Re-routing U.S. 54 around Wichita
arga...@my-deja.com
http://web.wichitaeagle.com/content/wichitaeagle/2001/05/30/localnews/0530highways_txt.htm
I reproduce the text below, as the 'Eagle' time-expires articles.
K.D.O.T. wishes to re-route U.S. 54 around Wichita on the proposed
Northwest Freeway (expected to be built within ten years, and likely
to connect with K-96 or I-235 at or a few miles west of their current
junction), the north stretch of I-235, and K-254 for its entire length
between the I-135/I-235 interchange near Kechi and the Turnpike at El
Dorado. The new designation would probably meet existing U.S. 54 near
Goddard in the west and in downtown El Dorado in the east. Existing
double-designations with U.S. 400 between Goddard and Augusta, and
U.S. 77 between Augusta and El Dorado, would vanish, as would the
K-254 designation itself.
So far no alignment has been announced for the Northwest Freeway,
although Wichita last year received money for preliminary engineering
under the System Enhancement program. (It was one of two urban bypass
projects to receive System Enhancement funds; the other was a U.S. 54
bypass around Goddard which also received money only for preliminary
engineering.) Further details can be found at
http://www.ink.org/public/kdot/offtransinfo/sepfs.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kellogg, K-254 may get new numbers
By Lillian Zier Martell
The Wichita Eagle
Some call it Kellogg.
Others call it U.S. 54.
But you rarely hear it called U.S. 400 -- at least not in Wichita.
The Kansas Department of Transportation, however, suggests the highway
lose the U.S. 54 title and remain U.S. 400 from east of Augusta
through Wichita to west of Goddard. Currently, the road has both
names.
Motorists won't see the road signs change until after a bypass is
built around the northwest side of Wichita some 10 years from now,
said Terry Heidner, director of planning and development for KDOT.
But the state wants to get the changes on record soon, while it is
drawing up plans for the bypass.
"We would like to get it settled now so, for the record, the correct
route number is on the plans we work up and we don't have to change
them later," Heidner said.
Under the state's plan, the bypass would be named U.S. 54. The highway
would swing around the northwest side of Wichita and connect with
K-254, a four-lane road that leads to El Dorado. K-254 would be
renamed U.S. 54.
In some ways, it just sounds like a big name swap. But it could have
implications for Wichita businesses that have identified themselves
with U.S. 54, said Jamsheed Mehta, chief transportation planner for
the Metropolitan Area Planning Department.
Beyond that, the plan would divert the bigger name highway -- U.S. 54
-- around Wichita through suburban areas, he said.
U.S. 54 has been around for decades and runs from Illinois to El Paso,
Texas.
In contrast, U.S. 400 was named in the 1990s and runs from near
Joplin, Mo., across Kansas and barely reaches into Colorado, Mehta
said.
"It's essentially a Kansas highway and doesn't have any name
recognition outside the cities and towns that it goes through," he
said.
Tim Witsman, president of the Wichita Area Chamber of Commerce, said
he doesn't oppose the idea, but he wants to know why it's needed.
"People know where something is," he said. "Why are we going to change
that? Is there some principle involved? How is it a betterment?"
Witsman said he wants to hear from those who run area attractions and
other organizations to see whether they think the change is
significant.
Heidner said the state's plan creates a more direct route for U.S. 54
that would be less confusing for travelers from other areas.
And state officials want to eliminate 52 miles of duplicated signs
where U.S. 54 and U.S. 400 overlap. The signs cost $30 to $35 each,
Heidner said.
The state wants to know whether the change would pose problems and is
asking for public comment, he said. If there is opposition, state
officials want to make their case for why the changes are needed.
Dave Pirtle's 54 Auto and RV Sales has been in business along U.S. 54
west of Augusta for 30 years.
Pirtle said he hasn't thought about changing the name of his business,
but he doesn't think dropping the U.S. 54 designation for the highway
would cause problems.
He already tells out-of-state people that his business is on U.S. 400,
he said. When he talks with local people, he uses U.S. 54.
"I don't feel like the local people will have a problem getting
adjusted to calling it 400 highway," he said.
Community leaders in Andover and Augusta didn't object to the state's
proposal.
Augusta Mayor Ross Rountree said he thinks the U.S. 400 designation is
easier to follow for travelers to the Joplin area. The owner of a
Dairy Queen along the highway, he has often given directions to people
heading that way.
