Cases where one state DOT maintains something else in another state

Started by codyg1985, October 21, 2011, 07:27:01 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Bigmikelakers

Heres a clearview sign on Eastbound I-10 in Blythe. I bought it up in another thread and AZDOT placed it there.


Interstate 10 Eastbound and US 95 Southbound in Blythe by bigmikelakers, on Flickr


HighwayMaster

Is it just me, or does NHDOT maintain a portion of US-3 that is actually in Vermont? Take a close look at US-3 (it's the straight line through West Stewartstown) and the NH-VT state line:

http://msrmaps.com/PrintImage.aspx?T=2&S=12&Z=19&X=375&Y=6231&W=2&D=&P=&Lon=-71.527565&Lat=44.999588
Life is too short not to have Tim Hortons donuts.

Duke87

Huh. That's strange. I assume this must be one of those "the river moved" cases. USGS quandrangle maps are about as official on this sort of thing as you can get, so I guess technically the answer must be yes.

OSM also shows US 3 crossing that jog in the border. Google does not, but since when have they ever been precise with borders?
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

froggie

Mapo.  The border is defined as the low water mark on the Vermont side of the river.  Considering the dam just upstream was built in 1927, I find it impossible that the river would have changed since then, especially with the topo map in question being made in 1989.

NE2

Quote from: Duke87 on December 26, 2011, 04:34:06 PM
OSM also shows US 3 crossing that jog in the border. Google does not, but since when have they ever been precise with borders?
OSM's not great with borders either, for the record.

Given the terrain, I agree with froggie that it's most likely an error. It also doesn't show up on older topos: http://historical.mytopo.com/quad.cfm?quadname=Averill&state=VT&series=15 (northeast corner).
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

J N Winkler

Quote from: Bigmikelakers on December 24, 2011, 06:10:34 AMHeres a clearview sign on Eastbound I-10 in Blythe. I bought it up in another thread and AZDOT placed it there.


Interstate 10 Eastbound and US 95 Southbound in Blythe by bigmikelakers, on Flickr

Here is the state of play on Arizona DOT extraterritorial sign placement (Interstates only):

*  I-8 Yuma--Yes

*  I-10 Ehrenberg--Yes

*  I-10 San Simon--No

*  I-40 Lupton--Yes

*  I-40 Topock--Yes

I-10 San Simon is the odd man out because the Cavot Road exit (Exit 390), which is just a quarter-mile within Arizona, is classified as a minor interchange and so needs only one advance guide sign, which is placed right at the border directly opposite the welcome sign (which is in the median).  If it were important enough to need an additional advance guide sign, this would have to be placed within New Mexico and, on past form, Arizona DOT would dispatch an engineer to NMDOT to negotiate the necessary agreements so that the sign is designed to Arizona standards (with a 36" exit tab) and erected at Arizona's expense.

The situation is somewhat similar at the I-40 stateline crossing further north, except that Grants Road (Exit 359) is more important and so gets two advance guide signs, both of which are designed to Arizona standards but erected in New Mexico.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Scott5114

Interesting. Why does AZ have such an arrangement compared to, say, Missouri and Kansas, which both post signage in their own state to their own specs* referring to interchanges in the other state?

*Layout and materialwise, anyway. Missouri uses proper Kansas sawblades, and Kansas uses proper MoDOT "Route xxxx" text form on median next-three-exits signage.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

KEK Inc.

Quote from: sp_redelectric on October 24, 2011, 12:41:47 AM
Oregon DOT maintains the U.S. 101 (Astoria-Megler), I-5 (Interstate), I-205 (Glenn Jackson), U.S. 197 (The Dalles), and I-82 (McNary) Bridges across the Washington-Oregon state line.  Due to recent bridge work on the Astoria-Megler bridge one can find quite a few ODOT construction signs and ARRA signs on SR 4 and U.S. 101 on the Washington side.  The obvious sign is of course Oregon's "Speed, not Limit" signs on the bridge, however I believe ODOT has replaced the signs on I-205 with the universal "Speed Limit" signs.  There, the obvious reference to Oregon's jurisdiction is that the speed limit drops from 60 to 55 before you get on the bridge (the I-5 bridge is already at a reduced 50 MPH speed limit.)

