At this point, the status of the proposed South Lawrence Trafficway is fairly certain... all legal means of challenging the Environmental Impact Statement have been exhausted, and the Legislature has allocated the money to complete the project.
But, of course, the road's detractors aren't going away that easily....
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/oct/09/south-lawrence-trafficway-legal-fight-ends-passing/
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/oct/13/wetlands-advocates-look-new-ways-stop-construction/
Right now, they're hoping that the political wrangling in Topeka regarding the State budget will lead to having the SLT being de-funded, especially since the project has a $190 million price tag.
I don't think they realize that the money is already being expended for the project. I've paid a visit to the FTP server and noticed that design plans for the SLT are being exchanged.
There is one possible issue that one Mike Ford has suggested could cause a stoppage of construction....
Quote
I guess I have to wait for the bulldozers to hit remains. White people don't stop even they're warned. The Lower Elwha Klallam people near Port Angeles Washington warned the Wash Dept. of Trans (WADOT) not to pursue a construction project for years much as we've warned you all. As the project there started bones and artifacts were uncovered and uncovered and uncovered. In all 400 sets of remains and thousand year old artifacts were uncovered and those Klallam people had to go to a warehouse to get their ancestors back to be reburied due to deaf white people just like the ones here. The project wan abandoned after $68 million was spent just like this one will be if some people come to their senses. The Klallam people received $6 million in damages for white people ignoring them.
He goes on to assert that "white people" would be in denial if they didn't think there were any burials in the wetlands.
My opinion is this: assuming that there were burials in the wetlands, I believe that between the installation of the drain tiles, active agricultural use of the wetlands, and the earth work to convert the land from agriculture back to wetlands, any burials along the proposed SLT right-of way have long been eradicated.
If the construction contractors should be so unlucky as to actually find human remains during construction of the SLT, I don't think it would result in the project being permanently stopped. The most likely outcome would probably be to have the remains re-interred in Haskell Cemetery.
Anyone care to comment? (PING J N Winkler) ;)
I don't think the ongoing dispute over Brownback's tax plan will result in the SLT being de-funded, but this is not because I buy his palpably unrealistic claim that the state economy will grow sufficiently to bring in the same nominal revenue from a smaller GDP percentage. Rather, I think he (after the Legislature is packed with far-right conservatives this November who have no track record of supporting transportation funding and no reason to do anything but ride his coattails) will treat the SLT as a front-row prestige project that must not be cancelled at any cost, and sacrifice other T-WORKS projects to ensure it is built.
There are many holes in Mr. Ford's suggestion that any discovery of Indian remains, unlikely as it is, will halt construction. I will focus just on his misrepresentation of what happened with the WSDOT (not "WADOT") project of which he speaks. He is talking about the SR 104 Hood Canal Bridge east half replacement. The Indian remains were actually found not in the project area itself, but rather in a piece of land (formerly used as a graving dock) which WSDOT purchased in Port Angeles for use as a staging area. The Hood Canal Bridge is a floating pontoon bridge, said to be the world's longest that crosses a saltwater estuary, and WSDOT was using the staging area to assemble pontoons and anchor cables. The Indian remains were missed by a reconnaissance survey when the project was being planned but were discovered during construction. They resulted in a halt to construction which was only temporary. WSDOT agreed to carry out a full archaeological survey, re-bury the remains, and pay the Lower Elwha Klallam tribe $2.5 million in damages. Pontoon and anchor assembly operations were subsequently transferred to Tacoma and the Hood Canal Bridge east half replacement, which had started in 2003, was finished in 2009. It was not "abandoned" as Mr. Ford claims. On this point he is at best mistaken or relying on severely out-of-date information; if he is aware that the bridge is finished, then he is lying.
I also distrust the dollar amounts he cites. $6 million, if it is true, must include payments for the archaeological and other work WSDOT financed at the Port Angeles site as well as the indemnity payment to the tribe. The $68 million amount is quite small compared to the total cost of the project, which was $471 million. Even if this amount were a total cost of the delay--and Mr. Ford does not claim it is--then it is just 14% of the total project cost, and so is a manageable overrun given standard engineering contingencies of 10% to 20%. (It would be a difficult pill for KDOT's bean counters to swallow, however, because construction projects in Kansas tend to be much less complex and technically demanding than in Washington and other coastal states with mountains and multiple climate zones, and that tends to breed unrealistic expectations of last-cent accuracy in construction cost estimates.)
