AARoads Forum

Basically, this is another spinoff of the Control Cities thread.

So whats your favorite or best listed Control City and the worst or your least favorite one and why?

I'll start with

Favorite  'Other Desert Cities' (I know i might get some disagreements on this) to me though it is a bit unique, and I think it makes sense given the Coachella Valley Destinations.  Plus I don't see a reason for Phoenix to be listed before Indio.  I mean Las Vegas isn't listed on the 15 until Barstow.

Least Favorite 605 in Los Angeles area, 'Thru Traffic' I really think that there should be a control city on the 605. 

Cleveland for northbound US 59 from Houston.  I would prefer Lufkin or ultimately Texarkana.  When US 59 becomes I-69, I would like to see Shreveport as the northbound control city.

That's a weird one. I'm not sure what my favorite control cities are. The first one I ever recall noticing was the one for Wheeling on I-70 east out of Columbus, so I guess that one is the most nostalgic. I was probably 3 or 4 at the time and was always mystified by Wheeling. Same with Peoria on I-55 in Chicago. I noticed that one at about the same time. Peoria and Wheeling were exotic lands in my 4 or 5 year old eyes. We saw signs for them all the time, but we never went there. (I did make it to Wheeling once- I still haven't been to Peoria)

Least favorite is probably "Topeka" for Missouri 152 west. I get that Topeka is the designated control cities for western destinations, but that seems like a weird choice there. I also dislike Limon for I-70 east of Denver.

Oh...wait. My least favorite is I-82 west from Oregon. The control cities are "Hermiston" and "Umatilla"
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2For%2F84%2F730to82%2F7.JPG&hash=64b931404ae92519320eb96674e3ddd37618ec3e)

Quote from: Interstate Trav on March 06, 2011, 09:50:00 PM
Basically, this is another spinoff of the Control Cities thread.

So whats your favorite or best listed Control City and the worst or your least favorite one and why?

Least favorite would probably be "Lewisburg" for I-64 east where it splits from I-77 at Beckley, WV.

More logical would be Lexington, Va. (as opposed to Lexington, Ky.) which is where I-64 meets I-81, or Richmond, which is the control city for I-64 where it splits from I-81.

Worse? All the towns along I-80 in Pennsylvania. Winona, Ms. for I-55 instead of Memphis (NB) and Jackson (SB)
Best? Sacramento/Ocean City, MD at either end of US 50.

Quote from: corco on March 06, 2011, 11:21:51 PM
Oh...wait. My least favorite is I-82 west from Oregon. The control cities are "Hermiston" and "Umatilla"

Hey, there's a BGS right before that sign bridge saying "Kennewick, Spokane, Next Right."  Oregon grudgingly admits there are Washington destinations you might be interested in.

Quote from: Adam Smith on March 06, 2011, 11:43:43 PM
Worse? All the towns along I-80 in Pennsylvania.

They're among the best IMHO, but I know I'm in the minority.  Anyway, best, my hometown, Bloomsburg, PA.

The worst, New York City via Penna. on I-80 near Youngstown, OH.  That's a "Let's snub Pennsylvania and totally ignore New Jersey!"  And, it's also over 400 miles away!

But, to be fair, if I wasn't from that part of PA, I'd probably agree with the prevailing sentiment.  But, what to use?  New York City and Youngstown/Cleveland, OH are too far away and there aren't any cities over 50,000 within 10 miles of the highway.

But, this is another place where the "two level" control cities would work well.  Things like New York City and Cleveland would work well for long distance travelers and the current control cities would serve the local traffic.  Tennessee uses places like Dickson, Lebanon, Cookeville, etc. on I-40 and they're in the same size range as the cities and towns on I-80 in PA.

QuoteHey, there's a BGS right before that sign bridge saying "Kennewick, Spokane, Next Right."  Oregon grudgingly admits there are Washington destinations you might be interested in.

Is that new? Last time I was there (08, admittedly), this was the advance signage
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2For%2F84%2F730to82%2F4.JPG&hash=c91df5aed9a6ac368264d71008bdf5ab31823d25)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2For%2F84%2F730to82%2F5.JPG&hash=e8b3170fa85575cc450ce15932ca38702f6fee7c)

Seems like Oregon only signs Oregon Cities.  i wonder what the control City for I-5 southbound in Southern Oregon is.  does Sacramento even get mentioned or Redding?

To add another

Another one I like is on 10 Eastbound in Ontario Ca at the 15 jct it says 15 North Barstow Las Vegas.  It's the only overhead sign before Barstow to even mention Las Vegas.  I always presumed because orginally 10 east to 15 north was the main Los Angeles Las Vegas Route.

One I dislike is in downtown Los Angeles, the four level where 101 north is signed Ventura but 101 south is signed 10 San Bernardino 5 Santa Ana.  It seems a bit confusing, I think it should be 101 South Santa Ana, or 101 5 Santa Ana. 

