Advertisement

Previous poll Next poll

Are you ready for the SLT to be built?

Response Percent Votes
I was ready 10 years ago
 
78% 1793
I’ll never be ready for it to be built
 
17% 400
I’ve become ready for it to be built recently
 
4% 92
Total 2285

Comments

sherbert 5 years, 2 months ago

I think it's been more like 20 years, that's about the status quo for Lawrence to get anything done.

gccs14r 5 years, 2 months ago

There's no option for "I'm ready for it to be built somewhere else", so I had to choose never. There is no good reason to build it in the wetlands, but there are plenty of reasons not to.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 2 months ago

People claim to dislike pork barrel politics for developers which is exactly what this is not to mention a dumb idea.

Why is it a dumb idea? It is not planned for the long term traffic distribution. Not only that there are county roads that need improving which could carry traffic to K-10 quite systematically and efficiently. There are many roads leading to E1900 rd which offers a K-10 interchange. Get out local road maps.

1000 rd for instance not only carries traffic to E1900 rd it also goes straight to JOCO.

BTW E 1900rd is also County road 1057 and the K-10 interchange bridge is numbered 1057.

Are there real life options? Of course.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 2 months ago

1985--The Chamber of Commerce Transportation Committee,county commissioners,developers and other interested parties convened a non public meeting to discuss a different plan over and above the recommended SOR route thus the obsolete trafficway plan.

In 1971 the State Highway Commission recommended a BYPASS for Lawrence NOT a trafficway to be built south of the Wakie river with absolutely no impact on the wetlands. The bypass is far more practical for future highway demands. Douglas County needs a bypass NOT a trafficway.

Spend tax dollars on a more practical application. Introduce appropriate plans designed to meet future needs, a plan that could bring Johnson, Douglas and Leavenworth counties together as partners. This requires bridges across the river. All three counties would benefit, thus would assist funding the project. Then, turn the entire road project over to the Kansas Turnpike Authority. Turnpike fees would maintain the highway.

County Road 1057 Interchange and Kansas Highway 10 could be joined together by way of I-70 connectors going North of Hwy 10 meeting a Tonganoxie turnpike interchange.

This concept accomplishes many things. It services: • Johnson and Douglas counties’ traffic going to northwest Lawrence or Topeka. • the Eudora Business Park east of 1057. • East Hills Business Park and the southeast Lawrence industrial park. • the Lawrence airport. And it: • diverts traffic around the city. • keeps the SLT out of the wetlands. • reduces congestion for morning and afternoon commuters. • might save Douglas County taxpayers millions of dollars. • is prudent use of tax dollars. • eliminates the need for an eastern bypass. • eliminates much large truck traffic on 23rd Street. • allows KTA fees to pay for the highway and the maintenance.

Building a road through the wetlands at any cost is simply not prudent use of tax dollars. Considering that the two lane western leg opened at a cost of $52,000,000(million) taxpayers cannot afford a trafficway and a bypass which is on the table. Who knows what the cost will be at this point in time?

Taxpayers doing the right thing the first time is all taxpaying citizens can afford. I say improve existing county roadways thus saving an estimated $150 million.

Zachary Stoltenberg 5 years, 2 months ago

52 million because Eco Whackjobs kept fighting it. Just build it already!

nut_case 5 years, 2 months ago

We've probably spent more on lawyers and lawsuits that it would have cost to build the thing magnetically levitated over the swamp.

somebodynew 5 years, 2 months ago

As much as I am in favor of this and was more than ready 10 years ago, I do have to wonder if this thing that was designed over 20 years ago would be a proper design for today's traffic loads. And I do NOT care about the "swamp", I am just trying to think rationally (I know that is a seldom seen concept here) about how traffic volumns and patterns have changed over the years this thing has been fought.

It really does need to be built, but hard-headness on either side may not lead to a truly productful and useful road.

