I live in Louisiana. I would give LA DODT a c or c-
Reasons:
I think their construction/maintenance methods are substandard.
Transportation policy is too influenced by political interest.
Almost non-existent interest public transportation.
Mark
Oklahoma: I'd probably give Oklahoma DOT a C. I absolutely detest whatever sort of process is used to have signs designed here, since it leads to remarkably inconsistent signage. In Oklahoma you can get very good signs and terrible signs just miles from each other on the same road. It depends on which contractor did it. Build quality is not that great in general but again it varies based on the contractor. Sometimes the seams between lanes of asphalt are not done properly and become potholes quickly. The paint used on roads is terrible, not very reflective, and flakes off within a year or two (and ODOT is slow to replace it). Bridge maintenance leaves a lot to be desired On the plus side, ODOT tends to be rather attentive to the OKC metro highway system (Tulsa, not so much unfortunately) and usually manages to eliminate major bottlenecks before they become an absolute catastrophe. Much of the system has been reconstructed at one point since its original design and so there are only a couple segments left featuring '60s design. ODOT managed to sweep aside NIMBY complaints and get the new I-40 done, and we have been treated with a great design that should be sufficient for the city for decades to come. ODOT also provides a lot of roadgeek resources on their site, with tons of free maps (including a full state map archive) and history files.
OTA gets a D. You have all the problems of ODOT and none of the upsides, and plus you have to pay for it. A few turnpikes appear to have not been touched since they were built; the Indian Nation Turnpike features a very narrow (10'? less than 10'?) grass median with no barrier whatsoever and on bridges only has a raised curb. OTA needs to get with the program. At least you get a higher speed limit, but I think that the legislature gets credit for that, not OTA.
Missouri: MoDOT gets a B. Signage is good; in all cases I have seen it is consistent, well designed, and clear. Build quality is mostly good, at least on the freeways. I cannot speak to the experiences of a metro Kansas City/St Louis driver, but living in Springfield they seemed to take care of things fairly well. MoDOT does try to stay ahead of the curve in rural areas as well, as we have seen with the I-49 upgrades and Route 13 bypasses (Humansville area, Brighton) put in over the past years. MoDOT is one of the few road agencies I have interacted with myself, and their staff was helpful and courteous.
Kansas: KDOT gets an A-. Truly phenomenal signage and build quality, which makes driving in Kansas a pleasure. Signage is the most consistent I've seen, and engineering is great, especially on newer sections of highway, where curves are banked just right so that it almost feels like the road is driving the car for you. Unfortunately I have to knock a few points off for not being as transparent as a DOT should be.
I'd give CalTrans a C, but it really seems to vary depending where in the state you are. I'd say some of the best signage and interchange "flow" can be seen in LA/OC/and the San Diego area.
Overall, decent signage, though a love of old button copy signs remains in place. And there is the whole patch work looking signs where new exit numbers were added late.
I've never used one, but I wonder how many of the Call Boxes are functional. That could raise or lower the overall grade.
TxDot-
Overall-D
Congestion-F Congestion is horrible, nothing gets done in a timely manner, congestion relief projects are usually 20-20 years too late.
Pavement-B
Bridges - C Wait too long to replace bridges that are getting holes in decks. Not as bad as Arkansas, though.
Signs- A- Good at replacing signs, few deteriorated ones, most are relativly new
Pavement Markings- C They wait too long to restripe.
Works zones (including contractor)- C Freeway work zones are especially unsafe. One major problem is due to unsafe short merges. Also poor marking/engineering of shifts. Need to use chevrons, Type C lights.
Tennessee DOT-
Overall-B
Congestion-B.
Pavement-A Very good pavement. Only seen bad pavement once, it was on I-440.
Bridges - A. Good at replacing old bridges when needed.
Signs- D- Inconsistant/missing route marker signage, Failure to sign double turns and clearances, Beat-up signage., Signs mounted below 7ft.
Pavement Markings- A. Good Job
Works zones (including contractor)- probably A. Haven't seen too many problems
I would give TDOT a higher grade than D on signs. In my experience (which consists of just I-40) they were rather consistent with their large guide signs and the layout was generally excellent. I imagine things might not be as well kept on the back roads, though.
Colorado DOT:
Overall-B
Congestion-C+
Pavement- C+ on secondary state highways, B on freeways and major highways
Bridges: B- because of FASTER funding (additional fee on license plates). Unfortunately, this is now under court challenge because it is viewed as a tax rather than a fee and thus, by this argument, must be approved by voters. If that goes, CDOT will be severely hit.
Signs- B+.
Pavement Markings- B
Works zones (including contractor)- B-. Occasionally there is ambiguous signage
Note here I'm also critiquing the taxpayers of Colorado and their willingess (lack of) to spend on infrastructure improvement. I believe there is a significant segment of the population that believes one or more of the following:
- Congestion is not a government concern
- There is no cost to the public for congestion or unsafe roads
- Congestion will incentivize the mighty private sector to build alternative roadways for which they can charge tolls
- Elves will fix the roads in the middle of the night for free
New Mexico DOT
Overall- C+
Congestion-B+. There seems to be an effort to sort of keep up with congestion in Albuquerque along the freeways. Rush hour in Wagon Mound is still a bit rough, though
Pavement- C . The virtual lack of an acceleration lane at freeway onramps in most areas is a little unnerving. Capacity expansions on highways like U.S. 64/87 between Raton and Clayton have helped improve safety along routes with significant truck traffic.
Bridges - B-. Once notorious for killer bridges, the state has fixed the worst though some still lurk on minor roadways
Signs- :rofl:
Pavement Markings- B
Works zones (including contractor)- C+. I have no quarrel with work zone speed limits where necessary to protect workers, but New Mexico carries it to extremes. Such as 45 mph on a stretch of interstate where the traffic has been moved to one carriageway and the directions of traffic are separated by jersey barrier.
I have to give Bill Richardson credit for bonding major construction projects during his term - which he modestly called GRIP (Governor Richardson's Investment Partnership). It probably is a debt that will affect the highway fund in the future.
CalTrans - A+
QuoteI would give TDOT a higher grade than D on signs. In my experience (which consists of just I-40) they were rather consistent with their large guide signs and the layout was generally excellent. I imagine things might not be as well kept on the back roads, though.
Yeah, their BGS's are good. I'll give them that. However, look at this sign. It's on US 41/64/72/11 in Chattanooga.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1209.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc395%2FBrian5561%2Ffallingrock.jpg&hash=d01c8c1f3471d8be4148264f81b148102f519dae)
Not one hint of yellow left. yes, that makes it interesting for roadgeeks like me, but it's bad maintenance.
AHTD: F, simply because of their refusal to co-sign highways of different classes. Other than that, they would be a C-. ODOT and OTA are probably C- or D+.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 25, 2012, 10:02:15 PMQuote from: blawp on May 25, 2012, 08:36:02 PMCalTrans - A+
Now that needs to be justified.
I would give Caltrans Office Engineer an A, but I highly doubt that was what Blawp meant.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 25, 2012, 10:12:53 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 25, 2012, 10:02:15 PMQuote from: blawp on May 25, 2012, 08:36:02 PMCalTrans - A+
Now that needs to be justified.
I would give Caltrans Office Engineer an A, but I highly doubt that was what Blawp meant.
I'm sure his reasoning will just be "lOl".
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 25, 2012, 10:12:53 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 25, 2012, 10:02:15 PMQuote from: blawp on May 25, 2012, 08:36:02 PMCalTrans - A+
Now that needs to be justified.
I would give Caltrans Office Engineer an A, but I highly doubt that was what Blawp meant.
Given the variance between Districts' policies and performance (D12's awful signage, D7's banishment of the use of "Junction" on signs), I think you have to break down grades of Caltrans by District. Other than maybe District 5, I don't see any of them getting above a "C".
