AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Highway signs with NO control cities  (Read 13469 times)

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4630
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: March 31, 2022, 07:24:24 PM
Re: Highway signs with NO control cities
« Reply #75 on: October 24, 2021, 09:58:37 PM »

Another example here. And I'm not sure what's up with the black lighting they installed in 2012, what are those supposed to do.

Light things up?   :hmmm:
I thought they stopped with the sign lighting

(EDIT, Sorry hit POST by mistake)

The sign isn't retroreflective.  There are very few modern signs on I-240.

What puzzled me about that stretch are the gore signs.  The number is way low on the sign.
When I-240 gets rebuilt I'm sure all those signs will be replaced. And if it's not retroreflective, then are they button copy?
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3689
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: May 20, 2022, 07:06:45 AM
Re: Highway signs with NO control cities
« Reply #76 on: October 25, 2021, 03:41:26 PM »

Quite a few in Kansas:

US 69:
https://goo.gl/maps/HC3V3AH2HpfRRw1RA


By definition I-435 should not have a control city. It is a loop.



I was in DC area, and saw Tysons Corner on signs for the Capitol Beltway, I-495. Also, Baltimore.

There are generally 3 schools of thought for control cities for loops (and possibly extrapolated to other 3di):

 1) No control cities.  As these are suburban loops, they do not pass through large cities, so no city should be listed at all.

2) Use different suburban points that the roadway passes through as the controls.  The west side of the Capitol Beltway was given as an example utilizing Tysons Corner, Bethesda, Silver Spring, and College Park in parts.  [The east side as being both 495 and 95 does follow the 2di convention of large cities and generally uses Baltimore or Richmond as the control for the entire stretch.]

3) Use control cities for the 2dis that the belt route will intersect with.  This is common in the south and the midwest.  Example, is Atlanta's I-285 where the control cities of the next approaching 2di are used (Greenville, Augusta, Macon, Montgomery, Birmingham, and Chattanooga).  To an extent there is some nuance involved in picking the right control, and you'd prefer a control where most of the traffic would like to go, and would provide for little backtracking.

As a general manner, I prefer #3, but I could see #2 being more meaningful in certain circumstances.  But in my view, control cities are likely more helpful than not, and simply being a loop is not a good enough reason to leave out the controls.

For the specific example posted of I-435 westbound at US 69 in Overalnd Park, KS, I beleive a good control would be Lawrence, since I-435 is basically east-west at this point, and most traffic heading west will continue west and default onto KS-10.  Other possibilities also include Wichita (if traffic bound for I-35 south uses I-435 as a short cut) or St. Joseph (ditto for I-29 north traffic).  As Wichita is signed for I-435 west in Missouri at the I-49/US 71/ I-470 interchange, it is very appropriate and probably should be mentioned here as well.  Another factor for including Wichita is that I-435 westbound is also US 50 westbound.  While US 50 does not itself go to Wichita, the hidden designation in this area follows I-435 west to I-35 south, which does head to Wichita.

Given all of the above, my preference is dual controls of Lawrence and Wichita, but if only once can fit, Wichita should be the primary control.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2021, 04:23:35 PM by mrsman »
Logged

US20IL64

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 231
  • Location: Elmhurst IL
  • Last Login: May 04, 2022, 09:28:34 PM
Re: Highway signs with NO control cities
« Reply #77 on: October 25, 2021, 05:22:49 PM »

Good summary posted above.

"... Use control cities for the 2dis that the belt route will intersect with. "
Used for I-294 and 290 in Chicagoland.

While I-355 has "different suburban points"; Joliet or NW and SW Suburbs.
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4630
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: March 31, 2022, 07:24:24 PM
Re: Highway signs with NO control cities
« Reply #78 on: October 28, 2021, 10:08:50 AM »

Before... and after!

I don't get any reason why they took them off.
Logged

jmacswimmer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1137
  • BING BONG

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: May 19, 2022, 10:31:44 AM
Re: Highway signs with NO control cities
« Reply #79 on: October 28, 2021, 10:30:54 AM »

Before... and after!

