New Jersey Turnpike

[Alps]

Right, but that is similar to when the Thruway added I-84 -- even to their logo.

If the Turnpike bought it, then it is theirs and it is the Turnpike.

I-84 was not the Thruway. It was I-84 and maintained by the Thruway Authority. Otherwise every single state highway is the Transportation.

Thruway added it to their logo.

Depends on how you define state highway when it comes to NYSDOT.  Sections are certainly owned and maintained by other authorities (NYSBA comes to mind...).

I'm not disputing it was in their logo, but that doesn't make it the Thruway. The Thruway is the mainline and the Berkshire Extension. The PA Turnpike Commission maintains a bunch of roads like 66, 576, etc., but only 76-276 and northern 476 are the Turnpike. I wouldn't consider Turnpike 66 "the Turnpike." It's Turnpike 66. You could call 84 "Thruway 84" but it's not "The" Thruway. Anyway, I think we each know where we stand so no use belaboring, let's get back to NJ Turnpike.

[fwydriver405]

This may be a bit of a dumb question, but I'm asking this for a friend who is planning to travel to NJ. For a 2-axle passenger vehicle with an out of state (non-NJ) E-ZPass travelling on the NJ Turnpike, do those drivers* pay the full cash rate or the peak E-ZPass rate at all times? I know that off-peak rates are only for NJ-issued E-ZPasses.

I wanted to assume peak rate since that is what the toll schedule below says, but the calculator doesn't make it clear the toll rate for out of state E-ZPasses. My friend thinks cash/pay by plate rates* because that is how the toll system works in ME, NH, RI (Newport Bridge), and PANYNJ/MTA crossings into NYC.

Toll Schedule:
https://www.njta.com/media/5550/njta_tpk_c1sched-2020.pdf

*For passenger cars, it looks like the peak rate is the same rate as if you paid cash. However, I found out that vehicle classes such as buses do pay a discounted rate if E-ZPass is used...

[NJRoadfan]

Peak E-ZPass rate which is the same as the cash rate for passenger cars. They took away the peak E-ZPass discount for passenger cars a few years back.

[jeffandnicole]

This may be a bit of a dumb question, but I'm asking this for a friend who is planning to travel to NJ. For a 2-axle passenger vehicle with an out of state (non-NJ) E-ZPass travelling on the NJ Turnpike, do those drivers* pay the full cash rate or the peak E-ZPass rate at all times? I know that off-peak rates are only for NJ-issued E-ZPasses.

I wanted to assume peak rate since that is what the toll schedule below says, but the calculator doesn't make it clear the toll rate for out of state E-ZPasses. My friend thinks cash/pay by plate rates* because that is how the toll system works in ME, NH, RI (Newport Bridge), and PANYNJ/MTA crossings into NYC.

Toll Schedule:
https://www.njta.com/media/5550/njta_tpk_c1sched-2020.pdf

*For passenger cars, it looks like the peak rate is the same rate as if you paid cash. However, I found out that vehicle classes such as buses do pay a discounted rate if E-ZPass is used...

Users with an out-of-state EZ Pass (but not necessarily out-of-state plates) pay the normal cash rate, which is the same as the Peak EZ Pass rate.

However, NJ does NOT offer a pay by plate rate. No EZ Pass and No Cash results in a $50 fee plus highest toll charged for the vehicle class. (If a car traveled from Int. 3 to 4 on the NJ Tpk, going thru the EZ Pass lane both times will result in being charged from Int. 18E/W to Int. 4, since they don't track entry points.

Peak E-ZPass rate which is the same as the cash rate for passenger cars. They took away the peak E-ZPass discount for passenger cars a few years back.

If they had offered a peak EZ Pass discount, it was removed 15-20 years ago. Honestly, I can't remember if one was ever offered.

The discount rate for out-of-state EZ Passes ended in 2011.
https://www.nj.com/news/2011/05/nj_turnpike_authority_ends_off.html

[motorways]

Shore Points might make sense as a destination but isn't a valid destination as per the MUTCD. Needs to be a place name like Cape May or Atlantic City.

And NY does follow the MUTCD.  Hence the Mario Cuomo Bridge on the Thruway.  Or Eastern LI on the LIE in Queens still.  Or New Jersey on some signs on Staten Island for the Goethals Bridge.

You make a valid point roadman65. NYSDOT has been just as non-compliant as New Jersey in past years. But they are slowly coming into compliance. In the NYC area, we're seeing Borough names replacing or supplementing bridge and tunnel names as destinations. And some approaches to the Geo. Washington Br. now read Newark, NJ instead of GWB.

