CalTrans vs. NDOT

[Inyomono395]

Who do you like better Caltrans or NDOT? I realize this can be broken down to many levels like planning, construction, signage, Etc.
I'm looking forward to hearing everyone's opinion.

[Pink Jazz]

For signage, NDOT hands down.  Nevada allows logo signs in urban areas, California does not.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'll echo what Pink Jazz said about urban signage with NDOT.  NDOT actually a pretty decent numbering grid trying to lump numbers into groups.  Nevada has a band of numbers for Main Roads, Secondary, and Urban routes whereas California did but it largely fell apart with the 1964 renumbering.  Caltrans signage standards are wildly different sometimes between districts and often there are things like missing banners or really bad signage continuity.  Now with all that in mind, I'd say that California as a whole is probably going to be a big step behind Nevada since the latter is still developing new infrastructure at faster pace due to population booms.  Almost everything significant in California was built a long time ago and would have once probably beaten any designs in the country. 

[Plutonic Panda]

For signage, NDOT hands down.  Nevada allows logo signs in urban areas, California does not.

i actually like that the Los Angeles freeways don't have logo signage. They are more aesthetically pleasing in my opinion.

[JasonOfORoads]

Who do you like better Caltrans or NDOT? I realize this can be broken down to many levels like planning, construction, signage, Etc.
I'm looking forward to hearing everyone's opinion.

For exit number implementation, it's gotta go to Nevada. They did theirs in the late 1970s-early 1980s. By comparison, when was the last time you heard the term "Cal-NExUS" in any serious capacity?

For exit number *system*, however, California wins. They use a regular system of rounding the postmile to the nearest whole number, and letter suffixes increase north/eastbound and decrease south/westbound, in concert with the numbers increasing or decreasing as needed. Since exit numbers are based on the postmile at the center of the interchange, you sometimes get weird orders like I-210 east at exits 45-44, but the system makes sense.

By comparison, I don't know what the hell NDOT is doing. They like to fudge exit numbers in close proximity to each other mostly eliminate letter suffixes in urban areas. I-80 in Reno is a prime example of that. Opinions on exit number fudging are subjective, so I don't really consider it a negative or positive. The biggest sin, IMO, is their letter suffixing policy. No matter which direction you go, you will encounter Exit A before Exit B. So in this interchange, Exit 12A will take you a different destination depending on which way you're going. US-95 through Vegas seems to be the sole exception across the entire state.

Props to Nevada to numbering its non-Interstate exits before other states numbered theirs, though.

Also, I find it interesting that Nevada gives its HOV exits numbers, like Exit 81C on US-95 Northbound. By comparison, California does not. IIRC numbering HOV exits isn't recommended in the MUTCD, but I haven't checked it recently. (Personally, I think all HOV exits should be signed with the milepost number along with a ◊. This exit would be Exit 81◊, or "81 diamond".)

[Quillz]

Being up in the North Coast until the end of the week, I can say that Caltrans is remarkably fast at responding to emergencies. Literally half of the 101 fell down a hillside due to heavy rain near Crescent City yesterday. By early morning, that segment was roped off, a temporary traffic light was set up, and traffic was re-routed into a single lane. And by the time I left the area yesterday afternoon, some fresh asphalt had already been laid down.

Given how big California is and some of the weather they have to deal with, Caltrans does do a pretty good job.

[Max Rockatansky]

Being up in the North Coast until the end of the week, I can say that Caltrans is remarkably fast at responding to emergencies. Literally half of the 101 fell down a hillside due to heavy rain near Crescent City yesterday. By early morning, that segment was roped off, a temporary traffic light was set up, and traffic was re-routed into a single lane. And by the time I left the area yesterday afternoon, some fresh asphalt had already been laid down.

Given how big California is and some of the weather they have to deal with, Caltrans does do a pretty good job.

Seems like they've been busy with all the storm damage in the mountains and on the coast this past month.  I'm still waiting for CA 1 through Big Sur to fully reopen...I think it was for maybe a day in the past month?

[sparker]

Being up in the North Coast until the end of the week, I can say that Caltrans is remarkably fast at responding to emergencies. Literally half of the 101 fell down a hillside due to heavy rain near Crescent City yesterday. By early morning, that segment was roped off, a temporary traffic light was set up, and traffic was re-routed into a single lane. And by the time I left the area yesterday afternoon, some fresh asphalt had already been laid down.

