This thread is similar in purpose to the parallel thread dealing with Oklahoma DOT contract advertisements.
In Kansas this month:
* 106 KA 1892-01: Statewide signing (I-70 in western Kansas):
http://www.ksdot.org/burconsmain/contracts/Proposals/Plans/510112353p.pdf
The link given above is guaranteed to remain good through the letting date of November 17. After that time it will disappear from KDOT's website. The file itself is likely to remain available at that URL for somewhat longer (until KDOT does housekeeping), but no promises.
There are a total of 27 pattern-accurate sign design sheets (out of 149 altogether), including Kansas' new E85 sign and (for European readers) the Kansas version of the chopsticks sign. It seems that KDOT is abandoning strict discipline and mixing street and town names on advance guide and exit direction signs, which is deprecated in the MUTCD. Gorham and Dorrance have both lost their feeder state highways, apparently while this project was still under design (the sign layout sheets show advance guide and exit direction signs with large blank spaces where state highway shields would go, and the sign design sheets show the same sign panels wrapped tightly around the text legend, without room for shields).
I saw and downloaded it as well....
One thing I saw: the control city on I-70 west of Hays has changed from "Limon" to "Denver"
Big project in this month's letting (12 volumes of plans in all): 69-46 K-8251-08 (I-435/US 69 interchange revamp, including construction of braided ramps).
http://www.ksdot.org/burconsmain/contracts/proposal.asp
The links will remain good only through bid opening day, which is this coming May 18.
I count about 58 sign panel detail and sign elevation sheets for the permanent signing, all in Volume 8. I haven't looked at the construction signing yet--it should be interesting since Kansas DOT is an aficionado of orange-background guide signing, though not to nearly the same degree as Michigan DOT.
I'm surprised that KDOT hasn't considered that provision in the 2009 MUTCD "Interchange numbering shall be used in signing each freeway interchange exit." US 69 exits are unnumbered - and 69 is full freeway clear to Fort Scott now.
I have been wondering for some months now how they propose to address that provision. As far as I can tell, they are still leaving exits unnumbered in all new off-Interstate freeway construction--not just US 69, but also US 59, US 54, K-18, etc.
Not all states designate freeways the same way. California, for example, is very explicit where a "freeway" begins and ends, and even signs it. NJ constructed some routes as "Freeway" back in the day (NJ 55), but doesn't do it that way anymore (such as 33 around Freehold). So which roads fall under the "mandate" to exit number? After current and future Interstates, it starts to get hazy. We may know as road enthusiasts what's a freeway or not, but the state may want to define it to suit their own needs.
Quote from: AlpsROADS on April 22, 2011, 07:34:36 PMSo which roads fall under the "mandate" to exit number? After current and future Interstates, it starts to get hazy. We may know as road enthusiasts what's a freeway or not, but the state may want to define it to suit their own needs.
I am not sure there is that much space to whipsaw around the exit numbering requirement. The typical Kansas non-Interstate freeway meets all of the elements of the AASHTO definition of a freeway and is typically Interstate-compatible (i.e., meets Interstate design criteria without actually being an Interstate). The main difference between Interstates and non-Interstate freeways in Kansas is the presence of a prohibition sign on Interstate on-ramps. There is no question that both Interstates and non-Interstate freeways in Kansas meet the
MUTCD definition of a freeway (§ IA.77)--"a divided highway with full control of access."
Even if Kansas tried to get around that in much the same way as other states manipulated the meaning of "multilane exit" to use non-Lunenfeld & Alexander signing for option lanes, there would be more of a risk of FHWA disapproval because the hypothetical Kansas policy would result in denial of a service to motorists, rather than substitution of a different type of service.
June 2011 Letting is out: http://www.ksdot.org/burconsmain/contracts/proposal.asp
Project of the month: US 50 near Hutchinson. The letting is to widen 50 from 2 lanes to 4 from the East K-61 Junction to Yoder Road/Airport Road and upgrade to a full freeway. Aside from correcting a sharp curve near K-61, the new roadway would remain on top of the existing US 50, with the current lanes serving as the eastbound lanes.
On signage, KDOT has yet to sign for 2009 MUTCD compliance. In addition to not using exit numbers, the westbound signs for the Yoder Road exit are not signed to freeway standards - the non-freeway signs are in ALL CAPS.
(Thread exhumation permit will be displayed on request.)
KDOT advertisements for March 2013 are now online, at the usual URL, and include a contract which will be of particular interest to Wichita residents--a RWIS camera and VMS installation project. This will supplement the existing Wichway camera coverage by adding new cameras at I-235/Broadway, Kellogg/Armour, Kellogg/Tyler, Kellogg/Maize, I-235/MacArthur, I-235/I-135 (south directional wye interchange; multiple installations), I-135/K-15, and I-135/Pawnee.
Kellogg already has heavy camera coverage from the airport connector interchange east to Woodlawn, so this contract extends it at both ends at approximately the same density. Unfortunately, this contract still leaves I-235 and K-96 largely bare of RWIS coverage away from their system interchanges.
KDOT is using the same heavy, stubby-looking 70' concrete CCTV poles it used with (and may have pioneered on) the first Wichita ITS contract, whose camera feeds were opened to the public in November or December 2011.
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 22, 2013, 12:12:18 PM
(Thread exhumation permit will be displayed on request.)
can you start a separate thread for Kansas DOT boring contract advertisements? I'd really like to know about a single pothole in Salina, or two new NO PARKING signs in Hays.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 05, 2013, 02:55:16 PMcan you start a separate thread for Kansas DOT boring contract advertisements? I'd really like to know about a single pothole in Salina, or two new NO PARKING signs in Hays.
I personally don't find ITS contracts interesting in and of themselves, either. But I mentioned this one for two reasons: (1) we have (at last count) three regulars from Wichita, and (2) it raises the question of anisotropy of RWIS camera coverage.
In rural (statewide) Kansas, KDOT's RWIS coverage is concentrated in the I-70 corridor. For years there were just two cameras in southern Kansas--one in Garden City and one in Chanute. Now new cameras have been added in Garden City, Liberal, McPherson, and Pittsburg, but coverage still favors I-70 heavily. (The Turnpike has RWIS cameras but most of them are useless since nearly all of them, with the sole exception of the camera at MP 103 in the Flint Hills, show just the approaches to toll plazas.) In Wichita, nearly all the RWIS coverage is on six-lane freeways--not four-lane freeways like I-235 and K-96.
