News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

States that ignore MUTCD and go beyond

Started by roadman65, February 15, 2023, 03:58:18 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

freebrickproductions

One could also reasonably argue that, thanks to the commercial vehicles restriction on the Northern Parkway, signing I-495 West with NYC as the control city is beneficial for trucks and the like.
It's all fun & games until someone summons Cthulhu and brings about the end of the world.

I also collect traffic lights, road signs, fans, and railroad crossing equipment.

(They/Them)


ran4sh

In that kind of scenario, the best thing to do is usually use the major control city (New York) on the major route (the Interstate and also the route that permits trucks), with the parkway using some kind of local control point. Such as Queens or Jamaica, but people more familiar with that area might have a better suggestion.

So for that reason, I don't think they're going "beyond" the MUTCD. I think MUTCD practice would be an improvement.
Control cities CAN be off the route! Control cities make NO sense if signs end before the city is reached!

Travel Mapping - Most Traveled: I-40, 20, 10, 5, 95 - Longest Clinched: I-20, 85, 24, 16, NJ Tpk mainline
Champions - UGA FB '21 '22 - Atlanta Braves '95 '21 - Atlanta MLS '18

plain

Quote from: epzik8 on February 21, 2023, 11:01:49 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 15, 2023, 03:58:18 PM
NJ Turnpike paints lane striping with longer than MUTD maximum.

This is typical of a lot of turnpikes in the country. It's also the case on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

I'm late with this but no.
Newark born, Richmond bred

mrsman

Quote from: ran4sh on December 01, 2023, 02:41:51 AM
In that kind of scenario, the best thing to do is usually use the major control city (New York) on the major route (the Interstate and also the route that permits trucks), with the parkway using some kind of local control point. Such as Queens or Jamaica, but people more familiar with that area might have a better suggestion.

So for that reason, I don't think they're going "beyond" the MUTCD. I think MUTCD practice would be an improvement.

Both roads go to New York.  Both roads are largely parallel and in close proximity, so there is no intermediate destination that one goes to that the other does not go to until you are within NYC limits.

I would not change anything about the control cities used here.

In other situations, where two roads both end up in the same place, often times there are reasons to differentiate.  One example that comes to mind is 5/170 split north of L.A., in the San Fernando Valley.  While both roads do lead toward Downtown LA, the signage indicates I-5 L.A. and 170 to Hollywood as a way of making the distinction.  IMO, I would sign I-5 as Burbank/L.A. and 170 as Hollywood/L.A. to distinguish between the two routes, but still indicating tha both roads do indeed lead to Downtown LA, despite the requirements of the MUTCD.

More on this specific issue is discussed in this thread:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33617.0







Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.