AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Central States => Topic started by: situveux1 on January 30, 2013, 10:35:50 PM

Title: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: situveux1 on January 30, 2013, 10:35:50 PM
I read this article in my hometown newspaper and thought it was interesting. Has anyone else seen articles like this in the rest of the state?

http://www.marionrecord.com
(http://www.marionrecord.com)
QuoteKansas Department of Transportation wants Marion County to take over three "spur routes"  (short state highways into towns) in return for a one-time payment; Joe Palic of KDOT floated a figure of $200,000 per mile on Monday.

The three routes in question are K-215, about one-quarter mile from K-15 into Goessel; K-168, about one-half mile from U.S. 56 into Lehigh; and K-256, about five miles from U.S. 77, through Marion, and to U.S. 56.

County Commissioners were unsure about the two shorter routes but saw K-256, and in particular the pair of bridges over the Cottonwood River west of Marion, as too big of a burden at even twice the proposed $200,000/mile payment.

Road and Bridge Superintendent Randy Crawford said replacement of either bridge, when it is needed eventually, would cost millions of dollars. Palic said the consensus that KDOT had heard from counties as it tries to reduce its miles of highways is that $200,000 per mile isn't enough.

Palic reiterated that the number discussed wasn't final. Commissioner Dan Holub asked whether it was an all-or-nothing proposal. Could the county accept K-168 and K-215 but leave K-256 in KDOT's hands? Palic said he didn't know for sure, but he thought KDOT would be happy to turn over the two smaller highways.

Commission Chairman Randy Dallke said Goessel City Council might be happy to have K-215 become a county or city street, so they wouldn't need KDOT approval to change the speed limit on the road. Dallke said he would want to talk to Goessel City Council before making any decision.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: Scott5114 on January 30, 2013, 11:17:15 PM
Direct link: http://marionrecord.com/direct/state_requests_county_takeover+4419high+537461746520726571756573747320636f756e74792074616b656f766572
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: J N Winkler on January 30, 2013, 11:52:54 PM
To answer the question in the OP:  I haven't heard of anything like this in Wichita and vicinity, but then we have precious few spur routes left to eliminate (K-163 from US 54 to Garden Plain is the only one that comes immediately to mind).
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: Scott5114 on January 31, 2013, 06:48:24 PM
This is presumably part of KDOT policy of removing routes that are wholly within urban areas, is it not?
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: situveux1 on January 31, 2013, 07:00:51 PM
No, K-215 and K-168 extend from the main highway to the city limits. K-256 is Main Street in Marion but has several miles outside the city limits, both east and west of the city.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: J N Winkler on January 31, 2013, 07:15:47 PM
My guess is that they are looking to make room under the mileage cap since they will soon have the SLT to worry about.  (If memory serves, Sedgwick and Johnson counties have a carve-out from the county mileage cap, and possibly from the statewide 10,000-mile cap as well, but neither applies to Douglas county.)
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: situveux1 on January 31, 2013, 07:46:28 PM
That was my assumption too. I don't know if it's specifically tied to SLT since I would assume they would return the old K-10 from Iowa to the new junction over the the city and county, but I would think it's involved somehow. I know they've eliminated several spur routes over the past 10-15 years just looking at their route log changes on KDOT's website. Is it just a new push overall to rid the state of maintenance and make the budget look better? New push from a new KDOT Secretary?

I know they just recently eliminated Bus-81 through Lindsborg which picked them up just under 4 miles. There again, part of it was concurrent with K-4, but the southern half was mostly outside the city. I'm not sure how to see how much they paid the city or McPherson County to return it.

If they really wanted to pick up some miles, they should look at returning K-51 in Morton County back over from K-27 to the Colorado state line. Google maps puts it at 7.8 miles. I've always wondered about it. Old Colorado state maps show there used to be a Colorado-51 meeting it but they eliminated CO-51 decades ago. Of course, they can't do it until I get to drive it! I missed out on K-38.

----------

Edit: Got to looking around KDOT and found this document: https://idmweb.ksdot.org/publiclib/doccontent.dll?LibraryName=PublicDocs%5Edt00mx38&SystemType=2&LogonId=08172444ed4a3a7415b2911d28284338&DocId=003794871:1 (https://idmweb.ksdot.org/publiclib/doccontent.dll?LibraryName=PublicDocs%5Edt00mx38&SystemType=2&LogonId=08172444ed4a3a7415b2911d28284338&DocId=003794871:1)

Looks like Bus-81 was part of getting the K-61 expressway. Also looks like K-14 and 61 in southern and western Reno County is getting a makeover, along with K-175 and 86 in McPherson County (as in the latter two are eliminated.) I haven't been through those areas lately to know if they've executed this yet.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: route56 on January 31, 2013, 07:52:58 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 31, 2013, 07:15:47 PM
My guess is that they are looking to make room under the mileage cap since they will soon have the SLT to worry about.  (If memory serves, Sedgwick and Johnson counties have a carve-out from the county mileage cap, and possibly from the statewide 10,000-mile cap as well, but neither applies to Douglas county.)

Doubtful on the SLT, since there isn't that much of a difference in mileage between the SLT and the existing 23rd Street east of Iowa.

It appears, especially since KDOT is proposing a one-time cash payment for Marion county to accept responsibility of these routes, that they looking at removing lower-volume routes more aggressively.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: J N Winkler on February 01, 2013, 10:39:29 AM
Quote from: situveux1 on January 31, 2013, 07:46:28 PMEdit: Got to looking around KDOT and found this document: https://idmweb.ksdot.org/publiclib/doccontent.dll?LibraryName=PublicDocs%5Edt00mx38&SystemType=2&LogonId=08172444ed4a3a7415b2911d28284338&DocId=003794871:1 (https://idmweb.ksdot.org/publiclib/doccontent.dll?LibraryName=PublicDocs%5Edt00mx38&SystemType=2&LogonId=08172444ed4a3a7415b2911d28284338&DocId=003794871:1)

Sorry--that URL doesn't work because it contains session information, but this one does (https://idmweb.ksdot.org/PublicLib/publicDoc.asp?ID=003794871).  Did you find this through the "Rural Resolutions" search page?
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: situveux1 on February 01, 2013, 02:14:26 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 01, 2013, 10:39:29 AM
Quote from: situveux1 on January 31, 2013, 07:46:28 PMEdit: Got to looking around KDOT and found this document: https://idmweb.ksdot.org/publiclib/doccontent.dll?LibraryName=PublicDocs%5Edt00mx38&SystemType=2&LogonId=08172444ed4a3a7415b2911d28284338&DocId=003794871:1 (https://idmweb.ksdot.org/publiclib/doccontent.dll?LibraryName=PublicDocs%5Edt00mx38&SystemType=2&LogonId=08172444ed4a3a7415b2911d28284338&DocId=003794871:1)

Sorry--that URL doesn't work because it contains session information, but this one does (https://idmweb.ksdot.org/PublicLib/publicDoc.asp?ID=003794871).  Did you find this through the "Rural Resolutions" search page?

