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

Anyone else hate control countries?

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Henry

Unless there is a major city to connect to, then I'd be fine with Canada and Mexico being used on guide signs. Control states I hate, but these two countries are the big exceptions.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!


J N Winkler

Quote from: Scott5114 on September 04, 2022, 07:54:03 PMFirst time I've seen a Bank Secrecy Act warning sign. Neat.

California has two (one English, one Spanish) at the bottom end of I-5, but I suspect those were special-design signs installed by maintenance forces since sign specs don't exist for them and I've never seen them in contract plans.  (Drawing the signs leading to San Ysidro is on my to-do list.)

Quote from: Scott5114 on September 04, 2022, 07:54:03 PMThose are some weird-looking capital C's.

Capital S is subtly odd-looking too.  I don't think either of the Big Two sign design packages was used to produce these sheets.  Oregon DOT has also used the same font:

"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

skluth

Quote from: 1995hoo on September 04, 2022, 12:27:11 PM
^^^^

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).

Completely agree in your examples. It makes far more sense to include suburbs for control cities when using a beltline around a larger metro. Tysons and Alexandria would be more useful at the Springfield Mixing Bowl than a generic Maryland which works both directions. I also like a suburb with a further out control destination which adds clarity.

paulthemapguy

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.

This.
It's more of a warning than a guide, in a way.  I wonder if black-on-yellow text would be appropriate for these messages on signs.
Avatar is the last interesting highway I clinched.
My website! http://www.paulacrossamerica.com Now featuring all of Ohio!
My USA Shield Gallery https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHwJRZk
TM Clinches https://bit.ly/2UwRs4O

National collection status: 361/425. Only 64 route markers remain

Flint1979


Roadgeekteen

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about warning signs near the border, I'm more talking about countries on signs further than a couple miles from the border.
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

Flint1979

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 05, 2022, 03:18:08 PM
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about warning signs near the border, I'm more talking about countries on signs further than a couple miles from the border.
I can't disagree with that. Kind of like this sign, it should say DOWNTOWN.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3513968,-83.0987001,3a,40.6y,288.15h,95.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNxuh8JjFlymwgEEi-qJOOw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

wanderer2575

Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2022, 04:38:48 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 05, 2022, 03:18:08 PM
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about warning signs near the border, I'm more talking about countries on signs further than a couple miles from the border.
I can't disagree with that. Kind of like this sign, it should say DOWNTOWN.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3513968,-83.0987001,3a,40.6y,288.15h,95.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNxuh8JjFlymwgEEi-qJOOw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

You're already downtown at this point.

I'm more annoyed that Toledo isn't also shown as a control city since it merges into southbound I-75 a mile away, but that's for another thread.

1995hoo

Quote from: skluth on September 05, 2022, 01:42:34 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 04, 2022, 12:27:11 PM
^^^^

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).

Completely agree in your examples. It makes far more sense to include suburbs for control cities when using a beltline around a larger metro. Tysons and Alexandria would be more useful at the Springfield Mixing Bowl than a generic Maryland which works both directions. I also like a suburb with a further out control destination which adds clarity.

When I was growing up, the signs for the Beltway always listed Richmond and Alexandria (in that order) and I thought it was sensible.
"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

Quote from: wanderer2575 on September 05, 2022, 05:06:57 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2022, 04:38:48 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 05, 2022, 03:18:08 PM
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about warning signs near the border, I'm more talking about countries on signs further than a couple miles from the border.
I can't disagree with that. Kind of like this sign, it should say DOWNTOWN.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3513968,-83.0987001,3a,40.6y,288.15h,95.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNxuh8JjFlymwgEEi-qJOOw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

You're already downtown at this point.

I'm more annoyed that Toledo isn't also shown as a control city since it merges into southbound I-75 a mile away, but that's for another thread.
The I-94/96 interchange is about 3 miles from downtown so using DOWNTOWN which had been the control city up to this point would still be serviceable.

Toledo might be ok there but is used at the I-75 interchange. I-96 isn't a through highway, I-75 is.

kphoger

Quote from: roadman65 on September 04, 2022, 07:16:01 AM
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.

