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.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fcca7otZ.png&hash=4b3dae3958d4d5131086c65afc421435a3918e49)
I honestly have no clue...
I thought the traffic values were "better" than 6k/day...
Jeez Kansas
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.
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:
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.
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?
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)
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8801557,-95.3963663,3a,75y,27.78h,93.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svaEsHyc0vRhSsOxKPM3ETw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DvaEsHyc0vRhSsOxKPM3ETw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D112.73366%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)
Humboldt exit (former K-224) (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8197137,-95.4097904,3a,75y,351.6h,83.46t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sxcC3M-ozyWT-AcvXJ-9AqA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DxcC3M-ozyWT-AcvXJ-9AqA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D98.26858%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)
Tank Farm Road exit (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7906373,-95.4114023,3a,75y,353.92h,90.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXp1MYE9g7KJxq0iC9PK41w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.776655,-95.4114952,3a,75y,179.05h,86.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJCbImUoLSxbWaIuQH9DRig!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Humboldt-Chanute Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7420341,-95.4380892,3a,75y,250.4h,88.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVFMaHZMsjsWKsQ7cfjyomw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Douglas Road/Plumber Avenue (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7260638,-95.4704123,3a,60y,241.97h,90.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfSvox_H9rPCBLE420dIRVQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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).
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.)
I've heard the story about the dealership by the "S" curve as well.
The KDOT GIS website (http://ksdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=472bd2a56d2a4b60b8b294f218975aef) 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.
Quote from: route56 on May 31, 2017, 12:46:34 PM
The KDOT GIS website (http://ksdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=472bd2a56d2a4b60b8b294f218975aef) 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.
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.
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/18839639_10158741346470331_51232412662522073_o.jpg?oh=54147e06eca652b1569b099482156d47&oe=59A6801D)
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.
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/18815213_10158741346225331_717611754893909387_o.jpg?oh=9241560676ef060fb6aeecda1c73ef7f&oe=59A3E3E2)
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).
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/18880239_10158741346960331_388625485307804149_o.jpg?oh=539919d3b59f6881c0c3fc5def7c3c05&oe=599CD50A)
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).
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.
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?
I don't think so. These signs we're discussing (National & 69, 23rd & 69; Broadway and 20th (ahem, "Twentieth"); and 69 & Kansas Crossing) are parts of three projects carried out by different contractors. The Broadway and 20th signs went up when that signal was replaced almost two years ago.
Quote from: apeman33 on June 02, 2017, 03:42:49 AMI don't think so. These signs we're discussing (National & 69, 23rd & 69; Broadway and 20th (ahem, "Twentieth"); and 69 & Kansas Crossing) are parts of three projects carried out by different contractors. The Broadway and 20th signs went up when that signal was replaced almost two years ago.
Are these all within the Fort Scott city limits? AFAIK, the KDOT TE standard plan sheet for the basic design Scott outlines is still current, but cities can ask KDOT to include their own standard plan sheets and can also supply sign panel detail sheets for mast arm signs done to their preferred standards.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 02, 2017, 10:27:03 AM
Quote from: apeman33 on June 02, 2017, 03:42:49 AMI don't think so. These signs we're discussing (National & 69, 23rd & 69; Broadway and 20th (ahem, "Twentieth"); and 69 & Kansas Crossing) are parts of three projects carried out by different contractors. The Broadway and 20th signs went up when that signal was replaced almost two years ago.
Are these all within the Fort Scott city limits? AFAIK, the KDOT TE standard plan sheet for the basic design Scott outlines is still current, but cities can ask KDOT to include their own standard plan sheets and can also supply sign panel detail sheets for mast arm signs done to their preferred standards.
The latter two are in or around Pittsburg. Fort Scott doesn't have a style. They just stick letters on a green piece of metal of some sort and put it on a pole.
EDIT: For instance, this:
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18921806_10158746750235331_4104148956293821151_n.jpg?oh=b085c58fa4379aefae4fdddee04bc727&oe=59B29D3E)
Pittsburg does have two new signals with similar style lettering on blue signs because that's the city's new style. But neither are on a KDOT-maintained road.
