Duplicate Controls Not Allowed by MUTCD

[roadman65]

https://www.aaroads.com/fl/004/i-004-e-exit-101-11.jpg
It was brought up using one control city for two routes is not allowed per MUTCD.

Yet FDOT recently installed signs that have Mount Dora for both SR 46 and SR 429 in Sanford, FL.

[kphoger]

I just looked it up, to make sure it's "shall" language and not just "should" language.  Yep.

"At any decision point, a given destination shall be indicated by way of only one route"

[I-35]

I just looked it up, to make sure it's "shall" language and not just "should" language.  Yep.

"At any decision point, a given destination shall be indicated by way of only one route"

Any distinction made for using the same control city for toll routes versus non-tolled alternatives?

[kphoger]

I just looked it up, to make sure it's "shall" language and not just "should" language.  Yep.

"At any decision point, a given destination shall be indicated by way of only one route"

Any distinction made for using the same control city for toll routes versus non-tolled alternatives?

Not that I see.  Not unless it's in some toll-specific section of the MUTCD.

[Rothman]

I just looked it up, to make sure it's "shall" language and not just "should" language.  Yep.

"At any decision point, a given destination shall be indicated by way of only one route"

Was it written this way in the 2009 edition?

[kphoger]

I just looked it up, to make sure it's "shall" language and not just "should" language.  Yep.

"At any decision point, a given destination shall be indicated by way of only one route"

Was it written this way in the 2009 edition?

Yep.  Section 2E.13.  "Shall".

[mapman1071]

Then on Long Island on the Westbound LIE at the Northern State Parkway Interchanges is not complaint and also on the Northbound Sagtikos State Parkway/Southbound Sunken Meadow Parkway Interchanges with the above All Westbound Exits have New York as a Control City.

[plain]

Well I guess the most blatant violation gotta go then.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/mBJk96oZY91rSTVRA

[hbelkins]

https://www.aaroads.com/fl/004/i-004-e-exit-101-11.jpg
It was brought up using one control city for two routes is not allowed per MUTCD.

Yet FDOT recently installed signs that have Mount Dora for both SR 46 and SR 429 in Sanford, FL.

I don't think that really counts, as it's two separate exits that lead to the same destination. For example, exits 115 and 117 on I-75 both have Lexington as a destination (not a control city).

[kphoger]

I don't think that really counts, as it's two separate exits that lead to the same destination. For example, exits 115 and 117 on I-75 both have Lexington as a destination (not a control city).

A lot of us on here (myself included) do tend to forget that not everything on a sign is a "control city".  It still violates the verbiage of the MUTCD, though, because it's a decision point and a destination.

[wanderer2575]

I don't think that really counts, as it's two separate exits that lead to the same destination. For example, exits 115 and 117 on I-75 both have Lexington as a destination (not a control city).

A lot of us on here (myself included) do tend to forget that not everything on a sign is a "control city".  It still violates the verbiage of the MUTCD, though, because it's a decision point and a destination.

So by the letter of the law MUTCD:  Were the 1/4 mile advance sign not on that gantry but instead posted a little farther along as a standalone 1/8 mile advance sign (or no advance sign at all), that would be okay.  Like APL rule exceptions, there's gotta be wiggle room to consider common sense.

[Amaury]

I coincidentally brought up an example here: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11045.msg2897545#msg2897545

[roadfro]

I don't think that really counts, as it's two separate exits that lead to the same destination. For example, exits 115 and 117 on I-75 both have Lexington as a destination (not a control city).

A lot of us on here (myself included) do tend to forget that not everything on a sign is a "control city".  It still violates the verbiage of the MUTCD, though, because it's a decision point and a destination.

So by the letter of the law MUTCD:  Were the 1/4 mile advance sign not on that gantry but instead posted a little farther along as a standalone 1/8 mile advance sign (or no advance sign at all), that would be okay.  Like APL rule exceptions, there's gotta be wiggle room to consider common sense.

