Worst state for road capacity and flow

[Mergingtraffic]

For those that log many miles on the nation's roads in various states...which state has the worst roads?

Things to consider:

A) Lack of capacity in regards to population & traffic
B) Lack of beltways or bypasses
C) Lack of turning lanes
D) Poorly striped roads ie: (A two-lane exit is striped as one lane, there is room for an optional lane but it's not striped as one, wide road large enough for turn lanes but none are striped etc)
E) Lack of limited-access highways

[3467]

Very hard to say ..........Chicago does not have a really dense freeway, tollway system but it has a lot of transit and Illinois has the third almost second longest amount of Interstate..............
So it is a tough question

It would be nice if there was a national traffic count map of the Interstates and NHS.The Last one I have seen is the national Atlas -1970.

[TheStranger]

Due to NIMBYism, much of what was planned in California never came into fruition.

Sacramento lacks a north-south bypass of any sort (the Mid-State Tollway proposal to connect 505 and 205, and the proposed Watt Avenue corridor Route 143 each would have served that role) and does not have an east-west bypass for Rancho Cordova/Folsom bound travelers using US 50 (due to the cancellation of much of Route 244). 

While Los Angeles is known for its massive freeway network, many more routes were never constructed (i.e. Route 170 to LAX, Route 14 on the west side of the San Fernando Valley, Route 90 east of I-405, Route 39 north of Orange County to I-210) and those would have served as relievers for the existing bottlenecked routes.  Also, many routes in the Palmdale/Lancaster area (particularly Route 138 along Lake Elizabeth Road, which would have enabled San Diego bound traffic from points north to entirely avoid Los Angeles and Orange Counties) never went past the paper stage.

San Francisco of course lacks a north-south freeway corridor to the Golden Gate Bridge, due to the freeway revolts, though there is a limited access route along former Route 17 (now I-580 and I-880) that at least provides an alternative for Marin-Santa Clara County commuters.  680 and 280 do serve as a bit of a beltway, though with the northernmost segment of the original 280 (19th Avenue in SF) not ever constructed as freeway, it only partially fulfills this role.  (The 238 freeway from 580 to 680 would have given an alterante route between Oakland and San Jose that does not exist at present.) 

It seems San Jose and San Diego did complete 90-95% of their planned projects, something that the other large metro areas cannot really say.  Bakersfield is preparing to add a few new routes (who knows if this will someday tie in with an I-40 extension but that is speculative, despite previous CalTrans attempts from decades past), and Fresno is in the midst of working on its small limited access network.

[Chris]

I made this list almost a year ago:

The ratio represents 1,000 inhabitants per x lane miles. The higher this number is, the better. If this number is low, more people have to use the same number of lane miles.

Of course, this does not takes into account transit usage which varies from city to city (but is not significant except for a few cities) and the amount of people that use non-freeways.

My source is the Texas Transportation Institute, which has definitions of urban areas and lane mileage. I just derived the freeway lane miles per 1000 inhabitants ratio from there. The list contains 85 urban areas. Note that the definition of "urban area" by TTI is not exactly the same as MSA or CSA definitions by the U.S. Census bureau.

[Revive 755]

^ St. Louis could have been much higher on the ration per 1000.  Base case:
* I-170 extension from I-64 to MO 276:  ~7 miles, mostly six lanes:  42 lane miles
* MO 755, entire length, around 3.5 miles, minimum of four lanes: 14 lane miles
* Page Avenue freeway from I-270 to I-170 (excludes actually built I-270 to Shuetz Road), around 4 miles, minimum of 4 lanes:  16 lane miles.
* IL 3 from I-255 to the PSB Complex:  About 6 miles, minimum of 4 lanes:  24 lane miles
* IL 15, PSB Complex to IL 163:  Around 3.3 miles, minimum of 4 lanes:  13.2 lane miles
* US 67, MO 367 to the Clark Bridge, about 5 miles, minimum of 4 lanes:  20 lane miles (wonder if that list even includes the new MO 367 freeway?)

