Print

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

[apeman33]

That's a consequence of having E-911 systems. Every place in a county has an address and when you change the routing of a highway, you change perhaps tens of thousands of addresses.

Labette County appears to be trying to get around that somewhat. When U.S. 160 was moved, the county had to change addresses on three roads: Former K-96, Former U.S. 160 and on the road that had to be upgraded or removed for U.S. 400. So the signs along each of those highways display the number the road would have if it were NOT a highway ("24000 Rd." instead of "US 400" east of Parsons, for example). I guess that way, if KDOT changes the routes again, Labette County doesn't have to change the addresses.

[bugo]

The 400-160-96 swap was stupid.  If nothing else, they should have left 160 where it is and made 96 into 400.  But they had to confuse everybody for no gain.

[apeman33]

Parsons SO badly wanted 400. I think they thought it was going to create a boom. Not so much. And on top of that, Walmart moved clear out to the other side of the bypass to the point where it's probably easier to get there from Erie than anywhere inside Parsons.

Edit: And there was also going to be that "southeast diagonal" that would make 400 to Riverton/Baxter Springs more direct. I'm not sure that will ever be constructed.

[situveux1]

Just watched the story on KWCH. According to them, KDOT has not switched out the signs and it could be up to 5 weeks before they're changed. Too bad they didn't explain why the changes were made.

[WichitaRoads]

I see an issue with KWCH's story... their map shows K-14 x'ed out as an alignment running up along K-61 from Arlington.

IT NEVER DID THAT! It went north out of Arlington to meet K-96 as it bent northward toward Sterling.

ICTRds

[J N Winkler]

My chief issue with the KWCH story is the claim by a local official that KDOT did not bother to give advance warning of the revision in route numbers.  The Kansas statutes give the KDOT secretary total discretion in adopting and vacating state highways, but for a variety of reasons--including the ones cited upthread having to do with E-911 routing--professionalism calls for cities and counties to be given considerable advance notice of any proposed revisions in route numbering.  Was the ball dropped, and if so, who dropped it?  The reporter didn't drill down into this aspect of the story.

[route56]

Sometimes, you just can't win.

[apeman33]

I see an issue with KWCH's story... their map shows K-14 x'ed out as an alignment running up along K-61 from Arlington.

IT NEVER DID THAT! It went north out of Arlington to meet K-96 as it bent northward toward Sterling.

ICTRds

That was the original plan before deciding on the K-14/K-17 swap and using K-11 instead. I don't know if this is part of the confusion. The report doesn't make that clear (well, of course it didn't; they're confused).

I don't know if Reno County will have to worry much about changing addresses. I think their roads are only named after the highway when the road is a diagonal, so the due north-south sections probably had other names. The various parts of U.S. 50 in Reno County going due east-west are named for the road that the section is in line with (Illinois Ave., Mills Ave,. Blanchard Ave., etc.) I've only seen "US 50" on the street blades when it's running at an angle. So instead of running emergency personnel to "K-14," "K-17," or "K-11" they should be going to Hodge Rd. (Now K-11), Sego Rd. (abandoned K-14), or ...

Whups, Yahoo maps shows "K-17" is named "State Road 17." It probably should have been named "Monroe St."

[route56]

I've updated my Kansas Highways page with new K-11 entry:

http://www.route56.com/highways/highways.php?hwy=11&hist=1

There have now been three distinct highways in Kansas that have carried the number "11,"

• The current K-99
• The southern K-8 (in Barber county)
• The former K-14 between US 54/400 and Arlington.

How's this for a roadgeek stat: K-11 was re-designated back to K-8 in December 1959. Thus, it has been 53 years since the number has been used. Compare with the most recent highway number to return... The number '58' had only been out of circulation 25 years.

[route56]

My apologies--I was going by memory.  It does look like the "county cap" is, in fact, a county floor.  I also remembered there being carve-outs for at least Sedgwick and Johnson counties, but if that was indeed the case in the past, it is no longer so.

There has to be at least an implied exemption for Wyandotte county, as there is zero miles of state highway - it's all C. C. L., plus the Kansas Turnpike.

It is my recollection that Chapter 68 of the Kansas statutes used to have language providing for the existence of a system of county roads (subject to a 25,000-mile cap) which were designed to function as feeders to the state highways (in effect, as a system of secondary state highways).  I think this system was linked to preferential funding compared to other county highways.  However, the relevant language seems to have disappeared.