WSDOT maintains the SR 433 (Lewis & Clark) and U.S. 97 (Sam Hill) Bridges.  "Washingon Jobs Now" signs could be seen on the western approach to the bridge while still on Oregon soil.

The Cathlamet Ferry is owned/operated by Wahkiakum County (WA).  The Bridge of the Gods is owned/operated by the Port of Cascade Locks (OR).  The Hood River Bridge is owned/operated by the Port of Hood River (OR).  And the Columbia Gorge Regional Airport (a.k.a. The Dalles Municipal Airport), despite being located in Dallesport, WA, is partially owned by the City of The Dalles (OR) and Klickatat County (WA).

I noticed on US-101 in Pacific County, Washington, some SPEED LIMIT signs without the LIMIT -- an Oregonian tradition.  The street lighting is obviously WSDOT, but I wonder if they just borrow old signs from Oregon in Pacific County.

[Edited to remove font tag. Please don't use font tags, it can make your text harder to read in other user's browsers if they don't have the specified font installed. This doesn't happen with the default font. See http://i.imgur.com/2PWkL.png for an example. -S.]
Take the road less traveled.

J N Winkler

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 26, 2011, 08:42:44 PMInteresting. Why does AZ have such an arrangement compared to, say, Missouri and Kansas, which both post signage in their own state to their own specs* referring to interchanges in the other state?

*Layout and materialwise, anyway. Missouri uses proper Kansas sawblades, and Kansas uses proper MoDOT "Route xxxx" text form on median next-three-exits signage.

Richard Moeur (sometime MTR poster and now, I think, overall manager of Arizona DOT freeway guide sign rehabilitations) would be the person to ask about this, because he has negotiated some if not all of the extraterritorial sign placements himself (definitely I-8 Yuma and I-40 Lupton, and possibly others).  The best I can determine, looking at my own collection of Arizona DOT signing contracts, is that it is a recent development.

For example, I-8 in Yuma received its permanent signing in 1972 and the signs provided for in that contract were erected in Arizona only.  The same length of I-8 received new signs in 1998 and as part of that replacement, Arizona DOT negotiated sign erection on California soil with Caltrans; Moeur described that agreement in MTR at the time (my information concerning Arizona's paying for the California signs comes from that post).  A couple of post-1998 signing contracts, one each covering I-40 Topock and I-10 Ehrenberg, both contained sheets providing for placement of Arizona signs in California.  I don't have the original signing for I-10 Ehrenberg, but I do have a copy of a 1993 sign rehabilitation job covering the same length of I-10 and it provides for erection of signs in Arizona only.  I-40 Topock received its first permanent signing in 1975 and that contract likewise provided for erection of signs in Arizona only.  (Exit 1, which is now signed for Golden Shores/Oatman, was signed in 1975 for SR 95 northbound to Topock and Bullhead City.)

The I-10 signs at Blythe/Ehrenberg are interesting because the ones BigMikeLakers has photographed are not the same as the ones Arizona DOT initially obtained permission from Caltrans to install.  Those signs had retroreflective sheeting with Series E Modified because that was what was prescribed by Arizona standards at the time, which was shortly after button copy was abandoned but before Clearview had been adopted.  They were replaced a few years later by new signs in the same locations using Clearview, as part of the I-10 Poston Road-Hovatter signing contract which was the first to roll out Clearview in Arizona.  My guess, although I have not yet had it confirmed, is that Arizona DOT has also negotiated for the right to replace its extraterritorial signs to its standards in perpetuity.

To return to the original question of why Arizona does this, I think it is because each Arizona Interstate that crosses a state line has border exits just within Arizona (except for I-15), and Arizona DOT decided in the late 1990's to commit additional money and resource to ensure that the approach signing for such exits is consistent in both directions.  At the time California was still using nonretroreflective backgrounds on large freeway guide signs and Caltrans' sign replacement schedule has always been much more relaxed than Arizona's.  From Arizona DOT's perspective, paying to put up signs in California to Arizona standards ensures that Arizona exits are not shortchanged by the neighboring Caltrans district.

NMDOT's signing standards and sign replacement intervals are much closer to Arizona's, so I think the motivation in the case of I-40 Lupton has more to do with combining welcome center signing (which Arizona would be expected to pay for in any case) with the regular advance guide signing for Grants Road.