Ten days ago we had a major blizzard in Kansas, followed several days later by a smaller snowstorm. In Wichita these storms resulted in total snowfall of 21.5" in February which broke all previous monthly records, but the real action was in an area to the southwest of Hutchinson where snow accumulations reached 40", forcing extended road closures and National Guard deployments. This part of the state has no RWIS coverage whatsoever.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 05, 2013, 06:56:52 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 05, 2013, 02:55:16 PMcan you start a separate thread for Kansas DOT boring contract advertisements? I'd really like to know about a single pothole in Salina, or two new NO PARKING signs in Hays.
I personally don't find ITS contracts interesting in and of themselves, either. But I mentioned this one for two reasons: (1) we have (at last count) three regulars from Wichita, and (2) it raises the question of anisotropy of RWIS camera coverage.
In rural (statewide) Kansas, KDOT's RWIS coverage is concentrated in the I-70 corridor. For years there were just two cameras in southern Kansas--one in Garden City and one in Chanute. Now new cameras have been added in Garden City, Liberal, McPherson, and Pittsburg, but coverage still favors I-70 heavily. (The Turnpike has RWIS cameras but most of them are useless since nearly all of them, with the sole exception of the camera at MP 103 in the Flint Hills, show just the approaches to toll plazas.) In Wichita, nearly all the RWIS coverage is on six-lane freeways--not four-lane freeways like I-235 and K-96.
Ten days ago we had a major blizzard in Kansas, followed several days later by a smaller snowstorm. In Wichita these storms resulted in total snowfall of 21.5" in February which broke all previous monthly records, but the real action was in an area to the southwest of Hutchinson where snow accumulations reached 40", forcing extended road closures and National Guard deployments. This part of the state has no RWIS coverage whatsoever.
JNW,
I agree with you here. I spent a lot of time during my snow days looking at those cams. I would like to see more, at the risk of Big Brother or "Eye in the Sky".
ICTRds
April lettings are now up....
24-44 KA-2607-01 It looks like Jefferson County will get its first permanent traffic light at the intersection of US 24 and Cedar Street/Ferguson Road in Perry. (I am very familiar with this intersection, Ferguson Road is the main road for the east side of Perry Lake)
24-89 K-7434-01: Replacing the bridge over the Union Pacific Mainline on the west side of Topeka, and while we're at it, add an interchange with Menoken Road.
24-89 KA-0461-01: The replacement of the bridge over Topeka Blvd on US 24. (and yes, they did correct the sign error that was on the plan sheets that were at the public meeting)
Winning bidders on the March lettings have been publicly announced.
I found this winning bid to be interesting:
Quote
Pottawatomie — 75 C‑0354‑01 — Bridge replacement 2.0 miles south and 3.0 miles east of Fostoria, grading, bridge and surfacing, 0.2 mile, King Construction Company Inc. and Subsidiaries, Hesston, $407,996.94.
I'm sure the current Transportation secretary had
nothing to do with this bid ;)
Couple of nice surprises in the advertisement just uploaded today (for a letting on May 22, 2013):
* 70-105 KA-1003-05--First part of the I-70 Bonner Springs revamp (this contract, which will be followed by two larger ones, shifts the ramps to and from K-7).
* 106 KA-1893-01--Major I-70 guide sign replacement (almost 200 sheets) covering the interchanges at Exits 206 (K-232 Wilson/Lucas), 209 (6th Road), 216 (12th Road), 238 (Brookville Road), 244 (Hedville Road), 295-296 (US 77/K-18 Marysville/Herington), 303 (K-18 eastbound to Manhattan), 304 (Humboldt Creek Road), and 313 (K-177 Manhattan/Council Grove). These are two noncontiguous clumps of exits, one west of Salina and the other between the west Junction City exit and the east Manhattan exit. One of the Exit 313 signs optimistically describes Manhattan as "Future Home of" (8" letters) "National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility" (13.3" letters).
Not much for sign geeks, but for the June letting:
106 KA-2396-01: Extension of the KC SCOUT ITS up I-435 on the west side from 87th north to Wolcott Drive (basically, giving all of 435 in Kansas SCOUT coverage)
106 KA-1501-01: Fiber Optic expansion along K-61 between Hutchinson and McPherson (presumably in anticipation of future ITS installation)
There are also several bridge replacment lettings out, including one on Old US 59 near the Douglas-Franklin County Line, one on K-268 in Osage County, and two on US 24 in Sherman County.
Nothing interesting on the July letting. This thread shall be buried for another 30 days. (The August Letting should be out in time for the Wichita meet)
In an interesting move (although, given the nature of the beast, probably shouldn't be surprising), KDOT has posted the current preliminary plans for the South Lawrence Trafficway (along with a fact sheet summarizing what all will be happening with this project) on the "Letting Information" Page.
http://www.ksdot.org/burconsmain/lettinginfo.asp
The August lettings are also up....
September Lettings are out.... and the big one is finally here.
10-23 K-8392-04... the eastern leg of the South Lawrence Trafficway... is on the letting list.
KDOT is also tying in 23 U 2117-01 ... 31st Street between Haskell and O'Connell Road (new arterial, with a roundabout at 31st and O'Connell)
Speaking of roundabouts, there's also 75-70 KA-0047-01 ... roundabout at the junction of US 75 and K-268 north of Lyndon in Osage County.
75-7 KA-0747-02 and 75-66 KA-0748-02 ... Seeding for the recently-completed resurfacing of US 75 in Nemaha and Brown Counties.
And one more SLT-related project ... 40-023 KA 2174-01 ... Installation of traffic signals at intersection of 6th Street with the trafficway.
Quote from: route56 on August 23, 2013, 03:25:17 PM
And one more SLT-related project ... 40-023 KA 2174-01 ... Installation of traffic signals at inersection of 6th Street with the trafficway.
I was wondering when that was going to be signalized. Should I assume we'll see more flashing yellow arrows there?
Quote from: stridentweasel on August 24, 2013, 02:58:46 PM
Quote from: route56 on August 23, 2013, 03:25:17 PM
And one more SLT-related project ... 40-023 KA 2174-01 ... Installation of traffic signals at inersection of 6th Street with the trafficway.
I was wondering when that was going to be signalized. Should I assume we'll see more flashing yellow arrows there?
Right now, they're showing doghouse signals (also, the spec call for the signals to be wire-hung)
Quote from: route56 on August 23, 2013, 03:25:17 PM
And one more SLT-related project ... 40-023 KA 2174-01 ... Installation of traffic signals at inersection of 6th Street with the trafficway.
Very nice of KDOT to have peak hour turning movement volumes on the cover sheet.