Quote from: Interstate Trav on March 07, 2011, 03:25:58 AM
Seems like Oregon only signs Oregon Cities.  i wonder what the control City for I-5 southbound in Southern Oregon is.  does Sacramento even get mentioned or Redding?

Strangely enough, I know of US 97 signs in Klamath Falls pointing to a southbound control city of...San Francisco!?  Talk about indirect!  (One would need to take 5 south, then 505 south, then 80 west to get to SF from 97 - though at one point 505 south and much of 80 west was part of I-5W.)

Quote from: Interstate Trav on March 07, 2011, 03:25:58 AM
One I dislike is in downtown Los Angeles, the four level where 101 north is signed Ventura but 101 south is signed 10 San Bernardino 5 Santa Ana.  It seems a bit confusing, I think it should be 101 South Santa Ana, or 101 5 Santa Ana. 

In the last few years, this has become 101 TO 10/5/60, which I think is the most logical way of noting it.  (101/5 Santa Ana made most sense in the 1960s when both routes ran concurrent to San Diego)

Quote from: TheStranger on March 07, 2011, 01:22:22 PM

Quote from: Interstate Trav on March 07, 2011, 03:25:58 AM
Seems like Oregon only signs Oregon Cities.  i wonder what the control City for I-5 southbound in Southern Oregon is.  does Sacramento even get mentioned or Redding?

Strangely enough, I know of US 97 signs in Klamath Falls pointing to a southbound control city of...San Francisco!?  Talk about indirect!  (One would need to take 5 south, then 505 south, then 80 west to get to SF from 97 - though at one point 505 south and much of 80 west was part of I-5W.)

Quote from: Interstate Trav on March 07, 2011, 03:25:58 AM
One I dislike is in downtown Los Angeles, the four level where 101 north is signed Ventura but 101 south is signed 10 San Bernardino 5 Santa Ana.  It seems a bit confusing, I think it should be 101 South Santa Ana, or 101 5 Santa Ana. 

In the last few years, this has become 101 TO 10/5/60, which I think is the most logical way of noting it.  (101/5 Santa Ana made most sense in the 1960s when both routes ran concurrent to San Diego)

'
I remember seeing a picture of that sign, and on a US highway San Francisco is signed, but on interstates small towns are signed.  Wierd.

Thats right I saw one replaced, a while back.  I haven't been down there in a while.  That does make more sense to have 101 to 5/10/60.  Although considering 101 south of the 4 level is the Santa Ana Freeway Santa Ana doesn't seem to unreasonable.  But you do have a good point about 101 ending at 5/10/60.  either way as long as it still says 101 South, considering your still on 101 for another couple of miles.

Quote from: Interstate Trav on March 07, 2011, 02:56:11 PM

Thats right I saw one replaced, a while back.  I haven't been down there in a while.  That does make more sense to have 101 to 5/10/60.  Although considering 101 south of the 4 level is the Santa Ana Freeway Santa Ana doesn't seem to unreasonable.  But you do have a good point about 101 ending at 5/10/60.  either way as long as it still says 101 South, considering your still on 101 for another couple of miles.

In comparison, CalTrans isn't great at route acknowledgment near termini in NorCal - I-80 signage is almost entirely omitted save for two trailblazers on the westbound stretch between the Bay Bridge and US 101, and US 50 westbound in Sacramento/West Sacramento gets no mention on the stretch between Stockton Boulevard and I-80.

Best: "Miami" as seen on I-95 southbound in Petersburg, VA. I think it deserves some credit as it is one of the farthest control city point I think I've seen on an ordinary pull through BGS.

Worst: "To All Maine Points" as seen on a few pull through BGSs on I-95 northbound in New Hampshire.

The best: Out of City (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=50.813921,-1.086895&spn=0,0.01929&z=16&layer=c&cbll=50.813907,-1.086886&panoid=W-LZn8W0Gns4xAhBB3IHVQ&cbp=12,13.07,,0,7.2) is used on the M275 in Portsmouth. It's about the only place it works in the UK (certainly the only city, but there are a couple of towns) - Portsmouth (well most of it) being an island with three road bridges to the mainland. Saves signing several destinations. Also a bonus as it helps make it exit routes clearly marked if by misfortune you end up there (say you've caught a ferry or took a trip to see various old navy boats).

The worst: Sports Centre (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=50.942016,-1.406593&spn=0,0.038581&z=15&layer=c&cbll=50.94207,-1.406536&panoid=Twm2nb0_Hzw_e-0ZzYMFnw&cbp=12,172.95,,1,-0.31) - it's not well known and some large suburb of Southampton a bit further away would make sense (Shirley or Lordshill or both).

Worst:  The use of states around Chicagoland
Second Worse:  East St. Louis.  Close enough to St. Louis and so much smaller that the latter should be used and the former omitted.  Now if East St. Louis was 10 miles from St. Louis or had a population of 200k I could go for it.

Best: I actually like the use of states around Chicagoland, and I like the use of "Aurora" on I-88.
Worst: "West Suburbs" on I-290 and I-355, "Northwest Suburbs" on I-355, "Southwest Suburbs" on I-355, "North Suburbs" for IL-53.  Pick a flipping city, folks.

