Print

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

[situveux1]

I read this article in my hometown newspaper and thought it was interesting. Has anyone else seen articles like this in the rest of the state?

http://www.marionrecord.com

Kansas Department of Transportation wants Marion County to take over three “spur routes”  (short state highways into towns) in return for a one-time payment; Joe Palic of KDOT floated a figure of $200,000 per mile on Monday.

The three routes in question are K-215, about one-quarter mile from K-15 into Goessel; K-168, about one-half mile from U.S. 56 into Lehigh; and K-256, about five miles from U.S. 77, through Marion, and to U.S. 56.

County Commissioners were unsure about the two shorter routes but saw K-256, and in particular the pair of bridges over the Cottonwood River west of Marion, as too big of a burden at even twice the proposed $200,000/mile payment.

Road and Bridge Superintendent Randy Crawford said replacement of either bridge, when it is needed eventually, would cost millions of dollars. Palic said the consensus that KDOT had heard from counties as it tries to reduce its miles of highways is that $200,000 per mile isn’t enough.

Palic reiterated that the number discussed wasn’t final. Commissioner Dan Holub asked whether it was an all-or-nothing proposal. Could the county accept K-168 and K-215 but leave K-256 in KDOT’s hands? Palic said he didn’t know for sure, but he thought KDOT would be happy to turn over the two smaller highways.

Commission Chairman Randy Dallke said Goessel City Council might be happy to have K-215 become a county or city street, so they wouldn’t need KDOT approval to change the speed limit on the road. Dallke said he would want to talk to Goessel City Council before making any decision.

[Scott5114]

Direct link: http://marionrecord.com/direct/state_requests_county_takeover+4419high+537461746520726571756573747320636f756e74792074616b656f766572

[J N Winkler]

To answer the question in the OP:  I haven't heard of anything like this in Wichita and vicinity, but then we have precious few spur routes left to eliminate (K-163 from US 54 to Garden Plain is the only one that comes immediately to mind).

[Scott5114]

This is presumably part of KDOT policy of removing routes that are wholly within urban areas, is it not?

[situveux1]

No, K-215 and K-168 extend from the main highway to the city limits. K-256 is Main Street in Marion but has several miles outside the city limits, both east and west of the city.

[J N Winkler]

My guess is that they are looking to make room under the mileage cap since they will soon have the SLT to worry about.  (If memory serves, Sedgwick and Johnson counties have a carve-out from the county mileage cap, and possibly from the statewide 10,000-mile cap as well, but neither applies to Douglas county.)

[situveux1]

That was my assumption too. I don't know if it's specifically tied to SLT since I would assume they would return the old K-10 from Iowa to the new junction over the the city and county, but I would think it's involved somehow. I know they've eliminated several spur routes over the past 10-15 years just looking at their route log changes on KDOT's website. Is it just a new push overall to rid the state of maintenance and make the budget look better? New push from a new KDOT Secretary?

I know they just recently eliminated Bus-81 through Lindsborg which picked them up just under 4 miles. There again, part of it was concurrent with K-4, but the southern half was mostly outside the city. I'm not sure how to see how much they paid the city or McPherson County to return it.

If they really wanted to pick up some miles, they should look at returning K-51 in Morton County back over from K-27 to the Colorado state line. Google maps puts it at 7.8 miles. I've always wondered about it. Old Colorado state maps show there used to be a Colorado-51 meeting it but they eliminated CO-51 decades ago. Of course, they can't do it until I get to drive it! I missed out on K-38.

----------

Edit: Got to looking around KDOT and found this document: https://idmweb.ksdot.org/publiclib/doccontent.dll?LibraryName=PublicDocs%5Edt00mx38&SystemType=2&LogonId=08172444ed4a3a7415b2911d28284338&DocId=003794871:1

Looks like Bus-81 was part of getting the K-61 expressway. Also looks like K-14 and 61 in southern and western Reno County is getting a makeover, along with K-175 and 86 in McPherson County (as in the latter two are eliminated.) I haven't been through those areas lately to know if they've executed this yet.

[route56]

My guess is that they are looking to make room under the mileage cap since they will soon have the SLT to worry about.  (If memory serves, Sedgwick and Johnson counties have a carve-out from the county mileage cap, and possibly from the statewide 10,000-mile cap as well, but neither applies to Douglas county.)

