I have noticed that TDOT maintains ITS infrastructure not only in Shelby County, TN, but also along I-40 and I-55 in Crittenden County, AR. TDOT maintains cameras, VMSs, and those "Tune into Radio Station AM xxxx when flashing" signs there.
Is there any other case where an outside DOT maintains something in another state?
NY maintains a couple of freeways that dip into other states (I-684 CT and NY 17 PA). I-15 in AZ is maintained by Utah.
MnDOT maintains the half-mile or so of MN 23 that dips into the northwest corner of Wisconsin.
I believe NYSDOT maintains the stretch of I-684 that dips into Connecticut, but I'm not 100% on that.
Technically, the Maryland Transportation Authority maintains the short bit of the US 301 Nice Bridge and approach that's on the Virginia side of the riverbank (everything from mean low tide on the Virginia side east is considered Maryland).
The little piece of US-191 on the west side of Yellowstone in Wyoming is maintained by Montana.
Wyoming 70 is maintained by Wyoming where it dips into Colorado
QuoteI-15 in AZ is maintained by Utah.
No it's not- the presence of state-named shields would be the first clue, as is the AZ style signage and "Veterans Memorial Highway" designation
Kentucky maintains the entirety of the bridges that extend into Ohio. Thus US 25 ends in Cincinnati despite not being maintained by Ohio.
Quote from: NE2 on October 21, 2011, 10:22:20 AM
Kentucky maintains the entirety of the bridges that extend into Ohio. Thus US 25 ends in Cincinnati despite not being maintained by Ohio.
Not entirely true. Ohio maintains the US 23 bridge, and if I am not mistaken, the Ironton-Russell bridge.
In another Kentucky example, West Virginia maintains the two portions of US 52/US 119 that cross into Kentucky north of Williamson.
Quote from: corco on October 21, 2011, 10:19:55 AM
QuoteI-15 in AZ is maintained by Utah.
No it's not- the presence of state-named shields would be the first clue, as is the AZ style signage and "Veterans Memorial Highway" designation
it is a crew out of St. George which does the actual work, but the contracts are all laid out to Arizona specification.
another Arizona example: AZ-95 is signed in Needles, CA on green signs that are clearly of Arizona manufacture. in fact, the easiest way to trace the route of AZ-95 is to take the bridge across into Needles, then south onto I-40, then back into Arizona where AZ-95 breaks off at exit 9.
so, in its own special way, there is an AZ-95/US-95 multiplex ... in California.
VDOT maintains the entirety of the US 29/US 58 interchange in Danville, even though half of it is in North Carolina. They also maintain the first half mile or so of US 29 entering North Carolina.
Parts of NY-120A dip into Greenwich, CT, however the road is entirely NYSDOT maintained and signed, less one erroneous CT-120A shield at the Merritt Parkway exit.
If we're willing to extend to Canada, here are a couple more. The Klondike Highway section that cuts through BC to connect with Alaska Route 98 is maintained by the Yukon. Same is true of the sections of the Alaska Highway south/west of Watson Lake that dip back down into BC.
I believe Virginia and Maryland maintain the smidgen of I-95 that passes through DC on the Wilson Bridge (though of course DC is a territory rather than a state).
Georgia maintains both small sections of GA 246 that cross into NC.
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
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).
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 22, 2011, 11:23:07 AM
I believe Virginia and Maryland maintain the smidgen of I-95 that passes through DC on the Wilson Bridge (though of course DC is a territory rather than a state).
I thought the whole bridge was federal, for precisely that reason (the weird geography).
Similar to Ohio, Indiana maintains the I-64 and SR 237 bridges over the Ohio River. Because the state line is the high water mark of the north bank of the river when Kentucky was made a state, these are better examples than the ones maintained by Kentucky.
Quote from: Michael in Philly on October 24, 2011, 02:15:20 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 22, 2011, 11:23:07 AM
I believe Virginia and Maryland maintain the smidgen of I-95 that passes through DC on the Wilson Bridge (though of course DC is a territory rather than a state).
I thought the whole bridge was federal, for precisely that reason (the weird geography).
I believe that was true of the old bridge but not of the new spans.
Technicaly 95% of the delaware memorial bridge is in delaware due to the odd border. Low tide in NJ is the border in that area. Once you are half way up the approaches and over water...you are in delaware. It is operated by the DRBA a Bi State authority due to that reason.
