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 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"
Quote from: kphoger on February 13, 2024, 04:13:43 PM
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?
Quote from: I-35 on February 13, 2024, 05:43:33 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 13, 2024, 04:13:43 PM
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.
Quote from: kphoger on February 13, 2024, 04:13:43 PM
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?
Quote from: Rothman on February 13, 2024, 06:24:38 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 13, 2024, 04:13:43 PM
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".
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.
Well I guess the most blatant violation gotta go then.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/mBJk96oZY91rSTVRA
Quote from: roadman65 on February 13, 2024, 04:04:04 PM
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).
Quote from: hbelkins on February 14, 2024, 11:25:21 AM
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.
Quote from: kphoger on February 14, 2024, 12:37:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 14, 2024, 11:25:21 AM
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.
I coincidentally brought up an example here: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11045.msg2897545#msg2897545
Quote from: wanderer2575 on February 14, 2024, 02:59:54 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 14, 2024, 12:37:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 14, 2024, 11:25:21 AM
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.
So, is this a violation? I say "no."
https://maps.app.goo.gl/TZdhpPS4UdJhKg5E7
Quote from: kphoger on February 13, 2024, 04:13:43 PM
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...
Quote from: kphoger on February 13, 2024, 04:13:43 PM
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 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28741.msg2582443#msg2582443).
Quote from: kphoger on March 11, 2021, 10:26:01 AM
Quote from: webny99 on March 11, 2021, 08:50:26 AM
Is this even allowed?
No.
Quote from: 2009 Edition Chapter – 2E. Guide Signs – Freeways and Expressways
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.
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.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 15, 2024, 06:28:31 PM
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.
^^^^
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.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on February 14, 2024, 02:59:54 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 14, 2024, 12:37:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 14, 2024, 11:25:21 AM
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.
Quote from: SectorZ on February 15, 2024, 07:16:04 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on February 15, 2024, 06:28:31 PM
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".
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).
Quote from: hbelkins on February 15, 2024, 01:25:25 PM
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.
Quote from: ran4sh on February 15, 2024, 07:37:30 PM
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.
Quote from: GaryV on February 16, 2024, 08:05:02 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on February 15, 2024, 07:37:30 PM
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.
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.
^ 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.
Quote from: Henry on February 15, 2024, 11:36:43 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 15, 2024, 01:25:25 PM
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.
Quote from: kphoger on February 13, 2024, 06:37:09 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 13, 2024, 06:24:38 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 13, 2024, 04:13:43 PM
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/Jm2iTTe.png)
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.
Quote from: vdeane on February 16, 2024, 12:36:32 PM
^ 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.
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.
Quote from: vdeane on February 16, 2024, 12:36:32 PM
^ 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.
Quote from: GaryV on February 17, 2024, 12:28:44 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: GaryV on February 17, 2024, 12:28:44 PM
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.
Quote from: tmoore952 on February 17, 2024, 12:37:14 PM
Quote from: GaryV on February 17, 2024, 12:28:44 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 17, 2024, 02:39:10 PM
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.
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.
And another thread devolves into neverending discussion about what control cities should be on a specific highway...
Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:26:22 PM
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.
Quote from: tmoore952 on February 18, 2024, 07:58:35 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:26:22 PM
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.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 18, 2024, 08:16:55 PM
Quote from: tmoore952 on February 18, 2024, 07:58:35 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:26:22 PM
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.
Quote from: tmoore952 on February 18, 2024, 10:42:41 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 18, 2024, 08:16:55 PM
Quote from: tmoore952 on February 18, 2024, 07:58:35 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:26:22 PM
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 18, 2024, 10:55:12 PM
Quote from: tmoore952 on February 18, 2024, 10:42:41 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 18, 2024, 08:16:55 PM
Quote from: tmoore952 on February 18, 2024, 07:58:35 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2024, 11:26:22 PM
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.
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
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.
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.
Quote from: GaryV on February 17, 2024, 12:28:44 PM
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.
(https://i0.wp.com/pauldorpat.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/x-waaa-snohomish-signs-web1.jpg)
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. (https://pauldorpat.com/2010/11/06/seattle-now-then-the-startup-baptists/)
Canada is blissfully independent of the MUTCD, (https://maps.app.goo.gl/mSMxCYcd5hsiJHPy7) though this sign has been replaced also.
I wonder how this rule impacts the continuity of control cities. If you have two roads at an interchange going to Bigtown and one of them is signed for Littletown because of this rule, it will probably revert to Bigtown at all subsequent interchanges, possibly not mentioning Littletown again. Is that really a better idea?