Sorry, didn't realize that wouldn't work. I tried it myself but I guess it would still work for me! I went to the maps part of KDOT's website, then Highway and Route Changes then Official Highway Resolution Documents, then just searched by McPherson County. I know you're way more adept at finding things on KDOT's website than I am, I usually just fall into stuff. I'm usually the last to notice stuff, but the last trip down 135 I did notice all of the Bus-81 signs were down at Lindsborg, and now I guess I know why. I'm a little surprised the state required so much roadway to be returned to Reno and McPherson Counties for completing K-61. Do you know, is the state mileage cap based on 2 lanes or 4 lanes? (i.e. Would having K-61 go from 2 to 4 lanes double the milage as far as the state mileage cap is concerned?) I guess I always just assumed the cap was in relation to the miles regardless of 2, 4 or more lanes.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: J N Winkler on February 01, 2013, 02:49:55 PM
AIUI, the mileage cap applies to total centerline mileage, but only lengths of road which are state highways in law count against it.  State highways include the Interstates in their entirety plus the lengths of state and US routes which lie outside incorporated cities.  The portions of state and US routes which lie within cities are called "city connecting links" in KDOT parlance and there is a split of responsibility between KDOT and the localities (KDOT, for example, still handles signing on CCLs).  There is a separate cap per county which is designed to limit the total mileage of state highway in a given county to that required to cross it from north to south and east to west, but there are some exceptions--populous counties like Sedgwick and Johnson get carve-outs, Interstates don't count against the county cap, etc.

It sounds like the bread crumb trail you describe leads to the Rural Resolutions page, which deal with state highways (in the legal sense).  There is a separate page listing CCL agreements between various cities and KDOT.

http://kdotapp2.ksdot.org/RuralResolutions/RuralResolutions.aspx

http://kdotapp2.ksdot.org/IDMWS/kdot/12/resolutions/cclresolution.asp

In the case of US 81 Business, it sounds like the turnback had as much to do with limiting the amount of maintained roadway surface area under KDOT jurisdiction as it did with staying under the mileage cap.

Looking at your and Richie's analysis above, I have come to reject my theory that mileage cap considerations plus SLT are driving the latest round of proposed turnbacks in Marion county.  It might be that, in addition to a general policy of deleting low-volume state highways, KDOT is also seeking to trade away maintained surface area to make room for two- to four-lane expansions, such as US 69 in Cherokee county, the proposed K-68 expressway between US 169 and US 69, etc.  (Assuming KDOT deletes 23rd Street instead of keeping it as a K-10 business routing, the SLT will not add that much maintained square footage since both 23rd Street and the SLT will have two lanes in each direction.)
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: situveux1 on February 01, 2013, 03:01:51 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 01, 2013, 02:49:55 PM
AIUI, the mileage cap applies to total centerline mileage, but only lengths of road which are state highways in law count against it.  State highways include the Interstates in their entirety plus the lengths of state and US routes which lie outside incorporated cities.  The portions of state and US routes which lie within cities are called "city connecting links" in KDOT parlance and there is a split of responsibility between KDOT and the localities (KDOT, for example, still handles signing on CCLs).  There is a separate cap per county which is designed to limit the total mileage of state highway in a given county to that required to cross it from north to south and east to west, but there are some exceptions--populous counties like Sedgwick and Johnson get carve-outs, Interstates don't count against the county cap, etc.

It sounds like the bread crumb trail you describe leads to the Rural Resolutions page, which deal with state highways (in the legal sense).  There is a separate page listing CCL agreements between various cities and KDOT.

http://kdotapp2.ksdot.org/RuralResolutions/RuralResolutions.aspx

http://kdotapp2.ksdot.org/IDMWS/kdot/12/resolutions/cclresolution.asp

In the case of US 81 Business, it sounds like the turnback had as much to do with limiting the amount of maintained roadway surface area under KDOT jurisdiction as it did with staying under the mileage cap.

Looking at your and Richie's analysis above, I have come to reject my theory that mileage cap considerations plus SLT are driving the latest round of proposed turnbacks in Marion county.  It might be that, in addition to a general policy of deleting low-volume state highways, KDOT is also seeking to trade away maintained surface area to make room for two- to four-lane expansions, such as US 69 in Cherokee county, the proposed K-68 expressway between US 169 and US 69, etc.  (Assuming KDOT deletes 23rd Street instead of keeping it as a K-10 business routing, the SLT will not add that much maintained square footage since both 23rd Street and the SLT will have two lanes in each direction.)

Really great explanation, very much appreciated, as well as the great links. As the original article seems to hint, the KDOT representative acknowledged that $200,000 per mile was not enough for other counties they had approached either, so I think there's going to be quite a bit of mileage reduction in the next 2-4 years. It'll be interesting to see just how much they end up having to pay to unload these smaller spur routes.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: route56 on February 03, 2013, 06:39:02 PM
Messing around in the Rural Resolutions page, I did find this little nugget:

http://idmweb.ksdot.org/publiclib/publicdoc.asp?ID=003709868:1

K-168 is a segment of old US 50N/US 56 that was retained when 56 was realigned to eliminate two short-radius curves between Lehigh and the Marion/McPherson County line.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: apeman33 on February 04, 2013, 01:09:29 AM
I think it's sort of silly to reroute K-14 in the manner they describe. I'd propose rerouting K-14 east from Kingman to the current K-17, then redesignating K-17 as K-14 to where it meets K-96, then continue as a duplex with K-96 to Lyons. Then you turn back even more mileage to the counties and I doubt that anyone who just happens to be going from Kingman to Arlington would miss K-14 all that much as long as Kingman County can keep the road in decent shape.

Either that or reroute K-14 as I described and give K-14 from U.S. 54 to Arlington a new number.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: bugo on February 04, 2013, 11:33:27 PM
Quote from: apeman33 on February 04, 2013, 01:09:29 AM
I think it's sort of silly to reroute K-14 in the manner they describe. I'd propose rerouting K-14 east from Kingman to the current K-17, then redesignating K-17 as K-14 to where it meets K-96, then continue as a duplex with K-96 to Lyons. Then you turn back even more mileage to the counties and I doubt that anyone who just happens to be going from Kingman to Arlington would miss K-14 all that much as long as Kingman County can keep the road in decent shape.

Either that or reroute K-14 as I described and give K-14 from U.S. 54 to Arlington a new number.

According to the 2013-14 KDOT map, that's exactly what they did.  K-14 now runs along US 54-400 from Kingman to Waterloo, then northwest along K-96.  Old K-14 between US 54-400 and K-61 is now K-11.  Old K-14 between K-61 and K-96 has been decommissioned.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: WichitaRoads on February 05, 2013, 02:53:44 PM
Has the signage been put in place for this? I was in Kingman on Friday, and didn't see any of that as evident. And, does this mean K-17 is officially dead?

ICTRds
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: bugo on February 05, 2013, 04:25:28 PM
Quote from: WichitaRoads on February 05, 2013, 02:53:44 PM
Has the signage been put in place for this? I was in Kingman on Friday, and didn't see any of that as evident. And, does this mean K-17 is officially dead?

There's no mention of K-17 on the 2013 map.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: route56 on February 05, 2013, 07:51:59 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 01, 2013, 02:49:55 PM
There is a separate cap per county which is designed to limit the total mileage of state highway in a given county to that required to cross it from north to south and east to west, but there are some exceptions--populous counties like Sedgwick and Johnson get carve-outs, Interstates don't count against the county cap, etc.

