News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Control cities - is there an official list?

Started by mvexel, July 31, 2015, 10:37:07 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

mvexel

Hey all,
I am wondering if there is an official list of control cities for Canadian highways - either per province or federal? Are they even called control cities officially? (I am from the U.S.)
Thanks!
Martijn


SignGeek101

#1
Hello Martijn,

Like the US, Canada does use control cities as well as directional banners (north, south, east, west) on signs. They are used similarly to the US, but each province differs slightly. Unlike the US however, I don't think there is an official list (I could be wrong), and the reason is below.

The only road in Canada that could be considered federal would be the Trans-Canada, but that is almost completely maintained (and signed) by the provinces, with the exception of national parks, which are signed by Parks Canada, and border crossings. Each province has their own laws and style of signs. For example, below is an example from

Ontario: https://goo.gl/maps/NwB5a

Quebec: https://goo.gl/maps/EYmU6

BC: https://goo.gl/maps/qBxsL (notice the APL)

SK: https://goo.gl/maps/W2ZNn

Because of these vast differences in signing practices, there is no official list of control cities, as there is little federal influence on the signing.

Dr Frankenstein

There is no federal list of control cities, as there is no federal numbering scheme for the highways anyway (unlike the Interstate and U.S. highways). Even the Trans-Canada switches numbers at some province lines.

Transportfan

#3
It not only changes numbers in the Eastern provinces, but in Quebec changes numbers within the province as it piggybacks over various provincial highways en route. Then there are the branch routes which also follow different highways which hardly anyone sees as a single highway corridor.


PS: How do I post images here? I can't upload them from my hard drive directly. 

Alps

Quote from: Transportfan on August 13, 2015, 10:34:08 PM
It not only changes numbers in the Eastern provinces, but in Quebec changes numbers within the province as it piggybacks over various provincial highways en route. Then there are the branch routes which also follow different highways which hardly anyone sees as a single highway corridor.


PS: How do I post images here? I can't upload them from my hard drive directly. 
Quebec seems very reluctant to do anything in coordination with the rest of Canada. Given that the TCH is now on freeway the whole way (pending 85's completion), the whole thing should be numbered A-20. Switch whatever other numbers need to be switched: flip 85 and 20 at the east end, adjust 10 to follow 20 west of the river (and make the boulevard spur A-510), and make the east shore A-20 into a 420 or other x20. A-720 would become A-710 as well.

SignGeek101

#5
Quote from: Transportfan on August 13, 2015, 10:34:08 PM
PS: How do I post images here? I can't upload them from my hard drive directly.

First, upload the image to a photo website (like imgur, flikr, or photobucket). Then, follow the instructions below.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15621.msg2067121#msg2067121

Quote from: Alps on August 14, 2015, 06:05:47 PM
Quote from: Transportfan on August 13, 2015, 10:34:08 PM
It not only changes numbers in the Eastern provinces, but in Quebec changes numbers within the province as it piggybacks over various provincial highways en route. Then there are the branch routes which also follow different highways which hardly anyone sees as a single highway corridor.

Quebec seems very reluctant to do anything in coordination with the rest of Canada. Given that the TCH is now on freeway the whole way (pending 85's completion), the whole thing should be numbered A-20. Switch whatever other numbers need to be switched: flip 85 and 20 at the east end, adjust 10 to follow 20 west of the river (and make the boulevard spur A-510), and make the east shore A-20 into a 420 or other x20. A-720 would become A-710 as well.

I always supported all of Canada using one number and type of shield like the Interstate system. Ontario doesn't even sign the Trans-Canada on BGS's I don't think. Change the eastern provinces to Trans-Canada with the number '1' like the west, and have the whole country use the same shield design. The other routes (ON 11, 69 etc) should have the Trans-Canada designation, but an alternate number (again, like the Interstates). They would still be maintained by the provinces, and wouldn't necessarily have to be freeway coast to coast (which most of it isn't).

Alps

Quote from: SignGeek101 on August 14, 2015, 07:15:30 PM
Quote from: Transportfan on August 13, 2015, 10:34:08 PM
PS: How do I post images here? I can't upload them from my hard drive directly.

First, upload the image to a photo website (like imgur, flikr, or photobucket). Then, follow the instructions below.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15621.msg2067121#msg2067121

Quote from: Alps on August 14, 2015, 06:05:47 PM
Quote from: Transportfan on August 13, 2015, 10:34:08 PM
It not only changes numbers in the Eastern provinces, but in Quebec changes numbers within the province as it piggybacks over various provincial highways en route. Then there are the branch routes which also follow different highways which hardly anyone sees as a single highway corridor.

Quebec seems very reluctant to do anything in coordination with the rest of Canada. Given that the TCH is now on freeway the whole way (pending 85's completion), the whole thing should be numbered A-20. Switch whatever other numbers need to be switched: flip 85 and 20 at the east end, adjust 10 to follow 20 west of the river (and make the boulevard spur A-510), and make the east shore A-20 into a 420 or other x20. A-720 would become A-710 as well.

