Cutting corners in maintenance

[hbelkins]

Just wondered how other states are cutting corners to save on expenses when it comes to highway maintenance.

In Kentucky, I can think of a couple of ways.

One is highway striping. Used to be that stripes were painted at least once a year, sometimes twice. Now, sometimes roads will go two or even three years before having stripes re-painted.

Another is centerline reflectors. Years ago Kentucky installed them on a lot of state primary and state secondary roads, especially those linking county seats. Reflectors that were damaged or plowed up by snowplows or patched over were replaced regularly. Now, the reflectors are pretty much limited to interstates, parkways and other major routes.

My highway district has also started removing a lot of signs. For instance, an assembly that might look like this:

89         82
^         ----->
l
l
l

Now just has

82
----->

(No before and after pics yet, but I'm sure you get the idea.)

I think all three of these actions are detrimental to the traveling public.

What are other states doing?

[Scott5114]

It's sometimes hard to tell in Oklahoma what is a conscious cost-saving measure and what is Oklahoma just being Oklahoma, but some cheap-out's I've noticed will be to stick what should be several assemblies on one pole like

[74]
<-->
[END]
[74B]

Or worse

[END]
[74B]
[74]
<-->

...which makes it look like 74B and 74 are both ending to the left and the right.

Reflectors are most gone from all freeways. I think in most cases they were taken up when a repaving occurred and have simply never been replaced.

[cpzilliacus]

Just wondered how other states are cutting corners to save on expenses when it comes to highway maintenance.

On its "free" network, Maryland has been "saving money" by not maintaining highway lighting for many years. 

In some cases, lighting (especially high-mast lighting) has been removed.  In other cases, the lighting has not been maintained (including replacing burned-out bulbs and not repairing underground electric cables).

On the toll-maintained network, lighting almost always seems to be well-maintained by MdTA, though I wish the roadway decks on the Gov. William Preston Lane, Jr. (Chesapeake Bay); Gov. Harry Nice (Potomac River) and Hatem (U.S. 40/Susquehanna River) Bridges had lighting installed.

[US71]

Just wondered how other states are cutting corners to save on expenses when it comes to highway maintenance.

In Kentucky, I can think of a couple of ways.

One is highway striping. Used to be that stripes were painted at least once a year, sometimes twice. Now, sometimes roads will go two or even three years before having stripes re-painted.

Another is centerline reflectors. Years ago Kentucky installed them on a lot of state primary and state secondary roads, especially those linking county seats. Reflectors that were damaged or plowed up by snowplows or patched over were replaced regularly. Now, the reflectors are pretty much limited to interstates, parkways and other major routes.

My highway district has also started removing a lot of signs. For instance, an assembly that might look like this:

89         82
^         ----->
l
l
l

Now just has

82
----->

(No before and after pics yet, but I'm sure you get the idea.)

I think all three of these actions are detrimental to the traveling public.

What are other states doing?

Arkansas has been doing that for several years. Plus not posting multiplexes (such as I-540/US 71/US 62... only 540 is posted)

[Takumi]

Virginia has been doing the "posting one shield with a double banner" thing for primary routes (they always did it for secondary routes) for the past year or so now. They did the same thing in the cutout days, so I find it retro more than anything. I guess the use of white rectangles instead of shields could be considered cost cutting, but the tendency of a few counties (Chesterfield, York) to put the route number on street blades instead of either a shield or rectangle definitely is.

[vdeane]

The Thruway Authority is very stingy about sign replacements, unlike NYSDOT which does periodic sign rehabs.  Simply driving from Rochester to Syracuse and back, and you can see every style of guide sign NYSTA has used within the past 20-30 years.  I swear there's even a NYSDOT sign on that stretch too!

[mcdonaat]

Actually... kind of the opposite here in Louisiana. LaDOTD has added rumble strips to the center lines of two lane highways, added reflectors to all state highways that I can think of, and posted full assemblies at interchanges, where the current road is marked as going straight while side roads are marked. Our Interstates have been restriped for concrete (white center line with black border), and the signs have actually been placed in a concrete pad instead of just stuck in the ground. Maybe LaDOTD has realized that increased costs now, with black-and-white shields and cemented signs, we can reduce the amount of signs that are either stolen, or reduce the maintenance costs when budgets get cut even more.