Also I don't personally oppose using traditional destinations on the signs. I just point out as a factual matter that some types of destinations are non-compliant. I actually think some loosening and flexibility should be written into the MUTCD standards on this subject.

Although I do see the importance of standardization of road signs in general, I do think that the one-size-fits-all approach does a disservice to NYC area motorists. I do believe that the names of crossings should be used as destinations rather than only cities (1) to reduce ambiguity (given that multiple nearby routes may lead to the same borough or other control city); (2) to provide more precise information about the destination as making the crossing also in effect gives information about exactly where in a large borough the road leads given that neighborhood names such as Midtown Manhattan or Tottenville, SI are also not kosher to sign; (3) to explicitly recognize the presence of what often represents a major bottleneck in the route as well as a not-insignificant toll expense; and (4) to aid in route planning, as current traffic conditions often plays into the decision of which crossing to use to get to a common destination. In other words, merely implying (at best, in many cases) the presence of a crossing is to omit material information that would benefit motorists to know. This may not be the case in other metro areas such as Chicago or LA where such fixed bottlenecks (and attendant decision making challenges) don't exist.

Also, I know that this is of course not a compelling argument but merely a point of personal preference, but I am really disappointed at the loss of the NJ Turnpike's unique signage practices. The squiggly arrows and outsized exit numbers really gave the road a unique visual identity and, in the case of the latter, likely contributed significantly to the very NJ culture of identifying by exit number. I doubt my father – definitely not a road geek – would have crafted his mental map of NJ based on what the nearest Turnpike exit was were it not for those large exit signs. Now the Turnpike is starting to feel like just another highway. Ditto also for NJDOT losing the black shield background on BGSs – it was such a fun and inoffensive visual hallmark of NJ signage that gave the state some character of its own. Now it's just another white-circle in the crowd.

[famartin]

Shore Points might make sense as a destination but isn't a valid destination as per the MUTCD. Needs to be a place name like Cape May or Atlantic City.

And NY does follow the MUTCD.  Hence the Mario Cuomo Bridge on the Thruway.  Or Eastern LI on the LIE in Queens still.  Or New Jersey on some signs on Staten Island for the Goethals Bridge.

You make a valid point roadman65. NYSDOT has been just as non-compliant as New Jersey in past years. But they are slowly coming into compliance. In the NYC area, we're seeing Borough names replacing or supplementing bridge and tunnel names as destinations. And some approaches to the Geo. Washington Br. now read Newark, NJ instead of GWB.

Also I don't personally oppose using traditional destinations on the signs. I just point out as a factual matter that some types of destinations are non-compliant. I actually think some loosening and flexibility should be written into the MUTCD standards on this subject.

Although I do see the importance of standardization of road signs in general, I do think that the one-size-fits-all approach does a disservice to NYC area motorists. I do believe that the names of crossings should be used as destinations rather than only cities (1) to reduce ambiguity (given that multiple nearby routes may lead to the same borough or other control city); (2) to provide more precise information about the destination as making the crossing also in effect gives information about exactly where in a large borough the road leads given that neighborhood names such as Midtown Manhattan or Tottenville, SI are also not kosher to sign; (3) to explicitly recognize the presence of what often represents a major bottleneck in the route as well as a not-insignificant toll expense; and (4) to aid in route planning, as current traffic conditions often plays into the decision of which crossing to use to get to a common destination. In other words, merely implying (at best, in many cases) the presence of a crossing is to omit material information that would benefit motorists to know. This may not be the case in other metro areas such as Chicago or LA where such fixed bottlenecks (and attendant decision making challenges) don't exist.

Also, I know that this is of course not a compelling argument but merely a point of personal preference, but I am really disappointed at the loss of the NJ Turnpike's unique signage practices. The squiggly arrows and outsized exit numbers really gave the road a unique visual identity and, in the case of the latter, likely contributed significantly to the very NJ culture of identifying by exit number. I doubt my father – definitely not a road geek – would have crafted his mental map of NJ based on what the nearest Turnpike exit was were it not for those large exit signs. Now the Turnpike is starting to feel like just another highway. Ditto also for NJDOT losing the black shield background on BGSs – it was such a fun and inoffensive visual hallmark of NJ signage that gave the state some character of its own. Now it's just another white-circle in the crowd.

