High School Traffic

[Will]

Sorry, Bubb. Had to be away from the desk for a while. Since I'm not a civil engineer or a KDOT administrator, I can't cite chapter and verse, but the way it was explained to me (by a competent authority who had talked to KDOT) was that building a 2nd exit within so many hundred yards of an existing signal that controls a state highway intersection, whether or not its junction was on that highway or an adjacent frontage, violated KDOT regs. I think traffic count also figures into that formula and there was maybe an insurance issue for 443. (That's right. The actuarial tables count the single entrance/exit as a lesser liability.) Again, I'm not the expert, but those issues can be raised with and answered by the authorities involved. If a critical mass of public interest is generated, there are also processes to re-open formal hearings, petition, referendum, etc, which is a pain in the a** unless folks believe that the end result is worth it.

[Bubba]

OK, no hard feelings, at least on my end. It just frustrates me to no end how government can do something that is so contrary to common sense. Common sense tells me that the more entrances and exits, then traffic congestion is lowered in all areas. But who said that government involvement would use common sense. Hence, my signature line below.