Fact sheet (https://www.economiclifelines.com/resources/FORWARD%20Program%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf)
A few headlines:
* $9.9 billion (with bonding), versus the $8.6 billion originally projected for T-WORKS (the current program)
* T-WORKS shortfalls: $1.4 billion preservation ($3.2 billion spent, $4.6 billion planned); modernization and expansion $500 million ($1.2 billion spent, $1.7 billion planned)
* A share of expansion/modernization projects now to be selected biennially
* "Limited" alternative-delivery contracting (i.e., more design-builds like the Johnson County Gateway)
* Greater emphasis on local match
* Preservation to be given enhanced priority
It has been separately reported that the "Bank of KDOT" will not close until 2021, although the amount of revenue diverted away from transportation will be less this year.
What are the major projects under consideration?
Quote from: PastTense on January 19, 2020, 02:18:57 PMWhat are the major projects under consideration?
I am not aware that KDOT has released a list of "core" projects for the ten-year plan (the "core" is supposed to be what gets built regardless of the biennial selections), but I'd expect the almost $2 billion left undone under T-WORKS to be rolled over into the new program.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 19, 2020, 02:49:25 PM
Quote from: PastTense on January 19, 2020, 02:18:57 PMWhat are the major projects under consideration?
I am not aware that KDOT has released a list of "core" projects for the ten-year plan (the "core" is supposed to be what gets built regardless of the biennial selections), but I'd expect the almost $2 billion left undone under T-WORKS to be rolled over into the new program.
I agree with you there.
I ran across this the other day: https://www.ksdot.org/LocalConsult/LocalConsult.asp
They had public meetings at the end of last year. They posted links to Project lists for each of the regions on there. These are just preliminary lists though. It will interesting to see what will end up on the final project lists.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 17, 2020, 02:51:17 PM
* "Limited" alternative-delivery contracting (i.e., more design-builds like the Johnson County Gateway)
My friend, who has attended multiple meetings and presentations based on this and has specifically asked KDOT about the alternative-delivery contracting aspect, told me the emphasis really is on "limited". According to him, design-build is a system that has not and does not suit KDOT's needs.
He is actually trying to push for a system (can't remember the name) in which the owner first chooses a designer and a contractor, then the designer and contractor work together up to a certain point, then take their work thus far with a price tag back to the owner for approval. This helps solve the problem of missing communication link, making it more of a communication triangle.
In NY, design-build has been proven to be more expensive than design-bid-build. The only advantage has been shortened schedules.
Quote from: kphoger on January 27, 2020, 01:32:28 PMMy friend, who has attended multiple meetings and presentations based on this and has specifically asked KDOT about the alternative-delivery contracting aspect, told me the emphasis really is on "limited". According to him, design-build is a system that has not and does not suit KDOT's needs.
It does seem logical to me that this would be KDOT's position. The agency has a good PS&E review process and a deep bench of in-house engineering expertise, and it is hard to deploy either to satisfactory effect within the compressed timelines associated with design-build. I think it is significant that the only D-B so far has been in the district that overlaps metro KC.
Quote from: kphoger on January 27, 2020, 01:32:28 PMHe is actually trying to push for a system (can't remember the name) in which the owner first chooses a designer and a contractor, then the designer and contractor work together up to a certain point, then take their work thus far with a price tag back to the owner for approval. This helps solve the problem of missing communication link, making it more of a communication triangle.
This sounds to me like Construction Manager At Risk (CMAR), which the City of Wichita has been using for the (controversial) water plant contract.
Quote from: Rothman on January 27, 2020, 01:56:25 PMIn NY, design-build has been proven to be more expensive than design-bid-build. The only advantage has been shortened schedules.
Ohio DOT found something similar to be true early in their experience with design-build, but they still use it. I've seen other agencies argue that they use D-B because the savings from reduced cost inflation (due to the shorter timelines) are more than enough to compensate for the added costs resulting from design-related uncertainties that are not resolved before construction begins. This makes me wonder to what extent efficiency comparisons between D-B and conventional contracting compare outturn costs on an equal basis, and take account of downstream costs such as increased maintenance liabilities for nonstandard fixtures and the like.
It's certainly possible for D-B to blow up in an agency's face in truly spectacular fashion, as happened with Oregon DOT with the US 20 Pioneer Mountain relocation.
In any event, D-B can't defeat the underlying reality of construction: the finished product can be delivered on time, cheaply, or with good workmanship. Pick any two.
https://governor.kansas.gov/governor-signs-bipartisan-transportation-plan-into-law/
The Governor's press office has announced the signing of Senate Bill 173, establishing the next transportation program.
With it comes a new name: the Eisenhower legacy transportation program.
Key points from the Governor's Press Release:
- All remaining T-WORKS projects will be funded. They will be let no later than the June, 2022 letting.
- Preservation will be given priority
- Expansion and modernization projects will be selected biennially.
- Every county is required to receive at leas $8 million in improvements.
- The bill requires KDOT to develop minimum spending ranges for KDOT districts using a metric-driven process, and 40 percent of the minimum investments must occur within the first five years of the program. T-WORKS projects must be delivered and are not included in the minimums.
I had some free time today so I tried to see if I could find any info on the remaining T-Works projects that they identified in the Local Consult meetings.
I found some info on the US-166 Highway improvements (Project number 401 on the Local consult meeting handout (https://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/LocalConsult/2019R2LocalConsultDistrict4Projects.pdf)) in Cherokee county (http://tworks.ksdot.org/Projects/Info/KA-1005-02?countyId=011&chks=Y,N,PRESERVE,MODERNIZE,ENHANCE,LOCALPART,NPUBTRANS,NAVIATION,NRAIL,NBIKEPED&p=FutureProjects).
What caught my attention was the corridor map: http://tworks.ksdot.org/ProjDocuments/US-166_Corridor_Map_06-01-2014.pdf. I didn't realize that they already were this far along on this segment. It'll be interesting to see over the next few years (assuming it gets let and doesn't get delayed again).
Quote from: mvak36 on May 08, 2020, 05:30:07 PM
I had some free time today so I tried to see if I could find any info on the remaining T-Works projects that they identified in the Local Consult meetings.
I found some info on the US-166 Highway improvements (Project number 401 on the Local consult meeting handout (https://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/LocalConsult/2019R2LocalConsultDistrict4Projects.pdf)) in Cherokee county (http://tworks.ksdot.org/Projects/Info/KA-1005-02?countyId=011&chks=Y,N,PRESERVE,MODERNIZE,ENHANCE,LOCALPART,NPUBTRANS,NAVIATION,NRAIL,NBIKEPED&p=FutureProjects).