It KDOT finishes 4 laning US 69 to the Oklahoma border, will it follow mainline 69 or Alternate 69 south of Crestline?
Quote from: bugo on June 02, 2017, 04:58:04 PM
It KDOT finishes 4 laning US 69 to the Oklahoma border, will it follow mainline 69 or Alternate 69 south of Crestline?
I've always presumed the plan was to follow Alternate 69 and rename it as the mainline, then removing the designations through Columbus which have other numbers anyway. Oklahoma would need a new number on current 69 from the state line south through the place formerly known as Picher. But I don't have anything definite. Anyone?
View approaching the new signal (forgive the bug guts):
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/18920962_10158746750920331_8592616802953816875_o.jpg?oh=f18c6a7087fb075ccb73dd1542f7a08d&oe=59DF4166)
Quote from: apeman33 on June 02, 2017, 05:31:40 PM
Quote from: bugo on June 02, 2017, 04:58:04 PM
It KDOT finishes 4 laning US 69 to the Oklahoma border, will it follow mainline 69 or Alternate 69 south of Crestline?
I've always presumed the plan was to follow Alternate 69 and rename it as the mainline, then removing the designations through Columbus which have other numbers anyway. Oklahoma would need a new number on current 69 from the state line south through the place formerly known as Picher. But I don't have anything definite. Anyone?
I'd venture a guess that there's a distinct possibility that KS will try to functionally control its own destiny by taking any 4-lane extension down US 400 directly to I-44 so as not to depend upon OK to reciprocate with a US 69 expressway of their own -- thus securing a more assured source of traffic for the rest of US 69 to the north.
Quote from: sparker on June 03, 2017, 02:31:57 AM
Quote from: apeman33 on June 02, 2017, 05:31:40 PM
Quote from: bugo on June 02, 2017, 04:58:04 PM
It KDOT finishes 4 laning US 69 to the Oklahoma border, will it follow mainline 69 or Alternate 69 south of Crestline?
I've always presumed the plan was to follow Alternate 69 and rename it as the mainline, then removing the designations through Columbus which have other numbers anyway. Oklahoma would need a new number on current 69 from the state line south through the place formerly known as Picher. But I don't have anything definite. Anyone?
I'd venture a guess that there's a distinct possibility that KS will try to functionally control its own destiny by taking any 4-lane extension down US 400 directly to I-44 so as not to depend upon OK to reciprocate with a US 69 expressway of their own -- thus securing a more assured source of traffic for the rest of US 69 to the north.
If you go that far east, wouldn't it be more sensible at that point to continue on the half-dozen or so miles to I-49 instead of doubling back to US-69?
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 03, 2017, 03:10:30 AM
Quote from: sparker on June 03, 2017, 02:31:57 AM
Quote from: apeman33 on June 02, 2017, 05:31:40 PM
Quote from: bugo on June 02, 2017, 04:58:04 PM
It KDOT finishes 4 laning US 69 to the Oklahoma border, will it follow mainline 69 or Alternate 69 south of Crestline?
I've always presumed the plan was to follow Alternate 69 and rename it as the mainline, then removing the designations through Columbus which have other numbers anyway. Oklahoma would need a new number on current 69 from the state line south through the place formerly known as Picher. But I don't have anything definite. Anyone?
I'd venture a guess that there's a distinct possibility that KS will try to functionally control its own destiny by taking any 4-lane extension down US 400 directly to I-44 so as not to depend upon OK to reciprocate with a US 69 expressway of their own -- thus securing a more assured source of traffic for the rest of US 69 to the north.
If you go that far east, wouldn't it be more sensible at that point to continue on the half-dozen or so miles to I-49 instead of doubling back to US-69?
Of course that would be a possibility -- but at that point, the corridor would be in Missouri rather than Kansas -- and given their fiscal issues (and the present inability to finance even the
long-planned I-49 extension to the AR line), deploying an addition 12+ miles of freeway just to reach a corridor in an adjoining state might be the proverbial bridge too far. The sole purpose of the slight eastward shift along US 400 would be, as stated previously, to keep the whole corridor down to I-44 under Kansas jurisdiction -- so there's better chances of actually getting it completed (given recent OK reluctance to do much of anything).
