Road Friendly states

[corco]

Oh believe me...they do.

Most cops in eastern Oregon are fairly chill as long as you're wearing Oregon, Idaho, or Nevada plates, at least for passenger cars. I've passed cops on US-20 in the Burns area more than once going 70 in the 55 and didn't get pulled over

[agentsteel53]

the only way that California's ailing road system can be fixed is for the "Big One" to knock down a bunch of overpasses and such, then they'd HAVE to be rebuilt!

right, because the earth will split open and giant heaps of money will come pouring out.

[mightyace]

right, because the earth will split open and giant heaps of money will come pouring out.

No the heaps of money would come out of Washington, DC! 

[Tarkus]

Most cops in eastern Oregon are fairly chill as long as you're wearing Oregon, Idaho, or Nevada plates, at least for passenger cars. I've passed cops on US-20 in the Burns area more than once going 70 in the 55 and didn't get pulled over

Funny story on that--a friend of mine who's a police officer for Washington County told me he got pulled over by a state trooper on US-20 for doing 55 in a 55.  The state trooper told him to go faster.

They've actually authorized speed limit increases to 70 MPH within congress, but ODOT doesn't want to post them because they don't want trucks going any faster than 55 MPH and think a 15 MPH disparity is too large (which it is, but why not let trucks go 60, 65, or  70)

Actually, ODOT was supposedly considering increasing the truck limit to 60mph, but the trucking industry apparently wanted a 65mph truck limit.  For whatever stupid reason, they never came to an agreement and we're still stuck with 65/55. 

I must agree with some of the mentions about Oregon.  I'd really like to know the rationale behind their lower speed limits...

There really isn't any, other than politics.  In the 1990s and early 2000s, several bills authorizing 75mph speed limits on Interstates and 70mph on non-Interstate highways, but then-Gov. Kitzhaber vetoed them all.  Gov. Kulongoski hasn't been much better and he only signed 70mph bill corco mentioned after a lot of finagling, and the inclusion of the clause about instituting the higher limit being strictly up to ODOT's discretion.

-Alex (Tarkus)

[Marc]

I would say that Mississippi is pretty road friendly in terms of widening U.S. and major state highways. Most (if not all) U.S. highways throughout the state have been widened to be four-lane divided and many state routes have been widened in the same manner (MS-6 between Batesville and Oxford and MS-25 from Jackson to Starkville). Mississippi is also pretty good about keeping the roads smoothly paved as well, but the Jackson area needs some major work in many areas, mainly on city streets though. I will say, however, that it always takes Mississippi forever to do a project. I guess money is probably the culprit in that case (or maybe I'm just used to how fast Texas gets things done, lol).

[agentsteel53]

I would say that Mississippi is pretty road friendly in terms of widening U.S. and major state highways. Most (if not all) U.S. highways throughout the state have been widened to be four-lane divided and many state routes have been widened in the same manner (MS-6 between Batesville and Oxford and MS-25 from Jackson to Starkville). Mississippi is also pretty good about keeping the roads smoothly paved as well, but the Jackson area needs some major work in many areas, mainly on city streets though. I will say, however, that it always takes Mississippi forever to do a project. I guess money is probably the culprit in that case (or maybe I'm just used to how fast Texas gets things done, lol).

and they are bringing back state-named interstate shields, and if you know where to look, you can find a few remnants of 1960s, 1950s, and even 1920s highway signage.

www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MS19220121t300120.jpg&search=12

now that right there is the definition of roadgeek friendly.

[froggie]

That's only because MDOT is painfully slow when it comes to replacing old signage, or updating signage to begin with.  Witness, for one, how long it took them to sign the US 278 extension (about 6-7 years), or the US 98 signage in Natchez (when US 98 has officially ended in Bude for at least a decade, if not longer).

[agentsteel53]

I think this is a case of them relinquishing state highways to local control, and the locals not bothering to replace signs at all...

[Chris]

They say Kansas City has the most lane miles per capita ratio. That would conclude either Missouri or Kansas (or both) is the most road friendly state. At least Kansas City seems to be the most road-friendly metropolitan area.

