Question about Kansas Highway law

[dom1_4802]

I have read that Kansas state law mandates that when a state highway is entirely within city limits, it must be turned over and it loses its designation.
My question is what happens when K-10 is entirely within the city limits of Lawrence, Eudora, De Soto, Lenexa, and Olathe? If it loses its state designation, will it become a spur of I-70, or become a privatized toll road like the John Kilpatrick Turnpike in OKC?

Thanks for any insight.

[brad2971]

I have read that Kansas state law mandates that when a state highway is entirely within city limits, it must be turned over and it loses its designation.
My question is what happens when K-10 is entirely within the city limits of Lawrence, Eudora, De Soto, Lenexa, and Olathe? If it loses its state designation, will it become a spur of I-70, or become a privatized toll road like the John Kilpatrick Turnpike in OKC?

Thanks for any insight.

My understanding of KS state law as it pertains to highways owned by KDOT is that if a section of highway within the corporate limits of a city is to only be relinquished to the city IF the section is between two other state highways. For example, US40 (6th St) in Lawrence between K-10 and US59 was relinquished to Lawrence. K-10 as it is current built is much too important to be turned over to the KTA, much less a private or inter-governmental toll road authority.

[Ned Weasel]

My understanding of KS state law as it pertains to highways owned by KDOT is that if a section of highway within the corporate limits of a city is to only be relinquished to the city IF the section is between two other state highways. For example, US40 (6th St) in Lawrence between K-10 and US59 was relinquished to Lawrence. K-10 as it is current built is much too important to be turned over to the KTA, much less a private or inter-governmental toll road authority.

If that's the way it worked, then wouldn't K-5 between I-435 and US 69 have to be turned over to Kansas City, Kansas?  I don't think that's the way it works, though.  My understanding was that, if a state route exists entirely within city limits, even if it's multiple city limits (as was the case with K-12 and former K-150), then the highway has to be decommissioned.  In which case, yes, K-10 would have to be decommissioned as well, if the city limits of Lawrence, Eudora, De Soto, Olathe, and Lenexa end up encompassing all of it.

Another thing, based on your assumption of why US 40 was re-routed the way it was, if that rule applied to a segment of highway existing with multiple city limits, then US 69 and 169 wouldn't be allowed to have the weird routings they do.  But the fact that they're routed that way leads me to suspect a plausible scenario, although it's Fictional Highways territory at this point.  If we suppose that Lawrence, Eudora, De Soto, Olathe, and Lenexa do encompass the entirety of K-10 before the law is ever changed, KDOT could just re-route US 40 so it follows the entirety of K-10 and then finds its way back up to I-70 one way or another.  Only the short stretch between I-70 and 6th Street wouldn't have an easily available route designation.

[rte66man]

I have read that Kansas state law mandates that when a state highway is entirely within city limits, it must be turned over and it loses its designation.
My question is what happens when K-10 is entirely within the city limits of Lawrence, Eudora, De Soto, Lenexa, and Olathe? If it loses its state designation, will it become a spur of I-70, or become a privatized toll road like the John Kilpatrick Turnpike in OKC?

Thanks for any insight.

What makes you think the Kilpatrick is privatized?  No toll road in Oklahoma is privatized.

[jeffandnicole]

I have read that Kansas state law mandates that when a state highway is entirely within city limits, it must be turned over and it loses its designation.
My question is what happens when K-10 is entirely within the city limits of Lawrence, Eudora, De Soto, Lenexa, and Olathe? If it loses its state designation, will it become a spur of I-70, or become a privatized toll road like the John Kilpatrick Turnpike in OKC?

Thanks for any insight.

Does it lose its designation, or does jurisdiction simply go from state to city maintenence, police coverage, etc?

I wouldn't think it would lose its designation, since one purpose of route numbers is to guide you, especially into the cities the routes serve

[rarnold]

I have read that Kansas state law mandates that when a state highway is entirely within city limits, it must be turned over and it loses its designation.
My question is what happens when K-10 is entirely within the city limits of Lawrence, Eudora, De Soto, Lenexa, and Olathe? If it loses its state designation, will it become a spur of I-70, or become a privatized toll road like the John Kilpatrick Turnpike in OKC?

Thanks for any insight.

Does it lose its designation, or does jurisdiction simply go from state to city maintenence, police coverage, etc?

I wouldn't think it would lose its designation, since one purpose of route numbers is to guide you, especially into the cities the routes serve

The city takes over maintenance of the right of way, but the highway maintains its route designation. Kingman is a good example. If you look closely there are signs on either side of town that say "End State Maintenance." They are very hard to spot as they are about the size of a playing card.

[oscar]

This discussion is full of wild-assed guesses about what Kansas law actually says. It'd really help if someone, who has more time than I do, were to dig up and quote the relevant law.

I'm not the only lawyer on this forum. Another one might chime in, once we have the exact language to work with.

[Scott5114]

KDOT does not necessarily administer routes for the sole purpose of guiding motorists, and the law (or policy) being discussed here is the primary culprit. One can see its effects on the more-or-less nonsensical routing of US-69 and US-169 through Johnson County, for instance. Also, there are plenty of examples of Kansas highway designations being removed in their entirety because they ended up entirely within city limits, like K-273 (Williamsburg) and K-12 (former designation for Shawnee Mission Parkway in west Johnson County).

[route56]

Welcome to AARoads, dom1_4802

This discussion is full of wild-assed guesses about what Kansas law actually says. It'd really help if someone, who has more time than I do, were to dig up and quote the relevant law.

I'm not the only lawyer on this forum. Another one might chime in, once we have the exact language to work with.

Seeing as how COVID has wreaked havoc on access to the legal archives, I'll have to go on what I've already scanned. Here's the statute in question.

