What is the purpose of the US 69 freeway in Kansas?

[apeman33]

I don't think so. These signs we're discussing (National & 69, 23rd & 69; Broadway and 20th (ahem, "Twentieth"); and 69 & Kansas Crossing) are parts of three projects carried out by different contractors. The Broadway and 20th signs went up when that signal was replaced almost two years ago.

[J N Winkler]

I don't think so. These signs we're discussing (National & 69, 23rd & 69; Broadway and 20th (ahem, "Twentieth"); and 69 & Kansas Crossing) are parts of three projects carried out by different contractors. The Broadway and 20th signs went up when that signal was replaced almost two years ago.

Are these all within the Fort Scott city limits?  AFAIK, the KDOT TE standard plan sheet for the basic design Scott outlines is still current, but cities can ask KDOT to include their own standard plan sheets and can also supply sign panel detail sheets for mast arm signs done to their preferred standards.

[apeman33]

I don't think so. These signs we're discussing (National & 69, 23rd & 69; Broadway and 20th (ahem, "Twentieth"); and 69 & Kansas Crossing) are parts of three projects carried out by different contractors. The Broadway and 20th signs went up when that signal was replaced almost two years ago.

Are these all within the Fort Scott city limits?  AFAIK, the KDOT TE standard plan sheet for the basic design Scott outlines is still current, but cities can ask KDOT to include their own standard plan sheets and can also supply sign panel detail sheets for mast arm signs done to their preferred standards.

The latter two are in or around Pittsburg. Fort Scott doesn't have a style. They just stick letters on a green piece of metal of some sort and put it on a pole.

EDIT: For instance, this:


Pittsburg does have two new signals with similar style lettering on blue signs because that's the city's new style. But neither are on a KDOT-maintained road.

[bugo]

It KDOT finishes 4 laning US 69 to the Oklahoma border, will it follow mainline 69 or Alternate 69 south of Crestline?

[apeman33]

It KDOT finishes 4 laning US 69 to the Oklahoma border, will it follow mainline 69 or Alternate 69 south of Crestline?

I've always presumed the plan was to follow Alternate 69 and rename it as the mainline, then removing the designations through Columbus which have other numbers anyway. Oklahoma would need a new number on current 69 from the state line south through the place formerly known as Picher. But I don't have anything definite. Anyone?

[apeman33]

View approaching the new signal (forgive the bug guts):

[sparker]

It KDOT finishes 4 laning US 69 to the Oklahoma border, will it follow mainline 69 or Alternate 69 south of Crestline?

I've always presumed the plan was to follow Alternate 69 and rename it as the mainline, then removing the designations through Columbus which have other numbers anyway. Oklahoma would need a new number on current 69 from the state line south through the place formerly known as Picher. But I don't have anything definite. Anyone?

I'd venture a guess that there's a distinct possibility that KS will try to functionally control its own destiny by taking any 4-lane extension down US 400 directly to I-44 so as not to depend upon OK to reciprocate with a US 69 expressway of their own -- thus securing a more assured source of traffic for the rest of US 69 to the north. 

[Scott5114]

It KDOT finishes 4 laning US 69 to the Oklahoma border, will it follow mainline 69 or Alternate 69 south of Crestline?

I've always presumed the plan was to follow Alternate 69 and rename it as the mainline, then removing the designations through Columbus which have other numbers anyway. Oklahoma would need a new number on current 69 from the state line south through the place formerly known as Picher. But I don't have anything definite. Anyone?

I'd venture a guess that there's a distinct possibility that KS will try to functionally control its own destiny by taking any 4-lane extension down US 400 directly to I-44 so as not to depend upon OK to reciprocate with a US 69 expressway of their own -- thus securing a more assured source of traffic for the rest of US 69 to the north. 

If you go that far east, wouldn't it be more sensible at that point to continue on the half-dozen or so miles to I-49 instead of doubling back to US-69?

[sparker]

It KDOT finishes 4 laning US 69 to the Oklahoma border, will it follow mainline 69 or Alternate 69 south of Crestline?