Kentucky maintains the I-65 bridge in Louisville, and Indiana maintains the I-64 bridge, even though most of both bridges are in Kentucky, since the state line is close to the Indiana shoreline
Quote from: 1995hoo
Quote from: Michael in Philly
Quote from: 1995hoo
I believe Virginia and Maryland maintain the smidgen of I-95 that passes through DC on the Wilson Bridge (though of course DC is a territory rather than a state).
I thought the whole bridge was federal, for precisely that reason (the weird geography).
I believe that was true of the old bridge but not of the new spans.
Correct. FHWA owned the old bridge. VDOT and MD SHA own the new bridge, and in my experience (considerable, since it's my daily commute route) most of the maintenance is done by SHA.
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.)
On one of my 2008 road trips, I saw several ODOT-spec speed limit signs in an Idaho construction zone near the border. But I'd assumed that the work was being done by an Oregon-based contractor, which had only Oregon-spec signs in its inventory.
Arkansas and Oklahoma have some deal with AR43/OK20. The road straddles the state line, but the sign assemblies are mostly Oklahoma (including the little mileage markers on the backs of the stop signs), though it has Benton County, AR County Rd Blade Signs (such as Hog Farm Rd 39 )
US 71 in Texarkana is split: one side is Arkansas signage, the other is Texas , but the traffic signals appear to be predominantly Texas-style (horizontal ) as opposed to Arkansas's vertical
I imagine that the DE & MD 54 route along the DE- MD Line is most likely maintained by only one state.
What about State Line Road in the Metro-Kansas City area? It cannot be maintained by both local or county agencies while the road sits in both states of KS and MO.
There is a section of NH 113 that is maintained by Maine where is passes along the ME side of a border-dividing lake.
Quote from: froggie on October 27, 2011, 12:50:22 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo
Quote from: Michael in Philly
Quote from: 1995hoo
I believe Virginia and Maryland maintain the smidgen of I-95 that passes through DC on the Wilson Bridge (though of course DC is a territory rather than a state).
I thought the whole bridge was federal, for precisely that reason (the weird geography).
I believe that was true of the old bridge but not of the new spans.
Correct. FHWA owned the old bridge. VDOT and MD SHA own the new bridge, and in my experience (considerable, since it's my daily commute route) most of the maintenance is done by SHA.
While I don't frequent the bridge enough to know in detail whose trucks are out there ...
Per the 2001 ownership agreement, Maryland and Virginia share cost of the operation, maintenance and repair of the new bridges 50/50.
Quote from: Jim on October 22, 2011, 10:18:48 AM
If we're willing to extend to Canada, here are a couple more. The Klondike Highway section that cuts through BC to connect with Alaska Route 98 is maintained by the Yukon. Same is true of the sections of the Alaska Highway south/west of Watson Lake that dip back down into BC.
I'd imagine that Haines Road (YT 3) in northern BC is in a similar position.
Other interesting border situations along the 60° line which may cause cross border maintenance: Cassiar Hwy (BC/YT 37), Alaska Hwy's nine border crossings (YT 1/BC 97) and Fort Smith Hwy (NWT 5)'s 5 crossings with Alberta, including the final portion in Fort Smith just south of the 60° line.
http://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/2010/AADT_NC_NorthCarolina_2010.pdf
http://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/2010/AADT_WV_WestVirginia_2010.pdf
Quote from: roadman65
I imagine that the DE & MD 54 route along the DE- MD Line is most likely maintained by only one state.
DE/MD 54 is split. Some segments are maintained by MD SHA, others by DelDOT.
Quote from: NE2http://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/2010/AADT_NC_NorthCarolina_2010.pdf
This one (US 29/BUS US 29) was mentioned earlier in the thread. Surprised the I-77 tunnel wasn't, though.
Quote from: deanej on October 21, 2011, 09:40:57 AM
NY maintains a couple of freeways that dip into other states (I-684 CT and NY 17 PA). I-15 in AZ is maintained by Utah.
I-15 In Arizona is matained by ADOT crews at Littlefield
Has something changed? I remember reading here that I-15 in AZ had work contracted out to Utah.
I remember seeing a sign with an MDOT sticker on the back at the northern end of the International Bridge (which is in Canada) a few years ago.
I-684 in Connecticut is maintained by NYSDOT.
This "Passes Open" sign (https://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada395/thb/us-395_sb_gardnerville_34.jpg) on southbound US 395 is maintained by Caltrans, but is actually located just south of Minden-Gardnerville in Nevada. It used to be a static flip sign with a ladder attached, which always made me wonder which agency actually maintained it. I later realized the giveaway that it is not NDOT installed or maintained--NDOT never uses wood posts for permanent sign installations.