I don't get any reason why they took them off.
Must be because I-270 doesn't go to either Cincinnati or Cleveland :bigass:
Logged
"Now, what if da Bearss were to enter the Indianapolis 5-hunnert?"
"How would they compete?"
"Let's say they rode together in a big buss."
"Is Ditka driving?"
"Of course!"
"Then I like da Bear buss."
"DA BEARSSS BUSSSS"

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4630
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: March 31, 2022, 07:24:24 PM
Re: Highway signs with NO control cities
« Reply #80 on: October 28, 2021, 10:32:46 AM »

Before... and after!

I don't get any reason why they took them off.
Must be because I-270 doesn't go to either Cincinnati or Cleveland :bigass:
But in North Carolina, I-485 has control cities on them...
Logged

nexus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2261
  • Age: 66
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: Today at 09:35:23 AM
Re: Highway signs with NO control cities
« Reply #81 on: October 28, 2021, 11:20:19 AM »

The Glendale Freeway has no control cities on the overhead BGS's.  Maybe Glendale is a mythical place...LOL!

Rick
Logged
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willets CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

ran4sh

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 726
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Georgia
  • Last Login: April 27, 2022, 03:38:14 PM
    • YouTube - mostly my Cities:Skylines live streams
Re: Highway signs with NO control cities
« Reply #82 on: October 28, 2021, 03:39:43 PM »

Before... and after!

I don't get any reason why they took them off.
Must be because I-270 doesn't go to either Cincinnati or Cleveland :bigass:
But in North Carolina, I-485 has control cities on them...

The difference is that I-485 actually reaches its control cities of Pineville/Matthews/Huntersville (Which are not the control cities I would have selected; I would have preferred that I-485 use the control cities of its intersecting routes such as Greensboro, Columbia, etc)
Logged
Atlanta Braves 2021 Champions! Georgia Bulldogs 2021-22 CFP Champions!

ran4sh

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 726
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Georgia
  • Last Login: April 27, 2022, 03:38:14 PM
    • YouTube - mostly my Cities:Skylines live streams
Re: Highway signs with NO control cities
« Reply #83 on: October 28, 2021, 03:41:46 PM »

As for the OP, an example of a route with no control cities is SC 22 in the westbound direction. Eastbound its control cities are Myrtle Beach and North Myrtle Beach. Westbound it has no control cities whatsoever, not on the directional signs, and there are no mileage signs with control cities in that direction either.
Logged
Atlanta Braves 2021 Champions! Georgia Bulldogs 2021-22 CFP Champions!

Ned Weasel

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1907
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Kansas
  • Last Login: Today at 03:56:15 PM
    • My Instagram
Re: Highway signs with NO control cities
« Reply #84 on: November 18, 2021, 06:13:45 AM »

The new signs for US 54/400 (Kellogg Avenue Freeway) and K-96 from I-35/Kansas Turnpike have no control cities (and don't even say "Wichita").

https://goo.gl/maps/Wq4JzBD5fSadDUQ9A
https://goo.gl/maps/cvTWYAy12tLEJ7MG8
https://goo.gl/maps/Ms4hAqyPrsoYCwRQ7
https://goo.gl/maps/hDEhFK5NsrsyCHAP8

As a side note, you may have noticed that the exit formerly signed for US 54/400/Kellogg Avenue and Wichita is now signed simply as "Webb Road," which actually makes sense if you're familiar with the design of the new set of interchanges.
Logged
"I was raised by a cup of coffee." - Strong Bad imitating Homsar

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

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4630
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: March 31, 2022, 07:24:24 PM
Re: Highway signs with NO control cities
« Reply #85 on: November 21, 2021, 04:57:22 PM »

This sign confuses me. I-440 doesn't take you to Rocky Mount or Wilson or even Wake Forest! Sanford as well...

