My own model legislation for Kansas

Started by route56, March 05, 2014, 12:06:55 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

route56

I'd like to get some input on a 'model' bill I wrote up, in hopes of submitting to my state legislator.

AN ACT concerning the designation of highways in state system; amending K.S.A. 68-406 and repealing the existing section.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas:
Section 1. K.S.A. 68-406 is hereby amended to read as follows: 68-406. (a) The secretary of transportation shall designate, adopt and establish and may lay out, open, relocate, alter, vacate, remove, redesignate and reestablish highways in every county in the state, the total mileage of which shall not exceed 10,000 miles. The total mileage of such highways in each county shall be not less than the sum of the north to south and east to west diameters of the county. The highways so designated shall connect the county seats and principal cities and market centers, and all such highways, including bridges and culverts thereon, shall comprise the state highway system. The secretary of transportation shall make such revisions, classifications or reclassifications in the state highway system as are found on the basis of engineering and traffic study to be necessary, and such revisions, classifications or reclassifications may include, after due public hearing, removal from the system of roads which have little or no statewide significance, and the addition of roads which have statewide importance and will provide relief for traffic congestion on existing routes on the system. All roads which have been placed upon the state highway system shall be a part of the state highway system, but changes may be made in the state highway system when the public safety, convenience, economy, classification or reclassification requires such change. The total mileage of the state highway system shall not be extended except by act of the legislature. Highways designated under this section shall be state highways, and all other highways outside of the city limits of cities shall be either county roads or township roads as provided for by law. The state highway system thus designated shall be constructed, improved, reconstructed and maintained by the secretary of transportation from funds provided by law.
(b) In addition to highways of the state highway system, the secretary of transportation shall designate in those cities on such system certain streets as city connecting links. "City connecting link" means a routing inside the city limits of a city which: (1) Connects a state highway through a city; (2) connects a state highway to a city connecting link of another state highway; (3) is a state highway which terminates within such city; (4) connects a state highway with a road or highway under the jurisdiction of the Kansas turnpike authority; or (5) begins and ends within a city's limits and is designated as part of the national system of interstate and defense highways; or (6) begins and ends within a city limits for which the secretary and the city have entered into an agreement for the secretary to maintain pursuant to K.S.A 68-416a.
(c) The secretary of transportation may mark and maintain existing roads as detours, but detour roads shall not be a part of the state highway system, except that such roads shall be marked and maintained by the secretary of transportation only until that portion of the state highway system for which such road is substituted is completed and open for travel.
(d) The secretary of transportation may use moneys appropriated from the state highway fund for the purchase of right-of-way, construction, improvement, reconstruction and maintenance of a highway over the most direct and practicable routes from state highways to a state lake, a federal lake or reservoir established by federal authority, any property managed or controlled by the Kansas department of wildlife, parks and tourism, national monuments and national historical sites, military reservations, motor carrier inspection stations, approaches and connections within an urban area, as defined by federal highway laws, places of major scenic attractions which possess unusual historical interest, as defined by subsections (1) and (2) of K.S.A. 76-2018, and amendments thereto, on which the state now holds or may hereafter hold a long-term lease, a state institution, from the city limits of the nearest city to a state institution, a state-owned natural and scientific preserve, as defined by subsection (b) of K.S.A. 74-6603, and amendments thereto, or such road or roads located within the boundaries of a state park and not presently maintained by a federal agency as shall be designated by the secretary of transportation. Such highways or roads shall not be a part of the state highway system, and the secretary of transportation is not required to plan, design or construct such highways or roads in conformity with the standards applicable to the state highway system.
(e) The secretary of transportation may make reroutings of any portion of the state highway system if such rerouting is required in writing by the United States department of transportation of the federal highway administration before it will permit federal funds to be used thereon. The secretary of transportation shall have control and regulation for purposes of posting speed limits and establishing access and egress facilities on any and all portions of streets and roads which are, or have been, a part of the state highway system, and which have been or may be, placed inside of the limits of an incorporated city by the creation of a new municipality or by the extension of the limits or boundaries of any existing municipality.
(f) Except pursuant to article 21 of chapter 68 of Kansas Statutes Annotated, only the secretary of transportation may authorize temporary closing of any part of the state highway system by any person for any purpose in the interest of the state. Every authorization granted under this subsection shall be granted subject to conditions specified by the secretary to provide for: (1) Proper detours, signing and markings; (2) timing which will not unreasonably inconvenience the public; and (3) such additional conditions as are appropriate to avoid unreasonable risk of injury to any person. Such requests shall be made in writing and submitted to the secretary at least five days prior to the closing date. In emergencies, temporary closing may be authorized by the secretary by oral communications. The secretary may waive all or any part of the notice otherwise required by this subsection.
Except as provided in subsection (g), any person failing or neglecting to comply with the provisions of this subsection, upon conviction, shall be guilty of a nonperson unclassified misdemeanor.
(g) In cases of sudden emergency, temporary closing of any part of the state highway system may be authorized by order of a person designated by the board of county commissioners for an area outside of any city or a person designated by the governing body of a city for an area within such city. In such cases of sudden emergency the person authorizing such closing shall inform the secretary of transportation thereof as soon as practicable and obtain the authorization of the secretary for any additional time thereafter for such closing.
New Sec. 2. City connecting links designated under subsection (5) or (6) of K.S.A 68-406(b) shall be considered state highways for the purpose of K.S.A. 68-406(a).
Sec. 3. K.S.A. 68-406 is hereby repealed.
Sec. 4. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its publication in the statute book.

