Whenever I always drive across the bridge, I notice that the signs for I-5 South have no control cities. Just 5 north. :hmmm:
Should they add Tijuana to the I-5 signs so it can tell new drivers to the San Diego area. I also think it should have MX at the end so it would be.
Tijuana MX
What do you think?
Makes sense to me!
Rick
Quote from: Lytton on March 20, 2013, 09:33:22 PM
Whenever I always drive across the bridge, I notice that the signs for I-5 South have no control cities. Just 5 north. :hmmm:
Should they add Tijuana to the I-5 signs so it can tell new drivers to the San Diego area. I also think it should have MX at the end so it would be.
Tijuana MX
What do you think?
The control city for southbound I-5 south of downtown San Diego to Route 905 should be San Ysidro; Tijuana or International Border would then be the control city south of Route 905.
If Vancouver, BC can be the control city for northbound 5 in Seattle, then there's no reason that Tijuana shouldn't be the control city for southbound 5 in San Diego. It's silly not to acknowlege it.
Quote from: broadhurst04 on March 20, 2013, 10:40:36 PM
If Vancouver, BC can be the control city for northbound 5 in Seattle, then there's no reason that Tijuana shouldn't be the control city for southbound 5 in San Diego. It's silly not to acknowlege it.
And there's a reason why its Vancouver, BC; so that people do not confuse it with Vancouver, WA, outside Portland, OR. There had been some talk about renaming Vancouver, WA, to either Fort Vancouver, Vancouver USA, or even Old Vancouver, but those plans went nowhere.
Many years ago at the northern 5/805 split, the 805 south split was labeled "Mexico" for a control city.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on March 21, 2013, 10:17:14 PM
Many years ago at the northern 5/805 split, the 805 south split was labeled "Mexico" for a control city.
I would love to see a photo of this!
IIRC, there is a distance sign for Ensenada on I-805 somewhere just south of 15. there are several for Int'l Border.
For what it's worth, my opinion is that the control city for I-805 south in its entirety should include Chula Vista and Tijuana. 805 is the shorter route to the international border (shorter than I-5 between the two endpoints). Note that doesn't necessarily mean faster. I'd prefer the control city for I-5 south of downtown San Diego to be Tijuana. But I'd hate to see some of those nice old I-5/US 101 overhead signs from the mid-1960s removed and replaced to include control cities! :-)
Regards,
Andy
Quote from: andy3175 on March 22, 2013, 01:14:57 AM
For what it's worth, my opinion is that the control city for I-805 south in its entirety should include Chula Vista and Tijuana. 805 is the shorter route to the international border (shorter than I-5 between the two endpoints). Note that doesn't necessarily mean faster. I'd prefer the control city for I-5 south of downtown San Diego to be Tijuana. But I'd hate to see some of those nice old I-5/US 101 overhead signs from the mid-1960s removed and replaced to include control cities! :-)
Regards,
Andy
Well, where to start...
They won't replace entire signage just to put a control city. All they have to do is to make Tijuana MX in one of their sign shops, probably depending on which district we are in. I think it would be the San Diego Sign Shop, and then they can put that green strip of words onto the mid-60s sign. See? They didn't need to replace the entire sign. They could just put Tijuana MX under San Diego on the original signs, and not even replace it. I don't even know if California wants to replace signage right now since they're going almost bankrupt. Damn spending on illegal aliens.
Quote from: Lytton on March 22, 2013, 09:16:43 AM
Well, where to start...
They won't replace entire signage just to put a control city. All they have to do is to make Tijuana MX in one of their sign shops, probably depending on which district we are in. I think it would be the San Diego Sign Shop, and then they can put that green strip of words onto the mid-60s sign. See? They didn't need to replace the entire sign. They could just put Tijuana MX under San Diego on the original signs, and not even replace it. I don't even know if California wants to replace signage right now since they're going almost bankrupt. Damn spending on illegal aliens.
are you drunk?
Caltrans District 11 for some reason has not put control cities on a lot of freeway signs. Many of the signs on Interstate 5 were replaced just a few years ago as part of exit number installation, and if there had been an opportunity to place control cities, that would have been it.
In the one location where I have seen control cities used for southbound I-5 south of downtown San Diego, they are listed as National City and Chula Vista. I've also seen those control cities used on I-805.
