Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ned Weasel]

https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/officials-explore-tolls-to-help-fund-expansion-of-69-highway-in-overland-park

This seems like a more sensible way to do freeway widening.  But I still wish they would talk about putting a ramp meter on the northbound ramp from 119th Street, fixing the southbound left entrance from Blue Valley Parkway and the poorly signed lane drop at 135th Street, and finding a way to address the northbound weaving issues at the remaining inner loops of the cloverleaf at I-435.

[Scott5114]

I mean, if you're going to build Lexus lanes, it makes sense to build them in Johnson County. Hell of a lot of Lexuses in Overland Park.

[Scott5114]

People in Johnson County carpooling? Yeah, right. Don't you know they're important people with places to be?

[Plutonic Panda]

I would argue that HOV lanes with too many access points can cause more traffic congestion given the constant merging of left to right and vice versa of car pools. It surely slows down traffic on the mainlines. I’ve often thought traffic would flow better in CA if all carpools were removed and freeways restriped in some cases possibly being able to add two new GP lanes in each direction.

[sprjus4]

HOV or Toll lanes?

Just make it a HO/T lane. Free for HOV, single vehicles pay.

If the roadway is only currently 4 lanes, widen it to 2+1 each way to create a total of 6 lanes. In the future, plan to add a third general purpose lane each way to have an ultimate section of 3+1 each way.

[The Ghostbuster]

If constructed, would these be the first stretch of toll lanes built in the Kansas City Metropolitan Area? I suspect if they are built, more toll lane proposals would likely come to the area.

[kphoger]

Perhaps but if we had better mass transit then this might not be as big of an issue. Some would be carpoolers would use transit instead if it was worth a damn.

LA public transit is light years ahead of KC public transit.

But, also, most Johnson County residents wouldn't take the bus, no matter how good of a system it was.

[Plutonic Panda]

Perhaps but if we had better mass transit then this might not be as big of an issue. Some would be carpoolers would use transit instead if it was worth a damn.

LA public transit is light years ahead of KC public transit.

But, also, most Johnson County residents wouldn't take the bus, no matter how good of a system it was.

I also doubt many of them would take any form of mass transit other than perhaps HSR like what is proposed between DFW and Houston.

[kphoger]

I think there are a lot of people who are quite a bit more willing to take any train than take any bus.

[route56]

AFAICT, what's on the table is *toll only* lanes on US 69 from 151st Street north to I-435. There does not appear to be any discount for HOVs, nor is there any indication that said toll lanes would be operated by any organization other than KDOT or KTA.

AIUI, toll lanes would have to have the support of the local governments involved, and I'd suspect if significant opposition to toll lanes of US 69 develops, the toll lane proposal will get shot down. Toll lanes were floated for the western leg of the South Lawrence Trafficway, but it became quickly clear that there was opposition to it.

[Plutonic Panda]

It looks like KDOT is supporting the toll lanes alternative. What a fucking joke that state can’t even widen a freeway to six free lanes. If they want the toll lanes then it should be two each way with a C/D system. Instead they have the “traditional widening”  of 3 GP lanes each way branded with the C/D system which for some reason isn’t planned for the toll lane alternative. They specifically state “the toll lane proposal takes less room than the traditional widening.”  

It makes me angry when a DOT manipulates the public into supporting an alternative they want by adding things into other alternatives they know won’t be popular. I see this far too often. I guess the residents of OP won’t complain when they can use their new Lexus Lanes.

https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/toll-lanes-along-69-highway-could-soon-be-a-reality

[JayhawkCO]

It looks like KDOT is supporting the toll lanes alternative. What a fucking joke that state can’t even widen a freeway to six free lanes.

Not to let this get too far into the political territory, but Brownback tax cuts really screwed the budget for everything in my former state.  There's no money for anything still.

Chris

[Plutonic Panda]

It looks like KDOT is supporting the toll lanes alternative. What a fucking joke that state can’t even widen a freeway to six free lanes.

Not to let this get too far into the political territory, but Brownback tax cuts really screwed the budget for everything in my former state.  There's no money for anything still.

Chris

What I just don’t understand is why the larger project with the C/D lanes isn’t the one to include tolls. If anything I think it would be the opposite.

[sprjus4]

Honestly, the alternative with 6 general purpose lanes and the C/D system seems to provide the highest capacity and would the best for the long term.

But you know... toll lanes 

[mvak36]

I didn't attend the public meeting but I have seen the Virtual Open house on their site. As I understand it, I think the city of Overland Park still has to approve the toll lanes. I am not sure what the reaction was to the toll lane option was at the public meeting, so it will be interesting to see what Overland Park does. I doubt that they would go with them if everyone is against it.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other about what they choose to do eventually, but it does seem fishy that they didn't include the C/D roads in the toll lane option like Plutonic Panda mentioned. Seems like it would be a good idea to have C/D lanes regardless of what they choose to do.

