KDOT Contract Lettings - Updated Monthly since April 2015.

[Ned Weasel]

I also sent someone at KDOT (don't remember which position) an email about the Metrpolitan/Donohoo issue and didn't receive a reply. But it was fixed, which is more than can be said for ODOT (who likewise ignores emails, then doesn't fix the issue).

Oh, I know how bad ODOT is with signs!  Sometimes it's the little things that I see over and over that bother me, though.  When I drive through Oklahoma, I feel like I can assume the signs are going to be haphazard.  Although, to be honest, I was poking around on Google StreetView the other day and noticed they've done quite a nice job with the signage at the I-35/44/Kilpatrick Turnpike interchange and the Kilpatrick Turnpike/OK 74 interchange, with "TO I-44" now indicated more clearly than it was before (of course, some of that's the OTA, not ODOT).

[J N Winkler]

I also sent someone at KDOT (don't remember which position) an email about the Metrpolitan/Donohoo issue and didn't receive a reply. But it was fixed, which is more than can be said for ODOT (who likewise ignores emails, then doesn't fix the issue).

Yes--there is a continuum here.  NYSDOT handles guide sign design on a region-by-region basis and at least one forum regular/participant in the Facebook road-related groups has mentioned that certain regions blow off suggested corrections, such as cardinal direction words appearing in mixed-case.

I have sometimes wondered if it makes a difference to propose corrections as a contractor when the state DOT provides a formal mechanism for handling contractor inquiries.  Caltrans, for example, has an official in each district (called the duty senior) whose responsibility it is to find answers to questions that contractors ask during the contract advertising period.  About a year or so, District 8 (covering the Inland Empire just east of Los Angeles) advertised a sign update contract that had many minor spelling errors in destination legend--in most cases the destinations were correctly spelled on other sheets.  Someone (ahem) pointed them out and, twenty days later, they had been fixed by addendum.

Oh, I know how bad ODOT is with signs!  Sometimes it's the little things that I see over and over that bother me, though.  When I drive through Oklahoma, I feel like I can assume the signs are going to be haphazard.  Although, to be honest, I was poking around on Google StreetView the other day and noticed they've done quite a nice job with the signage at the I-35/44/Kilpatrick Turnpike interchange and the Kilpatrick Turnpike/OK 74 interchange, with "TO I-44" now indicated more clearly than it was before (of course, some of that's the OTA, not ODOT).

Oklahoma DOT uses a few consultants, such as TEC (I think that is their name), who consistently produce clean-looking work.  But judging from what makes it into advertised plans, the standard of review is relaxed, and I rely on local knowledge (especially Scott5411's) to check that errors aren't introduced when sign orders are drawn up for fabrication.  There have been examples of identified problems being partially (rarely completely) fixed when the design is sent out for the sign to be made.

[Scott5114]

Right. Unfortunately, you can put a clean plan into ODOT and still get garbage out, since the contractor that actually fabricates the sign often interprets the sign plan very liberally. For example on project number 32625(04), TEC produced a very nice set of plans for signs on I-35 in Cleveland and Oklahoma counties. However, the contractor on this project (which appears to be Action Safety) substituted Type D arrows for each and every Type A arrow on the plan sheet.

[Sani]

Are there engineering documents for that project that show what they'll install?

Yes.  The plans for currently advertised projects are available through the project proposal page.

Can someone explain what the hell I'm looking at, because to me, it looks like they're making the signs worse in some ways, and failing to improve them in other ways: https://kdotapp.ksdot.org/burconsmain/contracts/Proposals/Plans/520082121p.pdf

Looking at sign D1-2 on that PDF, it's missing a left arrow next to Wichita. I wish they would just adopt the signage in the middle on this diagram from the MUTCD, with NORTH and SOUTH on either side of I-57:

[Ned Weasel]

Looking at sign D1-2 on that PDF, it's missing a left arrow next to Wichita. I wish they would just adopt the signage in the middle on this diagram from the MUTCD, with NORTH and SOUTH on either side of I-57:

HOLY CARP, I totally missed that!  Actually, it should be an up arrow.  That sign is in advance of the ramp to northbound I-35, and the up arrow is there to inform drivers to continue to the other side of the diamond for the southbound control city: https://goo.gl/maps/XUFH2WWvKUbESDxQ6 (literally, it's there in the current sign).