I have to wonder if there is a county 'cap'

Quote from: KSA 68-406
a) The secretary of transportation shall designate, adopt and establish and may lay out, open, relocate, alter, vacate, remove, redesignate and reestablish highways in every county in the state, the total mileage of which shall not exceed 10,000 miles. The total mileage of such highways in each county shall be not less than the sum of the north to south and east to west diameters of the county.
(emphasis mine)

Also, going through some of the Rural Resolutions, the mileage cap, at least at one time, did not count spur routes to state or federal lakes.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: J N Winkler on February 05, 2013, 09:14:29 PM
Quote from: route56 on February 05, 2013, 07:51:59 PMI have to wonder if there is a county 'cap'

Quote from: KSA 68-406(a) The secretary of transportation shall designate, adopt and establish and may lay out, open, relocate, alter, vacate, remove, redesignate and reestablish highways in every county in the state, the total mileage of which shall not exceed 10,000 miles. The total mileage of such highways in each county shall be not less than the sum of the north to south and east to west diameters of the county.
(emphasis mine)

My apologies--I was going by memory.  It does look like the "county cap" is, in fact, a county floor.  I also remembered there being carve-outs for at least Sedgwick and Johnson counties, but if that was indeed the case in the past, it is no longer so.

I have had a look at other portions of KSA § 68-406 (http://kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/statute/068_000_0000_chapter/068_004_0000_article/068_004_0006_section/068_004_0006_k/).  Clause (b), dealing with city connecting links, is worded in a rather confusing way, but I interpret it as follows:

*  With the sole exception of Interstate loops and spurs, a city connecting link cannot exist without a length of state highway to anchor it to land that is not within the jurisdiction of an incorporated city in Kansas.  (It is not clear what happens when this anchor connection is broken by annexation, so that the entirety of a given non-Interstate route is within city limits.  Is it saved as long as there is a path along CCLs that exits the city limits, even if that routing uses other routes?  In the past we have speculated this may have been a factor in some reroutings or system deletions in suburban Johnson County.)

*  City connecting links are not part of the state highway system and so do not count against the mileage cap.  However, the county floor requirement applies to state highways and CCLs cannot be used to satisfy it.  In some heavily urbanized counties, this theoretically could have the perverse effect of encouraging KDOT to create or retain functionally unnecessary spurs and to keep long state highway routings on the books in order to stay above the minimum mileage requirement.

*  The Kansas Turnpike is not a state highway, nor are its urban lengths CCLs.  (Contrast the position in some other states, such as Texas, where toll roads are typically state highways regardless of location or whether the administering agency is the state DOT.)

*  Untolled Interstates within cities, contrary to my past understanding, are not in fact state highways but rather are CCLs.

QuoteAlso, going through some of the Rural Resolutions, the mileage cap, at least at one time, did not count spur routes to state or federal lakes.

This is still the case:  see clause (d).  The reason for this is that such spur routes are not part of the state highway system and do not need to be constructed to the standards applicable to state highways.

I also had a look at KSA § 68-406a (http://kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/statute/068_000_0000_chapter/068_004_0000_article/068_004_0006a_section/068_004_0006a_k/).  The intent of this section is clearly to give the KDOT secretary the power to cooperate with other states in creating multi-state routes in situations where the sole obstacle to route continuity through Kansas is an unimproved length of county road, of no greater than fifteen miles in length.

It is my recollection that Chapter 68 of the Kansas statutes used to have language providing for the existence of a system of county roads (subject to a 25,000-mile cap) which were designed to function as feeders to the state highways (in effect, as a system of secondary state highways).  I think this system was linked to preferential funding compared to other county highways.  However, the relevant language seems to have disappeared.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 05, 2013, 09:30:51 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 05, 2013, 09:14:29 PMcarve-outs for at least Sedgwick and Johnson counties

what is a carve-out?
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: bugo on February 05, 2013, 10:25:00 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 05, 2013, 09:14:29 PM
*  Untolled Interstates within cities, contrary to my past understanding, are not in fact state highways but rather are CCLs.

What about state highways such as K-10 and US highways such as US 75?
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: J N Winkler on February 06, 2013, 10:14:30 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 05, 2013, 09:30:51 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 05, 2013, 09:14:29 PMcarve-outs for at least Sedgwick and Johnson counties

what is a carve-out?

It is an exception written into law for a specific entity or group of entities.

Quote from: Stalin on February 05, 2013, 10:25:00 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 05, 2013, 09:14:29 PM*  Untolled Interstates within cities, contrary to my past understanding, are not in fact state highways but rather are CCLs.

What about state highways such as K-10 and US highways such as US 75?

Then the rural lengths are state highway while the lengths within incorporated cities are CCLs.  The only situation where the distinction between an Interstate loop or spur and another form of state route comes into play is when a state route runs entirely within a city.  KSA § 68-406(b) implies that the latter case cannot legally exist.

(Personally, if I were designing Kansas state highway legislation from scratch, I would probably use a sliding cap based on a set percentage of total highway mileage instead of a fixed value of 10,000 miles, and not use a rigid distinction between [rural] state highways and city connecting links which invites confusion and trouble as cities expand.  There are other sections of the state road laws that seem obsolete, such as a requirement that KDOT ensure that construction plans and proposals for advertised highway projects are available for viewing in the office of the county clerk in the county where the work is to take place.  Why wouldn't you just mandate Web upload instead--which KDOT does now on its own account?)
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: kphoger on February 06, 2013, 11:43:47 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 05, 2013, 09:14:29 PM
Quote from: route56 on February 05, 2013, 07:51:59 PM
Also, going through some of the Rural Resolutions, the mileage cap, at least at one time, did not count spur routes to state or federal lakes.

This is still the case:  see clause (d).  The reason for this is that such spur routes are not part of the state highway system and do not need to be constructed to the standards applicable to state highways.

Is K-105 considered a spur to a state or federal lake?  The portion that runs through the town of Toronto didn't seem like a "real" state highway to me, but that might make sense now.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: route56 on February 06, 2013, 12:12:41 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 06, 2013, 11:43:47 AM
Is K-105 considered a spur to a state or federal lake?  The portion that runs through the town of Toronto didn't seem like a "real" state highway to me, but that might make sense now.

K-105 was initially built as a spur from US 54 to Toronto when 54 was realigned.  It was extended to the lake under KSA §68-106(d)

I've been hooked on the rural resolutions page.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: situveux1 on February 07, 2013, 10:03:48 PM
Changes to state highways cause confusion

http://www.kwch.com/news/kwch-news-jlr-changes-to-state-highways-cause-confusion-20130207,0,1003584.story (http://www.kwch.com/news/kwch-news-jlr-changes-to-state-highways-cause-confusion-20130207,0,1003584.story)
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: apeman33 on February 07, 2013, 10:17:02 PM
That's a consequence of having E-911 systems. Every place in a county has an address and when you change the routing of a highway, you change perhaps tens of thousands of addresses.

