Feds choose wetlands route
Federal regulators say a route in the Baker Wetlands is the only feasible option for completing the controversial South Lawrence Trafficway, a project that has been in limbo for more than a decade. Enlarge video
South Lawrence Trafficway: 32nd and 42nd St. options
A route through the Baker Wetlands is the best option to complete the controversial South Lawrence Trafficway, key federal regulators said Tuesday.
Regulators with the Federal Highway Administration began distributing a long-awaited report Tuesday determining that a 32nd Street route for the trafficway is the only feasible and prudent alternative that would allow for completion of the bypass project.
Predictably, supporters hailed the decision, while opponents said it does nothing to dissuade them from believing a road through the wetlands would produce significant environmental and cultural damage to nearby Haskell Indian Nations University.
"I'm delighted," said Douglas County Commissioner Bob Johnson, who has been a longtime supporter of the route. "It is just another giant step toward the completion of the trafficway."
City Commissioner Boog Highberger, who has lobbied for the road to avoid the wetlands by being built south of the Wakarusa River, said it probably just sets the stage for a federal court battle.
"I still think that building a road through the wetlands won't be good for the community in the long-term," Highberger said.
Details about the specific points in the report from the Federal Highway Administration weren't immediately available Tuesday night. That's because the report was not publicly released by either Federal Highway leaders or the Kansas Department of Transportation. Instead, the Journal-World received a tip that the document had been delivered to the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Department and several other locations that will serve as locations where the public can review the document once a public announcement is made.
The trafficway project has been in limbo for more than a decade. The western portion of the bypass - which begins at I-70 west of Lawrence - is built, but currently ends at Iowa Street. The eastern portion - designed to run from Iowa Street to Kansas Highway 10 east of Lawrence - has been stalled over concerns about the road running through the wetlands.
Johnson did not dispute Highberger's assessment that a federal lawsuit likely will be filed by opponents of the project. But Johnson said the project can survive the scrutiny.
The report by the Federal Highway Administration makes the second federal agency that has supported the 32nd Street route for the road. Previously, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had approved the 32nd Street route.
Johnson said he was hopeful the new ruling from the Federal Highway Administration would remove some of the uncertainty regarding the road. He said that should help state legislators and others successfully lobby for the funding needed to complete the road.
At least $130 million is needed to complete the road. The ruling from the Federal Highway Administration could play a key role because it makes the project eligible to receive federal funding. Without the ruling, the entire project would have to be built with state funding.
Johnson said he expects the project will seek funding from both federal and state sources. Johnson said the ruling should help at the state level because the Legislature is expected to begin debating options for creating a new 10-year, statewide comprehensive transportation plan.
"This comes at a good time," Johnson said.
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.
Jean1183 (anonymous) says…
Build it!
Noweigh (anonymous) says…
Ok, as a result of this decision, let's waste even more time, file lawsuits, hold vigils and whine even more. It just wouldn't be Lawrence if we didn't have some more good ol' Lawrence nay-saying!!
bernadette (anonymous) says…
This should not happen. We need to be thinking about issues other than driving throught the wetlands. Where are our kids going to go to learn about nature? Where are the monarch butterflies going to stop on their migration? Why can't people just get out of their cars and walk or ride a bike or ride the bus? This is an issue of changing habits and lifestyle's rather than getting from point A to point B 10 seconds faster.
bernadette (anonymous) says…
Two marathons a day does not sound fun to me.
--------
Take the bus or bike option then. Work closer to home.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Take the bus or bike option then. Work closer to home."
That would be tantamount to letting the hippies and Injuns win one. Can't have that.
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
bernadette - is your local firm hiring? I would require about $70K a year. Does that work for you? Let me know asap. I am tired of the commute.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Well, as long as stealing Haskell's wetlands protects your lifestyle, it's all good, right blueharley?
bernadette (anonymous) says…
bernadette - is your local firm hiring? I would require about $70K a year. Does that work for you? Let me know asap. I am tired of the commute.
----
without all of the driving you wouldn't need all that money.
igby (anonymous) says…
The plans for 31st street and 32nd street. What a bi-polar group we have running the city and county, no ones really on the same page anymore.
bernadette (anonymous) says…
Just for the record. . .making assumptions that one must work in a coffee shop, smoke pot and have a crappy guitar in order to care about the environment, is wrong. None of the stereotypes mentioned previously are true except that we need to care about the environment if we care about our futures.
