On roads with mileage-based exit numbers, the numbers increase northbound and eastbound while they decrease southbound and westbound. I find it strange that the Atlantic City Expressway does this in reverse (exits decreasing eastbound). If you drive eastbound on the ACE, the first exit is Exit 41 (CR 689/Berlin-Cross Keys Road). The Garden State Parkway interchange is Exit 7 S/N. The last exit is Exit 1 (Atlantic City-Brigantine Connector).
Why are the mile markers and exits in reverse order rather than increasing when traveling eastbound?
Because they were numbered before that standard existed.
And i do believe (at least acording to Steve A.) that it is done so that exit 1 is in atlantic city itself
Quote from: NE2 on February 14, 2013, 01:54:26 PM
Because they were numbered before that standard existed.
And the SJTA gets no Federal funding, so they have no incentive to fix it. I bet they'd just as soon designate the road "north-south" if the FHWA raised their voice.
Quote from: Steve on February 14, 2013, 06:58:35 PM
And the SJTA gets no Federal funding, so they have no incentive to fix it. I bet they'd just as soon designate the road "north-south" if the FHWA raised their voice.
Instead of "Philla./Camden-Shore Points/Atlantic City" :sombrero:
The AC Expressway is a state route, not an interstate route, and does not need to follow the standard that Interstate highways normally use (ignoring the recently mentioned I-76 MP/Exiting issue in NJ).
While most of NJ's state routes follow the basic standard used for interstates, it may not be absolutely necessarily for them to do so.
The MUTCD doesn't differentiate.
Quote from: Steve on February 14, 2013, 06:58:35 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 14, 2013, 01:54:26 PM
Because they were numbered before that standard existed.
And the SJTA gets no Federal funding, so they have no incentive to fix it. I bet they'd just as soon designate the road "north-south" if the FHWA raised their voice.
Though someplace in the front of the MUTCD, it asserts that it is the national standard for traffic control devices.
Not that I have ever heard of USDOT or FHWA taking anyone or any agency to court over the matter.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 15, 2013, 01:56:21 PM
Quote from: Steve on February 14, 2013, 06:58:35 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 14, 2013, 01:54:26 PM
Because they were numbered before that standard existed.
And the SJTA gets no Federal funding, so they have no incentive to fix it. I bet they'd just as soon designate the road "north-south" if the FHWA raised their voice.
Though someplace in the front of the MUTCD, it asserts that it is the national standard for traffic control devices.
Not that I have ever heard of USDOT or FHWA taking anyone or any agency to court over the matter.
You never would. It's not illegal to flout the MUTCD, the Feds will just stop giving you money. It's entirely their prerogative.
Quote from: Steve on February 15, 2013, 05:40:17 PM
It's not illegal to flout the MUTCD
It is in Florida.
Quote(4) It shall be unlawful for any public body or official to purchase, or for anyone to sell, any traffic control signal or device unless it conforms with the manual and specifications published by the Department of Transportation and is certified to be of such conformance prior to sale.
(5) It is unlawful for any public body to manufacture for installation or placement any traffic control signal, guide, or directional sign or device unless it conforms to the uniform system of traffic control devices published by the Department of Transportation.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.0745.html
Quote from: NE2 on February 15, 2013, 07:41:31 PM
Quote from: Steve on February 15, 2013, 05:40:17 PM
It's not illegal to flout the MUTCD
It is in Florida.
Quote(4) It shall be unlawful for any public body or official to purchase, or for anyone to sell, any traffic control signal or device unless it conforms with the manual and specifications published by the Department of Transportation and is certified to be of such conformance prior to sale.
(5) It is unlawful for any public body to manufacture for installation or placement any traffic control signal, guide, or directional sign or device unless it conforms to the uniform system of traffic control devices published by the Department of Transportation.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.0745.html
OK, fine, it's not a Federal crime, which was implied by the statement "USDOT or FHWA taking anyone or any agency to court".
It's also was a good engineering choice because no matter how westerly the expressway's designation was extended, having mile 0 be in AC guaranteed the mile markers would never need to change -- which is also a good reason odd 3DI's are rooted in their parent - you can always expect the highway to grow asymmetrically away from it. Personally I don't mind which direction the numbers go because it's pretty obvious which direction it is which after you've seen at least two mile markers or exit numbers.
Quote from: NE2 on February 15, 2013, 07:41:31 PM
Quote from: Steve on February 15, 2013, 05:40:17 PM
It's not illegal to flout the MUTCD
It is in Florida.
Quote(4) It shall be unlawful for any public body or official to purchase, or for anyone to sell, any traffic control signal or device unless it conforms with the manual and specifications published by the Department of Transportation and is certified to be of such conformance prior to sale.
(5) It is unlawful for any public body to manufacture for installation or placement any traffic control signal, guide, or directional sign or device unless it conforms to the uniform system of traffic control devices published by the Department of Transportation.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.0745.html
That doesn't say which DOT is being referred to, Florida or US. I'm guessing there's a definition somewhere in the statute.
Of course it's the state DOT, and FDOT has adopted the MUTCD wholesale.
Quote from: NE2 on February 24, 2013, 03:10:16 PM
Of course it's the state DOT, and FDOT has adopted the MUTCD wholesale.
In that case, there's no issue, because FDOT has not
published the MUTCD. The law, as written, is not broken.
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/trafficoperations/Operations/MUTCD.shtm
FDOT claims they comply with the statute by adopting the MUTCD. If you disagree, take it up with their lawyers.
Has anyone ever tried to go up against the MUTCD and got taken to court? Or at least gotten harassed by the State Attorneys?
The reason why I ask is that everything here in Florida seems pretty routine as far as road operations and sign placements, so I was wondering since you brought it up if anyone in the past has gone against the MUTCD and lost?
Quote from: roadman65 on March 17, 2013, 05:48:14 PM
Has anyone ever tried to go up against the MUTCD and got taken to court? Or at least gotten harassed by the State Attorneys?
I don't know if anything hit the fan, but: http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/B762787E37D4A3CD85256E620055999C