Leftover distance signs from highways that no longer travel that particular road

[KCRoadFan]

This sign in Iowa - along County Road B30 on the east side of Nora Springs, a few miles east of Mason City - shows a distance of 215 miles to Madison, WI, a holdover from when the road carried US 18 before the current expressway alignment, running parallel, was built. (Side note: I first knew about this sign due to seeing pictures of it on Jason Hancock's iowahighways.org website, where he has posted pictures of signs from the termini of every state highway in Iowa - the picture I refer to being from the page for IA 122.)

Throughout the country, where might there be some other examples of distance signs that were put up when a road carried a given highway, then remained standing long after the highway associated with the sign was taken off that particular road due to its being rerouted? I'm sure there are many of them.

[Scott5114]

This distance sign and its predecessors have been giving the distance to Norman and Oklahoma City decades after OK-74 was truncated to I-35. (It used to extend over the river, through Norman and Oklahoma City, and link up with the other OK-74 in northern Oklahoma.)

[Rothman]

There's got to be a ton of these in KY due to new alignments being built and the old routes still staying open for local access.

[Max Rockatansky]

There is a bunch in California from the 1964 Renumbering that even carry over into modern signage.  There was talk just the other day about why Woodland is still signed as a control city on CA 160, the answer was that it was once a segment of CA 24.

[epzik8]

As late as 2018, what is now northbound US 1 Business (Conowingo Road) north of Bel Air, Maryland still had a sign just past the MD 543 intersection showing the distances to Rising Sun and Philadelphia from when it was part of mainline US 1, which since 2000 uses the Hickory Bypass parallel to it.

[roadman65]

St Petersburg, FL still uses Lakeland on I-275 from when we'll over 50 years ago I-4 was routed on that particular freeway.

[NWI_Irish96]

Former alignment of IN 60 near Jeffersonville:

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.3556076,-85.7460352,3a,75y,350.71h,85.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssAFr7PlD9_xLuFlk5CtZJA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[US 89]

A couple from Utah:



That's on westbound SR 30 from Snowville. SR 30 has never gone to the Idaho border, but before ~1970 this was US 30S which did. There is also a bunch of Boise control city signage at the junction with SR 42, which is definitely a holdover from US 30S days. Nobody driving through that intersection now is going to Boise.



SR 13 northbound just past SR 102. Very few people passing this are going to Pocatello now, but this was the main highway through here before I-15. It was US 191 for a time, but after that went away, I believe this was actually signed as TEMP I-15 until the freeway was built. This was one of the last interstate segments in Utah to open (c.1990) so that sign may actually be old enough to predate the freeway opening.

[jmacswimmer]

Not a "distance sign" per se, but the onramp to I-97 south from MD 648 uses the control cities of Bowie & Upper Marlboro, which presumably is left over from when US 301 utilized the Glen Burnie Bypass and continued south along Crain Highway to both those destinations.

[ethanhopkin14]

Are we talking about business routes?  The business route doesn't go to the next town, but it hops on the main line that does?

[mrsman]

I will add that I don't think it is a problem or mistake to show a list of cities from an old routing.  Even if the highway number no longer reaches those cities, the roadway still does, unless some drastic change has been made (like closing a roadway).

So it is still proper to sign mileage to such locations, because you can still drive on the road to get there, even if the numbers have changed.

The I-210 freeway in Los Angeles County used to turn south in Glendora to head toward I-10 in Pomona.  The westbound I-210 control on this north/south stretch (from I-10) was Pasadena.  When the CA-210 freeway got extended further east to Fontana (and then later to Redlands), the north/south section was renumbered to become a section of CA-57.  Currently, there is no control city for northbound CA-57 at I-10.  Why?  Even if CA-57 ends in Glendora (which may not be big enough to be a control), the roadway still leads you to I-210 and to Pasadena.  Pasadena is a great control, even though CA-57 doesn't run all the way there.  Nothing changed except for the number.  You can still get to Pasadena by heading up the north/south roadway and then continuing onto I-210 west.  [And given the known issues with I-710 and CA-110, this is the all-freeway routing to Pasadena from the Pomona area and it should be signed.]

In other cases, you have a situation where the road never directly went to the signed city anyways, but since it led to a road that did, it was considered a proper control for distance purposes.  One example of that are mileages for San Francisco on I-5.

[Occidental Tourist]

But there's no overwhelming bias towards traffic on the "new"  section of 57 north transitioning to the 210 west to Pasadena as opposed to going east on the newer stretch of freeway.  There used to be such a bias that made just one control city make sense; if you were on the old portion of the 210 "west,"  the pull-through route at Glendora for remaining on the 210 west hooked a left and routed you to Pasadena. Assuming in this day and age of GPS maps that control cities on peripheral exurban freeways are all that vital, why confuse drivers looking at a pull-through sign on the 57 north now by making them question whether they somehow won't have access to the 210 east and Redlands when the 57 ends a few miles ahead?

I could even understand a justification for signing the 57 north control city as Pasadena on the 10 west approach and as Redlands on the 10 east approach, but signing only Pasadena as the pull-through control city seems unnecessary and confusing.

