What is your favorite state DOT? The criterion are many; road maintenance, funding, signage consistency, signalization, etc. I personally like TXDOT (admiring the work they do across their vast area and those sexy stack interchanges).
The Texas Stacks are impressive from a design/architectural point of view, but I'm not a fan otherwise. They feel overdone from a roadgeek perspective.
The old California Division of Highways by far. The amount of pioneering in highway development they are responsible for is pretty epic in scale. Almost all of the notable highways in California where built under the Division of Highways. Things like CA 1 in Big Sur just wouldn't be possible in today's climate with the legislature and a decidedly less vibrant Caltrans.
NYSDOT. After all, through these gates pass America's best highway maintenance workers.
My least favorite would almost certainly be NMDOT. They don't know how to plan for a growing city, they don't maintain their roads very well, they don't give a shit about signage, and their online route log/record keeping system sucks.
TxDOT wins for me based on striping and signage.
(even if they do have those stupid "obey warning signs" things...)
Of the three home state DOTs, WSDOT wins hands down. Caltrans is too old-fashioned, and IDOT is just a big, steaming pile of shit.
For me, either TxDOT or NCDOT.
I don't necessarily have a least favorite DOT.
I'm not sure I have a least favorite, but New Mexico would have to be down at the bottom of the barrel.
Quote from: US 89 on May 21, 2020, 12:42:07 AM
My least favorite would almost certainly be NMDOT. They don't know how to plan for a growing city, they don't maintain their roads very well, they don't give a shit about signage, and their online route log/record keeping system sucks.
Agree, NMDOT maintained roads on the whole are the worst on average of any state I've lived or worked in.
My least favorite would either be NYSDOT, for a lack of consistency, or ConnDOT for never replacing their aging signs.
Quote from: kphoger on May 21, 2020, 11:35:17 AM
TxDOT wins for me based on striping and signage.
I've seen lanes dropped without proper warning. The examples that come to mind were on eastbound I-10 at the eastern TX 375 interchange in/near El Paso, and on northbound US 75 way north of Dallas, where it goes from four lanes down to two. I don't know if either has been fixed yet.
Their signs usually
look good, though.
Quote
(even if they do have those stupid "obey warning signs" things...)
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks those are stupid. If it was a sign to be
obeyed, it would be a regulatory sign, not a warning sign.
Least favorite for me no brainer WIS DOT hands down. Way to obsessed with roundabouts too many unnecessary duplexes and illogical routings. KYDOT is second with their obsession with widening rural freeways while neglecting urban ones. Favorite I would say it's tie between Georgia and NCDOT. Both states do a great job keeping their freeways up to date. And especially NC they keep building new ones.
I also like UDOT (great roads, though US route concurrencies could be signed better). NCDOT does a nice job as well, though its insistence on still installing signals with span wires disturbs me. IDOT is just crappy; certain freeways in the Metro East (Illinois STL suburbs) are awful, though at least they did close down a part of 255 entirely to reconstruct it.
Quote from: STLmapboy on May 21, 2020, 02:05:49 PM
NCDOT does a nice job as well, though its insistence on still installing signals with span wires disturbs me.
Can't disagree with this one.
Quote from: Henry on May 21, 2020, 11:50:48 AM
Of the three home state DOTs, WSDOT wins hands down. Caltrans is too old-fashioned, and IDOT is just a big, steaming pile of shit.
Do Tollway/Turnpike Authorities fall into this category?
If they do, I vote ISTHA.
If not...hmm...not sure really on a best or worst. IDOT certainly does have issues
Least Favorite is a toss up between ODOT (Oregon) and INDOT. ODOT couldn't properly sign if they had a manual, and the competing systems just makes things confusing. INDOT sucks because they don't have any creative ideas to fix all of their illogical gaps that are forced on them by the state, they have no idea how to maintain roads nor plan for growth.
Favorite would likely be either WSDOT or HIDOT. WSDOT works to solve design issues, works with developers to ensure that they address the growth impacts (as required by law), and seems to always be open for suggestion. HIDOT seems to do a great job with signing for locals and tourists alike, along with intuitive lane markings, and creative traffic solutions without building more lanes (like the Zipper Lanes).
Quote from: ilpt4u on May 21, 2020, 02:29:01 PM
Quote from: Henry on May 21, 2020, 11:50:48 AM
Of the three home state DOTs, WSDOT wins hands down. Caltrans is too old-fashioned, and IDOT is just a big, steaming pile of shit.
Do Tollway/Turnpike Authorities fall into this category?
If they do, I vote ISTHA.
If not...hmm...not sure really on a best or worst. IDOT certainly does have issues
Issues may be putting it mildly.
https://goo.gl/maps/CxpuKwMyQMNv9yB76 Yes, that is a metal plate.
https://goo.gl/maps/rFhkz4KXtmFon27v9
https://goo.gl/maps/3Zn2TresJGq4m8Tz7
https://goo.gl/maps/3f6BTTTkoJ4qBmb4A
https://goo.gl/maps/oSXTHS6Z8UQW336J9
https://goo.gl/maps/5iusMqeZmkTGpaGY6 Yes, another metal plate.
https://goo.gl/maps/Z8yji2R9e6PDCgxw9 Northbound is no better. That's a much bigger plate.
https://goo.gl/maps/mJp5GkHi2QzGpLYs9 What happens when your seams split.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 21, 2020, 11:52:29 AM
For me, either TxDOT or NCDOT.
North Carolina has one long and embarrassingly bad Interstate - most of I-95 in the Tar Heel State is under-dimensioned (only two lanes each way frequently with a narrow PennDOT-style median barrier) and many of the interchanges are dangerously obsolete and need to be replaced.
Quote from: Brandon on May 21, 2020, 03:34:22 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on May 21, 2020, 02:29:01 PM
Quote from: Henry on May 21, 2020, 11:50:48 AM
Of the three home state DOTs, WSDOT wins hands down. Caltrans is too old-fashioned, and IDOT is just a big, steaming pile of shit.
Do Tollway/Turnpike Authorities fall into this category?
If they do, I vote ISTHA.
If not...hmm...not sure really on a best or worst. IDOT certainly does have issues
Issues may be putting it mildly.
https://goo.gl/maps/CxpuKwMyQMNv9yB76 Yes, that is a metal plate.
https://goo.gl/maps/rFhkz4KXtmFon27v9
https://goo.gl/maps/3Zn2TresJGq4m8Tz7
https://goo.gl/maps/3f6BTTTkoJ4qBmb4A
https://goo.gl/maps/oSXTHS6Z8UQW336J9
https://goo.gl/maps/5iusMqeZmkTGpaGY6 Yes, another metal plate.
https://goo.gl/maps/Z8yji2R9e6PDCgxw9 Northbound is no better. That's a much bigger plate.
https://goo.gl/maps/mJp5GkHi2QzGpLYs9 What happens when your seams split.
Do you know if a lot of motor fuel tax revenue in Illinois is diverted to transit operating and capital subsidies?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 21, 2020, 03:39:02 PM
Quote from: Brandon on May 21, 2020, 03:34:22 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on May 21, 2020, 02:29:01 PM
Quote from: Henry on May 21, 2020, 11:50:48 AM
Of the three home state DOTs, WSDOT wins hands down. Caltrans is too old-fashioned, and IDOT is just a big, steaming pile of shit.
Do Tollway/Turnpike Authorities fall into this category?
If they do, I vote ISTHA.
If not...hmm...not sure really on a best or worst. IDOT certainly does have issues
Issues may be putting it mildly.
https://goo.gl/maps/CxpuKwMyQMNv9yB76 Yes, that is a metal plate.
https://goo.gl/maps/rFhkz4KXtmFon27v9
https://goo.gl/maps/3Zn2TresJGq4m8Tz7
https://goo.gl/maps/3f6BTTTkoJ4qBmb4A
https://goo.gl/maps/oSXTHS6Z8UQW336J9
https://goo.gl/maps/5iusMqeZmkTGpaGY6 Yes, another metal plate.
https://goo.gl/maps/Z8yji2R9e6PDCgxw9 Northbound is no better. That's a much bigger plate.
https://goo.gl/maps/mJp5GkHi2QzGpLYs9 What happens when your seams split.
Do you know if a lot of motor fuel tax revenue in Illinois is diverted to transit operating and capital subsidies?
I don't think all that much is, but a lot seems to wind up greasing some wheels, and some pocketbooks too. There is a reason Missouri can do more with less money (and MoDOT's freaking broke too).
Missouri? The state where every project has "cheap" as its goal?
Quote from: kphoger on May 21, 2020, 03:55:25 PM
Missouri? The state where every project has "cheap" as its goal?
Hell, InDOT, IowaDOT and WisDOT do more with less money than IDOT.
Is it fair to blame a DOT when the legislature or the tax base is really the problem?
Quote from: kphoger on May 21, 2020, 03:55:25 PM
Missouri? The state where every project has "cheap" as its goal?
or "delay", for the same reason. They're broke.
Quote from: kkt on May 21, 2020, 04:20:42 PM
Is it fair to blame a DOT when the legislature or the tax base is really the problem?
Is it fair to blame the legislature or the tax base, when the comparison is actually about what the DOT
does with the money?
Quote from: Brandon on May 21, 2020, 03:52:40 PM
There is a reason Missouri can do more with less money (and MoDOT's freaking broke too).
Quote from: Brandon on May 21, 2020, 03:56:21 PM
Hell, InDOT, IowaDOT and WisDOT do more with less money than IDOT.
Best: TXDot, FDOT
Worst: MDOT, IDiOT, NMDot
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 21, 2020, 06:05:36 PM
Best: TXDot, FDOT
Worst: MDOT, IDiOT, NMDot
MDOT (Michigan) has some of the most impressive roadway design I've seen and usually the best signage that I've seen. I've heard some areas have maintenance issues, although I haven't run into bad ones personally.
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 21, 2020, 06:16:30 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 21, 2020, 06:05:36 PM
Best: TXDot, FDOT
Worst: MDOT, IDiOT, NMDot
MDOT (Michigan) has some of the most impressive roadway design I've seen and usually the best signage that I've seen. I've heard some areas have maintenance issues, although I haven't run into bad ones personally.
