How do "they" decide what road works to do? (auto, lane)

[jtur88]

Anybody have any idea how the decisions are made about what road work projects are to be done and when?

I have the impression that there is a commission of about 3 or 5 people appointed by the governor, who make decisions with absolutely no public input nor hearings, based on whatever will deliver the most votes from the most critical constituencies, or award contracts to the highest bribers.

It seems completely idiotic to do a single dollars worth of work to "improve" the surface of an existing lane of traffic, when there is such a screaming need for new roads and new roadways where none now exist.

With almost every urban area nearly doubling in size during the lifetime of a road, it would seem logical to completely build a whole new road system equal to the present one, to handle future traffic, instead of closing half the lanes we already have to enable surface improvements.

Leave the existing highways alone, just as they are, and use the highway funding to build the new ones that are already urgently needed.

[Professor Griff]

In my state, DOT officials conduct a yearly audit of all state roads to identify transportation problems. It could result in anything from sidewalk rehabilitation to intersection improvements to costly interstate projects. From there it goes into the planning process and, depending on the scope, feasibility studies. Some potential projects get shelved indefinetely or until funds are secured for engineering design and construction.

It's not "idiotic" to "improve" the surface of an existing roadway. Highways are structures. They are routinely subject to loads and eventually deteriorate. Resurfacing, which you are referring to, is an important part of highway maintenance. Existing roadways can't be abandoned so that new ones can be built. Everything must be maintained. If not, you'd be angry that the interstate was so rutted and distressed that highway speed couldn't be maintained safely.

In addition, it's not as simple as "adding new roads where none exist". It's not always feasible, there are always environmental impacts to consider, new roads are costly to design and build (especially considering land acquisition etc.), it's just not that simple. What is important is that the structures we currently have be maintained and upgraded as necessary to meet current and future demands.

[texdav]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Anybody have any idea how the decisions are made about what road work projects are to be done and when?

I have the impression that there is a commission of about 3 or 5 people appointed by the governor, who make decisions with absolutely no public input nor hearings, based on whatever will deliver the most votes from the most critical constituencies, or award contracts to the highest bribers.

It seems completely idiotic to do a single dollars worth of work to "improve" the surface of an existing lane of traffic, when there is such a screaming need for new roads and new roadways where none now exist.

With almost every urban area nearly doubling in size during the lifetime of a road, it would seem logical to completely build a whole new road system equal to the present one, to handle future traffic, instead of closing half the lanes we already have to enable surface improvements.

Leave the existing highways alone, just as they are, and use the highway funding to build the new ones that are already urgently needed.

The problem is that we have been building raods sicne the auto was invented and now the cost of amintaining them is sky high. bascailly tho TXDOT does studies o where new roadways ro expansion of existing are the most needed. With such a expnasibe raodway system there just isn't the fuhnds to expnad mnay or rebuid as you suggest. One reason new roadways by toll is getting more play.

[vmaxnc]

Originally Posted by texdav

The problem is that we have been building raods sicne the auto was invented and now the cost of amintaining them is sky high. bascailly tho TXDOT does studies o where new roadways ro expansion of existing are the most needed. With such a expnasibe raodway system there just isn't the fuhnds to expnad mnay or rebuid as you suggest. One reason new roadways by toll is getting more play.

Is this a test of the concept that as long as all the letters are in a word, it doesn't matter what order they're in, because we'll still recognize the word?

hee hee

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by Professor Griff

It's not "idiotic" to "improve" the surface of an existing roadway.

Not such an obvious choice.

If you have an existing road, already inadequate for the traffic load, does it make more sense to close it completely in order to iron out a few bumps, or to let the traffic endure it while forging on with additional roads to relieve the growing congestion.

I have learned to never use Interstates when traveling during the summer, because the construction slowdowns waste more time than is saved by using the Interstate in the first place. What is the use of having all these fine roads, if they are always closed? Tens of miles of four lane roads are reduced to two lane roads that have the added disadvantage that you cannot pass. And if there are two or three alternatives, there will be a construction blockage on all three of them. Often with no workers in sight. All for the sake of repair, on roads that everyone had been getting along fine on before the orange cones went up.

[Professor Griff]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Not such an obvious choice.

If you have an existing road, already inadequate for the traffic load, does it make more sense to close it completely in order to iron out a few bumps, or to let the traffic endure it while forging on with additional roads to relieve the growing congestion.

I have learned to never use Interstates when traveling during the summer, because the construction slowdowns waste more time than is saved by using the Interstate in the first place. What is the use of having all these fine roads, if they are always closed? Tens of miles of four lane roads are reduced to two lane roads that have the added disadvantage that you cannot pass. And if there are two or three alternatives, there will be a construction blockage on all three of them. Often with no workers in sight. All for the sake of repair, on roads that everyone had been getting along fine on before the orange cones went up.

People will never be satisfied. Even if new roads were built, people would not be satisfied. And no, it does not make sense for a roadway to fail structurally just to avoid maintenance. Do you let your engine go without an oil change to avoid whatever inconvenience may come of changing it? You maintain your car, your house, yourself (I hope), so why do you think it would be OK to neglect existing roads just to build new ones?

New roads will need to be maintained as well, and 30 years down the road you'd have the same complaints.

[M3 Mitch]

Gents, road surfaces last a lot longer with less maintenance in Texas than they do in Maryland. Just in case you don't understand each other's perspective.I would say there are as many different ways of doling out road building/improving/maintaining funds as there are funding districts. In Chicago the funds are doled out mostly based on which district supported the "machine" best. But there are actual engineering considerations such as spending a relatively small amount to "chip seal" a road surface that's getting a little long in the tooth to put off the eventual need to re-pave it completely, try to fix a "situation" that's causing crashes, etc. etc.