Worst state highway system

[JayhawkCO]

Also, why do people here like reviving 12-year-old threads?

I wouldn't use people as a plural.

Chris

[interstatefan990]

I'm going to have to say Ontario.

Ontario is a Canadian province, not a state.

[Rothman]

I'm going to have to say Ontario.

Ontario is a Canadian province, not a state.

Potato, potato.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm going to have to say Ontario.

Ontario is a Canadian province, not a state.

Potato, potato.

So if I were lob up some suggestions of Mexican States with the worst highway system would it be more legit?

[Rothman]

I'm going to have to say Ontario.

Ontario is a Canadian province, not a state.

Potato, potato.

So if I were lob up some suggestions of Mexican States with the worst highway system would it be more legit?

I don't see anything wrong with pointing them out.

[andrepoiy]

I'm going to have to say Ontario.

Ontario is a Canadian province, not a state.

:facepalm:

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I'm going to have to say Ontario.

Ontario is a Canadian province, not a state.

:facepalm:

Wow. Usually we get the loud complaint that it's *too* restrictive to the US only. First time I've ever seen someone do the opposite!

[CNGL-Leudimin]

Exactly. That is the reason I would answer "null" or "Not applicable" to any threads containing "your state" in the title.

Anyway, I feel Aragon has the worst regional ("state") system in Spain. Although things are starting to change thanks to a tax hike a few years ago.

[interstatefan990]

I'm going to have to say Ontario.

Ontario is a Canadian province, not a state.

Potato, potato.

So if I were lob up some suggestions of Mexican States with the worst highway system would it be more legit?

I don't see anything wrong with pointing them out.

The first line of the OP's original post says, "Which state do you think has the worst system of state highways?" . So I think it's safe to assume they were asking which of the 50 US states has the worst system. I don't really think they were referring to ANY territory in the world that could be classified as a "state" . Call me picky, but Ontario and Spain do not fit the parameters of the OP. Sorry not sorry.

[Scott5114]

Well, given that OP posted it three days after Barack Obama became president, who can even know for sure?

[NE2]

Washington, DC

[interstatefan990]

Well, given that OP posted it three days after Barack Obama became president, who can even know for sure?

Heh, I didn't even notice that. There's been so many bumps lately that I'm becoming accustomed to very old threads.

[Rothman]

I am still waiting to hear about the systems in Mexican states.

[hotdogPi]

Well, given that OP posted it three days after Barack Obama became president, who can even know for sure?

Heh, I didn't even notice that. There's been so many bumps lately that I'm becoming accustomed to very old threads.

The forum started on 1/15/09. You can't get much older than that thread.

[kenarmy]

I am still waiting to hear about the systems in Mexican states.

I bet they hate the Texas highway system for asking for a continuation of one of their most important routes.. for 98 miles from nowhere to nowhere  .

[Scott5114]

Well, given that OP posted it three days after Barack Obama became president, who can even know for sure?

Heh, I didn't even notice that. There's been so many bumps lately that I'm becoming accustomed to very old threads.

The forum started on 1/15/09. You can't get much older than that thread.

Oh, so it is at least possible to get one from when George W. Bush was president. If anyone does that I'm mailing a jar of moldy baked beans to their house.

I am still waiting to hear about the systems in Mexican states.

I bet they hate the Texas highway system for asking for a continuation of one of their most important routes.. for 98 miles from nowhere to nowhere  .

I kind of doubt they care, or if they do, think it's neat. Internal ODOT documents seemed to appreciate the gesture when the southern K-8 was created and it's way more pathetic that US-57.

[interstatefan990]

Please don't bump threads from two Presidential administrations ago.

Oh, so it is at least possible to get one from when George W. Bush was president. If anyone does that I'm mailing a jar of moldy baked beans to their house.

I'm a fan of how you measure post age by presidential administration. 

[Scott5114]

I'm a fan of how you measure post age by presidential administration. 

I find it helps to fix in my mind (and thus hopefully others') how long of a timespan we're talking here. People have a funny way of internally judging time and tend to have a mental "current date" that tends to be a few years out of date, so saying "2009" doesn't seem like that long ago. 2009 sure doesn't feel like 12 years ago.