I didn't even take a close look at that, because I assumed there was no way KDOT could f*** up signage for a simple diamond interchange, but I was kind of expecting to be disappointed with the rest of the US 56 signage.

That ought to teach me never to assume anything.  Does anyone know a KDOT contact who might be able to get this error fixed and maybe make some of the other improvements we've been talking about?

At the risk of getting too pie-in-the-sky, I've actually been thinking up a scheme of overhead signs along the stretch of US 56 east of I-35, although I could also do a version that substitutes ground-mounted signs, but using bigger, more noticeable green signs to give better advance notification of the major interchanges and turn-offs along that route.

[J N Winkler]

Looking at sign D1-2 on that PDF, it's missing a left arrow next to Wichita. I wish they would just adopt the signage in the middle on this diagram from the MUTCD, with NORTH and SOUTH on either side of I-57 . . .

HOLY CARP, I totally missed that!  Actually, it should be an up arrow.  That sign is in advance of the ramp to northbound I-35, and the up arrow is there to inform drivers to continue to the other side of the diamond for the southbound control city: https://goo.gl/maps/XUFH2WWvKUbESDxQ6 (literally, it's there in the current sign).

No need to contact KDOT for this one--it is marked with a filled black hexagon, which (according to the legend) means "sign not part of project."  The way the legend is spaced makes me suspect there is an arrow (at least in the original CAD file) but it is covered up by background fill.

[Ned Weasel]

No need to contact KDOT for this one--it is marked with a filled black hexagon, which (according to the legend) means "sign not part of project."  The way the legend is spaced makes me suspect there is an arrow (at least in the original CAD file) but it is covered up by background fill.

Ah, thanks for explaining!

[kphoger]

Unfortunately ... the contractor ... often interprets the sign plan very liberally.

For example ... the contractor on this project ... substituted Type D arrows for each and every Type A arrow on the plan sheet.

dang liberals . . .

* kphoger ducks and runs

[J N Winkler]

Ah, thanks for explaining!

You are welcome.  This is really a plan presentation problem.  I don't think it works well to show all of the signs in the same style and then ask the reader to distinguish among them according to small marks that are cross-referenced to a key that has over 20 entries.  At a minimum, separate line and fill styles should be used for (1) new signs, (2) existing signs to remain, and (3) signs to be removed (whether or not they are shown on separate sheets).

Additionally, if it is going to use full color (not necessarily a good idea, IMO), KDOT should be matching MUTCD Pantone equivalents rather than trying to use RGB basis colors, which are unfriendly for screen reading.  Iowa DOT tried RGB a few years ago and had the good sense to go to MUTCD Pantone quickly.

[Scott5114]

Unfortunately ... the contractor ... often interprets the sign plan very liberally.

For example ... the contractor on this project ... substituted Type D arrows for each and every Type A arrow on the plan sheet.

dang liberals . . .

* kphoger ducks and runs

For what it's worth, the only other place besides Oklahoma I have seen such extensive use of Type D arrows in Type A contexts is Wyoming, which seems to do so as a statewide standard. So if arrow usage is tied to political ideology...

[route56]

For what it's worth, the only other place besides Oklahoma I have seen such extensive use of Type D arrows in Type A contexts is Wyoming, which seems to do so as a statewide standard. So if arrow usage is tied to political ideology...

I know you're one of the site admin, Scott; however, I would prefer not to have to start a new lettings thread should this one get too far afield in partisan politics.

[Scott5114]

To be clear, that was a joke (as was kphoger's comment). I don't think anyone seriously thinks arrow usage tendencies is a Rorschach test for one's place on the political spectrum. If it is, I'd think we should all be willing to hold the site rules in abeyance while the fascinating psychological study of why and how that is plays out.

[kphoger]

Indeed, I only ever use the IRC command when I'm joking.

[Sani]

I don't think these projects are let, yet, but I was reviewing the new projects for the 2020-2024 TIP and noticed the first two projects listed are replacing overhead sign trusses that were damaged in traffic crashes with semi-trucks. I remember reading news stories about crashes that damaged the overhead sign truss on I-35 NB before 87th Street and I-35 SB before 119th Street.

What I don't understand is, why these are not being paid for by the insurance companies for the trucks involved? I work in auto insurance as an adjuster and know it can be a pain to work with some insurance companies for commercial carriers, but there are police reports that identify the responsible party, and semis carry liability policies in excess of $1 million. Is the state not going to at least try to get the money back?