BorderRat (anonymous) says…
What about the off ramp for a Casino?
alicenevada (anonymous) says…
Lawrence has changed so much over the years..it is just not the same as it was even 10 years ago. What has happened? From small changes like the end of "Paradise Cafe" and "Simple Goods" to larger more destructive changes like Wal-Mart and the SLT, I think I should just move to Johnson County. At least the cost of living would be cheaper.
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
bozo - you can keep repeating the "Haskell" wetland mantra as long as you want but the rest of the real world knows it is now the Baker Wetlands. And, as has been said numerous times before, if it was stolen take it to court.
bernadette - I prefer commuting to dumpster diving. How about you?
FatTony (anonymous) says…
Bernadette, lets see without all the driving I might save $3000 a yr, just to be chartible I'll take 65k. You ignorant fool.
alicenevada (anonymous) says…
I do agree that the comment about walking, riding a bike or taking the bus to work is a bit ignorant. Not everyone has that option, especially when you have children to take to school, pracitice, relatives that live out of town, etc. I hate driving my car, but I have to do it. I do not want to seem that I am taking an extreme on the environmental issue here, I mean, living anywhere will require progress and expansion. However, I also feel a sadness inside when I think of all the wonderful afternoons my son and I have spent out at the Wetlands, and how sad he was to hear that they would not be there in the future. I feel somehow that the supporters of this could perhaps show a little less excitement and just a tad more sensitivity.
Can anyone enlighten me on exactly why building the road south of the river is such a bad idea? Why is that not a possibly option?
craigers (anonymous) says…
FatTony, you beat me to it. I like how some assume that if you don't commute, you could give up the extra 15K you can earn elsewhere.
etsi_truss (anonymous) says…
Hey Lawrence City Commish shoes on the other foot Go get em Mr Morris & Mr Neufeld stop this environmental rape
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
So, how does that effect the Prairie Park nature center and that area?
And can someone explain it without resulting in name calling.....
Logan72 (Alia Ahmed) says…
Here's a link to use to estimate the cost of commuting.
http://www.commuterpage.com/atp/pdfdo...
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
I guess according to the map, it should miss it by a block or so, but oh, the joyous noise of traffic....
FatTony (anonymous) says…
Bernadette, let me guess you don't work at a coffee shop, don't have a guitar, and you do shower. However I do think you work at the Dirty Bird and live in a trailer behind the club. That must be why you don't have to drive.
just_another_ninja (anonymous) says…
"I still think that building a road through the wetlands won't be good for the community in the long-term," Highberger said.
I'm on the fence about all of this, but this article sure does seem an opportune time for leaders to supply hard facts as to why this town should save the wetlands vs. merely making statements about what they "think"...
beeline (anonymous) says…
They are not Haskell's wetlands. I met a guy who helped build them. Yes, they are man-made. We will make more. Think how much fuel people will save not idling their cars on 23rd street.
thebigspoon (anonymous) says…
This By-pass Will never be built!
This is all a waste of $ and energy.
just_another_ninja (anonymous) says…
Think about Lawrence with 30-40% of the noise pollution from vehicles sent away from the inner city...
ralphralph (anonymous) says…
Build something, somewhere, soon.
You've got to have a way from the south to the east.
New US 59 is coming, I hope, and it needs to connect to K10 without going on 23rd.
bugmenot (anonymous) says…
It's really sad to hear how self-centered some people are. Your should print off your comments on this page and put them in a letter to your grandchildren to answer the "What the hell happened to the Earth" questions they'll inevitably be asking themselves. "Oh, Grandpa had a big ol' SUV and hated to be inconvenienced by 10 minutes."
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
alicenevada says,
"Can anyone enlighten me on exactly why building the road south of the river is such a bad idea? Why is that not a possibly option?"
It is not a bad idea and a lot of people actually would prefer it. The problem, in my opinion, is that the vocal anti-SLT group was too busy screaming "NO" rather than coming up with a compromise like supporting a SOR route earlier in the process. And now it is too late.
somebodynew (anonymous) says…
Blue73 - I think you are correct in your assessment. Although my screen name doesn't represent it, I have been here from the start of this fiasco (remember the alleged frog). Not to mention all the other "things" the anti's threw/made up to delay without trying rationally present reasons for a better plan (they just wanted to say this one was bad).
Now, am I sure the 32nd route is still the best after 25+ years of arguing and developement??? Not sure, but one thing I do KNOW - - even if they would suddenly decide to build it SOR, some group (or combination of current groups) would have something to bi*** about and try to stop it also.
To some (emphasis on some) of these people just don't want to see it built and would fight any plan. So I go with build it where it is planned and get it done.
