What is the max distance for which "TO" should be used?

[US 89]

There was this, at JCT I-84/86 in Idaho.

I don’t like that - if my ultimate goal is I-15 south, I should be taking the exit to Ogden and Salt Lake, both of which lie on none other than... I-15.

[sprjus4]

There was this, at JCT I-84/86 in Idaho.

I don't like that - if my ultimate goal is I-15 south, I should be taking the exit to Ogden and Salt Lake, both of which lie on none other than... I-15.

Should list "I-15 North"

[webny99]

So, to give a little background on what led to this thread, here's a particular case where I wasn't sure if TO would be appropriate: I-490 EB at current Exit 29. I came up with the following replacement sign:



... and then got to wondering if NY 444, 3.1 miles away, was too far away to mention on the sign. In most cases I wouldn't bother, but I think it makes sense here, partly because NY 96 itself runs roughly parallel to the Thruway (so most NY 96 traffic is local), while NY 444 forms part of a larger corridor connecting to NY 64 and several regional destinations, including Bloomfield, Bristol Mtn, and Naples.

[webny99]

There was this, at JCT I-84/86 in Idaho.

I don't like that - if my ultimate goal is I-15 south, I should be taking the exit to Ogden and Salt Lake, both of which lie on none other than... I-15.

Should list "I-15 North"

Concur. That was what I was going to say as well. If you wanted to get really creative, you could even list "TO I-15 SOUTH" on the I-84 sign, sort of like a much higher-visibility version of what's done here (excuse the completely faded directional banners; WEST is on the left, EAST on the right).

[SectorZ]

So, to give a little background on what led to this thread, here's a particular case where I wasn't sure if TO would be appropriate: I-490 EB at current Exit 29. I came up with the following replacement sign:



... and then got to wondering if NY 444, 3.1 miles away, was too far away to mention on the sign. In most cases I wouldn't bother, but I think it makes sense here, partly because NY 96 itself runs roughly parallel to the Thruway (so most NY 96 traffic is local), while NY 444 forms part of a larger corridor connecting to NY 64 and several regional destinations, including Bloomfield, Bristol Mtn, and Naples.

IMO, if the road isn't a major route, it probably shouldn't get the "to" treatment, unless the freeway passes but doesn't junction with it (turnpikes notwithstanding - since you'd need a cumbersome sign to cover some of the missed routes in some places).

I am totally down with signing anything that's really close to the freeway, anything within 1-2 minutes of getting off.

Maybe the NY 444 example here could get a supplementary sign? In that case even adding US 20 to such a sign could be a legitimate addition.

[jmacswimmer]

There was this, at JCT I-84/86 in Idaho.

I don't like that - if my ultimate goal is I-15 south, I should be taking the exit to Ogden and Salt Lake, both of which lie on none other than... I-15.

Should list "I-15 North"

Concur. That was what I was going to say as well. If you wanted to get really creative, you could even list "TO I-15 SOUTH" on the I-84 sign, sort of like a much higher-visibility version of what's done here (excuse the completely faded directional banners; WEST is on the left, EAST on the right).

Or something like this?

[ran4sh]

Here's a question that I'm sure people will have opinions on... or maybe there is even official guidance on the issue. How far away from a route should the "TO" banner for that route be used from a freeway exit or other intersecting road? 1/4 mile? 1 mile, or even longer?

I say it depends on what the scale of the available maps are (e.g. the free state map, the common Rand McNally and other atlases/maps, etc). If the junctions are so close on the map that it may be unclear how to get to a certain route, then TO should be used. But that's just a minimum requirement, TO can be used for farther distances.

In Georgia, at the northbound split of I-75 and I-85, the signs have "TO Georgia 400" for I-85, which is appropriate usage. One spot where I think Georgia could use TO, but doesn't, is at I-85 northbound at the GA 316 exit, which is a major interchange but to unfamiliar drivers could be confused with the I-85 I-985 interchange (if you had looked at a map and were aware that I-985 would exit, but didn't know that GA 316 was also a major route). They could put TO I-985 on the I-85 sign.

[webny99]

... If you wanted to get really creative, you could even list "TO I-15 SOUTH" on the I-84 sign, sort of like a much higher-visibility version of what's done here (excuse the completely faded directional banners; WEST is on the left, EAST on the right).

Or something like this?

Yes, although I'm not sure how necessary those are: you'd think it would be obvious, especially with New York and Baltimore as control cities.

I am totally down with signing anything that's really close to the freeway, anything within 1-2 minutes of getting off.

Maybe the NY 444 example here could get a supplementary sign? In that case even adding US 20 to such a sign could be a legitimate addition.

US 20 (which is actually multiplexed with NY 5 through the area) is a slightly different case because it runs parallel to the Thruway, so most traffic here would use the Thruway to Exit 44 (NY 332) to reach it -- the small segment between NY 444 and US 20A being the exception, but that segment plays only an incidental role as part of the north-south NY 444 - NY 64 corridor.

The question of whether NY 444 is "within 1-2 minutes" is an interesting one. I might round down and call it two minutes in casual conversation, but the reality is that it's more like 5-6 minutes during any daytime hour. The fact that NY 96 in Victor is one of upstate NY's most perennially congested state routes certainly doesn't help matters.

[Ned Weasel]

The longest one I can think of in Minnesota is 20 miles. There's a TO MN 65 blazer in Hinckley.

The longest one fairly close to me is about 55 miles: https://goo.gl/maps/oJP5HMjFhHhAir4M6

[Roadgeekteen]

The longest one I can think of in Minnesota is 20 miles. There's a TO MN 65 blazer in Hinckley.