If only they'd sign Tijuana those illegal rapists would know how to get home.
Quote from: Lytton on March 22, 2013, 09:16:43 AM
Quote from: andy3175 on March 22, 2013, 01:14:57 AM
For what it's worth, my opinion is that the control city for I-805 south in its entirety should include Chula Vista and Tijuana. 805 is the shorter route to the international border (shorter than I-5 between the two endpoints). Note that doesn't necessarily mean faster. I'd prefer the control city for I-5 south of downtown San Diego to be Tijuana. But I'd hate to see some of those nice old I-5/US 101 overhead signs from the mid-1960s removed and replaced to include control cities! :-)
Regards,
Andy
Well, where to start...
They won't replace entire signage just to put a control city. All they have to do is to make Tijuana MX in one of their sign shops, probably depending on which district we are in. I think it would be the San Diego Sign Shop, and then they can put that green strip of words onto the mid-60s sign. See? They didn't need to replace the entire sign. They could just put Tijuana MX under San Diego on the original signs, and not even replace it. I don't even know if California wants to replace signage right now since they're going almost bankrupt. Damn spending on illegal aliens.
I guess there's a difference between adding the control city the right way and adding it the CalTrans way...
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 22, 2013, 09:19:02 AM
Quote from: Lytton on March 22, 2013, 09:16:43 AM
Well, where to start...
They won't replace entire signage just to put a control city. All they have to do is to make Tijuana MX in one of their sign shops, probably depending on which district we are in. I think it would be the San Diego Sign Shop, and then they can put that green strip of words onto the mid-60s sign. See? They didn't need to replace the entire sign. They could just put Tijuana MX under San Diego on the original signs, and not even replace it. I don't even know if California wants to replace signage right now since they're going almost bankrupt. Damn spending on illegal aliens.
are you drunk?
I don't know why you're asking me for, but no, I wasn't on alcohol.
I saw a few in Los Angeles, where they would keep the old sign but replace the faded button copy words with new ones. Or maybe...I don't know much about roadgeek terminology.
IMHO, the control city should be "Border" or "Mexico". An unfamiliar motorist (and that is who signage is for in the first place) might think Tijuana refers to some place in California and get in a long border crossing line for no reason.
Quote from: SP Cook on March 23, 2013, 07:23:23 AM
IMHO, the control city should be "Border" or "Mexico". An unfamiliar motorist (and that is who signage is for in the first place) might think Tijuana refers to some place in California and get in a long border crossing line for no reason.
There are plenty of signs, well ahead of the border, warning of the upcoming border crossing and then the last exit/U-turn before the border, so that confused motorists can bail out before getting in line for Mexican customs.
I think it should be Tijuana, B.C. Matches with the Vancouver, B.C. up north.
Quote from: SP Cook on March 23, 2013, 07:23:23 AM
IMHO, the control city should be "Border" or "Mexico". An unfamiliar motorist (and that is who signage is for in the first place) might think Tijuana refers to some place in California and get in a long border crossing line for no reason.
That's why the OP has Tijuana MX. The MX implies that it's not in the U.S.
Mexico can have our confused motorists :sombrero:
Quote from: SP Cook on March 23, 2013, 07:23:23 AM
IMHO, the control city should be "Border" or "Mexico". An unfamiliar motorist (and that is who signage is for in the first place) might think Tijuana refers to some place in California and get in a long border crossing line for no reason.
IMO, I think the signs should read "Tijuana BN Mexico."
I
really dislike signs that read things like "Mexico" or "International Border" or "Canada" or "Bridge to USA."
Quote from: jrouse on March 22, 2013, 10:41:09 AM
Caltrans District 11 for some reason has not put control cities on a lot of freeway signs. Many of the signs on Interstate 5 were replaced just a few years ago as part of exit number installation, and if there had been an opportunity to place control cities, that would have been it.
In the one location where I have seen control cities used for southbound I-5 south of downtown San Diego, they are listed as National City and Chula Vista. I've also seen those control cities used on I-805.
I've noticed that, even with signs on the major interstates. Riverside is not signed on the 15 until the 805 interchange, and even then only sporadically until Escondido. El Centro got erased when the 125/8 interchange got upgraded.
Quote from: Lytton on March 23, 2013, 02:52:59 AM
I don't know why you're asking me for, but no, I wasn't on alcohol.
