Print

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

[Hunty2022]

Is there a reason that it’s a super two? I can see they have the ROW for 4 lanes, so is it just that there’s not enough traffic for the upgrade?

[J N Winkler]

Is there a reason that it’s a super two? I can see they have the ROW for 4 lanes, so is it just that there’s not enough traffic for the upgrade?

KDOT opted for staged construction to release funds for use elsewhere within the current ten-year program.  AADTs (2022 data) range from 3100 VPD just south of Sterling to 5110 VPD just east of Nickerson, so they are all below the usual 10,000 VPD for widening to four-lane divided.  Kansas actually has divided highways elsewhere with AADTs well below 10,000 (one recent example being 5320 VPD along the US 54 freeway bypass of Cunningham); however, the initial Super Two upgrade for K-14/K-96 spreads the jam over more of the bread while upgrading roadway geometry to reduce crashes associated with failed overtaking maneuvers, which was one of the other justifications for the project.

[roadman65]

Is there a reason why KDOT can’t assign control cities for either straight through I-70 or I-670 here?

Since St. Louis is already being used since the toll road ended, why not use St. Louis for I-670 and use Kansas City Downtown for I-70.

[Scott5114]

This is one of those things that seems weird as hell, until you get to know KDOT, and then you kind of get the internal logic they're following.

KDOT standard practice is to simply not use control cities in situations where the route does not reach any location that is distinctly different from the location of the sign. So unlike many states that will use a control city on a 3di that is accessed by the parent interstate, KDOT just leaves it blank. Neither I-435 nor I-635 have any control cities in Kansas, for instance, and I don't believe I-235 in Wichita uses them either. The changeover point from "Kansas City" to "St Louis" occurs whenever one enters Kansas City KS (skipping Kansas City MO), so KDOT seems to treat both Kansas Cities as one geographic construct. Accordingly, I-670 gets no control cities, because it only passes through places called Kansas City for its entire length, and any place one would access it would also be in Kansas City.

Why I-70 is left blank here is unknown. It could just be for aesthetic balance since I-670 isn't getting a control, or because it would make the sign panel too large, or possibly simply for message loading reasons. Or, my favorite theory: since 670 and 70 both end up at the same point, they don't want to influence the traveler to pick one route over the other.

"Kansas City Downtown" in particular would be a very un-KDOT control point.

[roadman65]

I noticed that. I-435 in Missouri uses control cities even though Kansas does not. I-235 don’t but uses Salina and Okla City on supplemental signs on US 54 at I-235 and leaves the main guides as blank.

I’ve figured KDOT considers a geographic area as one whole city over city limits on why Kansas City is skipped on both I-35 and I-70 for the next large cities.

However many states now are eliminating control cities on three digit suburban routes or beltways with some others never having them. Columbus used to use control cities on I-270, but in the past few decades the I-70 and 71 cities that were once used for I-270 have been removed. So I assumed it’s a recent change in signing practices for Ohio to participate in or a higher power.

I-635 could use Overland Park and St. Joseph with KDOT copying NJDOT recent practices using I-635 North TO I-29 North to fulfill that I-635 don’t go to St Joseph.

[J N Winkler]

In the old days, I-235 in Wichita had Newton and Wellington (next county seats north and south, respectively) as control points on ramp signs.  Those went away no later than replacement of the original early 1960's pavement in the mid-1980's.

[roadman65]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/YccPSqsyXhGAvWxi7
A month ago I noticed this construction on the saw Quadrant of Us 166/400, K-26, and Baghdad Road near Galena.  According to KDOT they’re upgrading the US 166 & 400 alignment between Baxter Springs and the MO State Line to a freeway.

However when I drove it I was detoured along K-66 and K-26 as Detour signs were in place at the US 69 Alternate/ US 400 and K-66 roundabout going EB on US 400 so I never got to see what the nature of the closure was.

US 166 is still open from Baxter Springs to the four way stop at US 166/400 and K-26. I’m assuming that the US 400 Baxter Springs Bypass is closed as somehow this new freeway is going to have a seamless flow into the bypass.


Is there a project also to eventually upgrade US 400 from US 54/77 to Baxter Springs? Considering that all of US 400 east of Augusta to I-44 is heavily used, the current two lane alignment is almost functionally obsolete.

To me a new alignment for US 400 from Parsons to Baxter Springs would actually be a great thing. Eliminate its overlap with US 69 ALT and US 69 and extend K-171 along the current US 400 to Parsons and you have a better corridor.

[J N Winkler]

Is there a project also to eventually upgrade US 400 from US 54/77 to Baxter Springs? Considering that all of US 400 east of Augusta to I-44 is heavily used, the current two lane alignment is almost functionally obsolete.