Quote from: route56 on August 23, 2013, 03:25:17 PM
Speaking of roundabouts, there's also 75-70 KA-0047-01 ... roundabout at the junction of US 75 and K-268 north of Lyndon in Osage County.
Aw, come on. Why?
Quote from: stridentweasel on August 28, 2013, 08:36:27 PM
Quote from: apeman33 on August 27, 2013, 10:50:11 PM
Quote from: route56 on August 27, 2013, 08:12:49 PM
Quote from: apeman33 on August 27, 2013, 01:14:07 AM
Aw, come on. Why?
Because Kansas.
(sighs.)
Just because roundabouts are trendy doesn't mean they're bad.
I'm starting to think Kansas is overusing them. Maybe traffic patterns have changed but I didn't think that U.S. 75 and K-268 was a place that needed a roundabout. If they're truly needed, I don't have a problem with them. F'rinstance, you pretty much need a roundabout at Fredonia because, otherwise, I don't think K-47/Washington Street traffic would ever have a chance to cross (but it was badly designed, IMO).
So how is the traffic at 75 and K-268?
Quote from: apeman33 on August 28, 2013, 10:24:38 PMI'm starting to think Kansas is overusing them. Maybe traffic patterns have changed but I didn't think that U.S. 75 and K-268 was a place that needed a roundabout. If they're truly needed, I don't have a problem with them. F'rinstance, you pretty much need a roundabout at Fredonia because, otherwise, I don't think K-47/Washington Street traffic would ever have a chance to cross (but it was badly designed, IMO).
So how is the traffic at 75 and K-268?
I can't comment on this intersection specifically, but the US 50/US 77 roundabout in Florence was justified on the basis of a persistent problem with fatal right-angle crashes which was not addressed by extra-large stop signs, flashing red beacons, and "US-50 DOES NOT STOP" supplementary plates. I am sure there are other roundabouts on the rural state highway system in Kansas which have been justified on a similar basis. While it is difficult to object to life-saving measures, this is a clear vector for apparent overuse since each roundabout is a break in (usually) 65-MPH travel.
Edit: Looking closely at US 75/K-31/K-268, I would expect traffic to form a large part of the justification. The title sheet quotes 2012 AADT of 6800 and 2032 AADT of 9000. This is presumably the amount of traffic the roundabout will handle. The current edition of the state traffic flow map shows traffic volumes in the 6000 range along US 75 and 3000 range along the K-31/K-268 axis. In comparison, the US 50 and US 77 intersection handles much lower and more evenly balanced volumes of the order of 2000 along US 77 and 3500 along US 50. With the exception of the bad right-angle crashes, this intersection was handled reasonably well with stop control.
US 75 north of Lyndon handles roughly the same traffic volumes as the US 54 Garden Plain-Pretty Prairie freeway between Cheney and the west end in far western Sedgwick and eastern Kingman counties. KDOT even has plans on the shelf for a US 54 freeway bypass of Kingman, which will serve similar volumes (still sub-10,000 AADT in the design year). US 54 gets more attention than US 75, despite the similar traffic, because of the long-standing plan to develop it into a Southern Kansas Corridor; US 75 is freeway for a distance south of Topeka (upgraded from a Super Two freeway built in the 1970's), but I am not sure the 1970's freeway/expressway designation along US 75 extends all the way to I-35, and I am definitely not aware of any plans for expressway upgrades either through or past Lyndon.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 28, 2013, 10:45:13 PM
Quote from: apeman33 on August 28, 2013, 10:24:38 PMSo how is the traffic at 75 and K-268?
Looking closely at US 75/K-31/K-268, I would expect traffic to form a large part of the justification. The title sheet quotes 2012 AADT of 6800 and 2032 AADT of 9000. This is presumably the amount of traffic the roundabout will handle. The current edition of the state traffic flow map shows traffic volumes in the 6000 range along US 75 and 3000 range along the K-31/K-268 axis. In comparison, the US 50 and US 77 intersection handles much lower and more evenly balanced volumes of the order of 2000 along US 77 and 3500 along US 50.
A quick check of traffic volumes near the Fredonia, Galena, Garnett, and Paola roundabouts indicated that volumes on those roads are lighter than at the US 75/K-268/K-31 intersection.
October lettings are out:
106 K-5925-13: Sign geeks, prepare to Salivate. It's time once again to overhaul the freeway guide singage in Kansas City. Although the project number has a "106," suggesting that it goes over multiple counties, almost all the new signage is in Wyandotte County on I-435, I-635, and I-670.
Of note: The exit sequence signage on I-435 will have an actual MO 45 marker instead of "Route 45." (All references to route N-T have already been removed)
470-89 KA-3294-01: Not to be left out, there's also a signage replacement project on I-470 in Topeka.
52 U-1887-01: Esentially, the intersection of 2nd Avenue and Limit Street in Leavenworth will be flipped. Instead of Westbound Limit turning to 2nd Ave north, requiring a left turn to continue on Limit Street westbound; Eastbound Limit will turn toward 2nd Street north, with a *right* turn required to continue east on Limit.
63-66 KA-2074-01: Bridge Replacement on K-63 north of Seneca. The Detour goes all the way to Nebraska highway 8. At the State Line, the signs are to read: END Detour K-63, BEGIN Detour NE-50.
181-71 KA-2078-01: Bridge Replacement on the west side of Glen Elder Reservoir, just south of the junction with US 24/K-9. Detour via US 24, US 281, and (in a rare move) an Osbourne county road.
31-2 KA-2049-01: Bridge Replacement south of Waverly. Detour via I-35 and US 59.
39-6 KA-2053-01: Bridge Replacement on K-39 of two bridges, one on each side of the K-3 Junction. Detour via K-146, K-47, and K-7. Interestingly, the plans show K-201 and K-277, both of which have recently been turned back.
Quote from: route56 on September 21, 2013, 07:54:33 PM
October lettings are out:
106 K-5925-13: Sign geeks, prepare to Salivate. It's time once again to overhaul the freeway guide singage in Kansas City. Although the project number has a "106," suggesting that it goes over multiple counties, almost all the new signage is in Wyandotte County on I-435, I-635, and I-670.
Lots of dancing arrows for I-635 and I-670.
Doesn't seem quite right having two exit tabs for the diagrams for I-635 at I-70 as shown on Sheet 031; seems like it would be better to have two separate, more standard exit signs.
Oh dear. "Sh Mn Pky" is becoming "Sh Msn Pk". This isn't really an improvement, KDOT.
