Highway signs with NO control cities

[tolbs17]

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

[kphoger]

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

Why?  They're on this sign.

[zachary_amaryllis]

Roadgeeks need a comic book superhero, and I think it should be The Green Arrow.

Ah!

must be a rest area there...

[zachary_amaryllis]

would this include exit signs with no control city, or road listed?

there's one in eastern colorado somewhere on i-70 (sorry, slow link can't do a gsv from here) but its exit 3-something.. way out in the boonies and the sign just says 'exit 3xx 1 mile' . no road, no control citry (and what would they use out here.. a cow?) and i think it goes down to a dirt road.

[JoePCool14]

Nobody knows what Alderwood or Long Branch are lol

Wondered about that.

Maybe people would know if they were used. I feel some cases of control city may be chicken or egg situations. You can't put something down as a control because no one knows what the place is.

I can't think of a case where having a control city would not be helpful.  Even if the last city the highway passes through is relatively small, it is still a location that it reaches.  For the most part, before the absolute end of the highway, there is likely an interchange where most of the traffic will migrate to.  If that is the case, then that city would be an appropriate control.

As an example, the Rockford control that is used on I-290 in the Chicago area.  I-290 ends at I-90 which leads to Rockford.  I-290 also continues as the IL-53 expressway, which only goes for a few more miles.  Rockford is an appropriate control (but not necessarioly the most appropriate)* since it leads you in that direction.  And a more local control (perhaps Deer Park) would be appropriate for IL-53.

But in no case would it be appropriate to say no control for I-290 since it doesn't directly go to any big city in the westbound direction.

* I personally prefer Schaumburg.

That was a poorly phrased post on my part. I should clear up and say that I am 100 percent in favor of controls, even if they aren't as well-known. I was trying to say that the places would become more well-known if they were used as controls, solving the entire problem.

[kphoger]

there's one in eastern colorado somewhere on i-70 (sorry, slow link can't do a gsv from here) but its exit 3-something.. way out in the boonies and the sign just says 'exit 3xx 1 mile' .

Probably this one.

no road, no control citry (and what would they use out here.. a cow?) and i think it goes down to a dirt road.

County Road 118, at the very least, considering that's the intersecting road.

or County Road 187, considering that's the road in the other direction.

[tolbs17]

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.

[US 89]

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

[tolbs17]

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

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

[kphoger]

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.

[mrsman]

What would MA 88's control city be southbound, then? It's entirely in Westport, but at some point, you're heading away from the center.

Or for that matter, the Lowell Connector away from I-495/US 3?

Horseneck Beach for MA 88.

And it looks like it is signed as such from I-195:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6748728,-71.0950359,3a,75y,157.55h,91.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIAqJs6RY1Xq3HYg3CID7eQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

And the Lowell connector's control city can be Lowell or Central Lowell.

It's true that at some point, perhaps a street name for the last exit will have to be used as a control, but not for these.

It is done so in CA on the truncated I-710.  Supposed to reach Pasadena, but stops at Valley Blvd in Alhambra.  Alhambra would be an OK control, but in the part north of I-5, Valley Blvd is the control.  (For most of the freeway, Pasadena is the control, even though there is no hope that this highway will ever be completed that far.)

[bwana39]

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. Maybe it should reference the airport or it should be noted like I-20 at I-220 By- Pass https://goo.gl/maps/eQQQxzMEwfCLxnQ6A

[J N Winkler]

Should the term "control city" refer to the destinations listed at individual exits, or should the term be reserved for the long-distance places to which mileage counts down on an interstate?

I, personally, use the term only for the latter. A "control city" is the destination listed at a freeway-to-freeway junction. At Knoxville, you have control cities such as Chattanooga, Lexington, Nashville, and Asheville. But say you take I-75 north. The "control city" for the last exit in Tennessee -- to me anyway-- isn't Jellico. The destination is Jellico. And deeper into Kentucky, those aren't "control cities" at Exit 41 for KY 80. London and Somerset  are destinations.

