News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Which State Has the Best Roads?

Started by theroadwayone, September 30, 2017, 01:32:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

hotdogPi

Quote from: cl94 on October 05, 2017, 05:37:25 PM
New York would win easily if it wasn't for New York City traffic. The state put a lot of effort into widening and straightening rural roads back in the 50s and it makes travel much easier. I'm always surprised when I go to another state and the surface roads aren't wide and passable at 70 mph.

I remember being on NY 206 and NY 79 going to Ithaca. The speed limit was 55 mph the whole way (as expected), but it seemed too hilly for 70 mph to be safe. 55 seemed to be correct; Massachusetts would probably have posted it at 35 or 40.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.


jakeroot

Quote from: stridentweasel on October 05, 2017, 05:18:39 PM
I really like Michigan's roads and signage, although I wish they'd get rid of the separate truck speed limits.

Although I prefer one speed limit as a matter of principle, there is merit behind lower truck limits. Trucks have very poor stopping distance, so higher speed limits can produce more severe collisions. Not all fully-laden trucks are capable of speeds above 65 (even more are electronically limited to 65 or less), so limiting trucks to that speed, or less, will produce more equal speeds among all trucks. Trucks also get terrible fuel economy at higher than necessary speeds. There's also the matter of passenger vehicles. People who steadfastly observe speed limits will pass trucks faster than if trucks and cars have the same speed limit (nothing's worse than two trucks slowly overtaking, except a car slowly overtaking a truck).

I know the British Columbia Trucking Association strongly opposed the speed limit jump to 120 km/h. They insisted that their truck drivers will not go that fast for various reasons (including those I listed).

Consider that the Autobahn has truck limits. Certainly the Kings of Speed have to have it right?

TheArkansasRoadgeek

Quote
I remember being on NY 206 and NY 79 going to Ithaca. The speed limit was 55 mph the whole way (as expected), but it seemed too hilly for 70 mph to be safe. 55 seemed to be correct; Massachusetts would probably have posted it at 35 or 40.
Arkansas had seperate truck speed limits for the longest time it seemed and then they did away with them all together.
Well, that's just like your opinion man...

jakeroot

Quote from: ParrDa on October 05, 2017, 09:00:04 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 05, 2017, 08:33:08 PM
Not all fully-laden trucks are capable of speeds above 65 (even more are electronically limited to 65 or less), so limiting trucks to that speed, or less, will produce more equal speeds among all trucks.

Well, that means they won't approach one another as quickly. And anything that reduces (or delays) the need for trucks to pass one another is an excellent proposition  :clap: The unfortunate backfire is that when they do pass, it's likely to be even more painful.

Passing can be a pain, but that's true even in states without truck limits. Two heavy beasts passing each other is just never fun. That's why it's a good idea to allow cars to pass trucks at higher speeds than trucks can pass themselves. More cars can get by in between two trucks passing each other.

Trucks passing each other is one of the best arguments for three lane freeways country-wide.

cl94

Quote from: jakeroot on October 05, 2017, 10:06:54 PM
Quote from: ParrDa on October 05, 2017, 09:00:04 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 05, 2017, 08:33:08 PM
Not all fully-laden trucks are capable of speeds above 65 (even more are electronically limited to 65 or less), so limiting trucks to that speed, or less, will produce more equal speeds among all trucks.

Well, that means they won't approach one another as quickly. And anything that reduces (or delays) the need for trucks to pass one another is an excellent proposition  :clap: The unfortunate backfire is that when they do pass, it's likely to be even more painful.

Passing can be a pain, but that's true even in states without truck limits. Two heavy beasts passing each other is just never fun. That's why it's a good idea to allow cars to pass trucks at higher speeds than trucks can pass themselves. More cars can get by in between two trucks passing each other.

Trucks passing each other is one of the best arguments for three lane freeways country-wide.

Which is PRECISELY why many of us members out east have been saying I-81 needs to be 6-laned south of Syracuse. A truck going 50 will pass another truck going 45 on one of those hills and the backup grows quickly.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

kkt

Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on October 02, 2017, 05:24:38 PM
Simple one: the State with the best roads is the one someone is from :sombrero:.

Um, no, I'm originally from California, and California isn't in the top ten.  Or even the top 30.  They do some cool things - high mountain passes, the S.F. area bridges and tunnels.  But many roads are in poor repair, even major routes.  Too many demands chasing too little money, and the money seems to go to well-connected districts rather than the greatest need.


jakeroot

Quote from: ParrDa on October 05, 2017, 10:25:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 05, 2017, 10:06:54 PM
Trucks passing each other is one of the best arguments for three lane freeways country-wide.