There should be no control cities on these signs. Period.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.837026,-78.6724127,3a,42.3y,122.92h,104.46t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFJ4piYd2TB_S9EqCby1ocA!2e0!5s20150701T000000!7i16384!8i8192
Logged

1

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 11758
  • Age: 23
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: Today at 06:50:03 PM
    • Flickr account
Re: Highway signs with NO control cities
« Reply #86 on: November 21, 2021, 05:54:03 PM »

This sign confuses me. I-440 doesn't take you to Rocky Mount or Wilson or even Wake Forest! Sanford as well...

There should be no control cities on these signs. Period.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.837026,-78.6724127,3a,42.3y,122.92h,104.46t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFJ4piYd2TB_S9EqCby1ocA!2e0!5s20150701T000000!7i16384!8i8192

Sanford is a straight shot with no turns, and you're also continuously on US 1. Why shouldn't it be signed?
Logged
Clinched

Traveled, plus
US ⒔50
MA ⒐2⒉40.9⒐10⒎10⒐1⒒1⒘1⒚14⒈159
NH 27,38,111A(E); CA133; NY366; GA 42,140; FL A1A; CT32; VT 5A; QC 16⒉16⒌263

Flickr: Click the globe under my avatar

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4630
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: March 31, 2022, 07:24:24 PM
Re: Highway signs with NO control cities
« Reply #87 on: November 21, 2021, 06:17:16 PM »

This sign confuses me. I-440 doesn't take you to Rocky Mount or Wilson or even Wake Forest! Sanford as well...

There should be no control cities on these signs. Period.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.837026,-78.6724127,3a,42.3y,122.92h,104.46t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFJ4piYd2TB_S9EqCby1ocA!2e0!5s20150701T000000!7i16384!8i8192

Sanford is a straight shot with no turns, and you're also continuously on US 1. Why shouldn't it be signed?
Because there's no US Highway on them...
Logged

ran4sh

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 726
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Georgia
  • Last Login: April 27, 2022, 03:38:14 PM
    • YouTube - mostly my Cities:Skylines live streams
Re: Highway signs with NO control cities
« Reply #88 on: November 21, 2021, 06:38:31 PM »

They need to take some of the destinations off of the I-440 east sign though, to reduce the message loading (MUTCD guidance is to have one destination for each of those three signs, assuming the pull-through sign is necessary to reduce/avoid confusion)
Logged
Atlanta Braves 2021 Champions! Georgia Bulldogs 2021-22 CFP Champions!

bing101

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4241
  • Last Login: May 16, 2022, 03:28:19 PM
Re: Highway signs with NO control cities
« Reply #89 on: November 21, 2021, 06:56:20 PM »

I-5 from Downtown San Diego is simply labelled as SOUTH as a control city heading to the San Ysidro.
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4630
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: March 31, 2022, 07:24:24 PM
Re: Highway signs with NO control cities
« Reply #90 on: January 01, 2022, 03:04:06 PM »




Can't they jus add control cities in this sign??!!

Why?  They're on this sign.

It would be better if they were all on one sign.

Nah. With that many concurrent routes you may run the risk of message overload if you throw everything onto one huge sign

Exactly what I was thinking.  Putting everything "all on one sign" isn't always the best idea, if you actually expect people to read and comprehend all the information contained therein.

So it's probably because it has two control cities instead of one going in the same direction

3 destinations
6 route shields
6 directionals
4 2 arrows

That's a lot of information to expect people to take in all at once while driving.
The ironic thing is that this sign has all of that information on it!
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4630
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: March 31, 2022, 07:24:24 PM
Re: Highway signs with NO control cities
« Reply #91 on: February 06, 2022, 09:46:08 PM »

This sign has the control cities,

I-85
https://maps.app.goo.gl/2ftWruuz9vrHspV3A

But this one on the other side does not?

I-85
https://maps.app.goo.gl/e5LS2UvBpQ1NFdCc7

Same thing here

US-64
https://maps.app.goo.gl/7nHqdJw1jgvddLmx8

And on the other side

US-64
https://maps.app.goo.gl/wfxu484Uh7kka1FJA
Logged

wanderer2575

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1534
  • Location: Farmington Hills, MI
  • Last Login: Today at 07:00:32 PM
Re: Highway signs with NO control cities
« Reply #92 on: February 06, 2022, 10:20:30 PM »

This sign has the control cities,

I-85
https://maps.app.goo.gl/2ftWruuz9vrHspV3A

But this one on the other side does not?