Is "control city" the accurate term for the places listed on exits along I-75 between the actual control cities of Knoxville and Lexington?

The usage you describe tends to be the dominant usage among professionals, but I think it's a distinction without much of a difference. After all, if you exit to a non-Interstate route signed for some city, you're pretty likely to encounter signage on the non-Interstate route with mileage counting down to that city. The only thing that makes Interstate control cities special is that they tend to be further apart, and AASHTO maintains a list of them (which some states freely ignore). I don't know that they're functionally different enough to warrant a difference in terminology.

I would say they are, but whether that distinction is observed in casual conversation among road enthusiasts is another question altogether--it's a bit like the running difference of opinion about whether "Super Two" should be understood to refer to a two-lane freeway or to a highly improved two-lane road with full paved shoulders, easy curves, high speed limit, etc. that nevertheless has flat intersections.

Personally, I use the term control city in the narrow practitioner's sense that H.B. refers to.  Control cities are a proper subset of signed destinations and have the special property of being intended for forward signing on the road under discussion, in such a way that the signing flips over to the next control city once the current one has been reached.  If someone on here says control city, I look for clues from the context that the usage isn't necessarily limited to destinations on pull-through signs or the second or final line on post-interchange confirmation signs.

[kphoger]

it's a bit like the running difference of opinion about whether "Super Two" should be understood to refer to a two-lane freeway or to a highly improved two-lane road with full paved shoulders, easy curves, high speed limit, etc. that nevertheless has flat intersections.

Someone should totally start a thread about that.

[/sarc]

[Scott5114]

Personally, I use the term control city in the narrow practitioner's sense that H.B. refers to.  Control cities are a proper subset of signed destinations and have the special property of being intended for forward signing on the road under discussion, in such a way that the signing flips over to the next control city once the current one has been reached.

Is that not the case with destinations on conventional-road signing in most states? Forward signing on roads in Oklahoma generally carries over to the post-junction destination signage. There is a little bit of squirrelliness regarding the consistency of further-away destinations, and what happens during a concurrency, but I have always just attributed that to Oklahoma being Oklahoma.

[michravera]

Must be a state or US highway.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4347004,-78.0653475,3a,18y,117.64h,90.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFd4SgIByzVu-49sd7I2yMg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8919716,-76.5313031,3a,15y,303.41h,91.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXCo3H4ae_jaryef1Ccp7og!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7659137,-77.9612187,3a,15.1y,335.59h,91.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCnlqMAXL9MC87D2zx6D8bA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1 - The other side as well has no control city.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5202206,-77.5857264,3a,44.4y,20.93h,87.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNvZi8QPZQ0HRWkFwgNK9FA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

Most of the time that this happens in California, the "Control City" is either the old name of the road or the name of the other road to which the road inevitably leads. For Example:
CASR-87 often has a "Control City" or either "Guadalupe Parkway" or "to CASR-85".

[J N Winkler]

Is that not the case with destinations on conventional-road signing in most states? Forward signing on roads in Oklahoma generally carries over to the post-junction destination signage. There is a little bit of squirrelliness regarding the consistency of further-away destinations, and what happens during a concurrency, but I have always just attributed that to Oklahoma being Oklahoma.

A destination is just a placename on a sign.  Many of the examples in this thread are of freeway advance guide or exit direction signs with just a route shield (no destination), which is a different kettle of fish from pull-through signs with shields but no destinations (often the result of policy in states like Kansas that jettisoned control city signing for loops).  On conventional roads, many destinations that appear on signs would not form part of a control-city network rationally designed to guide long-distance traffic--examples include small towns between county seats, hamlets reached "Via County Road," and so on.

[kphoger]

pull-through signs with shields but no destinations

Which is specifically depicted in MUTCD E6-2.

[Scott5114]

Is that not the case with destinations on conventional-road signing in most states? Forward signing on roads in Oklahoma generally carries over to the post-junction destination signage. There is a little bit of squirrelliness regarding the consistency of further-away destinations, and what happens during a concurrency, but I have always just attributed that to Oklahoma being Oklahoma.