I was referring more to a potential motorist taking such a route. Were one to enter Missouri on northeastward trajectory, it might be more sensible to continue on to I-49 and up that route rather than turning back west on the US-166/400 corridor.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 09, 2017, 01:24:16 AM
I was referring more to a potential motorist taking such a route. Were one to enter Missouri on northeastward trajectory, it might be more sensible to continue on to I-49 and up that route rather than turning back west on the US-166/400 corridor.
A facility basically using US 400 (or an alignment near the present one) to get to Alternate 69 and eventually US 69 wouldn't turn
that far west -- a matter of somewhere about 5-7 miles -- and it would be likely that some sort of "cutoff" would be part of any future routing. Since I-49 also veers northwest near Harrisonville (to about the same degree as any "backtracking" in Kansas), the whole thing looks like a wash. The sole reason I even mentioned the US 400/166 connection was to illustrate a way the corridor could be completed (if indeed those plans were set forth) absent Oklahoma participation (which can't be assured). Better than leaving it hanging at the state line!
Kansas hasn't been afraid to leave it hanging at the Oklahoma state line before. Primary example: the Kansas Turnpike, 1950s.
Basically, I've seen the whole U.S. 69/I-49 thing as a competition between states. First, Missouri upgrades U.S. 71, so Kansas upgrades U.S. 69. Then Missouri says, "Oh, yeah? Well, now ours is an Interstate! Boom!"
So in a sense, I don't think Kansas would be interested in an alignment that puts the south end of the U.S. 69 upgrade anywhere near Missouri (also, if it were to continue being called U.S. 69, Missouri and Oklahoma would have to be OK with that because it changes highway numbering in their states). That would be taking a chance that traffic would choose I-49 instead.
Kansas' route will always have the handicap of the impractical "bypass" in Fort Scott. It doesn't need any more disadvantages.
If KDOT and ODOT were to finish this freeway all the way south to near Miami, this would become the prefered route from Tulsa and Dallas to Kansas City, especially if one is going to the Kansas side. Since US 69 will most likely not be duplexed with I-44 in this area, call the whole damn thing I-47.
Honestly, I really don't see a need for any further freeway upgrades to US 69. The traffic really isn't there. I doubt it would ever connect to US 69 in Oklahoma anyway.
Also, even if the I-45 extension ever became a reality, I doubt they'd continue it all the way to Big Cabin. The legislation only designated it from the state line to I-40 in Checotah.
Any I-45 extension along US-69 would be completely stupid if it didn't at least extend as far as Big Cabin and I-44. That's the main point of doing the extension at all. That's an extremely busy heavy truck route. And there's more than enough general purpose traffic along that route to justify an Interstate quality upgrade.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 09, 2017, 09:01:53 PM
Any I-45 extension along US-69 would be completely stupid if it didn't at least extend as far as Big Cabin and I-44. That's the main point of doing the extension at all. That's an extremely busy heavy truck route. And there's more than enough general purpose traffic along that route to justify an Interstate quality upgrade.
And I don't believe Oklahoma has any plans to upgrade US 69 into I-45, or upgrade US 69 at all north of I-40.
With the extension of I-57 to Little Rock forthcoming, I think that will become the primary Chicago-Dallas Route in the future.
Quote from: I-39 on June 09, 2017, 09:34:28 PMWith the extension of I-57 to Little Rock forthcoming, I think that will become the primary Chicago-Dallas Route in the future.
Using current routings, Dallas-Chicago is actually fewer miles via Big Cabin (927 miles) than via Little Rock (957 miles). And US 75/US 69 between Dallas and Kansas City is potentially a major Canamex corridor in its own right.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 09, 2017, 09:56:31 PM
Quote from: I-39 on June 09, 2017, 09:34:28 PMWith the extension of I-57 to Little Rock forthcoming, I think that will become the primary Chicago-Dallas Route in the future.