Interesting note on the K-5 and MO-45 median sign: "As a practice, KDOT does not align numerals and fractions. This sign is an exception. We feel appearance is better this way." Thoughtfulness like this is always welcome from a DOT.
"Wyandotte County Lake Park" and "Wyandotte County Park Lake" are both shown here...which is right?
Find the typos on Sheet 74 and 92! Hopefully someone catches that before fabrication, it might be an expensive fix. Someone have a KDOT contact?
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 26, 2013, 07:04:44 AMOh dear. "Sh Mn Pky" is becoming "Sh Msn Pk". This isn't really an improvement, KDOT.
Agreed.
QuoteInteresting note on the K-5 and MO-45 median sign: "As a practice, KDOT does not align numerals and fractions. This sign is an exception. We feel appearance is better this way." Thoughtfulness like this is always welcome from a DOT.
What they actually mean in this case is that their usual practice is to align whole numbers and fractions to the appropriate side of an implied decimal point, but in this case they have gone for MnDOT-style alignment (fraction directly above whole number), a decision they attribute to an aesthetic value judgment but which the cynic in me suspects has to do with saving sign panel square footage.
Quote"Wyandotte County Lake Park" and "Wyandotte County Park Lake" are both shown here...which is right?
The former, or so this park map would suggest:
http://www.wycokck.org/uploadedFiles/Departments/Parks_and_Recreation/WYCO%20Lake%20Map%20Color.pdf
QuoteFind the typos on Sheet 74 and 92! Hopefully someone catches that before fabrication, it might be an expensive fix. Someone have a KDOT contact?
"Donohoo" was subtle (I caught it only by comparing with other sheets in the same set), but "Metrpolitan" is embarrassing. Speaking for myself, I don't actually have a KDOT contact. What you could do, since you are the one to spot these errors, is to write directly to Lee Holmes, the State Signing Engineer, at KDOT's Bureau of Traffic Engineering and say that you are expressing concerns about apparent errors in the designs of certain signs included in a sign replacement contract currently under advertisement. They can then decide whether they want to issue an addendum.
Mr. Holmes' email address (found here (http://www.ksdot.org/burTrafficEng/HiwaySignOutdoor/Highway%20SigningOutdooradvertisinginformation042307%281%29.htm)) is leeh [at] ksdot.org. In your email (in the subject line and at least once in the text) you should quote the KDOT project number, which in this case is 106 K-5925-13.
Message sent to Mr. Holmes:
Quote
Dear Mr. Holmes:
I recently reviewed the signage plans provided for Project 106 K-5925-13, the sign replacement contract for I-435 and I-635 in Wyandotte County. However, while doing so, I noticed the following sign message errors:
On Sheet 074: "Metropolitan Ave" is misspelled as "Metrpolitan".
On Sheet 092: "Wyandotte County Lake Park" appears as "Wyandotte County Park Lake". "Donahoo Road" is also misspelled as "Donohoo".
I wanted to inform you of these errors, in case you weren't aware of them, because it would cause considerable expense to correct them after the signs are fabricated and installed (especially the error with "Metropolitan", which doesn't have the sign panel space to correct the error with an overlay without resorting to narrower fonts). I know KDOT has a very high standard for signage quality, and I am consistently impressed with the quality of your work.
Regards,
Scott Nazelrod
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 26, 2013, 10:27:00 AM
QuoteInteresting note on the K-5 and MO-45 median sign: "As a practice, KDOT does not align numerals and fractions. This sign is an exception. We feel appearance is better this way." Thoughtfulness like this is always welcome from a DOT.
What they actually mean in this case is that their usual practice is to align whole numbers and fractions to the appropriate side of an implied decimal point, but in this case they have gone for MnDOT-style alignment (fraction directly above whole number), a decision they attribute to an aesthetic value judgment but which the cynic in me suspects has to do with saving sign panel square footage.
It certainly does have the side effect of saving KDOT money on the sign panel. However, I agree with their stated rationale; it would look pretty weird to have the two numbers offset diagonally like that unless you were familiar with KDOT practice on other signs. I appreciate KDOT having the presence of mind to examine whether their rule makes any sense in the context of that sign and decide to discard it just this once. Adding a note justifying it on the sign plan sheet is a nice touch.
The email bounced. Hmm.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 26, 2013, 03:37:08 PM
The email bounced. Hmm.
Try Lee Alvarado, LAlvarado [AT] ksdot [DOT] org. His name is listed on the letting page for questions or concerns.
Done.
An addendum has now been issued for 106 K-5925-13:
http://www.ksdot.org/burconsmain/ppreq/513102051a1.pdf
In pertinent part, it reads:
QuoteSheets 74 & 92 have signs with incorrect spelling. Revised plans will be sent out after the letting to correct this.
November, 2013
http://www.ksdot.org/burconsmain/contracts/proposal.asp
U024-044 KA 2064-01: Replacement of a bridge on US 24/59 in Jefferson county.
I635-105 KA 2093-01: Replacement of the Gibbs Road bridge over I-635 in Wyandotte County.
106 K 5926-13 and I135-040 KA 3295-01 -- sign replacement on I-135 in Harvey, McPherson, and Saline counties.
046 C 0364-01: Re-alignment of 206th Street at Metcalf to eliminate a railroad crossing.
Also, if the activity on the KDOT FTP server is anything... sign replacements on K-96 and I-135 in Sedgwick County are forthcoming.
Quote from: route56 on October 30, 2013, 05:47:49 PMAlso, if the activity on the remote resource is anything... sign replacements on K-96 and I-135 in Sedgwick County are forthcoming.
I-235 is in the mix too. I have my doubts that this work will be processed through the construction letting. I think it is quite probable that it will instead be handled on the same basis as the district-area small signs replacement jobs, which I think KDOT hands to a term contractor for sign fabrication, the finished signs being erected by KDOT maintenance forces.
At this point the design activity seems oriented at carbon-copying the existing signs, which are then revised at the commenting stage. Per redline comments, signs on I-135 and K-96 are to receive street type designators (e.g. "Woodlawn Ave" instead of just "Woodlawn"). The latest I-235 draft (I haven't seen redline comments yet) has one interchange sign with a K-2 shield, and another with a gap where a K-2 shield used to go; in both cases these are almost exact duplicates of existing signs for which message revisions have been overdue for more than a decade. The I-135 draft plans cover all of I-135 in Sedgwick County, including signs north of the I-135/I-235/K-254 interchange complex (which KDOT has taken to calling the "North Junction") which are slated for replacement in project 135-87 KA-0733-01. I assume the affected signs won't be replaced twice, but I don't know exactly how KDOT proposes to resolve this overlap.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 30, 2013, 07:37:52 PM
Quote from: route56 on October 30, 2013, 05:47:49 PMAlso, if the activity on the remote resource is anything... sign replacements on K-96 and I-135 in Sedgwick County are forthcoming.
