South Lawrence Trafficway

[route56]

Although the proposed re-alignment of K-10 on the southeast side of Lawrence continues to be holed up by a lawsuit challenging the Environmental Impact Statement and a lack of funding for construction, work is underway on the mitigation called for in the EIS.  Recently, Senator Roberts and KDOT Secretary Miller toured the wetlands:

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/may/27/roberts-touts-slt-component-high-tech-corridor-sta/

It what appears to be a new record: Mike Caron wrote this editorial response:

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/may/29/green-lipstick/

I'm planning on writing a response to this letter, but, like Sun Tzu, it helps to know your opposition. I managed to exchange a few emails with Mr. Caron. His view (as well as many others opposed to the 32nd Street SLT) is that the EIS process was a "hack job" and that any reasonable person would reject 32nd Street SLT.

Also, when he refers to "10 lanes," he's referring to the combined K-10 and 31st Street. 31st Street is the real "wild card" here, because there are indeed wetlands on both sides of the existing roadway, and almost everybody anticipates that it will be 4 lanes some day.  If you relate the anticipated 31st Street widening together with the SLT, it's clear that a direct impact on the wetlands is unavoidable. As a letter writer, I have to explain to the everyday people why placing 10 lanes here is better than placing 4 lanes here and 6 lanes elsewhere

Comments would be appreciated

Richie Kennedy
Kansas Highways

[bugo]

They need to hurry up and build it, because traffic on 23rd Street was awful 8 years ago.  I can't imagine how bad it is now.

They also need to build a freeway from the K-10/I-70 interchange north to meet US 59 near where it meets US 24.  And reroute US 59 onto this new road.  I read somewhere that this won't be happening, but it is still needed.

[route56]

This comment was posted in the J-W comment board today.

There is abundant evidence in KDOT's own correspondence, and the manner in which HNTB configured the south of the river alternative, to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the EIS was "cooked"  from the start to show exactly what KDOT wanted to demonstrate: that going south of the river was "more expensive"  and less viable than paving the wetlands.

The highway engineer who was hired by the Prairie Band Pottawatomie Nation had no trouble finding a long list of ways that HNTB had deliberately inflated costs and used "apples and oranges"  in making things come out the way KDOT wanted them to appear, supporting the 32nd Street plan. Those who do not understand the process actually think impartial government scientists and engineers "studied"  the options. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality KDOT contracts with someone like HNTB, who has more inbreeding with that agency than anything Eisenhower warned about in his famous "military-industrial complex"  speech. Check out Deb Miller's resume for a start. The list of HNTB staff who used to work for KDOT, and vice versa, is long and revealing. They know how to stroke one another for fun and profit. Guys like Richie and George get their shorts in a knot worrying about commies under every woodpile, but they pay little attention to the way government and corporate entities create lucrative merry-go-rounds that are the primary welfare system they should be concerned about. No entity in the federal government has been more corrupted by this system of back scratching than the Corps of Engineers, an agency that grew fat budgets and bureaucracies feeding powerful committee chairs expensive pork for the homefolks.

[J N Winkler]

Could someone please let me know if there is a real argument in there?  Attacking Deb Miller for having worked for HNTB during the 1990's is a bit much--do they want Dean Carlson and Mike Rees back?

[route56]

Could someone please let me know if there is a real argument in there?  Attacking Deb Miller for having worked for HNTB during the 1990's is a bit much--do they want Dean Carlson and Mike Rees back?

I think he's saying that Deb Miller is no different than Dean Carlson - and that the EIS isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Seeing how I've sent you a copy of the EIS in question, i have to ask you - do *you* think that the EIS is a 'sham job.'

[J N Winkler]

No, I don't think the EIS is a sham job.  I think it is very up-front about the fact that a compromise had to be made between avoidance and mitigation in order to retain the traffic advantages associated with the 31st Street alignment.  I also think some of the comments quoted upthread fail to reflect the fact that USACE was involved in its Clean Water Act regulatory function, not as a builder of levees and other flood control projects.

USACE is a tough regulator and has had no problem telling state DOTs that they must shut down construction when permit violations are found--in the case of a construction project in TxDOT's Houston district, the shutdown lasted many months and led to millions of dollars in added costs (all of which TxDOT had to pay) because a new contractor had to be found to complete the work.