QuoteWorst:  The use of states around Chicagoland

I actually like that- an out of towner is much more likely to know which way "Iowa" is than which way "Aurora" is

Quote from: corco on March 07, 2011, 01:55:40 AM
Is that new? Last time I was there (08, admittedly), this was the advance signage

Sorry I didn't respond sooner, I was out golfing after work.

The sign I mentioned is between the 1 mile advanced sign and the sign bridge you originally pictured.  I don't have any snaps of it, but you should be able to see it in this Google Maps Street View shot:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Hermiston,+OR&aq=0&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.534108,86.572266&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Hermiston,+Umatilla,+Oregon&ll=45.798115,-119.411041&spn=0.000928,0.002642&z=19&layer=c&cbll=45.798076,-119.410818&panoid=55V6GgFiJKM66rm6Yx9Ntg&cbp=12,143.04,,0,-0.76

Quote from: mightyace on March 07, 2011, 01:44:30 AM

Quote from: Adam Smith on March 06, 2011, 11:43:43 PM
Worse? All the towns along I-80 in Pennsylvania.

They're among the best IMHO, but I know I'm in the minority.  Anyway, best, my hometown, Bloomsburg, PA.

The worst, New York City via Penna. on I-80 near Youngstown, OH.  That's a "Let's snub Pennsylvania and totally ignore New Jersey!"  And, it's also over 400 miles away!

But, to be fair, if I wasn't from that part of PA, I'd probably agree with the prevailing sentiment.  But, what to use?  New York City and Youngstown/Cleveland, OH are too far away and there aren't any cities over 50,000 within 10 miles of the highway.

But, this is another place where the "two level" control cities would work well.  Things like New York City and Cleveland would work well for long distance travelers and the current control cities would serve the local traffic.  Tennessee uses places like Dickson, Lebanon, Cookeville, etc. on I-40 and they're in the same size range as the cities and towns on I-80 in PA.

Where does TN use those cities on I-40? Last time I was there, the only control cities that were on I-40 were Memphis, Nashville, and Knoxville.

It's hard for me to come up with a specific "best and worst" for control cities. The best control cities actually would be situational-like the first time you see your destination as a control city on a long trip. That's always kind of exciting. Worst for me would be any time a small city is used at a major junction when there are larger cities fairly close that could just as easily be used. Some examples have been given above-another would be "Bay St. Louis" for I-10 E. of I-12/I-59. Why not Mobile, or if they want to give a Mississippi destination, why not Gulfport or Biloxi(or Pascagoula, which is what Alabama signs I-10 for W. of Mobile).

Best/worst depending on how you feel about control cities: Salt Lake City showed Los Angeles as a control city for I-15 southbound and Cheyenne for I-80 eastbound in the signs I saw in the mid 1990's.  To the east of SLC there was a sign on I-80 westbound that had the mileage to San Francisco.

If there was no SLC, it would literally qualify as the Middle Of Nowhere.  400+ miles to Las Vegas, Denver, Phoenix, Boise and Reno.  Those are the closest major cities in the states surrounding Utah.

Rick

Quote from: nexus73 on March 08, 2011, 12:45:27 PM
  To the east of SLC there was a sign on I-80 westbound that had the mileage to San Francisco.

Way back in the day...

(from this Michael Summa photo at ALPSRoads - http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ut/i-80/ )

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fut%2Fi-80%2Fw169.jpg&hash=921f0db6775da759cd79551a8b6eb17b7da48615)

Quote from: huskeroadgeek on March 08, 2011, 12:41:48 PM
Tennessee uses places like Dickson, Lebanon, Cookeville, etc. on I-40 and they're in the same size range as the cities and towns on I-80 in PA.

Where does TN use those cities on I-40? Last time I was there, the only control cities that were on I-40 were Memphis, Nashville, and Knoxville.
[/quote]

I was mistaken. (or wishful thinking)  I do know that TN 840 uses the two tier system.  The control cities at the on-ramps are Dickson, Franklin, Murfreesboro and Lebanon.

However the BGS at the interstate junctions use Memphis and Knoxville for full (eventually) travel on 840.  Murfreesboro is used at the eastern I-40/TN 840 junction.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Lebanon,+TN&aq=0&sll=35.029996,-95.712891&sspn=47.369784,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Lebanon,+Wilson,+Tennessee&ll=36.183437,-86.341124&spn=0.023173,0.038581&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=36.18347,-86.340678&panoid=XPil-Tvs9H_f8NlOfWf3cw&cbp=12,268.77,,0,9.52

