AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Topic started by: roadman65 on April 17, 2023, 09:52:07 PM

Title: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: roadman65 on April 17, 2023, 09:52:07 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/LCwiGKYcy4JNkvB29
For some reason Ohio DOT removed both Cleveland and Cincinnati from I-270 on I-70.

https://goo.gl/maps/JfxRwPoHha5m9WYt6
In addition the control cities of Wheeling and Indianapolis were also removed from I-71 at I-270.

Any other freeway or roads where control cities once were that have none now.
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: Rothman on April 17, 2023, 09:57:37 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 17, 2023, 09:52:07 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/AdUvGMnfygxc5qfG8
For some reason Ohio DOT removed both Cleveland and Cincinnati from I-270 on I-70.

https://goo.gl/maps/JfxRwPoHha5m9WYt6
In addition the control cities of Wheeling and Indianapolis were also removed from I-71 at I-270.

Any other freeway or roads where control cities once were that have none now.
Test your first link again. :D
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on April 17, 2023, 10:49:16 PM
The old Crosstown Commons had Minneapolis for I-35W North and Albert Lea for I-35W South. The rebuild removed them. Technically the interchange is partially in Minneapolis, but directing traffic toward downtown Minneapolis on 35W northbound would still be helpful.
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: ilpt4u on April 17, 2023, 11:10:19 PM
IDOT removed the ridiculously ambiguous control of "Suburbs"  for I-355 along I-55.

If memory serves, IDOT covered it with Greenout not long after the transportation/roadways reporter for the ChiTribune wrote a story basically making fun of IDOT and ISTHA for the completely useless control. The BGS that had it NB has been since replaced with a smaller BGS with no control
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: kphoger on April 18, 2023, 11:17:10 AM
Quote from: ilpt4u on April 17, 2023, 11:10:19 PM
IDOT removed the ridiculously ambiguous control of "Suburbs"  for I-355 along I-55.

If memory serves, IDOT covered it with Greenout not long after the transportation/roadways reporter for the ChiTribune wrote a story basically making fun of IDOT and ISTHA for the completely useless control. The BGS that had it NB has been since replaced with a smaller BGS with no control

Technically, it was the slightly more useful 'West Suburbs'.
https://goo.gl/maps/xnPGRbw1EAmSwfVs5

Meanwhile, it's still signed as 'Northwest Suburbs' along I-88.
https://goo.gl/maps/DwxjGSMhj3NRUMPP9
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: ilpt4u on April 18, 2023, 11:42:37 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 18, 2023, 11:17:10 AM
Quote from: ilpt4u on April 17, 2023, 11:10:19 PM
IDOT removed the ridiculously ambiguous control of "Suburbs"  for I-355 along I-55.

If memory serves, IDOT covered it with Greenout not long after the transportation/roadways reporter for the ChiTribune wrote a story basically making fun of IDOT and ISTHA for the completely useless control. The BGS that had it NB has been since replaced with a smaller BGS with no control

Technically, it was the slightly more useful 'West Suburbs'.
https://goo.gl/maps/xnPGRbw1EAmSwfVs5

Meanwhile, it's still signed as 'Northwest Suburbs' along I-88.
https://goo.gl/maps/DwxjGSMhj3NRUMPP9
At one point, it was only "Suburbs"  I have/had an old picture of it somewhere

This was just after the I-80 extension opened so 355 went both North and South

Spring 2009 GSV has it: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Fo7Ea1nHMKr6AtzB6?g_st=ic

By Fall 2009 GSV it was covered with Greenout

Before the south extension opened, yes the control was West Suburbs
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: kphoger on April 18, 2023, 11:51:36 AM
Sorry, I don't know why I was looking at I-80 instead of I-55 like you said.
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: Takumi on April 18, 2023, 12:06:07 PM
The old version of this overhead sign (https://maps.app.goo.gl/VYbAeEUM41BJCUv1A?g_st=ic) at the east end of I-64 at Bowers Hill used to have a greenout under Petersburg, and when it was replaced the sign now says only Petersburg via US 460. I assume the part that was greened out said Richmond and dated to before I-664 was completed.