Don't forget Exit #24, which has "Monterrey, Mex" as its destination.

https://goo.gl/maps/bvJKPzzLfd6Tcdh37
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

dvferyance

BC-99 used to say Seattle now it says US border. I don't like it.

mrsman

Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2022, 04:38:48 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 05, 2022, 03:18:08 PM
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about warning signs near the border, I'm more talking about countries on signs further than a couple miles from the border.
I can't disagree with that. Kind of like this sign, it should say DOWNTOWN.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3513968,-83.0987001,3a,40.6y,288.15h,95.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNxuh8JjFlymwgEEi-qJOOw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I think that the right approach would be to sign cities across the border as control cities, and provide warnings as a yellow banner when the border is imminent.

The practice in WA of signing Vancouver, BC north of Seattle or for NY signing Montreal north of Albany works very well.  It provides a specific destination for a continuing highway.  THe next major city along the highway's trajectory just happens to be over the border, but it properly provides the direction to help long distance travelers.

When border crossings are imminent, warnings in yellow banner about an approaching international border are appropriate.  Last exit before customs, or that there are no intermediate exits before customs are appropriate warnings to let drivers know that "this is it" and the road doesn't simply guide you toward Canada or Mexico, but that you are basically there if you travel any further.


GaryV

Quote from: mrsman on September 07, 2022, 04:29:54 PM
I think that the right approach would be to sign cities across the border as control cities, and provide warnings as a yellow banner when the border is imminent.

The practice in WA of signing Vancouver, BC north of Seattle or for NY signing Montreal north of Albany works very well.  It provides a specific destination for a continuing highway.  THe next major city along the highway's trajectory just happens to be over the border, but it properly provides the direction to help long distance travelers.
It's not quite as neat for Michigan. North to south:

  • The International Bridge  - It goes from Sault Ste Marie to Sault Ste Marie. Even saying "Sault Ste Marie, Canada" or "Sault Ste Marie, Ontario" could be confusing.
  • The Blue Water Bridge (I-94/I-69) - do you say Sarnia? or London? or Hamilton? or Toronto?
  • The Windsor Tunnel - Windsor makes some sense here, because the tunnel dumps you off right in Windsor.
  • The Ambassador Bridge - It goes into Windsor as well, but then you continue on to the highway and again you have the choice of London/Hamilton/Toronto. Plus Windsor.
  • The Gordie Howe Bridge - Since this one will go more directly to ON 401, you can probably skip Windsor - but coming from the south along I-75 you might want to know that it goes to Windsor, instead of continuing needlessly on to the Ambassador. Then choose London/Hamilton/Toronto like the others.

There was an article in the Detroit News a few weeks ago that told of all the drivers that mistakenly get on the Ambassador Bridge. Despite the black on yellow signage warning about no exit before the bridge. You can't underestimate the deductive powers of some drivers.

Incidentally, once the Gordie Howe opens, "Bridge to Canada" won't work any more. Which bridge?


roadman65

Quote from: GaryV on September 07, 2022, 06:34:12 PM
Quote from: mrsman on September 07, 2022, 04:29:54 PM
I think that the right approach would be to sign cities across the border as control cities, and provide warnings as a yellow banner when the border is imminent.

The practice in WA of signing Vancouver, BC north of Seattle or for NY signing Montreal north of Albany works very well.  It provides a specific destination for a continuing highway.  THe next major city along the highway's trajectory just happens to be over the border, but it properly provides the direction to help long distance travelers.
It's not quite as neat for Michigan. North to south:

  • The International Bridge  - It goes from Sault Ste Marie to Sault Ste Marie. Even saying "Sault Ste Marie, Canada" or "Sault Ste Marie, Ontario" could be confusing.
  • The Blue Water Bridge (I-94/I-69) - do you say Sarnia? or London? or Hamilton? or Toronto?
  • The Windsor Tunnel - Windsor makes some sense here, because the tunnel dumps you off right in Windsor.
  • The Ambassador Bridge - It goes into Windsor as well, but then you continue on to the highway and again you have the choice of London/Hamilton/Toronto. Plus Windsor.
  • The Gordie Howe Bridge - Since this one will go more directly to ON 401, you can probably skip Windsor - but coming from the south along I-75 you might want to know that it goes to Windsor, instead of continuing needlessly on to the Ambassador. Then choose London/Hamilton/Toronto like the others.