If by three you mean six, then I agree completely  :D

Three lane *carriageways. Sorry... :spin:

LM117

“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

Ned Weasel

Quote from: jakeroot on October 05, 2017, 08:33:08 PM
Although I prefer one speed limit as a matter of principle, there is merit behind lower truck limits. Trucks have very poor stopping distance, so higher speed limits can produce more severe collisions. Not all fully-laden trucks are capable of speeds above 65 (even more are electronically limited to 65 or less), so limiting trucks to that speed, or less, will produce more equal speeds among all trucks. Trucks also get terrible fuel economy at higher than necessary speeds. There's also the matter of passenger vehicles. People who steadfastly observe speed limits will pass trucks faster than if trucks and cars have the same speed limit (nothing's worse than two trucks slowly overtaking, except a car slowly overtaking a truck).

I know the British Columbia Trucking Association strongly opposed the speed limit jump to 120 km/h. They insisted that their truck drivers will not go that fast for various reasons (including those I listed).

Consider that the Autobahn has truck limits. Certainly the Kings of Speed have to have it right?

My problems with this are: (1) it undermines the theory that roads are safer when vehicles travel closer to the same speed, and (2) the speed limits selected for trucks often seem arbitrary when compared to neighboring states.  For example, long stretches of Interstate in southern Michigan have a car speed limit of 70 and a truck speed limit of 60, while in neighboring Indiana, a similar stretch of Interstate would have a car speed limit of 70 and a truck speed limit of 65.  This means trucks with a speed governor set to 65 can use the maximum speed in Indiana but are then supposed to slow down in Michigan, for no readily apparent reason other than that's what the sign says.  What's worse is 55 MPH in the entire state of California, when neighboring states allow trucks to go 65 or faster.
"I was raised by a cup of coffee." - Strong Bad imitating Homsar

Disclaimer: Views I express are my own and don't reflect any employer or associated entity.

theroadwayone

Quote from: kkt on October 05, 2017, 11:10:16 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on October 02, 2017, 05:24:38 PM
Simple one: the State with the best roads is the one someone is from :sombrero:.

Um, no, I'm originally from California, and California isn't in the top ten.  Or even the top 30.  They do some cool things - high mountain passes, the S.F. area bridges and tunnels.  But many roads are in poor repair, even major routes.  Too many demands chasing too little money, and the money seems to go to well-connected districts rather than the greatest need.

Being a Californian myself, I couldn't agree more. There are roads near my house in desperate need of fixing; and SR-52 still hasn't gotten an upgrade east of I-15, that it is long overdue for, to give a few examples.

jakeroot

Quote from: stridentweasel on October 07, 2017, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 05, 2017, 08:33:08 PM
Although I prefer one speed limit as a matter of principle, there is merit behind lower truck limits. Trucks have very poor stopping distance, so higher speed limits can produce more severe collisions. Not all fully-laden trucks are capable of speeds above 65 (even more are electronically limited to 65 or less), so limiting trucks to that speed, or less, will produce more equal speeds among all trucks. Trucks also get terrible fuel economy at higher than necessary speeds. There's also the matter of passenger vehicles. People who steadfastly observe speed limits will pass trucks faster than if trucks and cars have the same speed limit (nothing's worse than two trucks slowly overtaking, except a car slowly overtaking a truck).

I know the British Columbia Trucking Association strongly opposed the speed limit jump to 120 km/h. They insisted that their truck drivers will not go that fast for various reasons (including those I listed).

Consider that the Autobahn has truck limits. Certainly the Kings of Speed have to have it right?

My problems with this are: (1) it undermines the theory that roads are safer when vehicles travel closer to the same speed, and (2) the speed limits selected for trucks often seem arbitrary when compared to neighboring states.  For example, long stretches of Interstate in southern Michigan have a car speed limit of 70 and a truck speed limit of 60, while in neighboring Indiana, a similar stretch of Interstate would have a car speed limit of 70 and a truck speed limit of 65.  This means trucks with a speed governor set to 65 can use the maximum speed in Indiana but are then supposed to slow down in Michigan, for no readily apparent reason other than that's what the sign says.  What's worse is 55 MPH in the entire state of California, when neighboring states allow trucks to go 65 or faster.