Louisiana: A B. The highways can be terrible, but the state legislature is passing a rural roads act to get the less-traveled highways back in shape. The newer roads are smooth and bump-free, especially I-55 out of Hammond north to Mississippi. It feels weird to leave the state and the roads get bumpy automatically. Signing is still an issue, and too many highways exist, but that's politics, not transportation.
Quote from: blawp on May 25, 2012, 08:36:02 PM
CalTrans - A+
Yeah... uh, I don't think so. Here's my report card for CalTrans...
Signage:
* Route Markers: A- ... cutout state and US route markers, '57 spec Interstate shields, would have been a A+ except for the appearance of the hideous angular interstate shields.
* Guide Signs: B ... love the button copy which outlasts the newer reflective signs (e.g. deteriorating reflective signs on I-80 over the Sierras), greenouts can provide clues to former routings and route numbers, sort of indifferent on adding exit numbers and I have no problem with how Caltrans is dealing with the exit "tabs"
* Signage Overall: B+
Pavement:
* Overall: C ... there are some stretches of freeway that are nice and smooth but there are probably more stretches where the pavement is absolutely horrible. Kudos for using rubberized asphalt (I-880 and US 101 in the S.F. Bay Area) and finally repaving all of I-80 over the Sierra Nevadas. Other stretches of freeway need MAJOR work like I-580 over the Altamont Pass and stretches of I-5 and CA-99 in the central valley.
Congestion:
* Overall: B- ... because of our love for our cars, this one is tough to grade. There's only so much capacity that Caltrans can add to our vast freeway system and let's face it, congestion in urban areas is going to be bad even if you widened every freeway to 10 lanes. Closely spaced interchanges and limited right-of-way due to the age of our system will always have a lasting effect on congestion.
Bridges:
* Toll (S.F. Bay Area): B+ ... with all of the retrofitting done after the 1989 quake, I feel the bridges are safe enough to survive a significant quake (that feeling will only improve when the new eastern span of the Bay Bridge opens in a couple of years). Electronic tolling (FasTrak) of all lanes at toll plazas plus the addition of dedicated FasTrak-only lanes are a major plus and extra credit for adding open-road tolling on the Benicia Bridge (I-680). Now add open-road tolling to all other bridges and that B+ would become an A.
* Overpasses and Non-Tolled: A ... once again, after the Loma Prieta and Northridge quakes, Caltrans made it a priority to retrofit all overpasses and bridges in the state so I am not concerned with the safety of these bridges.
* Bridges Overall: A-
CALTRANS OVERALL GRADE: B
Pavement markings CalTrans A+. Every STOP bar is marked STOP. SIGNAL AHEAD is consistently marked. Speed limits are marked on the pavement. botts dots. sometimes even the left turn lanes are maked LEFT TURN LANE.
also there are consistently good arrow markings on freeway entrances and lane drops are always marked with diagonal arrows. The turn lane arrows are marked on the pavement in a way that they are more visible to cars than the MUTCD markings. The traffic signal poles are superior and signals are all LED. Every approach to every signal either has a loop detector or video detection. Yeah we rock. lOl
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 25, 2012, 07:15:08 PM
I would give TDOT a higher grade than D on signs. In my experience (which consists of just I-40) they were rather consistent with their large guide signs and the layout was generally excellent. I imagine things might not be as well kept on the back roads, though.
However, Texas does a great job with Clearview.
NJDOT: B+. The biggest problem is lack of money, which I'm not going to fault the DOT for - that's state politics at play. One minus is for their continued use of black squares on BGS shields and failure to adopt MUTCD mileposts. The other is that there are some very easy bottleneck fixes that they either don't consider or put off way too far in the future, while lower-priority (and often more expensive) projects come through right away. I don't know how much of a role politics plays in that, though. Otherwise, they do and have done a very good job at signage and upgrading roads considering the money issues.
WV I would give a C.
One issue is that WV, unlike most states, has no county roads. All roads in the state, except for some city streets, are a state responsibility. Which gives WV a DOT that is far larger, with far more mileage responsibility, than population figures would indicate. Thus much of the focus is on side roads up some hollow that really nobody is going to drive on but the local people. This take the focus off of both the big project roads (interstates, other four lanes, and good two lane roads) and off the secondary roads (state and US numbered roads that are really not good) .
As to the big picture, from the start of the interstate construction era to date, pretty much all of the interstates and corridors were built in the exact wrong order. The busiest ones were the last completed. Today, two many irons in the fire, with dozens of proposed but unfunded projects, each getting a dab of money, without a thoughtful analysis of which ones really need to be built sooner rather than later. Rather a "split the pot" mentality where every part of the state gets something, no matter the need (witness the current 6 laning of I-79, which gets exactly 1/4th of the traffic of I-64, where the 6 lane is stopped by "lack of funding".
Indiana
Website-C....no long term plans online.
Forward Thinking-A....pushing hard for I-69, I-67 and I-265.
Quality of Workmanship-D....have noticed some bad work being done by Contractors and INDOT won't or can't correct.
Cheapness-C.........INDOT cheeped on I-64 road rework between Corydon and Georgetown by doing only the mainline and leaving the shoulders alone. Not as cheap as Missouri with it's wasteful thin lift overlay (pavement that works maybe 2-3 years and then has to be replaced........ie money throw away).
Overall I would give them a B- but could be a B plus with elimination of a few areas.
Is it fair to grade any state DOT and its highways network without discussing the following:
- Amount of tax revenue it receives from motor fuel taxes and other sources (which is determined by the state legislatures);
- What the relationship is between the DOT and toll roads and toll crossings in the state;
- To what extent does the climate impact the cost of highway maintenance (consider the cost of snow removal in places like the highway crossings of the Cascades and Sierras); and
- How much money is diverted from highway maintenance and construction to fund transit operating and capital subsidies.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 25, 2012, 03:42:01 PM
Missouri: MoDOT gets a B. Signage is good; in all cases I have seen it is consistent, well designed, and clear. Build quality is mostly good, at least on the freeways. I cannot speak to the experiences of a metro Kansas City/St Louis driver, but living in Springfield they seemed to take care of things fairly well. MoDOT does try to stay ahead of the curve in rural areas as well, as we have seen with the I-49 upgrades and Route 13 bypasses (Humansville area, Brighton) put in over the past years. MoDOT is one of the few road agencies I have interacted with myself, and their staff was helpful and courteous.
Wow, my wife and my sister would so disagree with you on this. Many primary state highways and most secondary state highways are serpentine roads with no shoulders and inadequate signage (specifically advisory speeds).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 26, 2012, 11:03:23 AMIs it fair to grade any state DOT and its highways network without discussing the following: [snip for brevity]
It is fair to grade state DOTs on any function which all state DOTs must do and whose resource claim is small compared to the total construction and maintenance budget. One such function is the production and circulation of construction letting plans, which these days should preferably be in electronic format.