In the case of Kansas and its neighboring states, Kansas does place some signs extraterritorially and accepts extraterritorial sign placement from neighboring states.  The Pre-Pass signing on I-35 northbound entering Kansas is done to Kansas standards but is in Oklahoma.  KDOT is carrying out a reconstruction of I-70 just east of the Colorado state line which will result in erection of Kansas-standard Pre-Pass and weigh station signing in Colorado.  Colorado also places county line signs in Kansas (one case in point being the Prowers County sign on US 50, which is technically within Hamilton County, Kansas).

I suspect the main reason KDOT and MoDOT haven't gone in for extraterritorial signing is that their respective sign design and sign layout standards are so similar.  (I am tempted to say that nearly all of the freeway crossings being in the Kansas City area may play a role as well, since in principle that makes it easier to coordinate signing through district-level contacts between the two state DOTs.  I don't know that that is necessarily true because freeway guide sign design is centralized in both states--it is done by specialist teams in Topeka and Jefferson City--but in Missouri at least district input is part of the process.)
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

agentsteel53

hell of a mapo, dragging the state line southeast some to form that small loop well away from the river.



as far as I know, this is the only instance of VT acknowledging US-3 in any way.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

route56

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 26, 2011, 10:19:10 PM
In the case of Kansas and its neighboring states, Kansas does place some signs extraterritorially and accepts extraterritorial sign placement from neighboring states.  The Pre-Pass signing on I-35 northbound entering Kansas is done to Kansas standards but is in Oklahoma.  KDOT is carrying out a reconstruction of I-70 just east of the Colorado state line which will result in erection of Kansas-standard Pre-Pass and weigh station signing in Colorado.

Actually, there has always been some signs for the weigh station in Colorado. This is sort of by necessity, since the weigh station is literally just inside the border.

http://g.co/maps/wbxfj

Also, as you can see, the Kansas Standard County line marker is on the Colorado side.

I have seen the signing plans for this project (70-91 KA 0718-01), and they call for, in addition to new signage for the weigh station inside Colorado territory, there will also be a guide sign for Exit 1 (K-267/Kanorado) on the Colorado side.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 26, 2011, 08:42:44 PM
*Layout and materialwise, anyway. Missouri uses proper Kansas sawblades, and Kansas uses proper MoDOT "Route xxxx" text form on median next-three-exits signage.

I beg to differ somewhat, the signs on I-635 use the standard MO guide-sign shield.



The new signs on I-435, however, still say "Route 45." (the infamous "Route N-T" sign was taken down when the Donahoo Road interchange was completed. The new signs do not mention the Barry Road interchange)
Peace to you, and... don't drive like my brother.

R.P.K.

agentsteel53

Quote from: ghYHZ on October 23, 2011, 12:21:43 PM
How 'bout one country maintaining a section of road in another. In winter, Fort Fairfield, Maine plows a section of road in New Brunswick as the driveways of the US residents open onto the NB road.

(third paragraph.....)

http://www.avcc.ca/FFJournal.PDF

what, the US border patrol tolerates this failure to kill and eat feral Mexicans!?
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

The High Plains Traveler

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 26, 2011, 08:10:27 PM
Quote from: Bigmikelakers on December 24, 2011, 06:10:34 AMHeres a clearview sign on Eastbound I-10 in Blythe. I bought it up in another thread and AZDOT placed it there.


Here is the state of play on Arizona DOT extraterritorial sign placement (Interstates only):

*  I-8 Yuma--Yes

*  I-10 Ehrenberg--Yes

*  I-10 San Simon--No

*  I-40 Lupton--Yes

*  I-40 Topock--Yes

I-10 San Simon is the odd man out because the Cavot Road exit (Exit 390), which is just a quarter-mile within Arizona, is classified as a minor interchange and so needs only one advance guide sign, which is placed right at the border directly opposite the welcome sign (which is in the median).  If it were important enough to need an additional advance guide sign, this would have to be placed within New Mexico and, on past form, Arizona DOT would dispatch an engineer to NMDOT to negotiate the necessary agreements so that the sign is designed to Arizona standards (with a 36" exit tab) and erected at Arizona's expense.

