Exits with no local exit destination

[webny99]

but there is that transitional period in between suburbia and rural areas where it's unclear if a street name should be used, or control cities be used. That's why I believe in these cases it should be ok to sign both

This is where I think there's a lot of scope for discussion. Which is preferred - street name or city - in outer suburbs/exurban areas, or along developed corridors between two cities?

I tend to favor usage of street names strictly in urban areas, or perhaps in the suburbs for exits to unnumbered roads. We've established that the value of a street name decreases heading away from a city center, while the value of auxiliary destinations increases. There must, however, be a transition zone where both are valuable enough to be worth posting, at least IMO. This would encompass many beltways and other just-far-enough-from-downtown type roadways.

(I do think a "route number/city/xx miles" best meshes with driver expectations and should be used where possible. But where high volumes of locals tend to use suburban street names, this argument weakens.)

[Big John]

There are some rural exits in Wisconsin that use "North-South" or "East-West" under the highway shield instead of a street name or a city/village name.

[ErmineNotyours]

On Interstate 90 in Washington, east of North Bend there's an exit signed simply as Exit 38.  Google Street View.  Part of the problem is that the road it connects to is still called the Sunset Highway (former US 10), and it would get confusing if they signed it that.  More recently, an auxiliary sign for a fire training center has augmented this exit.  Otherwise state park recreation areas and hiking trails may be found off the exit.

[jakeroot]

Here's one with a street number, but without an exit number or destination. There's more than a few of these narrow BGSs in Western Washington, since most freeways lack exit numbers (minus the 5 and 405).

WA-167 at S 277th in Kent: https://goo.gl/vPjQhB

[jp the roadgeek]

Saw this one on GSV for I-81 Exit 38 in Mannsville, New York
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6821529,-76.0724949,0a,75y/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sdTq3f8sh4Ifr_nmhgx9nMg!2e0

[TheHighwayMan3561]

As far as I'm aware, no Minnesota metro area posts any BGSs for surface street local destinations. Minneapolis and St. Paul are the only control cities posted "inside the beltway". City limits are generally pretty well marked, though a number of freeways run along city lines for significant stretches such as MN 62, US 169, and I-394.

Outstate Minnesota has a few interchanges where only route shields are posted with no destinations, usually but not always if it's a redundant route to a destination already posted at another exit.

[MNHighwayMan]

As far as I'm aware, no Minnesota metro area posts any BGSs for surface street local destinations. Minneapolis and St. Paul are the only control cities posted "inside the beltway". City limits are generally pretty well marked, though a number of freeways run along city lines for significant stretches such as MN 62, US 169, and I-394.

I-35E has Stillwater listed at the MN-36 interchange. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "control cities posted inside the beltway."

[Eth]

There must, however, be a transition zone where both are valuable enough to be worth posting, at least IMO. This would encompass many beltways and other just-far-enough-from-downtown type roadways.

And sure enough, I-285 does this a lot. All of these examples happen to be numbered routes, but they're always referred to in conversation by street name; at the same time, they also have distinct destinations that are not necessarily the same as the city you're already in (if any).

That said, I do like the Maryland style of posting it, which makes it a little easier to pick out what's what on the sign.

[Brandon]

Here's one with a street number, but without an exit number or destination. There's more than a few of these narrow BGSs in Western Washington, since most freeways lack exit numbers (minus the 5 and 405).

WA-167 at S 277th in Kent: https://goo.gl/vPjQhB

Not unlike how the Illinois Tollway was until quite recently.
I-355 at 127th Street, 2013 - before exit numbers were applied.

[PHLBOS]

Another New England example in Milford, CT:
I-95 interchange with US 1/Exit 39A-B
The previous generation button-copy signage featured the same legends.

[Super Mateo]

In PA, when reaching an area with multiple exits, there is usually a sign, showing the town name, and up to the three next exits, like (might not be exactly right):

Williamsport Exits
-----------------------
Maynard St   2 
Hepburn St   2 3/4
Market St     3 1/2

That sign repeats itself until all of the town exits have been passed.  The exits within that do not have a control city, unless it's a major road where the main control city is only in one direction; then the BGS for that exit will have the local street name for one line, and the other control city; like this in Williamsport:

US 15 SOUTH
Market St
Lewisburg
(with or without a line separating the street from the other city; I've seen both in PA)

I  kind of like this approach.

Illinois doesn't do any of that.  What we get here is a single sign when entering a minor metro area is something like "Bloomington - Next 7 exits." That example I gave I made up, but the signs are in the format "City Y - Next X Exits."  These signs really aren't that helpful except for letting drivers know where they're at.

This doesn't happen in Chicago, though, probably because of its size.  On top of that, the signs listing the next three exits don't exist at all there, either.

[bzakharin]

Really, the idea of the preferred format of route number followed by destination makes sense except that not all exits take you to a numbered route (even indirectly, where a TO would make sense next to the shield). Either that or the road name is much more notable than a route number. It makes no sense to disallow street names and cities on the same sign in such cases. I mean how many people could identify even one of these county route numbers? https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8427743,-75.1880845,3a,37.5y,53.98h,93.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjpJFm4sXZ_J167msDsmcWA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

[vdeane]

Or maybe vice versa, the boxed street names were an attempt at compliance 

Boxed street names predate NY's adoption of the MUTCD, so I don't that would be it.

It's paragraph 2E.10.01, which is guidance.

No more than two destination names or street names should be displayed on any Advance Guide sign or Exit Direction sign. A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided.

On the whole, I don't think this guidance is foolish. On the whole, quite the opposite, in that I think that the town name is usually irrelevant once you get to the street-name level.

Should, not shall, so not completely banned.

