https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/officials-explore-tolls-to-help-fund-expansion-of-69-highway-in-overland-park
This seems like a more sensible way to do freeway widening. But I still wish they would talk about putting a ramp meter on the northbound ramp from 119th Street, fixing the southbound left entrance from Blue Valley Parkway and the poorly signed lane drop at 135th Street, and finding a way to address the northbound weaving issues at the remaining inner loops of the cloverleaf at I-435.
I mean, if you're going to build Lexus lanes, it makes sense to build them in Johnson County. Hell of a lot of Lexuses in Overland Park.
People in Johnson County carpooling? Yeah, right. Don't you know they're important people with places to be?
I would argue that HOV lanes with too many access points can cause more traffic congestion given the constant merging of left to right and vice versa of car pools. It surely slows down traffic on the mainlines. I've often thought traffic would flow better in CA if all carpools were removed and freeways restriped in some cases possibly being able to add two new GP lanes in each direction.
HOV or Toll lanes?
Just make it a HO/T lane. Free for HOV, single vehicles pay.
If the roadway is only currently 4 lanes, widen it to 2+1 each way to create a total of 6 lanes. In the future, plan to add a third general purpose lane each way to have an ultimate section of 3+1 each way.
If constructed, would these be the first stretch of toll lanes built in the Kansas City Metropolitan Area? I suspect if they are built, more toll lane proposals would likely come to the area.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 17, 2020, 10:06:50 AM
Perhaps but if we had better mass transit then this might not be as big of an issue. Some would be carpoolers would use transit instead if it was worth a damn.
LA public transit is light years ahead of KC public transit.
But, also, most Johnson County residents wouldn't take the bus, no matter how good of a system it was.
Quote from: kphoger on February 20, 2020, 01:53:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 17, 2020, 10:06:50 AM
Perhaps but if we had better mass transit then this might not be as big of an issue. Some would be carpoolers would use transit instead if it was worth a damn.
LA public transit is light years ahead of KC public transit.
But, also, most Johnson County residents wouldn't take the bus, no matter how good of a system it was.
I also doubt many of them would take any form of mass transit other than perhaps HSR like what is proposed between DFW and Houston.
I think there are a lot of people who are quite a bit more willing to take any train than take any bus.
AFAICT, what's on the table is *toll only* lanes on US 69 from 151st Street north to I-435. There does not appear to be any discount for HOVs, nor is there any indication that said toll lanes would be operated by any organization other than KDOT or KTA.
AIUI, toll lanes would have to have the support of the local governments involved, and I'd suspect if significant opposition to toll lanes of US 69 develops, the toll lane proposal will get shot down. Toll lanes were floated for the western leg of the South Lawrence Trafficway, but it became quickly clear that there was opposition to it.
It looks like KDOT is supporting the toll lanes alternative. What a fucking joke that state can't even widen a freeway to six free lanes. If they want the toll lanes then it should be two each way with a C/D system. Instead they have the "traditional widening" of 3 GP lanes each way branded with the C/D system which for some reason isn't planned for the toll lane alternative. They specifically state "the toll lane proposal takes less room than the traditional widening."
It makes me angry when a DOT manipulates the public into supporting an alternative they want by adding things into other alternatives they know won't be popular. I see this far too often. I guess the residents of OP won't complain when they can use their new Lexus Lanes.
https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/toll-lanes-along-69-highway-could-soon-be-a-reality
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 22, 2021, 10:40:08 AM
It looks like KDOT is supporting the toll lanes alternative. What a fucking joke that state can't even widen a freeway to six free lanes.
Not to let this get too far into the political territory, but Brownback tax cuts really screwed the budget for everything in my former state. There's no money for anything still.
Chris
Quote from: jayhawkco on April 22, 2021, 10:57:09 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 22, 2021, 10:40:08 AM
It looks like KDOT is supporting the toll lanes alternative. What a fucking joke that state can't even widen a freeway to six free lanes.
Not to let this get too far into the political territory, but Brownback tax cuts really screwed the budget for everything in my former state. There's no money for anything still.
Chris
What I just don't understand is why the larger project with the C/D lanes isn't the one to include tolls. If anything I think it would be the opposite.
Honestly, the alternative with 6 general purpose lanes and the C/D system seems to provide the highest capacity and would the best for the long term.
But you know... toll lanes :D
I didn't attend the public meeting but I have seen the Virtual Open house on their site. As I understand it, I think the city of Overland Park still has to approve the toll lanes. I am not sure what the reaction was to the toll lane option was at the public meeting, so it will be interesting to see what Overland Park does. I doubt that they would go with them if everyone is against it.
I don't have an opinion one way or the other about what they choose to do eventually, but it does seem fishy that they didn't include the C/D roads in the toll lane option like Plutonic Panda mentioned. Seems like it would be a good idea to have C/D lanes regardless of what they choose to do.
I did like that both the toll lane and the Add general lanes option will add a flyover from US69 NB to I-435 WB. That is long overdue.
If you widen it to six lanes without any toll, it's gonna get worse traffic than with a toll, so I would imagine that's a reason the non-toll option includes C/D lanes and the toll option doesn't.
Quote from: stridentweasel on April 22, 2021, 08:35:05 PM
If you widen it to six lanes without any toll, it's gonna get worse traffic than with a toll, so I would imagine that's a reason the non-toll option includes C/D lanes and the toll option doesn't.
No it won't.
Quote from: stridentweasel on April 22, 2021, 08:35:05 PM
If you widen it to six lanes without any toll, it's gonna get worse traffic than with a toll, so I would imagine that's a reason the non-toll option includes C/D lanes and the toll option doesn't.
After watching the video of their public meeting, that makes sense. I thought they would still need C/D lanes from 135th St up to 435 regardless of what option they chose, but I can see why they wouldn't need it for the toll lane option.
Quote from: mvak36 on April 23, 2021, 01:04:07 AM
After watching the video of their public meeting, that makes sense. I thought they would still need C/D lanes from 135th St up to 435 regardless of what option they chose, but I can see why they wouldn't need it for the toll lane option.
