Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[route56]

[I'm starting a new thread, as opposed to exhuming the old one]

April 2015

Got a couple of interesting projects in this month's KDOT letting.

As always, the plans can be downloaded from http://ksdot1.ksdot.org/burconsmain/contracts/proposal.asp until the day of letting.

77-31 KA 2367-02: Reconstruction of US 77/K-18 on the west side of Junction City, including retrofitting the I-70/US 77 interchange as a DDI [AKA Death Diamond (TM)]

56-57 KA 2770-02: Installation of a Roundabout at the US 56/US 77/K-150 junction.

87 K 5928-13: Signage replacement in the Wichita area.

[situveux1]

My apologies if this isn't the appropriate thread for this question/comment, but has anyone noticed the low quality of work by KDOT on re-signing projects lately? I-135 in Harvey County was just done I noticed and there were several wood posts that were bent over and clearly low quality. I could even see it when driving by at 75mph. Also, they used white directional signs atop the 135 shields thru the whole county instead of white on blue background interstate directional signs. Then I saw they used the blue directional signs on US-56 in McPherson. Yea, I know it's not that big of a deal, but if we're paying for new signs, shouldn't they be correctly placed and marked and better than what was there before? Does KDOT do any follow up on their contractors to make sure they've done everything right?

[Scott5114]

That's strange, KDOT signage is usually quite good...

[J N Winkler]

I have not been on I-135 north of Wichita recently since it is currently under construction and I am trying to avoid the workzone.  Last year KDOT did advertise a contract to replace the large guide signs from the Sedgwick County line north to I-70, but I don't remember offhand whether the small signs (route markers, cardinal direction tabs, etc.) were included in that.  I don't think work had started on the large panel signs when I drove I-135 between the K-4 exit and Newton last November.

KDOT has had some perennial problems with small-signs work:

*  "Helvetica disease":  Interstate shields (generally knockdown replacements) with Helvetica digits in the Wichita area, county line signs on K-2 and K-42 with the county name in Helvetica, Keep Right Except to Pass in Helvetica on US 50 passing lanes in Kearny and Hamilton counties in far western Kansas, etc.

*  Shield/cardinal direction tab color mismatches.

I think it is actually pretty likely that the problematic small signs on I-135 and US 56 were placed by KDOT maintenance forces rather than contractors.  I understand that KDOT now contracts for small signs fabrication (through supply contracts, which are not part of the statewide construction letting), but I suspect the signs are still erected by KDOT personnel.

In regard to the currently advertised sign replacement contract that covers all freeways in Sedgwick County other than US 54-400, K-254, and the Turnpike, this is also the job that will ensure all surface streets are identified by suffix (St., Rd., Blvd., etc.) on the affected freeways.  Wichita's peculiarity of omitting suffixes on signs will be largely a thing of the past on the freeways, though I expect it to persist on street name signs.

[route56]

*  "Helvetica disease":  Interstate shields (generally knockdown replacements) with Helvetica digits in the Wichita area, county line signs on K-2 and K-42 with the county name in Helvetica, Keep Right Except to Pass in Helvetica on US 50 passing lanes in Kearny and Hamilton counties in far western Kansas, etc.

I haven't seen any new arialveticverstesk signs up here in northeast Kansas.

In regard to the currently advertised sign replacement contract that covers all freeways in Sedgwick County other than US 54-400, K-254, and the Turnpike, this is also the job that will ensure all surface streets are identified by suffix (St., Rd., Blvd., etc.) on the affected freeways.  Wichita's peculiarity of omitting suffixes on signs will be largely a thing of the past on the freeways, though I expect it to persist on street name signs.

If I read the signage plans correctly, the "Ave." suffix is still omitted at Kellogg (US 54/400). Also, since the signage on Kellogg itself is not part of this project, there will still be omitted suffixes.

[J N Winkler]

I haven't seen any new arialveticverstesk signs up here in northeast Kansas.

I wonder if proximity to KDOT HQ may have something to do with that.

If I read the signage plans correctly, the "Ave." suffix is still omitted at Kellogg (US 54/400). Also, since the signage on Kellogg itself is not part of this project, there will still be omitted suffixes.

