AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: K-7 Olathe Turnback?  (Read 4647 times)

route56

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1015
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Northeast Kansas
  • Last Login: Today at 06:52:02 PM
    • route56.com
K-7 Olathe Turnback?
« on: May 31, 2017, 11:30:51 PM »

In the thread about the US 69 expressway, I made reference to KDOT's ArcGIS site.

In addition to Rural highway resolutions, there is a page entitled "Projects." In addition to featuring upcoming and planned projects (subject to change with the political winds) there is also a proposal for various proposed bypasses.

There is also something on there entitled "K-7 Olathe Turnback." There is very little detail about this, except for a listed "Open Date" of June 14, 2017. Previously, the website had a similar listing for the removal of US 40 through west Lawrence that had an "Open Date" in April, which roughly corresponds to when KDOT placed the US 40 markers on the SLT.

If K-7 through Olathe is being turned back, it appears that they will move the K-7 designation on to K-10 and I-35. What is causing me to scratch my head is the fact that there is a significant freeway section that would be turned back. Also, the last time I checked, KDOT was wanting to upgrade the rest of K-7 through Olathe into a Freeway akin to Kellogg in Wichita. Maybe KDOT decided there was no need for additional freeway capacity in this corridor, or that doing so would not clear the NEPA hurdles?
Logged
Peace to you, and... don't drive like my brother.

R.P.K.

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8851
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 01:50:47 PM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: K-7 Olathe Turnback?
« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2017, 01:16:09 AM »

That seems like it would lead to a rather circuitous routing for K-7 through Johnson County.
Logged

J N Winkler

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6727
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: Today at 07:27:04 PM
Re: K-7 Olathe Turnback?
« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2017, 10:53:25 AM »

In the thread about the US 69 expressway, I made reference to KDOT's ArcGIS site.

In addition to Rural highway resolutions, there is a page entitled "Projects." In addition to featuring upcoming and planned projects (subject to change with the political winds) there is also a proposal for various proposed bypasses.

There is also something on there entitled "K-7 Olathe Turnback." There is very little detail about this, except for a listed "Open Date" of June 14, 2017. Previously, the website had a similar listing for the removal of US 40 through west Lawrence that had an "Open Date" in April, which roughly corresponds to when KDOT placed the US 40 markers on the SLT.

I had some trouble finding the turnback trace on the map.  In case anyone has had similar difficulty, here is how I did it:  go to the pane on left, find "Projects," keep "Projects" turned on (check in check box) but uncheck "Realignment, Renumber, Removal Projects" and "WinCPMS Project Locations."  And it is as Scott says--the turnback (if it goes through) will result in K-7 having a convoluted routing along an I-35/K-10 overlap.

There is no KDOT project number associated with the turnback.  I suspect that any improvements along current K-7 will be handled by Johnson County, the City of Olathe, or both.  Kellogg Avenue in Wichita is not a precisely matching precedent since, although most (not all) of the Kellogg freeway contracts have been handled by the City of Wichita, there has been some financial participation from the state, the finished work has been handed over to KDOT for maintenance, and Kellogg continues to be signed as a state/US route.  Shawnee Mission Parkway (former K-10/K-12) may be a closer match, though I don't know if Johnson County or any of the cities along the route continued freeway development after KDOT downloaded the western segment.

Also, the last time I checked, KDOT was wanting to upgrade the rest of K-7 through Olathe into a Freeway akin to Kellogg in Wichita. Maybe KDOT decided there was no need for additional freeway capacity in this corridor, or that doing so would not clear the NEPA hurdles?

I don't think NEPA is the obstacle here.  It may be that Johnson County is seeing the writing on the wall with regard to KDOT funding, and is asking for the route back to make their own improvements.  If that is the case, however, I'm not sure why they aren't going for a deal similar to Kellogg, where they pay the bulk of initial construction cost and then keep KDOT on the hook for maintenance.  One possibility is that KDOT is looking to withdraw from the urban commuter freeway business (the affected length of K-7 is not really an interurban connector) and insisted on downloading as a quid pro quo.