I-235 is in the mix too. I have my doubts that this work will be processed through the construction letting. I think it is quite probable that it will instead be handled on the same basis as the district-area small signs replacement jobs, which I think KDOT hands to a term contractor for sign fabrication, the finished signs being erected by KDOT maintenance forces.
At this point the design activity seems oriented at carbon-copying the existing signs, which are then revised at the commenting stage. Per redline comments, signs on I-135 and K-96 are to receive street type designators (e.g. "Woodlawn Ave" instead of just "Woodlawn"). The latest I-235 draft (I haven't seen redline comments yet) has one interchange sign with a K-2 shield, and another with a gap where a K-2 shield used to go; in both cases these are almost exact duplicates of existing signs for which message revisions have been overdue for more than a decade. The I-135 draft plans cover all of I-135 in Sedgwick County, including signs north of the I-135/I-235/K-254 interchange complex (which KDOT has taken to calling the "North Junction") which are slated for replacement in project 135-87 KA-0733-01. I assume the affected signs won't be replaced twice, but I don't know exactly how KDOT proposes to resolve this overlap.
I certainly hope they get the street types right. As weird as it is, Woodlawn is not an Avenue, but a Boulevard. (Woodlawn Blvd)
ICTRds
plans for the December '13 lettings are out. There's one project I'd consider a "biggie:"
I435-046 KA 2100-01 - I-435 and Roe in Johnson County. IIRC, this will be the 2nd DDI, and first refit, to be let in Kansas.There are plans for other interchanges expected to be constructed or refit as DDIs, but as of now, none are on the table for construction.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 26, 2013, 07:04:44 AM
Oh dear. "Sh Mn Pky" is becoming "Sh Msn Pk". This isn't really an improvement, KDOT.
Want to pull my hair out... Why is it so hard to sign it correctly?
Quote from: M86 on November 23, 2013, 04:10:59 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 26, 2013, 07:04:44 AM
Oh dear. "Sh Mn Pky" is becoming "Sh Msn Pk". This isn't really an improvement, KDOT.
Want to pull my hair out... Why is it so hard to sign it correctly?
"Shawnee Mission Pkwy" is 18 characters, disregarding spaces. I can see why they would want to abbreviate it–it's awkward and expensive to design a sign around such a long message. The problem is there is no readily understandable abbreviation.
"S16N Pkwy.", anyone? ;)
KDOT can go to the local governments and say "We're going to call it Shawnee Parkway. If you don't like it, get fucked."
Quote from: NE2 on November 23, 2013, 06:34:04 AMKDOT can go to the local governments and say "We're going to call it Shawnee Parkway. If you don't like it, get fucked."
KDOT did that on various issues back in the Carlson days and has little interest in dealing with the fallout again.
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 23, 2013, 09:25:11 AM
Quote from: NE2 on November 23, 2013, 06:34:04 AMKDOT can go to the local governments and say "We're going to call it Shawnee Parkway. If you don't like it, get fucked."
KDOT did that on various issues back in the Carlson days and has little interest in dealing with the fallout again.
Which issues? Inquiring minds would like to know! :)
ICTRds
Quote from: WichitaRoads on November 23, 2013, 02:18:55 PMWhich issues? Inquiring minds would like to know!
Some examples (I have to go by memory, so I apologize for the imprecision of some of these):
* I-135 in Newton--In the early noughties, KDOT converted the 1st St. and Broadway interchanges, which were separate diamond interchanges with unusual geometry (ramps tightly wrapped around embankments), into a single split-diamond interchange with elliptical roundabouts at both 1st and Broadway. It was reported in the Newton newspaper (I suspect the relevant articles are now either no longer online or behind a paywall) that KDOT had chosen the new layout with little local input. Carlson was incensed at this coverage and was quoted accusing the Newton paper of rabble-rousing.
* K-10 South Lawrence Trafficway--Some observers trace the resuscitation of this project, which seemed more or less dead by the late 1990's, to an intervention the lawyer Mike Rees made at a local planning meeting. Rees claimed to be acting on his own behalf but had a definite conflict of interest since, at the time, he was KDOT chief counsel under Carlson.
* K-96 expressway between Wichita and Hutchinson--When this project was in the planning stage, there were calls for two grade separations to be provided near Yoder, which has a small Amish community whose members use horse-drawn carriages equipped with slow-hazard placards and battery-operated lights. KDOT, in the end, elected to provide only one grade separation, which is now part of the Yoder Road diamond interchange. A few years after the expressway upgrade opened to traffic, there was a serious accident at Obee Road (next north-south section line road east of Yoder Road) when a Wichita-bound minivan struck a horsedrawn carriage at night, killing both the passengers (an Amish couple in their seventies) and the horse. KDOT later erected special warning signs on K-96, with a horsedrawn carriage graphic, and commissioned a general safety evaluation of the expressway. The consultants who carried it out noted in their report that KDOT had used minimum criteria throughout, so the design had little "slack" and accidents were therefore more likely than would have been the case with a more generous approach. Carlson caused the report to be published with an incredibly tone-deaf preface in which he trumpeted the fact that K-96 met all applicable standards.
* Partnership study--About ten years ago (I can't remember whether Carlson was still KDOT secretary or if he had already been replaced by Deb Miller, who was appointed by Sebelius in 2003), KDOT commissioned a survey to evaluate how it was perceived by its partners, including local governments and the general public. In the report that was eventually published, several city managers noted that they had difficulty getting information from KDOT as to project status and how to get state aid for eligible local projects.
There is also the Garden City
Telegram case (http://www.kscourts.org/cases-and-opinions/opinions/supct/2003/20030530/86767.htm), which is a prime example of KDOT bullying a local institution (albeit not a city, county, or regional planning body). The triggering event was KDOT's denial of the
Telegram's open records request for safety data pertaining to railroad crossings in Finney County. This actually started in 1998, before Carlson became KDOT secretary (as one of Graves' second-term appointments, I think), but once KDOT lost the case in district court and was assessed over $13,000 in attorney fees, it was his decision to appeal, which he justified by saying that KDOT could not possibly have acted in bad faith. He won at the appellate level but lost before the Kansas Supreme Court, which affirmed the district court's bad-faith finding and split the baby by ruling that the
Telegram was entitled to award only of those attorney fees incurred before the case actually went to court.