The situation is somewhat similar at the I-40 stateline crossing further north, except that Grants Road (Exit 359) is more important and so gets two advance guide signs, both of which are designed to Arizona standards but erected in New Mexico.
Not mentioned is the "New Mexico State Line" (literally the text, not the yellow welcome sign with green chile) sign east of the San Simon interchange on EB I-10. It's in Clearview. New Mexico doesn't do Clearview.
"Tongue-tied and twisted; just an earth-bound misfit, I."

cpzilliacus

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 26, 2011, 08:10:27 PM
Here is the state of play on Arizona DOT extraterritorial sign placement (Interstates only):

I don't have any images handy, but the Maryland Transportation Authority has installed several signs along northbound U.S. 301 in King George County, Va. approaching the Gov. Harry Nice toll bridge crossing the Potomac River.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Mdcastle

On I-90 the eastbound Minnesota welcome center / rest area is actually in South Dakota.

PHLBOS

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on December 10, 2011, 02:35:51 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 10, 2011, 02:03:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 08, 2011, 10:09:59 PM
I-684 in Connecticut is maintained by NYSDOT.

Yep! The mile and change of I-684 that clips the northwest corner of Greenwich, CT. I know that NY maintains this stretch. However, if on the off chance a murder investigation were to happen here, it would be the Connecticut state police that would handle it. I think the road clips Connecticut, since a possible routing on the other side of a nearby lake was nixed (which would've kept the road in NY entirely).

It has been a few years since I've traveled 684, but I seem to recall seeing signs indicating that Connecticut handles activities like litter removal through its adopt-a-highway program, though I do recall maintenance being done by NYSDOT.
For the longest time, there used to be small, green ConnDOT (or at least CT)-styled ENTERING GREENWICH and LEAVING GREENWICH signs (with the white outline of CT with the lettering inside) along that stretch of I-684.  Did ConnDOT erect those or did NYSDOT just "mimic" them?  The current signs are more of a generic FHWA style and contain the word CONNECTICUT in them.  I'm assuming that those signs are NYSDOT.

Quote from: PurdueBill on December 15, 2011, 01:51:10 PMLooking at street view southbound there, it looks like the old signs I remember are gone.  There used to be a very NH sign for Mass. Exit 60 north of the state line, ground mounted with round poles that are ubiquitous in NH, and a strange-looking rectangular 286 shield; no sign of that one now.  The Exit 60 signs southbound almost appear to be all Mass even though they are almost all in NH. (The split for the exit and welcome center starts in NH and you are barely in Mass when the overheads for the split of the ramp takes place.)
Edit: Found the street view of the first advance for Exit 60 southbound...it's on the NH 107 bridge and I somehow missed it.  It's a NH sign (metric units, exit tab with separate border).  Further south, though, there is a gantry with Exit 60 and Exit 59 signage in the Mass. style but squarely in NH.
IIRC, those old NHDOT signs for 286 AND a JUNCTION 495 1-1/2 (or 2) MILES had no exit tabs (since those signs date back the late 60s/early 70s, before that MA stretch of 95 had exit numbers) were originally erected overhead on either the NH 107 overpass or on an overhead sign structure at the exit ramp for 107 (Exit 1).  Those signs would be relocated onto separate ground-mountings (with the round poles) sometime during the 1980s.  That particular shield for 286 indeed had NH's Old Man of the Mountain style even though the exit's clearly in MA.

It's worth noting that the eastern terminus of Route 286 (originally known as Route 86 before I-84/MA 15 in Sturbridge became I-86 for many years) at Route 1A is just north of the MA-NH border.  Most of the road east of the US 1 intersection is in NH.  It's probably the only road that crosses the MA-NH border in an west-east direction, courtesy of the state line running in a dip orientation towards the Atlantic Ocean.