Finally, as an aside, if you turn off all but the WinCPMS layer under "Projects," you get lengths of highway around the state that are highlighted in black, and if you click on one of these, the box that comes up has a field for ProjectWise URL:  one example of this is right on the length of K-7 proposed for downloading.  I wonder if we will ever actually get access to ProjectWise documents instead of being confronted with a login screen when we click on "More info."
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

route56

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1015
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Northeast Kansas
  • Last Login: Today at 06:52:02 PM
    • route56.com
Re: K-7 Olathe Turnback?
« Reply #3 on: June 02, 2017, 03:12:31 PM »

I have to assume that the ProjectWise site is not meant for public consumption.

The reason I brought up NEPA is because re-constructing Parker (the segment between Santa Fe/old K-150 and old 56) into a Kellogg-like freeway would likely require significant acquisition of both residences and businesses. A KDOT rep told me that they had to justify doing so in a NEPA process during a public hearing on the K-7/I-70 interchange [I had asked why they had not considered a more conventional design instead of the 'folded cloverleaf' they have started building.]

Whether or not NEPA is involved, I have to think that Olathe is *not* interested in upgrading Parker.
Logged
Peace to you, and... don't drive like my brother.

R.P.K.

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6182
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: Today at 12:10:34 AM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: K-7 Olathe Turnback?
« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2017, 04:59:36 PM »

Another brilliant idea from KDOT!
Logged

route56

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1015
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Northeast Kansas
  • Last Login: Today at 06:52:02 PM
    • route56.com
Re: K-7 Olathe Turnback?
« Reply #5 on: June 09, 2017, 10:12:39 AM »

During the forum outage, the Kansas City Star posted this article regarding Olathe's plans for Parker:

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/community/joco-913/olathe-southwest-joco/article154789449.html

Quote
Current plans call for construction of 11-foot-wide medians to prevent drivers from turning across multiple lanes of traffic and the addition of turn lanes at Dennis Avenue, Virginia Lane, Wabash Terrace, Wabash Street, Elm Street, Cedar Street and Loula Street. The city also would add sidewalks on both sides of the street, traffic lights and additional landscaping.

Duran said planners are still designing the medians, which could be a mix of paved and landscaped areas, and will present those ideas at future City Council meetings.

The city plans to begin construction next May with the project being completed in early 2019, she said. Of the $5.7 million price, $2 million is coming from federal dollars.

I also reviewed the current CCL resolution for Olathe. Apparently, there's an unincorporated "hole" in the City Limits along K-7 just south of the 119th Street interchange (the south end of the hole is about where 122nd or 123rd would be) Theoretically, KDOT could retain the portion of K-7 it still maintains outright while turning back Parker.
Logged
Peace to you, and... don't drive like my brother.

R.P.K.

Bumpy0007

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3
  • Location: Olathe
  • Last Login: Today at 04:01:32 PM
Re: K-7 Olathe Turnback?
« Reply #6 on: June 09, 2017, 12:33:00 PM »

It really surprises me that they are considering turning K-7 back, because based on current planned and long-term projects, it would eventually be routed back on. As others have mentioned, KDOT created an entire plan for upgrading K-7 to a full freeway from Spring Hill to Leavenworth (plan can be found
here, under K-7 Corridor Management Plan). This plan included a Kellogg-like stretch of freeway in central Olathe. This idea was rejected by Olathe in 2012.

However, they only rejected the upgrade from south of about 127th/Harold to about 167th-ish, and the rest of the upgrade is still planned eventually. If you aren't familiar with them, the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC), is an organization that basically gets Kansas and Missouri, and the rest of the KC suburbs on both side of the border, to agree with each other on topics ranging from emergency management to transportation. They're often involved with dividing up funding and doing studies on roads for many of the KC suburbs. Their list of long-range (2040) projects are listed on this map. If you take a look, you'll see projects on that map ranging from already funded projects included in CIP's (already mentioned in this thread: K-7 upgrade from 4 to 5 lanes through central Olathe), and long-range unfunded ones (the rest of the K-7 upgrade). Not once on that map does it mention realigning K-7 onto I-35 and K-10. In fact, the only realigning it does mention is realigning it onto Lone Elm once it is upgraded from 175th through Parker.