What caught my attention was the corridor map: http://tworks.ksdot.org/ProjDocuments/US-166_Corridor_Map_06-01-2014.pdf. I didn't realize that they already were this far along on this segment. It'll be interesting to see over the next few years (assuming it gets let and doesn't get delayed again).
What is the AADT for this stretch?
Quote from: rte66man on May 10, 2020, 01:16:59 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on May 08, 2020, 05:30:07 PM
I had some free time today so I tried to see if I could find any info on the remaining T-Works projects that they identified in the Local Consult meetings.
I found some info on the US-166 Highway improvements (Project number 401 on the Local consult meeting handout (https://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/LocalConsult/2019R2LocalConsultDistrict4Projects.pdf)) in Cherokee county (http://tworks.ksdot.org/Projects/Info/KA-1005-02?countyId=011&chks=Y,N,PRESERVE,MODERNIZE,ENHANCE,LOCALPART,NPUBTRANS,NAVIATION,NRAIL,NBIKEPED&p=FutureProjects).
What caught my attention was the corridor map: http://tworks.ksdot.org/ProjDocuments/US-166_Corridor_Map_06-01-2014.pdf. I didn't realize that they already were this far along on this segment. It'll be interesting to see over the next few years (assuming it gets let and doesn't get delayed again).
What is the AADT for this stretch?
Here's what I found: https://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/bureaus/burTransPlan/maps/CountMaps/Districts/countmap2018.pdf
Info for Baxter Springs (this looks like a different year than the data shown in the previous link): https://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/bureaus/burTransPlan/maps/CountMaps/Districts/countmap2018.pdf
I was looking through the summary of the bill (http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2019_20/measures/documents/summary_sb_173_2020) that was signed and found this:
Quote
Previously Selected Projects
The bill requires the Program to provide for the completion of modernization and expansion projects selected for construction under the Transportation Works for Kansas Program (T-Works) [KSA 68-2314b] and that those projects be let prior to July 1, 2023. The bill requires the Secretary to let to construction contract at least one phase of each remaining T-Works project before any modernization or expansion project, or both, under the Program is let to construction. The bill allows completing a reconstruction of an interchange at I-135 and 36th Street in Harvey County to be optional. If that project is not constructed, the bill requires the estimated construction costs for that project to be used on other construction projects in KDOT’s south central district.
It will be interesting to see how much of the freeway will be let by the July 1, 2023 date. I'm not sure how many phases it's split into.
EDIT: I did find a list of the unfinished T-WORKS projects on the T-WORKS home page. I can't link to the pdf since it was embedded into an article, but it's under the post "Update on the T-Works Program December 2019". The US166 project will have a "4-lane freeway for a portion and a 2-lane for the remainder".
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/12408_11_05_20_9_07_56.jpeg)
The City of Overland Park has a site for US 69 improvements: https://www.opkansas.org/city-services/traffic-roads-transportation/u-s-69-improvements/
The only info on the site right now is the results of a high-level study regarding toll lane feasibility.
KDOT will announce the Eisenhower Legacy Transportation Program (IKE) projects this Thursday.
http://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/Headquarters/PDF_Files/pressrelease2020/Media_Advisory_Announcement.pdf
EDIT:
Here's the website for the IKE program: http://www.ksdot.org/IKE.asp
They have posted the projects they are adding to the development pipeline. List (http://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/IKE/Documents/Statewide_List_5-12.pdf) & Map (http://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/IKE/Documents/Pipeline_Statewide_Map_FINAL.pdf)
Link to recorded Webinar (https://www.facebook.com/KSDOTHQ/videos/251894659358173/)
Press Release (http://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/Headquarters/PDF_Files/pressrelease2020/HIghway_Project_Announced.pdf):
QuoteForty highway projects selected for IKE development pipeline
Governor Laura Kelly and Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) Secretary Julie Lorenz announced today that preliminary engineering work will begin on 40 highway modernization and expansion projects.
These are the first projects to move forward under the Eisenhower Transportation Legacy Program (IKE), which was created in March.
“These transportation investments come at a critical time for our state’s economy. A robust development pipeline will help jumpstart our economic recovery by creating jobs and allowing the state to take advantage of potential federal stimulus dollars,” said Governor Kelly. “I’m thankful to the Legislature for passing IKE, a critical employment tool that will help put more Kansans back to work.”
“A modern transportation system moves people, freight and technology and these 40 projects will allow us to do all those things better in every region of the state,” Secretary Lorenz said. “We’ve selected smaller projects, which can advance to construction quickly, and larger projects that will employ many people in all phases of development or construction.”
More than 2,000 Kansans participated in local consult discussions that shaped the IKE program and modernized how transportation should be delivered in Kansas.
Here are a few notable features:
•IKE is a rolling program, which means major highway modernization and expansion projects will be selected every two years rather than once a decade as previous programs did. This ensures the State can address the most pressing needs and adjust to fluctuating revenues.
•Emphasis on right-sized, practical improvements. For example, utilizing passing lanes rather than 4-lane expressways where applicable.
•New partnership programs (Cost Share, Local Bridge) between the State and local governments to address more needs.
•Investments in broadband and new technologies.
•Continued commitment to multimodal transportation with public transit, aviation, short-line rail and bike/pedestrian programs.
Previously, the only projects in KDOT’s development pipeline were the remaining T-WORKS projects. The development pipeline includes all the phases of work prior to construction such as design, acquiring right-of-way or moving utilities. KDOT is not committing to constructing these 40 projects, but this will allow the necessary advance work to begin.
“I’ve directed KDOT to explore all options for accelerating project delivery for these 40 projects and for the delayed T-WORKS projects, which we remain committed to constructing,” the Governor said. “Transportation investments provide short-term and long-term economic benefits to communities and we’re committed to capturing as many of those opportunities as we can.” The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the last stimulus for transportation infrastructure, prioritized shovel-ready projects. Currently, discussions are underway for a new federal stimulus bill for infrastructure, which will likely have similar requirements. Today’s announcement will allow KDOT to get more projects shovel ready.
“Thanks to Governor Kelly, the Legislature and Kansans, IKE was tailor made for this moment,” Lorenz said. “It provides us the flexibility we need now and in the future. Today’s announcement is only the beginning. We know we have much more work to do.
”More information about IKE, including the list of 40 projects selected, is available at http://www.ksdot.org/IKE.asp
To the surprise of absolutely no one, in District 1 the US 69 expansion in Johnson County and the South Lawrence Trafficway in Douglas County have been added to the development pipeline, along with replacement of the Centennial Bridge in Leavenworth and the Polk-Quincy viaduct in Topeka.
