Talk:Kansas Turnpike/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A quick comment: the Turnpike is 236 miles long. This is the distance to US 69 (18th Street Expressway), not to K-7, the end of tolls. It would also be nice to have details on the east end and what it originally connected to in 1956; I'll see what I can get out of the NBI (assuming not all bridges have been rebuilt). I'll also add some history on the original plan for I-35 via Newton. --SPUI (T - C) 03:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have details on exactly which interchanges opened in 1956? Here's what I can find:

0. US 166 probably 1956

1. US 160 probably 1956

   K-53 not on [1]

   Haysville not on [2]

2. US 81/I-135 definitely 1956
3. K-15 definitely 1956
4. US 54 definitely 1956

   K-96 not on [3]

   Andover not on [4]

5. K-254 definitely 1956

   US 77 not on [5]

   K-177 no idea - weird interchange [6], but not in the original numbering

6. US 50/I-35 definitely 1956
7. US 56 definitely 1956
8. US 75/I-470 definitely 1956
9. US 40/I-70 probably 1956, but can't be sure as it's been rebuilt

   K-10 not on [7]

10. US 59 definitely 1956
11. US 24/US 59 definitely 1956
12. K-7 definitely 1956

    110th Street not on [8]

    I-435 under construction on [9]

    78th Street not on [10]

    US 40 - NBI clearly shows 1956 for the bridge of the ramp over US 40 - but only west-pointing ramps on 1966 KDOT map! The Turner Diagonal to the south is 1958/1959 - so presumably that's when the original half-interchange opened.

    57th Street not on [11], built ca. 1986 (from bridge on eastbound onramp over creek)

    I-635 built ca. 1974

13. Park Drive unsure - on 1966 KDOT map, with a west-facing folded diamond
14. US 69/18th Street definitely 1956

So if US 160 and US 166 are original, and Park Drive isn't, that's 14. --SPUI (T - C) 13:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... who owned the tolled 18th Street Expressway? --SPUI (T - C) 05:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

14 interchanges is definitely correct. It's specifically mentioned in the KTA pamphlet I have.

I have a map of Kansas from 1974 that I found in my mapbox, and it shows something interesting - the Kansas Turnpike originally used sequential exit numbering, starting at 0. Or rather, insequential numbering, as the numbering jumps from 5 to 14 and then to 6 (probably built out of order). The interchanges it shows are:

• 0 - current exit 4
• 1 - current 19 (toll booth under bridge)
• Current 33 (to K-53) did not exist in 1974 (K-53 runs under the turnpike, so the bridges would have been built in 1956)
• Current 39 (to U.S. 81) did not exist in 1974
• 2 - current 42
• 3 - current 45
• 4 - current 50
• The K-96 freeway did not exist in 1974. Instead K-96 was concurrent with U.S. 54 where they crossed under the turnpike. So current 53 did not exist.
• Current 57 (Andover) did not exist in 1974
• 5 - current 71
• Current 76 (U.S. 77 El Dorado) did not exist in 1974
• 14 - current 92
• 6 - current 127
• 7 - current 147
• 8 - current 177
• 9 - current 182
• 10 - current 197 (then it appeared to serve U.S. 40 rather than K-10)
• 11 - current 202
• Current 204 (U.S. 24/59) did not exist in 1974
• 12 - current 224

I have no clue where 13 was. I'd guess either current 410 (not sure how old this is, it may have been built to service the KS Speedway), Turner Diag, or 18th St. (That part of I-435 wasn't built yet so it couldn't have been the I-70/435 interchange.)

According to my mom, who lived in Kansas City, Ks. through the 60s and 70s, 18th St. was tolled then (this is confirmed on the 1974 map, and another I have of just Kansas City). The 1974 map has the toll section as running from I-70/KTA down to the Metropolitan/Ruby exit, the rest free, and the whole length of it was K-58 (I). It could have served as a spur from the turnpike, assuming KTA administered it. Still-existing signs at that interchange mark the beginning/end of KTA maintenance, but between the tolled part and those signs it seems more likely that KDOT is maintaining it, as the surface looks more like KDOT's and the signage is demountable copy (KTA uses direct-applied). I'd like to know the story about that.

