News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Exits with no local exit destination

Started by webny99, June 06, 2018, 11:53:14 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

webny99

Here's a thread to discuss exits where there are no local exit destinations, for one reason or another.
Here's an extreme example in rural North Dakota. But this also occurs quite frequently in suburban areas (at least around here), where a road name is used, but no destination. This tends to irk me in suburban areas  :banghead: (but not urban areas/city centers, where this works perfectly fine for city streets).

What are your thoughts on this? When faced with a choice of road name or a destination on a guide sign, which one would you prefer be included? Or should both be included as SOP, as they are in Maryland? How important is a destination on advance notice signs for exits, and how does this vary from a rural area to an urban one?


Flint1979

Here's a Michigan example, this is on US-23 at Grand Blanc Road. I don't know if they are directing you to Grand Blanc and Rankin (which is part of Mundy Township and not even a village) or Grand Blanc Road which is the name of the road at the exit but this sign is lacking the Road part so I'm assuming they mean this exit goes to Grand Blanc and Rankin.

This is on the SB side https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9203392,-83.7263144,3a,75y,187.27h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stK0mWmGvGbU2ARj-ty1X9w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This is on the NB side
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9092829,-83.7258496,3a,75y,25.75h,86.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svMKlYluHE203GNC3HylV9A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

US 89

#2
In cities and suburban areas, the road name is infinitely more helpful than a destination city. If you put destination cities only on a BGS in a metropolitan area, the next question most drivers will ask is “What street is this exit going to dump me on?” Also, most suburban areas are made up of several cities that have grown together into one big metropolis, and often times the city you just exited the freeway in isn’t the same one your destination is in. And most people don’t really care about knowing exactly where each individual suburb city is, just the general area within the larger metro.

In rural areas, or when there’s only 1 to 3 exits for a particular town, I prefer the city name. The name of the road isn’t going to be all that helpful, especially because it’s usually something generic like “Main Street”.

As for exits with no destination at all, the Utah standard was to label those as “Ranch Exit”, usually with a blue “no services” label. I’m not sure if that’s still done, but there are plenty of old Ranch Exit signs still standing.

jwolfer

I like how Maryland does it with the SR number and street name along with the cities. 

Z981


Flint1979

This one on I-696 has M-1 which is Woodward Avenue and also has the Detroit Zoo on it which is on the NW corner of the I-696 and Woodward interchange.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4761354,-83.1233218,3a,75y,298.85h,87.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU1elQ5BqQp9zfDAmytMF0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This is just a strange exit to me, it has an on ramp as soon as you get off on both sides before even meeting another street and also has different street names on both sides, the one I showed above is WB I-696 and this one is EB I-696 https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4756957,-83.1333961,3a,75y,76.87h,89.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbdwxHure-H2quNJenA1I6A!2e0!7i3328!8i1664

Rothman

I am thinking of the "South Boston" exit on the Pike in Boston, which I do not think is that helpful, but probably necessary due to the tunnel heights.

At the other end of the spectrum you have the "Colonie St Columbia St" exit on I-787, which refers to two dinky streets in Albany; should be "Water St."  I have brought up my dislike of that exit signage a few times before.

The best practice is somewhere between the two.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Brandon

ISTHA almost never uses a destination on exits, preferring road name/route numbers.

Here's a few examples with just the route number (as an extreme):
IL-47 at I-88.
IL-53 at I-88.

They do; however, put a listing of destinations from the exit on a separate sign:
North Avenue (IL-64) at I-355.
IL-59 at I-88.

The interchanges with destinations listed on the big green signs are much fewer, and are as follows:
I-88
US-30, Rock Falls (other side is IDOT maintained)
IL-26, Dixon
IL-251, Rochelle
Annie Glidden Road, DeKalb (both are on the sign)
IL-56, Sugar Grove (it's a freeway)
I-355, Northwest Suburbs/Joliet
I-294, Milwaukee/Indiana
I-290, Rockford/Chicago

I-355
I-80, Iowa/Indiana
I-55, St Louis/Chicago
I-88, Aurora/Chicago
I-290, Rockford/Chicago

I-94/294
I-94/IL-394, Chicago/Danville/Indiana
I-80, Iowa
I-55, St Louis/Chicago
I-88, Aurora
I-290, Rockford/Chicago
I-90, Rockford/Chicago
I-190, O'Hare
I-94/294 split, Chicago/Indiana

I-90
I-190, O'Hare
I-294, Milwaukee/Indiana
I-290/IL-53, Northwest Suburbs/Chicago/West Suburbs
IL-47, Woodstock/Huntley/Elburn
US-20, Marengo/Hampshire
I-39/US-51, Bloomington

IL-390
I-290, Rockford/Chicago/TO I-355 Joliet

And that's it.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

hbelkins

There are at least two exits for US 60 along I-64 in Kentucky that have no town or community listed as a destination. One is between Winchester and Mt. Sterling, and the other is just inside Boyd County.

