative. That will probably take place in Phase 2. V NEXT MEETING & CONVENE The next meeting date will be announced by . Adjournment at 10:45 a.m.