In District 5 (Wichita): The big projects announced as part of the development pipeline include reconstruction of the north junction I-135/I-235 interchange and the widening of part of the K-96 northeast Wichita freeway from 4 lanes to 6.
ADMIN and/or Johnathan: Could you change the subject line of the first message in this thread to reflect the new name of this KDOT program? (Done. —S.)
Quote from: route56 on May 14, 2020, 09:27:37 PM
To the surprise of absolutely no one, in District 1 the US 69 expansion in Johnson County and the South Lawrence Trafficway in Douglas County have been added to the development pipeline, along with replacement of the Centennial Bridge in Leavenworth and the Polk-Quincy viaduct in Topeka.
In District 5 (Wichita): The big projects announced as part of the development pipeline include reconstruction of the north junction I-135/I-235 interchange and the widening of part of the K-96 northeast Wichita freeway from 4 lanes to 6.
Hopefully some of these big projects will be moved from the development to the construction phase soon. Secretary Lorenz did say that they will let at least one phase of the remaining T-Works projects by the end of 2021, so it will be interesting to see which one of these will go first.
Could we get the Blue Project of Focus435 (https://web.archive.org/web/20060218110057/http://www.focus435.org/resource.aspx) finished? Separating the ramps on NB 69 to College Blvd. and to 435, and building a flyover ramp to WB 435, would alleviate a lot of the traffic.
Link to the Environmental Assessment Figures, 8MB PDF (https://web.archive.org/web/20060220193354/http://www.focus435.org/download/EA/2_EA_figures.pdf)
Quote from: Sani on May 16, 2020, 01:36:24 PM
Could we get the Blue Project of Focus435 (https://web.archive.org/web/20060218110057/http://www.focus435.org/resource.aspx) finished? Separating the ramps on NB 69 to College Blvd. and to 435, and building a flyover ramp to WB 435, would alleviate a lot of the traffic.
Link to the Environmental Assessment Figures, 8MB PDF (https://web.archive.org/web/20060220193354/http://www.focus435.org/download/EA/2_EA_figures.pdf)
In the Pre-Planning Analysis Summary (https://dw.opkansas.org/public/FileCabinets/2fa13812-70a3-4126-848b-3a20df7175c3/Documents/10466/FileDownload?targetFileType=Auto&keepAnnotations=false) I found on Overland Park's US69 Improvements (https://www.opkansas.org/city-services/traffic-roads-transportation/u-s-69-improvements/) site, they do have maps of what the improvements would look like in the two scenarios. This is all still preliminary though. I do agree with you that the changes you mentioned are definitely needed.
Quote from: mvak36 on May 16, 2020, 03:34:45 PMIn the Pre-Planning Analysis Summary (https://dw.opkansas.org/public/FileCabinets/2fa13812-70a3-4126-848b-3a20df7175c3/Documents/10466/FileDownload?targetFileType=Auto&keepAnnotations=false) I found on Overland Park's US69 Improvements (https://www.opkansas.org/city-services/traffic-roads-transportation/u-s-69-improvements/) site, they do have maps of what the improvements would look like in the two scenarios. This is all still preliminary though. I do agree with you that the changes you mentioned are definitely needed.
Thank you for the link. It looks like Scenario 1 includes the final parts of the Focus435 project, such as the SPUI at College Blvd. and the flyover. I think I can live with the Lexus lanes they intend to build, given the other improvements they're also making as part of it.
Now if we could get Phase 3 of the Johnson County Gateway (https://web.archive.org/web/20160830134233/http://jocogateway.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2014-04-10-Ultimate-Exhibit_sized.pdf) built, then we would be in good shape for a few decades, at least north of 151st Street on 35 and 69.
QuoteThank you for the link. It looks like Scenario 1 includes the final parts of the Focus435 project, such as the SPUI at College Blvd. and the flyover. I think I can live with the Lexus lanes they intend to build, given the other improvements they're also making as part of it.
It looks like both scenarios involve building new bridges for 69 over College, and having at least part of a SPUI with a dedicated onramp to 69 N only. The 2nd scenario leaves the existing NB exit ramps to College, but uses the existing NB bridge as a dedicated offramp to 435 E
They have posted an updated schedule for the remaining T-Works projects. http://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/IKE/Documents/T-WORKS_Construction_Progress_5-26-20.pdf
These projects will need to have at least one phase of construction let before any of the IKE projects can begin construction. According to the link posted, that will be after Dec 2021.
Quote
In March 2020, the Kansas Legislature approved and Governor Kelly signed into law the Eisenhower Legacy Transportation Program (IKE), a 10-year transportation program that preserves the existing system and provides flexibility to address current and future opportunities and challenges.
While it is exciting to start development work on new projects, delayed T-WORKS projects must be completed and promises delivered to Kansas communities. Currently there are 18 T-WORKS projects remaining, and KDOT is working to deliver those projects as quickly as possible.
Scheduled letting dates are noted on the construction report. As projects move to construction, a public information meeting will be held to review engineering plans and the construction schedule. For more information, email ike@ks.gov
" On a central, urban corridor like U.S. 69, building an additional general-purpose lane would not alleviate congestion because that lane would soon be full, perpetuating the congestion problem. Express lanes are an innovative congestion management tool and could make sense on U.S. 69 where bottlenecks occur daily during peak travel times."
From the OP us-69 improvement website. This is so dumb that they would make this claim. An easy translation is "we are pricing poor people out of this lane for those that can afford it." Another slap in the face to the working class.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 28, 2020, 03:22:15 PM
" On a central, urban corridor like U.S. 69, building an additional general-purpose lane would not alleviate congestion because that lane would soon be full, perpetuating the congestion problem. Express lanes are an innovative congestion management tool and could make sense on U.S. 69 where bottlenecks occur daily during peak travel times."
From the OP us-69 improvement website. This is so dumb that they would make this claim. An easy translation is "we are pricing poor people out of this lane for those that can afford it." Another slap in the face to the working class.
You've questioned the second sentence of the quotation. You would not be wrong to say that the second sentence is debatable. But can you disprove the first sentence? (Spoiler alert: decades worth of research says you can't.)
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 28, 2020, 05:39:14 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 28, 2020, 03:22:15 PM
" On a central, urban corridor like U.S. 69, building an additional general-purpose lane would not alleviate congestion because that lane would soon be full, perpetuating the congestion problem. Express lanes are an innovative congestion management tool and could make sense on U.S. 69 where bottlenecks occur daily during peak travel times."
From the OP us-69 improvement website. This is so dumb that they would make this claim. An easy translation is "we are pricing poor people out of this lane for those that can afford it." Another slap in the face to the working class.
You've questioned the second sentence of the quotation. You would not be wrong to say that the second sentence is debatable. But can you disprove the first sentence? (Spoiler alert: decades worth of research says you can't.)
