Print

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

[route56]

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.

Well, There's only a 1.262 mile duplex between US 50 and K-14/K-96. If you stayed on 50, there wouldn't be too many K-14 shields to begin with

[situveux1]

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.

Well, There's only a 1.262 mile duplex between US 50 and K-14/K-96. If you stayed on 50, there wouldn't be too many K-14 shields to begin with

Oh yea, I know what you mean... the only shield I saw was the exit sign for 96/14 north to Nickerson. I thought they would have included supplemental signs when approaching the 96/14 exit south to Wichita and Kingman, but no mention at all of 14 south. I got the impression they added shields along the new route but, like so many times before, routes leading to and from were ignored.

[route56]

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

No dice, she's been approved, along with the removal of US40B in Russell.

Three more spur highways are officially gone, all in Allen County, all effective October 11:

• K-202, Savonburg, 0.698 miles, KA-3276-01
• K-203, Elsmore, 0.633 miles, KA-3277-01 and KA-3277-02 (the easternmost 0.05 miles were CCL inside the Elsmore city limits)
• K-224, Humboltd, 1.039 miles, KA-3278-01

[route56]

Bringing new meaning to the term "thread resussitation," I bring up this mtr gem on "Useless State Routes".

K-38. It ends literally in the middle of nowhere (I've writen about it before). Look it up in Sumner County at it's junction with K-15. Even
the one mileage sign at the start of the route just says that the next "destination" is "K-38 ENDS        xx" (It's somewhere between 15 and 18 miles long).

Ironically, even though Scott posted this in June 1999, K-38 was already gone: the decommissioning of K-38 was effective December 1, 1997. Furthermore, Cowley and Chautauqua counties agreed to accept the road way back in 1989.

Any 3dK which serves just to spur from another route into a small town. This is an inconsistency which gripes me. There are plenty of 3dK's  (and some 2dK's like K-89 into Halstead) which could just as easily be signed "DESTINATION via county road". Particularly when the "highway" is less than a mile (so small, Rand McNally doesn't even include them on its maps) or the town it serves has less than, say, a thousand people."

Holcomb (six miles west of Garden City), which once had U.S. 50 going through it and has a population of about 1,600, a high school, a bank, a grocery store and a city pool, gets a "HOLCOMB  ---> Via County Road" sign.

Stark (between Erie and Moran on U.S. 59) gets K-201. The road isn't even a mile long. And all Stark has is a branch bank. No schools at all.
Nothing. And if more than 100 people live there, I'd be stunned.

We said good-bye to K-201 earlier this year.

Others on the hit list: K-202 (Savonburg) and K-203 (Elsmore), both also spurs off U.S. 59, serving towns smiliar to Stark.

These two were two of the three just recently turned back.

K-277. A less-than-a-mile long road that goes to the Crawford State Lake. A brown directional sign wouldn't do the same job?

Also removed in 2013.

K-279 near Osawatomie. Less than a mile long, leading to a State Hospital. There's a smiliar K route near Larned. Again, a "via county
road" sign (even though the state probably owns the road) wouldn't do the job?

Both K-264 (to Larned State Hospital) and K-279 (to Osawatomie State Hospital) are still intact. Both are also KSA §68-406 (d) routes.

K-108 in Erie might as well be Buisiness U.S. 59. It's a two-mile loop that goes through downtown Erie that starts and ends at U.S. 59.

Pulled in 2004 instead.

So, as far as highways Scott described as 'useless,' four of them have now been returned to the counties.

[route56]

Two more routes have been vaporized.

US 40B in Russell is officially gone as of November 15 (KA-3223-01 [rural mileage] and KA-3223-02 [CCL])

K-74, a spur from US 73/K-7 to the town of Palmer, in Atchison County, was turned back on December 10. (KA-3522-01)

Although not "official," signage has been removed on K-76, the Williamstown Spur in Jefferson county. I would probably expect a resolution on that to come.

[TCN7JM]

Ah, so that's where this came from. If/when a source for that is available, I'd like to know where that is so it can be added to that list.

[route56]

Ah, so that's where this came from. If/when a source for that is available, I'd like to know where that is so it can be added to that list.

http://idmweb.ksdot.org/publiclib/publicdoc.asp?ID=003831438:1

The official turnback date for K-76 and K-245 in Jefferson County was January 3rd.

http://idmweb.ksdot.org/publiclib/publicdoc.asp?ID=003831436:1

Three more highways, K-205, K-210, and K-271, in Sumner County were turned back on the 6th.

[TCN7JM]

Ah, so that's where this came from. If/when a source for that is available, I'd like to know where that is so it can be added to that list.

http://idmweb.ksdot.org/publiclib/publicdoc.asp?ID=003831438:1

The official turnback date for K-76 and K-245 in Jefferson County was January 3rd.

http://idmweb.ksdot.org/publiclib/publicdoc.asp?ID=003831436:1

Three more highways, K-205, K-210, and K-271, in Sumner County were turned back on the 6th.

Awesome! Thanks.

[WichitaRoads]

And the purge continues...

When will it end? lol

ICTRds

[yakra]

Is there any new info on K-238?