Here are additional sources:
* Wikipedia overview of SR 104 Hood Canal Bridge east half replacement project:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hood_Canal_Bridge#East-half_replacement
* WSDOT project newsletter dealing with the work stoppage:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR104HoodCanalBridgeEast/News/Newsletters/Jan2005_newsletter.htm.htm
* Construction plans:
ftp://ftp.wsdot.wa.gov/contracts/6525%20Hood%20Canal%20Bridge%20Retrofit%20and%20East%20Half%20Replacement/
One final point--design activity on a project is not an infallible indicator that the project will proceed to construction. Even though final design cost is a fairly high percentage (I think up to 20%) of the final construction cost, and most agencies try to avoid scheduling detail design activities unless they can predict with very high confidence that the construction project will be funded, it nevertheless happens that construction projects are either cancelled or indefinitely postponed with 100% PSE waiting on the shelf. I have been collecting highway construction plans for over 10 years and I have a fair few finished construction plans sets for projects which were either never built or were advertised for construction many years later on a different set of plans.
Apologies for thread exhumation (permit will be shown on request).
What is a suitable choice of control city for K-10 eastbound on the SLT? Two candidates seem apparent:
* Lenexa--population just under 50,000, has K-10 terminus within city limits, K-10 runs along southern city limit (in fact, K-10 is the border between Lenexa and Olathe for several miles), and K-10 goes straight to the heart of Lenexa (if such an edge city can indeed be said to have a heart).
* Olathe--population just over 120,000, K-10 runs along north city limits (where there is relatively little building development), city center is a good four miles south with somewhat direct access via K-7 and indirect access via I-35, standing as Johnson County seat implies priority over other incorporated cities in the K-10 corridor.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 01, 2013, 03:44:09 PM
What is a suitable choice of control city for K-10 eastbound on the SLT?
Kansas City.
Quote from: NE2 on May 01, 2013, 03:47:20 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 01, 2013, 03:44:09 PM
What is a suitable choice of control city for K-10 eastbound on the SLT?
Kansas City.
This would be a decent idea, as it heads toward the Kansas City metro in general, if not for the fact that it's kind of awkward to get to any place actually known as "Kansas City" from K-10 (you have to either travel several miles north on I-435, or head south and hop onto I-35). If you take it as meaning downtown Kansas City, MO–which there is precedent for along I-70–your route from K-10 will involve two turns (onto I-435 and then either onto I-35 northbound or I-70 eastbound). In any event, if you're headed to Kansas City proper, either KS or MO, the Kansas Turnpike is a better route.
I'd use Olathe and Lenexa, and favor Olathe when using both is not possible, as it's a county seat. If I didn't hate using large areas as control points I'd be tempted to suggest "Johnson County".
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 01, 2013, 04:45:08 PM
This would be a decent idea, as it heads toward the Kansas City metro in general, if not for the fact that it's kind of awkward to get to any place actually known as "Kansas City" from K-10 (you have to either travel several miles north on I-435, or head south and hop onto I-35).
It's east, not south, and it's even signed as part of K-10: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.941754,-94.778752&spn=0.030442,0.066047&gl=us&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=38.941778,-94.778936&panoid=jZwhVgQwwk35OJSfRSVAlA&cbp=12,94.88,,1,-2.81
It looks like Lenexa is the current control city, with nothing used at the last interchange. There's probably no reason to change this.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 01, 2013, 03:44:09 PM
Apologies for thread exhumation (permit will be shown on request).
I'd say it's more of a sucessful resuscitation than a exhumation ;)
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 01, 2013, 03:44:09 PM
What is a suitable choice of control city for K-10 eastbound on the SLT? Two candidates seem apparent:
You've been messing around on the KDOT FTP server, haven't you ;)
The use of "Lenexa" as the pull-through destination would be more appropriate since it is the pull-through destination on every sign along the existing K-10 freeway.
BTW, Kansas City was used on some pull through destination signs on K-10.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5582/14706268920_b85e08596e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/opxtoG)
15192 (https://flic.kr/p/opxtoG) by Richie Kennedy (https://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/), on Flickr - 22 December 2001
Quote from: route56 on May 01, 2013, 08:44:13 PMYou've been messing around on the KDOT FTP server, haven't you ;)
I think you know the answer to that!
I actually ran across the SLT control-point issue while going through a pile of KDOT construction plans having pattern-accurate signing (I had let it accumulate since April 2012). This pile inevitably includes some draft plans. As of last January, the eastbound SLT was to have Lenexa as the control point; by March or April this had been changed to Olathe.
QuoteThe use of "Lenexa" as the pull-through destination would be more appropriate since it is the pull-through destination on every sign along the existing K-10 freeway.