No you are right induced demand is here to doom us all so let's just toll everything because free lanes will fill right up.
What a crock of shit this assumption is. Oklahoma widened I-40 years ago and it still hasn't filled up. The truth is latent demand is the real player at work and the department doesn't want to admit it. No distinction could possibly be made of how many new trips occurred because a third lane was added even though that would be the first thought if it did fill up. Don't mislead the public. If the freeway needs ten lanes then do it. If you don't have the money then say so. Don't try and spoon feed people the induced demand bullshit because that's exactly what it is, bullshit.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 28, 2020, 06:33:00 PM
No you are right induced demand is here to doom us all so let's just toll everything because free lanes will fill right up.
What a crock of shit this assumption is. Oklahoma widened I-40 years ago and it still hasn't filled up. The truth is latent demand is the real player at work and the department doesn't want to admit it. No distinction could possibly be made of how many new trips occurred because a third lane was added even though that would be the first thought if it did fill up. Don't mislead the public. If the freeway needs ten lanes then do it. If you don't have the money then say so. Don't try and spoon feed people the induced demand bullshit because that's exactly what it is, bullshit.
Yeah, you tell 'em!
Funny how the induced demand doubters thought Houston "built its way out of congestion" years ago, and now we're finding out it actually didn't.
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 28, 2020, 06:38:45 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 28, 2020, 06:33:00 PM
No you are right induced demand is here to doom us all so let's just toll everything because free lanes will fill right up.
What a crock of shit this assumption is. Oklahoma widened I-40 years ago and it still hasn't filled up. The truth is latent demand is the real player at work and the department doesn't want to admit it. No distinction could possibly be made of how many new trips occurred because a third lane was added even though that would be the first thought if it did fill up. Don't mislead the public. If the freeway needs ten lanes then do it. If you don't have the money then say so. Don't try and spoon feed people the induced demand bullshit because that's exactly what it is, bullshit.
Yeah, you tell 'em!
Funny how the induced demand doubters thought Houston "built its way out of congestion" years ago, and now we're finding out it actually didn't.
From my experience the Katy freeway flows fine where it was widened, it is the bottleneck that causes it to back up. Dallas has better flowing traffic than Portland, OR. That's saying something.
But hey way to dodge my points with a "yeah you tell em" response. It's cute.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 28, 2020, 06:44:50 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 28, 2020, 06:38:45 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 28, 2020, 06:33:00 PM
No you are right induced demand is here to doom us all so let's just toll everything because free lanes will fill right up.
What a crock of shit this assumption is. Oklahoma widened I-40 years ago and it still hasn't filled up. The truth is latent demand is the real player at work and the department doesn't want to admit it. No distinction could possibly be made of how many new trips occurred because a third lane was added even though that would be the first thought if it did fill up. Don't mislead the public. If the freeway needs ten lanes then do it. If you don't have the money then say so. Don't try and spoon feed people the induced demand bullshit because that's exactly what it is, bullshit.
Yeah, you tell 'em!
Funny how the induced demand doubters thought Houston "built its way out of congestion" years ago, and now we're finding out it actually didn't.
From my experience the Katy freeway flows fine where it was widened, it is the bottleneck that causes it to back up. Dallas has better flowing traffic than Portland, OR. That's saying something.
But hey way to dodge my points with a "yeah you tell em" response. It's cute.
You're dodging several points. (1) Induced demand is well researched science. Denying it is no less dishonest than any claim a political figure might make in favor of or against building or expanding a roadway. No, it's not a hard science like physics and chemistry, where you can predict every outcome precisely; it's a social science, where predictions can be made with a certain degree of reliability but not 100%. (2) Driving is a privilege, not a right, and nobody has a right to free-flowing traffic. It's unrealistic and damaging to expect roads to be expanded ad infinitum. At some point it's best to tell people no.
Now back to my original point--
You would be correct to say that the best way to handle traffic on the US 69 Freeway in Overland Park, Kansas is a matter of debate. There are several options including but not limited to: (1) add X number of lanes without putting tolls on any of them, (2) add toll lanes with demand-based pricing, (3) convert the whole freeway to a tollway and provide an alternate US Highway route as required by my understanding of US Highway designation requirements, (4) add ramp meters to help reduce mainline congestion, at least before doing anything else, and (5) do nothing (the "no build" option). Frankly, I'm not sure which is the best option, and it probably requires further study before jumping to conclusions. All we know is the City of Overland Park wants a widening but KDOT hasn't made it a priority, congestion currently exists on the freeway, and the phenomenon of induced demand exists in general. I don't think it would impossible for Overland Park to impose a sales tax increase to pay for it, because that's how Wichita built the Kellogg Freeway (two concurrently routed US Highways).
However, you would be
incorrect to jump to the conclusion that induced demand is "bullshit" or that "building your way out of congestion" is a generally reliable solution.
If induced demand is a thing, why doesn't Oklahoma City experience noticeable amounts of congestion?
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 09, 2020, 05:22:32 AM
If induced demand is a thing, why doesn't Oklahoma City experience noticeable amounts of congestion?
Because OKC doesn't fall in line with that ridiculous narrative. The data is cherry picked in cities with traffic congestion on the heaviest trafficked corridors they have from projects usually only adding one lane each way when it needed 3 or more.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 09, 2020, 01:54:22 PM
Because OKC doesn't fall in line with that ridiculous narrative. The data is cherry picked in cities with traffic congestion on the heaviest trafficked corridors they have from projects usually only adding one lane each way when it needed 3 or more.
Would you care to cite your sources?
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 09, 2020, 06:04:26 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 09, 2020, 01:54:22 PM
Because OKC doesn't fall in line with that ridiculous narrative. The data is cherry picked in cities with traffic congestion on the heaviest trafficked corridors they have from projects usually only adding one lane each way when it needed 3 or more.
Would you care to cite your sources?
You already have in the past. Look at your own sources. They fall in line with exactly what I just said. The same typical traffic congested cities are always used and the ones like OKC that still widen their freeways left and right never are.
Just like SLC that is building new lanes and freeways like crazy and growing like mad saw a reduction in travel times. Weird. Also weird how Portland rivals DFW traffic is a quarter of its size.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 09, 2020, 07:50:38 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 09, 2020, 06:04:26 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 09, 2020, 01:54:22 PM
Because OKC doesn't fall in line with that ridiculous narrative. The data is cherry picked in cities with traffic congestion on the heaviest trafficked corridors they have from projects usually only adding one lane each way when it needed 3 or more.
Would you care to cite your sources?
You already have in the past. Look at your own sources. They fall in line with exactly what I just said. The same typical traffic congested cities are always used and the ones like OKC that still widen their freeways left and right never are.
