Changes to East Kellogg (US 54/400) plans, and KTA access

Started by WichitaRoads, October 20, 2014, 03:44:22 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

WichitaRoads

The big road news the last few days in ICT is the changes being made to the East Kellogg interchange with KTA and Webb Road. Due to some new "cooperation" between agencies (KDOT, KTA, City, County), they are now simplifying the plans at Webb Road and advancing Greenwich by two years... they also have changed the ramp plans for the KTA. The whole project will be done by 2019.

The Webb Road project was already supposed to be underway, especially since the land is bought, and the old properties leveled for the most part. However, when it went to bid, only one contractor responded, and came back significantly over the $90m planned for the project. This led to a chance for "cooperation", and a larger bill of nearly $300m for a revamped and lengthened project.

The issue is, some earlier discussion had been made to scrap the entire East Kellogg interchange where it is and move it out to the K-96 junction... only a mile from the K-96 interchange with KTA... rather dumb. They haven't really released any drawings or detailed plans (other than a quick shot of some plans on a table on the news that could have even been the old plans that are now scrapped), with a community meeting and presentation scheduled for October 29.

My question is: Does any one (perhaps Route56) have any details ahead of time? I'm very curious.

ICTRds


J N Winkler

Quote from: WichitaRoads on October 20, 2014, 03:44:22 PM
The issue is, some earlier discussion had been made to scrap the entire East Kellogg interchange where it is and move it out to the K-96 junction... only a mile from the K-96 interchange with KTA... rather dumb. They haven't really released any drawings or detailed plans (other than a quick shot of some plans on a table on the news that could have even been the old plans that are now scrapped), with a community meeting and presentation scheduled for October 29.

My question is: Does any one (perhaps Route56) have any details ahead of time? I'm very curious.

I have read the same thing you have--elimination of the Turnpike/Kellogg interchange in favor of access exclusively through K-96--in the Wichita Eagle, but I have not seen any preliminary schematics, and I suspect this information is being embargoed until the October 29 open house, which will begin with a presentation.

In regard to the plans on a table that you saw in shot on TV:  if they were five binders of 11" x 17" or 22" x 34" plans in a stack, then those were the as-let construction plans for the Kellogg/Webb/KTA contract (KDOT project number 54-87 KA-2382-01, City of Wichita project number 472-85031, only the City of Wichita project number being shown on most sheets).

I have not been able to get a handle on whether the city, which is acting as the lead agency on this project, made the right decision in rejecting the bid it received.  The construction budget was about $90 million, and although I am having trouble finding a bid tabulation right now, I seem to remember the rejected bid totalled $97 million.  This project is in an urban location and is structurally quite complex, so the city really should not have been surprised that there was only one bid and that it came in somewhat high.  Meanwhile, by starting again at the conceptual stage, the city is in effect writing off what it paid to Parsons Brinckerhoff in fees for final design work on the Kellogg/Webb/KTA phase.  I don't know what PB's billings were, but if you start with the assumption that final design is about 10% of the construction budget, then that is easily $9 million down the drain.

For the city I suspect it was politically quite appealing to go back to the conceptual stage since they were getting heat last year from a car dealer who was unhappy with the then proposed configuration of the Kellogg/Webb interchange and paid a consultant to draw up a revised plan, long after the original concept had been approved and just as the construction plans were being finalized.

I am quite disgusted with the way this has been unfolding.
"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

WichitaRoads

J N,

The plans I saw were not in a stack. They ran the length of a table, showing plans from near Greenwich all the way to the KTA. Now, what makes me suspicious that they were the old plans is that the plans seem to show to freeway section tapering off before Greenwich, with the diagram showing a normal at grade intersection.... now that I think of it, it HAS to be the old plans.

I wasn't aware of what the actual bid return was. $97m is, obviously, above the planned cost, but not so unreasonable. The city has truly botched this. Wasting the engineering funds... its unconscionable. Joe Self is the car dealer the balked.... he's assured that many people won't ever buy from him again by his little temper tantrum. MANY will be affected by the project.... some with much more skin in the game than he has... why is he so important to even lend a LITTLE reasoning to this new farce?

Closing the East Kellogg KTA interchange and forcing us to drive further to K-96 is absurd. It closes a historical (albeit dated) exit on the KTA, and will inconvenience hundreds, if not thousands of drivers daily. The whole reason for the K-96 KTA interchange was to service a growing area of Wichita, and to relieve congestion. Running all of Kellogg's traffic through there will be a nightmare.

ICTRds

Ned Weasel

#3
Quote from: WichitaRoads on October 21, 2014, 02:52:01 PM
J N,

The plans I saw were not in a stack. They ran the length of a table, showing plans from near Greenwich all the way to the KTA. Now, what makes me suspicious that they were the old plans is that the plans seem to show to freeway section tapering off before Greenwich, with the diagram showing a normal at grade intersection.... now that I think of it, it HAS to be the old plans.

