These are the states I feel get the most road-related criticism (on this forum, anyways):
1] Pennsylvania
2] North Carolina
3] Illinois
Are we justified in criticizing these states? What other states get a bad rap, or which states are critic-free?
OκlahOMa.
California takes a beating on road maintenance and signage standards on Pacific Southwest.
Quote from: webny99 on January 06, 2018, 03:13:26 PM
These are the states I feel get the most road-related criticism (on this forum, anyways):
1] Pennsylvania
2] North Carolina
3] Illinois
Are we justified in criticizing these states? What other states get a bad rap, or which states are critic-free?
NC gets flak for overzealously pursuing dubious Interstate designations, but otherwise their roads are some of the best in the southeast. They're generally well-maintained and have excellent signage standards.
South Carolina, on the other hand...
Wisconsin has enough flak for it's redundancy
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 06, 2018, 10:38:01 PM
California takes a beating on road maintenance and signage standards on Pacific Southwest.
And also for their relentless decommissioning of US highways.
New Mexico also gets a lot of flack for its signage (or lack thereof).
Quote from: roadguy2 on January 07, 2018, 12:28:55 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 06, 2018, 10:38:01 PM
California takes a beating on road maintenance and signage standards on Pacific Southwest.
And also for their relentless decommissioning of US highways.
New Mexico also gets a lot of flack for its signage (or lack thereof).
With the omnibus 1964 statewide renumbering effort, all the US decommissioning happened at once that year; signage of the routes
not along Interstate corridors (US 6, Alternate US 40, US 299, US 399, most of US 466) was removed during that year. The other decommissioned routes (US 40, US 60, US 66, US 70, US 80, US 91, US 99) saw signage removal over the following decade as Interstate mileage was constructed; the old routes served as "placeholders" until the system was functionally complete in the state. US 99 was gone south of Sacramento by 1966, with the remainder, including the E/W split north of Sacramento, fully gone by the beginning of 1975. The decommissionings were drastic, jarring, and abrupt -- but hardly
relentless, seeing as how the change occurred all at once (although the signage removal process took a bit over 10 years!). The only decommissioning of a US highway after that time was US 395, which like much of the previous decommissioning, happened because the 1968 Interstate addition legislation extended I-15 over much of its alignment. It's not like the Division of Highways or successor Caltrans "had it in" for US highways in general-- they are simply operating on the principle of "death to multiplexes" whenever possible (their now-54-year-old "one road/one number" policy).
In my area, Oregon gets roasted quite a bit for under-posting their freeway network's speed limits, especially in rural areas. Though they did raise the limit to 70 in some places in 2016, at least making them equal with Washington. Now, the CA-OR-WA stretch collectively receives shit from other western states for not raising the limit past 70. Washington is the first of the three to at least consider doing so, by legally allowing 75, but it's only at WSDOT's discretion, and they've been unenthusiastic about it.
Once you remove I-95's gap, and things like their lacking of interstate numbers on roads that would be interstates in nearly every other state (ie: I-76 to NJ 42 to ACX), NJ gets roasted a lot less on here than it does elsewhere publicly.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 07, 2018, 02:06:22 AM
In my area, Oregon gets roasted quite a bit for under-posting their freeway network's speed limits, especially in rural areas. Though they did raise the limit to 70 in some places in 2016, at least making them equal with Washington. Now, the CA-OR-WA stretch collectively receives shit from other western states for not raising the limit past 70. Washington is the first of the three to at least consider doing so, by legally allowing 75, but it's only at WSDOT's discretion, and they've been unenthusiastic about it.
Oregon more than Washington. I'm considering proposing to my local representative a bill that would raise speed limits in Oregon. It will be on Fictiional highways as my 500th post. I84 between mp 130-208 or 130-217 is raised to 75T70 while the rest of Oregon is raised to 70T65. He seems open about if the data is there (which it is) and ODOT refuses (which they likely will).
Also, Oregon is roasted for our traffic problems and transit system.
North Carolina. It's not even close. Every time another state either gets another interstate or proposes one, NC gets dragged into the conversation. I couldn't keep a straight face when I saw this thread :-D:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20638.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20638.0)
As much as people like to shit on NC for their interstates, most of them are logical additions. I-74 and I-87 are really the only questionable interstates. Their other future interstate designations make sense. Contrary to popular belief, not every freeway is planned to become an interstate. :rolleyes:
Most of the roasting directed at Georgia these days is about our implementation of APL signage (which, to be fair, is usually crap). Either that or our insistence on fully signing the US/state route concurrencies that Alabama, Florida, and Tennessee keep hidden. Otherwise, we're mostly ignored like the rest of the South.
Arkansas is bad about not posting concurrencies. They also repeat numbers.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 07, 2018, 05:51:51 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 07, 2018, 02:06:22 AM
In my area, Oregon gets roasted quite a bit for under-posting their freeway network's speed limits, especially in rural areas. Though they did raise the limit to 70 in some places in 2016, at least making them equal with Washington. Now, the CA-OR-WA stretch collectively receives shit from other western states for not raising the limit past 70. Washington is the first of the three to at least consider doing so, by legally allowing 75, but it's only at WSDOT's discretion, and they've been unenthusiastic about it.
Oregon more than Washington. I'm considering proposing to my local representative a bill that would raise speed limits in Oregon. It will be on Fictional highways as my 500th post. I84 between mp 130-208 or 130-217 is raised to 75T70 while the rest of Oregon is raised to 70T65. He seems open about if the data is there (which it is) and ODOT refuses (which they likely will).
I would wait until there's at least five years of crash data before proposing another increase. If the number of crashes decreased following the increase along I-84, you'd have a case.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 07, 2018, 05:28:46 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 07, 2018, 05:51:51 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 07, 2018, 02:06:22 AM
In my area, Oregon gets roasted quite a bit for under-posting their freeway network's speed limits, especially in rural areas. Though they did raise the limit to 70 in some places in 2016, at least making them equal with Washington. Now, the CA-OR-WA stretch collectively receives shit from other western states for not raising the limit past 70. Washington is the first of the three to at least consider doing so, by legally allowing 75, but it's only at WSDOT's discretion, and they've been unenthusiastic about it.
Oregon more than Washington. I'm considering proposing to my local representative a bill that would raise speed limits in Oregon. It will be on Fictional highways as my 500th post. I84 between mp 130-208 or 130-217 is raised to 75T70 while the rest of Oregon is raised to 70T65. He seems open about if the data is there (which it is) and ODOT refuses (which they likely will).
I would wait until there's at least five years of crash data before proposing another increase. If the number of crashes decreased following the increase along I-84, you'd have a case.
When I started to look into this 2 years ago, I had a goal of the 2019 session. I've changed the plan so many times now as I've driven on more roads in Oregon. My current goal is the 2021 session which is 5 years after the last increase went into effect. Except in Roseburg, the I-5/I-84 data can already support 70T65. Does anyone know where I could find the crash data?
Although North Carolina IMO takes the crown for it's obsession with new(and sometimes unessessary) interstates, I think it's pretty funny that one of Virginia's main criticisms is the exact opposite: not giving a damn about new interstates while also in some cases, neglecting current ones(I-81).
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 07, 2018, 07:08:40 PM
Although North Carolina IMO takes the crown for it's obsession with new(and sometimes unessessary) interstates, I think it's pretty funny that one of Virginia's main criticisms is the exact opposite: not giving a damn about new interstates while also in some cases, neglecting current ones(I-81).
The only new Interstate route that would really make sense is I-73, if only it didn't cost $4 billion ...
Virginia was proactive in getting key Interstate additions in the 1960s and 1970s -- the I-295 southern extension, I-195, I-664, I-264 expansion of Downtown Tunnel and Berkley Bridge, I-264 Beach Expwy. The original I-295 at outer beltway distance itself was proactive thinking and something that naysayers could have argued against.
Finding a way to build I-66 inside the Beltway deserves a lot of credit as the U.S. Secretary of Transportation had ruled against it.
Major freeways while not Interstate routes have been key additions -- VA-288, VA-895, VA-150, VA-76, VA-195, VA-168, VA-267.
I-81 is well maintained, it does definitely need widening but then so does the whole route between Knoxville and at least to Harrisburg. VDOT had a toll-assisted plan for widening the entire 325 miles but too many local officials and motorist/trucking groups were in opposition.
Quote from: US71 on January 07, 2018, 05:23:31 PM
Arkansas is bad about not posting concurrencies. They also repeat numbers.
Arkansas and Indiana both piss me right off because of this.
NC needs to stop making dumb interstates. PA needs to fix Breezewood and maintain their turnpike. IL needs to acquire a state government. OK needs to just stop being goofy lol.
Interesting that there aren't any western states on our lists.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on January 08, 2018, 09:41:34 AM
Quote from: US71 on January 07, 2018, 05:23:31 PM
Arkansas is bad about not posting concurrencies. They also repeat numbers.
[snip]
Interesting that there aren't any western states on our lists.
You can say the same bad things, and more, about California. Just fewer of us out there to gripe.
Not a state, but to my knowledge, DC (DDOT) is pretty bad. They're garbage at signing any kind of route (especially US), their roads are, in a lot of areas, rather bad shape, and when they do sign routes, the signage is usually poor. I've seen them get criticized on this forum for these issues multiple times.
Quote from: sparker on January 07, 2018, 01:08:31 AM
Quote from: roadguy2 on January 07, 2018, 12:28:55 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 06, 2018, 10:38:01 PM
California takes a beating on road maintenance and signage standards on Pacific Southwest.
And also for their relentless decommissioning of US highways.
New Mexico also gets a lot of flack for its signage (or lack thereof).
With the omnibus 1964 statewide renumbering effort, all the US decommissioning happened at once that year; signage of the routes not along Interstate corridors (US 6, Alternate US 40, US 299, US 399, most of US 466) was removed during that year. The other decommissioned routes (US 40, US 60, US 66, US 70, US 80, US 91, US 99) saw signage removal over the following decade as Interstate mileage was constructed; the old routes served as "placeholders" until the system was functionally complete in the state. US 99 was gone south of Sacramento by 1966, with the remainder, including the E/W split north of Sacramento, fully gone by the beginning of 1975. The decommissionings were drastic, jarring, and abrupt -- but hardly relentless, seeing as how the change occurred all at once (although the signage removal process took a bit over 10 years!). The only decommissioning of a US highway after that time was US 395, which like much of the previous decommissioning, happened because the 1968 Interstate addition legislation extended I-15 over much of its alignment. It's not like the Division of Highways or successor Caltrans "had it in" for US highways in general-- they are simply operating on the principle of "death to multiplexes" whenever possible (their now-54-year-old "one road/one number" policy).
But they did operate under the assumption that US Routes were superfluous or at the same level as state highways after the advent of the Interstate era. That seemed to be a fairly common theme nation wide, but it would seem that time has been kinder to keeping US Routes relevant than probably was originally envisions. With that all said really the only US Routes that probably would have had realistic chance of staying in California would have been US 60, 99, and possibly 299 given it was close to 300 miles long. Personally I'd much rather have a bunch of state highway numbers and US Route over the glut of worthless 3d Interstate designations California has it metro areas like the Bay or Los Angeles.
I'd say Illinois gets it worst, deservedly so, due to the awful financial position of the state.
Oh yeah! I totally forgot New Mexico, with its terrible signage and inexplicable assignment of state route numbers.
Virginia gets a lot of crap for its speeding laws, but it really isn't as bad as people say. We don't live in constant fear of being pulled.
Illinois deserves less.
New Mexico deserves more.
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2018, 11:44:45 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 07, 2018, 07:08:40 PM
Although North Carolina IMO takes the crown for it's obsession with new(and sometimes unessessary) interstates, I think it's pretty funny that one of Virginia's main criticisms is the exact opposite: not giving a damn about new interstates while also in some cases, neglecting current ones(I-81).
The only new Interstate route that would really make sense is I-73, if only it didn't cost $4 billion ...
Virginia was proactive in getting key Interstate additions in the 1960s and 1970s -- the I-295 southern extension, I-195, I-664, I-264 expansion of Downtown Tunnel and Berkley Bridge, I-264 Beach Expwy. The original I-295 at outer beltway distance itself was proactive thinking and something that naysayers could have argued against.
Finding a way to build I-66 inside the Beltway deserves a lot of credit as the U.S. Secretary of Transportation had ruled against it.
^Agreed. The timeframe I was referring to is from around 16 years ago(When VDOT sought and interstate designation for VA-895) to present day. While there are future I-73 and I-785 signs along their respected future corridors, I just don't think that outside of areas that might directly benefit from a new interstate such as Martinsville and Danville, real statewide support exists for designating and constructing these new interstates such as right now in NC. IMO VDOT not pursuing an interstate designation for VA-288, an important and useful connection between I-64 west and I-95 south of Richmond, is a great example of the current attitude the state has towards new interstates.
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2018, 11:44:45 PM
I-81 is well maintained, it does definitely need widening but then so does the whole route between Knoxville and at least to Harrisburg. VDOT had a toll-assisted plan for widening the entire 325 miles but too many local officials and motorist/trucking groups were in opposition.
West Virginia and Maryland are both currently widening and planning to finish widening all of I-81 to six lanes throughout their state. Not saying VDOT needs to do exactly that due to having to deal with 325 miles of I-81, but significant improvements in the Roanoke, Harrisonburg, and Winchester areas definitely seem like a good place to start.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 08, 2018, 04:04:04 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2018, 11:44:45 PM
The only new Interstate route that would really make sense is I-73, if only it didn't cost $4 billion ...
Virginia was proactive in getting key Interstate additions in the 1960s and 1970s -- the I-295 southern extension, I-195, I-664, I-264 expansion of Downtown Tunnel and Berkley Bridge, I-264 Beach Expwy. The original I-295 at outer beltway distance itself was proactive thinking and something that naysayers could have argued against.
Finding a way to build I-66 inside the Beltway deserves a lot of credit as the U.S. Secretary of Transportation had ruled against it.