One would think there can be some sort of compromise with destinations. Why wouldn't "Lower Manhattan" be better for I-78 eastbound east of I-95, as opposed to the Holland Tunnel specifically?  If you are a local then Holland Tunnel works fine, but if you aren't, you are probably more familiar with "Lower Manhattan" as a location as opposed to "Holland Tunnel". Same with the Lincoln ("Midtown Manhattan" might be better) and GWB ("Upper Manhattan" (is that a thing? I've been gone too long) or "The Bronx").  They have changed "Goethals Bridge" to "Staten Island" on the turnpike for the exit to I-278 (now signed as "Elizabeth/Staten Island").

As far as signage... the old squigglies and big numbers are still present south of Exit 9 on the turnpike, but will likely start to disappear with the next round of sign replacements in the next 10 years.

Also, NJDOT is notoriously slow at replacing signage, and a LOT of the back-plated signs are still out there... for now. Many are near or past end-of-life, however, so don't expect them to last much longer. Its one reason I went on a sign-photo spree this past summer... to catch as many as possible before they're gone.

[storm2k]

Shore Points might make sense as a destination but isn't a valid destination as per the MUTCD. Needs to be a place name like Cape May or Atlantic City.

And NY does follow the MUTCD.  Hence the Mario Cuomo Bridge on the Thruway.  Or Eastern LI on the LIE in Queens still.  Or New Jersey on some signs on Staten Island for the Goethals Bridge.

You make a valid point roadman65. NYSDOT has been just as non-compliant as New Jersey in past years. But they are slowly coming into compliance. In the NYC area, we're seeing Borough names replacing or supplementing bridge and tunnel names as destinations. And some approaches to the Geo. Washington Br. now read Newark, NJ instead of GWB.

Also I don't personally oppose using traditional destinations on the signs. I just point out as a factual matter that some types of destinations are non-compliant. I actually think some loosening and flexibility should be written into the MUTCD standards on this subject.

Although I do see the importance of standardization of road signs in general, I do think that the one-size-fits-all approach does a disservice to NYC area motorists. I do believe that the names of crossings should be used as destinations rather than only cities (1) to reduce ambiguity (given that multiple nearby routes may lead to the same borough or other control city); (2) to provide more precise information about the destination as making the crossing also in effect gives information about exactly where in a large borough the road leads given that neighborhood names such as Midtown Manhattan or Tottenville, SI are also not kosher to sign; (3) to explicitly recognize the presence of what often represents a major bottleneck in the route as well as a not-insignificant toll expense; and (4) to aid in route planning, as current traffic conditions often plays into the decision of which crossing to use to get to a common destination. In other words, merely implying (at best, in many cases) the presence of a crossing is to omit material information that would benefit motorists to know. This may not be the case in other metro areas such as Chicago or LA where such fixed bottlenecks (and attendant decision making challenges) don't exist.

Also, I know that this is of course not a compelling argument but merely a point of personal preference, but I am really disappointed at the loss of the NJ Turnpike's unique signage practices. The squiggly arrows and outsized exit numbers really gave the road a unique visual identity and, in the case of the latter, likely contributed significantly to the very NJ culture of identifying by exit number. I doubt my father – definitely not a road geek – would have crafted his mental map of NJ based on what the nearest Turnpike exit was were it not for those large exit signs. Now the Turnpike is starting to feel like just another highway. Ditto also for NJDOT losing the black shield background on BGSs – it was such a fun and inoffensive visual hallmark of NJ signage that gave the state some character of its own. Now it's just another white-circle in the crowd.

One would think there can be some sort of compromise with destinations. Why wouldn't "Lower Manhattan" be better for I-78 eastbound east of I-95, as opposed to the Holland Tunnel specifically?  If you are a local then Holland Tunnel works fine, but if you aren't, you are probably more familiar with "Lower Manhattan" as a location as opposed to "Holland Tunnel". Same with the Lincoln ("Midtown Manhattan" might be better) and GWB ("Upper Manhattan" (is that a thing? I've been gone too long) or "The Bronx").  They have changed "Goethals Bridge" to "Staten Island" on the turnpike for the exit to I-278 (now signed as "Elizabeth/Staten Island").

As far as signage... the old squigglies and big numbers are still present south of Exit 9 on the turnpike, but will likely start to disappear with the next round of sign replacements in the next 10 years.

Also, NJDOT is notoriously slow at replacing signage, and a LOT of the back-plated signs are still out there... for now. Many are near or past end-of-life, however, so don't expect them to last much longer. Its one reason I went on a sign-photo spree this past summer... to catch as many as possible before they're gone.