From this standpoint, here is my grading grid and grades for each of the fifty state DOTs:
A = Construction plans available online at letting without URL hiding or JavaScript involvement; anyone may download them free of charge without registration; archived more or less permanently
B = Construction plans available online at letting, possibly with URL hiding or JavaScript involvement; anyone may download them free of charge without registration; not archived
C = Construction plans available online at letting, possibly with URL hiding or JavaScript involvement; registration required to download; may not be archived
D = Construction plans in electronic format distributed solely through CD or online services that require payment; may not be archived or available in arrears
F = Construction plans not available electronically at all
AK B
HI D
WA A
OR F
CA A
NV D
ID D
MT A
WY D
UT C- (Must prove licensure in order to obtain an account that permits downloading)
AZ F
NM D-
CO F
TX B+ (Archiving period is only 6 months; otherwise A)
OK B
KS B
NE B
SD B
ND B+
MN D
IA D-
MO C- (Downloading is free, but markup for downloading is unnecessarily time-consuming; download tends to time-out)
AR B
LA B
MS F
AL B
GA D+ (Plans are free after award)
SC C- (User has to point and click on every file to download--batching is not possible)
NC A
TN A
KY D
IL A
IN B
OH B+ (Digital Paper is considerably improved, but still JavaScript-driven)
MI C+ (But permanently archived)
WI A (Was D under old system of CD distribution)
PA B
NJ D-
WV D-
NY D
NH F+ (Plans available online, but only in encrypted ZIP files; must buy paper plans to obtain the decrypt key)
VT C- (Must register individually for each project, which is unnecessarily cumbersome)
FL C- (User has to point and click at each file to download--batching is not possible)
CT A- (Some large files still distributed via a file transfer appliance that uses JavaScript URL hiding)
RI D
MA D
ME A
DE B
MD D
VA C
Some state DOTs deserve specially dishonorable mention. One such group includes the state DOTs which would otherwise receive a D, but received a D- because they do their plans publication through Bid Express, for which the minimum monthly charge for an account that allows download of plans is $135: NM, IA, WV, and NJ. (In comparison, the other state DOTs which received a D tend to sell CDs for each individual project at a relatively low cost, such as $5 for ID, $16 for NY, or to push out their plans through a commercial electronic planroom for which the monthly subscription cost is much lower than Bid Express'. The QuestCDN states of NV, WY, and MN make plans available for a per-project charge of $10 or a monthly subscription charge of $60.)
Further, I single out Colorado DOT and NHDOT for special criticism.
* NHDOT's practice of not releasing the decryption key to the encrypted ZIPs unless the contractor buys a set of paper plans shows extraordinary mean-mindedness.
* Colorado DOT not only refuses to distribute construction plans in electronic format, either online or on CD; it also does not have plans for
past projects available electronically. I have also been reliably informed that Colorado DOT no longer permits open public inspection of the paper plans. Any such inspection has to be booked in advance through the open records officer at Colorado DOT headquarters in Denver, and the requestor must pay a $25 hourly charge for supervision by a CDOT employee while he or she looks at the plans.
Any state DOT receiving a grade of C or less must stay after class and do lines. Those receiving C grades must write, "I will treat the plan user's time with respect" 100 times on the blackboard. Those receiving D or F grades must write, "For the sake of transparency, I will provide unmetered online access to my construction plans" 500 times on the blackboard.
But, if you want to actually see the sentences that were written on the blackboard, you will have to submit a written request to DOT headquarters; pending approval, a .zip file containing pictures of the blackboard will be sent within two to six weeks after submission receipt.
Quote from: Steve on May 26, 2012, 09:46:05 AM
NJDOT: B+. The biggest problem is lack of money, which I'm not going to fault the DOT for - that's state politics at play. One minus is for their continued use of black squares on BGS shields and failure to adopt MUTCD mileposts. The other is that there are some very easy bottleneck fixes that they either don't consider or put off way too far in the future, while lower-priority (and often more expensive) projects come through right away. I don't know how much of a role politics plays in that, though. Otherwise, they do and have done a very good job at signage and upgrading roads considering the money issues.
i agree with this...some very easy fixes that for whatever they just leave half assed (money i guess), another thing is that is takes way to long to finish jobs.
Quote from: pctech on May 25, 2012, 02:28:18 PM
I live in Louisiana. I would give LA DODT a c or c-
Reasons:
I think their construction/maintenance methods are substandard.
Transportation policy is too influenced by political interest.
Almost non-existent interest public transportation.
Mark
Quote from: mcdonaat on May 25, 2012, 11:38:13 PM
Louisiana: A B. The highways can be terrible, but the state legislature is passing a rural roads act to get the less-traveled highways back in shape. The newer roads are smooth and bump-free, especially I-55 out of Hammond north to Mississippi. It feels weird to leave the state and the roads get bumpy automatically. Signing is still an issue, and too many highways exist, but that's politics, not transportation.
With Louisiana, and I'm sure any other state, it all depends on what part of the state you're in and which district of the department you're in. I've noticed that the New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and Lake Charles area districts seem to do a lot better than other parts of the state that I've been to.
CDOT is a mixed bag to me. Their work on highways outside of the cities is as good as any other state I guess, but CDOT can drag their heels at times working with the cities.
For one, they carry over the rural highway mentality to the city streets, where larger signs, narrow or non-existent sidewalks, 55mph speed limits, and oversized traffic signals may not be appropriate.
Their typical urban bridge standard is a 6' sidewalk next to a 6' bike lane (more like a gravel-and-glass filled shoulder), next to multiple wide lanes of fast moving traffic. Would you feel comfortable walking or bicycling right next to 55mph traffic? Considering that highway interchanges are often the only way between two communities, the nearest alternative may be miles away.
Overall, they do a fairly good job at highway maintenance and operations, but the capital projects division needs to have some serious reform.
Indiana
Quote from: ShawnP on May 26, 2012, 10:16:36 AM
Website-C....no long term plans online.
Long term and short term project studies are online. Detailed plans are online for projects that are being let or have been let. I would give them an A- instead of an A because of lack of consistency on project web sites.
Quote from: ShawnP on May 26, 2012, 10:16:36 AM
Forward Thinking-A....pushing hard for I-69, I-67 and I-265.
I am not sure about any I-67, but INDOT has selected to implement improvements in all areas of the state. I-69 is currently getting more funding than one might expect, but that makes up for a huge gap in the Indiana highways system so I don't think many people complain about it. INDOT seems to be doing major rebuilds before a highway becomes too dangerous or too congested. Much better than most states. Major rebuilds include building the roadbed from the ground up rebuilding bridges, and rebuilding/redesigning interchanges). Also an A here.
Quality of Workmanship-D....have noticed some bad work being done by Contractors and INDOT won't or can't correct.
[/quote]
Well, yeah. I have seen some poor quality work in Indiana, but that is true everywhere. In general, it seems about average. When they find bad work, they fix it just like happened on US 24 in Fort Wayne. I will give them overall a B to B- depending on which part of the state.
Quote from: ShawnP on May 26, 2012, 10:16:36 AM
Cheapness-C.........INDOT cheeped on I-64 road rework between Corydon and Georgetown by doing only the mainline and leaving the shoulders alone. Not as cheap as Missouri with it's wasteful thin lift overlay (pavement that works maybe 2-3 years and then has to be replaced........ie money throw away).
What you are talking about is common. In one cycle they don't pave the shoulders when they resurface the mainline. Generally, I am OK with that unless the shoulders are in very bad shape. Doing this allows highways to be resurfaced more often which is very important in the north. So is that smart management or cutting corners? Balancing that with the very nice, high quality new highways, I would give INDOT either an A- or B+. After the Major Moves money is gone, it will be interesting to see what happens.
Other Pros for INDOT:
- Proactively widens bottleneck areas (interchange merges and cross roads near freeways)
- Seems to replace traffic signs every ten years or less
- Good lighting in place at interchanges and key intersections
- INDOT is pretty good about not wasting money on silly things. For example nothing remotely like Michigan's and Illinois' boondoggles of replacing all BGS with Clearview ones. They seem to be very pragmatic.
- Speaking of Clearview.... no Clearview (subjective)
- Things are relatively consistent around the state
- Subsidize key local projects like Keystone Pkwy.
- Major Moves included a requirement to improve the Toll Road so that benefit occurred in addition to all the new and improved highways
- Very efficient addressing problems. When Sherman Minton bridge crack was found, proper action was taken and a good solution was implemented ahead of schedule and with reasonable cost.
Other Cons:
- They stll have some very sub-standard highways where traffic volumes are low. Some of these roads have no shoulders and utility poles right by the traffic lanes.
