I-95 through the Meadowlands

[NJ]

I've driven through NYC many times via the GW Bridge and never thought it difficult to navigate. I-95 is a good enough cue that "you take this route if you're going to New England." Maybe I overestimate the intelligence of people.

In any event, I agree that signing "New Haven" would be a good practice for the GW, if you must sign a city.

I like New England on signage, includes all of them.

[The Nature Boy]

I've driven through NYC many times via the GW Bridge and never thought it difficult to navigate. I-95 is a good enough cue that "you take this route if you're going to New England." Maybe I overestimate the intelligence of people.

In any event, I agree that signing "New Haven" would be a good practice for the GW, if you must sign a city.

I like New England on signage, includes all of them.

I hate region wide control cities. New England is everything from Greenwich, CT to Houlton, ME. It's almost like signing "The South" as a control city in Maryland.

I live in New England but I'm 6 (maybe even 7) hours from any part of the NJ Turnpike. Go to Houlton and you're 10 hrs away.

[NJ]

I've driven through NYC many times via the GW Bridge and never thought it difficult to navigate. I-95 is a good enough cue that "you take this route if you're going to New England." Maybe I overestimate the intelligence of people.

In any event, I agree that signing "New Haven" would be a good practice for the GW, if you must sign a city.

I like New England on signage, includes all of them.

I hate region wide control cities. New England is everything from Greenwich, CT to Houlton, ME. It's almost like signing "The South" as a control city in Maryland.

I live in New England but I'm 6 (maybe even 7) hours from any part of the NJ Turnpike. Go to Houlton and you're 10 hrs away.

True that New England is huge area, but there will be control cities once you enter NY state. I like control cities as well, but sometimes state or region can work fine at times depending on the situation. I want to see Miami, DC, Atlanta on miles distance on the Turnpike, it would be nice.

[Pete from Boston]

Eschewing control regions is based on an assumption that very specific destinations are somehow better than general ones.  Sometimes, particularly in a cluttered region like the Northeast, it is helpful to paint with a broader brush.

[dgolub]

Eschewing control regions is based on an assumption that very specific destinations are somehow better than general ones.  Sometimes, particularly in a cluttered region like the Northeast, it is helpful to paint with a broader brush.

Especially since you often don't see signage for major cities that people are more likely to be going to.  For example, when you come off the Throgs Neck Bridge (I-295) from Long Island, you see signage for I-95 north to New Haven or south to Newark.  I'd say it's a safe bet that there are more people interested in going to Boston or Philadelphia that New Haven or Newark.  Yet you don't see any signage for Boston until you're up by Providence (or Hartford, if you go via I-84) or for Philadelphia until you're at the turnpike exit where you're going to be getting off.

[Zeffy]

Especially since you often don't see signage for major cities that people are more likely to be going to.  For example, when you come off the Throgs Neck Bridge (I-295) from Long Island, you see signage for I-95 north to New Haven or south to Newark.  I'd say it's a safe bet that there are more people interested in going to Boston or Philadelphia that New Haven or Newark.  Yet you don't see any signage for Boston until you're up by Providence (or Hartford, if you go via I-84) or for Philadelphia until you're at the turnpike exit where you're going to be getting off.

So we should forget smaller cities and just go for what Petersburg, VA does instead?

[The Nature Boy]

Eschewing control regions is based on an assumption that very specific destinations are somehow better than general ones.  Sometimes, particularly in a cluttered region like the Northeast, it is helpful to paint with a broader brush.

I disagree. I think that you should only sign a control destination if that route is the best way to any point in that destination. Taking the GW Bridge is not the best way to get to some parts of New England. If I'm a Burlington, Vermont or maybe even Berkshire bound traveler, seeing "New England" as the control destination on the Turnpike would be confusing and would result in me taking a route that would not be the most efficient. Burlington bound traffic should take the Tappan Zee and connect with I-87 that way. I realize that Burlington bound traffic might be small (but maybe not as small as you might think) but I don't think that control city signage should ignore a portion of people going to a destination just to please the majority. I think that signing "New Haven" or maybe even "New Haven CT" would be sufficient.