There are 3 MDOTs.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 21, 2020, 03:35:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 21, 2020, 11:52:29 AM
For me, either TxDOT or NCDOT.
North Carolina has one long and embarrassingly bad Interstate - most of I-95 in the Tar Heel State is under-dimensioned (only two lanes each way frequently with a narrow PennDOT-style median barrier) and many of the interchanges are dangerously obsolete and need to be replaced.
Two projects - one partially under construction, and the remainder of the first plus the second to be let next year - that will widen approximately 44 miles of I-95 from 4 to 8 lanes, covering some of the oldest, obsolete, and outdated segments. Every bridge will be replaced and interchange ramps will be realigned to meet modern standards. Additionally, segments in low-lying flood-prone areas will be raised, notably near Lumberton.
I-40 to US-301 Business north of Fayetteville (Exit 56 to Exit 81) - 25 miles - $708.9 million
US-301 Business south of Fayetteville to US-301 near Lumberton (Exit 22 to Exit 40) - $448 million
None of the projects will involve tolling on I-95, as previously proposed.
Thread regarding I-95 widening in North Carolina -
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26766.0
I will agree they've slacked with I-95, but they are making a major step forward. Additionally, they are going for 8 lane widening rather than 6 lane widening, which will ensure plenty of room for growth over the next few decades only carrying about 40,000 - 50,000 AADT today. Over the next decade, hopefully at least the other proposed 8 lane segments between I-74 and US-301 near Lumberton (Exit 13 and Exit 22) and the Fayetteville Bypass (Exit 40 to Exit 56) are funded. The rest of I-95 in North Carolina - south of I-74, and north of I-40 - are proposed to be 6 lane sections - mostly built to more modern standards than the I-40 to I-74 segment and carry slightly less traffic than that segment.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 21, 2020, 06:05:36 PM
Best: TXDot, FDOT
Worst: MDOT, IDiOT, NMDot
In defense of IDOT: They do some things well
I think IDOT is top of the good list for Traffic Signals, even including the slow uptake of the FYA (outside D4)
Quote from: ilpt4u on May 21, 2020, 07:37:53 PM
I think IDOT is too of the good list for Traffic Signals, even including the slow uptake of the FYA (outside D4)
I thought their signals were horribly timed.
Depends where you are. Some places are timed very well. YMMV
On use of Mast Arms, number of and placement of Signal heads, and me being partial to 5 section towers, I think IDOT signals are some of the best I see out there
Much better than neighboring Indiana and much more consistent compared to Missouri
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 21, 2020, 03:35:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 21, 2020, 11:52:29 AM
For me, either TxDOT or NCDOT.
North Carolina has one long and embarrassingly bad Interstate - most of I-95 in the Tar Heel State is under-dimensioned (only two lanes each way frequently with a narrow PennDOT-style median barrier) and many of the interchanges are dangerously obsolete and need to be replaced.
A lot of the western stuff (Charlotte and Raleigh) is very nice. From what I've seen/driven, the real problem on I-95 is in SC.
Quote from: STLmapboy on May 21, 2020, 08:42:20 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 21, 2020, 03:35:54 PM
North Carolina has one long and embarrassingly bad Interstate - most of I-95 in the Tar Heel State is under-dimensioned (only two lanes each way frequently with a narrow PennDOT-style median barrier) and many of the interchanges are dangerously obsolete and need to be replaced.
A lot of the western stuff (Charlotte and Raleigh) is very nice. From what I've seen/driven, the real problem on I-95 is in SC.
The other SC Interstates aren't so hot, either. I'd put SCDOT on my "least favorite" list (though it's hard to top NMDOT), but not NCDOT.
Best would probably be TxDot, even though their construction signage both tells too much info (as kphoger pointed out) as well as not enough (basically no advance warning of exits in construction zones in Houston).
DOTD would probably be at the bottom of the barrel, they make some questionable decisions, such as building the Audobon bridge instead of a new Baton Rouge bridge.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 21, 2020, 02:15:35 PM
Quote from: STLmapboy on May 21, 2020, 02:05:49 PM
NCDOT does a nice job as well, though its insistence on still installing signals with span wires disturbs me.
Can't disagree with this one.
And backplates aren't even a word in their vocabulary (still installing new bare yellow signals).
I'm surprised that PennDOT hasn't come up on anyone's list yet. There's plenty to dislike about them...but I won't call them the worst.
Of states I've been to, I'd say VDOT ranks highly. I've always considered Virginia's roads to be of high quality (even with relatively low gas taxes, which are going up soon).
SCDOT, on the other hand...not so good. But maybe with higher gas taxes, they'll improve.
Quote from: CoreySamson on May 21, 2020, 08:49:53 PM
DOTD would probably be at the bottom of the barrel, they make some questionable decisions, such as building the Audobon bridge instead of a new Baton Rouge bridge.
This is why my man cjk374 says DOTD stands for "Department of Total Destruction" :)
Quote from: 1 on May 21, 2020, 07:40:18 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on May 21, 2020, 07:37:53 PM
I think IDOT is too of the good list for Traffic Signals, even including the slow uptake of the FYA (outside D4)
I thought their signals were horribly timed.
Timing? IDOT doesn't really do timing. About 99% of signals in this state owned by IDOT are actuated.
Favorite: KDOT posts some of the most well-designed signage in the country, and is extremely consistent from panel to panel. One would be forgiven for thinking it was all drawn up by one guy in Topeka.
MoDOT and KTA get honorable mentions because they've both been extremely helpful when I've contacted them.
Least favorite: Need I even say? But it's OklaDOT. Signs that look like they were designed by a drunk four-year-old coupled with batshit insane work zone design and refusal to even respond to emails does not make for a great experience.
Quote from: Crown Victoria on May 21, 2020, 09:17:55 PM
I'm surprised that PennDOT hasn't come up on anyone's list yet. There's plenty to dislike about them...but I won't call them the worst.
Maybe because I know a little about PennDOT (I live in Maryland, and we share a long border with Pennsylvania), I am not a fan of Pennsylvania's highway system - but - it seems that a lot of the blame for PennDOT's problems resides in the Pennsylvania legislature, where low taxes on motor fuel have (until about the past 5 or 6 years) been a higher priority than maintaining the highway network, including bridges. Now Pennsylvania seems to have has been dealt a bad hand - maybe more than most states, the Keystone State has a very expensive geography when it comes to highways and bridges, which plenty of mountains (none of those mountains all that tall) and rivers across so much of the state. There are others states that are similar (including especially West Virginia) that also have a lot of bridges over large and small rivers - and bridges tend to get expensive pretty quickly.
Quote from: Crown Victoria on May 21, 2020, 09:17:55 PM
Of states I've been to, I'd say VDOT ranks highly. I've always considered Virginia's roads to be of high quality (even with relatively low gas taxes, which are going up soon).
Agree regarding VDOT. Though I do not agree with conclusions and policies imposed on VDOT by previous governors of the Commonwealth and previous general assemblies, I have deep respect for them as an agency (most of my dealings with VDOT are Northern Virginia District and the Central Office in Richmond). Beyond that, VDOT has gotten significantly better as an agency in the 35+ years that I have been dealing with them.
Regarding fuel taxes, remember that there are also transit subsidy taxes imposed on fuel sold in certain cities and counties of Virginia, so that low gas prices in a rural county will not be the same in places like Northern Virginia, where a 2.1% tax on fuel sales is imposed to subsidize the Washington regional Metrorail and Metrobus systems. PRTC, south of Northern Virginia and as far south as Spotsylvania County collects a 2% tax. In the Hampton Roads area of Virginia, a 2.1% tax is also levied on fuel sales. Beyond those, there are relatively new taxes that are charged on fuel sold in counties and cities along the I-81 corridor.
Quote from: Crown Victoria on May 21, 2020, 09:17:55 PM
SCDOT, on the other hand...not so good. But maybe with higher gas taxes, they'll improve.
SCDOT has the good fortune to be in a location where they do not have all that much in the way of freeze-thaw cycles, nor is there much need to salt their highways. Those reduce maintenance costs and probably means that they do not have much in the way of snowplows and sanding/salting equipment.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 21, 2020, 10:17:10 PM
Regarding fuel taxes, remember that there are also transit subsidy taxes imposed on fuel sold in certain cities and counties of Virginia, so that low gas prices in a rural county will not be the same in places like Northern Virginia, where a 2.1% tax on fuel sales is imposed to subsidize the Washington regional Metrorail and Metrobus systems. PRTC, south of Northern Virginia and as far south as Spotsylvania County collects a 2% tax. In the Hampton Roads area of Virginia, a 2.1% tax is also levied on fuel sales. Beyond those, there are relatively new taxes that are charged on fuel sold in counties and cities along the I-81 corridor.
The tax will be levied statewide by 2021 to help fund transportation projects going forth, and will increase with inflation.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 21, 2020, 10:17:10 PM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on May 21, 2020, 09:17:55 PM
I'm surprised that PennDOT hasn't come up on anyone's list yet. There's plenty to dislike about them...but I won't call them the worst.
Maybe because I know a little about PennDOT (I live in Maryland, and we share a long border with Pennsylvania), I am not a fan of Pennsylvania's highway system - but - it seems that a lot of the blame for PennDOT's problems resides in the Pennsylvania legislature, where low taxes on motor fuel have (until about the past 5 or 6 years) been a higher priority than maintaining the highway network, including bridges. Now Pennsylvania seems to have has been dealt a bad hand - maybe more than most states, the Keystone State has a very expensive geography when it comes to highways and bridges, which plenty of mountains (none of those mountains all that tall) and rivers across so much of the state. There are others states that are similar (including especially West Virginia) that also have a lot of bridges over large and small rivers - and bridges tend to get expensive pretty quickly.
Quote from: Crown Victoria on May 21, 2020, 09:17:55 PM
Of states I've been to, I'd say VDOT ranks highly. I've always considered Virginia's roads to be of high quality (even with relatively low gas taxes, which are going up soon).
Agree regarding VDOT. Though I do not agree with conclusions and policies imposed on VDOT by previous governors of the Commonwealth and previous general assemblies, I have deep respect for them as an agency (most of my dealings with VDOT are Northern Virginia District and the Central Office in Richmond). Beyond that, VDOT has gotten significantly better as an agency in the 35+ years that I have been dealing with them.
