US40 & US59 within Lawrence  Topic is solved

US40 & US59 within Lawrence

Postby kckfire » Thu Oct 03, 2013 4:34 pm

At the moment US-40 (aka 6th St for the most part) and US-59 (aka Iowa St) within Lawrence are typed as Major Highway. After some discussion regarding a nearby ramp, and upon reviewing the Map Legend Wiki I believe these may be best re-typed as Minor Highway.

The speeds are typically 45mph and there are a number of intersecting minor streets, especially along 6th St and Iowa to a lesser extent. US-40 once it reaches the West edge of town is already typed as Minor Highway.

As I see it, the re-type should impact US-40/59 once it passes South of US-24 here and extend along each until US-40 reaches the West side of town here, then extend along US-59 until it reaches the South edge of town here where US-59 truly fits the Major Highway type.

Whether US-24/40/59 North and East of here necessarily are Major Highway types is up for discussion as well, although they do at least reach near-freeway speeds and have fewer intersections, but are still only one lane in either direction so they could go either way.

Thought I'd put it all out here for comment before making any changes.
kckfire
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:51 pm
Location: Lawrence, KS
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 20 times

Re: US40 & US59 within Lawrence

Postby kckfire » Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:05 pm

Any thoughts on the US-40 & US-59 as they pass through Lawrence?

Re-typing them as minor still puts them at a higher level than the remaining streets through town, and it would put them on par with K-10 as it bypasses to the South & West of town. From what I understand about routing, the Major highway type gives them a slight preference over the K-10 bypass which is currently typed as a Minor highway. Granted the sheer number of nodes along 40 & 59 likely create a time penalty that probably negate the type disparity.

If it weren't for the US highway designations and the FC maps, these would probably end up as primary streets as they pass through town. Going off the FC maps alone, these are 'Primary Arterials' which would likely be considered Major Highways in Waze, they just don't meet Waze's definition of a Major Highway within the city.
kckfire
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:51 pm
Location: Lawrence, KS
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 20 times

Re: US40 & US59 within Lawrence

Postby kckfire » Sun Oct 13, 2013 2:53 am

Got it. I agree wholeheartedly about not making changes for small spans such as 56 through Gardner & Baldwin or 24/40 though Tonganoxie, etc unless there is a valid argument otherwise.

As for K-10 Bypass, it certainly does seem to fit the Major classification better, and will so even more once the bypass in completed in full. The FC map does designate the majority of it as 'Other Freeway/Expressway'.
kckfire
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:51 pm
Location: Lawrence, KS
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 20 times

Re: US40 & US59 within Lawrence

Postby the1who » Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:20 am

After driving the US-24 between 435 and Lawrence, I move to keep it Major Highway, the stints for slow downs in the towns between are short so changing the classification for the short bits would degrade the overall routing in what I know of the system. The speed along this corridor is for most part, from what I remember, 70. FC maps from KDOT put it as a primary arterial, which from our breakdowns at the meetup put it with a major highway in one translation, minor highway in another translation, with the first translations of many segments being the preferred method. Again, this isn't a rule or something to say that is how it should be, but more of a guide in how we would like it to function for the maps.

So after reviewing the FC maps, in Leavenworth they are reduced from Major Arterial - Other, to Minor Arterial, West of K-7, east is Major. From the translations definitions I looked up their experiment, and it puts those as a minor highway.

I guess based on the grade since they weren't divided like near K-7, I can see the basis for that, but US-56 is not as high of a speed limit and at least to US-59 it is considered Major Arterial on most of the FCs I have seen and isn't divided. I am so up in the air on this, but having driven that stretch, US-24 I think is more of a major highway then US-56, but the state gives US-56 a higher classification for some reason. I'll go whichever route we decide, I just feel based on speed and conditions that it could be left as is, lets continue the discussion though.
the1who
Global Champ Mentor
Global Champ Mentor
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:58 am
Location: Las Vegas
Has thanked: 489 times
Been thanked: 298 times

Re: US40 & US59 within Lawrence  Topic is solved

Postby the1who » Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:37 pm

I agree with your understanding there of the road types, the penalty of not only the nodes but segment speed data, that it would negate that based on point a to point b. Having driven the K-10 bypass, with the speed limit up there at 65, I almost am partial to having it typed at a major highway if the FC map matches. I would agree to put the other highways through town as a minor highway to meet a standard of how many junctions and and speed limits, but that I go onto this bit.