^Agreed. The timeframe I was referring to is from around 16 years ago(When VDOT sought and interstate designation for VA-895) to present day. While there are future I-73 and I-785 signs along their respected future corridors, I just don't think that outside of areas that might directly benefit from a new interstate such as Martinsville and Danville, real statewide support exists for designating and constructing these new interstates such as right now in NC. IMO VDOT not pursuing an interstate designation for VA-288, an important and useful connection between I-64 west and I-95 south of Richmond, is a great example of the current attitude the state has towards new interstates.
I am still working with VDOT with my advocacy of Interstate designations for VA-288 and VA-895. I will report when I hear a decision. Nevertheless, they are currently operating as outer loop freeways.
A US-29 Interstate has been talked about in the past, but I seriously doubt that Albemarle County and one or two other counties in that area would ever allow it there.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 08, 2018, 04:04:04 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2018, 11:44:45 PM
I-81 is well maintained, it does definitely need widening but then so does the whole route between Knoxville and at least to Harrisburg. VDOT had a toll-assisted plan for widening the entire 325 miles but too many local officials and motorist/trucking groups were in opposition.
West Virginia and Maryland are both currently widening and planning to finish widening all of I-81 to six lanes throughout their state. Not saying VDOT needs do exactly that due having to deal with 323 miles of I-81, but significant improvements in the Roanoke, Harrisonburg, and Winchester areas definitely seem like a good place to start.
20 miles is a lot less than 325 miles, indeed. I would focus on the segment between Christiansburg and Troutville, widen to 4 lanes each way with interchange upgrades.
Oregon for speed limits, New York a close second.
Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2018, 09:08:04 PM
I am still working with VDOT with my advocacy of Interstate designations for VA-288 and VA-895. I will report when I hear a decision.
^Look forward to hearing it.
Quote from: kphoger on January 08, 2018, 03:28:28 PM
Illinois deserves less.
New Mexico deserves more.
Are there even any members here from New Mexico?
Maybe that's why criticism is so sparse.
This has me thinking about how little I know about that state. It may be the only state where I've
never even done GMSV (that will change soon) and I haven't seen too many sign pics around the forum, either.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 08, 2018, 09:09:26 PM
Oregon for speed limits, New York a close second.
As far as NY, totally deserved. The thruway and I-81 are ridiculous. Most other aspects of NY (signage, routings, maintenance) there's not much to complain about. NY does get roasted for state politics (to the extent it's allowed here) which is, again, more than justified.
Pennsylvania, OTOH, has not been mentioned much in this thread, but I feel it deserves a fair bit of criticism. They have poor maintenance, narrow freeways, weird signage, and all the infamous problems like Breezewood, the I-95 gap, and I-99. And don't forget the 55 mph speed limit near Erie.
To their credit, they built a lot of their freeways earlier than other states, when there were fewer standards. They also have more rugged terrain to deal with, compared to most nearby states.
Overall rating: slightly under-roasted
Florida for having too many toll roads.
NY/NJ for having too many toll bridges.
RI for poor maintenance.
Personal opinion roast:
MD for requiring work zone speed limits to be followed EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO WORK ACTIVELY GOING ON.
VA for its fetish with 60mph speed limits
CT for poor milling and paving jobs and line painting.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 08, 2018, 10:30:27 PM
VA for its fetish with 60mph speed limits
One nice thing about those limits was, at least when most freeway speed limits were standardized at 55mph and 65mph, odds were pretty good that 60mph limits were set by engineers for safety reasons, rather than by politicians.
Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2018, 09:08:04 PM
I am still working with VDOT with my advocacy of Interstate designations for VA-288 and VA-895. I will report when I hear a decision.
What about I-366? :pan:
Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2018, 09:08:04 PM
I am still working with VDOT with my advocacy of Interstate designations for VA-288 and VA-895. I will report when I hear a decision. Nevertheless, they are currently operating as outer loop freeways.
A US-29 Interstate has been talked about in the past, but I seriously doubt that Albemarle County and one or two other counties in that area would ever allow it there.
VA-288 is practically screaming to become I-695.
As for US-29, the Piedmont Environmental Council will never allow an interstate to be built. Danville and Lynchburg were absolutely livid when Charlottesville & Albemarle County kept fighting against the proposed US-29 bypass of Charlottesville.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 08, 2018, 04:04:04 PMWhile there are future I-73 and I-785 signs along their respected future corridors, I just don't think that outside of areas that might directly benefit from a new interstate such as Martinsville and Danville, real statewide support exists for designating and constructing these new interstates such as right now in NC.
All VDOT has to do is modify some of the ramps on US-29 in Danville, as well as close the Elizabeth Street at-grade access and I-785 in VA will be complete. There are currently no plans to do so.
Quote from: LM117 on January 09, 2018, 02:12:36 AM
All VDOT has to do is modify some of the ramps on US-29 in Danville, as well as close the Elizabeth Street at-grade access and I-785 in VA will be complete. There are currently no plans to do so.
Needs 10 foot wide paved right shoulders thruout, and 4 foot wide paved left shoulders thruout.
The Elizabeth Street access now is the first stage of an design that includes an overpassing roadway for Elizabeth Street and the completion of 4 ramps.
N.C. has about 20 miles of US-29 that is a nonlimited access highway and would need major construction if they want a freeway. I don't think any detailed planning there yet.
Quote from: LM117 on January 09, 2018, 01:54:35 AM
As for US-29, the Piedmont Environmental Council will never allow an interstate to be built. Danville and Lynchburg were absolutely livid when Charlottesville & Albemarle County kept fighting against the proposed US-29 bypass of Charlottesville.
The "Route 29 Solutions" projects being built in lieu of the bypass, are a very selfish scheme, much more intended to provide a good circulator system for locals, than to benefit thru traffic. The total cost is about the same for each, about $200 million. The recently completed Berkmar Drive Extension provides a nice north-south local collector just to the west of US-29, and the under construction Hillsdale Drive Extension will provide a nice north-south local collector just to the east of US-29. The recently completed Rio Road interchange with US-29 provides a convenient Rio Road east-west connector between the two roads above, and overpass over US-29.
Funding for study and preliminary engineering for improvements to the intersection of Hydraulic Road and Route 29 is included in the Route 29 Solutions package. At the request of the City of Charlottesville, VDOT agreed to include the extension of Hillsdale Drive south to Holiday Drive in the Hydraulic Road intersection study. If that interchange is built, again it will be much more intended to a provide good circulator system for locals, than to benefit thru traffic.
There will still be at least 5 intersections on US-29 with multi-phase signals, on the section that would have been bypassed, that will only increase in congestion in the future. While the "Route 29 Solutions" projects will provide some traffic relief to US-29, it will still be dysfunctional for long-distance and interregional traffic.
How about New Jersey? Non-roadgeeks constantly get lost there.
Quote from: US71 on January 07, 2018, 05:23:31 PM
Arkansas is bad about not posting concurrencies. They also repeat numbers.
I could also generalize the road network, but on CAP and other websites, they are gearing up for projects across the state! Now, the poor repair quality of some roads is a topic that is beyond a "dead horse" . If what they're predicting stays true, it'll be the year of change!
iPhone
Quote from: webny99 on January 08, 2018, 09:36:10 PM
Pennsylvania, OTOH, has not been mentioned much in this thread, but I feel it deserves a fair bit of criticism. They have poor maintenance, narrow freeways, weird signage, and all the infamous problems like Breezewood, the I-95 gap, and I-99. And don't forget the 55 mph speed limit near Erie.
To their credit, they built a lot of their freeways earlier than other states, when there were fewer standards. They also have more rugged terrain to deal with, compared to most nearby states.
Not really ... nearby states with higher mountains --
North Carolina Mount Mitchell 6,684 Blue Ridge Mountains
Tennessee Clingmans Dome 6,643 Blue Ridge Mountains
New Hampshire Mount Washington 6,288 Northern U.S. Appalachians
Virginia Mount Rogers 5,729 Blue Ridge Mountains
New York Mount Marcy 5,344 Canadian Shield
Maine Katahdin 5,268 Northern U.S. Appalachians
West Virginia Spruce Knob 4,861 Appalachian Plateaus
Vermont Mount Mansfield 4,393 Northern U.S. Appalachians
Kentucky Black Mountain 4,139 Appalachian Plateaus
South Carolina Sassafras Mountain 3,554 Blue Ridge Mountains
Massachusetts Mount Greylock 3,487 Northern U.S. Appalachians
Maryland Backbone Mountain 3,360 Appalachian Plateaus
Pennsylvania Mount Davis 3,213 Appalachian Plateaus
Even New Jersey has some mountains, High Point 1,803 Appalachian Ridges
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2018, 08:54:11 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 08, 2018, 09:36:10 PM
Pennsylvania, OTOH, has not been mentioned much in this thread, but I feel it deserves a fair bit of criticism. They have poor maintenance, narrow freeways, weird signage, and all the infamous problems like Breezewood, the I-95 gap, and I-99. And don't forget the 55 mph speed limit near Erie.
To their credit, they built a lot of their freeways earlier than other states, when there were fewer standards. They also have more rugged terrain to deal with, compared to most nearby states.
Not really ... nearby states with higher mountains --
North Carolina Mount Mitchell 6,684 Blue Ridge Mountains
Tennessee Clingmans Dome 6,643 Blue Ridge Mountains
New Hampshire Mount Washington 6,288 Northern U.S. Appalachians
Maine Katahdin 5,268 Northern U.S. Appalachians
Virginia Mount Rogers 5,729 Blue Ridge Mountains
New York Mount Marcy 5,344 Canadian Shield
West Virginia Spruce Knob 4,861 Appalachian Plateaus
Vermont Mount Mansfield 4,393 Northern U.S. Appalachians
Kentucky Black Mountain 4,139 Appalachian Plateaus
South Carolina Sassafras Mountain 3,554 Blue Ridge Mountains
Massachusetts Mount Greylock 3,487 Northern U.S. Appalachians
Maryland Backbone Mountain 3,360 Appalachian Plateaus
Pennsylvania Mount Davis 3,213 Appalachian Plateaus
Even New Jersey has some mountains, High Point 1,803 Appalachian Ridges
Pointing out tall mountain peaks has nothing to do with roads in other areas of the state.
The ruggedness has more to do with the width of the mountains and hills, and the roads necessary to pass thru them. In PA, the mountain/hill terrain is deceiving, basically hitting every border state, so it's something often considered for every roadway.
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2018, 08:54:11 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 08, 2018, 09:36:10 PM
Pennsylvania, OTOH, has not been mentioned much in this thread, but I feel it deserves a fair bit of criticism. They have poor maintenance, narrow freeways, weird signage, and all the infamous problems like Breezewood, the I-95 gap, and I-99. And don't forget the 55 mph speed limit near Erie.
To their credit, they built a lot of their freeways earlier than other states, when there were fewer standards. They also have more rugged terrain to deal with, compared to most nearby states.
Not really ... nearby states with higher mountains --
New York's high point is hundreds of miles from PA. Also, rugged is not synonymous with having high peaks. Compared to the rest of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, Pennsylvania has more rugged terrain, and over a larger area of the state, too. Point stands.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 09, 2018, 09:01:17 AM
Pointing out tall mountain peaks has nothing to do with roads in other areas of the state.
The ruggedness has more to do with the width of the mountains and hills, and the roads necessary to pass thru them. In PA, the mountain/hill terrain is deceiving, basically hitting every border state, so it's something often considered for every roadway.
This :clap: :clap:
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 08, 2018, 10:30:27 PM
....
VA for its fetish with 60mph speed limits
....
That one kind of makes me scratch my head. I don't see what the big deal is. Most of those are statutory, although the way the statute is written lets VDOT set the speed limit no higher than 60 mph on many non-Interstate segments but allows them to set it lower. For quite some time after the NMSL appeal, Virginia stuck pretty closely to the old NMSL guidelines with a very few exceptions, the most notable being posting 65-mph limits on privately-built toll roads, such as the Dulles Greenway and Pocahontas Parkway, and on barrier-separated HOV lanes such as those on I-395. (I believe our forum member "Beltway" played a key role in getting the 65-mph limit posted on the Pocahontas Parkway.) As a general matter, Virginia has only grudgingly departed from the NMSL regime. As a general matter, the default speed limit in Virginia is 55 mph unless an exception allows for a higher or lower speed limit. The biggest exception is that in 2010 the statute was amended to allow for 70-mph limits on Interstates and Interstate look-alikes (though, again, it does not
require 70-mph limits, even where traffic studies show 70 mph would be appropriate). Otherwise, most exceptions are codified by the General Assembly on a road-by-road basis. Here is what the statute says (Va. Code 46.2-870)–note the final sentence:
Quote§ 46.2-870. Maximum speed limits generally.
Except as otherwise provided in this article, the maximum speed limit shall be 55 miles per hour on interstate highways or other limited access highways with divided roadways, nonlimited access highways having four or more lanes, and all state primary highways.
The maximum speed limit on all other highways shall be 55 miles per hour if the vehicle is a passenger motor vehicle, bus, pickup or panel truck, or a motorcycle, but 45 miles per hour on such highways if the vehicle is a truck, tractor truck, or combination of vehicles designed to transport property, or is a motor vehicle being used to tow a vehicle designed for self-propulsion, or a house trailer.
Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, the maximum speed limit shall be 70 miles per hour where indicated by lawfully placed signs, erected subsequent to a traffic engineering study and analysis of available and appropriate accident and law-enforcement data, on: (i) interstate highways, (ii) multilane, divided, limited access highways, and (iii) high-occupancy vehicle lanes if such lanes are physically separated from regular travel lanes. The maximum speed limit shall be 60 miles per hour where indicated by lawfully placed signs, erected subsequent to a traffic engineering study and analysis of available and appropriate accident and law-enforcement data, on U.S. Route 23, U.S. Route 29, U.S. Route 58, U.S. Alternate Route 58, U.S. Route 360, U.S. Route 460, and on U.S. Route 17 between the Town of Port Royal and Saluda where they are nonlimited access, multilane, divided highways.