There's so little space on the east side of the 69 between 119th and the 435, that I can't imagine how they could build an extra roadway without massive demolitions. Has there ever been a diagram showing it? I mean a plan, not a section; I've seen the section already, but I want to see it in plan view. That reminds me, I also wonder how they're going to make space for the approach to the NB-to-WB flyover.
Quote from: stridentweasel on April 23, 2021, 06:54:06 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 22, 2021, 09:39:08 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on April 22, 2021, 08:35:05 PM
If you widen it to six lanes without any toll, it's gonna get worse traffic than with a toll, so I would imagine that's a reason the non-toll option includes C/D lanes and the toll option doesn't.
No it won't.
Thank God you're here to be the world's formost expert and correct all us plebes without a shred of supporiting argument. We'd be truly lost without you, for you are our True Savior.
There's nothing to suggest traffic will be higher without the toll lanes. The traffic will come from somewhere. If there is a study that can show traffic being higher pulling from localized roads than how is that an argument against building the free lanes alternative?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 23, 2021, 07:10:23 AM
There's nothing to suggest traffic will be higher without the toll lanes. The traffic will come from somewhere. If there is a study that can show traffic being higher pulling from localized roads than how is that an argument against building the free lanes alternative?
It's pretty simple. Without an incentive to get people to adjust their travel choices, they/we will use US 69 in the most selfish and least efficient way possible. There will be so much latent demand that building new lanes without any means of friction is just opening the floodgates.
Quote from: stridentweasel on April 23, 2021, 07:15:26 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 23, 2021, 07:10:23 AM
There's nothing to suggest traffic will be higher without the toll lanes. The traffic will come from somewhere. If there is a study that can show traffic being higher pulling from localized roads than how is that an argument against building the free lanes alternative?
It's pretty simple. Without an incentive to get people to adjust their travel choices, they/we will use US 69 in the most selfish and least efficient way possible. There will be so much latent demand that building new lanes without any means of friction is just opening the floodgates.
What incentive is being offered to get people to adjust their travel choices? How does one not use a roadway selfishly or efficiently? It sounds like you're trying to butter up the fact that the tolls lanes are intended to "alter" driver behavior by pricing people out of them.
I don't think much latent demand will be an issue either here. It seems 6 lanes plus a new C/D system will be adequate to handle traffic counts for the next decade+.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 23, 2021, 08:35:40 AM
What incentive is being offered to get people to adjust their travel choices? How does one not use a roadway selfishly or efficiently? It sounds like you're trying to butter up the fact that the tolls lanes are intended to "alter" driver behavior by pricing people out of them.
That's exactly the point. It's a financial incentive. If driving on the already-congested freeway during rush hour isn't worth the price of paying for the toll lane or sitting in traffic, then adjust your travel to another time, another route, or another mode of travel, or stay home. That's how you attain better efficiency in the system, even if it's not 100% perfect efficiency.
Quote
I don't think much latent demand will be an issue either here. It seems 6 lanes plus a new C/D system will be adequate to handle traffic counts for the next decade+.
Okay, so then what? Add another two to four lanes that will be adequate to handle traffic for the following decade+? Okay, so then what? Keep doing the same thing ad infinitum? That's hardly characteristic of an efficient system.
I've heard this "induced demand" argument umpteenth times and it's funny honestly. Back here in Virginia, they widened two high bottlenecked sections of I-64 and I-264 in the 1990s from 4 (and 6) to 8 lanes. Both roadways carry well over 100,000 AADT.
Ever since they've been widened, here we are, 30 years later, and they still perform at free-flow during rush hour.
The only chokepoints that exist is when they reach system interchanges that reduce lanes and involve substandard, weaving movements. Everywhere else though, no congestion.
What happened to this "induced demand" ? Why aren't they bottlenecked moving 20 mph at rush hour across all the new lanes?
1. Could it be that the induced demand was real, but it was less than the additional capacity gained?
2. Factors in Virginia 30 years ago are not the same as the factors in Kansas City today. They might be similar, they might be dissimilar.
Quote from: stridentweasel on April 23, 2021, 07:15:26 AM
It's pretty simple. Without an incentive to get people to adjust their travel choices, they/we will use US 69 in the most selfish and least efficient way possible.
It's Johnson County, I'm pretty sure they're gonna be selfish and inefficient no matter what you do...May as well put in some toll lanes so KDOT can have some of the money the rich people don't need.
Really, though, if US-69 is expanded, any extra traffic would be coming from people who are using Quivira, Antioch, or Metcalf in lieu of 69 because it's too congested.
What is the AADT on that segment of US-69?
Quote from: kphoger on April 23, 2021, 01:17:50 PM
1. Could it be that the induced demand was real, but it was less than the additional capacity gained?
Perhaps, but it's a counter-example to the idea that induced demand always happens to the point widening shouldn't happen, as used by some RE/T groups or heavy proponents of toll lanes.
How about all rural interstates that have been expanded to 6 lanes? I recall driving on I-95 in Georgia during a peak weekend recently, traffic was heavy but moving 75 - 80 mph through without any delays. As soon as you entered South Carolina, traffic is choked down to 45 - 60 mph sustained, then many areas of down to near complete stops, then moving again, and vice versa.
No issues with 6 lanes Georgia, major issues with 4 lane South Carolina.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 23, 2021, 02:54:13 PM
It's Johnson County, I'm pretty sure they're gonna be selfish and inefficient no matter what you do...May as well put in some toll lanes so KDOT can have some of the money the rich people don't need.
Stereotype much?
My parents both grew up in Johnson County, and it's not all like that.
Here's the house (https://goo.gl/maps/93v13KcQ1pUXxid78) my mom grew up in, for example. And
here's the house (https://goo.gl/maps/R6he2Js7im6rDnzNA) where my dad grew up, as part of a family of seven with one bathroom.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 23, 2021, 03:04:13 PM
What is the AADT on that segment of US-69?
2016 figures:
93 600 = north of 103rd
83 100 = between 103rd & I-435
82 500 = between I-435 & College Blvd
75 400 = between College Blvd & 119th
59 900 = between 119th & Blue Valley Pkwy
78 200 = between Blue Valley Pkwy & Santa Fe
?? ??? = between Santa Fe & 151st
34 700 = south of 151st
Quote from: kphoger on April 23, 2021, 03:27:11 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 23, 2021, 02:54:13 PM
It's Johnson County, I'm pretty sure they're gonna be selfish and inefficient no matter what you do...May as well put in some toll lanes so KDOT can have some of the money the rich people don't need.