Rationale:
As noted here on AARoads, the current interpretation of KSA 68-406(b) is that a highway route cannot consist solely of city connecting link mileage unless it is part of the interstate system. The added section is meant to allow KDOT to create and maintain intra-city routes, so long as they remain state-maintained.

Also, 68-406(a) establishes the 10,000 mile cap, and the county "floor."  However, the plain language of section (b) indicates that CCL mileage is not part of the state cap or county floor. This is problem for Wyandotte and, to a lesser extent, Johnson Counties. Since all of Wyandotte county is part of either KCK, Bonner Springs, or Edwardsville, all highways in the Dotte are CCLs, and the amount of 'State Highway' mileage in the county is technically zero. Section 2 makes all mileage maintained directly by KDOT applicable to the county "floor."

Sections 3 and 4 are boilerplates asserting that the existing KSA 68-406 is to be replaced by the language in this bill, and making the new language effective when published in the Statute Book (usually, this occurs on July 1)

Feedback appreciated.
Peace to you, and... don't drive like my brother.

R.P.K.


NE2

Who cares if they maintain them? Just allow them to post signs on locally maintained roads.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Scott5114

Perhaps I'm looking at this in an overly literal manner, but wouldn't section 1 change the existing law, and then section 3 repeal the changed version, leaving no version of KSA 68-406 after the bill takes effect?

Is there much of a need for these CCLs? Presumably the law banning intracity routes was passed for a reason–what trumps that reason? Does Wyandotte County have much of a problem maintaining its roads? What would make a legislator say "Yes, we need this bill"?
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

route56

#3
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 05, 2014, 08:38:19 AM
Perhaps I'm looking at this in an overly literal manner, but wouldn't section 1 change the existing law, and then section 3 repeal the changed version, leaving no version of KSA 68-406 after the bill takes effect?

I think you are looking at it in an overly literal manner. The "repeal" boilerplate is intended to repeal the original version, then the new text becomes codified under the old version's statute number upon the register.

Quote
Is there much of a need for these CCLs? Presumably the law banning intracity routes was passed for a reason–what trumps that reason? Does Wyandotte County have much of a problem maintaining its roads? What would make a legislator say "Yes, we need this bill"?

I don't think KDOT would be interested in taking over any new CCLs -- except maybe for Turner Diagonal and Shawnee Mission Parkway. However, there are two segments in the metro I could see as benefiting from my proposed changes, both of which could be considered spurs off of I-635: K-5 into the Fairfax district, and Metcalf (US 69) south to the Shawnee Mission Parkway.

Both segments are maintained by KDOT as controlled-access roadways. (K-5 is freeway, Metcalf has at-grade crossing and signals) In order for KDOT to keep control over both of these segments, compromises have to be maid. For Metcalf, US 69 has to jump off I-35 at SMP/US 56, and then rejoin I-35 at the north end of Metcalf. For the Fairfax spur, KDOT has to keep Leavenworth Road as a City Connecting link, and if Lansing ever annexes out to the Leavenworth-Wyandotte County line, KDOT would, by its current interpretation of 68-406, be required to turn back the entire route.