Fixing a post date to "this was three days after Obama's inauguration on January 20, 2009" helps make the date concrete–either you have a memory of that day and what that time period was like on a personal level (I can easily recall that when Obama took office, I was working at Burger King saving up money to get my first apartment), or you can't remember it at all, meaning it's from the Scary Before Times that we call Ancient History.

[vdeane]

I'm going to have to say Ontario.

Ontario is a Canadian province, not a state.

Potato, potato.

So if I were lob up some suggestions of Mexican States with the worst highway system would it be more legit?

I don't see anything wrong with pointing them out.

The first line of the OP's original post says, "Which state do you think has the worst system of state highways?" . So I think it's safe to assume they were asking which of the 50 US states has the worst system. I don't really think they were referring to ANY territory in the world that could be classified as a "state" . Call me picky, but Ontario and Spain do not fit the parameters of the OP. Sorry not sorry.

I imagine most of the "state" threads are using "state" because the OP didn't bother to get into the nitty-gritty of places like DC, Canada, etc., not because they meant to specifically exclude them.

And I agree about Ontario.  The roadway quality is good, and sparse isn't bad per se, but it's so sparse that areas with lots of freeways don't have any regular provincial routes, and the routes that do exist have lots of gaps and start/end in odd places.  A comprehensive system, it aint.  In fact, it's not a system at all - it's a random collection of roads that just happen to be maintained by the MTO.  This is because the MTO is very anal about things like who maintains the road and whether something is a freeway (for example, we would say the Thruway is a freeway and always has been; they wouldn't, because the toll barriers didn't meet freeway standards).  Even the 400 series highways don't extend to the border.  They don't care, either - designation continuity and connectivity isn't important to them.

[andrepoiy]

I imagine most of the "state" threads are using "state" because the OP didn't bother to get into the nitty-gritty of places like DC, Canada, etc., not because they meant to specifically exclude them.

And I agree about Ontario.  The roadway quality is good, and sparse isn't bad per se, but it's so sparse that areas with lots of freeways don't have any regular provincial routes, and the routes that do exist have lots of gaps and start/end in odd places.  A comprehensive system, it aint.  In fact, it's not a system at all - it's a random collection of roads that just happen to be maintained by the MTO.  This is because the MTO is very anal about things like who maintains the road and whether something is a freeway (for example, we would say the Thruway is a freeway and always has been; they wouldn't, because the toll barriers didn't meet freeway standards).  Even the 400 series highways don't extend to the border.  They don't care, either - designation continuity and connectivity isn't important to them.

Yeah I never knew some people were so anal about the semantics of the phrase "which states"

On the topic of Ontario, I'd say it used to be a comprehensive system before 1998 when all the downloading happened. And I agree that now it's a collection of roads maintained by the MTO. Lots of the roads are signed poorly, especially in Southern Ontario. For example, there are no Start/End signs on many routes, for example, there is none at the southern end of Highway 12, none at the southern end of Highway 48, etc etc.

What makes it worse is that the county/regional road system quality also varies by county/region. Some regions sign their routes relatively well while others do not; the route number is secondary to the route name. Some regions (like the City of Toronto, City of Hamilton) don't even have numbered roads.


York Region, for example, does the latter. There no reassurance markers on York Regional Roads; nor are there any junction signs at any intersection. The only York Regional Road shield you see are affixed to the traffic light pole at major intersections. Example:

[Ketchup99]

Well, given that OP posted it three days after Barack Obama became president, who can even know for sure?

Heh, I didn't even notice that. There's been so many bumps lately that I'm becoming accustomed to very old threads.

The forum started on 1/15/09. You can't get much older than that thread.

Oh, so it is at least possible to get one from when George W. Bush was president. If anyone does that I'm mailing a jar of moldy baked beans to their house.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=42.0
Ten hours before the end of Bush's second term. If you'd like to bump it, eat your heart out. If it'd get you kicked out of your mod role, let me know and I'd be happy to do the honors.

[interstatefan990]

Yeah I never knew some people were so anal about the semantics of the phrase "which states"

I was just trying to keep things factually correct. Cool your jets.

[JoePCool14]

Well, given that OP posted it three days after Barack Obama became president, who can even know for sure?

Heh, I didn't even notice that. There's been so many bumps lately that I'm becoming accustomed to very old threads.

The forum started on 1/15/09. You can't get much older than that thread.