Stereotype much?
I have family in both Wyandotte and Johnson counties, so I'm legally obliged to make fun of both of them. :P
Looks like Congresswoman Davids has submitted an earmark request for a part of the US69 project:https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article250974644.html
Quote
Davids' $15 million earmark request for KDOT covers a portion of the project to improve the interchange at 167th st.
Quote from: kphoger on April 23, 2021, 03:33:21 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 23, 2021, 03:04:13 PM
What is the AADT on that segment of US-69?
20162019 figures:
93 600 99 500 = north of 103rd
83 100 84 600 = between 103rd & I-435
82 500 84 600 = between I-435 & College Blvd
75 400 88 500 = between College Blvd & 119th
59 900 66 600 = between 119th & Blue Valley Pkwy
78 200 88 400 = between Blue Valley Pkwy & Santa Fe 135th
?? ??? 58 210 = between Santa Fe 135th & 151st
34 700 41 300 = south of 151st
Fixed and updated numbers loaded onto my US 69 page.
https://www.route56.com/kansas-highways/us-69/#aadt
I feel like with 6 general purpose lanes and 2 C/D lanes in each direction, that stretch of highway would seem to operate relatively smoothly in the long term, more so than simply shoving a toll lane that may or may not get high utilization in.
Not sure if this will affect the plan or not but thankfully the toll lane proposal is starting to face some pushback.
https://www.kcur.org/news/2021-06-15/express-lanes-could-ease-traffic-jams-on-highway-69-but-proposed-tolls-raise-concerns-about-equity
Let me guess: The opponents of the toll lanes are proponents of anti-toll "Lexus Lanes" argument. Areas that haven't had a history of toll lanes in their areas are more likely to say toll lanes are "Lexus Lanes." The truth is, although it may seem like higher-income people are more likely to use toll lanes, research has indicated that drivers of all incomes use the toll lanes. Here is an article about the "equity" of Express Toll Lanes: https://reason.org/commentary/are-express-toll-lanes-equitable/.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 16, 2021, 08:09:07 PM
Let me guess: The opponents of the toll lanes are proponents of anti-toll "Lexus Lanes" argument. Areas that haven't had a history of toll lanes in their areas are more likely to say toll lanes are "Lexus Lanes." The truth is, although it may seem like higher-income people are more likely to use toll lanes, research has indicated that drivers of all incomes use the toll lanes. Here is an article about the "equity" of Express Toll Lanes: https://reason.org/commentary/are-express-toll-lanes-equitable/.
Pfft. Reason Foundation misrepresented the findings of the actual study.
https://depts.washington.edu/trac/research-news/freeway-and-arterial-management/i-405-express-toll-lanes-analysis-usage-benefits-and-equity/
I have such a hard time buying any argument against toll lanes.
Let's say you go to a fast food restaurant and want a hamburger. The hamburger costs $2.50, just for the sake of argument. The clerk asks you if you want fries with that. Fries cost $0.75, again, just for the sake of argument. Maybe the fries are worth the extra 75 cents to you, maybe they aren't. The US 69 proposal is like the hamburger and fries. If you use US 69, you're already committed to the hamburger. You've invested the money into a car and fuel, the $2.50 example. The existence of the toll lanes give you the option of adding fries to your order, for a bit of an extra cost. Either it's worth it to you, or it's not. What about the normal lanes on US 69 (the hamburger) getting more congested? Well, sometimes fast food restaurants have long lines, too, right?
Here's another example. Let's say you order a package. I don't care what it is. But normal shipping costs $5.00, and it gets to you between one and two weeks from the time you order it, or maybe longer if it's a busy season like the holidays. For an additional two bucks, you can get express shipping that guarantees you'll get it within five business days. The toll lanes are like the express shipping. Either it's worth it to you, or it's not.
Now, to the other side of the coin, let's suppose we add lanes without any additional cost to the end user. That's like selling the burger and fries for the original $2.50 price of the burger. That's like selling the express shipping for the original $5.00 price of standard shipping. Maybe it works as a short-time promotion. But is it really a sustainable business model?
^^^^ your analogy really doesn't add up here. This isn't a private venture it's a public works project to facilitate the greater good. The only comparison I'd make between a fast food restaurant is adding a special like that you pay to extra to stand in just so you can order the food you already were going to order anyways. The new pay to use like prices the poor people out so you get your food faster than everyone else.
If they want to add toll lanes fine but add a GP lane as well.
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 17, 2021, 07:27:43 AM
I have such a hard time buying any argument against toll lanes.
Using tax dollars to construct new lanes to then charge drivers an additional fee to drive in them?
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 17, 2021, 07:27:43 AMBut is it really a sustainable business model?
Funny, they've added numerous of GP lanes back in the Hampton Roads area where I'm at over the last 30-40 years, and those areas
still have virtually no congestion during peak hours, but right when it merges to 2 lanes each way (with LESS traffic volumes than the expanded 8 lane areas), bottleneck and bumper to bumper traffic.
But sure... "induced demand" :bigass:
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 17, 2021, 11:00:13 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 17, 2021, 07:27:43 AM
I have such a hard time buying any argument against toll lanes.
Using tax dollars to construct new lanes to then charge drivers an additional fee to drive in them?
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 17, 2021, 07:27:43 AMBut is it really a sustainable business model?
Funny, they've added numerous of GP lanes back in the Hampton Roads area where I'm at over the last 30-40 years, and those areas still have virtually no congestion during peak hours, but right when it merges to 2 lanes each way (with LESS traffic volumes than the expanded 8 lane areas), bottleneck and bumper to bumper traffic.