Labette County appears to be trying to get around that somewhat. When U.S. 160 was moved, the county had to change addresses on three roads: Former K-96, Former U.S. 160 and on the road that had to be upgraded or removed for U.S. 400. So the signs along each of those highways display the number the road would have if it were NOT a highway ("24000 Rd." instead of "US 400" east of Parsons, for example). I guess that way, if KDOT changes the routes again, Labette County doesn't have to change the addresses.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: bugo on February 07, 2013, 10:25:57 PM
The 400-160-96 swap was stupid.  If nothing else, they should have left 160 where it is and made 96 into 400.  But they had to confuse everybody for no gain.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: apeman33 on February 07, 2013, 10:39:35 PM
Parsons SO badly wanted 400. I think they thought it was going to create a boom. Not so much. And on top of that, Walmart moved clear out to the other side of the bypass to the point where it's probably easier to get there from Erie than anywhere inside Parsons.

Edit: And there was also going to be that "southeast diagonal" that would make 400 to Riverton/Baxter Springs more direct. I'm not sure that will ever be constructed.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: situveux1 on February 07, 2013, 11:06:03 PM
Just watched the story on KWCH. According to them, KDOT has not switched out the signs and it could be up to 5 weeks before they're changed. Too bad they didn't explain why the changes were made.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: WichitaRoads on February 08, 2013, 02:27:36 AM
I see an issue with KWCH's story... their map shows K-14 x'ed out as an alignment running up along K-61 from Arlington.

IT NEVER DID THAT! It went north out of Arlington to meet K-96 as it bent northward toward Sterling.

ICTRds
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: J N Winkler on February 08, 2013, 10:52:43 AM
My chief issue with the KWCH story is the claim by a local official that KDOT did not bother to give advance warning of the revision in route numbers.  The Kansas statutes give the KDOT secretary total discretion in adopting and vacating state highways, but for a variety of reasons--including the ones cited upthread having to do with E-911 routing--professionalism calls for cities and counties to be given considerable advance notice of any proposed revisions in route numbering.  Was the ball dropped, and if so, who dropped it?  The reporter didn't drill down into this aspect of the story.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: route56 on February 08, 2013, 06:48:03 PM
Sometimes, you just can't win.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: apeman33 on February 09, 2013, 06:53:55 PM
Quote from: WichitaRoads on February 08, 2013, 02:27:36 AM
I see an issue with KWCH's story... their map shows K-14 x'ed out as an alignment running up along K-61 from Arlington.

IT NEVER DID THAT! It went north out of Arlington to meet K-96 as it bent northward toward Sterling.

ICTRds

That was the original plan before deciding on the K-14/K-17 swap and using K-11 instead. I don't know if this is part of the confusion. The report doesn't make that clear (well, of course it didn't; they're confused).

I don't know if Reno County will have to worry much about changing addresses. I think their roads are only named after the highway when the road is a diagonal, so the due north-south sections probably had other names. The various parts of U.S. 50 in Reno County going due east-west are named for the road that the section is in line with (Illinois Ave., Mills Ave,. Blanchard Ave., etc.) I've only seen "US 50" on the street blades when it's running at an angle. So instead of running emergency personnel to "K-14," "K-17," or "K-11" they should be going to Hodge Rd. (Now K-11), Sego Rd. (abandoned K-14), or ...

Whups, Yahoo maps shows "K-17" is named "State Road 17." It probably should have been named "Monroe St."
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: route56 on February 10, 2013, 01:08:05 AM
I've updated my Kansas Highways page with new K-11 entry:

http://www.route56.com/highways/highways.php?hwy=11&hist=1

There have now been three distinct highways in Kansas that have carried the number "11,"

Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: route56 on February 11, 2013, 11:47:42 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 05, 2013, 09:14:29 PM
My apologies--I was going by memory.  It does look like the "county cap" is, in fact, a county floor.  I also remembered there being carve-outs for at least Sedgwick and Johnson counties, but if that was indeed the case in the past, it is no longer so.

There has to be at least an implied exemption for Wyandotte county, as there is zero miles of state highway - it's all C. C. L., plus the Kansas Turnpike.

Quote
It is my recollection that Chapter 68 of the Kansas statutes used to have language providing for the existence of a system of county roads (subject to a 25,000-mile cap) which were designed to function as feeders to the state highways (in effect, as a system of secondary state highways).  I think this system was linked to preferential funding compared to other county highways.  However, the relevant language seems to have disappeared.

The state re-designated the Rural Secondary highway as "Major Collector" roadways under 25 C.F.R.  See KSA §68-1701 (http://kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/statute/068_000_0000_chapter/068_017_0000_article/068_017_0001_section/068_017_0001_k/)
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: situveux1 on February 17, 2013, 10:52:17 PM
Not a very good picture (I was late and phone wouldn't cooperate!) but as you can see, the Bus-81 shields are down on I-135. I thought it looked odd that they didn't recenter the K-4 shields. The 1/2 mile and 1 mile BGS looked exactly the same.

http://flic.kr/p/dVF7Kg (http://flic.kr/p/dVF7Kg)
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: WichitaRoads on February 18, 2013, 04:25:55 PM
Quote from: situveux1 on February 17, 2013, 10:52:17 PM
Not a very good picture (I was late and phone wouldn't cooperate!) but as you can see, the Bus-81 shields are down on I-135. I thought it looked odd that they didn't recenter the K-4 shields. The 1/2 mile and 1 mile BGS looked exactly the same.

http://flic.kr/p/dVF7Kg (http://flic.kr/p/dVF7Kg)

I was through there the next day after you. I was thinking the same thing about positioning. You can still see the ghosting of the old letters and shield. It seems really sad to me.

ICTRds
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: apeman33 on February 19, 2013, 01:22:08 AM
Quote from: WichitaRoads on February 18, 2013, 04:25:55 PM
Quote from: situveux1 on February 17, 2013, 10:52:17 PM
Not a very good picture (I was late and phone wouldn't cooperate!) but as you can see, the Bus-81 shields are down on I-135. I thought it looked odd that they didn't recenter the K-4 shields. The 1/2 mile and 1 mile BGS looked exactly the same.

http://flic.kr/p/dVF7Kg (http://flic.kr/p/dVF7Kg)

I was through there the next day after you. I was thinking the same thing about positioning. You can still see the ghosting of the old letters and shield. It's seems really sad to me.

ICTRds

KDOT did the same thing with BGSes along U.S. 400 when U.S. 160 was rerouted and K-96 was truncated. It leads to way off-center U.S. 169 shields on the BGSes there, plus the fact that westbound U.S. 160 used to leave 400 there and follow 169 south through Cherryvale, so the sign is also now too tall because both a 160 shield and "WEST" were both taken off.

Similar story at U.S. 75, where "EAST" and the K-96 shield were taken off. Also consider how long of a word "INDEPENDENCE" is and you have a really goofy looking sign with a lot of wasted space.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: route56 on June 17, 2013, 05:03:21 PM
THREAD EXHUMATION INITIATED...

A couple of months ago, I saw a article in the Jefferson County newspaper indicating that KDOT was wanting to turn the spur highways to Meriden (K-245) and Williamstown (K-76) over to the county.

I happened to be at the county courthouse today during a commission meeting. I dropped in at the end of the meeting and inquired about the status of the proposal. The commission indicated that they had accepted KDOT's offer.

