Leaders consider three road projects
Local leaders mapping the future transportation needs for the Douglas County are are now focusing on three major road projects. Enlarge video
Transportation 2030
No longer is it just north vs. south. Add east to the mix.
For more than a decade, the simmering battle over the uncompleted South Lawrence Trafficway project has been whether the road should go north of the Wakarusa River - through the Baker Wetlands - or go south of the river to avoid the wetland area that American Indian groups and environmentalists consider sacred.
Now, area transportation planners are saying the community should spend some time gazing east. On Wednesday, area planners - who are putting together a new comprehensive transportation plan for the city and county - agreed to consider a new Kansas River bridge project that would create a new road east of Lawrence to connect Interstate 70 with Kansas Highway 10.
"We're supposed to be forward-thinking with this plan, and I think that means we have to consider this option," said Lisa Harris, a Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commissioner who is part of the Transportation 2030 group.
Three options
The new wrinkle has set up a potential winner-take-all battle among three major road projects. That's because the Transportation 2030 group said it also wanted detailed traffic models for two other road projects: an SLT project that would build the road through the Baker Wetlands on a route known as 32nd Street; and an SLT project that would run the road south of the Wakarusa River on a route known as 42nd Street.
By the end of the year, the group is expected to pick one - and only one - of the three projects to include in the Transportation 2030 plan. That's significant because that means the two projects left out of the plan won't be eligible to receive federal funding. Each of the three projects are expected to cost at least $130 million, meaning federal funding will be important to any of the projects.
Committee members said they hope the traffic models - which are being developed by the Kansas Department of Transportation - will provide an answer to which provides the best "bang for the buck" when it comes to relieving east-west traffic congestion in Lawrence.
The traffic models, though, likely aren't the only factor the committee will need to consider. Representatives from KDOT on Wednesday said they would have lots of questions about either the Kansas River bridge project or a 42nd Street route for the South Lawrence Trafficway.
They said it is important to remember that the 32nd Street route for the trafficway already has been endorsed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is an important part of the environmental approvals needed for the road. The Federal Highway Administration currently is studying the route, and KDOT is hopeful that the agency soon will approve a key permit for the 32nd Street route.
Joel Skelley, a transportation planner with KDOT, said there would be a lot of questions associated with a new eastern bypass project - which would run from somewhere near Noria Road or County Route 1057 to connect with I-70 and U.S. Highway 24-40 in either Douglas or Leavenworth counties.
Skelley said it was possible large portions of that project would need to be built on an elevated surface to prevent it from flooding. That would add significantly to the cost. No cost estimates for the project have been made, but the group agreed it would be more expensive than either of the SLT options, which are in the $150 million range.
Other projects
Members of the Transportation 2030 group did discuss and reach agreement on several smaller road projects that they believe should be completed in the next two decades. They include:
¢ Extending Wakarusa Drive south from Clinton Parkway to connect with County Route 458 south of Lawrence.
¢ Widening County Route 458 to four lanes from the new extended Wakarusa Drive to U.S. Highway 59.
¢ Extending Haskell Avenue south to County Road N 1100. Haskell Avenue also would be widened to four lanes from 23rd Street to N 1100 Road.
¢ Widening County Road N 1100 to four lanes from the new extended Haskell Avenue to U.S. Highway 59.
¢ Widening the existing portion of the South Lawrence Trafficway to four lanes.
¢ Extending Peterson Road westward to connect with the SLT near the Lecompton turnpike interchange. The Transportation 2030 group, however, did not endorse a route for an extended Peterson Road. Picking a route for the road has been controversial because there is park land and other environmentally sensitive property in the area.
¢ Extending 31st Street out to either Noria Road or County Route 1057.
To stay in compliance with federal guidelines, the Transportation 2030 plan needs to be completed by the end of the year. The committee - which includes a mix of planning, city and county commissioners along with city and county engineers - will present the plan to the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission. The Planning Commission - acting in its federally designated role as the Metropolitan Planning Organization - is responsible for giving final approval to the plan.
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.
LogicMan (anonymous) says…
"new Kansas River bridge project that would create a new road east of Lawrence to connect Interstate 70 with Kansas Highway 10"
Would this be a segment of an eventual beltway (="loop" in Texan) for the city? The completed SLT should be another segment.
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
Sure, a connector from K-10 to I-70 would be great but, hey, get in line. We have been waiting for completion of the SLT for over 20 years. An I-70 connector will do nothing to help south bound/southwest bound traffic.
usesomesense (anonymous) says…
Connecting I-70 East of Lawrence without a completed SL(u)T would probably prevent the trafficway from being completed in our lifetimes, if ever. Also, it would mean Lawrence would lose out almost completely on any business development that a completed trafficway would allow for. It would also do nothing to ease the traffic that comes from Lawrence itself as it grows. As more people occupy the South, West, and East sides of Lawrence that commute to Kansas City or Topeka, they will continue have to drive through town, increasing congestion.
The way I see it, the SLT either needs to be finished, or a moratorium needs to be placed on all new construction - if a plat isn't already approved, it never will be. Of course this means much higher property taxes for all of us and skyrocketing real estate prices. It also means the construction industry will have to shrink significantly or work in surrounding areas (which will become more popular).
Seems like this would be a pretty bad idea.
