News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

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

Started by I-39, May 24, 2017, 09:03:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

I-39

Could someone explain what the purpose of the US 69 freeway between Fort Scott and Overland Park? It seems to me like it was supposed to be part of a much larger corridor. With I-49 now a short distance to the east, I wonder if it will be incorporated into something bigger.


intelati49



I honestly have no clue...

I thought the traffic values were "better" than 6k/day...

Jeez Kansas

apeman33

I've lived in two towns (Fort Scott and Pittsburg) along that corridor since 1990 and I couldn't tell you what the purpose is. A new section from Fort Scott to Arma is in the works, construction beginning within the last month.

Granted, U.S. 69 was a crappy highway until the section from Fort Scott to Overland Park was constructed as a Super-2 in the 1980s. But as a 65-MPH Super-2, it was damn near impossible to get anywhere. There was too much traffic for a Super-2. But there's also not enough for a 75-MPH four-lane, although it's nice to not have to fight traffic and be in OP in a little over an hour.

But the decision in the 1960s to put the Fort Scott "bypass" just three to five blocks east of downtown and the apparent planned routing around Pittsburg (should it ever get done) defeats the purpose of upgrading the corridor from Fort Scott on south. That means it will never be utilized to its full potential and people will use I-49 instead. They might someday be able to build a better bypass of Arma/Frontenac/Pittsburg but I don't think they ever will build one around Fort Scott.

I have long said that U.S. 69 will end up being a four-lane freeway from Overland Park to the Oklahoma State Line as long as you don't mind the six (soon to be seven) traffic lights in Fort Scott.

rte66man

IIRC, it was politics.  SE Kansas has always felt ignored by the rest of the state.  I'm sure it was a tradeoff for getting the necessary votes for another project.  I will have to do some digging and see if I can back this up.  My memory isn't what it used to be...    :sombrero:
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

J N Winkler

The present US 69 freeway is the result of KDOT's developing, in the 1970's, a "Son of Interstates" state system of freeways and expressways that, if memory serves, included not just US 69 but also US 75 (Topeka-Tulsa), US 169 (Kansas City-Tulsa), a Southern Kansas Corridor consisting of parts of US 54 and US 50 (essentially the present US 400 west of Wichita), and probably also K-96 between Wichita and Hutchinson.

Funding was not available for full build-out, so after attempts to build the US 69 relocation as an Eastern Kansas Turnpike failed due to toll feasibility concerns (not a surprise given the AADT numbers on the present untolled freeway, which would have been even lower back in the seventies), it was built as an upgradable Super Two on four-lane right-of-way, with grade-separated interchanges at major intersections.  US 169 received similar treatment from just south of Spring Hill to Iola, as did US 75 from south of Topeka to I-35.  US 54 was upgraded to a full freeway in western Sedgwick and eastern Kingman counties, from west of Garden Plain to just east of Kingman.  I believe it was also around this time that the Mount Hope cutoff on K-96 was built, the former alignment with city-street routing through Colwich and Andale becoming K-296.

Since the mid-1980's, Kansas has either completed or is in the process of going through three decade-long programs of enhanced highway investment.  Long lengths of US 75, US 69, and US 169 were upgraded to their present full-freeway configurations as part of the second program.  I have paper construction plans for part of US 69 near Pleasanton (let in 2003) and, surprisingly, the carriageway added as part of that project is not precisely on top of where the 1970's plans said it should go.  K-96 was also upgraded to a four-lane expressway between Wichita and Hutchinson, with grade separations at select major intersections and the 1970's alignment becoming one of the carriageways, and K-296 was removed from the state highway system.  A two-lane freeway bypass on the west side of Hutchinson was also built and K-96 was moved to it.