Way too many years of fighting and delays. And if I am not mistaken it has been through court once, so here we go again. Looks like Bob Eye will make more money.
redwaggoner (anonymous) says…
Geesh! In looking at the map supplied by the LJW, it seems to me that that the cheapest and BEST rout for the SLT would be by continuing on a true easterly direction in a straight line! Why jog south to 32nd? Seems to me that whatever (future) street this would be, that continuing straight east to the eastern most (current) boundaries of the city prior to turning north to link up with existing K-10 would be the wisest thing to do. Any way you cut it, someone is going to be dissatisfied with the results.
bernadette (anonymous) says…
Where I work and what I am is irrelevant FatTony. If where they want to put the road were right through a neighborhood of homes inhabited by humans they wouldn't even consider displacing those people. Let's give nature the same respect.
deskboy04 (anonymous) says…
I can't wait until I can drive around Lawrence. I imagine that the residents can't wait their city streets are less congested with people like me. This has been a long time coming.
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
"If where they want to put the road were right through a neighborhood of homes inhabited by humans they wouldn't even consider displacing those people."
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ya might want to tell that to the people that USED to live along 59 hiway!
Bernadette = basement dweller, just slightly out of touch with reality.
Catbacker (anonymous) says…
bernadette - Have you never heard of "Eminent Domain?" Happens all the time, and, knowing Lawrence, there would be far less outcry if the proposed highway went through East Lawrence as opposed to a wet field.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
That part of East Lawrence is newer neighborhoods, which is Prairie Park. So yes, I think the residents there would raise up a stink if the highway was to go through our neighborhoods. As it is, it will be pretty close to an elementary school and a couple of parks. It might even displace a few people being on 32nd street, I don't know.
shockchalk (anonymous) says…
Finally, a step in the right direction. Now, fire up the bulldozers and finish the road so we can start using something OTHER then 23rd street to get to the City.
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
mom - the only displacement in your SOUTHeast neighborhood will be to the businesses just south of 31st and Haskell. I am sure they will be well compensated because I have not heard any complaints.
Speaking of sweet deals, Jackson Welding was displaced by the 59 hiway realignment. Now they have a facility at the corner of K68 and I35. Moral of the story - Change isn't always bad.
KsTwister (anonymous) says…
Why would Prairie Park get upset about values of their overtaxed properties being in a prime location for commuters? Their homes may well be in demand more so than other sections of this town. The bypass should give them quicker access to Haskell Avenue too. I think many of those living there now recognized that stretch would pass along 31st street years ago. Build it, it was little more than a weed filled ditch in the '60's. They can create a new one of those too.
stuckinthemiddle (anonymous) says…
Hmmm... so people really think that this is going to happen? Maybe... Maybe not...
vividscene (anonymous) says…
If the Kansas Department of Transportation regularly ("all the time") makes use of the government's right of eminent domain, and regularly ("all the time") routes highways through existing, somewhat densely packed middle and lower-class neighborhoods (on an economic scale), then I propose that we develop a new route for the bypass, thus dealing with those against the southerly bypass and those against the wetland route: Route the highway north by northeast, through Wallmart, Kohl's and Home depot, then directly east along, lets say, a 27th or 28th street corridor, through a numerous homes and a school or two? Please be sure to recommend to your city council person that we leave enough room around the route for future expansion to three lanes in each direction, and to provide the necessary space for the federally accepted width for interstate medians as well as an ample shoulder and ditch along each side. Perhaps we could have the library conduct a bigger book sale so that the city could fund the construction of sound barriers along the entire route to not only block the sound, but also to inhibit the construction of such things that only liberal, drug-smoking, exotic-dancers would like, such as park and ride lots.
bd (anonymous) says…
buid it and they will come!
jumpin_catfish (anonymous) says…
John Lennon said it best "Imagine" a road thorugh the wetlands to the other side of Lawrence which will reduce the traffic load on 23rd street making me a happy camper!! I can see it now!!! Oh, the wetlands aren't the only place kids can go to learn about nature. Many learn about the birds and the bees without even leaving the school house. ;-)
lunacydetector (anonymous) says…
i just got off the phone with someone who lives in texas that i hadn't spoken too in 13 years. he just happened to ask if lawrence ever built their bypass. i said, "no." he said, "you've got to be sh*tting me. what's wrong with the people in lawrence?" then i had to explain a very vocal minority and a few attorneys have been dragging this thing out for over 20 years.
it's just like when i introduce myself to people in other parts of kansas, and that i'm from lawrence. when i see their raised eyebrows, i have to apologize and tell them i'm one of the normal ones in town, that i don't belong to the graying hippie bunch. then we all have a good chuckle about some of the "different" people in lawrence.