I wasn't aware of what the actual bid return was. $97m is, obviously, above the planned cost, but not so unreasonable. The city has truly botched this. Wasting the engineering funds... its unconscionable. Joe Self is the car dealer the balked.... he's assured that many people won't ever buy from him again by his little temper tantrum. MANY will be affected by the project.... some with much more skin in the game than he has... why is he so important to even lend a LITTLE reasoning to this new farce?

Closing the East Kellogg KTA interchange and forcing us to drive further to K-96 is absurd. It closes a historical (albeit dated) exit on the KTA, and will inconvenience hundreds, if not thousands of drivers daily. The whole reason for the K-96 KTA interchange was to service a growing area of Wichita, and to relieve congestion. Running all of Kellogg's traffic through there will be a nightmare.

ICTRds

But isn't Exit 53/K-96 and Kellogg planned to be completely overhauled at some point, such that (1) there will be a free-flowing freeway-to-freeway connection between K-96 and I-35/The KTA (as opposed to the the current configuration, which is almost identical to the western* I-76/PA Turnpike and I-376 interchange), and (2) there will be direct ramps (and separate toll plazas, where applicable) for all movements, as opposed to the single-choke-point configuration for traffic entering and exiting the Turnpike (similar to the way Exit 182 was overhauled to become Exit 182/183, with three separate toll plazas)?  I saw a drawing for this a long time ago.  I don't remember seeing a target construction date, but it was one of KDOT's or the KTA's future proposals (probably a collaboration between both).  I'll post an update here if I ever find it again, or maybe someone here already knows of the drawing I'm describing.

I'll admit that I'd be a bit sad to see Exit 50 go away, but the proposition makes sense to me assuming (1) Kellogg traffic moves smoothly enough between Webb and K-96 so as not to cause a significant delay for EB Kellogg travelers wishing to access the NB Turnpike (and SB Turnpike travelers wishing to access WB Kellogg), and (2) the Exit 53/K-96 and Kellogg interchange is overhauled as described above before Exit 50 is permanently closed.

Of course, even given those two conditions, Exit 50 does provide convenient access between both Rock and Webb and the Turnpike, which couldn't be fully replaced by an upgraded Kellogg and an upgraded Exit 53, so maybe there are more reasons for keeping it than one would consider from just looking at the freeway network alone.

I do remember that, at some point, both a traffic signal and a roundabout were proposed as options for the Kellogg side of the redesigned Exit 50, but those were dismissed in favor of the (expensive) freeway-to-freeway connection.  Should those two, less orthodox options be reconsidered?

*Corrected upon editing.
"I was raised by a cup of coffee." - Strong Bad imitating Homsar

Disclaimer: Views I express are my own and don't reflect any employer or associated entity.

J N Winkler

#4
Quote from: stridentweasel on October 21, 2014, 11:47:55 PM
But isn't Exit 53/K-96 and Kellogg planned to be completely overhauled at some point, such that (1) there will be a free-flowing freeway-to-freeway connection between K-96 and I-35/The KTA (as opposed to the the current configuration, which is almost identical to the I-76/PA Turnpike and I-376 interchange), and (2) there will be direct ramps (and separate toll plazas, where applicable) for all movements, as opposed to the single-choke-point configuration for traffic entering and exiting the Turnpike (similar to the way Exit 182 was overhauled to become Exit 182/183, with three separate toll plazas)?  I saw a drawing for this a long time ago.  I don't remember seeing a target construction date, but it was one of KDOT's or the KTA's future proposals (probably a collaboration between both).  I'll post an update here if I ever find it again, or maybe someone here already knows of the drawing I'm describing.

I wish I could help, but aside from a side reference in the link given below, I cannot at present.  It hardly helps also that KDOT has taken down its Project Information Portal.

QuoteI do remember that, at some point, both a traffic signal and a roundabout were proposed as options for the Kellogg side of the redesigned Exit 50, but those were dismissed in favor of the (expensive) freeway-to-freeway connection.  Should those two, less orthodox options be reconsidered?

Actually, the three options considered were U-turn (traffic exiting the Turnpike and wanting to go west would have had to go all the way to Webb to use a Texas-style crossover/facilitated U-turn there), signals, and roundabouts.  The U-turn option was the cheapest but offered the worst performance.  Signals--the next cheapest option, and the one actually chosen--offered good performance.  Roundabouts worked even better, but were thought to be too novel and unfamiliar to Wichita drivers.  A summary of the analysis is presented here:

http://www.ite.org/Membersonly/techconference/2009/CB09C0604.pdf

The engineers also modelled closure of the Turnpike interchange altogether ("performs acceptably" or words to that effect), and the analysis alludes to an ongoing study of the Turnpike/K-96 interchange without specifically describing the options considered.

Like WichitaRoads, I dislike the idea of closing Exit 50 because it inflicts up to six miles of out-of-the-way travel on people who live near the interchange and want to go south.  Also, doesn't the K-96/US 54 interchange have a problem with truck tipping?