Therefore, I will be updating the Kansas Highways database to reflect the change (signs are still up at last check)

Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: route56 on July 04, 2013, 05:27:31 PM
It isn't just spur roads that KDOT is looking to unload, according to the Lawrence Journal-World

http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/town_talk/2013/jun/25/city-considering-35-million-swap-with-kd/
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/jul/03/editorial-street-swap/

Basically, KDOT's looking to drop the US 40 designation from 6th Street west of Iowa. According to Chad Lawhorn of the J-W, KDOT would route 40 along K-10 around the west side of town, then back north on 59 to 6th and Iowa [6th Street east of Iowa would remain a City Connection Link designated US 40 and US 59]
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: WichitaRoads on July 05, 2013, 03:11:10 PM
Quote from: route56 on July 04, 2013, 05:27:31 PM
It isn't just spur roads that KDOT is looking to unload, according to the Lawrence Journal-World

http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/town_talk/2013/jun/25/city-considering-35-million-swap-with-kd/
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/jul/03/editorial-street-swap/

Basically, KDOT's looking to drop the US 40 designation from 6th Street west of Iowa. According to Chad Lawhorn of the J-W, KDOT would route 40 along K-10 around the west side of town, then back north on 59 to 6th and Iowa [6th Street east of Iowa would remain a City Connection Link designated US 40 and US 59]

Granted, US 40 doesn't have to have effective continuity these days, not being the main route of travel through the area... but, what the hell? They want to take a 4 mile stretch and extend it to 10.4 miles? I mean, yes, it would go along a route they are already responsible for, and so they save $$$, but it seems insane in terms of driveability.

My guess is, anyone in the area used to using "Free Forty" will still drive west from Iowa to K-10 along 6th, marked route or not.

ICTRds
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: route56 on August 08, 2013, 06:16:37 PM
Quote from: WichitaRoads on February 18, 2013, 04:25:55 PM
Quote from: situveux1 on February 17, 2013, 10:52:17 PM
Not a very good picture (I was late and phone wouldn't cooperate!) but as you can see, the Bus-81 shields are down on I-135. I thought it looked odd that they didn't recenter the K-4 shields. The 1/2 mile and 1 mile BGS looked exactly the same.

http://flic.kr/p/dVF7Kg (http://flic.kr/p/dVF7Kg)

I was through there the next day after you. I was thinking the same thing about positioning. You can still see the ghosting of the old letters and shield. It seems really sad to me.

ICTRds

My own shot, from on the way to the Wichita meet...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7320%2F9338785339_bc265890de.jpg&hash=cc451a7be39df786c7062cdc759a8672a29df9d3) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/9338785339/)
47052 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/9338785339/) by richiekennedy56 (http://www.flickr.com/people/richiekennedy56/), on Flickr

Also.... UPDATE

The Rural resolutions page shows that 5 spur routes have officially been withdrawn.

Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: yakra on August 08, 2013, 08:37:34 PM
Any confirmation from the field that signage has been removed?
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: Revive 755 on August 08, 2013, 09:37:17 PM
Quote from: WichitaRoads on July 05, 2013, 03:11:10 PM
Quote from: route56 on July 04, 2013, 05:27:31 PM
It isn't just spur roads that KDOT is looking to unload, according to the Lawrence Journal-World

http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/town_talk/2013/jun/25/city-considering-35-million-swap-with-kd/
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/jul/03/editorial-street-swap/

Basically, KDOT's looking to drop the US 40 designation from 6th Street west of Iowa. According to Chad Lawhorn of the J-W, KDOT would route 40 along K-10 around the west side of town, then back north on 59 to 6th and Iowa [6th Street east of Iowa would remain a City Connection Link designated US 40 and US 59]

Granted, US 40 doesn't have to have effective continuity these days, not being the main route of travel through the area... but, what the hell? They want to take a 4 mile stretch and extend it to 10.4 miles? I mean, yes, it would go along a route they are already responsible for, and so they save $$$, but it seems insane in terms of driveability.

Maybe AASHTO will do something useful and disapprove the relocation due to the increase distance.

IMHO, if KDOT wants to turn over 6th Street so badly, they should relocate US 40 by signing US 40 along US 24 (as suggested in the Lawrence newspaper article comments ) from US 59 to somewhere around Topeka, possibly using K-4 to I-70.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: Ned Weasel on August 09, 2013, 10:29:40 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 08, 2013, 09:37:17 PM
Quote from: WichitaRoads on July 05, 2013, 03:11:10 PM
Quote from: route56 on July 04, 2013, 05:27:31 PM
It isn't just spur roads that KDOT is looking to unload, according to the Lawrence Journal-World

http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/town_talk/2013/jun/25/city-considering-35-million-swap-with-kd/
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/jul/03/editorial-street-swap/

Basically, KDOT's looking to drop the US 40 designation from 6th Street west of Iowa. According to Chad Lawhorn of the J-W, KDOT would route 40 along K-10 around the west side of town, then back north on 59 to 6th and Iowa [6th Street east of Iowa would remain a City Connection Link designated US 40 and US 59]

Granted, US 40 doesn't have to have effective continuity these days, not being the main route of travel through the area... but, what the hell? They want to take a 4 mile stretch and extend it to 10.4 miles? I mean, yes, it would go along a route they are already responsible for, and so they save $$$, but it seems insane in terms of driveability.

Maybe AASHTO will do something useful and disapprove the relocation due to the increase distance.

IMHO, if KDOT wants to turn over 6th Street so badly, they should relocate US 40 by signing US 40 along US 24 (as suggested in the Lawrence newspaper article comments ) from US 59 to somewhere around Topeka, possibly using K-4 to I-70.

This (KDOT's idea, I mean) would make sense if the time savings from the lack of traffic signals on that segment of K-10 (there's only one, currently), the reduced number of intersections, and the higher speed limit would cancel out the increased distance of a trip following US 40, but the segment of US 59 between K-10 West and US 40 is almost exactly as long as the segment of US 40 that is proposed to be replaced (and it's even slower, from my experience driving it).

So, unless the travel time used for following US 40 under the proposed re-routing is equal to or less than what it is now (which I doubt, but I'd love to see an estimate somewhere), then I don't see what justifies this, unless maintenance costs to the state really are the most important consideration, in which case, why don't we just eliminate the U.S. Highway system altogether already, if it's that meaningless?
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: Ned Weasel on August 09, 2013, 11:12:08 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 08, 2013, 09:37:17 PM
Quote from: WichitaRoads on July 05, 2013, 03:11:10 PM
Quote from: route56 on July 04, 2013, 05:27:31 PM
It isn't just spur roads that KDOT is looking to unload, according to the Lawrence Journal-World

http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/town_talk/2013/jun/25/city-considering-35-million-swap-with-kd/
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/jul/03/editorial-street-swap/

Basically, KDOT's looking to drop the US 40 designation from 6th Street west of Iowa. According to Chad Lawhorn of the J-W, KDOT would route 40 along K-10 around the west side of town, then back north on 59 to 6th and Iowa [6th Street east of Iowa would remain a City Connection Link designated US 40 and US 59]

Granted, US 40 doesn't have to have effective continuity these days, not being the main route of travel through the area... but, what the hell? They want to take a 4 mile stretch and extend it to 10.4 miles? I mean, yes, it would go along a route they are already responsible for, and so they save $$$, but it seems insane in terms of driveability.

Maybe AASHTO will do something useful and disapprove the relocation due to the increase distance.

IMHO, if KDOT wants to turn over 6th Street so badly, they should relocate US 40 by signing US 40 along US 24 (as suggested in the Lawrence newspaper article comments ) from US 59 to somewhere around Topeka, possibly using K-4 to I-70.