....why don't the protesters try to conform for the sake of the majority? you're gonna lose no matter how long you fight the SLT. suck it up.
LogicMan (anonymous) says…
"What about the off ramp for a Casino?"
Interesting -- has Haskell proposed such on their land? It would likely solve their funding issues, and provide lots of nearby part-time jobs for their students, if the SLT is finished.
LogicMan (anonymous) says…
Wow -- and adding a "hospitality management" degree program, with the local internship opportunity at the hotel/casino, would be an excellent draw for the University.
stuckinthemiddle (anonymous) says…
Sorry kids... but I feel a bit of sorrow for anyone who thinks that there just aren't enough roads to get around...
Some guy living in Texas still thinks about this road?
Sad, indeed:
PAWPAW (anonymous) says…
"it's just like when i introduce myself to people in other parts of kansas, and that i'm from lawrence."
it's just like when i introduce myself to people in ALL other parts of the country, and say that i'm from Kansas. when i see their raised eyebrows, i have to tell them i'm from lawrence, and that i don't belong to the pave everything, ridicule those with culture, deny climate change, deny responsibility to our grandchildren bunch. then we all have a good chuckle about some of the "different" people in lawrence, because without maintaining a sense of humor the degree of contempt and disrespect shown towards the first people of this land and the land itself would be saddening, at best.
kawryan (anonymous) says…
Library expansion on hold indefinitely November 7
Jayhawk fans hitting the road November 7
School board under investigation November 7
Feds OK wetlands SLT route November 7
Coal-fired plants still possible; lawmakers grill health secretary November 7
Turnpike bridge replacement may affect drivers for 3 years November 7
Good news for the kids/public/environment today.
tuschkahouma (anonymous) says…
casinos have nothing to do with Haskell, but you couldn't tell a bunch of uneducated people
that. The fact that all of Lawrence is on Kaw, Shawnee, or Delaware land and Haskell's
funding from the U.S. Government for the theft of said lands in 1825, 1854, 1860, 1866,
1867, and 1955, has everything to do with it. This will be in federal courts in time, and
all of the dysconscious racists can keep denying Native religion, ethnicity, culture and the
tie to these lands that people from 1855 forward don't have.
manus_flexibilis (anonymous) says…
yay!
a quicker route to arrowhead to watch the jayhawks?
let's all just go put our lips around a tail pipe and breathe, heck why not an eighteen wheeler's
smoke stack!
nag nag nag
haskell this, haskell that
my feet hurt, oh! the rebushlicans got overridden today regarding waterway issues!
supreme court
here we come;>(
bugmenot (anonymous) says…
Yeah, it's totally insane to think that building the SLT will encourage driving. No road has ever done that. When you make it easier for people to get anywhere, more and more people will take that route, eventually necessitating in its expansion. Countless studies conducted in LA (and, later, other cities) in the 80s and 90s show that for every freeway built or widened, that same freeway needed expanding within a few years. Sure, it may decrease traffic on 23rd (though I have my doubts - 23rd is awful during the daytime, when the city's huge bedroom community population *isn't* commuting) a bit, but it will just encourage more people to get out and drive on the SLT. If it shaves 5-10 minutes off of the commute to jobs in KC, fewer people will be discouraged by the commute length and they will take jobs and be right there clogging up the road with you in a few years.
I'm sorry, but the fact that an anonymous internet poster's friend who moved away from Lawrence 13 years ago and thinks it's dumb we still haven't built the SLT is not *quite* enough justification for me to suddenly think the SLT is a good idea.
tuschkahouma (anonymous) says…
Why don't you learn something from my posts and stop your pointless uninformed
rambling. It doesn't matter how I post, it's the message.
fozzworth (anonymous) says…
the road wont get built. i guarantee it.
Solomon (anonymous) says…
Dear Grandpa,
I'm now 70 years old, and I want to know what happened to the earth?
Dear Grandson,
Well, I migrated west and took a homestead which I then improved by building a house and a privy. When I was a man in my middle years, they invented a "horseless carriage." Soon, they began building roads so that we could get to and from town, and move our produce to market. Some of our community leaders worked actively to develop the town. They advertised in the eastern newspapers to ask Drs., lawyers, merchants, and manufacturers to come and set up their businesses in our growing city. Soon, our tax revenues enabled us to build new schools, pave roads, and provide indoor plumbing to all those who wanted it. From time to time we had people, active in our community, who wanted to stop the progress. Fortunately, our civic leaders (most of them, at least) didn't listen to the nay-sayers, and we gave you the earth of today.