I think the reason that you had trouble finding the info was because it looks like in most cases the bridges were built with the highway, but with no access. They just stuck the ramps on later. There's still a lot of bridges on the turnpike you go under or over that have no access. Hopefully those maps will help you find out more about our missing interchanges and when they were built. —Scott5114↗ 05:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

When is the KTA pamphlet from?

As for exit 14, that indicates it was added after the original construction. --SPUI (T - C) 06:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You say that exit 10 was where K-10 is now. But [12] shows nothing at all there. --SPUI (T - C) 06:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I bet 13 was the east barrier toll. [13] shows its original location. --SPUI (T - C) 06:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I misread the map. Looking at the inset, Exit 10 is not for a highway, but a Lawrence city street (which the map doesn't name). 40 and 59 duplex along 6th St., across the Kansas River and under the turnpike, and to U.S. 24, which 40 gets onto and 24 begins duplexing with 59. To help you with your cites, the 1974 map is of Texaco branding but the copyright on the map is by the H.M. Gousha Company.

The pamphlet's undated. I remember picking it up at either Towanda or Matfield Greene in the late 1990s or early 2000s though. —Scott5114↗ 06:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Exit 11 is in fact current 204 by the way. —Scott5114↗ 06:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe Exit 10 above is the current exit 202. It actually exits to McDonald Drive [14], about 1/2 mile north of 6th and Iowa (the western point in Lawrence where US 40 and US 59 meet). US 59 only crosses the turnpike once (exit 204), but McDonald Drive (exit 202) is used as a 59 South exit because it bypasses a couple of miles of Lawrence streets and quite a few stoplights. Exit 197 opened in 1996 when K-10 was extended as a bypass around the SW corner of Lawrence. --Sppence 03:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Found this from m.t.r. --SPUI (T - C) 06:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

more on the eastern toll booth --SPUI (T - C) 08:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

statutes dealing with the KTA --SPUI (T - C) 08:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

new interchanges - 33, 57, 39, 53, 76, 197

Kansas City to southeast corner

Wichita to Tulsa

Winfield to southeast corner

Ottawa south to Oklahoma

Mullinville west to Colorado

Leon to Fredonia

new interchanges - 197, 76, 33, 57

--SPUI (T - C) 09:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

18th Street Expressway was originally the 18th Street Trafficway - see [15]. It appears that only the part south of Argentine Boulevard had this name - it is now Argentine Boulevard south of the river, and crossed the rail yard before ending at present Miami Avenue and Strong Avenue. --SPUI (T - C) 14:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"My 1982 road atlas shows the exit to K-132 (now an unnumbered road) as exit 231" --SPUI (T - C) 09:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I wrote to KTA asking for more information a few weeks ago. They didn't send any more, but they did say:

We have checked your site and the information you have on the Kansas Turnpike is accurate. You have a lot of good information on the history and background of our Kansas tollroad.

So at least, we're on the right track. —Scott5114↗ 23:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[16] could be useful --SPUI (T - C) 17:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• 0 South Haven - U.S. 166
• 1 Wellington - U.S. 160
• 2 South Wichita - U.S. 81
• 3 Wichita - Kans. 15 (Boeing Plant)
• 4 East Wichita - U.S. 54
• 5 El Dorado - Kans. 196
• 14 Cassoday - Kans. 177
• 6 Emporia - U.S. 50
• 7 Admire - U.S. 56
• 8 South Topeka - U.S. 75
• 9 East Topeka - U.S. 40
• 10 West Lawrence - U.S. 40 & 59
• 11 East Lawrence - U.S. 59 & 40
• 12 Bonner Springs - Kans. 7
• 13 Eastern Terminal [longer space] Turner Diagonal - U.S. 40 - Kans. 132 & Kans. 32 & 58

--SPUI (T - C) 00:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I recently went up to Watson Library to check out the original source material (i.e. Microfilm of the Topeka Daily Capital and the Lawrence Journal-World) and found that the Kansas Turnpike was opened for a "free preview" on the 20th of October (rather than the 21st). Next time I go back to Watson, I'll scan the source pages and prepare the citations

Oh, BTW, who put in the references to "Milestones"? route56 06:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Good article. Two comments: the administration section is far too short and should be expanded or folded into another section, and the images of road signs towards the bottom get a little cluttered - you might reconsider using them. - Mocko13 00:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Could a table be used to place that in another format? I'm thinking about something like the list of exits on Interstate_355... I'd be happy to try it, unless someone thinks the straight text is a better way to go at it. You could always revert me if you don't like it, I suppose. ----Steve 20:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The article did once have a standard exit list, but it was expanded to prose to add more detail about the history of each interchange and its design. The road sign clutter has been deleted, now, anyway. —Scott5114↗ 06:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Should this article discuss any of the construction projects going on?

