notajayhawk,

You don't have to study much or even attend any of these meetings.... if you're already the "expert" or "acting expert".

Making highways "larger", or "wider", do not reduce the number of casualties, but it does make a highway less stressful to drive. But reducing stress level isn't the same as reducing the total number of incidents or accidents.

http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffic-and-safety-guideline/what-causes-car-accidents.html

There are lots of publications on highway safety, maybe you need some 101...

The four factors of accidents include: (1) Equipment Failure; (2) Roadway Sign; (3) Poor Roadway Maintenance; (4) Driver Behavior.

(1), (3) and (4) have little to do with the highway expansion. (2) Traffic flow's the closest: It states "Rural two-lane roadways are statistically the most dangerous because of a high incidence of deadly head-on collisions and the difficulty impatient drivers’ face while overtaking slower vehicles" that attributes to the impatience of the drivers and not the design of the highway. Even if I assume that the rural highway is more dangerous statistically, then read what they said.

They said: "The stretch had four fatalities for every 100 million miles traveled, compared with a rate of 2.7 fatalities on other, similar highways statewide." So similar rural highway had 2.7 fatalities and 4.0 for that stretch... what it means is that they thought that they assume the reason for the higher fatalities is mainly due to the design of the highway (which isn't really true since the statistics are compared to similar highways in the other regions).

If they do not know why fatalities are so high, how can they claim that it will reduce fatalities?

I'm not as lazy as you are dude. I know my stuffs before I write. The problem is people like to exploit science and make up all kinds of reasons for the things they do. This is one of the cookups. Safety isn't the reason.

"Uh huh. As someone who's on these message boards daily whining that not enough of my tax dollars are being used to support your lazy a**, jackie, that's pretty rich."

This statement is really amusing. Let's see, how many millions and billions are being spent right now on road projects? Life has been fine with ol 59 for me, I do use it and never found it lacking but I'm not as special as you so I don't think I have a right to be somewhere as fast I choose and follow the laws. All the many 1000's of people over the years who have managed to deal with the time issue between here and Ottawa but one day nota steps in and thinks he needs it to be faster. The one sucking madly away at the government teet is you nota, as we are seeing with the billion dollar road projects that are unnecessary. Improvement to 59, sure no problem, but that isn't what is happening, it is being turned into a freeway while we are seriously in debt, the debt you claim concerns you, accept when it is going for happy motoring.

LOL oh nota, in fine form! You haven't been very accurate predicting anything that has happened so far so I can understand why you can't see how more trucks will be coming up from 59 after it is turned into a freeway. See it is just like the trains, you can't see in the past or the future and imagine much. This is a perfect example though, just like the trains, when it isn't there it isn't used but guarantee you when it is built it will be used, shoot the business community in Lawrence even sees it as they anticipate building a giant truckstop, but gosh sure they aren't as smart as you either. Since you can't go anywhere on the train it can't be used either, some day maybe you'll comprehend this.

You know, in the past, I would have never thought all the people taking the trains were Marxist. But you demonstrate again your irrational fears, how talking about building trains can only mean tearing up all the roads and taking your car away. I'm just trying to help you have a means to get to that great commuting job after gas goes sky high, peak oil you know. I know, you don't believe in peak oil just like you didn't believe your airline and car companies would come crashing down. Oh yes, I know the F-150 is saving the American car companies but it I fear there are many clueless people like you out there clicking your heels three times and imaging we will get back to the happy motoring world.

As usual nota, a man with great intellect and worldliness, your argument comes down to name calling and character attacks and sound just like the desperate man grasping to hold onto a world that is slipping away. Blame it on Obama but it was well on its way before he got in but partisan politics is always a good distraction from the realities in the world.

none2 (Anonymous) says…

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

Obviously, you aren't very familiar with roads and road safety especially in rural areas.