I'm asking you because that post reeked of diminished intelligence, and increased belligerence. damn posting by illegal aliens.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 23, 2013, 10:50:01 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on March 23, 2013, 07:23:23 AM
IMHO, the control city should be "Border" or "Mexico". An unfamiliar motorist (and that is who signage is for in the first place) might think Tijuana refers to some place in California and get in a long border crossing line for no reason.
IMO, I think the signs should read "Tijuana BN Mexico."
I really dislike signs that read things like "Mexico" or "International Border" or "Canada" or "Bridge to USA."
I would much prefer BC to BN. Good luck finding a road sign in México with "Tijuana BN" on it.
Quote from: kphoger on March 25, 2013, 12:51:19 PM
I would much prefer BC to BN. Good luck finding a road sign in México with "Tijuana BN" on it.
I don't dispute that. I would personally be fine with BC, but I recall that the place is (semi) officially divided into
Baja California Sur and
Baja California Norte.
I got BN from an "official" list of state and provincial abbreviations from online USDOT/FMCSA here (http://mcmiscatalog.fmcsa.dot.gov/states.asp).
this is the one I've seen used most.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fond4beetles.com%2FBuprestidae%2FMexico%2Fmapamexgray.gif&hash=0d63226ea8cee997ddbcd5beae22fb20c285c845)
the BCN/BCS division is not unofficial: the two are legally separate states - Baja California and Baja California Sur, like Virginia and West Virginia, or Alanland and Alanland.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 25, 2013, 02:00:51 PM
the BCN/BCS division is not unofficial: the two are legally separate states - Baja California and Baja California Sur, like Virginia and West Virginia, or Alanland and Alanland.
You had to throw in an Alanland reference didn't you! :biggrin:
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 25, 2013, 01:57:48 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 25, 2013, 12:51:19 PM
I would much prefer BC to BN. Good luck finding a road sign in México with "Tijuana BN" on it.
I don't dispute that. I would personally be fine with BC, but I recall that the place is (semi) officially divided into Baja California Sur and Baja California Norte.
I got BN from an "official" list of state and provincial abbreviations from online USDOT/FMCSA here (http://mcmiscatalog.fmcsa.dot.gov/states.asp).
Yes, there are several lists of "official" state abbreviations for México, and these lists vary by which
office issued the
official list. These lists are often made so that state abbreviations will be uniform (e.g. two letters for all states). However, the abbreviations that most people actually
use and
know can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_Mexico#ISO_3166_codes) under the
Conventional abbreviation heading. Note that a few of these even have common alternate abbreviations (Edomex—Mex; Q Roo—QR; Tamps—Tam; Tlax—Tla). At any rate, BC is by far the most common abbreviation for Baja California, and one that has actually been used on a Mexican sign (https://www.aaroads.com/west/bca/tijuana_bc_faded_overhead.jpg).
Quote from: NE2 on March 22, 2013, 11:02:43 AM
If only they'd sign Tijuana those illegal rapists would know how to get home.
Why are you so racist? We both know those "illegal" rapists are raping people Americans don't want to.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 25, 2013, 01:57:48 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 25, 2013, 12:51:19 PM
I would much prefer BC to BN. Good luck finding a road sign in México with "Tijuana BN" on it.
I don't dispute that. I would personally be fine with BC, but I recall that the place is (semi) officially divided into Baja California Sur and Baja California Norte.
I got BN from an "official" list of state and provincial abbreviations from online USDOT/FMCSA here (http://mcmiscatalog.fmcsa.dot.gov/states.asp).
That's a US website. I would say the US lacks jurisdiction to assign "official" anything to something in a foreign country, so I'd prefer seeing an official Mexican site with that abbreviations. Mexican license plates issued in Tijuana say "Front BC" (meaning "Frontera" [border] zone, Baja California). That's about as official as you get!
Although I suppose one could make the argument that on our side of the border, we play by our rules. Kind of like how you won't find any "España" signs in France or Portugal approaching Spain...you'll see the Portuguese or French word for Spain, then you get to the border and bam, you see the "España" sign at the border. So on that note, maybe BN would be acceptable in California, but it certainly wouldn't be recognizable to the majority of the population, which makes it a waste of space. I think the vast, vast majority of people realize that TJ is in Mexico. Besides, its not as if you don't have a ton of "Last USA Exit" and "Mexico Only" signs at the border itself.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 25, 2013, 01:57:48 PMI got BN from an "official" list of state and provincial abbreviations from online USDOT/FMCSA here (http://mcmiscatalog.fmcsa.dot.gov/states.asp).