It was explicitly expressed to us, granted we have found that reality is not the case, but they expressed to us that road type has no factor in providing routes. We know this to not be the case that well, if you have avoid highways selected, it'd have to know what is between Lawrence and Blue Springs, which is mostly highway systems. But maybe the reality is that it won't route on segments of a higher class of highway be a major or freeway or try to avoid them at the greatest penalty, to the best of my knowledge of the how the penalty system work is that it could still route through a restricted turn, it just has a higher penalty theory of operation right.

So with that being said, for the short segments through Lawrence, be it major or minor, I don't think that they will really make much of a difference, but this could be experimented with, in example of making K-10 bypass major and the others minor, to see if most routes will take you on down to the bypass instead of the quicker known route across 6th St, depending on where you are of course.

But I would agree with you that they probably would have ended up primary streets, had they not served the FC system. That is just a guide for what we might want to put the roads as, or if they need to be adjusted from a wrong road type selection to begin with. One example is that when we relied solely on the Wiki for the road types, state highways were minor highways, US highways were major right...so MO 7 from Harrisonville to Clinton and beyond was a minor highway. When I came across the KC district's FC maps, which I wish MODOT had more of, it showed that based on our translations at the meetup of potential solutions, it could be promoted to a major highway. It would always route you down the segment to the next turn around and route you back through Harrisonville, through Warrensburg, to get to like Osage Beach. This would be one example of where road types do play a part I'd say, because since changing to Major Highway type this year, it routes all the way through just fine now. But I think the one factor here, is probably overall distance in the calculation. And the new road type serves it well for a split highway that runs 70, that the old Wiki format doesn't serve this purpose of saying a state highway is minor, as I know that both of these sources really end up just being, guides and reference for the overall functionality in the end.

So I hope I had made sense there. You seem to be about the only active editor there in Lawrence, and since updates happen to the live map tiles about every day to every other day, if you feel that it would be worth changing it to match the real world conditions, I say go for it. I had made the argument though that for like US-56 through gardner, that even though it is a minor highway level through stop lights and so forth, it was to my best information that it remain a major highway. After reviewing the FC maps, they indicate the primary arterial too to coincide but just giving some reference there, Gardner not a big as Lawrence, so if US-56 had span longer like through Lawrence, I would probably agree to demote to minor, but based on its short span it wouldn't suffice the need, much like the short span through Baldwin City. I hope that helps with how to handle Lawrence.

To answer your question...finally right, but looking at the map, I'd make those as they pass, minor as you seem to be making right choices for the rest. I'd make minor from US-24 junction south as well across the freeway, and US-59 from K-10 bypass to the South and going North minor highway. On review of the map, I'd petition to move to make the K-10 bypass a major unless there is FC that says otherwise.
the1who
Global Champ Mentor
Global Champ Mentor
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:58 am
Location: Las Vegas
Has thanked: 489 times
Been thanked: 298 times

Re: US40 & US59 within Lawrence

Postby the1who » Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:45 am

Cool, I haven't really looked into the bypass with detail much. I'll run some experiments tomorrow on the old map tiles and if you change the road types, I'll test some other experiments out to see if any better or worse, or no change. Thanks for your help!
the1who
Global Champ Mentor
Global Champ Mentor
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:58 am
Location: Las Vegas
Has thanked: 489 times
Been thanked: 298 times


Return to Kansas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users