NoSpin 5 years, 2 months ago

The "ecologists" would rather have cars sitting at red lights on 23rd street burning extra green house emissions.

gccs14r 5 years, 2 months ago

The wetlands was there for thousands of years before Lawrence was even founded. White men with a political agenda drained the wetlands and tried to get imprisoned Native American children to farm it, without success. After several decades of this, they finally gave up. Eventually, the drains were removed and the wetlands was again able to hold water. Now it has a thriving ecosystem, but another batch of white men with a political agenda has come along to try to destroy it permanently.

50YearResident 5 years, 2 months ago

What ever happened to "majority rules"? I see 83% want it to be built now and 17% are dragging their feed for various reasons. Those 17% need to spent 12 hours on 23rd St watching the traffic and counting the amount of vehicles with more than 6 wheels. They might change their opinion on the need!

Amy Heeter 5 years, 2 months ago

Yeah well everybody has a voice. Remember Cindy Lou Who?

Bladerunner 5 years, 2 months ago

Wow. An overwhelming majority in favor of it. Time for a vote.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

merrill (Anonymous) says…

"It is not planned for the long term traffic distribution. Not only that there are county roads that need improving which could carry traffic to K-10 quite systematically and efficiently. There are many roads leading to E1900 rd which offers a K-10 interchange. Get out local road maps."

And visitors to the city are supposed to have those local road maps, myrtle?

Tell you what - next time you feel like strolling into Kansas City (or the rest of the world) on foot, take a walk along those country roads. Maybe the rest of us have something better to be doing than taking an hour to make a 10 minute trip.

BigPrune 5 years, 2 months ago

26 September 2009 at 4:26 a.m. merrill (Anonymous) says…

"Nice toilets Tom.

Hey instead of toilet paper why not encourage residential toilets with a douche. Then dry the butt with a towel. This would also prevent or reduce irritation.

A douche is a device used to introduce a stream of water into the body for medical or hygienic reasons.

This would reduce the need for toilet paper quite substantially."

gsxr600 5 years, 2 months ago

Many of these polls seem random. Is there some new news on the SLT or what? A link of "See related story" would be nice..

jonas_opines 5 years, 2 months ago

"Many of these polls seem random."

Generally, they're unified by the idea that they are all contentious issues, which elicits lots of comments and page clicks.

/no option for either "can't care less" or "better under different alignment," so abstain. It's not going to get built on account of this poll, when a vote's already failed.

scott3460 5 years, 2 months ago

"Mainly so that they could preserve their' disease infested swamp that is man made. "

Please identify the diseases that infest the Baker Wetlands.

puddleglum 5 years, 2 months ago

didn't someone who owns the journal world make a whole lot of money by selling junk farm land that had junk mobile homes thrown on it at the last minute in order to increase the land buyout values by 10 times/acre? and then hurry up and build the first half before anyone figures it out, then make the second half a BIG hullabaloo about meaningless junk in order to keep the eyes of the taxpayer (ultimate loser) off of the super-illegal conflict of interest involving the hired 'buyout manager' and the representative of the land owners' lawyer (oh my god, the same person!) but seriously, if they just turned the western part into a series of dragstrips (collect them all) i would let it go.

mr_right_wing 5 years, 2 months ago

Typical environmentalist tactics, keep it in the courts as long as possible, make it so your opponent just gives up, or runs out of funds.

With this tactic, they (usually) don't lose. I'm hoping this time will be different!

Pave over the artificially created wetlands, and get some of this congestion out of the heart of Lawrence! (So some mosquitoes have one less place to breed...boo hoo.)

honestone 5 years, 2 months ago

With all of the money that the pros have had to spend to keep on their alignment...they could have built it South of the river and we would be using now. Wasn't that their arguement when this fight started...it just cost too much money to build it South of the river... The developers have always been the ones pushing this idea so it would increase the value of thier properties. Time to pull your head out of the sand people...they could give a crap about your commute to JoCo...it's just about the bucks

mtnfreak 5 years, 2 months ago

I've always wondered how the environmentalists rationalize boycotting the SLT to save the wetlands when the alternative is to clog 23rd St with idling trucks. How much additional pollution have we added to our environment because of this traffic congestion? I'm all for saving the natural environment when it makes sense, but shouldn't the health of a human come before plants?