Thanks for this--I ran across it years ago and was not able to find it again when I was looking to fit it into my rogues' gallery of Procrustean beds. The abbreviations for the US and Canada are intuitive, since they match the two-letter postal abbreviations perfectly, but the ones for Mexico are terribly unintuitive and I was under the impression that the software and forms for which these two-letter abbreviations were designed had later been rejigged to handle the standard Mexican state abbreviations.
BTW, the official name of the northern state of Baja California is "Estado libre y soberano de Baja California" (no "Norte") and the standard abbreviation is just "B.C." (no "N."). It is just the southern state which goes by "Baja California Sur" and "B.C.S."
Quote from: mtantillo on March 25, 2013, 10:57:50 PM
Although I suppose one could make the argument that on our side of the border, we play by our rules. Kind of like how you won't find any "España" signs in France or Portugal approaching Spain...you'll see the Portuguese or French word for Spain, then you get to the border and bam, you see the "España" sign at the border. So on that note, maybe BN would be acceptable in California, but it certainly wouldn't be recognizable to the majority of the population, which makes it a waste of space. I think the vast, vast majority of people realize that TJ is in Mexico. Besides, its not as if you don't have a ton of "Last USA Exit" and "Mexico Only" signs at the border itself.
But, in Europe, you
do find internationally recognized country codes (ISO?) on highway signs.
I personally think the addition of a state name or even country name is unnecessary in the case of Tijuana, considering it's one of the largest cities in the nation (municipal pop. 1.5 million +) and well known to anyone in San Diego–surely better known than even San Ysidro. At smaller border crossings, (e.g. Ojinaga) or twin cities of the same name (e.g. Nogales), I could maybe see adding more clarification, but those probably wouldn't be used as control cities anyway.
Quote from: mtantillo on March 25, 2013, 10:57:50 PMAlthough I suppose one could make the argument that on our side of the border, we play by our rules. Kind of like how you won't find any "España" signs in France or Portugal approaching Spain...you'll see the Portuguese or French word for Spain, then you get to the border and bam, you see the "España" sign at the border.
That approach is pretty heavily debated even in the European context, and in many countries it is now the preferred practice to sign a city in another country in that country's language. That is why you now see "Praha" (not "Prag") and "Bratislava" (not "Pressburg") on direction signs in Vienna, for example. The Germans used to have a reputation for using their exonyms in preference for the native-language names on direction signs, but have now backed away from that--hence "Arnhem" (not "Arnheim") and "Nijmegen" (not "Nimwegen") on
Autobahn signs.
Iberian practice is an unreliable guide to Europe as a whole because native-language signing for foreign countries or cities competes with official bilingualism within Spain itself, and practice is often inconsistent from sign to sign. "France" or "França"? "Perpignan" or "Perpinyà "? In the case of France itself, I would suggest that any French-language exonyms on French signs are unrepresentative of current practice since I monitor French central government highway contracting and I cannot remember seeing French exonyms for any places outside France in recent contracts (one possible example would be "Anvers" for "Antwerp").
QuoteSo on that note, maybe BN would be acceptable in California, but it certainly wouldn't be recognizable to the majority of the population, which makes it a waste of space.
In point of fact, "BN" is unacceptable to everybody except FMCSA employees and contractors. (Some of the other abbreviations are even worse--"BS" for Baja California Sur? Is it supposed to be the "bullshit state"?)
QuoteI think the vast, vast majority of people realize that TJ is in Mexico. Besides, its not as if you don't have a ton of "Last USA Exit" and "Mexico Only" signs at the border itself.
