New Jersey Turnpike

[lstone19]

Signs can only get you so far. At a certain point, you have to have your own knowledge of where you're going. I always hate it when people say New York City is different as if that excuses doing things in a non-standard way but in this case, I think it is. The geography (the rivers (er, tidal estuaries if you want to be technical) and the limited crossings of them) force the points where your own knowledge of where you're going has to take command much farther out than most, if not all, large U.S. cities. NYC has a much more spread out central business district and as a result, the decision of the correct way to the destination has to be made several miles out.

Example: For me in the Chicago area, if my destination in the city is the Loop or if it's the Mag Mile shopping area, my route is the same until I'm about a mile away. Until I'm that mile away, Chicago works fine as a control city. But if instead I'm approaching NYC from where I used to live in NJ approaching on I-78, the route decision between Midtown and Lower Manhattan has to be made several miles out (by Newark Airport). At that point, New York City is worthless as a control city and if I'm relying on signs, I need "Midtown Manhattan" and "Lower Manhattan" or "Lincoln Tunnel" and "Holland Tunnel" to know where to go. And at that point, if you're geographically challenged and all you know is you're going to New York City, you're already lost.

[motorways]

Signs can only get you so far. At a certain point, you have to have your own knowledge of where you're going. I always hate it when people say New York City is different as if that excuses doing things in a non-standard way but in this case, I think it is. The geography (the rivers (er, tidal estuaries if you want to be technical) and the limited crossings of them) force the points where your own knowledge of where you're going has to take command much farther out than most, if not all, large U.S. cities. NYC has a much more spread out central business district and as a result, the decision of the correct way to the destination has to be made several miles out.

Example: For me in the Chicago area, if my destination in the city is the Loop or if it's the Mag Mile shopping area, my route is the same until I'm about a mile away. Until I'm that mile away, Chicago works fine as a control city. But if instead I'm approaching NYC from where I used to live in NJ approaching on I-78, the route decision between Midtown and Lower Manhattan has to be made several miles out (by Newark Airport). At that point, New York City is worthless as a control city and if I'm relying on signs, I need "Midtown Manhattan" and "Lower Manhattan" or "Lincoln Tunnel" and "Holland Tunnel" to know where to go. And at that point, if you're geographically challenged and all you know is you're going to New York City, you're already lost.

Yes, well said.

[motorways]

> After all, what are the signs for if not to be of the best possible relevance and utility to the people who use them most?

But the MUTCD specifically addresses that. The signs are "for" travelers who may not be familiar with the area. Not the ones who use it the most. The ones who use it the most should learn the route designations for the routes they use, and then follow that (e.g. route X north to route X west, or whatever)

Bingo. The signs are for people who only know where they are going, not what the best way there is, so destinations are much more helpful than the structure taking them there.

Ideally that's true, but it's astonishing how poorly people who live in an area know their way around. My spouse is this way: he could drive a route 10 times and still not know where to go the next time. He's an attorney, so not exactly a simpleton, but a lot of people just have a poor sense of geography. I have several friends in the area who are just the same. So for the many people living in the area for which this is a way of life, it's very useful to note the crossing.

While I agree lots of people have a poor sense of geography, how is the crossing particularly more useful than the destination? Answer: Its not really. Most people just want to get there, they could care less how. Those who care, usually know what crossing to take already.

People who have a poor sense of geography (probably the majority, actually, though I'm not going to bother to find social science data on it) will at least know what bridge or tunnel they usually use to get someplace (and therefore which crossing leads to what part of the city) since it tends to be a more singular driving experience than this or that surface highway. On the other hand, people who don't already know where they're going are probably then following some sort of directions, which in turn would call for a deliberately chosen crossing that would not be reflected in signing only a control city – particularly around NYC where even if using a GPS-based navigation system it can still be confusing to choose which series of ramps to take in short succession within this or that complex interchange. Similarly, at the NJT split into western and eastern spurs, both will go to the control city of New York or Manhattan, of course, but only one of them connects directly to the Lincoln Tunnel and midtown. Ditto for choosing Newark Bay Extension > Holland Tunnel vs continuing on the mainline to Lincoln/GWB. In either case, signing the destination of both spurs or mainline vs extension as New York or Manhattan would clearly be unhelpful, and relegating the crossing names to supplemental signage instead of the main gantries on principle would be a cut nose/spite face type situation. Thus signing the crossing will not only implicitly convey more targeted destination info than a broad control city/borough, but also help people avoid confusion while getting there.

But I reckon overall we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Again you are missing the point. The signs are for people not familiar with the area.