On point 1, yes, all vehicles going the same speed would be safest. I absolutely agree with that. But it's not possible for trucks and cars to go the same speed, unless (IMO) the limit is roughly 65 or less. They simply cannot keep up with cars. They accelerate slowly, take forever to brake, have much lower top speeds when loaded-up, are potentially quite hazardous depending on the load, etc. Kind of like motorcycles, they share very little in common with the everyday passenger vehicle, other than having wheels and an engine. I don't think it's ridiculous to expect them to abide by a slightly different set of rules.

On point 2, I am not arguing for variable truck limits from state to state (those are admittedly silly). I'm simply arguing for truck limits, period. IMO, trucks should have a nationally-mandated speed limit system. No truck limits if the limit is 65 or lower (unless otherwise approved). Any higher limit than that, and a truck limit is introduced, capped at 65.

For what it's worth, the unrestricted sections of Germany's Autobahn have truck limits of 80 km/h, and coach/vehicles-with-trailer limits of 100 km/h. The recommended speed for the Autobahn is 130 km/h, so, evidently, that whole speed-differential being dangerous thing doesn't much apply between cars and trucks/buses/etc (otherwise, Germany's mandated 50 km/h speed gap between normal vehicles and restricted ones would create mayhem -- which of course, it doesn't).

Flint1979

Quote from: stridentweasel on October 05, 2017, 05:18:39 PM
I really like Michigan's roads and signage, although I wish they'd get rid of the separate truck speed limits.  Arizona also does a fine job, just as long as you can stomach getting around Tucson on surface streets.  I'd also rank Kansas and Texas high on the list, although I could give minor critiques for both states.
I'm not attacking you or anything but what is there to like about Michigan's roads? They are in pathetic shape for the most part especially the closer you get to Detroit. They are finally working on major roads but they have a long ways to go. I hate Michigan's roads and I drive on them every single day. Genesee County and Wayne County have several roads in very poor condition and that's Michigan's most populated county and 5th most populated county.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 08, 2017, 02:36:59 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on October 05, 2017, 05:18:39 PM
I really like Michigan's roads and signage, although I wish they'd get rid of the separate truck speed limits.  Arizona also does a fine job, just as long as you can stomach getting around Tucson on surface streets.  I'd also rank Kansas and Texas high on the list, although I could give minor critiques for both states.
I'm not attacking you or anything but what is there to like about Michigan's roads? They are in pathetic shape for the most part especially the closer you get to Detroit. They are finally working on major roads but they have a long ways to go. I hate Michigan's roads and I drive on them every single day. Genesee County and Wayne County have several roads in very poor condition and that's Michigan's most populated county and 5th most populated county.

Funny thing, the road quality is noticeably higher than it was even two years ago in Michigan much less the twnety when I lived there.  I guess that I-275 project paid off, looked like US 23 and parts of US 127 were going though a similar build.   Really the UP and rural parts of the state were in much better shape than I expected.

UCFKnights

Quote from: jakeroot on October 08, 2017, 03:38:50 AM
Quote from: stridentweasel on October 07, 2017, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 05, 2017, 08:33:08 PM
Although I prefer one speed limit as a matter of principle, there is merit behind lower truck limits. Trucks have very poor stopping distance, so higher speed limits can produce more severe collisions. Not all fully-laden trucks are capable of speeds above 65 (even more are electronically limited to 65 or less), so limiting trucks to that speed, or less, will produce more equal speeds among all trucks. Trucks also get terrible fuel economy at higher than necessary speeds. There's also the matter of passenger vehicles. People who steadfastly observe speed limits will pass trucks faster than if trucks and cars have the same speed limit (nothing's worse than two trucks slowly overtaking, except a car slowly overtaking a truck).

I know the British Columbia Trucking Association strongly opposed the speed limit jump to 120 km/h. They insisted that their truck drivers will not go that fast for various reasons (including those I listed).

Consider that the Autobahn has truck limits. Certainly the Kings of Speed have to have it right?

My problems with this are: (1) it undermines the theory that roads are safer when vehicles travel closer to the same speed, and (2) the speed limits selected for trucks often seem arbitrary when compared to neighboring states.  For example, long stretches of Interstate in southern Michigan have a car speed limit of 70 and a truck speed limit of 60, while in neighboring Indiana, a similar stretch of Interstate would have a car speed limit of 70 and a truck speed limit of 65.  This means trucks with a speed governor set to 65 can use the maximum speed in Indiana but are then supposed to slow down in Michigan, for no readily apparent reason other than that's what the sign says.  What's worse is 55 MPH in the entire state of California, when neighboring states allow trucks to go 65 or faster.