From my understanding, Olathe is still planning on following this. They have a biannual budget, so their current CIP is from 2015, but they will unveil a new one on June 20th. In that will include an upgrade of Lone Elm to the standard divided 4-lane from Old 56 to 151st, which is included in an amendment to MARC's current TIP (transportation improvement plan, basically the CIP for the whole metro). The amendment can be found here. Olathe's current CIP, in the list of pending but unfunded projects, Lone Elm upgrades from 167th to 183rd are also included fairly close to the top. Also, while googling for an article that mentioned Olathe dropping out, I found Olathe's full Transportation Master Plan, from January of this year. Link. In it are figures for a possible interchange with K-7 and Old 56, with the K-7 shield south of it's current alignement but on it's planned alignment.

So it wouldn't make sense for KDOT to realign it off Parker/Lone Elm, only to realign it back on later. And with the Kansas Legislature recent repeal of Brownback's tax cuts, more funding may be available sooner rather than later
Logged

route56

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1015
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Northeast Kansas
  • Last Login: Today at 06:52:02 PM
    • route56.com
Re: K-7 Olathe Turnback?
« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2017, 02:54:53 PM »

Welcome to AARoads, Bumpy0007.

I think that your confirmation that Olathe has gone on record as opposing a freeway upgrade to Parker actually reinforces the idea of a turnback.

Jonathan may have been on track up thread; however, rather than getting out of the "commuter freeway" business, KDOT is looking to rid itself of surface arterials. Turning back a section of urban arterial in exchange for financing improvements to the arterial in not without precedent - KCK accepted responsibility for State Avenue (US 24 was re-routed onto I-70) in exchange for improving State between K-7 and 118th Street.

Also, removing the state highway designation would not affect the MARC or Olathe's long-range transportation plans. It just means that Parker/Lone Elm would not have a highway designation and would remain city arterials.
Logged
Peace to you, and... don't drive like my brother.

R.P.K.

Bumpy0007

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3
  • Location: Olathe
  • Last Login: Today at 04:01:32 PM
Re: K-7 Olathe Turnback?
« Reply #8 on: June 09, 2017, 03:49:09 PM »

Welcome to AARoads, Bumpy0007.

I think that your confirmation that Olathe has gone on record as opposing a freeway upgrade to Parker actually reinforces the idea of a turnback.

Jonathan may have been on track up thread; however, rather than getting out of the "commuter freeway" business, KDOT is looking to rid itself of surface arterials. Turning back a section of urban arterial in exchange for financing improvements to the arterial in not without precedent - KCK accepted responsibility for State Avenue (US 24 was re-routed onto I-70) in exchange for improving State between K-7 and 118th Street.

Also, removing the state highway designation would not affect the MARC or Olathe's long-range transportation plans. It just means that Parker/Lone Elm would not have a highway designation and would remain city arterials.

Thanks for welcoming me

As for the turnback, with the amount of improvements still proposed, and the future alignment of the road itself, it still seems very redundant to turnback K-7 at this moment. Olathe's recent TMP mentions, through central Olathe, possibly building a full folded diamond at Old 56 and another hybrid grade-seperation/interchange (they call it a windmill, but it's almost like a double SPUI, image here.

In the end (going off current build and all future long-term plans), over 5.5 miles of expressway/freeway plus as many as 6-7 interchanges could be turnedback to Olathe. Olathe is probably going to push hard for KDOT funding for most of these improvements, while with some of them possibly over two decades away, it seems unlikely that KDOT would want to set aside that much funding so quickly, and on the other side, seems unlikely Olathe would be willing at this moment take on the funding. Turning back now would require both sides to come to a full agreement on funding for improvements so far in advance. The timing of next week for the turnback doesn't seem right.