Doubtful on the SLT, since there isn't that much of a difference in mileage between the SLT and the existing 23rd Street east of Iowa.

It appears, especially since KDOT is proposing a one-time cash payment for Marion county to accept responsibility of these routes, that they looking at removing lower-volume routes more aggressively.

[J N Winkler]

Edit: Got to looking around KDOT and found this document: https://idmweb.ksdot.org/publiclib/doccontent.dll?LibraryName=PublicDocs%5Edt00mx38&SystemType=2&LogonId=08172444ed4a3a7415b2911d28284338&DocId=003794871:1

Sorry--that URL doesn't work because it contains session information, but this one does.  Did you find this through the "Rural Resolutions" search page?

[situveux1]

Edit: Got to looking around KDOT and found this document: https://idmweb.ksdot.org/publiclib/doccontent.dll?LibraryName=PublicDocs%5Edt00mx38&SystemType=2&LogonId=08172444ed4a3a7415b2911d28284338&DocId=003794871:1

Sorry--that URL doesn't work because it contains session information, but this one does.  Did you find this through the "Rural Resolutions" search page?

Sorry, didn't realize that wouldn't work. I tried it myself but I guess it would still work for me! I went to the maps part of KDOT's website, then Highway and Route Changes then Official Highway Resolution Documents, then just searched by McPherson County. I know you're way more adept at finding things on KDOT's website than I am, I usually just fall into stuff. I'm usually the last to notice stuff, but the last trip down 135 I did notice all of the Bus-81 signs were down at Lindsborg, and now I guess I know why. I'm a little surprised the state required so much roadway to be returned to Reno and McPherson Counties for completing K-61. Do you know, is the state mileage cap based on 2 lanes or 4 lanes? (i.e. Would having K-61 go from 2 to 4 lanes double the milage as far as the state mileage cap is concerned?) I guess I always just assumed the cap was in relation to the miles regardless of 2, 4 or more lanes.

[J N Winkler]

AIUI, the mileage cap applies to total centerline mileage, but only lengths of road which are state highways in law count against it.  State highways include the Interstates in their entirety plus the lengths of state and US routes which lie outside incorporated cities.  The portions of state and US routes which lie within cities are called "city connecting links" in KDOT parlance and there is a split of responsibility between KDOT and the localities (KDOT, for example, still handles signing on CCLs).  There is a separate cap per county which is designed to limit the total mileage of state highway in a given county to that required to cross it from north to south and east to west, but there are some exceptions--populous counties like Sedgwick and Johnson get carve-outs, Interstates don't count against the county cap, etc.

It sounds like the bread crumb trail you describe leads to the Rural Resolutions page, which deal with state highways (in the legal sense).  There is a separate page listing CCL agreements between various cities and KDOT.

http://kdotapp2.ksdot.org/RuralResolutions/RuralResolutions.aspx

http://kdotapp2.ksdot.org/IDMWS/kdot/12/resolutions/cclresolution.asp

In the case of US 81 Business, it sounds like the turnback had as much to do with limiting the amount of maintained roadway surface area under KDOT jurisdiction as it did with staying under the mileage cap.

Looking at your and Richie's analysis above, I have come to reject my theory that mileage cap considerations plus SLT are driving the latest round of proposed turnbacks in Marion county.  It might be that, in addition to a general policy of deleting low-volume state highways, KDOT is also seeking to trade away maintained surface area to make room for two- to four-lane expansions, such as US 69 in Cherokee county, the proposed K-68 expressway between US 169 and US 69, etc.  (Assuming KDOT deletes 23rd Street instead of keeping it as a K-10 business routing, the SLT will not add that much maintained square footage since both 23rd Street and the SLT will have two lanes in each direction.)

[situveux1]

AIUI, the mileage cap applies to total centerline mileage, but only lengths of road which are state highways in law count against it.  State highways include the Interstates in their entirety plus the lengths of state and US routes which lie outside incorporated cities.  The portions of state and US routes which lie within cities are called "city connecting links" in KDOT parlance and there is a split of responsibility between KDOT and the localities (KDOT, for example, still handles signing on CCLs).  There is a separate cap per county which is designed to limit the total mileage of state highway in a given county to that required to cross it from north to south and east to west, but there are some exceptions--populous counties like Sedgwick and Johnson get carve-outs, Interstates don't count against the county cap, etc.