On point 1, yes, all vehicles going the same speed would be safest. I absolutely agree with that. But it's not possible for trucks and cars to go the same speed, unless (IMO) the limit is roughly 65 or less. They simply cannot keep up with cars. They accelerate slowly, take forever to brake, have much lower top speeds when loaded-up, are potentially quite hazardous depending on the load, etc. Kind of like motorcycles, they share very little in common with the everyday passenger vehicle, other than having wheels and an engine. I don't think it's ridiculous to expect them to abide by a slightly different set of rules.

On point 2, I am not arguing for variable truck limits from state to state (those are admittedly silly). I'm simply arguing for truck limits, period. IMO, trucks should have a nationally-mandated speed limit system. No truck limits if the limit is 65 or lower (unless otherwise approved). Any higher limit than that, and a truck limit is introduced, capped at 65.

For what it's worth, the unrestricted sections of Germany's Autobahn have truck limits of 80 km/h, and coach/vehicles-with-trailer limits of 100 km/h. The recommended speed for the Autobahn is 130 km/h, so, evidently, that whole speed-differential being dangerous thing doesn't much apply between cars and trucks/buses/etc (otherwise, Germany's mandated 50 km/h speed gap between normal vehicles and restricted ones would create mayhem -- which of course, it doesn't).
Trucks seem to go just fine usually at 75mph on nearly every interstate in Florida (even though the limit is 70, 5 over speeding by trucks is rampant). For the seemingly rare scenario where a truck can't go 70+, there is no requirement that they travel at the speed limit, so why does it need to be lowered for them?

J N Winkler

Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on October 02, 2017, 05:24:38 PMSimple one: the State with the best roads is the one someone is from :sombrero:. This excludes me, though, as I don't have a State.

That was my reservation when I clicked on this thread title.  Would all the replies be some variant of "The best roads are in [my state]/[a state where I lived in the past]"?  Quality is also a multidimensional concept that embraces network extent, geometric design, signing, pavement, level of provision per head, etc. as well as multiple subheads under each category.
"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

Flint1979

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 08, 2017, 02:46:15 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 08, 2017, 02:36:59 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on October 05, 2017, 05:18:39 PM
I really like Michigan's roads and signage, although I wish they'd get rid of the separate truck speed limits.  Arizona also does a fine job, just as long as you can stomach getting around Tucson on surface streets.  I'd also rank Kansas and Texas high on the list, although I could give minor critiques for both states.
I'm not attacking you or anything but what is there to like about Michigan's roads? They are in pathetic shape for the most part especially the closer you get to Detroit. They are finally working on major roads but they have a long ways to go. I hate Michigan's roads and I drive on them every single day. Genesee County and Wayne County have several roads in very poor condition and that's Michigan's most populated county and 5th most populated county.

Funny thing, the road quality is noticeably higher than it was even two years ago in Michigan much less the twnety when I lived there.  I guess that I-275 project paid off, looked like US 23 and parts of US 127 were going though a similar build.   Really the UP and rural parts of the state were in much better shape than I expected.

I was in Detroit a few weeks ago and drove on Grand River Avenue from downtown out to about Livernois and they have repaved it. I expected to be driving on a pothole ridden street like many streets in Detroit are but Grand River being one of the major streets must of got a bump to be redone recently, it is a state highway as well so MDOT covered this. The state highway part on Grand River use to end at one of the I-96 junctions but now I believe it goes all the way to downtown and ends at either Cass or Adams. That was just one example of a major street they redid and Woodward now has the streetcar on it and has been redone. They still have a long ways to go but in some areas of the state the roads are in better shape. Genesee County is among the worst in road condition though and that includes the city of Flint so don't expect much attention to be directed there. I-475 and parts of I-69 are in very poor condition, I-75 however is in better shape. Just some local roads around Flint like Clio Road and Linden Road are in bad shape, Dort Highway is in pretty bad shape and that one's a state highway (M-54). Basically Mount Morris/north end of Flint where the crime is higher has the worser of roads though.

I think some of the rural roads are in better shape because they are less traveled on. I haven't been in the UP in years but traveled north to the foot of the bridge a few months ago and loved the new 75 mph speed limit, I always do 80 no matter the speed anyway but it just seemed nice to be going closer to the speed limit than before lol.

