Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS

New Route 6 Ramp?

Officials exploring options in Pleasant

January 14, 2013

If you’ve ever wondered why you can access only westbound Route 6 from Main Avenue, you’re not alone....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Jan-15-13 8:37 AM

Careful, Kinzua1, the use of calm rational expression may get you in trouble here.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-15-13 7:28 AM

First off,I live on the Pleasant Dr. area that everyone complains about too much traffic noise. I am not told by others how bad the noise is,I'll tell you it's not that bad,I loose NO sleep over it.Toooo many whiners.The so called "Jake Brakes are installed on trucks as a safety device,and as long as the exhaust has not been modified,they are very legal and can be used.Let's not talk foolish about dumping waste int the river,let's complain about these people that do this.Let's check to see where the money for roads and bridges come from vs money for school dist.(not the same money).Then we need to see the transportation book that tells us how many feet the speed stays in effect after a posted sign. It would be nice to have ramps at Main St.,but The money should be used to maintain our existing roads and bridges.With the price of gas being up,the usage is way down,and that means less money availiabe for repairs.Please start to use a little common sense!

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-14-13 6:01 PM

Adding these ramps is a want not a need. Pleasant Dr. is a state road and there are signs prohibiting engine brakes ... problem solved. Main Ave. needs redone and that is definitely a need, spend the money there. Speed limits are not always the same on both sides, depends on approaching conditions. Is it possible that the speed limits signs were knocked down and never replaced? I do question why Main Ave. was ever built as a 4 lane with turn lanes especially as it approaches Pleasant Drive.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-14-13 3:27 PM

The highway used to end at Main Avenue. It wasn't until the early to mid 80's that the extension of the bypass was continued past Oakland Cemetary to create the new "Dorcon" road, if you will. The old Dorcon road was a very narrow two lane road with very steep dropoffs and most high profile traffic, such as tankers going to the refinery went through downtown Warren. However, I agree that it doesn't seem like a good idea to add a ramp off of Main avenue going East when they will encounter a road merging from 4 lanes to 2 lanes with a traffic light at Mohawk Avenue. Not sure what the solution is and I no longer reside in Warren, but I grew up on the south side and remember as a little girl when the extension of the bypass was built.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-14-13 1:10 PM

Yes this will cost money. The difference is there is money earmarked for this kind of project from the state. That money is sitting there. The question is what and where that money will be spent. Ask any parent of or college bound student about grants and scholarships. In order to get this money the student must fill out paperwork and show the need for that money. Well the County is doing the same thing. The money will be spent on "a project", again it will be a matter of where in the state.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-14-13 12:46 PM

warrenpausa "So what does that change?" The size of the acronym. I guess my little point was that PennDOT isn't as old as I at least thought. But it is run like any other service. If there isn't money coming in then there are not services being performed. It's always about money. Then safety.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-14-13 12:31 PM

Someone had better address the constant jake braking at night and early in the am on the Warren/Pleasant section of the Bypass. I have been told by both Pleasant and City residents how terrible it is. It has been dealt with in other areas; why not in this one? Re: The history of the Bypass--Congressman Clinger had trouble getting the Federal funds to build what we have and that may be part of the reason for only one ramp. It certainly made a bad scenario due to the loud, constant traffic from waste water trucks. Route 17 (86) scenario 2 lanes into 4 into 2 lanes=a death trap with increased traffic.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-14-13 12:23 PM

Glotz acknowledged "the process would be costly and take several years." Isn't that the story with everything that goes on around here?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-14-13 12:13 PM

There will be a study done in the spring. If it is warranted then the county will submit a project for the ramps. The cost of the ramps will be from a fund that already exists & IF we are lucky enough that money will come into this area for the ramps. No more heavy truck traffic on Pleasant Drive & a quicker route to the hospital from points east. This is not a done deal. The county has to prove that the need is there.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-14-13 10:41 AM

hmm, Wouldn't it be cheaper just to let all the waste haulers dump into the river somewhere else?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-14-13 9:51 AM

Last week they were bit#&in about the conditions of the bridges in Warren Co. Today they want an exit ramp people have done without for 40+ years. No wonder there is no money for school districts in Pa.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-14-13 8:37 AM

"PennDOT wasn't formed until July 1, 1970" The Department of Transportation was created on May 6, 1970 (PL 356) to replace the Department of Highways, which was then abolished. Powers and duties formerly vested in the Department of Highways were assigned to the Department of Transportation. Therefore, the rights of the Pa.DOH are now vested with Pendot. Therefore the PaDOH powers are now Pendots. So what does that change?

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-14-13 7:52 AM

maybe in the future when the economy is back up, an exit ramp would be "nice" to have. I've been in Warren for over 20 years and this is the first time I heard that Main ave was 55mph. I go across it everyday.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-14-13 7:32 AM

an entrance ramp coming down to a narrowing 4 lane a few hundred feet from a stop light sounds like a bottle neck to me. It would have to be another intersection with a sign or traffic light. an exit ramp would be a waste of money and time.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-14-13 7:25 AM

It was a right-of-way issue in a way. PennDOT has eminent domain -- but at market prices. The cost was thought to be too great back then. If PennDOT had taken the land, there wouldn't have been enough money for the construction. Quit thinking like an Obamaite "I'm entitled, even if it means deficits." Back then, projects were brought in within budgets.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-14-13 7:24 AM

PennDOT wasn't formed until July 1, 1970.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-14-13 7:10 AM

People have to remember the bypass and four lane was constructed back in 1969. Back when and even up to about 20 years ago there was a lot of manufacturing on the south side. I wish there was a map of the original route 6 and pictures of that road before the bypass. All traffic came in on the west end off of a 3 lane to a 2 lane by Superior. All traffic went through Warren, to get to the south side everyone had to cross Hickory bridge. Dorcon road was a narrow 2 lane road. The original beginning is that little off shoot off of Crescent. Very little truck traffic was on that road other wise most of the traffic came through Warren. Can you imagine what it would be like today with out the bypass.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-14-13 6:51 AM

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-14-13 6:46 AM

"Asked why ramps weren't installed during original construction, he (Glotz) said that a right of way issue, essentially land acquisition, as well as funding constraints appeared to drive the decision making". That is B.S. and Glotz should do more research before making such an unfounded claim. PENDOT had and has the right of "eminent domain" to take any land or right-a-way they deam needed for a public road. The ramp wasn't built because it wasn't thought neessary at the time due to the other eastbound access point.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-14-13 5:36 AM

I'm curious why this short section of rt. 6 expressway was built in the first place, seems a bit strange, wondering if it was part of a bigger plan that was aborted.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-14-13 5:14 AM

Awwwww it stated "why" in the letter. I believe it was due to right of way issues. But yes, of course, lets just sit and complain about anything being done to improve the situation now that land acquisition and right of way issues are able to be fixed/obtained. The negativity and pessimistic attitudes of some people never cease to amaze me.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-14-13 4:20 AM

why wasn't is put in when the bypass was built? Bad planning on someone part. maybe Penndot? now years later and many dollars more they want to build. BAD PLANNING of our leaders.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-14-13 4:10 AM

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 23 of 23 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web