[J N Winkler]

What I don't understand is, why these are not being paid for by the insurance companies for the trucks involved? I work in auto insurance as an adjuster and know it can be a pain to work with some insurance companies for commercial carriers, but there are police reports that identify the responsible party, and semis carry liability policies in excess of $1 million. Is the state not going to at least try to get the money back?

Do you know for a fact that they haven't?  I haven't heard anything about the sign trusses specifically, but I remember coverage of construction mishaps (drivers going around barricades and onto freshly laid pavement which had to be ripped out and relaid as a result) that indicated KDOT would seek recovery from the drivers or their insurance companies.

[Ned Weasel]

I don't think these projects are let, yet, but I was reviewing the new projects for the 2020-2024 TIP and noticed the first two projects listed are replacing overhead sign trusses that were damaged in traffic crashes with semi-trucks. I remember reading news stories about crashes that damaged the overhead sign truss on I-35 NB before 87th Street and I-35 SB before 119th Street.

What I don't understand is, why these are not being paid for by the insurance companies for the trucks involved? I work in auto insurance as an adjuster and know it can be a pain to work with some insurance companies for commercial carriers, but there are police reports that identify the responsible party, and semis carry liability policies in excess of $1 million. Is the state not going to at least try to get the money back?

In the NB I-35 at 87th Street case, it's worth pointing out that, when they reconfigured the 75th Street ramps, they put the new signs in the wrong order:

First you would see this: https://goo.gl/maps/4qRidKb98UKaL6ccA

And then you would see this: https://goo.gl/maps/stCA7o46LNxsXzJ99

Last time I drove by in the southbound direction, it looked like at least one of them had been taken down.  I don't know the current status of the replacement project, though.

[Scott5114]

^ What is the VMS line for?

[Ned Weasel]

^ What is the VMS line for?

I'm guessing they anticipated that they might have to close the tunnel to 75th Street on occasion.  I've never seen the VMS panel used.

[route56]

^ What is the VMS line for?

I'm guessing they anticipated that they might have to close the tunnel to 75th Street on occasion.  I've never seen the VMS panel used.

Your Guess is accurate. Strictly speaking, the light panel is not a VMS, as the panel is only able to display "EXIT CLOSED"

[Sani]

Do you know for a fact that they haven't?  I haven't heard anything about the sign trusses specifically, but I remember coverage of construction mishaps (drivers going around barricades and onto freshly laid pavement which had to be ripped out and relaid as a result) that indicated KDOT would seek recovery from the drivers or their insurance companies.

I don't know for a fact, no. I do know that Kansas has a two-year statute of limitations for property damage, though, so if the state waits too long, they'll be SOL when the time comes to recover.

If I had to guess, the conversation with the insurance companies went like this:

KDOT: Your truck brought down our sign. Here's a preliminary estimate for what it will cost to fix. Send check plz.
InsuraCare: We don't owe anything until you actually fix it. Send us the bill once it's done and we'll review it.
KDOT: We don't have $X million sitting around to spend on the sign your dumb driver knocked down.
InsuraCare: Well, I guess you're SOL, then, aren't you? Better fix it before your two years are up!

(Note: I skimmed the Kansas Tort Claims Act to see if there was anything that waives the statute of limitations for torts being pursued by governmental entities, but I didn't find anything that suggested the SOL doesn't apply because it's KDOT.)

[J N Winkler]

I do know that Kansas has a two-year statute of limitations for property damage, though, so if the state waits too long, they'll be SOL when the time comes to recover.

Does this statute of limitations count back from the time KDOT sends a bill, or the time it files a claim?  It would be a perverse result (unlikely to be intended by the Legislature, though one never knows . . .) if an insurance company were able to get off the hook for a legitimate claim simply because it can take a long time to final out a construction contract for work on a state highway.

(Note: I skimmed the Kansas Tort Claims Act to see if there was anything that waives the statute of limitations for torts being pursued by governmental entities, but I didn't find anything that suggested the SOL doesn't apply because it's KDOT.)

It's my understanding that the tort claims statute is for screwups in the other direction (i.e., ones for which KDOT or any other state agency is responsible).  It dates from the late 1970's when many states were retreating from sovereign immunity (a position of "We are the government, so we can do no wrong").

[route56]

Time for the September lettings, and we've got a major project included.