There was an article in the Detroit News a few weeks ago that told of all the drivers that mistakenly get on the Ambassador Bridge. Despite the black on yellow signage warning about no exit before the bridge. You can't underestimate the deductive powers of some drivers.

Incidentally, once the Gordie Howe opens, "Bridge to Canada" won't work any more. Which bridge?




Ugh, Niagara Falls has three bridges, yet MTO signs ON 420 on QEW  as "Bridge To USA."  
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

ethanhopkin14

Why can't it be both?  I-5 south have a pull through control city of Tijuana, Mexico for the last 10 or so miles, yet still keep the signage in the last few miles telling you the road goes to Mexico and use the last two exist if you don't want to cross the border and end up in jail if you do so. 

jp the roadgeek

As far as Interstates that reach the Canadian border, here are my thoughts:

5: Vancouver BC is fine north of Seattle, with Everett and Bellingham as intermediate secondaries.  BC should use Seattle on Hwy 99 from Vancouver south.

15: Lethbridge works from Shelby north, though I'd love to see Calgary added.  USA or Montana USA works on the Canadian side, as there isn't much in Montana (and SLC, Vegas, or LA is ridiculous).

29: Winnipeg works from Grand Forks north.  Manitoba uses Emerson on Hwy 75, but Americans aren't thinking of Emerson. Fargo might work though (Canadians don't usually go to Grand Forks).

75: The other Sault St Marie (ON in MI and vice versa) works from each city.

69/94: I think London/Toronto works on the US side.  London is the 402/401 junction, and Toronto is the major city.  From Sarnia (which would be the control for 402 West from London), I'd use Detroit and Flint, the controls for the Interstates.

Ambassador/Tunnel: Just the cities it connects, since it will soon be more for local traffic
Gordie Howe Bridge: Windsor/Toronto from I-75.  On the Canadian side, since the Ambassador will still be the preferred route to Downtown Detroit, just TO I-75 might work better (especially better than "South Detroit"  [although Journey made it work].  "Michigan"  is too vague, since there are other crossings).

190: Already discussed on the US side.  On the Canadian side, Lewiston, NY works at the QEW split, with Niagara Falls/Buffalo east of there.

81: As discussed "Canada"  probably works here.  Hwy 137 doesn't go to Kingston directly, and Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa require other highway(s).  On the Canadian side, I'd use Syracuse; Watertown and 1000 Islands are too insignificant.

87: Montreal is fine.  On the Canadian side, NY works (could mean either NY State or NYC.  Albany isn't necessary since it's usually not a destination for Canadians).

89: Should be St Albans/Montreal, then just plain Montreal from Burlington north.  A-35, when completed, should use Burlington instead of just plain "Vermont"  because 91 goes there too.  "Boston"  should also be used at the A-10 Eastbound interchange when A-35 is completed.

91: Not much here. Sherbrooke isn't a destination, Quebec City requires A-20 and A-73, and Montreal is 100 miles west on A-10; so "Canada"  is fine north of Newport.  Nothing south of the border either, so Vermont/New Hampshire works for A-55 south of Magog.

95: With Houlton being at the border and NB 95 being so short, either Woodstock or TO NB 2 works. From NB 2:  Houlton works because it is the only significant town within a hundred miles of the border on I-95 (Bangor and Portland are too far, and much of the Boston bound traffic from the Maritimes would have used the Downeast route or a ferry.) "Maine"  is too vague because there are other exits from NB 2 for Maine towns.
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)

Flint1979

Quote from: mrsman on September 07, 2022, 04:29:54 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2022, 04:38:48 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 05, 2022, 03:18:08 PM
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about warning signs near the border, I'm more talking about countries on signs further than a couple miles from the border.
I can't disagree with that. Kind of like this sign, it should say DOWNTOWN.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3513968,-83.0987001,3a,40.6y,288.15h,95.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNxuh8JjFlymwgEEi-qJOOw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I think that the right approach would be to sign cities across the border as control cities, and provide warnings as a yellow banner when the border is imminent.