Finally for style points: Including long-term plans, turning back K-7 would create a TOTSO at the future split at 175th St/Lone Elm or possibly future K-7/existing K-7 & 169. And then, K-7 would get back on the same road a couple miles up. I mean funding wise it might make sense for KDOT, but I'm not sure the perfectionist in me would be able to handle it.
Logged

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8851
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 01:50:47 PM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: K-7 Olathe Turnback?
« Reply #9 on: June 11, 2017, 02:56:15 AM »

The obvious solution is for the K-7 designation to continue as it does now, with Olathe assuming maintenance of the road and the signs on it, but KDOT doesn't do that kind of thing.
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13988
  • fuck

  • Age: 12
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 05:29:42 PM
Re: K-7 Olathe Turnback?
« Reply #10 on: June 11, 2017, 12:44:18 PM »

As for the turnback, with the amount of improvements still proposed, and the future alignment of the road itself, it still seems very redundant to turnback K-7 at this moment. Olathe's recent TMP mentions, through central Olathe, possibly building a full folded diamond at Old 56 and another hybrid grade-seperation/interchange (they call it a windmill, but it's almost like a double SPUI, image here.
Holy shit. That's a DPUI.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

route56

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1015
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Northeast Kansas
  • Last Login: Today at 06:52:02 PM
    • route56.com
Re: K-7 Olathe Turnback?
« Reply #11 on: June 12, 2017, 11:27:37 AM »

In the end (going off current build and all future long-term plans), over 5.5 miles of expressway/freeway plus as many as 6-7 interchanges could be turnedback to Olathe.

I only count 3.277 miles of expressway/freeway and 2 current interchanges (plus the two proposed interchanges). Where are you seeing the other mile and a quarter of proposed expressway and 2-3 interchanges?

Also, the city of Olathe currently maintains Parker south of 127th/Harold, Old 56 between Parker/Lone Elm and Harrison, and Harrison between Old 56 and I-35 (all part of K-7 CCL) The state gives Olathe a stipend based on the lane-mileage of this segment. Needless to say, they would lose that if K-7 were re-routed. The current expressway mileage is currently KDOT maintained, and I could see it remaining KDOT maintained, either as a spur of K-7, or as a new designation (K-107 is available)
Logged
Peace to you, and... don't drive like my brother.

R.P.K.

Bumpy0007

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3
  • Location: Olathe
  • Last Login: Today at 04:01:32 PM
Re: K-7 Olathe Turnback?
« Reply #12 on: June 12, 2017, 12:49:45 PM »

In the end (going off current build and all future long-term plans), over 5.5 miles of expressway/freeway plus as many as 6-7 interchanges could be turnedback to Olathe.

I only count 3.277 miles of expressway/freeway and 2 current interchanges (plus the two proposed interchanges). Where are you seeing the other mile and a quarter of proposed expressway and 2-3 interchanges?

Also, the city of Olathe currently maintains Parker south of 127th/Harold, Old 56 between Parker/Lone Elm and Harrison, and Harrison between Old 56 and I-35 (all part of K-7 CCL) The state gives Olathe a stipend based on the lane-mileage of this segment. Needless to say, they would lose that if K-7 were re-routed. The current expressway mileage is currently KDOT maintained, and I could see it remaining KDOT maintained, either as a spur of K-7, or as a new designation (K-107 is available)

Looking more closely the 5.5 is wrong but the plans aren't clear if the 1.5 miles along Lone Elm between the future K-7/169 split and 167th Street would be built to arterial or expressway level. That would put it over 5 miles. One of the two extra interchanges come from a mention in the TMP of a past study by Olathe which, "designated two sites along 167th Street (I-35 and K-7) as potential interchange locations." The other comes from the old K-7 management plan (which included the rejected freeway plan through Olathe) indicated an interchange at 175th, but the realignment plans have switched a bit and it isn't very clear if there would be any interchange at either the split or 175th.

They wouldn't put it on a new designation, as it would be entirely within city limits (there's that hole, but I doubt it will last more than a few years), as KDOT policy requires state highways entirely within city limits to be turned back to the cities. (Old K-150, now 135th/Santa Fe, is another nearby example of this)

Anyway, we'll find out in two days what they're planning
« Last Edit: June 12, 2017, 12:53:53 PM by Bumpy0007 »
Logged

route56

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1015
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Northeast Kansas
  • Last Login: Today at 06:52:02 PM
    • route56.com
Re: K-7 Olathe Turnback?
« Reply #13 on: June 15, 2017, 09:34:25 AM »

As of this morning, the KDOT GIS system is showing K-7 designated along the K-10/I-435/I-35 routing. I have not seen any signage changes in the field.
Logged
Peace to you, and... don't drive like my brother.