Regarding fuel taxes, remember that there are also transit subsidy taxes imposed on fuel sold in certain cities and counties of Virginia, so that low gas prices in a rural county will not be the same in places like Northern Virginia, where a 2.1% tax on fuel sales is imposed to subsidize the Washington regional Metrorail and Metrobus systems. PRTC, south of Northern Virginia and as far south as Spotsylvania County collects a 2% tax. In the Hampton Roads area of Virginia, a 2.1% tax is also levied on fuel sales. Beyond those, there are relatively new taxes that are charged on fuel sold in counties and cities along the I-81 corridor.
Quote from: Crown Victoria on May 21, 2020, 09:17:55 PM
SCDOT, on the other hand...not so good. But maybe with higher gas taxes, they'll improve.
SCDOT has the good fortune to be in a location where they do not have all that much in the way of freeze-thaw cycles, nor is there much need to salt their highways. Those reduce maintenance costs and probably means that they do not have much in the way of snowplows and sanding/salting equipment.
Yes I agree that PennDOT has its challenges even if it has/would have plentiful funding. The roads here in Penn's Woods have become noticeably better lately, but we have a long way to go.
As far as VDOT, even with the regional fuel taxes, their rates are still decently low compared to many other states with worse roads. Of course there is room for improvement anywhere, but they've done a good job I think with what they have.
I have to agree with those who picked NCDOT and TXDOT as the two best DOTs nationwide. They really set the bar high for all others, and they genuinely care enough about their highways (including signage and lighting) to improve and make them even better than they were before.
If you want to go by the aesthetic quality of the way they design their roads, my favorite would tie between FDOT and WSDOT. There's something very pleasing about the way these two DOTs do things, especially WSDOT. They're immediately recognizable and pretty distinct from other states with their standards. MDSHA is also very good, I'm surprised they haven't got a mention yet.
My least favorite in terms of safety/practicality, on the other hand, would be SCDOT. Everything they do is garbage. Some of their design choices are interesting, but by and large, they're one of the worst DOTs in the nation. Bad roads, weird road design, intersections and their configurations unchanged from the 50s, etc etc. They're still making uncrowned roads with no reflective markers that still have paint instead of thermoplastics in two thousand and freaking twenty.
Quote from: STLmapboy on May 21, 2020, 09:05:21 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 21, 2020, 02:15:35 PM
Quote from: STLmapboy on May 21, 2020, 02:05:49 PM
NCDOT does a nice job as well, though its insistence on still installing signals with span wires disturbs me.
Can't disagree with this one.
And backplates aren't even a word in their vocabulary (still installing new bare yellow signals).
With NCDOT, with little details like backplates, masts, and spanwires, YMMV, depending on state DOT district and where you are. Some new installs do have them. From what I've seen on GSV they're more common in the northeastern bit of the state, less common elsewhere. Mast installations also seem to be more common towards the coast.
Quote from: kphoger on May 21, 2020, 11:35:17 AM
TxDOT wins for me based on striping and signage.
(even if they do have those stupid "obey warning signs" things...)
Quote from: CoreySamson on May 21, 2020, 08:49:53 PM
Best would probably be TxDot, even though their construction signage both tells too much info (as kphoger pointed out) ...
I don't think those are "construction signage".
Quote from: kphoger on May 22, 2020, 12:37:29 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 21, 2020, 11:35:17 AM
TxDOT wins for me based on striping and signage.
(even if they do have those stupid "obey warning signs" things...)
Quote from: CoreySamson on May 21, 2020, 08:49:53 PM
Best would probably be TxDot, even though their construction signage both tells too much info (as kphoger pointed out) ...
I don't think those are "construction signage".
I usually only see those signs in construction zones...
Quote from: CoreySamson on May 22, 2020, 02:41:22 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 22, 2020, 12:37:29 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 21, 2020, 11:35:17 AM
TxDOT wins for me based on striping and signage.
(even if they do have those stupid "obey warning signs" things...)
Quote from: CoreySamson on May 21, 2020, 08:49:53 PM
Best would probably be TxDot, even though their construction signage both tells too much info (as kphoger pointed out) ...
I don't think those are "construction signage".
I usually only see those signs in construction zones...
I did some digging around the internet, and I guess you must be right. Maybe I'm just remembering wrong, or else the signs were left up after the project was completed. Anyway, a nice side benefit of my digging is that I found the definition of "warning signs" in this context:
Quote from: Texas Transportation Code
ยง 472.022. Obeying Warning Signs and Barricades
(a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) disobeys the instructions, signals, warnings, or markings of a warning sign ...
(e) In this section:
(3) "Warning sign" means a signal, marking, or device placed on a barricade or on a road, street, or highway during construction, repair, or dangerous conditions by the department, a political subdivision of this state, or a contractor or subcontractor to warn or regulate motor vehicular traffic. The term includes a flagger deployed on a road, street, or highway by the department, a political subdivision of this state, or a contractor or subcontractor to direct traffic around or on the road, street, or highway during construction, repair, or dangerous conditions.
So, even though we can debate whether it's possible to obey a sign that does nothing but warn drivers of something, the legal definition behind the signs includes those that "regulate" motor vehicle traffic, which broadens the category a bit.
Best: TxDOT, WISDOT, INDOT, and ADOT.
TxDOT: World-class infrastructure, four and five level stack interchanges, frontage roads, etc.
WISDOT: Roundabouts, stack interchanges, and massive reconstruction and widening projects (i.e. I-94 North-South, I-39/90, etc.), four-lane freeways/expressways to major cities
ADOT: Best freeway system (Phoenix), stack interchanges, crazy mountain roads
INDOT (my home state): freeway closures in a major city (Indianapolis), roundabouts
Worst: ODOT (Oklahoma), IDOT, PennDOT, and RIDOT
ODOT: Signs are goofy, unimpressive interchanges, etc.
IDOT: Terrible roads and terrible bridges (except for the ISTHA)
PennDOT: Narrow (literally everything)
RIDOT: Worst bridges and worst roads that I've ever driven on
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on May 22, 2020, 04:26:45 PM
Best: TxDOT, WISDOT, INDOT, and ADOT.
TxDOT: World-class infrastructure, four and five level stack interchanges, frontage roads, etc.
WISDOT: Roundabouts, stack interchanges, and massive reconstruction and widening projects (i.e. I-94 North-South, I-39/90, etc.), four-lane freeways/expressways to major cities
ADOT: Best freeway system (Phoenix), stack interchanges, crazy mountain roads
INDOT (my home state): freeway closures in a major city (Indianapolis), roundabouts
Worst: ODOT (Oklahoma), IDOT, PennDOT, and RIDOT
ODOT: Signs are goofy, unimpressive interchanges, etc.
IDOT: Terrible roads and terrible bridges (except for the ISTHA)
PennDOT: Narrow (literally everything)
RIDOT: Worst bridges and worst roads that I've ever driven on
One big knock I have with ADOT is the often sissy speed limits out on twisty mountain State Highways. The fact that ADOT thinks anyone is sticking to 25 MPH at places like US 191 on the Coronado Trail is laughable.
Regarding NCDOT, their top brass just got furloughed and the blame for budget woes has fallen to them.
CDOT in Colorado is definitely one of the better ones.
- They do a heck of a job keeping the mountain roads passable/open in the winter.
- Speed Limits are very generous, and they like to keep slower speed limit areas brief (example: If a relatively straight road has a curvy section, they will usually sign the more dangerous section at a slower speed for about a half mile before and after).
- The CDOT-Maintained interstate and non-interstate highways are usually in good shape, surface-wise.
They could do a little better on signing routes -- at intersections, on interstate paralleling routes, and on overlaps of more than one route. And they could make listing of statewide construction projects, especially those planned later in the year, a little easier online.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49927491857_ec3338b817.jpg)
Quote from: thenetwork on May 23, 2020, 02:36:56 PM
CDOT in Colorado is definitely one of the better ones.
- They do a heck of a job keeping the mountain roads passable/open in the winter.
- Speed Limits are very generous, and they like to keep slower speed limit areas brief (example: If a relatively straight road has a curvy section, they will usually sign the more dangerous section at a slower speed for about a half mile before and after).
- The CDOT-Maintained interstate and non-interstate highways are usually in good shape, surface-wise.
They could do a little better on signing routes -- at intersections, on interstate paralleling routes, and on overlaps of more than one route. And they could make listing of statewide construction projects, especially those planned later in the year, a little easier online.
There are two CDOTS in Colorado. The one outside the metro area does do a great job with their mountain roads, and you can always feel safe following the posted limits on any winding mountain road. Though, sometimes it occurs that they are micromanaging the speed limits as you approach intersections, etc.
The Denver metro area is another story. Quite frequently State Highways are in worse condition than the city arterial streets, especially with regards to snow removal. They also make inexplicable decisions when they do major projects where they leave the biggest bottlenecks in place and make questionable design decisions. One example is the mid-2010s reconstruction of US 36: reverse superelevation on exit ramps, few auxiliary lanes, keeping the lane imbalance east of CO 95/Sheridan Boulevard (2+HOT EB, 3+HOT WB), then dropping HOT and GP into two lanes at Pecos before I-25.
I do have a big gripe on the route signage, especially the US routes. Try following US 6, US 40, US 24, US 36, or US 85 across the state by the signs, and you'll never figure it out. US 85 even has an orphaned section north of Fountain that rejoins I-25 AT AN OVERPASS WITH NO EXIT (https://www.google.com/maps/place/3708-3714+CanAm+Hwy,+Colorado+Springs,+CO+80906/@38.7762156,-104.7876365,15.75z/data=!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x8713447f64cdbb63:0xfc4700f1bee0c31a!2sVenetucci+Blvd,+Southeast+Colorado+Springs,+CO+80906!3b1!8m2!3d38.7837841!4d-104.7906458!3m4!1s0x871343910cb9b1bd:0xd15ce6f661194e44!8m2!3d38.7761701!4d-104.7827521). There are also state routes with odd orientation changes that no one would follow from end to end (CO 88, CO 30, CO 54). It's obvious that route continuity is not a priority.
