John Rasmussen on Transportation 2030
Hear John Rasmussen, one of several residents who attended a public meeting on Transportation 2030, offer his thoughts on what transportation projects the community should pursue in the coming years.
Local planners gather input for Transportation 2030
Residents had the chance to let local leaders know what they think about the future of transportation in Douglas County. Enlarge video
Lawrence and Douglas County will have to prepare for significant amounts of new traffic - especially truck traffic - during the next two decades.
Figuring that fact out has been the easy part of developing Transportation 2030, a new comprehensive plan designed to map out how area residents will travel around the county for years to come.
Planners were asking the public Thursday afternoon for help on the hard part: how to deal with it.
"To me, we should really be placing a lot of emphasis on bicycle commuting, pedestrian commuting, and a lot more use of public transit," said Laurie Ward, one of about 40 area residents who attended a public meeting at the Lawrence Visitors Center.
Alternative transportation was a heavy theme during the meeting for audience members and staff members.
"We want to make sure that we're concentrating on moving people, not just vehicles," said Jim Tobaben, a consultant working with the city and county on the plan.
Tobaben said he already had heard several comments supporting an express commuter bus service connecting Topeka, Lawrence and Kansas City.
There was plenty of talk about traditional roads, though. Tobaben said truck traffic in the area likely will increase significantly. Work is beginning on a new intermodal transportation center in Gardner that is expected to produce 10,000 trucks per day coming and going from the center once it is fully operational in 10 years.
"We think Highway 56 through Baldwin could pick up quite a bit of truck traffic from that facility," Tobaben said.
That also could lead to increased truck traffic on the new freeway-style U.S. Highway 59. Tobaben said trucks may use U.S. 59 to connect with Interstate 70 in Lawrence.
Several local road projects also drew comments.
Madeleine Schehrer said she attended the meeting because she wanted to know how the city plans to handle additional traffic in growing northwest Lawrence, which is scheduled to be the site of a new Wal-Mart store and other retail development.
Schehrer said she hoped the new plan would include a proposal for extending Peterson Road westward toward the South Lawrence Trafficway to relieve some of the pressure off of Sixth Street.
Bill Vervynck also was interested in the extension of a road. Vervynck said he and his wife are keeping a close eye on possible plans to extend 31st Street eastward toward O'Connell Road. But he said he wanted planners to look at the route carefully. He and his wife live along one of the proposed routes, and do not want to lose their home to the new road.
Vervynck, though, said he could see the need for 31st Street to be extended. But he said city and county leaders need to get the South Lawrence Trafficway completed first.
"If the trafficway isn't completed, that new road would become a trafficway because people are going to do whatever they have to do to get around 23rd Street," Vervynck said.
A group of planning commissioners, city commissioners, county commissioners and government department heads will take the public comments and use them to start creating a list of specific projects to be included in the plan.
The Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission needs to have the plan completed by early 2008 to remain eligible for federal transportation funding.
The planners will have one more meeting at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday at Baldwin High School, 415 Eisenhower.
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.
grimpeur (anonymous) says…
This is all very good. Tobaben's comments about moving people instead of their (mostly empty) cars are spot-on. And it's clear that our citizens want to be able to commute without the burden of their cars, which generate the congestion we claim to detest and require massive expenditures by our city, county and state to move and store empty for 9-10 hours/day.
Development of transit alternatives is what real cities do, for reasons of economics, health, and efficiency. The fact is: traffic is not bad in Lawrence. Good on the city and county for continuing to move ahead before it does get bad. After all, if we're going to make progress toward discouraging the unnecessary motorists who are clogging the streets and pulverizing the roads driving alone, 1 mile or less, each way, each day, we must simultaneously provide alternatives.