Just like SLC that is building new lanes and freeways like crazy and growing like mad saw a reduction in travel times. Weird. Also weird how Portland rivals DFW traffic is a quarter of its size.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 09, 2020, 01:54:22 PM
...projects usually only adding one lane each way when it needed 3 or more.
Can you show me a single example of a project that only added one lane in each direction when it needed three or more
in each direction? And if so, how can you determine that it
needed three or more in each direction? What data do you have to support this claim? What math shows that the amount of lanes
needed was at least three times the amount of lanes actually added?
Do you really expect anyone who's paying attention to believe your claim that induced demand--supported by decades of research--is, in your word, bullshit, when your own half-assed retorts are full of flimsy claims?
Edit: I corrected a brain fart that I made when I was tired last night.
It's becoming very obvious you are trolling now. Looking back I should have gathered that earlier.
Strident, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll respond to you one last time. I honestly could go through, dig up numbers on a number of freeway widening projects that occurred in major cities with horrid congestion, gather traffic numbers, cross reference those with a variety of state DOT guidelines for warranted widening after ADT crosses a certain threshold, and present that. To be quite honest, if I were writing a research paper to publish or for a school I probably would. I'm on a talk forum and I could give not two shits whether you change your mind or not. So you look it up yourself.
PS, just remember, if you do go through the trouble to gather those numbers, remember to account for latent and induced demand. See when I say induced demand is bullshit, I mean it's bullshit to be used against freeway construction because there is no distinction made between it and latent demand, no real number for exactly how many cars account for induced demand, and always pathetic excuses made for cities that widen freeways to see the new lanes provide sufficient LOS for years.
As I said, I don't care to change you mind here. I'm not citing anything for you. I don't feel like going through the effort even it takes less time than me making this post. That said one day I do plan to do an in depth analysis of all of this and likely it will be for a school project so when that day comes I'll make a thread here just for you. :)
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 10, 2020, 06:06:45 AM
That said one day I do plan to do an in depth analysis of all of this and likely it will be for a school project so when that day comes I'll make a thread here just for you. :)
Good. I look forward to reading it.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 09, 2020, 07:50:38 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 09, 2020, 06:04:26 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 09, 2020, 01:54:22 PM
Because OKC doesn't fall in line with that ridiculous narrative. The data is cherry picked in cities with traffic congestion on the heaviest trafficked corridors they have from projects usually only adding one lane each way when it needed 3 or more.
Would you care to cite your sources?
You already have in the past. Look at your own sources. They fall in line with exactly what I just said. The same typical traffic congested cities are always used and the ones like OKC that still widen their freeways left and right never are.
Just like SLC that is building new lanes and freeways like crazy and growing like mad saw a reduction in travel times. Weird. Also weird how Portland rivals DFW traffic is a quarter of its size.
The supposed existence of induced demand does not necessitate that every widening project will result in the same level of congestion as before the project. It's possible that induced demand didn't happen at some projects but did happen at other projects. It's possible that, even if travel times were reduced, demand still went up–just not up far enough to match pre-project travel times.
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 09, 2020, 06:04:26 PM
Would you care to cite your sources?
Oklahoma City widened most of its freeways in the 1990s and 2000s. Induced demand would say that the roads would have returned to a comparable LOS as before the expansion by now. But they haven't.
Two things that the theory of induced demand fails to account for:
-Traffic on roads other than the target road. Any road is part of a system. Most American cities have a grid of streets that any given corridor will run parallel to. If traffic rises on a target corridor, it may fall on adjacent corridors as people shift usage to the improved corridor. While freeway expansion may not help traffic on the freeway, it helps remove cars from local streets not designed for thru traffic, which is still a net benefit. This demand is latent rather than induced.
-Freeway usage can be expected to rise as a function of a region's population. City growth is driven by other factors besides transportation access. If KDOT widens I-35, then I get a sweet job in KCMO and move to Overland Park and start commuting to it, did KDOT really "induce" my demand?
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 10, 2020, 04:31:59 PM
-Freeway usage can be expected to rise as a function of a region's population. City growth is driven by other factors besides transportation access. If KDOT widens I-35, then I get a sweet job in KCMO and move to Overland Park and start commuting to it, did KDOT really "induce" my demand?
Wouldn't that depend on what influenced your decision to live in Overland Park (and which part of Overland Park), as opposed to other municipalities in the KC metropolitan area?
(Also, if you're living in Overland Park and commuting north, the US 69 freeway is also likely going to be a matter of concern.)
(I also wonder how many people commute from Overland Park to KCMO, compared to the number of people who commute from Lee's Summit to Overland Park. If you look at rush hour on the 435, it's heavy from Lee's Summit to OP in the morning, and heavy the other way in the evening. But yes, commuting from OP and Olathe north to KCMO is still a very major part of the area's commuting patterns.)
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 10, 2020, 04:31:59 PM
Oklahoma City widened most of its freeways in the 1990s and 2000s.
Uhh, not "most". Broadway Extension was widened from 63rd north to Memorial in the late 90's. I35 from OKC to Norman was widened from 4 to 6 lanes over the period of nearly 20 years. I240 was widened from the airport to Crossroads. That's it. I don't count the I40 Crosstown as a widening as it was on a new alignment and left the terrible Amarillo junction untouched.I-35 from the Fort Smith junction north to I44 is still in it's 1960's configuration an hasn't been widened north from there since the 70's. I44 is the same as it has been since the 1970's. So is I40 east from downtown.
I disagree with the notion the Crosstown wasn't widened. To me it is still the same signed road just slightly shifted to the south but going from 3 lanes each way to 5.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 10, 2020, 09:29:06 PM
I disagree with the notion the Crosstown wasn't widened. To me it is still the same signed road just slightly shifted to the south but going from 3 lanes each way to 5.
Still doesn't change the point I made.
The point I was making was that OKC added a considerable number of freeway lane-miles in the 1990s and 2000s and has yet to experience congestion catching up with it.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 15, 2020, 03:09:22 AM
The point I was making was that OKC added a considerable number of freeway lane-miles in the 1990s and 2000s and has yet to experience congestion catching up with it.
Yet they still haven't done anything with Dead Man's Curve (I44/OK74/OK66). I think I remember a thread on another board where they listed 2-digit interstates that were reduced to one lane at a major junction. I44 is one lane in BOTH directions here. Traffic backs up terribly in both directions during the evening rush hour. Designed and built in the 70's, you would have thought they knew better. What a cluster
The interchange with I-44, OK-66 & OK-74 really needs to be re-built as a 4-level directional stack interchange, with at least 2 lanes on both EB & WB I-44 ramps. No cloverleaf ramps. That would solve most of the problems right there. Hefner Parkway (OK-74) has enough existing ROW to add another lane in each direction. I think OK-66 ought to be elevated over that first stoplight just West of the interchange and maybe even elevated over the Portland Ave intersection for good measure. Unfortunately this entire concept would probably cost well over $300 million to build.