I've always presumed the plan was to follow Alternate 69 and rename it as the mainline, then removing the designations through Columbus which have other numbers anyway. Oklahoma would need a new number on current 69 from the state line south through the place formerly known as Picher. But I don't have anything definite. Anyone?

I'd venture a guess that there's a distinct possibility that KS will try to functionally control its own destiny by taking any 4-lane extension down US 400 directly to I-44 so as not to depend upon OK to reciprocate with a US 69 expressway of their own -- thus securing a more assured source of traffic for the rest of US 69 to the north. 

If you go that far east, wouldn't it be more sensible at that point to continue on the half-dozen or so miles to I-49 instead of doubling back to US-69?

Of course that would be a possibility -- but at that point, the corridor would be in Missouri rather than Kansas -- and given their fiscal issues (and the present inability to finance even the long-planned I-49 extension to the AR line), deploying an addition 12+ miles of freeway just to reach a corridor in an adjoining state might be the proverbial bridge too far.  The sole purpose of the slight eastward shift along US 400 would be, as stated previously, to keep the whole corridor down to I-44 under Kansas jurisdiction -- so there's better chances of actually getting it completed (given recent OK reluctance to do much of anything). 

[Scott5114]

I was referring more to a potential motorist taking such a route. Were one to enter Missouri on northeastward trajectory, it might be more sensible to continue on to I-49 and up that route rather than turning back west on the US-166/400 corridor.

[sparker]

I was referring more to a potential motorist taking such a route. Were one to enter Missouri on northeastward trajectory, it might be more sensible to continue on to I-49 and up that route rather than turning back west on the US-166/400 corridor.

A facility basically using US 400 (or an alignment near the present one) to get to Alternate 69 and eventually US 69 wouldn't turn that far west -- a matter of somewhere about 5-7 miles -- and it would be likely that some sort of "cutoff" would be part of any future routing.  Since I-49 also veers northwest near Harrisonville (to about the same degree as any "backtracking" in Kansas), the whole thing looks like a wash.  The sole reason I even mentioned the US 400/166 connection was to illustrate a way the corridor could be completed (if indeed those plans were set forth) absent Oklahoma participation (which can't be assured).  Better than leaving it hanging at the state line!

[apeman33]

Kansas hasn't been afraid to leave it hanging at the Oklahoma state line before. Primary example: the Kansas Turnpike, 1950s.

Basically, I've seen the whole U.S. 69/I-49 thing as a competition between states. First, Missouri upgrades U.S. 71, so Kansas upgrades U.S. 69. Then Missouri says, "Oh, yeah? Well, now ours is an Interstate! Boom!"

So in a sense, I don't think Kansas would be interested in an alignment that puts the south end of the U.S. 69 upgrade anywhere near Missouri (also, if it were to continue being called U.S. 69, Missouri and Oklahoma would have to be OK with that because it changes highway numbering in their states). That would be taking a chance that traffic would choose I-49 instead.

Kansas' route will always have the handicap of the impractical "bypass" in Fort Scott. It doesn't need any more disadvantages.

[bugo]

If KDOT and ODOT were to finish this freeway all the way south to near Miami, this would become the prefered route from Tulsa and Dallas to Kansas City, especially if one is going to the Kansas side. Since US 69 will most likely not be duplexed with I-44 in this area, call the whole damn thing I-47.

[I-39]

Honestly, I really don't see a need for any further freeway upgrades to US 69. The traffic really isn't there. I doubt it would ever connect to US 69 in Oklahoma anyway.

Also, even if the I-45 extension ever became a reality, I doubt they'd continue it all the way to Big Cabin. The legislation only designated it from the state line to I-40 in Checotah.

[Bobby5280]

Any I-45 extension along US-69 would be completely stupid if it didn't at least extend as far as Big Cabin and I-44. That's the main point of doing the extension at all. That's an extremely busy heavy truck route. And there's more than enough general purpose traffic along that route to justify an Interstate quality upgrade.

[I-39]

Any I-45 extension along US-69 would be completely stupid if it didn't at least extend as far as Big Cabin and I-44. That's the main point of doing the extension at all. That's an extremely busy heavy truck route. And there's more than enough general purpose traffic along that route to justify an Interstate quality upgrade.

