That all depends on what list you are looking at Lanzate. On the particle air pollution list Lancaster is 24th and SD is not on the list.
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=50752
The fact that Lancaster metro, given its smaller size, is on the list one can conclude you have many cars stuck in traffic.
Much of the reason non-industrial SD is on the lists is due to the big big city just to the North and the city to the South that is in Mexico. Which has less pollution regulation.
The Lincoln Highway was the first paved road in the United States between Lancaster and Philadelphia. It is 2007 and you still have no limited access road directly to the big city to the east sort of proves my point of built-in provincialism.
Actually the real proponent of building highways was Dwight Eisenhower. He saw how long it took him to go from washington to San Francisco right after WWI. When he became President he pushed through the Interstate Highways system in the Cold War because the US should have a way to transport tanks back and forth on our mainland. This highway system tranformed and unified the United States in many ways. Eisenhower is from Kansas so I guess the highway (or road building) is a Kansas idea Lanzate.
What would be better for the Northeastern Lancaster corridor Lanzate? A monorail? A bunch of buses? How about a high speed commuter rail line running from Lancaster to New Holland? Lets be creative.

I'm just curious.... do the farmers pay anything for the land (the goat path) that they have their animals grazing on? I often wonder about that.
Also, I live on 23 right near the 772 intersection and that is one messy area with the big trucks trying to turn and drive causing major problems like causing accidents and traffic. The current lanes that 23 has really cannot compensate for their size.
Since the 23 bypass was already started (you can see the on/off ramps are built, grading was done, etc), the intent to build was blatantly there so finishing it should not be such a big surprize.
Wouldn't people want the safety of the community by getting these big trucks off the smaller roads where not only us people travel but also the Amish and tourists?
just curious

Who cares? The land is going to waste anyway.
That would make entirely too much sense for Lancaster County.

I ask about if the farmers pay "rent" for allowing their animals to graze because some of the complaints I've heard is that they would take away from farms. If it isn't theirs to begin with, and they were allowed to use it for free with the knowledge all along that it may be taken back to use as a road then what isa their complaint?
I'm afraid for the traffic safety with horse and buggy on 23 with the big rigs on the same road. I guess it makes too much sense for the safety to get the bigger trucks on a separte path so that the horse and buggies as well as the rest of us ( did I mention school buses with our kids on it) are safer. 23 is a big stop and go with school and RRTA buses.
Those trucks are needed because they bring supplies in and out of our county so you can't really do without them.
Just my view living along 23.

Developers are always demonized in this county for destroying farmland; except of course that the farmers sell out to them; why isn't the farming community equally to blame for the loss of "pristine" farmland?

What people really want is the ability to remove the right to private farm ownership; in other words if a farmer wishes to sell out; the community surrounding the said farm would have the right; regardless of whether they had a hand in maintaining the property; to block any attempts of the owner from selling his property to a individual or corporation. Before any sale would take place; the community would gather to raise objections; review proposals; offer alternatives for the farm owner into maintaining the property or selling to another who would promise to keep the property in farming.

Now this falicy could never work because outsiders do not have the right to any property they do not own; at least that's how it is supposed to work. So all this talk about preserving famland is rubbish; its nothing but a power grab to prevent another land owner from doing with his property what he wishes. And because it is "Pristine" farmland; everybody seems to have a better idea on what should be done other than the owner himself.

So, here's my solution- want to save farmland in this county; eliminate it from the tax rolls; remove all real estate taxation from farmland; make it economically feasible to keep a farm as a farm. Put the dollars back into the farmer''s hands and place the burden of land taxation on the surrounding non-farm community; seems like fair compensation from neighbors who claim to want to farmland preservation.

So put up or shut up.