- Indiana still has some nightmarish bypasses with way too many stoplights (US 30 and US 31)
- Similarly, roads like US 41 through central Terre Haute are horrible. They also need a bypass there (SR 641 is addressing the problem south of I-70)
- Sometimes they wait too long to rebuild - for example, I-70 west of Indy
In the last ten years, INDOT has built around 40 new interchanges and at least 150 miles of new freeways if you include what is currently under construction. These project include the I-69 extension, US 24, US 31, and SR 641. The new terrain SR 25 and US 231 expressway also added 60 miles of superior roads. Major highways such as I-70 in Indy, the west and north legs of I-465 in Indy, the Borman (I-80/I-94) in NW Indiana, and I-69 in Fort Wayne have been or are being rebuilt. And that is just a partial list.
Quote from: ShawnP on May 26, 2012, 10:16:36 AM
Overall I would give them a B- but could be a B plus with elimination of a few areas.
Overall, I would give them an A, but recognize that Major Moves is a big part of it. They executed on the opportunity in very short order and stayed focused on the mission. I am not aware of any corruption despite all the dollars.
Washington: A- Good Maintenance (apart from Seattle), Good Road design, nice street hardware, minimal sign goofs).
Oregon: D crappy street hardware, sign goof galore, maintenance sub-par, mediocre traffic engineering design
California: B Fantastic Road design, picky signs, poor maintenance
PennDOT: C. Okay roads (not great), but it takes an unusually long time to get something done. Their freeway signs leave something to be desired, but I enjoy their other signs, mostly because of the PennDOT symbol. One other issue I have with PennDOT is the lack of passing zones on rural 2 lane roads where they might be appropriate.
DelDOT: B-. Decent roads and signage, despite congestion being an issue. Horribly timed traffic signals though.
NJDOT: B+. Mile markers are very consistent (especially on non-freeways), plus their traffic signals are nice too with the truss arms. My qualms with NJDOT pretty much equal to what Steve said in his post.
NYSDOT: C. Very clean freeway signs for the most part (I'm a sucker for the rounded corners), plus their smaller signs and traffic signals look nice. That being said, the condition of a lot of the roads in the state are very rough and unpleasant.
Quote from: kphoger on May 26, 2012, 12:17:38 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 25, 2012, 03:42:01 PM
Missouri: MoDOT gets a B. Signage is good; in all cases I have seen it is consistent, well designed, and clear. Build quality is mostly good, at least on the freeways. I cannot speak to the experiences of a metro Kansas City/St Louis driver, but living in Springfield they seemed to take care of things fairly well. MoDOT does try to stay ahead of the curve in rural areas as well, as we have seen with the I-49 upgrades and Route 13 bypasses (Humansville area, Brighton) put in over the past years. MoDOT is one of the few road agencies I have interacted with myself, and their staff was helpful and courteous.
Wow, my wife and my sister would so disagree with you on this. Many primary state highways and most secondary state highways are serpentine roads with no shoulders and inadequate signage (specifically advisory speeds).
I don't think it is fair to look at the lettered routes too closely when assigning MoDOT an overall grade. For one thing, almost all of the lettered routes would be county roads in any of the surrounding states. MoDOT shouldn't even be responsible for them. Secondly, the lettered routes are appropriately the lowest rung on the totem pole in the MoDOT and treated as such. Most of them have a very limited, local scope and the average person traveling from town to town will not strictly need to use them at any point.
I don't consider advisory speeds useful, since they are generally gratuitously underposted. I guess they give you a general indication of how severe a curve is, but really bad curves should get the sharp turn sign anyway, which is sufficient to get my attention. Thus I didn't even notice that MoDOT doesn't post them.
With the serpentine-ness of the primary routes, a lot of times the issue is simply that Missouri got fucked over by its own geography; my time in Missouri was spent in the Ozarks region, so I was no stranger to curvy roads. Any road can be straightened given enough cash, but a cost-benefit analysis has to be done to determine whether that makes sense–is it going to benefit enough people to be worth spending the money? There are some roads that are underpowered compared to their usage level (I can think of Route 5 between Camdenton and Lebanon as well as Route 13 south of Springfield as being particularly hellish) but MoDOT at least seems interested in fixing the problem (the 'shared four lane' experiment was done to the aforementioned section of Route 5; Route 13 itself is an improvement on the old alignment, which became Route 413) or providing an alternate route (there is no real reason to use existing Route 13 if you're not visiting Nixa; you can use Route 65 instead).
Quote from: national highway 1 on May 26, 2012, 03:42:48 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 25, 2012, 07:15:08 PM
I would give TDOT a higher grade than D on signs. In my experience (which consists of just I-40) they were rather consistent with their large guide signs and the layout was generally excellent. I imagine things might not be as well kept on the back roads, though.
However, Texas does a great job with Clearview.
The TDOT I mentioned was Tennessee; Texas DOT is TxDOT. Though I do agree; as Clearview implementations go, Texas knows what it's doing. There are many ways to screw up Clearview, and Oklahoma seems to have found most of them.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 26, 2012, 09:22:03 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 26, 2012, 12:17:38 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 25, 2012, 03:42:01 PM
Missouri: MoDOT gets a B. Signage is good; in all cases I have seen it is consistent, well designed, and clear. Build quality is mostly good, at least on the freeways. I cannot speak to the experiences of a metro Kansas City/St Louis driver, but living in Springfield they seemed to take care of things fairly well. MoDOT does try to stay ahead of the curve in rural areas as well, as we have seen with the I-49 upgrades and Route 13 bypasses (Humansville area, Brighton) put in over the past years. MoDOT is one of the few road agencies I have interacted with myself, and their staff was helpful and courteous.
Wow, my wife and my sister would so disagree with you on this. Many primary state highways and most secondary state highways are serpentine roads with no shoulders and inadequate signage (specifically advisory speeds).
I don't think it is fair to look at the lettered routes too closely when assigning MoDOT an overall grade. For one thing, almost all of the lettered routes would be county roads in any of the surrounding states. MoDOT shouldn't even be responsible for them. Secondly, the lettered routes are appropriately the lowest rung on the totem pole in the MoDOT and treated as such. Most of them have a very limited, local scope and the average person traveling from town to town will not strictly need to use them at any point.
I considered that before posting. But then I look at Minnesota, and I see a world of difference. In Minnesota, their county state-aid highways (at least in the parts of Minnesota I go to) are in just as good condition as the primary network; many have hard shoulders, all have more than adequate signage. In Missouri, I've been on too many numbered state routes that are really no better than their lettered cousins.
I do realize it costs more per mile to build a road in Missouri than it does in Minnesota, of course
Quote from: PennDOTFan on May 26, 2012, 06:59:43 PM
NYSDOT: C. Very clean freeway signs for the most part (I'm a sucker for the rounded corners), plus their smaller signs and traffic signals look nice. That being said, the condition of a lot of the roads in the state are very rough and unpleasant.
NYSDOT has funding issues similar to NJDOT.
NYSTA: B; they keep the road nice and smooth, signage is mostly good, but they don't sign county lines and the newer clearview signage is ugly. Some major projects (like the Williamsville toll barrier project) take a long time to happen, though.
CaltransSignage -
A
- Lots of button copy kept
- Uniform sign heights
- CA-style exit tabs
Pavement -
B-
- Lots of freeways (Like 101 in San Jose) with new asphalt
- Others (Like I-5 in the Central Valley) with terrible asphalt/concrete
Mast Arms/Gantries -
A
- Very well designed, looks aesthetically appealing
- Safe during earthquakes
These are all the reasons I can think of right now. Overall, i guess Caltrans would get an
A-.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on May 25, 2012, 10:34:46 PM
Other than maybe District 5, I don't see any of them getting above a "C".
Being from District 5, I'm wondering how this is.
FL gets a B+ in my opinion, but needs FDOT to take control over traffic signals. Many are county and municipally maintained and treat highways like streets. You have no organization of signal timings this way and you have a major thorofare waiting two or three light changes on a not so busy side road.