There are obvious cases where one should only use street names, but there is that transitional period in between suburbia and rural areas where it's unclear if a street name should be used, or control cities be used. That's why I believe in these cases it should be ok to sign both, as long as control cities and street name are different sizes on the sign. (In Ontario, the street name is always larger than the control city(ies))

And thus another mystery about MTO's signage is solved.

Saw this one on GSV for I-81 Exit 38 in Mannsville, New York
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6821529,-76.0724949,0a,75y/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sdTq3f8sh4Ifr_nmhgx9nMg!2e0

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure why that exit even exists.

[Voyager75]

Exit 191 on I-20 near Oxford, AL has never had a destination on it. It is the secondary way to get to Heflin and the city of Wedowee 20 miles south of here would probably like some recognition.



It is the main way to get into the popular Cheaha State Park but it has it's own sign.


iPhone

[TheHighwayMan3561]

As far as I'm aware, no Minnesota metro area posts any BGSs for surface street local destinations. Minneapolis and St. Paul are the only control cities posted "inside the beltway". City limits are generally pretty well marked, though a number of freeways run along city lines for significant stretches such as MN 62, US 169, and I-394.

I-35E has Stillwater listed at the MN-36 interchange. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "control cities posted inside the beltway."

I meant sloppily that there are no suburbs posted as destinations anywhere inside 494/694. Although now that I think about it, there's North St. Paul posted for MN 36 at I-694 as well.

[tdindy88]

Indiana is pretty consistent with the usage of just street names alongside route markers (beyond freeways) within the urban parts of the state, namely Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, Evansville, Northwest Indiana, Louisville area and Bloomington. Auxiliary signage announcing control cities for various marked highways are also common approaching their respective exit.

Outside of that, control cities are used wherever possible at rural interchanges with street names used only if there is no actual route number.

[MNHighwayMan]

As far as I'm aware, no Minnesota metro area posts any BGSs for surface street local destinations. Minneapolis and St. Paul are the only control cities posted "inside the beltway". City limits are generally pretty well marked, though a number of freeways run along city lines for significant stretches such as MN 62, US 169, and I-394.

I-35E has Stillwater listed at the MN-36 interchange. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "control cities posted inside the beltway."

I meant sloppily that there are no suburbs posted as destinations anywhere inside 494/694. Although now that I think about it, there's North St. Paul posted for MN 36 at I-694 as well.

Well, Stillwater is a suburb, technically... (You can drive via I-35W and MN-36 from Minneapolis to Stillwater without ever being outside the corporate limits of a municipality.)

No, but seriously, I figured you meant either one of two things:
1. Cities that are geographically inside the beltway (excluding MSP), that are posted on signs on or inside the beltway.
2. Cities that are generally part of the Greater Metro area, that are posted on signs inside the beltway. (This is what I thought you meant.)

Funnily enough, the I-35E/MN-36 example was the only example I could find in my random GSV searching that fit number 2.

[michravera]

Here's a thread to discuss exits where there are no local exit destinations, for one reason or another.
Here's an extreme example in rural North Dakota. But this also occurs quite frequently in suburban areas (at least around here), where a road name is used, but no destination. This tends to irk me in suburban areas  (but not urban areas/city centers, where this works perfectly fine for city streets).

What are your thoughts on this? When faced with a choice of road name or a destination on a guide sign, which one would you prefer be included? Or should both be included as SOP, as they are in Maryland? How important is a destination on advance notice signs for exits, and how does this vary from a rural area to an urban one?

It seems normal in California to post the name of a road (which might be a highway number) and to put a city on it if it is the principle exit for the city or if a nearby city has a similarly named road. There will be some advance advisory green signs for roads that tend to parallel the freeway (such as "Stevens Creek Blvd" on I-280 in Santa Clara County and Sepulveda Blvd on I-405).

[US71]

I-90 in South Dakota has several exits that are Exit ### with no destination or road name.

[Rothman]

Did anyone bring up "Home on the Range" in North Dakota on I-94?  Now there's a strange little place.

[Roadsguy]

The exit to the would-be Schuylkill Parkway on US 202 at the end of the Dannehower Bridge is completely unsigned except for the gore sign, which has a single PA 23 trailblazer shield slapped on top of it. The exit points to the stub, but makes a "temporary" U-turn around toward Bridgeport, so logically any full-size BGSes installed would list PA 23 and a destination of Bridgeport and/or 4th Street.

[vdeane]

Did anyone bring up "Home on the Range" in North Dakota on I-94?  Now there's a strange little place.

Do the deer and the antelope play there?

[freebrickproductions]

Exit 325 on I-65 just lists the destination as Thompson Road:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.4071529,-86.8980153,3a,18.5y,28.56h,87.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sh1_FgfYEoEoM71QUiBh8rw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
It's technically for Hartselle (There are signs that state "Hartselle - Next 3 Exits" around the city, IIRC), but doesn't list it as such.

Also, here in Huntsville, most of the exits on the freeways in town just list local streets as their destination.

[PHLBOS]

The exit to the would-be Schuylkill Parkway on US 202 at the end of the Dannehower Bridge is completely unsigned except for the gore sign, which has a single PA 23 trailblazer shield slapped on top of it. The exit points to the stub, but makes a "temporary" U-turn around toward Bridgeport, so logically any full-size BGSes installed would list PA 23 and a destination of Bridgeport and/or 4th Street.

I'll go one further.  The US 322/Bethel Rd. interchange in Aston (Delaware County), PA has no signage whatsoever in either direction (along 322)... except for this "homemade" WEST 322 trailblazer sign with an MA-like shield.

[Kulerage]

Quite a few in North Carolina, mostly off of US Highways within cities. Some reason they don't always number the exits.