Intelligent plan / LJWorld.com

To the editor:

I would like to commend Planning Commissioner John Haase for taking a long-range view of our local automobile and truck transportation system. His plan to emphasize the K-10 to I-70 connection east of town and an upgrading of 31st Street is an intelligent solution to our local traffic problems.

The development on the west side of town since the South Lawrence Trafficway was originally planned has moved our serious traffic congestion to Sixth Street, on the north side of town. Any highway built on the south side of the city will only increase the traffic there. This has been demonstrated in several cities nationwide. The SLT will not decrease street traffic in Lawrence, the grounds on which it was sold to the public. It's true function is to facilitate cross-country freight transportation: truck traffic. KDOT admitted this in the extensive discussions conducted several years ago. It will be roaring noise 24 hours a day, like the interstates.

The proper corridors for this truck traffic are I-70 and I-35. This has been the plan for decades, and I do not believe that the city of Lawrence or Douglas County must yield to the Kansas Department of Transportation and their grand plan for our area. We have the right and responsibility to plan our transportation system ourselves and solve our local traffic problems, not support the corporate agenda which runs the state's transportation plan.

Richard Morantz,

Baldwin

erichaar 10 years, 4 months ago

This letter started out badly enough with, "I would like to commend Planning Commissioner John Haase."

It then suffered fatal injuries with, "SLT will not decrease street traffic in Lawrence."

Jamesaust 10 years, 4 months ago

"The proper corridors for this truck traffic are I-70 and I-35. This has been the plan for decades..."

Indeed - since the interstate highway system was set out in the Eisenhower Administration.

However, we're not dealing with a static system here. Growth in southern Johnson County and in Lawrence itself makes a nearly sixty year old plan inadequate for the needs of the present, let alone the future.

That said, the author is correct in pointing out that a southern bypass would not obviously alleviate any street traffic. More likely, it would spur development south across the Wakarusa river (on the other side of the flood plain) due to the new ease of connection to the highway system, as well as daily traffic directly into the southern part of Lawrence.

Such growth may be desirable, even inevitable, but no one should fool themselves into thinking that traffic volume in south Lawrence will be lighter as a result of a southern bypass (more accurately, trafficway).

conservative 10 years, 4 months ago

I drive across town during rush hour traffic daily. The assertion that 6th street has a worse problem than 23rd street is absurd. I routinely take Haskell down to Connecticut, to 7th, to 6th, in order to travel the much faster 6th street as opposed to 23rd. Not saying that much couldn't be done to improve 6th, but the idea that 23rd isn't the worse problem is not born out by direct experience.

Build the SLT (through any route that can be completed) and then worry about trying to improve the flow of traffic on 6th.

Due to much more housing 6th street is becoming another 23rd...let's not kid ourselves.

Little can be done about rush hour. During rush hour exit/entry ramps get backed up in KC. 435 gets backed up so does 35. No matter what is built there will still be rush hour headaches.

It is a sound idea to re-evaulate in order to bring up new options that may have been overlooked.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.

Archive for Thursday, May 25, 2006