Huh? What does any of that have to do with abbreviating a street name?
Quote from: NE2 on November 23, 2013, 06:04:27 PMHuh? What does any of that have to do with abbreviating a street name?
Very little directly--but, if I understand you correctly, you were proposing that it be renamed "Shawnee Parkway" instead of a different way of abbreviating the existing name. (Shawnee Mission is the name both of the first settlement in Johnson County and of the school district that covers most of northern Johnson County, and as such it is distinct from the city of Shawnee.) My argument is simply that KDOT's days of making changes without local buy-in are over, at least for the time being.
Still, comparing a street renaming to substantial changes is silly.
And the parkway is almost entirely within the city of Shawnee.
Quote from: NE2 on November 23, 2013, 10:32:49 PMStill, comparing a street renaming to substantial changes is silly.
Street renamings are a local prerogative anyway, and can cause a big stink when instigated by the localities themselves, let alone when imposed from without by a powerful state agency.
QuoteAnd the parkway is almost entirely within the city of Shawnee.
I'll grant you that all of its grade-separated interchanges (with K-7, I-435, and I-35) are in Shawnee, but just 8.6 miles out of 13.8 are actually within the Shawnee city limits. The road also runs through Overland Park, Mission, Fairway, Roeland Park, and Mission Hills.
January, 2014
This month seems to be dedicated to bridge replacments
23 U 0161-01: New Traffic signal at 9th and Kentucky in Lawrence. Look for more FYAs here :)
69-46 K 8251-19: Seeding for the recently-completed project along 435 between Quivira and US 69, and on 69 between 435 and 119th.
24-75 KA 2080-01: Bridge replacement on US 24 east of Bellevue. Detour via shoo-fly
24-75 KA 2081-01: US 24 in St. Mary's.
4-89 KA 2089-01: K-4 in Western Shawnee County. Detour is via Valencia Road, 13th Street, and Glick Road. This is relatively unusual, as KDOT tends to avoid detours via non-state routes.
148-79 KA 2086-01: K-148 west of Agenda. Detour via US 81, US 36, and K-15.
59-1 KA 1772-01: US 59 northwest of Savonburg. Will be replaced one-half at a time, with traffic moving in a single lane controlled by signals.
69B1-19 KA 2617-01: Reconstruction of the Broadway/Centennial intersection in Pittsburg. Traffic carried through on Centennial during construction, but Broadway (US 69B) will be disrupted.
42-76 KA 2082-01: K-42 east of Sawyer. Detour via US 281, US 54, and K-14
135-87 KA 0733-01: Mill, overlay, and signage replacement on I-135 between the south junction of K-96 and Park City.
96 U 1651-01: 3rd Street over Hargis Creek in Wellington
94-29 KA 2061-01: K-94 ~2 miles south of the US 54 Junction. Detour via shoo-fly
63 C 0324-01: grading work on 4000 Road in Montgomery County
70-84 KA 2902-01: Lighting the soon-to-be Ex-US40B interchange east of Russell
281-5 KA 3119-01: New Signals and work at 24th and Main in Great Bend
35-96 T 0005-01: Mill and Overlay on the southern 10 miles of the Turnpike
Quote from: route56 on January 01, 2014, 09:32:17 PM35-096 T 0005-01: Mill and Overlay on the southern 10 miles of the Turnpike
This caused me to wonder if KTA has begun cross-listing all of its contracts with KDOT. This seems not to be the case--this particular project is being advertised by KDOT since it has a tie with a KDOT project, while KTA has several other projects (all fairly small) advertised with bid opening dates of January 14 for which plans and proposals must be purchased from KTA.
What is the difference between a "K" contract and a "KA" contract? I take it the "U" denotes a local project, but what does the U stand for? And what's a "Detour via shoo-fly"?
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 03, 2014, 03:53:19 AMWhat is the difference between a "K" contract and a "KA" contract? I take it the "U" denotes a local project, but what does the U stand for? And what's a "Detour via shoo-fly"?
Taking last question first--a
shoo-fly (the term is borrowed from railroad usage) is a length of temporary roadway that bypasses the construction site.
The letter or letter group that falls within the middle of a KDOT project number is what KDOT calls a "jurisdiction identifier." KA and K both mean the project is on the state highway system, even if it is not necessarily KDOT-administered (the various City of Wichita contracts to build the Kellogg freeway have, for example, all had implied K/KA project numbers even when these have not been inscribed on the title sheet; major Turnpike turnkey construction projects routinely have K/KA numbers as well). KA is an overflow series since KDOT largely ran out of available K project numbers, and nowadays you are more likely to see KA rather than K because most of the turnkey projects KDOT has on the books have "aged out" of the K numbers. One common exception, however, is signing contracts, which still have K numbers because KDOT is still using a special K-592X-YY numbering mask for them, where X is a digit between 0 and 9 (I don't know the rule for choosing it) and YY is the last two digits of the year.
Other jurisdiction identifiers that are in common use include C, U, and N, which all signify local control (C = county, U = city [urban], and N appears to be reserved for local-system traffic-related work); TE for transportation enhancement (roadside parks, station refurbishments, and the like); and T for Turnpike (this is new). As is the case with the K/KA numbers, these are assigned whether KDOT actually administers the project or not. The usual scenario for local-control jobs is that the city or county gets partial funding from KDOT, tenders draft plans to KDOT for review, and the finished plans bear both the number assigned by KDOT as well as the number, if any, assigned by the local agency. Once KDOT approves the project, it may or may not be processed through KDOT's statewide letting. I have suspected, but not been in a position to prove, that KDOT assigns project numbers to some activities carried out by its own forces.
I am not sure what the definitive reference is for jurisdiction identifiers--perhaps KDOT's
Roadway Design Manual? (The foregoing is based on what I remember from a short explanation kindly supplied several years ago by a KDOT employee on the now-vanished K-TOC site.)