It's the same reason that I hate "All Maine Points" as a control city in New Hampshire, it tells me virtually nothing about where I'm going and ignores the parts of the state that I-95 would not be the most efficient way to get there.

[roadman65]

Sometimes the regions are important if that route does serve all regions.  Shore Points on the Garden State Parkway is fine as the Parkway serves em all, but for I-195 it is not a good candidate for that one.

New England on I-287 approaching the NY State Line has you directed to take I-87 North to I-84.  However if you are going to Greenwich, Stamford, or even Providence, I-84 does not help. Then if you are going to Vermont, I-84 does NOT do anything at all for you.  NJDOT should remove those signs as you travel past Oakland on I-287 as that is so confusing.

[Pete from Boston]

Eschewing control regions is based on an assumption that very specific destinations are somehow better than general ones.  Sometimes, particularly in a cluttered region like the Northeast, it is helpful to paint with a broader brush.

I disagree. I think that you should only sign a control destination if that route is the best way to any point in that destination. Taking the GW Bridge is not the best way to get to some parts of New England. If I'm a Burlington, Vermont or maybe even Berkshire bound traveler, seeing "New England" as the control destination on the Turnpike would be confusing and would result in me taking a route that would not be the most efficient. Burlington bound traffic should take the Tappan Zee and connect with I-87 that way. I realize that Burlington bound traffic might be small (but maybe not as small as you might think) but I don't think that control city signage should ignore a portion of people going to a destination just to please the majority. I think that signing "New Haven" or maybe even "New Haven CT" would be sufficient.

It's the same reason that I hate "All Maine Points" as a control city in New Hampshire, it tells me virtually nothing about where I'm going and ignores the parts of the state that I-95 would not be the most efficient way to get there.

The traveler reading "New England" must gather more info than the sign provides.

The traveler going to someplace that is not New Haven must gather more info than the sign provides. 

My point is that there is an enforced illusion that a specific control city is necessarily useful for travelers without anything else to go on.  This is about as true for general destinations as it is specific ones; i.e. only sometimes.

[jeffandnicole]

There's a reason why they're called "guide" signs, not "we're going to get you to your exact location" signs.

[Don'tKnowYet]

I've driven through NYC many times via the GW Bridge and never thought it difficult to navigate. I-95 is a good enough cue that "you take this route if you're going to New England." Maybe I overestimate the intelligence of people.

In any event, I agree that signing "New Haven" would be a good practice for the GW, if you must sign a city.

I like New England on signage, includes all of them.

I hate region wide control cities. New England is everything from Greenwich, CT to Houlton, ME. It's almost like signing "The South" as a control city in Maryland.

I live in New England but I'm 6 (maybe even 7) hours from any part of the NJ Turnpike. Go to Houlton and you're 10 hrs away.

Or heading west out of Chicago and it says "Suburbs".

[roadman65]

Is the "New England" on I-287 in NJ really guiding people to the region?  Remember I-84 just serves Central Connecticut and Eastern Mass via I-90.  If anyone going, lets say to Pittsfield, MA would not be effected by this particular sign (or signs as I believe NJDOT has two erected) as that is located out of range on the suggested routing.  Going from Mahwah to Pittsfield would be best served by taking I-87 north to the Berkshire Extension East into I-90!

If you are going to Cape Cod, where most tourists go, staying on I-287 into I-95 is  the way unless you take substandard US 6 east from I-84 at Hartford, which I doubt is as good as using I-287 N to I-95 N to I-195 E.

Regions are goo as long as the road serves a great deal of it or is near the entry to the region.  Like on I-70 now in St. Louis, where "Illinois" is used after you enter St. Louis.  Even though it does not help for the part of the state around its NW part or the Quad Cities area, it still goes across the River into Illinois leaving that state.

Same with Pocono Mountains on US 22 at the PA 33 interchange (if PennDOT still has the signs there) using it in addition to Stroudsburg.  PA 33 heads right into the region even if the western part was served already by the NE Extension which at the point would not be seen by those wishing to go there.