It sounds like the bread crumb trail you describe leads to the Rural Resolutions page, which deal with state highways (in the legal sense).  There is a separate page listing CCL agreements between various cities and KDOT.

http://kdotapp2.ksdot.org/RuralResolutions/RuralResolutions.aspx

http://kdotapp2.ksdot.org/IDMWS/kdot/12/resolutions/cclresolution.asp

In the case of US 81 Business, it sounds like the turnback had as much to do with limiting the amount of maintained roadway surface area under KDOT jurisdiction as it did with staying under the mileage cap.

Looking at your and Richie's analysis above, I have come to reject my theory that mileage cap considerations plus SLT are driving the latest round of proposed turnbacks in Marion county.  It might be that, in addition to a general policy of deleting low-volume state highways, KDOT is also seeking to trade away maintained surface area to make room for two- to four-lane expansions, such as US 69 in Cherokee county, the proposed K-68 expressway between US 169 and US 69, etc.  (Assuming KDOT deletes 23rd Street instead of keeping it as a K-10 business routing, the SLT will not add that much maintained square footage since both 23rd Street and the SLT will have two lanes in each direction.)

Really great explanation, very much appreciated, as well as the great links. As the original article seems to hint, the KDOT representative acknowledged that $200,000 per mile was not enough for other counties they had approached either, so I think there's going to be quite a bit of mileage reduction in the next 2-4 years. It'll be interesting to see just how much they end up having to pay to unload these smaller spur routes.

[route56]

Messing around in the Rural Resolutions page, I did find this little nugget:

http://idmweb.ksdot.org/publiclib/publicdoc.asp?ID=003709868:1

K-168 is a segment of old US 50N/US 56 that was retained when 56 was realigned to eliminate two short-radius curves between Lehigh and the Marion/McPherson County line.

[apeman33]

I think it's sort of silly to reroute K-14 in the manner they describe. I'd propose rerouting K-14 east from Kingman to the current K-17, then redesignating K-17 as K-14 to where it meets K-96, then continue as a duplex with K-96 to Lyons. Then you turn back even more mileage to the counties and I doubt that anyone who just happens to be going from Kingman to Arlington would miss K-14 all that much as long as Kingman County can keep the road in decent shape.

Either that or reroute K-14 as I described and give K-14 from U.S. 54 to Arlington a new number.

[bugo]

I think it's sort of silly to reroute K-14 in the manner they describe. I'd propose rerouting K-14 east from Kingman to the current K-17, then redesignating K-17 as K-14 to where it meets K-96, then continue as a duplex with K-96 to Lyons. Then you turn back even more mileage to the counties and I doubt that anyone who just happens to be going from Kingman to Arlington would miss K-14 all that much as long as Kingman County can keep the road in decent shape.

Either that or reroute K-14 as I described and give K-14 from U.S. 54 to Arlington a new number.

According to the 2013-14 KDOT map, that's exactly what they did.  K-14 now runs along US 54-400 from Kingman to Waterloo, then northwest along K-96.  Old K-14 between US 54-400 and K-61 is now K-11.  Old K-14 between K-61 and K-96 has been decommissioned.

[WichitaRoads]

Has the signage been put in place for this? I was in Kingman on Friday, and didn't see any of that as evident. And, does this mean K-17 is officially dead?

ICTRds

[bugo]

Has the signage been put in place for this? I was in Kingman on Friday, and didn't see any of that as evident. And, does this mean K-17 is officially dead?

There's no mention of K-17 on the 2013 map.

[route56]

There is a separate cap per county which is designed to limit the total mileage of state highway in a given county to that required to cross it from north to south and east to west, but there are some exceptions--populous counties like Sedgwick and Johnson get carve-outs, Interstates don't count against the county cap, etc.

I have to wonder if there is a county 'cap'

a) The secretary of transportation shall designate, adopt and establish and may lay out, open, relocate, alter, vacate, remove, redesignate and reestablish highways in every county in the state, the total mileage of which shall not exceed 10,000 miles. The total mileage of such highways in each county shall be not less than the sum of the north to south and east to west diameters of the county.

(emphasis mine)

Also, going through some of the Rural Resolutions, the mileage cap, at least at one time, did not count spur routes to state or federal lakes.

[J N Winkler]

I have to wonder if there is a county 'cap'

(a) The secretary of transportation shall designate, adopt and establish and may lay out, open, relocate, alter, vacate, remove, redesignate and reestablish highways in every county in the state, the total mileage of which shall not exceed 10,000 miles. The total mileage of such highways in each county shall be not less than the sum of the north to south and east to west diameters of the county.