Plus, engineers can design and relocate wetlands. It is done all the time as part of permitting. The wetlands wouldn't disappear - they would just be relocated.

gccs14r 5 years, 2 months ago

The SLT will not reduce traffic counts on 23rd. That's OK, because there isn't a congestion problem on 23rd.

Kaw Pickinton 5 years, 2 months ago

Nice poll options LJW, 1,000,000 poll w/ loaded answers your next goal?

igby 5 years, 2 months ago

No need for it know since half the jobs these commuters were driving too are gone now!

Build a big two lane round-a-bout at 31st and LA and the problem will be solved.

Jean1183 5 years, 2 months ago

gccs14r>>> "Eventually, the drains were removed and the wetlands was again able to hold water."

Remove the berms/dams and eventually the wetlands will drain and be dry again.

There....FIXED!

jonas_opines 5 years, 2 months ago

It's not going to get built on account of this poll, when a vote's already failed.


"The only vote that's ever been taken on the SLT was an overwhelming “Yes!”

And "failed" to illicit any progress. Any other reading of my post would have broken the comparison between the reference to the majority poll above. I know it's hard for you, but you should try to think rather than just howl out one-line platitudes like:

"Build the road!"

brian1981 5 years, 2 months ago

The wetlands are artificial in the first place. They aren't Yosemite Valley, yet the local hippies keep holding them in that sort of regard.

50YearResident 5 years, 2 months ago

The stupid comment of the day winner.....

"The SLT will not reduce traffic counts on 23rd. That's OK, because there isn't a congestion problem on 23rd."

olddesk 5 years, 2 months ago

The so called SLT was domed from the beginning. If you think back to the 80's you had a County Engineer and the Treasurer having their pillow talks and then meeting privatley with a few local investors that needed to be bailed out. They thought they could cram what they wanted down everyone else's throught, after all they had been doing it for years. But when it started coming apart they made sure it got started, come hell or hight water, on the end that helped the few pay back some of the local banks at taxpayer expense. Then the pillow talking County Engineer and Treasurer left town and here we are today still wasting time and money.

FarneyMac 5 years, 2 months ago

A domed highway? Sounds awesome, olddesk. Where do I get one of those?

boxturtle 5 years, 2 months ago

This road is a big waste of money. I do not want to pay millions in taxes in a worthless road with 20 years of bad planning behind it. No one in Lawrence will use this road and we will all have to pay for it. Not worth it at all, so many better uses for our tax payer money. And it will easily hurt the 23rd st. economy. Definitely not something we need at the moment. Trash this project for good.

ralphralph 5 years, 2 months ago

The stars are aligning for SLT. With new US59, and the expected Intermodal now just east of Edgerton on US56, a different level of power is pushing things along. I think it's going to happen.

gccs14r 5 years, 2 months ago

Apparently 50YearResident has never been anywhere with real traffic, which would explain his mistaken belief that 23rd suffers from congestion twice per day.

sinkorswim 5 years, 2 months ago

jumpin_catfish (Anonymous) says…

If you build it I will drive on it.

Me tooooooo!!! Build it already!!!

gccs14r 5 years, 2 months ago

If I lived out by 6th and Wakarusa and wanted to get to KC during the morning commute, I'd get on the Turnpike at MM197 and avoid Lawrence altogether. Taking the SLTwo-lane all the way around Lawrence (even if it were finished) would be a huge waste of time.

ozzynbn 5 years, 2 months ago

gcc14r........

either you are naive or a liar. There IS congestion on 23rd street at least 2 twice a day M-F and on game days. And its bad. I know, because I live close by. Even 19th St gets hit hard.

Now for west Lawrence.... if you want to get to Overland :Park, Olathe, etc.... the turnpike is a terrible choice.