[The Nature Boy]

Eschewing control regions is based on an assumption that very specific destinations are somehow better than general ones.  Sometimes, particularly in a cluttered region like the Northeast, it is helpful to paint with a broader brush.

I disagree. I think that you should only sign a control destination if that route is the best way to any point in that destination. Taking the GW Bridge is not the best way to get to some parts of New England. If I'm a Burlington, Vermont or maybe even Berkshire bound traveler, seeing "New England" as the control destination on the Turnpike would be confusing and would result in me taking a route that would not be the most efficient. Burlington bound traffic should take the Tappan Zee and connect with I-87 that way. I realize that Burlington bound traffic might be small (but maybe not as small as you might think) but I don't think that control city signage should ignore a portion of people going to a destination just to please the majority. I think that signing "New Haven" or maybe even "New Haven CT" would be sufficient.

It's the same reason that I hate "All Maine Points" as a control city in New Hampshire, it tells me virtually nothing about where I'm going and ignores the parts of the state that I-95 would not be the most efficient way to get there.

The traveler reading "New England" must gather more info than the sign provides.

The traveler going to someplace that is not New Haven must gather more info than the sign provides. 

My point is that there is an enforced illusion that a specific control city is necessarily useful for travelers without anything else to go on.  This is about as true for general destinations as it is specific ones; i.e. only sometimes.

That's why I'd be a fan of signing it as "New Haven CT." Someone going to Boston would surely know that Connecticut is on the way and that if you go towards CT, you going in the right direction. I see control cities as helpful if you know points along the way in your trip. Likewise, if I'm going to Burlington and I see "New Haven CT," I know that I'm not going through Connecticut to get to Vermont so I know that the GW Bridge isn't for me.

If you sign "New England" though, that Vermont bound person could possibly think that the GW is a good way to go because he is going to New England.  There is also the possibility that I-287 leads to a better entry point for New England, if only because it allows you to bypass the GW and driving through New York City altogether. I've taken both the Tappan Zee and the GW and they both work perfectly fine for New England bound traffic.

You could also pull a Maryland and Virginia DOTs and just sign "Boston" in New Jersey, as they do with New York. If you REALLY want to direct eastern New England bound traffic over the GW, that is.

There's a reason why they're called "guide" signs, not "we're going to get you to your exact location" signs.

Exactly and they're useless as guide signs if they provide misleading information.

[jeffandnicole]

It's not misleading. It's just not very specific.

[NJ]

NJDOT told me that they can only include cities for the neighbor border states only. For example you cannot include any signage for Boston because MA does not border NJ. Not sure why they cannot do this. Once I emailed them to include Montreal below Albany but was told that Montreal/Canada does not border NJ.

Eschewing control regions is based on an assumption that very specific destinations are somehow better than general ones.  Sometimes, particularly in a cluttered region like the Northeast, it is helpful to paint with a broader brush.

I disagree. I think that you should only sign a control destination if that route is the best way to any point in that destination. Taking the GW Bridge is not the best way to get to some parts of New England. If I'm a Burlington, Vermont or maybe even Berkshire bound traveler, seeing "New England" as the control destination on the Turnpike would be confusing and would result in me taking a route that would not be the most efficient. Burlington bound traffic should take the Tappan Zee and connect with I-87 that way. I realize that Burlington bound traffic might be small (but maybe not as small as you might think) but I don't think that control city signage should ignore a portion of people going to a destination just to please the majority. I think that signing "New Haven" or maybe even "New Haven CT" would be sufficient.

It's the same reason that I hate "All Maine Points" as a control city in New Hampshire, it tells me virtually nothing about where I'm going and ignores the parts of the state that I-95 would not be the most efficient way to get there.

The traveler reading "New England" must gather more info than the sign provides.

The traveler going to someplace that is not New Haven must gather more info than the sign provides. 

My point is that there is an enforced illusion that a specific control city is necessarily useful for travelers without anything else to go on.  This is about as true for general destinations as it is specific ones; i.e. only sometimes.