Practice in Texas suggests some possible precedents. In El Paso, Juárez used to be signed in button copy as "Juarez" (no country name, no accent). When TxDOT combined Clearview conversion with a retroreflective sheeting upgrade around 2004, Juárez appeared on signs as "Juárez, México" (comma, accents over
a and
e). In Mexico itself, "Juárez" and "JUAREZ" (all-uppercase, no accents) are accepted ways of signing the city. (Mexican signing exploits the Hispanophone convention that accents can be omitted on all-uppercase words.) In no case is "Ciudad" or its abbreviations ("Cd.," "Cd," or "CD") used, because Juárez is too large ("Ciudad" and abbreviations are normally omitted for very large cities such as Chihuahua and Mexico City, although it is left in occasionally for smaller cities such as Camargo). Further east, Texas FM 170 has signing for "PRESIDIO" and "OJINAGA, MEX" (sans period).
My personal feeling about these precedents is that it makes sense to include "Mexico" (no accent) next to the specific Mexican city on signs, since this establishes relatability between guide signing and warning and regulatory signs advising motorists that firearms and ammunition are banned in Mexico. (TxDOT's signs for this purpose are now in
SHSD and use "MEXICO" in all-uppercase without accent. Firearms signing is also used in Arizona.) Signing for "Intl Border" by itself does not do this because it does not specify what country is on the other side of the border. "Mexico" rather than "México" on signs on the US side of the border are justifiable for several reasons: (1) it is a perfect match with "Mexico" or "MEXICO" on firearms signs; (2) the name of the country is idiomatically "Mexico" to English speakers; and (3) accented "México," or spelling variants like "Mejico," look precious and hypercorrect to American eyes.
I would never suggest using "B.C." (with periods) or "B C" (hard spaces to emulate periods) next to "Tijuana" on guide signs, for two reasons: (1) "B.C." as an abbreviation for "Baja California" is considerably less well known than "B.C." as an abbreviation for "British Columbia" on I-5 northbound; and (2) since the Mexican border is much tighter, much more controversial, and much more user-unfriendly than the Canadian border, any message signifying travel toward Mexico has to pre-empt any message signifying travel toward any individual Mexican state.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 26, 2013, 12:24:45 PMSigning for "Intl Border" by itself does not do this because it does not specify what country is on the other side of the border.
anyone who confuses Canada and Mexico deserves to have the book thrown at them.
Quotespelling variants like "Mejico,"
does anyone actually spell it that way?
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQkPhOPmqcpchiy7nihHmNKw6jwnexKJ52KatOZRy-6YHfEtjCB)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 26, 2013, 12:45:48 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on March 26, 2013, 12:24:45 PMSigning for "Intl Border" by itself does not do this because it does not specify what country is on the other side of the border.
anyone who confuses Canada and Mexico deserves to have the book thrown at them.
Maybe so, but I prefer to work on the Swiss-cheese theory, especially since just one spent cartridge case is enough to get you sent to prison in Mexico.
QuoteQuotespelling variants like "Mejico" . . .
does anyone actually spell it that way?
Yes. "El estado de Nuevo Mejico no será responsable por daños o perjuicios incurridos en este sitio."
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 26, 2013, 01:42:06 PM
Maybe so, but I prefer to work on the Swiss-cheese theory, especially since just one spent cartridge case is enough to get you sent to prison in Mexico.
"Swiss-cheese theory"?
I can understand signing "no firearms/ammo allowed in Mexico", but I think that is orthogonal to signing "Mexico" vs. "international border". if you're in South Texas, and you think to yourself "oh, I don't need to get rid of this weapon, I'm going to Canada in a mile or two" - yep, you deserve to get sent to prison in Mexico.
QuoteYes. "El estado de Nuevo Mejico no será responsable por daños o perjuicios incurridos en este sitio."
what does the law say if the clause disclaiming damages is itself damaging to my poor, poor ojos?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 26, 2013, 01:48:31 PM"Swiss-cheese theory"?
I can understand signing "no firearms/ammo allowed in Mexico", but I think that is orthogonal to signing "Mexico" vs. "international border". if you're in South Texas, and you think to yourself "oh, I don't need to get rid of this weapon, I'm going to Canada in a mile or two" - yep, you deserve to get sent to prison in Mexico.
Yup--the Swiss-cheese theory is the idea that an accident happens when circumstances align all the "holes" in countermeasures against that particular type of accident. I have in mind naïve teenagers driving too close to the border, and maybe having a few forgotten spent rifle shells in their pickups or whatever from past hunting trips. (Remember all those safety tips we got from our parents which had no apparent justification that they could explain to us, probably because they didn't understand them themselves? Combine that with teenagers' proclivity for boundary-pushing behavior . . .) "Intl Border" may not be enough to tell them "Avoid! Turn around and go away," but maybe "Mexico" is.