But sure... "induced demand" :bigass:
Huh? Most of the Tidewater backups are at the water crossings (HRBT, Hi-Rise Bridge), but I remember daily backups at I-64/264 when I lived in the area. Local authorities went back to tolling both the Downtown and Midtown Tunnels since I left (to pay for the much needed second Midtown tube), so the only way to fix one of the local bottlenecks was to toll it. Another local bottleneck that is now tolled after expansion is the Elizabeth River US 17 bridge, and Chesapeake built the tolled Chesapeake Expressway 20 years ago to get traffic out of Great Bridge. The cancelled Southeastern Parkway was also going to be a toll road. It seems like Tidewater is using toll roads to fix bottlenecks even if you don't personally use them.
^ I'm referring to segments of I-64 that have been expanded to 8 lanes - I-464 to I-264, north of I-664 on the Peninsula, also I-264 east of Independence Blvd... US-58 between Suffolk and Bowers Hill was also constructed as a rural 6 lane divided highway in the 70s... plus 6 lanes of I-464 for most of its length.
None of these segments built or widened with 6 or more lanes have recurring congestion even at peak hours, and carrying high volumes of traffic.
I never mentioned the crossings, which are bottlenecks now proposed to be addressed with HO/T lanes. We shall see how they hold up in the next decade once built, notably the HRBT and HRB.
Chesapeake built the Dominion Blvd project as a toll road because there was simply no funding. The city and area residents heavily opposed the use of tolling initially - it's not popular and they tried holding out for years to find the funding... they reluctantly finally agreed to it because it was the only way to get it built. The same for the Expressway, which the toll portion does not bypass Great Bridge, it bypasses the southern portion of rural 2 lane Battlefield. The Great Bridge portion was built by VDOT in 1980 toll free.
Despite its continued use and growth, tolling continues to seem to be heavily opposed to locally, especially as the now proposed billions of dollars worth of HO/T lane expansions in the area heavily rely on tax dollars.
Portions of I-64 west of I-464 and all of I-664 could be expanded to 8 general purpose lanes and likely suffice for decades to come.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 17, 2021, 11:00:13 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 17, 2021, 07:27:43 AM
I have such a hard time buying any argument against toll lanes.
Using tax dollars to construct new lanes to then charge drivers an additional fee to drive in them?
Eh, if this was really a huge argument against the project it could easily be dispelled by just paying for it with KTA funds.
And, as I've alluded to before, I don't think people are going to be particularly up in arms about paying a few bucks to use a toll lane in this area. The 2010 census median household income for Overland Park is $71,513, which is frankly kind of absurd for a Plains state (for Kansas as a whole it's $56,422).
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 17, 2021, 11:00:13 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 17, 2021, 07:27:43 AMBut is it really a sustainable business model?
Funny, they've added numerous of GP lanes back in the Hampton Roads area where I'm at over the last 30-40 years, and those areas still have virtually no congestion during peak hours, but right when it merges to 2 lanes each way (with LESS traffic volumes than the expanded 8 lane areas), bottleneck and bumper to bumper traffic.
But sure... "induced demand" :bigass:
Any traffic increase on US-69 is going to be the result of traffic that was avoiding 69 and using Metcalf, Quivira, etc. instead shifting back to the freeway where it belongs. So while you'll see an increase of traffic on 69, you'll see less on surface streets.
https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/overland-park-city-council-approves-us-69-toll-lane
Quote
OVERLAND PARK, Kan. – An express toll lane will be added to U.S. 69 Highway in Overland Park.
The Overland Park City Council voted 10-2 to approve the expansion for the roadway, which the Kansas Department of Transportation estimates is used by roughly 80,000 drivers daily between West 103rd and West 197th streets, with the toll-lane included.
https://www.69express.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2021.06.25_US69_NewsRelease_KTA_SFC_Approvals_FINAL.pdf
Quote
U.S. 69 Express toll lanes receive approvals from Kansas Turnpike Authority, State Finance Council
KDOT continues public engagement, project environment assessment
TOPEKA—Following the June 21 approval by the Overland Park City Council to add express toll lanes to U.S. 69 between 151st and 103rd streets, the project received additional required approvals this week from the Kansas Turnpike Authority and the State Finance Council.
The KTA board voted 5-0 to approve and the State Finance Council voted 8-0 in favor of the KDOT-Overland joint proposal for express toll lanes on U.S. 69.
"The Overland Park City Council, Kansas Turnpike Authority and State Finance Council decisions set direction for how KDOT will proceed with the next phases of the U.S. 69 Expansion and Modernization project," said KDOT Deputy Secretary Lindsey Douglas.
The environmental assessment has been underway since the project began in October 2020, and KDOT expects it to be complete in late 2021. A noise study also will be conducted to determine whether noise levels specific to the express toll lanes configuration meet or exceed federal and state guidelines.
KDOT's public engagement efforts will continue throughout the life of the project. Over the next year, Overland Park residents can participate in several public meetings — one when the environmental analysis is complete in October, one in February 2022 about right-of-way acquisitions and one prior to the start of construction. Groups also may request project presentations through the U.S. 69 Expansion project website at Feedback — 69 Express (https://www.69express.org/feedback/).
In addition to a new, third tolled lane in each direction, the initial project phase will include a completely rebuilt U.S. 69 roadway between 151st and 103rd streets, as well as reconfigured interchanges at Blue Valley Parkway and at I-435.
https://davids.house.gov/media/in-the-news/us-highway-69-project-overland-park-would-get-15m-federal-funds-bill-passed-house
Quote
Federal money from a $715 billion infrastructure bill approved by the U.S. House Thursday could make the project to expand U.S. Highway 69 in Overland Park richer, if the measure survives an eventual Senate conference.
The prospective $15 million injection –plus a state match – is targeted specifically at the 167th Street interchange.
The US 69 widening in Overland Park is one of the improvement projects that will be built as part of the IKE program (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26273.msg2634517#msg2634517).
https://ikewebstorage.blob.core.windows.net/files/Construction-Announcements-2021/US69_Johnson_July2021.pdf
Plans are scheduled to be let next year... 0.85:1 that Clarkson winds up with the best bid.
Quote from: route56 on July 09, 2021, 12:00:14 AM
https://ikewebstorage.blob.core.windows.net/files/Construction-Announcements-2021/US69_Johnson_July2021.pdf
Quote
First express toll lane in the Midwest.
I guess the ones in Minnesota don't count because HOVs get to use them for free?
