News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Anyone else hate control countries?

Started by Roadgeekteen, September 03, 2022, 10:49:22 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Roadgeekteen

"Bridge to USA', Canada, Mexico, and "border" are usless. Post "Toronto Canada" and it portrays that same information while being even more useful. And I thought that Control states were bad...
God-emperor of Alanland, king of all the goats and goat-like creatures

Current Interstate map I am making:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1PEDVyNb1skhnkPkgXi8JMaaudM2zI-Y&ll=29.05778059819179%2C-82.48856825&z=5


J N Winkler

There is one good reason for "control countries"--it helps prevent people being jailed as a result of unplanned or unintended border crossings.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Roadgeekteen

Quote from: J N Winkler on September 03, 2022, 10:55:18 PM
There is one good reason for "control countries"--it helps prevent people being jailed as a result of unplanned or unintended border crossings.
I do support letting people know that they are reaching the border, but I think that instead of I-5 using Mexico, they can use "Tijuana Mexico" instead.
God-emperor of Alanland, king of all the goats and goat-like creatures

Current Interstate map I am making:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1PEDVyNb1skhnkPkgXi8JMaaudM2zI-Y&ll=29.05778059819179%2C-82.48856825&z=5

Scott5114

#3
I vehemently hate the idea of control regions, except in the case of countries. That's because, as J.N. points out, the primary concern when accessing another country is being forced to undergo customs. Therefore, the normal argument I would use ("okay, but where in Mexico does this road take you?") takes a backseat to the fact to warning you that this road will have you crossing the border at all is more important.

Furthermore, because of the limited number of border-crossing facilities that exist, most routing decision points will have been reached far before the border (i.e. the destination will inform your choice of border crossing) or will take place after the border (cross the border first and then work out how to reach your destination after the fact). There's also the fact that many people may not be using the most direct route to their destination anyway, in order to use a border crossing more suited to their circumstances (more remote border crossings may be faster, some offer better commercial traffic support than others, etc.)

Lastly, for many border crossings, the vast majority of traffic on a road is simply going to exit the road before the border crossing, anyway, so an actual control city in a neighboring country is going to be inapplicable to the majority of the traffic. Most traffic that departs San Diego on southbound I-5 is likely to have a destination in Chula Vista or San Ysidro, not Tijuana.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Roadgeekteen

Quote from: Scott5114 on September 03, 2022, 11:20:28 PM
I vehemently hate the idea of control regions, except in the case of countries. That's because, as J.N. points out, the primary concern when accessing another country is being forced to undergo customs. Therefore, the normal argument I would use ("okay, but where in Mexico does this road take you?") takes a backseat to the fact to warning you that this road will have you crossing the border at all.

Furthermore, because of the limited number of border-crossing facilities that exist, most routing decision points will have been reached far before the border (i.e. the destination will inform your choice of border crossing) or will take place after the border (cross the border first and then work out how to reach your destination after the fact). There's also the fact that many people may not be using the most direct route to their destination anyway, in order to use a border crossing more suited to their circumstances (more remote border crossings may be faster, some offer better commercial traffic support than others, etc.)

Lastly, for many border crossings, the vast majority of traffic on a road is simply going to exit the road before the border crossing, anyway, so an actual control city in a neighboring country is going to be inapplicable to the majority of the traffic. Most traffic that departs San Diego on southbound I-5 is likely to have a destination in Chula Vista or San Ysidro, not Tijuana.
I just think it's inconsistant as I-5 north uses Vancouver, but I get it cuz California. And I of course want it to be clear that you are entering Mexico, I just think that including the city would be useful.
God-emperor of Alanland, king of all the goats and goat-like creatures

Current Interstate map I am making:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1PEDVyNb1skhnkPkgXi8JMaaudM2zI-Y&ll=29.05778059819179%2C-82.48856825&z=5

Scott5114

Given the reasons I listed that it would not be useful, why do you think it would be useful?
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

GaryV

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 03, 2022, 10:49:22 PM
Post "Toronto Canada" and it portrays that same information while being even more useful.
There aren't any border crossings that go directly to Toronto.

roadman65

Quote from: GaryV on September 04, 2022, 06:26:08 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 03, 2022, 10:49:22 PM
Post "Toronto Canada" and it portrays that same information while being even more useful.
There aren't any border crossings that go directly to Toronto.

Peace Bridge at Buffalo?
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

epzik8

Quote from: Scott5114 on September 04, 2022, 12:22:11 AM
Given the reasons I listed that it would not be useful, why do you think it would be useful?
Because it indeed goes to those countries, and chances are people aren't worried as to which specific cities.
From the land of red, white, yellow and black.
____________________________

My clinched highways: http://tm.teresco.org/user/?u=epzik8
My clinched counties: http://mob-rule.com/user-gifs/USA/epzik8.gif

roadman65

Quote from: epzik8 on September 04, 2022, 06:56:25 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 04, 2022, 12:22:11 AM
Given the reasons I listed that it would not be useful, why do you think it would be useful?
Because it indeed goes to those countries, and chances are people aren't worried as to which specific cities.