J N Winkler

Quote from: jakeroot on October 05, 2017, 08:33:08 PMAlthough I prefer one speed limit as a matter of principle, there is merit behind lower truck limits. Trucks have very poor stopping distance, so higher speed limits can produce more severe collisions. Not all fully-laden trucks are capable of speeds above 65 (even more are electronically limited to 65 or less), so limiting trucks to that speed, or less, will produce more equal speeds among all trucks. Trucks also get terrible fuel economy at higher than necessary speeds. There's also the matter of passenger vehicles. People who steadfastly observe speed limits will pass trucks faster than if trucks and cars have the same speed limit (nothing's worse than two trucks slowly overtaking, except a car slowly overtaking a truck).

States have been jettisoning split speed limits for trucks:  I've heard of Ohio and at least one other state getting rid of them, and no states introducing new ones aside from scenarios where the car speed limit goes up while the truck speed limit remains unchanged.  I think this is partly because of a FHWA study several years ago that was unable to demonstrate a clear safety benefit to differential limits.

As for the elephant-racing problem, I think that is more of a concern in hilly terrain (e.g., I-44 in Missouri) than in flat country (e.g., I-55 around Lexington, Illinois).  In the flat it is easy enough to wait out the trucks and the impatient car drivers by setting cruise control at 60 until a platoon of trucks has sorted itself out so that the faster trucks are in front.  Going uphill you are at the mercy of trucks that don't have the power/weight ratio to hold speed, and a succession of hills means that even trained professional drivers can be fooled into playing "passing tag" with each other at the expense of following cars.
"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

Ned Weasel

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 08, 2017, 02:36:59 PM
I'm not attacking you or anything but what is there to like about Michigan's roads? They are in pathetic shape for the most part especially the closer you get to Detroit. They are finally working on major roads but they have a long ways to go. I hate Michigan's roads and I drive on them every single day. Genesee County and Wayne County have several roads in very poor condition and that's Michigan's most populated county and 5th most populated county.

I must have been lucky enough to miss the roads in Michigan that need the most attention, and I'll admit it's not one of the states I drive in the most.  However, when I drove most of I-94, I-69 between I-94 and Flint, and all of I-196, I found the roads to be quite well designed and maintained, with clear and informative signage.  The major interchanges tend to have very smooth ramps, which is part of what makes Michigan rank so highly in my book.  Also, when I drove around Detroit four years ago, I was rather impressed with I-75 and I-696 (except for the I-75 bottleneck at 8 Mile Road, but such situations are common in other metropolitan areas).  I also greatly appreciate the Michigan Left concept, which is common on major surface-level arterials throughout the state.  Another nice thing I've noticed recently are the electronic signs that display the number of truck parking spaces available at rest areas.  I know some other states have those, but I wish more did.

One thing that kind of bugs me, though, are the flashing-red-ball left turn signals.  I know people tend to treat those as a simple yield, but I just don't feel comfortable about not coming to a full stop before entering the intersection.
"I was raised by a cup of coffee." - Strong Bad imitating Homsar

Disclaimer: Views I express are my own and don't reflect any employer or associated entity.

Flint1979

Quote from: stridentweasel on October 08, 2017, 06:58:04 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 08, 2017, 02:36:59 PM
I'm not attacking you or anything but what is there to like about Michigan's roads? They are in pathetic shape for the most part especially the closer you get to Detroit. They are finally working on major roads but they have a long ways to go. I hate Michigan's roads and I drive on them every single day. Genesee County and Wayne County have several roads in very poor condition and that's Michigan's most populated county and 5th most populated county.

I must have been lucky enough to miss the roads in Michigan that need the most attention, and I'll admit it's not one of the states I drive in the most.  However, when I drove most of I-94, I-69 between I-94 and Flint, and all of I-196, I found the roads to be quite well designed and maintained, with clear and informative signage.  The major interchanges tend to have very smooth ramps, which is part of what makes Michigan rank so highly in my book.  Also, when I drove around Detroit four years ago, I was rather impressed with I-75 and I-696 (except for the I-75 bottleneck at 8 Mile Road, but such situations are common in other metropolitan areas).  I also greatly appreciate the Michigan Left concept, which is common on major surface-level arterials throughout the state.  Another nice thing I've noticed recently are the electronic signs that display the number of truck parking spaces available at rest areas.  I know some other states have those, but I wish more did.