Got a newsletter via email about the project:
QuoteConstruction on the 69Express project is set to begin later this year. The project will involve adding a new, third tolled lane in each direction from 151st to 103rd streets, replacement of 50-year old pavement, 11 noise walls, and improving interchanges at 167th street, Blue Valley Parkway and I-435. The existing two lanes in each direction will remain untolled as they are now.
The Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) also is working this summer to focus on making sure 69Express provides equity in area mobility access; selects a proven, effective design-build team to implement nearly three years of construction ahead; and kicks off construction with a September groundbreaking.
QuoteKDOT continues its review and analysis of competing design-build (https://www.69express.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/US69ShortlistMediaRelease.Final_.pdf) teams' proposals for constructing the U.S. 69 improvements. A winning team and approach are expected to be announced mid-summer. KDOT selected design-build for delivering 69Express because it means this complex Project can be completed more quickly through improved innovation and collaboration. Once a team is selected, the official Project groundbreaking ceremony will follow in mid-September.
They haven't posted the newsletter on the project site (https://www.69express.org/) yet but I think it should be on there sometime soon.
Whatever happens to the corridor, I do hope they eliminate that left-hand southbound on-ramp from the Blue Valley Parkway, and move it to the right-hand side.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 24, 2022, 01:08:08 PM
Whatever happens to the corridor, I do hope they eliminate that left-hand southbound on-ramp from the Blue Valley Parkway, and move it to the right-hand side.
That will cost a lot of money, but it's worth it considering the scope of this project. I would be appalled if they didn't.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 24, 2022, 01:08:08 PM
Whatever happens to the corridor, I do hope they eliminate that left-hand southbound on-ramp from the Blue Valley Parkway, and move it to the right-hand side.
It looks like that is the plan. Here is one pdf I found on the site: https://www.69express.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/U.S.-69-Concept-Exhibits-Express-Toll-Lane-and-Traditional-Widening-Alternatives.pdf. The alternative shown on Page 2 is what got selected, but I don't believe the plans shown on the drawings are final. They might change once the design-build contractor is selected.
I'm also looking forward to them getting rid of that loop from US69 to 435 WB and replacing it with a flyover.
Looks like the bids came in over estimate and I'll beat this dead horse again and again. What an idiotic project. Just add a damned GP lane or make it two toll lanes each way. One or the other.
https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/bidders-wanted-more-money-than-kdot-budgeted-to-build-an-express-lane-on-u-s-69
So the bidders are getting greedy. I am shocked. NOT!
I guess I missed this last month. They have selected a design-build team. : https://www.69express.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022.09.19_69Express_DBAnnouncement.pdf
Quote
US69 Express Constructors is a joint venture between Ames Construction and Emery Sapp & Sons. The team has extensive design-build experience on projects ranging from $20 million to $1.2 billion as well as constructing 12 express toll lane projects across the country. Design-build streamlines the project delivery process through a single contract between KDOT and the design-build team. Selection for the $570 million 69Express design-build project was based on how well the winning team met KDOT's goals of balancing minimizing the impact on travel during construction, reducing cost and delivering the project on schedule.
"KDOT was pleased to receive high-quality proposals from two very strong design-build teams," Rockers said. "US69 Express Constructors proposed innovative ideas to optimize the design, strategic incorporation of recycled materials and a coordinated approach to constructing the project that will minimize impacts to traffic."
The 69Express project involves adding a new, tolled lane in each direction from 103rd to 151st Streets in Overland Park, replacement of 50-year-old pavement, construction of 11 noise walls and improving interchanges at 167 th Street, Blue Valley Parkway and I-435. The existing four lanes of U.S. 69 will remain as non-tolled, general-purpose lanes.
KDOT plans to break ground on 69Express in November, with substantial construction beginning in 2023. The express lanes are anticipated to open in late 2025 with construction concluding in 2026.
"KDOT received two qualified proposals on the U.S. 69 express lane project in Overland Park which exceeded KDOT's most recent project estimate of $430 million"
"The design-build project is now expected to cost approximately $570 million to complete."
"The revised approach will save Kansas taxpayers $6 million"
Wait, what?
They broke ground on this project yesterday.
https://fox4kc.com/news/kansas-news/groundbreaking-for-69express-toll-lanes-takes-place/
They had the open house for this project yesterday.
Virtual Open House: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/f366c3224d81481c97888f23b6f2cc8e
I was hoping they would build the flyover ramp from 69N to 435WB as part of this but it's going to be part of a future phase.
Are there any studies about built more Toll Lanes around the Kansas City area? I have a hard time believing the US 69 corridor is the only location that will have toll lanes in the future.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 01, 2023, 01:24:50 PM
Are there any studies about built more Toll Lanes around the Kansas City area? I have a hard time believing the US 69 corridor is the only location that will have toll lanes in the future.
K-10. https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article319836.html
Quote from: Ned Weasel on March 01, 2023, 10:10:35 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 01, 2023, 01:24:50 PM
Are there any studies about built more Toll Lanes around the Kansas City area? I have a hard time believing the US 69 corridor is the only location that will have toll lanes in the future.
K-10. https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article319836.html
Has KDOT bid out the K-10 widening from I-435 to K-7 yet? For some reason, I was under the impression that project was funded and ready to start sometime this year.
Re: US 69, getting rid of the flyover ramp from NB 69 to WB 435 is going seriously limit how useful the whole project will be, in my opinion. They should have built that flyover 15 years ago when they did the projects on I-435 and US 69 from 103rd Street north. An extra toll lane isn't going to fix the weaving issue or keep people from having to slow down to make that cloverleaf ramp.
Quote from: Sani on June 21, 2023, 03:14:24 AM
Has KDOT bid out the K-10 widening from I-435 to K-7 yet? For some reason, I was under the impression that project was funded and ready to start sometime this year.
It looks like that Project is in their IKE Development Pipeline. They don't have the funding for the construction yet.
https://ikewebstorage.blob.core.windows.net/files/Pipeline-Announcements/Construction-Announcement-2022/IKE_PMC_SC_2022-All-Pipelines.pdf
Quote from: mvak36 on June 22, 2023, 09:18:09 AM
Quote from: Sani on June 21, 2023, 03:14:24 AM
Has KDOT bid out the K-10 widening from I-435 to K-7 yet? For some reason, I was under the impression that project was funded and ready to start sometime this year.
