Archive for Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Traffic study set for West Sixth Street
October 28, 2009
Advertisement
Lawrence city commissioners on Tuesday unanimously agreed to spend $11,000 to help fund a transportation study of the area near Sixth Street and the South Lawrence Trafficway.
The Kansas Department of Transportation study will look at future improvements needed to the area’s road network, including new traffic signals, turning lanes and access points.
The study is expected to cost about $100,000. KDOT will pay for the bulk of the study because Sixth Street also is U.S. Highway 40.
Douglas County and the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Organization also are being asked to contribute $11,000 each to the study.
More like this
- LAWRENCE CITY COMMISSION BOTTOM LINE FOR JAN. 27, 1998 MEETING January 25, 1998
- TRAFFICWAY PROPOSAL ADOPTED BY COUNTY October 12, 1989
- Lawrence City Commission agenda 10 comments / October 25, 2009
- 90 ROAD REPORT March 30, 1990
- Louisiana ramp off trafficway a no-go ---- Task force agrees neighborhood is too congested September 21, 2001
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Turbine manufacturer passes on Lawrence site November 24, 2009 · 85 comments
- Quiet revolution taking place in America November 25, 2009 · 125 comments
- Obama to promise 17% cuts in U.S. emissions in next decade November 26, 2009 · 33 comments
- Blog: How Has Obama's Stimulus Helped You? November 21, 2009 · 76 comments
- At Fambrough’s urging, fans show support for KU football November 26, 2009 · 23 comments
- Former KU Chancellor Laurence Chalmers dies November 25, 2009 · 18 comments
- Two treated at hospital after fight outside Cadillac Ranch November 26, 2009 · 22 comments
- On the street: Which do you prefer, white meat or dark meat? November 26, 2009 · 23 comments
- Douglas County Chief Judge says it's likely 12 days of furloughs will be needed next year for court employees November 25, 2009 · 23 comments
- United Way support November 26, 2009 · 16 comments
- At Fambrough’s urging, fans show support for KU football November 26, 2009
- Former KU Chancellor Laurence Chalmers dies November 25, 2009
- Extraordinarily grateful November 26, 2009
- Pie Lady makes holidays sweeter November 26, 2009
- Heeding heart attack’s message November 26, 2009
- KU says student didn't follow proper lab procedures before exposure to toxic chemical November 25, 2009
- Kansas Legislature likely to debate judicial nomination process in 2010 session November 25, 2009
- Pound by Pound: Danny Pound confronts his 'existential angst,' emerges with intimate second solo album November 26, 2009
- Two treated at hospital after fight outside Cadillac Ranch November 26, 2009
- Controversial film gives voice to our invisible children November 26, 2009
28 October 2009
at 7:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JackRipper (Anonymous) says…
ah yes an other expense the panhandling developers get from the city. budget is tight yet money for making sure the new big box stores have proper traffic flow when they built.
28 October 2009
at 7:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
Well if they know they need the improvments already and they know they want signals and whaever else why do they need the study? It says they already know they need the stuff why waste the money so a stupid peice of paper tells you what you already know??
28 October 2009
at 8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
magnus (Anonymous) says…
You both are hilarious. I'm sure you'd gripe if they didn't make any improvements before that area is developed and the interchange couldn't handle the trafffic! So which is it? Do you want to see more planned development in this community or not? By the way, development for that area is already underway so they'd better start looking at how to address these issues now.
Knowing that this highway interchange needs improvement to handle additional traffic does NOT mean that they know exactly which approach to take. Would you build a house without a set of blueprints? KDOT would be wrong to consider rebuilding a major highway interchange without studying the unique circumstances that exist at that location in order to determine the best solution.
28 October 2009
at 9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
somedude20 (Anonymous) says…
They need to be doing that on 9th st. I can not tell you how many times I have been stuck at every light on the way down or up 9th. Stinks!!!
28 October 2009
at 9:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JackRipper (Anonymous) says…
magnus, spoken like the criminal class behind all this. we either go along peacefully or get our heads bashed in, either way, they'll get the money. just more ways the city has money for the well off while comes up short for those in need. a truly progressive city!