The action signs on I-135 leading to Kellogg (which indeed do not have the suffixes) are marked with filled black hexagons, which means "existing to remain."  They were installed a few years ago when option lanes were added at the turban.  The contract does provide for Kellogg to be identified as "Kellogg Ave" on replacement interchange sequence signs on I-135.  (It is already so identified on I-235 signs, which are not being replaced in the vicinity of the current interchange since it is due for phased upgrade to a stack/turban hybrid over the next few years.)

It is true that Kellogg is not being touched by this contract, so suffixless legends will remain there for a while.  I don't know when KDOT plans to do Kellogg.  It could use some signing upgrades, though the most dilapidated signs around the airport connector volleyball, which might have dated all the way back to its construction as a US 54 spur in the 1970's, were replaced a few years ago.

[apeman33]

My apologies if this isn't the appropriate thread for this question/comment, but has anyone noticed the low quality of work by KDOT on re-signing projects lately? I-135 in Harvey County was just done I noticed and there were several wood posts that were bent over and clearly low quality. I could even see it when driving by at 75mph. Also, they used white directional signs atop the 135 shields thru the whole county instead of white on blue background interstate directional signs. Then I saw they used the blue directional signs on US-56 in McPherson. Yea, I know it's not that big of a deal, but if we're paying for new signs, shouldn't they be correctly placed and marked and better than what was there before? Does KDOT do any follow up on their contractors to make sure they've done everything right?

I saw the Harvey County signage when I was going up to Salina for the state basketball tournament in March.

[route56]

June, 2015

77-31 KA-2367-03: Widening and overlay of US 77 from just south of I-70 to McFarland Street, including new turn lanes and signals at Ash Street and McFarland Street. Also, reconstruction and new signal at K-18 and Spring Valley Road, all on the west side of Junction City. No FYAs involved.

83-90 KA-0751-01: US 83 reconstruction from the Sheridan/Thomas County line to the junction with K-23 and K-383. Includes very specific signage detail, including an apparent gaffe at Road 110 W. Although most new signage is mixed-case, the signs at the Selden City Limits are, for whatever reason, upper case only. Detour plans via US 24 and K-23.

50-40 KA-1827-06: Extension of a passing lane on US 50 near Halstead in Harvey County.

50-40 KA-1827-07: Widening of US 50 to 4 lanes on the west side of Newton. Includes new guide signage which is in all capital letters.

87 KA-2949-01: ITS/WICHWay improvments in Wichita.

83-41 KA-1008-07: Rebuilding of the US 83/US 56 intersection near Sublette. Possibly due to the proximity of a railroad grade crossing, this location was not deemed suitable for a roundabout, and will remain a 4-way stop. Signage along US 83 is detailed, but much of it is not part of this project. A signage upgrade along this stretch of US 83 is slated to be completed by the time this contract is let and work started

69-46 KA-3600-01: Addition of KC SCOUT cameras along US 69 in southern Johnson County.

46 KA-4023-01: Replacment of KC SCOUT VMS in Johnson County.

96-87 KA-4145-01: Replace a cantilever and sign on K-96 at Greenwich Road in Wichita.

9-58 KA-2101-01: Bridge replacment west of Waterville in Marshall County. Detour via US 77, US 36, and K-148

[route56]

July, 2015

7 C 4672-01: Signage on the Major Collector roads of Brown County. Mostly off-the-shelf signage, with at least one set of warning signs for a low water crossing.

15-14 KA-3085-01: Culvert replacment on K-15 south of Clay Center. Traffic to be carried via a Shoo-fly Detour

85 U 0222-01: Off-Street sidewalk construction to Lakewood School on the east side of Salina.

258-82 KA-2088-01: Reconstruction of the junction of US 24 and K-258, replacing a diamond interchange with an at-grade intersection.

71 C-4619-01: Bridge Replacment on a county road east of Alton.

281-76 KA-3551-01: Reconstruction of part of North Main Street (US 281) in Pratt. Detour via US 54/400, K-61, and 30th Road.

