Grade your state's DOT

[pctech]

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

[Scott5114]

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.

[OCGuy81]

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.

[Brian556]

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

[Scott5114]

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.

[The High Plains Traveler]

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- 
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.

[blawp]

CalTrans - A+

[Brian556]

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.

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.

Not one hint of yellow left. yes, that makes it interesting for roadgeeks like me, but it's bad maintenance.

[bugo]

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+.

[Scott5114]

CalTrans - A+

Now that needs to be justified.

[J N Winkler]

CalTrans - A+

Now that needs to be justified.

I would give Caltrans Office Engineer an A, but I highly doubt that was what Blawp meant.

[Takumi]

CalTrans - 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".

[Occidental Tourist]

CalTrans - 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".

[mcdonaat]

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.

[myosh_tino]

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

[blawp]

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

[national highway 1]

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.

[Alps]

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.

[SP Cook]

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".

[ShawnP]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[kphoger]

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).

[J N Winkler]

Is 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.

[kphoger]

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.

[YankeesFan]

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.