What states are the most road friendly....meaning they are expanding their highway system at a pretty good clip and the expansions are rarely met my nimbyism and the expansions are really big.
Texas comes to mind
Anymore
or states that are NOT road friendly...where nimby-ism weeds out road projects to where they don't even matter anymore.
I'd say Georgia -- Metro Atlanta in particular. We love our cars.
Be well,
Bryant
Rural Nevada. Two lane highways everywhere, spectacular scenery, and no other cars for hours. Now *that* is a friendly road!
ODOT is in the process of building a 10-lane freeway just south of downtown Oklahoma City. If that doesn't say "road-friendly", I don't know what does!
Although the roads aren't particularly car-friendly...
New York between 1930 and 1960. Now completely the opposite.
Quote from: agentsteel53Rural Nevada. Two lane highways everywhere, spectacular scenery, and no other cars for hours. Now *that* is a friendly road!
Couldn't agree more!
A lot of rural roads in Nevada are not in very good condition, in my experience. There are roads which appear on highway maps that are barely above jeep trails.
All part of the fun of visiting Nevada :sombrero:
yes, Rand McNally sometimes labels something as a major through route and it turns out it's a goat path! :-D
I do believe every state highway in Nevada is paved. I do not believe 8A and 34 are on the books anymore, though signs for them do remain.
Quote from: flowmotion on August 22, 2009, 11:26:46 PM
A lot of rural roads in Nevada are not in very good condition, in my experience. There are roads which appear on highway maps that are barely above jeep trails.
Quote from: agentsteel53I do believe every state highway in Nevada is paved. I do not believe 8A and 34 are on the books anymore, though signs for them do remain.
That's an interesting statement, flowmotion, considering Nevada usually rates pretty highly among the other states as far as smooth/good quality pavement is concerned. There are several roads that appear on maps that are not actually paved...but these are not marked as important routes (many are former state highways that were relinquished in the 1976 renumbering). Every state highway is paved and maintained by NDOT--the last highway to be get paved was SR 774 by 2002. (8A and 34 have been off the books since the renumbering, with some sections being paved and maintained by Washoe County.)
have to agree with you on NV loved diving form north to south along US 93 and NV 318 when I lived in ID. family live in SoCal.
roadfro - I was just making a humorous comment because I've lost a couple tires on Nevada's "blue highways". Calm down.
Ohio is NOT a road friendly state:
- It took 30+ years to finish the Jennings Freeway (SR-176) connection between I-71 and I-480/SR-17 in Cleveland (a 3 Mile Stretch).
- It took nearly 40 years to complete the SR-711 connection (a 2-mile stretch) between I-80/SR-11 and US-422/SR-293 in Youngstown.
- It's taking over 40 years (and probably will be over 50 years) before I-77 is completely 3+ lanes in each direction from I-90 in Downtown Cleveland to I-76 in Akron.
- I-490 (nee I-290) will never become a much-needed freeway connecting Downtown Cleveland to the due-east suburbs by I-271. BTW, was I-290 renamed I-490 by ODOT way back when to avoid confusing it with the East Shoreway (SR-2/I-90)?
- The SR-59 Akron Innerbelt will never be a true bypass loop west and north of downtown Akron, connecting SR-8 to I-77/I-76. In fact, the Akron Innerbelt may be replaced by a regular 4-6 lane boulevard!
- US 62 will never become a full limited-access freeway east of Canton & I-77.
And this is just in Northeast Ohio!!!
Road-friendly states not already mentioned: Kansas, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming. At the moment Kansas is adding more centerline mileage of untolled freeway than any other state in the same north-south tier, including Texas (which has almost ten times the population).
Which new untolled freeways are they building in Kansas at the moment? I guess turning US 69 into a freeway?
US-69, and the slow methodical updating of US-400 which will take decades.
They're planning a bypass around Greensburg (the town destroyed by the tornado last year) that will be built as a freeway bypass.