E.g. I don't think I saw in the article anywhere how many lanes it is, if that's appropriate for an article like this. (Two, mostly, but I can't remember about Wichita and KC, and of course the nearly-completed expansion to 3 lanes from Lecompton to Topeka.)

And I haven't exited at Emporia in a couple of years but that exit is under construction. According to my mom this is because its design made it really prone to accidents, but obviously that isn't proper verifcation for Wikipedia. -- 66.45.137.204 08:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC) (just a random wikipedian passing through here)

^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z National Bridge Inventory

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not referring to the Wikipedia article, that's referring to the actual inventory. —Scott5114↗ 14:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Then it should *link* to or include a reference to the actual inventory—what is it, a website, a book, a brochure? Where do our readers find the information sourced? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

NBI is a database of all bridges in the United States. I believe there are multiple ways of accessing it, but one is through http://www.nationalbridges.com/. As for how to format the ref, I'm not sure. I suppose cite web would work. I can't edit the article right now because of an overaggressive school cleanfilter, though. —Scott5114↗ 16:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Gimmetrow fixed the NBI sources - there are numerous other problems - I left inline notes and verify tags, and completing a lot of missing information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I an very well disagreeing with the reason why Exit 410 was built. It claims that it was built for the proposed Kansas Speedway track but the exit was under constrution and opened in 1996 while Kansas Speedway was proposed over a year later. My source for the counter claim is at [17] and it clearly shows that It wasn't proposed until late 1997. I personally don't know why the 110th Street Interchange was built but I know for a fact that wasn't a reason why.

I have removed the claim from the article. Whatever the reason the exit was built, it's not really important to the article. —Scott5114↗ 05:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is in need of some major external link repair. A lot of the references link to a 404, see results here on link checker: [18]. --Holderca1 ^talk 01:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've done what I can. KTA apparently reorganized their website, breaking most of the references to them. I did notice they started a new K-Tag program in the process though; I'll include that in the article. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The

The point of the lead isn't to reach X number of characters, but to accurately summarize the article in a useful way. So what does this lead lack in its actual content, as opposed to the number of beans there are to count "in the blink of an eye"? --Rividian (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Anything can be summarized in a shorter or longer number of words by trimming down the details and leaving out less important things. I could summarize your life in seven brief sentences, though I would have to leave out a lot of the details. It does require a little effort to go through and write a slightly more thorough lead (I think three times the current length would be a good level of detail), but that's part of meeting the FA (and even GA) criteria. I'm not surprised this has been missed though; people here are extraordinarily ignorant about what a lead section is supposed to be, and underdone leads are like shells on a beach.

I've also raised the problem of paragraphs vs. actual length on the lead section page if anyone is interested. Richard001 (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, what content from the article isn't summarized in the lead? Have you even checked? --Rividian (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of it is mentioned there, at a ratio of about one sentence per page. If you want to get a five second tour of the subject the lead is okay, but if you want something that gives a reasonable overview (or meets the minimum requirements) you have to read the whole thing, which is a bit taxing. It's that this was approved without any objection regarding the lead that annoys me. Richard001 (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't explained any way the article would be better... just longer. Leads don't exist to fill space, they exist to summarize the article. If you'd mentioned things the lead could summarize that it doesn't yet, you'd have been talking about ways to improve the article. You just are talking about having it fill space more space because some guideline says so. Honestly, we could replace you with a robot if you're just counting characters. --Rividian (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to expand it a little. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, nice job. Richard001 (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an oxymoron. Reading further, I find that part of the Turnpike is a toll road and part is a freeway, but the phrase "tolled freeway" still makes no sense. TJSwoboda (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the same. "Tolled superhighway" is more accurate. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A