R.P.K.

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1077
  • Location: Area Code 207, bub!
  • Last Login: July 03, 2020, 01:03:42 AM
Re: K-7 Olathe Turnback?
« Reply #14 on: June 23, 2017, 02:19:19 AM »

Can someone explain to me again what exactly a City Connecting Link is, and how it works?
Logged
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

route56

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1015
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Northeast Kansas
  • Last Login: Today at 06:52:02 PM
    • route56.com
Re: K-7 Olathe Turnback?
« Reply #15 on: June 25, 2017, 01:24:16 AM »

Can someone explain to me again what exactly a City Connecting Link is, and how it works?

I'll start with the legal definition:
Quote from: KSA 2012 Sup. 68-406 (b)
In addition to highways of the state highway system, the secretary of transportation shall designate in those cities on such system certain streets as city connecting links. "City connecting link" means a routing inside the city limits of a city which: (1) Connects a state highway through a city; (2) connects a state highway to a city connecting link of another state highway; (3) is a state highway which terminates within such city; (4) connects a state highway with a road or highway under the jurisdiction of the Kansas turnpike authority; or (5) begins and ends within a city's limits and is designated as part of the national system of interstate and defense highways.

In a nutshell: all routes carrying a highway number within an incorporated city are city connecting links. CCLs can either be maintained by the city with a stipend from KDOT, or are maintained by KDOT in lieu of a stipend. Interstates and other freeways are always maintained by KDOT.

Most CCLs will fall under (1), (2), or (5). KDOT will usually end a highway at the city limits rather than invoke (3) above, and the only roads I know of that could fall under (4) are not CCLs.

It is generally presumed that a numbered route must contain non-CCL mileage. The statute does not explicitly state this, but it is supported by past KDOT actions.
Logged
Peace to you, and... don't drive like my brother.

R.P.K.

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1077
  • Location: Area Code 207, bub!
  • Last Login: July 03, 2020, 01:03:42 AM
Re: K-7 Olathe Turnback?
« Reply #16 on: June 25, 2017, 02:32:07 AM »

Thanks for the explanation.
I remembered the bit about City maintenance; was unaware of the KDOT stipend. If KDOT is on the hook financially for maintaining them, it makes sense that they'd want to do what they can to get rid of them. Even (*gag*) US40 in Lawrence.
Pity that there's not some mechanism that'd allow for city funded & maintained roads on a numbered state system, like the Urban Compacts in northern New England.

Quote
Interstates and other freeways are always maintained by KDOT.
Assuming you're referring just to highways on the numbered state system here?
As you'd said -- "What is causing me to scratch my head is the fact that there is a significant freeway section that would be turned back."
Logged
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

route56

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1015
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Northeast Kansas
  • Last Login: Today at 06:52:02 PM
    • route56.com
Re: K-7 Olathe Turnback?
« Reply #17 on: July 11, 2017, 11:11:57 AM »

UPDATE! - The KDOT GIS System has now reverted K-7 back to its routing through Olathe. The turnback project, which had been deleted when the GIS system moved K-7 onto the I-35/K-10 routing, has now been re-posted with the "opening date" changed to September 14.
Logged
Peace to you, and... don't drive like my brother.

R.P.K.

sawblade5

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10
  • Location: Kansas City, KS
  • Last Login: September 04, 2017, 12:16:26 PM
Re: K-7 Olathe Turnback?
« Reply #18 on: July 17, 2017, 01:59:47 PM »

Now if this happens does that mean they would have to lower the Speed Limits on the section of soon to be Old K-7 between K-10 and Harold St have to be lowered to 55 MPH? AFAIK The Maximum Speed Limit Law in Kansas on a non State or Federal Highway is 55 MPH. I am not aware of any exceptions that exist.
Logged
Chris Knight
Still south of Sawblade (Kansas) Route 5, but a little further South now!