Wichita Mayor Bob Knight said he doesn't know how the change would
affect Wichita, but city staff is studying the proposal.
"I wasn't aware it was called U.S. 400," Knight said. "I always
thought it was 54."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reach Lillian Zier Martell at 268-6404 or lmar...@wichitaeagle.com.
Scott Nuzum
>Northwest Freeway (expected to be built within ten years, and likely
>to connect with K-96 or I-235 at or a few miles west of their current
>junction), the north stretch of I-235, and K-254 for its entire length
>between the I-135/I-235 interchange near Kechi and the Turnpike at El
>Dorado. The new designation would probably meet existing U.S. 54 near
>Goddard in the west and in downtown El Dorado in the east. Existing
>double-designations with U.S. 400 between Goddard and Augusta, and
>U.S. 77 between Augusta and El Dorado, would vanish, as would the
>K-254 designation itself.
An excellent idea, IMO, for two reasons.
1) It makes U.S. 54 a more direct route to eastern Kansas. As it is now,
most of my relatives use I-235 and K-254 to get from Wichita to El Dorado
because it saves time on their trips from western Kansas to Fort Scott. With
the brand-new K-254 being a four-lane expressway that bypasses the two or
three towns it used to pass through, the trip is even faster.
2) U.S. 54 traffic would no longer encounter rush-hour bottlenecks that
still pop up on Kellogg. It's not entirely a limited access highway. You
still have traffic lights to go through from Goddard to Tyler Road and from
Woodlawn to K-96. Those who don't know you can go to El Dorado via I-235 and
K-254 and then get back on 54 there have to slug through this traffic.
>Wichita Mayor Bob Knight said he doesn't know how the change would
>affect Wichita, but city staff is studying the proposal.
>
>"I wasn't aware it was called U.S. 400," Knight said. "I always
>thought it was 54."
Yeah, but, Mr. Knight's not known as the sharpest pencil in the box, anyway.
S.E.N.
Favors this proposal.
TEXAS
"Scott Nuzum" <snu...@terraworld.net> wrote in message
news:nL9R6.238$535....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> An excellent idea, IMO, for two reasons.
>
> 1) It makes U.S. 54 a more direct route to eastern Kansas. As it is now,
> most of my relatives use I-235 and K-254 to get from Wichita to El Dorado
> because it saves time on their trips from western Kansas to Fort Scott.
With
> the brand-new K-254 being a four-lane expressway that bypasses the two or
> three towns it used to pass through, the trip is even faster.
>
> 2) U.S. 54 traffic would no longer encounter rush-hour bottlenecks that
> still pop up on Kellogg. It's not entirely a limited access highway. You
> still have traffic lights to go through from Goddard to Tyler Road and
from
> Woodlawn to K-96. Those who don't know you can go to El Dorado via I-235
and
> K-254 and then get back on 54 there have to slug through this traffic.
> Favors this proposal.
I thought of this while studying my atlas a while back. I say go ahead and
move US 54 to K-254, K-96 and I-235 right now, before the bypass is built.
arga...@my-deja.com
I tend to agree, largely because the double-designation with U.S. 77
means a turn northward for 20 miles (between Augusta and El Dorado)
which is inefficient, in terms of time and distance, for someone
wishing to follow U.S. 54 through the Wichita metropolitan area.
However, I think one of the points of this newspaper article
(including the quote from Bob Knight) is that the route designation
has accumulated residual functions beyond its use as a navigational
device.
> 2) U.S. 54 traffic would no longer encounter rush-hour bottlenecks that
> still pop up on Kellogg. It's not entirely a limited access highway. You
> still have traffic lights to go through from Goddard to Tyler Road and from
> Woodlawn to K-96.
Actually, the first stoplight past Oliver is Edgemoor. A nasty
right-hand merge has been left in place at that intersection, in
anticipation of the Woodlawn interchange eventually being built. I
think right-of-way negotiations with the car dealerships on that
stretch are ongoing.
I have now managed to find a corridor description for the Northwest
Freeway:
http://www.wichitagov.org/MAPD/mapd_6_10.asp
It shows the freeway beginning at Kellogg Ave. (now U.S. 54-400) at
167th St. W. and then sweeping up in a smooth curve to K-96 at Tyler.