Quote from: bzakharin on May 07, 2024, 05:00:48 PMI wonder how this rule impacts the continuity of control cities. If you have two roads at an interchange going to Bigtown and one of them is signed for Littletown because of this rule, it will probably revert to Bigtown at all subsequent interchanges, possibly not mentioning Littletown again. Is that really a better idea?
That definitely seems to be how this works. Take the example of the I-5/CA-170 interchange near Los Angeles. At the split, the control for I-5 is Los Angeles and the control for 170 is Hollywood, but subsequent to the split the control for 170 is Los Angeles. IMO, it would be better if there were secondary controls used at the split, e.g. I-5 to both Burbank and Los Angeles and 170 to both Hollywood and Los Angeles. A clear indication that both roads go to Los Angeles, but only one road goes to Burbank and the other goes to Hollywood. It also matches the existing controls at the subsequent interchanges and on-ramps which state Los Angeles.
I would also argue that if the control has a second control with it, like the West Memphis example upthread, it's perfectly fine because you are still distinguishing between they highways.
We have a perfect example here in Chicagoland on I-90.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0597926,-88.0477017,3a,75y,94.9h,95.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGT4Gtc-23EowoQAUMwULSQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DGT4Gtc-23EowoQAUMwULSQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D94.90047966303493%26pitch%3D-5.494987672854862%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
Found this one on my camping trip this past weekend. Definitely need two different pointers to a town of 374 people.
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1rj9h5N/Victor.png)
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 30, 2024, 09:13:42 AMI would also argue that if the control has a second control with it, like the West Memphis example upthread, it's perfectly fine because you are still distinguishing between they highways.
We have a perfect example here in Chicagoland on I-90.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0597926,-88.0477017,3a,75y,94.9h,95.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGT4Gtc-23EowoQAUMwULSQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DGT4Gtc-23EowoQAUMwULSQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D94.90047966303493%26pitch%3D-5.494987672854862%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
I've got no problem with this. Both roadways lead to Chicago Loop (via Kennedy or via Eisenhower). I'm not been a fan of the "West Suburbs" and would prefer listing something more specific like Joliet.
Quote from: mrsman on June 01, 2024, 11:44:23 PMQuote from: hobsini2 on May 30, 2024, 09:13:42 AMI would also argue that if the control has a second control with it, like the West Memphis example upthread, it's perfectly fine because you are still distinguishing between they highways.
We have a perfect example here in Chicagoland on I-90.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0597926,-88.0477017,3a,75y,94.9h,95.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGT4Gtc-23EowoQAUMwULSQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DGT4Gtc-23EowoQAUMwULSQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D94.90047966303493%26pitch%3D-5.494987672854862%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
I've got no problem with this. Both roadways lead to Chicago Loop (via Kennedy or via Eisenhower). I'm not been a fan of the "West Suburbs" and would prefer listing something more specific like Joliet.
Joliet would work if accepting the N/S 355/53 corridor as the "main"/through route, even tho it is signed as 290 here. IDOT has precedent for that, signing Aurora for 290 WB/OB Downtown, seeing the 290/88 corridor as the "main"/through route
That said, if a specific suburb actually on/near 290 were to be utilized, I'd say one of: Oak Brook, Elmhurst, Hillside/area near the 88/290/294 interchange
Quote from: ilpt4u on June 02, 2024, 04:30:15 PMQuote from: mrsman on June 01, 2024, 11:44:23 PMQuote from: hobsini2 on May 30, 2024, 09:13:42 AMI would also argue that if the control has a second control with it, like the West Memphis example upthread, it's perfectly fine because you are still distinguishing between they highways.
We have a perfect example here in Chicagoland on I-90.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0597926,-88.0477017,3a,75y,94.9h,95.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGT4Gtc-23EowoQAUMwULSQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DGT4Gtc-23EowoQAUMwULSQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D94.90047966303493%26pitch%3D-5.494987672854862%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
I've got no problem with this. Both roadways lead to Chicago Loop (via Kennedy or via Eisenhower). I'm not been a fan of the "West Suburbs" and would prefer listing something more specific like Joliet.
Joliet would work if accepting the N/S 355/53 corridor as the "main"/through route, even tho it is signed as 290 here. IDOT has precedent for that, signing Aurora for 290 WB/OB Downtown, seeing the 290/88 corridor as the "main"/through route
That said, if a specific suburb actually on/near 290 were to be utilized, I'd say one of: Oak Brook, Elmhurst, Hillside/area near the 88/290/294 interchange
Of those choices, I would use Oak Brook because of it being more of a draw with the mall.