The state's budget problems have essentially holed the current highway program below the waterline.  The start of construction on US 69 south of Fort Scott (Arma-Pittsburg) was widely seen as a naked political play to help re-elect Jacob LaTurner, the state senator for the surrounding area who had a strong Democratic challenger in the 2016 election.  Before the budget flatlined, KDOT was able to widen US 54 to four lanes divided between Kingman and Pratt, but there is now no funding to build a planned freeway bypass of Kingman, for which KDOT has at least preliminary plans on the shelf.  I think the Northwest Passage (K-96 relocation northwest of Hutchinson) was also descoped from four-lane divided to a Super Two on four-lane right-of-way; I'm not sure it has actually been let yet.
"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

I-39

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 25, 2017, 10:13:29 AM
The present US 69 freeway is the result of KDOT's developing, in the 1970's, a "Son of Interstates" state system of freeways and expressways that, if memory serves, included not just US 69 but also US 75 (Topeka-Tulsa), US 169 (Kansas City-Tulsa), a Southern Kansas Corridor consisting of parts of US 54 and US 50 (essentially the present US 400 west of Wichita), and probably also K-96 between Wichita and Hutchinson.

Funding was not available for full build-out, so after attempts to build the US 69 relocation as an Eastern Kansas Turnpike failed due to toll feasibility concerns (not a surprise given the AADT numbers on the present untolled freeway, which would have been even lower back in the seventies), it was built as an upgradable Super Two on four-lane right-of-way, with grade-separated interchanges at major intersections.  US 169 received similar treatment from just south of Spring Hill to Iola, as did US 75 from south of Topeka to I-35.  US 54 was upgraded to a full freeway in western Sedgwick and eastern Kingman counties, from west of Garden Plain to just east of Kingman.  I believe it was also around this time that the Mount Hope cutoff on K-96 was built, the former alignment with city-street routing through Colwich and Andale becoming K-296.

Since the mid-1980's, Kansas has either completed or is in the process of going through three decade-long programs of enhanced highway investment.  Long lengths of US 75, US 69, and US 169 were upgraded to their present full-freeway configurations as part of the second program.  I have paper construction plans for part of US 69 near Pleasanton (let in 2003) and, surprisingly, the carriageway added as part of that project is not precisely on top of where the 1970's plans said it should go.  K-96 was also upgraded to a four-lane expressway between Wichita and Hutchinson, with grade separations at select major intersections and the 1970's alignment becoming one of the carriageways, and K-296 was removed from the state highway system.  A two-lane freeway bypass on the west side of Hutchinson was also built and K-96 was moved to it.

The state's budget problems have essentially holed the current highway program below the waterline.  The start of construction on US 69 south of Fort Scott (Arma-Pittsburg) was widely seen as a naked political play to help re-elect Jacob LaTurner, the state senator for the surrounding area who had a strong Democratic challenger in the 2016 election.  Before the budget flatlined, KDOT was able to widen US 54 to four lanes divided between Kingman and Pratt, but there is now no funding to build a planned freeway bypass of Kingman, for which KDOT has at least preliminary plans on the shelf.  I think the Northwest Passage (K-96 relocation northwest of Hutchinson) was also descoped from four-lane divided to a Super Two on four-lane right-of-way; I'm not sure it has actually been let yet.

Interesting. I was thinking it was being built to connect with possible upgrades to the US 69 corridor in Oklahoma.

I can't believe they want to continue the freeway south of Fort Scott when the traffic counts north of there are extremely low. Are they even going to properly bypass Fort Scott?

route56

Quote from: I-39 on May 25, 2017, 10:26:51 AM
I can't believe they want to continue the freeway south of Fort Scott when the traffic counts north of there are extremely low. Are they even going to properly bypass Fort Scott?

Actually, it's being built as an "upgradable expressway" (and will likely carry a 70 MPH limit, as opposed to 75 between Fort Scott and JoCo)
Peace to you, and... don't drive like my brother.

R.P.K.

J N Winkler

Quote from: route56 on May 25, 2017, 03:05:02 PMActually, 169 was only super-two'd between Spring Hill and Osawatomie, and again between Iola and Earlton. The Iola-Earlton section does not appear to have been built as an "upgradable" super-two

I take your point about the flat intersections between Iola and Osawatomie.  However, long lengths of US 169 just north of Iola and just south of Osawatomie have the typical Super Two cross-section with full paved shoulders, so I wonder how much of the existing alignment post-dates the Corridor 8 concept.

As for the segment between Iola and Earlton, things are a bit confused by a brief (maybe recently constructed) jump up to full freeway (with median barrier) around the K-39 interchange, but some of the diamond interchanges around Humboldt look like they were supposed to be part of an upgradable facility extending from Iola south to just north of Chanute.