NJ gets a B+ as I see cause even though they have exellent traffic signals so that you can see when behind a truck and the jughandle system works well keeping all slow traffic to the side, the signs could be updated some. How about control cities at entrance ramps on I-280 and I-287 in most places? Then they need freeway type mileage signs instead of all capital letter lgses on interstates. Plus, control cities for travelers in consistency with the assigned control cities instead of "Ewing" for I-295 when "Trenton" is that route's primary control point for NB ramps. On I-78 use "I-287" instead of "Bedminster" on its mileage sign considering that there is no assigned exit named for that township. Route junctions have gotten better with directional shielding added, but trailblazers need to be added for NJ 27 in Elizabeth northbound at NJ 28 on Cherry Street. A right turn NJ 27 and a NJ 28 West shield is needed there! Then at its northenr terminus with NJ 21 in Newark has NO SIGNAGE depicting at all the two routes junctioning.
LA gets a C cause it needs dirt fills at grade separations instead of the bridge itself coming off the ground. Look at US 11 crossing I-10 near New Orleans on street view and you will see what I mean. LA 23 needs shielding, in where it has none south of Gretna. Granted it intersects no adjoining route numbers, still confirmation shields would be nice as well as an end assembly in Venice. It could use more noted control points on interstates and I-49 could use completing along US 90. It does have good mile signs and I like its mast arms that use collars instead of bolts (except at double mast arm assemblies) and it is the only state other than NY to use green signal heads instead of yellow and black like all the others use.
PennDOT needs improvement, a C, cause many roadways need widening and pot holes filled. Breezewood needs the bypass ramps at the place where I-70 crosses itself. Some signage needs updating and control cities need to be changed in some places ie "Trenton" on US 1 in Oxford Valley for I-95 North when the city is dead ahead a few miles and "Harrisburg" for I-81 North in Enola on US 11 & 15 considering its location at that point to Harrisburg Proper. How about Harrisburg for I-81 North from the MD Line? Then you have speed limits that need to be upgraded like I-78 from Allentown to Hamburg being raised to 65 along with the Oxford bypass of US 1. Local road control cities could be added instead of the traditional one only on interstate exit guides and in some places a point that actually exists. There is no city called "Pocono" anywhere in PA, yet the exit guide for PA 940 uses that on I-380 near Mount Pocono.
Quote from: kphoger on May 27, 2012, 07:25:39 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 26, 2012, 09:22:03 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 26, 2012, 12:17:38 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 25, 2012, 03:42:01 PM
Missouri: MoDOT gets a B. Signage is good; in all cases I have seen it is consistent, well designed, and clear. Build quality is mostly good, at least on the freeways. I cannot speak to the experiences of a metro Kansas City/St Louis driver, but living in Springfield they seemed to take care of things fairly well. MoDOT does try to stay ahead of the curve in rural areas as well, as we have seen with the I-49 upgrades and Route 13 bypasses (Humansville area, Brighton) put in over the past years. MoDOT is one of the few road agencies I have interacted with myself, and their staff was helpful and courteous.
Wow, my wife and my sister would so disagree with you on this. Many primary state highways and most secondary state highways are serpentine roads with no shoulders and inadequate signage (specifically advisory speeds).
I don't think it is fair to look at the lettered routes too closely when assigning MoDOT an overall grade. For one thing, almost all of the lettered routes would be county roads in any of the surrounding states. MoDOT shouldn't even be responsible for them. Secondly, the lettered routes are appropriately the lowest rung on the totem pole in the MoDOT and treated as such. Most of them have a very limited, local scope and the average person traveling from town to town will not strictly need to use them at any point.
I considered that before posting. But then I look at Minnesota, and I see a world of difference. In Minnesota, their county state-aid highways (at least in the parts of Minnesota I go to) are in just as good condition as the primary network; many have hard shoulders, all have more than adequate signage. In Missouri, I've been on too many numbered state routes that are really no better than their lettered cousins.
I do realize it costs more per mile to build a road in Missouri than it does in Minnesota, of course
But the counties are paying part of the tab there, no? That's not the case in Missouri. Lettered routes are 100% state maintained.
If you grab a map of Missouri you can also see tons of lettered routes that spur off into the hinterlands, never encountering so much as a town or another state route of any sort. Mn/DOT probably doesn't have to pay for these sorts of roads.
Michigan gets a C.
Positives: Exit numbers on most freeways, I-75 being 4x4 around Bay City and between Saginaw and Flint, M-6, I-196 east of US-131, most freeways not dropping speed in/near a major city
Negatives: US-31 and US-127 and their gaps in freeway which won't be filled for years if ever (two in the case of US-31), some freeways being too narrow (US-23 south of Brighton, I-94 [which should be 3x3 or more statewide]), lack of a 60-65 mph speed limit on rural two-lane roads (most U.P. roads, M-115, M-55, M-37, M-72 for example)
I'm going to give WisDOT a B+. Though the pavements on Interstates can be shoddy at best, not all of them are bad. pretty much every state highway is decent but there are exceptions.
Signage is good - though from a roadgeek's perspective, not enough button copy :P
For IowaDOT - I'm going to hand them a B+ as well. Roads are good, but for the surface highways - those sign salad arrows are awful looking. Nice vintage Interstate shield design though.
For IDOT (or IDiOT if you prefer) - B- (leaving Chicago out of it). (NOT including the ISTHA) Roads are decent quality - especially the freeways, I still have yet to get familiar with central and southern IL though. For the north - I've found enough unrepaired potholes. For ISTHA - A. They put the tolls to good use by keeping the roads well maintained - but the capacity still needs some work.
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on May 27, 2012, 02:24:46 PM
Being from District 5, I'm wondering how this is.
Less than frequent use of greenout, and not much evidence of designing the signing to fit the existing infrastructure rather than designing it to conform to the MUTCD and Cal. Manual. But both of these may be less a function of department competence than a function of the District's more rural nature, with accordingly fewer opportunities to engage in either bad practice.
Quote from: Master son on May 28, 2012, 05:04:52 PM
I'm going to give WisDOT a B+. Though the pavements on Interstates can be shoddy at best, not all of them are bad. pretty much every state highway is decent but there are exceptions.
Signage is good - though from a roadgeek's perspective, not enough button copy :P
For IowaDOT - I'm going to hand them a B+ as well. Roads are good, but for the surface highways - those sign salad arrows are awful looking. Nice vintage Interstate shield design though.
For IDOT (or IDiOT if you prefer) - B- (leaving Chicago out of it). (NOT including the ISTHA) Roads are decent quality - especially the freeways, I still have yet to get familiar with central and southern IL though. For the north - I've found enough unrepaired potholes. For ISTHA - A. They put the tolls to good use by keeping the roads well maintained - but the capacity still needs some work.
As for southern Illinois, I would give Illinois quite a good grade. Even what most people would never know are state highways are actually secondary state highways; these are usually in just as good condition as the primaries. I used to drive all over southern Illinois in a bouncy Isuzu box truck, and was impressed overall.
I'd give LaDOTD a B-.
I cannot remember when the last time things have been this busy when it comes to road construction/repair. Yes, the state has a HUGE backlog of roadwork, but I give Gov. Jindal some credit for throwing more money at our roads - including rural highways - than the previous three governors combined (Who'd have thought the ground level of I-55 would EVER get fixed?).
The Miss. DOT gets a A.
They are light years ahead of Louisiana when it comes to taking care of their roads...and their roads LAST a lot longer than Louisiana's too.
Quote from: blawp on May 30, 2012, 01:32:02 PM
Quote from: blawp on May 25, 2012, 08:36:02 PM
CalTrans - A+
I agree with this poster.
what happened to you? the sudden drop in the quality of your posts is alarming.
I'm not sure whether we're grading the department or the state legislature or the state economy. California has some very nice newer routes, but neglects maintenance shamefully. The pavement on I-80 near Fairfield before it was repaved was so bad that we had to slow down to 45 to keep from being bounced out of our lane, there were protest signs along the road saying "Pave I-80". CalTrans fault? Legislature's? Economy's?