The SLT is long overdue to be built.

KsTwister 5 years, 2 months ago

Look at the money that could have been saved repaving truck damages at this cities expense. The wetlands along 31st did not even exist when I was a kid. If you cannot go through then go over it.

CLARKKENT 5 years, 2 months ago

BUILD IT, WE WILL COME TO DRIVE ON IT.

IT IS TIME.

gccs14r 5 years, 2 months ago

"There IS congestion on 23rd street at least 2 twice a day M-F and on game days. And its bad. I know, because I live close by. Even 19th St gets hit hard."

Again, what passes for congestion here is just plain old ordinary traffic anywhere else. I've been at a dead stop on several Interstates in various cities over the years. That's congestion. Having to stop for a red light doesn't qualify.

loosecaboose 5 years, 2 months ago

Replace the wetlands with what really belongs there, the tall grass prairie.

bd 5 years, 2 months ago

Problem is , when the new 59 hwy is done you will have a huge 4 lane hwy dumping more traffic on Iowa and 23rd. st! What a mess! Git r done!

kanshawk 5 years, 2 months ago

build it and connect it to i-70 on the east side like it is on the west side.

50YearResident 5 years, 2 months ago

"Again, what passes for congestion here is just plain old ordinary traffic anywhere else. I've been at a dead stop on several Interstates in various cities over the years. That's congestion. Having to stop for a red light doesn't qualify."

"gccs4r", thinks it is perfectly OK to have California freeway traffic on 23rd Street.

This is a Business District not a freeway! Build the by-pass now and send gccs4r back to the big city to enjoy the freeway..

Chad Collins 5 years, 2 months ago

LEEEEEEEEEEEEROYYYYYYYYYYYYYY JENKINS!!!!!!

50YearResident 5 years, 2 months ago

Les, please explain what you do at the wetlands for enjoyment! And keep in mind they are not going away, they are being expanded. Reply?

50YearResident 5 years, 2 months ago

Just as I thought, Les has never been to the wetlands.

lindad 5 years, 2 months ago

This was initially proposed to be a BYPASS, instead of a "2 lane" trafficway. A 2 lane trafficway on the proposed route is just going to shift "some" of congestion from city street, while creating new traffic problems for the SE area of Lawrence. then once we get people usining it " a lot" it will have traffic slowed up "while they build the other 2 lanes". If a real bypass was put in south of the Wakarusa - I would strongly support it. A real south Bypass could have been built as 4 lanes all the way for probably cheaper than the 2 lanes we have now along with the proposed 32nd street route for the trafficway. This would also remove congestion of traffic that is really "going around Lawrence".

gccs14r 5 years, 2 months ago

I want to know who is traveling through Lawrence on the way to somewhere else. It doesn't make any sense to pass through here unless you're going to stop here.

smilboy99 5 years, 2 months ago

I am a biologist and love biodiversity. But the long drag of SLT makes me sick of the wetland activist and other interest groups. Don't get me hate the wetland!

Ricky_Vaughn 5 years, 2 months ago

It would be nice to able to get from one side of town to the other in less than 25 minutes.
There are a lot of people living in Lawrence that don't work here (not many big boy jobs around here due to the city discouraging growth). I don't care if it has to be built around the wetlands...just build the damn thing already.

onetime97 5 years, 2 months ago

So, Ricky if we build a 200 million dollar road for the 500 or so people that would use it from Lawrence, what are you going to finance for us other 99,000 citizens?

Ricky_Vaughn 5 years, 2 months ago

I'd be willing to bet there are more than 500 people that commute to either Topeka or KC everyday. It may attract more business to Lawrence, and eventually grow the tax base.

50YearResident 5 years, 2 months ago

"So, Ricky if we build a 200 million dollar road for the 500 or so people that would use it from Lawrence, what are you going to finance for us other 99,000 citizens?