The longest one fairly close to me is about 55 miles: https://goo.gl/maps/oJP5HMjFhHhAir4M6

You even need two numbers to get to I-70!

[Ned Weasel]

You even need two numbers to get to I-70!

Yeah, the KTA isn't really good at pointing that out.  The KTA isn't as good at signage as KDOT is, IMO.

[kphoger]

You even need two numbers to get to I-70!

You don't need any, actually.  Just follow signs for KTA.

[Ned Weasel]

You don't need any, actually.  Just follow signs for KTA.

Unless you're looking for I-70 westbound, in which case, you have to know to take westbound I-470.  Unless you want to drive the Turnpike for an extra five miles, and then needlessly take I-70 all the way through Topeka.

[Roadgeekteen]

You even need two numbers to get to I-70!

Yeah, the KTA isn't really good at pointing that out.  The KTA isn't as good at signage as KDOT is, IMO.

Although it is all the Kansas Turnpike. 

[kphoger]

You don't need any, actually.  Just follow signs for KTA.

Unless you're looking for I-70 westbound, in which case, you have to know to take westbound I-470.  Unless you want to drive the Turnpike for an extra five miles, and then needlessly take I-70 all the way through Topeka.

I'm assuming the "TO I-70" is only on there to help guide drivers to KC who want go that direction instead.  That is to say, if it weren't for the fact that there are two legit ways to get to KC from that point, I'm sure "TO I-70" wouldn't be on there at all.

[Ned Weasel]

I'm assuming the "TO I-70" is only on there to help guide drivers to KC who want go that direction instead.  That is to say, if it weren't for the fact that there are two legit ways to get to KC from that point, I'm sure "TO I-70" wouldn't be on there at all.

They could have just used a method like this: https://goo.gl/maps/26k72epai87PuNuN7 to fix the MUTCD violation of having two routes go to the same control city, but I get your point.

[Roadgeekteen]

I'm assuming the "TO I-70" is only on there to help guide drivers to KC who want go that direction instead.  That is to say, if it weren't for the fact that there are two legit ways to get to KC from that point, I'm sure "TO I-70" wouldn't be on there at all.

They could have just used a method like this: https://goo.gl/maps/26k72epai87PuNuN7 to fix the MUTCD violation of having two routes go to the same control city, but I get your point.

Or you could not sign KC for the Turnpike or I-35. (just use Topeka or Olathe)

[sprjus4]

I'm assuming the "TO I-70" is only on there to help guide drivers to KC who want go that direction instead.  That is to say, if it weren't for the fact that there are two legit ways to get to KC from that point, I'm sure "TO I-70" wouldn't be on there at all.

They could have just used a method like this: https://goo.gl/maps/26k72epai87PuNuN7 to fix the MUTCD violation of having two routes go to the same control city, but I get your point.

Or you could not sign KC for the Turnpike or I-35. (just use Topeka or Olathe)

The idea is to get drivers going to Kansas City to use the Turnpike as opposed to free I-35.

[Roadgeekteen]

I'm assuming the "TO I-70" is only on there to help guide drivers to KC who want go that direction instead.  That is to say, if it weren't for the fact that there are two legit ways to get to KC from that point, I'm sure "TO I-70" wouldn't be on there at all.

They could have just used a method like this: https://goo.gl/maps/26k72epai87PuNuN7 to fix the MUTCD violation of having two routes go to the same control city, but I get your point.

Or you could not sign KC for the Turnpike or I-35. (just use Topeka or Olathe)

The idea is to get drivers going to Kansas City to use the Turnpike as opposed to free I-35.

Then don't sign Kansas City for I-35.

[Ned Weasel]

Oh no!  I unintentionally started another control city debate.   

[kphoger]

The idea is to get drivers going to Kansas City to use the Turnpike as opposed to free I-35.

I think the idea is to let drivers know that BOTH routes go to Kansas City.  Which they do.

[Roadgeekteen]

Oh no!  I unintentionally started another control city debate.   

Control city debates are fine as long as they stay civil and Highwaystar doesn't come back.

[Ned Weasel]

Control city debates are fine as long as they stay civil and Highwaystar doesn't come back.

They take over threads like an ant colony takes over your kitchen when you leave a few too many crumbs lying around.  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11190.3900

[Roadgeekteen]

Control city debates are fine as long as they stay civil and Highwaystar doesn't come back.

They take over threads like an ant colony takes over your kitchen when you leave a few too many crumbs lying around.  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11190.3900

Or if Camden is mentioned... control cities are related to this topic, so it isn't unfathomable that they come up.

[Scott5114]

You even need two numbers to get to I-70!

Yeah, the KTA isn't really good at pointing that out.  The KTA isn't as good at signage as KDOT is, IMO.

Also of note is that you don't really have to do anything special to reach I-70. The turnpike defaults you onto I-335 here, and when that ends you're defaulted onto I-470 east, and when that ends you're defaulted onto I-70 east toward Kansas City. You don't have to exit at any point to reach any of those.

KTA signage is gradually improving as they replace the old signs from the 90s with some that are more KDOT-like. They still have a ways to go, though.

Unless you're looking for I-70 westbound, in which case, you have to know to take westbound I-470.  Unless you want to drive the Turnpike for an extra five miles, and then needlessly take I-70 all the way through Topeka.

Of course, if you're looking to use I-70 westbound, depending on how far west you're going, the best route is probably to exit onto I-35 and take K-99 north from Emporia. So maybe "To East 70" would be the best thing to put on the sign.