At I-24,
Lebanon and Knoxville for 840 east
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Lebanon,+TN&aq=0&sll=35.029996,-95.712891&sspn=47.369784,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Lebanon,+Wilson,+Tennessee&ll=35.880618,-86.471672&spn=0.011701,0.01929&z=16&layer=c&cbll=35.880996,-86.472091&panoid=SVZZIpmbpWf2L8Xo1o2fuQ&cbp=12,329.42,,0,-14.52

and Franklin for 840 West
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Lebanon,+TN&aq=0&sll=35.029996,-95.712891&sspn=47.369784,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Lebanon,+Wilson,+Tennessee&ll=35.889189,-86.481757&spn=0.011699,0.01929&z=16&layer=c&cbll=35.889083,-86.481652&panoid=lqUeMY4MukhsnRV1BD2Vyw&cbp=12,164.42,,0,2.3

at I-65
Knoxville at the exit sign
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Lebanon,+TN&aq=0&sll=35.029996,-95.712891&sspn=47.369784,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Lebanon,+Wilson,+Tennessee&ll=35.830159,-86.834202&spn=0.001464,0.002411&z=19&layer=c&cbll=35.830359,-86.834125&panoid=v29sZNKa0bszBhSbyEgWAA&cbp=12,203.41,,0,6.3

and Knoxville/Murfreesboro on the distributor ramp:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Lebanon,+TN&aq=0&sll=35.029996,-95.712891&sspn=47.369784,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Lebanon,+Wilson,+Tennessee&ll=35.81904,-86.839671&spn=0.005855,0.009645&z=17&layer=c&cbll=35.819193,-86.840217&panoid=ev128XDB01snXM6uHcOD8w&cbp=12,216.24,,0,-4.31

and on 840 East itself:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4027%2F4316935871_278516d1fc.jpg&hash=18895880b42852169f50f06d0dcb1f02c3ac926a) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace/4316935871/)
20090831 TN 840 E @ Exit 31-1C (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace/4316935871/) by mightyace (http://www.flickr.com/people/mightyace/), on Flickr

And that was the same state that once signed the westbound I-24 control city for St. Louis as late as the mid 1990s in Nashville, TN.  TnDOT has made an improvement since those days.

Quote from: nexus73 on March 08, 2011, 12:45:27 PM
Best/worst depending on how you feel about control cities: Salt Lake City showed Los Angeles as a control city for I-15 southbound and Cheyenne for I-80 eastbound in the signs I saw in the mid 1990's.  To the east of SLC there was a sign on I-80 westbound that had the mileage to San Francisco.

If there was no SLC, it would literally qualify as the Middle Of Nowhere.  400+ miles to Las Vegas, Denver, Phoenix, Boise and Reno.  Those are the closest major cities in the states surrounding Utah.

Rick

Yup - Los Angeles and San Francisco aren't control cities anymore (and that sign with the mileage to San Fran must have been removed) but Cheyenne and Reno still are. I don't know about Cheyenne, but Reno doesn't even use Salt Lake as a control city now (they opt for Elko instead).

The Salt Lake area really is a sort of urban oasis in that region; going north (and this isn't counting Ogden and Provo, which aren't in the Salt Lake metro but are in the urban area as a whole), the closest big-ish city is Boise, some 5 hours away. South, it's Las Vegas, 6 hours. Reno, heading west, is 9 hours away, and Denver (going east) is 8. So there's definitely solid rationale behind using such far-off control cities.

As a side note though, heading north out of Salt Lake the control city is Ogden (metro area 550,000 or so). Sometimes, heading south, one will see Provo (also at around 550,000), so UDOT isn't all that against using short-distance control cities. But when you have 80% of the state's population living on a 120-mile strip, long-distance cities are the norm.

Worst: states as control cities, like in the Chicago and Mobile areas
Best: no real "best" for me, but if we go by uniqueness, I do like the "Other Desert Cities" along I-10 and the "Beaches" sign on I-8 westbound in San Diego

QuoteYup - Los Angeles and San Francisco aren't control cities anymore (and that sign with the mileage to San Fran must have been removed) but Cheyenne and Reno still are. I don't know about Cheyenne, but Reno doesn't even use Salt Lake as a control city now (they opt for Elko instead).

Strangely, Cheyenne uses long distance control cities at the I-80/I-25 junction instead of the local ones that they use everywhere else for all but I-80 west. I-80 east is posted as Omaha (from I-80 east) and Sidney from all other approaches (other area exits use Pine Bluffs or Sidney, it's inconsistent). I-25 South is marked as Denver from I-80 and Fort Collins from I-25, and I-25 North is marked as Casper from all approaches (other exits in the area use Wheatland). Laramie is the only control city for I-80 west from all approaches.

Funny you would think by those standards that Salt Lake City would be the control point for I-80 west.

Best, the Del Mem Br signs in NJ. Its awsome because...yeah the road ends up there and it is a good control city to tell people "hey take me to the bridge instead of the turnpike" NB gets Trenton and Camden

Worst is on I-195 and "shore points" yes it does go there, but that is not really all that conclusive as there are many shore points not served by that interstate

Best: I-96's use of Canada as a control city LOL

Worst: I-696's incessant use of Port Huron as the control city (especially when you consider the fact that I-696 isn't anywhere near Port Huron

Second worst: Any sign on I-5 or I-80 that uses Roseville (Don't confuse me, CalTrans. Whenever I see the name Roseville, I think of I-696 and I-94, not I-5 and I-80.)

