Duplicate Controls Not Allowed by MUTCD

[kphoger]

I'm so tired of "people just follow their GPS" as an argument for anything.  If that's really the case, then we don't need signs at all.

[vdeane]

^ And honestly, people shouldn't be just following their GPS.  It can be an aid, but it's no substitute for actual navigation reading maps and signs.  We can see that today whenever a road changes configuration, or when the GPS glitches and sends people down non-existent roads.  And what if something happens to knock GPS offline?  Just look at the father in the Netflix movie Leave the World Behind.  He was useless without GPS, got lost going into a town he had just been in the day before, and only made it back to the house his family was staying at through sheer dumb luck.  That's what people are allowing GPS navigation to turn them into.

[hbelkins]

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.

Then neither is the example shown by the OP.

[CtrlAltDel]

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".

I just saw that they've posted a redline comparison of the 2009 and 2023 editions of the MUTCD, which facilitates these sorts of comparisons.



Incidentally, while perusing this redline comparison, I've noticed a couple of tendencies. First is the use of typeset fractions, such as ¾, over line fractions, such as 3/4. There's also the use of "retroreflective" over "retroreflectorized," and a common but not universal replacement of "if" with "where" when referencing how things line up spatially.

[epzik8]

^ And honestly, people shouldn't be just following their GPS.  It can be an aid, but it's no substitute for actual navigation reading maps and signs.  We can see that today whenever a road changes configuration, or when the GPS glitches and sends people down non-existent roads.  And what if something happens to knock GPS offline?  Just look at the father in the Netflix movie Leave the World Behind.  He was useless without GPS, got lost going into a town he had just been in the day before, and only made it back to the house his family was staying at through sheer dumb luck.  That's what people are allowing GPS navigation to turn them into.

It's to the point where some people have the GPS do the thinking for them.

[tmoore952]

I don't have a GPS (old car). Means that I need to research things ahead of time if I'm going to an unfamiliar area. But the Internet makes that a HELL of a lot easier than before.

[GaryV]

^ And honestly, people shouldn't be just following their GPS.  It can be an aid, but it's no substitute for actual navigation reading maps and signs. 

Which was my point, but perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I'm following my GPS because I'm not familiar with Bigtown. I spy a sign that points to an exit for Bigtown, so I'm inclined to believe it over GPS. It turns out the exit that GPS suggested, a couple miles further, would have been a better choice because GPS is sending me to my direct destination, not a generic most-people-go-here location in Bigtown. And I don't have a city-scale map of Bigtown to check on it.

Obviously this could be alleviated by having a "Bigtown Next X Exits" sign. But not if MUTCD isn't going to allow an either/or sign at an obvious decision point.

[tmoore952]

I'm following my GPS because I'm not familiar with Bigtown. I spy a sign that points to an exit for Bigtown, so I'm inclined to believe it over GPS.

That's interesting. When I DO have a GPS (and it is set for a specific address), I will believe it more than I believe the signs. For precisely the reason mentioned -- that there could be multiple exits to Bigtown, and the GPS's map info should know which is the best one for my chosen destination.

[jeffandnicole]

I wonder how many people use a calculator or Excel to add numbers, then manually calculate the numbers themselves to verify the electronic device is correct.

This is basically what people suggest others do when they use a GPS.  Sure, they can see what the GPS says, then look at it on a physical map, but that map isn't going to show updates, construction, widenings, etc.  The physical map may show anything from only major roads, to dirt roads, depending how in-depth the map is.  If I'm in an unfamiliar area, going to another unfamiliar area, maps could take me dozens of miles out of the way if they're only showing main roads, whereas a GPS may be telling me about a small county road that's much more direct.  Most people aren't going to GSV their entire route, which again could be years out of date.  GPS users should watch for signs, but then again, someone getting off an exit based on a sign or map review should also follow signs, because there can be closures and detours as well.

Obviously this could be alleviated by having a "Bigtown Next X Exits" sign. But not if MUTCD isn't going to allow an either/or sign at an obvious decision point.

These signs aren't banned by the MUTCD.  Most Bigtown type towns that aren't directly on the highway can be served by numerous exits, which most DOTs won't sign.  And depending on the area, "Bigtown" could be a mailing address that includes unincorporated areas near Bigtown.  In these cases, a sign that says "Bigtown Next X Interchanges" is just as unhelpful as no sign, because a traveler would have no clue which option is best.

I'm following my GPS because I'm not familiar with Bigtown. I spy a sign that points to an exit for Bigtown, so I'm inclined to believe it over GPS.

That's interesting. When I DO have a GPS (and it is set for a specific address), I will believe it more than I believe the signs. For precisely the reason mentioned -- that there could be multiple exits to Bigtown, and the GPS's map info should know which is the best one for my chosen destination.

There could also be a crash, street closure or other issue that the GPS will route you around, that a static highway sign can't do.

[roadman65]

Makes me wonder about why the NJTA doesnt sign a control city north of Exit 11 for the Turnpike North. I believe they feel that they are contributing to a decision that New York is only Midtown Manhattan at that point when Staten Island is very much part of that city.