[jeffandnicole]

One is highway striping. Used to be that stripes were painted at least once a year, sometimes twice. Now, sometimes roads will go two or even three years before having stripes re-painted.

I would think that painting stripes twice a year is a huge waste of money.  Even once a year is too much.  If the lines are wearing down that quickly, then they're using a poor quality paint.

[Mdcastle]

Driving through Charlotte a few years ago I notice many long sections of freeway with unfunctional lighting.

Up here, before Pawlenty's Mn/DOT stooge got fired by the legislature in the political fallout from the bridge collapse, there was a proposal to close all the off-interstate rest areas (and a couple on the interstates) and reduce the frequency of painting stripes.

[cpzilliacus]

Driving through Charlotte a few years ago I notice many long sections of freeway with unfunctional lighting.

I really dislike broken overhead lighting on any  road (and similarly, dark lighting on overhead signs).

Up here, before Pawlenty's Mn/DOT stooge got fired by the legislature in the political fallout from the bridge collapse, there was a proposal to close all the off-interstate rest areas (and a couple on the interstates) and reduce the frequency of painting stripes.

Virginia closed its rest areas for a while under the previous governor (IMO, a bad move, because the savings are so small), and they were re-opened under the current governor (without an increase in the Commonwealth's motor fuel tax rate).

Congress could really do every state a favor by repealing the federal prohibition against providing food and fuel at Interstate rest areas (many toll roads in the U.S. and many "free" roads outside the U.S. (Ontario and Quebec, Canada; Finland; Germany; Sweden and the UK, among others allow service areas on freeway-class roads) have true service plazas offering fuel, minor repairs and food).

This would reduce the burden on state taxpayers by allowing long-term concessions to run the rest areas.

[Mdcastle]

Mn/DOT has only a handful of lit signs anymore, and I'm sure those are ones they just missed turning off, but they are very receptive to fixing roadway lighting. If I report a problem if it's just bulbs they'll normally fix it in a couple of days, and if it's an electrical problem they'll email me back letting me know they're working on it. Even if a single tower is dark they'll go out and fix it.

[jwolfer]

In Jacksonville, Florida the city/county will cut down the number of times grass is mowed. 

[agentsteel53]

Congress could really do every state a favor by repealing the federal prohibition against providing food and fuel at Interstate rest areas

what was the rationale for this law?  protection for businesses/towns getting bypassed by freeways?

if so, it is truly an archaic law...

that said, there are plenty of gas stations near the freeway; it wasn't long after the development of the freeway system that the "easy off, easy on" service plaza was invented.  in practice, it isn't much different from the European/Canadian/etc model.

[cpzilliacus]

Congress could really do every state a favor by repealing the federal prohibition against providing food and fuel at Interstate rest areas

what was the rationale for this law?  protection for businesses/towns getting bypassed by freeways?

if so, it is truly an archaic law...

that said, there are plenty of gas stations near the freeway; it wasn't long after the development of the freeway system that the "easy off, easy on" service plaza was invented.  in practice, it isn't much different from the European/Canadian/etc model.

I think it was put in place to protect owners of real estate at or near Interstate interchanges. 

Note that I don't think that states should be allowed to discriminate against owners and operators of fuel and food establishments at off-Interstate locations (the New Jersey Turnpike used to have signs approaching each interchange, especially in South Jersey, reading "FOOD and FUEL - STAY ON TURNPIKE," which I regarded as wrong (even though I personally have preferred services on the Pike instead of off)). 

Nor should the federal government require the states to turn rest areas over to concession operators.  Each state should decide by itself. 

[Beltway]

Congress could really do every state a favor by repealing the federal prohibition against providing food and fuel at Interstate rest areas (many toll roads in the U.S. and many "free" roads outside the U.S. (Ontario and Quebec, Canada; Finland; Germany; Sweden and the UK, among others allow service areas on freeway-class roads) have true service plazas offering fuel, minor repairs and food).

This would reduce the burden on state taxpayers by allowing long-term concessions to run the rest areas.

That would help in very few cases, as the land area of Interstate rest areas typically is much smaller than that of the turnpike rest areas which were built to support restaurants, fuel and service stations, and commensurate amounts of parking to support that.

The typical Interstate rest area could not support what you are proposing, and in most areas the needed right-of-way would be difficult or impossible to obtain, and in many cases the needed sewerage capacity would not be available.