Obviously you aren't too familiar with jackie-boy's posts.

jackie is a pathetic whiner who believes some grand government conspiracy to push people into buying cars is the only reason we have roads at all - yes, he says we had no roads until the government convinced us to buy cars. He thinks we should all be willing to travel only where (and when) the trains will take us, like good little Marxists. Car ownership is immoral and unethical, commuting is a great evil, and we should all sacrifice (even if we don't have to) just to be like him and the rest of the 'Great Generation' had to during WWII.

He's amusing, but if you're going to try to argue with him, be ready for the long haul - he'll sit here and maniacally respond 3 or 4 times to every one of your posts, and while the incremental lunacy is sometimes amusing, it often leaves you feeling sorry for watching the output of a ravaged and wasted mind.

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

"Oh nota, there you go again."

Wasn't Reagan famous for saying that?

Didn't Reagan have alzheimers?

"Doing away with roads?"

Hmmm. Musta' been some train-troll who rambles on incessantly about car ownership being immoral, how we wouldn't need roads if it weren't for some great government conspiracy to make us drive cars, how it's all the fault of Social Security and the Chinese and .... wait, that sounds like the stuff you keep saying, Jackie.

Since you're not too good on understanding posts, jackie, I was responding to someone who suggested not improving the road, but lowering the speed limit on the current one. Great plan! Let's make it an hour drive from Ottawa to Lawrence - I'm sure people will keep driving up there to spend their sales tax dollars to support the mT!

"So you try to come off as a conservative yet while we are trillions of dollars in debt we should be out building new super roads so you can get to that far away job faster and shame, shame, doing it putting us into more debt?"

Psssst: Hey jackie - believe it or not, I don't drive west to 59, north to Lawrence, and then back east to get to the KC metro. Maybe you do - but then, you're probably lost most of the time you're behind the wheel.

"Now you are sounding like a modern day conservative instead the kind I remember, typical boomer, take it all, you are entitled."

Uh huh. As someone who's on these message boards daily whining that not enough of my tax dollars are being used to support your lazy a**, jackie, that's pretty rich.

"And surely you have already heard about all the nasty truck traffic on 23rd that makes so many want to force the bypass through."

Um - jackie?

Where is that truck traffic coming west along 23rd street (hopefully soon along the bypass) coming from, again? The south, you say? What, they're driving west from Gardner past Baldwin, north to Lawrence, then what - they drive east along 23rd street, turn around, and come back?

Have you had that tinfoil adjusted recently, jackie?

"And to top it all off, check out peak oil, we are there"

Oh, forgot to mark my calendar. What day is that, again, jackie? Was that next Tuesday or next Wednesday? And was that before or after noon, 'cause I really would like to plan on whether I can go out to lunch before my car turns into a pumpkin.

"It is kind of hard to understand"

Most things are for you.

But what the heck - even though I've explained this to you a hundred or so times, let's try it again:

jackie, most people don't think like you. Most people don't think cars are the 'Great Satan.' Most people have chosen a lifestyle that gives them the freedom and flexibility and convenience to go where they want when they want. Most people aren't living in the 19th century any more, jackie.

I agree with you that arriving to ones destination safely is important and you listed a few reasons why it is dangerous but unfortunately a larger road, especially one that will be moving more truck traffic, is not the solution to the problem, all one has to do is think of K-10. There is road the seldom does one not see the potential for nasty accidents all the time.

What we need so all those who really shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car, untrained, not physically or mentality up to the task, intoxicated, those who would much rather be conducting other business is a transportation system that leaves the driving up to professionals. Lawrence had a train connection to Ottawa and further south that ran twice a day. There is some discussion whether the old rail bed isn't in fact still reclaimable to be used for rail. Perhaps we need to pursue these options quickly instead of roads as the effects of peak oil come home and people wish they had an other option that is affordable.