Given how big California is and some of the weather they have to deal with, Caltrans does do a pretty good job.

Seems like they've been busy with all the storm damage in the mountains and on the coast this past month.  I'm still waiting for CA 1 through Big Sur to fully reopen...I think it was for maybe a day in the past month?

Pretty much everyone I know who commutes over the hill from Santa Cruz County has been either working from home or taking unanticipated time off until Caltrans clears off 17 over the hill.  CA 9 is essentially flooded, the alternate routes (San Jose-Soquel Road et. al.) are backed up, CA 84 to the north and CA 152 over Hecker Pass are either closed or down to 1 lane because of mudslides -- so the only safe route (for the time being, until the Pajaro River floods) is all the way down along CA 129 -- and no one really wants to do that because of the backtracking slog up 101 through Gilroy and Morgan Hill.  Both Caltrans Districts 4 & 5 have been working their ass off trying to get the roads open, but the last couple of storm waves just parked themselves over the coast range.  I certainly don't envy the crews out there in the field; they're doing the best they can considering the relentless nature of both the storms and the mud!

[Max Rockatansky]

Being up in the North Coast until the end of the week, I can say that Caltrans is remarkably fast at responding to emergencies. Literally half of the 101 fell down a hillside due to heavy rain near Crescent City yesterday. By early morning, that segment was roped off, a temporary traffic light was set up, and traffic was re-routed into a single lane. And by the time I left the area yesterday afternoon, some fresh asphalt had already been laid down.

Given how big California is and some of the weather they have to deal with, Caltrans does do a pretty good job.

Seems like they've been busy with all the storm damage in the mountains and on the coast this past month.  I'm still waiting for CA 1 through Big Sur to fully reopen...I think it was for maybe a day in the past month?

Pretty much everyone I know who commutes over the hill from Santa Cruz County has been either working from home or taking unanticipated time off until Caltrans clears off 17 over the hill.  CA 9 is essentially flooded, the alternate routes (San Jose-Soquel Road et. al.) are backed up, CA 84 to the north and CA 152 over Hecker Pass are either closed or down to 1 lane because of mudslides -- so the only safe route (for the time being, until the Pajaro River floods) is all the way down along CA 129 -- and no one really wants to do that because of the backtracking slog up 101 through Gilroy and Morgan Hill.  Both Caltrans Districts 4 & 5 have been working their ass off trying to get the roads open, but the last couple of storm waves just parked themselves over the coast range.  I certainly don't envy the crews out there in the field; they're doing the best they can considering the relentless nature of both the storms and the mud!

Even 129 was shut down because of mudslides a couple weeks back when I was in Monterey.  Those were some brutal storms in mid-January, I couldn't even see when I looked outside myself window because of the sheets of water.  I'm glad that I called in the travel delay before it got dark out, that would have been one awful drive getting over the Diablos.

[nexus73]

Being up in the North Coast until the end of the week, I can say that Caltrans is remarkably fast at responding to emergencies. Literally half of the 101 fell down a hillside due to heavy rain near Crescent City yesterday. By early morning, that segment was roped off, a temporary traffic light was set up, and traffic was re-routed into a single lane. And by the time I left the area yesterday afternoon, some fresh asphalt had already been laid down.

Given how big California is and some of the weather they have to deal with, Caltrans does do a pretty good job.

If Caltrans was really out to do the job right, that section of 101 would have been rerouted inland a long time ago.  That has been proposed in the past and given the inevitability of slides on the affected section, the solution to maintaining traffic flow is obvious.  Lucky they were this time to lose just half the highway.

Go look at a map to see the extremely long detour that would be needed if the whole shebang poured into the Pacific Ocean.  299 to I-5 to 199 to 101 just to get to Crescent City from Klamath is a "No thanks!" deal in my eyes!

Rick

[sparker]

If Caltrans was really out to do the job right, that section of 101 would have been rerouted inland a long time ago.  That has been proposed in the past and given the inevitability of slides on the affected section, the solution to maintaining traffic flow is obvious.  Lucky they were this time to lose just half the highway.