Ehh, debatable. I think it really depends on how you define "decision point" (which at least the 2009 MUTCD did not define) as to whether this example violates the MUTCD or not.

[hbelkins]

So, is this a violation? I say "no."

https://maps.app.goo.gl/TZdhpPS4UdJhKg5E7

[epzik8]

I just looked it up, to make sure it's "shall" language and not just "should" language.  Yep.

"At any decision point, a given destination shall be indicated by way of only one route"

Very wise observation...

[1995hoo]

I just looked it up, to make sure it's "shall" language and not just "should" language.  Yep.

"At any decision point, a given destination shall be indicated by way of only one route"

I see you had researched the same thing two years ago in response to a query by webny99.

Is this even allowed?

No.

Section 2E.13 Designation of Destinations

Standard:

01 – The direction of a freeway and the major destinations or control cities along it shall be clearly identified through the use of appropriate destination legends (see Section 2D.37). Successive freeway guide signs shall provide continuity in destination names and consistency with available map information. At any decision point, a given destination shall be indicated by way of only one route.

[SignBridge]

But yet the Manual does allow a sign on a freeway to say something like West Overshoe, Next 3 Exits.

Although the standard reads: at any decision point, I sense they are referring to having two freeway routes signed for the same destination. Such as the earlier example someone gave from Long Island where both the Long Island Expwy (I-495) and the parallel Northern State Parkway are signed both for New York on adjacent signs on the same overhead gantry.

At that location it actually does make sense as you have a choice of two equally good parallel routes. Been signed that way there since at least 1960 when I was a little kid just starting to read signs.

[SectorZ]

But yet the Manual does allow a sign on a freeway to say something like West Overshoe, Next 3 Exits.

Although the standard reads: at any decision point, I sense they are referring to having two freeway routes signed for the same destination. Such as the earlier example someone gave from Long Island where both the Long Island Expwy (I-495) and the parallel Northern State Parkway are signed both for New York on adjacent signs on the same overhead gantry.

At that location it actually does make sense as you have a choice of two equally good parallel routes. Been signed that way there since at least 1960 when I was a little kid just starting to read signs.

The LIE/Northern State Pkwy thing also makes sense to have NYC for each because some private passenger vehicle drivers may be apprehensive about either 1) driving on the parkway which is not for the faint of heart or 2) driving amongst large trucks on the LIE, in turn telling them each is an option to the same place.

[1995hoo]

^^^^

Another important consideration there is that commercial traffic cannot legally use the Northern State Parkway, so it's a good idea to sign an alternate route. That's a prime example of when slavish adherence to the MUTCD is counterproductive. There's a sign on eastbound I-66 advising that if you want to use US-50 to get to DC, you should take Exit 64A. That sign is useful, even though I-66's control city is also Washington, because at certain times of day I-66 carries an HO/T restriction. Using US-50 lets you avoid the HOV/toll requirement.

[ran4sh]

I don't think that really counts, as it's two separate exits that lead to the same destination. For example, exits 115 and 117 on I-75 both have Lexington as a destination (not a control city).

A lot of us on here (myself included) do tend to forget that not everything on a sign is a "control city".  It still violates the verbiage of the MUTCD, though, because it's a decision point and a destination.

So by the letter of the law MUTCD:  Were the 1/4 mile advance sign not on that gantry but instead posted a little farther along as a standalone 1/8 mile advance sign (or no advance sign at all), that would be okay.  Like APL rule exceptions, there's gotta be wiggle room to consider common sense.

It's common sense that's wrong.

As far as I can tell, hb's example about Lexington doesn't apply unless there were pull thru signs using Lexington as a destination while the exit sign also used Lexington. Each interchange/exit is its own decision point, since its traffic could be coming from different places.

