Talk:Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

Questions

Living in PA, I get this question a lot, Why does PennDOT not have a District 7? Does anyone know? If so, perhaps this info can be added to the page as well? Jadian Prime (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

PennDOT (or, rather, one of its predecessor agencies) did used to have a District 7, which was centered on Harrisburg. I know that this district existed around 1942 because I have a Pennsylvania traffic manual which includes a district map showing it, but I don't know when it was removed (presumably in a general reorganization of highway districts). Argatlam (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms

Removed a comment that targeted the stereotypical inefficiency of PennDOT. While nearly every Pennsylvanian would likely agree with the comment (myself included), I do not feel that it has a place within this encyclopedia. It'd make a fine addition to the Uncyclopedia, however. ~External link: (1) --Thisisbossi 21:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

After seeing what was reverted, I do agree that it should be neutral. While I personally think that it should have a "Critisizm" section on the poor quality of the roads as well as all of the seemingly-endless construction projects, there should be some positives mentioned of PennDOT, if there is any. While PA's harsh winters (even if they've been milder in recent years) is somewhat of a legit excuse, there is still plenty to critisize PennDOT over. Jgera5 01:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm more-or-less OK with the new Criticisms section, but the wording still sounds more like the "Fix my road first before anyone else's!" citizen mentality. For example, all state DOTs are legally obligated to address all citizen's concerns, so the statement "Ignoring needed repairs or putting in temporary fixes..." sounds like a pretty harsh accusation that would create numerous legal implications as a result, if it were true.

The key restriction on performing maintenance work is simply a lack of funding: maintenance may be scheduled for years from the point where a problem is realised solely because other maintenance projects are in line for funding before it. So, of course, the concerned citizen is unhappy that they're at the end of a line and they will typically not accept a 2-3 year time estimate to do what, to them, may be simple work (and oftentimes "simple" to a citizen is in fact "complicated" to an engineer -- adding curbing or signals are NOT simple tasks!). If anyone can think up more neutral ways of phrasing things (or sources that would support the use of more direct wording), feel free to go at it. Cheers! --Thisisbossi 11:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following but opted to maintain it here for reference:

Perhaps one of the largest time PENNDot was ever criticized was during the Valentine's Day Storm of 2007. A Nor'Easter brought 5-8 inches of snow to portions of east central Pennsylvania. Alons I-78 between the Lebanon County line to the Lehigh County line, PennDOT was criticzed heavily for failure to make the roadway safe for travel, after the storm has already passed. During the night of 2/14, several tractor trailers began to jackknife and spin out on small hills in the central portion of Berks County. This causes severs backlogs and other accidents. The Pennsylvania State Police finally shut down the roadway, after a reported 50-mile backlog was created. The problems forced Governor Edward G. Rendell (D-Pa) to issue a Statewide Emergencey. In addition, the Pennsylvania National Guard was activated to deliver food, water, diapers and fuel to the thousands of stranded motorists.

This is a current event and the description provided above is rife with POV comments and weasel words. Particularly, it has yet to be decided that all fault rests upon PennDOT: it is not the prerogative of any transportation agency to intentionally disregard their roadways. There are many aspects which over-zealous reporters and citizens will ignore so that a suitable scapegoat can be found (and sure enough, PennDOT is a frequent target). In particular, ignore aspects often include the resources available to PennDOT for maintaining all of their lane-miles of roadway; or perhaps the trucking companies whose drivers were the keystone of the jams; or perhaps the State and municipal governments whom spurred the rapid development in the area which exceeds PennDOT's capabilities for coping; or perhaps the very people foolish enough to disregard a snow emergency instead of finding proper shelter. It is too early to be pinpointing any specific blame on any singular agency. And if you are going to provide a reference, at least provide the reference. --Thisisbossi 04:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

While I am not an editor of the PennDOT article, I have to say that the current Criticism section is still very inflammatory and countains no citations for the "facts" presented. While I agree that a Criticism section in some form should be included if the sources exist, if there is no data to back up this, then you shouldn't add it. And remember, this is an encyclopedia article. If you have considerable angst toward PennDOT, you probably shouldn't edit the article, as your emotions can get in the way, as evidenced by: "...likely more than its share." 'Likely' has no place here. Please, someone get some actual data on Pennsylvania's road conditions and rewrite the Criticism section. Until then I would advise removing it. As I am not a contributor to this article, I will not do so. Polypmaster 22:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The information has been removed per this edit. Provide verifiable sources per [[WP:ATT] before re-adding any criticisms. Sláinte! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 03:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I will admit it, I was the one who started the "criticisms" section of the article. It seemed like everything else had criticism in there. I live in Pennsylvania (and am moving to CT), and I hate PennDOT and their roads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.159.48 (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should familiarise yourself with WP:NPOV prior to performing any further editions to Wikipedia. Also remember to sign your posts --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 23:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mapdist.gif

Image:Mapdist.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section missing the biggest criticism

Yeah, the biggest criticism, at least from a "this is why it's bad" standpoint are the labor unions which largely control the state's politics. It's why nothing changes. It's also why the state control of liquor still exists in PA. I live here. I drive on the highways nearly every weekday. PokeHomsar (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)