Similarly, the east span of the Bay Bridge. A perfectly adequate retrofitted or replacement bridge could have been built in a couple of years. Instead, we're coming up on a quarter century since the Loma Prieta quake and the replacement isn't done yet. It's also costing about 20X what a simple replacement should have cost. But it was Jerry Brown's idea to have a "signature span", as if the Bay Area weren't abundantly provided with landmark bridges already, so it's not totally CalTrans' fault.
Quote from: kkt on May 30, 2012, 04:24:51 PMBut it was Jerry Brown's idea to have a "signature span",
the first two signature spans were built between 1933 and 1937, so even that doesn't require 20 years.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 30, 2012, 07:46:45 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 30, 2012, 04:24:51 PMBut it was Jerry Brown's idea to have a "signature span",
the first two signature spans were built between 1933 and 1937, so even that doesn't require 20 years.
I don't think the Golden Gate or Bay bridges are signature spans. They were made using the least expensive type of bridge for the site. A signature span is going out of its way to do something more expensive than it has to be just to be showy. The Golden Gate has some decorative touches in the lighting and design of the columns, but a suspension bridge is the most cost effective type of bridge that could be made on that site.
Quote from: kkt on May 31, 2012, 01:44:17 AMI don't think the Golden Gate or Bay bridges are signature spans. They were made using the least expensive type of bridge for the site. A signature span is going out of its way to do something more expensive than it has to be just to be showy. The Golden Gate has some decorative touches in the lighting and design of the columns, but a suspension bridge is the most cost effective type of bridge that could be made on that site.
By that criterion, I am not convinced that the self-anchored suspension span of the Bay Bridge is a "signature span" either. I am aware that it was developed as an alternative to retrofitting the existing cantilevered truss (an option which Caltrans at the time acknowledged would not meet "lifeline route" standards), to replacing it altogether with a segmental concrete bridge which was widely criticized as a "freeway off-ramp into the sky," or building a cable-stayed bridge. IIRC the "freeway off-ramp" was clearly the inferior option from the standpoint of navigation because it would have resulted in a lower and narrower envelope for ship transit.
Jerry Brown demanded the "signature span" at a time when a choice had to be made among three options: the plain concrete bridge, the cable-stayed bridge, and the self-anchored suspension bridge. Taking seismic performance and navigation considerations into account, the cable-stayed bridge and the self-anchored suspension bridge were clustered tightly together in terms of cost and performance, but the self-anchored suspension bridge was $30 million more expensive at a time when the total cost of the east span replacement was still only around $1 billion--a difference of about 3%.
The east span project is so large that the numbers of companies with the capacity to build it and to insure its construction are both very small. Caltrans initially tried to let the whole thing as one contract, but was told up front by the contractors that it would not get any credible bids. This was in about 2000, and Caltrans responded by breaking out the approach viaduct into a single large contract which was let around 2001 and has since experienced significant cost overruns. The plan at this point was to let the self-anchored suspension span as a single large contract, but this had to be abandoned when it became uninsurable after the September 11 attacks, and the work was divided among multiple contracts. (At the time, the bascule and over-water spans of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge were being advertised, and were initially another nine-figure single contract which later generated its own repackaging drama, blamed partially in this case on the Maryland governor's insistence on a project labor agreement. This siphoned the contractors' estimating resource away from the Bay Bridge project, and made the bidding environment less competitive than it might otherwise have been.) The most public, if not absolutely the largest, single increment of added cost arose from the superstructure contract for the SAS, which was advertised in 2003 at an estimated cost of about $700 million. Two bids came in the following year (2004), both in excess of $1.4 billion, and caused a huge scandal. After much hand-wringing and dramatics from both Governor Schwarzenegger and his BTH secretary Sunne Wright McPeak (both of whom should have shown far more
sang froid than they did), Caltrans decided that the SAS could not be abandoned or repackaged any further and re-advertised the contract essentially on the same set of plans in 2005, and accepted the low bid--again, about $1.4 billion--the following year.
For the past decade, the story of the Bay Bridge east span replacement has largely been "It costs what it costs." It is possible that the total construction cost would not have risen as far or as fast as it has if Caltrans had paid more attention to constructability issues before 2000, but some elements of the bidding environment and thus the cost escalation were completely unpredictable, like September 11, while others, such as the timing of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge over-water spans construction procurement, were very difficult to predict in advance. Caltrans was also committed more and more tightly to the design concept as construction progressed through the split contracts. When Schwarzenegger and McPeak talked wildly about ripping up the SAS plans and going back to the freeway off-ramp plan, nobody could take them seriously, because that idea would have required another time-consuming and expensive transit through the Coast Guard permitting process. (McPeak was also a well-known advocate of fast ferries as an alternative to fixed crossings of the Bay. Her embrace of this idea showed how little understanding she had of transportation issues in general.) The alternative plan of building a cable-stayed bridge through a design-build contract was only marginally more credible since the design effort would have been considerable, whereas there was a finished design already on the shelf and ready to go.
^ Willie Brown also delayed the bridge project by a year or more because he insisted it should be located to the south of the current span. He wanted to develop the Nimitz House on Treasure Island into some sort of party/marina area, and got the Navy to go along with that idea.
Caltrans SignageQuote from: myosh_tino on May 26, 2012, 01:56:11 AM
* Guide Signs: B ... love the button copy which outlasts the newer reflective signs (e.g. deteriorating reflective signs on I-80 over the Sierras), greenouts can provide clues to former routings and route numbers, sort of indifferent on adding exit numbers and I have no problem with how Caltrans is dealing with the exit "tabs"
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on May 27, 2012, 02:24:46 PM
Signage - A
- Lots of button copy kept
- Uniform sign heights
- CA-style exit tabs
I'll subtract points for gross-looking filthy signs, mismatching greenout, and misaligned and crowded text. Advanced signage is sometimes weak, at least in the Bay Area. California-style exit tabs are neat, but too often they've been wedged into an existing layout.
C+
Quote from: flowmotion on May 31, 2012, 02:08:32 PM
^ Willie Brown also delayed the bridge project by a year or more because he insisted it should be located to the south of the current span. He wanted to develop the Nimitz House on Treasure Island into some sort of party/marina area, and got the Navy to go along with that idea.
Caltrans Signage
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 26, 2012, 01:56:11 AM
* Guide Signs: B ... love the button copy which outlasts the newer reflective signs (e.g. deteriorating reflective signs on I-80 over the Sierras), greenouts can provide clues to former routings and route numbers, sort of indifferent on adding exit numbers and I have no problem with how Caltrans is dealing with the exit "tabs"
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on May 27, 2012, 02:24:46 PM
Signage - A
- Lots of button copy kept
- Uniform sign heights
- CA-style exit tabs
I'll subtract points for gross-looking filthy signs, mismatching greenout, and misaligned and crowded text. Advanced signage is sometimes weak, at least in the Bay Area. California-style exit tabs are neat, but too often they've been wedged into an existing layout.
C+
It's just as bad down here in the south. Try mismatched greenout covering over reflective borders and new retroreflective signs shedding their protective coating.
5 north at Orange Crush (https://maps.google.com/?ll=33.773904,-117.872014&spn=0.030179,0.066047&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=33.773898,-117.871755&panoid=c2Yy-RwFdlo7NxPU3KIuBQ&cbp=12,315.44,,1,-6.34)
5 south at Euclid Street (https://maps.google.com/?ll=33.838768,-117.947845&spn=0.242391,0.528374&t=h&z=12&layer=c&cbll=33.838758,-117.947515&panoid=lEbo9lejTHUAIOy8MHTvag&cbp=12,139.09,,1,-9.08)
5 north at Main Street (not sure what the reverse arrow is on top of the pull-through - maybe some experiment in truck lane signing?) (https://maps.google.com/?ll=33.766162,-117.86622&spn=0.030325,0.066047&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=33.766839,-117.866602&panoid=3OrAB1fEx_WHUkvYJHaLDg&cbp=12,332.63,,0,-14.74)
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on May 31, 2012, 02:52:27 PM(not sure what the reverse arrow is on top of the pull-through - maybe some experiment in truck lane signing?)[/url]
that is a U-down sticker. it is graffiti. it's been there for years.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/Global/story.asp?s=5149561
Well, I forgot to mention that button copy signs would be better if Caltrans actually washed them once in a while. Probably because of the budget, they don't clean them. At least they're there though...