So St. Louis's ration could have been 1.078.  Adding a few more cancellations:
* Page Avenue freeway, I-170 to I-70:  Minimum 10 miles, minimum 4 lanes:  40 LM
* MO 141 freeway, around Valley Park to around I-64:  ~6.2 miles, minimum 4 lanes:  24.8 LM.  Ratio: 1.109
* MO 109 outer loop, I-64 to I-55 - may not have been built to freeway grade or if MO 141 had been built:  31 miles, minimum 4 lanes, 124 LM.  Ratio:  1.168

Now, assuming the dormant Gateway Connector loop in Illinois is instantly built today as a four lane freeway (37 miles, min 4 lanes):
- Ratio assuming all other previously mentioned cancellations were built:  1.238
- Ratio with today's system:  1.087

Now considering the new I-70 Mississippi River bridge and relocations are built plus the Gateway Connector:
- Ratio assuming all other previously mentioned cancellations were built, current bridge plan:  1.243
- Ratio assuming all other previously mentioned cancellations were built, ultimate bridge plan:  1.250
- Ratio with today's system, present bridge plan:  1.092
- Ratio with today's system and ultimate bridge plan:  1.099

As for state with the worst roads using the provided criteria, I say Pennsylvania, since every time I drive through Pittsburgh some highway backs up horribly, the Harrisburg area has major problems, and many other roads need more center turn lanes, medians, or to just bypass some of the towns.

Runner up would be Illinois, with the lack of a good Chicago bypass for I-80, need for a bypass or widening of I-55/72 in Springfield, ditto for I-57/70 at Effingham, and the bloody awful IL 13 from I-57 to Murhphysboro as main features.

[Brandon]

For those that log many miles on the nation's roads in various states...which state has the worst roads?

Things to consider:

A) Lack of capacity in regards to population & traffic
B) Lack of beltways or bypasses
C) Lack of turning lanes
D) Poorly striped roads ie: (A two-lane exit is striped as one lane, there is room for an optional lane but it's not striped as one, wide road large enough for turn lanes but none are striped etc)
E) Lack of limited-access highways

I'd have to say that Illinois ranks highly on that list.  Getting IDOT to widen a road, much less a freeway is like pulling hen's teeth.  They seem to be very reluctant to do so, even when traffic conditions warrant the widening.  Even with the wonderful mass transit in Chicagoland (and don't get me wrong, Metra and the CTA rail are really, really good), some parts of the area simply need an extra lane for capacity reasons.  Take I-55 for example.  I-55 is only six lanes from I-80 in to LSD.  Formerly, it was only that wide from Weber Rd to LSD, and I remember when it the interstate was six lanes only from IL-53 to LSD.  As areas south and west grew, they kept asking for IDOT to widen the road.  It finally got done a little over a year ago after decades of petitioning.  Then, IDOT had a golden opportunity to fix the freeway from I-294 to I-90/94 in the 1990s.  They blew it.  IDOT decided to maintain the previous lane configuration rather than improving it a la I-80/94 in Indiana.  Now it is a mess.

IDOT also did the same with the Hillside Strangler.  They decided to fix it.  Well, it got fixed alright, fixed into the Bellwood Strangler instead.  I-290 needed fixing east of the merge point, and IDOT failed yet again.  There are days I wonder why we just don't hand over the entire expressway system to ISTHA and get IDiOT out of the picture.  The way the interstates are maintained is quite a contrast.  ISTHA took the initiative and widened I-294 south, widened I-88 out to IL-59, and then widened it west of the Aurora Toll Plaza.  They built I-355's extension to six lanes instead of four, and widened that one from 75th to I-88 for capacity reasons.  It actually flows during rush hour now.  Over two year later, the I-355 extension is still smooth as glass.  The I-55 widening IDiOT did?  It's already full of potholes!

And why should it take ISTHA to take over the Illiana Expy and the Prairie Pkwy?  Because IDiOT can't pull its head from where the sun doesn't shine.

[Mergingtraffic]

Things to consider:

A) Lack of capacity in regards to population & traffic
B) Lack of beltways or bypasses
C) Lack of turning lanes
D) Poorly striped roads ie: (A two-lane exit is striped as one lane, there is room for an optional lane but it's not striped as one, wide road large enough for turn lanes but none are striped etc)
E) Lack of limited-access highways

I would say CT is number one on my list.

Hartford has no direct beltway...just a partial beltway NE of the city.
A city the size of New haven has NO beltway or bypass, while cities of similiar sizes in neighboring states do (Syracuse, Worcester, Springfield for example)

When CT widens a road, they always do it half-*ss.  While CT did a good job widening CT-66...how come no median was installed?!?  Cars traveling at 55mph on a 4-lane road is dangerous without a median.  