It's called progress, grandson, and if you're smart you will continue to grow and develop. It will benefit all in the end.
Love,
Your grandpa
drb (David Benson) says…
"Countless studies conducted in LA (and, later, other cities) in the 80s and 90s show that for every freeway built or widened, that same freeway needed expanding within a few years."
Thank you for making this important point. I lived in LA from 1985-1990 and saw this first hand. You build a road, more people feel they can take a long commute and suddenly you need yet another road.
And for all of you griping about the horrendous rush hour traffic in Lawrence, move to LA for a week, commute the same distance you do here, and you'll be begging to be back on 23rd St.
Defender?????? I'm waiting for you to trash this argument too........
KsTwister (anonymous) says…
I had an uncle who wrote an LTE about Johnny's Bump and that finally got fixed but he was living in Tennessee. Get that guy in Texas! No one around here can seem to accomplish tasks that needed fixing 10 years ago. It is probably that the ones who used to get things done-- left town.
kansas778 (anonymous) says…
drb--so you are saying the SLT will make Lawrence a more attractive place to live, and the city will continue to grow. This is a bad thing how?
drb (David Benson) says…
k778-
The SLT as presently planned will mar the landscape and make Lawrence less attractive. Growth is fine as long as land is used effectively, and people live responsibly.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"you lose all credibility due to the illegibility of your posts."
The problem is the illiteracy of the reader.
kansas778 (anonymous) says…
drb--there's nothing inherently unattractive, ineffective, or irresponsible about a highway. We need highways, and they have to be built somewhere. This one is already halfway done and the completed portion has none of those traits.
drb (David Benson) says…
k778-
You couldn't be more wrong. It's irresponsible to create a highway over environmentally fragile terrain, which is exactly what the current alignment will do, when there are alternatives that will have a less negative environmental impact (I understand the cultural issue relating to this road, but MY main concern is environmental). It's my understanding that the Baker wetlands, although reclaimed (before it was "man-made" wetlands it was farmland, but before that it was "real" wetlands) represents about 1% of the original Wakarusa wetlands. Given that, and the ecological importance of wetlands, it makes no sense to build a road through the Baker wetlands whether they are reclaimed or original. Please understand, I'm not against a new road to help relieve congestion in Lawrence, just don't put it smack dab in the middle of a place teeming with biodiversity.
manus_flexibilis (anonymous) says…
dotslines
thats not the beginning of my discussion?
add to that the proposed coal fired powerplant?
there is already a plant north of town clogging the airways, what more do we need?
there are alternative routes to 23rd street!
maybe the proposed pharmaceutical plant will provide inhalers and other breathing apparatuses?
dozer (anonymous) says…
drb - Perhaps I am under the wrong impression, but I believe they were going to double the size of the new wetland if they built the road through the existing wetland. And while the place is teeming with biodiversity, the new wetland will do the same. A good example of creating new wetlands with diversity can be seen by looking at Ducks Unlimited.
drb (David Benson) says…
dozer-
I simply don't trust the city of Lawrence to come through on this promise. I fully expect that once they get their way (at a much greater cost than they will admit), the pledge to create more wetlands will conveniently be forgotten (I previously used the analogy of the many "treaties" between native Americans and the US government which were also conveniently forgotten, but one of the SLT supporters misrepresented this analogy in an effort to demonstrate his superior debating skills).
dozer (anonymous) says…
drb - You used a poor analogy. When roads are built and environmental mitigation efforts are required, the mitigation must occur. These are not handshake deals. Rather, they are carefully crafted agreements setting forth what mitigation must occur at the site. And most importantly, they are enforceable.
kansas778 (anonymous) says…
Well I look at that element by element
1. "Environmentally fragile terrain"
A. This is contradicted by the fact that the wetlands were destroyed and rebuilt.
B. There is no such thing as a stable environment anyway.
2. "There are alternatives that will have a less negative environmental impact"
A. Dryland habits may not be as precious in your mind, but the impact on them would be the exact same.
3. " the Baker wetlands...represents about 1% of the original Wakarusa wetlands. Given that, and the ecological importance of wetlands, it makes no sense to build a road through the Baker wetlands" The gist I take to be that there isn't much left, so it would be wrong to destroy what is left.