freeway is a road free of intersections, and can have tolls. --NE2

02:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

--SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

NE 2 is correct, that definition is a very strict definition from CA. A freeway is any roadway that has limited access. The "Free" in freeway refers to the absence of intersections and stopping. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You're also incorrect about the method of tolling the Kansas Turnpike uses. Tolls are calculated based on distance traveled and the number of axles the vehicle has. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The article says that the Kansas Turnpike is part free and part toll. That means that they cannot use the formula approach because they are not charging for the free portions. QED. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comment doesn't make sense. The existence of an untolled portion doesn't mean you can't use a distance-based toll system for the tolled portion. --Polaron | Talk 03:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Here is what Merriam-Webster Unabridged has to say on the subject:

• Main Entry: freeway
• Function: noun
• 1 : an expressway with fully controlled access
• 2 : a toll-free highway -- compare PARKWAY, TURNPIKE

• Citation format for this entry:

• "freeway."
  Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged.
  Merriam-Webster, 2002.
  http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (12 Apr. 2008).

• Main Entry: 1turnpike
• Function: noun
• Etymology: Middle English turnepike, from turnen to turn + pike (point)
• 1 obsolete : a revolving frame bearing spikes and used as a barrier in medieval warfare
• 2 : TOLL BAR, TOLLGATE
• 3 or turnpike road or a toll road; especially :
  a toll expressway
  b : a free road originally maintained as a toll road
  c : a main road : a paved highway having a crowned surface
• 4 Scotland : a winding spiral stairway

• Citation format for this entry:

• "turnpike."
  Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged.
  Merriam-Webster, 2002.
  http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (12 Apr. 2008).

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a document from

You know what, sometimes an outside person needs to come in to comment about things like this, and thank you for doing so. That really would be the logical explanation. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that none of those other terms that would be used here mean the same thing. An expressway or superhighway can have intersections, and a highway can be any road. --NE2 20:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There is enough confusion about the use of the term "tolled freeway" to warrant a different description. In Wikipedia articles about other named toll roads, the term "freeway" is not used (

Neither of those has the same meaning as freeway: that there are no at-grade intersections. --NE2 16:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Since non-road geeks seem to be confused by tolled freeway, even though it makes sense to me, maybe we should just use toll road. I said this above, but I want to reinterate that the "free" in freeway means freedom from stopping and at-grade intersections. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

But toll road doesn't have the same meaning; a toll road can have intersections. What about "freeway-standard toll road"? --NE2 20:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What about limited-access toll road or controlled-access toll road? --Holderca1 ^talk 20:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Those terms refer to access from adjoining properties; a limited/controlled access road can have intersections. --NE2 20:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone vandalized this page; I hope I reverted it back to the version that received the Feature Article citation. gar in Oakland (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What will probably happen is that it will be "cleaned up" (making sure no vandalism crept in silently) once it is off the main page. – TMF 18:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This page should be locked while it is a feature article--66.57.70.56 (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been semi-protected per a request at

WP:RFPP. – TMF

21:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a diff comparing the roughly pre-main page version and the current version. From what I can tell, no vandalism slipped through the cracks. The only thing missing is an interwiki link to the Spanish wiki - but the article there was deleted in November 2007, so that's fine. – TMF 18:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a question about the following lines from the lead: "Eventually, the limit was fixed at 80 mph, and remained so until 2006 when the limit was reduced to 70 mph. The 80 mph speed limit would not be enforced anywhere in the United States again until May 2006, when Texas posted the 80 mph speed limit on Interstates 10 and 20 in the western part of that state.[2]"