I kind of like your idea, but it raises the question of what to do with the current segment of US 40 between K-4 and K-10.  How about this?  Re-designate that segment as K-10, and then give the remaining segment of the current K-10 a hidden route number and sign it as "TO I-70/Kansas Turnpike" and "TO K-10" (the signage on the Turnpike mainline would be unaffected because the KTA never uses "TO" designations, anywhere*).

(Or is extending K-10 westward too nostalgic?)

*I realized, long after I posted this, that there is a "TO I-70" designation on the new northbound pull-through sign at Exit 127.  But it still stands that the KTA never uses "TO" designations on signage for exits, even though many cases would normally warrant it.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: apeman33 on August 10, 2013, 12:19:49 AM
Quote from: route56 on August 08, 2013, 06:16:37 PM
The Rural resolutions page shows that 5 spur routes have officially been withdrawn.

  • K-219, Seward County, April 15 (KA-3218-01)
  • K-163, Sedgwick County, June 1 (KA-3220-01)
  • K-277, Crawford County, June 1 (KA-3221-01)
  • K-46, Rice County, June 3 (KA-3219-01)
  • K-201, Neosho County, June 2 (KA-3222-01)
That one sure had a short shelf life. Did K-277 even exist for 10 years? And I wondered what was up with K-163 when I passed by Garden Plain earlier this summer. I presume Garden Plain annexed land most of the way out to U.S. 54.

Also, K-219 serves served the town of Seward in Stafford County rather than any place in Seward County.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: route56 on August 10, 2013, 08:16:35 AM
Quote from: stridentweasel on August 09, 2013, 11:12:08 PM
I kind of like your idea, but it raises the question of what to do with the current segment of US 40 between K-4 and K-10.  How about this?  Re-designate that segment as K-10, and then give the remaining segment of the current K-10 a hidden route number and sign it as "TO I-70/Kansas Turnpike" and "TO K-10" (the signage on the Turnpike mainline would be unaffected because the KTA never uses "TO" designations, anywhere).

(Or is extending K-10 westward too nostalgic?)

More than likely, KDOT would be looking at unloading that segment of 40 as well. Of the three routes between Lawrence and the north side of Topeka, it is the narrowest and the one with the most curves.

Quote from: apeman33 on August 10, 2013, 12:19:49 AM
That one sure had a short shelf life. Did K-277 even exist for 10 years?

21 Years, 4/22/92-6/1/13. However, technically, it was never part of the State Highway system.... it was a 68-406(d) route
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: situveux1 on September 20, 2013, 10:41:06 PM
I had to sit back and chuckle a little bit when reading my hometown paper online this week. I don't know how to link directly to the article, so here are the better parts... www.marionrecord.com (http://www.marionrecord.com)

QuoteSome in Marion County are requesting the state make Remington Road from U.S. 56 to Pilsen an extension of K-256.

According to Rose Mary Neuwirth, curator of the Kapaun museum at Pilsen, traffic to Pilsen has increased exponentially since native son Father Emil Kapaun posthumously received the Medal of Honor in April. He may be declared a Saint by the Roman Catholic Church in the future.

"We are swamped,"  Neuwirth said.

Many people are coming from out-of-state and stopping in Pilsen on their travels from one state to another. Others come on tour buses or in car caravans.

...

Neuwirth said she tries to instruct people coming from the south to access Pilsen from 290th Rd., but they do not understand why they should go so far out of their way. They would rather follow their GPS units.

"If Kapaun achieves sainthood, I don't know how we will do it,"  Neuwirth said.

...

Kansas Department of Transportation area superintendent Joe Palic was unsure of the process for new stretches of highway to be added to the highway system. He inquired with Dennis R. Slimmer, chief of transportation.

"The statute states that changes can be made when the public safety, convenience, economy, classification, or reclassification requires such change,"  Slimmer wrote back. "Based on a preliminary review of the traffic counts that we have available for the road in question, it doesn't appear to meet the requirements for consideration as an addition to the state highway system. Our latest counts do not show an increase in traffic.

"However, if there is additional information or mitigating circumstances that should be considered, we would be happy to review that information to further evaluate its eligibility as a state highway."

KDOT wants to unload K-256 entirely and now some in the county want them to take on more mileage.

Also, went west on 50 from Newton to Dodge City and kept a look out for new K-14 signage on WB-50 through Hutchinson, but not too many new shields to be found. Not a lot of thought in posting new K-14 shields, just like when US-169 was re-routed on I-35 in JoCo.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: Ned Weasel on September 22, 2013, 03:53:35 AM
Quote from: situveux1 on September 20, 2013, 10:41:06 PM
Also, went west on 50 from Newton to Dodge City and kept a look out for new K-14 signage on WB-50 through Hutchinson, but not too many new shields to be found. Not a lot of thought in posting new K-14 shields, just like when US-169 was re-routed on I-35 in JoCo.

This practice really irks me, especially considering KDOT used to be really good about signing all US and state routes, even if only using supplemental post-mounted signs for secondary routes.  Do you think the idea is that, highway designations are being re-routed so frequently these days in Kansas that KDOT has just decided to say "f--- it" when it comes to signing secondary routes?
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: route56 on September 22, 2013, 10:45:28 PM
Quote from: situveux1 on September 20, 2013, 10:41:06 PM
Also, went west on 50 from Newton to Dodge City and kept a look out for new K-14 signage on WB-50 through Hutchinson, but not too many new shields to be found.

Well, There's only a 1.262 mile duplex between US 50 and K-14/K-96. If you stayed on 50, there wouldn't be too many K-14 shields to begin with :)
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: situveux1 on September 23, 2013, 01:46:55 PM
Quote from: route56 on September 22, 2013, 10:45:28 PM
Quote from: situveux1 on September 20, 2013, 10:41:06 PM
Also, went west on 50 from Newton to Dodge City and kept a look out for new K-14 signage on WB-50 through Hutchinson, but not too many new shields to be found.

Well, There's only a 1.262 mile duplex between US 50 and K-14/K-96. If you stayed on 50, there wouldn't be too many K-14 shields to begin with :)

Oh yea, I know what you mean... the only shield I saw was the exit sign for 96/14 north to Nickerson. I thought they would have included supplemental signs when approaching the 96/14 exit south to Wichita and Kingman, but no mention at all of 14 south. I got the impression they added shields along the new route but, like so many times before, routes leading to and from were ignored.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: route56 on October 24, 2013, 07:25:34 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 08, 2013, 09:37:17 PM
Maybe AASHTO will do something useful and disapprove the relocation due to the increase distance.

No dice, she's been approved (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10675.msg255122#msg255122), along with the removal of US40B in Russell.

Three more spur highways are officially gone, all in Allen County, all effective October 11:

Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: route56 on October 24, 2013, 09:48:04 PM
Bringing new meaning to the term "thread resussitation," I bring up this mtr gem on "Useless State Routes".

Quote from: apeman33
K-38. It ends literally in the middle of nowhere (I've writen about it before). Look it up in Sumner County at it's junction with K-15. Even
the one mileage sign at the start of the route just says that the next "destination" is "K-38 ENDS        xx" (It's somewhere between 15 and 18 miles long).