Also, not quite the same spirit, on I-95 north of Richmond, Miami used to be a control city for I-295, but was replaced with the Richmond airport. There's still one Miami control sign on I-95 just south of I-85.
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: OldDominion75 on April 19, 2023, 12:17:14 AM
I-85 northbound at exit 215 in North Carolina used to have an overhead reassurance BGS that had simply I-85 (no direction) with a control city of Richmond. All references to Richmond in Vance and Warren counties have been replaced by Petersburg, the northern terminal point and junction with I-95. I feel like Richmond was sufficient, as it's the next metropolitan anchor city for motorists heading north. An identical reassurance BGS still exists on I-95 North in Kenly.

Curiously, the controls for I-85 exit 233 (right at the NC/VA border) used to be "Wise"  and "Norlina" . For some reason, it was changed to "Warrenton"  and "Louisburg" . The only reasoning that I can fathom for this would be that those are the next towns on US-401's independent routing. The original controls were more appropriate because it recognizes the next community heading south on that route and the first municipality, Norlina, which is actually more populous than Warrenton.

When I drove to SC a few years ago, I recall that those "301 - Local Traffic"  signs on 95 in Robeson County, NC were gone. Good decision on NCDOT's part.
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: sprjus4 on April 19, 2023, 12:22:59 AM
Quote from: OldDominion75 on April 19, 2023, 12:17:14 AM
When I drove to SC a few years ago, I recall that those "301 - Local Traffic"  signs on 95 in Robeson County, NC were gone. Good decision on NCDOT's part.
Looks to still be there two months ago.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/YrG8sCYrDHos3Rnp7?g_st=ic
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: Dirt Roads on April 20, 2023, 01:17:09 PM
Quote from: OldDominion75 on April 19, 2023, 12:17:14 AM
Curiously, the controls for I-85 exit 233 (right at the NC/VA border) used to be "Wise"  and "Norlina" . For some reason, it was changed to "Warrenton"  and "Louisburg" . The only reasoning that I can fathom for this would be that those are the next towns on US-401's independent routing. The original controls were more appropriate because it recognizes the next community heading south on that route and the first municipality, Norlina, which is actually more populous than Warrenton.

The control cities of Warrenton and Louisburg were not [considered applicable] for Exit 233 until US-401 was extended northward from Norlina in 2001. 
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: bing101 on April 20, 2023, 02:04:34 PM
Bakersfield used to be signed on I-5 in the Los Angeles area on the Northbound direction until they were greened out for Sacramento when the Boat Section was completed.
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 20, 2023, 10:40:57 PM
NJDOT used to sign I-287 north for "Boonton" prior to it's completion in 1993. I-78 west used "Phillipsburg" prior to it's completion (and mostly bypass) to Easton, PA.
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: Road Hog on April 21, 2023, 03:00:09 AM
The control city for US 75 out of Dallas used to be Sherman, but the Dallas Morning News was bending over and puffing itself when it got changed to McKinney in 2009 or so.

Nobody consulted much-bigger Plano.
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: hotdogPi on April 21, 2023, 07:01:08 AM
I-93 in Massachusetts used to be signed for Salem, referring to the one in New Hampshire. They moved away from it because too many people were following it trying to get to Salem MA. However, with the I-495 sign replacement project a year or two ago, I-93 north now says "Salem NH", thankfully with the state name.

However, this is one where most of them say Concord NH but I would prefer Manchester NH.
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: wanderer2575 on April 21, 2023, 08:57:23 AM
A couple minor ones in the Lansing MI area come to my mind:

US-127 exit 82B (WEST I-69 TO WEST I-96) used to have both Grand Rapids and Fort Wayne as controls.  Fort Wayne was greened out several years ago, and omitted when the signs were last replaced.