If it were up to me, I think I would have kept Lenexa as the control point. However, it seems clear the current thinking is that Olathe's standing as a county seat gives it priority despite its center being further from the K-10 corridor. It is somewhat similar to KDOT substituting Stockton for Plainville on the I-70 signs for the US 183 exit (Plainville is bigger and nearer, but Stockton is the county seat).
It is true that the existing signing uses Lenexa as the eastbound control point, so retaining it minimizes the need to revise messages outside the SLT construction area to maintain continuity of destination signing. (In addition to the picture you posted, Lenexa also appears on ramp direction signs (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Eudora,+KS&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Eudora,+Douglas,+Kansas&ll=38.93007,-95.094867&spn=0.004198,0.009645&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=38.930412,-95.09499&panoid=wlUo3-d1LSBJjEb9WCuD9Q&cbp=12,172.43,,0,9.95).) However, there may be a K-10 sign replacement in the pipeline that we don't know about. It can also be argued that if the long-term plan is to base control point choice more or less exclusively on county seat status, then "policy changes have to start somewhere" and motorists will have to bear some inconsistency in sign messages until the change is fully phased in.
Anyway, it's still early days yet--we'll have to see what happens around September when this thing finally goes out to bid.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 02, 2013, 12:44:43 AM
Quote from: route56 on May 01, 2013, 08:44:13 PMYou've been messing around on the KDOT FTP server, haven't you ;)
I think you know the answer to that!
I actually ran across the SLT control-point issue while going through a pile of KDOT construction plans having pattern-accurate signing (I had let it accumulate since April 2012). This pile inevitably includes some draft plans. As of last January, the eastbound SLT was to have Lenexa as the control point; by March or April this had been changed to Olathe.
Yeah, I've seen the same draft plans. :cool:
Quote from: NE2 on May 01, 2013, 06:05:04 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 01, 2013, 04:45:08 PM
This would be a decent idea, as it heads toward the Kansas City metro in general, if not for the fact that it's kind of awkward to get to any place actually known as "Kansas City" from K-10 (you have to either travel several miles north on I-435, or head south and hop onto I-35).
It's east, not south, and it's even signed as part of K-10: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.941754,-94.778752&spn=0.030442,0.066047&gl=us&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=38.941778,-94.778936&panoid=jZwhVgQwwk35OJSfRSVAlA&cbp=12,94.88,,1,-2.81
It looks like Lenexa is the current control city, with nothing used at the last interchange. There's probably no reason to change this.
a) east and south are essentially the same thing here (this is where the directions change over, and also, who gives a fuck)
b) The signage on I-35/westbound/northbound I-435 is missing a TO banner. Going eastbound on K-10, there is end signage as you merge with I-435. K-10 ends at I-435.
South sounds very different, since you then go north on I-35. It's certainly not out of the way to get to Kansas City, which saying south makes it sound like.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 05, 2013, 02:06:36 PM
b) The signage on I-35/westbound/northbound I-435 is missing a TO banner. Going eastbound on K-10, there is end signage as you merge with I-435. K-10 ends at I-435.
While there is an "END" banner on the merge with 435... based on what I found via the rural resolutions on KDOT's website, KDOT officially "duals" K-10 and I-435 between Exit 83 and Exit 1B... thus, K-10 ends at I-35, dual with 435, and the signage at the I-35/I-435 junction is technically correct.
Quote from: route56 on May 05, 2013, 03:22:01 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 05, 2013, 02:06:36 PM
b) The signage on I-35/westbound/northbound I-435 is missing a TO banner. Going eastbound on K-10, there is end signage as you merge with I-435. K-10 ends at I-435.
While there is an "END" banner on the merge with 435... based on what I found via the rural resolutions on KDOT's website, KDOT officially "duals" K-10 and I-435 between Exit 83 and Exit 1B... thus, K-10 ends at I-35, dual with 435, and the signage at the I-35/I-435 junction is technically correct.
Wow. That's...disappointing, for some reason. Probably because that's something Oklahoma would do, and I like to think Kansas is better than that.
As noted in another thread, KDOT has posted the current preliminary plans for the South Lawrence Trafficway (along with a fact sheet summarizing what all will be happening with this project) on the "Letting Information" Page.
http://www.ksdot.org/burconsmain/lettinginfo.asp
Also, from this past Tuesday:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/jul/22/baker-wetlands-manager-dismantles-boardwalk-he-bui/
Jon Boyd, who initially constructed the original Baker Wetlands boardwalk in 1992 at the age of 13, is now dismantling it in preparation for construction of the SLT.