Given that there are multiple crossings into Manhattan, I think using the crossing names makes the most sense. Drivers need to be directed to the crossing they need. If they followed the letter of the MUTCD (and this is the Turnpike Authority, and they mostly follow it but still do their own things when they feel compelled) they would have to make the exits for all 3 crossings read "New York City" and call it a day. Sometimes this makes more sense. If they wanted to make it more obvious, it would be very easy to erect a sign between 13A and 14 that looked like

New York City via
--------------------
Holland Tunnel      14C
Lincoln Tunnel       16E
Geo Wash Bridge   18E/W

In fact, this is basically what NJDOT did with this sign on the Pulaski Skyway, which tells motorists that they have multiple paths to NYC and which route to take to reach them. This is what makes sense for these destinations.

[SignBridge]

I like the approach one poster suggested re: using "Lower", "Midtown" and "Upper" Manhattan as destination names. I'm not sure if using Borough names is MUTCD compliant but I would guess it would be acceptable given that NYC is such a huge place and the boroughs are like separate cities. Anyway NYSDOT is doing it so I guess they feel it's compliant.

That sign on the Pulaski Skyway spelling out the options to NYC is a good, logical approach too.

[storm2k]

I like the approach one poster suggested re: using "Lower", "Midtown" and "Upper" Manhattan as destination names. I'm not sure if using Borough names is MUTCD compliant but I would guess it would be acceptable given that NYC is such a huge place and the boroughs are like separate cities. Anyway NYSDOT is doing it so I guess they feel it's compliant.

That sign on the Pulaski Skyway spelling out the options to NYC is a good, logical approach too.

If I'm not from NYC and relying on these signs to get me somewhere, Upper, Midtown, and Lower Manhattan aren't going to mean anything to me. Hence why the crossing names make more sense.

[ran4sh]

If they followed the letter of the MUTCD (and this is the Turnpike Authority, and they mostly follow it but still do their own things when they feel compelled) they would have to make the exits for all 3 crossings read "New York City" and call it a day.

I'm not sure why people think the MUTCD says that.

1. The MUTCD recognizes that city limits are arbitrary, and that the signage to a destination should reflect navigation to the city center rather than the city limit.
2. New York would be a sufficient control city (although New York City is acceptable), because entire states are not generally appropriate control cities, and definitely from the NJTP New York State would not be an appropriate control destination.
3. I'm not aware of any MUTCD prohibition on using bridge/tunnel names? Or borough names for NYC considering how well-known they are

Some possible actual ways to comply with the MUTCD would be:

* Use route numbers only, as is done in Minnesota inside the I-494/694 beltway, except for the main routes themselves. So pick one route to list "New York City" on, and for the rest of them use route numbers only, or maybe crossing or borough names.
* Post "New York" or "New York City" along one route that is considered the best route to the point which most people would recognize as the center of the city. IMO that would be Midtown Manhattan although a case could be made for Downtown Manhattan. In either case, the New Jersey Turnpike would need a different control city for the parts leading north of the Lincoln Tunnel.
* Use a modified Community Interchanges sign, to list the exits for the Holland Tunnel and Lincoln Tunnel as well as one of the other crossings. I also considered using the "Next X Exits" sign but that doesn't work well on the NJ Turnpike because not all the exits to NYC are consecutive (e.g. exit 10 goes to Staten Island, but exits 11-12 don't go to NYC, exit 13 does, etc)

In any case, I think the northbound control city needs to change to New Haven once past the Lincoln Tunnel exit (as most of the NYC traffic would have already exited by then).

[SignBridge]

Funny you should mention New Haven. I've long wondered why New Haven was used instead of Bridgeport, Ct. for I-95 North. Bridgeport has the larger population and is before New Haven as you go north. However I think New Haven was used because that's where I-91 splits off from I-95 so it's considered more relevant to the Interstate System.

And now back to the New Jersey Turnpike.......

[famartin]

I like the approach one poster suggested re: using "Lower", "Midtown" and "Upper" Manhattan as destination names. I'm not sure if using Borough names is MUTCD compliant but I would guess it would be acceptable given that NYC is such a huge place and the boroughs are like separate cities. Anyway NYSDOT is doing it so I guess they feel it's compliant.

That sign on the Pulaski Skyway spelling out the options to NYC is a good, logical approach too.

If I'm not from NYC and relying on these signs to get me somewhere, Upper, Midtown, and Lower Manhattan aren't going to mean anything to me. Hence why the crossing names make more sense.

Not sure why you think otherwise, but if you are not from NYC, the crossing names have no relevance either. Probably even less than the part of Manhattan your destination happens to be in.  I mean, if you are going somewhere in NYC, who CARES what bridge/tunnel you use, you just want to get there. Meanwhile, you probably have some idea what part of the city you are going to.