And, the legislature enacted a tax ("fee") on registration renewals ostensibly for bridges back in 2013. CDOT instead used it to fund subsidized bus service from Fort Collins to the Springs. Every time you see a "Bustang" bus, that's a bridge driving down the road.
Outside a bar in Hell, Michigan:
(https://i.imgur.com/eYeG1mD.jpg)
Quote from: wanderer2575 on May 24, 2020, 01:07:30 PM
Outside a bar in Hell, Michigan:
(https://i.imgur.com/eYeG1mD.jpg)
They should just put Deteriorating Roads next 400 miles under the Welcome to Pure Michigan sign. I hate how they have the word Pure on those signs.
Best: I like MDOT not being biased but they do a great job with signage. There are some highways that need work but for the most part MDOT does a good job. The main highways that I have a problem with are the two lane sections of I-69, I-94, US-23 and I-75 between the south end of I-475 and the US-23 split and again in Bay County.
I also like I should say love TxDOT.
Love the speed limits and frontage roads.
Worst: IDOT should say IDIOT. Refusal of freeway extension's from Wisconsin. Terrible roads, stupid control cities using states over cities, stupid design on many Chicago expressways. IDOT is a joke.
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 24, 2020, 01:31:20 PM
Best: I like MDOT not being biased but they do a great job with signage. There are some highways that need work but for the most part MDOT does a good job. The main highways that I have a problem with are the two lane sections of I-69, I-94, US-23 and I-75 between the south end of I-475 and the US-23 split and again in Bay County.
I also like I should say love TxDOT.
Love the speed limits and frontage roads.
Worst: IDOT should say IDIOT. Refusal of freeway extension's from Wisconsin. Terrible roads, stupid control cities using states over cities, stupid design on many Chicago expressways. IDOT is a joke.
MDOT does do some really nice sign assemblies. However, I doubt that they will be among anyone's favorite given how bad the State Trunkline System got at the start of the century. Pure Potholes didn't pop up in a vacuum.
Taking a different view here :sombrero:.
Worst: MDOT, NDOT, ODOT. I've mentioned 8 DOTs in total, but just 3 initials. Therefore, one needs to disambiguate between them (Maryland/Michigan/Mississippi, Nebraska/Nevada, all O states). At least IDOT is not idiot in this regard.
Best: Caltrans, ITD, KYTC, VTrans. All four avoid the use of DOT, and thus have a distinctive feeling. Idaho takes one step further and reverses the terms "Department" and "Transportation". Kentucky goes even further by not using the word "Department" at all, instead calling it the "Transportation Cabinet".
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on May 24, 2020, 05:30:24 PM
Kentucky goes even further by not using the word "Department" at all, instead calling it the "Transportation Cabinet".
That's the structure of all executive branch government agencies in Kentucky. I think the Cabinet structure came into existence in the early 1980s. At one time, there was a level called "Bureau."
Kentucky has a number of departments, including the Department of Highways, within the Transportation Cabinet.
Kentucky has a Secretary of the Executive Cabinet position that typically oversees the Cabinet secretaries.
Here are our subdivisions and the titles of the leaders.
Cabinet-secretary
Department-commissioner
Division or office-director or executive director
The three above are politically-appointed positions. Those below them are career civil service positions
Branch-manager
Section-supervisor
Unit-supervisor
In KYTC's case, each maintenance garage is a unit but the supervisor is known as a superintendent (commonly called foreman) instead of a supervisor.
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 24, 2020, 01:31:20 PM
I also like I should say love TxDOT.
Love the speed limits and frontage roads.
Since when does the DOT set the speed limits?
https://www.txdot.gov/government/enforcement/speed-limits/setting.html
QuoteTexas law requires that speed limits on state roadways be set at the state maximum, unless traffic and engineering studies show a need to alter a speed limit for safety reasons.
Maximum Speed Limit
The law sets the maximum at 70 mph, but allows the Texas Transportation Commission to establish a maximum speed limit of 75 mph (80 mph or 85 mph if the highway is designed to accommodate that speed) on the highway system if that speed is determined to be safe and reasonable after a traffic or engineering study. A maximum speed limit of 80 mph within 10 counties on Interstate 10 and Interstate 20 is also permitted.
City governments and TxDOT must conduct traffic and engineering studies according to requirements outlined in TxDOT's publication, Procedures for Establishing Speed Zones, when setting a speed limit on the state highway system. Speed limits on state highways may be set by the Commission or by a city if the highway is within city limits.
Jurisdiction
Citizen requests for speed zone studies on highways should be made to the TxDOT district office with jurisdiction over the roadway.
TxDOT only has jurisdiction over setting speed limits on the state highway system. Questions about speed limits on city streets or county roads should be directed to the transportation departments of these local governments.
Every state maintained roadway is required to have a 70 mph posted speed limit unless a traffic engineering study indicates otherwise. This includes anything from a 2-lane road to an interstate highway.
The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet doesn't do a good job of communicating new projects
I saw they were going to straighten US 127 in southern Kentucky but couldn't find a website of good information.
I contacted them on Facebook and couldn't get anymore information.
This is a $125 million dollar project
INDOT would have had a decent webpage with good information.
SM-G950U
Favorite: KYTC
Least: Modot, Idot, and MassHighway
PennDOT has to be in the running for one of the worst. Everything is expensive (no wonder we're broke), projects are never built (around where I live an eight-mile freeway has taken 20 years to build and isn't done yet), speed limits are typically Northeastern (55 and 65 are still common on rural freeways) and highways are narrow to the extent that when I drove the Merritt Parkway for the first time, my dad (who's from the area) warned me about how narrow the road was and I had to ask "when does the narrow part start" the entire way.
Quote from: Ketchup99 on June 14, 2020, 03:40:45 PM
PennDOT has to be in the running for one of the worst. Everything is expensive (no wonder we're broke), projects are never built (around where I live an eight-mile freeway has taken 20 years to build and isn't done yet), speed limits are typically Northeastern (55 and 65 are still common on rural freeways) and highways are narrow to the extent that when I drove the Merritt Parkway for the first time, my dad (who's from the area) warned me about how narrow the road was and I had to ask "when does the narrow part start" the entire way.
Do you mind me asking what the name of the freeway under construction is?
I agree with your assessment of PennDOT. Sure, the infrastructure is old, but if you're going to put sky high tolls on the turnpike then you should be efficient in using that money.
NCDOT is probably my favorite, at least of the states I visit frequently:
Pros
- Willingness to invest in infrastructure upgrades and new freeways
- Good-looking, consistent signage with FHWA alphabets
- Well-surfaced roads (though that's more thanks to the lack of a winter freeze, but whatever)
- Most of the crappy interstate sections have active or upcoming improvement projects to fix issues
Cons
- Work zone speed limits that stretch well beyond the actual area of work being done
- Illogical control city choices
- Some bad interchange design choices on urban freeways
I'm meh-to-negative on VDOT, but it's possible that I just experience more of their flaws than other DOTs:
Pros
- Very well-surfaced roads, easily the best in the region
- Well-done signage (at least in regions where VDOT does signage work), especially considering all of the secondary routes running around.
- Good snow preparedness (for the region)
- I-295
Cons
- Absolutely glacial pace of upgrades to core infrastructure outside of Northern Virginia. Stuff that has been a known problem for years and years getting bogged down for years in studies and funding disputes (I-81, I-64 Richmond to Newport News, I-95 Fredericksburg to Woodbridge).
- Insistence on building most new infrastructure as tolled/HOT facilities, such as the HRBT expansion and the High-Rise Bridge replacement.
- Repeatedly selling its soul to private tolling operators, leading to debacles like the ERC scandals, VA-895, the Transurban non-competes, and the failed US-460 project.
- Devotion to qualitative metrics like Smart Scale leading to a (perception of) bias towards Northern Virginia.
My worst would probably have to go to MDSHA, which in addition to most of the problems with VDOT listed above, also adds:
- Stupidly low speed limits, often enforced by speed cameras
- Bad highway maintenance
- Bad / unreliable signage
---
Quote from: ibthebigd on June 07, 2020, 07:34:53 PM
The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet doesn't do a good job of communicating new projects
I saw they were going to straighten US 127 in southern Kentucky but couldn't find a website of good information.
I contacted them on Facebook and couldn't get anymore information.
This is a $125 million dollar project
INDOT would have had a decent webpage with good information.
SM-G950U
I'll concur with this opinion; It's super difficult to find construction info on the Kentucky section of Corridor Q, despite it being a ~$500M+ project.
Quote from: STLmapboy on June 14, 2020, 04:57:06 PM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on June 14, 2020, 03:40:45 PM
PennDOT has to be in the running for one of the worst. Everything is expensive (no wonder we're broke), projects are never built (around where I live an eight-mile freeway has taken 20 years to build and isn't done yet), speed limits are typically Northeastern (55 and 65 are still common on rural freeways) and highways are narrow to the extent that when I drove the Merritt Parkway for the first time, my dad (who's from the area) warned me about how narrow the road was and I had to ask "when does the narrow part start" the entire way.
Do you mind me asking what the name of the freeway under construction is?
It's the so-called "missing link" in US-322 between State College and Potters Mills. The idea of the freeway connector (US-322 is freeway east of there to Harrisburg) is extremely old, but funding was pulled from a prior commitment in 2004. The project was funded via Act 89 in 2014, and the estimate is completion will be in 2031.
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 14, 2020, 05:03:01 PM
They need to build an I-295 along VA-207 / US-301 to US-50. I-97 Southern Extension, 6 lanes throughout, 8 lanes north of Waldorf.
The existing I-295 is easily the best designed interstates in the state. The 8 lane portion only carried 30,000 AADT until the 1990s, and even today with 80,000 AADT, never any problems. The 6 lane portion only carries around 30,000 AADT, never any problems.
At the same time, they decide to construct the last leg of the Hampton Roads Beltway (I-664) as a 4 lane freeway, it carries close to 100,000 AADT today, and is a bottleneck. If they were using the I-295 model, I-664 should've been 8 lanes from I-64 to VA-164, including an 8 lane MMMBT, and 6 lanes south to Bowers Hill. They built I-464 between I-64 and VA-337 (reduces to 4 lanes before I-264) to 6 lanes in the 1980s, and it carries only 50,000 AADT. Don't get me wrong, I certainly appreciate having 6 lanes leaving south out of Downtown Norfolk, but if only one could have it, I would've rather seen I-664 with 6 lanes instead of I-464.