I always supported all of Canada using one number and type of shield like the Interstate system. Ontario doesn't even sign the Trans-Canada on BGS's I don't think. Change the eastern provinces to Trans-Canada with the number '1' like the west, and have the whole country use the same shield design. The other routes (ON 11, 69 etc) should have the Trans-Canada designation, but an alternate number (again, like the Interstates). They would still be maintained by the provinces, and wouldn't necessarily have to be freeway coast to coast (which most of it isn't).
Oops, meant to help you out with the image-sharing part. Anyway, I don't actually support the "1" designation. While the western provinces built around it, Ontario's numbering puts 4xx on its freeways, Quebec's numbering mirrors the USA as far as odd/even, New Brunswick would have to swap 1 and 2 (or renumber 1 to something else - no matter what, confusing), and Nova Scotia uses the 1xx series on its freeways. I think the TCH shield is enough, not to mention that once you get east of the Great Lakes there are many connectivity options of about equal status.

Transportfan

#7
QuoteAnyway, I don't actually support the "1" designation. While the western provinces built around it, Ontario's numbering puts 4xx on its freeways, Quebec's numbering mirrors the USA as far as odd/even, New Brunswick would have to swap 1 and 2 (or renumber 1 to something else - no matter what, confusing), and Nova Scotia uses the 1xx series on its freeways. I think the TCH shield is enough, not to mention that once you get east of the Great Lakes there are many connectivity options of about equal status.

Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia having special numbering systems for freeways isn't a good reason not to use the number 1. They could easily make an exception for the TCH. New Brunswick could switch the numbers. Alberta did.

Alternately, TCH 1 could be multiplexed, like this pic taken by Oscar that I modified:



NORD=North, OUEST=West.

Alps

Quote from: Transportfan on August 15, 2015, 01:36:59 AM

Alternately, TCH 1 could be multiplexed, like this pic taken by Oscar that I modified:



NORD=North, OUEST=West.

Or just use the numberless shield like QC does now.

Transportfan

QuoteOr just use the numberless shield like QC does now.

But keeping the numberless shields doesn't give the TCH the unified single national highway identity that was the point of my post. For a roadgeek who is keenly aware of flaws in highway systems and signage, judging by your site, your opinion on this seems rather odd.

SignGeek101

Quote from: Alps on August 15, 2015, 04:28:13 PM
Quote from: Transportfan on August 15, 2015, 01:36:59 AM

Alternately, TCH 1 could be multiplexed, like this pic taken by Oscar that I modified:



NORD=North, OUEST=West.

Or just use the numberless shield like QC does now.

I think many Canadians (that care about roads) would like some kind of limited federal highway system. Unity between provinces is part of that. Unity means having the same number coast to coast. The US has US hwy's and interstates, why can't Canada have something, even if it's a single highway?

There's nothing wrong with what's there now, but it doesn't feel "connected" between provinces enough I think. Currently, the Yellowhead is the only Trans-Canada route that stays the same number throughout it's length, and that is undivided highway for most of its length.

Again, it's just my preference. It's more about unity and maybe a little patriotism than actual need.

vdeane

I'm pretty sure the unit is supposed to come from the maple leaf shield, not the number.  The road is typically referred to as the Trans-Canada Highway, not "Route 1" (as is common with US routes and interstates).  US routes and interstates have numbers because they're whole systems.  The TCH is more like a route and its spurs.

Plus Canada is more decentralized than the US is.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

AsphaltPlanet

Personally, I don't know how much stock I put into the need for route continuity for the Trans-Canada Highway in eastern Canada.  Consider the following provincial boundaries:

MB - ON: One highway between the two (I know that MB-391 hits the Ontario boundary as well, but it doesn't connect with anything other than what is presumably a logging road).

ON - QC: A few, but only two major freeways in the southern portion of the province

QC - NB: Three highways, one that is very obviously the TCH, one other major road, and another secondary highway

NB - PEI: One road connection

NB - NS: Despite having a land crossing, there are only two highway connections, one the TCH, the other a minor secondary highway following the north-shore.

I understand that there is an argument for consistent numbering for segments of the TCH across eastern Canada, I'm just not sure the need is really there to do so.
AsphaltPlanet.ca  Youtube -- Opinions expressed reflect the viewpoints of others.

cl94

Quote from: SignGeek101 on August 15, 2015, 10:51:07 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 15, 2015, 04:28:13 PM
Quote from: Transportfan on August 15, 2015, 01:36:59 AM

Alternately, TCH 1 could be multiplexed, like this pic taken by Oscar that I modified:



NORD=North, OUEST=West.

Or just use the numberless shield like QC does now.

I think many Canadians (that care about roads) would like some kind of limited federal highway system. Unity between provinces is part of that. Unity means having the same number coast to coast. The US has US hwy's and interstates, why can't Canada have something, even if it's a single highway?