Ironically, even though Scott posted this in June 1999, K-38 was already gone: the decommissioning of K-38 was effective December 1, 1997. Furthermore, Cowley and Chautauqua counties agreed to accept the road way back in 1989.

Quote
Any 3dK which serves just to spur from another route into a small town. This is an inconsistency which gripes me. There are plenty of 3dK's  (and some 2dK's like K-89 into Halstead) which could just as easily be signed "DESTINATION via county road". Particularly when the "highway" is less than a mile (so small, Rand McNally doesn't even include them on its maps) or the town it serves has less than, say, a thousand people."

Holcomb (six miles west of Garden City), which once had U.S. 50 going through it and has a population of about 1,600, a high school, a bank, a grocery store and a city pool, gets a "HOLCOMB  ---> Via County Road" sign.

Stark (between Erie and Moran on U.S. 59) gets K-201. The road isn't even a mile long. And all Stark has is a branch bank. No schools at all.
Nothing. And if more than 100 people live there, I'd be stunned.

We said good-bye to K-201 earlier this year.

Quote
Others on the hit list: K-202 (Savonburg) and K-203 (Elsmore), both also spurs off U.S. 59, serving towns smiliar to Stark.
These two were two of the three just recently turned back.

Quote
K-277. A less-than-a-mile long road that goes to the Crawford State Lake. A brown directional sign wouldn't do the same job?
Also removed in 2013.

Quote
K-279 near Osawatomie. Less than a mile long, leading to a State Hospital. There's a smiliar K route near Larned. Again, a "via county
road" sign (even though the state probably owns the road) wouldn't do the job?

Both K-264 (to Larned State Hospital) and K-279 (to Osawatomie State Hospital) are still intact. Both are also KSA §68-406 (d) routes.

Quote
K-108 in Erie might as well be Buisiness U.S. 59. It's a two-mile loop that goes through downtown Erie that starts and ends at U.S. 59.
Pulled in 2004 instead.

So, as far as highways Scott described as 'useless,' four of them have now been returned to the counties.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: route56 on January 06, 2014, 09:53:48 PM
Two more routes have been vaporized.

US 40B in Russell is officially gone as of November 15 (KA-3223-01 [rural mileage] and KA-3223-02 [CCL])

K-74, a spur from US 73/K-7 to the town of Palmer, in Atchison County, was turned back on December 10. (KA-3522-01)

Although not "official," signage has been removed on K-76, the Williamstown Spur in Jefferson county. I would probably expect a resolution on that to come.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: TCN7JM on January 06, 2014, 10:31:06 PM
Ah, so that's where this (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Kansas_numbered_highways&diff=589408972&oldid=589400798) came from. If/when a source for that is available, I'd like to know where that is so it can be added to that list.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: route56 on January 29, 2014, 04:19:53 PM
Quote from: TCN7JM on January 06, 2014, 10:31:06 PM
Ah, so that's where this (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Kansas_numbered_highways&diff=589408972&oldid=589400798) came from. If/when a source for that is available, I'd like to know where that is so it can be added to that list.

http://idmweb.ksdot.org/publiclib/publicdoc.asp?ID=003831438:1

The official turnback date for K-76 and K-245 in Jefferson County was January 3rd.

http://idmweb.ksdot.org/publiclib/publicdoc.asp?ID=003831436:1

Three more highways, K-205, K-210, and K-271, in Sumner County were turned back on the 6th.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: TCN7JM on January 29, 2014, 07:07:21 PM
Quote from: route56 on January 29, 2014, 04:19:53 PM
Quote from: TCN7JM on January 06, 2014, 10:31:06 PM
Ah, so that's where this (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Kansas_numbered_highways&diff=589408972&oldid=589400798) came from. If/when a source for that is available, I'd like to know where that is so it can be added to that list.

http://idmweb.ksdot.org/publiclib/publicdoc.asp?ID=003831438:1

The official turnback date for K-76 and K-245 in Jefferson County was January 3rd.

http://idmweb.ksdot.org/publiclib/publicdoc.asp?ID=003831436:1

Three more highways, K-205, K-210, and K-271, in Sumner County were turned back on the 6th.
Awesome! Thanks.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: WichitaRoads on January 30, 2014, 12:04:49 PM
And the purge continues...

When will it end? lol

ICTRds
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: yakra on January 30, 2014, 12:33:09 PM
Is there any new info on K-238?
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: route56 on January 30, 2014, 02:32:22 PM
Quote from: yakra on January 30, 2014, 12:33:09 PM
Is there any new info on K-238?

There is no indication that K-238 has offically been removed from the highway system.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: route56 on March 13, 2014, 02:03:16 PM
Quote from: yakra on January 30, 2014, 12:33:09 PM
Is there any new info on K-238?

From US 36 westbound.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3741%2F13130481325_1fb7ae9351.jpg&hash=1cb51f151fe504a071eceb9fdac126d83ba04c1c) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/13130481325/)
48577 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/13130481325/) by richiekennedy56 (http://www.flickr.com/people/richiekennedy56/), on Flickr

First assembly marker northbound:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7302%2F13130624433_65b1b39316.jpg&hash=36e40ab4dee2857d5bbac21c34646601bdc4eec6) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/13130624433/)
48578 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/13130624433/) by richiekennedy56 (http://www.flickr.com/people/richiekennedy56/), on Flickr

Reverse side of above assembly marker:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2783%2F13130526145_53dd07d97f.jpg&hash=2df218073ef54e2e7d75c2d198d1ca3dccbef7e2) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/13130526145/)
48579 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/13130526145/) by richiekennedy56 (http://www.flickr.com/people/richiekennedy56/), on Flickr
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: route56 on March 19, 2014, 11:58:40 PM
And another K-spur falls:

http://idmweb.ksdot.org/publiclib/publicdoc.asp?ID=003832348:1

K-217, a half-mile spur from the US 36/K-27 Junction north one-half mile in Cheyene County, was pulled on March 3rd.

EDIT: Using a different hyperlink. This one should give you a "token" and direct you to the resolution
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: Scott5114 on March 20, 2014, 04:33:51 PM
Link's broken.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: J N Winkler on March 20, 2014, 05:18:19 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 20, 2014, 04:33:51 PMLink's broken.

Richie copied the link correctly and it does work--the problem is that you have to go to the Rural Resolutions (http://kdotapp2.ksdot.org/RuralResolutions/RuralResolutions.aspx) page so the server can cut you a login token.  The easiest way to do this is just to come in through the front door and do a manual search on K-217 to access the turnback resolution document.

Anyway, here's the text (thanks to Acrobat OCR):

QuoteMarch 3, 2014

STATE OF KANSAS
KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

RESOLUTION TO WITHDRAW HIGHWAY IN CHEYENNE COUNTY

WHEREAS, The Secretary of Transportation, in the interest of complying with public safety, convenience and welfare, and in order to maintain compliance with the laws of the State of Kansas, finds it necessary to turn back State Highway K-217 in Cheyenne County.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, the road described as follows, to wit:  Beginning on K-217 at the intersection with US-36 in Cheyenne County, thence northerly 0.5 mile to the junction with of Cheyenne County Road 0, in Cheyenne County, Kansas BE HEREBY WITHDRAWN as K-217 at the completion of Project KA-3568-01 on March 3, 2014, with the provision that the existing road shall revert to local public authority.