We are going to finance the expansion of the wetlands that the other 17 people in Lawrence want for their enjoyment that you seem to support.

Ricky_Vaughn 5 years, 2 months ago

Besides onetime, I think you're in the minority on this one. I'd call 80 to 20 a landslide.

coolmarv 5 years, 2 months ago

You're naughty TOB. Too funny though.

skinny 5 years, 2 months ago

It will be built this time no matter what!!

Fangorn 5 years, 2 months ago

No congestion on 23rd Street?! Well, perhaps if the Santa Monica Freeway is your basis for comparison. But when considering local issues, yes, there is a great deal of congestion on 23rd Street. To claim otherwise is simply not reality based.

When I first moved here (37 years after 50YearResident), I was skeptical about the SLT being built across the edge of the wetlands. But finding out that this northern swamp was man-made had a tremendous impact on my opinion - to say the very least.

And if you don't think anyone from Lawrence would use the SLT, try driving from QuikTrip to Walmart on the Haskell-31st Street route around 5:15 any weekday afternoon. My car spends a lot of time spewing hydrocarbon emissions near the wetlands as I wait for my turn to get through the stop sign at the intersection.

UlyssesPro 5 years, 2 months ago

More roads, more traffic, more pollution, YAH!!!!!!! I love the smell of exhaust in the morning. Smells like . . . industry.

Save the Wetlands. Fill the vacencies on Massachusetts before we go building more roads in the name of commerce and business.

lovinlife 5 years, 2 months ago

I am very ready for the SLT to be built ! Not because I'm eager for the traffic relief it is supposed to bring but because I live in a home that will need to be removed in order to build it. Also and more importantly I live in a home less than 50 feet from where they relocated the "Baker Wetlands" and have suffered with Mosquitoes and snakes overrunning our yard since. It's a nightmare to think we will be waiting much longer having to live next to the precious bug infested wetlands ! I just want them to hurry up and do whatever they are going to .

Randall Uhrich 5 years, 2 months ago

If they're planning on making the second half 2-lane like the existing half, they might as well hang it up. Who was the stupid SOB who decided to make it 2-lane, 2-way traffic, anyway? If that's what passes for planning, they should start over with new people.

gccs14r 5 years, 2 months ago

I used to live in Wichita and am frequently over in the Kansas City area on business. I've also driven in the major cities of nearly every State in the Union. Lawrence doesn't have a traffic problem, it has a street maintenance and planning problem. It also has a very vocal minority of people who want to be able to get from 6th and Wakarusa to Overland Park in 20 minutes. Never mind that that's an unreasonable goal and that a completed two-lane SLT won't get them there any faster than 23rd Street does.

Brian Conrad 5 years, 2 months ago

If the enviormentalists truly want wetlands... put your money where your mouth is. hundreds of acres with same soil structure could be purchased to the east and turned to wetlands within a few years. some people just want to mess things up for others..... no real caring.. buy the LAND!

Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 2 months ago

Those wonderful wetlands?

Why is it that I have never seen anyone out there enjoying wading in the mud?

stuckinthemiddle 5 years, 2 months ago

swan_diver that is by far the best summary of the history and philosophy of the SLT that I've read in this paper... thank you...

50YearResident 5 years, 2 months ago

Ron says "Those wonderful wetlands? Why is it that I have never seen anyone out there enjoying wading in the mud."

I agree, I very seldom see anyone visiting the wetlands. With parking for only a few vehicles, the spaces are always empty. More people visit Clinton Lake in one day than visit the wetlands in one Year.

speakmymind 5 years, 2 months ago

I am sure 23rd street carries a lot of traffic that comes thur Lawrence to and from Overland Park and Topeka. And all those trucks and vehicles coming into Lawrence from Kansas City on 10hwy or in from the south on 59 needing to go either direction; The SLT will get them off of 23rd and around our little town. And it's not just benefitting those in West Lawrence.