The interesting thing about the first one of those two examples is that a new exit was built on the Mountain Parkway. It's Exit 10 for KY 974 in the eastern end of Clarkk County. Instead of just a route marker or some local community destination, such as Goffs Corner, Winchester and Mt. Sterling are listed on the exit. No one in their right mind is going to use that exit to get to either of those towns.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

bdmoss88

#8
Unless they've added something lately, Exit 53 on I22 in Alabama has nothing but the 'Exit 53' signs in the gores. In GSV the overpass itself is labelled as AL102.

thenetwork

Quote from: US 89 on June 06, 2018, 12:50:40 PM
As for exits with no destination at all, the Utah standard was to label those as "Ranch Exit" , usually with a blue "no services"  label. I'm not sure if that's still done, but there are plenty of old Ranch Exit signs still standing.

Utah had been giving f9rmal names to former Ranch Exits about 5 years ago --  at least on the I-70/US 6 overlap.

Scott5114

Quote from: webny99 on June 06, 2018, 11:53:14 AM
Or should both be included as SOP, as they are in Maryland?

This practice is explicitly disallowed by the MUTCD.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

roadman65

#11
Quote from: US 89 on June 06, 2018, 12:50:40 PM
In cities and suburban areas, the road name is infinitely more helpful than a destination city. If you put destination cities only on a BGS in a metropolitan area, the next question most drivers will ask is “What street is this exit going to dump me on?” Also, most suburban areas are made up of several cities that have grown together into one big metropolis, and often times the city you just exited the freeway in isn’t the same one your destination is in. And most people don’t really care about knowing exactly where each individual suburb city is, just the general area within the larger metro.

In rural areas, or when there’s only 1 to 3 exits for a particular town, I prefer the city name. The name of the road isn’t going to be all that helpful, especially because it’s usually something generic like “Main Street”.

As for exits with no destination at all, the Utah standard was to label those as “Ranch Exit”, usually with a blue “no services” label. I’m not sure if that’s still done, but there are plenty of old Ranch Exit signs still standing.
In New Jersey along the Garden State Parkway they sign Exits 143 A, B, and C with control destinations rather than city street names.   All three exits serve a part of Irvington, NJ ( a very urban township next to Newark) yet only Exit 143C is signed Irvington and Exit 143B is Maplewood while Exit 143A is Hillside.

It  does not confuse people as the one for Irvington goes directly to the downtown area which by rule of thumb is where signs are to be directing motorists to.

If it were Florida Exit 143C would be signed for Madison Avenue/ Springfield Avenue and 143B for Lyons Avenue West while 143A gets Lyons Avenue East.



In Texas I saw along I-35 north of Laredo, names (not roads) given to the interchange signed on the guides as that. I am guessing that TexDOT signs the name into the log books or the state legislates it.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

MisterSG1

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 06, 2018, 04:33:08 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 06, 2018, 11:53:14 AM
Or should both be included as SOP, as they are in Maryland?

This practice is explicitly disallowed by the MUTCD.

Which is in my personal opinion very silly that it's disallowed.

But then, that's coming from me who grew up in Ontario and is used to practically always seeing Street Names + Control Cities as is the case in Ontario.

webny99

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 06, 2018, 04:33:08 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 06, 2018, 11:53:14 AM
Or should both be included as SOP, as they are in Maryland?
This practice is explicitly disallowed by the MUTCD.

[citation needed] (I'm interested in the wording.)
But if that is indeed the case, it's extremely foolish. I really like Maryland's implementation.

vdeane

I thought it was discouraged rather than banned?  In any case, I agree it's foolish.  Come to think of it, though, part of me wonders if such was a reaction to NY's boxed street names.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

roadman

Signs on I-95 (MA 128) northbound in Newton for Exit 21 say only Grove Street, and do not include a town name.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

hbelkins

I'm a fan of New York's boxed street names. They treat street names as if they are route markers.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

CtrlAltDel

Quote from: webny99 on June 06, 2018, 07:21:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 06, 2018, 04:33:08 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 06, 2018, 11:53:14 AM
Or should both be included as SOP, as they are in Maryland?
This practice is explicitly disallowed by the MUTCD.
[citation needed] (I'm interested in the wording.)
But if that is indeed the case, it's extremely foolish. I really like Maryland's implementation.

It's paragraph 2E.10.01, which is guidance.
Quote
No more than two destination names or street names should be displayed on any Advance Guide sign or Exit Direction sign. A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided.