NYSDOT uses Montreal on I-87. In fact Montreal first appears on the Thruway in Spring Valley north of the long defunct Spring Valley Plaza as over 300 miles away for NB I-87.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

MATraveler128

There's a sign in Williamstown, MA that lists Pownal, VT and Montreal as it's control cities. Makes me wonder why Bennington or Rutland wasn't used. Either way, very interesting to see a Canadian control point in a state that doesn't touch the Canadian border.
Decommission 128 south of Peabody!

Lowest untraveled number: 56

roadman65

Well Texas uses Monterrey on a mileage sign for I-35 heading toward Mexico.  Though Laredo and no control point ( in Laredo) are either used for ramps to I-35.  At the bridge Plaza the International Bridge is used and not Mexico on overhead signs.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Ted$8roadFan

I'm OK with a combination control city/country, like "Ft. Erie Can" .

kirbykart

I like control countries for most of the same reasons listed in the above posts.

MikeTheActuary

https://www.google.com/maps/@48.9707372,-97.2569463,3a,31.3y,138.14h,87.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8c-LlEtUwAYtdRLJ1W57wQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Personally I don't mind control countries or control regions.   The control point shown on signs should provide guidance on where the road is going in the most succinct and commonly understood way possible.

Considering how geographically illiterate some drivers are, a control "city" of "Canada" probably frequently meets that criterion.

jp the roadgeek

#15
Quote from: roadman65 on September 04, 2022, 06:47:04 AM
Quote from: GaryV on September 04, 2022, 06:26:08 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 03, 2022, 10:49:22 PM
Post "Toronto Canada" and it portrays that same information while being even more useful.
There aren't any border crossings that go directly to Toronto.

Peace Bridge at Buffalo?
I'd say the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge.  I would use Toronto as a control for the Thruway exit to I-290 along with Niagara Falls.  I would also use NF and Toronto for I-190 North from the end of I-290, then Toronto exclusively on I-190 north of NF. Most people know Toronto is across the border, so adding "Canada"  or "ON"  isn't necessary. I would, however, add "ON"  to Fort Erie on the Peace Bridge exit.  And for the Gordie Howe Bridge, I'd sign the exit from I-75 "Gordie Howe Bridge TO ON 401 Windsor/Toronto"  and put a "No exit before customs"  advisory on it. 

Also, I-29 uses Winnipeg north of Grand Forks; Montana uses Lethbridge for I-15 north of Shelby; and VTrans uses Montreal on I-89 from US 2/7 in Colchester (though I'd love to see it replace Winooski from I-189).

There are some places that "Canada"  may be appropriate where no major city is within a hundred miles of the border and/or the road on the other side of the border doesn't lead directly to a major city.  For I-91, not much cross border traffic is headed to Sherbrooke on A-55, and you'd have to use A-20 and A-73 to get to Quebec City (which is a popular destination for non-locals). I-81 is another, as ON 137 doesn't go directly to Kingston, and Toronto and Montreal require significant use of ON 401 (and A-20).
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

1995hoo

^^^^

Instead of "No Exit Before Customs," I might opt for "No Exits in USA" or "No Exit Before Canada."
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Ned Weasel

I think they're fine, and I think control states are fine also.  Fight me.
"I was raised by a cup of coffee." - Strong Bad imitating Homsar

Disclaimer: Views I express are my own and don't reflect any employer or associated entity.

skluth

From my POV, control cities, states, or countries are nothing more than to quickly and succinctly inform drivers which direction a road heads. I don't care what's used as long as it's clear to drivers. Small towns are fine as long as they're isolated and drivers would notice them on passing, like Limon CO and Tomah WI. I'm also fine with significant suburbs/exurbs like Tracy CA, and Warrenton MO. I dislike obscure control cities that are mostly only known to locals and would prefer Mexico or Tijuana to San Ysidro on I-5 (as one example); I don't have a preference between Tijuana, Mexico, or even Baja California as all clearly indicate to drivers that the road heads south. Related to that, I really dislike nearby suburbs being used even if they are well-known, (e.g., Santa Ana) fairly common in California because I may not know where I am in relation to the control city if I just entered the freeway. Whatever is used for control should be a location which clearly indicates direction to the driver regardless of level of government jurisdiction.