2002 5 years, 2 months ago

Build the road right and it shouldn't be much of a problem. But that may be the problem; history isn't on the side of doing things right. Clinton Parkway was sold to the public that there would be no commercial development between Lawrence and Clinton. The two lane trafficway is an absolute travesty.

If the enviro-nuts were smart, which they're not, they would hold out for some type of trade off to mitigate the mythical negative impacts. The SLT exposes the County enviro-nuts...they don't want sensitive development, they want NO development.

stuckinthemiddle 5 years, 2 months ago

a while back (maybe a couple years ago or so) someone stated in a comment that if the SLT is built it should be a toll road… and that makes sense… from a conservative point of view we have to stop spending endless amounts of taxpayer money on pet projects that only benefit a small percentage of the population…

let those who want it pay for it…

Fangorn 5 years, 2 months ago

"Lawrence doesn't have a traffic problem, it has a street maintenance and planning problem." In one sense at least this is true. They planned only for traffic patterns and volume and not for the intransigence of a small minority of the community.

stuckinthemiddle: I would assert that even those who do not use the expanded SLT will benefit from it. Anyone who still uses 23rd Street will appreciate the decrease in traffic volume but would not be paying the potential toll. It is reasonable to ask if the tolls collected would cover the cost of administering the collection process for so small a road segment. Otherwise, the tolls would need to be so high as to discourage use of the road, which defeats the purpose of building it in the first place. Perhaps we should build the SLT and put a toll on 23rd Street instead. :)

stuckinthemiddle 5 years, 2 months ago

Fangorn ah yes... or perhaps we should put a toll on all roads... that would lead to people driving less... which would lead to less congestion on all roads... spending less on gasoline... putting less pollutants into the air... people walking more... people riding bikes more... people being healthier...

sounds like a win win win win win win situation...

and... no one's tax dollars would have to be spent on someone else's need to get some place ten minutes faster... another win... I think...

Fangorn 5 years, 2 months ago

stuckinthemiddle: Extensive tolls would need to be balanced against the cost of collecting and administering them. Such toll roads would need to be self-sustaining so as not to be a drain on the rest of the budget. With all the interchanges necessary, this certainly wouldn't be practical (nor would my tongue-in-cheek for 23rd Street). But it certainly would reduce traffic congestion.

Fangorn 5 years, 2 months ago

tongue-in-cheek suggestion. Sorry. Poor proofreading on my part.

gccs14r 5 years, 2 months ago

"I am sure 23rd street carries a lot of traffic that comes thur Lawrence to and from Overland Park and Topeka. And all those trucks and vehicles coming into Lawrence from Kansas City on 10hwy or in from the south on 59 needing to go either direction;"

That makes no sense. There is no reason for a truck to take K-10 to get to Topeka from anywhere in the KC metro area unless it is also making a delivery in Lawrence. There is also no reason for a truck coming from the south to be on 23rd if it's headed for Topeka, and if it's headed for Kansas City, I-35 is a much better route. If a truck is on 23rd, it is because it is making a stop in or originating in Lawrence, and a bypass won't change that.

kmat 5 years, 2 months ago

Ricky_Vaughn (Anonymous) says…

It would be nice to able to get from one side of town to the other in less than 25 minutes. There are a lot of people living in Lawrence that don't work here (not many big boy jobs around here due to the city discouraging growth). I don't care if it has to be built around the wetlands…just build the damn thing already.


What kills me is that I drive on 23rd twice a week during rush hour traffic. The traffic isn't bad at all! It takes me around 10 minutes to get from Haskell to Kasold. If you people call that traffic, you need to visit a real city.

Get a clue people. If you work in KC and live in Lawrence, get a house that makes your commute easier. That's exactly what I did. It's the uppity attitude keeping you on the west side of town. You refuse to live in an area that makes your commute easier. Hell, move to Eudora. Cut even more time off your commute. I know people that have done that too.