Minnesota Road exit

Humboldt exit (former K-224)

Tank Farm Road exit
"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

route56

#8
US 169 between Colony and Iola was opened up in late '99 or early 2000. The section between Minnesota Road and US 54 was designated K-269 and US 169 was on the old alignment through Iola prior to the Colony-Iola segment opening.

While it's clear that the bridges you posted should make conversion to 4-lane freeway should be doable around the interchanges, the other grade separations will have to have their bridges replaced.

Connecticut Road
Humboldt-Chanute Road
Douglas Road/Plumber Avenue
Peace to you, and... don't drive like my brother.

R.P.K.

I-39

Interesting.

I was thinking maybe this corridor was being upgraded in preparation for a possible I-45 extension from Dallas north through Oklahoma to Kansas City. I guess I was wrong.

Bobby5280

ODOT has to allow US-69 from the Red River to Big Cabin (and I-44) to get upgraded to Interstate quality for any of that to be possible. I find it infuriating the OK State government can't get that accomplished. That stretch of road is an extreme heavy trucking route. It's a direct route from Central Texas and Mexico to the Northeast US (still the most populated part of the nation). It's only idiotic that road isn't an Interstate already. Even if that can happen a US-69 upgrade to Interstate quality farther North into Kansas is a more optional thing.

J N Winkler

The plan on paper (per the statute Richie quoted) is still expansion of US 69 to expressway or better all the way to the Oklahoma state line.  Fort Scott-Arma, which is currently under construction, is probably the easiest remaining part.  Apeman33 has already mentioned the stoplights in Fort Scott itself, which are not easily bypassable, and although the Pittsburg bypass itself has reasonable access control, there are more stoplights north from its northern end and through Frontenac as well as some ribbon development that would have to be addressed.  South of Pittsburg, US 69 is on a circuit-diagram routing and it would almost certainly save time and miles to build a relocation along US 400 and Alternate US 69, closer to Baxter Springs than to Columbus.  But since this is the heart of the old Tri-State mining district, I envisage a major challenge will be addressing subsidence due to abandoned and imperfectly mapped tunnels, which are a huge headache especially in the K-7 corridor.

In Oklahoma there is more to do and less funding to do it with.  From the Red River to the Kansas border along a plausible I-45 extension routing (Alternate US 69 to Miami, US 69 from Miami to the Texas border) is about 256 miles, of which the currently existing McAlester-Muskogee freeway comprises only 53 miles, the Durant-Caddo freeway a further 12 miles, and the freeway stub north of the Red River just 4 miles, for a total of 69 miles.  The entire corridor would not have to be upgraded to freeway as long as there were grade separations at major intersections and planning control (not just access control) sufficiently ironclad not just to prevent ribbon development but also to avoid traffic at sideroad intersections rising to the extent that signals are justified.  Unfortunately, Muskogee and the length just south of Durant are already built up, though McAlester seems to have an all-but-freeway.
"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

I-39

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 27, 2017, 11:03:34 AM
The plan on paper (per the statute Richie quoted) is still expansion of US 69 to expressway or better all the way to the Oklahoma state line.  Fort Scott-Arma, which is currently under construction, is probably the easiest remaining part.  Apeman33 has already mentioned the stoplights in Fort Scott itself, which are not easily bypassable, and although the Pittsburg bypass itself has reasonable access control, there are more stoplights north from its northern end and through Frontenac as well as some ribbon development that would have to be addressed.  South of Pittsburg, US 69 is on a circuit-diagram routing and it would almost certainly save time and miles to build a relocation along US 400 and Alternate US 69, closer to Baxter Springs than to Columbus.  But since this is the heart of the old Tri-State mining district, I envisage a major challenge will be addressing subsidence due to abandoned and imperfectly mapped tunnels, which are a huge headache especially in the K-7 corridor.

In Oklahoma there is more to do and less funding to do it with.  From the Red River to the Kansas border along a plausible I-45 extension routing (Alternate US 69 to Miami, US 69 from Miami to the Texas border) is about 256 miles, of which the currently existing McAlester-Muskogee freeway comprises only 53 miles, the Durant-Caddo freeway a further 12 miles, and the freeway stub north of the Red River just 4 miles, for a total of 69 miles.  The entire corridor would not have to be upgraded to freeway as long as there were grade separations at major intersections and planning control (not just access control) sufficiently ironclad not just to prevent ribbon development but also to avoid traffic at sideroad intersections rising to the extent that signals are justified.  Unfortunately, Muskogee and the length just south of Durant are already built up, though McAlester seems to have an all-but-freeway.