Quote from: Ketchup99 on June 14, 2020, 06:03:38 PM
Quote from: STLmapboy on June 14, 2020, 04:57:06 PM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on June 14, 2020, 03:40:45 PM
PennDOT has to be in the running for one of the worst. Everything is expensive (no wonder we're broke), projects are never built (around where I live an eight-mile freeway has taken 20 years to build and isn't done yet), speed limits are typically Northeastern (55 and 65 are still common on rural freeways) and highways are narrow to the extent that when I drove the Merritt Parkway for the first time, my dad (who's from the area) warned me about how narrow the road was and I had to ask "when does the narrow part start" the entire way.
Do you mind me asking what the name of the freeway under construction is?
It's the so-called "missing link" in US-322 between State College and Potters Mills. The idea of the freeway connector (US-322 is freeway east of there to Harrisburg) is extremely old, but funding was pulled from a prior commitment in 2004. The project was funded via Act 89 in 2014, and the estimate is completion will be in 2031.
Ah I say. On Google Maps it looks to be a 2 laner with virtually no construction started yet. This is like Penna's Brandenburg Airport.
Quote from: STLmapboy on June 14, 2020, 10:36:55 PM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on June 14, 2020, 06:03:38 PM
Quote from: STLmapboy on June 14, 2020, 04:57:06 PM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on June 14, 2020, 03:40:45 PM
PennDOT has to be in the running for one of the worst. Everything is expensive (no wonder we're broke), projects are never built (around where I live an eight-mile freeway has taken 20 years to build and isn't done yet), speed limits are typically Northeastern (55 and 65 are still common on rural freeways) and highways are narrow to the extent that when I drove the Merritt Parkway for the first time, my dad (who's from the area) warned me about how narrow the road was and I had to ask "when does the narrow part start" the entire way.
Do you mind me asking what the name of the freeway under construction is?
It's the so-called "missing link" in US-322 between State College and Potters Mills. The idea of the freeway connector (US-322 is freeway east of there to Harrisburg) is extremely old, but funding was pulled from a prior commitment in 2004. The project was funded via Act 89 in 2014, and the estimate is completion will be in 2031.
Ah I say. On Google Maps it looks to be a 2 laner with virtually no construction started yet. This is like Penna's Brandenburg Airport.
Truly. The construction is slowly, slowly moving westward towards State College and leaving freeway in its place, but it's very slow progress...
My favorite is NCDOT because they are not shy to assign interstate numbers.
Favorites (including tollway authorities):
- ISTHA (Illinois Tollway) - In the past 15 years, really have modernized and upgraded the tollways. I-90 Jane Adams Tollway is one of the best reconstructed stretches of Interstate I have seen. Other DOTs should look to ISTHA for how highway lighting and striping should be done.
- Ohio Turnpike - Long stretches at 6 lanes, nice and wide construction, decently lit at interchanges, nice service plazas
- SDDOT - Really, some of the best maintained highways I remember riding on, very well maintained, pavement in excellent condition
- TXDOT - Love the frontage road concept, huge interchanges, decent lighting, and higher speed limits
Least Favorites (including tollway authorities):
- MODOT - Appears to take a lot of shortcuts on construction, poorly lit highways (with some weird/ugly looking light poles), Interstate 70 across the state needs a major upgrade (especially through Columbia)
- OKDOT - Poorly maintained highways, inadequate system (US 69 should have been upgraded decades ago), less than stellar scenery in many spots
- MDDOT - Add some lanes on I-70, I-270, and I-495! Fix your lighting so it works in all places!
- PNDOT and Penn Turnpike - Pennsylvania just seems like it needs to take everything and start over! Doesn't matter if it's the turnpike or highways, they all are very inadequate and some of the poorest construction standards I have seen
- IN Toll Road - Went privatized and has been neglected ever since. Should be 6 lanes the whole way across.
- IDOT - Fix I-80 through Joliet, I-290 through the West Suburbs, I-55 on the SW Side/Suburbs (all need lane additions), and I-55 through Springfield. Coordinate some stoplights. Maybe use more similar construction standards that match the tollway. Although, does a decent job lighting up the roads at least.
Quote from: ChiMilNet on June 18, 2020, 12:42:38 PM
Least Favorites (including tollway authorities):
- IDOT - Fix I-80 through Joliet, I-290 through the West Suburbs, I-55 on the SW Side/Suburbs (all need lane additions), and I-55 through Springfield. Coordinate some stoplights. Maybe use more similar construction standards that match the tollway. Although, does a decent job lighting up the roads at least.
IDOT also needs to start getting rid of the Interstate-to-Interstate Cloverleaves. I-55@I-80 and I-290/IL 53@I-90 (with ISTHA cooperation) are at the top of the list that could use Full Stack upgrades, or another Flyover configuration
Quote from: ilpt4u on June 18, 2020, 02:06:30 PM
IDOT also needs to start getting rid of the Interstate-to-Interstate Cloverleaves. I-55@I-80 and I-290/IL 53@I-90 (with ISTHA cooperation) are at the top of the list that could use Full Stack upgrades, or another Flyover configuration
Both would be fine with C-D lanes. Oh wait, the second one already has them, and the C-D roadways on I-290 have three lanes in each direction. I've taken the loop ramp from WB I-290 to WB I-90 several times and never encountered a problem. I don't even think there's enough space for a full stack at that location. I don't know how you'd fit it into the existing footprint, and I certainly don't see a way for flyover runways to be fit into the northwest corner. You could
maybe squeeze in one or two tight-curve flyover/fly-under ramps, but frankly, they did such a nice job with the C-D roadways, I don't see it being worthwhile to redo that interchange.
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 18, 2020, 03:27:27 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on June 18, 2020, 02:06:30 PM
IDOT also needs to start getting rid of the Interstate-to-Interstate Cloverleaves. I-55@I-80 and I-290/IL 53@I-90 (with ISTHA cooperation) are at the top of the list that could use Full Stack upgrades, or another Flyover configuration
Both would be fine with C-D lanes. Oh wait, the second one already has them, and the C-D roadways on I-290 have three lanes in each direction. I've taken the loop ramp from WB I-290 to WB I-90 several times and never encountered a problem. I don't even think there's enough space for a full stack at that location. I don't know how you'd fit it into the existing footprint, and I certainly don't see a way for flyover runways to be fit into the northwest corner. You could maybe squeeze in one or two tight-curve flyover/fly-under ramps, but frankly, they did such a nice job with the C-D roadways, I don't see it being worthwhile to redo that interchange.
As someone who previously used that Interchange commuting, I can tell you it is a mess at Rush Hour
Quote from: ilpt4u on June 18, 2020, 03:49:01 PM
As someone who previously used that Interchange commuting, I can tell you it is a mess at Rush Hour
Is it as bad as NB I-294 to WB I-290?
That's one where I encountered multiple delays.
Where in Chicago ISN'T a mess at rush hour?
Quote from: kphoger on June 18, 2020, 04:09:40 PM
Where in Chicago ISN'T a mess at rush hour?
The Skyway
Quote from: ilpt4u on June 18, 2020, 04:13:37 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 18, 2020, 04:09:40 PM
Where in Chicago ISN'T a mess at rush hour?
The Skyway
Now that I think of it, add Lake Shore Drive to that too.
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 18, 2020, 04:00:22 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on June 18, 2020, 03:49:01 PM
As someone who previously used that Interchange commuting, I can tell you it is a mess at Rush Hour
Is it as bad as NB I-294 to WB I-290? That's one where I encountered multiple delays.
ISTHA is going to basically rebuild that whole area as part of the Central Tri-State rebuild/widen program. There was some discussion and animation videos of ISTHA's solution to the 88/290/294 mess, at least for 294 traffic
The animations are on page 38 of the Illinois Tollway Notes thread on the Great Lakes board https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17650.925
Quote from: ilpt4u on June 18, 2020, 04:22:07 PM
solution to the 88/290/294 mess
Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it. How many decades, now, have I heard about "fixing the Hillside Strangler"?
Quote from: kphoger on June 18, 2020, 04:33:59 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on June 18, 2020, 04:22:07 PM
solution to the 88/290/294 mess
Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it. How many decades, now, have I heard about "fixing the Hillside Strangler"?
Decades? His first post was in 2015, and his last was in 2017.
Quote from: ilpt4u on June 18, 2020, 03:49:01 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 18, 2020, 03:27:27 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on June 18, 2020, 02:06:30 PM
IDOT also needs to start getting rid of the Interstate-to-Interstate Cloverleaves. I-55@I-80 and I-290/IL 53@I-90 (with ISTHA cooperation) are at the top of the list that could use Full Stack upgrades, or another Flyover configuration
Both would be fine with C-D lanes. Oh wait, the second one already has them, and the C-D roadways on I-290 have three lanes in each direction. I've taken the loop ramp from WB I-290 to WB I-90 several times and never encountered a problem. I don't even think there's enough space for a full stack at that location. I don't know how you'd fit it into the existing footprint, and I certainly don't see a way for flyover runways to be fit into the northwest corner. You could maybe squeeze in one or two tight-curve flyover/fly-under ramps, but frankly, they did such a nice job with the C-D roadways, I don't see it being worthwhile to redo that interchange.
As someone who previously used that Interchange commuting, I can tell you it is a mess at Rush Hour
55/80 had a halfhearted rebuild about 15 years ago... basically turned a very narrow cloverleaf into at least full size cloverleaf. I've heard rumors that they are looking to add one flyover, but only from 55 South to 80 East. Really, 80 East to 55 North is where it is needed the most.
As for 53/290/90, I've been through there plenty of rush hours, and I will tell you that it is in desperate need of a redo, 53 South to 90 East should have a flyover, and 290 West/53 North to 90 West also needs one. In addition, the C/D lane system there on 290/53 needs to have similar treatment to what was done on 90, eliminate one of the C/D lanes but add an extra through lane (note that this would mean widen 53 North to probably at least Euclid or even NW Highway).