So, in other words, the 60-mph segments on Interstates are set that way entirely at VDOT's discretion because the statute allows up to 70-mph speed limits on Interstates. VDOT has said most of the 60-mph zones on Interstates (such as on I-66 from Manassas to Centreville or I-95 from the truck scales to just south of Occoquan) are intended to be "transitional" zones to "help drivers adjust" from rural speed limits to the urban 55-mph limit. I've always thought that sounds rather ludicrous.
Ultimately, what it boils down to is this: I'm not going to complain about the 60-mph speed limits because if it's posted at 60 mph, it means one of two things: Either (a) that's the highest speed limit allowed on that road by state law; or (b) they're allowed to post it at 65 or 70 but rejected those limits for whatever reason. Either way, in either of those circumstances I'd rather see a 60-mph sign than a 55-mph sign.
(BTW, an example of a road where the traffic studies showed a 70-mph limit would be appropriate but where one was not posted was the I-495 HO/T lanes, which are posted at 65. VDOT said when they first posted 65 that they never considered posting 70 there, although I can confirm from personal experience that if you set your cruise control at 70 mph there, most of the other traffic will be passing you and the cops are not likely to bother you for speeding. I passed two cops in there last week when I was doing 70 mph and neither seemed to care.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 09, 2018, 09:22:45 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 08, 2018, 10:30:27 PM
....
VA for its fetish with 60mph speed limits
....
That one kind of makes me scratch my head. I don't see what the big deal is. Most of those are statutory, although the way the statute is written lets VDOT set the speed limit no higher than 60 mph on many non-Interstate segments but allows them to set it lower. For quite some time after the NMSL appeal, Virginia stuck pretty closely to the old NMSL guidelines with a very few exceptions, the most notable being posting 65-mph limits on privately-built toll roads, such as the Dulles Greenway and Pocahontas Parkway, and on barrier-separated HOV lanes such as those on I-395. (I believe our forum member "Beltway" played a key role in getting the 65-mph limit posted on the Pocahontas Parkway.) As a general matter, Virginia has only grudgingly departed from the NMSL regime. As a general matter, the default speed limit in Virginia is 55 mph unless an exception allows for a higher or lower speed limit. The biggest exception is that in 2010 the statute was amended to allow for 70-mph limits on Interstates and Interstate look-alikes (though, again, it does not require 70-mph limits, even where traffic studies show 70 mph would be appropriate). Otherwise, most exceptions are codified by the General Assembly on a road-by-road basis. Here is what the statute says (Va. Code 46.2-870)—note the final sentence:
Quote§ 46.2-870. Maximum speed limits generally.
Except as otherwise provided in this article, the maximum speed limit shall be 55 miles per hour on interstate highways or other limited access highways with divided roadways, nonlimited access highways having four or more lanes, and all state primary highways.
The maximum speed limit on all other highways shall be 55 miles per hour if the vehicle is a passenger motor vehicle, bus, pickup or panel truck, or a motorcycle, but 45 miles per hour on such highways if the vehicle is a truck, tractor truck, or combination of vehicles designed to transport property, or is a motor vehicle being used to tow a vehicle designed for self-propulsion, or a house trailer.
Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, the maximum speed limit shall be 70 miles per hour where indicated by lawfully placed signs, erected subsequent to a traffic engineering study and analysis of available and appropriate accident and law-enforcement data, on: (i) interstate highways, (ii) multilane, divided, limited access highways, and (iii) high-occupancy vehicle lanes if such lanes are physically separated from regular travel lanes. The maximum speed limit shall be 60 miles per hour where indicated by lawfully placed signs, erected subsequent to a traffic engineering study and analysis of available and appropriate accident and law-enforcement data, on U.S. Route 23, U.S. Route 29, U.S. Route 58, U.S. Alternate Route 58, U.S. Route 360, U.S. Route 460, and on U.S. Route 17 between the Town of Port Royal and Saluda where they are nonlimited access, multilane, divided highways.
So, in other words, the 60-mph segments on Interstates are set that way entirely at VDOT's discretion because the statute allows up to 70-mph speed limits on Interstates. VDOT has said most of the 60-mph zones on Interstates (such as on I-66 from Manassas to Centreville or I-95 from the truck scales to just south of Occoquan) are intended to be "transitional" zones to "help drivers adjust" from rural speed limits to the urban 55-mph limit. I've always thought that sounds rather ludicrous.
Ultimately, what it boils down to is this: I'm not going to complain about the 60-mph speed limits because if it's posted at 60 mph, it means one of two things: Either (a) that's the highest speed limit allowed on that road by state law; or (b) they're allowed to post it at 65 or 70 but rejected those limits for whatever reason. Either way, in either of those circumstances I'd rather see a 60-mph sign than a 55-mph sign.
(BTW, an example of a road where the traffic studies showed a 70-mph limit would be appropriate but where one was not posted was the I-495 HO/T lanes, which are posted at 65. VDOT said when they first posted 65 that they never considered posting 70 there, although I can confirm from personal experience that if you set your cruise control at 70 mph there, most of the other traffic will be passing you and the cops are not likely to bother you for speeding. I passed two cops in there last week when I was doing 70 mph and neither seemed to care.)
If they ticketed for 5 over on a highway they'll be ticketing everyone as you said. It's rare they'll bat an eye for 10 over.
States mentioned so far:
Arkansas
California
Connecticut
District of Columbia (Yes, I know it's not a state)
Georgia
Illinois
Maryland
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
(no mention of Texas with I-14 and I-69W/C/E?)
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Quote from: webny99 on January 06, 2018, 03:13:26 PM
which states are critic-free?
Vermont is about as critic-free as you can get. The only complaint I've heard about them is that speed limits should be 70 or 75 instead of 65. Signage is good both aesthetically and for navigation, and their DOT is competent unlike some other states. And very little congestion, given that it's Vermont.
BTW, something I didn't think of when typing my prior post: I think one thing for which Virginia deserves to be mocked is the stupid law providing that anything over 80 mph is grounds for a reckless driving ticket (a misdemeanor, if you're convicted), even if the speed limit is 70 mph. There have been efforts to change this law as to 70-mph zones, but they stall in committee every year.
Maybe it's a regional thing, but I'm hearing "low slow Delaware" a lot. It's either all of Delaware or just the area south of I-95 (hence the low) depending on where you are. And the biggest complaint is left lane camping at slow speeds (hence the slow).
Quote from: bzakharin on January 09, 2018, 10:05:03 AM
Maybe it's a regional thing, but I'm hearing "low slow Delaware" a lot. It's either all of Delaware or just the area south of I-95 (hence the low) depending on where you are. And the biggest complaint is left lane camping at slow speeds (hence the slow).
Slower Delaware, rather than Lower Delaware. Traditionally it was below the C&D canal, although with increased development it's really below Dover now.
I've always taken it to mean just the pace of life was slower down there. There's quite a bit of bad driving in Delaware all throughout the state.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 09, 2018, 09:01:17 AM
Pointing out tall mountain peaks has nothing to do with roads in other areas of the state.
The ruggedness has more to do with the width of the mountains and hills, and the roads necessary to pass thru them. In PA, the mountain/hill terrain is deceiving, basically hitting every border state, so it's something often considered for every roadway.
Tallest mountain is a good measure, as most states in that region have ones that are higher than PA, some states that are twice as high.
Plenty areas of PA are not "rugged". SE PA is not, the I-79 route north of Cranberry is not.
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2018, 07:29:36 AM
Quote from: LM117 on January 09, 2018, 02:12:36 AM
All VDOT has to do is modify some of the ramps on US-29 in Danville, as well as close the Elizabeth Street at-grade access and I-785 in VA will be complete. There are currently no plans to do so.
Needs 10 foot wide paved right shoulders thruout, and 4 foot wide paved left shoulders thruout.
The Elizabeth Street access now is the first stage of an design that includes an overpassing roadway for Elizabeth Street and the completion of 4 ramps.
N.C. has about 20 miles of US-29 that is a nonlimited access highway and would need major construction if they want a freeway. I don't think any detailed planning there yet.
The shoulders on US-29 between the US-29 Business split in Blairs and the NC state line already meets interstate standards. Once VDOT modifies some of the ramps at certain interchanges and deals with Elizabeth Street, I-785 shields can go up once NC finishes their part, whenever that may be.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 09, 2018, 09:47:53 AM
BTW, something I didn't think of when typing my prior post: I think one thing for which Virginia deserves to be mocked is the stupid law providing that anything over 80 mph is grounds for a reckless driving ticket (a misdemeanor, if you're convicted), even if the speed limit is 70 mph. There have been efforts to change this law as to 70-mph zones, but they stall in committee every year.
This says it all about why those efforts have failed.
https://pilotonline.com/news/government/politics/virginia/bill-to-amend-va-s-reckless-driving-law-shot-down/article_1c957453-bab5-5df6-a209-c821f02e295f.html (https://pilotonline.com/news/government/politics/virginia/bill-to-amend-va-s-reckless-driving-law-shot-down/article_1c957453-bab5-5df6-a209-c821f02e295f.html)
QuoteThe Criminal Subcommittee of the House Committee on Courts of Justice voted 7-2 against the bill. Opponents cited several concerns, including a possible fiscal impact and that faster speeds lead to more crashes.
VA struck a gold mine when they raised the speed limit to 70. To sweeten the pot, local governments can keep ticket revenue once again. After all, "local governments have got to have money". Thanks, Hopewell! :banghead:
http://www.progress-index.com/news/20161001/another-chance-for-hopewells-million-dollar-mile (http://www.progress-index.com/news/20161001/another-chance-for-hopewells-million-dollar-mile)
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2018, 10:43:00 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 09, 2018, 09:01:17 AM
Pointing out tall mountain peaks has nothing to do with roads in other areas of the state.
The ruggedness has more to do with the width of the mountains and hills, and the roads necessary to pass thru them. In PA, the mountain/hill terrain is deceiving, basically hitting every border state, so it's something often considered for every roadway.
Tallest mountain is a good measure, as most states in that region have ones that are higher than PA, some states that are twice as high.
Plenty areas of PA are not "rugged". SE PA is not, the I-79 route north of Cranberry is not.
I guess its a matter of degree. The area around Philadelphia is pretty hilly compared to Rochester and Buffalo. I'd certainly consider PA as a whole rugged, even if there are the occasional flatter areas. "Percentage of state highway system over hilly or mountainous terrain" is a much better measurement than "height of the tallest mountain".
Quote from: LM117 on January 09, 2018, 10:54:01 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2018, 07:29:36 AM
Quote from: LM117 on January 09, 2018, 02:12:36 AM
All VDOT has to do is modify some of the ramps on US-29 in Danville, as well as close the Elizabeth Street at-grade access and I-785 in VA will be complete. There are currently no plans to do so.
Needs 10 foot wide paved right shoulders thruout, and 4 foot wide paved left shoulders thruout.
The Elizabeth Street access now is the first stage of an design that includes an overpassing roadway for Elizabeth Street and the completion of 4 ramps.
N.C. has about 20 miles of US-29 that is a nonlimited access highway and would need major construction if they want a freeway. I don't think any detailed planning there yet.
The shoulders on US-29 between the US-29 Business split in Blairs and the NC state line already meets interstate standards. Once VDOT modifies some of the ramps at certain interchanges and deals with Elizabeth Street, I-785 shields can go up once NC finishes their part, whenever that may be.
Are you sure that it has 10 foot wide paved right shoulders thruout, and 4 foot wide paved left shoulders thruout?
It appears to me that at least the older part of the bypass (29 S to 58 E), has 8 foot wide paved right shoulders, and 3 foot wide paved left shoulders. That is not Interstate standards.
Quote from: vdeane on January 09, 2018, 01:14:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2018, 10:43:00 AM
Plenty areas of PA are not "rugged". SE PA is not, the I-79 route north of Cranberry is not.
I guess its a matter of degree. The area around Philadelphia is pretty hilly compared to Rochester and Buffalo. I'd certainly consider PA as a whole rugged, even if there are the occasional flatter areas. "Percentage of state highway system over hilly or mountainous terrain" is a much better measurement than "height of the tallest mountain".
I don't. I lived in the Valley Forge area in the 1970s, and most of the 5-county Philadelphia area is either fairly level or gently rolling. Certainly not "rugged". I can say the same thing about the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton area. Same thing about Lancaster and Berks counties. Same thing about the northwestern part of the state. There are other areas which could be called rolling terrain, but not 'rugged'.
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2018, 05:01:32 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 09, 2018, 01:14:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2018, 10:43:00 AM
Plenty areas of PA are not "rugged". SE PA is not, the I-79 route north of Cranberry is not.
I guess its a matter of degree. The area around Philadelphia is pretty hilly compared to Rochester and Buffalo. I'd certainly consider PA as a whole rugged, even if there are the occasional flatter areas. "Percentage of state highway system over hilly or mountainous terrain" is a much better measurement than "height of the tallest mountain".
I don't. I lived in the Valley Forge area in the 1970s, and most of the 5-county Philadelphia area is either fairly level or gently rolling. Certainly not "rugged".
The Manayunk section of Philadelphia being one notable exception.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 09, 2018, 05:10:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2018, 05:01:32 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 09, 2018, 01:14:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2018, 10:43:00 AM
Plenty areas of PA are not "rugged". SE PA is not, the I-79 route north of Cranberry is not.
I guess its a matter of degree. The area around Philadelphia is pretty hilly compared to Rochester and Buffalo. I'd certainly consider PA as a whole rugged, even if there are the occasional flatter areas. "Percentage of state highway system over hilly or mountainous terrain" is a much better measurement than "height of the tallest mountain".
I don't. I lived in the Valley Forge area in the 1970s, and most of the 5-county Philadelphia area is either fairly level or gently rolling. Certainly not "rugged".