By "unnecessary," I'm not talking about motorists driving to the lake, ball games, or the theater. I'm talking about Lawrence commuters driving distances so laughably short (especially to KU) that it's faster to bike. I'm talking about both spouses doing this. I'm talking about ignoring the fact that you pass a co-worker's house each day, or that you pass a neighbor's workplace each day, but refuse to carpool because of some figment of "convenience." I'm talking about LHS and KU students driving from 21st and Barker, or from 8th and Illinois, or from 24th and Ousdahl, or even from 18th and Ohio, overwhelming neighborhoods with parked cars (and lunch trash)--why? Because they've been taught that parking will forever expand to accomodate them. I'm talking about JoCo and Shawnee and Douglas residents driving right into the center of Lawrence (alone, in over 90% of cars) with the expectation that a parking space will be available on campus, when their expectation should be that a space will NOT be available but that finding someone to carpool with would approximately double their chances of finding a place to park. While KU has found its way clear to provide nominal bus service in the K-10 corridor, this service and its eastern termini must be vastly expanded, and we must put a moratorium on future parking developments on campus (enrollment is DOWN) in order to further discourage the kind of waste and expense (to the city) already created by the west campus lot.
For every car we plan for in the next 10 years, we must also plan a way to eliminate one car from our roads. Heck, a funicular railway and a bike lift up Mt. Oread would be cheaper than accomodating our current drivers' paradigm, and would partially solve one of the big transit challenges for cyclists and pedestrians in Lawrence, namely, that the single most important traffic destination is on top of a big hill.
Bike lift? Glad you asked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j1Pgm...
average (anonymous) says…
grimpeur -
You realize we already have a bike lift, at least from points north of campus. Mississippi isn't too steep up to the lower entrance of the 'parking facility'. Take that elevator up to the top. While I can pedal to the top, it's a nice shortcut at times.
ralphralph (anonymous) says…
Bike lift?
You forgot something ... people are dumb, they get hurt, they sue you.
Sorry. It won't happen for those three reasons.
Too bad, 'cuz that Hill is a killer, and has dissuaded many a student from many a bike trip.
Funicular? Not a bad idea. Very expensive, though. The State won't even fund routine upkeep of the buildings ... or, at least not the buildings where no one plays with balls. Doubtful.
Keep putting in place infrastructure that at least makes it possible to bike or walk, and keep making the buses more eco-friendly and user-friendly. The Bus is the only real chance at mass transit in Larryville.
FatTony (anonymous) says…
"And it's clear that our citizens want to be able to commute without the burden of their cars"
Right thats why the "T" is empty and cutting service.
Dubya45 (Bradley Menze) says…
What happened to Horizon 2020? Always plan ahead, that way you don't have to do anything right now.
classclown (Class Clown) says…
Bike lift huh? What's wrong with pushing the bike up the hill? And people supposedly ride bikes because they are NOT lazy?
grimpeur (anonymous) says…
Wow, is "pedestrian commuting" really so incomprehensible as to be 'funny'? If it is, then we're worse off than I thought. If a worker or student is traveling 1,000-3,000 meters to work, what difference does it make if the commute is on foot or in a car? It's still commuting. Difference is, walking is sensible, while driving this distance (and many, many people are, every single day) is a wasteful and lazy abuse of our roads and our public funds.
Look, I realize that perhaps for people whose identities depend on their cars, maintaining that identity means: that it's important to drive as much as possible; that the question of whether a car is truly needed for any given trip is never even considered; and that to be without a car is to be nothing. Fine. But try not to project your poor self-image onto those who are looking for solutions to the problems created by institutionalized lack of imagination and selfish disdain for anything that doesn't make the drive easier.
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
A commute should be at least an eighth mile...
http://www.moparts.org/moparts/pictur...
And watch those "jack-rabbit" starts so you don't waste any gas ;-)
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
"These comments provide proof that I was more than correct in my assertions, i.e., KDOT works for the trucking and development sectors of our state."
No, what it proves is that KDOT is trying to anticipate what traffic it will need to accomodate. If you think KDOT is somehow in cahoots with developing the Intermodal, I have a hat for you...
http://www.gamepolitics.com/images/ti...