So this is to become part of the proposed I-45 extension?

I really don't see a need for an I-45 extension to be honest.

sparker

Quote from: I-39 on May 27, 2017, 04:37:05 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 27, 2017, 11:03:34 AM
The plan on paper (per the statute Richie quoted) is still expansion of US 69 to expressway or better all the way to the Oklahoma state line.  Fort Scott-Arma, which is currently under construction, is probably the easiest remaining part.  Apeman33 has already mentioned the stoplights in Fort Scott itself, which are not easily bypassable, and although the Pittsburg bypass itself has reasonable access control, there are more stoplights north from its northern end and through Frontenac as well as some ribbon development that would have to be addressed.  South of Pittsburg, US 69 is on a circuit-diagram routing and it would almost certainly save time and miles to build a relocation along US 400 and Alternate US 69, closer to Baxter Springs than to Columbus.  But since this is the heart of the old Tri-State mining district, I envisage a major challenge will be addressing subsidence due to abandoned and imperfectly mapped tunnels, which are a huge headache especially in the K-7 corridor.

In Oklahoma there is more to do and less funding to do it with.  From the Red River to the Kansas border along a plausible I-45 extension routing (Alternate US 69 to Miami, US 69 from Miami to the Texas border) is about 256 miles, of which the currently existing McAlester-Muskogee freeway comprises only 53 miles, the Durant-Caddo freeway a further 12 miles, and the freeway stub north of the Red River just 4 miles, for a total of 69 miles.  The entire corridor would not have to be upgraded to freeway as long as there were grade separations at major intersections and planning control (not just access control) sufficiently ironclad not just to prevent ribbon development but also to avoid traffic at sideroad intersections rising to the extent that signals are justified.  Unfortunately, Muskogee and the length just south of Durant are already built up, though McAlester seems to have an all-but-freeway.

So this is to become part of the proposed I-45 extension?

I really don't see a need for an I-45 extension to be honest.

An I-45 extension from Dallas to I-44 at Big Cabin would be a rational addition to the Interstate system due to not only a significant AADT on US 69 but the high percentage of commercial trucks within that data.  Between I-44 and Kansas City it's much less necessary due to the upgrading of US 71 to I-49 a few years ago.  That being said -- if Kansas elected to complete the US 69 corridor to or within shouting distance of I-44, there's no reason why, if I-45 ever made it north to I-44 down the line (albeit unlikely at present), it couldn't be continued north to KC along the new KS freeway; as Belushi as "Bluto" said in Animal House, "won't cost ya nothin'" (save signage).

bugo

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 27, 2017, 11:03:34 AM
The plan on paper (per the statute Richie quoted) is still expansion of US 69 to expressway or better all the way to the Oklahoma state line.  Fort Scott-Arma, which is currently under construction, is probably the easiest remaining part.  Apeman33 has already mentioned the stoplights in Fort Scott itself, which are not easily bypassable, and although the Pittsburg bypass itself has reasonable access control, there are more stoplights north from its northern end and through Frontenac as well as some ribbon development that would have to be addressed.  South of Pittsburg, US 69 is on a circuit-diagram routing and it would almost certainly save time and miles to build a relocation along US 400 and Alternate US 69, closer to Baxter Springs than to Columbus.  But since this is the heart of the old Tri-State mining district, I envisage a major challenge will be addressing subsidence due to abandoned and imperfectly mapped tunnels, which are a huge headache especially in the K-7 corridor.

What is a "circuit-diagram routing"? Does it have something to do with section line roads?

bugo

If the US 69 freeway is ever completed as far south as Crestline, a freeway should be built along the Alternate 69 corridor into Oklahoma and connecting to I-44/Will Rogers Turnpike near Peoria. This would be an acceptable alternative to taking I-49 in Missouri, albeit quite redundant. If the speed limit were 75 in KS and 70 in MO, then 69 would be an even more attractive alternative. Barring a full freeway, bypasses could be built around Fort Scott, Pittsburg, Baxter Springs and the other towns along 69/Alternate 69 as well as Quapaw, OK and an interchange at I-44 and OK 137 could be built making the trip from I-44 to Overland Park a non-stop drive.