As for examples like Memphis (from W Memphis): If traffic is being directed to different parts of the same city, then it should be considered what the actual point in the city that most non-local traffic is trying to reach (since the MUTCD specifies that signage is for the benefit of travelers not from the area), and list "Memphis" on the appropriate route to reach that point. In a lot of cities/areas that point will be downtown/central business district/etc, but in some other areas it might not (e.g. for Las Vegas it should probably be the Las Vegas Strip).

Common sense would be to apply the "technically correct" idea that both routes go to X place, so that place should be listed on both signs. But the MUTCD prohibits that for a reason.

[vdeane]

But yet the Manual does allow a sign on a freeway to say something like West Overshoe, Next 3 Exits.

Although the standard reads: at any decision point, I sense they are referring to having two freeway routes signed for the same destination. Such as the earlier example someone gave from Long Island where both the Long Island Expwy (I-495) and the parallel Northern State Parkway are signed both for New York on adjacent signs on the same overhead gantry.

At that location it actually does make sense as you have a choice of two equally good parallel routes. Been signed that way there since at least 1960 when I was a little kid just starting to read signs.

The LIE/Northern State Pkwy thing also makes sense to have NYC for each because some private passenger vehicle drivers may be apprehensive about either 1) driving on the parkway which is not for the faint of heart or 2) driving amongst large trucks on the LIE, in turn telling them each is an option to the same place.

Perhaps a sign in advance that says "JCT [NSP] I-495"/"WEST TO New York"/"EAST TO Hauppauge".

[J N Winkler]

The MUTCD provision requiring a destination to be signed by only one route at a decision point was designed to prevent situations like an intersection where Minneapolis was signed as 51 miles away in one direction and 52 miles away in another (a real-life example that made it into Traffic Engineering back in the 1950's).

[Henry]

So, is this a violation? I say "no."

https://maps.app.goo.gl/TZdhpPS4UdJhKg5E7

It most certainly is not, because these two exits serve the same town, albeit one interchange apart.

[GaryV]

As for examples like Memphis (from W Memphis): If traffic is being directed to different parts of the same city, then it should be considered what the actual point in the city that most non-local traffic is trying to reach (since the MUTCD specifies that signage is for the benefit of travelers not from the area), and list "Memphis" on the appropriate route to reach that point. In a lot of cities/areas that point will be downtown/central business district/etc, but in some other areas it might not (e.g. for Las Vegas it should probably be the Las Vegas Strip).

But the out of town visitor is following their GPS (because they don't know the area) they may be going to the "less popular" destination in the city. GPS tells them to take a certain exit to their destination in Bigtown. They get to an exit 3 miles before the one the GPS says, and the sign says to exit here for Bigtown. No other signage saying that maybe they could also exit 3 miles farther on like their GPS suggests. Confusion.

[Rothman]

As for examples like Memphis (from W Memphis): If traffic is being directed to different parts of the same city, then it should be considered what the actual point in the city that most non-local traffic is trying to reach (since the MUTCD specifies that signage is for the benefit of travelers not from the area), and list "Memphis" on the appropriate route to reach that point. In a lot of cities/areas that point will be downtown/central business district/etc, but in some other areas it might not (e.g. for Las Vegas it should probably be the Las Vegas Strip).

But the out of town visitor is following their GPS (because they don't know the area) they may be going to the "less popular" destination in the city. GPS tells them to take a certain exit to their destination in Bigtown. They get to an exit 3 miles before the one the GPS says, and the sign says to exit here for Bigtown. No other signage saying that maybe they could also exit 3 miles farther on like their GPS suggests. Confusion.

So...they'll follow their GPS, which points their way to the proper exit.  And since exits also have numbers and street/route information on them that also differentiate between exits, no big deal.

Control cities just aren't that significant, when it boils down to it.  Think of the Northeast, where people informally navigate by exit number, or typical instructions where people say, "Take route 11 to route 65..."

No one says "Follow the signs for Bigtown and then get off at Stupidtown."

Therefore, as long as the control city is just somewhat accurate, there's no issue.