[J N Winkler]

258-82 KA-2088-01: Reconstruction of the junction of US 24 and K-258, replacing a diamond interchange with an at-grade intersection.

It is hard to look at this project without feeling a sense of profound dismay.  To build the grade separation in the first place, and then to demolish it and regrade the embankments to form a flat intersection, is literally an example of paying someone to dig holes in the ground and then paying someone else to throw the dirt back into the holes.

[intelati49]

258-82 KA-2088-01: Reconstruction of the junction of US 24 and K-258, replacing a diamond interchange with an at-grade intersection.

It is hard to look at this project without feeling a sense of profound dismay.  To build the grade separation in the first place, and then to demolish it and regrade the embankments to form a flat intersection, is literally an example of paying someone to dig holes in the ground and then paying someone else to throw the dirt back into the holes.

https://www.google.com/maps?ll=39.42343,-99.41626&z=17&t=h

From Google maps, it appears as if the bridge is from the 1940s to 50s and out of it's service life. I can't tell you the traffic levels there, but it doesn't look like it needs an interchange there.

[route56]

From Google maps, it appears as if the bridge is from the 1940s to 50s and out of it's service life. I can't tell you the traffic levels there, but it doesn't look like it needs an interchange there.

From what I can tell, the segment was built in the early to mid-1960s. Also, the AADT for US 24 is ~ 600.

I do think that perhaps this junction was overbuilt originally.

[intelati49]

From Google maps, it appears as if the bridge is from the 1940s to 50s and out of it's service life. I can't tell you the traffic levels there, but it doesn't look like it needs an interchange there.

From what I can tell, the segment was built in the early to mid-1960s. Also, the AADT for US 24 is ~ 600.

I do think that perhaps this junction was overbuilt originally.

I found the bridge. http://uglybridges.com/1205998

1959 is the build date.

I'm going to give them the benifit of the doubt that it's cheaper to tear it out than to replace it.

[rte66man]

From Google maps, it appears as if the bridge is from the 1940s to 50s and out of it's service life. I can't tell you the traffic levels there, but it doesn't look like it needs an interchange there.

I suspect there is quite a story behind this interchange.  Would really love to discover why such an obscure junction had an interchange.

From what I can tell, the segment was built in the early to mid-1960s. Also, the AADT for US 24 is ~ 600.

I do think that perhaps this junction was overbuilt originally.

I found the bridge. http://uglybridges.com/1205998

1959 is the build date.

I'm going to give them the benifit of the doubt that it's cheaper to tear it out than to replace it.

[route56]

You were saying, rte66man?

[rte66man]

You were saying, rte66man?

Hmmmm. What I was going to say was, "I bet there's a good story behind why that interchange was built.  A political payoff of some sort.

[J N Winkler]

Hmmmm. What I was going to say was, "I bet there's a good story behind why that interchange was built.  A political payoff of some sort."

It is possible.  Another possibility, not necessarily mutually exclusive, is that planners were oblivious to rural depopulation and thus grossly overestimated the popularity of Webster Lake as a recreational destination.  This isolated rural interchange is an access to the lake and I suspect the reservoir was built around the same time.  Most of Kansas' reservoirs are a response to a major flood in 1951 in the Kansas, Verdigris, Neosho, and Marais des Cygnes river basins that, at its height, displaced about one-third the population of Topeka.

[carldorsey11]

258-82 KA-2088-01: Reconstruction of the junction of US 24 and K-258, replacing a diamond interchange with an at-grade intersection.

It is hard to look at this project without feeling a sense of profound dismay.  To build the grade separation in the first place, and then to demolish it and regrade the embankments to form a flat intersection, is literally an example of paying someone to dig holes in the ground and then paying someone else to throw the dirt back into the holes.

https://www.google.com/maps?ll=39.42343,-99.41626&z=17&t=h

From Google maps, it appears as if the bridge is from the 1940s to 50s and out of it's service life. I can't tell you the traffic levels there, but it doesn't look like it needs an interchange there.

According to this, http://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/bureaus/burTransPlan/maps/CountMaps/Districts/count14.pdf it looks like it gets less than 1,000 people a day

[route56]

August, 2015

14 C 4690-01: Signage on the Major Collector roads of Clay County. Like the one the previous month for Brown County, it is off-the-shelf signage, though Clay County is installing some new County Road Markers.