On the whole, I don't think this guidance is foolish. On the whole, quite the opposite, in that I think that the town name is usually irrelevant once you get to the street-name level.
Interstates clinched: 4, 57, 275 (IN-KY-OH), 465 (IN), 640 (TN), 985
State Interstates clinched: I-26 (TN), I-75 (GA), I-75 (KY), I-75 (TN), I-81 (WV), I-95 (NH)

jemacedo9

In PA, when reaching an area with multiple exits, there is usually a sign, showing the town name, and up to the three next exits, like (might not be exactly right):

Williamsport Exits
-----------------------
Maynard St   2 
Hepburn St   2 3/4
Market St     3 1/2

That sign repeats itself until all of the town exits have been passed.  The exits within that do not have a control city, unless it's a major road where the main control city is only in one direction; then the BGS for that exit will have the local street name for one line, and the other control city; like this in Williamsport:

US 15 SOUTH
Market St
Lewisburg
(with or without a line separating the street from the other city; I've seen both in PA)

I  kind of like this approach.

webny99

Quote from: vdeane on February 09, 2012, 06:06:46 PMCome to think of it, though, part of me wonders if such was a reaction to NY's boxed street names.

Or maybe vice versa, the boxed street names were an attempt at compliance  :-P

Quote from: hbelkins on June 06, 2018, 08:37:33 PM
I'm a fan of New York's boxed street names. They treat street names as if they are route markers.

I understand the reasoning behind them, but am still glad they're no longer in widespread use, because (1) they're ugly, and (2) a street name has way more text than a route shield, leading to a cluttered look.

hotdogPi

Boxed street names should only be used if the street name is a freeway/expressway/parkway.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

webny99

Quote from: 1 on June 06, 2018, 09:45:42 PM
Boxed street names should only be used if the street name is a freeway/expressway/parkway.

Is that an opinion, or something from the MUTCD?
I don't see a reason why boxed street names should be allowed only on those road types specifically.

hotdogPi

Quote from: webny99 on June 06, 2018, 09:50:03 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 06, 2018, 09:45:42 PM
Boxed street names should only be used if the street name is a freeway/expressway/parkway.

Is that an opinion, or something from the MUTCD?
I don't see a reason why boxed street names should be allowed only on those road types specifically.

That's my opinion. Boxing the street name makes it look like a route shield.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

webny99

Quote from: 1 on June 06, 2018, 09:53:24 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 06, 2018, 09:50:03 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 06, 2018, 09:45:42 PM
Boxed street names should only be used if the street name is a freeway/expressway/parkway.

Is that an opinion, or something from the MUTCD?
I don't see a reason why boxed street names should be allowed only on those road types specifically.
That's my opinion. Boxing the street name makes it look like a route shield.

So you mean unnumbered freeways, parkways, etc.
I don't object to that, considering the high profile of those type of roadways. Regular streets don't need boxed names though.

MisterSG1

Quote from: CtrlAltDel on June 06, 2018, 09:16:48 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 06, 2018, 07:21:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 06, 2018, 04:33:08 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 06, 2018, 11:53:14 AM
Or should both be included as SOP, as they are in Maryland?
This practice is explicitly disallowed by the MUTCD.
[citation needed] (I'm interested in the wording.)
But if that is indeed the case, it's extremely foolish. I really like Maryland's implementation.

It's paragraph 2E.10.01, which is guidance.
Quote
No more than two destination names or street names should be displayed on any Advance Guide sign or Exit Direction sign. A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided.

On the whole, I don't think this guidance is foolish. On the whole, quite the opposite, in that I think that the town name is usually irrelevant once you get to the street-name level.

But what about cases where the freeway itself becomes the municipal boundary. As in the case of Hwy 404, most of the exits in York Region have control cities as Hwy 404 pretty much is the boundary between Richmond Hill and Markham.



The problem I have with the one or the other approach appears to happen in suburban areas. Consider Transit Road in East Amherst, NY. It's a major arterial that's a large commercial strip. Even here in Toronto when you watch Buffalo TV stations you hear about local businesses on Transit Road. However, Transit Road is part of NY-78, and thus the exit from I-90/Thruway signs it only as NY-78 with control cities to Depew and Lockport. Since this appears to be a very important arterial, I don't know why the Thruway Authority for instance would not sign the exit as NY-78 Transit Road.

There are obvious cases where one should only use street names, but there is that transitional period in between suburbia and rural areas where it's unclear if a street name should be used, or control cities be used. That's why I believe in these cases it should be ok to sign both, as long as control cities and street name are different sizes on the sign. (In Ontario, the street name is always larger than the control city(ies))



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.