[famartin]

If they followed the letter of the MUTCD (and this is the Turnpike Authority, and they mostly follow it but still do their own things when they feel compelled) they would have to make the exits for all 3 crossings read "New York City" and call it a day.

I'm not sure why people think the MUTCD says that.

1. The MUTCD recognizes that city limits are arbitrary, and that the signage to a destination should reflect navigation to the city center rather than the city limit.
2. New York would be a sufficient control city (although New York City is acceptable), because entire states are not generally appropriate control cities, and definitely from the NJTP New York State would not be an appropriate control destination.
3. I'm not aware of any MUTCD prohibition on using bridge/tunnel names? Or borough names for NYC considering how well-known they are

Some possible actual ways to comply with the MUTCD would be:

* Use route numbers only, as is done in Minnesota inside the I-494/694 beltway, except for the main routes themselves. So pick one route to list "New York City" on, and for the rest of them use route numbers only, or maybe crossing or borough names.
* Post "New York" or "New York City" along one route that is considered the best route to the point which most people would recognize as the center of the city. IMO that would be Midtown Manhattan although a case could be made for Downtown Manhattan. In either case, the New Jersey Turnpike would need a different control city for the parts leading north of the Lincoln Tunnel.
* Use a modified Community Interchanges sign, to list the exits for the Holland Tunnel and Lincoln Tunnel as well as one of the other crossings. I also considered using the "Next X Exits" sign but that doesn't work well on the NJ Turnpike because not all the exits to NYC are consecutive (e.g. exit 10 goes to Staten Island, but exits 11-12 don't go to NYC, exit 13 does, etc)

In any case, I think the northbound control city needs to change to New Haven once past the Lincoln Tunnel exit (as most of the NYC traffic would have already exited by then).

Not sure New Haven is the most appropriate... between I-80 etc traffic entering from the west and the large swath of urbanity located north of Manhattan, plus the forever non-moving mess otherwise known as the Cross Bronx, there's a good chance traffic crossing the GWB is going someplace fairly close, and not continuing on to CT. If I was coming from south of NYC and wanted to avoid traffic headaches heading to New Haven and beyond, I'd probably do what most do - bypass NYC on I-287.

For that reason, Upper Manhattan/The Bronx would seem to make more sense to me after you pass 495/3, especially since it works fine for traffic coming in from I-80 too.

[ran4sh]

Well the MUTCD is generally not in favor of redundant control cities, and specifically bans the same destination for different routes from the same point. I would think traffic coming from I-80, whether going to Midtown or Downtown Manhattan, would use the Turnpike south rather than north.

If New Haven would cause more confusion than it solves, then the next best solution is the Minnesota solution of using the route indication (Turnpike/I-95) only, possibly identifying the G W Bridge as well.

[famartin]

Well the MUTCD is generally not in favor of redundant control cities, and specifically bans the same destination for different routes from the same point. I would think traffic coming from I-80, whether going to Midtown or Downtown Manhattan, would use the Turnpike south rather than north.

That's fair, though I don't think I'd consider Upper Manhattan and The Bronx or Upper Manhattan and Midtown Manhattan redundant.

[shadyjay]

A control city north of 16/18 for the NJ Tpke should be "Fort Lee/GW Bridge" as it is now on some signs.  Once I-80 joins in, then NY City can be used again. 
I've never been a fan of seeing "New Haven" used on the Cross Bronx... I miss destinations such as "New England" and "Upstate", but yeah, I get it, MUTCD and such.

Interestingly, original control cities on the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) were "NEW YORK AND WEST" and "RHODE ISLAND AND EAST". 

[motorways]

Given that there are multiple crossings into Manhattan, I think using the crossing names makes the most sense. Drivers need to be directed to the crossing they need. If they followed the letter of the MUTCD (and this is the Turnpike Authority, and they mostly follow it but still do their own things when they feel compelled) they would have to make the exits for all 3 crossings read "New York City" and call it a day. Sometimes this makes more sense. If they wanted to make it more obvious, it would be very easy to erect a sign between 13A and 14 that looked like

New York City via
--------------------
Holland Tunnel      14C
Lincoln Tunnel       16E
Geo Wash Bridge   18E/W

In fact, this is basically what NJDOT did with this sign on the Pulaski Skyway, which tells motorists that they have multiple paths to NYC and which route to take to reach them. This is what makes sense for these destinations.