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).
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.
Quote from: ghYHZ on October 23, 2011, 12:21:43 PM
How 'bout one country maintaining a section of road in another.
In the St. Louis area, St. Louis County at least used to maintain a section of Kienlen Avenue inside the City of St. Louis (an independent city). Not sure now since I can't find any end or begin county maintenance signs on streetview - and St. Louis County used to be in the habit of placing them on both sides of an intersection between a state and county road.
Quote from: US71 on October 27, 2011, 07:43:10 PM
Arkansas and Oklahoma have some deal with AR43/OK20. The road straddles the state line, but the sign assemblies are mostly Oklahoma...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/5766/20367671138_25fdd70b97_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/x2PD2L)
Had to get a shot of that last week...the assembly is juxtaposed, in my opinion.
It seems to me that sometimes where there is an exit just past a state line, it appears the guide signs for the upcoming exit are from the state where the exit is located, not the state where the sign is located.
I also wonder about interchanges which are located on state lines. There was a mention on here of at least one situation where one state maintains the entirety of an interchange located in two states. One situation I know of where an interchange exists in two states is I-35 Exit 114 in Iowa and Missouri. At least as far as signage goes, both states appear to maintain the signs on their side of the line-signage on the north side of the crossroad is from Iowa while signage on the south side is from Missouri. I assume each state maintains the ramps on their side of the line-interestingly because it is not a traditional diamond configuration, 3 of the 4 ramps(all except the Northbound on ramp) are located in Missouri including both off ramps, which probably has to do with why the interchange is numbered following Missouri's mile markers.
I-84's CT exit 1 is has Thruway signs in NY. PennDOT signs Thruway exit 61 in PA.
On I-70 at the Indiana-Ohio line, the old guardrail around the first sign bridge in Indiana used to extend into Ohio, and it actually changed at the state line from Indiana-style railing like would be found on some bridges to traditional guardrail. Indiana replaced the guardrails along the easternmost section of I-70 a few years ago and now their new guardrail extends some feet into Ohio in the median. Street view manages to have a shot nearly at the line. (http://g.co/maps/9aymy)
Approaching there from Ohio, the advance signs for the first exit in Indiana are all Ohio signs, replaced in 2000-2001 when Ohio rebuilt that section. Only the overhead sign at the exit is an INDOT sign. The ramp then promptly goes back into Ohio! It's made me wonder what would have happened if the exit itself were to diverge in Ohio. I would think that all being part of the same interchange, it would have still been numbered as Exit 156B. Ohio doesn't do Exit 0 and they already have Exit 1 almost 2 miles into the state but only with an exit eastbound--but it would be inappropriate to have Exit 1 eastbound be US 35 and westbound be US 40. I'd have to think that they'd use the Indiana number anyway.
Without looking at the back of the sign to see if there is identification, the blue service logo signs approaching that exit from Ohio are tougher to tell which state they belong to. ODOT and INDOT roads have pretty much identical blue service signs and in both states they stay even after everything else is replaced (probably because the DOT itself isn't responsible for them; it's a contractor that does logo signs) and they are often the only button copy on long stretches in Ohio anymore.
There is also a big blue sign (which maybe should be brown?) for the Old National Road Welcome Center going westbound on I-70 just before the blue Ohio arch which is button copy that was not replaced by ODOT, making me wonder if it's an INDOT sign. Hmm...
In another location...
Somewhere on a flash drive, camera card, or computer I have a couple pics from a year or two ago taken on Daniel Webster Highway just north of the Mass-NH border where there seems to be some Massachusetts stuff in New Hampshire, notably a paddle sign. Street view has it (http://g.co/maps/q3jhk) but it's a little grainy--but the Massachusetts traditional white town line paddle sign is further south, right before the ramp to US 3, so clearly this Mass. sign is in NH. Wonder why they did that? Because the ramp itself is in Mass? (That area and interchange seem to tag-team it; once on the ramp to US 3 you are in Mass but the cantilever overhead for the split of the ramp for US 3 SB and NB is a NH installation, as is the two-downward-arrows diamond sign at the split. On the ramp to the NB side, you do pass a NH vertical city line sign for Nashua--which confirms that you were in Massachusetts until then on the ramp. Guess things get odd around that area of the line. (This is right near where the JC Penney at Pheasant Lane Mall has a cut corner so as to not enter Massachusetts...if the store were rectangular it would enter Massachusetts and be subject to sales tax.)