A. Regardless of how much is left, the mitigation plan calls for restoring more wetland acreage to compensate for what is lost and then some. So while 77 acres will be used for the highway, 200 acres of wetlands will be restored just like how the 573 current acres were restored.
4. "don't put it smack dab in the middle of a place teeming with biodiversity."
A. There is no place to put the highway that has no biodiversity
B. It does not make sense to plan highways according to the level of biodiversity. We could put 10000 miles of highway in the desert but that's not where we need it. Highways' purposes and value are inherently tied to their location. Moving the highway south would detract from its use, efficiency, and increase the cost, not only in construction but in maintence and the cost to users.
C. Biodiversity is not inherently valuable. Rats, roaches, and mosquitos can add to biodiversity, but are pests and put the public health at risk.
D. Any unique, rare aspects of the wetlands was killed off when they were first drained and farmed for decades. In other words, there is no unique biodiversity there that is threatened because anything that is a wetland only flora or fauna must have migrated there within the last 50 years.
drb (David Benson) says…
dozer-
I hope you're right, but given the history of this project I'm doubtful. It should also be considered that creating a true wetlands ecosystem is a bit more complex than building a road.....the Baker wetlands didn't appear overnight, and required lots of caretaking by Roger Boyd and his kin.
drb (David Benson) says…
k778-
You've forced me to relent, because I don't have the energy to disupte your disputations of my concerns.
I hope you and the other supporters get your road and are happy with it and its consequences.
dozer (anonymous) says…
How can you be doubtful, they haven't done anything yet? Maybe you are referring to the poor communication and planning that originally went into the plan, but I think all the fussing and lawsuits have gotten the players talking, and there is a viable option that serves both sides.
I see nothing wrong with a reasonable compromise. Build the road through the wetland, it appears to be the best option. At the same time, expand the wetland, create a green beltway along the road. Everyone gets something, but no one gets everything.
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…
Thanks for the link Logan72.
Here's a link to use to estimate the cost of commuting.
http://www.commuterpage.com/atp/pdfdo...
"kansas778 (Anonymous) writes...
drb-there's nothing inherently unattractive, ineffective, or irresponsible about a highway. We need highways, and they have to be built somewhere. "
k778. I suggest that the only reason we "need" highways is because of the car culture in the US today. What's wrong with pushing for light rail from Topeka to Lawrence to KC? What's wrong with pushing for "Park and Rides"? They have these all up and down I5 from Seattle to Olympia; I spent a lot of time out there and they work.
*****
Interesting comment on the news tonight. Bob Nye (sp?) said, 'There's a vocal minority who wants to have the wetlands paved over, and that vocal minority seems to have a disproportionate amount of political power. ... Just because the Federal government says it's OK, doesn't make it right.' (Note: single quotes because I'm not sure of the exact words, but you get the meaning.)
I agree with Mr. Nye. I've always said that we should follow the money and see where it leads. That will provide the answers to a lot of questions.
Note to drb. Don't give up. That's what they want.
manus_flexibilis (anonymous) says…
The impacts were brought to our attention?
The FONSI (finding of no significant indians)!
The skull and bones society were able to dig up and possibly re-bury remains, contrast.
Dig up a diverse piece of land and create a larger identical ecosystem elsewhere.
maybe, with a amusement park in addition!
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…
well done manus_flexibilis!
Follow this link for some more information
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/nov...
kansas778 (anonymous) says…
Ralph--"What's wrong with pushing for light rail from Topeka to Lawrence to KC? What's wrong with pushing for "Park and Rides"? "
1. The government should not push anything on an unwilling populace unless there is a compelling reason to do so.
2. A. While the government can force people to pay for such things, they cannot force them to use it, and while you say it works in Seattle, I think the empTy is evidence that Lawrence residents choose not to avail themselves of such options. In fact there has been a nationwide trend starting in the 1950s of declining use of available public transportation.
B. Considering that people will likely still choose to use their private vehicles, ignoring options that will facilitate this method of travel in favor of pushing an unsuccessful venture will be a waste of money and the original traffic problem will still remain.
3. America has a car culture for a reason: it's a big country. No matter how extensive your rail system is, it will never be able to get the majority of travellers within short distance of their destination without ruinous cost, particularly in areas of lower population density. Public transportation makes sense in a denser, urban setting where a bus or light rail system can cover the majority of destinations in a convenient and efficient manner. Kansas, even eastern Kansas, hardly fits that description.
manus_flexibilis (anonymous) says…
Mr. Reed thanks for the bass ackwards info!
This has nothing to do with treaties or haskell bashing or race carding?