Edit:  It turns out the link given above includes a presentation section with a plan of a souped-up Kellogg/K-96/KTA interchange complex where the existing K-96/Kellogg trumpet has been upgraded to a wye and there are direct access ramps to the Turnpike to and from Kellogg and K-96.
"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

NE2

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 22, 2014, 12:53:29 AM
Like WichitaRoads, I dislike the idea of closing Exit 50 because it inflicts up to six miles of out-of-the-way travel on people who live near the interchange and want to go south.
Only 2.7 miles (go west to I-135).

The obvious solution is a half diamond at the Turnpike and Webb. There seems to be enough space for a tight one.
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".

J N Winkler

Some additional and corrected information:

*  $97 million was apparently the construction budget for Kellogg/Webb/KTA:

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/article2927413.html#/tabPane=tabs-cd02770d-1

(I think $90 million is what I saw in TIP documents.)

*  The sole bid came in $25 million over estimate:

http://www.kwch.com/news/local-news/kellogg-exapnsion-gets-yellow-light/26078000

Or maybe just $20 million:

http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/print-edition/2014/06/20/kellogg-expansion-idles-on-budget-and-kta.html?page=all

*  Closing Exit 50 was considered back in 2010 and rejected by--guess whom?--KTA and KDOT.  (Jim Armour, who was then the City Engineer but has since retired, gave councilman Paul Gray a traffic engineering lesson.)

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/article1024063.html

*  Design budget for Kellogg/Webb/KTA was fixed at $7.5 million back in 2010:

http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2010/03/01/daily12.html
"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

Ned Weasel

#7
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 22, 2014, 12:53:29 AM
Actually, the three options considered were U-turn (traffic exiting the Turnpike and wanting to go west would have had to go all the way to Webb to use a Texas-style crossover/facilitated U-turn there), signals, and roundabouts.  The U-turn option was the cheapest but offered the worst performance.  Signals--the next cheapest option, and the one actually chosen--offered good performance.  Roundabouts worked even better, but were thought to be too novel and unfamiliar to Wichita drivers.  A summary of the analysis is presented here:

http://www.ite.org/Membersonly/techconference/2009/CB09C0604.pdf

I may have been mistaken.  I thought the "final" design ("final" being in quotation marks because it is now scrapped) was a freeway-to-freeway connection where the Turnpike to WB Kellogg movement was facilitated by a Texas Turnaround just before Webb (not an ideal freeway-to-freeway connection because it would be a tight turn and would involve at least one lane change for that movement), and the WB Kellogg to Turnpike movement was facilitated by a tight flyover ramp on the west side of the interchange.  Did I just imagine that flyover ramp on the west side of the interchange being part of the plan?  The concept of which I'm thinking isn't very dissimilar from the "U-turn option" you're citing, except that the flyover ramp would have been closer to the interchange and wouldn't take any freeway-to-freeway traffic alongside the abutting driveways, and there would have been direct ramps between the Turnpike and EB Kellogg.

Honestly, I lost track at some point.

Quote
Like WichitaRoads, I dislike the idea of closing Exit 50 because it inflicts up to six miles of out-of-the-way travel on people who live near the interchange and want to go south.  Also, doesn't the K-96/US 54 interchange have a problem with truck tipping?

Edit:  It turns out the link given above includes a presentation section with a plan of a souped-up Kellogg/K-96/KTA interchange complex where the existing K-96/Kellogg trumpet has been upgraded to a wye and there are direct access ramps to the Turnpike to and from Kellogg and K-96.

I'm pretty sure the drawing on the right-hand side of Page 20 of the PDF to which you linked, is exactly the drawing of which I was thinking for the Exit 53/K-96 and Kellogg overhaul.  I wasn't aware of a truck tipping problem at the K-96/Kellogg interchange, but I would imagine that the new interchange would alleviate that.
"I was raised by a cup of coffee." - Strong Bad imitating Homsar

Disclaimer: Views I express are my own and don't reflect any employer or associated entity.

J N Winkler

#8
Quote from: stridentweasel on October 22, 2014, 02:19:46 AMI may have been mistaken.  I thought the "final" design ("final" being in quotation marks because it is now scrapped) was a freeway-to-freeway connection where the Turnpike to WB Kellogg movement was facilitated by a Texas Turnaround just before Webb (not an ideal freeway-to-freeway connection because it would be a tight turn and would involve at least one lane change for that movement), and the WB Kellogg to Turnpike movement was facilitated by a tight flyover ramp on the west side of the interchange.  Did I just imagine that flyover ramp on the west side of the interchange being part of the plan?  The concept of which I'm thinking isn't very dissimilar from the "U-turn option" you're citing, except that the flyover ramp would have been closer to the interchange and wouldn't take any freeway-to-freeway traffic alongside the abutting driveways, and there would have been direct ramps between the Turnpike and EB Kellogg.

Actually, you were right--I posted without double-checking and it seems the option actually taken forward for design was a souped-up variant of the U-turn, with flyovers located where you describe.