The state re-designated the Rural Secondary highway as "Major Collector" roadways under 25 C.F.R.  See KSA §68-1701

[situveux1]

Not a very good picture (I was late and phone wouldn't cooperate!) but as you can see, the Bus-81 shields are down on I-135. I thought it looked odd that they didn't recenter the K-4 shields. The 1/2 mile and 1 mile BGS looked exactly the same.

http://flic.kr/p/dVF7Kg

[WichitaRoads]

Not a very good picture (I was late and phone wouldn't cooperate!) but as you can see, the Bus-81 shields are down on I-135. I thought it looked odd that they didn't recenter the K-4 shields. The 1/2 mile and 1 mile BGS looked exactly the same.

http://flic.kr/p/dVF7Kg

I was through there the next day after you. I was thinking the same thing about positioning. You can still see the ghosting of the old letters and shield. It seems really sad to me.

ICTRds

[apeman33]

Not a very good picture (I was late and phone wouldn't cooperate!) but as you can see, the Bus-81 shields are down on I-135. I thought it looked odd that they didn't recenter the K-4 shields. The 1/2 mile and 1 mile BGS looked exactly the same.

http://flic.kr/p/dVF7Kg

I was through there the next day after you. I was thinking the same thing about positioning. You can still see the ghosting of the old letters and shield. It's seems really sad to me.

ICTRds

KDOT did the same thing with BGSes along U.S. 400 when U.S. 160 was rerouted and K-96 was truncated. It leads to way off-center U.S. 169 shields on the BGSes there, plus the fact that westbound U.S. 160 used to leave 400 there and follow 169 south through Cherryvale, so the sign is also now too tall because both a 160 shield and "WEST" were both taken off.

Similar story at U.S. 75, where "EAST" and the K-96 shield were taken off. Also consider how long of a word "INDEPENDENCE" is and you have a really goofy looking sign with a lot of wasted space.

[route56]

THREAD EXHUMATION INITIATED...

A couple of months ago, I saw a article in the Jefferson County newspaper indicating that KDOT was wanting to turn the spur highways to Meriden (K-245) and Williamstown (K-76) over to the county.

I happened to be at the county courthouse today during a commission meeting. I dropped in at the end of the meeting and inquired about the status of the proposal. The commission indicated that they had accepted KDOT's offer.

Therefore, I will be updating the Kansas Highways database to reflect the change (signs are still up at last check)

[route56]

It isn't just spur roads that KDOT is looking to unload, according to the Lawrence Journal-World

http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/town_talk/2013/jun/25/city-considering-35-million-swap-with-kd/
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/jul/03/editorial-street-swap/

Basically, KDOT's looking to drop the US 40 designation from 6th Street west of Iowa. According to Chad Lawhorn of the J-W, KDOT would route 40 along K-10 around the west side of town, then back north on 59 to 6th and Iowa [6th Street east of Iowa would remain a City Connection Link designated US 40 and US 59]

[WichitaRoads]

It isn't just spur roads that KDOT is looking to unload, according to the Lawrence Journal-World

http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/town_talk/2013/jun/25/city-considering-35-million-swap-with-kd/
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/jul/03/editorial-street-swap/

Basically, KDOT's looking to drop the US 40 designation from 6th Street west of Iowa. According to Chad Lawhorn of the J-W, KDOT would route 40 along K-10 around the west side of town, then back north on 59 to 6th and Iowa [6th Street east of Iowa would remain a City Connection Link designated US 40 and US 59]

Granted, US 40 doesn't have to have effective continuity these days, not being the main route of travel through the area... but, what the hell? They want to take a 4 mile stretch and extend it to 10.4 miles? I mean, yes, it would go along a route they are already responsible for, and so they save $$$, but it seems insane in terms of driveability.

My guess is, anyone in the area used to using "Free Forty" will still drive west from Iowa to K-10 along 6th, marked route or not.

ICTRds

[route56]

Not a very good picture (I was late and phone wouldn't cooperate!) but as you can see, the Bus-81 shields are down on I-135. I thought it looked odd that they didn't recenter the K-4 shields. The 1/2 mile and 1 mile BGS looked exactly the same.

http://flic.kr/p/dVF7Kg

I was through there the next day after you. I was thinking the same thing about positioning. You can still see the ghosting of the old letters and shield. It seems really sad to me.

ICTRds

My own shot, from on the way to the Wichita meet...

47052 by richiekennedy56, on Flickr

Also.... UPDATE

The Rural resolutions page shows that 5 spur routes have officially been withdrawn.