It would be ideal if Kellogg had mile interchanges between the
westernmost existing interchange in Wichita (at the airport road) and
the start of the Northwest Freeway. I'm not optimistic, however, as
the intersection with 119th St. W. is now signalized (it was
controlled by stop signs on 119th St. W. as recently as 1992).
Development is moving fast, and if the City of Wichita doesn't option
all the corner parcels at mile intersections on Kellogg A.S.A.P., this
failure will initiate another painful process of allowing commercial
development, then buying it at high (because value-added) prices and
tearing it all down to build interchanges.
Chris Bessert
>
> Kellogg, K-254 may get new numbers
>
> By Lillian Zier Martell
> The Wichita Eagle
>
>
> Wichita Mayor Bob Knight said he doesn't know how the change would
> affect Wichita, but city staff is studying the proposal.
>
> "I wasn't aware it was called U.S. 400," Knight said. "I always
> thought it was 54."
He's the mayor of a rather large city, but can't memorize the numbers
of just 8-9 different routes which run in or near his city. I would
then have a sneaking suspicion he wouldn't know where US-81 was if
someone asked him. Geez...
Later,
Chris
--
Chris Bessert
Bess...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/Hwys/
arga...@my-deja.com
disingenuous:
> And state officials want to eliminate 52 miles of duplicated signs
> where U.S. 54 and U.S. 400 overlap. The signs cost $30 to $35 each,
> Heidner said.
My observations:
* Where are they achieving an economy? The new routing will still
require U.S. 54 markers, and it is difficult to see how a more rural
routing would result in a smaller overall number of route markers.
* $35 is the approximate price for a 24" x 24" route marker with
engineer-grade retroreflective sheeting, purchased from Unicor
(probably the cheapest supplier around, because it uses labor from
federal prisons). But in most U.S. 54-400 trailblazer assemblies
around Wichita, the U.S. 54 shields are engineer-grade while the U.S.
400 shields are high-intensity retroreflective sheeting. Unicor price
for a 24" x 24" marker with high-intensity sheeting is about $80.
Also, Kellogg has been built to freeway standard through Wichita, so
all of the U.S. 54 shields on the mainline are high-intensity cutouts
on green guide signs, while independent-use U.S. 54 shields (which
might otherwise be suited for recycling on a more rural routing) are
used almost exclusively in the trailblazer assemblies on city streets,
where engineer-grade retroreflectorization is adequate because of low
speeds. It may be judged necessary to put high-intensity
independent-use markers on the new routing, rather than recycling the
existing engineer-grade markers, and this would result in additional
outlays rather than savings.
* To make the change, the green-background signs attached to
stoplights at the downtown flyover and West Street interchange will
have to be scrapped, as they use just a U.S. 54 shield and have
absolutely no room for a three-digit shield.
* Currently, gantries on Kellogg use the U.S. 54 and U.S. 400 shields
against a green background without cardinal direction words. The
green background is sized properly for two shields, one with two
digits and the other with three. If the U.S. 54 shields are just
removed from these signs, that will leave a large green gap next to
the U.S. 400 shield on each sign. In theory it should be possible to
fill this gap with a cardinal direction word--"WEST" for westbound,
"EAST" for eastbound. However, the gap is not large enough to fit in
a cardinal word without raising the ratio between shield and letter
heights to 4:1 (12" lettering and 48" shield, for example). The
standard shield height for freeways is 48" and for cardinal directions
the standard letter height is 15", which yields a ratio of 3.2:1.
Although the 'M.U.T.C.D.' and 'Standard Highway Signs' show ratios
ranging from 3:1 to 4:1, with permissible letter heights as low as 12"
and shield heights as low as 36", 3.2:1 is regarded as the standard.
Using a ratio other than 3.2:1, or modifying sign and lettering sizes
to accommodate the existing green space, amounts to violating the
principle that the heights of markers and sign lettering should be
coordinated with the speed class of the road.
* In the Wichita area, freeway and freeway-related signing has a
tendency to get rubbished over time, from route changes and the like.