Approved Bids announced 10/7/20
Approved Bids announced 11/5/20

September 2020

Federal-Aid:

46 N 0657-01: Construction of Locust Street from 191st Street to Gardner Road. Eastbound 191st will curve north to Locust, Locust would curve east at 188th Street to intersect with Gardner Road. The purpose of this project is to move the intersection of 191st and Gardner Road away from the I-35/Gardner Road interchange. Pyramid Contractors Inc. and Pyramid Properties Inc., Olathe, Kan., $4,660,811.02

70-81 KA-5919-01/70-099 KA-5920-01: Pavement marking from the Geary/Riley line to Maple Hill. Innovative Marking Systems Inc., Bluffdale, Utah, $2,468,674.20.

99 KA 4744-03: Signage replacment on K-99 from Alma to MP 166.4, K-185, and K-135. (Excluding their respective interchages with I-70, see project below) Collins & Hermann Inc., Saint Louis, Mo., $52,500.80.

70-106 KA 4744-04: Signage replacement on I-70 from the Geary/Riley county line to the KTA toll plaza in Topeka, including the K-4/US 40 interchange. Collins & Hermann, $3,370,000.00.

106 TE 0402-06: Construction of the Flint Hills Nature Trail from Indian Hills Road to Lewelling Road east of Osage City. Killough Construction Inc., Ottawa, Kan., $1,113,919.93.

36-69 KA-5810-01: Surface recycle and chip seal from the east junction with 383 to the Norton/Phillips County line. Dustrol Inc., Towanda, Kan., $911,717.63.

18-84 KA 3931-01: Replacement of the Coon Creek Bridge on K-18 at Luray. Traffic to be carried through the construction using a shoo-fly detour. L & M Contractors Inc., Great Bend, Kan., $1,439,849.23.

27-91 KA-5809-01: Chip seal from Goodland to the Sherman/Cheyenne county line. Heft and Sons LLC, Greensburg, Kan., $628,267.50.

37 C 4973-01: Major collector signage upgrade in Greenwood County. Hamm Contracting LLC, Marion, S.D., $158,248.10

54 TE 0479-01: Sidewalk construction on 10th Street and Ash Street in Pleasanton. RFB Construction Company, Inc., Pittsburg, Kan., $296,099.71.

69-106 KA 1554-02: 4-lane upgradeable expressway from south of E 680 Avenue north of Arma to the Crawford/Bourbon County line. Includes preliminary plans for how KDOT plans to "upgrade" the route to an expressway. Bob Bergkamp Construction Co. Inc., Wichita, Kan., $21,624,010.43.

156-5 KA-5811-01: Surface recycle and HMA overlay from US 56 tyo the Barton/Ellsworth county line. Venture Corporation, Great Bend, Kan., $4,508,111.00.

54-49 KA-5801-01: Milling, HMA overlay and PCCP patch from the Clark/Kiowa county line to the east city limits of Greensburg. Venture, $2,681,091.85.

76 C 4967-01: Major collector signage upgrade in Pratt County north of US 54 and west of US 281. Mission Construction Co. Inc., St Paul, Kan., $59,648.88.

11-78 KA 3882-01: Replacement of the K-11 bridge over Goose Creek, 6.32 miles north of the Kingman/Reno County line. Traffic to be carried throught the construction using a shoo-fly detour. King Construction Company Inc. & Subsidiaries, Hesston, Kan., $1,460,469.92.

61-78 KA-5889-01: Guardrail improvements on K-61 between Arlington and US 50. J & J Contractors Inc., Iola, Kan., $766,357.41.

80 C 4982-01: Major collector signage upgrade in Rice County west of K-14 and south of K-4. Traffic Control Services Inc., Wichita, Kan., $205,252.81.

4-80 KA-5808-01: Milling and HMA overlay on K-4 in Rice County. Venture, $2,935,340.24.

28 TE 0469-01: Reconstruction of 8th Street and installation of new sidewalks between St. John and Walnut Street in Garden City. Bryant
& Bryant Construction Inc., Halstead, Kan., $2,041,784.35

Federal-Aid (Local Projects):

75 C 4938-01: Reconstruction of Dyer Road, including re-configuring the access to the main parking lot of the Little Grill and a crosswalk for the overflow parking lot southeast of the Tuttle Creek Dam (2nd attempt to be let) Ebert Construction Co. Inc. & Subsidiary, Wamego, Kan., $520,963.63.