59 C-4680-01: Sign replacement along major collector roads in southwestern McPherson County. This one has two "special" text message signs: a regulatory "No Through Trucks over 65000 Lbs" and a "Church" warning sign.

67 C-4692-01: Sign replacement along 160th Road between Elk Road (old US 169) and US 59/K-147 in Neosho County. Includes milled rumble strips on the approaches to the stop signs at either end of this roadway.

54-76 K-8243-07: Permanent Seeding on US 54 east of Platt

87 TE-0425-01: Pedestrian trail in Haysville

29 TE-0384-01: Gunsmoke Trail in Chilton Park, Dodge City

10-23 K-8392-06: Permanent Seeding along the South Lawrence Trafficway (currently under construction)

635-105 KA-4105-01: Replace five of the seven lighting towers at the north interchange between I-635 and K-5 in KCK.

[route56]

I just noticed that KDOT has a Projection of upcoming lettings.

September and October should be interesting.

[route56]

September, 2015

105 N 0587-01: Reconstruction of Kansas Avenue from 94th to 102nd in KCK (this is the section near the 435 interchange. T intersection at 102nd will be reoriented on a curve so that Westbound Kansas curves into Northbound 102nd.

83-20 KA 3101-01: Bridge replacment on US 83 south of Oberlin. One lane of traffic maintained through the work zone.

9-69 KA 3093-01: Bridge replacement on K-9 east of Lenora. Detour via K-123, K-383, and US 283.

1 U 0219-01: Installation of Sidewalks on parts of Central, 11th, and 12th in Humboldt

49 C 4678-01: Signage replacement on four Major Collector roads (10th Avenue, N Street, K Street, 17th Avenue) in Kiowa County. There are two "Special" signs: A "No Commercial Vehicles - $500 Fine" sign, and a "Minimum Maintenance" warning sign

235-87 KA 0161-04: Reconstruction of the I-235/Kellogg interchange in Wichita. It will be reconfigured to be a Stack/Cloverleaf hybrid with flyover ramps from 235 to Kellogg. The ramp from Eastbound Kellogg to West Street (KS SPUI 1) will braid under the 235/EB Kellogg ramp with a slip ramp between the two ramps. The radius of the EB Kellogg/NB 235 loop ramp will have a wider radius. (Only volume 1 is posted on the KDOT website)

95 C 0308-02: Safe Routes to School project in Hugoton.

51-95 KA 2219-01: Reconstruction of 11th Street (K-51) in Hugoton.

105 N 0600-01: Reconstruction of the intersections of Leavenworth Road with 72nd Street and 55th Streets. Includes new FYA signals.

63 C 4639-01: Realignment of a county road southeast of Independence.

18 C 4630-01: Bridge replacement in Cowley County. Bridge being replaced in just northwest of US 166.

80 C 4629-01: Bridge replacement in Rice County on the Little Arkansas River Southeast of Genesco.

24-81 KA 2609-01: Intersection improvements on Tuttle Creek Boulevard and Leavenworth Street in Manhattan.

69-6 KA 2822-01/69-6 U 0040-01: Reconstruction of US 69 in the south end of Fort Scott. Includes new signals at US 69 and 23rd Street (no left turn phasing) and US 69 at National (protected/permitted with Doghouse, Doghouse right turn signal on National)

11 C 4399-01: Bridge replacement on a county road northwest of Riverton.

[J N Winkler]

235-87 KA 0161-04: Reconstruction of the I-235/Kellogg interchange in Wichita. It will be reconfigured to be a Stack/Cloverleaf hybrid with flyover ramps from 235 to Kellogg. The ramp from Eastbound Kellogg to West Street (KS SPUI 1) will braid under the 235/EB Kellogg ramp with a slip ramp between the two ramps. The radius of the EB Kellogg/NB 235 loop ramp will have a wider radius. (Only volume 1 is posted on the KDOT website)