In the meantime we're just getting some piece-meal, duct tape "fixes" to that interchange.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 15, 2020, 03:10:37 PM
The interchange with I-44, OK-66 & OK-74 really needs to be re-built as a 4-level directional stack interchange, with at least 2 lanes on both EB & WB I-44 ramps. No cloverleaf ramps. That would solve most of the problems right there. Hefner Parkway (OK-74) has enough existing ROW to add another lane in each direction. I think OK-66 ought to be elevated over that first stoplight just West of the interchange and maybe even elevated over the Portland Ave intersection for good measure. Unfortunately this entire concept would probably cost well over $300 million to build.
That sounds like overkill. You could probably just add a lane to I-44 in each direction where it only has one, and then taper it after each direction's merge.
It's not overkill at all. I've driven through that interchange many times over the past 30 years. The current design is TERRIBLE. All ODOT can do with it is make very minor upgrades that do little to solve the traffic snarl issues. It's going to take more than just patching on an extra lane. The ramp geometry sucks. That's another reason for the back-ups. And then there's the two traffic signals on OK-66 immediately to the West of the interchange. That crap causes even more problems, hence my suggestion to create a short elevated freeway section so traffic that's hung up at the stop lights doesn't back up into the damned interchange.
The induced demand fallacy again :rolleyes:
In Hampton Roads, numerous of projects were completed in the 1990s and early 2000s.
I-64 was widened to 8 lanes between I-464 / VA-168 / US-17 and I-264 in the 1990s.
I-64 was widened to 8 lanes between I-664 and Jefferson Ave on the Peninsula in the early 2000s.
I-264 was widened to 8 lanes between Downtown Norfolk and First Colonial Road in the 1990s and early 2000s, with the exception of the I-264 / I-64 and I-464 / I-264 / Downtown Tunnel interchanges.
Rarely any congestion on those segments on the freeway mainlines themselves, even during peak hours.
The remaining 4 lane interstate segments in the area with similar or less traffic volumes? Heavy congestion.
Before 2017, I-64 was a bottleneck from Newport News to Richmond. It went from 8 lanes to 6 lanes to 4 lanes north of Jefferson Ave. Over the past few years, it has been widened to 6 lanes from Jefferson Ave to Williamsburg, and traffic now flows 65+ mph easily, even during peak hours. The remainder to Richmond is currently being completed in phases, and as each phase opens, traffic gets considerable better, especially during peak holidays.
Traffic grows over years on any facilities. Does widening trigger "induced demand" or is it simply more traffic / growth that was inevitably going to happen anyways and make un-widened facilities even worse? Essentially, a 4 lane freeway was widened to 6 lanes, traffic got better, then over years grew again. What if that facility was still 4 lanes, not 6? The traffic was still going to grow, it just has more capacity to handle higher volumes before congesting. Is there a point where HO/T lanes can become beneficial when a highway is built out to 6 or 8 general purpose lanes and there's little room for expansion? Maybe... but that should not be the only solution as many organizations like to look at it, including Hampton Roads who is now turning to HO/T lanes to widen the remaining 4 lane freeways in the area and not considering GP lanes. They claim in studies done that HO/T lanes would be better for traffic flow in the long-term, but I seriously question those results. How come the general purpose lanes added on facilities mentioned above aren't bottlenecked?
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 15, 2020, 05:45:54 PM
The induced demand fallacy again :rolleyes:
Why do you think induced demand is a "fallacy?" Can you cite a specific part of the research that makes an incorrect conclusion?
Quote
Traffic grows over years on any facilities. Does widening trigger "induced demand" or is it simply more traffic / growth that was inevitably going to happen anyways and make un-widened facilities even worse? Essentially, a 4 lane freeway was widened to 6 lanes, traffic got better, then over years grew again. What if that facility was still 4 lanes, not 6? The traffic was still going to grow, it just has more capacity to handle higher volumes before congesting.
I think you're missing the point that traffic is its own limiting factor. When a roadway or road network reaches a high level of congestion, people begin to look to alternatives instead of driving on it, because they realize the increased travel times from congestion make the trip less worthwhile.
There's an old joke that speaks to the truth in this: "Nobody drives in Manhattan because there's too much traffic." In many senses, it's true. If I was driving from New Jersey to Long Island, I'd much rather go through Staten Island, despite the increased distance. If I was driving to Connecticut, I'd much rather take the Tappan Zee Bridge than the George Washington Bridge. If I was going
to Manhattan, I'd much rather park my car somewhere in New Jersey and take a train.
And I realize that the theory of induced demand isn't a model that predicts every situation with 100% numerical certainty. There
are many variables that influence differing results. It's generalizable as a phenomenon that occurs repeatedly, but it's not predictable enough to say that adding X number of lanes will result in Y increase in traffic over Z amount of time. That's one of the main differences between social sciences and physical sciences; social sciences describe trends that occur with degrees of variability, while physical sciences describe phenomena that can be predicted with high levels of precision in every case until new evidence disproves an old theory, which has been known to happen with biological science but hasn't yet happened with gravity.
The theory of induced demand is based in the work of
social science. Traffic engineering depends very much on social science, because it involves modeling human behavior. That's why it's a fallacy (and something that has been proven false) to say "traffic flows like water." The difference is obvious. Traffic flows like what it
is: humans with central nervous systems making informed decisions about travel behavior. Water flows like what
it is: molecules lacking central nervous systems and unable to do anything but follow the laws of physics.
They're going to have a public meeting tomorrow about the US69 toll lanes.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/business/development/article248605555.html
Quote
Johnson County residents will have an opportunity Wednesday evening to ask questions and learn more about a plan to expand U.S. 69 in Overland Park – possibly with new toll lanes.
Officials with the Kansas Department of Transportation and Overland Park are studying the feasibility of widening U.S. 69 to six lanes from 103rd to 179th streets. Both of those new lanes in each direction could be turned into "express toll lanes" to help fund the cost of the project, which is estimated to be $300 million for the initial work.
KDOT will host its first public meeting about the project, virtually, from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. Wednesday. The meeting may be accessed on that day through a link posted on the project website, 69express.org. Project leaders will give a presentation and then allow residents a chance to submit questions.
For those who cannot attend the meeting, project information will be available at the same website through Jan. 31. Residents can also leave feedback on the website.