[NJRoadfan]

NJ cuts corners by simply not mowing the grass more then once all summer. Its really fun pulling out of an on-ramp and onto the highway and not being able to see anything because 5 feet high grass is in the way!

[cpzilliacus]

Congress could really do every state a favor by repealing the federal prohibition against providing food and fuel at Interstate rest areas (many toll roads in the U.S. and many "free" roads outside the U.S. (Ontario and Quebec, Canada; Finland; Germany; Sweden and the UK, among others allow service areas on freeway-class roads) have true service plazas offering fuel, minor repairs and food).

This would reduce the burden on state taxpayers by allowing long-term concessions to run the rest areas.

That would help in very few cases, as the land area of Interstate rest areas typically is much smaller than that of the turnpike rest areas which were built to support restaurants, fuel and service stations, and commensurate amounts of parking to support that.

I've heard that argument before, and I have just one response - let's allow the state highway agencies to decide that.  I think that the state DOT's and the boards of appointed officials (like Virginia's Commonwealth Transportation Board) and state legislatures are very well-equipped to make such decisions without help from the Congress in Washington.

The typical Interstate rest area could not support what you are proposing, and in most areas the needed right-of-way would be difficult or impossible to obtain, and in many cases the needed sewerage capacity would not be available.

That may well be true.

Regarding land, that's a decision that the states can very well make without help from Congress.  Consider also that a state may not wish to have a service plaza the size of the (pretty massive) Delaware Welcome Center on the Delaware Turnpike section of I-95.

Consider the modestly-sized service areas on the Garden State Parkway in Woodbridge Township (northbound here, southbound here), probably smaller than some Interstate rest areas.  Many rest areas are in rural areas, where land may be less-expensive, thus making it quite possible to purchase more real estate if needed.

Regarding sewer capacity, there's more than one way to properly dispose of sewage - the concession holder can be required to construct a small dedicated sewage treatment plant, or sewers can be extended to a nearby area with sewer service (and consider that sewers do not have to be gravity (even though those are the cheapest and most trouble-free)) - force mains can be used if the sewage has to "flow uphill".  I have seen turnpike service plazas in decidedly rural places, too, in states as varied as Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois (the plaza (whoops, Oasis) on I-88 (East-West Tollway) near Dekalb is not in the middle of development like the two on the Garden State Parkway, though it almost certainly uses Dekalb's sewage treatment system).

[mjb2002]

Most areas in the CSRA cut corners by moving signs knowing that they do not comply with all of the provisions of the current MUTCD.

The Manual dictates that if non-compliant devices (which includes signs) are being moved for any reason - even if it is to make them right - then they shall be replaced with a compliant device, unless the schedule for replacement of the whole series of non-compliant devices will result in achieving timely compliance with the MUTCD.

I've noticed Bamberg County do this twice in regards to the post that two of their uppercase-only Street Name signs are installed on near Tuten's Chicken (I believe the wind blew the signs both times). They never did change the signs as the manual implied.

[NE2]

I believe the wind blew the signs both times

[Beltway]

That would help in very few cases, as the land area of Interstate rest areas typically is much smaller than that of the turnpike rest areas which were built to support restaurants, fuel and service stations, and commensurate amounts of parking to support that.

I've heard that argument before, and I have just one response - let's allow the state highway agencies to decide that.  I think that the state DOT's and the boards of appointed officials (like Virginia's Commonwealth Transportation Board) and state legislatures are very well-equipped to make such decisions without help from the Congress in Washington.

Given that the rest areas were built with 90% FHWA funding, and in most cases current improvments receive 80% FHWA funding, the federal standard that has existed since 1956 should stand, IMHO.  The Safety Rest Areas (official name) are on public right-of-way and are for brief REST, not for major retail businesses, which can be accessed in private sector businesses on private land, by the more frequent interchange spacing that toll-free Interstates have (compared to turnpikes).

The typical Interstate rest area could not support what you are proposing, and in most areas the needed right-of-way would be difficult or impossible to obtain, and in many cases the needed sewerage capacity would not be available.

That may well be true.

Regarding land, that's a decision that the states can very well make without help from Congress.  Consider also that a state may not wish to have a service plaza the size of the (pretty massive) Delaware Welcome Center on the Delaware Turnpike section of I-95.