[J N Winkler]

Chris, "they" are the TTI mobility/congestion people and Kansas City has the largest per-capita mileage only of the cities whose congestion they track.  Kansas is road-friendly, but not because the TTI folks say so.  Missouri is not all that road-friendly by the definition the OP uses (remember Bruce Watkins Drive and the stalled I-70 expansion?).

[agentsteel53]

anyone who has ever attempted to stay on mainline I-70 westbound through the legendary Exit 2 will realize just how road-hostile Kansas City is!

[Chris]

Chris, "they" are the TTI mobility/congestion people and Kansas City has the largest per-capita mileage only of the cities whose congestion they track. 

But I thought they tracked nearly all larger cities in the United States? This list was pretty long...

1999 survey

I made a 2009 update a while ago with the TTI definitions...

[J N Winkler]

There are some cities they left out in 1999--where is Tulsa, for example?  Omaha?  Tucson?

Also, in a similar listing (which you posted in SkyscraperCity) data was given for Little Rock, which is fairly small and is not in the 1999 list.

I don't think TTI tracks cities by population per se.  I think they are instead chosen on the basis of an estimate of hours lost compared to notional congestion-free operation on the freeway network.  In practice most of the cities TTI would track by this measure would be large, because it is a rule of thumb that the denizens of large cities arbitrage congestion against job opportunities and housing quality.  But it is possible to be a small city and wind up on the TTI list just by losing the battle against congestion.  I think this may have happened to Little Rock, and I know it has happened to Anchorage (population around 200,000, three freeways, not one of which interchanges directly with any of the others, and two of which are parking lots at rush hour) and Boise (population again around 200,000, no depth to the freeway network, preposterous plans to upgrade I-84 to ten or more lanes to handle traffic load).  I suspect Tucson (population now well over 1 million) escapes being listed because its freeway network is so vestigial that it really serves only long-distance through traffic, and the network of signalized arterials is not significantly less efficient at rush hours than it is in the off-peak.

Meanwhile, you get cities like Wichita (population around 350,000, freeway network increasing steadily in size) which are not attractive to TTI because there is little rush-hour congestion and the overall fluidity of the network is improving as signalized arterial intersections get converted into freeway interchanges.  In Wichita at 5 PM, you may have to wait if you want to change roads at the I-135/US 54 turban, but even that problem is being fixed right now by a project which is upgrading the present simple lane drops to multilane exits with option lanes.  Wichita also has stable population growth, so there is little chance of the new capacity getting chewed up fast.  The tradeoff is that it is difficult to be in a specialized occupation and to find enough work to make a good living in Wichita.

[SSOWorld]

anyone who has ever attempted to stay on mainline I-70 westbound through the legendary Exits 2 will realize just how road-hostile Kansas City is!

FIXED!! 

[froggie]

I think this is a case of them relinquishing state highways to local control, and the locals not bothering to replace signs at all...

Not in the cases I cited...which are both very much maintained by MDOT.

In addition, most bypassed former US route segments in Mississippi are retained on the state highway system, but it's taken them upwards of several months to change the signs over on the old US route (which then gets a MS 1xx route designation).

[leifvanderwall]

I think Florida is the most road friendly state and it has to be especially with its tourism and they always build new roads that don't take forever to get constructed.
Michigan on the other hand is the complete opposite which is too bad because the Great Lake State has plenty to offer in tourism and opportunites. And with jobs continuing to leave Michigan it is going to be harder and harder to fund for new roads and fix the existing ones. There is hope however: Michigan has new and improved traffic lights, I-75 is eight laned between Flint and Saginaw, I-196 is being fixed between South Haven and Douglas and sections of I-94 have been repaired. Indiana gets low marks as well.

[mightyace]

<sarcasm>
I'd say Pennsylvania is road friendly if you agree that the PTC should build the roads instead of PennDOT. 
</sarcasm>

[Bryant5493]

Not in the cases I cited...which are both very much maintained by MDOT.