The green signs marking the exit for what used to be K-296 have a
blank green space where the K-296 marker used to be; no attempt was
made to fill this space by adding more information (such as a
destination name with an internal line to serve as a filler--"Andale"
would have worked, I think). There is also a large blank yellow sign
mounted on a cantilever over eastbound Kellogg between West Street and
Edwards Ave. Before the Edwards and Meridian interchanges were
reconstructed in 1993, this sign used to say "LEFT LANE ENDS" in large
black letters (prior to reconstruction the six lanes over West Street,
finished in 1987, became four lanes when they joined the old and
now-obliterated 1947 expressway). On I-235, the signs marking the
Southwestern Blvd. exit (which used to be K-2 and K-42) have the K-42
markers off center because they were not re-riveted into center
position when the K-2 markers were removed. Similarly, I-235 received
some road work which finished in mid-2000 and resulted in "Salina" on
the signs leading to I-135 being changed to "SALINA" (contrary to the
'M.U.T.C.D.').
I apologize for the technical detail, but this is the bottom line:
unless someone gets on K.D.O.T. and the City of Wichita about this,
this route renumbering will lead almost inevitably to sign
uglification. It is pointless for the City to spend money on public
art while allowing its highway signs to be garbaged to hell.
arga...@my-deja.com
> of just 8-9 different routes which run in or near his city. I would
> then have a sneaking suspicion he wouldn't know where US-81 was if
> someone asked him. Geez...
It sounds awful, but in actuality it is possible to live and get
around in Wichita without bothering with route numbers, and generally
convenient to do so since routings are rarely logical or consistently
signed. All Wichita-area freeways are named, although almost none of
the names appear on signs, and non-freeway state highways tend to
follow well-known arterials.
* U.S. 54-400 is just called "Kellogg," or sometimes "Kellogg Ave" on
green guide signs. It continues to be called "Kellogg Ave" even
though it has been an expressway since 1947 and has been improved into
a ten-mile freeway between 1985 and 2000.
* I-135, completed ca. 1979, is just the "Canal Route" although the
(sanitary?) canal which it follows does not enter the road median
until a few miles south of the Hydraulic exit (~1 mile north of the
Turnpike interchange) and follows it only until 18th St. (about 3
miles south of the I-235/K-254 interchange). It is signed as the
"Martin Luther King, Jr Memorial Highway," although that name is never
quoted when giving directions.
* I-235 is called "the bypass," itself a contraction from "81
bypass," although I have never seen an U.S. 81 sign on it. It was
finished around 1961.
* K-96 between I-135 and U.S. 54-400 has always been the "Northeast
Freeway" although that name has never been signed (as far as I know),
and K.D.O.T. turned down a proposal to name the city's part of it the
"Robert C Brown Memorial Highway" (Bob Brown was a well-respected
mayor of Wichita).
* K-96 northwest of I-235 is the "State Fair Freeway" and is signed
as such; at the Hutchinson end, where it was made an expressway down
to Mount Hope in 1996, I think it is signed as the "State Fair
Expressway."
* K-42 is Southwestern Blvd. while K-15 is Southeastern Blvd. U.S.
81 continues to be quoted as Broadway Ave. although I think the
designation changed to the Canal Route over twenty years ago when it
was finished. Broadway north of the Wichita city limits is generally
referred to as "Old U.S. 81." Broadway IS still U.S. 81 (I think)
south of 47th St. So.
Re. signing consistency, or the lack thereof:
* Drivers on Kellogg Ave. see the Canal Route advertised as U.S. 81
on green-background signs; drivers on the Bypass see the Canal Route
advertised just as I-135 and K-96, with route markers for K-15 and
U.S. 81 attached to the right post supporting the sign gantry.
* Kellogg isn't always consistently labelled as U.S. 400 for Canal
Route drivers. On the Canal Route northbound, one sign had no real
room for a full-size U.S. 400 shield, so one about one-quarter the
size of the existing U.S. 54 shield was riveted into place next to it.
The ramps associated with that stack interchange do have U.S. 54-400
guide signing, but I think only because they were reconstructed at
roughly the same time U.S. 400 was being created.
The general point is that a Wichitan might need to know numbered
routes only about once, say, every ten years when it is necessary to
venture out of town to get an old car part at a salvage yard along
U.S. 54, so it is a little discomfiting to have K.D.O.T. come in and
obliterate K-296, add U.S. 400, prune K-2 back to the southwestern end
of the K-2/K-42 double-designation, get rid of K-96 east of Wichita,
etc.
