To the editor:
Every once in a while, an article is written in the Journal-World that is so keen that it bears reprinting every day for a month! One such piece appeared in the Aug. 8 edition, on page 4B, by George Lauppe. I highly recommend anyone that missed it to go back and read it. The title of his column was, "'Bottoms' history shouldn't halt trafficway."
Like Mr. Lauppe, many years ago I had driven those small dirt roads in the Haskell Bottoms. I observed fields of corn and other crops being harvested on ground that today is little more than a mosquito breeding ground, together with a few birds, frogs and snakes.
Sooner or later, the eastern leg of the South Lawrence Trafficway WILL be built. Traffic could be detoured south of the Wakarusa River. Unfortunately, this would not only be much more expensive; it would simply be impractical. Given this choice, most drivers would exit and continue to clog 23rd Street, thus defeating the entire project.
How much longer must Lawrence citizens wait before they receive what they voted for years ago? When is the community going to say, "enough already"? How much higher must the construction costs get before officials say, "enough already"? Using their delaying tactics, the progress blockers have cost every taxpayer in Douglas County far too much already.
Especially now that the Supreme Court has ruled for the condemnation of private property for public use, this critically needed road should begin sooner, rather than later!
Richard Smith
Lawrence
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
merrill (anonymous) says…
The wetlands will affect the Prairie Park Nature Center to some degree in which more than a million total tax dollars were initially spent. Why wreck this beautiful educational venture and waste tax dollars at the same time?
There is a less expensive SOR option that has not been put on the table. The current plan going through a flood zone requires elevation which is a costly endeavor. Staying SOR and completly out of the wetlands/flood zones requiring fewer bridges and connecting to an existing interchange(#1057) could save a few million.
Taking the SLT south of the river to interchange 1057 and K10 could take traffic north to I 70 as well.
This accomplishes many things.
A. Services JOCO and Douglas County traffic going to NW Lawrence or Topeka
B. Services the Eudora Business Park east of 1057
C. Services East Hills Business Park and the SE Work Center area west of 1057
D. Diverts traffic out around the city as it should
E. Keeps the SLT entirely out of the wetlands
F. HNTB has researched SLT/1057 option but was never put on the table
G. A bridge over the Kaw is a given with this scenario as well.
H. Reduces traffic substantially on 31st
merrill (anonymous) says…
I offer another letter that bears reprinting everday perhaps for the next six months:
----------------------------------------------
Wetlands logic
Saturday, July 16, 2005
To the editor:
The Journal-World recently printed several articles and letters on the subject of the destruction of the Baker Wetlands as a result of the planned completion of the South Lawrence Trafficway on a route that includes 31st and/or 32nd streets. What some of these letters and stories mentioned is the possibility that the destruction of the wetlands might be accompanied by the creation of a new nature center. There are a number of problems with this possibility.
1. No nature center can take the place of the "real thing," the natural world. Doesn't it make more sense for children (and others) to have the opportunity to study nature in the great outdoors rather than to destroy the great outdoors and try to "replace" it with stuffed or caged animals and videotaped presentations?
2. We already have at least two other places in Lawrence where we can study nature. There is the Prairie Park Nature Center at 27th and Harper streets, close to the wetlands, and the Natural History Museum on the Kansas University campus, just a bit further away.
3. The planned construction of a large number of homes south of the Wakarusa River further demonstrates the folly of insisting on building a highway through the present wetlands rather than south of the Wakarusa River.
Let's build the highway in a more sensible location and save the wetlands.
Jane Frydman,
merrill (anonymous) says…
Working with the Kansas Turnpike Authority could save Douglas County taxpayers untold millions of dollars.
Building this road at any cost at this point in time is simply not prudent use of Douglas County tax dollars. If Douglas County is so wealthy why are parents now paying so students can play sports and paying additonal new fees in our public education system?
cowboy (anonymous) says…
the wetland huggers act like there is nothing south of the river , there are homes , there is habitat with more wildlife than the wetlands mosquito breeding ground , drain the swamp and build the road .