I-85
https://maps.app.goo.gl/e5LS2UvBpQ1NFdCc7

Same thing here

US-64
https://maps.app.goo.gl/7nHqdJw1jgvddLmx8

And on the other side

US-64
https://maps.app.goo.gl/wfxu484Uh7kka1FJA

In the case of the I-85 examples, both control cities are many miles south of the interchange.  So it makes sense to show the control cities on the southbound exit, but not northbound as you are several miles past the cities at that point.

Similar with your US-64 examples.

Jeezuz H, when are you going to move out of your mother's basement and stop spending all your time searching Google Maps for every possible North Carolina signing oddity?
Logged

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4539
  • Last Login: May 20, 2022, 09:36:54 PM
Re: Highway signs with NO control cities
« Reply #93 on: February 06, 2022, 10:24:21 PM »

ISTHA has several of these on one stretch I-90 alone. This isn't uncommon enough to warrant a thread.

I'll just make a blanket statement here about Illinois's toll highways (maintained by ISTHA, as previously mentioned)-- any exit on an Illinois tollway that isn't to another expressway* will not have any control cities mentioned on the sign.  The control cities will be mentioned on a single separate sign usually within 1/2 mile of the exit, with text on the bottom that says "NEXT RIGHT".

Seems like there's a cutoff for the use of control cities for I-90 and I-88:

* I-90 at IL 47 at control cities on the main signs

* The new interchange on I-90 at IL 23 has control cities.

* DeKalb shows up with To IL 38/IL 23 at the Annie Glidden Road exit.  Note the adjacent 13 mile advance sign for I-39 and US 51 without any control cities.

* Control cities are used for the IL 251 exit from I-88 
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4630
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: March 31, 2022, 07:24:24 PM
Re: Highway signs with NO control cities
« Reply #94 on: February 07, 2022, 05:47:14 AM »

This sign has the control cities,

I-85
https://maps.app.goo.gl/2ftWruuz9vrHspV3A

But this one on the other side does not?

I-85
https://maps.app.goo.gl/e5LS2UvBpQ1NFdCc7

Same thing here

US-64
https://maps.app.goo.gl/7nHqdJw1jgvddLmx8

And on the other side

US-64
https://maps.app.goo.gl/wfxu484Uh7kka1FJA

In the case of the I-85 examples, both control cities are many miles south of the interchange.  So it makes sense to show the control cities on the southbound exit, but not northbound as you are several miles past the cities at that point.

Similar with your US-64 examples.

Jeezuz H, when are you going to move out of your mother's basement and stop spending all your time searching Google Maps for every possible North Carolina signing oddity?
No idea, honestly. I just find it interesting that one side has the control cities and the other side doesn't.
Logged

FredAkbar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9
  • Age: 34
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:48:27 AM
Re: Highway signs with NO control cities
« Reply #95 on: March 09, 2022, 11:21:47 PM »

I-5 from Downtown San Diego is simply labelled as SOUTH as a control city heading to the San Ysidro.

Yeah, I was going to say, as someone more used to other parts of CA, the San Diego area has a lot of this and it was surprising to see, though in some cases it gives a theme of "there's nothing south of here, except Mexico".

Another example: 905 exit from 805 in San Ysidro: https://www.google.com/maps/@32.5746829,-117.0393102,3a,75y,191.28h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sszHrM6kFWGv6C8i5FN-bmw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Notably, in the LA area, 605 south from 210E (and maybe other places too) has no control city: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1354988,-117.9642487,3a,75y,95.09h,87.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srcU71aeL_unrzbNqKcFC-Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7050
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:00:51 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: Highway signs with NO control cities
« Reply #96 on: March 10, 2022, 01:36:46 PM »