J N Winkler

Quote from: I-39 on May 27, 2017, 04:37:05 PMSo this is to become part of the proposed I-45 extension?

I really don't see a need for an I-45 extension to be honest.

As far as I know, only planners in the Dallas area are talking about an I-45 extension along the US 75 corridor, which is already full freeway from Dallas all the way north to the Red River.  The analysis I gave is merely designed to point out some improvements that would be necessary to upgrade US 69 across Oklahoma and Kansas into a high-speed, stoplight-free route with at least two lanes in each direction.  Going to full Interstate standards along the entire length would involve additional expense.

Quote from: sparker on May 28, 2017, 04:41:43 PMAn I-45 extension from Dallas to I-44 at Big Cabin would be a rational addition to the Interstate system due to not only a significant AADT on US 69 but the high percentage of commercial trucks within that data.  Between I-44 and Kansas City it's much less necessary due to the upgrading of US 71 to I-49 a few years ago.  That being said -- if Kansas elected to complete the US 69 corridor to or within shouting distance of I-44, there's no reason why, if I-45 ever made it north to I-44 down the line (albeit unlikely at present), it couldn't be continued north to KC along the new KS freeway; as Belushi as "Bluto" said in Animal House, "won't cost ya nothin'" (save signage).

Another motivation for continuing US 69 upgrades even with improved access to I-49 via I-44 is encouraging commercial traffic to split between the western and eastern routes to Kansas City and thus lighten the load on I-44 in northeastern Oklahoma/southwestern Missouri, which already has heavy congestion for a rural freeway.  US 69 is also a more logical routing for logistics centers on the Kansas side of the KC metro area.  From Big Cabin to I-35/Homestead Lane in southwestern Johnson County, which is being developed into an enormous logistics park, the current only partly improved US 69 routing is 187 miles/3 hours 6 minutes versus 233 miles/3 hours 18 minutes via I-49.

Quote from: bugo on May 29, 2017, 12:10:01 AMWhat is a "circuit-diagram routing"? Does it have something to do with section line roads?

It means a routing between two points formed of straight segments that meet at a 90° angle in at least one place (like a circuit trace in a typical wiring schematic) and is inefficient compared to a hypothetical diagonal routing.  Stair-stepping is another term for the same concept, but I didn't use it here since there is just one "step" on US 69 between Pittsburg and the Oklahoma state line.  In many cases, such as this one, the indirectness can arise from the state or US route being laid on top of county section line roads in an area with the PLSS grid, but it is possible to have a similar effect from relocated routes that follow alignments more or less equidistant from county section lines (as often happens in Kansas, particularly in cases where KDOT wants to deny access to a new highway without paying for access rights).
"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

apeman33

Quote from: I-39 on May 25, 2017, 10:26:51 AM

Interesting. I was thinking it was being built to connect with possible upgrades to the US 69 corridor in Oklahoma.

I can't believe they want to continue the freeway south of Fort Scott when the traffic counts north of there are extremely low. Are they even going to properly bypass Fort Scott?

IMHO, if Fort Scott is ever bypassed, it will only be because they've run out of patches and short-term fixes and that could still be several decades away. One fix that was going to be implemented was synching all the traffic lights along U.S. 69 so that north-south traffic would be forced to stop as little as possible. I don't know if that actually has been implemented, but since several of the traffic light cameras in Fort Scott seem to be unable to detect your car at night*, I don't see how this could have ever worked.

I don't know the reasoning for locating the bypass where they did, but I would guess it was the cheapest land to acquire. On one side is the BNSF line, the other a creek.

However, the supposed reason that you have to take the S-curve just north of National Ave. (where the latest traffic light is being set up as part of the project to widen the road) is so that you have to pass in front of the large automobile dealership.

The automobile dealership was known until about a year ago as Ray Shepherd Motors/Shepherd Team Auto Plaza. Ray Shepherd also served two terms as a Kansas State Highway Commissioner in the 1960s.