However most people, especially Staten Island residents, look at Staten Island as its own city despite it having a unified government with the bigger NYC.  In fact most New Yorkers, consider each borough to be a de facto city in its own right. Like Brooklyn residents consider themselves to be a place in New York state first over being a part of the City of New York. People tend to subconsciously relate to NYC being Manhattan and the other four boroughs as separate cities even when they know one municipal government handles all of them.

[tmoore952]

Makes me wonder about why the NJTA doesnt sign a control city north of Exit 11 for the Turnpike North. I believe they feel that they are contributing to a decision that New York is only Midtown Manhattan at that point when Staten Island is very much part of that city.

I see what you are saying -- however, if they really felt that way about NYC, wouldn't they sign NYC up to the exits that actually go to Manhattan?

To follow your logic, it seems to me that they shouldn't sign for NYC beyond Exit 10.

[ran4sh]

I know most of the forum members don't agree, but I think I've already stated my opinion for the I-95/NJ TP control city in that region.

Use New York as the control city until the Lincoln Tunnel exit.

North of there, use New Haven.

[Rothman]

And another thread devolves into neverending discussion about what control cities should be on a specific highway...

[tmoore952]

And another thread devolves into neverending discussion about what control cities should be on a specific highway...

Since when is three posts about something "devolving" and "neverending"?

And especially in a thread that is specifically about control cities?

And yes, I know that control cities are an overdiscussed thing here. Not something I've contributed to, I've only been here about three or four months.

[1995hoo]

And another thread devolves into neverending discussion about what control cities should be on a specific highway...

Since when is three posts about something "devolving" and "neverending"?

And especially in a thread that is specifically about control cities?

And yes, I know that control cities are an overdiscussed thing here. Not something I've contributed to, I've only been here about three or four months.

Not just control cities, but control cities on the Jersey Turnpike has been a particular topic that's been overdone. It's sort of like DST threads. The issue comes up, the people who feel strongly about it state the same positions they've stated umpteen times before, it starts an argument, and nobody convinces anybody else.

[tmoore952]

And another thread devolves into neverending discussion about what control cities should be on a specific highway...

Since when is three posts about something "devolving" and "neverending"?

And especially in a thread that is specifically about control cities?

And yes, I know that control cities are an overdiscussed thing here. Not something I've contributed to, I've only been here about three or four months.

Not just control cities, but control cities on the Jersey Turnpike has been a particular topic that's been overdone. It's sort of like DST threads. The issue comes up, the people who feel strongly about it state the same positions they've stated umpteen times before, it starts an argument, and nobody convinces anybody else.

This is what sucks about coming to a website 10 years (or whatever it is) too late. All this personal stuff that I have no idea about. Step on someone's toes and you get a bunch of BS.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Was just trying to have a discussion about it.

I'm seriously thinking about stepping away. I've already reduced my contributions because of stuff like this.

[jeffandnicole]

And another thread devolves into neverending discussion about what control cities should be on a specific highway...

Since when is three posts about something "devolving" and "neverending"?

And especially in a thread that is specifically about control cities?

And yes, I know that control cities are an overdiscussed thing here. Not something I've contributed to, I've only been here about three or four months.

Not just control cities, but control cities on the Jersey Turnpike has been a particular topic that's been overdone. It's sort of like DST threads. The issue comes up, the people who feel strongly about it state the same positions they've stated umpteen times before, it starts an argument, and nobody convinces anybody else.

This is what sucks about coming to a website 10 years (or whatever it is) too late. All this personal stuff that I have no idea about. Step on someone's toes and you get a bunch of BS.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Was just trying to have a discussion about it.

I'm seriously thinking about stepping away. I've already reduced my contributions because of stuff like this.

When you do a search and see how often this has come up with so many people stating their opinions ad nauseum, you'll understand why the termination attempts come quickly.  The discussion is ultimately not going to end well, and many of them result in locked threads.

[tmoore952]

And another thread devolves into neverending discussion about what control cities should be on a specific highway...

Since when is three posts about something "devolving" and "neverending"?

And especially in a thread that is specifically about control cities?

And yes, I know that control cities are an overdiscussed thing here. Not something I've contributed to, I've only been here about three or four months.

Not just control cities, but control cities on the Jersey Turnpike has been a particular topic that's been overdone. It's sort of like DST threads. The issue comes up, the people who feel strongly about it state the same positions they've stated umpteen times before, it starts an argument, and nobody convinces anybody else.

This is what sucks about coming to a website 10 years (or whatever it is) too late. All this personal stuff that I have no idea about. Step on someone's toes and you get a bunch of BS.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Was just trying to have a discussion about it.

I'm seriously thinking about stepping away. I've already reduced my contributions because of stuff like this.

When you do a search and see how often this has come up with so many people stating their opinions ad nauseum, you'll understand why the termination attempts come quickly.  The discussion is ultimately not going to end well, and many of them result in locked threads.