Another consideration is that "Intl Border" refers to a line on the ground and can give a false impression of the facilities (such as paved turnarounds) available for avoiding entanglement in a customs clearance procedure. I think this is less likely to happen with "Mexico."
Edit: It is also my understanding that it is far from straightforward for Americans to carry guns into Canada. It is legally possible for an American to obtain a permit to transport a gun across Canadian soil, but I don't know if the necessary paperwork can be done at the border or if permission has to be obtained in advance, using documents which the traveller is unlikely to be carrying with him. We have had the experience of storing a 9-mm handgun for a relative who left Tucson with it, bound for Windsor, Ontario. If he had not been passing through Wichita, his options for divesting himself of the gun prior to entering Canada would have been very limited--leaving it in a locker at a bus station, say, or temporary deposit at a gun shop on the US side of the border. In my view he should either have left the gun in Tucson, or checked the gun laws in all states and provinces having extent within 300 miles of his planned itinerary and ensured that he had the wherewithal to carry or transport it legally in all of those jurisdictions. But his experience proves that people set out from home armed without engaging in that level of prior preparation. (This, by the way, is the main reason I have no interest in carrying a gun in public, concealed or not, on a regular basis. The homework is a killer.)
Canadian firearms law is still in flux, but I don't think the time is too far off when we will have to provide firearms signing for the Canadian border as well.
I disagree with you on this one. I think the word "border" makes it a stronger deterrent, in the sense that there is a definite boundary to be crossed there.
but right now it's just your opinion vs. mine; I don't have any hard evidence one way or the other as to which prevents accidental crossings more effectively.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 26, 2013, 02:53:45 PMI disagree with you on this one. I think the word "border" makes it a stronger deterrent, in the sense that there is a definite boundary to be crossed there.
For an adult, maybe. But would the typical 16-year-old (i.e., not necessarily having the intellectual capacity to pursue a degree at MIT or Oxford) know that an "Intl Border" is an entity that you cross to get to "Mexico" where firearms and ammunition are illegal? The syllogism is easier to construct without importing the concept of an "Intl Border."
Quotebut right now it's just your opinion vs. mine; I don't have any hard evidence one way or the other as to which prevents accidental crossings more effectively.
Arizona DOT splits the difference in its signing strategy for I-19 and SR 289. Distance signs well in advance give mileages (or, in I-19's case, kilometer distances) to "Intl Border," and signing for "Mexico" begins closer to the border itself, where it is near firearms signing that directly references Mexico.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 26, 2013, 03:01:13 PM
For an adult, maybe. But would the typical 16-year-old (i.e., not necessarily having the intellectual capacity to pursue a degree at MIT or Oxford) know that an "Intl Border" is an entity that you cross to get to "Mexico" where firearms and ammunition are illegal? The syllogism is easier to construct without importing the concept of an "Intl Border."
does the typical 16 year old know that Mexico is beyond a particular line that should not be crossed unless you're willing to deal with various customs and immigration facilities? it seems to be more a cultural awareness concept, as opposed to strictly intellectual capacity. maybe kids raised in rural Texas think of "Mexico" as the stronger triggering word for "turn around now". for me, it's "International Border"* because I grew up behind the 1980s Iron Curtain, and I knew that that meant a long wait and stern questioning.
* technically it is "Customs" in several local languages, but it definitely isn't a country name.
splitting the difference seems to be working quite well. I also think the use of the word "ONLY" enhances the message. "MEXICO ONLY" is used in several places.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 26, 2013, 12:24:45 PM
(Some of the other abbreviations are even worse--"BS" for Baja California Sur? Is it supposed to be the "bullshit state"?)