One other thing: You mention a lot of examples, but the reality is that the road network is so interconnected that you can often just lose a relatively small amount of time making a wrong turn. For example, you can get to the Lincoln from the Western Spur, it just takes a few minutes longer. You can get to pretty much any point in the Bronx from LI using any of the bridges, one route may just be the fastest to your particular destination.

Also, the crossing names are (or should be) implicit if you routinely drive a certain way, since you should already associate your crossing with its route designation... Holland Tunnel with 78, Lincoln with 495, GWB with 95, Goethals/Verrazano/Triborough (RFK whatever) with 278, Whitestone with 678, Throgs Neck with 295.

Given that there is more than one reasonable viewpoint on this matter of opinion, as I said we'll just have to agree to disagree *shrug*.

[Alps]

Traffic sign engineer breaking in for a moment: If you have multiple options leading to a single destination city, it is appropriate to differentiate between them. For example, you will commonly see "Bridgeport next 7 exits" and then the next 7 exits are just street names. Or maybe 1-2 of them are route names with other destinations. The intrigue comes when not every exit leads to the city in question. You can take 14, 16E, or 18W/18E to the city. 15E, 15W, and 16W are not preferred and you wouldn't really list NYC as destinations for those. 15X won't get you there at all. This does pop up from time to time, and since it's a unique edge case, it is not fully covered by the MUTCD, and this is when to use engineering judgment. Fun fact about engineering judgment, no two engineers will see it the same way - I'll ask 1-2 others who I trust and go for a general consensus on what the "likely best way" is.

In this case, in a vacuum, I would probably have a sign south of 14:
NEW YORK CITY
Holland Tun.......Exit 14C
Lincoln Tun.......Exit 16E
G W Br.....Exits 18W/18E

Exit 14 I would sign I-78 Newark / New York, with supplemental sign(s) "Holland Tun Exit 14C".
Exit 16E I would sign NJ 495 Weehawken / New York, with supplemental sign(s) "Lincoln Tun Exit 16E".
Exit 16W I would sign NJ 3 Clifton / Secaucus, with supplemental sign "Lincoln Tun Exit 16W".
Exits 16E/18E I would sign I-95 TO I-80 Paterson / New York, with supplemental sign(s) "G W Br follow NORTH (95)"
Off each interchange, I would make sure to point people down the correct ramp to head east, and that's that.
Your mileage may vary.

[jeffandnicole]

> After all, what are the signs for if not to be of the best possible relevance and utility to the people who use them most?

But the MUTCD specifically addresses that. The signs are "for" travelers who may not be familiar with the area. Not the ones who use it the most. The ones who use it the most should learn the route designations for the routes they use, and then follow that (e.g. route X north to route X west, or whatever)

Bingo. The signs are for people who only know where they are going, not what the best way there is, so destinations are much more helpful than the structure taking them there.

Ideally that's true, but it's astonishing how poorly people who live in an area know their way around. My spouse is this way: he could drive a route 10 times and still not know where to go the next time. He's an attorney, so not exactly a simpleton, but a lot of people just have a poor sense of geography. I have several friends in the area who are just the same. So for the many people living in the area for which this is a way of life, it's very useful to note the crossing.

While I agree lots of people have a poor sense of geography, how is the crossing particularly more useful than the destination? Answer: Its not really. Most people just want to get there, they could care less how. Those who care, usually know what crossing to take already. 

I'll use one of my NJ Turnpike Toll taking stories as an example:  Guy was on I-80 East in NJ, wanting to go to Boston.  For some reason, he turned onto I-95/NJ Turnpike South.  He drove about 2 hours to Interchange 1.  Got into my lane.  As he was paying the toll he asked how much longer it was to Boston.  I told him he drove 2 hours the wrong way.  He wasn't happy.

When it comes to geography challenged, don't think *anything* will help someone.  I don't know if the guy stopped at a service area, but if he did, he didn't look at a map.  I don't know if he got gas, but if he did he didn't ask the gas attendant. 

I have half-joked in the past that I imagine that about 25% of our country's gasoline usage is wasted fuel because people don't drive the most direct way to their destination.  I would hope that GPS equipment has cut down on that. 

It doesn't matter if a sign says "New York City", "Midtown", "Lincoln Tunnel" or "95 North".  If you don't know where you're going, or more importantly - where you are presently at - none of this is going to assist you.

And if you need any more verification of this:  Have your favorite meteorologist as a Facebook Friend.  When they post a map of expected snowfall, guaranteed dozens of people will say "How much snow will I get in (town) or (county).  The map is RIGHT THERE.  The county lines are shown.  If these people have no clue how to identify their location on a map; well, they're the people that rely on GPS to find their way out of their development every single time.