The Manayunk section of Philadelphia being one notable exception.
Some places along the Surekill Expressway could be called "rugged". But not in the vast majority of the land in the 5-county area.
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2018, 04:55:41 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 09, 2018, 10:54:01 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2018, 07:29:36 AM
Quote from: LM117 on January 09, 2018, 02:12:36 AM
All VDOT has to do is modify some of the ramps on US-29 in Danville, as well as close the Elizabeth Street at-grade access and I-785 in VA will be complete. There are currently no plans to do so.
Needs 10 foot wide paved right shoulders thruout, and 4 foot wide paved left shoulders thruout.
The Elizabeth Street access now is the first stage of an design that includes an overpassing roadway for Elizabeth Street and the completion of 4 ramps.
N.C. has about 20 miles of US-29 that is a nonlimited access highway and would need major construction if they want a freeway. I don't think any detailed planning there yet.
The shoulders on US-29 between the US-29 Business split in Blairs and the NC state line already meets interstate standards. Once VDOT modifies some of the ramps at certain interchanges and deals with Elizabeth Street, I-785 shields can go up once NC finishes their part, whenever that may be.
Are you sure that it has 10 foot wide paved right shoulders thruout, and 4 foot wide paved left shoulders thruout?
It appears to me that at least the older part of the bypass (29 S to 58 E), has 8 foot wide paved right shoulders, and 3 foot wide paved left shoulders. That is not Interstate standards.
Yes, I'm sure. I've driven on plenty of interstates and I've driven US-29 more times than I can count. Again, once VDOT modifies some of the ramps and grade separates Elizabeth Street, there will be nothing preventing the state from seeking the I-785 designation once NC finishes their part.
For comparison, here's US-29 between Blairs and the US-58/US-360 interchange:
https://goo.gl/maps/1tunuPdFo3z (https://goo.gl/maps/1tunuPdFo3z)
And here's US-17 in Chesapeake with 8ft outside shoulders.
https://goo.gl/maps/XCHWE2RtXhk (https://goo.gl/maps/XCHWE2RtXhk)
Here's an existing interstate. I-795 in NC for example:
https://goo.gl/maps/YpP6CkqoNH12 (https://goo.gl/maps/YpP6CkqoNH12)
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2018, 05:01:32 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 09, 2018, 01:14:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2018, 10:43:00 AM
Plenty areas of PA are not "rugged". SE PA is not, the I-79 route north of Cranberry is not.
I guess its a matter of degree. The area around Philadelphia is pretty hilly compared to Rochester and Buffalo. I'd certainly consider PA as a whole rugged, even if there are the occasional flatter areas. "Percentage of state highway system over hilly or mountainous terrain" is a much better measurement than "height of the tallest mountain".
I don't. I lived in the Valley Forge area in the 1970s, and most of the 5-county Philadelphia area is either fairly level or gently rolling. Certainly not "rugged". I can say the same thing about the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton area. Same thing about Lancaster and Berks counties. Same thing about the northwestern part of the state. There are other areas which could be called rolling terrain, but not 'rugged'.
Is the majority of the PA
state highway system in the Philadelphia and Erie metro areas? No. And pretty much most if not all of the rest of the state is rugged. Those areas are the exceptions that prove the rule.
Now, granted, I grew up around Rochester, which is flatland compared even to Philadelphia.
Quote from: vdeane on January 09, 2018, 07:21:20 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2018, 05:01:32 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 09, 2018, 01:14:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2018, 10:43:00 AM
Plenty areas of PA are not "rugged". SE PA is not, the I-79 route north of Cranberry is not.
I guess its a matter of degree. The area around Philadelphia is pretty hilly compared to Rochester and Buffalo. I'd certainly consider PA as a whole rugged, even if there are the occasional flatter areas. "Percentage of state highway system over hilly or mountainous terrain" is a much better measurement than "height of the tallest mountain".
I don't. I lived in the Valley Forge area in the 1970s, and most of the 5-county Philadelphia area is either fairly level or gently rolling. Certainly not "rugged". I can say the same thing about the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton area. Same thing about Lancaster and Berks counties. Same thing about the northwestern part of the state. There are other areas which could be called rolling terrain, but not 'rugged'.
Is the majority of the PA state highway system in the Philadelphia and Erie metro areas? No. And pretty much most if not all of the rest of the state is rugged. Those areas are the exceptions that prove the rule.
Now, granted, I grew up around Rochester, which is flatland compared even to Philadelphia.
:clap:
Precisely. Rural PA is the heart of Appalachia, and is most certainly rugged terrain when compared to other states in the area (WV being the exception). Their highway network doesn't zigzag all over the place just for fun, the highways follows natural routes such as valleys, rivers, etc. Philly and Erie are not "rugged" per se, but that doesn't reflect the state as a whole.
Anyways, this is hardly relevant anymore....
Back on track...
Quote from: 1 on January 09, 2018, 09:42:42 AM
(no mention of Texas with I-14 and I-69W/C/E?)
Get past the incomplete-but-awarded Interstates, a lot of Clearview, and it's really a textbook example on how to build a massive road network with very generous speed limits.
My personal grudge - and a really minor one at that - is that TXDOT is almost too standardized. For some, that's just amazing considering its area. (I like a little variety where there's subtle changes in roadway design, infrastructure, signage, et al.) Also depends if you believe if "too many route numbers" is a problem or not; but hey, it's Texas.
That's not to say Dallas and Houston can't be maddening at times, like any large metro area. And Austin, for being...well, Austin.
Quote from: LM117 on January 09, 2018, 06:14:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2018, 04:55:41 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 09, 2018, 10:54:01 AM
The shoulders on US-29 between the US-29 Business split in Blairs and the NC state line already meets interstate standards. Once VDOT modifies some of the ramps at certain interchanges and deals with Elizabeth Street, I-785 shields can go up once NC finishes their part, whenever that may be.
Are you sure that it has 10 foot wide paved right shoulders thruout, and 4 foot wide paved left shoulders thruout?
It appears to me that at least the older part of the bypass (29 S to 58 E), has 8 foot wide paved right shoulders, and 3 foot wide paved left shoulders. That is not Interstate standards.
Yes, I'm sure. I've driven on plenty of interstates and I've driven US-29 more times than I can count. Again, once VDOT modifies some of the ramps and grade separates Elizabeth Street, there will be nothing preventing the state from seeking the I-785 designation once NC finishes their part.
For comparison, here's US-29 between Blairs and the US-58/US-360 interchange:
https://goo.gl/maps/1tunuPdFo3z (https://goo.gl/maps/1tunuPdFo3z)
And here's US-17 in Chesapeake with 8ft outside shoulders.
https://goo.gl/maps/XCHWE2RtXhk (https://goo.gl/maps/XCHWE2RtXhk)
Here's an existing interstate. I-795 in NC for example:
https://goo.gl/maps/YpP6CkqoNH12 (https://goo.gl/maps/YpP6CkqoNH12)
I believe you are correct about the segment north of US-58. That was the most recently built, 1990s. The part I question is the segment south of US-58, particularly between VA-86 and US-29, which opened about 1980, Google Maps aerial image isn't as sharp as I would like, but the right shoulders look like 8 feet wide. I have driven it many times as well.
Quote from: vdeane on January 09, 2018, 07:21:20 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2018, 05:01:32 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 09, 2018, 01:14:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2018, 10:43:00 AM
Plenty areas of PA are not "rugged". SE PA is not, the I-79 route north of Cranberry is not.
I guess its a matter of degree. The area around Philadelphia is pretty hilly compared to Rochester and Buffalo. I'd certainly consider PA as a whole rugged, even if there are the occasional flatter areas. "Percentage of state highway system over hilly or mountainous terrain" is a much better measurement than "height of the tallest mountain".
I don't. I lived in the Valley Forge area in the 1970s, and most of the 5-county Philadelphia area is either fairly level or gently rolling. Certainly not "rugged". I can say the same thing about the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton area. Same thing about Lancaster and Berks counties. Same thing about the northwestern part of the state. There are other areas which could be called rolling terrain, but not 'rugged'.
Is the majority of the PA state highway system in the Philadelphia and Erie metro areas? No. And pretty much most if not all of the rest of the state is rugged. Those areas are the exceptions that prove the rule.
I disproportionately large percentage of lane-mileage in the state is in those 13 or 14 counties I mentioned.
I've traveled all over the state, IMO probably 1/2 of the land area is no more than 'rolling', certainly not "rugged".
Quote from: webny99 on January 09, 2018, 08:07:58 PM
Rural PA is the heart of Appalachia, and is most certainly rugged terrain when compared to other states in the area (WV being the exception). Their highway network doesn't zigzag all over the place just for fun, the highways follows natural routes such as valleys, rivers, etc. Philly and Erie are not "rugged" per se, but that doesn't reflect the state as a whole.
Western Virginia and western North Carolina, in mountainous land area as well as the number of mountains over 4,000 feet high. As much or more than PA and their tallest mountain is only about 3,200 feet high.
Unless a highway is also climbing that highest peak, the 2 have nothing to do with each other.
Here's also why using highest peaks doesn't make sense...I'll argue Virginia and North Carolina's lowest points are sea level. Since Pennsylvania doesn't meet an ocean, Virginia and North Carolina are flat states.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 09, 2018, 09:20:03 PM
Unless a highway is also climbing that highest peak, the 2 have nothing to do with each other.
Here's also why using highest peaks doesn't make sense...I'll argue Virginia and North Carolina's lowest points are sea level. Since Pennsylvania doesn't meet an ocean, Virginia and North Carolina are flat states.
The Delaware River south of Trenton is a tidal estuary of the Atlantic Ocean, and is at sea level. Therefore, Pennsylvania is a flat state. :-D
I am surprised that NJ's interstate all upper case interstate mileage signs listing townships not that well known, is not roasted. Last week a couple of users here went through Jersey and thought the mileage signs on I-295 using Bellmawr and Ewing instead of Camden and Trenton had a lot to be desired for.
IMO, the mileage signs along the interstates are the same ones on local roads and not freeway types of signs. I never thought of it as I grew up with LGSes on I-78 and the I-295 & US 130 concurrency which the latter kept the old US 130 signage (remember that was built as an expressway for the US route and became interstate mileage later). Up to the late 70's the exit ramps there used the street names underlined with one control city. Also to this day, supplemental signs in many places on the NJ interstate freeways are still non freeway type of signs with all upper case too.
Some states that deserve a roasting:
-California: Decommissioning so many US routes
-Colorado: They don't even acknowledge US route on concurrencies with Interstates, so trying to follow them is impossible without a map.
-Indiana: Of all the states I've driven in, IN is the worst. IN 4, among others, has unconnected segments. IN 25 & 26 disappear in Lafayette. Routes exit a road, then return to it on the other side of town (IN 38 Pendleton, US 52 Lafayette, etc.). Stoplights are often the bare minimum, usually only two for straight traffic and one for lefts if you're lucky. Traffic jams in both Chicagoland and Indianapolis. Routes that end in random places or at former routes (IN 38, 912, etc.).
-New Jersey: I'm not certain there is any way to drive out of the state without paying a toll. You might as well hand over your wallet the second you enter, because it won't be long before they take your money.
IL may get a roasting, but the biggest problem is the other drivers, which isn't under IDOT's control. The layout makes sense and having far left traffic signals is a huge help.
Quote from: Super Mateo on January 10, 2018, 08:45:44 AM
-New Jersey: I'm not certain there is any way to drive out of the state without paying a toll.
You can go north into New York without crossing the Hudson.
Quote from: 1 on January 10, 2018, 09:17:46 AM
Quote from: Super Mateo on January 10, 2018, 08:45:44 AM
-New Jersey: I'm not certain there is any way to drive out of the state without paying a toll.
You can go north into New York without crossing the Hudson.
I assumed he was kidding.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 10, 2018, 09:26:37 AM
Quote from: 1 on January 10, 2018, 09:17:46 AM
Quote from: Super Mateo on January 10, 2018, 08:45:44 AM
-New Jersey: I'm not certain there is any way to drive out of the state without paying a toll.
You can go north into New York without crossing the Hudson.
I assumed he was kidding.
One Philadelphia tour guide told my group the exact same thing: you can't exit New Jersey without paying a toll.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 10, 2018, 09:26:37 AM
Quote from: 1 on January 10, 2018, 09:17:46 AM
Quote from: Super Mateo on January 10, 2018, 08:45:44 AM
-New Jersey: I'm not certain there is any way to drive out of the state without paying a toll.
You can go north into New York without crossing the Hudson.
I assumed he was kidding.
Many people not familiar from the area aren't.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 10, 2018, 09:32:04 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 10, 2018, 09:26:37 AM
Quote from: 1 on January 10, 2018, 09:17:46 AM
Quote from: Super Mateo on January 10, 2018, 08:45:44 AM
-New Jersey: I'm not certain there is any way to drive out of the state without paying a toll.
You can go north into New York without crossing the Hudson.
I assumed he was kidding.
Many people not familiar from the area aren't.
Perhaps, but the follow-up sentence (which "1" didn't quote) reinforced my feeling that he was playing on Jersey stereotypes. (Fully justified stereotypes, IMO.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 10, 2018, 09:33:11 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 10, 2018, 09:32:04 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 10, 2018, 09:26:37 AM
Quote from: 1 on January 10, 2018, 09:17:46 AM
Quote from: Super Mateo on January 10, 2018, 08:45:44 AM
-New Jersey: I'm not certain there is any way to drive out of the state without paying a toll.
You can go north into New York without crossing the Hudson.
I assumed he was kidding.
Many people not familiar from the area aren't.
Perhaps, but the follow-up sentence (which "1" didn't quote) reinforced my feeling that he was playing on Jersey stereotypes. (Fully justified stereotypes, IMO.)
There's people out there that absolutely believe you can't exit the state without paying. A lot of people. And granted, nearly every common exit does require some sort of toll, and the main highway that currently doesn't will have a toll next year.