Yes that kind of menu sign is a good idea, but I think that it is still less effective than signing the crossings as true “control cities” since it’s a one-off and motorists may miss it, or simply enter the highway beyond the location of the sign, necessitating additional copies. Plus I would still argue that the crossings are also more culturally relevant in the area — that is, more meaningful to the vast majority of motorists who are from NY/NJ/CT/PA and so do think of travel to NYC as a function of which crossing they will use more than which borough they wish to access. I think that the menu sign approach  would make sense more for some of the crossings not directly accessible from the Turnpike, like the Outerbridge Crossing, Bayonne Bridge, Verrazano Bridge, and Tappan Zee Bridge (via GSP or PIP).

I've never been a fan of seeing "New Haven" used on the Cross Bronx... I miss destinations such as "New England" and "Upstate", but yeah, I get it, MUTCD and such.

I agree! I know that this is me taking a NYC-centric view of the world, but I think of the regions of the NYC metropolitan area more as destinations in and of themselves rather than individual municipalities; getting to individual cities/towns within those regions is a secondary concern to be dealt with once you actually get out of the city. Thus, in my idealized non-MUTCD world, within NYC limits, "Albany" would be replaced by "Westchester" and/or "Upstate," "New Haven CT" by "Connecticut" or "New England," New Jersey by crossing name primarily with just "New Jersey" as needed for a second line, and keep "Eastern L I". I suppose this would  be akin to the British system of signing destinations on their BGS/BBS first as "The NORTH," "SCOTLAND", etc. I realize that these are impractical in their way in that they are less discretely informative, but again they do have a cultural relevance for New Yorkers probably beyond the names of small cities (Albany, New Haven, Newark) that are not in themselves very meaningful to motorists originating in, and therefore with the mindset of, NYC. Thus there is an element of transportation "realpolitik" that ought not be discounted. After all, what are the signs for if not to be of the best possible relevance and utility to the people who use them most?

[ran4sh]

> After all, what are the signs for if not to be of the best possible relevance and utility to the people who use them most?

But the MUTCD specifically addresses that. The signs are "for" travelers who may not be familiar with the area. Not the ones who use it the most. The ones who use it the most should learn the route designations for the routes they use, and then follow that (e.g. route X north to route X west, or whatever)

[famartin]

> After all, what are the signs for if not to be of the best possible relevance and utility to the people who use them most?

But the MUTCD specifically addresses that. The signs are "for" travelers who may not be familiar with the area. Not the ones who use it the most. The ones who use it the most should learn the route designations for the routes they use, and then follow that (e.g. route X north to route X west, or whatever)

Bingo. The signs are for people who only know where they are going, not what the best way there is, so destinations are much more helpful than the structure taking them there.

[motorways]

> After all, what are the signs for if not to be of the best possible relevance and utility to the people who use them most?

But the MUTCD specifically addresses that. The signs are "for" travelers who may not be familiar with the area. Not the ones who use it the most. The ones who use it the most should learn the route designations for the routes they use, and then follow that (e.g. route X north to route X west, or whatever)

Bingo. The signs are for people who only know where they are going, not what the best way there is, so destinations are much more helpful than the structure taking them there.

Ideally that's true, but it's astonishing how poorly people who live in an area know their way around. My spouse is this way: he could drive a route 10 times and still not know where to go the next time. He's an attorney, so not exactly a simpleton, but a lot of people just have a poor sense of geography. I have several friends in the area who are just the same. So for the many people living in the area for which this is a way of life, it's very useful to note the crossing.

[famartin]

> After all, what are the signs for if not to be of the best possible relevance and utility to the people who use them most?

But the MUTCD specifically addresses that. The signs are "for" travelers who may not be familiar with the area. Not the ones who use it the most. The ones who use it the most should learn the route designations for the routes they use, and then follow that (e.g. route X north to route X west, or whatever)

Bingo. The signs are for people who only know where they are going, not what the best way there is, so destinations are much more helpful than the structure taking them there.

Ideally that's true, but it's astonishing how poorly people who live in an area know their way around. My spouse is this way: he could drive a route 10 times and still not know where to go the next time. He's an attorney, so not exactly a simpleton, but a lot of people just have a poor sense of geography. I have several friends in the area who are just the same. So for the many people living in the area for which this is a way of life, it's very useful to note the crossing.

While I agree lots of people have a poor sense of geography, how is the crossing particularly more useful than the destination? Answer: Its not really. Most people just want to get there, they could care less how. Those who care, usually know what crossing to take already. 

[SignBridge]

A control city north of 16/18 for the NJ Tpke should be "Fort Lee/GW Bridge" as it is now on some signs.  Once I-80 joins in, then NY City can be used again. 
I've never been a fan of seeing "New Haven" used on the Cross Bronx... I miss destinations such as "New England" and "Upstate", but yeah, I get it, MUTCD and such.