That's why I'd be a fan of signing it as "New Haven CT." Someone going to Boston would surely know that Connecticut is on the way and that if you go towards CT, you going in the right direction. I see control cities as helpful if you know points along the way in your trip. Likewise, if I'm going to Burlington and I see "New Haven CT," I know that I'm not going through Connecticut to get to Vermont so I know that the GW Bridge isn't for me.

If you sign "New England" though, that Vermont bound person could possibly think that the GW is a good way to go because he is going to New England.  There is also the possibility that I-287 leads to a better entry point for New England, if only because it allows you to bypass the GW and driving through New York City altogether. I've taken both the Tappan Zee and the GW and they both work perfectly fine for New England bound traffic.

You could also pull a Maryland and Virginia DOTs and just sign "Boston" in New Jersey, as they do with New York. If you REALLY want to direct eastern New England bound traffic over the GW, that is.

There's a reason why they're called "guide" signs, not "we're going to get you to your exact location" signs.

Exactly and they're useless as guide signs if they provide misleading information.

[roadman65]

That's dumb as NJ could sign Pittsburgh over Baltimore anytime even though the former is farther than the latter only because PA's border's extend far beyond Delaware's. 

If memory serves me old NJT signs did use New England at US 46 back in the 70's for the pull though sign going NB as a destination for the GWB.

[jeffandnicole]

The control city should be useful. The chances of someone in New Jersey driving to Montreal is about the same as Christie's chances of being elected POTUS.

Albany probably isn't all that great either, but there aren't exactly a slew of upstate  NY cities to choose from.

[ixnay]

That's dumb as NJ could sign Pittsburgh over Baltimore anytime even though the former is farther than the latter only because PA's border's extend far beyond Delaware's. 

If memory serves me old NJT signs did use New England at US 46 back in the 70's for the pull though sign going NB as a destination for the GWB.

And then there was this sign still hanging over all who come off NJ 495 WB in Oct. 2012 (has it been replaced?)...

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7791825,-74.0495224,3a,75y,289.71h,82.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJ_yCNnFzdF7FtuZkO2tF_w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DJ_yCNnFzdF7FtuZkO2tF_w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D69.586075%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656

ixnay

[NJ]

The control city should be useful. The chances of someone in New Jersey driving to Montreal is about the same as Christie's chances of being elected POTUS.

Albany probably isn't all that great either, but there aren't exactly a slew of upstate  NY cities to choose from.

Many people from New Jersey actually visit Quebec and Ontario as its close proximity. Northern NJ is only about 5 hrs drive from Montreal. Having Montreal and Albany makes sense.

[Pete from Boston]

You could also pull a Maryland and Virginia DOTs and just sign "Boston" in New Jersey, as they do with New York. If you REALLY want to direct eastern New England bound traffic over the GW, that is.

New York is destination of an order of magnitude larger than any city on the East Coast.  It makes sense to give New York special treatment, much as Boston is treated differently within New England.   

The control city should be useful. The chances of someone in New Jersey driving to Montreal is about the same as Christie's chances of being elected POTUS.

Albany probably isn't all that great either, but there aren't exactly a slew of upstate  NY cities to choose from.

Many people from New Jersey actually visit Quebec and Ontario as its close proximity. Northern NJ is only about 5 hrs drive from Montreal. Having Montreal and Albany makes sense.

You misunderstand–it is likely that only a very small portion of northbound travelers on 287 or the Parkway are going to Montréal.  More are likely going to Albany, which is still probably a small percentage.  Far more are likely going to some intermediate point.

I'd bet more folks going northbound on 287 toward Suffern on a typical Saturday are heading just to shop at Woodbury Commons than are driving all the way up 87 to Montréal.

[NJ]

That's dumb as NJ could sign Pittsburgh over Baltimore anytime even though the former is farther than the latter only because PA's border's extend far beyond Delaware's. 

If memory serves me old NJT signs did use New England at US 46 back in the 70's for the pull though sign going NB as a destination for the GWB.

And then there was this sign still hanging over all who come off NJ 495 WB in Oct. 2012 (has it been replaced?)...