I am aware. I have looked at the threads.

But you are right when you say this is not going to end well. I am going to walk away for a while.

[amroad17]

How about this example...
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Va2CwziFpk4jA9s4A

Shouldn't I-80's control be Toledo here since the following mileage sign has Toledo posted and not Cleveland? https://maps.app.goo.gl/xXfsEmemFiWe5FQ76

I believe this example would also be what the OP was looking for...
https://maps.app.goo.gl/rqBYZ1Akj1vjpNDq9 

[roadman65]

I started this by hypothesizing why a certain practice maybe in effect due to the possibility this agency is obeying the MUTCD. Then a couple people started giving opinions of how the NJTA in NJ should sign their roads which is been played out several times.

I'm going to apologize here even though my intent was not to bring up past ideas that went sour, as my observations of one agency's current practice opened the door for heating up opinions and commentary on necro posts of certain ideas expressed.

Let's move on please. Use the PM to discuss beefs you have with others posts if you feel that they are going to create a possible flame war. That is why PM is there.

[1995hoo]

tmoore952, there's no need to be so thin-skinned about it. Could Rothman have been more diplomatic? Of course. But if you spend any amount of time here, you'll learn that somewhat abrasive one-liner responses like that can be part of his schtick when he sees a post as repetitive or trite. There are other people on the forum who have an insatiable need to act like know-it-alls by "correcting" you to make sure the most trivial little exception is acknowledged when you make a more general statement that happens to be correct. Then there are people who seemingly have no sense of humor because they take everything hyper-literally, and there are others of us who will seize on any opportunity to turn something into a pun or a joke. There's someone who posts on the sports subforum who always wants to twist what people say to put words in their mouths. You just have to learn which people those are over time and, if one of them particularly bothers you, either don't interact with that person or put them on "ignore."

Just about any forum, on any subject, is going to have some topics that have either become a running joke or that have been beaten to death through repeated discussion, and a new user won't necessarily understand that sort of thing. On the UVA sports forum, there's sort of an inside joke of using the abbreviation "BTTTS" to refer to something as old news. (For example, if you posted on the basketball forum that UVA lost to UMBC in 2018, people might reply simply with "BTTTS.") It stands for "Brooks Traded to the Saints" and it refers to former UVA quarterback Aaron Brooks, who was drafted by the Packers but traded to New Orleans after one year. People would keep referring to him as a Packer and "BTTTS" became the standard response because people got tired of having to explain that he had been traded. It took on a life of its own and people started using it for anything that was old news, not just that trade. Someone new to that forum almost certainly wouldn't get the joke, especially given that it's been 24 years since that trade. But it's ingrained and persists. A similar joke you'll see here is when someone responds to a fictional idea by saying simply, "I think this is needed." That's a reference to a poster who uses that phrase to "justify" often-absurd imaginary highway ideas. Another in-joke on this forum is referring to driving 85 mph on I-366, which is a reference to comments by a now-banned user who used to post lots of inane questions he could have answered with a Google search and who insisted that VA-28 north of I-66 should become I-366 (contrary to popular mythology, though, he never said the speed limit should be 85 mph).

I remember back in the USENET days, you'd run into the situation where a discussion on a given topic would take place and run its course and then a few days later, someone who hadn't seen it would come along and try to start a new discussion on the same topic and then get frustrated by a lack of responses when people didn't want to discuss the same thing again so quickly. (I didn't post on misc.transport.road, so I don't know whether that happened there, but I remember it happening elsewhere.) Your reaction here sort of reminds me of that. At least with modern forum software one can search, unlike back then.

Would it help new users if there were a glossary of such terms (the "BTTTS" thing) or of taboo topics (daylight saving time) or oft-discussed issues (Jersey Turnpike control cities) such that new users could refer to that list? Of course. But it would also take a lot of time to put something like that together and to link all the various threads.

All of this is a very long way of saying that you need to let the little digs and abrasive responses roll of your back. Don't have a thin skin. But don't expect apologies from people who make abrasive responses or who have negative reactions to certain topics, either. It goes with the territory.

[kphoger]

I'm following my GPS because I'm not familiar with Bigtown. I spy a sign that points to an exit for Bigtown, so I'm inclined to believe it over GPS. It turns out the exit that GPS suggested, a couple miles further, would have been a better choice because GPS is sending me to my direct destination, not a generic most-people-go-here location in Bigtown. And I don't have a city-scale map of Bigtown to check on it.

Obviously this could be alleviated by having a "Bigtown Next X Exits" sign. But not if MUTCD isn't going to allow an either/or sign at an obvious decision point.

If there's another exit two miles down the road that also goes to Bigtown, then chances are slim it would be signed at the first decision point anyway, because the control city for the through-road isn't Bigtown.

[ErmineNotyours]

Two choices for Lake Stevens.  Old image, way past current MUTCD enforcement, and too many control cities to read a freeway speed.  (Freeways didn't exist yet.)  Photo source.

Canada is blissfully independent of the MUTCD, though this sign has been replaced also.