Edit:  Here is the title sheet for the scrapped design, with a sketch of the proposed layout:



I also remembered the volume count incorrectly--it was actually six (1186 sheets total) instead of just five.

QuoteHonestly, I lost track at some point.

This has not been an easy project to follow, partly because the City of Wichita has been the lead agency on it and does not do project portals or major project websites, and most of the relevant documentation appears as part of council members' agenda packets if it is put online at all.  The city also likes to renovate its website frequently and is not always careful about the basics, such as ensuring that old agenda packets and meeting minutes are archived online, city ordinances are available online, etc.  I am quite sure I have seen an agenda packet that describes the rationale for the chosen option, but I couldn't swear it is still online.

I dimly recall that the flyover design was chosen in spite of the added out-of-way movement for Turnpike-to-WB-Kellogg traffic in order to eliminate signal delay for Kellogg traffic accessing the Turnpike.

Edit II:  This is a bit of trivia, but the Kellogg expansion is captioned rather cryptically in TIP documents as "Cypress to Wiedemann" (Kellogg/Webb/KTA) and "Wiedemann to 127th" (the next section east).  Cypress and 127th are both signalized intersections on Kellogg, but there is no street named Wiedemann in the vicinity.  The break between the two phases is located approximately at Greenwich Road and the northeast corner of Greenwich and Kellogg is part of the Gladys Wiedemann Addition.  (K.T. and Gladys Wiedemann were fuel distributors, oil extractors, and ranchers who started in Minneapolis but moved to Wichita in 1950 and later became locally well-known philanthropists.)

Quote from: NE2 on October 22, 2014, 01:13:00 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 22, 2014, 12:53:29 AM
Like WichitaRoads, I dislike the idea of closing Exit 50 because it inflicts up to six miles of out-of-the-way travel on people who live near the interchange and want to go south.

Only 2.7 miles (go west to I-135).

The obvious solution is a half diamond at the Turnpike and Webb. There seems to be enough space for a tight one.

Point taken re. the actual distance disadvantage, though I think it is a little higher than that (maybe 4 miles) for traffic wishing to use the K-15 interchange and being willing to follow one mile of surface-street K-15 between I-135 and the Turnpike.

Most of the options considered for this interchange were diamond variants of one type or another.  The difficulty arises from the traffic volumes:  Webb Road actually carries more traffic than the Turnpike, and the city wanted to be able to accommodate an increase in traffic from 43,000 VPD to 129,000 VPD.  Planning control in this town is not oriented at preserving spare capacity on the freeway network (I think it should be, but my view is still in the minority), and in any case there is little Wichita can do about what goes on in Andover, which is just over the Butler County line, is looking to expand, and is expected to be a major driver of traffic load on east Kellogg.
"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

WichitaRoads

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 22, 2014, 01:21:17 AM
Some additional and corrected information:

*  $97 million was apparently the construction budget for Kellogg/Webb/KTA:

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/article2927413.html#/tabPane=tabs-cd02770d-1

(I think $90 million is what I saw in TIP documents.)

*  The sole bid came in $25 million over estimate:

http://www.kwch.com/news/local-news/kellogg-exapnsion-gets-yellow-light/26078000

Or maybe just $20 million:

http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/print-edition/2014/06/20/kellogg-expansion-idles-on-budget-and-kta.html?page=all

*  Closing Exit 50 was considered back in 2010 and rejected by--guess whom?--KTA and KDOT.  (Jim Armour, who was then the City Engineer but has since retired, gave councilman Paul Gray a traffic engineering lesson.)

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/article1024063.html

*  Design budget for Kellogg/Webb/KTA was fixed at $7.5 million back in 2010:

http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2010/03/01/daily12.html

Well, tons of conflicting details... if it came in that over budget, I can indeed see a reason to rethink it. But a bigger project at $300m seems a bit overboard. As well, I still don't like losing Exit 50. And, when would they close it in this whole mess?

ICTRds

J N Winkler

If memory serves, $300 million is what they had already budgeted for the expansion out to 127th Street--the TIP amounts for Wiedemann to 127th were quite a bit higher than for Cypress to Wiedemann.

I also don't think it is necessarily a given that Exit 50 will be closed even if the bottom end of K-96 is redeveloped into a K-96/US 54/KTA interchange complex with high-speed direct connectors.  I have my own reservations about whether an interchange as elaborate as that diagrammed in the ITE presentation can be accommodated within a $300 million construction budget that also has to contain 2 1/2 miles worth of widening and grade separations on Kellogg, but we will have to see.

WichitaRoads:  are you planning on attending the presentation?
"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

WichitaRoads

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 22, 2014, 03:19:28 PM
If memory serves, $300 million is what they had already budgeted for the expansion out to 127th Street--the TIP amounts for Wiedemann to 127th were quite a bit higher than for Cypress to Wiedemann.

I also don't think it is necessarily a given that Exit 50 will be closed even if the bottom end of K-96 is redeveloped into a K-96/US 54/KTA interchange complex with high-speed direct connectors.  I have my own reservations about whether an interchange as elaborate as that diagrammed in the ITE presentation can be accommodated within a $300 million construction budget that also has to contain 2 1/2 miles worth of widening and grade separations on Kellogg, but we will have to see.