FWIW, the only two acceptable situations are if a freeway:

a. has already entered the city where it would eventually end
b. is under construction, especially with several disconnected segments
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

ran4sh

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 726
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Georgia
  • Last Login: April 27, 2022, 03:38:14 PM
    • YouTube - mostly my Cities:Skylines live streams
Re: Highway signs with NO control cities
« Reply #97 on: March 10, 2022, 01:49:30 PM »

FWIW, the only two acceptable situations are if a freeway:

a. has already entered the city where it would eventually end
b. is under construction, especially with several disconnected segments

And even (a) is not really an excuse if the freeway ends at or connects to another freeway, those control cities should be used in that case.
Logged
Atlanta Braves 2021 Champions! Georgia Bulldogs 2021-22 CFP Champions!

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4630
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: March 31, 2022, 07:24:24 PM
Re: Highway signs with NO control cities
« Reply #98 on: March 12, 2022, 01:49:30 AM »

NCDOT is moving away from putting control cities on the beltways. All the TO trailblazers are going away. Guidance is to have one (I think)? Or none at all?

Old signs - https://goo.gl/maps/jPxbCVdv8D6gHLcQ6

Newer ones - https://goo.gl/maps/Bf3N1azB194Lro25A

They will be replaced again so they can say 540/WEST/EAST

https://goo.gl/maps/G3uTmbyY4mNikFQo7 (is being replaced by a sign with just one TO) sign which is at a obvious location - NC 540 toll.

https://goo.gl/maps/fQvkSqgunSnenYgHA I would take TO US-1 off on the right sign since it runs through a bottlenecked area of the city and they replaced the sign to reflect that change before the eastern segment of I-540 opened in January 2007. I don't think it's necessary to have that there, really. You already have this - https://goo.gl/maps/84MWUsG37L7qWjbf8




Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3689
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: May 20, 2022, 07:06:45 AM
Re: Highway signs with NO control cities
« Reply #99 on: March 14, 2022, 08:07:54 PM »

FWIW, the only two acceptable situations are if a freeway:

a. has already entered the city where it would eventually end
b. is under construction, especially with several disconnected segments

And even (a) is not really an excuse if the freeway ends at or connects to another freeway, those control cities should be used in that case.

Agreed.  A freeway obviously goes somewhere.  I can't think of an example where a freeway, even after reaching its destination city, could not be named for some place that it has yet to reach.  That may not be a city, per se, but it can be a neighborhood or a landmark, or yes, the control cities of connecting routes if the freeway ends at an interchange.  Even a cross-street may be acceptable as a control in limited circumstances.

Example:  I-710, in the L.A. area has Pasadena as its northbound control.  Of course, the northernmost section of the freeway that would connect to Pasadena has never been built.  Different ways to get to Pasadena involving either freeway backtracking (using CA-2 freeway), freeways that don't allow trucks (CA-110 freeway), or various surface street connections (taking I-10 to Rosemead Blvd is one signed alternative).*   In the area near the northern part of I-710 (basically everywhere north of I-5), the official control for the freeway changes from Pasadena to Valley Blvd.  This is an acceptable control, under the circumstances, although Alhambra should also be feasible.  (I-710 meets Valley Blvd at the Alhambra/L.A. border.)

And to keep with the topic, here is another freeway without control cities: MD-200.  This is the Intercouty Connector Toll road that is north of the Captial Beltway in the DC area.  This freeway connects Gaithersburg to Laurel, which are both sizable suburbs and would be fine controls for this local freeway.  Yet, practically all of its signs are signed as to I-270 for westbound and to I-95 (and US 1) for eastbound.  There is no good reason for this.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0754269,-76.9530828,3a,75y,32.44h,81.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCoc3gzh3Q7J0CCsZNd85UA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


* In my opinion, none of these are actually signed that well, so if you are not careful, you may miss the guidance to I-10 east and Rosemead Blvd.  I think, given the heavy truck traffic on I-710 that connects directly to the Long Beach Port, Caltrans did not want to sign an official route that would get the bulk of this traffic, so people on 710 who are headed to Pasadena are left to their own devices (i.e. Waze)
Logged

 


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.