Quote from: kaothinterceptor on March 12, 2011, 07:47:17 PMWorst: I-696's incessant use of Port Huron as the control city (especially when you consider the fact that I-696 isn't anywhere near Port Huron

And another one the other way, I-696 goes nowhere near Lansing.

Some of my best: The control cities of the I-75 exits near where I live, such as Wyandotte and Taylor.

The worst: Thru Traffic on U.S. 24 NB at Ecorse Road in Taylor and the control city in both directions on I-275, it does not go anywhere near Flint or Toledo, but I-75 does pass through both cities.

Quote from: MDOTFanFB on March 12, 2011, 08:00:35 PM

Quote from: kaothinterceptor on March 12, 2011, 07:47:17 PMWorst: I-696's incessant use of Port Huron as the control city (especially when you consider the fact that I-696 isn't anywhere near Port Huron

And another one the other way, I-696 goes nowhere near Lansing.

Some of my best: The control cities of the I-75 exits near where I live, such as Wyandotte and Taylor.

The worst: Thru Traffic on U.S. 24 NB at Ecorse Road in Taylor and the control city in both directions on I-275, it does not go anywhere near Flint or Toledo, but I-75 does pass through both cities.

Yeah. Michigan does seem to like letting people know exactly where they are.

Quote from: golden eagle on March 11, 2011, 09:56:06 PM
Worst: states as control cities, like in the Chicago and Mobile areas
Best: no real "best" for me, but if we go by uniqueness, I do like the "Other Desert Cities" along I-10 and the "Beaches" sign on I-8 westbound in San Diego

Wow finally I meet someone who likes the "other desert cities" sign.  I thought  I was the only one.

Quote from: MDOTFanFB on March 12, 2011, 08:00:35 PM
The worst: Thru Traffic on U.S. 24 NB at Ecorse Road in Taylor and the control city in both directions on I-275, it does not go anywhere near Flint or Toledo, but I-75 does pass through both cities.

Since I-275 was not completed back to I-75 north of Detroit I can agree with Flint being a bad choice.  I don't see a problem with Toledo on I-275, and definitely do not see a problem with the use of Port Huron on I-696.  Using Port Huron at least provides a way to let those unfamiliar with the area know that I-696 makes it all the way to I-94 instead of terminating at I-75.

One I wish they would do, since they technically could:  I-5 North of Everett, WA uses Vancouver, BC.  It would be cool if south of Olympia or Centralia, I-5 South used Vancouver, WA. :)  (It doesn't, it uses Portland, which is some piddily little town just on the other side of Vancouver, WA.)

On US-10 in Minnesota, IIRC, the pull-through signs on the freeway portions will alternate between Minneapolis and St. Paul, with the occasional Twin Cities.  I enjoy that.

Quote from: Revive 755 on March 12, 2011, 10:26:39 PM

Quote from: MDOTFanFB on March 12, 2011, 08:00:35 PM
The worst: Thru Traffic on U.S. 24 NB at Ecorse Road in Taylor and the control city in both directions on I-275, it does not go anywhere near Flint or Toledo, but I-75 does pass through both cities.

Since I-275 was not completed back to I-75 north of Detroit I can agree with Flint being a bad choice.  I don't see a problem with Toledo on I-275, and definitely do not see a problem with the use of Port Huron on I-696.  Using Port Huron at least provides a way to let those unfamiliar with the area know that I-696 makes it all the way to I-94 instead of terminating at I-75.

See the Fictional Roads section for comments on this.

Quote from: MDOTFanFB on March 12, 2011, 08:00:35 PM

Quote from: kaothinterceptor on March 12, 2011, 07:47:17 PMWorst: I-696's incessant use of Port Huron as the control city (especially when you consider the fact that I-696 isn't anywhere near Port Huron

And another one the other way, I-696 goes nowhere near Lansing.

Some of my best: The control cities of the I-75 exits near where I live, such as Wyandotte and Taylor.

The worst: Thru Traffic on U.S. 24 NB at Ecorse Road in Taylor and the control city in both directions on I-275, it does not go anywhere near Flint or Toledo, but I-75 does pass through both cities.

Don't come to Columbus, the control cities for I-270 are Cleveland, Wheeling, Cincinnati, and Dayton/Indianapolis.

To me it makes perfect sense to use distant control cities on 3dis that don't go anywhere near that city-especially when that route is used as a bypass. It makes sense to use Port Huron and Lansing for I-696 because that route is a bypass between I-94 and I-96. I also like using them on loops like I-270 around Columbus where the control city is the control city outbound on the next major route. I-435 in Kansas City(Missouri side), I-270 in St. Louis and I-285 in Atlanta do this too. This is a help to thru traffic using the loops as bypasses around the city.