[lstone19]

Again you are missing the point. The signs are for people not familiar with the area.

Not always. They also help confirm that you're taking the correct exit, etc. Just this morning, I was heading south on I-355 approaching I-55 southwest of Chicago. I forgot that the ramp order is backwards - the ramp to go "left" to North I-55 is before the one to go "right" to South I-55. I was cruising along in the right lane when all of a sudden seeing St. Louis on one sign and Chicago on the other made me realize I was about to take the wrong exit. I was familiar with the area but had forgotten (given it's once a year or so that I'm at that interchange) about the ramp order issue.

[famartin]

Again you are missing the point. The signs are for people not familiar with the area.

Not always. They also help confirm that you're taking the correct exit, etc. Just this morning, I was heading south on I-355 approaching I-55 southwest of Chicago. I forgot that the ramp order is backwards - the ramp to go "left" to North I-55 is before the one to go "right" to South I-55. I was cruising along in the right lane when all of a sudden seeing St. Louis on one sign and Chicago on the other made me realize I was about to take the wrong exit. I was familiar with the area but had forgotten (given it's once a year or so that I'm at that interchange) about the ramp order issue.

I'm talking about MUTCD guidelines.

[motorways]

Again you are missing the point. The signs are for people not familiar with the area.

Not always. They also help confirm that you're taking the correct exit, etc. Just this morning, I was heading south on I-355 approaching I-55 southwest of Chicago. I forgot that the ramp order is backwards - the ramp to go "left" to North I-55 is before the one to go "right" to South I-55. I was cruising along in the right lane when all of a sudden seeing St. Louis on one sign and Chicago on the other made me realize I was about to take the wrong exit. I was familiar with the area but had forgotten (given it's once a year or so that I'm at that interchange) about the ramp order issue.

I'm talking about MUTCD guidelines.

Good thing they're only guidelines and not commandments.

[ran4sh]

Some of the above ideas suggest to me that you have not actually read the MUTCD.

For example: "In either case, signing the destination of both spurs or mainline vs extension as New York or Manhattan ..."

This would be an MUTCD violation. It specifically bans using the same destination for different routes from the same point.

An MUTCD-compliant sign would indicate a destination such as New York or Lincoln Tunnel for the Turnpike east branch and a different destination for the west branch (I suggest New Haven but many on here disagree).

[Alps]

Some of the above ideas suggest to me that you have not actually read the MUTCD.

For example: "In either case, signing the destination of both spurs or mainline vs extension as New York or Manhattan ..."

This would be an MUTCD violation. It specifically bans using the same destination for different routes from the same point.

An MUTCD-compliant sign would indicate a destination such as New York or Lincoln Tunnel for the Turnpike east branch and a different destination for the west branch (I suggest New Haven but many on here disagree).

The MUTCD does not cover the case of a split roadway that then rejoins. I think you should reread the part about the meanings of Standard, Guidance, Option, Support, and the application of the MUTCD using engineering judgment.

[roadman65]

Actually it is common for many US routes and interstates side by side to sign the same places from one intersection.  Darien, GA has Savannah signed on US 17 North and to the connector roadway to I-95.   VA Beach on Laskin Road had both Norfolk signed for local US 58 and for former
Tolled VA 44 at the split for both routes and near Charleston, SC on US 58 & 78 you have that city signed at a split for the I-26 Connector, though its says (or said in 2009 anyway) Via Freeway for the interstate to give one a choice.

Rocky Mount, NC still has Richmond signed on US 301 N Bound and for NC 4 N Bound at the wye split of both roads.

[sprjus4]

VA Beach on Laskin Road had both Norfolk signed for local US 58 and for former Tolled VA 44 at the split for both routes

Actually, it still remains today and was carbon-copied from the old sign when replaced about a decade ago.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8441527,-76.038274,3a,45.8y,263.37h,86.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stgAB4OUawn2se1vk_0DASg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

[famartin]

Another one: VA 123 at VA 267

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9260374,-77.2066568,3a,75y,56.97h,85.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYHRt1dY2U3DyhLH8Kg8oOA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[ran4sh]

Some of the above ideas suggest to me that you have not actually read the MUTCD.

For example: "In either case, signing the destination of both spurs or mainline vs extension as New York or Manhattan ..."

This would be an MUTCD violation. It specifically bans using the same destination for different routes from the same point.

An MUTCD-compliant sign would indicate a destination such as New York or Lincoln Tunnel for the Turnpike east branch and a different destination for the west branch (I suggest New Haven but many on here disagree).