Requiring a toll lane to expand a road to six lanes... what a great legacy for Eisenhower's Interstate system. I really hope this is voted down.
From the project plans, it looks like the express toll lanes project would widen 69 to four lanes in each direction, with the inside lane being the toll lane, at least north of 151st Street. I wonder if that would be a problem for toll revenues, since at least three lanes in each direction north of 151st, along with the improvements from College to 103rd (including the NB 69 --> WB 435 flyover ramp, sorely needed), would really take care of the vast majority of the problem. Why pay for a KTag to go in the far left lane when the free #2 lane is moving just as smoothly?
Looks like the IKE program has a new site: https://www.ksdotike.org/
They've announced the projects that are moving to the Construction Pipeline.
https://www.ksdotike.org/projects/construction-pipeline-announcementst-2021
Here are the official announcements from the Governor's office: Topeka (https://governor.kansas.gov/governor-laura-kelly-announces-eight-highway-improvement-projects-in-eastern-kansas/), Wichita (https://governor.kansas.gov/governor-laura-kelly-announces-six-highway-improvement-projects-in-south-central-kansas/), Dodge City (https://governor.kansas.gov/governor-laura-kelly-announces-nine-highway-improvement-projects-in-western-kansas/), Overland Park (https://governor.kansas.gov/governor-laura-kelly-announces-u-s-69-expansion-and-modernization-project-in-johnson-county/)
One of the projects moving to construction is the Polk-Quincy Viaduct in Topeka. Construction is scheduled to start in 2024. https://www.cjonline.com/story/news/local/2021/07/08/kansas-kdot-approve-funding-construction-polk-quincy-viaduct-interstate-70-ks-pedestrian-pathway/7902222002/
Other projects that are now in the construction pipeline per this week's announcement.
2022 Letting:
* US 69 widening/Express Toll Lanes (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26432.msg2634744#msg2634744)
* I-135/I-235 North interchange Gold Project
2023 Letting:
* US 400 passing lanes near Cherokee
* US 400 passing lanes near Severy
* US 169 passing lanes in southwest Neosho County
* Add paved shoulders to K-7 between Girard and US 69 south of Fort Scott
* Rebuild 6th Street/South Lawrence Trafficway interchange to a DDI.
* Extend passing lanes on US 50 near Burrton, Walton, and Peabody
* Add paved shoulders to US 160 between I-35 and Oxford
* Add paved shoulders to K-42 in northern Sumner and southern Sedgwick counties
* Add and extend passing lanes on US 54 in Meade, Kiowa, and Pratt counties
* Add two sets of passing lanes on US 50 near Spearville
* Add paved shoulders to K-156 from Jetmore to Hanston
* Extend passing lanes on US 50 between Offerle and Kinsley.
Quote from: route56 on July 09, 2021, 12:16:09 AM
* US 400 passing lanes near Cherokee
Thank the Lord. That section is brutal if you're stuck behind a slow truck or RV.
They've announced more projects to be added to the development pipeline today. https://www.ksdotike.org/projects/development-pipeline-announcements-2021. There's a lot of good info on this page.
New projects list: https://ikewebstorage.blob.core.windows.net/files/Development-Announcements-2021/new-development-pipeline-projects-info-sheet.pdf
List with info on existing IKE projects, new IKE projects, and Tworks project status: https://ikewebstorage.blob.core.windows.net/files/Development-Announcements-2021/IKE-pipeline-T-WORKS-projects-info-sheet.pdf
Biggest ones I saw (at least in my area) are the K-10 project (from K-7 to I-435) and I-35 (reconstruction and widening from Old US 56 to 119th St and a new interchange at Santa Fe).
In the Wichita area, by far the biggest project (made possible through the infrastructure bill) is redevelopment of the US 54-400/K-96 interchange and continuation of the Kellogg freeway east to just past the Butler County line. This is tentatively estimated to cost $166 million.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 15, 2021, 06:10:40 PM
In the Wichita area, by far the biggest project (made possible through the infrastructure bill) is redevelopment of the US 54-400/K-96 interchange and continuation of the Kellogg freeway east to just past the Butler County line. This is tentatively estimated to cost $166 million.
That's a good project too. Will be interesting to see what projects get moved into the construction pipeline next summer.
They've announced the projects that are moving into the construction pipeline: https://www.ksdotike.org/projects/construction-pipeline-announcements-2022
Info Sheet (https://ikewebstorage.blob.core.windows.net/files/Construction-Announcement-2022/IKE_PMC_SC_2022-Construction-Pipeline_TableOnly.pdf)
Is it odd that they haven't found a way to move up the third phase of the JoCo Gateway and widening K-10 between K-7 and I-435, given the $4 billion Panasonic battery factory that's supposed to open by summer of 2024? K-10 is already fairly congested during rush hour without that extra traffic.
Quote from: Sani on August 20, 2022, 11:57:18 PM
Is it odd that they haven't found a way to move up the third phase of the JoCo Gateway and widening K-10 between K-7 and I-435, given the $4 billion Panasonic battery factory that's supposed to open by summer of 2024? K-10 is already fairly congested during rush hour without that extra traffic.
I think they're still trying to decide whether they want to put toll lanes on K-10, like they're planning for US 69.
Quote from: Ned Weasel on August 21, 2022, 09:00:20 AM
Quote from: Sani on August 20, 2022, 11:57:18 PM
Is it odd that they haven't found a way to move up the third phase of the JoCo Gateway and widening K-10 between K-7 and I-435, given the $4 billion Panasonic battery factory that's supposed to open by summer of 2024? K-10 is already fairly congested during rush hour without that extra traffic.
I think they're still trying to decide whether they want to put toll lanes on K-10, like they're planning for US 69.
Hmm. Hopefully not, since they could have gone that route with the SLT but decided against it. Then again, maybe they figure since so many people in JoCo will need a K-TAG anyway, might as well buy some more toll gantries, right?
I found this page on the IKE website: https://ike.ksdot.gov/projects/project-pages
They have project info about quite a few projects in here, if anyone is interested.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 09, 2020, 05:22:32 AM
If induced demand is a thing, why doesn't Oklahoma City experience noticeable amounts of congestion?
Why is I-44 in midtown Tulsa less congested today than it was 15 years ago prior to the rebuild?
I was disappointed to learn the US 69 Express project lost the flyover ramp from northbound US 69 to westbound I-435. Compare the original project improvements map (https://www.69express.ksdot.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/U.S.-69-Concept-Exhibits-Express-Toll-Lane-and-Traditional-Widening-Alternatives.pdf) to the one from February of this year. (https://69express.ksdot.gov/resources/project-improvements/)
Would it have been possible to eliminate the three cloverleaf ramps at the US 69/Interstate 435 interchange, and make it a full stack interchange without requiring a great deal of right-of-way impacts?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 12, 2023, 07:14:23 PMWould it have been possible to eliminate the three cloverleaf ramps at the US 69/Interstate 435 interchange, and make it a full stack interchange without requiring a great deal of right-of-way impacts?