Quote from: huskeroadgeek on March 13, 2011, 03:24:53 PM
To me it makes perfect sense to use distant control cities on 3dis that don't go anywhere near that city-especially when that route is used as a bypass. It makes sense to use Port Huron and Lansing for I-696 because that route is a bypass between I-94 and I-96. I also like using them on loops like I-270 around Columbus where the control city is the control city outbound on the next major route. I-435 in Kansas City(Missouri side), I-270 in St. Louis and I-285 in Atlanta do this too. This is a help to thru traffic using the loops as bypasses around the city.

It makes no sense to me since I-696's eastern terminus is in my hometown.

3dis in general especially even ones are more times than not are bypasses for out of town people.  So having 696 say Port Huron might not make sense to you but for the average traveller it does.

Quote from: hobsini2 on March 13, 2011, 05:50:19 PM
3dis in general especially even ones are more times than not are bypasses for out of town people.  So having 696 say Port Huron might not make sense to you but for the average traveller it does.

One example is the 405 in Los Angeles, Northbound Sacramento and Southbound San Diego, near Santa Monica and Long Beach.  405 doesn't go near either city but connects to the 5 which takes you there.

Quote from: kaothinterceptor on March 13, 2011, 03:59:15 PM

Quote from: huskeroadgeek on March 13, 2011, 03:24:53 PM
To me it makes perfect sense to use distant control cities on 3dis that don't go anywhere near that city-especially when that route is used as a bypass. It makes sense to use Port Huron and Lansing for I-696 because that route is a bypass between I-94 and I-96. I also like using them on loops like I-270 around Columbus where the control city is the control city outbound on the next major route. I-435 in Kansas City(Missouri side), I-270 in St. Louis and I-285 in Atlanta do this too. This is a help to thru traffic using the loops as bypasses around the city.

It makes no sense to me since I-696's eastern terminus is in my hometown.

And your hometown is what?

Roseville, MI.

Some bad ones:  WV's used of Clarksburg north of Charleston, then Fairmont, then Morgantown, then Washington, PA.  None are towns of any significance, except maybe Morgantown.  Pittsburgh would make the most sense.

For sheer proventialism of wanting to use an in-state town, you cannot beat Newark on I-78 over NYC.

There are still some remnant Fort Chiswell signs on I-77 in NC.  NC insisted on using that town until Virginia actually finished I-77 to Wytheville.   Nobody under 40 even remembers  or knows where Fort Chiswell even is, or was.

But the all time worst is on I-68 West - "Alternate Route to Ohio and The West".  I-68 ends 110 miles from there, nowhere near Ohio or "the West", whatever that is.

Good ones: I always liked any variation on "International Boundry".  The "State of New York" and "New York City" in French in Quebec are cool.  While not on interstates, the old "Beach Route" at turns on the 2 lanes in northern South Carolina are sweet.

Quote from: SP Cook on March 16, 2011, 07:00:54 AM
Some bad ones:  WV's used of Clarksburg north of Charleston, then Fairmont, then Morgantown, then Washington, PA.  None are towns of any significance, except maybe Morgantown.

I imagine they are of significance to the state of West Virginia (especially Morgantown)

QuoteFor sheer proventialism of wanting to use an in-state town, you cannot beat Newark on I-78 over NYC.

Personally... I have no beef with states using their own towns/cities.  For instance, the oft-cited example of I-80 thru PA... None of the towns used as control cities may be THAT big, but I'd be a little peeved if state tax dollars were used to replace those signs with ones that ignore towns/cities in the state in favor of ones that are out-of-state.  While I'd expect many here on a road forum to focus more on the technical aspect (for lack of a better term?) of a control city on a BGS... It does also function as a sort-of advertisement as well. (So, at, say I-80's IC with I-79, I much prefer to see "Clarion" used than NYC)

QuoteBut the all time worst is on I-68 West - "Alternate Route to Ohio and The West".  I-68 ends 110 miles from there, nowhere near Ohio or "the West", whatever that is.

At the risk of being nitpickey... That's mostly how they try to get you sold on taking the route, but it's not really used as a "Control City".
But you are right about it being nowhere near Ohio or the West.

This whole arguement over control cities been used for "instate" destinations over major cities can all be solved by simply using 2 control cities on the pull through signs. The Instate destination on top of the major city.  If the next instate destination is also considered a major city, then use just the one.  So for example, on I-80 going east in PA, Bloomsburg and New York City would be on the same sign.

Quote from: hobsini2 on March 13, 2011, 05:50:19 PM
3dis in general especially even ones are more times than not are bypasses for out of town people.  So having 696 say Port Huron might not make sense to you but for the average traveller it does.

However, I do take issue with "Rockford" for I-290.  Makes no sense to local or interstate travelers to use from I-294 for Rockford.

Quote from: Brandon on March 16, 2011, 05:54:25 PM

Quote from: hobsini2 on March 13, 2011, 05:50:19 PM
3dis in general especially even ones are more times than not are bypasses for out of town people.  So having 696 say Port Huron might not make sense to you but for the average traveller it does.

However, I do take issue with "Rockford" for I-290.  Makes no sense to local or interstate travelers to use from I-294 for Rockford.