I haven't heard of a plan to expand US 400 to four-lane divided (much less full freeway) all the way from Leon to Baxter Springs.  However, KDOT has done multiple passing lane contracts in the recent past, and another was scheduled to start near Severy last April as part of IKE (the current ten-year program).

In terms of improvements to the US 400 corridor, I would expect to see four-laning out in western Kansas before the Flint Hills, simply because the current traffic volumes are higher (though still under the 10,000 VPD threshold in most places) and the meatpacking industry drives economic growth regionally.

[mrsman]

I noticed that. I-435 in Missouri uses control cities even though Kansas does not. I-235 don’t but uses Salina and Okla City on supplemental signs on US 54 at I-235 and leaves the main guides as blank.

I’ve figured KDOT considers a geographic area as one whole city over city limits on why Kansas City is skipped on both I-35 and I-70 for the next large cities.

However many states now are eliminating control cities on three digit suburban routes or beltways with some others never having them. Columbus used to use control cities on I-270, but in the past few decades the I-70 and 71 cities that were once used for I-270 have been removed. So I assumed it’s a recent change in signing practices for Ohio to participate in or a higher power.

I-635 could use Overland Park and St. Joseph with KDOT copying NJDOT recent practices using I-635 North TO I-29 North to fulfill that I-635 don’t go to St Joseph.

This is one of those things that seems weird as hell, until you get to know KDOT, and then you kind of get the internal logic they're following.

KDOT standard practice is to simply not use control cities in situations where the route does not reach any location that is distinctly different from the location of the sign. So unlike many states that will use a control city on a 3di that is accessed by the parent interstate, KDOT just leaves it blank. Neither I-435 nor I-635 have any control cities in Kansas, for instance, and I don't believe I-235 in Wichita uses them either. The changeover point from "Kansas City" to "St Louis" occurs whenever one enters Kansas City KS (skipping Kansas City MO), so KDOT seems to treat both Kansas Cities as one geographic construct. Accordingly, I-670 gets no control cities, because it only passes through places called Kansas City for its entire length, and any place one would access it would also be in Kansas City.

Why I-70 is left blank here is unknown. It could just be for aesthetic balance since I-670 isn't getting a control, or because it would make the sign panel too large, or possibly simply for message loading reasons. Or, my favorite theory: since 670 and 70 both end up at the same point, they don't want to influence the traveler to pick one route over the other.

"Kansas City Downtown" in particular would be a very un-KDOT control point.

In the old days, I-235 in Wichita had Newton and Wellington (next county seats north and south, respectively) as control points on ramp signs.  Those went away no later than replacement of the original early 1960's pavement in the mid-1980's.

All of the above are definitely bad trends.  While there is plenty of complaining on these boards about Limon and many tiny towns in PA that probably should not be control cities, removing control cities completely is not the answer.  In each of the cases mentioned above, there are good control cities that can be used that are well known, properly direct non-local traffic, and are otherwise sensible choices.

[J N Winkler]

All of the above are definitely bad trends.  While there is plenty of complaining on these boards about Limon and many tiny towns in PA that probably should not be control cities, removing control cities completely is not the answer.  In each of the cases mentioned above, there are good control cities that can be used that are well known, properly direct non-local traffic, and are otherwise sensible choices.

KDOT doesn't remove control cities completely--it simply doesn't sign them on pull-throughs along beltways.  MoDOT does, and I feel the difference in message loading whenever I take a trip to Kansas City that involves travel on both sides of the state line.

[roadman65]

All of the above are definitely bad trends.  While there is plenty of complaining on these boards about Limon and many tiny towns in PA that probably should not be control cities, removing control cities completely is not the answer.  In each of the cases mentioned above, there are good control cities that can be used that are well known, properly direct non-local traffic, and are otherwise sensible choices.

KDOT doesn't remove control cities completely--it simply doesn't sign them on pull-throughs along beltways.  MoDOT does, and I feel the difference in message loading whenever I take a trip to Kansas City that involves travel on both sides of the state line.

Here removing Carthage is the answer https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53296817961_e1c3e578a2_c.jpg
as none of the two routes this sign is located on go there.  To get to Carthage at the turn of US 69/160 to go north to Pittsburg, one must use an unnumbered county road across the MO Border to MO 96 to go there.

This sign was copied over from when K-96 continued east of Wichita to meet MO 96 near Joplin, MO and its alignment was along this part of US 160 until the creation of US 400 changed things.

[roadman65]

Does anyone know if the Parsons Bypass on US 400 ever was part of US 160?

Or was it constructed after US 160 got realigned to former K-96 where it is now?

[J N Winkler]

Does anyone know if the Parsons Bypass on US 400 ever was part of US 160?