But, most people on the west side of town would rather bitch and moan than do something to help themselves. "Poor pity me, build me a road so my commute is easy".

ferrislives 5 years, 2 months ago

The SLT has been discussed since I was in elementary school, and that was over 20 years ago. For those who think that all of the semi's are there for local deliveries, maybe you should ask them when they stop for gas. I'm sure that you'd hear a resounding "no". Why would they go all of the way up to I-70 and pay daily tolls when they can go through Lawrence, disrupting our traffic and environment with no extra fees?

The SLT will be built, and the people against it will need to deal with that fact. They also need to focus on the positive consequences to such a change, because not only will local commuters use that route, but those semi's will as well. Also I use K10 all of the time to get to South Lawrence, instead of going down 23rd street. And I'm sure that others do that as well.

But the SLT is a'comin', and everyone needs to accept that. We will soon have a route from I-70 to K10 in Eudora, and that will make a complete circle of Lawrence similar to I-435. If you look at any decent sized city that is planned well in the first place, they all have a surrounding highway that connects everything. That takes traffic away from the city, and directs it to the highway where it belongs. Also, a new wetlands is being built as we speak, which follows the court-ordered agreement.

The pro-K10 side is dotting their I's and crossing their t's, while the other side is using the same tactics that have worked in the past. But those tactics won't work much longer, just as a toddler's tantrum eventually results in a parent ignoring it while their in time-out.

And to those saying that one lane each way is stupid, I absolutely agree! I think that it should be expanded to at least 2 lanes to make it an efficient route.

I'm sure that everyone will still continue their heated responses to the SLT issue, but it's only getting more heated because even those people realize that the time's almost here. That's my two cents, I've had over 20 years to come to my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

gccs14r 5 years, 2 months ago

"Why would they go all of the way up to I-70 and pay daily tolls when they can go through Lawrence, disrupting our traffic and environment with no extra fees?"

Because it shaves at least a half-hour off the trip, reduces the chance of an accident, and reduces wear on the equipment.

kansasmutt 5 years, 2 months ago

Gitter done so people wont have to drive into Lawrence. Should have been done 15 years ago. 20 lives have been lost due to the stupid illplaned roads into and out of Lawrence. It is by far the worst planned city in the state.

ferrislives 5 years, 2 months ago

“Why would they go all of the way up to I-70 and pay daily tolls when they can go through Lawrence, disrupting our traffic and environment with no extra fees?”

Because it shaves at least a half-hour off the trip, reduces the chance of an accident, and reduces wear on the equipment.

gccs14r: First off, thanks for not going off on me like others in this thread have done. It's nice to have mature dialog.

I have driven both routes numerous times, and I cannot count the times in which the I-35 to I-70 route through KC has construction going on. So with greater traffic, in addition to paying greater fees, will and has discouraged semi driver's from driving that route.

If it was the case that they'd almost always rather take the other route, then we wouldn't see so many of them going through town to get to the already-existing area of K-10. But perhaps I'm wrong; only several semi driver's can tell us.

Anyway, like I stated, this issue has been on the table for so long, and the same people that used to talk about not wanting Lawrence to grow past 60,000 are the one's wanting to stop the SLT. The state and federal governments would not be investing this much time and money on something unless they saw a clear sign of light at the end of the tunnel. And I'm glad that they're building a new wetlands, I hope that will make some of the anti-SLT people feel better. But I doubt it.

gccs14r 5 years, 2 months ago

"I have driven both routes numerous times, and I cannot count the times in which the I-35 to I-70 route through KC has construction going on. So with greater traffic, in addition to paying greater fees, will and has discouraged semi driver's from driving that route."