WichitaRoads:  are you planning on attending the presentation?

I would love to attend it, but I won't be able to get away to do so. I will have to rely on news reports.

ICTRds

J N Winkler

Quote from: WichitaRoads on October 22, 2014, 04:14:38 PMI would love to attend it, but I won't be able to get away to do so. I will have to rely on news reports.

I am going to try to go.  I am not thrilled about the time (partially overlaps with my Monday gym session) or location (way on the opposite side of town from me).  I have also found that these open houses tend to be dog-and-pony shows, curated by consultant staff who are nominally there to answer questions from the public but cultivate a subtle aura of unapproachability by wearing expensive suits while most members of the public who bother to show up are in shirtsleeves.

However, besides the conceptual plans, there are likely to be other documents available for inspection, such as any break-in-access/interchange justification studies KTA has had to compile to move the K-96 interchange.  My experience with such exhibitions (notably the open house for the I-235/13th Street flyover) has been that although such documents are nowadays invariably "born digital," they are made available in paper form only, have a lot of background on project design that is not reported elsewhere, and are often not subsequently uploaded to the Web in electronic format.  Also, if I am lucky, I will be able to speak to a KDOT or City of Wichita representative about how the proposed project will fit in with future plans for the Kellogg corridor.

There is also the small matter that we have already paid for our admissions tickets to this shindig at the gas pump.  Federal-aid allocations include a small percentage for planning and consultants' billables for open houses are among the expenses that are chargeable.
"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

WichitaRoads

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 23, 2014, 12:33:31 PM
Quote from: WichitaRoads on October 22, 2014, 04:14:38 PMI would love to attend it, but I won't be able to get away to do so. I will have to rely on news reports.

I am going to try to go.  I am not thrilled about the time (partially overlaps with my Monday gym session) or location (way on the opposite side of town from me).  I have also found that these open houses tend to be dog-and-pony shows, curated by consultant staff who are nominally there to answer questions from the public but cultivate a subtle aura of unapproachability by wearing expensive suits while most members of the public who bother to show up are in shirtsleeves.

However, besides the conceptual plans, there are likely to be other documents available for inspection, such as any break-in-access/interchange justification studies KTA has had to compile to move the K-96 interchange.  My experience with such exhibitions (notably the open house for the I-235/13th Street flyover) has been that although such documents are nowadays invariably "born digital," they are made available in paper form only, have a lot of background on project design that is not reported elsewhere, and are often not subsequently uploaded to the Web in electronic format.  Also, if I am lucky, I will be able to speak to a KDOT or City of Wichita representative about how the proposed project will fit in with future plans for the Kellogg corridor.

There is also the small matter that we have already paid for our admissions tickets to this shindig at the gas pump.  Federal-aid allocations include a small percentage for planning and consultants' billables for open houses are among the expenses that are chargeable.

I had that same experience when I went to the informational meeting a few years ago for the bike lane plans on Douglas... I felt very, very looked down upon, as did every other person who went with grave reservations about the project. definitely a dog and pony show if there ever was one... it was just as you described these events. Even though I don't live in College Hill anymore (epicenter of trouble in that terrible plan), it still irks me how we were treated, and how stupid the plan really was.

I'm glad you are going... certainly one of the most "in the know" among us! I know you will, but I will make the requisite request to let us know what you find out. You'll give a better insight that 3, 10, 12, or the Eagle ever will!

ICTRds

J N Winkler

I have now returned from the open house, and would like to begin by thanking WichitaRoads for his kind words.

This event was held between 5.30 and 7 this evening at Summit Church, which is adjacent to the Turnpike right-of-way in the middle of the thin strip of land where I-35 and Kellogg briefly run parallel to each other.  A media briefing was held at the same location beginning at 4, so I arrived shortly before 5 to find the doors open and displays laid out.  The open house itself was held in a large function room that had a screen at one end, a block of seating in front of it, and tables with rollplot displays of the proposed improvements on either side of the seating.  Comment forms and boxes were next to the two doors.  In the adjacent dining room, refreshments had been laid out, including sugar cookies cut and iced to look like sunflowers.

There were representatives from KDOT, KTA, the City of Wichita, TranSystems, and Parsons Brinckerhoff.  (TranSystems did the alternatives analysis back in 2009-2010, a summary of which is linked upthread, and PB handled final design for the abortive Kellogg/Webb/KTA phase.)  They were in suits but made efforts to reach out, e.g. by asking "Do you have any questions?"

All of this said, I am afraid the proposed concept is quite bad.

