K-11/K-14/K-17 Issues...

[WichitaRoads]

Pardon me for resurrecting the dead here a little bit....

... but, how long should it take KDOT to replace the damn signs on the K-14-17-11 debacle in Reno and Kingman counties? I'm in Hutch today, and coming up from ICT, I noticed 17 is STILL signed, and 14 is nowhere to be seen.

THEN, as I left Hutch today, I took 4th Ave. out to K-96. Lo and behold, they had a "14" sign tacked to the top of the "96" sign. These were up all the way to were 96 and US 50/K-61 meet.... but then I noticed they have 14 going west on US 50/K-61 toward God knows where, not east to duplex with 96 as it drops back south. Where is it going? Arlington? If so, why did they route 14 over to 96?

This is clearly not what the plan was, nor what the 2013 KDOT map indicates. What the hell is going on?

They shouldn't have made the swaps official until all signage was ready to go, and they should stick to their intended plan!

Am I over-reacting here, or is this just plain ridiculous? It's been nearly a month and half or more!

ICTRds

[J N Winkler]

I don't know if this is related, but I remember reading a few weeks ago that KDOT had gotten rid of its departmental sign shop as a cost-saving measure, and has been putting sign fabrication out to contract (not, I think, through the construction bid letting--rather, through a supply contract or some type of "informal" procurement).  The source I read mentioned state-line welcome signs only, but it is possible this change includes the route shields KDOT would need to make the appropriate K-11/K-14/K-17 revisions.

[Scott5114]

There's no KDOT sign shop anymore? Here's hoping the contractors don't push Kansas signage down the tubes like they have in OK...

[route56]

It sounds like we've got ourselves a nasty case of a charlie foxtrot.

Apparantly, KDOT implemented the original idea to route K-14 over K-61 and K-96 before KDOT decided to do the K-14/K-17/K-11 swap.

[WichitaRoads]

Richie,

Good grief. Makes me wonder who's minding the store in Topeka. So, do they keep this "old" "new" alignment, or are they going to do the swap?

Local papers seem to be talking like the swap is still in place.

ICTRds

[bugo]

Be patient.  When US 63 was signed south of I-40, it was a couple of months before it was signed.  It was several years (something like 10) before US 278 was signed in Mississippi.   It was fully signed in Arkansas and basically ended in the middle of the Greenville Bridge according to the signs.

[bugo]

There's no KDOT sign shop anymore? Here's hoping the contractors don't push Kansas signage down the tubes like they have in OK...

I don't know why you complain so much about OK signage.  It's fine.  It's far better than some states like Arkansas and Colorado where duplexes are often unsigned.

[Scott5114]

There's no KDOT sign shop anymore? Here's hoping the contractors don't push Kansas signage down the tubes like they have in OK...

I don't know why you complain so much about OK signage.  It's fine.  It's far better than some states like Arkansas and Colorado where duplexes are often unsigned.

Head on over to the Worst of Signs...I have a compilation post there that should make it clear what I have a problem with.

Missing concurrency signage is annoying to us roadgeeks, but I doubt it hampers the general public all that much. For long concurrencies with an Interstate, I doubt anyone is mentally following the US route.

[J N Winkler]

It's far better than some states like Arkansas and Colorado where duplexes are often unsigned.

Scott's real issue is with confection of large panel signs.  Arkansas, as it happens, is actually much better than Oklahoma on this front:  signs are laid out neatly and in a consistent way (at least on plan sheets--I don't think I have been to Arkansas since 1995).

[Scott5114]

It's far better than some states like Arkansas and Colorado where duplexes are often unsigned.

Scott's real issue is with confection of large panel signs.  Arkansas, as it happens, is actually much better than Oklahoma on this front:  signs are laid out neatly and in a consistent way (at least on plan sheets--I don't think I have been to Arkansas since 1995).

You're right; for the most part I have no issue with the smaller panels found on conventional roads (though there is still the rare oddball here and there, the percentage is low enough I tolerate them as nothing more than a curiosity). However, the same problems induced by the lack of contractor oversight sometimes manifest themselves on conventional roads as ugly shields (lack of state name on Interstate shields, dodgy OK state shields, often with a non-standard Oklahoma outline or missing the blank-outs surrounding digits and in the counter spaces) or usage of JCT and arrow plates that match the national MUTCD well enough but look out of place in Oklahoma due to ODOT's otherwise consistent usage of smaller-than-federal JCT plates and square arrow plates.