The MUTCD does not cover the case of a split roadway that then rejoins. I think you should reread the part about the meanings of Standard, Guidance, Option, Support, and the application of the MUTCD using engineering judgment.

The above user seemed to be referring to more than just the east/west split of the Turnpike mainline, but also to the idea of signing "New York" or "Manhattan" at the I-95/I-78 interchange ("mainline vs extension" of the Turnpike) for both I-95/mainline Turnpike north as well as I-78/Turnpike extension east. That would be a case where, clearly, the MUTCD prohibition applies.

In any case it is my opinion that it applies to the east/west split too, especially considering that the current signage directs Lincoln Tunnel traffic to the east branch and G.Washington Bridge traffic to the west, despite both of them having access to the G. Washington Bridge.

[ran4sh]

Another one: VA 123 at VA 267

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9260374,-77.2066568,3a,75y,56.97h,85.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYHRt1dY2U3DyhLH8Kg8oOA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This one is tricky because the intent is to give traffic a non-toll route to Washington during the times when I-66 is subject to toll. Those signs are already complicated enough as is.

[roadman65]

Newark Airport uses New York City for I-78 East along with Holland Tunnel that NJDOT also kept at the Express and Local split.

At one time the PANYNJ used it to give arriving passengers a choice leaving the Airport of the Skyway verses Turnpike.  That might of changed during the lengthy Skyway rehabilitation and not be featured anymore.

Edit:  Yes New York removed from Routes 1 & 9 exit from EWR. Modified for Turnpike only.

https://goo.gl/maps/bSqDDXkL7ofryzkh6

[1995hoo]

Another one: VA 123 at VA 267

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9260374,-77.2066568,3a,75y,56.97h,85.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYHRt1dY2U3DyhLH8Kg8oOA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This one is tricky because the intent is to give traffic a non-toll route to Washington during the times when I-66 is subject to toll. Those signs are already complicated enough as is.

Plus, in the days prior to the HO/T era, they needed to give a route that wasn't subject to HOV restrictions. For many years a sign on eastbound I-66 prior to the Beltway said to use Exit 64 to get to Washington via Route 50 (it used those words, "VIA ROUTE 50," rather than a shield). In that case it was also because of trucks being banned from I-66 inside the Beltway, although Route 50 is subject to an 8-ton gross vehicle weight limit.

[lstone19]

In any case it is my opinion that it applies to the east/west split too, especially considering that the current signage directs Lincoln Tunnel traffic to the east branch and G.Washington Bridge traffic to the west, despite both of them having access to the G. Washington Bridge.

There are always lots of ways to get somewhere - you pick the best (for some definition of best) and sign that way. It appears to me that the NJT directs traffic to/from the GWB to the western route for a couple of reasons: load balancing (Lincoln Tunnel traffic on the east route, GWB traffic on the west route) and to provide separation of the two major traffic flows at the north end. The roadway design at the north end (Lombardi Service Area to the I-80 junction) is such that the two major flows there - Turnpike (Newark and south) to/from the GWB and Lincoln Tunnel to/from I-80 - never share any roadway. But with their changeable signs, if circumstances require, the Turnpike to/from GWB traffic can be sent to the east roadway.

[roadman65]

https://goo.gl/maps/EzvZgEHrhVpAUnYu5

See NB I-95 & NJ Turnpike get no control city from I-78.

[famartin]

https://goo.gl/maps/EzvZgEHrhVpAUnYu5

See NB I-95 & NJ Turnpike get no control city from I-78.

The opposite direction.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7037401,-74.1444273,3a,75y,305.2h,85.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3Y5lNv7SXptL-zDMLgglxQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[ixnay]

Shore Points might make sense as a destination but isn't a valid destination as per the MUTCD. Needs to be a place name like Cape May or Atlantic City.

And NY does follow the MUTCD.  Hence the Mario Cuomo Bridge on the Thruway.  Or Eastern LI on the LIE in Queens still.  Or New Jersey on some signs on Staten Island for the Goethals Bridge.

You make a valid point roadman65. NYSDOT has been just as non-compliant as New Jersey in past years. But they are slowly coming into compliance. In the NYC area, we're seeing Borough names replacing or supplementing bridge and tunnel names as destinations. And some approaches to the Geo. Washington Br. now read Newark, NJ instead of GWB.

Also I don't personally oppose using traditional destinations on the signs. I just point out as a factual matter that some types of destinations are non-compliant. I actually think some loosening and flexibility should be written into the MUTCD standards on this subject.