There were two rollplots, one showing the area around Webb and the other showing Greenwich to 127th with part of the K-96 trumpet.  With one glaring exception (described below), they were detailed down to final striping, showing the proposed improvement in bright flat colors against satellite imagery, and were the main means of communicating the design.  I asked if they would be uploaded to the Web and was assured that they would be online tomorrow and was even given a project site URL (www.EastKelloggImprovements.com), but since I could not get DNS service to it on my phone, I took a few cellphone photos just in case.  Key points are as follows:

Webb

The agencies have reverted to a variant of the U-turn design, which the 2009 alternatives analysis (see link upthread) showed is cheapest but offers the worst performance.  Eastbound Kellogg traffic will be able to access the Turnpike through Exit 50 but from the frontage road only, which will require exiting a mile upstream and going through the lights at Armour and Rock.  (This is worse than the present interim arrangement with free flow all the way to the one light at Cypress just in front of the Turnpike on-ramp.)  Turnpike traffic will be able to access both directions of Kellogg but also by frontage road only, and will have to use the Webb crossover to go west.

Greenwich-127th

The agencies propose new connections between KTA and Kellogg east of Zelta (a cross street just east of Greenwich) but these were shown only as thick black arrows indicating direction of travel.  I was told this was because design was still being finalized, but I also noticed a KTA representative with a legal pad going around taking down the names, addresses, and phone numbers of people who were expressing ROW-related concerns.

The black arrows show connections from eastbound mainline Kellogg to both directions of the Turnpike, with the eastbound on-ramp for Greenwich (also shown as a black arrow) braided underneath.  A fourth black arrow shows a two-lane direct connection from the southbound Turnpike to westbound mainline Kellogg.  It becomes a two-lane gain, the right-hand lane of which becomes a dropped lane for the Greenwich exit, thus creating an asymmetric weaving section--a major highway design no-no.  The left of the two gained lanes merges into Kellogg after the Greenwich exit gore.  Obvious easy connections, such as Turnpike northbound to Kellogg eastbound, are omitted.

The concept as shown in the rollplots does not show a connection between westbound Kellogg and the Turnpike in either direction that does not involve exiting to frontage roads and then using a facilitated U-turn at the next major intersection.

In addition to the rollplots, a PowerPoint presentation was also given, by Rex Fleming (KTA) with Mike Armour (City of Wichita) identified as co-author.  Possibly the slides will also be uploaded.  The presentation was long on talk and short on slides, and I cannot hear, so I didn't get any of the justifications offered for the design.  (A woman sitting next to me took notes on a legal pad but declined my request to compare notes.)

Total budget was quoted as $345 million, split among the three agencies as follows:  KDOT $176 million, City of Wichita $145 million, Turnpike $24 million.  The total project is still to be handled in two phases, with Kellogg/Webb going out to bid (again) in summer 2015 while Kellogg/Greenwich is advertised in summer 2016.

I asked about the possibility of converting the Kellogg/K-96 interchange to a wye with slip ramps for the Turnpike, similar to the concept shown in the alternatives analysis, and received a rather vague answer to the general effect that this was being considered for later phases.  It seemed evident to me that the design shown on the rollplots was the result of a frantic, and still ongoing, attempt to keep costs down by deleting as much structure content as possible, even to the extent of impairing ultimate traffic performance.




The Wichita Eagle's early-posted summary of the meeting is here:

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/article3409604.html
"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

WichitaRoads

#15
Shit.  :banghead:

Sorry, had to get that out of the way.

J N, thank you very much for going and reporting back to us with the bad news. I will not shoot the messenger, but I sure would like to shoot the reps from responsible agencies.

First, the Exit 50 U-turn option is a nightmare waiting to happen already! I just LOVE the thought of going west on Kellogg from Exit 50 by going east then north, then west using the Webb Rd. bridge. I can only imagine the horror on the faces of my driver ed students when they encounter this crap.  :ded:

Second, they are going to redo the K96/KTA junction by adding Kellogg connections, too? Seems stupid to me to do both; however, in 2020 when it MIGHT be all done (HA HA), I'll probably forsake Exit 50 for Exit 53 anytime I need to go north on the KTA and use this instead.

ICTRds

Ned Weasel

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 27, 2014, 10:00:33 PM
I have now returned from the open house, and would like to begin by thanking WichitaRoads for his kind words.

This is quite a detailed and informative review.  I can't help but think of a few comments, simply because Kellogg has fascinated me for about as long as I can remember--

QuoteAll of this said, I am afraid the proposed concept is quite bad.

It does sound like quite a mess.  In light of that, I hope this concept is nothing more than a rough draft, but if construction is really supposed to start next year, I have to wonder how much of an opportunity there is to fix the design problems before building them.  I'm really anxious for EastKelloggImprovements.com to open, so I can see the details for myself.

QuoteWebb

The agencies have reverted to a variant of the U-turn design, which the 2009 alternatives analysis (see link upthread) showed is cheapest but offers the worst performance.  Eastbound Kellogg traffic will be able to access the Turnpike through Exit 50 but from the frontage road only, which will require exiting a mile upstream and going through the lights at Armour and Rock.  (This is worse than the present interim arrangement with free flow all the way to the one light at Cypress just in front of the Turnpike on-ramp.)  Turnpike traffic will be able to access both directions of Kellogg but also by frontage road only, and will have to use the Webb crossover to go west.