Quote from: kphoger on June 18, 2020, 04:33:59 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on June 18, 2020, 04:22:07 PM
solution to the 88/290/294 mess
Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it. How many decades, now, have I heard about "fixing the Hillside Strangler"?
If you look, it basically focuses on fixing the backups that affect 294. Portions of 290 and 88 do benefit, but one of the main issues would remain (the merging of lanes on 290 inbound). Until 290 between Hillside and Chicago's West Side is widened (and those ridiculous left hand exits removed), the issues there for inbound 290 traffic will not be fully alleviated. That is an IDOT fix that would have to happen, and this fix proposed is being led and financed by the tollway. It does look like it may fix the backups that 294 experiences there, though.
Quote from: 1 on June 18, 2020, 04:37:33 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 18, 2020, 04:33:59 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on June 18, 2020, 04:22:07 PM
solution to the 88/290/294 mess
Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it. How many decades, now, have I heard about "fixing the Hillside Strangler"?
Decades? His first post was in 2015, and his last was in 2017.
No, I mean the agencies have been talking about "fixing" it for decades. And it still isn't "fixed".
Quote from: ChiMilNet on June 18, 2020, 04:47:10 PM
As for 53/290/90, I've been through there plenty of rush hours, and I will tell you that it is in desperate need of a redo, 53 South to 90 East should have a flyover, and 290 West/53 North to 90 West also needs one. In addition, the C/D lane system there on 290/53 needs to have similar treatment to what was done on 90, eliminate one of the C/D lanes but add an extra through lane (note that this would mean widen 53 North to probably at least Euclid or even NW Highway).
The most important question is: How?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3618.msg2509388#msg2509388
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 18, 2020, 06:52:15 PM
Quote from: ChiMilNet on June 18, 2020, 04:47:10 PM
As for 53/290/90, I've been through there plenty of rush hours, and I will tell you that it is in desperate need of a redo, 53 South to 90 East should have a flyover, and 290 West/53 North to 90 West also needs one. In addition, the C/D lane system there on 290/53 needs to have similar treatment to what was done on 90, eliminate one of the C/D lanes but add an extra through lane (note that this would mean widen 53 North to probably at least Euclid or even NW Highway).
The most important question is: How?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3618.msg2509388#msg2509388
Very high flyover on 290 North to 90 West is the only way I can think at least for that direction. I know that would require relocation of some high-tension wires, so it would be quite the undertaking to do. At the very least, the C/D idea for 290/53 (plus widening of 53 a ways North of there) would help somewhat.
Quote from: ChiMilNet on June 18, 2020, 09:38:11 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 18, 2020, 06:52:15 PM
Quote from: ChiMilNet on June 18, 2020, 04:47:10 PM
As for 53/290/90, I've been through there plenty of rush hours, and I will tell you that it is in desperate need of a redo, 53 South to 90 East should have a flyover, and 290 West/53 North to 90 West also needs one. In addition, the C/D lane system there on 290/53 needs to have similar treatment to what was done on 90, eliminate one of the C/D lanes but add an extra through lane (note that this would mean widen 53 North to probably at least Euclid or even NW Highway).
The most important question is: How?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3618.msg2509388#msg2509388
Very high flyover on 290 North to 90 West is the only way I can think at least for that direction. I know that would require relocation of some high-tension wires, so it would be quite the undertaking to do. At the very least, the C/D idea for 290/53 (plus widening of 53 a ways North of there) would help somewhat.
My second concept in the Fictional Highways post would be less expensive and would remove the cloverleaf weaving.
My problem with a flyover from WB to WB is, how do you
get it onto WB I-90? The area is so densely built-up, and there are big and important buildings so close to the north side of I-90, that I just don't see it being reasonable, even if it
is the most efficient way to make that WB to WB movement. I think you have to sacrifice speed to fit the context here.
Quote from: kphoger on June 18, 2020, 04:33:59 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on June 18, 2020, 04:22:07 PM
solution to the 88/290/294 mess
Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it. How many decades, now, have I heard about "fixing the Hillside Strangler"?
It's lipstick on a pig at this point.
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 18, 2020, 09:49:07 PM
My problem with a flyover from WB to WB is, how do you get it onto WB I-90? The area is so densely built-up, and there are big and important buildings so close to the north side of I-90, that I just don't see it being reasonable, even if it is the most efficient way to make that WB to WB movement. I think you have to sacrifice speed to fit the context here.
There's more than enough space for a WB I-290 to WB I-90 flyover - this old report had one fitting in (https://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/20184/96652/2007-10-31-I-90-LAMP-EXEC-SUMMARY.pdf/ec1183d3-55f4-4db0-9998-7d64e8fe8ca7?version=1.0).
Quote from: kphoger on June 18, 2020, 04:17:43 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on June 18, 2020, 04:13:37 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 18, 2020, 04:09:40 PM
Where in Chicago ISN'T a mess at rush hour?
The Skyway
Now that I think of it, add Lake Shore Drive to that too.
And the Amstutz, plus most of IL 390.
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 18, 2020, 10:10:59 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 18, 2020, 09:49:07 PM
My problem with a flyover from WB to WB is, how do you get it onto WB I-90? The area is so densely built-up, and there are big and important buildings so close to the north side of I-90, that I just don't see it being reasonable, even if it is the most efficient way to make that WB to WB movement. I think you have to sacrifice speed to fit the context here.
There's more than enough space for a WB I-290 to WB I-90 flyover - this old report had one fitting in (https://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/20184/96652/2007-10-31-I-90-LAMP-EXEC-SUMMARY.pdf/ec1183d3-55f4-4db0-9998-7d64e8fe8ca7?version=1.0).
Except there isn't, and it doesn't.
That drawing shows demolishing three apartment buildings and half each of two others. Where are they going to provide housing for those displaced residents? What is the full design here? Sure, it's much better CAD work than I've been trained to do, but it's not a complete design. Show me how you would build the displaced housing units. Show me how you would make this work for everyone involved. Show me how you would redo the Renaissance parking lot (that ought to be the easy part).
At least with my concept, even though it's just a few MS Paint lines, if I wanted to spend more time on it, I could show you a couple of ideas to re-build the affected portion of the IKEA parking lot if I spent enough time on drawings/graphics.
Does anyone even spend the time to think through the whole problem and solution, or is it just "Here's where I want my road, and who cares about the rest?" We have to do better than that if we want to be taken seriously.
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 18, 2020, 10:10:59 PM
the Amstutz
Huh. That's the first time I'd ever heard of the Amstutz.
Quote from: STLmapboy on June 18, 2020, 10:01:09 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 18, 2020, 04:33:59 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on June 18, 2020, 04:22:07 PM
solution to the 88/290/294 mess
Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it. How many decades, now, have I heard about "fixing the Hillside Strangler"?
It's lipstick on a pig at this point.
You can't fix it unless you make the Eisenhower 10 lanes or more, and that isn't going to happen. "Lipstick on a pig" is a great simile, because the pig is the Eisenhower, and anything you do to the Hillside Strangler is going to be as devoid of function as lipstick (a fashion item).
In general, I was going to say "inb4 all of the people with limited scope deeming their home DOT the worst and whine about the little insular corner of Earth in which they live." But I wouldn't have chimed in b4 it already happened.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on June 19, 2020, 10:05:07 AM
Quote from: STLmapboy on June 18, 2020, 10:01:09 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 18, 2020, 04:33:59 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on June 18, 2020, 04:22:07 PM
solution to the 88/290/294 mess
Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it. How many decades, now, have I heard about "fixing the Hillside Strangler"?
It's lipstick on a pig at this point.
You can't fix it unless you make the Eisenhower 10 lanes or more, and that isn't going to happen. "Lipstick on a pig" is a great simile, because the pig is the Eisenhower, and anything you do to the Hillside Strangler is going to be as devoid of function as lipstick (a fashion item).
In general, I was going to say "inb4 all of the people with limited scope deeming their home DOT the worst and whine about the little insular corner of Earth in which they live." But I wouldn't have chimed in b4 it already happened.
I have to agree...with a freeway as borked as the Eisenhower, any congestion-relief project is just going to push the bottleneck somewhere else (as already seen with that C-D roadway ending just past exit 17). Even if the Eisenhower was hypothetically expanded to 10+ lanes all the way to the Circle, then that just becomes an even bigger chokepoint as the now-not-held-up (and thus not metered) eastbound traffic still has to funnel into the Kennedy/Dan Ryan ramps or back up trying to enter the Loop on Congress Parkway/Ida B. Wells Drive.
Extending 8 lanes from Austin to the Strangler and doing something about the 2 left-interchanges would be better than nothing, however.
Cross-posting from other threads for the sake of posterity...
Quote from: Brandon on December 05, 2017, 12:09:30 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 05, 2017, 07:18:22 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 04, 2017, 12:05:43 PM
Quote from: Brandon on December 04, 2017, 10:44:17 AM
The "fix" to the Hillside Strangler (I-290, I-294, I-88 merge). The backup used to be west of Mannheim (US-12/20/45). Now it's merely east of Mannheim.
Sounds a lot like the Crosstown Commons fix on MN 62. The major headache in the old interchange began with the eastbound drop to one lane at Lyndale. The rebuild moved the lane drop east of 35W to Portland Avenue instead. What really changes?
The OP appears to be looking for new problems that cropped up from a given road project. Both the Crosstown Commons and Hillside Strangler references are cases where a problem remains, but isn't as large a problem as it was before. I'm not aware of any "new" problems that have cropped up with the Crosstown Commons.
I'll beg to differ with you on the Hillside Strangler. The problem remains, and is just as big as it was before the "fix".
Quote from: 1 on December 05, 2017, 01:12:05 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 05, 2017, 01:10:49 PM
Quote from: Brandon on December 04, 2017, 10:44:17 AM
The "fix" to the Hillside Strangler (I-290, I-294, I-88 merge). The backup used to be west of Mannheim (US-12/20/45). Now it's merely east of Mannheim.
Quote from: Brandon on December 05, 2017, 12:09:30 PM
I'll beg to differ with you on the Hillside Strangler. The problem remains, and is just as big as it was before the "fix".
So which is it?