The practice in WA of signing Vancouver, BC north of Seattle or for NY signing Montreal north of Albany works very well.  It provides a specific destination for a continuing highway.  THe next major city along the highway's trajectory just happens to be over the border, but it properly provides the direction to help long distance travelers.

When border crossings are imminent, warnings in yellow banner about an approaching international border are appropriate.  Last exit before customs, or that there are no intermediate exits before customs are appropriate warnings to let drivers know that "this is it" and the road doesn't simply guide you toward Canada or Mexico, but that you are basically there if you travel any further.
That's I-94's interchange with I-96, you still have exits before you get to the bridge and I-96 ends before you get there too. Honestly it should probably say Toledo and Bridge to Canada.

webny99

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 07, 2022, 07:40:30 PM
As far as Interstates that reach the Canadian border, here are my thoughts:

...

81: As discussed "Canada"  probably works here.  Hwy 137 doesn't go to Kingston directly, and Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa require other highway(s).  On the Canadian side, I'd use Syracuse; Watertown and 1000 Islands are too insignificant.

I agree that 1000 Islands is not a good control city, as it's too general, plus there are islands on both sides of the border.

However, it's worth noting that Watertown is currently a control city on I-81 (both directions), so I wouldn't have an issue with it being used in Canada too. It's the most significant regional hub/population center in the North Country and probably top-10 in the entire state.

michravera

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 03, 2022, 11:27:45 PM
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.
"Vancouver" is a BAD control city in Washington. "Vancouver, BC" is OK. There is a fairly large Portland suburb named "Vancouver" in southern Washington.
In any case "Exit NOW or you will enter Mexico or "Exit NOW or you will enter Canada" is a better warning. Better yet, put some really prominent flags and arrows.



MikeTheActuary

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 07, 2022, 07:40:30 PM
89: Should be St Albans/Montreal, then just plain Montreal from Burlington north.  A-35, when completed, should use Burlington instead of just plain "Vermont"

For folks heading south, "Vermont" is probably the more significant destination than "Burlington".

This works: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4090466,-73.3209601,3a,32.9y,91.12h,91.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-kvN_LyvvFKSRaTHRcHpIw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

jp the roadgeek

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on September 08, 2022, 07:44:16 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 07, 2022, 07:40:30 PM
89: Should be St Albans/Montreal, then just plain Montreal from Burlington north.  A-35, when completed, should use Burlington instead of just plain "Vermont"

For folks heading south, "Vermont" is probably the more significant destination than "Burlington".

This works: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4090466,-73.3209601,3a,32.9y,91.12h,91.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-kvN_LyvvFKSRaTHRcHpIw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Except that you also have "Vermont"  for A-55.  Burlington is the largest city in Vermont, so it is significant enough, plus 40% of passengers at Burlington Airport are Quebecois.  Vermont/(New Hampshire) works on I-91 because there is no significant city on I-91 until you get to Springfield,... MA.  That A-35 exit does eventually need a Boston reference when it's complete to the border, even if it's on supplemental signage. 
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)

mrsman

Quote from: michravera on September 08, 2022, 12:22:39 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 03, 2022, 11:27:45 PM
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.
"Vancouver" is a BAD control city in Washington. "Vancouver, BC" is OK. There is a fairly large Portland suburb named "Vancouver" in southern Washington.
In any case "Exit NOW or you will enter Mexico or "Exit NOW or you will enter Canada" is a better warning. Better yet, put some really prominent flags and arrows.

That is the case currently.  Every BGS in WA that refers to Vancouver in Canada is titled "Vancouver, BC" not Vancouver alone because of the possible confusion with Vancouver, WA.  The southbound I-5 control in the Seattle area is Portland.