And yeah, if Bob Grant's widow, Lynn, hadn't been taken as a serious threat to beat LaTurner, the wouldn't be anything going on between Fort Scott and Arma right now.

(* - I don't know if I could give a precise number of how many times I've been stuck at a red light at night in Fort Scott for four or five minutes with no cross traffic in sight.)

bugo

I've heard the story about the dealership by the "S" curve as well.

route56

#19
The KDOT GIS website has a concept for an outer bypass of Fort Scott. It continues east from the current US 54/US 69 north junction, heading east across the Marmaton, Curves southeast to Maple Road and 235th, Heads south across US 54 to Limestone road, then  turns southwest to re-join US 69 at the K-7 junction south of Fort Scott.

The GIS site also has a outer bypass concept around Arma and Pittsburg, starting at 660th Avenue north of Arma and re-joining US 69 at K-103 south of Pittsburg. The proposal, however, would go through Aktinson Municipal Airport, so these ideas are in no way final.
Peace to you, and... don't drive like my brother.

R.P.K.

apeman33

Quote from: route56 on May 31, 2017, 12:46:34 PM
The KDOT GIS website has a concept for an outer bypass of Fort Scott. It continues east from the current US 54/US 69 north junction, heading east across the Marmaton, Curves southeast to Maple Road and 235th, Heads south across US 54 to Limestone road, then  turns southwest to re-join US 69 at the K-7 junction south of Fort Scott.

The GIS site also has a outer bypass concept around Arma and Pittsburg, starting at 660th Avenue north of Arma and re-joining US 69 at K-103 south of Pittsburg. The proposal, however, would go through Aktinson Municipal Airport, so these ideas are in no way final.

My thinking is that a U.S. 54 bypass north of Fort Scott is more likely to be constructed than a proper bypass of Fort Scott in what remains of my lifetime.

Also noticed last night that the signal being constructed at South National (which is a 3-way intersection) will not have a FYA. It'll have your usual doghouse for left turns onto National. But it also has a doghouse for right turns onto 69. I will try to remember to get pics when I go to work on Thursday.

apeman33

Here we go. This is actually a separate project from the expansion project that started south of K-7. U.S. 69 from National Ave to just south of 23rd St. in Fort Scott has been undergoing improvements for over a year. The first two pics show the new signal that's been put up. The last one shows current work in widening the east side of the road by the car lot (now under the Briggs umbrella) so that a left-turn lane can be put in.

This one faces north on U.S. 69 (Main St.) at National Ave. The angle I'm standing at doesn't make it clear but the southbound signal doesn't face due south (in fact, they're pretty much facing me even though I'm standing in the Pizza Hut parking lot). This is because the curve begins just a bit before the intersection, so the signals are going to end up facing slightly southwest. You can see on the southbound post an additional signal for northbound traffic that should help with that problem. I'm also concerned it will be difficult to see the southbound signal. I'm guessing that a flashing beacon will be added to the "Signal Ahead" sign for southbound traffic prior to the curve.


The signal for South National Ave., which ends here. The doghouse right has been put in so that right-turning traffic can do so while the northbound left-turning traffic has protected movement.


Widening the road so that a left-turn lane can be installed the entire length from S. National to 23rd St. Note that the car lot that caused the S-curve and 3-way intersection to exist in the first place is among the places getting its parking lot ripped up (Briggs Auto Group bought the lot from the Shepherds after the Dave's son decided he wanted to retire).

Scott5114

That mastarm sign for National looks horrible. I'm guessing Fort Scott made that, although I thought KDOT overrode local styles with their own signage outside of the KC area (like MoDOT does).
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

apeman33

That's a new KDOT style. It's also on the signs on the arms of the new signal at 23rd and I've seen the style on the new lights in Pittsburg at Broadway (Bus. U.S. 69) and 20th St. and on mainline 69 at the Kansas Crossing entrance. I don't like it, either.

Interestingly, for some reason "Twentieth" is spelled out on the signs in Pittsburg even though the city does not spell out numbered streets.

Scott5114

That's dumb. The old KDOT style (with lowercase Series EM, all-caps on the suffix) was perfectly MUTCD compliant. Is it possible it's a contractor issue?
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef



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.