Oracle_of_Rhode (anonymous) says…
Only the lowest fools and villains would destroy wetlands in the name of greed and so-called "convenience." Personally, I find it convenient to live on a planet that hasn't been wantonly destroyed by soul-sick worshipers of mammon.
monkeyhawk (anonymous) says…
"Connecting I-70 East of Lawrence without a completed SL(u)T would probably prevent the trafficway from being completed in our lifetimes, if ever. Also, it would mean Lawrence would lose out almost completely on any business development that a completed trafficway would allow for. It would also do nothing to ease the traffic that comes from Lawrence itself as it grows. As more people occupy the South, West, and East sides of Lawrence that commute to Kansas City or Topeka, they will continue have to drive through town, increasing congestion."
Perhaps this is exactly what is behind the latest round of stall techniques. Since the committees are stacked with obstructionists, they have to give the appearance of "searching for solutions". Also, some in Lawrence see that the already proposed I-70 connector east of town could leave Lawrence even further in the dust.
deskboy04 (anonymous) says…
Pave the wetlands!
kansas778 (anonymous) says…
"Only the lowest fools and villains would destroy wetlands in the name of greed and so-called "convenience." Personally, I find it convenient to live on a planet that hasn't been wantonly destroyed by soul-sick worshipers of mammon."
I'm sure you support the 32nd street route then because it expands the wetlands by 200 acres. If you don't, then you are one of the fools and villains who are destroying these potential wetlands.
kansas778 (anonymous) says…
logrithmic--I bet you believe what you see in movies, a hollywood dreamland of villains and heros. The eeeevil pavers are coming to kill the environment, you better protect be the hero and chain yourself to the wetlands.
LogicMan (anonymous) says…
"Oracle_of_Rhode (Anonymous) says:
Only the lowest fools and villains would destroy wetlands..."
Gee, thanks for insulting all the Dutch people and heritage. Not very multicultural of you.
mooner (anonymous) says…
Why there is no traffic light at 31st and Lousiana if traffic is so bad there.
average (anonymous) says…
The east-of-town connector is a good thing. Though, to avoid another twenty years of funding battles with the Feds, I think it should be built as a spur of the Turnpike.
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
mooner - the city and county have l-o-n-g delayed making ANY improvements to 31st as long as the SLT route is in limbo. They have talked and discussed and talked and discussed and talked some more about making improvements on 31st for over SEVEN years. Results = nada. Thanks commissioners...not.
Bubbles (anonymous) says…
Yes, lets bulldoze pristine woods and farmland so that a few liberals can get to the tavern quicker.
Screw you liberals and ride the T. If every liberal actually did ride the T, the question for the SLT would not occur.
mrkuwick (anonymous) says…
I agree with Average. The SLT and eastern leg should loop the city and become I-470. Why wait another 20 years to figure that out.
kansas778 (anonymous) says…
logrithmic--"But if I were to extend 31st Street, I would connect it directly to K10, in essence a defacto SLT,"
That was the orginal plan, but Haskell cried because they weren't getting any money out of the deal.
kansas778 (anonymous) says…
Well, 31st is currently a two lane street "splitting their campus" (if you call the 20 acres south of 31st they own part of their campus). So what difference would an extra two lanes make? Haskell doesn't have a say on the part of 31st east of their campus, but extending it without widening all of 31st to four lanes wouldn't solve anything. So basically they still hold the veto.
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
log - I was just addressing mooners question. I'm sure some improvements could be made to 23rd St. But getting traffic off 23rd or improving 23rd is just a small part of the picture. We need the SLT.
ks778 - it is not true that Haskell "cried because they were not getting any money out of the deal". They were offered major $ and concessions if they would have accepted the 31st St. SLT. Right or wrong they refused to accept the offer. They have consistently opposed a 31st/32nd alignment. What I have trouble with is that they have also failed to come out in support of any other alignment such as 42nd. That is why I will support ANY alignment that will get the SLT built. I would rather see it built on 42nd but I think it is too late in the game.
hipper_than_hip (anonymous) says…
The connector road from I-70 to K-10 on the east side of town is a great idea and long overdue.
Does anyone remember that 31st Street was the original alignment for the SLT, and that it would have left the wetlands alone? Haskell put in the prayer wheel, which forced the SLT off 31st Street and out into the wetlands.
raeLynn (anonymous) says…
A major point that this article fails to mention is that there is no money for any of these projects.
There is a deficit in federal funds.
So another 20+ years of debate and controversy, here we come...
twosides (anonymous) says…
Back in the 60's the plan was to make a loop around Lawerence with the south leg going south of the Wakarusa, the east leg would cross the Kaw and then go under the turnpike to connect to 24/40 on the north side, use 24/40 for the north side of the loop and the west leg would have gone where Clinton dam is now. That plan was dropped because it was too expense to build a bridge across the Kaw and tunnel under the Turnpike, and Clinton Lake got in the way. When the SLT was envisioned, Commissioner Hopper told me that he wouldn't see it in his life time, I may not see it in mine, but someday he knew 31st street bypass would be just another city street. Hell, it's another city street already. Put the bypass further south to 42nd and elevate it.. Get a true bypass with at least 4 lanes and limited access and then call it a bypass. Until then Lawrence/Douglas county is just building more city streets.
toefungus (anonymous) says…
The wetlands are wet.