Eastbound I-496 exit 5 to the Capitol Loop and M-99 M.L. King Boulevard used to show Eaton Rapids as a control for M-99.  That also was greened out several years ago, and omitted when the signs were last replaced.  I guess someone decided three lines of text there was not appropriate.  (Curiously, I don't think the westbound exit, signed only for M-99, ever included a control city.)
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: 1995hoo on April 21, 2023, 09:34:34 AM
So are we looking for signs that used to have a control city that now have none at all, or signs where the control city was replaced with something more local? I ask because the OP says, "Any other freeway or roads where control cities once were that have none now."

Off the top of my head I'm not coming up with the former (no control cities at all), but as to the latter, the Capital Beltway's Inner Loop in Virginia used to use Frederick as a control city (it's in Maryland at the far end of I-270). At some point, I don't remember when but I think in the latter part of the 1980s, most or all of those signs changed to list Tysons Corner instead of Frederick. I recall news reports saying the businesses in Tysons Corner, which had by then grown into a major commercial area, complained about the use of an out-of-state location.

Signs in Tysons Corner now use Rockville and Baltimore as control cities for that direction. Frederick now first appears as a control city on the signage for I-270 where it splits from the Beltway in Maryland.
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: OldDominion75 on April 21, 2023, 11:22:50 PM
In the Richmond area, “To Powhite Parkway” has been replaced by Charlottesville as a secondary control for the 288 beltway from I-95.

Up until a few years ago, Arthur Ashe Blvd. (I-95 exit 78) was simply just “Boulevard”.

What was Jeff Davis Hwy is now “Route 1” on BGSs. It’s weird because there’s already a U.S. 1 and 301 shield there with “Route 1” used as a control. How about “Richmond Hwy”?

I-295 will have to update signs for Fort Lee with Fort Gregg-Adams soon. There’s already been supplementary signs put up on 95 and 295(which I assume is temporary and will be taken down when the upcoming exit BGS is replaced).
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: hbelkins on April 22, 2023, 10:07:13 PM
Somehow, someway, Dayton jumped in between Indy and C-bus.
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on April 23, 2023, 12:18:33 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 22, 2023, 10:07:13 PM
Somehow, someway, Dayton jumped in between Indy and C-bus.

It is 140,000 people and a major regional center. Not exactly Delaware Water Gap.
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: MattHanson939 on April 23, 2023, 03:00:49 AM
Within Albuquerque, the control city on I-25 south used to be Belen, and Grants used to be signed on I-40 west.  When the Big-I was rebuilt in 2000, the respective control cities were changed to Las Cruces and Gallup.
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: tdindy88 on April 23, 2023, 08:05:31 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 23, 2023, 12:18:33 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 22, 2023, 10:07:13 PM
Somehow, someway, Dayton jumped in between Indy and C-bus.

It is 140,000 people and a major regional center. Not exactly Delaware Water Gap.

The metro area also has over 800,000 people which would certainly qualify as control city worthy in most people's eyes. As a native Hoosier I do miss seeing Columbus on the signs in Indy, but Dayton is big enough and close enough to I-70 that it's mention doesn't cause any ill feeling.
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: thspfc on April 23, 2023, 04:40:32 PM
Quote from: tdindy88 on April 23, 2023, 08:05:31 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 23, 2023, 12:18:33 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 22, 2023, 10:07:13 PM
Somehow, someway, Dayton jumped in between Indy and C-bus.

It is 140,000 people and a major regional center. Not exactly Delaware Water Gap.