105 N 0677-01: Reconstruction of Leavenworth Road (K-5) in KCK from 78th Street to 63rd Street. Amino Brothers Company Inc., Kansas City, Kan., $8,483,967.54

37 C 4957-01: Replacement of this stone arch bridge. The new bridge will be on a new alignment, it is unknown if the current bridge will be left in place or dismantled. B & B Bridge Company LLC, St. Paul, Kan., $646,406.13.

104 C 4947-01: Replacement of this bridge on Deer Road over South Big Creek in northwest Woodson County. B & B Bridge Company LLC,  $525,462.00.

Non-FA:

70-105 KA 5628-01: Replacement of a sign truss on the westbound I-70 ramp to I-635. Fulsom Brothers, Inc., Cedar Vale, Kan., $143,143.00.

181-106 KA-5916-01: Scratch coat and HMA overlay from K-233 to the Mitchell/Osborne County line. APAC-Kansas Inc Shears Division, Hutchinson, Kan., $6,067,762.63.

70-32 KA-5839-01: Rumble strip installation from Grainfield east ~10 miles. Surface Preparation Technologies LLC, New Kingstown, Penn., $155,727.20.

92 KA-5918-01: Milling and HMA overlay on US 36, K-248, K-204, K-182, K-191, and K-8 in Smith County, along with US 281 from US 36 to the Nebraska state line. Venture, $10,439,835.86.

17 KA-5758-01: Milling and HMA overlay on US 160 and K-1 in Commanche County. Venture, $6,196,335.05.

39 KA-5821-01: Milling and HMA overlay on US 160 from the Barber/Harper county line to Harper and K-2 from Anthony to US 160. Venture, $4,235,318.49.

235-87 KA 5599-01: Sign truss replacement at the ramp from southbound I-235 ton northbound I-135. The new sign truss is to be install 75 foot upstream of the old on and the existing signs moved. Fulsom Brothers, $125,179.00.

[route56]

Approved Bids Announced 11/5/20
Approved Bids Announed 12/10/20

October, 2020

Federal-Aid:

99-99 KA 2603-04: Reconstruction and re-alignment of K-99 from I-70 north to K-18. Ebert Construction Co Inc & Subsidiary, Wamego, Kan., $12,657,476.27.

105 N 0686-01: Bike route marking along Strong Avenue and Metropolitan Avenue in KCK. Combination of "Shared Lane" and dedicated bike lane. J. M. Fahey Construction Company, Grandview, Mo., $439,959.75

81-15 KA-5834-01: Milling and HMA overlay from the Ottawa/Cloud county line to Eagle Road Hall Brothers Inc., Marysville, Kan., $2,495,533.75.

81-15 KA-5993-01: Pavement marking from the North city limits of Concordia to Union Road Twin Traffic Marking Corporation, Kansas City, Kan., $124,411.30.

27 TE 0474-01: Stormwater improvements near the K-14/K-140 junction in Ellsworth. Cahoj Earthmoving Inc., Atwood, Kansas, $395,602.66

14-45 KA-5824-01: 2-inch surface recycling and chip seal from US 36 to the Nebraska state line. Dustrol Inc., Towanda, Kan., $1,253,610.65.

36-45 KA-5827-01: 2-inch surface recycling and chip seal from 260 Road to the Jewell/Republic county line. Dustrol Inc., $581,087.50.

62 U 2330-02: Safe Routes to School project in Beloit Multicon Inc., Wichita, Kansas, $505,022.75.

56-64 KA 3941-01: Replacement of Bridge #031 (Rock Creek) on US-56 in Morris County, located 7.05 miles east of the east K-177 junction just west of the Morris/Lyon county line. A. M. Cohron & Son Inc., Atlantic, Iowa, $2,652,283.08.

41-72 KA-5828-01: 1.5-inch HMA overlay on K-41 (entire route)
106-72 KA-5835-01: Milling and HMA overlay from K-18 to Minneapolis
Hall Brothers, $1,606,977.14.

183-82 KA-5841-01: Milling and HMA overlay from R Road to 12th Street in Stockton. APAC-Kansas Inc. Shears Division, Hutchinson, Kan., $1,741,844.26.