Date Approved
March 3, 2014
(Secretary King's signature)
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 20, 2014, 05:22:59 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 20, 2014, 05:18:19 PMyou have to go to the Rural Resolutions (http://kdotapp2.ksdot.org/RuralResolutions/RuralResolutions.aspx) page so the server can cut you a login token.

why the flaming hoop to jump through?

I can understand the state of Kansas wanting to vet serious bidders on their projects - but why not allow people to download and browse the documents at their leisure and leave the bizarre door to a later stage of interaction?
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: J N Winkler on March 20, 2014, 06:08:33 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 20, 2014, 05:22:59 PMwhy the flaming hoop to jump through?

My best guess:  they chose an off-the-shelf solution that has not been engineered for easy scraping, and nobody thought to demand a modification from the vendor that would make documents easy to share via email, Web forums, etc.

QuoteI can understand the state of Kansas wanting to vet serious bidders on their projects - but why not allow people to download and browse the documents at their leisure and leave the bizarre door to a later stage of interaction?

Actually, the construction plans themselves are accessed through simple links (no redirection, no login token) and are easy to scrape.  (This is not true of the so-called "Exploratory and Project Reports"--mainly geotech reports, DTMs, Geopak files, and the like--which appear to be held in the same document management database as the state highway resolutions and the CCL agreements.)  The hoops other state DOTs (e.g. MoDOT) make you jump through for current projects are higher; KDOT drops the hammer on you only if you ask for a past project and someone has to pull it out of storage.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: route56 on March 20, 2014, 08:40:25 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 20, 2014, 05:18:19 PM
Quote
(Secretary King's signature)
Actually, it looks like the resolution was signed by Jerry Younger, the State Transportation Engineer/Assistant Secretary. Note on the scanned in version that "for" has been hand-written under the signature line. Going through past resolutions, I have noticed that the #2 person has occasionally signed these resolutions.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: yakra on March 25, 2014, 03:45:49 AM
K-86 and K-175 are gonzo, right?
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: route56 on March 25, 2014, 01:51:43 PM
Quote from: yakra on March 25, 2014, 03:45:49 AM
K-86 and K-175 are gonzo, right?

Both of these spurs were turned back as part of the K-61 widening project, which was before the current aggressive movement to unload these spur highways.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: route56 on April 07, 2014, 04:47:40 PM
No joke: K-212 was turned back (http://idmweb.ksdot.org/publiclib/publicdoc.asp?ID=003832985:1) on April 1.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: route56 on May 19, 2014, 11:46:16 PM
http://idmweb.ksdot.org/publiclib/publicdoc.asp?ID=003833407:1

May 1: K-121 in Phillips County gets the ax.

BTW, with regard to West 6th Street in Lawrence, it is still US 40.... for now.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: KDOTGIS on June 10, 2014, 08:50:07 AM
Nice to see somebody actually reads the highway resolutions.  KDOT has been developing a public GIS site,  one of the Public Info maps shows rural resolutions by location on the map and links to the resolution in the document management system. 

http://ksdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=dd8eab6c309645289649a46a27a86158

http://ksdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/ 
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: corco on June 10, 2014, 03:36:53 PM
That is very cool- I've been working for my jurisdiction in Montana to create a GIS layer that shows all of our county road declarations/realignments/decommissionings with links to the original commissioner's minutes, and I've been struggling to figure out how to best lay that out spatially. I hadn't seen anything like that done before, and this gives me some ideas- very cool stuff. I hadn't thought to draw a polygon around each area, with then smaller polygons for smaller orders within those larger polygons- that's a neat idea.

I had been trying to just break up road line segments, but that gets messy with a different line segment for each resolution/order and overlapping lines where orders overlap, but this looks like a maybe cleaner/more visually intuitive way to do it. Especially because with some of our really old stuff around 1900, it's difficult to tell from the written record exactly where the lines went, and aerial imagery sometimes isn't terribly helpful for identifying old roadbeds, so I'm reluctant to draw a random line.  Very cool. Do you know any other agencies who have done something like this in a viewable online format? I've struck out.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: situveux1 on June 10, 2014, 07:30:18 PM
Really neat info, thank you for that link KDOTGIS.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: bugo on June 11, 2014, 11:55:21 AM
The Kansas mileage cap is retarded.  The highway system should be as many miles as it needs to be - and not some arbitrary number.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: Scott5114 on June 11, 2014, 03:43:04 PM
Quote from: bugo on June 11, 2014, 11:55:21 AM
The Kansas mileage cap is retarded.  The highway system should be as many miles as it needs to be - and not some arbitrary number.

Oklahoma has a mileage cap too.

I think the purpose of a mileage cap is to prevent the situation that you have in Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, and Kentucky with random state roads spurring off into the bush and ending at some random point, possibly to serve some well-connected property owner that did a favor for someone at the DOT or in the legislature. It's a lot harder to keep roads like that in the system when they are taking up mileage that is needed for a road that actually serves a wider interest.

It's hard to see where the mileage cap has actually resulted in the Kansas highway system not serving the needs of its users. A lot of these rural highways that are being decommissioned are the same as the lettered-spur highways in Oklahoma or lettered supplemental highways in Missouri. They can easily be handled by the counties with little loss of utility for the road user.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: J N Winkler on June 11, 2014, 06:51:55 PM
I suspect states with mileage caps on their primary state highway systems are more common than states that don't have them.  Kansas gets all the negative publicity because long ago, in the bad old MTR days, there were committed roadgeeks from the state that actually looked up the mileage cap in the Kansas statutes.  I don't think anyone has systematically gone through the statute books for all 50 states (are there any that aren't online now?) and checked whether mileage caps exist in each state.

BTW, I want to add my own thanks to KDOTGIS for letting us know this resource is available--I had not realized that I-235 was designated in multiple pieces.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: Alps on June 11, 2014, 07:24:14 PM
Mileage caps also lead to awkward situations where routes are decommissioned through towns but not on either side, or twelve routes are shoved onto a single bypass and not even signed.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: Scott5114 on June 12, 2014, 12:39:17 AM
This is true...if the mileage cap is set too low, nonsensical things can easily happen. If it's set too high, it accomplishes nothing. It has to be set to a sweet spot that works for the state in question.
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: Arkansastravelguy on June 17, 2014, 09:05:44 AM
Probably old news but K-201, K-202, K-203 and K-224 have all been designed. I was hoping to catch a pic of a missed sign but that wasn't the case. On a similar note, why is K-7 extended to the state line concurrent with US69? Seems like wasted mileage there. Also K-102, is it there just for Big Brutis?


iPhone
Title: Re: KDOT looking to unload spur highways?
Post by: bugo on June 17, 2014, 10:04:15 AM
Quote from: Arkansastravelguy on June 17, 2014, 09:05:44 AM
On a similar note, why is K-7 extended to the state line concurrent with US69? Seems like wasted mileage there.

What is now US 69 in Oklahoma was once OK 7.  Perhaps this is one reason that it's still signed.  Personally, I think it should be signed to the state line because it's a major highway and a border-to-border route and it provides route continuity.  OK 9 is signed along US 59 and US 271 to end at the Arkansas line where I-540 begins for the same reason: it runs from the Texas line to the Arkansas line.  The infamous OK 3 is another example.  Some might call these "useless duplexes" but I strongly disagree.