Quote from: route56 on July 26, 2013, 05:47:32 PM
As noted in another thread, KDOT has posted the current preliminary plans for the South Lawrence Trafficway (along with a fact sheet summarizing what all will be happening with this project) on the "Letting Information" Page.
http://www.ksdot.org/burconsmain/lettinginfo.asp
No exit numbers for the new section? I'm disappointed.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 27, 2013, 01:00:39 PMNo exit numbers for the new section? I'm disappointed.
There are no known plans to add exit numbering to state and US route freeways in Kansas, notwithstanding the
MUTCD requirement. The theory is that KDOT is using the absence of prohibited-class bans on these facilities to dance around this particular
MUTCD provision. If that is the case, then the test case will be exit numbers on US 81 north of Salina, since that has the same prohibited-class bans as the Interstates (as well as a 75 MPH speed limit).
Edit: It looks like K-10 (not necessarily the SLT segment) could be another test case--at least one of the Eudora on-ramps has a prohibited-classes sign, but the exit direction sign for the corresponding exit ramp does not have an exit number tab (or at least did not when the StreetView car drove past).
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 27, 2013, 01:35:29 PM
Edit: It looks like K-10 (not necessarily the SLT segment) could be another test case--at least one of the Eudora on-ramps has a prohibited-classes sign, but the exit direction sign for the corresponding exit ramp does not have an exit number tab (or at least did not when the StreetView car drove past).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2810%2F9069380304_cc20d69a45_z.jpg&hash=2a457fe237d501d3684279865a0c8a56748866d5) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/9069380304/)
46775 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/9069380304/) by richiekennedy56 (http://www.flickr.com/people/richiekennedy56/), on Flickr
This is westbound at the Evening Star Road, which is the last exit in Johnson County. Similar signage is on mainline K-10 eastbound at the beginning of the freeway segment of K-10 east of Lawrence.
As noted in the contract lettings thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3679.0#msg242110), the eastern leg of the SLT is posted for the September letting. :wave:
Obligatory article about the letting in the Lawrence
Journal-Worldhttp://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/aug/29/state-sets-bid-date-sept-18-south-lawrence-traffic/?print
And, the obligatory response from Mr. Ford:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/sep/05/letter-cultural-deafness/
Johnathan (and others), would like to hear your thoughts about this particular allegation:
Quote from: Mike Ford
All of this exuberance is based on a couple of weekends of archaeological study a decade ago by a Denver professor and his graduate students and the HNTB engineering firm. I actually remember a Saturday when I saw these people working. What's bothered me over the years is that they didn't sound as if they were empirically looking for evidence. They wanted to arrive at the predetermined outcome and make their findings vague enough for the highway proponents.
Quote from: route56 on September 05, 2013, 02:02:58 PM
Obligatory article about the letting in the Lawrence Journal-World
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/aug/29/state-sets-bid-date-sept-18-south-lawrence-traffic/?print
And, the obligatory response from Mr. Ford:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/sep/05/letter-cultural-deafness/
Jonathan (and others), would like to hear your thoughts about this particular allegation:
Quote from: Mike FordAll of this exuberance is based on a couple of weekends of archaeological study a decade ago by a Denver professor and his graduate students and the HNTB engineering firm. I actually remember a Saturday when I saw these people working. What's bothered me over the years is that they didn't sound as if they were empirically looking for evidence. They wanted to arrive at the predetermined outcome and make their findings vague enough for the highway proponents.
What Mr. Ford alleges might be true, but isn't really testable as a factual claim. My impression of the overall tone of his letter is bitterness about the outcome of the SLT planning process combined with a hope that some future difficulty, such as the discovery of actual human remains in the SLT corridor, will make the relevant KDOT personnel sorry they ever had anything to do with this project, and thus provide a measure of karmic rebalancing.
I can actually empathize with Mr. Ford since I have had similar feelings of disappointment about the outcome of many political debates in this state--just not about transportation.
The other article touches on the possibility of protests and attempts to disrupt the construction of the SLT. I don't think we will see anything comparable to, say, the Newbury bypass protests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newbury_bypass). Lawrence and Douglas County in general has a reputation as the Democratic bastion in Kansas, but also has a considerable amount of rural ranchette development. In my view this points to a basic contradiction in political attitudes which, within the context of the SLT planning process, worked itself out as attempts to talk the road to death without actually being willing to risk liberty or personal comfort to stop it.