My change to 68-406 would allow US 69 could to follow a more logical routing, and Leavenworth Road to be turned back, without forcing KDOT to turn back the Fairfax spur and the Metcalf spur. The Metcalf spur could be numbered, for instance, as K-635.
Peace to you, and... don't drive like my brother.

R.P.K.

SD Mapman

So is this basically giving KDOT the same authority as SDDOT?
The traveler sees what he sees, the tourist sees what he has come to see. - G.K. Chesterton

J N Winkler

#5
Quote from: route56 on March 05, 2014, 02:46:26 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 05, 2014, 08:38:19 AMPerhaps I'm looking at this in an overly literal manner, but wouldn't section 1 change the existing law, and then section 3 repeal the changed version, leaving no version of KSA 68-406 after the bill takes effect?

I think you are looking at it in an overly literal manner. The "repeal" boilerplate is intended to repeal the original version, then the new text becomes codified under the old version's statute number upon the register.

Scott raises a good point.  If it ever undergoes judicial review, this bill will be construed by the court on an entirely literal basis (the phrase "black-letter law" operates here), and that will include natural reading order.  You can avoid this problem by inserting the repeal provision ahead of the substitute text.  But, actually, you would probably be better off cutting back the language to the bare minimum that is being changed if it is possible to circulate the bill with a statement as to the reasons for the change.

Quote
QuoteIs there much of a need for these CCLs? Presumably the law banning intracity routes was passed for a reason–what trumps that reason? Does Wyandotte County have much of a problem maintaining its roads? What would make a legislator say "Yes, we need this bill"?

I don't think KDOT would be interested in taking over any new CCLs -- except maybe for Turner Diagonal and Shawnee Mission Parkway. However, there are two segments in the metro I could see as benefiting from my proposed changes, both of which could be considered spurs off of I-635: K-5 into the Fairfax district, and Metcalf (US 69) south to the Shawnee Mission Parkway.

Both segments are maintained by KDOT as controlled-access roadways.  (K-5 is freeway, Metcalf has at-grade crossings and signals.)  In order for KDOT to keep control over both of these segments, compromises have to be made. For Metcalf, US 69 has to jump off I-35 at SMP/US 56, and then rejoin I-35 at the north end of Metcalf. For the Fairfax spur, KDOT has to keep Leavenworth Road as a City Connecting link, and if Lansing ever annexes out to the Leavenworth-Wyandotte County line, KDOT would, by its current interpretation of 68-406, be required to turn back the entire route.

My change to 68-406 would allow US 69 could to follow a more logical routing, and Leavenworth Road to be turned back, without forcing KDOT to turn back the Fairfax spur and the Metcalf spur. The Metcalf spur could be numbered, for instance, as K-635.

I think it would be prudent to check whether our interpretation of the law as it currently stands matches the one under which KDOT actually operates, and also to try to get a straight answer from KDOT on whether this section is the real reason US 69 follows such a convoluted routing.

In regard to Wyandotte County/KCK becoming exposed itself to maintenance liability for present freeway K-5 if Lansing annexed territory up to the Leavenworth/Wyandotte county line, the mechanism by which this would happen is the K-5 route designation losing its rural anchor.  However, annexation law in Kansas is a bit strange.  Granularity down to parcel boundaries is permitted, which is why there are roads in the west part of Wichita (e.g. 119th Street West south of Kellogg) that are still formally in unincorporated Sedgwick County even though the subdivisions on both sides are within the Wichita city limits.  As far as I am aware, the only thing that is deprecated is noncontiguous annexation, which is the main reason Wichita lost its fight to annex Bel Aire in the mid-1980's.

If Lansing really wanted to annex up to the county line, it would have an incentive not to include the K-5 right-of-way unless part of the purpose of annexation was to convert it into a local service street.  If that were indeed the goal, then presumably Wyandotte County could object to the annexation on the basis that it would result in other segments of K-5 (including the Fairfax spur freeway) being dumped on it as unfunded maintenance liabilities.  For that matter, Leavenworth could object on a similar basis.

There may also be provision in law for reversing of annexation, which in principle could be done for the sole purpose of maintaining a rural anchor for a state route that is nearly all city connecting link.

I feel these points should be researched in order to make a solid case to legislators that the suggested bill text does not merely address theoretical problems that are unlikely to materialize in reality.

