Frank Kloucek and friends collected around 750 signatures on a petition calling for a Highway 50 bypass to reduce traffic through the heart of Yankton. On Monday, their petition met with resistance from the Yankton County Commission:
While it was agreed upon that a bypass wasn’t necessarily a bad idea, there were two main problems: not discouraging travelers from passing through Yankton and funding.
“It’s not magic money out there. We would have to watch that tax dollar as much as we watch the county’s tax dollars,” said commission member Donna Freng. “We were just encouraging motorcyclists to come through here.”
Commission member Debra Bondenstedt also mentioned the shortage of concrete tractors in the county to complete the job in a timely manner.
“I’m having a hard time pushing for spending $20 million when we need to fix bridges and roads in our county,” Freng added. “My issue is, we may be able to eliminate some traffic, plus, we’ve got a million visitors out at the lake. I really don’t want them to bypass Yankton” [Reilly Biel, “County Commission Bypasses Bypass,” Yankton Press & Dakotan, 2015.08.11].
Hmm… if the concern is losing traffic from the lake, I’d suggest that folks headed for Lewis & Clark from the east would likely not take a bypass around town and instead would stick with the straight shot on Highway 50, right into the center of Yankton, and take 52 straight to the lake. And motorcyclists would probably enjoy the ride through scenic Yankton all the more if the trucks weren’t crowding them on Fourth Street. The folks most likely to take the bypass are the folks who are looking to speed through town anyway and who thus make in-town driving riskier for everyone else. And if you build a bypass around the northeast side of town, someone will build a truck stop to take advantage of that traffic anyway.
Yankton, a northeast bypass would be a net plus for the community… just like a good south bypass for Highway 12 would Sixth Avenue South in Aberdeen a safer drive for everyone.
Someone will build a truck stop? Kinda like that truck stop on the Vermillion bypass, huh?
On the list of priorities for $20 million dollars, a redundant road shouldn’t even be on that list at the bottom. I suppose they’d be looking for federal taxpayers to fund it since locals certainly wouldn’t be willing to pony up for such a debacle.
See, this is why the federal government should get out of the business of funding state and local roads. All the federal government is doing by providing money for state and local roads is enabling bad decision making by providing funding for questionable projects the locals don’t want to pay for. Like this one. They don’t necessarily think it’s a bad ideal. They just don’t want to pay for it. But if somebody in New York or California or China or the year 2085 will pay for it, then …
Why is fast traffic (bypass) a net plus to a place like Yankton or Aberdeen? What are the statistics for safety of bypasses vs direct route through town. I’d bet the 50 bypass around Vermillion generates more revenue from speeding than driving down Cherry St. Saving a few minutes at the expense of millions is questionable to me.
Remember also that when a new road is built it must be maintained. Would these funds be better spent on existing roads?
The first year they started prep work for wind turbines around Obrien County,iowa.those in charge set up their own concrete making plant a mile north and two miles west of Moi. They had trucks rolling in and out five or six days aweek for at least two tears.
frank, is this a republican obstructionist issue? an anti-harley/ralley BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH issue? bh harleydavidson wants traffic.
It is just insaner than most when libbies think money is just free to do dumb things like this. Why, back in the ’60s when old Bill Smith was running Yankton and skimming from the radio stations he’d have funded Mr. Kloucek’s bypass himself and built it right up to the back door of the Kochi. Mr. Fleming would have had a freeway right to his favorite college watering hole.
Libbies don’t think money is free Grudz. We’re progressive. That’s why we’re called”progressives” vs. “regressive” like you right wingers
If you worked hard for your money like Messrs. Smith and Fleming back in the day, you would be less libbie and more Libertarian, like Mr. kurtz.
I don’t work hard for my money? How would you know that?
“hard like Messrs. Smith and Fleming back in the day”
Nobody works hard like that anymore.
Reminds me of when we “took to the trees” in Vermillion in ’71. But in Yankton the locusts rule the trees. GrungeNik … A libertarian is just a Republican that wants to smoke pot.
The bypasses around Vermillion and Mitchell (to name just two) don’t have any appreciable affect on business or tourism. If you’re planning on stopping in either town, then you’re going to stop regardless of whether there’s a bypass. If you weren’t planning on stopping, then it doesn’t matter if they force you to drive through downtown. You’re not going to stop; you’re just going to be annoyed that they forced you to do it in order to get to your real destination (Sioux City, Sioux Falls, Huron, Grandma’s house, wherever).
It’s already dangerous and nearly impossible for pedestrians to get across Broadway (Highway 81) in Yankton. The only place it’s slightly less dangerous is the southern end of it where the boulevard has a median where you can take refuge after sprinting halfway across. If a bypass isn’t built, the plan is to widen 4th St (Hwy 50) heading east through downtown, adding a turning lane (which is nonsensical and unnecessary for most of the length of it) to make it just as godawful as Broadway. They say it’s needed for trucks to get through town faster. Yet they’re also saying we can’t have a bypass because people won’t go through town and we’ll “lose business” somehow. (Also note that a bypass is too expensive, but tearing up downtown to widen the road is apparently free.)