That cliffhanging section of 101 south of Crescent City is certainly the major obstacle to reasonably efficient coastal travel in both CA and OR.  Having traveled on it for the last 50+ years -- with virtually no improvement beyond repair -- I wholeheartedly concur with Rick regarding an inland rerouting.  Unfortunately, some find such obstacles (Richardson Grove to the south being another) "quaint" or even desirable to stymie potential traffic increases (as well as area development), and they've managed to prevail, which has resulted in regional isolation not only in terms of connectivity but also in the area of socioeconomics.  Not that Interstate-grade facilities are needed or even to be seriously considered -- but some realignments and expansions, for safety's sake if nothing else -- are long overdue!   

[roadfro]

I think for signage standards, especially on freeways, it goes to NDOT hands down.

Both states have similar BGS standards, e.g. typically adhere to maximum height, same height signs on a single structure, etc. However, NDOT signage layouts are much more consistent. Also, NDOT is willing to override the maximum sign height on occasion (when warranted) so as to not clutter/compress the sign legend to result in an ugly sign–the use of APL signs in Reno on I-80 is a prime example.

On rural roads, I think NDOT is much more consistent with sign design and layout. I also think they have been getting much better about highways include shields with directional banners and begin/end plaques.

For exit number implementation, it's gotta go to Nevada. They did theirs in the late 1970s-early 1980s. By comparison, when was the last time you heard the term "Cal-NExUS" in any serious capacity?

For exit number *system*, however, California wins. They use a regular system of rounding the postmile to the nearest whole number, and letter suffixes increase north/eastbound and decrease south/westbound, in concert with the numbers increasing or decreasing as needed. Since exit numbers are based on the postmile at the center of the interchange, you sometimes get weird orders like I-210 east at exits 45-44, but the system makes sense.

By comparison, I don't know what the hell NDOT is doing. They like to fudge exit numbers in close proximity to each other mostly eliminate letter suffixes in urban areas. I-80 in Reno is a prime example of that. Opinions on exit number fudging are subjective, so I don't really consider it a negative or positive. The biggest sin, IMO, is their letter suffixing policy. No matter which direction you go, you will encounter Exit A before Exit B. So in this interchange, Exit 12A will take you a different destination depending on which way you're going. US-95 through Vegas seems to be the sole exception across the entire state.

Props to Nevada to numbering its non-Interstate exits before other states numbered theirs, though.

Also, I find it interesting that Nevada gives its HOV exits numbers, like Exit 81C on US-95 Northbound. By comparison, California does not. IIRC numbering HOV exits isn't recommended in the MUTCD, but I haven't checked it recently. (Personally, I think all HOV exits should be signed with the milepost number along with a ◊. This exit would be Exit 81◊, or "81 diamond".)

I would agree in some extent with the exit numbering observations for NDOT.

I-80 in Reno/Sparks is the only prime example of exit number fudging I'm aware of though. I think this was done because there are several interchanges in a row that are less than one mile apart. (If they were to go by the true mileposts, the I-580/US 395 interchange would be Exit 14B.) This does result in Exit 21 (Vista Blvd), the last exit in Sparks and the main metro area, being about three miles distant from Exit 22 (Lockwood). So the stretch from US 395 to Vista Blvd basically switches to sequential numbering to avoid having a bunch of suffixed exits for unrelated interchanges and skipping numbers. I can live with this, because it's not too egregious. (I could be wrong, but I believe the numbering for this stretch was also put in place in a time where exit numbering wasn't necessarily common, and there was no recommendation either way for mileage versus sequential.) By contrast, when Clark County renumbered interchanges on I-215 after the I-515/US 93/US 95 interchange was completed, they numbered these separate interchanges as exits 3A and 3B–3B could have easily been fudged to exit 4, as milepost 4 appears in the interchange are between the overpass and the western ramps.

Regarding exit suffix order for single interchanges: Here's the full list of suffixed exits in Nevada:

• I-15, exit 38 [Flamingo Rd]: A before B SB (wrong order). Single exit NB.
  
• I-15, exit 41 [Charleston Bl]: A before B NB (correct order). Single exit SB. (Note: The split exits will be combined as part of Project Neon.)
  
• I-15, exit 42 [I-515/US 95 & MLK Blvd]: A before B NB (correct order). Single exit SB.
  
