"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...
There is one good reason for "control countries"--it helps prevent people being jailed as a result of unplanned or unintended border crossings.
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.
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.
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.
Given the reasons I listed that it would not be useful, why do you think it would be useful?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm OK with a combination control city/country, like "Ft. Erie Can" .
I like control countries for most of the same reasons listed in the above posts.
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.
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).
^^^^
Instead of "No Exit Before Customs," I might opt for "No Exits in USA" or "No Exit Before Canada."
I think they're fine, and I think control states are fine also. Fight me.
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7851246,-117.8840504,3a,31.1y,129.22h,95.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soA0kd2H-YbE2EfTQEkJx1w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)) 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.
^^^^
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).
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.
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".
Out in the sticks in Washington State (from a SR 25 Bossburg Road to Canada paving contract advertised in 2007 or 2008):
(https://i.imgur.com/4QPegPZ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/6SuFcwH.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/MBbZhv2.png)
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.)
First time I've seen a Bank Secrecy Act warning sign. Neat.
Those are some weird-looking capital C's.
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.)
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.
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/p6br3YQ.png)
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.
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.
Let's say you are on I-96 and coming up to Exit 192B which is the Ambassador Bridge. Would you not want to know if you are heading to Canada and that you can't reenter the USA without crossing the bridge and clearing customs?
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3249898,-83.0844155,3a,75y,161.57h,100.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgUbNfSQi5HFgZ3hZj1QJyg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I don't think there is a single thing wrong with this sign.
https://www.google.com/maps/@46.4888509,-84.374265,3a,23.8y,33.86h,97.14t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1su2VkKgHAJ6cCNyZe6fO-ow!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Du2VkKgHAJ6cCNyZe6fO-ow%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D264.09744%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
BC-99 used to say Seattle now it says US border. I don't like it.
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.
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?
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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"
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 12, 2022, 12:21:33 AM
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"
I like that.
The arguments for or against using a state or a country as a control should not change based on whether you are on the other side of an international border. In the same way that most of us would be upset with state controls when you are over a state line, we should be upset with state controls over an international boundary as well.