• K-219, Seward Stafford County, April 15 (KA-3218-01)
  
• K-163, Sedgwick County, June 1 (KA-3220-01)
• K-277, Crawford County, June 1 (KA-3221-01)
• K-46, Rice County, June 3 (KA-3219-01)
• K-201, Neosho County, June 2 (KA-3222-01)

[yakra]

Any confirmation from the field that signage has been removed?

[Revive 755]

It isn't just spur roads that KDOT is looking to unload, according to the Lawrence Journal-World

http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/town_talk/2013/jun/25/city-considering-35-million-swap-with-kd/
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/jul/03/editorial-street-swap/

Basically, KDOT's looking to drop the US 40 designation from 6th Street west of Iowa. According to Chad Lawhorn of the J-W, KDOT would route 40 along K-10 around the west side of town, then back north on 59 to 6th and Iowa [6th Street east of Iowa would remain a City Connection Link designated US 40 and US 59]

Granted, US 40 doesn't have to have effective continuity these days, not being the main route of travel through the area... but, what the hell? They want to take a 4 mile stretch and extend it to 10.4 miles? I mean, yes, it would go along a route they are already responsible for, and so they save $$$, but it seems insane in terms of driveability.

Maybe AASHTO will do something useful and disapprove the relocation due to the increase distance.

IMHO, if KDOT wants to turn over 6th Street so badly, they should relocate US 40 by signing US 40 along US 24 (as suggested in the Lawrence newspaper article comments ) from US 59 to somewhere around Topeka, possibly using K-4 to I-70.

[Ned Weasel]

It isn't just spur roads that KDOT is looking to unload, according to the Lawrence Journal-World

http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/town_talk/2013/jun/25/city-considering-35-million-swap-with-kd/
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/jul/03/editorial-street-swap/

Basically, KDOT's looking to drop the US 40 designation from 6th Street west of Iowa. According to Chad Lawhorn of the J-W, KDOT would route 40 along K-10 around the west side of town, then back north on 59 to 6th and Iowa [6th Street east of Iowa would remain a City Connection Link designated US 40 and US 59]

Granted, US 40 doesn't have to have effective continuity these days, not being the main route of travel through the area... but, what the hell? They want to take a 4 mile stretch and extend it to 10.4 miles? I mean, yes, it would go along a route they are already responsible for, and so they save $$$, but it seems insane in terms of driveability.

Maybe AASHTO will do something useful and disapprove the relocation due to the increase distance.

IMHO, if KDOT wants to turn over 6th Street so badly, they should relocate US 40 by signing US 40 along US 24 (as suggested in the Lawrence newspaper article comments ) from US 59 to somewhere around Topeka, possibly using K-4 to I-70.

This (KDOT's idea, I mean) would make sense if the time savings from the lack of traffic signals on that segment of K-10 (there's only one, currently), the reduced number of intersections, and the higher speed limit would cancel out the increased distance of a trip following US 40, but the segment of US 59 between K-10 West and US 40 is almost exactly as long as the segment of US 40 that is proposed to be replaced (and it's even slower, from my experience driving it).

So, unless the travel time used for following US 40 under the proposed re-routing is equal to or less than what it is now (which I doubt, but I'd love to see an estimate somewhere), then I don't see what justifies this, unless maintenance costs to the state really are the most important consideration, in which case, why don't we just eliminate the U.S. Highway system altogether already, if it's that meaningless?

[Ned Weasel]

It isn't just spur roads that KDOT is looking to unload, according to the Lawrence Journal-World

http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/town_talk/2013/jun/25/city-considering-35-million-swap-with-kd/
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/jul/03/editorial-street-swap/

Basically, KDOT's looking to drop the US 40 designation from 6th Street west of Iowa. According to Chad Lawhorn of the J-W, KDOT would route 40 along K-10 around the west side of town, then back north on 59 to 6th and Iowa [6th Street east of Iowa would remain a City Connection Link designated US 40 and US 59]

Granted, US 40 doesn't have to have effective continuity these days, not being the main route of travel through the area... but, what the hell? They want to take a 4 mile stretch and extend it to 10.4 miles? I mean, yes, it would go along a route they are already responsible for, and so they save $$$, but it seems insane in terms of driveability.

Maybe AASHTO will do something useful and disapprove the relocation due to the increase distance.

IMHO, if KDOT wants to turn over 6th Street so badly, they should relocate US 40 by signing US 40 along US 24 (as suggested in the Lawrence newspaper article comments ) from US 59 to somewhere around Topeka, possibly using K-4 to I-70.