There is this sign on I-5 in WA:

https://www.google.com/maps/@48.9900324,-122.7402277,3a,37.5y,324.8h,90.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss-s-E5RZdMzFKMFiCFZZbQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I agree that it's not enough.  Make the sign closer to the exit.  Have more yellow and some flashing lights.  The last exit before an int'l border should be highlighted more heavily since it is important.

There is this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@48.9970954,-122.7509293,3a,75y,297.04h,81.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sglkoMsWqCraB91cla2cn1g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

But unfortunately it is right AFTER the exit.  This gantry should be moved back about 1500 feet, and added with an overhead sign for the Blair exit with a yellow banner that states last exit before border.

MikeTheActuary

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 08, 2022, 08:53:21 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on September 08, 2022, 07:44:16 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 07, 2022, 07:40:30 PM
89: Should be St Albans/Montreal, then just plain Montreal from Burlington north.  A-35, when completed, should use Burlington instead of just plain "Vermont"

For folks heading south, "Vermont" is probably the more significant destination than "Burlington".

This works: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4090466,-73.3209601,3a,32.9y,91.12h,91.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-kvN_LyvvFKSRaTHRcHpIw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Except that you also have "Vermont"  for A-55.  Burlington is the largest city in Vermont, so it is significant enough, plus 40% of passengers at Burlington Airport are Quebecois.  Vermont/(New Hampshire) works on I-91 because there is no significant city on I-91 until you get to Springfield,... MA.  That A-35 exit does eventually need a Boston reference when it's complete to the border, even if it's on supplemental signage. 

My point remains, however, that Québecois heading south are more likely headed to "Vermont" than specifically to Burlington.

Yes, there are two major crossings, and many minor crossings into Vermont.  The supplemental signage advising which exit connects to I-89, and which connects to I-91 is useful for those drivers whose specific destination in Vermont warrants going to "the other" crossing....but I suspect the bulk of the traffic to Vermont is already subdivided into (Montréal and Montérégie > I-89) and (Estrie and Capitale-Nationale > I-91).

The situation isn't terribly dissimilar to how I-80 and I-78 both have "New York City" as the control city from I-287 in New Jersey (and I-95/NJTPK as well, once you're through the toll plaza).   True, Vermont covers a broader area than NYC....but you still have the phenomenon of the route you really want being a function of both where you're coming from, and where in the destination you're going/whether you're going beyond the control destination.

Roadgeekteen

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on September 11, 2022, 08:56:06 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 08, 2022, 08:53:21 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on September 08, 2022, 07:44:16 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 07, 2022, 07:40:30 PM
89: Should be St Albans/Montreal, then just plain Montreal from Burlington north.  A-35, when completed, should use Burlington instead of just plain "Vermont"

For folks heading south, "Vermont" is probably the more significant destination than "Burlington".

This works: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4090466,-73.3209601,3a,32.9y,91.12h,91.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-kvN_LyvvFKSRaTHRcHpIw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Except that you also have "Vermont"  for A-55.  Burlington is the largest city in Vermont, so it is significant enough, plus 40% of passengers at Burlington Airport are Quebecois.  Vermont/(New Hampshire) works on I-91 because there is no significant city on I-91 until you get to Springfield,... MA.  That A-35 exit does eventually need a Boston reference when it's complete to the border, even if it's on supplemental signage. 

My point remains, however, that Québecois heading south are more likely headed to "Vermont" than specifically to Burlington.

Yes, there are two major crossings, and many minor crossings into Vermont.  The supplemental signage advising which exit connects to I-89, and which connects to I-91 is useful for those drivers whose specific destination in Vermont warrants going to "the other" crossing....but I suspect the bulk of the traffic to Vermont is already subdivided into (Montréal and Montérégie > I-89) and (Estrie and Capitale-Nationale > I-91).

The situation isn't terribly dissimilar to how I-80 and I-78 both have "New York City" as the control city from I-287 in New Jersey (and I-95/NJTPK as well, once you're through the toll plaza).   True, Vermont covers a broader area than NYC....but you still have the phenomenon of the route you really want being a function of both where you're coming from, and where in the destination you're going/whether you're going beyond the control destination.
What about signing "Burlington Vermont"
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



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.