Although I do see the importance of standardization of road signs in general, I do think that the one-size-fits-all approach does a disservice to NYC area motorists. I do believe that the names of crossings should be used as destinations rather than only cities (1) to reduce ambiguity (given that multiple nearby routes may lead to the same borough or other control city); (2) to provide more precise information about the destination as making the crossing also in effect gives information about exactly where in a large borough the road leads given that neighborhood names such as Midtown Manhattan or Tottenville, SI are also not kosher to sign; (3) to explicitly recognize the presence of what often represents a major bottleneck in the route as well as a not-insignificant toll expense; and (4) to aid in route planning, as current traffic conditions often plays into the decision of which crossing to use to get to a common destination. In other words, merely implying (at best, in many cases) the presence of a crossing is to omit material information that would benefit motorists to know. This may not be the case in other metro areas such as Chicago or LA where such fixed bottlenecks (and attendant decision making challenges) don't exist.

Also, I know that this is of course not a compelling argument but merely a point of personal preference, but I am really disappointed at the loss of the NJ Turnpike's unique signage practices. The squiggly arrows and outsized exit numbers really gave the road a unique visual identity and, in the case of the latter, likely contributed significantly to the very NJ culture of identifying by exit number. I doubt my father – definitely not a road geek – would have crafted his mental map of NJ based on what the nearest Turnpike exit was were it not for those large exit signs. Now the Turnpike is starting to feel like just another highway. Ditto also for NJDOT losing the black shield background on BGSs – it was such a fun and inoffensive visual hallmark of NJ signage that gave the state some character of its own. Now it's just another white-circle in the crowd.

Is the Garden State's "exit number" mentality" exclusive to the Turnpike, or are the exit numbers on the GSP, ACX, the non-tolled interstates, and NJ 55 "borrowed" in the same context as well?

While you chew on that, I'll apply it to my stepsister and her husband.  For 20+ years they lived at the Shore, or precisely, just west of it, before moving to the Southeast US. 

-  When they lived in Toms River, you might say they lived at GSP Exit 82 (NJ 37).
-  When they lived in Mays Landing, you might say lived at ACX Exit 17 (NJ 50; actually they lived a few miles away just off County 559).
-  And when they lived in Absecon, the case could be made that they lived at ACX Exit 9 (County 646) or GSP Exit 40 (US 30*; they lived just off County 651).

But they never though of themselves as living "at an exit" when they lived in New Jersey.

*Exit 40 is southbound only (unless if you're northbound, you pick your way through the Atlantic Service Plaza until you're heading sb, then get off at Exit 40).

ixnay

[jeffandnicole]

Is the Garden State's "exit number" mentality" exclusive to the Turnpike, or are the exit numbers on the GSP, ACX, the non-tolled interstates, and NJ 55 "borrowed" in the same context as well?

It's mainly attributed to the NJ Turnpike.  For the Parkway, there's a certain attachment to Exit 0 for Cape May, but very little Exit number attachment elsewhere. 

[lstone19]

Growing up in New Jersey, I never understood the "what exit" thinking. We lived far too away from the Turnpike (I-78 at the far western edge of Union County) for it to have much meaning and it was different NB or SB - Exit 14 SB but Exit 11 (or maybe 10) NB (no obvious good way to/from the south where we lived - it was go 10 miles east to the GSP, 10 miles west to I-287, or a slow slog on suburban streets to shorten the miles but not time to either one).

[PHLBOS]

https://goo.gl/maps/EzvZgEHrhVpAUnYu5

See NB I-95 & NJ Turnpike get no control city from I-78.

The opposite direction.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7037401,-74.1444273,3a,75y,305.2h,85.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3Y5lNv7SXptL-zDMLgglxQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

The above's just another example of inconsistency with some recent NJTP signage with regards to control cities/points.  IMHO, Fort Lee and/or George Washington* Bridge would be suitable northbound I-95/NJTP control points.

*or appropriate/applicable abbreviation

As far as the MUTCD is concerned; just revise the term control city to control point in the manual.

Problem solved.

[ixnay]

Newark Airport uses New York City for I-78 East along with Holland Tunnel that NJDOT also kept at the Express and Local split.

At one time the PANYNJ used it to give arriving passengers a choice leaving the Airport of the Skyway verses Turnpike.  That might of changed during the lengthy Skyway rehabilitation and not be featured anymore.

Edit:  Yes New York removed from Routes 1 & 9 exit from EWR. Modified for Turnpike only.

https://goo.gl/maps/bSqDDXkL7ofryzkh6

The power of the NJTA strikes again...

ixnay