The rail link does sound like a great idea, why not power it with wind and solar energy?
Sieve the flaws and add a flux capacitor:>)
With all the knowledge Lawrence has to offer, the alternatives are there.
Pleasing the mainstream is beyond psychological.
hint: medical field
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…
Manus
Thanks for the personal attack. Just curious, how my info is "bass ackwards"? Would you mind giving some examples challenging what I said instead of challenging me? Then would you provide a viable counter argument not laced with sarcasm?
manus_flexibilis (anonymous) says…
Challenging your examples is not neccesary. I have to agree with most of your concerns other than the name usage. Which is blown out of context, opinionated brainstorming is my approach!
Reed: referring to a part of a cattail plant or a instrument mouthpiece?
Manus: 1/2 of my family name
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…
Manus
Take a look at my name. That's who I am.
I'm not hiding behind anonymity at all.
drb (David Benson) says…
This is in response to kansas778, from yesterday's article on the SLT:
kansas778 (Anonymous) says:
OK, I'm rested and ready to take these on, although I suspect you're one of those people who just love to pick arguments apart on principle rather than trying to understand that the basis of some opinions are well-intentioned if not exactly stated with the precision they perhaps deserve. In my case, passion about preserving nature sometimes gets in the way of clearly stating my positions, including my opposition to a 32nd St. alignment for the SLT.
>"Well I look at that element by element"
>1. "Environmentally fragile terrain"
>A. This is contradicted by the fact that the wetlands were destroyed and rebuilt.
Again, tell that to the plants and animals living there. If one didn't know that the wetlands spent a brief peiod as farmland, one probably wouldn't guess that to be the case without an SLT proponent chanting it in their ear. The biodiversity in the Baker wetlandes is REAL, the danger to the species living there by a road being built is REAL, and no amount of nitpicking will change those facts.
>B. There is no such thing as a stable environment anyway.
Does that mean we should willy-nilly change the environment to suit our needs at any time, just for our convenience? I don't think we should, but that doesn't mean we can't wisely deal with our growing population, and that population's desire to live in nice places . It's an opinion; please don't give me an A/B dissection of why this opinion is invalid.
drb (David Benson) says…
>2. "There are alternatives that will have a less negative environmental impact"
>A. Dryland habits may not be as precious in your mind, but the impact on them would be the exact same."
The biodiversity in the Baker wetlands is unequaled elsewhere in Lawrence, so no, the impact would not be the same, especially if appropriate care were taken in choosing an alternative route. Appropriate care has NOT been exercised in choosing 32nd St. for part 2 of the SLT. Money and convenience are the main concerns, as is typically the case in human affairs.
drb (David Benson) says…
>3. " the Baker wetlands:represents about 1% of the original Wakarusa wetlands. Given that, and the ecological importance of wetlands, it makes no sense to build a road through the Baker wetlands."
>The gist I take to be that there isn't much left, so it would be wrong to destroy what is left.
You are correct in getting my "gist". Moreover, the best solution would be to replace even more of the depleted Wakarusa wetlands in Lawrence without putting a new road through the Baker wetlands. That would be real environmental progress, but will never happen.
>A. Regardless of how much is left, the mitigation plan calls for restoring more wetland acreage to compensate for what is lost and then some. So while 77 acres will be used for the highway, 200 acres of wetlands will be restored just like how the 573 current acres were restored.
I still have doubts that the city will come through on this, even though it is required. They may very well find some way to satisfy this requirement without really fulfilling reasonable expectations of the environmentalists who oppose the SLT. I sincerely hope that this isn't the case. Nonetheless, a 32nd St. SLT will destroy habitat and kill animals not only by increasing roadkill, but by polluting the environs. You can't deny that.
drb (David Benson) says…
>4. "don't put it smack dab in the middle of a place teeming with biodiversity."
>A. There is no place to put the highway that has no biodiversity
The wetlands represent perhaps the most concentrated biodiversity in Lawrence, if not Douglas County. Your argument that there is no place to put the highway that has no diversity is true on its face, but is intentionally misleading. Broken Arrow park has essentially no biodiversity compared to the wetlands, even though it is right across the street. What I should have said was "don't put the SLT smack dab in the middle of the wetlands." As I've said in a previous post, that "solution" to finishing the SLT is the biggest slap in the face to environmentalists that the city could have come up with.
>B. It does not make sense to plan highways according to the level of biodiversity. We could put 10000 miles of highway in the desert but that's not where we need it. Highways' purposes and value are inherently tied to their location. Moving the highway south would detract from its use, efficiency, and increase the cost, not only in construction but in maintence and the cost to users.
