A Growing Community …
As one of the fastest growing counties in the region, Johnson County has a pressing need to accommodate future residential and employment growth.  As the County’s population increases additional road improvements will be needed throughout the county to serve intra- and inter-county travel demand.  The Comprehensive Arterial Road Network Plan (CARNP) approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) in 1999, identified the locations, types, rights-of-way, and construction standards of future road improvements needed in the rural southern and western portions of the County for the next 20 years

The County’s Comprehensive Arterial Road Network Plan (CARNP) …
The goal of CARNP is to maximize the use of the existing arterial road system. The plan includes a classification system for County arterial roads with ultimate design standards ranging from two-lane rural section line roads with shoulders to four-lane parkways with landscaping and pedestrian and bicycle paths as well as accommodations for possible future public transit service.  A link has been provided to the CARNP, as approved by the BOCC (PDF 1.7 MB) which provides information on the standards for future improvements. The plan identifies the type and location of the future road improvements and shows three different levels of improvements: Type I - Minor Arterials; Type II -Major Arterial; and Type III – Parkways. 
 
            Type I: Minor Arterial 

Within the standard 80 to 120-foot right-of-way, this roadway would have the least restrictive access control and intersection spacing restrictions. The 120-foot right-of-way would permit development of up to a three or four-lane roadway; however, based on traffic projections, it is envisioned that these roads would be primarily two-lane rural routes with paved or grass shoulders. These roadways would typically be posted with a speed limit of 35 mph in the urban areas and 45 mph in the rural areas.  

Type II: Major Arterial 

Within the standard 120-foot right-of-way, this roadway would have a minimum spacing between cross street access points of ¼ mile and a minimum of 660 feet for driveway access. The 120-foot right-of-way would allow a four to six-lane cross section or in rural areas, the construction of two-lane roadways with paved shoulders. These roadways would typically be posted with a speed limit of 45 mph in the urbanized areas and 50 mph in the rural areas.  These roadways would be well landscaped and buffered from residential areas and include parallel sidewalks or bike trails. 

Type III: Parkway 

A 150-200 foot right-of-way would be provided to accommodate a variety of potential cross sections. The intent of this classification is for the roadway to serve as a major traffic carrier and to be constructed to accommodate the appropriate level of traffic demand. This type of roadway would emphasize access control and the movement of through traffic. Intersection spacing would be a minimum of ½ mile. Within the right-of-way, sufficient width would be provided to accommodate up to six lanes of traffic or alternatively, a four-lane roadway with a grass median along with a parallel pedestrian sidewalk or bike trail. These roadways are intended to be parkways/boulevards and would be well landscaped and buffered from adjacent residential areas. These roadways would typically be posted with a speed limit of 45 mph in the urban areas and 55 mph in rural areas.

Triggers Policy 

The following is a link to the County’s Triggers Policy (PDF document) which was developed as a part of the Comprehensive Arterial Road Network Plan.

Triggers Results as presented at the January 24, 2006 Planning Commission meeting

 The following is a link to the memorandum sent to Dean Palos, Director of Planning for Johnson County which was used to present the results of the Triggers Study to the Planning Commission on January 24, 2006.  The results of the Triggers Study were used to aid in the development of the 5-year road improvement plan (also known as the 5-year Federal Aid plan).  The 5-year plan received the Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval.   

A link is been provided to the meeting minutes of the Planning Commission. 

See also attachment A
and attachment B