See above ... they received high levels of FHWA funding.

Regarding sewer capacity, there's more than one way to properly dispose of sewage - the concession holder can be required to construct a small dedicated sewage treatment plant,

Common early in the Interstate system, but widely abandoned due to the poor performance of such "package" plants.

or sewers can be extended to a nearby area with sewer service (and consider that sewers do not have to be gravity (even though those are the cheapest and most trouble-free)) - force mains can be used if the sewage has to "flow uphill".

In many places there are no nearby municipal sewer systems.

[Duke87]

or sewers can be extended to a nearby area with sewer service (and consider that sewers do not have to be gravity (even though those are the cheapest and most trouble-free)) - force mains can be used if the sewage has to "flow uphill".

In many places there are no nearby municipal sewer systems.

And that is what septic systems are for.

Seriously. No sewers? No problem.

[Beltway]

or sewers can be extended to a nearby area with sewer service (and consider that sewers do not have to be gravity (even though those are the cheapest and most trouble-free)) - force mains can be used if the sewage has to "flow uphill".

In many places there are no nearby municipal sewer systems.

And that is what septic systems are for.

Seriously. No sewers? No problem.

Septic systems don't work on the scale of sewage produced by a rest area.  Like 500+ times the sewage produced by a house, and especially high peaks at peak travel times.

[Michael]

I remember around 6-8 years ago an interesting paving job on NY 77 on my way to Darien Lake Theme Park Resort (Six Flags Darien Lake at the time).  Just the tire tracks were repaved, and nothing else.  The best example I could find was this picture from Washington State DOT's Flickr:


I can remember wondering how a motorcycle could drive on pavement like that, especially if they couldn't stay on one of the the repaved strips.

[vdeane]

Those conditions often result from utility work or patched improvements prior to a more major project.

[cpzilliacus]

That would help in very few cases, as the land area of Interstate rest areas typically is much smaller than that of the turnpike rest areas which were built to support restaurants, fuel and service stations, and commensurate amounts of parking to support that.

I've heard that argument before, and I have just one response - let's allow the state highway agencies to decide that.  I think that the state DOT's and the boards of appointed officials (like Virginia's Commonwealth Transportation Board) and state legislatures are very well-equipped to make such decisions without help from the Congress in Washington.

Given that the rest areas were built with 90% FHWA funding, and in most cases current improvments receive 80% FHWA funding, the federal standard that has existed since 1956 should stand, IMHO.  The Safety Rest Areas (official name) are on public right-of-way and are for brief REST, not for major retail businesses, which can be accessed in private sector businesses on private land, by the more frequent interchange spacing that toll-free Interstates have (compared to turnpikes).

So?  Your point is?  Just because the state got dollars from BPR and FHWA means little.  Elected officials at the federal level make those rules, and can change them, and IMO in this instance they should. 

Using your line of reasoning, 80,000 gross pound tractor-trailer combinations, 53 foot semi trailers and "double" trailers would be illegal in most states, because federal taxes helped to build the highway network, and they were illegal in 1956.

The typical Interstate rest area could not support what you are proposing, and in most areas the needed right-of-way would be difficult or impossible to obtain, and in many cases the needed sewerage capacity would not be available.

That may well be true.

Regarding land, that's a decision that the states can very well make without help from Congress.  Consider also that a state may not wish to have a service plaza the size of the (pretty massive) Delaware Welcome Center on the Delaware Turnpike section of I-95.

See above ... they received high levels of FHWA funding.

Congress can (and should) change the rules and let states decide.

Regarding sewer capacity, there's more than one way to properly dispose of sewage - the concession holder can be required to construct a small dedicated sewage treatment plant,

Common early in the Interstate system, but widely abandoned due to the poor performance of such "package" plants.

Wonder how sewage from the massive Sideling Hill service plaza on I-76 (Pennsylvania Turnpike) is treated?  It's certainly "in the middle of nowhere."

or sewers can be extended to a nearby area with sewer service (and consider that sewers do not have to be gravity (even though those are the cheapest and most trouble-free)) - force mains can be used if the sewage has to "flow uphill".

In many places there are no nearby municipal sewer systems.

See above.  I don't think the PTC allows the sewage generated at its Sideling Hill plaza to flow to some nearby creek untreated.