Using current routings, Dallas-Chicago is actually fewer miles via Big Cabin (927 miles) than via Little Rock (957 miles). And US 75/US 69 between Dallas and Kansas City is potentially a major Canamex corridor in its own right.
I'd rather be on a full interstate that bypasses St. Louis and doesn't have tolls and stop lights/at grade intersections rather than go via Big Cabin.
Quote from: bugo on June 09, 2017, 07:08:18 PM
If KDOT and ODOT were to finish this freeway all the way south to near Miami, this would become the prefered route from Tulsa and Dallas to Kansas City, especially if one is going to the Kansas side. Since US 69 will most likely not be duplexed with I-44 in this area, call the whole damn thing I-47.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 09, 2017, 09:01:53 PM
Any I-45 extension along US-69 would be completely stupid if it didn't at least extend as far as Big Cabin and I-44. That's the main point of doing the extension at all. That's an extremely busy heavy truck route. And there's more than enough general purpose traffic along that route to justify an Interstate quality upgrade.
Chances are that if I-45 is indeed extended north, it'll be done in 2 stages: Dallas to I-40/Checotah (as per the original Section 1174 legislation); the little ol' speed traps on US 69 would just have to suck it up. That would give, with (assuming a completed Bella Vista bypass) I-49 via I-40, a reasonably direct route to KC or StL for commercial traffic. Taking it north to Big Cabin would have to deal with the Muskogee area, with either a new-terrain bypass to the west or some sort of shunt over the Muskogee Turnpike east bypass. It's unlikely OK would undertake this anytime soon even if the portion south of I-40 were built; let's just call it a long-term prospect. Bugo's suggestion re I-47 if a Kansas route were actually constructed from I-44 to KC (alright, Overland Park!) is not too shabby -- and the odds are in favor of that corridor's development versus a Checotah-Big Cabin I-45 section, so a stand-alone designation would be appropriate (at least for the foreseeable future).
Quote from: I-39 on June 09, 2017, 10:12:54 PMI'd rather be on a full interstate that bypasses St. Louis and doesn't have tolls and stop lights/at grade intersections rather than go via Big Cabin.
Neither option is currently developed to full Interstate standards. I think the Big Cabin route probably has a greater percentage that is four-lane divided since the I-30/I-57 route still has the 120-mile gap between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston, of which about half is two-lane in Arkansas with a 55 limit.
I think the strongest advantage of the I-30/I-57 route is that it bypasses the Ozarks, where it is particularly difficult to build roads with easy geometry. I have found both I-30 and I-44 to be unpleasantly congested for rural freeways and both the MoDOT and TxDOT traffic count maps indicate AADTs in the 20,000-30,000 range.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 10, 2017, 10:00:24 AM
Quote from: I-39 on June 09, 2017, 10:12:54 PMI'd rather be on a full interstate that bypasses St. Louis and doesn't have tolls and stop lights/at grade intersections rather than go via Big Cabin.
Neither option is currently developed to full Interstate standards. I think the Big Cabin route probably has a greater percentage that is four-lane divided since the I-30/I-57 route still has the 120-mile gap between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston, of which about half is two-lane in Arkansas with a 55 limit.
I think the strongest advantage of the I-30/I-57 route is that it bypasses the Ozarks, where it is particularly difficult to build roads with easy geometry. I have found both I-30 and I-44 to be unpleasantly congested for rural freeways and both the MoDOT and TxDOT traffic count maps indicate AADTs in the 20,000-30,000 range.
I think the I-57/I-30 corridor would be much easier to finish. Only a little over 50 miles or so of US 67 needs new Interstate-grade construction (between US 412 and MO 158). The rest is a matter of converting the existing expressway (some of which is already freeway-grade). Plus, there is more consensus on the I-57/I-30 corridor as opposed to a potential I-45 extension.
Quote from: I-39And I don't believe Oklahoma has any plans to upgrade US 69 into I-45, or upgrade US 69 at all north of I-40.
Upgrading US-69 to Interstate quality from the Red River to Big Cabin is still 100% justifiable.