Pictures of some of these signs and the garbaged signs mentioned in
another posting can be found at
Scott Nuzum
arga...@my-deja.com wrote in message
<485ebc3b.0105...@posting.google.com>...
>> He's the mayor of a rather large city, but can't memorize the numbers
>> of just 8-9 different routes which run in or near his city. I would
>> then have a sneaking suspicion he wouldn't know where US-81 was if
>> someone asked him. Geez...
This is the least of Mr. Knight's problems, if you have ever caught the buzz
around Wichita. Besides, he should have advisors who worry about the little
things like this.
>It sounds awful, but in actuality it is possible to live and get
>around in Wichita without bothering with route numbers...<snip>
I'll hazard a guess that most Wichitans may know the numbers, but don't
really care about them. The numbers benefit those from out of town passing
through and even then, I'd think that my parents will say "Kellogg" once
inside the city limits, even though they are from Garden City (this because
of the influence of Wichita TV stations, which own the stations out west and
send their signals out to be rebroadcast by them). But when giving
directions to someone from Fort Scott, I'd use the highway numbers.
>* U.S. 54-400 is just called "Kellogg," ...
>
>* I-135, completed ca. 1979, is just the "Canal Route" ....
>* I-235 is called "the bypass," itself a contraction from "81
>bypass," although I have never seen an U.S. 81 sign on it. It was
>finished around 1961.
When I was really, really widdle, I recall seeing a couple of "Bypass 81"
signs on it, although I think they were very old and just had not been taken
down yet. I also believe that "235" is becoming more accepted than "The
Bypass".
>* K-96 between I-135 and U.S. 54-400 has always been the "Northeast
>Freeway" ....
Even Rand McNally notes K-96 as the "Northeast Expressway," although you may
hear some people call that K-96, anyway. K-96 is probably the only number
used with any consistency in Wichita.
>* K-96 northwest of I-235 is the "State Fair Freeway" and is signed
>as such; at the Hutchinson end, where it was made an expressway down
>to Mount Hope in 1996, I think it is signed as the "State Fair
>Expressway."
AFAIK, you will not hear any locals along the route call it anything but
"K-96." The name "State Fair Freeway" has not fallen into popular usage and
I don't think it ever will.
>* K-42 is Southwestern (sic) Blvd. while K-15 is Southeastern (sic) Blvd.
The actual names are Southwest and Southeast, but, again, the locals tend
not to use the numbers until outside the city limits. K-15 between the
Wichita and Derby city limits is refered to as "Southeast Blvd." by some
people and even by some of the businesses just north of Derby, even though
the route through Derby is called "Baltimore Ave."
>U.S. 81 ...
Is simply "Broadway" from 47th South on south. I don't know what it is
called by those in Haysville, although that city also calls it "Broadway."
From the Wichita city limits north it is also called "Broadway" --- in
Sedgwick County's addressing system --- all the way to the Harvey County
line. Harvey County calls old 81 south of Newton "Kansas Ave." because that
is the name of the street U.S. 81 was assigned to south of the Washington
St. curve. North of Newton, it's "Old 81".
>* Drivers on Kellogg Ave. see the Canal Route advertised as U.S. 81
>on green-background signs;
They'll also see a K-15 shield (just to be anal). Some of the older signs
may have what appears to wasted space on them. That's where the K-96 shield
used to be.
>drivers on the Bypass see the Canal Route
>advertised just as I-135 and K-96, with route markers for K-15 and
>U.S. 81 attached to the right post supporting the sign gantry.
I have presumed this is because KDOT feels the average thru traveler is
looking for I-135 and that U.S. 81 and K-15 are irrelevant to the driver.
<Agrees with the part about U.S. 400 signage and, thus, clipped it>
>....it is a little discomfiting to have K.D.O.T. come in and
>obliterate K-296, add U.S. 400, prune K-2 back to the southwestern end
>of the K-2/K-42 double-designation, get rid of K-96 east of Wichita,
>etc.
To you and I, maybe. But I'd bet the average Wichitan didn't notice any of
these moves. There was logic to removing K-296 and "pruning" K-2 as well as
truncating K-96. With K-296, the route was no longer considered needed. The
truncating of both K-2 and K-96 were made to eliminate double-numbering that
wasn't needed.
>Pictures of some of these signs and the garbaged signs mentioned in
>another posting can be found at
My next desitnation as soon as I am done scoping out MTR
S.E.N.