This is probably the best use of money I've seen from the gov't in a long long time. I use this road on a weekly basis. Every week it's another close call. From the old lady doing 45, to the young idiot doing 75 and passing on the solid yellow line. many of you are right, this road will not solve all accidents. But it will keep people from missing the stop sign and being T-boned by a passing truck, or running head-on into oncoming traffic. This road will give people more line of sight to avoid the deer that cross throughout. and it will give these homeowners a little more comfort when pulling out of their driveways.

I see plenty of naysayers on here, clammering about poor pleasant grove and it will never look the same, or why o why do we need more roads. If there weren't roads, you'd have probably never seen how pretty pleasant grove was to begin with.

to me, this new road increases my opportunity to arrive safely every time i go visit my daughter. and that makes it an important project in my book.

merrill (Anonymous) says…

New 4 lane highways =faster driving not safer driving. K-10 is the absolute perfect example.

The four-lane K-10 is a hell of a lot safer than the old two-lane K-10, Richard.

New roads bring more traffic not safer traffic. New roads are pork barrel projects for the most part = higher taxes.

More snow removal and salt = higher taxes

More state troopers too control speeding drivers = more troopers = more trooper vehicles = more taxes

So, apparently, in Richard's world, the ideal scenario is to let all the existing highways return to gravel and dust, and since slower is better, we all go back to horses and buggies.

Richard likes to think of himself as "progressive," but his ideas are actually very regressive.

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

"...We have all the roads we could possibly use but as we discussed already about the road used by farmers that you want to make more dangerous for those farmers by encouraging more traffic..."

Obviously, you aren't very familiar with roads and road safety especially in rural areas. I grew up in SW Kansas. It was a big improvement when they finally made US-54 a super two. They added passing lanes as well as improved the shoulders in many places.

Whether you want to believe it or not shoulders are a great improvement to a road. A perfect example is one of your favorite roads that you want to hold back progress. Saturday, cyclists were riding that very road. All it would take would be one wrong move and an accident could happen because there is NO real shoulder available.

Why do you insist on holding back rural areas? Do you think all rural residents are backwards and slow pokes? I suppose you are also upset that the federal government is spending 7.2 billion dollars on rural broadband as rural areas as if you are going to keep them on second rate roads driving slower then might as well keep them with slower communications as well. Maybe you are also against rural electric coops?

@momathoma - I think the "fix" for getting to topeka is to take the turnpike. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't do that to avoid the meager tolls.

I would concur with another poster that suggested it get downgraded to a county road and "US 40" be diverted onto the turnpike. Anything to make it less appealing to commuters would help.

"And you do realize that there wouldn't be talk of building a huge truck stop in Lawrence along those roads or bypass, it was in the Journal World a few months ago, in order to pick up that traffic if someone didn't expect the traffic don't you?"

Lawrence speculators once again. No solid reason or data to back it up. There was one at 23rd and Haskell that failed big time.

So long as the truck stop needs no tax dollars. It must a private venture through and through including the total cost of ALL new infrastructure.

"If their destination is KC, they'll stay on I-35. If their destination is Topeka, they'll simply take the Turnpike north from Emporia. If they want a scenic drive, they can get off at US-75. They wouldn't go up US-59 and then back track."

You understand that the trains will be stopping at a huge facility being built in Gardner don't you? That is why they trucks will be leaving from there and on 56 and 59. They aren't going to be stopping at Emporia. And you do realize that there wouldn't be talk of building a huge truck stop in Lawrence along those roads or bypass, it was in the Journal World a few months ago, in order to pick up that traffic if someone didn't expect the traffic don't you?

"(I wonder if the same kind of people existed centuries ago when the Romans built their roads. Perhaps they complained of all the horse manure that would ruin their community, or speeding chariot drivers who would kill women, children, and the elderly.)"

You are aware that the roads already exist don't you? We have all the roads we could possibly use but as we discussed already about the road used by farmers that you want to make more dangerous for those farmers by encouraging more traffic, we need to have some serious improvements in what it takes to be allowed to drive. Perhaps more than a once in a lifetime driver's test and an open book written test and perhaps enforcement that gets people's attention. And to top it all off, check out peak oil, we are there, and if we do come out of the recession it will be waiting to knock us back on our butts. Billions of dollars being used on road projects is insane at this time.