Current upgrade plans are limited. The biggest upgrade project along the corridor is converting US-69 into a freeway in McAlester. That will be a big help. There's another freeway upgrade project pending in Calera, just South of Durant and Choctaw Casino. Outside of that it will take some sort of massive federal initiative to fill in the non-freeway quality gaps.
Quote from: I-39With the extension of I-57 to Little Rock forthcoming, I think that will become the primary Chicago-Dallas Route in the future.
Big Cabin is more direct. Given the choice between I-35, US-69 and an incomplete I-57 long haul truckers would just stay on I-35 into Oklahoma City and then pick up I-44 if staying on an all Interstate-quality route was vital.
Given Missouri's own budget problems (and those of Arkansas as well) there is no clear time line on when I-57 could be built between Sikeston and Walnut Ridge. It could end up taking just as many years as Oklahoma slowly upgrading US-69.
Quote from: sparkerChances are that if I-45 is indeed extended north, it'll be done in 2 stages: Dallas to I-40/Checotah (as per the original Section 1174 legislation); the little ol' speed traps on US 69 would just have to suck it up.
Those speed trap towns need to get bent. The state could bring those towns in line by making them fund all their own street repairs along US-69. Those towns depend on a LOT of state and federal money to keep the roads maintained. Cut off that funding and they'll agree to freeway-quality upgrades. I don't even understand how those towns have any sort of clout to block an upgrade of US-69 in the first place.
Quote from: J N WinklerI think the strongest advantage of the I-30/I-57 route is that it bypasses the Ozarks, where it is particularly difficult to build roads with easy geometry. I have found both I-30 and I-44 to be unpleasantly congested for rural freeways and both the MoDOT and TxDOT traffic count maps indicate AADTs in the 20,000-30,000 range.
The Dallas-Fort Worth metro and its 7 million residents have a big effect on both I-44 and I-30 traffic volumes. I-44 is also carrying a lot of long distance traffic going between Southern California and other points in the Southwest up to key areas in the Northeast. US-69 is a direct connection from DFW into that corridor.
Quote from: I-39I think the I-57/I-30 corridor would be much easier to finish. Only a little over 50 miles or so of US 67 needs new Interstate-grade construction (between US 412 and MO 158). The rest is a matter of converting the existing expressway (some of which is already freeway-grade). Plus, there is more consensus on the I-57/I-30 corridor as opposed to a potential I-45 extension.
Completing I-57 between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston depends on two states with very conservative governments agreeing with each other and working together on a plan. Look how many years it has taken both to get anywhere with the short Belle Vista bypass. Arkansas is the only one actually making any progress. I-57 is a considerably more expensive situation. The US-69 situation only involves Oklahoma.
None of the non-freeway gaps of US-69 in Oklahoma are difficult to resolve. The main issues are building new terrain bypasses around towns like Atoka, Muskogee, Wagoner, Chouteau, Pryor Creek and Adair. Most of that land is pretty flat and not in the flood plain. Some of the I-57 upgrade path in NE Arkansas can get flooded.
Alright then, if the US 69 corridor in Oklahoma is so critical and is truly the shortest route between Chicago and Dallas, why isn't Oklahoma paying more attention to it (i.e, more freeway upgrades). What exactly are the plans out there right now?
EDIT: To continue the discussion on US 69 in Oklahoma, please go to this thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20467.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20467.0)
US 69 south of McAlester is terrible. Simply awful. If they built a parallel turnpike with a toll of $25 I'd happily pay it to avoid the abortion that is US 69.
Nexus 5X
While it would be nice to see I-45 extended up US 69, it would most likely duplicate I-49/US 71 on the other side of the border, not to mention be in very close proximity to it.
Quote from: bugo on June 10, 2017, 07:21:36 PM
US 69 south of McAlester is terrible. Simply awful. If they built a parallel turnpike with a toll of $25 I'd happily pay it to avoid the abortion that is US 69.
Nexus 5X
FTFY.