The parenthetical warning is well taken, but in fact all 8 volumes are available for download--it is just that KDOT hasn't yet put up links to the additional volumes.  The relevant URLs are all of the form

http://ksdot1.ksdot.org/burconsmain/contracts/Proposals/Plans/515092595pX.pdf

where X is an integer ranging from 2 to 8.  If you have wget on a Windows system, the following (entered at a command prompt) will download everything:

Code: [Select]

wget http://ksdot1.ksdot.org/burconsmain/contracts/Proposals/Plans/515092595p.pdf & FOR /L %A IN (2,1,8) DO wget http://ksdot1.ksdot.org/burconsmain/contracts/Proposals/Plans/515092595p%A.pdf
The US 54/I-235 interchange renovation will upgrade the existing cloverleaf (which was a very compromised design from the start) to a stack/turban hybrid over multiple phases, of which this is the first.

In regard to the signing contracts with "C" jurisdiction identifiers (meaning the work is occurring on county road systems), I have noticed these are becoming very common in some other states, including Indiana and South Dakota.  I tend to regard them as noise since they tend to be slugged under the same broad "signing" work code that also applies to freeway guide signing, but have few, if any, designable signs.  Indiana and South Dakota do provide some street blade drawings, but KDOT doesn't really like to do drawings for D-series signs.  The draftsmanship is in line with other "C" contracts:  i.e., pretty bad.

In recent years KDOT has done, and may still be doing, D-series sign replacements on the state system, but those seem to be handled through on-call contracts that bypass the statewide letting.  Drawings used to be exchanged between the sign fabricator and KDOT on the KDOT FTP server, but we lost access to those when KDOT shut down the open-access FTP server in January of this year.

[route56]

The parenthetical warning is well taken, but in fact all 8 volumes are available for download--it is just that KDOT hasn't yet put up links to the additional volumes.  The relevant URLs are all of the form

http://ksdot1.ksdot.org/burconsmain/contracts/Proposals/Plans/515092595pX.pdf

where X is an integer ranging from 2 to 8.  If you have wget on a Windows system, the following (entered at a command prompt) will download everything:

* route56 dope-slaps himself for not thinking of that.

I use a different system, but I think I got the principle of it....

Going through the signage volume, I note that the project also includes replacing the signals at West. In addition, in another oddity, the big yellow sign whose warning message has been completely demounted is noted on the signing sheets -- but is marked with the "Sign is not part of this project" hexagon. I would think this would be as good of a time as any to, you know, remove the messageless sign.

In regard to the signing contracts with "C" jurisdiction identifiers (meaning the work is occurring on county road systems), I have noticed these are becoming very common in some other states, including Indiana and South Dakota.  I tend to regard them as noise since they tend to be slugged under the same broad "signing" work code that also applies to freeway guide signing, but have few, if any, designable signs.  Indiana and South Dakota do provide some street blade drawings, but KDOT doesn't really like to do drawings for D-series signs.  The draftsmanship is in line with other "C" contracts:  i.e., pretty bad.

Something tells me there aren't as many D series or other designable signs on the major collector system. Those that are, however, appear to be drafted decently.

In recent years KDOT has done, and may still be doing, D-series sign replacements on the state system, but those seem to be handled through on-call contracts that bypass the statewide letting.  Drawings used to be exchanged between the sign fabricator and KDOT on the KDOT FTP server, but we lost access to those when KDOT shut down the open-access FTP server in January of this year.

I never saw anything like that even when the open-access FTP server was up.

[J N Winkler]

* route56 dope-slaps himself for not thinking of that.

I use a different system, but I think I got the principle of it....

No worries--I was able to guess at the correct URLs largely by assuming that KDOT would use the same filename convention that it has used in the past for other multi-volume projects.  In any event, the page now has been updated with links to all eight volumes.

(Running this down has shown me that the URL where the plans and proposals page lives has changed yet again, which means I need to revise my downloader script before the current redirect expires.)

Going through the signage volume, I note that the project also includes replacing the signals at West. In addition, in another oddity, the big yellow sign whose warning message has been completely demounted is noted on the signing sheets -- but is marked with the "Sign is not part of this project" hexagon. I would think this would be as good of a time as any to, you know, remove the messageless sign.