It's not a totally idiotic abbreviation for Baja California Sur. In fact, it appeared on the 2003-2005 series of license plates:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F15q.net%2Fmex%2Fbcsmex2.jpg&hash=d4b4c70a3130bf3cde63946f35699d2d0c970f58)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 26, 2013, 03:07:34 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 26, 2013, 03:01:13 PM
You don't have to be a doofus or a 16-year-old to run afoul of Mexican gun restrictions at the border. For example, we live 800 miles from the border yet have taken a missions team down each year for the past few years. Our best friend likes to hunt rabbit and squirrel every so often, so he keeps gun-related stuff in his pickup. One year, his pickup was the second vehicle making the drive; common sense would have told him not to drive down with his rifle, but it never would have occurred to him that, as J N Winkler said, a
single bullet would be reason enough to have his vehicle impounded and us all to make a trip to jail. That year, his vehicle was searched
twice at the border, including taking everything out and going through luggage on tables: I'm glad I'd told him to clean the ammunition out of his truck ahead of time.
This is not the only reason to make "México" clear on signs. Some people are not allowed by law to cross international borders. Some border crossings have toll booths. Some, like Tijuana, don't have an oops-turnaround
after the checkpoint for people who didn't catch all the earlier warnings (i.e., the guards can't point to the left and say "Just turn around right there"). Et cætera. Having said that, I don't really have an opinion on whether "MEXICO" or "Intl'l Border" is better. For advance signage, either one is probably fine; the last sign, however, should read "MEXICO
ONLY" or something similarly strong–something that makes it clear it's their last chance to turn around.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 26, 2013, 12:24:45 PM
Further east, Texas FM 170 has signing for "PRESIDIO" and "OJINAGA, MEX" (sans period).
Note that even farther east, in contrast, Pedras Negras is signed
only by name at La Pryor (http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4050/4230360924_5840928af2_z.jpg) (thank you, Eric Stuve of OKRoads). Nearer the border in Eagle Pass (http://goo.gl/maps/Pyq97), it's unclear whether MEXICO is intended as a continuation of PIEDRAS NEGRAS or is intended as a line of text in its own right.
Came here looking for this question and... found it.
And I think it's still worth asking: Why isn't Tijuana signed as a control city on I-5 and I-805 south?
I feel like there's an argument to be made here for "Regression to the Eisenhower Mean," a term I use for engineers just using whatever standard existed when the system was first established — when Tijuana had about 100,000 people and was a relatively sleepy place. But, of course, it's closing in on 2 million now, and is a major part of the San Diego metropolitan area.
To me,'BC' has always meant 'British Columbia', thus, the 'BC' abbreviation could be ambiguous here.
However, the Mexicans don't see a problem with it, so we're stuck with it (for now).
Mike
Does anyone know what percentage of the traffic going south on I-5 or I-805 actually crosses the border? If it was significant enough to warrant putting Tijuana on the signs, I'd expect the roads to back up for miles. Until you actually get past CA-905, I'll bet most people are going to the massive residential developments in that area, and to the Otay Mesa industrial area.
There's that one sign on the 5 near the 905 showing three miles to the border, four to Tijuana and 79 to Ensenada and a similar sign on the 805 with a mile subtracted from the aforementioned distances.
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 06, 2022, 05:52:45 AM
There's that one sign on the 5 near the 905 showing three miles to the border, four to Tijuana and 79 to Ensenada and a similar sign on the 805 with a mile subtracted from the aforementioned distances.
See, that's what I'm talking about. I feel like at times, our lovely interstate highway system pretends as though the throughput ends at the border checkpoint. But who's kidding themselves at this point that MX1 and I-5 aren't the same corridor? And to that end, just seems like if you were building the system from scratch today, you'd sign Tijuana as far north as San Onofre (for three-deck distance signs for Oceanside / San Diego / Tijuana). Shouldn't Monterrey be signed, even just a bit, on I-35? Heck, MX15 and I-19 aren't just de facto the same corridor, they're de jure part of the CANAMEX corridor — so why not use Hermosillo on distance signs?
/endrant
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on September 06, 2022, 12:31:23 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 06, 2022, 05:52:45 AM
There's that one sign on the 5 near the 905 showing three miles to the border, four to Tijuana and 79 to Ensenada and a similar sign on the 805 with a mile subtracted from the aforementioned distances.
See, that's what I'm talking about. I feel like at times, our lovely interstate highway system pretends as though the throughput ends at the border checkpoint. But who's kidding themselves at this point that MX1 and I-5 aren't the same corridor? And to that end, just seems like if you were building the system from scratch today, you'd sign Tijuana as far north as San Onofre (for three-deck distance signs for Oceanside / San Diego / Tijuana). Shouldn't Monterrey be signed, even just a bit, on I-35? Heck, MX15 and I-19 aren't just de facto the same corridor, they're de jure part of the CANAMEX corridor — so why not use Hermosillo on distance signs?