I don't disagree with this statement in general, but as has been stated by others here and elsewhere, the SLT will have little if any impact on 23rd St. traffic no matter where it is built. Maybe 23rd St.is where we should focus our attention.
>C. Biodiversity is not inherently valuable. Rats, roaches, and mosquitos can add to biodiversity, but are pests and put the public health at risk.
This indicates that you don't understand biodiversity. It IS inherently invaluable except where humans have caused a change in the natural balance. It's not rats, roaches and mosquitos that make the wetlands interesting as an ecosystem. But if you put the road through there, those may be the only animals left living there.
>D. Any unique, rare aspects of the wetlands was killed off when they were first drained and farmed for decades. In other words, there is no unique biodiversity there that is threatened because anything that is a wetland only flora or fauna must have migrated there within the last 50 years.
Then pooh on whoever killed off that biodiversity in the first place. Why, oh why, should we make the same mistake again? Every frog, turtle, snake, insect and bird I see in the Baker wetlands is REAL, and will suffer if a major highway is built there.
kansas778 (anonymous) says…
Yes it has been stated by others that the SLT will have little effect on 23rd street, but as far as I have seen, only by people posting. The Ljworld has ran an article that say otherwise, that the SLT will reduce traffic on 23rd by up to 35%, and that the effect will be greater if the 32nd street route is chosen over the 42nd street route. Call me crazy, but I choose to believe the newspaper over anonymous posters.
Every frog, turtle, snake, insect and bird along the 42nd street route is real as well, and will suffer much the same. But really the question is: so what? I'm not going to tell anything to the plants and animals, and I'm not going to take their feelings into consideration. I think it's silly for you to suggest that we not build a highway because some plants will die and some animals will be displaced and run over. That's going to happen on every highway that is ever built. No matter where you put the highway, some plants are going to get plowed under, and some animals will be displaced.
I understand you have doubts about the city's intentions to complete the mitigation aspects, but let me share a secret with you that I've learned as a law student about who really has the power in this county. The SLT is a perfect example. The people of Lawrence voted for it, the city approved it, the state approved it, the federal government approved it....yet it hasn't been built. All that authority and power behind the decision, but we're left with a bridge to nowhere. How can this be?
One judge is all it takes to overrule all the authority of all those other bodies of power. One judge can shut down the highway even though the people, the city, the state, and the federal government want to go forward with it. My point is, it won't be up to the city in the slightest.
BTW, wetlands is a generic term like "tree" or "bird." What kind of wetland is it exactly? A bog, a fen, a swamp, a marsh? I think wetland is used because it sounds nicer to say "Save the Wetlands" than to say "Save the Swamp" even if that's more accurate.
drb (David Benson) says…
k778-
I kinda guessed from your previous posts that you would have no empathy or sympathy for beings "lesser" than yourself, and now you've made that point loud and clear. That's why people like you and I can't really have any real meaningful exchanges regarding nature.
And thank God that judges can overrule misinformed human decisions.
apatch (anonymous) says…
Just a thought, maybe they could build an elevated highway over the actual wetland. It would probably cost considerably more, but it would help to maintain ecosystem.
manus_flexibilis (anonymous) says…
Did I strike a nerve Mr. Reed?
You are vearing way off the issue at hand!
If I google'd ralph reed how many ralph reeds would I encounter?
If I looked in the phone book how many ralph reeds would I view?
Maybe, not particularly ralph reed but r reed.
I think I'm done, I'm getting dizzy, I'm going to ralph!
have a nice day;>)
( x )
kansas778 (anonymous) says…
no dnb, you're completely wrong. I do care about animals, but the harm being done is minimal. You have to balance the harm done with the benefit. You appear to think ANY harm is too much. That point of view is untenable.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
" I do care about animals, but the harm being done is minimal."
More self-serving and unsupported drivel.
"You have to balance the harm done with the benefit."
If the SLT is built on 32nd, no such attempt will be made, particularly with regards to Native Americans from whom the wetlands were stolen.
toefungus (anonymous) says…
I got my toe fungus from the semi wetlands.
right_claw_of_the_eagle (anonymous) says…
spread like cancer
right_claw_of_the_eagle (anonymous) says…
does anyone see a connection between the small and innocent Lawrence,ks and the opposition to the south Lawrence since the 80's. i mean innocent as when theres a shooting in town here, it still comes as a shock to every resident here. i recognize this by being originally from a large city where anonymity coincides with crime rate.. at least thats my opinion