The plans are not really consistent on what is to happen with this sign panel.  The permanent signing plans do show it as "Not part of this project," and the traffic control plans show no work taking place with it.  However, the sign elevation sheet for this signbridge says "Remove signs" without noting specifically that this particular panel is to be excluded.  (There are four in all:  the blank yellow sign facing eastbound traffic, and three green-background signs facing westbound traffic.)

I am continuing to go through the plans (which total 2119 sheets) since I have a few constructability concerns.  For example, some elements of the project call for widening along lengths of road carried on embankment retained by MSE walls, so I am wondering if the width will be added by removing the existing wall and rebuilding it further out, or building a new MSE wall in front of the existing one and then backfilling it.

Some elements of the design will make drivers very unhappy.  For example, the rebuilt SB I-235 to WB US 54 movement will have the merge point a considerable distance west of where it is now (after Hoover Road instead of before it), which greatly shortens a weaving lane which WB US 54 traffic now uses to access the Dugan Road retail complex that includes Sam's, a Walmart Supercenter, and a row of big box stores between Dugan and Ridge.  This weave already operates somewhat less than smoothly and the rebuild will make it worse.  Braiding would be a very attractive solution in this location but, besides costing more money, would annoy Les Donovan, who not only has a car dealership that fronts on this length of Kellogg Drive but is also the chief money allocator in the Kansas Senate.

In recent years KDOT has done, and may still be doing, D-series sign replacements on the state system, but those seem to be handled through on-call contracts that bypass the statewide letting.  Drawings used to be exchanged between the sign fabricator and KDOT on the KDOT FTP server, but we lost access to those when KDOT shut down the open-access FTP server in January of this year.

I never saw anything like that even when the open-access FTP server was up.

The filenames were very cryptic and you would not have run across them unless you were using a script that automatically downloaded every file with a timestamp newer than the last script run.  For one of the contracts, the fabricator sent shop drawings (basically, letter-size SignCAD printouts with one to four sign drawing per page) and KDOT uploaded the drawings with its scanned red-ink comments to the FTP server under filenames like "KDOT_Comments_1818.pdf," "KDOT_Comments_1823.pdf," and so on.  I extracted the sign panel detail sheets (about 477 in all) but slugged them under "shop-drawings" as the project number since I could not find a real KDOT project number anywhere.

There were also a few drawing sets (usual 22" x 34" KDOT plan sheet format) with filenames of the form "DXAY.pdf," where X is a KDOT district and Y is a numbered area within that district.  Some of these were recognizable as signing jobs since the "DXAY" string was prefixed with a KDOT project number fitting into one of the recognized masks for signing jobs (e.g. "K-592A-BB" where A is an integer greater than 4 and BB is the last two digits of a recent year, one example of this being K-5928-13), but some of them were not since KDOT has moved on to new masks in the KA series.

[route56]

October, 2015

106 TE-0395-01: Kaw Point Park Link Trail -- new concrete path linking 3rd and Minnesota to Kaw Point park in KCK.

140-27 KA-3091-01: Replacement of two bridges in eastern Ellsworth County. One lane of traffic controlled by signals.

135-59 KA-2366-01: New interchange on I-135 and Mohawk Road northeast of McPherson. This will be exit number 63.

64 TE-0382-01: Riverwalk trail along the Neosho in Council Grove.

85 U-2119-01: Bridge replacement on Greeley Avenue in Salina. According to the cover page, this bridge is already closed to traffic.

17 C-4681-01: Major collector signage project in Comanche County. Two special warning signs: "SLOW: Cattle guard ahead" and "Open Range"

23-50 KA-3111-01: Bridge replacement on K-23 north of Meade. One lane shoo-fly detour controlled by traffic signals.

87 TE-0403-01: New Shared-Use path along Oliver in southeast Wichita/north Derby

14-62 KA-3045-01: Bridge replacement on the north end of Beloit. Traffic Detoured via 8th Street and US 24

149-64 KA-2473-01: Replacement of Multiple culverts and one bridge on K-149. Detour via K-4, US 77, and US 56.