And I don't believe Oklahoma has any plans to upgrade US 69 into I-45, or upgrade US 69 at all north of I-40.

With the extension of I-57 to Little Rock forthcoming, I think that will become the primary Chicago-Dallas Route in the future.

[J N Winkler]

With the extension of I-57 to Little Rock forthcoming, I think that will become the primary Chicago-Dallas Route in the future.

Using current routings, Dallas-Chicago is actually fewer miles via Big Cabin (927 miles) than via Little Rock (957 miles).  And US 75/US 69 between Dallas and Kansas City is potentially a major Canamex corridor in its own right.

[I-39]

With the extension of I-57 to Little Rock forthcoming, I think that will become the primary Chicago-Dallas Route in the future.

Using current routings, Dallas-Chicago is actually fewer miles via Big Cabin (927 miles) than via Little Rock (957 miles).  And US 75/US 69 between Dallas and Kansas City is potentially a major Canamex corridor in its own right.

I'd rather be on a full interstate that bypasses St. Louis and doesn't have tolls and stop lights/at grade intersections rather than go via Big Cabin.

[sparker]

If KDOT and ODOT were to finish this freeway all the way south to near Miami, this would become the prefered route from Tulsa and Dallas to Kansas City, especially if one is going to the Kansas side. Since US 69 will most likely not be duplexed with I-44 in this area, call the whole damn thing I-47.

Any I-45 extension along US-69 would be completely stupid if it didn't at least extend as far as Big Cabin and I-44. That's the main point of doing the extension at all. That's an extremely busy heavy truck route. And there's more than enough general purpose traffic along that route to justify an Interstate quality upgrade.

Chances are that if I-45 is indeed extended north, it'll be done in 2 stages:  Dallas to I-40/Checotah (as per the original Section 1174 legislation); the little ol' speed traps on US 69 would just have to suck it up.  That would give, with (assuming a completed Bella Vista bypass) I-49 via I-40, a reasonably direct route to KC or StL for commercial traffic.  Taking it north to Big Cabin would have to deal with the Muskogee area, with either a new-terrain bypass to the west or some sort of shunt over the Muskogee Turnpike east bypass.  It's unlikely OK would undertake this anytime soon even if the portion south of I-40 were built; let's just call it a long-term prospect.  Bugo's suggestion re I-47 if a Kansas route were actually constructed from I-44 to KC (alright, Overland Park!) is not too shabby -- and the odds are in favor of that corridor's development versus a Checotah-Big Cabin I-45 section, so a stand-alone designation would be appropriate (at least for the foreseeable future). 

[J N Winkler]

I'd rather be on a full interstate that bypasses St. Louis and doesn't have tolls and stop lights/at grade intersections rather than go via Big Cabin.

Neither option is currently developed to full Interstate standards.  I think the Big Cabin route probably has a greater percentage that is four-lane divided since the I-30/I-57 route still has the 120-mile gap between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston, of which about half is two-lane in Arkansas with a 55 limit.

I think the strongest advantage of the I-30/I-57 route is that it bypasses the Ozarks, where it is particularly difficult to build roads with easy geometry.  I have found both I-30 and I-44 to be unpleasantly congested for rural freeways and both the MoDOT and TxDOT traffic count maps indicate AADTs in the 20,000-30,000 range.

[I-39]

I'd rather be on a full interstate that bypasses St. Louis and doesn't have tolls and stop lights/at grade intersections rather than go via Big Cabin.

Neither option is currently developed to full Interstate standards.  I think the Big Cabin route probably has a greater percentage that is four-lane divided since the I-30/I-57 route still has the 120-mile gap between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston, of which about half is two-lane in Arkansas with a 55 limit.

I think the strongest advantage of the I-30/I-57 route is that it bypasses the Ozarks, where it is particularly difficult to build roads with easy geometry.  I have found both I-30 and I-44 to be unpleasantly congested for rural freeways and both the MoDOT and TxDOT traffic count maps indicate AADTs in the 20,000-30,000 range.