[route56]

Is there any new info on K-238?

There is no indication that K-238 has offically been removed from the highway system.

[route56]

Is there any new info on K-238?

From US 36 westbound.

48577 by richiekennedy56, on Flickr

First assembly marker northbound:

48578 by richiekennedy56, on Flickr

Reverse side of above assembly marker:

48579 by richiekennedy56, on Flickr

[route56]

And another K-spur falls:

http://idmweb.ksdot.org/publiclib/publicdoc.asp?ID=003832348:1

K-217, a half-mile spur from the US 36/K-27 Junction north one-half mile in Cheyene County, was pulled on March 3rd.

EDIT: Using a different hyperlink. This one should give you a "token" and direct you to the resolution

[Scott5114]

Link's broken.

[J N Winkler]

Link's broken.

Richie copied the link correctly and it does work--the problem is that you have to go to the Rural Resolutions page so the server can cut you a login token.  The easiest way to do this is just to come in through the front door and do a manual search on K-217 to access the turnback resolution document.

Anyway, here's the text (thanks to Acrobat OCR):

March 3, 2014

STATE OF KANSAS
KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

RESOLUTION TO WITHDRAW HIGHWAY IN CHEYENNE COUNTY

WHEREAS, The Secretary of Transportation, in the interest of complying with public safety, convenience and welfare, and in order to maintain compliance with the laws of the State of Kansas, finds it necessary to turn back State Highway K-217 in Cheyenne County.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, the road described as follows, to wit:  Beginning on K-217 at the intersection with US-36 in Cheyenne County, thence northerly 0.5 mile to the junction with of Cheyenne County Road 0, in Cheyenne County, Kansas BE HEREBY WITHDRAWN as K-217 at the completion of Project KA-3568-01 on March 3, 2014, with the provision that the existing road shall revert to local public authority.

Date Approved
March 3, 2014
(Secretary King's signature)

[agentsteel53]

you have to go to the Rural Resolutions page so the server can cut you a login token.

why the flaming hoop to jump through?

I can understand the state of Kansas wanting to vet serious bidders on their projects - but why not allow people to download and browse the documents at their leisure and leave the bizarre door to a later stage of interaction?

[J N Winkler]

why the flaming hoop to jump through?

My best guess:  they chose an off-the-shelf solution that has not been engineered for easy scraping, and nobody thought to demand a modification from the vendor that would make documents easy to share via email, Web forums, etc.

I can understand the state of Kansas wanting to vet serious bidders on their projects - but why not allow people to download and browse the documents at their leisure and leave the bizarre door to a later stage of interaction?

Actually, the construction plans themselves are accessed through simple links (no redirection, no login token) and are easy to scrape.  (This is not true of the so-called "Exploratory and Project Reports"--mainly geotech reports, DTMs, Geopak files, and the like--which appear to be held in the same document management database as the state highway resolutions and the CCL agreements.)  The hoops other state DOTs (e.g. MoDOT) make you jump through for current projects are higher; KDOT drops the hammer on you only if you ask for a past project and someone has to pull it out of storage.

[route56]

(Secretary King's signature)

Actually, it looks like the resolution was signed by Jerry Younger, the State Transportation Engineer/Assistant Secretary. Note on the scanned in version that "for" has been hand-written under the signature line. Going through past resolutions, I have noticed that the #2 person has occasionally signed these resolutions.

[yakra]

K-86 and K-175 are gonzo, right?

[route56]

K-86 and K-175 are gonzo, right?

Both of these spurs were turned back as part of the K-61 widening project, which was before the current aggressive movement to unload these spur highways.

[route56]

No joke: K-212 was turned back on April 1.

[route56]

http://idmweb.ksdot.org/publiclib/publicdoc.asp?ID=003833407:1

May 1: K-121 in Phillips County gets the ax.

BTW, with regard to West 6th Street in Lawrence, it is still US 40.... for now.

[KDOTGIS]

Nice to see somebody actually reads the highway resolutions.  KDOT has been developing a public GIS site,  one of the Public Info maps shows rural resolutions by location on the map and links to the resolution in the document management system. 

http://ksdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=dd8eab6c309645289649a46a27a86158

http://ksdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/ 

[corco]

That is very cool- I've been working for my jurisdiction in Montana to create a GIS layer that shows all of our county road declarations/realignments/decommissionings with links to the original commissioner's minutes, and I've been struggling to figure out how to best lay that out spatially. I hadn't seen anything like that done before, and this gives me some ideas- very cool stuff. I hadn't thought to draw a polygon around each area, with then smaller polygons for smaller orders within those larger polygons- that's a neat idea.

I had been trying to just break up road line segments, but that gets messy with a different line segment for each resolution/order and overlapping lines where orders overlap, but this looks like a maybe cleaner/more visually intuitive way to do it. Especially because with some of our really old stuff around 1900, it's difficult to tell from the written record exactly where the lines went, and aerial imagery sometimes isn't terribly helpful for identifying old roadbeds, so I'm reluctant to draw a random line.  Very cool. Do you know any other agencies who have done something like this in a viewable online format? I've struck out.

[situveux1]

Really neat info, thank you for that link KDOTGIS.