In regard to NE2's point, KDOT is already responsible for state route signposting on city connecting links, so what NE2 suggests is really that KDOT should be given an expanded power to signpost state routes along itineraries within incorporated areas regardless of who maintains the roads involved, or whether the route is anchored in unincorporated territory.  I don't see such a proposal flying in Kansas.  The purpose of the rural anchor requirement is to ensure KDOT stays focused on its core mission, which is to maintain a rural highway system to serve through traffic.  Meanwhile, confining route signing to city connecting links (which are funded out of special pots) ensures that through traffic is not directed onto routes that are not of a quality suitable to serve statewide traffic.

Edit:  Another indication of the strangeness of Kansas annexation law:  the other day we received a 34-page mailing from the City of Wichita concerning a proposal to set up a special assessment district.  Half of the first page described the purpose of the district (to collect a special tax on hotels in order to promote tourism, if memory serves), while the entirety of the remainder was a legal description of the boundaries of the district.  I am pretty sure it was coterminous with the Wichita city limits, but I didn't have time to go through 33 1/2 pages' worth of text to check.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Scott5114

I'm no lawyer (maybe we should ask oscar or another actual lawyer to weigh in here in an unofficial capacity), but I think J.N. Winkler raises a good point here about the existing statute. This appears to be the one in question: http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_68/Article_4/68-406.html To my layman eyes, it is not explicit about requiring any highway fully annexed by a municipality to be removed. In fact, 68-406(b)(3) might be able to be twisted to explicitly allow such highways (a highway fully annexed by a municipality would be "a state highway which terminates within such city" on either end!).
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

NE2

In any case, KDOT could add a useless overlap to just beyond city limits if they really wanted to keep a route.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Scott5114

The viability of that would be determined by whether a "K-" designation constitutes a "state highway", or if the highway is legally separate from the designation.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

NE2

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 06, 2014, 06:44:25 PM
The viability of that would be determined by whether a "K-" designation constitutes a "state highway", or if the highway is legally separate from the designation.
If the latter, the K-5 freeway is logically its own highway and needs to be given to the city. Same with all the US 56/69/169 bullshit through Overland Park (or are there some unincorporated pockets there?).
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

agentsteel53

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 06, 2014, 06:44:25 PMthe highway is legally separate from the designation.

*head explodes*

just match the books to the most logical (from a navigational perspective) set of routes.  nobody cares who maintains the road - numbers are for continuity and driver assistance.  if some roads don't need to be signed but need to be in the system for maintenance purposes, then just don't sign them.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

route56

#11
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 06, 2014, 03:35:03 PM
Scott raises a good point.  If it ever undergoes judicial review, this bill will be construed by the court on an entirely literal basis (the phrase "black-letter law" operates here), and that will include natural reading order.  You can avoid this problem by inserting the repeal provision ahead of the substitute text.  But, actually, you would probably be better off cutting back the language to the bare minimum that is being changed if it is possible to circulate the bill with a statement as to the reasons for the change.

If that is the case, then there's a whole lot of bills that would be totally screwed up, as just about any bill in Kansas that modifies an existing statue uses similar language and structuring.

EDIT: The formatting of my proposed bill follows the format used by the Office of Revisor of Statutes. Basically, legislators call upon this office to produce the first draft of bills on their behalf.
Peace to you, and... don't drive like my brother.

R.P.K.

Alps

Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 06, 2014, 07:19:01 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 06, 2014, 06:44:25 PMthe highway is legally separate from the designation.

*head explodes*

just match the books to the most logical (from a navigational perspective) set of routes.  nobody cares who maintains the road - numbers are for continuity and driver assistance.  if some roads don't need to be signed but need to be in the system for maintenance purposes, then just don't sign them.
NJ did that until last decade. Now just about all the unsigned routes have ended up signed.

NE2

Quote from: Alps on March 07, 2014, 06:19:56 PM
NJ did that until last decade. Now just about all the unsigned routes have ended up signed.
And NJ 24's county-maintained extension is apparently no longer signed.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Alps

Quote from: NE2 on March 07, 2014, 07:26:01 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 07, 2014, 06:19:56 PM
NJ did that until last decade. Now just about all the unsigned routes have ended up signed.
And NJ 24's county-maintained extension is apparently no longer signed.
We found a SOUTH 24/517 assembly at the western end (just across the line into Morris County) today. But there are no signs left along 510, and few if any on 513.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.