(emphasis mine)

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.

I have had a look at other portions of KSA § 68-406.  Clause (b), dealing with city connecting links, is worded in a rather confusing way, but I interpret it as follows:

*  With the sole exception of Interstate loops and spurs, a city connecting link cannot exist without a length of state highway to anchor it to land that is not within the jurisdiction of an incorporated city in Kansas.  (It is not clear what happens when this anchor connection is broken by annexation, so that the entirety of a given non-Interstate route is within city limits.  Is it saved as long as there is a path along CCLs that exits the city limits, even if that routing uses other routes?  In the past we have speculated this may have been a factor in some reroutings or system deletions in suburban Johnson County.)

*  City connecting links are not part of the state highway system and so do not count against the mileage cap.  However, the county floor requirement applies to state highways and CCLs cannot be used to satisfy it.  In some heavily urbanized counties, this theoretically could have the perverse effect of encouraging KDOT to create or retain functionally unnecessary spurs and to keep long state highway routings on the books in order to stay above the minimum mileage requirement.

*  The Kansas Turnpike is not a state highway, nor are its urban lengths CCLs.  (Contrast the position in some other states, such as Texas, where toll roads are typically state highways regardless of location or whether the administering agency is the state DOT.)

*  Untolled Interstates within cities, contrary to my past understanding, are not in fact state highways but rather are CCLs.

Also, going through some of the Rural Resolutions, the mileage cap, at least at one time, did not count spur routes to state or federal lakes.

This is still the case:  see clause (d).  The reason for this is that such spur routes are not part of the state highway system and do not need to be constructed to the standards applicable to state highways.

I also had a look at KSA § 68-406a.  The intent of this section is clearly to give the KDOT secretary the power to cooperate with other states in creating multi-state routes in situations where the sole obstacle to route continuity through Kansas is an unimproved length of county road, of no greater than fifteen miles in length.

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.

[agentsteel53]

carve-outs for at least Sedgwick and Johnson counties

what is a carve-out?

[bugo]

*  Untolled Interstates within cities, contrary to my past understanding, are not in fact state highways but rather are CCLs.

What about state highways such as K-10 and US highways such as US 75?

[J N Winkler]

carve-outs for at least Sedgwick and Johnson counties

what is a carve-out?

It is an exception written into law for a specific entity or group of entities.

*  Untolled Interstates within cities, contrary to my past understanding, are not in fact state highways but rather are CCLs.

What about state highways such as K-10 and US highways such as US 75?

Then the rural lengths are state highway while the lengths within incorporated cities are CCLs.  The only situation where the distinction between an Interstate loop or spur and another form of state route comes into play is when a state route runs entirely within a city.  KSA § 68-406(b) implies that the latter case cannot legally exist.

(Personally, if I were designing Kansas state highway legislation from scratch, I would probably use a sliding cap based on a set percentage of total highway mileage instead of a fixed value of 10,000 miles, and not use a rigid distinction between [rural] state highways and city connecting links which invites confusion and trouble as cities expand.  There are other sections of the state road laws that seem obsolete, such as a requirement that KDOT ensure that construction plans and proposals for advertised highway projects are available for viewing in the office of the county clerk in the county where the work is to take place.  Why wouldn't you just mandate Web upload instead--which KDOT does now on its own account?)

[kphoger]

Also, going through some of the Rural Resolutions, the mileage cap, at least at one time, did not count spur routes to state or federal lakes.

This is still the case:  see clause (d).  The reason for this is that such spur routes are not part of the state highway system and do not need to be constructed to the standards applicable to state highways.

Is K-105 considered a spur to a state or federal lake?  The portion that runs through the town of Toronto didn't seem like a "real" state highway to me, but that might make sense now.

[route56]

Is K-105 considered a spur to a state or federal lake?  The portion that runs through the town of Toronto didn't seem like a "real" state highway to me, but that might make sense now.

K-105 was initially built as a spur from US 54 to Toronto when 54 was realigned.  It was extended to the lake under KSA §68-106(d)

I've been hooked on the rural resolutions page.

[situveux1]

Changes to state highways cause confusion

http://www.kwch.com/news/kwch-news-jlr-changes-to-state-highways-cause-confusion-20130207,0,1003584.story