He would be better off sticking to protests. There were some attempts to disrupt the Creek Turnpike construction in Tulsa with overnight vandalism of construction equipment and field offices, which were denounced by just about everyone involved in the turnpike project, supporters and opponents alike. (The main opposition PAC, Tulsans Against Turnpikes, disclaimed all responsibility, condemned the vandalism, and offered a $500 reward for information on the perpetrators.) Part of this was because the $10,000 in losses were borne by a contractor, whose owner successfully convinced the public that he was just a small business caught in the middle, and it was unfair to him because he was just being paid by OTA to do the work and the vandals weren't hurting OTA at all.
Non-destructive disruption would be trivial to defuse, since it would be simple to call the cops and have anyone who shouldn't be there removed as a trespasser on state property, and could be justified in the press as removing people from a dangerous work zone for their own safety (this is what happened with I-69 construction in Indiana recently).
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 05, 2013, 05:24:00 PM
What Mr. Ford alleges might be true,
vacuously so...
QuoteThis area is dry or wet or field or pond
as long as you're not on Jupiter, which is gas all the way down, I suppose you're good to go.
And the winning bidder is in:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/sep/18/bids-south-lawrence-trafficway-come-low-work-may-b/
And, just for kicks, the latest from Mr. Ford:
Quote
wait until these high school graduates come upon remains. one of my relatives already left a construction company that was submitting a bid because they consider this project offensive.
Letter to the editor today (11/2/13):
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/nov/02/letter-mourning-loss/
my editorial response: **barf**
Quote from: Kimberly Qualls, Northeast Kansas Public Affiars Manager, KDOT
On Tuesday, November 12, a three-year construction project will begin to complete the six-mile four-lane K-10 South Lawrence Trafficway freeway. The project will move existing K-10 onto a new alignment that will begin at the south junction of the U.S. 59 and K-10 interchange and reconnect with existing K-10 in east Lawrence (Douglas County).
Construction work on the project will be completed in phases. Each phase includes specific work and advance notification will be sent under separate cover for each phase of construction, including planned traffic impacts. An aerial map of the new K-10 South Lawrence Trafficway, including construction phasing and traffic impacts, can be found online at: http://www.ksdot.org/topekaMetro/projectstudytest.asp.
Starting on Tuesday, November 12, crews will begin clearing vegetation in preparation for grading work that will take place along the new Haskell Avenue alignment and possibly along the new Louisiana Street alignment. There will be minimal to no traffic impacts with this first phase as work is taking place off the existing roadway. Work will take place during daylight hours, Monday through Friday, with some occasional Saturday work.
Updated traffic information for the K-10 South Lawrence Trafficway project can be viewed online at: www.ksdot.org/topekametro/laneclose.asp.
The Kansas Department of Transportation urges all motorists to be alert, obey the warning signs, and "Give "˜Em a Brake!" when approaching and driving through the project work zone.
Emery Sapp & Sons Inc. (Columbia, MO) is the primary contractor on this expansion project with a total contract cost of $129.8 million. The overall scheduled completion date for the K-10 South Lawrence Trafficway project is Fall 2016.
This project is funded by T-WORKS, the transportation program passed by the Kansas Legislature in May 2010. Find out more about this and other T-WORKS projects at: http://kdotapp.ksdot.org/TWorks/.
For more information on the K-10 South Lawrence Trafficway project, please contact Kimberly Qualls, Northeast Kansas Public Affairs Manager, at (785) 640-9340, or Steve Baalman, Area Engineer, at (785) 528-3128. (KDOT Project #10-23 K-8392-04)
(emphasis as in original)
Quote from: Kimberly Qualls, Northeast Kansas Public Affiars Manager, KDOT
TRAFFIC ALERT
24/7 FULL ROADWAY CLOSURES: Eastbound and westbound 35th Street from Iowa Street to the Baker Wetlands Visitor Center and 31st Street from E1700 Road to E1750 Road in Lawrence (Douglas County) will be CLOSED, 24/7 round the clock, for box culvert construction work beginning on Monday, December 9 at 7:00 a.m., weather permitting, through mid-January 2014.
No marked detours will be provided. Drivers should expect minor delays and must use alternate routes during the roadway closures.
RPK Note: the section of 31st in question is actually N 1300 Road.... it's a gravel road outside the city limits.
Mike Ford has once again offered his perspective on the impending construction/destruction:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/dec/11/letter-real-injustice/?print
This one will probably get a reply. A check of historicalaerials.com confirms that, as part of the restoration of the wetlands, the landscape was, in one way or another, defaced. There is a large ditch running along the quarter-section line from the north end of the berm to the center of the section.