(b) In addition to highways of the state highway system, the secretary of transportation shall designate in those cities on such system certain streets as city connecting links. "City connecting link" means a routing inside the city limits of a city which: (1) Connects a state highway through a city; (2) connects a state highway to a city connecting link of another state highway; (3) is a state highway which terminates within such city; (4) connects a state highway with a road or highway under the jurisdiction of the Kansas turnpike authority; or (5) begins and ends within a city's limits and is designated as part of the national system of interstate and defense highways.

The italicized part of the statute was added as part of 1978 House Bill 2586, also known as "Proposal 61" which also repealed KSA 68-406b through KSA 68-406e, which designated SHC/KDOT maintained City Connecting Links as State Highways. (Section (b)(5) was added later)

Although it is not explicitly stated in the statutes, legal principles would dictate that it was the intent of the legislature in 1978 to enact Proposal 61 to eliminate intra-city highways.

I figure that before Lawrence, Eudora, and De Soto become one great urban conglomerate, the statute would be fixed to keep K-10 as a state-maintained highway.

[Scott5114]

I figure that before Lawrence, Eudora, and De Soto become one great urban conglomerate, the statute would be fixed to keep K-10 as a state-maintained highway.

K-10 is already a National Highway System route. Does that affect anything? I can't imagine KDOT would have much justification for dropping a federally-funded route.

[route56]

K-10 is already a National Highway System route. Does that affect anything? I can't imagine KDOT would have much justification for dropping a federally-funded route.

There hasn't been any change in K.S.A. 68-406(b) since the NHS has been designated, so NHS designation would not implicate the provisions of the statute. Again, I figure that the law would be amended before we run into a situation where Lawrence Eudora and DeSoto's annex the rural sections of K-10.

In fact, I may consider talking to my contacts in the Kansas Legislature to suggest amending 68-406(b), mainly so that KDOT can have the option of turning back Leavenworth Road and/or Wolcott Drive without implicating the Fairfax spur.

Also, Wyandotte county is a bit of a morass, since most of the county is incorporated and the small unincorporated section does not contain any state highways. It would be impossible to comply with the county floor in KSA 68-406(a) unless CCLs are counted

[Ned Weasel]

In fact, I may consider talking to my contacts in the Kansas Legislature to suggest amending 68-406(b), mainly so that KDOT can have the option of turning back Leavenworth Road and/or Wolcott Drive without implicating the Fairfax spur.

Or we could start placing bets on the next US 69/169 re-routing.

[J N Winkler]

(b) In addition to highways of the state highway system, the secretary of transportation shall designate in those cities on such system certain streets as city connecting links. "City connecting link" means a routing inside the city limits of a city which: (1) Connects a state highway through a city; (2) connects a state highway to a city connecting link of another state highway; (3) is a state highway which terminates within such city; (4) connects a state highway with a road or highway under the jurisdiction of the Kansas turnpike authority; or (5) begins and ends within a city's limits and is designated as part of the national system of interstate and defense highways.

The italicized part of the statute was added as part of 1978 House Bill 2586, also known as "Proposal 61" which also repealed KSA 68-406b through KSA 68-406e, which designated SHC/KDOT maintained City Connecting Links as State Highways. (Section (b)(5) was added later)

Although it is not explicitly stated in the statutes, legal principles would dictate that it was the intent of the legislature in 1978 to enact Proposal 61 to eliminate intra-city highways.

I have always understood this policy to be designed to get KDOT out of the business of maintaining routes that are of primarily local interest.

I figure that before Lawrence, Eudora, and De Soto become one great urban conglomerate, the statute would be fixed to keep K-10 as a state-maintained highway.

I think it is very unlikely that Lawrence, Eudora, and De Soto would annex unincorporated land in such a way that the entirety of K-10 was within the limits of one city or another.  The main reason is that annexation law in Kansas is very restrictive.  Strip annexation of the kind observed in states like Arizona and Oklahoma is unknown here.  Moreover, Kansas law does not require municipalities to annex arterial roads even if the subdivisions those roads serve are taken within city limits.  As long as they are not within the city, the costs of maintaining them do not fall on the city budget.  An example is Wichita not annexing long lengths of K-42, Maize Road, and 119th Street West.

[hotdogPi]

The main reason is that annexation law in Kansas is very restrictive.  Strip annexation of the kind observed in states like Arizona and Oklahoma is unknown here.

It doesn't look that way to me. The boundary still looks very complicated.

Compare this to pretty much any city or town in New England. Lowell is shown here. It's even simpler than Google Maps thinks; it thinks for some reason that water can't be part of a city or town, but the rivers and canals and the jags on the edge are all part of Lowell.

https://goo.gl/maps/NhfzPfEfSkgFXZ5A8

[J N Winkler]

The main reason is that annexation law in Kansas is very restrictive.  Strip annexation of the kind observed in states like Arizona and Oklahoma is unknown here.

It doesn't look that way to me. The boundary still looks very complicated.

Annexation for boundary smoothing is actually very easy to do in Kansas.  My point was rather that Wichita likely sees it as being in its own financial self-interest to leave the boundary complicated:  if it annexed K-42, for instance, it would be looking to KDOT for CCL funding to maintain it as a city street that connects a rural state highway with I-235, or be 100% on the hook if KDOT pruned the route back to the city limits.  As long as K-42 is not in Wichita, it is 100% KDOT's responsibility even if the land on both sides is within Wichita.

Strip annexation is a related but separate issue.  It occurs when a municipality annexes a very long strip, sometimes no wider than the right-of-way of a highway or series of highways, often to encircle a large area of unincorporated land (a "county island") in such a way that a neighboring community can't later annex it as it grows.