This statement seems quite contradictory to my personal experience. I have traveled on a section of the Kansas Turnpike along I-70 between exit 183 and 197 on a very regular basis from 2003-2008 and in that time have NEVER seen an 80mph speed limit. Furthermore, I have traveled every leg of the turnpike sometime prior to 2006 and have no recollection of this being the legal speed limit. Can anyone clarify this point and correct it in the article? DirtySocks85 (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where that came from; it's not what the article body says. --NE2 20:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling you were looking at a vandalized version of the article (or simply one by some helpful person who didn't really read the source text too closely). There was originally no speed limit, then an 80 mile per hour speed limit was set some time during the early years of the turnpike, but it was eventually (the article doesn't say when) knocked down to 70 and then, of course, 55 after NMSL was enacted. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have found this site and found it interesting that I have learn new things about the History of the Kansas Turnpike in the Kansas City Area. This tool should help establish facts about the Turnpike in the Kansas City Area back in 1966. On the 1966 Aerial Imagery, it shows 2 new ramps under construction (The Trumpet from Turner Diagonal (Current exit 415) and The old 57th Street Exit VIA Park Drive (Not there anymore replaced with the current exit 417 in the mid 1980s), a partial reconstruction of the 18th Street and I-70, 18th Street Expressway Toll Bridge Plaza, The old Eastern Toll Barrier near 78th Street, The old 38th Street & Park Drive Interchange (Replaced with the current exit 419 when I-635 was built).

I am gonna start with the Imagery from the 18th Street Expressway and work my way to Bonner Springs, KS on this list.

The Original Southern Termus of 18th Expressway in Roeland Park, KS (Now considered to be part of Roe, BLVD after reconstruction in the 1990s. (Was an Interchange here replaced with at grade intersections all around) http://www.historicaerials.com/?poi=6621

18th Street Expressway @ I-35 (cloverleaf interchange replaced by a diamond interchange in the late 1980s or early 1990s) http://www.historicaerials.com/?poi=6622

18th Street Expressway @ Meriman Lane (Same as Today) http://www.historicaerials.com/?poi=6623

18th Street Expressway @ Steele Rd (Only Ramps From SB 18th Street Expressway and From Steele Rd to 18th Street Expressway Northbound towards the booths, The ramp that appears to be coming off of Steele Rd to Southbound 18th Street Expressway is a maintenance ramp. Today this interchange is a full diamond serving both directions of travel on 18th Street Expressway) http://www.historicaerials.com/?poi=6624

The Toll Plaza on 18th Street Expressway and the Metropolitan Ave, Ruby, 21st Street Interchange in Argentine. (Once was a variation of a cloverleaf with the Toll Plaza located just on the North side of Ruby Ave. Today is a half Cloverleaf mainly connecting to 21st Street and Ruby Ave with a short drive to Metropolitan Ave. The 18th Street Expressway Bridge above Ruby Ave still has the wide bridge supports to where 18th Street Expressway once widen for the toll booths. (Still visible on the modern satellite image from Google Earth) http://www.historicaerials.com/featuredPOIImage.aspx?poi=6625

18th Street Expressway @ K-32 Kansas Ave (Pretty much the same today except the ramp from Southbound 18th Street Expressway to Kansas Ave West Bound was removed during the 18th Street Expressway Rebuild in the 1990s per source from Google Earth Historic Imagery from 1991 as the remaints of that ramp was visible in that image.) http://www.historicaerials.com/?poi=6626

Exit 420 18th Street Expressway @ I-70 (The Same as Today pretty Much The same as it is Today the 1966 image shows a reconstruction of the ramp from Northbound 18th Street Expressway to I-70 Eastbound, The rest of the interchange was rebuilt in the 1980s with a similar Cloverleaf shape.) http://www.historicaerials.com/?poi=6627

Exit 419 I-70 @ Park Drive and 38th Street (No Toll Booths are visible in the 1966 image but it shows a weird interchange here on the north side of Park Drive, which was a far cry of Todays Half cloverleaf on the otherside of Park Drive now connected to the I-635 Ramp.) http://www.historicaerials.com/?poi=6628

Exit 418 I-70 @ I-635 (Not Yet Built I-70 Had no split here in 1966 Just a Bridge for a Road leading into the Forrest View landfill.) http://www.historicaerials.com/?poi=6629

Exit 417 I-70 @ 57th Street VIA Park Drive (This was a ramp connecting to Park Drive with a short drive to 57th Street, The ramp was under construction in 1966. The old Ramp lasted until the mid 1980s when the reconstruction replaced this on and off ramp with a full diamond interchange. The ramp Connected Westbound I-70 with Park Drive and Park Drive with Eastbound I-70. Per the image the interchange would have been completed that year if not 1967. Also visible in that image is construction of the Muncie Road Bridge with a pier visible in the image, Those same piers would be reused for the off ramp From I-70 WB to 57th Street when I-70 was rebuilt in this area in the mid 1980s with a newer Muncie Road bridge to the north.) http://www.historicaerials.com/?poi=6630