28 October 2009
at 9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigPrune (Anonymous) says…
Ripper, I recall a certain roundabout on 19th Street cost $700,000, in fact roundabouts cost the equivalent of a 4 way light. You mention the City comes up short for those truly in need, I have to laugh since your people who ruined this community were all about the roundabout. Don't forget the bicycle lanes required for new housing and then there is the 2' freeboard, all paid for by the developer passed on to the homeowner. Of course we cannot forget the sacred cow Horizon 2020 that was out dated the day it rolled off the presses. I sure hope they finish the SLT soon since the voters passed it 20 years ago. Then there is the development code your people passed that created vacancies throughout Lawrence for 5 years, since nobody could rent a vacant space without spending tens of thousands of dollars with the gamble they could or could not open a new business in a vacant space.
Give us a break from your idiocy.
28 October 2009
at 10:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gccs14r (Anonymous) says…
The interchange will have to be reconstructed when the other two lanes of the bypass are put in, so why are they bothering with any studies or development? It's stupid to put something in when you know you're going to have to rip it back out.
28 October 2009
at 10:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
toe (Anonymous) says…
It is true that developers receive the most welfare from the city.
28 October 2009
at 10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigAl (Anonymous) says…
It is also true that developers provide a lot of jobs, buy a lot of goods and services and pay a lot of taxes. They support and prop up the local economy.
28 October 2009
at 11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ralphralph (Anonymous) says…
They should just build another “Overpass to Nowhere” like the one at the eastern terminus of the SLT over US59/Iowa St. I never understood why they built that overpass when they weren't building any road on the east end of it. Will it still be good to use if the SLT is ever actually finished?
28 October 2009
at 11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
thelonious (Anonymous) says…
BigAl Says - “…developers provide a lot of jobs, buy a lot of goods and services and pay a lot of taxes. They support and prop up the local economy.”
Wow - they're doing a heck of a job.
28 October 2009
at 11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigAl (Anonymous) says…
I am glad you recognize it thelonious. Developers use and hire electricians, plumbers, carpet layers, framers, concrete finishers, plumbing supply houses, electrical supply houses, lumber yards, roofing supplies, landscapers, etc…I could go on and on.
Your snide remark doesn't change the fact that developers do prop up and help local economies.
28 October 2009
at 12:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigPrune (Anonymous) says…
Developers pay their own way. It is VERY rare that the City has to pickup a cost for a new development. I know of one instance where the State of Kansas allocated funds for certain road improvements for a newer area of town and the City took those funds to improve other parts of town east then the City added as specials new fees for the newer area of course passing this expense on to the homeowner of the newer area.
28 October 2009
at 12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JackRipper (Anonymous) says…
big prunes and al i doubt you'll ever get it, good luck.
28 October 2009
at 5:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
GardenMomma (Anonymous) says…
I would have thought they would have done a study when they decided to
a) allow Wal-Mart to build or
b) allow CVS to build or
c) allow Queens street to go through or
d) allow George Williams Way to go through or
e) when they built a new water tower over by St. Margaret's Church or
f) when they built ANY of the new housing out there now.
28 October 2009
at 6:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gccs14r (Anonymous) says…
It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. Build a bunch of cr*p, overload the infrastructure, then get the City to make the rest of us pay to upgrade the facilities for structures that should never have been built in the first place.
28 October 2009
at 6:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JackRipper (Anonymous) says…
Modern day thuggery. I'd rather take my chances with the panhandlers on the street then the kind that works behind the scenes pulling strings and spreading lies like al and prune. It is amusing they think people are dumb enough to believe that city's financial problems came from a few years of a few commissioners who at least gave lip service to smart growth, instead of the worldwide financial meltdown that came from the kind of crap growth this city has engaged in even while the commissioners mentioned were in office. There never was a time when we didn't have dumb growth!
Right, the roundabout is really behind it all. What a joke. Hopefully people will get out and vote next time around and say we aren't going to take their lies anymore.
29 October 2009
at 2 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Over building the retail market = unfriendly to existing business across the board = economic displacement instead of economic growth = tax and user fee increases
Empty retail space cost the city and taxpayers too much money
Too many empty warehouses don't pay back the taxpayers for any new infrastructure or in general = tax and user fee increases.
Too many homes = unfriendly to home owners property value = homes do not pay for themselves = bedroom communities are are a tax increase in and of themselves
16 November 2009
at 10:25 p.m.
Permalink
SumitKumar (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.