• US 95, exit 56 [Boulder Hwy & Wagon Wheel]: A before B NB (correct order). No Boulder Hwy exit SB, so single exit.
  
• US 95, exit 61 [I-215 & Lake Mead] B before A SB (correct order). Single exit NB.
  
• US 95, exit 64A [Sunset] & exit 64B [Galleria]: Separate interchanges (ramps in order both directions).
  
• US 95, exit 75 [Las Vegas Blvd / Downtown]: B before A SB (correct order). Single exit NB.
  
• US 95, exit 76 [I-15 & MLK Blvd]: B before A SB (correct order). A before B before C NB (correct order).
  
• US 95, exit 81 [Summerlin & Rainbow]: A before B NB (correct order). Single exit SB. (Note: Excluded HOV exit 81C from this)
  
• US 95, exit 82 [Lake Mead]: A before B NB (correct order). Single exit SB.
  
• US 95, exit 90A [Rancho] & exit 90B [Ann]: Separate interchanges (ramps in order both directions). (Note: Centennial Bowl construction recently combined SB ramps into exit 91 C/D road.)
  
• US 95, exit 91 [CC 215 & local roads]: A before B NB (correct order). Unrelated single exit SB.
  
• I-215, exit 3A [Stephanie] & 3B [Valley Verde]: Separate interchanges (ramps in order both directions).
  
• I-215/CC 215, exit 12 [I-15]: A before B both directions (wrong order EB, correct order WB). (Notes: This one is Clark County's fault, not NDOT's. If EB were numbered in proper order, the exits to I-15 north/south would be labeled the same in both directions.)
  
• I-580/US 395, exit 57 [S Virginia/395A]: A before B SB (wrong order). No exit NB.
  
• I-580/US 395, exit 65 [Plumb Ln & Airport]: A before B SB (wrong order). Single exit NB.
  
• I-580/US 395, exit 68 [I-80]: A before B NB (correct order). Single exit SB.
  
• US 395, exit 70 [McCarran & Clear Acre]: A before B (correct order). Single exit SB.
  
• I-80, exit 352 [city of Wells]: B before A WB (correct order). Single exit EB. (352B is a random slip ramp, whereas 352A is the full interchange.)
  When you tally it all up, there are 18 unique instances of suffixed interchanges existing in single direction of travel (this count excludes cases where suffixed exits belong to two distinctly separate interchanges). Of those, only four actually present in the wrong order by my count (and one is not NDOT's fault). Although I would agree with the sentiment that the suffixes should present in the proper order regardless.
  
  
  As far as HOV exits are concerned, the MUTCD does not appear to make any recommendation for or against including them in the exit numbering sequence. (Although, I would point out that no examples of a numbered HOV exit appear in the MUTCD, so that could be interpreted as a silent recommendation.) I like the idea about numbering these as "81 diamond", but that could be problematical in other circumstances, especially if there is an exclusive HOV exit sandwiched between two adjacent interchanges.
  
  
  An egregious exit numbering issue I have with NDOT is on US 95 in Las Vegas. The exit numbers skip from exit 85 [Craig Road] to exit 90A [Rancho Drive], despite there being only about a mile between these interchanges. This has inflated all new interchanges north of here up by four, such that the Snow Mountain exit had to be renumbered from exit 95 (correct to the milepost located in the interchange area) to exit 99 when the current exit 95 was constructed. (Although there's very few mileposts found on freeways in Las Vegas anyway, so the mileage versus exit numbers have always been hard to verify...) I've hoped for a long time that this would get fixed, but doesn't seem like it will.

[kkt]

If Caltrans was really out to do the job right, that section of 101 would have been rerouted inland a long time ago.  That has been proposed in the past and given the inevitability of slides on the affected section, the solution to maintaining traffic flow is obvious.  Lucky they were this time to lose just half the highway.

That cliffhanging section of 101 south of Crescent City is certainly the major obstacle to reasonably efficient coastal travel in both CA and OR.  Having traveled on it for the last 50+ years -- with virtually no improvement beyond repair -- I wholeheartedly concur with Rick regarding an inland rerouting.  Unfortunately, some find such obstacles (Richardson Grove to the south being another) "quaint" or even desirable to stymie potential traffic increases (as well as area development), and they've managed to prevail, which has resulted in regional isolation not only in terms of connectivity but also in the area of socioeconomics.  Not that Interstate-grade facilities are needed or even to be seriously considered -- but some realignments and expansions, for safety's sake if nothing else -- are long overdue!   