Who has to give about 100 people directions to Cessna Stadium at least once
a year (the State track meet).
Scott Nuzum
arga...@my-deja.com wrote in message
<485ebc3b.01053...@posting.google.com>...
>I just looked at this paragraph again, and it seems to me to be a bit
>disingenuous:
>
>> And state officials want to eliminate 52 miles of duplicated signs
>> where U.S. 54 and U.S. 400 overlap. The signs cost $30 to $35 each,
>> Heidner said.
>
>My observations:
>
>* Where are they achieving an economy? The new routing will still
>require U.S. 54 markers, and it is difficult to see how a more rural
>routing would result in a smaller overall number of route markers.
The rural routing will require markers at only major intersections. The
current routing requires those plus ones in the cities of Andover and
Augusta. And there will be no K-254 signs made ever again (saving the cost
of replacing K-254 markers x the cost of each of those signs).
And, while I agree with many of the points that I've snipped for expidency,
I don't know if any of it matters to KDOT. It seems to not have a standard
for signing. I noticed a while back that all new signs on U.S. and K- routes
were using series D fonts. Now, it appears they've gone back to using C
fonts. Also, notice now how city limit and river/creek signs are becoming
larger (a good move, IMO). The state may be spending a lot of money on
signage in the near future anyway as they upgrade signs throughout the state
to this new standard.
IOW, they're going to spend the money anyway. They're looking to cut some
corners in the meantime. Maybe there are better ways to do it. Maybe there
aren't.
>I apologize for the technical detail, but this is the bottom line:
>unless someone gets on K.D.O.T. and the City of Wichita about this,
>this route renumbering will lead almost inevitably to sign
>uglification. It is pointless for the City to spend money on public
>art while allowing its highway signs to be garbaged to hell.
Take another look around. There are already some ugly signs in Wichita.
Prime example: the sign pointing the way to Newman and Friends universities
and Edwards Ave on the westbound exit ramp from 54/400 to K-42. That's the
sloppiest-looking sign I've ever seen.
S.E.N.
Unless that sign is "abstract art" ;o)
arga...@my-deja.com
> around Wichita. Besides, he should have advisors who worry about the little
> things like this.
I haven't lived in Wichita full-time since 1993, but yes, I know about
Bob Knight. I remember he was Finney's commerce secretary but was not
chosen to continue under the incoming Graves (Republican)
administration even though he was also a Republican.
He does have advisors who do a pretty good job of worrying about these
sorts of things. Unfortunately, as the 'Eagle' never tires of
editorializing, they tend to be overruled by pro-growth (pro-sprawl?)
interests at City Council level.
> When I was really, really widdle, I recall seeing a couple of "Bypass 81"
> signs on it, although I think they were very old and just had not been taken
> down yet. I also believe that "235" is becoming more accepted than "The
> Bypass".
This is true. My mother called it "the Bypass" when I was little (it
was really fun to drive back when it was out in the boonies and
connected to nothing, so a ride on it was a treat too), but now it is
"235."
> AFAIK, you will not hear any locals along the route call it anything but
> "K-96." The name "State Fair Freeway" has not fallen into popular usage and
> I don't think it ever will.
I was stretching a point here, yes.
> The actual names are Southwest and Southeast, but, again, the locals tend
> not to use the numbers until outside the city limits. K-15 between the
> Wichita and Derby city limits is refered to as "Southeast Blvd." by some
> people and even by some of the businesses just north of Derby, even though
> the route through Derby is called "Baltimore Ave."
I will have to check the signs when I get back home later this month.
I remember "Southwestern" on the I-235 exit signs and also that the
signs had to be made longer than usual in order to accommodate the
extra three letters, but the most recent Kansas map I have (I don't
have a Wichita city map with me, and 'MapQuest' doesn't give names for
numbered routes) says "Southeast Drive" for the segment of K-15
between I-135 and Derby.
> I have presumed this is because KDOT feels the average thru traveler is
> looking for I-135 and that U.S. 81 and K-15 are irrelevant to the driver.
Yes--and there are 'M.U.T.C.D.' limits on the amount of information to
be presented on these signs.
> To you and I, maybe. But I'd bet the average Wichitan didn't notice any of
> these moves. There was logic to removing K-296 and "pruning" K-2 as well as
> truncating K-96. With K-296, the route was no longer considered needed.