Quote from: Super Mateo on January 10, 2018, 08:45:44 AM
-New Jersey: I'm not certain there is any way to drive out of the state without paying a toll. You might as well hand over your wallet the second you enter, because it won't be long before they take your money.
There's a free bridge in Trenton as well as Phillpsburg crossing the Delaware. Both are pretty far out of the way though.
Oh yeah the Scudder Falls Bridge is free for the time being but will eventually be tolled.
Quote from: ekt8750 on January 10, 2018, 10:58:57 AM
Quote from: Super Mateo on January 10, 2018, 08:45:44 AM
-New Jersey: I'm not certain there is any way to drive out of the state without paying a toll. You might as well hand over your wallet the second you enter, because it won't be long before they take your money.
There's a free bridge in Trenton as well as Phillpsburg crossing the Delaware. Both are pretty far out of the way though.
Oh yeah the Scudder Falls Bridge is free for the time being but will eventually be tolled.
Case in point.
There's 2 free bridges in Trenton for starters.
If car drivers want to avoid the toll on US 1, they can take the Trenton Makes Bridge. The detour is less than 1/4 mile in total, which is significantly less than "pretty far out of the way". Timewise, add 2 minutes to the trip.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 10, 2018, 11:05:53 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on January 10, 2018, 10:58:57 AM
Quote from: Super Mateo on January 10, 2018, 08:45:44 AM
-New Jersey: I'm not certain there is any way to drive out of the state without paying a toll. You might as well hand over your wallet the second you enter, because it won't be long before they take your money.
There's a free bridge in Trenton as well as Phillpsburg crossing the Delaware. Both are pretty far out of the way though.
Oh yeah the Scudder Falls Bridge is free for the time being but will eventually be tolled.
Case in point.
There's 2 free bridges in Trenton for starters.
If car drivers want to avoid the toll on US 1, they can take the Trenton Makes Bridge. The detour is less than 1/4 mile in total, which is significantly less than "pretty far out of the way". Timewise, add 2 minutes to the trip.
Dude, let it go. I never disputed–and am not disputing–that there are many people out there who think you have to pay a toll to exit New Jersey. (The number of people who think you're required to use the Turnpike route to drive between DC and New York makes it very easy to accept that they think you have to pay a toll to exit the state.) All I was saying was that I thought
this particular poster on this particular forum was being snarky. I think you would surely agree that posters on this forum are, as a general matter, more likely to be well-informed about these types of things than members of the general public, right? That was all I was saying.
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2018, 09:13:03 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 09, 2018, 08:07:58 PM
Rural PA is the heart of Appalachia, and is most certainly rugged terrain when compared to other states in the area (WV being the exception). Their highway network doesn't zigzag all over the place just for fun, the highways follows natural routes such as valleys, rivers, etc. Philly and Erie are not "rugged" per se, but that doesn't reflect the state as a whole.
Western Virginia and western North Carolina, in mountainous land area as well as the number of mountains over 4,000 feet high. As much or more than PA and their tallest mountain is only about 3,200 feet high.
For the purposes of the discussion, North Carolina (and less so, western VA) are not in the area. I was comparing PA to the rest of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, and neither of those states are in those regions. FWIW, those two states
as a whole are less rugged than PA.
All I'm saying is that most of PA has a lot of non-flat terrain to deal with that (sort of) gives them an excuse for some of the problems with their highway system.
Plus I was talking centerline miles (which are my default). Look at a map in TravelMapping and it's a spider web over hills and mountains. Don't know where the "tallest mountain" obsession comes from. NY's tallest mountain is four miles from the nearest road, and seven from the nearest state route. And Rochester, Buffalo, parts of Syracuse, the Utica/Rome area, Lower Hudson Valley, NYC/Long Island, and the North Country are pretty damn flat. Certainly flatter than PA, at least. Central/Southern NJ, DE, much of MD, and OH are also VERY flat compared to PA. Southeastern PA and the Erie area just don't strike me as representative of the state. The areas south of NY's Southern Tier and central PA do.
Quote from: webny99 on January 10, 2018, 11:47:21 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2018, 09:13:03 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 09, 2018, 08:07:58 PM
Rural PA is the heart of Appalachia, and is most certainly rugged terrain when compared to other states in the area (WV being the exception). Their highway network doesn't zigzag all over the place just for fun, the highways follows natural routes such as valleys, rivers, etc. Philly and Erie are not "rugged" per se, but that doesn't reflect the state as a whole.
Western Virginia and western North Carolina, in mountainous land area as well as the number of mountains over 4,000 feet high. As much or more than PA and their tallest mountain is only about 3,200 feet high.
For the purposes of the discussion, North Carolina (and less so, western VA) are not in the area. I was comparing PA to the rest of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, and neither of those states are in those regions. FWIW, those two states as a whole are less rugged than PA.
All I'm saying is that most of PA has a lot of non-flat terrain to deal with that (sort of) gives them an excuse for some of the problems with their highway system.
Elevation doesn't necessarily translate to rough terrain where roads are. Nevada, for instance, has several mountain peaks above 11,000 feet, and is on a plateau where most of the elevations in the flat areas are around 4000 to 5000 feet. But they put almost all of the state roads along easy grades around the mountains instead of over. The terrain is such that it's possible to go around most of the mountains and still get to where they need to go. Pennsylvania isn't that lucky, they have to cross mountain ranges to connect parts of the state.
Quote from: vdeane on January 10, 2018, 12:49:42 PM
Plus I was talking centerline miles (which are my default). Look at a map in TravelMapping and it's a spider web over hills and mountains. Don't know where the "tallest mountain" obsession comes from. NY's tallest mountain is four miles from the nearest road, and seven from the nearest state route. And Rochester, Buffalo, parts of Syracuse, the Utica/Rome area, Lower Hudson Valley, NYC/Long Island, and the North Country are pretty damn flat. Certainly flatter than PA, at least. Central/Southern NJ, DE, much of MD, and OH are also VERY flat compared to PA. Southeastern PA and the Erie area just don't strike me as representative of the state. The areas south of NY's Southern Tier and central PA do.
:thumbsup: Having been between Corning and Baltimore many times, I totally agree. PA seems more rocky, too, compared to what we see in NY (where hills are generally gradual and rolling). Erie is definitely an exception, being that it is very flat and the only PA county that borders one of the Great Lakes.
It's somewhat a matter of perspective, too. While we may call the Finger Lakes flat, they're basically Rocky Mountain-level stuff to my friends and family from the Midwest :-D
Quote from: webny99 on January 10, 2018, 11:47:21 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2018, 09:13:03 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 09, 2018, 08:07:58 PM
Rural PA is the heart of Appalachia, and is most certainly rugged terrain when compared to other states in the area (WV being the exception). Their highway network doesn't zigzag all over the place just for fun, the highways follows natural routes such as valleys, rivers, etc. Philly and Erie are not "rugged" per se, but that doesn't reflect the state as a whole.
Western Virginia and western North Carolina, in mountainous land area as well as the number of mountains over 4,000 feet high. As much or more than PA and their tallest mountain is only about 3,200 feet high.
For the purposes of the discussion, North Carolina (and less so, western VA) are not in the area. I was comparing PA to the rest of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, and neither of those states are in those regions. FWIW, those two states as a whole are less rugged than PA.
All I'm saying is that most of PA has a lot of non-flat terrain to deal with that (sort of) gives them an excuse for some of the problems with their highway system.
I heard some of the same excuses back when I worked at PennDOT in the 1970s, that is what I find to be annoying.
VA and NC are indeed Mid-Atlantic states, and they have large areas of mountainous terrain that are much more mountainous than those areas in PA. Those areas also have snowfall levels and winter temperature profiles similar to those in the northeast.
Coastal areas have their own set of highway challenges, and these tend to be very expensive, such as dealing with wetlands and dealing with the need to build major bridges and tunnels across major shipping channels. NY, NJ, MD, VA and NC has lots of those challenges. PA's only bridges in that class are shared with NJ in interstate compact authorities.
Also, look up the dictionary definition of "rugged". It is being used inappropriately here.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 10, 2018, 11:37:09 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 10, 2018, 11:05:53 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on January 10, 2018, 10:58:57 AM
Quote from: Super Mateo on January 10, 2018, 08:45:44 AM
-New Jersey: I'm not certain there is any way to drive out of the state without paying a toll. You might as well hand over your wallet the second you enter, because it won't be long before they take your money.
There's a free bridge in Trenton as well as Phillpsburg crossing the Delaware. Both are pretty far out of the way though.
Oh yeah the Scudder Falls Bridge is free for the time being but will eventually be tolled.
Case in point.
There's 2 free bridges in Trenton for starters.
If car drivers want to avoid the toll on US 1, they can take the Trenton Makes Bridge. The detour is less than 1/4 mile in total, which is significantly less than "pretty far out of the way". Timewise, add 2 minutes to the trip.
Dude, let it go. I never disputed—and am not disputing—that there are many people out there who think you have to pay a toll to exit New Jersey. (The number of people who think you're required to use the Turnpike route to drive between DC and New York makes it very easy to accept that they think you have to pay a toll to exit the state.) All I was saying was that I thought this particular poster on this particular forum was being snarky. I think you would surely agree that posters on this forum are, as a general matter, more likely to be well-informed about these types of things than members of the general public, right? That was all I was saying.
Huh? I'm not even arguing with you over this here. And as far as posters on this forum are more likely to be well-informed, I was replying to a poster that was incorrect!!!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 10, 2018, 11:05:53 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on January 10, 2018, 10:58:57 AM
Quote from: Super Mateo on January 10, 2018, 08:45:44 AM
-New Jersey: I'm not certain there is any way to drive out of the state without paying a toll. You might as well hand over your wallet the second you enter, because it won't be long before they take your money.
There's a free bridge in Trenton as well as Phillpsburg crossing the Delaware. Both are pretty far out of the way though.
Oh yeah the Scudder Falls Bridge is free for the time being but will eventually be tolled.
Case in point.
There's 2 free bridges in Trenton for starters.
If car drivers want to avoid the toll on US 1, they can take the Trenton Makes Bridge. The detour is less than 1/4 mile in total, which is significantly less than "pretty far out of the way". Timewise, add 2 minutes to the trip.
By out of the way I was more referring to the I-95/I-295/NJTP corridor than Trenton proper.
To an outsider, it seems a bit of a joke that you will very likely pay a toll to leave New Jersey. Compared to every other state, no other state or region has so many toll roads/bridges leading out from it. Literally three bordering states charge a one-way toll from New Jersey. Nowhere else do we see that. That means...we can make a humorous assumption about that situation, because...why not?
- Jokes are not always 100% accurate
- Humor plays on a form of ignorance, or it usually wouldn't get a reaction
- A "roast" is when there are jokes, usually when subject of the joke can't defend itself
- Holy crap, we are still talking about this?
- Pork roll?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 10, 2018, 01:26:05 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 10, 2018, 11:37:09 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 10, 2018, 11:05:53 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on January 10, 2018, 10:58:57 AM
Quote from: Super Mateo on January 10, 2018, 08:45:44 AM
-New Jersey: I'm not certain there is any way to drive out of the state without paying a toll. You might as well hand over your wallet the second you enter, because it won't be long before they take your money.
There's a free bridge in Trenton as well as Phillpsburg crossing the Delaware. Both are pretty far out of the way though.
Oh yeah the Scudder Falls Bridge is free for the time being but will eventually be tolled.
Case in point.
There's 2 free bridges in Trenton for starters.
If car drivers want to avoid the toll on US 1, they can take the Trenton Makes Bridge. The detour is less than 1/4 mile in total, which is significantly less than "pretty far out of the way". Timewise, add 2 minutes to the trip.
Dude, let it go. I never disputed—and am not disputing—that there are many people out there who think you have to pay a toll to exit New Jersey. (The number of people who think you're required to use the Turnpike route to drive between DC and New York makes it very easy to accept that they think you have to pay a toll to exit the state.) All I was saying was that I thought this particular poster on this particular forum was being snarky. I think you would surely agree that posters on this forum are, as a general matter, more likely to be well-informed about these types of things than members of the general public, right? That was all I was saying.
Huh? I'm not even arguing with you over this here. And as far as posters on this forum are more likely to be well-informed, I was replying to a poster that was incorrect!!!
I thought you were making this comment to underscore your prior remarks, earlier in this thread, directed to me about how there are people out there who think you can't exit New Jersey without paying a toll. Sorry if I misunderstood.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 10, 2018, 11:05:53 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on January 10, 2018, 10:58:57 AM
Quote from: Super Mateo on January 10, 2018, 08:45:44 AM
-New Jersey: I'm not certain there is any way to drive out of the state without paying a toll. You might as well hand over your wallet the second you enter, because it won't be long before they take your money.
There's a free bridge in Trenton as well as Phillpsburg crossing the Delaware. Both are pretty far out of the way though.
Oh yeah the Scudder Falls Bridge is free for the time being but will eventually be tolled.
Case in point.
There's 2 free bridges in Trenton for starters.
If car drivers want to avoid the toll on US 1, they can take the Trenton Makes Bridge. The detour is less than 1/4 mile in total, which is significantly less than "pretty far out of the way". Timewise, add 2 minutes to the trip.
I count eight free bridges across the state line just between I-95 and I-80, in fact.
Washington Crossing
Lambertville
Stockton
Frenchtown
Milford
Riegelsville
Phillipsburg
Belvidere
Quote from: Beltway on January 10, 2018, 01:11:01 PM
Also, look up the dictionary definition of "rugged". It is being used inappropriately here.
Rocky, jagged, irregular, uneven (not so much "broken") most definitely describe the terrain of much of PA; as I mentioned before, the US 15 and US 219 corridors come to mind.
Anyways, I'm done nitpicking. What you're trying to prove, I'm not sure. If there's a larger point you're making than "PA is not rugged" I'll consider that on it's own terms.