J N Winkler

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6727
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: Today at 07:27:04 PM
Re: K-7 Olathe Turnback?
« Reply #19 on: July 17, 2017, 04:06:01 PM »

No, they won't have to reduce the limit.  There is separate authority to post county and township roads at speeds of up to 65.  Examples of county roads with 65 limits include Sego Road (former K-14) in Reno County and Road AA in Kearny County (was never on the state highway system, AFAIK).
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3126
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: Today at 09:53:19 AM
Re: K-7 Olathe Turnback?
« Reply #20 on: July 27, 2017, 10:15:34 AM »

In the thread about the US 69 expressway, I made reference to KDOT's ArcGIS site.

In addition to Rural highway resolutions, there is a page entitled "Projects." In addition to featuring upcoming and planned projects (subject to change with the political winds) there is also a proposal for various proposed bypasses.

There is also something on there entitled "K-7 Olathe Turnback." There is very little detail about this, except for a listed "Open Date" of June 14, 2017. Previously, the website had a similar listing for the removal of US 40 through west Lawrence that had an "Open Date" in April, which roughly corresponds to when KDOT placed the US 40 markers on the SLT.

If K-7 through Olathe is being turned back, it appears that they will move the K-7 designation on to K-10 and I-35. What is causing me to scratch my head is the fact that there is a significant freeway section that would be turned back. Also, the last time I checked, KDOT was wanting to upgrade the rest of K-7 through Olathe into a Freeway akin to Kellogg in Wichita. Maybe KDOT decided there was no need for additional freeway capacity in this corridor, or that doing so would not clear the NEPA hurdles?

could it be because kansas is broke as hell and wants to save a little money on maintenance?
Logged

route56

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1015
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Northeast Kansas
  • Last Login: Today at 06:52:02 PM
    • route56.com
Re: K-7 Olathe Turnback?
« Reply #21 on: July 27, 2017, 10:51:43 AM »

The legislature read the tea leaves (no pun intended) and reverted income taxes to their pre-2010 rates. They also gave KDOT additional bonding authority for maintenance projects, so (hopefully) long-term maintenance problems should be minimal.

I'm more inclined to thinking that KDOT is only interested in being responsible for limited access facilities ONLY in the major urban centers (Topeka/Wichita/KC) With Olathe's official rejection of the proposal to upgrade Parker to a Kellogg-style freeway (which would require condemnation of a significant number of residences and a few commercial areas, and would certainly trigger an EIS under NEPA), KDOT may want to just wash its hand of the K-7 plan through Olathe.

At this time, however, I have doubts that KDOT and Olathe have even reached an agreement regarding K-7. KDOT had updated a few maps to re-route K-7 off of Parker, but have since reverted them. In addition, a signage upgrade for I-35 in Johnson and Wyandotte Counties is in the August Letting. These plans do *not* reflect the proposed relocation of K-7, but do include the relocation of 169 that has occurred since the last signage project.
Logged
Peace to you, and... don't drive like my brother.

R.P.K.

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1077
  • Location: Area Code 207, bub!
  • Last Login: July 03, 2020, 01:03:42 AM
Re: K-7 Olathe Turnback?
« Reply #22 on: July 29, 2017, 03:10:12 AM »

the relocation of 169 that has occurred since the last signage project.
Do you mean its removal from 435 & Metcalf, approved by AASHTO in fall 2008?


I'm a bit surprised KDOT hasn't ditched the remaining bits of Metcalf & Rainbow.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2017, 03:13:07 AM by yakra »
Logged
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3126
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: Today at 09:53:19 AM
Re: K-7 Olathe Turnback?
« Reply #23 on: July 29, 2017, 06:32:08 PM »

us 69 and 169's routings in kc make no sense.
Logged

route56

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1015
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Northeast Kansas
  • Last Login: Today at 06:52:02 PM
    • route56.com
Re: K-7 Olathe Turnback?
« Reply #24 on: July 30, 2017, 06:01:18 PM »

the relocation of 169 that has occurred since the last signage project.
Do you mean its removal from 435 & Metcalf, approved by AASHTO in fall 2008?

Yes. Some of the signs on I-35 that are being replaced date back to 1999 or perhaps earlier.

The only markers for US 169 on I-35 north of 435 were installed as part of the Johnson County Gateway.
Logged
Peace to you, and... don't drive like my brother.

R.P.K.

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.