As I recall, at least a few years back, on I-95, NH signed the first exit in Mass (Rte. 286) and Mass. signed the first exit in NH (Rte. 107) on their respective sides of the border; no "foreign" signs showed up in the other state. (edit--checked street view--MA does sign NH exit 1 with a 1-mile advance. They did NOT use an Old Man shield, but used a Mass. rectangle! The NH rest area sign on the same gantry may be a NH sign though--its border looks square like some other NH signs.)
@ DEANEJ: The ramp for Connecticut Exit 1 on I-84 East starts about 200 feet from Connecticut, in the municipality of Southeast, NY.
@ PURDUEBILL: Along I-95 South in Seabrook, NH, there is indeed a BGS sign, signed as "EXIT 60- MA 286 - BEACHES / SALISBURY", within one mile of the state line. I'm not aware of any of NH Exit 1 from I-95 North in Salisbury, MA.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 15, 2011, 01:25:06 PM
@ PURDUEBILL: Along I-95 South in Seabrook, NH, there is indeed a BGS sign, signed as "EXIT 60- MA 286 - BEACHES / SALISBURY", within one mile of the state line. I'm not aware of any of NH Exit 1 from I-95 North in Salisbury, MA.
Yes, the Exit 1 referred to is in NH (NH route 107) but the first advance sign is far enough south to be in Mass. It's a Mass. sign with the exit tab not separately bordered from the main sign, etc. unlike NH signage. The remaining signs for NH 107 are NH signs in NH.
Looking 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.
Another observation about the U.S. 40 interchange in the Richmond, Indiana area I noticed going westbound approaching the exit, right by that truck stop, is a guide sign indicating Indianapolis and Columbus and giving the distances to each city, something that Ohio does but not Indiana. Of course, I'm pretty sure the sign is still within the Ohio boundaries, I just thought that it was a bit odd given that the vast majority of the exit is in Indiana and as far as far as I'm concerned, it's an Indiana exit.
Another one - I-95 exit 21 in NY has signs done by CT before the border.
Quote@ 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.
Quote from: newyorker478 on October 22, 2011, 09:33:36 AM
Parts of NY-120A dip into Greenwich, CT, however the road is entirely NYSDOT maintained and signed, less one erroneous CT-120A shield at the Merritt Parkway exit.
You sure it is entirely maintained by NYSDOT? In the sections that are in CT, the signs and signals seem to be CT style.
Quote from: froggie on November 25, 2011, 07:20:42 AM
Quote from: roadman65
I imagine that the DE & MD 54 route along the DE- MD Line is most likely maintained by only one state.
DE/MD 54 is split. Some segments are maintained by MD SHA, others by DelDOT.
Quote from: NE2http://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/2010/AADT_NC_NorthCarolina_2010.pdf
This one (US 29/BUS US 29) was mentioned earlier in the thread. Surprised the I-77 tunnel wasn't, though.
I would've mentioned the I-77 tunnel but I wasn't 100% sure that VDOT maintained the whole thing.
Correct. The East River Mountain Tunnel was built under a WV DOH contract, even though the state line is almost exactly halfway through the tunnel. Virginia paid WV for its half of the costs. But then this was reversed, with VDOT maintaining the tunnel and WV paying it 1/2 of its costs every year. There is a tiny sign inside the tunnel where the state line is.
Now an Ohio River question. I am surprised Ohio, et al, do any work with Kentucky relative to Ohio River bridges. History time. Virginia's original royal charter had no western limit. Virginia ceded its nominal claim to "all lands northwest of the River Ohio" to the federal which became the Northwest Territory and then the states of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. The key phrase is "northwest", meaning the actual Ohio river was 100% in Virginia, meaning it still is 100% in West Virginia and Kentucky. The border is the typical high water mark on the northern or western side, not the center of the channel as in most other river borders. As such, West Virginia pays for and builds 100% of the bridges over the Ohio, maintains them, etc. Ohio will chip in only for the approach ramps on the Ohio side, and for any general maintance only for the %age that is over land on the west side.
Actually, Kentucky's border is the low water mark as it existed in 1792, when Kentucky achieved statehood. I'm not sure what kind of agreements Kentucky has with IL, IN and OH, but it appears to be some sort of "we'll do all of this bridge, and you can do all of that bridge. It's why repairing the Sherman Minton is Indiana's baby. I'm pretty sure Indiana also maintains the bridges that take KY 69 and KY 79 into that state. Ohio maintains the old Ironton-Russell bridge and the US 23 bridge.