I can see that objection but using 290 from 294 NB as opposed to 90 is quicker to get to 90/53/290 despite the slow loop ramp.

I-80 opinion.  The purpose of a control city, if you had to define it, is to be a city destination that a common person would have heard of, providing the traveler with information.  I-80 is unique in that it travels across woodlands, probably there are less people living within 10 miles of either side of any 100 mile stretch of the road in PA than any interstate anywhere in the eastern USA.  Further it misses, by just enough for them not to be used, several legitimate places such as State College, Williamsport, and S-WB.  What could they use beside NYC?  The only alternative would be "New Jersey" and "Ohio".

My newest nomination would be "Plymouth Meeting" on I-476 northbound in the Philadelphia area. Why not "Allentown?"

And what the heck kind of town name is Plymouth Meeting, anyway?

Quote from: hobsini2 on March 16, 2011, 05:46:48 PM
This whole arguement over control cities been used for "instate" destinations over major cities can all be solved by simply using 2 control cities on the pull through signs. The Instate destination on top of the major city.  If the next instate destination is also considered a major city, then use just the one.  So for example, on I-80 going east in PA, Bloomsburg and New York City would be on the same sign.

I really like that idea.

Quote from: hbelkins on March 17, 2011, 02:47:36 PM
My newest nomination would be "Plymouth Meeting" on I-476 northbound in the Philadelphia area. Why not "Allentown?"

And what the heck kind of town name is Plymouth Meeting, anyway?

It's where the Plymouths met. Is it any worse than Rabbit Hash, Kentucky? Or Head of Grassy?

Worst: In the Iowa City (IA) area, the signs say Davenport and Des Moines (roughly 50 and 100 miles away), but one sign ignores Davenport and posts the mileage for Chicago (200 miles or so).

disclaimer: I'm from Iowa and have never been west of Des Moines, so there's not much of a variety for me when it comes to control cities

How about in Utah there being no real control city for I-70 westbound.  It switches from small Utah town to small Utah town, or just "I-15".  Why not sign Las Vegas or Salt Lake City.  Or even Los Angeles.

Quote from: Interstate Trav on March 20, 2011, 02:01:58 PM
How about in Utah there being no real control city for I-70 westbound.  It switches from small Utah town to small Utah town, or just "I-15".  Why not sign Las Vegas or Salt Lake City.  Or even Los Angeles.

I don't know if I would use control cities for another interstate on a mainline interstate. That seems a bit misleading to me.

In any event, Los Angeles wouldn't make sense cause Las Vegas is about 230 miles closer and is the next designated control city along I-15 south.

Quote from: roadfro on March 20, 2011, 02:39:52 PM

Quote from: Interstate Trav on March 20, 2011, 02:01:58 PM
How about in Utah there being no real control city for I-70 westbound.  It switches from small Utah town to small Utah town, or just "I-15".  Why not sign Las Vegas or Salt Lake City.  Or even Los Angeles.

I don't know if I would use control cities for another interstate on a mainline interstate. That seems a bit misleading to me.

In any event, Los Angeles wouldn't make sense cause Las Vegas is about 230 miles closer and is the next designated control city along I-15 south.

but they do that on I-20 westbound when they sign El Paso, I-20 ends a long ways before and you have to take I-10 west.  Since the majority of the traffic is headed towards I-15 south i figure sign it the same as the 15.

I do agree, don't sign Los Angeles that far away, i was mainly being metphorical in picking any city.  I think Las Vegas should be the control point.

Best control city I must say is Orlando on FL 112 EB in Miami.  At least it was there in the 90s and it was to direct motorists to Central Florida from the Miami Airport!

Worst is Memphis for I-57 in Illinois along with El Paso in the San Antonio area on I-10.  Both are 500 miles away and could use many intermediate points!

Quote from: roadman65 on March 21, 2011, 09:19:05 PM
Best control city I must say is Orlando on FL 112 EB in Miami.  At least it was there in the 90s and it was to direct motorists to Central Florida from the Miami Airport!

Worst is Memphis for I-57 in Illinois along with El Paso in the San Antonio area on I-10.  Both are 500 miles away and could use many intermediate points!

Memphis is used in order to bypass St Louis.  Name a city of consequence between El Paso and San Antonio in Texas on I-10.

Fort Stockton, maybe? I-10 junctions both US 285 & US 385 there and US 67 on either side of town.

Quote from: hbelkins on March 17, 2011, 02:47:36 PM
My newest nomination would be "Plymouth Meeting" on I-476 northbound in the Philadelphia area. Why not "Allentown?"

And what the heck kind of town name is Plymouth Meeting, anyway?

Plymouth Meeting is the burg where I-476 ended (at I-76) before it was connected to, and extended along, the Northeast Extension.

I agree, Allentown or Scranton would make more sense now.

Quote from: roadman65 on March 21, 2011, 09:19:05 PM
Best control city I must say is Orlando on FL 112 EB in Miami.  At least it was there in the 90s and it was to direct motorists to Central Florida from the Miami Airport!