I think the I-57/I-30 corridor would be much easier to finish. Only a little over 50 miles or so of US 67 needs new Interstate-grade construction (between US 412 and MO 158). The rest is a matter of converting the existing expressway (some of which is already freeway-grade). Plus, there is more consensus on the I-57/I-30 corridor as opposed to a potential I-45 extension. 

[Bobby5280]

And I don't believe Oklahoma has any plans to upgrade US 69 into I-45, or upgrade US 69 at all north of I-40.

Upgrading US-69 to Interstate quality from the Red River to Big Cabin is still 100% justifiable.

Current upgrade plans are limited. The biggest upgrade project along the corridor is converting US-69 into a freeway in McAlester. That will be a big help. There's another freeway upgrade project pending in Calera, just South of Durant and Choctaw Casino. Outside of that it will take some sort of massive federal initiative to fill in the non-freeway quality gaps.

With the extension of I-57 to Little Rock forthcoming, I think that will become the primary Chicago-Dallas Route in the future.

Big Cabin is more direct. Given the choice between I-35, US-69 and an incomplete I-57 long haul truckers would just stay on I-35 into Oklahoma City and then pick up I-44 if staying on an all Interstate-quality route was vital.

Given Missouri's own budget problems (and those of Arkansas as well) there is no clear time line on when I-57 could be built between Sikeston and Walnut Ridge. It could end up taking just as many years as Oklahoma slowly upgrading US-69.

Chances are that if I-45 is indeed extended north, it'll be done in 2 stages:  Dallas to I-40/Checotah (as per the original Section 1174 legislation); the little ol' speed traps on US 69 would just have to suck it up.

Those speed trap towns need to get bent. The state could bring those towns in line by making them fund all their own street repairs along US-69. Those towns depend on a LOT of state and federal money to keep the roads maintained. Cut off that funding and they'll agree to freeway-quality upgrades. I don't even understand how those towns have any sort of clout to block an upgrade of US-69 in the first place.

I think the strongest advantage of the I-30/I-57 route is that it bypasses the Ozarks, where it is particularly difficult to build roads with easy geometry.  I have found both I-30 and I-44 to be unpleasantly congested for rural freeways and both the MoDOT and TxDOT traffic count maps indicate AADTs in the 20,000-30,000 range.

The Dallas-Fort Worth metro and its 7 million residents have a big effect on both I-44 and I-30 traffic volumes. I-44 is also carrying a lot of long distance traffic going between Southern California and other points in the Southwest up to key areas in the Northeast. US-69 is a direct connection from DFW into that corridor.

I think the I-57/I-30 corridor would be much easier to finish. Only a little over 50 miles or so of US 67 needs new Interstate-grade construction (between US 412 and MO 158). The rest is a matter of converting the existing expressway (some of which is already freeway-grade). Plus, there is more consensus on the I-57/I-30 corridor as opposed to a potential I-45 extension.

Completing I-57 between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston depends on two states with very conservative governments agreeing with each other and working together on a plan. Look how many years it has taken both to get anywhere with the short Belle Vista bypass. Arkansas is the only one actually making any progress. I-57 is a considerably more expensive situation. The US-69 situation only involves Oklahoma.

None of the non-freeway gaps of US-69 in Oklahoma are difficult to resolve. The main issues are building new terrain bypasses around towns like Atoka, Muskogee, Wagoner, Chouteau, Pryor Creek and Adair. Most of that land is pretty flat and not in the flood plain. Some of the I-57 upgrade path in NE Arkansas can get flooded.

[I-39]

Alright then, if the US 69 corridor in Oklahoma is so critical and is truly the shortest route between Chicago and Dallas, why isn't Oklahoma paying more attention to it (i.e, more freeway upgrades). What exactly are the plans out there right now?

EDIT: To continue the discussion on US 69 in Oklahoma, please go to this thread:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20467.0

[bugo]

US 69 south of McAlester is terrible. Simply awful. If they built a parallel turnpike with a toll of $25 I'd happily pay it to avoid the abortion that is US 69.

Nexus 5X

[Henry]

While it would be nice to see I-45 extended up US 69, it would most likely duplicate I-49/US 71 on the other side of the border, not to mention be in very close proximity to it.