Honestly, most of Canada doesn't even need limited-access highways. Ontario and Quebec, which have the majority of the population, are well-served. BC and Alberta have them connecting the centers of population plus a spur to I-5. I'd say the TCH should be at least a super 2 for most of its length, but a full-blown freeway, let alone an extensive nationwide system, would be underutilized. Traffic counts probably don't warrant it. Except for 2 somewhat-sizable cities, there's a whole lot of nothing separating Winnipeg and Sudbury and the closest cities to the east remotely similar in size to Winnipeg are Toronto and Ottawa, a good 1500 km away.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

Transportfan

Quote from: vdeane on August 16, 2015, 03:48:40 PM
Plus Canada is more decentralized than the US is.

You hit the nail on the head. Canada is probably the most decentralized country in the world. But the single national route that we do have should have a uniform numeric designation.

vdeane

Quote from: Transportfan on August 17, 2015, 12:26:05 PM
Canada is probably the most decentralized country in the world.
Does Somalia count?
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

cbeach40

There is zero practical benefit to renumbering the TCH routing. If you ask most people, "what's the name of our national highway route?" they will tell you it's the Trans-Canada Highway. The green and white marker tells people everything they need to know or even want to know, completely regardless of what number is on it or next to it.

There is a uniform designation to that route. It's the Trans-Canada Highway. If you're one of the microscopic number of people who are actually trying to follow that route, having an A-20 or Hwy 17 marker next to it is superfluous. Meanwhile, for the actually greater number of people who are utilizing the route in a traditional sense, changing the route number only serves to create additional confusion and/or expense.
and waterrrrrrr!

ghYHZ

I live on the Trans Canada (at least until the Antigonish By-pass is completed next year) Technically this section is Nova Scotia Highway 104 and it along with the 105 and 106 are collectively just called the "Trans Canada"  by everyone.

Heading west.....when I reach Fort Lawrence the highway just continues into New Brunswick. Most wouldn't even notice. It's not like you will have to come off and go looking for NB2. It's still a green & white TCH shield.....only the number in the centre changes and again, most wouldn't notice.

I could just imagine the cost to change signs....let alone addresses and everything else tied to that for no practical reason.

Transportfan

Quote from: ghYHZ on August 17, 2015, 03:32:01 PM
I live on the Trans Canada (at least until the Antigonish By-pass is completed next year)  . 

The bypass was opened two years ago. Are they extending it?

ghYHZ

Quote from: Transportfan on August 18, 2015, 12:06:03 PM
Quote from: ghYHZ on August 17, 2015, 03:32:01 PM
I live on the Trans Canada (at least until the Antigonish By-pass is completed next year)  . 

The bypass was opened two years ago. Are they extending it?

Only Phase I of the By-pass opened in September 2012. Phase 2....extending another 7.5 km to Taylor's Road is scheduled to open in Fall 2016. (I'll have a post with photos on this summer's work shortly)

jakeroot

#20
I'm 99% sure BC has a list of control cities, but I cannot find the list anywhere. I'm very annoyed.

As well, at least in Vancouver, Highway 1 is generally referred to as "Highway 1". Don't hear "TCH" that often.

dcbjms

Quote from: jakeroot on August 20, 2015, 07:47:07 PM
I'm 99% sure BC has a list of control cities, but I cannot find the list anywhere. I'm very annoyed.

It's embedded in its traffic signs manual, in map form.  Page 141, according to the 2000 PDF version (after Figure 4.14 and before the first page of the chapter on School and Pedestrian Signs).

jakeroot

Quote from: dcbjms on November 10, 2015, 05:56:04 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 20, 2015, 07:47:07 PM
I'm 99% sure BC has a list of control cities, but I cannot find the list anywhere. I'm very annoyed.

It's embedded in its traffic signs manual, in map form.  Page 141, according to the 2000 PDF version (after Figure 4.14 and before the first page of the chapter on School and Pedestrian Signs).

Excellent! Thank you. I knew I had seen it before, I just didn't think it would be the manual on traffic signs (although, in retrospect, I can see why it would be):

Here's the Lower Mainland of BC for anyone who still cares:


dmuzika

#23
Quote from: jakeroot on November 10, 2015, 06:18:19 PM
Quote from: dcbjms on November 10, 2015, 05:56:04 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 20, 2015, 07:47:07 PM
I'm 99% sure BC has a list of control cities, but I cannot find the list anywhere. I'm very annoyed.

It's embedded in its traffic signs manual, in map form.  Page 141, according to the 2000 PDF version (after Figure 4.14 and before the first page of the chapter on School and Pedestrian Signs).

Excellent! Thank you. I knew I had seen it before, I just didn't think it would be the manual on traffic signs (although, in retrospect, I can see why it would be):

Here's the Lower Mainland of BC for anyone who still cares:

Interesting that Calgary is considered a control destination, yet there is no mention of Calgary in TCH 1 in BC.

For those who are interested, Alberta has their control cities published in their Highway Guide and Information Sign Manual; see http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType233/Production/Guide_info.pdf and go to the Appendix on page 133.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.