Well if I were on that road, as a stranger from New York not knowing where any of those towns are, I would probably find West Suburbs more useful.
Quote from: SignBridge on June 02, 2024, 08:52:13 PMWell if I were on that road, as a stranger from New York not knowing where any of those towns are, I would probably find West Suburbs more useful.
Interesting perspective on the *directional* Suburbs Controls used in Chicagoland... Perhaps there is some value in the Northern, Northwestern, Western, Southwestern, Southern Suburbs Controls?
Quote from: roadman65 on February 13, 2024, 04:04:04 PMhttps://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.
From what I see the two routes intersect each other about 2 miles west of I-4. One's a toll road and one isn't. That could be the reason.
Wow, that display is a mess. Like something you'd see in New Jersey nowadays. Way too much visual confusion with all those logos. Also, South on the West Beltway or South on the East Beltway. ?? More confusion.
They should probably eliminate those Beltway designations from those signs. Also the sign on the right needs to be moved further to the right so the arrows will align with the center of the exiting lanes as per MUTCD policy (and common sense).
Quote from: SignBridge on June 03, 2024, 08:35:37 PMWow, that display is a mess. Like something you'd see in New Jersey nowadays. Way too much visual confusion with all those logos. Also, South on the West Beltway or South on the East Beltway. ?? More confusion.
They should probably eliminate those Beltway designations from those signs. Also the sign on the right needs to be moved further to the right so the arrows will align with the center of the exiting lanes as per MUTCD policy (and common sense).
Actually, those signs make sense to me because it says East Beltway and West Beltway. Elimnating the word Beltway would make one think it is not an express way bypass in the area.
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 30, 2024, 09:13:42 AMI would also argue that if the control has a second control with it, like the West Memphis example upthread, it's perfectly fine because you are still distinguishing between they highways.
We have a perfect example here in Chicagoland on I-90.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0597926,-88.0477017,3a,75y,94.9h,95.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGT4Gtc-23EowoQAUMwULSQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DGT4Gtc-23EowoQAUMwULSQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D94.90047966303493%26pitch%3D-5.494987672854862%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
My interpretation is that I-90 is signed for the airport and I-290 is signed directly for downtown Chicago (via Western Suburbs).
I have no part using regions especially with the LIE on Long Island where there are no really big places that stand out from the rest to even point out specifically. Only New York City and Riverhead at each end are really noteworthy.
I had no problems with bridges and tunnels being used either like the Delaware Memorial Bridge, that linked Northeast highways to Mid Atlantic Highways.
However the MUTCD is their own world that we must adapt to now. Including that misuse of Wilmington on the New Jersey Turnpike that many on here hate. I personally don't mind Delaware's largest city used, but many feel Delaware Memorial Bridge users are heading south to Baltimore than stopping at Wilmington.
So maybe Baltimore should be shown as the Turnpike South destination once we get south of the Penn. Turnpike, Exit-6. Though I actually think Wilmington's reasonable too. Maybe (gasp) both could be posted.
Quote from: jt4 on June 05, 2024, 11:37:59 PMQuote from: hobsini2 on May 30, 2024, 09:13:42 AMI would also argue that if the control has a second control with it, like the West Memphis example upthread, it's perfectly fine because you are still distinguishing between they highways.
We have a perfect example here in Chicagoland on I-90.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0597926,-88.0477017,3a,75y,94.9h,95.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGT4Gtc-23EowoQAUMwULSQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DGT4Gtc-23EowoQAUMwULSQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D94.90047966303493%26pitch%3D-5.494987672854862%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
My interpretation is that I-90 is signed for the airport and I-290 is signed directly for downtown Chicago (via Western Suburbs).
The reality is both go to Downtown and depending on the traffic situation, one could use either one reasonably well. But ISTHA doesn't use the message boards to give you the time for both ways to Downtown because they want vehicles to pay the River Rd toll (.75 I-Pass/$1.50) vs the 53/290 toll (.30 I-Pass/.60).
Quote from: roadman65 on June 06, 2024, 03:39:11 PMI have no part using regions especially with the LIE on Long Island where there are no really big places that stand out from the rest to even point out specifically. Only New York City and Riverhead at each end are really noteworthy.
I had no problems with bridges and tunnels being used either like the Delaware Memorial Bridge, that linked Northeast highways to Mid Atlantic Highways.
However the MUTCD is their own world that we must adapt to now. Including that misuse of Wilmington on the New Jersey Turnpike that many on here hate. I personally don't mind Delaware's largest city used, but many feel Delaware Memorial Bridge users are heading south to Baltimore than stopping at Wilmington.