There's no contradiction there. The backup moved from one location to another without getting smaller.
Quote from: ET21 on November 06, 2018, 02:11:12 PM
Quote from: Brandon on November 06, 2018, 12:41:36 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on November 06, 2018, 11:21:13 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on November 06, 2018, 09:24:47 AM
Quote from: Brandon on October 29, 2018, 12:28:37 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on October 29, 2018, 11:31:25 AM
Does the Hillside Strangler count here?
I'd say it's the quintessential project for this thread. IDOT moves the merge point east of Mannheim, traffic issue is the same as before.
This is the first thing that came to mind. I-15 at SR-92 was the second, and that was also covered upthread. So good job guys lol
Moving the traffic jam on I-290 farther east might have been advantageous just because it took some of the jamming out of the interchange with I-294/88. People going from EB I-88 to NB I-294, for example, may have to suffer less as a result. You knew IDOT/ISTHA knew they were just relocating the traffic jam. But maybe doing that could be a helpful thing for people other than those going from I-88 EB to I-290 EB.
IMHO, I think getting rid of the side by side 294 / 290 for the two or so miles is key to solving this problem.
Actually, that might make it worse. Instead of keeping the two traffic streams separate as they are now (and are at I-88 and I-355), you would introduce a massive amount of merging. And with the way the locals love to lane jockey, it would be a nightmare.
Don't cross the streams.
Never... EVER.... cross those streams. It's bad enough as is, but if these merges occurred that section would be gridlock 12 hours a day
OK, I never thought I'd say this, but...I actually kind of like LADODT now.
I went to see a family member and got a chance to ride on a newly-widened section of I-12: https://www.google.pl/maps/@30.4678367,-90.8792648,3a,75y,86.84h,89.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXhLGBG0Z4ENZO0j3C3CPdg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
The pavement was great, the road was smooth, the signage was consistent...it was way better than I expected.
Quote from: ChiMilNet on June 18, 2020, 12:42:38 PM
- OKDOT - Poorly maintained highways, inadequate system (US 69 should have been upgraded decades ago), less than stellar scenery in many spots
Blaming the DOT for scenery is a new one.
I don't want to see what sort of hellscape ODOT would put together if they were in charge of scenery.
Quote from: STLmapboy on June 23, 2020, 05:39:51 PM
OK, I never thought I'd say this, but...I actually kind of like LADODT now.
I went to see a family member and got a chance to ride on a newly-widened section of I-12: https://www.google.pl/maps/@30.4678367,-90.8792648,3a,75y,86.84h,89.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXhLGBG0Z4ENZO0j3C3CPdg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.pl/maps/@30.4678367,-90.8792648,3a,75y,86.84h,89.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXhLGBG0Z4ENZO0j3C3CPdg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
The pavement was great, the road was smooth, the signage was consistent...it was way better than I expected.
From my years of looking at places on GSV they definitely seem to have improved. I'm also very fond of their RRPM overuse. Seeing that stuff light up at night is beyond satisfying.
there's a running joke between my friends (roadgeeks and not) that you can't really drive in ohio interstates because of all the construction. but for me I have always liked ohdot. the interstates are smooth, they've installed/are installing a third lane for their roads, I'll take the road construction if it leads to interstates like that. shout out to nydot too. the free interstates look good. the solely ny 17 signed sections are pretty bumpy though. I also like them having three smaller poles holding up the EXIT X signs instead of the two thicker poles on the side. they'd get higher marks if they converted to mileage exit numbers faster or had consistent mile marking on I 87 (it switches from based on the southern terminus to nyt miles to miles based from when 87 moves from the toll road) and I 90 (western ny border to free section east of albany to the nyt berkshire connector). I know it's not a state dot, but I like what the thruway authority maintains their toll road. it looks like a free interstate, not like an old pre interstate freeway like the kansas turnpike, penna turnpike and the I 44 composite toll roads in oklahoma.
worst I've got to say is indot. their EXIT X signs look like miniature bgs. it throws me off seeing those signs used for that purpose. them and caltrans (no mile markers, slapped on exit numbers inside the bgs instead of on top, cardinal directions underneath the interstate shield, the reason I 238 exists). I'll give caltrans credit for giving all of their interstate grade highways unique names though.
CalTrans because I just love the cutout shields. :clap:
Quote from: ctkatz on July 01, 2020, 01:20:20 AM
there's a running joke between my friends (roadgeeks and not) that you can't really drive in ohio interstates because of all the construction. but for me I have always liked ohdot. the interstates are smooth, they've installed/are installing a third lane for their roads, I'll take the road construction if it leads to interstates like that. shout out to nydot too. the free interstates look good. the solely ny 17 signed sections are pretty bumpy though. I also like them having three smaller poles holding up the EXIT X signs instead of the two thicker poles on the side. they'd get higher marks if they converted to mileage exit numbers faster or had consistent mile marking on I 87 (it switches from based on the southern terminus to nyt miles to miles based from when 87 moves from the toll road) and I 90 (western ny border to free section east of albany to the nyt berkshire connector). I know it's not a state dot, but I like what the thruway authority maintains their toll road. it looks like a free interstate, not like an old pre interstate freeway like the kansas turnpike, penna turnpike and the I 44 composite toll roads in oklahoma.
worst I've got to say is indot. their EXIT X signs look like miniature bgs. it throws me off seeing those signs used for that purpose. them and caltrans (no mile markers, slapped on exit numbers inside the bgs instead of on top, cardinal directions underneath the interstate shield, the reason I 238 exists). I'll give caltrans credit for giving all of their interstate grade highways unique names though.
ODOT has been reworking urban freeways (in just about every metro) to accommodate for growth and I've yet to be disappointed by a project. I used to have major traffic every time I went through Dayton and Cincy, two places where my issues have been nonexistent in my past two trips. WVDoH is another that I like, and with the highway bonds they'll continue to improve the 4 lane network and complete I-64's widening. Both states have good pavement quality and adequate rural connections. They don't have as many potholes like the other entries.
I give INDOT the middle ground. They've finally seen the light on widening beyond Indianapolis on I-65 and I-69 and they've been implementing more message boards. They do have room to improve though. Pavement quality isn't the greatest, but weather does play a part of it. The fact that there's no I-67 or I-76 (to a lesser extent) disappoint me. And having different speed limits (65) for non interstate freeways and 60 mph for divided highways is dumb, but that's a state law problem and not an INDOT problem. I hope that by the time I get a transportation job that I have more sensible limits to deal with so the legislature ought to rethink this.
MDOT. I-94 needed six lanes yesterday and everything else is broken or falling apart. That's all I have to say.
Quote from: I-55 on September 11, 2020, 10:39:50 PM
And having different speed limits (65) for non interstate freeways and 60 mph for divided highways is dumb, but that's a state law problem and not an INDOT problem.
At minimum, the speed limits on both interstate highways and non-interstate freeways should be 70 mph, and the speed limits on non-limited-access divided highways should be 65 mph. Eliminate the truck speed limit on 70 mph interstates.
Quote from: STLmapboy on May 20, 2020, 06:32:34 PM
What is your favorite state DOT? The criterion are many; road maintenance, funding, signage consistency, signalization, etc. I personally like TXDOT (admiring the work they do across their vast area and those sexy stack interchanges).
The texdot has squandered literally billions on clearview signage, overly detailed architecture, and design regression. Have viewed much of it in El Paso county, so much money, but at the same time so much wasted. The problems on pre-existing I-10 have not been fixed, but either had the can kicked down the road, or had obsolescence locked in by poor decision-making. Number #1? No way, would stick them in about the middle of the pack - #22 to #25.
New Mexico? Number #38 to #41. Terrible decision making and design, but the simple fact of geography placing them along the southern border, pulls them up a bit from the bottom.
Quote from: DJStephens on September 16, 2020, 07:46:09 AM
Quote from: STLmapboy on May 20, 2020, 06:32:34 PM
What is your favorite state DOT? The criterion are many; road maintenance, funding, signage consistency, signalization, etc. I personally like TXDOT (admiring the work they do across their vast area and those sexy stack interchanges).
The texdot has squandered literally billions on clearview signage, overly detailed architecture, and design regression. Have viewed much of it in El Paso county, so much money, but at the same time so much wasted. The problems on pre-existing I-10 have not been fixed, but either had the can kicked down the road, or had obsolescence locked in by poor decision-making. Number #1? No way, would stick them in about the middle of the pack - #22 to #25.
New Mexico? Number #38 to #41. Terrible decision making and design, but the simple fact of geography placing them along the southern border, pulls them up a bit from the bottom.
Agreed on TxDOT. Yes, I have come to hate clearview and this gives me a bias. But still, changing signage all over the entire system to conform to an (UGLY) font scheme? This must have cost tens of millions of dollars that could have been spent more wisely. And for what? Signs that are harder to read and aesthetically unattractive? Big waste and big mis-prioritization of resources that should have been spent elsewhere.
As for NM, I have to agree here too. My impression of NMDOT is that they're very inconsistent and try to get very "artistic" in projects that are well funded while other areas seem to see lackluster maintenance over long periods of time. It's also a state without as many new highways to build, but which often needs existing highways expanded. They're just average in keeping up with this.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on September 16, 2020, 01:15:44 PM
Agreed on TxDOT ... clearview ... Signs that are harder to read and aesthetically unattractive?
What font was TxDOT using before Clearview? Isn't Clearview easier to read than some FHWA fonts but harder than others?
^
I must say, as much as I dislike the way many states use Clearview, TxDOT has been pretty good overall at keeping uniformity. I haven't had much of an issue with their signage as much as other states. Texas does things differently in many areas when it comes to roads, highways, construction, signage, etc. then other states, and I just consider this another aspect of that overall.
Personally, I think Texas does a better job using Clearview than any other state. I think it looks really clean. If I had any knock against TxDot, it's that I see too many blown down signs everywhere, or the fact that Houston construction signage is nightmarish compared to other cities (but that may just be a contractor thing)
Quote from: kphoger on September 16, 2020, 01:30:36 PM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on September 16, 2020, 01:15:44 PM
Agreed on TxDOT ... clearview ... Signs that are harder to read and aesthetically unattractive?