1995hoo

^^^^

The thing with which I somewhat disagree there is the notion of not using a suburb. Sometimes there isn't really a better option. I'm think of a road like the Capital Beltway, for example, on which Alexandria is a control city on a lot of signs. It's a DC suburb. But the road doesn't enter DC in any meaningful way (the smidgen of airspace is passes thru is unknown to most drivers) and there isn't really anything else meaningful that could be used instead, other than maybe just plain "Maryland" and "Virginia." But that wouldn't be all that helpful on a loop route, either, because telling you that both directions go to Maryland doesn't really inform anyone of anything useful (whereas Tysons Corner and Alexandria do).

I-66 is another example–westbound signs list Manassas and Front Royal, which are pretty much the two places of significance (Manassas is a suburb; Front Royal is more or less a default because there's nowhere else suitable out that way to use–Delaplane or Linden are both just too small to be useful).
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Flint1979

Why is it that everybody is so obsessed with control cities? All they do is tell you the next significant city along the route. Living in Michigan where there are border crossings to Canada I appreciate being informed of where the last exit before I'd have to deal with customs is located. Making an error and going towards Canada and turning around isn't as easy as you think it is. Not only are you going to have to pay the toll to go across the bridge twice you're going to have to clear customs twice. In Michigan when you're approaching the Canadian border they do a very good job of informing you where the last exit is located before the bridge.

US 89

Quote from: Flint1979 on September 04, 2022, 01:07:44 PM
Why is it that everybody is so obsessed with control cities? All they do is tell you the next significant city along the route.

Because people get all butthurt about what constitutes a "significant city".

J N Winkler

Out in the sticks in Washington State (from a SR 25 Bossburg Road to Canada paving contract advertised in 2007 or 2008):







I don't know that any studies have been done to identify optimum signing strategies for highways that approach border crossings.  For guide signs, there are three basic approaches--sign for the border itself, sign for the other country, and sign for a specific location within that country (with or without first-level subdivision such as Canadian province/territory or Mexican state)--and it is not uncommon for states to use all three at different locations.  I would venture to hypothesize, however, that it is more common for a specific point to be signed if other signing is provided that stresses the legal implications of crossing the border.  These include:

*  Firearms/ammunition (Texas, which routinely signs point destinations in Mexico, has standard signs for this purpose)

*  $10,000 or more in currency/negotiable instruments (no border state has a standard sign, AFAIK, but Washington has a design it has used in multiple contracts)

*  Reporting to customs

*  Cannabis (it is still illegal to transport across both the Canadian and Mexican borders, even at locations where it is legal on both sides)

It is astonishing how naïve some Americans can be about the border, especially as regards firearms.  Websites that explain Canadian firearms regulations routinely use the internally redundant phrase "confiscated and not returned" when referring to what CBSA does with firearms that don't meet Canadian regulations (e.g., no magazines with capacity over 10 rounds) or are not brought into Canada with the necessary paperwork.  (It is possible for an American to carry a gun into Canada legally, but it is a massive headache, especially for handguns--besides the magazine capacity limit, there is a minimum barrel length that is designed to make easily concealable handguns illegal, the weapon and ammunition must be carried separately and secured in a prescribed fashion, official permission has to be obtained well in advance, and the necessary forms must be brought to the border filled out but unsigned because the signatures have to be witnessed by a CBSA officer.)
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Scott5114

First time I've seen a Bank Secrecy Act warning sign. Neat.

Those are some weird-looking capital C's.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

webny99

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 04, 2022, 08:29:46 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 04, 2022, 06:47:04 AM
Quote from: GaryV on September 04, 2022, 06:26:08 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 03, 2022, 10:49:22 PM
Post "Toronto Canada" and it portrays that same information while being even more useful.
There aren't any border crossings that go directly to Toronto.

Peace Bridge at Buffalo?
I'd say the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge.  I would use Toronto as a control for the Thruway exit to I-290 along with Niagara Falls.  I would also use NF and Toronto for I-190 North from the end of I-290, then Toronto exclusively on I-190 north of NF. Most people know Toronto is across the border, so adding "Canada"  or "ON"  isn't necessary. I would, however, add "ON"  to Fort Erie on the Peace Bridge exit.  And for the Gordie Howe Bridge, I'd sign the exit from I-75 "Gordie Howe Bridge TO ON 401 Windsor/Toronto"  and put a "No exit before customs"  advisory on it. 

ON 405 merges into QEW which goes to Toronto, but I don't think it's necessary to sign Toronto anywhere on the US side of the border, especially from the Thruway at 290 where you'd be using anywhere from 4-6 different routes to get to Toronto. If you really need to use Canadian cities, Fort Erie, Niagara Falls, and Queenston work well enough. No one is even thinking about Toronto until they get past the Falls and onto the QEW, and even then, there's several more cities before Toronto (St. Catharines, Burlington, etc.)



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.