Exit 415 I-70 @ Turner Diagonal (This pretty much looks the same then as Today. The notable exception here is that the Trumpet Interchange that serves I-70 Westbound to the Turner Diagonal and The Turner Diagonal to Eastbound I-70 was just being constructed here with no sign of it previously existing beforehand giving a ETC of this ramp of around 1966 or 1967.) http://www.historicaerials.com/?poi=6631

The Original Eastern Toll Barrier (Today this area around I-70 is a Rest Area with a Parking Area for Eastbound I-70 and a more fuller rest area with a Truck Inspection Station for Westbound I-70 the building once housed the Tourist Info Center.) http://www.historicaerials.com/?poi=6632

Exit 414 I-70 @ 78th Street (No interchange was yet built here in 1966, The ramped opened in the 1980s. The Drive-In Theater on the image was the Kansas Drive-In.) http://www.historicaerials.com/?poi=6633

Exit 411 I-70 @ I-435 (I-435 was not built yet in 1966 so no Interchange here the I-435 Interchange opened in the 1980s) http://www.historicaerials.com/?poi=6634

Exit 410 I-70 @ 110th Street (No interchange here. The Diamond Interchange was built in the 1990s. A Maintenance Ramp was here on the image in 1966.) http://www.historicaerials.com/?poi=6635

Exit 224 or 223 depending on which map you are looking at I-70 at K-7 (pretty much the same then as it is Today until it gets rebuilt in the next few years. The tool plaza didn't appear to have a covered top here in 1966. K-7 was a 2 Lane highway here in 1966.) http://www.historicaerials.com/?poi=6636

I don't know of these what can be added to the article, but this is what it was in 1966. Sawblade5 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 09:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• 1980 over 18th Street (US 69) - ramp over railroad is 1956
• 1956 over Service Road
• 1957 under 10th Street
• 1990 under Mill Street
• 1958 eastbound under 7th Street (US 69/US 169)
• 1957 westbound over 7th Street (US 69/US 169)
• 1959 over Service Road
• 1959 under Central Avenue
• 1993 westbound over 5th Street
• 1962 westbound over US 24 east
• 1907 eastbound over Kansas River
• 1963 westbound over Kansas River

1956 map - nothing yet

1969 map - obviously all done; check out US 40! Also note the barrier toll location, and the Kaw Drive interchange (rebuilt ca. 1974 when I-635 was built). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPUI (talk • contribs) 07:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The entire length of

• Support --Admrboltz (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support since I-335 is entirely co-existent with a portion of the turnpike and only exists due to a former quirk in law.  VC  18:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support per above. On another note, all of the route markers except the turnpike's should be removed from the infobox. – TMF 20:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The short article Kansas Turnpike Authority can easily be covered in a section of this article. Dough4872 20:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment while it can be, should it be? --Admrboltz (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I would believe so, since the KTA is specifically in charge of solely this road. The current article is a stub and does not have much potential for expansion of its own. Dough4872 02:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Ok, if we do it, the page needs to be tagged for {{WikiProject Companies}}. Provisional support --Admrboltz (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Information about owning and operating the turnpike should be able to be integrated into the turnpike article.  VC  18:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Dough and VC. – TMF 20:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral. There was formerly at least one other toll road in Kansas; the 18th Street Expressway was partially tolled until the 70s, and I believe that it was also administered by the KTA (to this day, the turnpike begin/end signage is at the 18th Street interchange rather than at the point where KTA actually takes maintenance). Should someone dig up more information on the 18th Street Expressway the KTA article could be more substantial. Perhaps it should be folded into the Kansas Turnpike article for now with an eye to split it off again in the future if necessary. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 12:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking over this article I am concerned with the fact the exit list is in prose format and not in a table as it is supposed to. This is a clear violation of

A proposal to solve the exit list issue is to have the exit list table describe the interchanges as they are today while the history of the interchanges can be kept as prose and either incorporated into the main history section or into a new Interchange History section. Puttling all the history into the table would make it look too clunky. Dough4872 03:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this needs to be cleaned up to comply with