[Takumi]

Not a "distance sign" per se, but the onramp to I-97 south from MD 648 uses the control cities of Bowie & Upper Marlboro, which presumably is left over from when US 301 utilized the Glen Burnie Bypass and continued south along Crain Highway to both those destinations.

Related, US 301 north of Richmond still has a couple distance signs that list Baltimore.

[Occidental Tourist]

Here's a newer retroreflective mileage sign that replicated an older sign on the Riverside Freeway.  It uses control cities from back when the 91 was US 91 and US 91 ended in Long Beach. In 1964, US 91 was replaced by CA 91 in Southern California and was routed away from Long Beach, instead ending in Redondo Beach along the old CA 14 routing.



Interestingly, even though the Artesia Freeway was built after the 1964 renumbering and never had US 91 routed along it, there are several onramp signs along it that list the westbound 91 control city as Long Beach.

[mrsman]

But there's no overwhelming bias towards traffic on the "new"  section of 57 north transitioning to the 210 west to Pasadena as opposed to going east on the newer stretch of freeway.  There used to be such a bias that made just one control city make sense; if you were on the old portion of the 210 "west,"  the pull-through route at Glendora for remaining on the 210 west hooked a left and routed you to Pasadena. Assuming in this day and age of GPS maps that control cities on peripheral exurban freeways are all that vital, why confuse drivers looking at a pull-through sign on the 57 north now by making them question whether they somehow won't have access to the 210 east and Redlands when the 57 ends a few miles ahead?

I could even understand a justification for signing the 57 north control city as Pasadena on the 10 west approach and as Redlands on the 10 east approach, but signing only Pasadena as the pull-through control city seems unnecessary and confusing.

You bring up some good points. 

The most important directions for getting the Pasadena control are I-10 WB to CA-57 NB and CA-71 NB to CA-57 NB.  In both cases, traffic is heading west or northwest, so Pasadena is eventually on the way from those points, and traffic is less likely to want to head back east, given the general trajectory of those roads.

I really wish that the San Dimas control were used more frequently for this whole section of CA-57.  While there is one loan sign on CA-60, I think that any road that leads to CA-57 north should have the control.  So sections of CA-57 north of 60 and north of I-10 should have the San Dimas control.  CA-71 should also have the San Dimas control north of the Downtown Pomona area and where it makes sense, the Pasadena control should join the San Dimas control.

CA-60 EB to 57 NB:  San Dimas
I-10 EB to 57 NB: San Dimas
I-10 WB to 57 NB:  San Dimas / Pasadena
CA-71 north of Downtown Pomona:  San Dimas / Pasadena

When I was a kid Raging Waters advertised on TV: "Where the 210 meets the 10 in San Dimas."  Of course, 210 no longer meets the 10 there, but Raging Waters is enough of a regional destination, that San Dimas does make sense as a control in the limited places mentioned above, for highways that are north of Pomona and are currently largely absent of control cities.

I think a control city is always helpful.  I don't think the control should be blank.  San Dimas and Pasadena should be used here.

Here's a newer retroreflective mileage sign that replicated an older sign on the Riverside Freeway.  It uses control cities from back when the 91 was US 91 and US 91 ended in Long Beach. In 1964, US 91 was replaced by CA 91 in Southern California and was routed away from Long Beach, instead ending in Redondo Beach along the old CA 14 routing.



Interestingly, even though the Artesia Freeway was built after the 1964 renumbering and never had US 91 routed along it, there are several onramp signs along it that list the westbound 91 control city as Long Beach.

This brings up, again, the mystery of "Beach Cities."

For those who may not be aware, the control for CA-91 west in Riverside County (especially near I-15 and I-215) is "Beach Cities."  This is to differentiate from other highways (CA-60 and I-10) that go to L.A. more directly.  Once in Orange County, the westbound control on CA-91 is usually Los Angeles, since CA-91 hits I-5 which does lead directly to Los Angeles.

But the question remains, what does "Beach Cities" refer to?

- It could be Newport Beach and other OC beaches that are in fact the closest beaches for those in the Inland Empire.  An argument for this is that CA-55's longtime northern control was Riverside, so it is a reverse of the situation of the main road being the 91 to 55 combination, as opposed to continuing on 91.  NB Riverside, SB Newport Beach

- It could refer to Long Beach, as this was the historic endpoint of US 91, even though reaching Long Beach downtown would require making a "left" at I-710.  Technically, parts of Long Beach city do touch the 91 freeway.

- It could refer to Redondo Beach, and neighboring Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach.  The 91 freeway leads to Artesia Blvd that directly hits two of those cities.  The western portion of the 91 freeway was even once called the Redondo Beach Fwy and there is still a Redondo Beach control city posted in the neighborhood of I-710.

- All of the above is also a possibility.  Every beach between LAX and Laguna can be reached this way, if you have a very wide view.

And my personal preference is that Anaheim be signed as the WB control in Riverside County, not Beach Cities.