Oh, so it is at least possible to get one from when George W. Bush was president. If anyone does that I'm mailing a jar of moldy baked beans to their house.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=42.0
Ten hours before the end of Bush's second term. If you'd like to bump it, eat your heart out. If it'd get you kicked out of your mod role, let me know and I'd be happy to do the honors.

We definitely need to revive a discussion from three Presidential Administrations ago. 

[kphoger]

Ontario is a Canadian province, not a state.

Potato, potato.

So if I were lob up some suggestions of Mexican States with the worst highway system would it be more legit?

I don't see anything wrong with pointing them out.

The first line of the OP's original post says, "Which state do you think has the worst system of state highways?" . So I think it's safe to assume they were asking which of the 50 US states has the worst system. I don't really think they were referring to ANY territory in the world that could be classified as a "state" . Call me picky, but Ontario and Spain do not fit the parameters of the OP. Sorry not sorry.

I am still waiting to hear about the systems in Mexican states.

↓   Well, in that case, allow me to simply cross-post from a different thread.   ↓

Roads are bad in Veracruz state, so I warn you to drive slow and watch all time for potholes. If you believe the main toll highway 145D it's fast and free of potholes... you're wrong (yeah you're paying for a terrible road), the worst segment it's the libre segment past Minatitlán, with huge potholes, where you can't travel fast until you arrive to Tabasco state.

[Quillz]

California's system has several problems. Despite being the most populous state and third largest land area, its route numbers only go into the 200s, leaving most suburban major roads unnumbered. In addition, there are gaps in the routes, and some of them are solely because they enter a city that the city refuses to sign. Also, routes should never be signed into law, as that makes them harder to change, and in California's case, disallows overlaps that are found in every other state. The other problem with putting highways into state law is that whether a route gets a number or not is based on state maintenance and not whether it's actually useful.

Wasn't that way with the Sign State Routes largely before the 1964 Renumbering.  The State had Legislative Route Numbers but the Sign State Routes weren't really tied to whether the state maintained a segment or not.  Prior to 1940 there was a ton of local roads that received Sign State Route shields but that began to wane in the decades approaching the 1964 Renumbering.  One highway I'm presently writing about (the Shoreline Highway) had CA 1 signed on two local segments (Valley Ford-Jenner and Westport-Leggett) before they were officially adopted as part of Legislative Route Number 56 in the 1950s. 

Some other problems in California lies with Caltrans maintenance and signage standards falling way behind much of the country.  SB1 has done a ton to remedy this but not every Caltrans district has seemed interested in using funds.  Caltrans District 4 as an example has done relatively little to replace old button copy and reflective paint signage whereas others like District 6 largely eliminated all but the newest variants.  There is a lot of reasons the maintenance levels dipped so much from the 1970s but this isn't really the thread to get into something lengthy like that. 

Your first point is great and completely reflects my own thoughts on the matter. Shields with route numbers should exist for navigation, first and foremost. The vast majority of motorists are not going to know or care who maintains the route. They just want to get from A to B. I've always felt that as long as a traversable route exists between gaps, they should be filled in. For example, perhaps the best example is CA-190. You can drive between the two gaps because roads exist through the Sierra that will get it done. Sherman Pass Road, for example. I'm not about to say these are the best quality roads, but they are certainly drivable. And so what if the county or someone else maintains them? Post CA-190 shields to aid with navigation. Of course, if you've got something like CA-168 where there is no physical connection to fill the gaps, so be it. Nothing that can be done there. This is why I felt in some ways the older state sign route network was more flexible, it seemed to be built around navigation first. This had its own issues, like unnecessary concurrencies, but the '64 revision largely solved this issue while overcorrecting in the other direction.

With that said, I would have to agree with some others that Oregon's highway system isn't the best. Signage isn't as prevalent as it could be, and there are some very rough patches of road. Outside of the interstates, there is also no real way to gauge quality. One thing I've noticed is that a lot of states tend to keep US highways up to pretty decent standards, they'll be wider, have more passing lanes, things like that. In Oregon, it's always a bit of a crap shoot. US-20 is a good example of a cross-state route that generally has good quality, but then you've got stretches of US-26 and US-30 that are narrower, to the point I've found several state highways (such as 6 or 18) better for traveling.