I think the real problem with Wilmington is that it seems like the bridge meets I-95 south of Wilmington, so heading to Wilmington in this manner does seem like significant backtracking. It may still be the faster way of going than via Philadelphia or via the Commodore Barry Bridge. And based on my observations, once over the bridge far more traffic is heading to 95 south rather than 95 north (back to Wilmington).
The use of cities is far better than using bridge names, as most non-locals may not be as familiar with the bridge names. One can say that this is akin to dropping freeway names on signs and using the route numbers instead, exclusively.
I remember hearing a conversation in New Jersey where people were talking about an incident on the Whitestone Bridge. The other guy asked, where is that. Many NJ people are familiar with the names of the tunnels and bridges that connect NJ to NY, but wouldn't necessarily know that the Whitestone Bridge connects Queens to Bronx. It would not be a good name to use as a control city.
Quote from: SignBridge on June 06, 2024, 08:51:35 PMSo maybe Baltimore should be shown as the Turnpike South destination once we get south of the Penn. Turnpike, Exit-6. Though I actually think Wilmington's reasonable too. Maybe (gasp) both could be posted.
Both would be the most appropriate answer here. The bridge hits DE close to Wilmington, but just south of it. Baltimore is a very clear long distance destination to direct most non-local traffic.
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 07, 2024, 10:10:52 AMQuote from: jt4 on June 05, 2024, 11:37:59 PMQuote from: hobsini2 on May 30, 2024, 09:13:42 AMI would also argue that if the control has a second control with it, like the West Memphis example upthread, it's perfectly fine because you are still distinguishing between they highways.
We have a perfect example here in Chicagoland on I-90.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0597926,-88.0477017,3a,75y,94.9h,95.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGT4Gtc-23EowoQAUMwULSQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DGT4Gtc-23EowoQAUMwULSQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D94.90047966303493%26pitch%3D-5.494987672854862%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
My interpretation is that I-90 is signed for the airport and I-290 is signed directly for downtown Chicago (via Western Suburbs).
The reality is both go to Downtown and depending on the traffic situation, one could use either one reasonably well. But ISTHA doesn't use the message boards to give you the time for both ways to Downtown because they want vehicles to pay the River Rd toll (.75 I-Pass/$1.50) vs the 53/290 toll (.30 I-Pass/.60).
Also. I-90 seems to generally have more lanes throughout, and is a more direct routing with less mileage than I-290 between this location and the Circle Interchange.
Also, I-90 is probably more reachable to more parts of Downtown Chicago than I-290, but that is largely speculative as to where the driver's ultimate destination is. I-290 is better for South Loop, and I-90 is better for Gold Coast, West Loop and most parts of the Central Loop. Of course, this is all traffic dependent.
I-78/ US 22 in PA at the split near Kuhnsville has the three primary Lehigh Valley cities listed like this
https://maps.app.goo.gl/igWyGCRqtN74QByn7
Both routes are freeways and do serve all three respectively.
Whether it's MUTCD, or not IMO I like the method used.
The actual primary control cities at the 78/22 split are not any LV major cities.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/GNdjPxtVrVRvjd94A
New Jersey is I-78 East and PA Turnpike/ LVI Airport for US 22 East. So Allentown- Bethlehem- Easton are secondary here. So that could be a loophole for duplicate signing.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 11, 2024, 10:25:52 AMI-78/ US 22 in PA at the split near Kuhnsville has the three primary Lehigh Valley cities listed like this
https://maps.app.goo.gl/igWyGCRqtN74QByn7
Both routes are freeways and do serve all three respectively.
Whether it's MUTCD, or not IMO I like the method used.
What additional information does this sign provide? I can understand if it were a VMS with travel times, or one of the routes were a toll route, but as it is it does not help the driver make a decision.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 11, 2024, 10:25:52 AMI-78/ US 22 in PA at the split near Kuhnsville has the three primary Lehigh Valley cities listed like this
https://maps.app.goo.gl/igWyGCRqtN74QByn7
Both routes are freeways and do serve all three respectively.
Whether it's MUTCD, or not IMO I like the method used.
The actual primary control cities at the 78/22 split are not any LV major cities.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/GNdjPxtVrVRvjd94A
New Jersey is I-78 East and PA Turnpike/ LVI Airport for US 22 East. So Allentown- Bethlehem- Easton are secondary here. So that could be a loophole for duplicate signing.
I agree that the sign showing the two separate routes for
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton is an effective, common-sense solution for that location. Regrettably, it would appear to be a violation of the MUTCD standard. But sometimes common sense is more effective than the Manual's arbitrary standards.