Grammaton (anonymous) says…
"No nature center can take the place of the 'real thing,' the natural world."
...funny, since we artificially created the wetlands years ago. We /put/ it there -- it did not naturally occur. ...does no one know this?
I am in no way trying to say that that makes the wetlands less important, or more important. Just stating the facts.
craigers (anonymous) says…
Why would we work with the Turnpike. The point is to connect K-10 to the K-10 on the east side of Lawrence. Why would drivers want to go North on the bypass to the turnpike? It wouldn't save them any time and that is the purpose of the SLT. To save time and free up traffic flow in town.
moderationman (anonymous) says…
Having been in Lawrence for only the past couple of years, I have what might be considered a different view. I've watched road programs in other cities be delayed by up to 20 years by those who feel that some important feature must be saved. The bottom line is this...if you want to study a swamp or a "wetlands" there are a lot of them to study. A little research shows that this is a "man-made" wetlands, so why not un-make and put in the road.
As for the past ownership and intent...well notice the word past. Its time to condem the land and build the road. The good Lord gave us dominion over the earth, in this case it is time to exercise some of that dominion.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Turnpike fees would pay for the road which is far better than my tax dollars. It is my understanding that Douglas County taxpayers will bear the lions share of this project which is why I suggest bringing in the KTA.
The plan above offers a SOR as well as a route going north that would connect to I-70 at Tonganoxie which would be quicker for those coming from the east going to Topeka etc.
If I-70 connectors were used motorists would be able to travel to the western leg which provides a K10-to K10 to 59.
Actually the Wetlands has a very long history to include burial grounds. Just because the letter writer was unaware does not mean it did not exist.
The above suggestion might get a bypass underway sooner rather than later. This matter could be tied up in court for many years. For the moment according to KDOT there is no money set aside for this project. Not only that Kansas received a large cut in federal highway money this year and I have been under the impression that all federal funding was exhausted on the western leg.
Personally I can live without the trafficway/bypass.
kawryan (anonymous) says…
moderationman
You are correct, you do have a different view. And by different I mean VERY different, by VERY I mean ignorant.
If the "good Lord" wanted the traffic way in the wetlands, the "good Lord" should build it there.
inDUHvidual (anonymous) says…
For the authors of this and other similar articles about the SLT delays - can I just say that we are not talking slapping a highway over a mosquito breeding ground with a little history.
We are talking about demolishing an endangered ecosystem in recovery (one with the function of cleanisng and recycling water in nature - and we are in the midst of a fresh water crisis in Kansas!) that was sacred meeting grounds for thousands of years - whose name roughly translates to mean (in my understanding) "the place where the woman gives birth" in no less than four languages. (In other words - a center of creation). We are talking about paving over the graves of something close to 800 children that were interned in what was equivalent to a work camp without restitution to the living survivors of this holocaust.
I think there is good reason the SLT construction has been delayed and discussed a bit - and I believe the issue deserves even more respectful discussion. At the very least, let's stop referring to the Haskell-Baker wetlands as "nothign more than a mosquito breeding ground."
This debate centers around how we view each other as humans and the worth of each other as people and how we relate to our environment and fellow creatures.
inDUHvidual (anonymous) says…
And I forgot to clarify - that we did not artificially "create a march or swamp" here. We began restoring the wetlands to what it was before some short-term intensive farming was done in that area. It has taken 70 years for it to get to where it is at. And - no - you cannot just create wetlands wherever you wish. And, no - there are not plenty of natural wetlands left to study. And I'd like to see those who feel this way name a few of the species of animals who will not breed at all if they cannot return to this one speific site to breed. there are a few. And we are discovering more every day. And let us not forget the cultural and historical (thousands of years of history - not 200) that cannot be recreated elsewhere.