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

“Of course, no mention will be made of the huge intermodal truck depot planned for Gardner, you know, the one providing access from trucks coming north packed with goods from Mexico, the one our tax dollars are paying for without any kind of regional vote, the one that will require more 6-lane highways through the country side, and the one that will ultimately put more Americans out of work (unless they're willing to work for Mexican wages).”

Right. The goods will come in by rail, be transferred to trucks, and then those trucks - rather than just go up the entrance ramp to I-35 that's right there - will drive all the way west to Baldwin, north to Lawrence, then get on I-70 to go back east to I-35.

Believe it or not, smoker, your average truck driver isn't as stupid as someone who believes that's going to happen.

NotaJayhawk, That is the part of the argument that never made sense to me. I cannot imagine why massive amounts of trucks would come up US-59. I-35 is going to be a super highway from Mexico up to Canada. So why get off of it, to go up US-59? It makes no sense.

If their destination is KC, they'll stay on I-35. If their destination is Topeka, they'll simply take the Turnpike north from Emporia. If they want a scenic drive, they can get off at US-75. They wouldn't go up US-59 and then back track.

What traffic comes up US-59 is probably needing to get to Baldwin, Lawrence, or somewhere nearby. So why these people proclaim coming gloom and doom for a highway improvement is beyond me.

(I wonder if the same kind of people existed centuries ago when the Romans built their roads. Perhaps they complained of all the horse manure that would ruin their community, or speeding chariot drivers who would kill women, children, and the elderly.)

New 4 lane highways =faster driving not safer driving. K-10 is the absolute perfect example.

Many reckless 18 wheeler drivers will be crowding the highways. And tearing up the roadways = higher taxes.

New roads bring more traffic not safer traffic. New roads are pork barrel projects for the most part = higher taxes.

More snow removal and salt = higher taxes

More state troopers too control speeding drivers = more troopers = more trooper vehicles = more taxes

Oh nota, there you go again. Doing away with roads? Did they hide the current 59 from you? Still out there, I can assure you. Nobody is taking away the current roads just think it is an incredible extravagance to build to parallel highways when the effects of peak oil will soon be taking there toll.

So we don't want to have expected higher levels of driver's skills and enforcement implemented and instead we'll put the same bad drivers out on a faster road and just hope they don't do the same bonehead things they do on 10?

So you try to come off as a conservative yet while we are trillions of dollars in debt we should be out building new super roads so you can get to that far away job faster and shame, shame, doing it putting us into more debt? It doesn't matter what pot the money is in when overall we aren't going to be able to pay what we owe now. Now you are sounding like a modern day conservative instead the kind I remember, typical boomer, take it all, you are entitled.

And the amazing thing as pointed out by logrithmic, correct as usual, is indeed it is truck traffic that will be using the road, people in Lawrence are talking about a massive truck stop just to service those trucks coming from Gardner. You may not know it but there is life west of west Lawrence with lots of stores that sell all those imported goods. And surely you have already heard about all the nasty truck traffic on 23rd that makes so many want to force the bypass through. But what is precious about that is we will be funding the road that brings the goods from Mexico and China but since China already owns us maybe it does make sense. But what happens if they decide they don't want to be paid in dollars anymore?

Oh gosh, since I mentioned the bypass I hope this isn't deleted also like other comments made about the bypass were.

logrithmic (Anonymous) says…

"Enjoy your highway rightwingers."

Lordie but you're a tool, loggie. Only rightwingers drive cars? Only rightwingers buy the products that get delivered by truck?

By all means, let's do away with the roads, woodie. Then you fine folks in Larryville can see what it really costs to keep those empty buses on the road, when people from out of town stop driving to Lawrence and the sales tax dollars dry up. And I guess you could buy local, loghead - but as nobody around here manufactures computers, I guess we won't be seeing your posts any more (hey - bonus!).