Quote from: deanej on December 15, 2011, 07:42:48 PM@ DEANEJ: The ramp for Connecticut Exit 1 on I-84 East starts about 200 feet from Connecticut, in the municipality of Southeast, NY.
So?  The majority of the exit is in CT and it's considered to be a CT exit by the numbering scheme.
Similar holds true for the southbound I-95/495 split at the PA-DE border  which has triggerred at least 2 or 3 threads in the Regional (Northeast) forum.  All the southbound approach & exit signs are from PennDOT but the interchange, except for maybe one tiny section of off-ramp, is in Delaware and maintained by DelDOT.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 26, 2011, 10:19:10 PM
The I-10 signs at Blythe/Ehrenberg are interesting because the ones BigMikeLakers has photographed are not the same as the ones Arizona DOT initially obtained permission from Caltrans to install.  Those signs had retroreflective sheeting with Series E Modified because that was what was prescribed by Arizona standards at the time, which was shortly after button copy was abandoned but before Clearview had been adopted.  They were replaced a few years later by new signs in the same locations using Clearview, as part of the I-10 Poston Road-Hovatter signing contract which was the first to roll out Clearview in Arizona.  My guess, although I have not yet had it confirmed, is that Arizona DOT has also negotiated for the right to replace its extraterritorial signs to its standards in perpetuity.

Reply to an old post, I know, but I found the subject of this sign fascinating enough to see if it has been commented on before.  I found this and wanted to throw in the odd combination of obvious use of Arizona specs with Clearview with Caltrans wooden poles.  This might be the first time I have seen a made by one state but erected by another assembly, at least an obvious case of it. 

ADOT "Hey we are going to put an advanced sign in you state."

Caltrans: "Okay, but we'll put the poles out."

Big John


ethanhopkin14

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 26, 2011, 08:10:27 PM
Quote from: Bigmikelakers on December 24, 2011, 06:10:34 AMHeres a clearview sign on Eastbound I-10 in Blythe. I bought it up in another thread and AZDOT placed it there.


Interstate 10 Eastbound and US 95 Southbound in Blythe by bigmikelakers, on Flickr

Here is the state of play on Arizona DOT extraterritorial sign placement (Interstates only):

*  I-8 Yuma--Yes

*  I-10 Ehrenberg--Yes

*  I-10 San Simon--No

*  I-40 Lupton--Yes

*  I-40 Topock--Yes

I-10 San Simon is the odd man out because the Cavot Road exit (Exit 390), which is just a quarter-mile within Arizona, is classified as a minor interchange and so needs only one advance guide sign, which is placed right at the border directly opposite the welcome sign (which is in the median).  If it were important enough to need an additional advance guide sign, this would have to be placed within New Mexico and, on past form, Arizona DOT would dispatch an engineer to NMDOT to negotiate the necessary agreements so that the sign is designed to Arizona standards (with a 36" exit tab) and erected at Arizona's expense.

The situation is somewhat similar at the I-40 stateline crossing further north, except that Grants Road (Exit 359) is more important and so gets two advance guide signs, both of which are designed to Arizona standards but erected in New Mexico.

How things have changed in 11 years.  Behold the now placed advance sign for Cavot Road on New Mexico soil.  I remember when Cavot Road had no advance warning.  It was cross state line-Cavot Road-Exit. 

TheHighwayMan3561

#69
Quote from: Big John on June 07, 2022, 05:52:06 PM
No mention if Minnesota 23 in Wisconsin?

Mentioned in the third post.

Quote from: froggie on October 21, 2011, 09:42:19 AM
MnDOT maintains the half-mile or so of MN 23 that dips into the northwest corner of Wisconsin.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

MATraveler128

What about VT 26 and VT 119?

Also forgot to mention the I-86 dip into South Waverly, PA.
Decommission 128 south of Peabody!

Lowest untraveled number: 56

jp the roadgeek

I'd imagine MassDOT maintains the two little pieces of RI 114A at either end.  Wouldn't be surprised if RIDOT maintains MA 15.  And NH would maintain the little piece of NH 121A that extends into MA.

Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

froggie

QuoteWhat about VT 26 and VT 119?

119 is maintained by the town of Brattleboro.  Not sure about 26, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's still VTrans and they just "swing wide" at the intersection.

US 89

Montana 43 is fully maintained by MDT despite dipping into Idaho for a bit.

SectorZ

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 07, 2022, 10:30:15 PM
I'd imagine MassDOT maintains the two little pieces of RI 114A at either end.  Wouldn't be surprised if RIDOT maintains MA 15.  And NH would maintain the little piece of NH 121A that extends into MA.

Looking at GSV, the southern part of 114A has a "State Highway Ends" sign as it goes into RI as it ends at RI 114, so probably not. The other border has no such signage.

NH 121 where it goes into Mass is just a city maintained road. Even 125 in much of Haverhill is not state-maintained.



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