/endrant
I'd just sign Nuevo Laredo Tamaulipas once I-35 enters Laredo TX and Heroica Nogales Sonora once I-19 enters Nogales AZ. Monterrey makes sense on I-69W north of Laredo. (Whether I-69
W itself makes sense is another discussion already being done elsewhere on AA Roads (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?board=22.0).)
Quote from: pderocco on September 06, 2022, 01:19:40 AM
Does anyone know what percentage of the traffic going south on I-5 or I-805 actually crosses the border? If it was significant enough to warrant putting Tijuana on the signs, I'd expect the roads to back up for miles. Until you actually get past CA-905, I'll bet most people are going to the massive residential developments in that area, and to the Otay Mesa industrial area.
I-5AADT = 80,000 – Coronado Ave / Otay Mesa Fwy
AADT = 51,000 – Otay Mesa Fwy / Dairy Mart Rd
AADT = 38,000 – Dairy Mart Rd / Via de San Ysidro
AADT = 28,500 – Vai de San Ysidro / Camino de la Plaza (last US exit) & I-805
I-805AADT = 128,000 – Palm Ave / Otay Mesa Fwy
AADT = 61,000 – Otay Mesa Fwy / San Ysidro Blvd & I-5
AADT = 22,000 – San Ysidro Blvd & I-5 / Camino de la Plaza (last US exit)
Mexican borderAADT = 56,000 – south of Camino de la Plaza
https://koordinates.com/layer/109326-california-traffic-volumes-aadt/
I-5 and I-805 should use Tijuana MX south of California 94. It makes sense. San Ysidro is more of a neighborhood of San Diego, not even a suburb. If you were going to use a suburb in between the 2, I would use Chula Vista.
I'm also still surprised there aren't any advisory signs for Mexico on the 125 between Chula Vista and Otay; maybe because most SB traffic might not be crossing the border.
I would just use Mexico but that's up to Caltrans. I don't mind how MDOT uses Canada in Detroit.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 02, 2022, 06:33:58 PM
I would just use Mexico but that's up to Caltrans. I don't mind how MDOT uses Canada in Detroit.
I just don't get that. After all, I-8 would also get you to places in Mexico (as will I-94 in Detroit get you to Canada) - why not be more specific? It's not like Tijuana or Windsor are obscure.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 03, 2022, 05:51:25 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 02, 2022, 06:33:58 PM
I would just use Mexico but that's up to Caltrans. I don't mind how MDOT uses Canada in Detroit.
I just don't get that. After all, I-8 would also get you to places in Mexico
Then only use it south of I-8, so there's no confusion. Oh, wait...
If two highways can have the same control city (but not at the same decision point), then why can't two highways likewise have the same control nation?
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 03, 2022, 05:51:25 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 02, 2022, 06:33:58 PM
I would just use Mexico but that's up to Caltrans. I don't mind how MDOT uses Canada in Detroit.
I just don't get that. After all, I-8 would also get you to places in Mexico (as will I-94 in Detroit get you to Canada) - why not be more specific? It's not like Tijuana or Windsor are obscure.
If you are on I-5 south and you see Mexico you wouldn't assume that you would be heading toward where I-5 enters Mexico? You can get to the bridge and tunnel via exits from I-94 but I-94 itself isn't going to get you to the border until you get to Port Huron.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 03, 2022, 09:02:44 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 03, 2022, 05:51:25 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 02, 2022, 06:33:58 PM
I would just use Mexico but that's up to Caltrans. I don't mind how MDOT uses Canada in Detroit.
I just don't get that. After all, I-8 would also get you to places in Mexico (as will I-94 in Detroit get you to Canada) - why not be more specific? It's not like Tijuana or Windsor are obscure.
If you are on I-5 south and you see Mexico you wouldn't assume that you would be heading toward where I-5 enters Mexico? You can get to the bridge and tunnel via exits from I-94 but I-94 itself isn't going to get you to the border until you get to Port Huron.
But then I guess this gets into the broader "What's the point of control cities" discussion. If you're going to Tijuana, you should be on I-5 south. And for just about the rest of Mexico, 905 is probably a better route.