Or was it constructed after US 160 got realigned to former K-96 where it is now?

The Parsons Bypass was never US 160, since that highway was moved south to Altamont by 1999 (per old KDOT official state transportation maps) and HistoricAerials.com imagery puts completion of the bypass between 2002 (grading in progress) and 2006 (finished highway visible).

[roadman65]

I see now KDOT has been decided that the proposed bypass of Pittsburg and upgrade of US 69 in Crawford County will be the Western alignment that was one of four developed since 1998 when state officials begun proposing a freeway upgrade for all of US 69 from Oklahoma to the KC area.

Of course KDOT already upgraded US 69 north of Fort Scott in recent years eliminating the Super Two segment in Bourbon County and it’s all freeway now from US 54 to US 56 in Merriam near KC.  However the plan is to have it all freeway south of KC into Oklahoma.

https://www.ksdot.gov/us69crawfordcountycorridor.asp
Here is from this past summer on what is being done.


I also assume that the current freeway being constructed for US 166/400 east of Baxter Springs is part of the larger picture here being there is no plan to four lane any part of US 400 from Baxter Springs to east of Augusta.

[roadman65]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/53299510473
This lane drop before an exit with two lanes defaulting to an exit in the same interchange is inconsistent.


Notice that the two far right lanes default into the exit, but the 3rd lane ends right before the 2nd ramp of the same interchange.

Why not have the ending lane continue onto I-435 West like the other two lanes do for I-435 East?

[J N Winkler]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/53299510473

This lane drop before an exit with two lanes defaulting to an exit in the same interchange is inconsistent.

Notice that the two far right lanes default into the exit, but the 3rd lane ends right before the 2nd ramp of the same interchange.

Why not have the ending lane continue onto I-435 West like the other two lanes do for I-435 East?

This is at near the Johnson County Gateway.  It's been a long time since I looked at the planning documentation in any detail, but I suspect the lane that ends just past the gore point is intended to be prolonged in a future phase.

Edit:  Corrected to reflect that the lane transition is on US 69 (as noted downthread) rather than one of the roadways feeding directly into the Gateway.

[mvak36]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/53299510473

This lane drop before an exit with two lanes defaulting to an exit in the same interchange is inconsistent.

Notice that the two far right lanes default into the exit, but the 3rd lane ends right before the 2nd ramp of the same interchange.

Why not have the ending lane continue onto I-435 West like the other two lanes do for I-435 East?

This is at the Johnson County Gateway.  It's been a long time since I looked at the planning documentation in any detail, but I suspect the lane that ends just past the gore point is intended to be prolonged in a future phase.

I think that picture is on US 69 NB in Overland Park just north of the College Blvd interchange. I believe they will be fixing that as part of the 69Express project.

https://69express.ksdot.gov/renderings/
https://69express.ksdot.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023-03-14_US69-DB-Project-Exhibit-Public-Meeting-1.pdf

[J N Winkler]

I think that picture is on US 69 NB in Overland Park just north of the College Blvd interchange. I believe they will be fixing that as part of the 69Express project.

So it is!  Thanks for catching my mistake.

[mvak36]

I think that picture is on US 69 NB in Overland Park just north of the College Blvd interchange. I believe they will be fixing that as part of the 69Express project.

So it is!  Thanks for catching my mistake.

No worries. But since you did mention it, I was able to find a pdf from back in 2014 that shows what a potential future phase of the Johnson County Gateway might look like (whenever they get the funding for it).

[roadman65]

I think that picture is on US 69 NB in Overland Park just north of the College Blvd interchange. I believe they will be fixing that as part of the 69Express project.

So it is!  Thanks for catching my mistake.

No worries. But since you did mention it, I was able to find a pdf from back in 2014 that shows what a potential future phase of the Johnson County Gateway might look like (whenever they get the funding for it).

Your PDF shows the I-35 exchange in Lenexa. Not the US 69 interchange east of it where my photo got taken.


On another note, I noticed that US 69 lacks control cities on I-435.  You figure that Fort Scott would be at least posted for US 69 south, especially being a major N-S route in Eastern Kansas. I understand, but not necessarily agree, why no city is used for NB as KDOT don’t like to sign the big city of a metro area within its metro area, hence why Des Moines is used on I-35 north of Olathe and St. Louis for I-70 east of Bonner Springs.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/jN8cRr5QCr7VoVKR8

[mvak36]

Your PDF shows the I-35 exchange in Lenexa. Not the US 69 interchange east of it where my photo got taken.

Yes. That PDF is for the Johnson County Gateway project. I did post the US69 interchange pdf a couple posts before this one.

[roadman65]

This here is awful.



You can’t read the I-70 shields. Not only here but on other guides at the forthcoming interchange.