MOS:RJL --AdmrBoltz

04:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Most of the descriptions in that section are better incorporated with the route description. The history, mostly dates, is good for the notes column. At the very least, a table should be added in addition to the current setup, and then details rearranged as required. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I don't think there's any problems with the existing setup other than it not being "correct" to the letter of the law, but some variances to the standards - like this well-thought out one - are fine in my book. If the article can be reconfigured in a way that uses a typical junction list and it doesn't look awful, then I could get behind that. Otherwise, it just seems like change for the sake of standardization. It's hard to describe, but what's there now doesn't scream "nonstandard" to me like an improperly formatted table or a sketchy bulleted list would. – TMF 05:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

My take is like this. This article was formulated before or outside of the process that created WP:ELG (and consequently MOS:RJL). I see nothing wrong with this article in that respect. Now, MOS:RJL should be understood to apply to the formatting of junction/exit list tables, not to specify that all road articles must have said table in such format. Legitimately, we can and do omit the tables from articles that would only have the termini listed. (I specifically won't include a RJL table in a RCS-style list article unless there are... actual junctions... to list.) I think this is a case where

WP:IAR applies. Imzadi 1979 →

05:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I still think it's a good idea to incorporate the interchange history as a possible subsection of the main history section. The RJL-compliant exit list would then include the roads at the interchange along with a description of the type of interchange and available movements. Dough4872 16:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see what a table would add to the article that the prose-based approach currently used does not provide. It may not be to the letter of

These concerns still need to be addressed. Dough4872 21:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I went through and did the start of some formatting cleanup. All of the references should be using the same date format now. (I probably skipped a few on purpose where there are other formatting issues. I'd suggest that a few of the references be split out of the main group since they are explanatory. There is a way to nest a reference into another footnote, which would allow the references with explanatory content to be split apart. (U.S. Route 131 has a separate section for explanatory/informational footnotes, one of which has a reference in it.)

Other issues I left for the moment are references to the National Bridge Inventory that don't link to specific pages, and maps that use {{PDFlink}} instead of {{cite map}} to generate the citation. I did try to convert stuff over to templates where easily done, but I don't want to really overhaul without the opportunity for comments. Imzadi 1979 → 06:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I will make a list of unreferenced statements and sections I am concerned with:

1. "The Kansas Turnpike Act, defining a turnpike from Oklahoma to Kansas City, became effective April 7, 1953."
2. The entire third paragraph of the early history section.
3. "The turnpike originally had 14 interchanges; as of 2006, there are 27 interchanges."
4. The second paragraph of the The southern terminus section.
5. The entire speed limits section.
6. The route description needs additional references, this can easily be obtained from a map.
7. "This is similar to what the Pennsylvania Turnpike did in the 1970s, as that highway has an even narrower median. In both cases, as with all other toll roads that predated the Interstate Highway System, the highway is grandfathered from Interstate standards."
8. "Eventually, the speed limit was lowered to 70 mph (110 km/h). No other 80 mph (130 km/h) speed limit appeared anywhere else in the United States until 2006, when Texas posted 80 mph (130 km/h) speed limits on remote, western parts of Interstate 10 and Interstate 20."

In addition, there are concerns with a couple of the sources being unreliable. Dough4872 16:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The effective date of the Kansas Turnpike Act need not be cited because presumably that date is included within the text of the act itself. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Could a reference to the text of the act be added. Dough4872 20:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Reference added. Dough4872 20:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I separated the explanatory footnotes from the referential footnotes, citing them in the process. I also tried to get the last few maps into {{cite map}} formats. There are still 3 unreliable sources that need replacement, the NBI citation should be split apart for each individual bridge, and details in the remaining references checked for accuracy and consistency. Imzadi 1979 → 21:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Hi everyone! Is this still being worked on? All of the cleanup tags on this article put it near the top of the [cleanup listing for featured articles, and makes it look like it is in desperate need of either a good bit of cleanup work or a

The speed limits section has been fully cited now, with a minor expansion of some details that weren't originally included when it was added. That leaves breaking footnote 10 up so that each specific entry in the NBI database has a separate link and footnote, replacing footnotes 15, 48 and 74 and inserting some additional citations in places. Imzadi 1979 → 19:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)