Interestingly, original control cities on the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) were "NEW YORK AND WEST" and "RHODE ISLAND AND EAST". 

If I remember correctly, the original entrance signs on the western end of the Connecticut Tpk. read: Eastbound- New Haven.

[SignBridge]

Given that there are multiple crossings into Manhattan, I think using the crossing names makes the most sense. Drivers need to be directed to the crossing they need. If they followed the letter of the MUTCD (and this is the Turnpike Authority, and they mostly follow it but still do their own things when they feel compelled) they would have to make the exits for all 3 crossings read "New York City" and call it a day. Sometimes this makes more sense. If they wanted to make it more obvious, it would be very easy to erect a sign between 13A and 14 that looked like

New York City via
--------------------
Holland Tunnel      14C
Lincoln Tunnel       16E
Geo Wash Bridge   18E/W

In fact, this is basically what NJDOT did with this sign on the Pulaski Skyway, which tells motorists that they have multiple paths to NYC and which route to take to reach them. This is what makes sense for these destinations.

Yes that kind of menu sign is a good idea, but I think that it is still less effective than signing the crossings as true "control cities"  since it's a one-off and motorists may miss it, or simply enter the highway beyond the location of the sign, necessitating additional copies. Plus I would still argue that the crossings are also more culturally relevant in the area – that is, more meaningful to the vast majority of motorists who are from NY/NJ/CT/PA and so do think of travel to NYC as a function of which crossing they will use more than which borough they wish to access. I think that the menu sign approach  would make sense more for some of the crossings not directly accessible from the Turnpike, like the Outerbridge Crossing, Bayonne Bridge, Verrazano Bridge, and Tappan Zee Bridge (via GSP or PIP).

I've never been a fan of seeing "New Haven" used on the Cross Bronx... I miss destinations such as "New England" and "Upstate", but yeah, I get it, MUTCD and such.

I agree! I know that this is me taking a NYC-centric view of the world, but I think of the regions of the NYC metropolitan area more as destinations in and of themselves rather than individual municipalities; getting to individual cities/towns within those regions is a secondary concern to be dealt with once you actually get out of the city. Thus, in my idealized non-MUTCD world, within NYC limits, "Albany" would be replaced by "Westchester" and/or "Upstate," "New Haven CT" by "Connecticut" or "New England," New Jersey by crossing name primarily with just "New Jersey" as needed for a second line, and keep "Eastern L I". I suppose this would  be akin to the British system of signing destinations on their BGS/BBS first as "The NORTH," "SCOTLAND", etc. I realize that these are impractical in their way in that they are less discretely informative, but again they do have a cultural relevance for New Yorkers probably beyond the names of small cities (Albany, New Haven, Newark) that are not in themselves very meaningful to motorists originating in, and therefore with the mindset of, NYC. Thus there is an element of transportation "realpolitik" that ought not be discounted. After all, what are the signs for if not to be of the best possible relevance and utility to the people who use them most?

Many of the destinations you suggest were commonly used in the NYC area from the 1930's thru the 1970's. For example, signs on the Cross Island Pkwy for the Whitestone and Throgs Neck Bridges showed destinations of: Bronx, Westchester, New England. Signs at entrances in Westchester to the New England T'way, (I-95) displayed New York and Connecticut as the destinations.

[motorways]

> After all, what are the signs for if not to be of the best possible relevance and utility to the people who use them most?

But the MUTCD specifically addresses that. The signs are "for" travelers who may not be familiar with the area. Not the ones who use it the most. The ones who use it the most should learn the route designations for the routes they use, and then follow that (e.g. route X north to route X west, or whatever)

Bingo. The signs are for people who only know where they are going, not what the best way there is, so destinations are much more helpful than the structure taking them there.

Ideally that's true, but it's astonishing how poorly people who live in an area know their way around. My spouse is this way: he could drive a route 10 times and still not know where to go the next time. He's an attorney, so not exactly a simpleton, but a lot of people just have a poor sense of geography. I have several friends in the area who are just the same. So for the many people living in the area for which this is a way of life, it's very useful to note the crossing.

While I agree lots of people have a poor sense of geography, how is the crossing particularly more useful than the destination? Answer: Its not really. Most people just want to get there, they could care less how. Those who care, usually know what crossing to take already.