Sykotyk
It's more than that--the Kellogg Avenue freeway (US 54) in Wichita is being expanded on both ends, US 59 is being relocated to a new freeway alignment between Ottawa and Lawrence, freeway sections of US 54 are being built in Kingman County, etc. I am less familiar with plans in northeastern Kansas, but I would expect further freeway upgrades for US 75, US 169, and US 69.
US 50 near Holcomb, US 169 near Coffeyville, and K-61 between Hutchinson and McPherson are being widened to four-lane divided, with interchanges in some cases and on alignments which are explicitly designed to support future upgrades to full freeway.
There is more work in the pipeline. KDOT wants to make the K-18 western approach to Manhattan a full freeway from K-116 eastward (and the K-116 trumpet, which is currently a TOTSO for traffic continuing west on K-18, will become a partial cloverleaf interchange with K-18 as the through route). There are plans to upgrade US 54 to full freeway pretty much all the way from Wichita to Mullinville, including a freeway upgrade in Greensburg (the town that achieved international notoriety when nearly all of it was destroyed by a tornado). A Northwest Bypass (for which the K-254 number has tentatively been assigned) is planned for Wichita. There is even crazy talk of making US 50 a freeway not just from Newton to Emporia (where it would threaten to compete with the Kansas Turnpike), but also west of Newton. The K-10 South Lawrence Trafficway has been mired in controversy for over 20 years and may never be built, but would also be a new-location freeway if it were built.
These are just KDOT projects for building freeways on new location or converting existing non-freeways to freeways. KDOT has big plans for the existing freeway network too. US 69 is getting expensive upgrades at the I-35 interchange and more work is in the pipeline further south. KDOT wants upgrades to the K-10 and K-7 corridors, including a Maltese cross stack (which would be Kansas' first) at what is now the K-7/K-10 cloverleaf. In Wichita, upgrades to the I-235/US 54 cloverleaf are in the pipeline. KDOT commissioned an I-235 corridor study which recommended widening and a stack/turban hybrid at the US 54 interchange (a full stack was considered, but rejected for no good reason I can tell, and I actually want to contest this decision because I think it would cost the same to put in a full stack but all of the left-turning ramps would be able to handle 45 MPH as opposed to 35 MPH for the ramps which "wrap" in what is currently proposed).
Kansas is nowhere near as aggressive in building new centerline mileage of freeway as Arizona, but some of the same methods are in use such as sales tax increments (used to fund Kellogg construction in Wichita, and possibly also bits of US 69 in Overland Park), and the amount of work which has been done and is planned is unusual for a state which has relatively slow population growth.
Oregon is one of the least road-friendly states out there, sadly:
- Pathetic NMSL-era speed limits still in effect, lowest west of the Mississippi. 65mph on Interstates, 55mph on everything else. Even US-20 out in the middle of the desert where there's 100+ miles between towns is a 55 zone.
- Diversion of road funding toward light rail and streetcar projects in Portland.
- Proposed use of government-mandated GPS tracking devices to implement a "mileage tax".
- Rampant NIMBYism since the mid-1970s, which killed off numerous freeway projects.
- Metro, the "regional planning agency".
- Columbia River Crossing, the plan to replace the existing, non-tolled I-5 Interstate Bridge with a $5 billion toll bridge. They also want to toll the parallel I-205 bridge.
It's amazing just how sad the state of affairs has gotten over the past 40 years--to think that we almost got a Robert Moses-designed freeway setup in Portland.
-Alex (Tarkus)
also in Oregon, don't forget mandatory full-serve gas stations. As JN Winkler put it very eloquently in another thread, it really disrupts one's rhythm when they have to obey someone else's rules at the pump. About the only thing more disruptive than a mandatory full-serve gas station is a speeding ticket!
I can't believe how many people see full-serv as destructive! Seems like a convenience, a nice service provided to you like a doorman in an apartment building or going to a restaurant to be served dinner instead of serving it yourself, to me.
With regards to Oregon, that's what you get for living in a place where everyone is all about being "environmentally friendly."