One thing that kind of bugs me, though, are the flashing-red-ball left turn signals.  I know people tend to treat those as a simple yield, but I just don't feel comfortable about not coming to a full stop before entering the intersection.
Some areas are better than others. I-94 in Detroit itself is outdated with left exits and only three lanes in each direction trying to carry over 150,000 vehicles a day. Speed limit in Detroit is only 55 mph as well, I-75 is also 55 mph south of Grand Blvd. I hate the stretch of I-75 that runs from the end of I-96 to the I-375/Gratiot/I-75 exit since I-75 has an exit onto itself. While I'm on that a simple multiplex with I-94 west to I-96 then south back into it's allignment towards Toledo and demolish the expressway and I-375 and call it good. That's a terrible stretch of I-75.

I agree with you about highways such as I-196 and other highways on the western side of the state. That side of the state seems to be in better shape than the eastern side of the state. Around Flint, Saginaw, Detroit, Pontiac, Lansing you're going to find the roads in poorer shape. I-75 however is being rebuilt in Oakland County and looks like it's going to be eight lanes from Auburn Hills to downtown Detroit which would be a major boost since I-75 is pretty much Michigan's Main Drag.

The stretch between Flint and Saginaw is pretty nice as it's eight lanes (four in each direction) from the northern I-475 interchange to about 2 miles south of the southern I-675 interchange.

I guess I'm just use to driving in Genesee County which has some of the worst roads in the state. You can see the potholes on I-475 on Google Streetview, if you look check out the stretch between exits 13 and 15.

J N Winkler

In urban Michigan my big objection is to curbs at the edge line on freeways.  These are most common on older freeways in Detroit, but I have also found them along US 131 in Grand Rapids.  I appreciate that current standards do not allow them and they are removed whenever first-generation facilities are reconstructed, but even in the early years of Interstate construction many other state DOTs managed to avoid this particular mistake.
"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

DJStephens

Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 30, 2017, 04:45:07 PM
Texas even though I hate their system constant frontage roads.  That's what happens when your roads are funded by income tax and not just motor fuel tax.

No.  Texas has had serious problems with decision - making in terms of planning and construction of both facility rehabilitation and new terrain construction.  Vast sums mis-spent on frills such as clearview, sloppy cluttered signage, architectural overkill, and poor geometrics.   El Paso county is a glaring example.   Texas has likely slipped from perhaps as being close to the top ten, twenty to twenty five years ago to middle of the pack today.   New Mexico remains near the bottom of the pack, at roughly number forty of the fifty states.   

jakeroot

Quote from: DJStephens on October 17, 2017, 01:49:41 AM
Vast sums mis-spent on frills such as clearview, sloppy cluttered signage, architectural overkill, and poor geometrics.

These are all relatively minor issues when considering the whole of Texas' road system. From a wide view, Texas has an excellent, decently well-maintained system of highways with great speed limits and consistent signage (I disagree with the "sloppy cluttered signage" comment BTW). They continue to pump billions into the road system to keep it moving (though the Katy Fwy widening is an example of when it doesn't always work).

Does this describe various other states? Certainly. But Texas sticks out due to the level of commitment. While other states might eventually say "no", Texas continues to say "yes". It's undoubtedly a car-lovers paradise, or at least a pro-car paradise.

formulanone

#47
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 08, 2017, 02:52:07 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on October 02, 2017, 05:24:38 PMSimple one: the State with the best roads is the one someone is from :sombrero:. This excludes me, though, as I don't have a State.

That was my reservation when I clicked on this thread title.  Would all the replies be some variant of "The best roads are in [my state]/[a state where I lived in the past]"?  Quality is also a multidimensional concept that embraces network extent, geometric design, signing, pavement, level of provision per head, etc. as well as multiple subheads under each category.

The irony is that while most folks will proclaim many things about their state or area to be "the world's best", I have yet to meet anyone who claims their roads and drivers are anything but the worst*. And that's probably because like hangovers, Mondays, stubbing one's toe, and the rival sports team...there's a common distaste for these typically mundane things in the midst of small talk; combine that with the Dunning-Kruger effect of one's driving abilities.  It's rare to hear someone (outside of these circles) mention how nice a drive was or how someone else kindly let them though a zipper merge.

That said, while Alabama's roads are fun to drive on for "spirited driving", they're far from the safest (there's loads of missing signage and non-existent guardrail in surprising places), surfaces usually in rougher shape, planning for the future seems to be an afterthought, and other than Interstates/US Routes...they're not as wide compared to many other states. So, I'd probably put it between the bottom-half and around the bottom-third, overall.

* Still, I'd vouch that Huntsville's drivers really aren't as bad, but on par with most mid-sized metropolitan areas.



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.