50 years ago there were pretty much no sections of 101 north of Cloverdale that were 4 lanes.  Now there are a lot of 4-lane sections.  Many curves have been eased and shoulders widened.

I hope they bypass Richardson Grove.  Every time Caltrans says they just want cut down a few more trees, but it's never the end of it, a couple of years later they're back wanting to accommodate bigger and bigger trucks.  The park will not be able to live with a freeway through the middle, and nothing less will satisfy the truck lobby for very long.  The campground is on one side of 101, and the river where people come to swim is on the other.

[sparker]

I hope they bypass Richardson Grove.  Every time Caltrans says they just want cut down a few more trees, but it's never the end of it, a couple of years later they're back wanting to accommodate bigger and bigger trucks.  The park will not be able to live with a freeway through the middle, and nothing less will satisfy the truck lobby for very long.  The campground is on one side of 101, and the river where people come to swim is on the other.

Highly likely that any Richardson Grove improvements will have do be done by a complete bypass -- likely involving tunneling, ridge-hopping, or both.  Unfortunately the slopes in that area aren't as gentle as the area several miles to the north, where US 101 is up the hill and CA 254 is deployed over the original Redwood Highway alignment down in the redwood groves; it'll be one expensive undertaking (probably reasons #1-10 why it hasn't been done to date). 

[JasonOfORoads]

I-80 in Reno/Sparks is the only prime example of exit number fudging I'm aware of though. I think this was done because there are several interchanges in a row that are less than one mile apart. (If they were to go by the true mileposts, the I-580/US 395 interchange would be Exit 14B.) This does result in Exit 21 (Vista Blvd), the last exit in Sparks and the main metro area, being about three miles distant from Exit 22 (Lockwood). So the stretch from US 395 to Vista Blvd basically switches to sequential numbering to avoid having a bunch of suffixed exits for unrelated interchanges and skipping numbers. I can live with this, because it's not too egregious. (I could be wrong, but I believe the numbering for this stretch was also put in place in a time where exit numbering wasn't necessarily common, and there was no recommendation either way for mileage versus sequential.) By contrast, when Clark County renumbered interchanges on I-215 after the I-515/US 93/US 95 interchange was completed, they numbered these separate interchanges as exits 3A and 3B–3B could have easily been fudged to exit 4, as milepost 4 appears in the interchange are between the overpass and the western ramps.

I also think they do it a little bit on I-580/US-395's southern end in Reno. IIRC there's about 8 miles between Exits 50 and 56. This is because the exits in Washoe Valley used to be two numbers lower before the Carson Bypass was partially opened -- Exit 46 used to be 44, and 44 used to be 42. Therefore, Exit 50 should actually be Exit 48. My guess is that NDOT re-measured mileage once the bypass was okayed, accounting for the extra two miles. However, since it looks like there's only 1½ miles between Exits 56 and 59, NDOT could easily make Exits 56 and 57 into 57 and 58 respectively.

Aside from that, you're correct -- those are the only fudges I could find in Nevada.

Regarding your suffixed letters list -- since NDOT consistently gets letter suffixing right going north and east, I personally think we should really only pay attention to exits that have suffixes going south or west:

• I-15, exit 38 [Flamingo Rd]: A before B SB (wrong order). Single exit NB.
  
• US 95, exit 61 [I-215 & Lake Mead] B before A SB (correct order). Single exit NB.
  
• US 95, exit 64A [Sunset] & exit 64B [Galleria]: Separate interchanges (ramps in order both directions).
  
• US 95, exit 75 [Las Vegas Blvd / Downtown]: B before A SB (correct order). Single exit NB.
  
• US 95, exit 76 [I-15 & MLK Blvd]: B before A SB (correct order). A before B before C NB (correct order).
  
• US 95, exit 90A [Rancho] & exit 90B [Ann]: Separate interchanges (ramps in order both directions). (Note: Centennial Bowl construction recently combined SB ramps into exit 91 C/D road.)
  