"Slower speed limits and more patrols are a low cost way to ensure safety. Why was KDOT so resistant to putting up stoplights on the 2-lane road? Or even 4-way stops? Doesn't sound so “safe” to me."

Perhaps when you're old enough to drive you'll understand. A great deal of accidents happen at stop lights, loggie - one reason more and more toll roads are disappearing, because too many fatal accidents happen when someone's stopped on a highway. Yeah, better law enforcement - on a two-lane road without much for shoulders, let's have a police officer standing outside a stopped car over the crest of a hill or around a curve - now THAT'S safe.

"I encourage those going over to Olathe to drive down to Baldwin City and drive over to Gardner sometime."

I drive that way every single day, loghead. Have you? I haven't seen a single accident along that stretch since they raised the limit.

"Of course, no mention will be made of the huge intermodal truck depot planned for Gardner, you know, the one providing access from trucks coming north packed with goods from Mexico, the one our tax dollars are paying for without any kind of regional vote, the one that will require more 6-lane highways through the country side, and the one that will ultimately put more Americans out of work (unless they're willing to work for Mexican wages)."

Right. The goods will come in by rail, be transferred to trucks, and then those trucks - rather than just go up the entrance ramp to I-35 that's right there - will drive all the way west to Baldwin, north to Lawrence, then get on I-70 to go back east to I-35.

Believe it or not, smoker, your average truck driver isn't as stupid as someone who believes that's going to happen.

momathoma (Anonymous) says…

"...my husband died on highway 40 almost 5 years ago because he made a mistake and passed someone and there was nowhere to bail off the side of the road….more attention should be paid to all the high risk areas of each and every highway in order to help insure the safety of travelers everywhere. Hopefully the improvements will help decrease accidents on 59, but lets see some effort to help decrease them everywhere……"

Sorry to hear about your loss -- regardless if it was yesterday or 5 years ago. We all hate it when people we care about die -- especially if it is before their natural time...

I concur with your assessment of US-40. I've lived in the area almost 30 years and always felt that US 40 from the Stull Road turn-off to Topeka was the most dangerous road of all of them around here. I don't know why we don't hear more about accidents on it.

My personal thought is that because there would be SO much work to make that road safe, that they should downgrade it to just a county road in hopes of discouraging people from using it. I personally think they should reroute US 40 onto Stull Road, and go straight to Topeka by going onto 53 Road to Forbes Field instead of dog legging up to 45th Street. Granted Stull road and 53rd street have up and down hills, but that is a lot safer than the winding back and forth of the current US 40. Plus it might help business at Forbes field if it was more convenient to get to. It might also help if I-70 were not toll roads. I wonder if some people take US-40 jut to safe safe.

I've also seen cyclists take US 40, and I keep wondering if one day there will be a fatality between a cyclist and a driver. I take US 40 now and then, but in all honesty it is my last choice. Sure there are worse roads in the nation -- like Pacific highway 101 or the road to Big Spur south of the bay area. They make US-40 look easy. But for locals, it is our worse road.

livingstone (Anonymous) says…

"There isn't such a thing call “a safer road”."

A patently ludicrous statement. Having multiple lanes moving in one direction, allowing drivers to pass slower-moving vehicles without crossing over into the oncoming-traffic lanes, is inherently safer.

If more lanes doesn't make travel safer, stone, why is everyone clamoring for dedicated bicycle lanes?

"Obviously, KDOT cannot provide a good answer to the above questions."

Or they already did. If there's federal highway dollars in play, they justified it when they applied for the money. Someone within the DOT asked (and answered) those questions when the road was proposed. Many projects of this nature involve public input - do you know if any hearings were held for this project (and have you ever bothered to get off your lazy butt and attend one anyway)?