I don't disagree with your distaste for this option, but--  Under the original "U-Turn" concept, eastbound Kellogg traffic wouldn't have to exit all the way back at Armour to get to the Turnpike; one could bypass all of the traffic signals by exiting at Webb, taking the U-Turn just before Webb, then taking the U-Turn just before Eastern, then exiting from the frontage road at the Turnpike.  Is the new concept different, or are you just assuming drivers don't want to traverse the full perimeter of a half-mile-long oval in order to exit from eastbound Kellogg to the Turnpike?

In light of all this, I have a very modest but simple idea for some changes to the concept--  If, based on the concept you describe, we can assume that (1) the freeway-to-freeway connection at Exit 50 is too expensive, (2) a full interchange at Exit 50 is going to remain in place in some form, and (3) the full upgrade to Exit 53/K-96 and Kellogg (specifically, http://www.ite.org/Membersonly/techconference/2009/CB09C0604.pdf , p. 20) is on hold indefinitely despite the East Kellogg project going forward, then why not use the "Signal Concept" or a modification of it in this phase and leave the Exit 53/K-96 and Kellogg interchange alone, aside from widening Kellogg and adding frontage roads, until it's ready for the full upgrade, if that time ever comes?

In my non-expert opinion, the "Signal Concept" could even be modified to make it less expensive.  It could use the same frontage road configuration as every other intersection (thus eliminating that underpass under the Turnpike access road), and it could have a "half-diamond" configuration of ramps just west of the Turnpike access road and another "half-diamond" just east of Webb, so that Webb and the Turnpike access road, which are only a quarter-mile apart, share a the equivalent of a full diamond, much the same way that Edwards and Meridian do west of Downtown, along with countless other examples across the country.  This idea seems simple and practical, though not ideal, and I would imagine that, if Rock can share Kellogg access with Armour, then Webb could share Kellogg access with the Turnpike (I know the Kellogg and Armour interchange has problems, but this is also a bit different).  This would simply add one overpass and two traffic signals compared with the "U-Turn" concept.

Other ideas?
"I was raised by a cup of coffee." - Strong Bad imitating Homsar

Disclaimer: Views I express are my own and don't reflect any employer or associated entity.

J N Winkler

Quote from: stridentweasel on October 29, 2014, 03:30:24 AMI don't disagree with your distaste for this option, but--  Under the original "U-Turn" concept, eastbound Kellogg traffic wouldn't have to exit all the way back at Armour to get to the Turnpike; one could bypass all of the traffic signals by exiting at Webb, taking the U-Turn just before Webb, then taking the U-Turn just before Eastern, then exiting from the frontage road at the Turnpike.  Is the new concept different, or are you just assuming drivers don't want to traverse the full perimeter of a half-mile-long oval in order to exit from eastbound Kellogg to the Turnpike?

I don't think the concept is different in this respect, though I didn't check to see whether the frontage roads are planned to be continuous on the north side, which is what it would take for this loop to work.  The time cost of the half-mile out-of-way movement would likely average out to the same or slightly less than waiting at Armour and Rock, but circuitous routings such as this are hard to sign.

QuoteIn light of all this, I have a very modest but simple idea for some changes to the concept--  If, based on the concept you describe, we can assume that (1) the freeway-to-freeway connection at Exit 50 is too expensive, (2) a full interchange at Exit 50 is going to remain in place in some form, and (3) the full upgrade to Exit 53/K-96 and Kellogg (specifically, http://www.ite.org/Membersonly/techconference/2009/CB09C0604.pdf , p. 20) is on hold indefinitely despite the East Kellogg project going forward, then why not use the "Signal Concept" or a modification of it in this phase and leave the Exit 53/K-96 and Kellogg interchange alone, aside from widening Kellogg and adding frontage roads, until it's ready for the full upgrade, if that time ever comes?

When all is said and done, I suspect the current concept without the two added bridges will cost almost as much to build as was budgeted for the now-discarded concept with the two bridges.  In addition to the $8 million in design costs that has to be written off, there is now a two-year delay with inflation at about 10%.  There is no guarantee the bidding environment will be any more favorable, especially since the city did nothing to ease it the first time around by uploading preliminary plans to the Web, staging constructability review conferences late in the design phase, or re-advertising when the first bid came in high--all of which state DOTs have tried (with some success) to get better bids.

QuoteIn my non-expert opinion, the "Signal Concept" could even be modified to make it less expensive.  It could use the same frontage road configuration as every other intersection (thus eliminating that underpass under the Turnpike access road), and it could have a "half-diamond" configuration of ramps just west of the Turnpike access road and another "half-diamond" just east of Webb, so that Webb and the Turnpike access road, which are only a quarter-mile apart, share a the equivalent of a full diamond, much the same way that Edwards and Meridian do west of Downtown, along with countless other examples across the country.  This idea seems simple and practical, though not ideal, and I would imagine that, if Rock can share Kellogg access with Armour, then Webb could share Kellogg access with the Turnpike (I know the Kellogg and Armour interchange has problems, but this is also a bit different).  This would simply add one overpass and two traffic signals compared with the "U-Turn" concept.