Quote from: webny99 on January 10, 2018, 03:14:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 10, 2018, 01:11:01 PM
Also, look up the dictionary definition of "rugged". It is being used inappropriately here.
Rocky, jagged, irregular, uneven (not so much "broken") most definitely describe the terrain of much of PA; as I mentioned before, the US 15 and US 219 corridors come to mind.
No, definitely not, and I already looked up that definition. Even most coastal areas have rocky soil within a few feet of the surface. Most of PA is not "jagged" or "irregular". Stop making excuses.
There seems to be a correlation between the volume of users from a state and the amount of roasting it receives.
States like North Dakota and New Mexico don't get roasted very often, but I'm not sure if we even have anyone to represent those states. Predominantly rural states also have less lane miles/signage/etc. to deal with. But it's still possible for DOT's to botch it up even the smallest of responsibilities (Oklahoma, looking at you :D).
Quote from: webny99 on January 10, 2018, 09:58:04 PM
There seems to be a correlation between the volume of users from a state and the amount of roasting it receives.
States like North Dakota and New Mexico don't get roasted very often, but I'm not sure if we even have anyone to represent those states. Predominantly rural states also have less lane miles/signage/etc. to deal with. But it's still possible for DOT's to botch it up even the smallest of responsibilities (Oklahoma, looking at you :D).
New Mexico is one of the worst for road quality.
Quote from: 1 on January 10, 2018, 09:59:38 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 10, 2018, 09:58:04 PM
There seems to be a correlation between the volume of users from a state and the amount of roasting it receives.
States like North Dakota and New Mexico don't get roasted very often, but I'm not sure if we even have anyone to represent those states. Predominantly rural states also have less lane miles/signage/etc. to deal with. But it's still possible for DOT's to botch it up even the smallest of responsibilities (Oklahoma, looking at you :D).
New Mexico is one of the worst for road quality.
Can attest. US 491 crossing into NM is marked not by a sign (one does show up a mile later) but by a sudden change into one of the bumpiest highways I’ve ever been on. That goes for the entire length in NM.
Quote from: kphoger on January 10, 2018, 02:58:51 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 10, 2018, 11:05:53 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on January 10, 2018, 10:58:57 AM
Quote from: Super Mateo on January 10, 2018, 08:45:44 AM
-New Jersey: I'm not certain there is any way to drive out of the state without paying a toll. You might as well hand over your wallet the second you enter, because it won't be long before they take your money.
There's a free bridge in Trenton as well as Phillpsburg crossing the Delaware. Both are pretty far out of the way though.
Oh yeah the Scudder Falls Bridge is free for the time being but will eventually be tolled.
Case in point.
There's 2 free bridges in Trenton for starters.
If car drivers want to avoid the toll on US 1, they can take the Trenton Makes Bridge. The detour is less than 1/4 mile in total, which is significantly less than "pretty far out of the way". Timewise, add 2 minutes to the trip.
I count eight free bridges across the state line just between I-95 and I-80, in fact.
Washington Crossing
Lambertville
Stockton
Frenchtown
Milford
Riegelsville
Phillipsburg
Belvidere
Techncally the NJ/PA Turnpike bridge is free also. The toll roads on either side are tolled.
Quote from: webny99 on January 10, 2018, 09:58:04 PM
Predominantly rural states also have less lane miles/signage/etc. to deal with.
This is not necessarily true. As a general rule, (1) predominantly rural states are larger in area, meaning more lane miles; and (2) predominantly rural states have fewer people per square mile, meaning fewer people per lane mile, meaning less tax money per lane mile. This doesn't necessarily happen in rugged areas like Wyoming (58k total road miles), but it's certainly true in farming areas like Kansas (286k total road miles).
How are you defining "predominantly rural," anyway? Percentage of the population living in rural areas, or percentage of area being rural?
Quote from: kphoger on January 11, 2018, 01:41:20 PM
How are you defining "predominantly rural," anyway? Percentage of the population living in rural areas, or percentage of area being rural?
I have a spreadsheet that has every city in the top 1000 (about 38k+). If "urban" is referring to anyone living in any of these cities, the most urban states are:
1. California (72.88%)
2. Arizona (71.12%)
3. Colorado (58.19%)
4. Texas (56.56%)
5. Nevada (53.16%)
6. New York (50.75%)
7. Utah (50.45%)
8. Rhode Island (47.52%)
9. New Mexico (46.62%)
10. Kansas (46.43%)
Cities 100k+ only:
1. Arizona (58.24%)
2. California (48.48%)
3. Nevada (47.53%)
4. New York (46.38%)
5. Colorado (43.07%)
6. Nebraska (36.54%)
7. Texas (34.10%)
8. Kansas (33.47%)
9. Alaska (28.97%)
10. Tennessee (28.94%)
This way of doing it isn't perfect, as some many non-city areas, like towns, townships, and unincorporated areas, are not included in the list.
Note that 9 or 10 of the 13 states listed (all except CA, NY, RI, and possibly TN) would be considered rural by most people, and 10 of the 13 (all except NY, RI, and TN) have vast spaces of emptiness. Yet these are considered the most urban in the spreadsheet that I have compiled.
Quote from: kphoger on January 11, 2018, 01:41:20 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 10, 2018, 09:58:04 PM
Predominantly rural states also have less lane miles/signage/etc. to deal with.
This is not necessarily true. As a general rule, (1) predominantly rural states are larger in area, meaning more lane miles; and (2) predominantly rural states have fewer people per square mile, meaning fewer people per lane mile, meaning less tax money per lane mile. This doesn't necessarily happen in rugged areas like Wyoming (58k total road miles), but it's certainly true in farming areas like Kansas (286k total road miles).
How are you defining "predominantly rural," anyway? Percentage of the population living in rural areas, or percentage of area being rural?
Perhaps I should say predominantly rural states have less road miles
per square mile. Rural areas may have a full square mile void of any roads whatsoever, whereas urban areas have higher road density (if that's a thing).
As far as my definition, lets go with percentage area, because percentage population tends to skewer things slightly (see quote from
1 above). For example, I think Arizona is a predominantly rural state. It has Phoenix, sure, but the state is a rural one by and large. The fact that many people there
dont live in a rural area serves to reinforce how rural the bulk of the state really is.
Total Road Miles:
(https://i.imgur.com/YzXwdjZ.png)
I'm one of the few who applauds California and other western states for shit-canning US Routes once they became redundant.
And while sometimes their number choices leaves something to be desired, I like that North Carolina has been so proactive in adding interstates. I wish more states could borrow NC's balls when it comes to seeking out these kind of promotions.
Texas should have at least a dozen more 3di's than it currently does, as an example.
Quote from: formulanone on January 10, 2018, 02:25:33 PM
To an outsider, it seems a bit of a joke that you will very likely pay a toll to leave New Jersey. Compared to every other state, no other state or region has so many toll roads/bridges leading out from it.
Ok, so Delaware requiring tolls to get *into* it is ok? Seriously, New Jersey's state borders are largely along large rivers. Toll bridges/tunnels across large rivers are normal, aren't they? Maryland has multiple toll bridges over the Susquehanna too, as does New York across the Hudson. Those are within the state, by the way (NJ has some of those too, but not in any area most travelers go to, and always with nearby free alternatives).
Quote from: bzakharin on January 11, 2018, 03:46:40 PM
Quote from: formulanone on January 10, 2018, 02:25:33 PM
To an outsider, it seems a bit of a joke that you will very likely pay a toll to leave New Jersey. Compared to every other state, no other state or region has so many toll roads/bridges leading out from it.
Ok, so Delaware requiring tolls to get *into* it is ok? Seriously, New Jersey's state borders are largely along large rivers. Toll bridges/tunnels across large rivers are normal, aren't they? Maryland has multiple toll bridges over the Susquehanna too, as does New York across the Hudson. Those are within the state, by the way (NJ has some of those too, but not in any area most travelers go to, and always with nearby free alternatives).
Most Delaware River and Hudson River bridges are tolled one direction only. Entering New Jersey is much less likely to require a toll.
Quote from: kphoger on January 11, 2018, 03:21:48 PM
Total Road Miles:
[image snipped]
That doesn't factor in state size, so, while interesting, it's not really relevant to the point I'm making. Looking at roads
per square mile sheds a different light on the picture.
I won't argue that rural states have it easy, but I will argue that they don't get a lot of criticism on this forum. I will also say that urbanized areas are, by nature, harder to deal with when it comes to basically every road-related aspect I can think of.
Quote from: webny99 on January 10, 2018, 09:58:04 PM
Predominantly rural states also have less lane miles/signage/etc. to deal with.
Quote from: webny99 on January 11, 2018, 03:54:11 PM
That doesn't factor in state size, so, while interesting, it's not really relevant to the point I'm making. Looking at roads per square mile sheds a different light on the picture.
So what exactly are you comparing?
% of Total Population That Is Urban : Road Miles per Square Mile ?
% of Total Area That Is Urban : Road Miles per Square Mile ?
Something Else?
^ I should not have said rural states have less lane miles. That added some confusion, since rural states are often large in size.
I'm comparing road miles to square miles, period. And rural areas have less roads per square mile, which should be obvious.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 10, 2018, 09:33:11 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 10, 2018, 09:32:04 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 10, 2018, 09:26:37 AM
Quote from: 1 on January 10, 2018, 09:17:46 AM
Quote from: Super Mateo on January 10, 2018, 08:45:44 AM
-New Jersey: I'm not certain there is any way to drive out of the state without paying a toll.
You can go north into New York without crossing the Hudson.
I assumed he was kidding.
Many people not familiar from the area aren't.
Perhaps, but the follow-up sentence (which "1" didn't quote) reinforced my feeling that he was playing on Jersey stereotypes. (Fully justified stereotypes, IMO.)
I remember the old joke (non road geek) "You are from NJ, what exit number?" Well I told him that I lived off Exit 135, and he did not believe the numbers went that high.
Point is that some people nowadays take things seriously what are friendly sarcastic jokes road geek or not.
Quote from: webny99 on January 11, 2018, 05:28:02 PM
^ I should not have said rural states have less lane miles. That added some confusion, since rural states are often large in size.
I'm comparing road miles to square miles, period. And rural areas have less roads per square mile, which should be obvious.
Gotcha. My beef with it is that rural areas also have fewer people paying taxes on the roads' upkeep. So it still doesn't necessarily follow that the roads should be in better shape. There also tends to be fewer people using most of the roads, meaning less incentive to keep them in good shape. The vast majority of road miles in Kansas, for example, are gravel roads with little traffic. Such is not true of New Jersey.
Quote from: kphoger on January 12, 2018, 12:50:57 PM
Gotcha. My beef with it is that rural areas also have fewer people paying taxes on the roads' upkeep. So it still doesn't necessarily follow that the roads should be in better shape. There also tends to be fewer people using most of the roads, meaning less incentive to keep them in good shape. The vast majority of road miles in Kansas, for example, are gravel roads with little traffic. Such is not true of New Jersey.
I tend to agree with you there, and I apologize if I insinuated that rural areas should keep up their roads better.
I have never been to Kansas, but are
over half of the road miles there actually gravel? :hmmm: That would, quite honestly, be shocking to me if it were the case.
On a somewhat parallel subject, is there a way to determine how many active users are on the forum from each state? That would help in gauging whether the amount of roasting received by each state is justified. Naturally, more users = more roasting :D Then, if the amount of criticism isn't representative of user volume from that state, we would know which state really does get roasted the most.
Quote from: webny99 on January 16, 2018, 08:52:38 AM
Quote from: kphoger on January 12, 2018, 12:50:57 PM
Gotcha. My beef with it is that rural areas also have fewer people paying taxes on the roads' upkeep. So it still doesn't necessarily follow that the roads should be in better shape. There also tends to be fewer people using most of the roads, meaning less incentive to keep them in good shape. The vast majority of road miles in Kansas, for example, are gravel roads with little traffic. Such is not true of New Jersey.
I tend to agree with you there, and I apologize if I insinuated that rural areas should keep up their roads better.
I have never been to Kansas, but are over half of the road miles there actually gravel? :hmmm: That would, quite honestly, be shocking to me if it were the case.
On a somewhat parallel subject, is there a way to determine how many active users are on the forum from each state? That would help in gauging whether the amount of roasting received by each state is justified. Naturally, more users = more roasting :D Then, if the amount of criticism isn't representative of user volume from that state, we would know which state really does get roasted the most.
Not only would you need to consider user volume from each state, but user volume from members that travel thru each state.
Pennsylvania is basically a cross-roads of the Northeast US. Unless you go thru NJ, you have to go thru Pennsylvania to get to or from New York and New England. Thus, more people will have more opinions of that state. New York - same thing - in order to go to or from New England, you have to cross thru New York (yes, unless you're flying, or you cut thru Canada, or you take a cruise ship, etc, etc).
Quote from: webny99 on January 16, 2018, 08:52:38 AM
I have never been to Kansas, but are over half of the road miles there actually gravel? :hmmm: That would, quite honestly, be shocking to me if it were the case.
Yes. Well, gravel or dirt.
Prepare to be shocked: roughly 70% of the road mileage in Kansas is unpaved.
Quote from: https://www.ksdot.org/bureaus/burTransPlan/prodinfo/Mileage_Travel/MileTravel2013.asp
As of December 31, 2015, there were 140,654 miles of roads, streets and highways in Kansas. ... The Kansas State Highway System (SHS) including City Connecting Links (CCL) totals 10,295 miles ... Interstate, US, and Kansas routes make up 7.5% of the total Kansas road mileage
Quote from: https://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/LRTP2008/pdf/KS_LRTPFinal.Chapter_3.pdf
In 2006, rural Kansas counties on average had a budget of $2.3 million and 25 employees to maintain:
-112 miles of paved roads
-830 miles of unpaved roads
-170 bridges
Quote from: https://www.ksdot.org/pdf_files/2011-quick-facts.pdf
Public Road Miles
140,753
About 100,000 miles of Kansas roads are non-paved.