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7791825,-74.0495224,3a,75y,289.71h,82.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJ_yCNnFzdF7FtuZkO2tF_w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DJ_yCNnFzdF7FtuZkO2tF_w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D69.586075%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656

ixnay

Yuck that sign is ugly... It should be all capitalized state abbreviations (PA - MD etc)

[roadman65]

The control city should be useful. The chances of someone in New Jersey driving to Montreal is about the same as Christie's chances of being elected POTUS.

Albany probably isn't all that great either, but there aren't exactly a slew of upstate  NY cities to choose from.

Albany is where I-87 and I-90 intersect.  And yes, Albany is not that great yet the NYTA uses it for a control city the moment the toll road enters Buffalo from the west when you have both Rochester and Syracuse that are much more populated than the State Capital and of course Syracuse is where another two digit interstate intersects.

For the Parkway, I am surprised that they came up with using Albany, as being that the terminus has two lanes going SB and only one going NB, it would be more likely to use a point to the south on the Thruway.  However, that's going back to NYC, so I guess they had no choice but to use Albany.

They could also use Newburgh, but then that would confuse many motorists as the nearby PIP and US 9W go there, and its just as good as route as the toll road.  Every time I went there, I would use the Thruway SB to the PIP NB to US 9W.  At that time there were no lights on US 9W south of Newburgh, but even if some were added, still it is another good way to go.

Back to topic, yes control cities are very tough to choose from, and in some cases could be too broad, too specific, and even redundant like CFX here uses in Florida for WB FL 414 which uses Apopka on US 441 which is a road that serves that city as much as FL 414 and maybe even more as US 441 is its downtown area, as 414 bypasses the center.

[NJ]

Albany is NY States capital and the center/midpoint of the state so it makes sense actually.

The control city should be useful. The chances of someone in New Jersey driving to Montreal is about the same as Christie's chances of being elected POTUS.

Albany probably isn't all that great either, but there aren't exactly a slew of upstate  NY cities to choose from.

Albany is where I-87 and I-90 intersect.  And yes, Albany is not that great yet the NYTA uses it for a control city the moment the toll road enters Buffalo from the west when you have both Rochester and Syracuse that are much more populated than the State Capital and of course Syracuse is where another two digit interstate intersects.

For the Parkway, I am surprised that they came up with using Albany, as being that the terminus has two lanes going SB and only one going NB, it would be more likely to use a point to the south on the Thruway.  However, that's going back to NYC, so I guess they had no choice but to use Albany.

They could also use Newburgh, but then that would confuse many motorists as the nearby PIP and US 9W go there, and its just as good as route as the toll road.  Every time I went there, I would use the Thruway SB to the PIP NB to US 9W.  At that time there were no lights on US 9W south of Newburgh, but even if some were added, still it is another good way to go.

Back to topic, yes control cities are very tough to choose from, and in some cases could be too broad, too specific, and even redundant like CFX here uses in Florida for WB FL 414 which uses Apopka on US 441 which is a road that serves that city as much as FL 414 and maybe even more as US 441 is its downtown area, as 414 bypasses the center.

[dgolub]

Especially since you often don't see signage for major cities that people are more likely to be going to.  For example, when you come off the Throgs Neck Bridge (I-295) from Long Island, you see signage for I-95 north to New Haven or south to Newark.  I'd say it's a safe bet that there are more people interested in going to Boston or Philadelphia that New Haven or Newark.  Yet you don't see any signage for Boston until you're up by Providence (or Hartford, if you go via I-84) or for Philadelphia until you're at the turnpike exit where you're going to be getting off.

So we should forget smaller cities and just go for what Petersburg, VA does instead?

You could list two control cities.  Once you get past New Haven on I-95, there are at least some signs that show both New London and Providence.  Why not do something like that?

[shadyjay]

I believe the MUTCD is against two control cities on pullthroughs.  At the present time I can think of two signs on I-95 in CT that list control cities, NB... at Exit 70 and at Exit 76, both times displaying New London/Providence.  The control city in New Haven used to be Providence but was changed to New London.  There may be one sign that still has Providence as the sole control city in New Haven, but its on borrowed time (part of the I-95/I-91/Rt34 interchange reconstruction). 

I still miss seeing New England and Upstate being used as control cities.  Damn you, MUTCD!!!