I don't know if the numbers were ever run on split-diamond concepts similar to what you describe.  They do have the advantage of reducing structure content, but at the expense of added signal delay, which is hard to justify in light of the rather low volumes using the Turnpike access.

I think this is where we come up on some fairly high-level political issues.  KTA and the Wichita MPO have had a tug-of-war over the years about converting the Turnpike between Kellogg and I-135 into the southeast quadrant of a full Wichita freeway loop, thus easing traffic conditions in that part of the city, which has very poor freeway access (and also the ZIP code with the highest infant mortality in Kansas, but I digress).  One idea that has been suggested is simply to make the Turnpike toll-free on this length, but KTA has never been interested.  I think the most recent Southeast Wichita transportation study looked at the idea of building local lanes parallel to the Turnpike for commuter use, but obviously this would be very expensive.

My general impression has always been that the KTA prefers to run light long-distance traffic on a 75 MPH blind corridor in southeast Wichita because, for them, that is the minimum-regret strategy.  It requires little capital investment, they don't have to worry about the capacity and safety issues that come with mixing local and long-distance traffic with speed limit changes, and their maintenance costs are quite modest.

The 2010 concept for Kellogg/Webb/KTA threatens to undermine this position by providing connectivity between Kellogg and the Turnpike that has the right location and adequate capacity for commuter use.  I speculate that when the city's lone bid came high, the KTA jumped at the chance to kill the plan by dangling the possibility of a full rebuild of K-96/Kellogg/KTA along the lines of that shown in the ITE presentation.  Even if this rebuild materializes--and I highly doubt it will anytime soon, since the current plan shows nothing nearly as elaborate--it serves the KTA's interests with regard to commuter traffic, because the eastern flank of K-96 carries far less traffic than East Kellogg.
"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

J N Winkler

Just to add:  the project website is up and clearly there has been a (failed) attempt to upload the rollplots:

http://www.eastkelloggimprovements.com/about

Clicking on "Webb" takes you to the rollplot for Greenwich/K-96 with the black arrows.  Clicking on "Greenwich/K-96" takes you not to a rollplot, but rather one of the slide illustrations.

I am inclined for now to wait for a few days and see if this error is noticed and corrected, since the contact section lists VIPs instead of the people who would do the actual work to fix the problem.  If I wind up sending an email, I will suggest uploading the PowerPoint slides and full-resolution rollplots.
"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

Ned Weasel

#19
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 29, 2014, 09:16:12 PM
Just to add:  the project website is up and clearly there has been a (failed) attempt to upload the rollplots:

http://www.eastkelloggimprovements.com/about

Clicking on "Webb" takes you to the rollplot for Greenwich/K-96 with the black arrows.  Clicking on "Greenwich/K-96" takes you not to a rollplot, but rather one of the slide illustrations.

I am inclined for now to wait for a few days and see if this error is noticed and corrected, since the contact section lists VIPs instead of the people who would do the actual work to fix the problem.  If I wind up sending an email, I will suggest uploading the PowerPoint slides and full-resolution rollplots.

Thanks for the update!  First of all, in response to your previous post, I have to admit, I'm more confused about the KTA's motives than ever.  I always saw the Wichita portion of the Turnpike as the southeastern leg of Wichita's three-piece de facto beltway, and I've long thought it would probably eventually be widened to six lanes between Exits 42 and 53.  It's far from unprecedented for a toll road to serve as a partial or even full beltway; Denver, Oklahoma City, Houston, Chicago, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Orlando all have examples to varying degrees.  I never really thought of it in terms of economic implications, though, and I appreciate your insight.

Now, as for those arrows in the new proposed Kellogg and Turnpike interchange--  I can understand the idea behind adding ramps from eastbound Kellogg to both directions of the Turnpike if the implication is that both the proposed Exit 50 and the existing Exit 53 are insufficient for those movements.  But what about the sole ramp from the southbound Turnpike to westbound Kellogg?  If it is there for the same reason, then why is it not reciprocated with a ramp from the northbound Turnpike?  And are we to take the design to mean that the proposed Exit 50 and the existing Exit 53 are sufficient for all of the remaining movements?  The "what" is understandable, but the "why" is a bit baffling!
"I was raised by a cup of coffee." - Strong Bad imitating Homsar

Disclaimer: Views I express are my own and don't reflect any employer or associated entity.

NE2

Quote from: stridentweasel on October 30, 2014, 01:54:38 AM
It's far from unprecedented for a toll road to serve as a partial or even full beltway; Denver, Oklahoma City, Houston, Chicago, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Orlando all have examples to varying degrees.
Orlando is actually a very good example if you ignore the "real" beltways of 417 and 429: Florida's Turnpike cuts diagonally across southwest Orlando, and was recently widened to 8 lanes due to commuter traffic.
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".



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.