Well, which is it? Do you want trucks to plow through town faster or not? If slower traffic through town magically generates business, then heck, lower the speed limits in town to 10 mph. If the logic works, that will generate a gold mine of business. If that won’t work, then what’s the logic of chopping up town with a wider highway that provides no economic benefit, but is an aesthetic and public safety nightmare?
I swear, while most of the country is trending away from outdated, wrong-headed 1960s-style city planning, South Dakota is still going full speed ahead.
Should federal taxpayers fork over money for a bypass between State Highway 81 and State Highway 50 to ease Yankton’s traffic issues, Chris, or should state and local taxpayers fund this State Highway work to benefit the locality?
If state and local taxpayers aren’t willing to fund it, and it looks like they are not, then should taxpayers in California and New York pay for it?
I’ll correct myself. 81 is a US Highway, but the proposed bypass is not for US 81, but for State Highway 50. So my point, and my questions remain the same.
For what it’s worth, US Hwy 81 and SD Hwy 50 run concurrently through town on Broadway from 4th St to 31st St. Hwy 81 continues north from 31st St, and SD 50 turns and heads west.
pl-funny
Red Herring, Chris. Those traveling through Yankton on 81 wouldn’t be using a bypass if this were built, and you know it. The proposed bypass wouldn’t even work for people traveling through on US 81 as that traffic would still be going right through town. It would be strictly for people traveling east or west on State HWY 50.
Back to my question. If state and local taxpayers aren’t willing to fund it, and it looks like they are not, then should taxpayers in California and New York pay for it?
Why deny locusts their happy hour of fun? They pay for it with their lives.
@Rorschach — I wasn’t offering a red herring; I was responding quickly while at lunch, just trying (unhelpfully, I guess) to clarify where Hwy 50 and 81 used the same route, in case that was relevant to the discussion for people not familiar with the area. I didn’t see your comment at 12:18 until later. My apologies.
Anyway, for the record, I don’t think there’s a traffic problem in Yankton. The issue is (and you can please correct me if I’m wrong) that The Powers That Be (the SD DOT, if I recall) decided that there was a traffic problem — specifically that trucks weren’t getting through town fast enough — and they imposed a plan to widen 4th Street, making it a 5-lane concrete no-man’s land through downtown.
Since the plan to construct a truck route is already in place, my preference is to have it go around town, not tear through the middle of town. That’s all.
But as I mentioned, I don’t think there’s a traffic problem in the first place, so I don’t have a problem if no truck route/bypass/whatever is constructed at all. Frankly, I don’t understand where the whole adversarial tone of this discussion came from.
No one seems to be mentioning that diesel trucks are a source of some of the most deadly pollution and the health of those who live near those trucks driving through town is at risk. Although new trucks have cleaner exhaust, most of the ones I see driving through town are older ones with much worse particulate emissions.
Yankton already has an unofficial truck bypass–Ferdig to 31st street. All day long, cement trucks, side dumpers and double dumpers hauling gravel/rock/dirt/whatever. The gravel trucks travel in groups (usually 3). They can’t make the turns or the blind curve without using both lanes because the road is too narrow and has no shoulder. It wasn’t built for heavy traffic like that (hence the no trucks sign) so the pavement is crumbling. Now add in regular vehicular traffic and farm machinery and joggers and cyclists and an unenforced speed limit…and, yeah, there is a traffic problem in Yankton. It’s just out of sight of most folks.
Cathy, if I’m reading the route you describe on Google Maps correctly, that crossing at Whiting looks nuts for trucks. If trucks are already heading that way and wearing out an under-engineered road, wouldn’t the city be wise to either upgrade that road or build a new bypass connecting Bill Baggs road with East 31st?
“…or build a new bypass connecting Bill Baggs road with East 31st?”
There is (or was) a plan drawn up years ago that would do just that. That was (supposedly) one of the reasons Bill Baggs Rd. was improved. The main sticking point was a landowner who didn’t want a detention pond on his property. The plan also included street and drainage improvements that would alleviate flash flooding and open up a lot of land for development. Some of the utility infrastructure is already in place. However, Yankton Area Progressive Growth, Inc. has decided to push development to the west and the city and county just tags along. If YAPG said “lets build a bypass!” it would happen. Maybe they don’t own enough land to the east. Maybe, I’m being cynical, lol.
At this point, I would be happy if someone (city or county) would get the trucks off Ferdig. They can stop and go and stop and go and run over curbs on Broadway, where the city wants them.
And yeah, that intersection on Whiting is insane. It was better before the city improved it with “traffic calming” (aka: lets throw in some random curves to catch the cell phone crowd off guard so they go in the ditch or hit a telephone pole).
The plan has been on the books since the 70’s and since that plan, many changes in the demographics of Yankton have taken place. The vision of the bypass is not what can be corrected today but what problems we will have in lets say five-ten years. If we fast forward the growth of Yankton, the bypass seems almost a sure reality. The point I think people are making now is the $8-$10 million dollar price tag on the existing proposal, and if it is really needed/necessary … could it be cut back to $4 million (just fix the street as is) and redirect the savings into a future bypass project, which will most likely be needed in the next few. And yes, with a bypass there would be more business and residential development along that corridor creating a much greater tax base in the long run.