It looks like that Project is in their IKE Development Pipeline. They don't have the funding for the construction yet.
https://ikewebstorage.blob.core.windows.net/files/Pipeline-Announcements/Construction-Announcement-2022/IKE_PMC_SC_2022-All-Pipelines.pdf
Also, it looks like they have a website for that project: https://k10.ksdot.gov/
At least there is space in the median for the proposed toll lanes, which means right-of-way acquisitions will be minimal. I hope in the future, more toll lanes are added to the Kansas City freeway system after they finish with K-10 and US 69.
https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/kdots-570m-express-lane-project-aims-to-speed-commute/62400
Quote
KDOT's $570M Express Lane Project Aims to Speed Commute
WED SEPTEMBER 13, 2023 - MIDWEST EDITION #19
CINDY RILEY — CEG CORRESPONDENT
With a continued focus on community input, the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) is overseeing a $570 million project that will build express toll lanes on U.S. 69 Highway in Overland Park. The mission of 69Express is to help commuters travel to their destinations quickly and safely.
"U.S. 69 is the busiest four-lane highway in Kansas," said Steve Rockers, KDOT project director of 69Express. "The city of Overland Park and the surrounding area continue to grow, creating increasing safety, travel-time reliability and congestion issues on the roadway."
The 69Express corridor, which stretches from 103rd Street to 179th Street in Overland Park, has crash rates that are 53 percent above the statewide average. Existing pavement and bridges are approximately 50 years old and are overdue for replacement. Peak travel times are expected to triple by 2030.
"The goal of the U.S. 69 express lanes is to address traffic congestion with a solution that is sustainable far into the future, as traffic continues to grow in the corridor," said Rockers. "Express lanes do a better job of reducing congestion and improving travel-time reliability, because they can be managed to ensure a congestion-free trip. Drivers choose if they want to pay a toll to drive in the free-flowing express lanes, which in turn helps reduce congestion in the toll-free, general-purpose lanes."
In addition to the express lane improvements alleviating traffic congestion and providing reliable travel times, the project will improve roadway pavement, bridges and five key interchanges in the corridor.
Rockers noted that input from the public plays an important role in the 69Express project.
"In addition to years of outreach connected to previous studies regarding how to improve U.S.69, in the 15 months prior to the project proposal, the project team has, among other efforts, interviewed community leaders; convened focus groups with corridor users; undertaken several statistically valid surveys; and conducted multiple online and in-person community briefings and public meetings, all to gather feedback on the best approach for U.S. 69.
"Now that construction is under way, the project team regularly communicates with the public via the project's Facebook and Twitter pages and the project website, 69Express.org."
As for how drivers are responding to necessary closures, said Rockers, "Our design-build team has developed an innovative strategy to maintain traffic through the corridor during construction. Much of the work is being done at night to mitigate traffic impacts. This approach has kept the need for closures to a minimum and allowed us to keep traffic flowing well during construction, particularly during peak-hour travel times.
"In the few instances where a closure has been necessary, the traveling public has responded well and utilized detour routes. A robust communications campaign alerts drivers to all construction closures and updates."
As with all major infrastructure projects, the work is being completed as a team effort.
"The Kansas Department of Transportation is working in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration, the Kansas Turnpike Authority and the city of Overland Park," said Rockers.
"Our design-build team joined that partnership in 2022 to help us design and construct these critical infrastructure improvements. The U.S. 69 Express Constructors design-build team is a joint venture of Ames Construction and Emery Sapp and Sons, and the design firms of Parsons and GBA."
Construction is supported through federal and KDOT funds, with tolls from the express lanes funding a contribution from the City of Overland Park.
Construction began in March 2023. According to Rob Gullikson, project manager, U.S. 69 Express Constructors, the first few months required temporary pavement widenings to accommodate future phases of the project, with significant consideration to Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) phasing.
"Almost all elements of permanent construction are now under way. Bridge construction is in progress at 143rd, 139th, 135th, Tomahawk Creek, Blue Valley Parkway, Indian Creek, College Avenue, North-Branch Creek and I-435. Many of the bridges include mechanically stabilized earth [MSE] walls. Between the bridges, both roadway grading, detention basin excavation and fill area grading is taking place."
Storm drainage work is occurring in these areas, with both reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) and concrete box culverts (CBC) being placed. The CBCs utilize both pre-cast sections and cast-in-place work, depending on foundation and embankment situations.
"Many of the bridges and/or drainage pipes utilize soil-nail walls, or similar, to support excavation," said Gullikson. "In addition to general grading for the mainline, sections call for 12-inch subgrade stabilization; 4-inch cement-treated base [CTB]; and 12-inch PCCP pavement, all which are ongoing. The project involves extensive MOT with approximately 50,000 linear feet of temporary barrier currently onsite protecting work areas from travel lanes."
The project also requires construction of almost a dozen noise walls. Approximate wall locations and heights were determined by specific studies. The locations were refined based on the design-build approach with roadway, utility and other alignments.
Supplemental geotechnical borings determined shaft size and other detail elements. The contractor will self-perform construction of some walls and will rely on a subcontractor to supplement and maintain construction progress, which includes close coordination with fabricators for delivery schedules.
Gullikson explained that developing plans for the design-build project was critical for the start of construction.
"We formed a very early partnership between the contractor, designers and KDOT to determine appropriate release packages either by scope, areas, stages of project wide. This led to approximately 80 release packages with varying due dates, considering the construction schedule, as well as permitting, procurement, review timelines, etc."
Gullikson said in addition to dealing with a fast-paced schedule and working near live traffic, crews have struggled with utilities in the field.
"Aside from the sheer number and proximity of utilities, identifying the locations themselves has been challenging, and has led to additional potholing in some cases to ensure safety and avoid potential strikes.
"Other challenges come from unforeseen site conditions. Rock was anticipated within several excavation areas, but has varied from preliminary expectations and, in some cases, has added to the schedule duration."