A destination is just a placename on a sign.  Many of the examples in this thread are of freeway advance guide or exit direction signs with just a route shield (no destination), which is a different kettle of fish from pull-through signs with shields but no destinations (often the result of policy in states like Kansas that jettisoned control city signing for loops).  On conventional roads, many destinations that appear on signs would not form part of a control-city network rationally designed to guide long-distance traffic--examples include small towns between county seats, hamlets reached "Via County Road," and so on.

I sort of get what you're saying–that "destinations" tend to be lower-importance places that aren't useful for long-range traffic. But at the same time, I'm used to some conventional-road destinations being used in much the same way as control cities are.

For example, on SH-152 westbound in western Oklahoma:

• SH-152/SH-37 departing US-81: destinations Binger/Cordell. Post-junction mileage sign, Binger and Cordell (59 miles).
• SH-37 departing from SH-152: SH-152 forward destination is Cordell. Post-junction mileage sign, Binger and Cordell.
• SH-152 at US-281 junction: US-281 (and its follow route SH-8) starts a concurrency with SH-152 at this junction. SH-152 forward destination is now Binger (which is the location where the two routes split, 5 miles distant). Post-junction mileage sign, Binger and Cordell.
• US-281 departing from SH-152 in Binger: SH-152 forward destination returns to being Cordell. Mileage sign leaving town, Cordell (37 miles) and Sayre (73 miles).
• SH-152 and SH-146 junction: SH-152 forward destination is Cordell. Post-junction mileage sign, Cordell and Sayre.
• SH-152 at SH-58 junction: SH-58 starts a concurrency with SH-152 at this junction. SH-152 forward destination is Cordell. Post-junction mileage sign, Carnegie (a town on SH-58 post-split) and Cordell.
• SH-58 departing SH-152: SH-152 forward destination is Cordell. Post-junction mileage sign, Cordell and Sayre.

And so on. Now, to some degree, consistency is forced here by lack of suitable destinations other than Cordell and Sayre. But at the same time, Cordell and Sayre are being treated the same way that an Interstate control city would be, and similar practices are used in more built-up areas as well. It seems a little odd to insist that Cordell cannot be called a control city simply because it is a destination on a system that is of a more local scope than the Interstate system. Cordell is of the same proportional importance to SH-152 as Joplin is to I-44, it's simply a matter of scale.

[tolbs17]

If anybody can tell me what these extra spaces on the sign were, I would love to know about it

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.798822,-78.1845131,3a,23.3y,299.68h,91.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snD-z-GQyZK6pb2d0qJ8YkQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7626841,-77.9900885,3a,44.6y,327.34h,90.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKYes4iI6V85P7LEtUWj4XQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


For the Middlesex sign, I believe it was either Spring Hope or Wendell but I'm not honestly sure!

And for the Raleigh one I don't know...

[SkyPesos]

And for the Raleigh one I don't know...

I don't know either, but maybe Zebulon? It's where US 264 joins US 64.

[tolbs17]

And for the Raleigh one I don't know...

I don't know either, but maybe Zebulon? It's where US 264 joins US 64.

Between 1994 and 1999 US-264 was extended to Raleigh so the former terminus was in Zebulon.

[US20IL64]

"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.

[tolbs17]

And for the Raleigh one I don't know...

I don't know either, but maybe Zebulon? It's where US 264 joins US 64.

More evidence... Sims became the new control city on this sign.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7831883,-78.0002627,3a,15y,245.9h,91.03t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgo_zYxOXpmGvWFytNJtjlw!2e0!5s20210501T000000!7i16384!8i8192

Old control city was most likely Zebulon and then changed to Raleigh for a brief amount of time (I think?).

For all I know when Sims became the new control city, the old control city was most likely Zebulon or Raleigh.

[OracleUsr]

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?   

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.