I think it was done to keep the network under 10,000 miles. But it
was convenient to have K-296 on the green-background signs since it
makes the exit for a paved county road leading to Colwich and Andale
easier to find. Some years ago, right after K-96 was finished and
K-296 was removed, I missed the exit for Andale and had to turn around
because I was looking for a K-296 shield that wasn't there. Andale
had a rather interesting red-brick church I wanted to photograph.
> My next desitnation as soon as I am done scoping out MTR
Hope you enjoy them . . .
arga...@my-deja.com
> I don't know if any of it matters to KDOT. It seems to not have a standard
> for signing. I noticed a while back that all new signs on U.S. and K- routes
> were using series D fonts. Now, it appears they've gone back to using C
> fonts. Also, notice now how city limit and river/creek signs are becoming
> larger (a good move, IMO). The state may be spending a lot of money on
> signage in the near future anyway as they upgrade signs throughout the state
> to this new standard.
I have asked K.D.O.T.'s public-affairs office questions over the last
four years about state signing standards. They have always maintained
that they follow the federal 'M.U.T.C.D.' all the way through. But
they have also been extraordinarily stroppy about answering my
signing-related questions and the last time, in March 2000, when I
asked for engineering drawings for the Kansas state route marker, they
said I had made two previous inquiries (true, but not covering that
particular question), and they would not spend state funds to
"duplicate our efforts." It amounted to a warning that if I asked
more questions about signing, they would use the "disruption of agency
functions" clauses in the Kansas sunshine law against me.
Here is what I have inferred over the years, by looking at how signs
are specified in other states and thinking about the signs which seem
to be used, or not used, in Kansas:
* I think guide signing is specified in the state Standard Plans
(which are available electronically, but only to I.N.K. subscribers)
for signs which are addressed in the 'M.U.T.C.D.' but not diagrammed
in 'Standard Highway Signs'. I think the Kansas standard plans call
for, for example, a green-background freeway entry sign with route
markers, shields, destination names in mixed-case, and cardinal
direction words with a No. 2 tapered arrow. (I contributed an example
of this sign, for K-96 westbound to Hutchinson, to the 'AARoads'
gallery.) The function of the Standard Plans in this case would be to
specify the appearance of a sign which is described, but for which no
appearance specification is given, in the 'M.U.T.C.D.'.
* The 'Standard Plans' presumably include design details for the
state route marker, the sunflower symbol on new Adopt-a-Highway signs
(I know those are in the Standard Plans because I've seen a scan of a
page from the Standard Plans K.D.O.T. sent the F.H.W.A. when it
requested design details for Adopt-a-Highway signs), and other stuff
related to guide signing.
* K.D.O.T. follows 'Standard Highway Signs' (the federal sign pattern
book) religiously for warning, regulatory, and construction signs, and
is generally very reluctant to place signs not directly referenced in
the federal 'M.U.T.C.D.' (although they have the power to do so as
long as the sign uses a word message only, and have used it to place
"CAUTION WIND CURRENTS" warning signs on I-70 near Manhattan). Local
agencies in Kansas don't have similar scruples (as a rule) and are not
as closely supervised by K.D.O.T. as municipalities in other states
are supervised by their state D.O.T.s.
* Generally, if K.D.O.T. decides to opt out of federal guidelines, as
it does for much guide signing and also some construction signs, the
Kansas alternatives are specified in the Standard Plans. The Standard
Plans may allow certain flexibilities, or choices which the designer
can exercise: such as choosing Series C rather than Series D for
route markers (I've seen Series B on some signs in Wichita!) and
letter copy on green-background guide signs.
I am especially annoyed about green-background signs with Series C
lettering on 65 M.P.H. roads because Series C was barely adequate even
at 55 M.P.H. Plus, especially in western Kansas, these signs tend to
have grommets around the screws which block out much of the text (the
state is too cheap to reinforce the signs to deal with the wind load,
as Wyoming does) and the text-to-edge and interline spacings are NOT
as specified in 'Standard Highway Signs'; the amount of green space
should be at least letter height all around, but Kansas likes to use
half letter height, I suppose to fit all the copy on a single roll of
retroreflective sheeting.