CT did do a good job with the I-84, I-384 & I-291 interchange and the CT-20 & I-91 interchange.  

Other projects such as 4-laning of roads in commercial areas are done WITHOUT a center turning lane.  I've seen the plans to widen US 6 & 202 in Danbury....4-laning with "selected" turning lanes.  

Also, other projects such as the CT-111 & CT-15 SPUI is a great project.  But the CT-15 SB ramp is jagged..how come that wasn't straightened out with the SPUI projects.

[Riverside Frwy]

Due to NIMBYism, much of what was planned in California never came into fruition.

Sacramento lacks a north-south bypass of any sort (the Mid-State Tollway proposal to connect 505 and 205, and the proposed Watt Avenue corridor Route 143 each would have served that role) and does not have an east-west bypass for Rancho Cordova/Folsom bound travelers using US 50 (due to the cancellation of much of Route 244).  

While Los Angeles is known for its massive freeway network, many more routes were never constructed (i.e. Route 170 to LAX, Route 14 on the west side of the San Fernando Valley, Route 90 east of I-405, Route 39 north of Orange County to I-210) and those would have served as relievers for the existing bottlenecked routes.  Also, many routes in the Palmdale/Lancaster area (particularly Route 138 along Lake Elizabeth Road, which would have enabled San Diego bound traffic from points north to entirely avoid Los Angeles and Orange Counties) never went past the paper stage.

San Francisco of course lacks a north-south freeway corridor to the Golden Gate Bridge, due to the freeway revolts, though there is a limited access route along former Route 17 (now I-580 and I-880) that at least provides an alternative for Marin-Santa Clara County commuters.  680 and 280 do serve as a bit of a beltway, though with the northernmost segment of the original 280 (19th Avenue in SF) not ever constructed as freeway, it only partially fulfills this role.  (The 238 freeway from 580 to 680 would have given an alterante route between Oakland and San Jose that does not exist at present.)  

It seems San Jose and San Diego did complete 90-95% of their planned projects, something that the other large metro areas cannot really say.  Bakersfield is preparing to add a few new routes (who knows if this will someday tie in with an I-40 extension but that is speculative, despite previous CalTrans attempts from decades past), and Fresno is in the midst of working on its small limited access network.

Agreed, California Officials give-in to the NIMBYs way too easily.It sucks that when I'm in Pasadena the only way to get to LA is to go all the way around using CA 134 or I-210 to I-605.I *hate* taking the Arroyo Seco Parkway because it's tight curves, no shoulders, and the fact that all the traffic going down that little freeway is ridiculous and a pain to drive.I would have no problem if I-710 was finished thru Pasadena.

[3467]

I have to Ditto Brandon IDOT di want to make 55 8 lanes to the Ryan but Daley said no!
The Tollway make have to fix the IKE with HOT lanes
Downstate they come up with overdesined roads that belong under fictional higways US 20 is a perfect example
They seem to be allergic to say making some Shared 4s and protecting ROW
I was on the widened 55 last summer Brandon you said it and its narrow no shoulders -same old exits the 80 merge is still bad ....the Tollways look great -well you get what you pay for I guess

[shoptb1]

Funny thing about this list....

As an Arkansas native, I have long thought that the Little Rock area was the most over-built from a freeway perspective in proportion to the population, and that the Northwest Arkansas area was one of the least.  Having lived in Northwest Arkansas, the MSA is close to 450K and the only freeway to serve the region is I-540, which is 4-lane the entire length.  Little Rock, on the other hand has a MSA population of 850K, and has I-40 (6 lanes), I-30 (6-8 lanes), I-630 (6-8 lanes), I-430 (6-8 lanes), I-440 (6 lanes), I-530 (4 lanes), AR-440 (6 lanes), and US-67/US-167 (4-6 lanes). 
With the AHTD being situated in Little Rock, residents of NWA have long felt like the area was ignored when it came to project funding, and from the numbers, it would be hard to argue with this..... 

Honestly, I'm kind of glad that I don't live there any more because watching this type of neglect was very frustrating and it was sad to see the effect that the lack of infrastructure dollars had on an economy with such great potential.  Stupid, stupid, stupid.