[Occidental Tourist]

I completely agree with your proposal of using San Dimas until the 10.  I'm also old enough to remember those Raging Waters commercials. I've still got one of their bastardizations of a Beach Boys' song drilled into my otherwise forgetful head.

You and I could also rant about Beach Cities all day at one another and all we would end up doing is agreeing with each other.  How you could sign the 55 going towards Yorba Linda (Yorba Linda!) with an Anaheim control city but completely leave it off the 91 in favor of something as ambiguous as Beach Cities boggles my mind.

</old man rant>

[TheStranger]

There is a bunch in California from the 1964 Renumbering that even carry over into modern signage.  There was talk just the other day about why Woodland is still signed as a control city on CA 160, the answer was that it was once a segment of CA 24.

IIRC there's a sign for Oakland as control city southbound somewhere else on 160, also reflective of when 160 was 24 (along with what are now solely 4, 242, and 680 to Walnut Creek).

In a different thread, someone recently mentioned US 101 having a southbound three-cities distance listing in Ventura County that included San Diego.

One of the most common ones and still logical to this day: the numerous distance signs for Los Angeles on 99 south in the Central Valley (with LA itself as one of the major control cities too).

[epzik8]

As late as 2018, what is now northbound US 1 Business (Conowingo Road) north of Bel Air, Maryland still had a sign just past the MD 543 intersection showing the distances to Rising Sun and Philadelphia from when it was part of mainline US 1, which since 2000 uses the Hickory Bypass parallel to it.

I verified today this sign is still up:


Plus, a sign further south on Granary Road approaching current US 1 Bus. also from when it was mainline US 1, and Granary Road was part of MD 23:

[Revive 755]

There are (were?) a couple around Springfield, IL:

* South Grand Avenue just east of MacArthur Boulevard:  Streetview.  Clinton would have been for US 54/later IL 54; Chicago was probably for US 66.

* On 9th Street/Business Loop 55 north of South Grand Avenue for former US 66:  Streetview

[PurdueBill]

Construction of the Hoosier Heartland Highway (SR 25) around Delphi resulted in this sign on the old road, now a city street, hanging around showing destinations you would reach on 25 NB.  (The curvature of the bridge in the background to the left is a bugaboo left behind; the old road curved left but now you get a bit of an S-bend caused by using the old bridge. 
https://goo.gl/maps/CH4DFAXmD4AMMQMN7

This distance sign on Lincoln Highway just east of Bucyrus, Ohio is an artifact of when US 30 used the road; the bypass around Bucyrus was around before but the dual carriageway between there and Mansfield not until 2004.  Surprisingly, they carbon-copy replaced the sign with Clearview a number of years after the new road had opened vs. just removing it.
https://goo.gl/maps/K5t3YkudPApY4ztH6

https://goo.gl/maps/K5t3YkudPApY4ztH6

[mrsman]

I completely agree with your proposal of using San Dimas until the 10.  I’m also old enough to remember those Raging Waters commercials. I’ve still got one of their bastardizations of a Beach Boys’ song drilled into my otherwise forgetful head.

You and I could also rant about Beach Cities all day at one another and all we would end up doing is agreeing with each other.  How you could sign the 55 going towards Yorba Linda (Yorba Linda!) with an Anaheim control city but completely leave it off the 91 in favor of something as ambiguous as Beach Cities boggles my mind.

</old man rant>

A quick GSV search found this sign at the Valley Blvd onramp to CA-71:

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0615132,-117.7881365,3a,15y,290.1h,91.16t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sbtcXWagRV8BcXyOOSOBUWw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DbtcXWagRV8BcXyOOSOBUWw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D171.69083%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

CA-71 north, from the onramp, is listed as having controls of both Los Angeles and Pasadena.  I approve because it is helpful.  CA-71 ends a little north of here, with direct onramps to I-10 west (toward Los Angeles) and CA-57 north.  [For those who have been following along CA-57 north heads to the 210 which gives you a choice of Pasadena (I-210) or San Bernardino (CA-210) , but the trajectory of CA-71 in the northwest direction favors Pasadena and this stretch was once I-210 and the Pasadena control was much more heavily signed.]

The sign on the reverse direction of Valley also explains where 71 north, but leaves out control cities.  I would prefer language as follows: [CA-71] NORTH TO [I-10] WEST [CA-57] NORTH (and also listing Los Angeles and Pasadena control cities).

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.061377,-117.7880316,3a,37.5y,108.94h,92.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smfPLsRa_muNm1bKY991GfA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


Another point that I thought of.  Despite the historic nature of the CA-57 stretch between I-10 and 210 once being part of 210, the CA-57 corridor represents the closest freeway connection in distance between I-10 and 210 (other than where they meet in Redlands).  From any point between Redlands and Pomona, if travelers on I-10 WB want to head toward Pasadena, it makes the most sense to use CA-57 to connect between the two freeways. under normal traffic patterns.

[ethanhopkin14]

I think you can argue I-40's westbound control city of Los Angeles west of Flagstaff to the California/Arizona state line is a hold over from the US-66 days, even though a good majority of the traffic on I-40 at that point is bound for Los Angeles anyway.