I did like that both the toll lane and the Add general lanes option will add a flyover from US69 NB to I-435 WB. That is long overdue.

[Ned Weasel]

If you widen it to six lanes without any toll, it's gonna get worse traffic than with a toll, so I would imagine that's a reason the non-toll option includes C/D lanes and the toll option doesn't.

[Plutonic Panda]

If you widen it to six lanes without any toll, it's gonna get worse traffic than with a toll, so I would imagine that's a reason the non-toll option includes C/D lanes and the toll option doesn't.

No it won’t.

[mvak36]

If you widen it to six lanes without any toll, it's gonna get worse traffic than with a toll, so I would imagine that's a reason the non-toll option includes C/D lanes and the toll option doesn't.

After watching the video of their public meeting, that makes sense. I thought they would still need C/D lanes from 135th St up to 435 regardless of what option they chose, but I can see why they wouldn't need it for the toll lane option.

[Ned Weasel]

After watching the video of their public meeting, that makes sense. I thought they would still need C/D lanes from 135th St up to 435 regardless of what option they chose, but I can see why they wouldn't need it for the toll lane option.

There's so little space on the east side of the 69 between 119th and the 435, that I can't imagine how they could build an extra roadway without massive demolitions. Has there ever been a diagram showing it? I mean a plan, not a section; I've seen the section already, but I want to see it in plan view. That reminds me, I also wonder how they're going to make space for the approach to the NB-to-WB flyover.

[Plutonic Panda]

If you widen it to six lanes without any toll, it's gonna get worse traffic than with a toll, so I would imagine that's a reason the non-toll option includes C/D lanes and the toll option doesn't.

No it won’t.

Thank God you're here to be the world's formost expert and correct all us plebes without a shred of supporiting argument. We'd be truly lost without you, for you are our True Savior.

There’s nothing to suggest traffic will be higher without the toll lanes. The traffic will come from somewhere. If there is a study that can show traffic being higher pulling from localized roads than how is that an argument against building the free lanes alternative?

[Ned Weasel]

There’s nothing to suggest traffic will be higher without the toll lanes. The traffic will come from somewhere. If there is a study that can show traffic being higher pulling from localized roads than how is that an argument against building the free lanes alternative?

It's pretty simple. Without an incentive to get people to adjust their travel choices, they/we will use US 69 in the most selfish and least efficient way possible. There will be so much latent demand that building new lanes without any means of friction is just opening the floodgates.

[Plutonic Panda]

There’s nothing to suggest traffic will be higher without the toll lanes. The traffic will come from somewhere. If there is a study that can show traffic being higher pulling from localized roads than how is that an argument against building the free lanes alternative?

It's pretty simple. Without an incentive to get people to adjust their travel choices, they/we will use US 69 in the most selfish and least efficient way possible. There will be so much latent demand that building new lanes without any means of friction is just opening the floodgates.

What incentive is being offered to get people to adjust their travel choices? How does one not use a roadway selfishly or efficiently? It sounds like you’re trying to butter up the fact that the tolls lanes are intended to “alter”  driver behavior by pricing people out of them.

I don’t think much latent demand will be an issue either here. It seems 6 lanes plus a new C/D system will be adequate to handle traffic counts for the next decade+.

[Ned Weasel]

What incentive is being offered to get people to adjust their travel choices? How does one not use a roadway selfishly or efficiently? It sounds like you’re trying to butter up the fact that the tolls lanes are intended to “alter”  driver behavior by pricing people out of them.

That's exactly the point.  It's a financial incentive.  If driving on the already-congested freeway during rush hour isn't worth the price of paying for the toll lane or sitting in traffic, then adjust your travel to another time, another route, or another mode of travel, or stay home.  That's how you attain better efficiency in the system, even if it's not 100% perfect efficiency.

I don’t think much latent demand will be an issue either here. It seems 6 lanes plus a new C/D system will be adequate to handle traffic counts for the next decade+.

Okay, so then what?  Add another two to four lanes that will be adequate to handle traffic for the following decade+?  Okay, so then what?  Keep doing the same thing ad infinitum?  That's hardly characteristic of an efficient system.

[sprjus4]

I’ve heard this “induced demand”  argument umpteenth times and it’s funny honestly. Back here in Virginia, they widened two high bottlenecked sections of I-64 and I-264 in the 1990s from 4 (and 6) to 8 lanes. Both roadways carry well over 100,000 AADT.

Ever since they’ve been widened, here we are, 30 years later, and they still perform at free-flow during rush hour.

The only chokepoints that exist is when they reach system interchanges that reduce lanes and involve substandard, weaving movements. Everywhere else though, no congestion.

What happened to this “induced demand” ? Why aren’t they bottlenecked moving 20 mph at rush hour across all the new lanes?

[kphoger]

1.  Could it be that the induced demand was real, but it was less than the additional capacity gained?

2.  Factors in Virginia 30 years ago are not the same as the factors in Kansas City today.  They might be similar, they might be dissimilar.