The metro area also has over 800,000 people which would certainly qualify as control city worthy in most people's eyes. As a native Hoosier I do miss seeing Columbus on the signs in Indy, but Dayton is big enough and close enough to I-70 that it's mention doesn't cause any ill feeling.
That's a case for two control cities.
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: roadman65 on April 23, 2023, 11:36:57 PM
Staten Island, NY briefly used both Jersey City and Perth Amboy for Route 440 before they switched back to both Bayonne Bridge and Outerbridge Crossing.   Cities used to no cities there.
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 24, 2023, 04:24:38 PM
They removed Atlanta and Miami from the north I-85 I-95 split in Virginia. Not a fan of that move, as for a major intersection marking the way to Florida could be helpful, and Rocky Mount isn't that well known. Also correct me if I'm wrong, but at the I-25 I-80 intersection in Wyoming, Omaha and SLC were replaced with Laramine and Sidney. Laramine is fine, Sidney absolutely not. Travelers not from the area will think that I-80 goes to Australia now.
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: hotdogPi on April 24, 2023, 04:30:36 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 24, 2023, 04:24:38 PM
Laramine is fine, Sidney absolutely not. Travelers not from the area will think that I-80 goes to Australia now.

1. Laramine doesn't even exist.
2. Sidney isn't even spelled the same way as the one in Australia. Or Nova Scotia, for that matter, which is accessible by road from that location.
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 24, 2023, 04:55:47 PM
Quote from: 1 on April 24, 2023, 04:30:36 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 24, 2023, 04:24:38 PM
Laramine is fine, Sidney absolutely not. Travelers not from the area will think that I-80 goes to Australia now.

1. Laramine doesn't even exist.
2. Sidney isn't even spelled the same way as the one in Australia. Or Nova Scotia, for that matter, which is accessible by road from that location.
You know what I meant, I made a spelling error. The Australia mention was a joke for how obscure that town is. Nobody knows Sidney and it isn't even a major junction.
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: kphoger on April 24, 2023, 04:59:26 PM
Yeah, Sidney is an odd choice.  But Laramie is the fourth-largest city in the state.
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 24, 2023, 05:00:46 PM
I said I was fine with Laramie. Big city for Wyoming standards, major University. I would prefer that Salt Lake City also be on the sign with Laramie but Laramie is alright as a choice.
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on April 25, 2023, 01:09:56 PM
I think Sidney is an example of what Scott was talking about in the Limon/Hays/Salina/Topeka/KC discussions - it's one of a chain of regional centers with a lot of nothing inbetween. North Platte would be a better choice heading EB from Cheyenne, though.

Counterpoint to my thought, I-80 in NE is heavily trucked enough that most cities have some kind of overnight amenities except the absolute smallest towns.
Title: Re: Where control cities used to be signed
Post by: Takumi on April 27, 2023, 12:47:00 PM
Quote from: OldDominion75 on April 21, 2023, 11:22:50 PM
In the Richmond area, “To Powhite Parkway” has been replaced by Charlottesville as a secondary control for the 288 beltway from I-95.
This makes sense since the “to Powhite Parkway” dated to before 288 was completed. There’s still a set of shields northbound that has a “TO VA 76” shield next to the 288 reassurance shield.

Also notably, it’s still signed as “TO Powhite Parkway” southbound. If you’re coming from north of there, it’s more logical to head to I-64 to go to Charlottesville instead of dropping all the way down to Chester.

Quote
What was Jeff Davis Hwy is now “Route 1” on BGSs. It’s weird because there’s already a U.S. 1 and 301 shield there with “Route 1” used as a control. How about “Richmond Hwy”?
Chesterfield decided to call the road “Route 1”. All the street blades were replaced with ones that say Route 1. Richmond Highway would make more sense, since several counties, and Richmond itself, also changed from JD to Richmond Highway. (Spotsylvania went with Patriot Highway, Stafford used Emancipation Highway, and Henrico and Hanover already used the respective names Brook Road and Washington Highway.) All of which are better than just “Route 1”.

Quote
I-295 will have to update signs for Fort Lee with Fort Gregg-Adams soon. There’s already been supplementary signs put up on 95 and 295(which I assume is temporary and will be taken down when the upcoming exit BGS is replaced).

Signs on VA 36 approaching the fort itself have greenout over the old names. The main gate (formerly Lee) is now called the Gregg Gate. I don’t know if any of the other gates had their names changed.