I kind of like your idea, but it raises the question of what to do with the current segment of US 40 between K-4 and K-10.  How about this?  Re-designate that segment as K-10, and then give the remaining segment of the current K-10 a hidden route number and sign it as "TO I-70/Kansas Turnpike" and "TO K-10" (the signage on the Turnpike mainline would be unaffected because the KTA never uses "TO" designations, anywhere*).

(Or is extending K-10 westward too nostalgic?)

*I realized, long after I posted this, that there is a "TO I-70" designation on the new northbound pull-through sign at Exit 127.  But it still stands that the KTA never uses "TO" designations on signage for exits, even though many cases would normally warrant it.

[apeman33]

The Rural resolutions page shows that 5 spur routes have officially been withdrawn.

• K-219, Seward County, April 15 (KA-3218-01)
• K-163, Sedgwick County, June 1 (KA-3220-01)
• K-277, Crawford County, June 1 (KA-3221-01)
  
• K-46, Rice County, June 3 (KA-3219-01)
• K-201, Neosho County, June 2 (KA-3222-01)

That one sure had a short shelf life. Did K-277 even exist for 10 years? And I wondered what was up with K-163 when I passed by Garden Plain earlier this summer. I presume Garden Plain annexed land most of the way out to U.S. 54.

Also, K-219 serves served the town of Seward in Stafford County rather than any place in Seward County.

[route56]

I kind of like your idea, but it raises the question of what to do with the current segment of US 40 between K-4 and K-10.  How about this?  Re-designate that segment as K-10, and then give the remaining segment of the current K-10 a hidden route number and sign it as "TO I-70/Kansas Turnpike" and "TO K-10" (the signage on the Turnpike mainline would be unaffected because the KTA never uses "TO" designations, anywhere).

(Or is extending K-10 westward too nostalgic?)

More than likely, KDOT would be looking at unloading that segment of 40 as well. Of the three routes between Lawrence and the north side of Topeka, it is the narrowest and the one with the most curves.

That one sure had a short shelf life. Did K-277 even exist for 10 years?

21 Years, 4/22/92-6/1/13. However, technically, it was never part of the State Highway system.... it was a 68-406(d) route

[situveux1]

I had to sit back and chuckle a little bit when reading my hometown paper online this week. I don't know how to link directly to the article, so here are the better parts... www.marionrecord.com

Some in Marion County are requesting the state make Remington Road from U.S. 56 to Pilsen an extension of K-256.

According to Rose Mary Neuwirth, curator of the Kapaun museum at Pilsen, traffic to Pilsen has increased exponentially since native son Father Emil Kapaun posthumously received the Medal of Honor in April. He may be declared a Saint by the Roman Catholic Church in the future.

“We are swamped,”  Neuwirth said.

Many people are coming from out-of-state and stopping in Pilsen on their travels from one state to another. Others come on tour buses or in car caravans.

...

Neuwirth said she tries to instruct people coming from the south to access Pilsen from 290th Rd., but they do not understand why they should go so far out of their way. They would rather follow their GPS units.

“If Kapaun achieves sainthood, I don’t know how we will do it,”  Neuwirth said.

...

Kansas Department of Transportation area superintendent Joe Palic was unsure of the process for new stretches of highway to be added to the highway system. He inquired with Dennis R. Slimmer, chief of transportation.

“The statute states that changes can be made when the public safety, convenience, economy, classification, or reclassification requires such change,”  Slimmer wrote back. “Based on a preliminary review of the traffic counts that we have available for the road in question, it doesn’t appear to meet the requirements for consideration as an addition to the state highway system. Our latest counts do not show an increase in traffic.

“However, if there is additional information or mitigating circumstances that should be considered, we would be happy to review that information to further evaluate its eligibility as a state highway.”

KDOT wants to unload K-256 entirely and now some in the county want them to take on more mileage.

Also, went west on 50 from Newton to Dodge City and kept a look out for new K-14 signage on WB-50 through Hutchinson, but not too many new shields to be found. Not a lot of thought in posting new K-14 shields, just like when US-169 was re-routed on I-35 in JoCo.

[Ned Weasel]

Also, went west on 50 from Newton to Dodge City and kept a look out for new K-14 signage on WB-50 through Hutchinson, but not too many new shields to be found. Not a lot of thought in posting new K-14 shields, just like when US-169 was re-routed on I-35 in JoCo.

This practice really irks me, especially considering KDOT used to be really good about signing all US and state routes, even if only using supplemental post-mounted signs for secondary routes.  Do you think the idea is that, highway designations are being re-routed so frequently these days in Kansas that KDOT has just decided to say "f--- it" when it comes to signing secondary routes?