Believe it or not, projects that cost a couple of hundred million dollars generally aren't undertaken on a whim. The fact that nobody knocked on YOUR door and asked if you had any questions doesn't change the likelihood that they were asked. The fact that you don't know the answers doesn't mean the answers didn't justify the road improvements.

Ahh, no mention of the $250 million price tag at a time when the state is cutting budgets for everything from salaries and income tax refunds to health departments and education.

Enjoy your highway rightwingers. You really deserve it. Damn the environment, the farmland, the woodland. Just more fodder for our explosives, demolition, bulldozing, burning, and trashing.

Rightwingers love highways like this. It's employment for one (tax subsidized employment - not to mention the continues maintenance and repaving that no doubt will supply endless profits to the highway construction company).

This lie about safety. Slower speed limits and more patrols are a low cost way to ensure safety. Why was KDOT so resistant to putting up stoplights on the 2-lane road? Or even 4-way stops? Doesn't sound so "safe" to me.

Instead we had to 6-lane the highway - simply to accomodate the truck traffic from the Sprawlmart truck depot in Ottawa (which has only been mentioned once by this newspaper in its coverage - notice it was omitted here).

If KDOT is so concerned about safety, why does it "RAISE" the speed limit on 56 Highway between Gardner and the "new" 6-lane 59 Highway? I encourage those going over to Olathe to drive down to Baldwin City and drive over to Gardner sometime. You'll see new 60 mph speed limits put up just east of Baldwin City right through the new suburban sprawl there. Neighborhoods dump onto 56 Highway there, but no, let's raiise the speed limit! That's safety for you.

Clearly KDOT wants an increase in accident on 56 Highway. That way they can make the same case as they did on 59 Highway - that we need to 6-lane the highway for "safety." Of course, no mention will be made of the huge intermodal truck depot planned for Gardner, you know, the one providing access from trucks coming north packed with goods from Mexico, the one our tax dollars are paying for without any kind of regional vote, the one that will require more 6-lane highways through the country side, and the one that will ultimately put more Americans out of work (unless they're willing to work for Mexican wages). Which is perfectly fine to the rightwing power structure....

God bless!

Isn't it true they decided to start construction in Franklin County because starting in Douglas County would've been met with protests, vandalism and lawsuits by the Earth Nazis?

Just wait until 50,000 cars are driving down 23rd Street everyday when 4 lane 59 opens. I think the citizens will be putting the nutjobs on a bus out of town so the SLT can get finished.

i dare someone to just try to graph this sentence:

Here in the middle, Jason Van Nice pores over a set of plans — hundreds of pages detailing locations for rock, concrete and steel that will form a new four-lane freeway, one with such limited access and improved sight lines and roadside shoulders that driver safety will be expected to rise, well, exponentially.

paragraphs and sentences are two separate things mark!

There isn't such a thing call "a safer road". Obviously, it's a media propaganda/hype, and a marketing tool to build a road across an environmentally sensitive area.

Most of the accidents are caused by the drivers, even though they could blame the road conditions. Now, don't tell me just because you build a "better" road, I can speed through the highway even when the conditions are less than ideal?

Here are the questions KDOT need to answer before they can claim that this highway is safer: What are the causes of the accidents on that stretch? What have your new designs done to decrease the rate of accidents base on the causes of accidents that you have found?

Obviously, KDOT cannot provide a good answer to the above questions. Why? Most of the accidents might have been due to drunk drivers, people who sped, some new drivers who don't obey the rules etc. There is no ways of tying their new design strategy to their new solutions. In short, it's just another marketing tool to promote the new highway. KDOT... please use other words than a "safer" highway... why? Because you'll be held to your words. Someone will keep this piece of news, and when the accident rates go up... they will write an article and publish right here... on LJ World or in a newspaper in Topeka.

Good luck!

Haven't been out that way in a while, but it looks like the beautiful area around Pleasant Grove has been ruined.

A safer road means people can pay even less attention to driving than they already do.