Kirksville Bypass / US 36 in Missouri

[alex5793]

I traveled to Kirksville, MO this week.  I drove the new bypass, and then after meeting with several folks in town, the signing of the bypass leaves much to be desired.  Usually I will try and stand up for my fellow engineers, but I was scratching my head about some of these items: (1) When traveling NB on 63, exiting for the NB business 63, you fly over the bypass, then come back to the existing 4-lane highway.  Within a half mile, there is the existing Hwy 11 intersection.  However, there is no exit signage on US 63 for SB Hwy 11.  Thus, you would have to go all the way to the existing Hwy 6 intersection, then turn left on old Hwy 6 (Now called Hwy 11), backtrack all the way south down existing (business)63 in order to get to this intersection.  (2) It seems that the south intersection could have been re-designed so that Hwy 11 tied directly to the bypass with a normal diamond intersection.  This would have caused a lot less confusion and avoided the signage problem.  I am sure that when they cut costs and negotiated Right of Way, this alternate was shelved.  (3) I am not sure why they re-routed Hwy 6 on the bypass, only to send it back into town on old Hwy 11.  Very confusing, and this would not help to bypass that traffic around town.  I think it would have been best to leave it alone and keep it on the original route.  Overall I can see why the town was frustrated with the overall adjustments in the route signing.

I also noticed that US 36 through Missouri is dual-signed as MO 110, CKC.  My guess is that is a Chicago - Kansas City future route designation?

Alex5793

[adt1982]

You are correct re: Mo 110.

[3467]

Its the current designation for CKC Those posts are under midwest . There is a new one under US 136.
You said you were an engineer,did you try any of MOs 3 lanes(see US 54 post)

[alex5793]

We've talked about the "continuous passing lane projects" here in Georgia as a better alternate.....Georgia has blown a lot of funding trying to build 4-lane divided sections all over the rural areas of the State per their GRIP program.  However, the traffic rarely justifies the additional lanes.  Passing lane projects, while not as convenient, is a typical section that is safer and more efficient, without breaking the bank.  Although I love the fact that my trip from Columbia to Kirksville is cut by 20-25 minutes compared to the early 90's, there is just not that much traffic on US 63 to justify.

The only thing I have an issue with is the naming of the "shared 4-lane section".  Sounds like marketing goobly-gook.  It is not a four-lane roadway.

[3467]

alex it is goobled gook but politically it is brilliant. MODOT has grassroots groups suppoting funding for them.Illinois on the other hand came up with a plan called the supplemental freeways in the 60s to double the interstates and is trying to build many of them as 4 lane divided at a cost of 10 million a mile and then blames IDOT pensions for their inability to do so!. I saw your 4 lane map in GA I bet if you give them the  3lane option -the locals will take it . IDOT is just too stupid

[alex5793]

My bet in Illinois, as well as rural Georgia, that those towns and their economic development groups want 4-lane sections and have put pressure on the DOT's.  In our business "economic development" means throwing the Need and Purpose out the window and justifying anything they want, regardless of it making any sense.  I did a VE study once on a 4-lane project in south GA with ADT's of less than 1000.  I think the fiscal situation is getting so dire that now these groups are willing to settle for the shared 4-lane section, instead of the full 4.

[3467]

http://www.dot.state.il.us/projects.html

Alex you described us exactly( I am a member of Corridor 67 and Id take 3 lanes) Several of these routes have sections under 2000 and less than 20 miles is over 7500.
The big problem here is IDOT. They or the politicians or both use these to get Capital Budgets passed Illinois has 2 budgets the general is terrible but the Capital is balanced and this being Illinois I have other suspicions

[Sykotyk]

My bet in Illinois, as well as rural Georgia, that those towns and their economic development groups want 4-lane sections and have put pressure on the DOT's.  In our business "economic development" means throwing the Need and Purpose out the window and justifying anything they want, regardless of it making any sense.  I did a VE study once on a 4-lane project in south GA with ADT's of less than 1000.  I think the fiscal situation is getting so dire that now these groups are willing to settle for the shared 4-lane section, instead of the full 4.

One question I have regarding traffic studies are, how much emphasis is put into determining how many NEW vehicles will detour to take the four-lane road rather than the presumably slower two-lane once it's completed? For instance, if I had a choice over a 50 mile stretch, if the two roads were both two-lanes, I wouldn't care and would probably take the one that might be a mile shorter, etc. But, if the other is a rural four-lane with towns, I'd be more apt to take that with the higher speed limits even if it's a few miles more for the trip.

[3467]

Good question. Sometimes they do and sometimes they dont.
The "Purpose and Need" alex refers to is in an environmental document. For these low volume roads the PN is stated as Economic Development. I am really suprised that those have not been challanged under NEPA.
I did an experiment the other day to your other point. I drove US 34 from Galesburg to I-80 to compare to I80/74. It was 12 miles longer but 2 minutes longer. There are 5 towns but I went through all of them with no trouble. I had to pass 2 vehicles volume was really low .
I think the continous passing lane with a 60 instead of 55 limit would save about 5 mins. Even though it was only 2 slow movers they happened to be in hard to pass areas

[alex5793]

That is a difficult question.  I am not a traffic engineer but most traffic forecasting is based on existing ADT's multiplied by a factor to get a 20-year number.  The factor could use re-routed traffic, new business and population, or just a factor that most use in rural areas.  In metro areas, they have traffic simulations that can model the addition of lanes, and then the re-distribution of traffic to/from those roads.  In rural areas they do not.  Thus it is tough to know.

[codyg1985]

That is a difficult question.  I am not a traffic engineer but most traffic forecasting is based on existing ADT's multiplied by a factor to get a 20-year number.  The factor could use re-routed traffic, new business and population, or just a factor that most use in rural areas.  In metro areas, they have traffic simulations that can model the addition of lanes, and then the re-distribution of traffic to/from those roads.  In rural areas they do not.  Thus it is tough to know.

It is very difficult to model a large area to see if a road is needed on a regional scale. City traffic models are common, but the larger of an area you get, you begin to sacrifice detail since your traffic analysis zones are bigger.

The method of modeling through city truck traffic on a road is a joke.