Disagree, seeing “Manhattan” or “Bronx” on a sign isn’t all that useful either. I think it actually conveys less useful information than the crossing. If you’re driving from say Long Island to the Bronx, knowing if it will be via the Triboro Br vs the Whitestone Br will put you in a completely different part of the same control city of monolithic “Bronx”. One could argue, as above, that perhaps neighborhood names like Midtown could be used as control cities, but unlike for crossing names, there isn’t any historical precedent for that, it isn’t officially acceptable as an option, and can be tricky since neighborhood/submunicipal boundaries are often nebulous and may not be universally agreed upon. At least the departure and landing points of crossings are fixed and not subject to change.

People who have a poor sense of geography (probably the majority, actually, though I’m not going to bother to find social science data on it) will at least know what bridge or tunnel they usually use to get someplace (and therefore which crossing leads to what part of the city) since it tends to be a more singular driving experience than this or that surface highway. On the other hand, people who don’t already know where they’re going are probably then following some sort of directions, which in turn would call for a deliberately chosen crossing that would not be reflected in signing only a control city — particularly around NYC where even if using a GPS-based navigation system it can still be confusing to choose which series of ramps to take in short succession within this or that complex interchange. Similarly, at the NJT split into western and eastern spurs, both will go to the control city of New York or Manhattan, of course, but only one of them connects directly to the Lincoln Tunnel and midtown. Ditto for choosing Newark Bay Extension > Holland Tunnel vs continuing on the mainline to Lincoln/GWB. In either case, signing the destination of both spurs or mainline vs extension as New York or Manhattan would clearly be unhelpful, and relegating the crossing names to supplemental signage instead of the main gantries on principle would be a cut nose/spite face type situation. Thus signing the crossing will not only implicitly convey more targeted destination info than a broad control city/borough, but also help people avoid confusion while getting there.

But I reckon overall we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[famartin]

> After all, what are the signs for if not to be of the best possible relevance and utility to the people who use them most?

But the MUTCD specifically addresses that. The signs are "for" travelers who may not be familiar with the area. Not the ones who use it the most. The ones who use it the most should learn the route designations for the routes they use, and then follow that (e.g. route X north to route X west, or whatever)

Bingo. The signs are for people who only know where they are going, not what the best way there is, so destinations are much more helpful than the structure taking them there.

Ideally that's true, but it's astonishing how poorly people who live in an area know their way around. My spouse is this way: he could drive a route 10 times and still not know where to go the next time. He's an attorney, so not exactly a simpleton, but a lot of people just have a poor sense of geography. I have several friends in the area who are just the same. So for the many people living in the area for which this is a way of life, it's very useful to note the crossing.

While I agree lots of people have a poor sense of geography, how is the crossing particularly more useful than the destination? Answer: Its not really. Most people just want to get there, they could care less how. Those who care, usually know what crossing to take already.

People who have a poor sense of geography (probably the majority, actually, though I'm not going to bother to find social science data on it) will at least know what bridge or tunnel they usually use to get someplace (and therefore which crossing leads to what part of the city) since it tends to be a more singular driving experience than this or that surface highway. On the other hand, people who don't already know where they're going are probably then following some sort of directions, which in turn would call for a deliberately chosen crossing that would not be reflected in signing only a control city – particularly around NYC where even if using a GPS-based navigation system it can still be confusing to choose which series of ramps to take in short succession within this or that complex interchange. Similarly, at the NJT split into western and eastern spurs, both will go to the control city of New York or Manhattan, of course, but only one of them connects directly to the Lincoln Tunnel and midtown. Ditto for choosing Newark Bay Extension > Holland Tunnel vs continuing on the mainline to Lincoln/GWB. In either case, signing the destination of both spurs or mainline vs extension as New York or Manhattan would clearly be unhelpful, and relegating the crossing names to supplemental signage instead of the main gantries on principle would be a cut nose/spite face type situation. Thus signing the crossing will not only implicitly convey more targeted destination info than a broad control city/borough, but also help people avoid confusion while getting there.

But I reckon overall we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Again you are missing the point. The signs are for people not familiar with the area.

One other thing: You mention a lot of examples, but the reality is that the road network is so interconnected that you can often just lose a relatively small amount of time making a wrong turn. For example, you can get to the Lincoln from the Western Spur, it just takes a few minutes longer. You can get to pretty much any point in the Bronx from LI using any of the bridges, one route may just be the fastest to your particular destination.

Also, the crossing names are (or should be) implicit if you routinely drive a certain way, since you should already associate your crossing with its route designation... Holland Tunnel with 78, Lincoln with 495, GWB with 95, Goethals/Verrazano/Triborough (RFK whatever) with 278, Whitestone with 678, Throgs Neck with 295.