24-97 KA-5825-01: Milling and HMA overlay from I-70 to the west city limits of Colby
184-97 KA-5842-01: Milling and HMA overlay of the entire K-184 spur.
McCormick Excavation & Paving LLC, Stratton, Colo., 1,420,338.46

61 U 2362-01: Reconstruction of the Baptiste Drive/Hedge Lane intersection in Paola. Gunter Construction Company, Kansas City, Kansas, $423,152.35

169-106 KA 3255-01: Reconstruction of US 169 from 140th Road in Neosho County south of Chanute to 1150 Road in Allen County. Detour via K-39, US 75, and either K-47 or US 54.
Bids Rejected or no bid received - Re-let January 2021

106 KA 4748-03: Signage upgrade on the entire length of US 50 in Reno County, along with K-61 from K-11 to the Reno/McPherson county line. Martin Outdoor Enterprises Inc., Pittsburg, Kan., $419,995.66.

54-87 KA-5830-01: PCCP patching and pavement marking from 1/2 mile east of 295th Street to 119th Street in western Sedgwick County. Iowa Civil Contracting Inc., Victor, Iowa, $2,385,209.82.

54-87 KA-5831-01: Milling and HMA overlay from 215th to 183rd Streets in Western Sedgwick County, and from Tyler Road to Ridge Road in Wichita. Cornejo & Sons LLC, Wichita, Kan., $1,605,508.20.

93 C 4993-01: Major collector Signing & pavement marking in Stafford County. Roadsafe Traffic Systems Inc., El Dorado. Kan., $380,298.00.

Federal-Aid, Local Projects:

59 C 4928-01: Reconstruction of the 14th Avenue/Chisholm Road intersection south of McPherson Malm Construction Co., Lindsborg, Kansas., $213, 122.29.

64 C 5000-01: Replacement of This Pony Truss southeast of White City. Bridges Inc., Newton, Kan., $571,790.12

25 C 4958-01: Bridge replacement on Road 18 north of Howard. Bridges Inc., Newton, Kansas, $316.475.81.

63 C 4975-01: Replacement of a 12-foot median with a Two-way left turn lane along 10th Street on the south side of Independence. Shilling Construction Co. Inc., Manhattan, Kan., $1,464,822.33

4 C 4944-01: Replacment of This bridge south of Medicine Lodge. L & M Contractors Inc., Great Bend, Kansas, $589,665.00.

73 C 4948-01: Replacement of This Bridge over the Pawnee River between Burdett and Rozel L & M, $589,665.00.

78 C 4960-01: Replacement of This wood bridge over Goose Creek in southwestern Reno County. Reece Construction Company, Inc., Salina, Kansas, $268,541.97.

13 C 4945-01: Replacement of This wood bridge on Road 14 over Bluff Creek. L & M, $838,464.70.

Non-FA:

31 KA-5850-01: Milling and HMA overlay on K-57 between K-244 across Milford Dam to US 77, and a short section of US 77 near the K-57/K-244 junction. Shilling Construction Co. Inc., Manhattan, Kan., $1,464,822.33

4-106 KA-5871-01: Milling and HMA overlay from US 77 (just west of the Dickinson/Morris county line) to the Morris/Wabaunsee County line. Shilling, $3,071,696.75.

117-77 KA-5836-01: Milling and HMA overlay along the entire length of K-117 from US 36 to the Nebraska line. Venture Corporation, Great Bend, Kan., $1,610,963.90

50-93 KA-5914-01: Milling and HMA overlay of the Rest Area and parking lot along US 50 between St. John and Stafford. APAC-Kansas, $67,975.95

106 KA-5874-01: 2-inch HMA overlay on K-96 from US 50 in Hutchinson to Maize. Cornejo & Sons, $7,862,279.21.

96 KA-5877-01: Milling and HMA overlay on US 81 from 3 miles south of Wellington to the Sumner/Sedgwick county line and US 160 from Wellington to Oxford. Cornejo & Sons, $3,868,867.60.

[rte66man]

October, 2020

169-106 KA 3255-01: Reconstruction of US 169 from 140th Road in Neosho County south of Chanute to 1150 Road in Allen County. Detour via K-39, US 75, and either K-47 or US 54.

Are they adding lanes or just rebuilding the exiting ones?

[route56]

Are they adding lanes or just rebuilding the exiting ones?

Straight (and presumably full-depth) reconstruction. If they were adding lanes, I would have said something.

EDIT  12/22/20: The project in question was not awarded off of the October lettings, and has been re-submitted as part of the January 2021 lettings. My answer to the above question still stands.