MARC distributes $95 million for transportation projects

[Northlander]

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/01/25/26 ... ation.html
http://www.theolathenews.com/2011/01/25 ... llion.html
http://enr.construction.com/yb/enr/arti ... =154983679
(same story...three locations)

According to the document found here: http://ww4.kcmo.org/ads.nsf/eb0743e765f ... REPORT.pdf

KC is wanting a Free-Flow Interchange for the one at NW 95th Street. I extracted the concept art of interchange from the report and posted it here: http://twitpic.com/3u0i8h.

[DaveKCMO]

another freeway interchange in the hinterlands. yawn.

but... buses for metcalf and bike/ped improvements for merriam lane!

[KCPowercat]

Yeah seemed like a LOT of road expansion for sprawl given what they said their emphasis was.

[DaveKCMO]

Yeah seemed like a LOT of road expansion for sprawl given what they said their emphasis was.

the fact that ANY funds normally allocated to highways was used for another transportation purpose is a massive sea change for this region.

[dangerboy]

enough can correct me, but my understanding is that there was not any significant transfer of funds from roads to other modes.  The money was divided up according long-established regional formulas for the different modes.  Despite the new language in the long range transportation plan, there wasn't a huge shift of money.

[enough]

the lead paragraph of brad cooper's story
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/01/25/26 ... ation.html
says that marc has "distributed" money.  i think it would be more accurate to say that marc just approved projects to be funded with federal money that the region expects to receive in fy 2013 and 2014. 

dangerboy, i think most if not all of this was money from the federal stp (surface transportation program) and bridge programs.  marc has no fixed formula for distribution of stp money among eligible categories -- as it does for cmaq money, for example.  some non-highway projects were approved, as davekc notes.  project proposals were received in several categories and were scored.  the projects recommended for funding got the highest scores.  (the scoring process will continue to be subject to tweaking.) 

one significant non-highway project that brad didn't mention is one that would fund yet-to-be-identified local corridor planning studies to help implement some of the goals of the new lrtp and the sustainable communities program.   

northlander, do you mean the nw 96th (not 95th) street interchange on us 169?  and does the diagram you provided apply to that interchange?  any grade separation at all is premature at that intersection, but the northland council members insisted on it.

as for 95th and i-35 in johnson county, i don't know if that involves a new bridge, but there is definitely a need for a safe accommodation for peds and cyclists.  right now there isn't even a shoulder.

[Northlander]

tnorthlander, do you mean the nw 96th (not 95th) street interchange on us 169?  and does the diagram you provided apply to that interchange?  any grade separation at all is premature at that intersection, but the northland council members insisted on it.

Yes (my mistake), the at-grade intersection at 95th & 169 would be replaced with an separated interchange at 96th & 169. The city has been hounding MODOT for this for many, many years. I know part of it is due to safety, but I think part of it is also due to the potential for increased new development with the new interchanges. The interchange at 108th will play a part in the extension of Shoal Creek Parkway which is being extended east to I-435 right now, but will eventually move NW and become aligned with the 108th street corridor and run west almost to Robinhood Lane, then will curve south to become Line Creek Parkway (see currently major street map & proposed updates at http://kcmo.org/CKCMO/Depts/PublicWorks ... /index.htm).

Yes, the diagram applies to the 96th & 169 interchange, but I wouldn't be surprised if both were constructed with the free-flow design.