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 31, 2012, 11:42:21 AM
Quote from: kkt on May 31, 2012, 01:44:17 AMI don't think the Golden Gate or Bay bridges are signature spans. They were made using the least expensive type of bridge for the site. A signature span is going out of its way to do something more expensive than it has to be just to be showy. The Golden Gate has some decorative touches in the lighting and design of the columns, but a suspension bridge is the most cost effective type of bridge that could be made on that site.
By that criterion, I am not convinced that the self-anchored suspension span of the Bay Bridge is a "signature span" either. I am aware that it was developed as an alternative to retrofitting the existing cantilevered truss (an option which Caltrans at the time acknowledged would not meet "lifeline route" standards), to replacing it altogether with a segmental concrete bridge which was widely criticized as a "freeway off-ramp into the sky," or building a cable-stayed bridge. IIRC the "freeway off-ramp" was clearly the inferior option from the standpoint of navigation because it would have resulted in a lower and narrower envelope for ship transit.
Jerry Brown demanded the "signature span" at a time when a choice had to be made among three options: the plain concrete bridge, the cable-stayed bridge, and the self-anchored suspension bridge. Taking seismic performance and navigation considerations into account, the cable-stayed bridge and the self-anchored suspension bridge were clustered tightly together in terms of cost and performance, but the self-anchored suspension bridge was $30 million more expensive at a time when the total cost of the east span replacement was still only around $1 billion--a difference of about 3%.
It should have been obvious that the self-anchored suspension bridge would have much higher chance of cost overruns as an unusual design. It makes one suspect that CalTrans gave it a low estimate on purpose in order to make more work for themselves. The simple concrete bridge need not look like a freeway off ramp; the 1980s Dumbarton bridge is concrete and it looks pretty good.
I'm also skeptical of the need for a high bridge for navigation. Somehow we fought WW II with the old east span of the Bay Bridge, much lower with closely-spaced piers. But now that the Navy has left Alemeda and the shipping business has gone to Stockton, we need a higher east span? High clearance ships can continue to go under the west span.
Quote from: kkt on May 31, 2012, 04:03:36 PMIt should have been obvious that the self-anchored suspension bridge would have much higher chance of cost overruns as an unusual design. It makes one suspect that CalTrans gave it a low estimate on purpose in order to make more work for themselves. The simple concrete bridge need not look like a freeway off ramp; the 1980s Dumbarton bridge is concrete and it looks pretty good.
I don't think the cable-stayed option would necessarily have been cheaper or less complicated simply because it was more familiar. It was taken as a given that any replacement bridge (as opposed to a seismic retrofit) would be designed to meet lifeline standards, which--if memory serves--calls for no interruption of traffic service longer than fifteen minutes in the immediate aftermath of a maximum credible earthquake. Cable-stayed bridges in general are very common; cable-stayed bridges designed to this standard are very uncommon.
It is also my understanding that the push for the SAS came from the stakeholders, not from Caltrans Structures Division, which tends to undercut various flavors of the bureau-maximization argument, though the orthotropic bridge deck was considered innovative and the Caltrans engineers responsible for it were happy to take credit for it in published papers.
QuoteI'm also skeptical of the need for a high bridge for navigation. Somehow we fought WW II with the old east span of the Bay Bridge, much lower with closely-spaced piers. But now that the Navy has left Alameda and the shipping business has gone to Stockton, we need a higher east span? High clearance ships can continue to go under the west span.
It is true that the navigation envelope of the bridge as currently planned is an improvement on that which already existed with the original east span, and by itself would not justify the costs now associated with the SAS. Indeed, Google Maps does not show any ferry routes which pass under the east span, and for ships coming from the open seas through the Golden Gate bound for ports in the East Bay, routings under the east span are typically much less direct than ones under the west span. (The agreed clearance for the new east span is actually slightly lower than that of the existing span, because of the deck thickness of the new span, Wikipedia says--see link below.)
However, the dimensions of the navigational envelope were agreed with the Coast Guard and the permit was issued at a much earlier stage of the process, when the costs associated with the various options were understood to be much lower. When the first $1.4 billion bid came in for the SAS superstructure contract in 2004, the concrete viaduct and cable-stayed bridge options were both reconsidered and found to be so close to the SAS in cost that re-opening the Coast Guard permitting process would generate delays whose cost would more than offset any savings. (Neither alternative could be built under the existing permit because neither was compatible with the navigational envelope specified in the permit.)
Wikipedia's article on the east span replacement is a pretty good road-map to the various controversies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_span_replacement_of_the_San_Francisco_%E2%80%93_Oakland_Bay_Bridge
It reminds me of something I had forgotten--the cost increases were driven by sharp rises in steel and concrete prices. This means that none of the replacement options, including the supposedly more fiscally responsible concrete viaduct, would have avoided massive cost overruns unless it were finished before the price increases took hold.
One could argue that if all the parties involved had agreed promptly on the viaduct instead of holding out for various cable-stayed or suspended options and thus creating delay, it would have been possible to build it before prices took off in 2004. I feel, however, that this scenario requires too many things to go exactly right. The approach viaduct which has already been built as part of the new east span is essentially two-thirds of the viaduct option, and at the time of contract award it was understood that it would take six or seven years to build it. Assuming that a similar construction period would apply to a viaduct replacement for the whole span, this means that the construction contract for it would have had to be let in 1997 to avoid cost overruns from material prices. I don't think the FEIS was even signed until 1998, and then additional time would have been required for final design; consensus did not begin to coalesce around replacement (as opposed to retrofit) until about 1996.
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on May 31, 2012, 03:36:14 PM
Well, I forgot to mention that button copy signs would be better if Caltrans actually washed them once in a while. Probably because of the budget, they don't clean them. At least they're there though...
:biggrin:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kriske.com%2Fhighway%2Fsigns%2Fsign_clean.gif&hash=35ba12aa5e70cf42c58fbb0a8a5f7100813139be)
OK, since no-one from outside the 50 States has critiqued their state's DOT, I'll kick us off:
New South Wales Roads and Maritime Services (RMS), formerly the RTA (Roads and Traffic Authority)
Route Markers
Generally, the route markers are the right specs and correct numeral widths. However there are a few occurrences with unsigned duplexes, poorly executed route marking changes, important unnumbered corridors, pointless 'Tourist Drive' routes and incorrect shields.
Rating: A-
Guide Signs
Clear, concise and consistent and well executed signage is one great thing about NSW. A few old faded 'black signs' exist around the Newcastle, Southern Highlands and Country areas. Signage replacements happen every 15-20 years. NSW likes to use coverplates (greenout plates) to alter sign information to save costs. However there are a few non-standard signs installed by local councils in regional areas. School zone signs have been made more prominent in recent years by fluro yellow and flashing 40km/h signs.
Rating: A
Pavement
Used to use concrete from the 1920s to the 1960s, then had a mix of asphalt and concrete in the 1980s. 1980s concrete on some of the regional freeways (F3 Freeway, Hume Hwy) is deteriorating, but being patched over with newer concrete. 1990s and early 2000s were mainly asphalt, which has been progressively repaved over with newer asphalt. In some mountain areas, there is a sprayed asphalt type of gravel/aggregate which is very noisy to drive on, used in slippery areas
Currently, there have been a few repavings over the past few years, on newer projects such as the Pacific Hwy and Hume Hwy, there is high standard concrete/asphalt dual carriageway suitable for 110km/h (70mph) speeds.
Rating: B+
Line markings
Generally OK, however there are few places which need restriping and/or new reflectors.