One of the things I always talk about doing but never quite get
started on is a letter to the Secretary of K.D.O.T., asking that the
state go to mixed-case direction copy (designed according to freeway
sign design rules) on guide signs for two-lane roads, as South Dakota
has done, and reinforce the signs properly. They seem so set on
nickel-and-diming signage to death that I sometimes wonder if it is
even worth the effort.
I will have to go to Topeka for several things when I return home
later this month, so I think I will probably stop on Harrison Ave. and
ask to see the Standard Plans. If I'm ever going to get that letter
written, I should do so from an informed position.
> Take another look around. There are already some ugly signs in Wichita.
> Prime example: the sign pointing the way to Newman and Friends universities
> and Edwards Ave on the westbound exit ramp from 54/400 to K-42. That's the
> sloppiest-looking sign I've ever seen.
They got that one already!
I'm especially worried about the signs at the I-235/K-96 interchange
in the northwest part of town. They are very cleanly designed,
probably the best specimen of the sign fabricator's art, and the road
underneath is smooth Portland cement. I worry about what will happen
when they start moving U.S. 54 shields up there.
Richie Kennedy
I can see what Wichita wants to do, and I do find it interesting.
The US 54 "northwest expressway" certainally makes sense from a logistical
standpoint, although I fail to see the advantage of reduction in signage.
The other thing is that there isn't going to be much "Trade-in" mileage
against Kansas's statuatory limits....
I'll make a note of this over in Kansas Highways for the next update
R.P.K.
Wonders when the remaining buisness routes will get elimitated....
Richie Kennedy
>
> >* U.S. 54-400 is just called "Kellogg," ...
Just Plain Kellogg... (shameless plug)
http://www.route56.com/highways/Kellogg.html
> >* I-135, completed ca. 1979, is just the "Canal Route" ....
>
> >* I-235 is called "the bypass," itself a contraction from "81
> >bypass," although I have never seen an U.S. 81 sign on it. It was
> >finished around 1961.
>
> When I was really, really widdle, I recall seeing a couple of "Bypass 81"
> signs on it, although I think they were very old and just had not been
taken
> down yet. I also believe that "235" is becoming more accepted than "The
> Bypass".
Officially, "Bypass 81" was still part of the desgination until at least
*1981* (I also have to remember to do a writeup on Kansas's only "Split" K-
highway
> >* K-96 northwest of I-235 is the "State Fair Freeway" and is signed
> >as such; at the Hutchinson end, where it was made an expressway down
> >to Mount Hope in 1996, I think it is signed as the "State Fair
> >Expressway."
>
> AFAIK, you will not hear any locals along the route call it anything but
> "K-96." The name "State Fair Freeway" has not fallen into popular usage
and
> I don't think it ever will.
That's also the official designation for the entire route of K-96 all the
way to US 50 in Hutchinson - truely a misnomer. Likewise, some wiseguy has
part of K-61 in Hutch designated as "Ken Kennedy Freeway" (one of these
signs will be posted to KS highways in the next update within 48 hours)
> Is simply "Broadway" from 47th South on south. I don't know what it is
> called by those in Haysville, although that city also calls it "Broadway."
> From the Wichita city limits north it is also called "Broadway" --- in
> Sedgwick County's addressing system --- all the way to the Harvey County
> line. Harvey County calls old 81 south of Newton "Kansas Ave." because
that
> is the name of the street U.S. 81 was assigned to south of the Washington
> St. curve. North of Newton, it's "Old 81".
On a similar note: McPherson (city and/or county) still designates the
western ex-US 81 bypass as 81 bypass (the part south of Kansas Ave. is
K-153)
[I *really* need to do a roadtrip report :)]
arga...@my-deja.com
When will this be linked from the U.S. 54 and U.S. 400 pages?
> Officially, "Bypass 81" was still part of the desgination until at least
> *1981*
What is your authority here? A contemporary route log or a map?
Richie Kennedy
news:485ebc3b.01060...@posting.google.com...
> > http://www.route56.com/highways/Kellogg.html
>
> When will this be linked from the U.S. 54 and U.S. 400 pages?
I can probably do that :). I'll work on that this afternoon when I do site
updates.
> > Officially, "Bypass 81" was still part of the desgination until at least
> > *1981*
>
> What is your authority here? A contemporary route log or a map?
Official state map. I don't think they have "route logs"