As an aside, KDOT has run out of project numbers in the K series partly because it does not use the full six-digit width. The first four digits are designed to signify a macro project, while the following two digits signify a subproject that is part of that macro project. Most projects don't have more than one subpart (usually -01). When a project has multiple subparts, KDOT usually charges planning-related activities to the -01 subpart while construction subparts get charged to higher numbers. Taking the new K-18 freeway between K-114 and Manhattan as an example:
18-81 KA-0410-01
where
* 18 for route (K-18)
* 81 for county (Riley) (Kansas counties get their numbers in alphabetical order, beginning with 1 for Allen and ending with 105 for Wyandotte. "106" means "Statewide." Key county numbers include 46 for Johnson, 87 for Sedgwick, 89 for Shawnee, and 23 for Douglas)
* 0410 for macro project
* 01 for planning-related activities
Construction actually occurred under the KDOT project numbers 18-81 KA-0410-03 ("Ogden," including the K-18/K-114 trumpet-to-parclo conversion that removed a long-standing TOTSO on westbound K-18), 18-81 KA-0410-04 ("Scenic," so called because it includes an interchange for Scenic Drive, which is what Kimball Avenue becomes as you go west out of Manhattan and then south), and 18-81 KA-0410-05 ("Miller-Davis," so called because it includes a compact diamond interchange for Miller Drive and Davis Parkway).
What this means is that for any jurisdiction identifier, KDOT has only 10,000 possible choices for macro project number, though each choice of macro project number corresponds to up to 100 choices of subpart. It is usually only for certain special types of contract (such as sign replacement) where subpart corresponds to a year that the subparts assigned form a substantial fraction of those available, though US 69 expansion in Johnson County (69-46 K-8251-01
et seqq.) has, last I checked (and as shown in Richie's last post), subpart numbers up to 19.
Edit: KDOT's project numbering has one nasty gotcha--the jurisdiction identifiers all take their corresponding digit groups from separate pools. I learned this the hard way when I attempted to file KDOT sign design sheets by digit group only and, about 100 projects later, came across separate K and U projects with the same digit group.
Another gotcha to watch out for with older KDOT projects (not current ones) is separate contracts under the same KDOT project number but with separate part numbers. As an example, back in the 1980's and 1990's KDOT assigned the same project number with different part numbers to the two separate contracts (both administered by the City of Wichita) that built the Edwards-Seneca and downtown flyover portions of the Kellogg freeway: one was 54-87 K-3371-02 part 1 while the other was 54-87 K-3371-02 part 2.
The current KDOT project numbering system dates from the late 1970's/early 1980's. Prior to that KDOT and its predecessor agency used adaptations of the federal-aid numbering systems with route-county designations prepended to the FAP-like number.
February, 2014
Once again, we have another group of Bridge Replacements up for letting.
170-070 KA 2076-01: K-170 east of Reading. Detour via K-31, US 56, and K-99
73-105 KA 2092-01: Southbound US 73/K-7 in Wyandotte County between Parrallel Parkway and Leavenworth Road. Traffic moving head-to-head in the northbound lanes.
28-045 KA 0022-01: K-28 east of Randall in Jewell County. Detour via US 81 and K-148.
169-030 KA 0734-02 and 169-061 KA 0735-02: Seeding on US 169 between the Franklin-Anderson County line and the start of the 4-lane freeway segment southwest of Osawatomie.
39-067 KA 2075-01: K-39/Elm Street on the east end of Chanute. Detour via Central Ave. and Main Street
2-039 KA 2063-01: K-2 between Hazelton and Anthony in Harper County. One lane traffic controlled by signal.
61-078 KA 2083-01: K-61 in Hutchinson. Two-lanes to maintained through construction.
70-106 KA 3359-01: Lighting Replacement at multiple interchanges in the Salina area. Although the prefix would imply that the interchanges are all on I-70, the project also covers interchanges on I-135/US 81.
19 C 4222-01: E. 530th Ave southeast of Pittsburg. No Marked Detour.
169-063 K 8241-05: Seeding on the completed US 169 expressway northeast of Coffeyville.
47-067 KA 0791-05 and 47-103 KA 0791-06: Seeding for K-47 between US 75 and US 169.
March, 2014
Intersection reconstruction:
59-23 KA-2611-01: 23rd and Iowa in Lawrence: Full fledged double left turn lanes in all directions. I'm still trying to figure out how the new right turn lanes are going to work.
19 U-0065-01: 20th and Broadway (US 69B) in Pittsburg: Water line, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer upgrades, along with a new traffic signal. Broadway to remain open, 20th Street to be closed at times.
Bridge Replacement:
77-21 KA-2058-01: US 77 over the Flint Hills Nature trail (ex-MoPac Hosington Subdivision) in Herrington. Detour via US 56, K-149, and K-4
181-62 KA-2072-01: K-181 south of Hunter. Traffic carried on a one-lane shoo-fly detour.
36-79 KA-2084-01: US 36 east of Courtland. One lane of traffic carried through the work zone, controlled by signals.
81-96 KA-2090-01: US 81 south of Caldwell. One lane of traffic through the work zone.
50-38 KA-2062-01: US 50 east of Coolidge. One lane of traffic through the work zone.
Major Bridge Repair:
435-46 KA-3172-01: I-435 over 87th Street in Lenexa. Two lanes of traffic in each direction to be maintained, and the ramps to 87th are to remain open.
70-89 KA-3169-01: I-70 Polk-Quincy Viaduct, as well as bridges over 3rd and 4th Streets, in Topeka. Traffic to move head-to-head during construction, with ramp closures at the 1st Street and 3rd Street interchanges. Thru traffic will be encouraged to either take I-470 or US-75/US-24/K-4.
670-105 KA-3188-01: I-670 westbound over 7th Street near the I-70 merge. Traffic to be reduced from 3 lanes to two.
Other:
36-66 KA-2610-01: Storm Sewer upgrade, curb-cut removal, and mill-overlay of North Street (US 36) in Seneca between 11th and 1st. Two lanes to be maintained through the work zone.
106 KA-2392-01: Installation of ITS in the Topeka area: A traffic camera on I-70 at K-99 near Alma, Two VMSs on Westbound I-470, one near 25th, the other near the Gage Blvd. Exit, and a VMS on Northbound US 75 south of 49th Street.
183-82 KA-3047-01: Full-depth reconstruction of Cedar Street (US 183) in Stockton between Main (US 24) and North 8th. Between Main and 2nd, two lanes of traffic can be maintained, but north of 2nd, the road will be reduced to one lane controlled by signals, and cross streets will be closed.
Quote from: route56 on February 21, 2014, 07:35:04 PM
March, 2014
Intersection reconstruction:
(snip).
19 U-0065-01: 20th and Broadway (US 69B) in Pittsburg: Water line, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer upgrades, along with a new traffic signal. Broadway to remain open, 20th Street to be closed at times.
(snip)
The intersection I go through each day to and from work. The signals need upgraded badly. One was upgraded a few years ago but I think that was only because a traffic accident destroyed the support pole.