The KY/WV border is the western side of the Big Sandy River. I'm pretty sure that WVDOT maintains all the bridges that cross into Kentucky. I know WV handled the rebuilding of the I-64 bridges that are now named for the two men who were killed during that project.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Exit 1 sign for I-85 in SC that is actually posted in GA on the northbound as you pass under Exit 177 (last time I travelled that far north in April 2010, it was still button copy).
Quote from: connroadgeek on December 17, 2011, 07:26:02 PM
Quote from: newyorker478 on October 22, 2011, 09:33:36 AM
Parts of NY-120A dip into Greenwich, CT, however the road is entirely NYSDOT maintained and signed, less one erroneous CT-120A shield at the Merritt Parkway exit.
You sure it is entirely maintained by NYSDOT? In the sections that are in CT, the signs and signals seem to be CT style.
There are NYSDOT reference markers. The seemingly CT-style signs are probably installed by the Town of Greenwich, not ConnDOT.
Heres a clearview sign on Eastbound I-10 in Blythe. I bought it up in another thread and AZDOT placed it there.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2311%2F2495683409_38e804e8fb.jpg&hash=96c0afe0389a0d972a8a3f0f8d25cd22a257117a) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigmikelakers/2495683409/)
Interstate 10 Eastbound and US 95 Southbound in Blythe (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigmikelakers/2495683409/) by bigmikelakers (http://www.flickr.com/people/bigmikelakers/), on Flickr
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 (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)
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?
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.
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).
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.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2311%2F2495683409_38e804e8fb.jpg&hash=96c0afe0389a0d972a8a3f0f8d25cd22a257117a) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigmikelakers/2495683409/)
Interstate 10 Eastbound and US 95 Southbound in Blythe (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigmikelakers/2495683409/) by bigmikelakers (http://www.flickr.com/people/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.
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.
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.]
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.)
hell of a mapo, dragging the state line southeast some to form that small loop well away from the river.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/VT/VT19610031i1.jpg)
as far as I know, this is the only instance of VT acknowledging US-3 in any way.
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.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.route56.com%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2F2009%2Fmar09%2F031009%2F36371.jpg&hash=b34c1445f46e6bcb3b051e95ab32767bf5ce6f75)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.route56.com%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2F2009%2Fmar09%2F031009%2F36373.jpg&hash=080b105b3f694c248a0dea4aa52060c112ca56dc)
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)
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!?
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.
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.
On I-90 the eastbound Minnesota welcome center / rest area is actually in South Dakota.
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.
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 (https://goo.gl/maps/wuwqVUSnqfcVLLMH9) 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."
No mention if Minnesota 23 in Wisconsin?
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.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2311%2F2495683409_38e804e8fb.jpg&hash=96c0afe0389a0d972a8a3f0f8d25cd22a257117a) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigmikelakers/2495683409/)
Interstate 10 Eastbound and US 95 Southbound in Blythe (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigmikelakers/2495683409/) by bigmikelakers (http://www.flickr.com/people/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 (https://goo.gl/maps/WXjSi5BVCzYm22sR8) 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.
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.
What about VT 26 and VT 119?
Also forgot to mention the I-86 dip into South Waverly, PA.
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.
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.
Montana 43 is fully maintained by MDT despite dipping into Idaho for a bit.
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.
There are some routes that straddle or cross over the state line between Virginia and West Virginia. West Virginia maintains all of WV 161, even though a portion of the route crosses into Virginia near Bishop where it ends at WV 16. Virginia maintains the portion of VA 127 that runs along the state line for a brief segment.
Kentucky maintains a couple of state highway segments that run along the Tennessee border in far western Kentucky.
It was recently revealed in a discussion somewhere that State Street in Bristol is actually an unsigned independent segment of TN 1. I'm not sure if that is maintained by TDOT or by the City of Bristol, since Virginia's independent cities maintain their own roads.
Signage has been well-discussed in this thread. In the late 1990s/early 2000s, Kentucky did a full sign replacement project on I-64 from the Mountain Parkway exit all the way to the West Virginia state line. This was pre-Clearview. included in the project was the first sign for the US 52 Ceredo-Kenova interchange, Exit 1, which is between the US 23 exit and the state line. Several years later, West Virginia did a sign replacement along the westernmost 15 or so miles of I-64, and that US 52 exit sign in Kentucky was included. It's Clearview.