[bugo]

The last sign pointing to OK 11 heading WB on I-244 has no OK 11 shield, no mention of the Gilcrease Expressway,  just a reference to the airport..  I informed ODOT but who knows if they'll fix it.  Also on EB 31st Street at the Creek Turnpike, there is no sign pointing to the EB (NB) Creek.  I'm more concerned about poor signage like this than a couple of weirdly placed shields.

[WichitaRoads]

Ground truth update:

Was out and about today for work. Ended up west on 54, and no changes at 17 junction, or 14 junction, and no signing between Kingman and old 17. Then, I took 61 north, and 14 picks up at old junction, then stays signed on 61 all the way to Hutchinson...with new signs tacked on to old signs.

It looks like this is a change in the plan. They can put new signs on stretches that aren't supposed to be that way, but not on the sections that are to be changed? Sounds like a KDOT cluster to me.

Also, a side note: I always noticed this sign in Kingman, and it never made sense - http://goo.gl/maps/z9eKA
Especially since it doesn't indicate a junction (that one is a few hundred feet away), nor a direction, and is on a section that never was 14... but is supposed to BECOME 14. Yet, the sign's been there at least a decade that I know of.

ICTRds

[apeman33]

Ground truth update:

Was out and about today for work. Ended up west on 54, and no changes at 17 junction, or 14 junction, and no signing between Kingman and old 17. Then, I took 61 north, and 14 picks up at old junction, then stays signed on 61 all the way to Hutchinson...with new signs tacked on to old signs.

It looks like this is a change in the plan. They can put new signs on stretches that aren't supposed to be that way, but not on the sections that are to be changed? Sounds like a KDOT cluster to me.

Also, a side note: I always noticed this sign in Kingman, and it never made sense - http://goo.gl/maps/z9eKA
Especially since it doesn't indicate a junction (that one is a few hundred feet away), nor a direction, and is on a section that never was 14... but is supposed to BECOME 14. Yet, the sign's been there at least a decade that I know of.

ICTRds

I always figured that was a sign that was supposed to have the JCT plate above it but for some reason no one has ever gone back and tacked it on.

[WichitaRoads]

Ground truth update:

Was out and about today for work. Ended up west on 54, and no changes at 17 junction, or 14 junction, and no signing between Kingman and old 17. Then, I took 61 north, and 14 picks up at old junction, then stays signed on 61 all the way to Hutchinson...with new signs tacked on to old signs.

It looks like this is a change in the plan. They can put new signs on stretches that aren't supposed to be that way, but not on the sections that are to be changed? Sounds like a KDOT cluster to me.

Also, a side note: I always noticed this sign in Kingman, and it never made sense - http://goo.gl/maps/z9eKA
Especially since it doesn't indicate a junction (that one is a few hundred feet away), nor a direction, and is on a section that never was 14... but is supposed to BECOME 14. Yet, the sign's been there at least a decade that I know of.

ICTRds

I always figured that was a sign that was supposed to have the JCT plate above it but for some reason no one has ever gone back and tacked it on.

Well, I thought that might be as well. But, there's another 14 sign not too far away that does have the JCT plate, and the sign is positioned high up on the pole so as not to allow anything to be mounted above it. Then there is the Speed Limit sign below it... which seems poor form to me for a junction sign OR a reassurance.

ICTRds

[WichitaRoads]

Well, it looks like they finally got their act together, and made the change today... saw it on the news locally ... no links to post yet. All this time... for decals to paste over signs!

Oh well... it is what it is. Case closed!

ICTRds

[route56]

Found something in the Rural Resolutions page at the DOT archives....

The Resolution re-routing K-14 onto K-17 and designating the former K-14 as K-11 was dated December 14, 2012.

Based on way the resolution is worded, K-14 had already be moved onto K-61 per the previous resolution (from 2009)

[WichitaRoads]

It just seems like that this whole switch was SNAFU'd from day one. Not new for KDOT, I know, but I did expect a little better of them than this!

Perhaps I was just naive about it...

ICTRds