Recently, a car hit another one of the posts and the signal had to be turned off while they repaired it. So even if it hadn't already been up for replacement, I think that particular damage would have forced a replacement anyway.
Also coming up soon is the pair of bridge replacements on K-39, which brings about one of the most convoluted detour routes I think I'm ever going to see.
April, 2014:
Going strictly from Top to Bottom:
99-58 KA-2069-01: Bridge replacement between Frankfort and Beattie in Marshall County. Detour via K-9, K-87, and US 36.
18-53 KA 2067-01: Bridge replacement just east of Lincoln. *Long* detour via K-14, I-70, and US 81.
85 U 0066-01: Reconstruction of Ninth and Cloud in Salina. FYA is in play.
135-87 KA 0733-01: Major Preservation on I-135 between I-235/K-254 and 85th Street on the north side of Wichita. Includes new mainline signage.
635-105 KA-3588-01: Lighting replacement on I-635 at Merriam Drive in KCK.
40 KA-2619-01: Geometric improvements to the US 50/K-15 interchange in Newton. Basically, adding a turn lane and signals. Clearview Alert, Doghouse signals
15-21 KA 2612-01: Intersection improvements at 1st and Buckeye (K-15) in Abilene. No protected lefts.
27-100 KA-2615-01: Reconstruction on part of Main Street (K-27) in Sharon Springs.
Quote from: route56 on April 04, 2014, 09:13:19 PM
Clearview Alert
When did KDOT start using Clearview? I thought only the KTA did.
Quote from: stridentweasel on April 04, 2014, 10:29:53 PMQuote from: route56 on April 04, 2014, 09:13:19 PM
Clearview Alert
When did KDOT start using Clearview? I thought only the KTA did.
The only instance of Clearview in that particular contract is a couple of mast arm signs, presumably to conform to City of Newton standards. There is also a typical KDOT destination-direction board which uses Series E Modified.
Quote from: route56 on April 04, 2014, 09:13:19 PM
April, 2014:
Going strictly from Top to Bottom:
99-58 KA-2069-01: Bridge replacement between Frankfort and Beattie in Marshall County. Detour via K-9, K-87, and US 36.
18-53 KA 2067-01: Bridge replacement just east of Lincoln. *Long* detour via K-14, I-70, and US 81.
85 U 0066-01: Reconstruction of Ninth and Cloud in Salina. FYA is in play.
135-87 KA 0733-01: Major Preservation on I-135 between I-235/K-254 and 85th Street on the north side of Wichita. Includes new mainline signage.
635-105 KA-3588-01: Lighting replacement on I-635 at Merriam Drive in KCK.
40 KA-2619-01: Geometric improvements to the US 50/K-15 interchange in Newton. Basically, adding a turn lane and signals. Clearview Alert, Doghouse signals
15-21 KA 2612-01: Intersection improvements at 1st and Buckeye (K-15) in Abilene. No protected lefts.
27-100 KA-2615-01: Reconstruction on part of Main Street (K-27) in Sharon Springs.
An FYA in Salina? Holy hell. They can't handle RYG!
ICTRds (and SALRds due to family)
May, 2013
10-23 KA 1826-01: This is the interchange on the existing western leg of the SLT at Bob Billings Parkway
23 U 0162-01: Resurfacing of 9th Street from Avalon Road to Arkansas Street. Configuration to be changed from 4 lanes to 3, with bike lanes in each direction. The left turn signal for Emery road will be redone with a FYA
25-47 KA 2065-01: Bridge replacement in Kearny County. Traffic to utilize a one-lane shoofly detour.
105 N 0555-01: Reconstruction of Merriam Drive in KCK, with a new signal at 14th/Roe Ln. MUTCD '09 violation: Use of Doghouse signal for a dedicated left turn lane -- and there are FYA signals in KCK proper
87 C 0417-01: Bridge Replacment on 87th Street between Ridge and Hoover in Wichita. No Marked Detour
75-89 KA 3654-01: Repair to a sign truss/removal of a walkway on a sign truss near the US 75/US 24 interchange in North Topeka. Does not include new signage.
435-105 KA 3583-01: Replace a cantilever on I-435 southbound at Leavenworth Road, and a sign truss on Parallel Parkway at I-435.
35-105 KA 3587-01: Replace a cantilever on I-35 at the 18th Street Expressway
54-8 KA 2212-01: Heavy Preservation between Andover and Augusta.
June 2013
046 KA-3060-01: KC Scout improvments in Johnson County: Mostly additional VMS and detector loops for K-7, however, there is a RAMP METER slated for US 69 and 135th Street.
435-46 KA-3293-01: Signage replacements along I-435 and I-635 in Johnson county, except between 95th Street and US 69 on 435. Despite their best efforts, I see dancing arrows :) (the arrows for the left and right lanes are explicitly marked as 15 degrees off vertical)
99-58 KA-2070-01: Bridge replacement northeast of Beattie. Traffic controlled through the work zone by signal.
99-25 KA-2060-01: Bridge replacement south of Moline. Traffic carried on a shoo-fly detour.
15-18 KA 2057-01: Two simultaneous bridge replacements between US 166 and Dexter. Traffic carried on shoo-fly detours.
C-4391-02: Mulvane "Safe Routes to School" program: New sidewalks plus the addition of crosswalks and pedestrian signals on K-15 and Rock Road.
4-99 KA-2476-01: Two Bridge replacements south of Alma. Traffic carried on a shoo-fly detour.
69-105 KA-1180-06: Bridge repair (specifically, gusset strengthening and drainage system repairs) on the 18th Street Expressway bridge over the Kansas River in KCK.
59 C-4325-01 and 59 C-4326-01: Two bridge replacements on old US 81 in McPherson County. (there are several other County Road bridge replacements in this letting.... I elected to skip past ones not involving current or former state highways) Old 81 will be closed during construction.
106 KA-3058-01: ITS improvements, mainly along the I-70 corridor, but also in two locations along US 81.
Looking through 435-46 KA-3293-01...looks like typical good work of KDOT. Most signs are substantially the same as the older demountable-copy signage being replaced.
This will correct the big-caps-tiny-lowercase error on the Harry Darby sign on NB I-635.
On I-435: "Sh Mn Pky" is back. Interestingly enough, sheet 38 shows a sign being erected on Missouri soil (it's a *47 service sign).
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 27, 2014, 02:11:15 PM
On I-435: "Sh Mn Pky" is back. Interestingly enough, sheet 38 shows a sign being erected on Missouri soil (it's a *47 service sign).
Not to Mention a sign for a Missouri exit (Wornall) on the Kansas Side.