The JV is self-performing all grading, storm sewer, bridges, temporary and permanent paving. The project has two concrete batch plants on-site, along with a CTB pugmill, pavers, excavators, dozers, loaders, a Caterpillar 623 scraper, Caterpillar 740 off-road haul trucks, rollers, cranes, forklifts, a manlift, light plants and generators.
The U.S. 69 express lanes are scheduled to be completed by the end of 2025. The entire project, including the West 167th Street interchange, should be finished by 2026. Gullikson credited the field staff, JV partners, KDOT, inspection staff, subcontractors and suppliers with laying the foundation for a successful project.
"The strong relationships and partnership approach among these parties has led to a great start and provides confidence that we'll be able to share future success stories." CEG
These are just like the HOT lanes on I-85 in Gwinnett County, GA. One lane of "express" in each direction.
https://69express.ksdot.gov/express-lanes/#etl-configuration (https://69express.ksdot.gov/express-lanes/#etl-configuration)
Like Gwinnett, they'll almost certainly do little to nothing to alleviate actual daily congestion, but they will be a nice revenue generator when there's an accident and people are paying $1.25 per mile to go 5 mph faster than everyone else.
IMO, these single-lane "express" corridors don't really work. If they'd decided to have reversible express lanes, like the ones on I-75 in Cobb and Clayton Counties, that would've made more sense.
I really have a strong disdain for single lane "express" lanes. Their "value" is shown the very instant a slow-poke douche is tooling along at 10-20mph under the posted speed limit. Motorists using a tolled express lane on I-25 in Colorado are likely experience the next level of pissed off when they get stuck behind a slow poke.
I'm not a big fan of reversible lanes either. But a PAIR of reversible express lanes is far better than single express lanes in each direction. I don't know why there are so many of these single lane things in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro. That goes along with the stupidity of 11' wide skinny lanes that seem to be a growing trend.
I've been saving that for years. Single tolled express always almost always are obstructed by some Karen(or male equivalent) who fucks the lanes up.
If someone going the speed limit or slightly under the limit renders an express lane worthless–then is the main roadway really all that backed up to begin with? Which is to say, if the main roadway is so backed up that the express lane would save you time, then generally it doesn't matter if there's a slowpoke in the express lane: it's still saving you time.
Quote from: kphoger on September 18, 2023, 09:43:00 AM
If someone going the speed limit or slightly under the limit renders an express lane worthless–then is the main roadway really all that backed up to begin with? Which is to say, if the main roadway is so backed up that the express lane would save you time, then generally it doesn't matter if there's a slowpoke in the express lane: it's still saving you time.
The issue I saw in Atlanta (and bear in mind, I
never paid for toll lanes) was that traffic would be slowed down to, let's say, 35mph-or-so in the general lanes. The express lane would be clear with a speed limit of 55mph to 65mph, but some idiot in the express lane would be going right along with the slow traffic, backing up the lane behind them. This caused drivers to illegally cross the double-white line to pass him, creating even more congestion and a safety hazard in the regular travel lanes.
While reversible double lanes won't stop some idiot from driving slowly on the interstate, it does offer the opportunity to safely pass the offending vehicle.
The main reason for building single express lanes on I-85 in Atlanta was that it was (comparatively) inexpensive to convert the existing HOV lanes, which suffered the same problem, into toll lanes. US-169 in Kansas has no such existing infrastructure, and most of the length where it is a 4-lane highway on this project could easily fit reversible lanes in the existing median.
Quote from: fhmiii on September 18, 2023, 10:04:16 AM
Quote from: kphoger on September 18, 2023, 09:43:00 AM
If someone going the speed limit or slightly under the limit renders an express lane worthless–then is the main roadway really all that backed up to begin with? Which is to say, if the main roadway is so backed up that the express lane would save you time, then generally it doesn't matter if there's a slowpoke in the express lane: it's still saving you time.
The issue I saw in Atlanta (and bear in mind, I never paid for toll lanes) was that traffic would be slowed down to, let's say, 35mph-or-so in the general lanes. The express lane would be clear with a speed limit of 55mph to 65mph, but some idiot in the express lane would be going right along with the slow traffic, backing up the lane behind them. This caused drivers to illegally cross the double-white line to pass him, creating even more congestion and a safety hazard in the regular travel lanes.
While reversible double lanes won't stop some idiot from driving slowly on the interstate, it does offer the opportunity to safely pass the offending vehicle.
The main reason for building single express lanes on I-85 in Atlanta was that it was (comparatively) inexpensive to convert the existing HOV lanes, which suffered the same problem, into toll lanes. US-169 in Kansas has no such existing infrastructure, and most of the length where it is a 4-lane highway on this project could easily fit reversible lanes in the existing median.
The illegal lane shifts have also happened on the HOT lanes here in Denver. And, yes, it is tempting to make the lane change when someone is crawling in the HOT lane. The Colorado legislature passed a law to allow for lane enforcement cameras with a $250/pop fine for the state coffers. They started on I-70 this summer and will be in effect on all HOT lanes this fall.
I don't understand why more areas, such as Atlanta, don't use the flex posts between lanes to prevent lane changes - or at least discourage them.
That may also be why people go 40 mph alongside stopped traffic instead of 70 mph... because someone might jump into the lane illegally.
The flex posts would provide more of a barrier and encourage faster driving.
Quote from: kphoger on September 18, 2023, 09:43:00 AM
If someone going the speed limit or slightly under the limit renders an express lane worthless–then is the main roadway really all that backed up to begin with? Which is to say, if the main roadway is so backed up that the express lane would save you time, then generally it doesn't matter if there's a slowpoke in the express lane: it's still saving you time.
An example of Hampton Roads Express Lanes in Virginia under construction... they are building a lot of single express lanes in many areas. There may not be much traffic, but it still may be incentivizing to use them regardless (especially if one is HOV and free) because the speed limit is 65 mph vs. the general purpose 55 mph.
But the second someone is putting along at 60-62 mph in the 65 mph express lane, and you come up doing 65-70 mph, and you cannot physically pass them for miles, will be incredibly aggravating. Especially if the mainline is moving faster at that point.