Quote from: https://www.ksdot.org/pdf_files/2011-quick-facts.pdf
Public Road Miles
140,753
About 100,000 miles of Kansas roads are non-paved.
*Immediatly starts to laugh*
That's a lot of non-paved roads, and I'm not sure if any other state has more.
Quote from: kphoger on January 16, 2018, 11:34:19 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 16, 2018, 08:52:38 AM
I have never been to Kansas, but are over half of the road miles there actually gravel? :hmmm: That would, quite honestly, be shocking to me if it were the case.
Yes. Well, gravel or dirt.
Prepare to be shocked: roughly 70% of the road mileage in Kansas is unpaved.
Quote from: https://www.ksdot.org/bureaus/burTransPlan/prodinfo/Mileage_Travel/MileTravel2013.asp
As of December 31, 2015, there were 140,654 miles of roads, streets and highways in Kansas. ... The Kansas State Highway System (SHS) including City Connecting Links (CCL) totals 10,295 miles ... Interstate, US, and Kansas routes make up 7.5% of the total Kansas road mileage
Quote from: https://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/LRTP2008/pdf/KS_LRTPFinal.Chapter_3.pdf
In 2006, rural Kansas counties on average had a budget of $2.3 million and 25 employees to maintain:
•112 miles of paved roads
•830 miles of unpaved roads
•170 bridges
Quote from: https://www.ksdot.org/pdf_files/2011-quick-facts.pdf
Public Road Miles
140,753
About 100,000 miles of Kansas roads are non-paved.
Just clarify...$2.5 million for the entire rural counties statewide in total, or for each county?
QuoteJust clarify...$2.5 million for the entire rural counties statewide in total, or for each county?
I assumed for each county...
Quote from: kphoger on January 16, 2018, 11:34:19 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 16, 2018, 08:52:38 AM
I have never been to Kansas, but are over half of the road miles there actually gravel? :hmmm: That would, quite honestly, be shocking to me if it were the case.
Yes. Well, gravel or dirt.
Prepare to be shocked: roughly 70% of the road mileage in Kansas is unpaved.
[quotes snipped]
:wow: Follow up question: How many of those road miles have an AADT of 100 or more? :D
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 16, 2018, 11:54:19 AM
Quote from: kphoger on January 16, 2018, 11:34:19 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 16, 2018, 08:52:38 AM
I have never been to Kansas, but are over half of the road miles there actually gravel? :hmmm: That would, quite honestly, be shocking to me if it were the case.
Yes. Well, gravel or dirt.
Prepare to be shocked: roughly 70% of the road mileage in Kansas is unpaved.
Quote from: https://www.ksdot.org/bureaus/burTransPlan/prodinfo/Mileage_Travel/MileTravel2013.asp
As of December 31, 2015, there were 140,654 miles of roads, streets and highways in Kansas. ... The Kansas State Highway System (SHS) including City Connecting Links (CCL) totals 10,295 miles ... Interstate, US, and Kansas routes make up 7.5% of the total Kansas road mileage
Quote from: https://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/LRTP2008/pdf/KS_LRTPFinal.Chapter_3.pdf
In 2006, rural Kansas counties on average had a budget of $2.3 million and 25 employees to maintain:
-112 miles of paved roads
-830 miles of unpaved roads
-170 bridges
Quote from: https://www.ksdot.org/pdf_files/2011-quick-facts.pdf
Public Road Miles
140,753
About 100,000 miles of Kansas roads are non-paved.
Just clarify...$2.5 million for the entire rural counties statewide in total, or for each county?
It suggests that's the annual budget for the average rural county. Considering that's the price of a normal highway resurfacing project, it seems right to me.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 16, 2018, 11:40:55 AM
Quote from: https://www.ksdot.org/pdf_files/2011-quick-facts.pdf
Public Road Miles
140,753
About 100,000 miles of Kansas roads are non-paved.
*Immediatly starts to laugh*
That's a lot of non-paved roads, and I'm not sure if any other state has more.
I assume Texas has more, but I'm unable to dig up any numbers for that. Kansas ranks fourth (behind only Texas, California, and Illinois) for total road miles–more than Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Connecticut combined–but Texas tops 300,000 total road miles and fewer than 90,000 highway miles. To put Kansas' number further in perspective, Kansas has more than twice as many miles of unpaved roads as there are miles in the entire Interstate System.
Quote from: kphoger on January 16, 2018, 12:51:18 PM
To put Kansas' number further in perspective, Kansas has more than twice as many miles of unpaved roads as there are miles in the entire Interstate System.
I know I was joking earlier, but I'm sure there is some truth to the fact that very few of those roads carry a lot of significant volume, much less significant long-distance traffic. Probably mostly just connecting fields and such, if North Dakota is any indication. Most roads connecting towns/regional centers I presume would be paved.
With that said, I do intend to visit Kansas, myself, someday, and form my own impressions :D
It's all the section line roads that give Kansas so much mileage. Build a road every one mile and do that across the entire state (more or less) north-south and east west, that's going to be a lot of miles.
Quote from: LM117 on January 09, 2018, 10:54:01 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2018, 07:29:36 AM
Quote from: LM117 on January 09, 2018, 02:12:36 AM
All VDOT has to do is modify some of the ramps on US-29 in Danville, as well as close the Elizabeth Street at-grade access and I-785 in VA will be complete. There are currently no plans to do so.
Needs 10 foot wide paved right shoulders thruout, and 4 foot wide paved left shoulders thruout.
The Elizabeth Street access now is the first stage of an design that includes an overpassing roadway for Elizabeth Street and the completion of 4 ramps.
N.C. has about 20 miles of US-29 that is a nonlimited access highway and would need major construction if they want a freeway. I don't think any detailed planning there yet.
The shoulders on US-29 between the US-29 Business split in Blairs and the NC state line already meets interstate standards. Once VDOT modifies some of the ramps at certain interchanges and deals with Elizabeth Street, I-785 shields can go up once NC finishes their part, whenever that may be.
Unfortunately, I don't know when NC will upgrade their section to I-785 between the Greensboro beltway and Rockingham county as it is not listed on their STIP 2018-2027. However, they have two projects that will start at 2019, in which they will upgrade the Summit Ave/Reddy Fork Rd bridge and the NC 150 interchanges.
But yeah VA only need to fix the Elizabeth Street intersection, then boom. I-785 is complete in VA.
NC builds lots of interstates. I'm not sure if there's a consensus as to whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.
Quote from: webny99 on January 16, 2018, 07:50:25 PM
NC builds lots of interstates. I'm not sure if there's a consensus as to whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.
I think the consensus is:
3dis: Good
I-42: Good
I-73: No consensus
I-74: Bad
I-87: Bad
Quote from: 1 on January 16, 2018, 07:59:25 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 16, 2018, 07:50:25 PM
NC builds lots of interstates. I'm not sure if there's a consensus as to whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.
I think the consensus is:
3dis: Good
I-42: Good
I-73: No consensus
I-74: Bad
I-87: Bad
I think there's a lot of jealousy...it is the 10th largest state in population and steadily growing. Work seems to keep progressing on actually constructing these new/upgraded highways at a pace currently unseen elsewhere in the US (except maybe Texas).
Pipe dream or not, I-73 at least gained some traction in NC, and will eventually get to Myrtle Beach and Roanoke. I-87 probably should have been given another number. I-74 makes sense on paper, but it's kind of a head-scratcher in some remote places. Charlotte's big enough to warrant a route to the coast, linking Wilmington (that is, if it goes there).
Quote from: 1 on January 16, 2018, 07:59:25 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 16, 2018, 07:50:25 PM
NC builds lots of interstates. I'm not sure if there's a consensus as to whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.
I think the consensus is:
3dis: Good
I-42: Good
I-73: No consensus
I-74: Bad
I-87: Bad
If Virginia and South Carolina ever actually build and complete their proposed sections of I-73, then yes I think that would give it an overall good and useful consensus as a newer 2di.
Also while I'm thinking about it, I wonder what the consensus would be for the possible Asheville to Wilmington 2di that we all know N.C really wants.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 16, 2018, 09:14:59 PM
Also while I'm thinking about it, I wonder what the consensus would be for the possible Ashville to Wilmington 2di that we all know N.C really wants.
I'm sure I'm out of line, but isn't there a 2di that connects Asheville and Wilmington? :D
Quote from: tdindy88 on January 16, 2018, 09:23:37 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 16, 2018, 09:14:59 PM
Also while I'm thinking about it, I wonder what the consensus would be for the possible Ashville to Wilmington 2di that we all know N.C really wants.
I'm sure I'm out of line, but isn't there a 2di that connects Asheville and Wilmington? :D
Good point. Its all about the details. The Asheville to Wilmington interstate I'm referring to is the potential one that would follow/replace US-74.
Quote from: formulanone on January 16, 2018, 09:01:44 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 16, 2018, 07:59:25 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 16, 2018, 07:50:25 PM
NC builds lots of interstates. I'm not sure if there's a consensus as to whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.
I think the consensus is:
3dis: Good
I-42: Good
I-73: No consensus
I-74: Bad
I-87: Bad
I think there's a lot of jealousy...it is the 10th largest state in population and steadily growing. Work seems to keep progressing on actually constructing these new/upgraded highways at a pace currently unseen elsewhere in the US (except maybe Texas).
Possible. The only way a freeway gets built in Georgia these days is for a county (either Chatham or Gwinnett) to do it, the 50-year plan for GA 316 notwithstanding.
Quote
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 16, 2018, 11:40:55 AM
Quote from: https://www.ksdot.org/pdf_files/2011-quick-facts.pdf
Public Road Miles
140,753
About 100,000 miles of Kansas roads are non-paved.
*Immediatly starts to laugh*
That's a lot of non-paved roads, and I'm not sure if any other state has more.
I assume Texas has more, but I'm unable to dig up any numbers for that. Kansas ranks fourth (behind only Texas, California, and Illinois) for total road miles–more than Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Connecticut combined–but Texas tops 300,000 total road miles and fewer than 90,000 highway miles. To put Kansas' number further in perspective, Kansas has more than twice as many miles of unpaved roads as there are miles in the entire Interstate System.
It looks like Kansas has us beat. Texas has nearly 86,000 miles of unpaved roads. About 77 miles of that is city streets, 83,285 miles are county roads, less than 3 miles are toll road authority roads, and 2,359 miles are federal roads (which I assume means roads in national parks and recreation areas, military installments, and other federal facilities). This report includes only roads open to traffic.
This information is on page 859, the off-system roads page. There are very small distances of unpaved on-system roads, adding up to about 1.5 miles.
ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/roadway-inventory/2016.pdf
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 16, 2018, 09:38:07 PM
Quote from: tdindy88 on January 16, 2018, 09:23:37 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 16, 2018, 09:14:59 PM
Also while I'm thinking about it, I wonder what the consensus would be for the possible Ashville to Wilmington 2di that we all know N.C really wants.
I'm sure I'm out of line, but isn't there a 2di that connects Asheville and Wilmington? :D
Good point. Its all about the details. The Asheville to Wilmington interstate I'm referring to is the potential one that would follow/replace US-74.
You're actually talking about two separate corridors -- Asheville to Charlotte, and Charlotte to Wilmington.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 17, 2018, 10:58:32 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 16, 2018, 09:38:07 PM
Quote from: tdindy88 on January 16, 2018, 09:23:37 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 16, 2018, 09:14:59 PM
Also while I'm thinking about it, I wonder what the consensus would be for the possible Ashville to Wilmington 2di that we all know N.C really wants.
I'm sure I'm out of line, but isn't there a 2di that connects Asheville and Wilmington? :D
Good point. Its all about the details. The Asheville to Wilmington interstate I'm referring to is the potential one that would follow/replace US-74.
You're actually talking about two separate corridors -- Asheville to Charlotte, and Charlotte to Wilmington.
True although N.C could easily combine them into one by having the corridor go around Charlotte via the southern half of I-485.
Quote from: wxfree on January 17, 2018, 12:08:34 AM
Quote
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 16, 2018, 11:40:55 AM
Quote from: https://www.ksdot.org/pdf_files/2011-quick-facts.pdf
Public Road Miles
140,753
About 100,000 miles of Kansas roads are non-paved.
*Immediatly starts to laugh*
That's a lot of non-paved roads, and I'm not sure if any other state has more.
I assume Texas has more, but I'm unable to dig up any numbers for that. Kansas ranks fourth (behind only Texas, California, and Illinois) for total road miles–more than Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Connecticut combined–but Texas tops 300,000 total road miles and fewer than 90,000 highway miles. To put Kansas' number further in perspective, Kansas has more than twice as many miles of unpaved roads as there are miles in the entire Interstate System.
It looks like Kansas has us beat. Texas has nearly 86,000 miles of unpaved roads. About 77 miles of that is city streets, 83,285 miles are county roads, less than 3 miles are toll road authority roads, and 2,359 miles are federal roads (which I assume means roads in national parks and recreation areas, military installments, and other federal facilities). This report includes only roads open to traffic.
This information is on page 859, the off-system roads page. There are very small distances of unpaved on-system roads, adding up to about 1.5 miles.
ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/roadway-inventory/2016.pdf
The disparity is probably because the TxDOT's responsibility is far more expansive, thanks to the FM system. The state has the money to pave all those roads. In Kansas, only 7.5% of the routes are maintained by KDOT, so you get more gravel.
Texas doesn't get much roasting, considering it is the second largest state in both area, and population, and we have a lot of users from there. Perhaps those who live there/visit frequently could comment more, but I personally, thought their DOT did an excellent job overall. I've only been once though.
Quote from: webny99 on January 23, 2018, 09:24:23 PM
Texas doesn't get much roasting, considering it is the second largest state in both area, and population, and we have a lot of users from there. Perhaps those who live there/visit frequently could comment more, but I personally, thought their DOT did an excellent job overall. I've only been once though.