Regarding Deb Miller and her HNTB ties, it is true that HNTB was contracted to compile the EIS, which strictly speaking was for a Section 404 permit which would have been (and was) granted by USACE's Kansas City office.  I have not checked the statutes and regulations which govern consultant selection for KDOT design contracts, but I believe HNTB's involvement in the environmental phase means that it cannot be chosen to prepare PS&E for the SLT (if and when it eventually gets built).  This is because HNTB is hired to provide impartial advice and would have a conflict of interest if it both compiled the environmental documentation and prepared the PS&E.  In such a situation it would have an incentive to push for alignments at the preliminary design stage (when the EIS is prepared) that would maximize its fees for the later final design work.  In fact, if I worked for HNTB and expected to get the contract for final design, I would probably go for the 40th Street alignment because it would be longer, probably have more bridge square footage overall, and would be easier to defend as the avoidance alternative (thus increasing the chances of its receiving environmental approval, if not construction approval due to funding issues).

As I understand it, KDOT currently contracts out about 75% of its design work, including nearly all of its major construction projects.  I don't doubt that consultants will handle final design for the SLT.  There are many other consultants regularly working in Kansas which can handle it, however:  Cook, Flatt, & Strobel; George Butler & Associates; Burns & McDonnell; Wilson & Company; Professional Engineering Consultants; etc.  This list does not include Landline Engineering, which (AIUI) pushed hard for the SLT about 15 years ago because it was hoping for a share of the design work.

My sense has always been that the opponents of the SLT are opposed to construction of a freeway in the SLT corridor full stop, regardless of alignment, and will keep searching for procedural faults until they either succeed in getting KDOT to abandon the project, or the SLT is eventually built.  At some stage the Legislature is going to have to say "Enough is enough" and commit to funding construction of the SLT.  I don't see that happening soon, however, because the Legislature has stopped short of funding another comprehensive highway program.

[Revive 755]

It what appears to be a new record: Mike Caron wrote this editorial response:

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/may/29/green-lipstick/

I recall reading somewhere that the Baker Wetlands (the ones the SLT is supposed to go through I think) are actually artificial, constructed in the past possible for some other mitagation project, so I'm not entirely buying the historical significance to Native Americans.

I have to wonder if it would not be better for KDOT to start looking at an eastern US 59 bypass of Lawrence to provide access better access from K-10 to the turnpike.

[J N Winkler]

I have to wonder if it would not be better for KDOT to start looking at an eastern US 59 bypass of Lawrence to provide access better access from K-10 to the turnpike.

This wouldn't work.  Unless it left the existing US 59 alignment a good bit south of Lawrence, it would effectively be the SLT until it cleared Lawrence to the east.  If it followed a routing more or less perpendicular to the 31st Street SLT alignment, it would have to be quite far to the east in order to avoid large acquisitions of residential housing (which would dwarf the SLT in terms of controversy), and at that point it would be no easier for Lawrence residents to access than the existing K-10 freeway.  It would be of some benefit to medium-distance traffic outside Lawrence for which the I-35 approach to Kansas City is inconvenient, but IMO there is not enough of this type of traffic to justify a freeway-standard facility.  There are also routing issues.  A Rapid City-style TRUCK US 59 solution might not work if the connection back to existing US 59 would have to be via the Turnpike.

KDOT has other reasons for continuing to push the SLT--K-10 is scheduled for widening and its interchange with K-7, which is currently a cloverleaf, is projected to be a four-level stack.  If it is eventually built, it could very well be Kansas' first because the consultants responsible for the I-235/US 54 study defied community opposition (and, IMO, good sense) to recommend a stack/turban hybrid rather than a straight stack for this interchange.  This kind of provision makes more sense if K-10 is part of a closed freeway network rather than, as at present, a full freeway changing into a surface arterial.

[route56]

I recall reading somewhere that the Baker Wetlands (the ones the SLT is supposed to go through I think) are actually artificial, constructed in the past possible for some other mitagation project, so I'm not entirely buying the historical significance to Native Americans.

The entire Wakarusa valley was once a perrenial wetland, and in fact two tracts within the Baker complex are considered 'virgin' wetlands. The restoration of the wetlands was the brainchild of Ivan Boyd of Baker University, and was *not* a mitigation project.

Many within the wetlands organization contend that the surplusing of the tract was ethically and/or legally questionable (suruplusing of lands used for tribal education were limited at the time were limited to 20 acres)