In addition, most bypassed former US route segments in Mississippi are retained on the state highway system, but it's taken them upwards of several months to change the signs over on the old US route (which then gets a MS 1xx route designation).

Yeah, I noticed this on U.S. 82 in Webster County, for S.R. 182 (old U.S. 82) and for S.R. 145 (old U.S. 45) in Meridian.


Be well,

Bryant

[berberry]

I agree with Marc that Mississippi has done a pretty good job of expanding its network of four-lane highways over the past few decades.  Most U.S. routes through the state, where they do not parallel interstate routes, are now four-laned or are currently being upgraded to four-lanes.  These are generally open highways with freeway bypasses around the larger towns.  As such, they don't attract nearly as much large truck traffic as do the interstates, and for that reason they can be more fun to drive.

I suppose that would make Mississippi "road-friendly", or at least "rural road-friendly".  The cities (what few there are in MS) are another matter.

[PAHighways]

<sarcasm>I'd say Pennsylvania is road friendly if you agree that the PTC should build the roads instead of PennDOT.  </sarcasm>

Seriously, I would say the Keystone State leans to being road-friendly.  PennDOT is currently building I-99 and the US 202 parkway so it isn't as if nothing is being constructed.

Yes, there are the extensions which I am all too familiar with as I live not far from one, but if it means the project gets off a piece of paper (where most projects have been left) and becomes reality, then I'm in favor of them picking up the slack.

[SidS1045]

New York between 1930 and 1960. Now completely the opposite.

It's not necessarily that NY was very road-friendly, but rather that it had basically ceded all road-building authority to one man, Robert Moses, who operated as though he were independent of the state and city governments.  Thanks to the public authorities he set up (and his behind-the-scenes sway over those he didn't run), his was the sole power to build roads during his years in power (1934 to 1968).

A very worthwhile read for any roadgeek is The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York, by Robert Caro.  Some of Caro's conclusions about what Moses had wrought are now being revisited and revised, especially with the snail's pace at which the replacement for the Tappan Zee Bridge is coming along, but the book does a great job of analyzing how and why Moses had the power he had, and how he used it.

[golden eagle]

I would say that Mississippi is pretty road friendly in terms of widening U.S. and major state highways. Most (if not all) U.S. highways throughout the state have been widened to be four-lane divided and many state routes have been widened in the same manner (MS-6 between Batesville and Oxford and MS-25 from Jackson to Starkville). Mississippi is also pretty good about keeping the roads smoothly paved as well, but the Jackson area needs some major work in many areas, mainly on city streets though. I will say, however, that it always takes Mississippi forever to do a project. I guess money is probably the culprit in that case (or maybe I'm just used to how fast Texas gets things done, lol).

U.S. 49W from north of Indianola to just south of Clarksdale (where it begins a multiplex with U.S. 61) is not four-laned, as well as the section from U.S. 61 to the Mississippi River. U.S. 49E to Greenwood also isn't four-laned. I also know that some portions of U.S. 51 and 80 are not four-laned. 

[UptownRoadGeek]

Mississippi is road friendly when the road leads to a Casino.  I think most of those widenings come from the Gaming Roads Program.  I have to say that Texas is the most road friendly state I've seen.  It also amazes me how much faster Texas highways and bridges get built compared to Louisiana and Mississippi. 

[froggie]

Mississippi is road friendly when the road leads to a Casino.

That could arguably NOT be the case along the Coast, where it took a certain hurricane just to get 2 decent bridges and signal synchronization along US 90...

[UptownRoadGeek]

Mississippi is road friendly when the road leads to a Casino.

That could arguably NOT be the case along the Coast, where it took a certain hurricane just to get 2 decent bridges and signal synchronization along US 90...

You have a point.  What I don't understand about MDOT is the condition they allow some roads to fall into, yet take a look at their HQ and office buildings especially in the Jackson area.  I can recall doing business in Jackson and passing one of their offices and noticing some improvement to the building every trip while the pot hole at the front door got wider and wider each time.  I do believe this building was on a state maintained road.