My one problem with Texas, compared to other southern states, is how insanely fucking slow their residents drive. The speed limit would be 75, but you'd still have a bunch of cars camping out all over the road, all invariably doing something less than 75. You'd occasionally get moving, but it was never for long. On SH-130, where the limit is 85, I was going around 90 (very comfortable speed in our Ford Fusion) and we were flying past cars. No one was doing even 80. All of this was rather ironic considering how well known Texas is for setting high speed limits.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 23, 2018, 10:25:40 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 23, 2018, 09:24:23 PM
Texas doesn't get much roasting, considering it is the second largest state in both area, and population, and we have a lot of users from there. Perhaps those who live there/visit frequently could comment more, but I personally, thought their DOT did an excellent job overall. I've only been once though.
My one problem with Texas, compared to other southern states, is how insanely fucking slow their residents drive. The speed limit would be 75, but you'd still have a bunch of cars camping out all over the road, all invariably doing something less than 75. You'd occasionally get moving, but it was never for long. On SH-130, where the limit is 85, I was going around 90 (very comfortable speed in our Ford Fusion) and we were flying past cars. No one was doing even 80. All of this was rather ironic considering how well known Texas is for setting high speed limits.
Funny, I got a completely opposite idea the last time I was in Texas. My memory of Texas freeways is pickups driving 100 in the left lane, and then swerving across 5 lanes of traffic so they can make the next exit.
Quote from: roadguy2 on January 23, 2018, 10:29:57 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 23, 2018, 10:25:40 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 23, 2018, 09:24:23 PM
Texas doesn't get much roasting, considering it is the second largest state in both area, and population, and we have a lot of users from there. Perhaps those who live there/visit frequently could comment more, but I personally, thought their DOT did an excellent job overall. I've only been once though.
My one problem with Texas, compared to other southern states, is how insanely fucking slow their residents drive. The speed limit would be 75, but you'd still have a bunch of cars camping out all over the road, all invariably doing something less than 75. You'd occasionally get moving, but it was never for long. On SH-130, where the limit is 85, I was going around 90 (very comfortable speed in our Ford Fusion) and we were flying past cars. No one was doing even 80. All of this was rather ironic considering how well known Texas is for setting high speed limits.
Funny, I got a completely opposite idea the last time I was in Texas. My memory of Texas freeways is pickups driving 100 in the left lane, and then swerving across 5 lanes of traffic so they can make the next exit.
I've been hoping, basically since the day I left, that what I experienced was simply an anomaly. If any state actually has the infrastructure to support high speeds, it's Texas, so I was extremely annoyed to be the only one actually pushing it. I will eventually visit Texas again so I can board a cruise ship outside Houston. Here's hoping this future visit will change my perspective.
I've only been to Texas once. That journey consisted of an early-morning drive from Texarkana to the DFW area, and then back to Texarkana via Shreveport. What stood out to me was the overabundance of speed enforcement along I-30 westbound so early in the morning.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 23, 2018, 10:25:40 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 23, 2018, 09:24:23 PM
Texas doesn't get much roasting, considering it is the second largest state in both area, and population, and we have a lot of users from there. Perhaps those who live there/visit frequently could comment more, but I personally, thought their DOT did an excellent job overall. I've only been once though.
My one problem with Texas, compared to other southern states, is how insanely fucking slow their residents drive. The speed limit would be 75, but you'd still have a bunch of cars camping out all over the road, all invariably doing something less than 75. You'd occasionally get moving, but it was never for long. On SH-130, where the limit is 85, I was going around 90 (very comfortable speed in our Ford Fusion) and we were flying past cars. No one was doing even 80. All of this was rather ironic considering how well known Texas is for setting high speed limits.
I've visited about 20 times, so all sorts of areas the state (except the panhandle).
Basically, I noticed drivers are reserved, if not speedy, on the highways, respectful on the two-lanes, but can be insanely fast on the frontage roads. The DFW metroplex seems to have more unruly/stupid parking lot drivers.
There's a few 75mph 2-lanes where even I didn't feel comfortable going 75 (due to high traffic), and some mid-day toll roads where the higher speed limits aren't always necessary...but it's nice when you need them.
Can't think of too many times I've been stuck behind a very slow vehicle on a Texas two-lane; it wasn't for long. They're pretty good about creating multiple passing lanes.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 16, 2018, 11:40:55 AM
Quote from: https://www.ksdot.org/pdf_files/2011-quick-facts.pdf
Public Road Miles
140,753
About 100,000 miles of Kansas roads are non-paved.
*Immediatly starts to laugh*
That's a lot of non-paved roads, and I'm not sure if any other state has more.
Absolute distance wise, Kansas I think is the winner (maybe NE, MT, WY would contend?); percentage wise we in South Dakota have 75% unpaved roads (62055.718 mi out of 82556.802 mi) while the Kansas percentage is about 71%.
Data from:
http://www.sddot.com/transportation/highways/planning/inventory/docs/CertifiedMileageBooklet.pdf
Quote from: roadguy2 on January 23, 2018, 10:29:57 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 23, 2018, 10:25:40 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 23, 2018, 09:24:23 PM
Texas doesn't get much roasting, considering it is the second largest state in both area, and population, and we have a lot of users from there. Perhaps those who live there/visit frequently could comment more, but I personally, thought their DOT did an excellent job overall. I've only been once though.
My one problem with Texas, compared to other southern states, is how insanely fucking slow their residents drive. The speed limit would be 75, but you'd still have a bunch of cars camping out all over the road, all invariably doing something less than 75. You'd occasionally get moving, but it was never for long. On SH-130, where the limit is 85, I was going around 90 (very comfortable speed in our Ford Fusion) and we were flying past cars. No one was doing even 80. All of this was rather ironic considering how well known Texas is for setting high speed limits.
Funny, I got a completely opposite idea the last time I was in Texas. My memory of Texas freeways is pickups driving 100 in the left lane, and then swerving across 5 lanes of traffic so they can make the next exit.
This is because all Texans drive at either 20 or 90, no exceptions. I am pretty sure I've never seen a car with Texas plates drive the speed limit.
The last rental car we had came with Texas plates, and I joked with my mom that meant we had no excuse not to make good time.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 24, 2018, 11:39:14 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on January 23, 2018, 10:29:57 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 23, 2018, 10:25:40 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 23, 2018, 09:24:23 PM
Texas doesn't get much roasting, considering it is the second largest state in both area, and population, and we have a lot of users from there. Perhaps those who live there/visit frequently could comment more, but I personally, thought their DOT did an excellent job overall. I've only been once though.
My one problem with Texas, compared to other southern states, is how insanely fucking slow their residents drive. The speed limit would be 75, but you'd still have a bunch of cars camping out all over the road, all invariably doing something less than 75. You'd occasionally get moving, but it was never for long. On SH-130, where the limit is 85, I was going around 90 (very comfortable speed in our Ford Fusion) and we were flying past cars. No one was doing even 80. All of this was rather ironic considering how well known Texas is for setting high speed limits.
Funny, I got a completely opposite idea the last time I was in Texas. My memory of Texas freeways is pickups driving 100 in the left lane, and then swerving across 5 lanes of traffic so they can make the next exit.
This is because all Texans drive at either 20 or 90, no exceptions. I am pretty sure I've never seen a car with Texas plates drive the speed limit.
The last rental car we had came with Texas plates, and I joked with my mom that meant we had no excuse not to make good time.
That's just what I clicked on this thread to say. It is simply un-Texan to drive at any speed between 50 and 80 mph. Under 50 is fine, and over 80 is fine, but in between is just not cool.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 08, 2018, 11:57:40 AM
Quote from: sparker on January 07, 2018, 01:08:31 AM
Quote from: roadguy2 on January 07, 2018, 12:28:55 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 06, 2018, 10:38:01 PM
California takes a beating on road maintenance and signage standards on Pacific Southwest.
And also for their relentless decommissioning of US highways.
New Mexico also gets a lot of flack for its signage (or lack thereof).
With the omnibus 1964 statewide renumbering effort, all the US decommissioning happened at once that year; signage of the routes not along Interstate corridors (US 6, Alternate US 40, US 299, US 399, most of US 466) was removed during that year. The other decommissioned routes (US 40, US 60, US 66, US 70, US 80, US 91, US 99) saw signage removal over the following decade as Interstate mileage was constructed; the old routes served as "placeholders" until the system was functionally complete in the state. US 99 was gone south of Sacramento by 1966, with the remainder, including the E/W split north of Sacramento, fully gone by the beginning of 1975. The decommissionings were drastic, jarring, and abrupt -- but hardly relentless, seeing as how the change occurred all at once (although the signage removal process took a bit over 10 years!). The only decommissioning of a US highway after that time was US 395, which like much of the previous decommissioning, happened because the 1968 Interstate addition legislation extended I-15 over much of its alignment. It's not like the Division of Highways or successor Caltrans "had it in" for US highways in general-- they are simply operating on the principle of "death to multiplexes" whenever possible (their now-54-year-old "one road/one number" policy).
But they did operate under the assumption that US Routes were superfluous or at the same level as state highways after the advent of the Interstate era. That seemed to be a fairly common theme nation wide, but it would seem that time has been kinder to keeping US Routes relevant than probably was originally envisions. With that all said really the only US Routes that probably would have had realistic chance of staying in California would have been US 60, 99, and possibly 299 given it was close to 300 miles long. Personally I'd much rather have a bunch of state highway numbers and US Route over the glut of worthless 3d Interstate designations California has it metro areas like the Bay or Los Angeles.
(forgive the delayed response to this, but I just got around to fully reading this thread)
As far as getting rid of US highways back in 1964, IMO they could have kept 299 despite its under-300-mile length; if NC can have 117 and 264, there's no reason to discriminate against us Westerners! But given the eventual demise of US 99 itself, I might have renumbered 299 as something else; maybe one of the unused 2dus between 20 and 40. Even though it is a major trucking corridor, 466 would likely have been a goner as well because of its long (and, for all intents and purposes, useless multiplex with US 91 and later US 93), as would 399 (which to me was always a dubious US route).
I'm guessing the "worthless" 3di's referred to above would include 110, 710, and 880 -- not to mention 238; all were workable freeways prior to their Interstate designation. The only reason they were designated in the first place was the availability of Interstate maintenance funds at the time they were commissioned; in that respect,
"it's all about the Benjamins!" Caltrans wanted to revamp the facilities, so they coordinated (some would say
conspired) with some local congresspersons to secure the I-designations for just that purpose. Pretty much all the other 3di's are legitimate bypasses or connectors built under the original chargeable plan (with the exception of I-215, which came into being as a replacement for the previous I-15E suffixed I-15 branch).
^^^^
299 might have made a decent US 38 given the length and the important connections it made to "interstate" highways across the tip of California. CA 38 could have just been swapped around for something like 338 since that was a theme of the times with the 1964 renumbering. I'd argue US 99 still had a solid purpose as well given that even as a loop of I-5 it would be well over 300 miles.
I guess it just comes down to everything is more clear in retrospect. At the time I'm sure everyone was excited to not only get Interstate corridors going, but the allure of federal funding assistance I'm was even a bigger factor. Time has really shown that Interstate designations aren't the be all/end all of highway development, especially the pool of Federal Aid has largely dried up. Some of the designations (which you cited the primary ones) tend to just come off as clutter in a modern sense.
Its interesting to think that just a state over in Arizona the reverse is true. All freeways outside of the primary Interstates are either State Routes like the X0X loops, a stand along state route like 143, or even US 60. Some of the older plans including 3d Interstates but Arizona couldn't get a wiff of Federal Aid. I suspect that's the real reason there was never a 3d corridor in Arizona, why slap the designation on something that the state built alone?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2018, 07:50:13 AM
^^^^
299 might have made a decent US 38 given the length and the important connections it made to "interstate" highways across the tip of California. CA 38 could have just been swapped around for something like 338 since that was a theme of the times with the 1964 renumbering. I'd argue US 99 still had a solid purpose as well given that even as a loop of I-5 it would be well over 300 miles.
I guess it just comes down to everything is more clear in retrospect. At the time I'm sure everyone was excited to not only get Interstate corridors going, but the allure of federal funding assistance I'm was even a bigger factor. Time has really shown that Interstate designations aren't the be all/end all of highway development, especially the pool of Federal Aid has largely dried up. Some of the designations (which you cited the primary ones) tend to just come off as clutter in a modern sense.
Its interesting to think that just a state over in Arizona the reverse is true. All freeways outside of the primary Interstates are either State Routes like the X0X loops, a stand along state route like 143, or even US 60. Some of the older plans including 3d Interstates but Arizona couldn't get a wiff of Federal Aid. I suspect that's the real reason there was never a 3d corridor in Arizona, why slap the designation on something that the state built alone?
Part of the problem regarding AZ was that Phoenix was a burg somewhat under 100K population in the mid-50's when the Interstate system was being formulated; it's likely that it wasn't even considered significant enough at the time to warrant a bypass or inner-city loop, so 3di's weren't even in the works. After the early 60's boom, fueled largely by a huge retiree influx (including several of my relatives!), there was sufficient regional population for additional Interstate routes -- and there were a few miles left in the "kitty" for a couple of short spurs (Phoenix's I-510 and Tucson's I-710); but I-510 ended up being subsumed by the rerouting of I-10 through the city center, and I-710 was cancelled due to Tucson NIMBY activity. Funny thing -- the original 101/202/303 loops were to be numbered in the x10 and x17 ranges, but as state highways (possibly with the thought toward seeking Interstate status later on regardless of chargeability). I have heard stories over the years about AZ-based anti-federal political activity being responsible for the concept of the Phoenix loop system as potential Interstates being jettisoned; but that never got beyond simple hearsay. All I can say is the freeway network in Phoenix functions, for better or worse, just like any city with Interstate loops but with state numbering; it's a system that -- at least when compared to other metro regions' freeway systems -- isn't particularly broken and certainly isn't in any pressing need of red, white, and blue shields. Among cities/metro areas of it's size, it is certainly an anomaly -- but it works!