I don't know, not being able to pump yourself takes away some freedom... I wouldn't feel comfortable with it. I'd love to do such things myself.
I must agree with some of the mentions about Oregon. I'd
really like to know the rationale behind their lower speed limits...
Quote from: yanksfan6129 on August 26, 2009, 12:47:06 PM
I can't believe how many people see full-serv as destructive! Seems like a convenience, a nice service provided to you like a doorman in an apartment building or going to a restaurant to be served dinner instead of serving it yourself, to me.
To follow the restaurant analogy: I always have the
option of being served a burger at Chili's versus picking up a burger at McDonald's. I don't want to wait that long for someone to seat me, take my order and bring me my burger every time I want one--but it is a nice service that I enjoy on occasion. More importantly, nobody forces me to go to Chili's every time I want a burger--I can always go pick up my own at McDonald's if I want. I don't view full-service gas as destructive and might even use it on occasion (provided I could find one around here), but I wouldn't want to be
compelled to use full-service every time I need gas.
Quote from: yanksfan6129 on August 26, 2009, 12:47:06 PM
I can't believe how many people see full-serv as destructive! Seems like a convenience, a nice service provided to you like a doorman in an apartment building or going to a restaurant to be served dinner instead of serving it yourself, to me.
I am not a fan of doormen, porters, etc. I can carry my own luggage, and keep my own cash, thank you very much. You'd think the US has no aristocracy but we certainly do. We're just not as honest about it.
California used to be road-friendly, but not any more. NIMBY-ism killed off a lot of proposed freeways in the Los Angeles area that were never built (the I-710 through South Pasadena being the most notorious example); the urban and suburban freeways that were built in California (including the Bay Area and San Diego) are not only inadequate and heavily congested, they have been allowed to deteriorate so badly your car can disappear into a pothole the size of a small swimming pool, and the surface streets are just as bad!
More and more, I think 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!
QuoteI must agree with some of the mentions about Oregon. I'd really like to know the rationale behind their lower speed limits...
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 :wow: 70)
Which they probably do anyway! (At least when Smokey's not around.)
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
Quotethe 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.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 26, 2009, 09:40:01 PM
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! :sombrero:
Quote from: corco on August 26, 2009, 07:55:55 PM
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. :sombrero:
Quote from: corco on August 26, 2009, 07:48:30 PM
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 :wow: 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.
Quote from: roadfro on August 26, 2009, 02:48:23 PM
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)
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).
Quote from: Marc on August 27, 2009, 07:57:28 PM
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 (//www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MS19220121t300120.jpg&search=12)
now that right there is the definition of roadgeek friendly.
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).
I think this is a case of them relinquishing state highways to local control, and the locals not bothering to replace signs at all...
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.
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?).
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!
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 28, 2009, 06:26:42 AM
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 (http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-tti99ratio.htm)
I made a 2009 update a while ago with the TTI definitions...
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.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 28, 2009, 07:43:24 AM
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!! :evilgrin:
QuoteI 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).
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.
<sarcasm>
I'd say Pennsylvania is road friendly if you agree that the PTC should build the roads instead of PennDOT. :pan:
</sarcasm>
Quote from: froggieNot 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
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.
Quote from: mightyace on August 28, 2009, 12:20:21 PM
<sarcasm>I'd say Pennsylvania is road friendly if you agree that the PTC should build the roads instead of PennDOT. :pan:</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.
Quote from: Chris on August 22, 2009, 05:41:27 PM
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.
Quote from: Marc on August 27, 2009, 07:57:28 PM
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.
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.
QuoteMississippi 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...
Quote from: froggie on October 05, 2009, 07:00:48 AM
QuoteMississippi 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.
Only MDOT building in Jackson I'm aware of is the headquarters building downtown, where none of the streets are on the state highway system. Yet you're correct that they plunk money into the HQ building...which has been a bone of contention not just for Mississippi residents but even within the Transportation Commission (which, BTW, is elected, not appointed/approved).
The building I'm talking about is not too far from the main HQ. It's in front of a stadium.