I think the footprint is large enough to accommodate a full Maltese cross stack, though not necessarily with a high design speed for the direct connectors. Whether it would be worth doing (with or without acquiring additional right-of-way) is another story.
This said, KDOT has a pattern of shying away from building stacks. In the late 2000's/early 2010's they had studies identifying the Maltese cross configuration as options for I-35/I-435, K-7/K-10, and I-235/US 54. IIRC, K-7/K-10 is still in the early planning stages, but I-35/I-435 emerged from the Johnson County Gateway project with two loop ramps, and the final configuration for I-235/US 54 is to be a stack/turban hybrid with two of the opposite-facing left-turning direct connectors crossing in plan.
Stacks are less of a lift in some states than in others, but I think Texas is pretty much the only one in which they are regarded as an "of course" proposition.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 12, 2023, 09:53:47 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 12, 2023, 07:14:23 PMWould it have been possible to eliminate the three cloverleaf ramps at the US 69/Interstate 435 interchange, and make it a full stack interchange without requiring a great deal of right-of-way impacts?
I think the footprint is large enough to accommodate a full Maltese cross stack, though not necessarily with a high design speed for the direct connectors. Whether it would be worth doing (with or without acquiring additional right-of-way) is another story.
This said, KDOT has a pattern of shying away from building stacks. In the late 2000's/early 2010's they had studies identifying the Maltese cross configuration as options for I-35/I-435, K-7/K-10, and I-235/US 54. IIRC, K-7/K-10 is still in the early planning stages, but I-35/I-435 emerged from the Johnson County Gateway project with two loop ramps, and the final configuration for I-235/US 54 is to be a stack/turban hybrid with two of the opposite-facing left-turning direct connectors crossing in plan.
Stacks are less of a lift in some states than in others, but I think Texas is pretty much the only one in which they are regarded as an "of course" proposition.
Cost is a big reason, but I also wonder if some of that is due to weather and the possibility of the flyovers freezing faster during icy conditions. They've had to basically block off the 69 SB to 435 EB flyover a few times the past few years. I don't believe I've heard anything like that for the I-35/I-435 flyovers.
The US69/I-435 interchange probably doesn't need a full stack right now. I wish they would have done the flyover from NB 69 to 435 WB, but the rest of it is probably ok for the time being. If they'd built that flyover, the weaving issues would have been taken care of.
Missed this last month but they have selected the next projects to be moved to the Construction Pipeline (https://ike.ksdot.gov/projects/construction-pipeline-announcement-2023): https://ikewebstorage.blob.core.windows.net/files/September-2023-Construction-Pipeline-Announcement-New-Projects-List-and-Map-FINAL.pdf
Quote from: mvak36 on October 17, 2023, 01:17:34 PM
Missed this last month but they have selected the next projects to be moved to the Construction Pipeline (https://ike.ksdot.gov/projects/construction-pipeline-announcement-2023): https://ikewebstorage.blob.core.windows.net/files/September-2023-Construction-Pipeline-Announcement-New-Projects-List-and-Map-FINAL.pdf
Looking at the meeting materials (https://ike.ksdot.gov/projects/2023-local-consult-process-meeting-materials) from the Local Consult meetings, it looks like all of the South Lawrence Trafficway has moved to the construction pipeline now with the last section to begin construction in FY26.
EDIT: They have a virtual meeting next week for these Local consults if anyone is interested: https://www.ksdot.gov/Assets/wwwksdotorg/Headquarters/PDF_Files/pressrelease2023/Virtual_Local_Consult_Release.pdf
Per this article $350 million in new projects have been added to the IKE plan:
https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/kansas-adds-350m-in-projects-to-ike-construction-pipeline/62901
On March 7, Governor Kelly announced (https://www.ksdot.gov/Assets/wwwksdotorg/Headquarters/PDF_Files/pressrelease2024/GovPipelineRelease.pdf) the addition of $932 million worth of projects to the IKE development pipeline:
https://ike.ksdot.gov/projects/development-pipeline-announcement-2024
Highlights (https://ikewebstorage.blob.core.windows.net/files/Pipeline-Announcements/IKE-at-Work_Dev-Pipeline-Statewide-March-2024-Display-Board-12x18.pdf), in descending order of dollar value of estimated construction cost, include the following:
* Expand Kellogg Avenue (US 54-400) into Butler County as a six-lane freeway ($200 million)
* Build the Kingman Bypass (relocating US 54-400 to the north of town as a full freeway) ($173 million)
* Expand US 75 between Holton and the K-20 turnoff (Kickapoo casino access) to four-lane expressway ($126 million)
* Upgrade the I-135/I-70 interchange northwest of Salina ($70 million)
* Build interchanges at Rock and Webb Roads on the K-254 expressway northeast of Wichita ($50 million)
The remaining $313 million included in the announcement consists mainly of modernization of two-lane highways.
I could be wrong, but I thought they said during the local consult meetings that K-5 would be reconstructed on a new alignment. I guess we'll see whenever it gets moved up to the construction pipeline.
Any idea what KDOT plans for the I-70/I-135 interchange? The cloverleafs are tight, but otherwise it seems like a good facility.
Have they funded the South Lawrence freeway yet? Why does that project not get funding from these announcements?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2024, 09:50:02 PMHave they funded the South Lawrence freeway yet? Why does that project not get funding from these announcements?
The letting for that project is tentatively scheduled for June.
Meanwhile, construction is underway converting the US 40/K-10 interchange into a DDI. US 40 is closed on the west side of K-10, and there's this goof on the Detour.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53615452677_d170a981d3_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pFPd9v)
72458 (https://flic.kr/p/2pFPd9v) by me (https://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/), on Flickr
Quote from: route56 on March 28, 2024, 10:19:05 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2024, 09:50:02 PMHave they funded the South Lawrence freeway yet? Why does that project not get funding from these announcements?
The letting for that project is tentatively scheduled for June.
Meanwhile, construction is underway converting the US 40/K-10 interchange into a DDI. US 40 is closed on the west side of K-10, and there's this goof on the Detour.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53615452677_d170a981d3_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pFPd9v)
72458 (https://flic.kr/p/2pFPd9v) by me (https://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/), on Flickr
I'm curious as to what is preventing KDOT from turning over US 40 between K-4 and K-10 to Douglas and Shawnee counties. If it's the need for a parallel road to the Turnpike, they already have that in US 24.