US 40 realignment at Lawrence

[WichitaRoads]

Looks like they approved the Lawrence US 40 change at the Denver meeting. US 40, going E to W, will now travel K-10 to US 59 (Iowa), then go north on Iowa to 6th, and then proceed on it's current alignment.

Thus, they now have added mileage to US 40. As I said in a previous post, I'm sure most people who use "Free Forty" to shunpike will still travel west on 6th from Iowa or east from K-10... just for sheer sake of directional sanity!

And as an aside, R.I.P. to Business 40 at Russell.

Richie, your thoughts?

ICTRds

[DandyDan]

Having been to Lawrence a couple times, that seems pointlessly ridiculous.  If they are just going to reroute US 40 onto K-10, they ought to just have it take over the whole K-10 alignment to the KC area.

[corco]

I was wondering about that- yeah, that seems like the best option.

[WichitaRoads]

Having been to Lawrence a couple times, that seems pointlessly ridiculous.  If they are just going to reroute US 40 onto K-10, they ought to just have it take over the whole K-10 alignment to the KC area.

Logical, yes, but perish the thought! I don't want to see historical routes messed up anymore!

EDIT: This wouldn't be the first time U.S. 40 and K-10 either switched alignments or supplanted the other, but I still don't want them to mess with it.

ICTRds

[Ned Weasel]

Having been to Lawrence a couple times, that seems pointlessly ridiculous.  If they are just going to reroute US 40 onto K-10, they ought to just have it take over the whole K-10 alignment to the KC area.

Logical, yes, but perish the thought! I don't want to see historical routes messed up anymore!

EDIT: This wouldn't be the first time U.S. 40 and K-10 either switched alignments or supplanted the other, but I still don't want them to mess with it.

ICTRds

Wait a second; I actually like that idea!  It makes sense because US 40 between US 59 in Lawrence and US 73/K-7 in Bonner Springs is already accounted for by US 24.  US 40 could follow K-10, I-435 and I-470.  Then you'd have a single route number for almost all of the Kansas City area's future east-west bypass, similar to what I proposed on the Fictional Highways board here: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5044.msg228623#msg228623 .  The only problem is deciding what to do with the portion of US 40 that runs from I-70 at Exit 7A in Kansas City, MO, back to I-70 at Exit 24 in Grain Valley.

Edit:  Oh, this also eliminates the need for K-10, as the whole route would be US 40, except for the segment between US 40/6th Street and I-70/The Kansas Turnpike, which could be signed as "TO I-70/Kansas Turnpike" and "TO US 40."

[WichitaRoads]

Having been to Lawrence a couple times, that seems pointlessly ridiculous.  If they are just going to reroute US 40 onto K-10, they ought to just have it take over the whole K-10 alignment to the KC area.

Logical, yes, but perish the thought! I don't want to see historical routes messed up anymore!

EDIT: This wouldn't be the first time U.S. 40 and K-10 either switched alignments or supplanted the other, but I still don't want them to mess with it.

ICTRds

Wait a second; I actually like that idea!  It makes sense because US 40 between US 59 in Lawrence and US 73/K-7 in Bonner Springs is already accounted for by US 24.  US 40 could follow K-10, I-435 and I-470.  Then you'd have a single route number for almost all of the Kansas City area's future east-west bypass, similar to what I proposed on the Fictional Highways board here: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5044.msg228623#msg228623 .  The only problem is deciding what to do with the portion of US 40 that runs from I-70 at Exit 7A in Kansas City, MO, back to I-70 at Exit 24 in Grain Valley.

Edit:  Oh, this also eliminates the need for K-10, as the whole route would be US 40, except for the segment between US 40/6th Street and I-70/The Kansas Turnpike, which could be signed as "TO I-70/Kansas Turnpike" and "TO US 40."

You know, the more I think about it, the more logical this would be, especially after the SLT is completed. It effectively kills K-10 - sad, but a duplication not needed. In looking at the map, I'm thinking they could route US 40 up I-435 all the way back up to I-70. If the old alignment would still be needed for whatever reason, it could exit I-70 where US 40 currently crosses over between Sterling and Blue Ridge Blvd. But, the I-470 option could work well, too. I'd assume the section of old road running west from Grain Valley would either become a state road, a trunk route, or revert to local control. A "Business 40" could work, but I just don't see AASHTO going for it.