This would be discouraged if VDOT would just raise the general purpose speed limit to 65 mph... which it should be in most areas... and is the design speed of most roads in the area... but that makes too much sense.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 18, 2023, 06:34:32 PM
I don't understand why more areas, such as Atlanta, don't use the flex posts between lanes to prevent lane changes - or at least discourage them.
That may also be why people go 40 mph alongside stopped traffic instead of 70 mph... because someone might jump into the lane illegally.
The flex posts would provide more of a barrier and encourage faster driving.
Seeing it in action in the Miami area, it discourages changes; doesn't fully stop them. Motorists realized the things bend when driving over them and they pop right back up. So when they're stopped in the general purpose lanes, they wait for what they believe is a decent gap, then they ride over them into the toll lanes.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 18, 2023, 06:36:49 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 18, 2023, 09:43:00 AM
If someone going the speed limit or slightly under the limit renders an express lane worthless–then is the main roadway really all that backed up to begin with? Which is to say, if the main roadway is so backed up that the express lane would save you time, then generally it doesn't matter if there's a slowpoke in the express lane: it's still saving you time.
An example of Hampton Roads Express Lanes in Virginia under construction... they are building a lot of single express lanes in many areas. There may not be much traffic, but it still may be incentivizing to use them regardless (especially if one is HOV and free) because the speed limit is 65 mph vs. the general purpose 55 mph.
But the second someone is putting along at 60-62 mph in the 65 mph express lane, and you come up doing 65-70 mph, and you cannot physically pass them for miles, will be incredibly aggravating. Especially if the mainline is moving faster at that point.
This would be discouraged if VDOT would just raise the general purpose speed limit to 65 mph... which it should be in most areas... and is the design speed of most roads in the area... but that makes too much sense.
See I-91's HOV lanes in CT... Silliest design ever. It's great to beat traffic...until you get stuck behind Grandma.
To be fair, it was an early implementation...
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 18, 2023, 06:34:32 PM
I don't understand why more areas, such as Atlanta, don't use the flex posts between lanes to prevent lane changes - or at least discourage them.
That may also be why people go 40 mph alongside stopped traffic instead of 70 mph... because someone might jump into the lane illegally.
The flex posts would provide more of a barrier and encourage faster driving.
Then you're discouraging revenue generation: $100 to $250 fines.
Quote from: fhmiii on September 19, 2023, 12:42:27 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 18, 2023, 06:34:32 PM
I don't understand why more areas, such as Atlanta, don't use the flex posts between lanes to prevent lane changes - or at least discourage them.
That may also be why people go 40 mph alongside stopped traffic instead of 70 mph... because someone might jump into the lane illegally.
The flex posts would provide more of a barrier and encourage faster driving.
Then you're discouraging revenue generation: $100 to $250 fines.
At the cost of safety.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 19, 2023, 08:28:01 PM
Quote from: fhmiii on September 19, 2023, 12:42:27 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 18, 2023, 06:34:32 PM
I don't understand why more areas, such as Atlanta, don't use the flex posts between lanes to prevent lane changes - or at least discourage them.
That may also be why people go 40 mph alongside stopped traffic instead of 70 mph... because someone might jump into the lane illegally.
The flex posts would provide more of a barrier and encourage faster driving.
Then you're discouraging revenue generation: $100 to $250 fines.
At the cost of safety.
<sarcasm>It's amusing that you think safety is a consideration for government.</sarcasm>
In all seriousness, I really do think that some governments believe that most people will follow the rules and not cross the double-white lines; and that the risk of the few people who will cross them is outweighed by the potential revenue from fines.
Looks like HOT lanes are off the menu for K-10 west of I-435. From the Johnson County Post: (https://johnsoncountypost.com/2024/02/07/no-k-10-express-toll-plans-safety-225510)
QuoteK-10 express toll lanes no longer in the cards in Lenexa, Olathe
The Kansas Department of Transportation is no longer considering express toll lanes as a potential solution to K-10 congestion and safety issues in Johnson County.
On Tuesday, Cameron McGowan, the project manager for the K-10 corridor improvements study from engineering firm HNTB, told the Olathe City Council that express toll lanes wouldn't "manage congestion" enough long-term to justify adding them.
Still, McGowan said state transportation officials are exploring other strategies to address long-standing issues on the highway, which has grown increasingly busier in recent years.
About 17.5 miles of K-10 run through Johnson County, primarily through De Soto, Olathe and Lenexa. Local and state officials have long said the highway and the surrounding traffic corridor are in need of serious improvements, repeating time and again concerns about traffic flow and safety.
KDOT sees a number of problems on K-10
K-10 itself has a number of major sharp curves on it, particularly as you get close to where I-435 and K-10 merge in Lenexa. Daily traffic counts on the highway are high, as well: KDOT has estimated there are about 80,000 cars each day traveling K-10 east of Cedar Creek Parkway in Olathe. Infrastructure — including bridges — is also outdated or insufficient in some areas, officials say.
K-10 work has been a hot topic over the years
Past studies of the area and other improvement plans — including a big chunk of the 2011 "Johnson County Gateway" project plan — have failed to amount to meaningful change.
Express toll lanes were first floated publicly as a potential element of long-planned K-10 improvements last fall in a similar presentation to the Olathe City Council.
Last year, McGowan said express tolls could potentially be added going both ways between Cedar Creek Parkway in Olathe and where K-10 terminates at I-435, though details beyond what that might have looked like were sparse.
KDOT considering new K-10 interchanges, overpasses
KDOT's emphasis for K-10 right now is on more focused improvements, like where interchanges or overpasses could be added along K-10. For instance, McGowan said Tuesday that the department is mulling a possible overpass at Clare Road in Olathe and a diamond interchange or overpass at Lone Elm Road. KDOT is also looking at ways to address the harsh curve at K-10 and I-435 and possibly add more regular traffic lanes to K-10 between I-435 and K-7.
"This is our starting point," McGowan said Tuesday.
Next steps
No decisions have been made about what projects to improve K-10 will be done and when. More than likely, McGowan said, any work will be divided over the next couple of decades. In the meantime, KDOT intends to give more public presentations and keep open a survey for residents. Later, public meetings are planned for April and over the summer to continue discussions.