Rating:B
Congestion
Mainly concentrated in the Sydney metro area, where the city has grown radially and with most toll roads transferring to electronic tolling, and so therefore most radial and circumferential arterials are clogged heading in and out of Sydney. Due to reasonably poor public transport and most toll roads transferring to electronic tolling , more Sydneysiders are resorting to car-based transport. A few road projects have made to combat this.
Rating: C
Construction Zones
Well signed and well equipped, however due to a lack of funding, the government has either scaled down projects or deferred them. Projects have a long EIS or along period of planning before being given the green light.
Rating: C
Bridges, Tunnels and Road related infrastructure
Generally well executed, with good guardrails and barriers/bollards and other traffic calming measures (speed humps and traffic islands). Retaining old lift/opening bridges and stone/wooden bridges is a good thing, too. Tunnels are well lit and ventilated, however incident response could be better. There are a few problems with ventilation of the M5 East Tunnel.
Rating: B
Website
Well organised, with projects separated by region, however not consistent with project maps and PDFs. Does have construction images, however there aren't that many archives. Not updated frequently. Submissions used to go through a long process, previoulsly there could be sent through to the Dept of Planning, Transport or Roads. Since the merger bewteen Roads and Maritime Services, the govt has decided to be more committed and more focused to the needs of the state
Rating:D
Overall Rating: B
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 26, 2012, 12:54:08 PM
A = Construction plans available online at letting without URL hiding or JavaScript involvement; anyone may download them free of charge without registration; archived more or less permanently
B = Construction plans available online at letting, possibly with URL hiding or JavaScript involvement; anyone may download them free of charge without registration; not archived
C = Construction plans available online at letting, possibly with URL hiding or JavaScript involvement; registration required to download; may not be archived
D = Construction plans in electronic format distributed solely through CD or online services that require payment; may not be archived or available in arrears
F = Construction plans not available electronically at all
WI A (Was D under old system of CD distribution)
Actually, Wisconsin keeps its plans online for only about 6-10 months, for example they recently purged all the plans from 2011 on there FTP server.
Quote from: on_wisconsin on June 08, 2012, 08:19:38 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 26, 2012, 12:54:08 PMWI A (Was D under old system of CD distribution)
Actually, Wisconsin keeps its plans online for only about 6-10 months, for example they recently purged all the plans from 2011 on their FTP server.
WisDOT has had online plans for only a year now, and their procedures are still evolving--for example, the online plans are now in their third "home" and the advertisements page was recently reorganized to have separate pages for each letting. (I am not a fan of the new system, BTW, because all of the bid advertisements are now placed under the same filename, advertisement.pdf, rather than under a filename containing the letting date, e.g. adv20120710.pdf. I liked the old system better because it allowed me to use string extraction on the filename itself to obtain the YYYYMMDD part of the WisDOT call number for each project. I can still automate this part of the process but now I have to write new code to do URL parsing on the advertisement pages.) So things are still in flux.
I have been retrieving online plans from state DOTs for over 10 years now. In that time, my experience has been that as state DOTs gain more experience with putting plans online, and as unit costs for storage and hosting drop, they decide it is easier to keep plans online indefinitely rather than to spend staff time and risk public annoyance on periodic purges. For example:
* NCDOT has had plans online (initially on a view-only basis using a very bad ActiveX plugin) since about 2002, has supported downloading since 2003, and now has an online plans archive which goes back to mid-2004.
* Illinois DOT has had plans online since 2004 and had its first purge (which removed several of the 2004 lettings) just last year.
* Ohio DOT was probably the first state DOT to put plans online, initially on a Digital Paper server which never worked very well and was closed for new lettings around 2001, with Web access being withdrawn several years later. Since about 2002 Ohio DOT has hosted plans on a new Digital Paper server, which initially worked no better than the old one but has improved considerably with recent upgrades and still has plans for projects which were uploaded in 2002.
* Caltrans started putting plans online in 2001 and initially had a two-tier mechanism: plans would initially be uploaded to Office Engineer's /project_ads_addenda/ folder on the Caltrans web server, and then three months after award, the project would be removed from /project_ads_addenda/ and then uploaded to a Digital Paper archive server at hqidocs.dot.ca.gov. Digital Paper worked no better for Caltrans than it had for Ohio DOT, so public access to hqidocs.dot.ca.gov was withdrawn after several years. Although Caltrans Office Engineer still has language on its website saying that plans are liable to be removed from the website three months after award, in actuality no purges have happened in the recent past and /project_ads_addenda/ still has projects with advertisement dates going back to summer 2003. Some of these are quite large, such as the Bay Bridge SAS superstructure contract (04-0120F4), or the I-215/SR 60/SR 91 reconstruction and widening (08-334844). As a general rule, plans for a given project are left alone unless they are deleted and substituted with new plans for a readvertisement (so, for example, the SAS plans now available for download correspond to the second advertisement, not the original one).
So, TxDOT (which has had plans online for as long as Caltrans--since about 2001) is fairly unusual in having a six-month limit on availability and purging promptly at the six-month mark. I have faith that the folks at WisDOT will wake up to the advantages of letting old plans "sleep" on the server.
South Carolina Department of Transportation
Highway construction
The highways in SC are in better shape than I expect, considering that the state has been cutting SCDOT's budget to the barebone. However, the LAURENS ST bridge in Aiken crumbled and that will not be completed until summer is over.
But, it does little to affect the grade in this category.
Grade: A
Regulatory signs
The regulatory signs are, for the most part, compliant already. SCDOT has been replacing regulatory signs at least four years BEFORE the 2009 MUTCD (which formerly had hard deadlines contained in it) came out.
Grade: A
Warning signs and plaques
The warning signs in most areas around South Carolina have kept up to the regulatory signs. But, not quite fast enough.
Grade: B+
Guide signs and overhead guide signs
With the exception of casing, guide signs of destinations and political boundaries have been maintained about as good as the warning signs. For the counties that have changed the names of places into mixed-case, I have not seen a political boundary sign formatted correctly (the word "Town Limit" / "City Limit" on these signs is still in all upper-case letters, rendering it non-compliant). But since so few municipalities have used the new political boundary signs, it will not count against them this time.
Grade: B+
Overhead Street Name signs
These signs are in poor shape in most of the counties that have them (15-30+ years old). Hard to see at night.
Grade: D-
Street Name signs
These signs are in even worse shape than their overhead sisters. At the time of SC's adoption of the 2009 MUTCD, only 4 of the 46 counties had compliant signs (Aiken, Orangeburg, Pickens and Spartanburg), and signs in exactly 50% of the counties in SC failed the new minimum letter height requirements (6 inches upper-case, 4.5 inches lower-case) that went into permanent effect on January 10 (the updated version of the 2009 MUTCD do not eliminate this deadline, since it had passed prior to the manual's revision). Since then, Greenwood County, Edgefield County and my home county of Barnwell have only begun changing their signs to mixed-case within the last two months. The street name signs in SC overall are not even close to satisfactory in my book.
Grade: F
Construction zones
Still to many casualties in construction zones and a very high percentage of worker deaths were completely avoidable by travelers. SCDOT and the state need to really crackdown on motorists violating the rules of construction zones.
Grade: D
Congestion
Not a big problem outside of Aiken, where people are turning onto EAST PINE LOG RD to avoid the light at CHARLESTON HY's westernmost terminus, thereby making EAST PINE LOG RD even more congested than it already is. If this was based solely on the experience in Aiken, it would be an F. But, there is not a problem with congestion outside of Aiken, Charleston, Columbia, Florence, Greenville, Greer, North Myrtle Beach, Orangeburg, Rock Hill or Spartanburg in SC.
Grade: C+
Web page
The web page has a lot of information about projects. SCDOT also provide online maps for all communities and counties. The only problem? Signs and markings are not available on their web page - and that is a big problem considering that there are some signs (like the state highway sign) that is exclusive to SC.
Grade: C
Overall Grade: C