My ony question would be is there a mileage swap or anything because of turing K-10 into a federal highway, or does the mileage shifted off the old alignment equal out? Or is it not a funding issue?

The old highways up in that area have shifted around so many times, I guess this wouldn't be that big of a deal.

ICTRds

[Scott5114]

A "US highway" is not a federal highway. It's just a state highway that the state has to ask AASHTO for approval before they move it. All that would need to be done is to take 40 shields down on the old route and put them up on the new one. Of course, either a new designation would need to be established for any standalone portions of old 40, or the county would have to agree to accept a transfer of the road from the state.

[route56]

A "US highway" is not a federal highway. It's just a state highway that the state has to ask AASHTO for approval before they move it. All that would need to be done is to take 40 shields down on the old route and put them up on the new one. Of course, either a new designation would need to be established for any standalone portions of old 40, or the county would have to agree to accept a transfer of the road from the state.

On the Kansas side, that wouldn't be a problem, as US 40 is duel with US 24 from Lawrence all the way to the state line. (But then again, Scott, you should know that  )

[WichitaRoads]

A "US highway" is not a federal highway. It's just a state highway that the state has to ask AASHTO for approval before they move it. All that would need to be done is to take 40 shields down on the old route and put them up on the new one. Of course, either a new designation would need to be established for any standalone portions of old 40, or the county would have to agree to accept a transfer of the road from the state.

Good point. I should have realized that.

ICTRds

[bugo]

Why didn't they just duplex US 40 with I-70 between the K-10 interchange and the US 59 interchange?

[NE2]

Why didn't they just duplex US 40 with I-70 between the K-10 interchange and the US 59 interchange?

Probably because it's a toll road, although US 24 does provide a free alternate.

[bugo]

Why didn't they just duplex US 40 with I-70 between the K-10 interchange and the US 59 interchange?

Probably because it's a toll road, although US 24 does provide a free alternate.

US 412

US 51 in Illinois

Numerous toll bridges

US 9 in New Jersey

[WichitaRoads]

Why didn't they just duplex US 40 with I-70 between the K-10 interchange and the US 59 interchange?

Probably because it's a toll road, although US 24 does provide a free alternate.

US 412

US 51 in Illinois

Numerous toll bridges

US 9 in New Jersey

I think the issue here is, Bugo, the existence of a free route. In this case, US 24 would be a free alternative if US 40 was paired with I-70/KTA. However, it isn't a real straight shot, as a K-10 replacement by US 40 would provide.

The more I think about US 40 running down K-10 to JoCo, I like it. I'm really embracing the idea now, since it makes the new re-route of US 40 make SOME sense. Of course, I'd wait until the SLT was done, but hey, they didn't ask me.

ICTRds

[NE2]

Toll crossings are OK. Toll roads are not, and AASHTO should not have approved US 51 without the old route remaining as a bannered route. We've had this discussion before, and I don't think there are any toll non-crossings other than US 51 where there's no obvious alternate on the US system.

[bugo]

The Indian Nation Turnpike has no free alternative.

[Scott5114]

The Indian Nation Turnpike has no free alternative.

The Indian Nation doesn't carry a US route. So it doesn't have to have one.

[bugo]

That has nothing to do with it.  Toll roads are supposed to have free alternatives, and the Indian Nation Turnpike doesn't have one.

[NE2]

The Pikes Peak Toll Road has no free alternate.

[WichitaRoads]

That has nothing to do with it.  Toll roads are supposed to have free alternatives, and the Indian Nation Turnpike doesn't have one.

Not to start something, but under what requirement? I can see a requirement for US routes or Interstate routes, but not state routes. Unless the State of Oklahoma has some statute, then there is, thereby, no requirement.

Now, SHOULD there be a shunpike route? Of course. But, we're not talking should, we're talking must.

ICTRds

[NE2]

Bugo was wrong last year and he's still wrong.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6886

[bugo]

Actually, SPUI, I'm right.  There is not a good alternative route.  Those routes he mentioned are WAY out of the way compared to the INT.  That's like saying that US 75 and I-40 are a good alternative to the Turner Turnpike.

[NE2]

You're wrong. There is no such requirement for a free alternative.

[bugo]

I read somewhere that there was a requirement.  In fact, I've read it several times.

[NE2]

I read somewhere that pot makes you rape goats. In fact, I've read it several times.

[bugo]

I read somewhere that once you were a consistent, effective troll, but then I realized it said "Tom From Ohio" and not "SPUI".