I-35 to I-70 is only one of several alterntives to get to Topeka and points west from Kansas City, though. I-435 comes to mind. There is also K-7, although that wouldn't be my first choice unless I was already right there. Construction in the KC Metro area does slow down traffic here and there, but the overall benefit of traveling on multi-lane limited access roadway trumps the marginal reduction in travel distance enjoyed by those opting to travel through Lawrence.

honestone 5 years, 2 months ago

The SLT is, and always has been, for the developers. Please don't kid yourself. All the money that has been spent on defending the "wetlands" route could have built a elevated roadway but I bet the developers didn't want that. They wanted their route. 13,000 vs 10,000 is not a landslide. I could care less about the wetlands or the West Lawrence/JoCo commuters. If you build it there must be a toll and no off ramps except at 10 highway and I 70. I would support that

manus_flexibilis 5 years, 2 months ago

Majority of the comments are theoretically de-colonizing the Baker Wetlands!

ferrislives 5 years, 2 months ago

gccs14r (Anonymous) says…

I-35 to I-70 is only one of several alterntives to get to Topeka and points west from Kansas City, though. I-435 comes to mind. There is also K-7, although that wouldn't be my first choice unless I was already right there. Construction in the KC Metro area does slow down traffic here and there, but the overall benefit of traveling on multi-lane limited access roadway trumps the marginal reduction in travel distance enjoyed by those opting to travel through Lawrence.

And that's my point. If they were to build K10 with at least two lanes each way, a good amount of that traffic would go that route to save time and money. I'm specifically talking about the traffic that's heading from Topeka to Johnson County, and vice-versa. I think they'd make a different choice if it was there for them.

Even if only 15% of the traffic that's currently on 23rd street is from out-of-town (I think it's higher), that 15% would make a difference in pollution and congestion for Lawrence. And it would also benefit Lawrencian's who want a different route to I70 from Southeast, South, and East Lawrence.

ferrislives 5 years, 2 months ago

JackRipper, you are in fact the idiot here. I have lived in several cities over my lifetime, and have seen good and bad road systems. And yes, several of those are far worst than Lawrence's. But those cities are also much larger than Lawrence.

As anyone with brains knows, whomever has planned the Lawrence road system has ADD and short term thinking. It's always "what will save me money now" as opposed to "how will this work for our people in 10+ years and how will it save us money in the near future".

23rd Street should have had frontage streets installed long ago. But short-term thinkers let all of those businesses build right up against 23 Street, which has led to a lot of our problems. Also, the stoplight signals aren't timed well throughout the city, which leads to frustration for all drivers.

There's nothing that can be done about 23rd Street not having a proper frontage road system, but if we can reduce the number of cars that travel it, that is always helpful.

So get a life, get some brains, and thanks for resorting to name calling like the little toddler that you are...JackRipper!

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 2 months ago

20 years from now when we are enjoying the SLT and sitting in a better designed wetlands park, enjoying nature, our kids will ask us why it took so long to do what makes such perfect sense.

Well, that's always why good things take so long. They make too much sense.

Michael Caron 5 years, 2 months ago

Blue73harley, like so many posters here, conveniently fails to look beyond the end of his nose to comprehend what is going on. Tonight's traffic back up on 31st, as I strongly suspect he already knows, had a lot to do with the repaving of 23rd, which was down to one lane at times as equipment manouvered through the rush hour mess.

I will not waste my time trying to find room in his Fox News stuffed brain cavity for any serious discussion of this wetland's special cultural, historical and ecological significance. That he would build a souvenir shop beside it if he had the insight to grasp what is there is especially telling.

Hudson Luce 5 years, 2 months ago

Why would someone want to build a road across marshland, when you have freeze-thaw cycles. It'd almost be cheaper to drain the marsh rather than build the road and then come back and rebuild the road year after year. Of course, if the people doing the constant rebuilding are the same people who manipulate City Hall to do their bidding on other development projects, then I could see what the impetus for using a wet-land route over a dry-land route would be.

The other thing that isn't being mentioned any more is any idea that oil and fossil fuels might actually become scarce and really high-priced (not just because of speculation in the commodities markets) and that building roads might be kind of silly. Maybe in the future people will break up the roads and burn the asphalt like coal to keep warm in the winter, or break it up in small pieces to fuel railroad engines... It might make sense to focus on commuter rail, which is 20 times more energy efficient than automotive commuting.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.