• I-215, exit 3A [Stephanie] & 3B [Valley Verde]: Separate interchanges (ramps in order both directions).
  
• I-215/CC 215, exit 12 [I-15]: A before B both directions (wrong order EB, correct order WB). (Notes: This one is Clark County's fault, not NDOT's. If EB were numbered in proper order, the exits to I-15 north/south would be labeled the same in both directions.)
  
• I-580/US 395, exit 57 [S Virginia/395A]: A before B SB (wrong order). No exit NB.
  
• I-580/US 395, exit 65 [Plumb Ln & Airport]: A before B SB (wrong order). Single exit NB.
  
• I-80, exit 352 [city of Wells]: B before A WB (correct order). Single exit EB. (352B is a random slip ramp, whereas 352A is the full interchange.)
  

Of the 11 interchanges with suffixes in the direction of decreasing mileage, 7 were done correctly and 4 incorrectly. Again, US-95 is the only freeway that consistently gets it right. (I-80 does too, but only because they have one exit that qualifies.)

Also, while Clark County own the I-15/I-215 interchange, NDOT appears to maintain it (p. 59). If "maintenance" includes signage, this is all NDOT's fault. It certainly is consistent with NDOT numbering policy.

As far as HOV exits are concerned, the MUTCD does not appear to make any recommendation for or against including them in the exit numbering sequence. (Although, I would point out that no examples of a numbered HOV exit appear in the MUTCD, so that could be interpreted as a silent recommendation.) I like the idea about numbering these as "81 diamond", but that could be problematical in other circumstances, especially if there is an exclusive HOV exit sandwiched between two adjacent interchanges.

I agree. That's why the "81-diamond" approach would only be for HOV lanes that are separated somehow, either by the double-white line or other physical barrier, on the left side of the road. This would also assume that there would be fewer than one HOV exit per mile, to avoid things like "81A-diamond".

An egregious exit numbering issue I have with NDOT is on US 95 in Las Vegas. The exit numbers skip from exit 85 [Craig Road] to exit 90A [Rancho Drive], despite there being only about a mile between these interchanges. This has inflated all new interchanges north of here up by four, such that the Snow Mountain exit had to be renumbered from exit 95 (correct to the milepost located in the interchange area) to exit 99 when the current exit 95 was constructed. (Although there's very few mileposts found on freeways in Las Vegas anyway, so the mileage versus exit numbers have always been hard to verify...) I've hoped for a long time that this would get fixed, but doesn't seem like it will.

Yeah, I have no idea what the hell is going on there. I would've figured that the old highway through town was more direct than the newer freeway, which should've resulted in a mileage readjustment the other way. It's gonna be even weirder when there's a freeway from the Arizona line to the US-93/95 Junction, since Exit 2 is US-93's mileage, which would correspond to about a 40-number jump if NDOT didn't renumber everything.

[nexus73]

I hope they bypass Richardson Grove.  Every time Caltrans says they just want cut down a few more trees, but it's never the end of it, a couple of years later they're back wanting to accommodate bigger and bigger trucks.  The park will not be able to live with a freeway through the middle, and nothing less will satisfy the truck lobby for very long.  The campground is on one side of 101, and the river where people come to swim is on the other.

Highly likely that any Richardson Grove improvements will have do be done by a complete bypass -- likely involving tunneling, ridge-hopping, or both.  Unfortunately the slopes in that area aren't as gentle as the area several miles to the north, where US 101 is up the hill and CA 254 is deployed over the original Redwood Highway alignment down in the redwood groves; it'll be one expensive undertaking (probably reasons #1-10 why it hasn't been done to date). 

The STAA standard requires a minimal amount of work in Richardson Grove.  When one looks at the Caltrans pix of "before" (as it is today) and "after" (what it would like when done), it really is hard to see much for change but the little bit that can be squeezed in will make it so trucks can drive and turn a corner without their wheels going over the center line.  A similar bit of work was done at Humbug Mountain on 101 south of Port Orford OR.  When one sees how little land there is to work with and how much can be done with that tiny bit, it really is an exhibition of amazing engineering!

Caltrans' best hope for Richardson Grove would be the tunnels based on what I read about the plans they considered.  It would be expensive just like the I-710 section in Pasadena but it would preserve the park and let the traffic flow much better. 

Rick