What font was TxDOT using before Clearview? Isn't Clearview easier to read than some FHWA fonts but harder than others?
TxDOT was using all-caps Series D on conventional roads and Series E(M) on freeways.
I think the issue is not so much that they switched to Clearview but they did so in vast swaths, replacing signs before their service life for the sake of switching them to Clearview, as opposed to waiting for the old signs to wear out and replacing them then. This would be commendable and result in more consistent signage if Clearview had clearly outperformed FHWA Series, but as we all know, it didn't.
TxDOT handles Clearview about as well as it can be handled, and their signs tend to be fairly consistent and technically well-put-together, so if you disregard the font choice, they're perfectly fine, aesthetically.
Quote from: DJStephens on September 16, 2020, 07:46:09 AM
Quote from: STLmapboy on May 20, 2020, 06:32:34 PM
What is your favorite state DOT? The criterion are many; road maintenance, funding, signage consistency, signalization, etc. I personally like TXDOT (admiring the work they do across their vast area and those sexy stack interchanges).
The texdot has squandered literally billions on clearview signage, overly detailed architecture, and design regression. Have viewed much of it in El Paso county, so much money, but at the same time so much wasted. The problems on pre-existing I-10 have not been fixed, but either had the can kicked down the road, or had obsolescence locked in by poor decision-making. Number #1? No way, would stick them in about the middle of the pack - #22 to #25.
New Mexico? Number #38 to #41. Terrible decision making and design, but the simple fact of geography placing them along the southern border, pulls them up a bit from the bottom.
Just out of curiosity, what would #1 be for you? I considered TxDOT because they're fairly good at implementing new projects quickly. I also appreciate a few other design aspects (frontage roads, avoiding cloverleafs, HOT and HOV lanes, and some pioneering designs like the High Five and submerged "Texpress" lanes on 635).
Quote from: STLmapboy on September 16, 2020, 07:10:19 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on September 16, 2020, 07:46:09 AM
Quote from: STLmapboy on May 20, 2020, 06:32:34 PM
What is your favorite state DOT? The criterion are many; road maintenance, funding, signage consistency, signalization, etc. I personally like TXDOT (admiring the work they do across their vast area and those sexy stack interchanges).
The texdot has squandered literally billions on clearview signage, overly detailed architecture, and design regression. Have viewed much of it in El Paso county, so much money, but at the same time so much wasted. The problems on pre-existing I-10 have not been fixed, but either had the can kicked down the road, or had obsolescence locked in by poor decision-making. Number #1? No way, would stick them in about the middle of the pack - #22 to #25.
New Mexico? Number #38 to #41. Terrible decision making and design, but the simple fact of geography placing them along the southern border, pulls them up a bit from the bottom.
Just out of curiosity, what would #1 be for you? I considered TxDOT because they're fairly good at implementing new projects quickly. I also appreciate a few other design aspects (frontage roads, avoiding cloverleafs, HOT and HOV lanes, and some pioneering designs like the High Five and submerged "Texpress" lanes on 635).
Most would say North Carolina. Am going to agree with that opinion. Four lane highways to reach just about every municipality of over 50,000 residents, expansion of Interstate mileage. Almost Fritz Owlish in fact. Good standards, for the most part, medians, shoulders, sight lines, horizontal and vertical clearance, etc. Minimal skewing and shifting. Believe they have avoided the Clearview bandwagon, as well. Not a frequent visitor there, so this is a general statement.
What have viewed in El Paso may be on the low side of what the texdot generally is capable of. El Paso was a late comer to get large amounts of funding. Such as the $800 million plus for the West side toll way and I-10 fiasco. And the hideous "dress up" of the original Spaghetti Bowl, and the choking down of EB 10 to only three lanes is simply outrageous. That spaghetti bowl, should have been replaced, and 10 given ten lanes all the way to the far E side.
The US 285 "redo" N of Pecos is awful. A three lane job? Are you kidding?? With all the huge outsized oil field rigs and traffic?? Still a white knuckle affair. Would think one would want to reduce the death toll not allow it to continue?!?
Quote from: CoreySamson on September 16, 2020, 01:51:30 PM
Personally, I think Texas does a better job using Clearview than any other state. I think it looks really clean. If I had any knock against TxDot, it's that I see too many blown down signs everywhere, or the fact that Houston construction signage is nightmarish compared to other cities (but that may just be a contractor thing)
Houston district is by far the worst of TxDOT. They're extremely parochial in their signing practices, often failing to include control cities on interchange signage.
The rest of the state is pretty good. There are little quirks like signing Waco as a control city on 35 between Austin and D/FW, when clearly those would be more useful, but they're not unbearable.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 21, 2020, 11:52:29 AM
For me, either TxDOT or NCDOT.
I don't necessarily have a least favorite DOT.
Florida, NY, NC the best on the East Coast.
SC and Georgia the least favorite, no high standards, they don't care.
Living in PA, PennDOT is getting marginally better but still pretty low in my list. Signage isn't great, a lot of roads in poor condition, and awful speed limits in a lot of places. I live about 40 minutes from Maryland...driving in MD (except Baltimore City) feels like a MASSIVE improvement. MD greatly exceeds PA signage and road quality. Baltimore City of course maintains the non toll roads and oh my.
There's also some things I like about Ohio in regards to signage, NC for just constant system improvement, NJ for "jersey expressways" and use of roundabouts, IL/WI for rural waysides, NY for generally reasonable NON-freeway speed limits. (65 still on the Thruway? 55 in Riverhead on the LIRR? Cmon!). I actually like the NY State Route letter suffix system, like 23 and 23A.
Been a while since I've been out west but obviously I think CA and WA seem to have a great number of things figured out.
Took a drive in Illy today. IDOT is still not super consistent (and directional banners are sparse) but they've got some bright spots--255 has some nice new pavement from the JB Bridge to the IL-3 junction and the other pavement I encountered wasn't too bad, with some potholes on 3 around Columbia. I appreciate some of their quirks (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.3934836,-90.1676173,3a,18y,14.57h,87.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAqpbyKZtgviqE_gN3Z3y0A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) and the traffic signals were nice as always in Illinois; there are 9 lights between 255 and IL-156 in Waterloo, where I turned off toward Valmeyer.
Quote from: architect77 on September 18, 2020, 07:30:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 21, 2020, 11:52:29 AM
For me, either TxDOT or NCDOT.
I don't necessarily have a least favorite DOT.
Florida, NY, NC the best on the East Coast.
SC and Georgia the least favorite, no high standards, they don't care.
I always liked Georgia's Freeway signage when they used their spin on Series D. It's a shame that's going away because it looked a lot better than the current FHWA standard.
Quote from: sbeaver44 on September 20, 2020, 11:30:51 AM
65 still on the Thruway?
That would be state law to blame, not the DOT. 65 mph is the maximum allowable speed limit on interstate highways.
Quote from: sbeaver44 on September 20, 2020, 11:30:51 AM
55 in Riverhead on the LIRR? Cmon!).
This should be raised to 65 mph.
Quote from: sbeaver44 on September 20, 2020, 11:30:51 AM
(65 still on the Thruway? 55 in Riverhead on the LIRR? Cmon!).
Ah yes, the notoriously low speed limit on the Long Island Railroad. But honestly, if NJ can have I-80 at 65, NY can definitely raise the LIE...
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on September 16, 2020, 01:15:44 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on September 16, 2020, 07:46:09 AM
Quote from: STLmapboy on May 20, 2020, 06:32:34 PM
What is your favorite state DOT? The criterion are many; road maintenance, funding, signage consistency, signalization, etc. I personally like TXDOT (admiring the work they do across their vast area and those sexy stack interchanges).
The texdot has squandered literally billions on clearview signage, overly detailed architecture, and design regression. Have viewed much of it in El Paso county, so much money, but at the same time so much wasted. The problems on pre-existing I-10 have not been fixed, but either had the can kicked down the road, or had obsolescence locked in by poor decision-making. Number #1? No way, would stick them in about the middle of the pack - #22 to #25.
New Mexico? Number #38 to #41. Terrible decision making and design, but the simple fact of geography placing them along the southern border, pulls them up a bit from the bottom.
Agreed on TxDOT. Yes, I have come to hate clearview and this gives me a bias. But still, changing signage all over the entire system to conform to an (UGLY) font scheme? This must have cost tens of millions of dollars that could have been spent more wisely. And for what? Signs that are harder to read and aesthetically unattractive? Big waste and big mis-prioritization of resources that should have been spent elsewhere.
As for NM, I have to agree here too. My impression of NMDOT is that they're very inconsistent and try to get very "artistic" in projects that are well funded while other areas seem to see lackluster maintenance over long periods of time. It's also a state without as many new highways to build, but which often needs existing highways expanded. They're just average in keeping up with this.
Tens of millions? Given the size of the state, and the number of districts, the actual number for clearview waste goes into the hundreds of millions. Signage has become way to cluttered in many places, as well. Electronic message boards, everywhere, also. Why not just send state residents Amber Alerts direct to their phones?!? When one adds up the architectural frills and other dress ups - billions.
New Mexico should have had additional limited access mileage. Albuquerque Beltway is the first one that comes to mind. Could have been accomplished via ROW acquisition, cheaply, in the sixties and deep into the seventies. El Paso N bypass. Going via Anthony Gap, a high quality route should be in place to allow long distance Trucking and other through traffic to near completely bypass the El Paso metro. Why it isn't in place is absolutely absurd. US 70 Bypasses. Were envisioned circa 1970, when they could have been done, cheaply. Hatch and Deming bypasses,
both towns should have state route 26 super two's at each end, to remove trucks from the respective towns.
Instead, delay, obfuscation, and fencesitting took hold, and Gary Johnson and Pete Rahn built poor quality cheap stuff 25 years later.
Quote from: Ketchup99 on September 21, 2020, 02:36:25 PM
Quote from: sbeaver44 on September 20, 2020, 11:30:51 AM
(65 still on the Thruway? 55 in Riverhead on the LIRR? Cmon!).
Ah yes, the notoriously low speed limit on the Long Island Railroad. But honestly, if NJ can have I-80 at 65, NY can definitely raise the LIE...
I typed LIRR out of habit instead of LIE. Didn't even realize it