When a parallel turnpike was last proposed in the late 90's, it was shot down so fast the member that proposed it (from Little Dixie) had to pull it from a hearing in committee as he got ZERO votes in support. At that time, the members from all of the towns that would be bypassed had tremendous stroke. IMO, it would fare no better today because term limits make reps and senators even less likely to take on controversial issues. While I agree it would be an excellent idea, the cost just from Caddo to McAlester would make it a money loser since you could easily shunpike on US69. That doesn't even consider a Muskogee bypass as well as Wagoner, Pryor, etc.
It would get plenty of traffic. 69 is a monstrosity and if trucks could bypass it for a few dollars, they would. It would be safer and faster and would save companies fuel money.
What exactly is wrong with US 69 south of McAlester? A very casual inspection in Google Maps shows it is four-lane divided in rural areas with undivided urban sections, similar to US 287 in Texas just south of the Red River, US 81 from north of Enid south to El Reno, or US 75 between I-40 and Tulsa. I can't imagine it being all that bad unless access control is seriously lacking or there is heavy stoplight infestation in places like Atoka.
Traffic lights, speed limits that change every few miles, dangerous at-grades, Barney Fife.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 12, 2017, 08:40:20 PM
What exactly is wrong with US 69 south of McAlester? A very casual inspection in Google Maps shows it is four-lane divided in rural areas with undivided urban sections, similar to US 287 in Texas just south of the Red River, US 81 from north of Enid south to El Reno, or US 75 between I-40 and Tulsa. I can't imagine it being all that bad unless access control is seriously lacking or there is heavy stoplight infestation in places like Atoka.
It's mostly Tushka and Atoka with a taste of Calera (soon to be remedied) and Stringtown (home of Oklahoma's most famous speed trap). As mentioned upthread, the volume of truck traffic can make travel seem to take FOREVER.
Quote from: rte66man on June 13, 2017, 11:06:14 AM
Calera (soon to be remedied)
What is going to happen in Calera?
EDIT: I see, they are doing partial freeway conversion. When will it be constructed?
I don't understand why they just don't go ahead and do the whole section between Colbert and Durant.
Quote from: I-39 on June 13, 2017, 09:22:24 PM
I don't understand why they just don't go ahead and do the whole section between Colbert and Durant.
Oklahoma hates doing big projects, and will go to extremes to avoid doing so (see the I-44/I-235 and I-35/I-240 interchanges in OKC, which have been split into an absolutely absurd number of phases taking place over a decade or so). There's also the ever-present financial crunch that makes lawmakers blanch at the thought of committing so much money to a project.
According to the materials I found on the Calera project, the ultimate plan is to do all eight miles that currently lack access control, but for FastLane grant application purposes they are concentrating just on the four miles in Calera itself that has nearly all of the problems. Even that is estimated to cost $120 million.
The FastLane grant application materials date from 2016, and I do not see any evidence that a construction contract has been advertised yet.
Speaking as someone who has recently travelled from Dallas to Oklahoma City via Durant and Ada specifically to avoid I-35E construction in Dallas and Denton counties, I found going through Calera to be a nuisance, but by far the most painful part was actually going two-lane between Durant and Tishomingo on SH 22 and SH 78. Right-of-way width is very narrow and I think the unit lane width is probably as low as 10 ft, which makes tracking painful especially when there is a crosswind.
Oklahoma has invested so little in its two-lane state highway system over the past three decades compared to Kansas and even Nebraska that the lags are really glaring not just in terms of surface condition but also geometric parameters (lots of blind summits) and roadside development (steep ditch slopes often starting right at the shoulder stripe, even on highways with modern unit lane width of 12 ft). Since quite a lot of my out-of-state travel is in Oklahoma because it is by far the closest to Wichita, I have been thinking that I need to find some sort of pavement log so that I am not relying just on Google and the latest Oklahoma official state map to find good driving roads.
I posted this over on the "US69 Improvements in OK" thread:
ODOT has announced a public meeting regarding the proposed improvements to US69/75 in Calera:
https://www.ok.gov/triton/modules/newsroom/newsroom_article.php?id=277&article_id=33238