Worst is Memphis for I-57 in Illinois along with El Paso in the San Antonio area on I-10.  Both are 500 miles away and could use many intermediate points!

Well...technically I-57 does have Kankakee, Champaign, Effingham, and Mt. Carmel as control cities, they just aren't listed at major freeway junctions.

Quote from: tdindy88 on March 22, 2011, 11:02:15 AM

Quote from: roadman65 on March 21, 2011, 09:19:05 PM
Best control city I must say is Orlando on FL 112 EB in Miami.  At least it was there in the 90s and it was to direct motorists to Central Florida from the Miami Airport!

Worst is Memphis for I-57 in Illinois along with El Paso in the San Antonio area on I-10.  Both are 500 miles away and could use many intermediate points!

Well...technically I-57 does have Kankakee, Champaign, Effingham, and Mt. Carmel as control cities, they just aren't listed at major freeway junctions.

Quote from: tdindy88 on March 22, 2011, 11:02:15 AM

Quote from: roadman65 on March 21, 2011, 09:19:05 PM
Best control city I must say is Orlando on FL 112 EB in Miami.  At least it was there in the 90s and it was to direct motorists to Central Florida from the Miami Airport!

Worst is Memphis for I-57 in Illinois along with El Paso in the San Antonio area on I-10.  Both are 500 miles away and could use many intermediate points!

Well...technically I-57 does have Kankakee, Champaign, Effingham, and Mt. Carmel as control cities, they just aren't listed at major freeway junctions.

Illinois has that practice where local roads use next sequential cities while freeway junctions use the next major US City! The mileage signs for cities uses both next sequential and US cities after the next exit's control point>

^^^

That method could make I-80 in PA better!

Regarding the West Virginia examples:

I-64/77 split: This is a perfect example to use dual control cities. Why not Lewisburg/Lexington VA, or even Richmond if you want?

I-79: I don't agree with omitting Clarksburg completely, as it is an important city to North Central West Virginia. I should know, I grew up 30 miles away, and Clarksburg was the closest mall, etc. It's also the first city at all along 79 NB. Similar to my last example, I wouldn't mind seeing Morgantown listed as well. Another option would be Morgantown/Pittsburgh with Clarksburg on a seperate LGS. I-79 Exit 99 uses the control cities of Buckhannon/Weston, and another LGS mentioning Elkins for this same exit. I always thought Elkins should be of some more significance, considering Exit 99 is the only route that's anywhere near direct to get there.

64/77 uses a second BGS for Richmond and Charlotte in addition to the standard Lewisburg and Bluefield.  Lexington, even signed with VA, is problematical, as it is easily confused with the much larger Kentucky city which is along the same interstate in the opposite direction.  WV is careful with "VA" on towns to the east in southern WV, because the majority of through traffic is wanting to go counterintuitivativly south in to Virginia, rather than east.

When (if) ever finished, Exit 99 on 79 will be interesting.  While not an interstate, WV uses the same control city system for "corridor" highways.  My preference would be for "Elkins" and then "Front Royal, VA / I-66" but Petersburg and Moorefield will probably bubble up in there as well.  Clearly, exit 99 itself should already be signed "Elkins".

Quote from: SP Cook on March 29, 2011, 06:46:56 AM
64/77 uses a second BGS for Richmond and Charlotte in addition to the standard Lewisburg and Bluefield.  Lexington, even signed with VA, is problematical, as it is easily confused with the much larger Kentucky city which is along the same interstate in the opposite direction.  WV is careful with "VA" on towns to the east in southern WV, because the majority of through traffic is wanting to go counterintuitivativly south in to Virginia, rather than east.

When (if) ever finished, Exit 99 on 79 will be interesting.  While not an interstate, WV uses the same control city system for "corridor" highways.  My preference would be for "Elkins" and then "Front Royal, VA / I-66" but Petersburg and Moorefield will probably bubble up in there as well.  Clearly, exit 99 itself should already be signed "Elkins".

How it it signed now?  "Weston/Phillippi"  or is it "Buckhannon/Phillippi"?  I can't remember!

Weston/Buckhannon.

Quote from: roadman65 on March 22, 2011, 08:17:46 PM

Quote from: tdindy88 on March 22, 2011, 11:02:15 AM

Quote from: roadman65 on March 21, 2011, 09:19:05 PM
Best control city I must say is Orlando on FL 112 EB in Miami.  At least it was there in the 90s and it was to direct motorists to Central Florida from the Miami Airport!

Worst is Memphis for I-57 in Illinois along with El Paso in the San Antonio area on I-10.  Both are 500 miles away and could use many intermediate points!

Well...technically I-57 does have Kankakee, Champaign, Effingham, and Mt. Carmel as control cities, they just aren't listed at major freeway junctions.

Quote from: tdindy88 on March 22, 2011, 11:02:15 AM

Quote from: roadman65 on March 21, 2011, 09:19:05 PM
Best control city I must say is Orlando on FL 112 EB in Miami.  At least it was there in the 90s and it was to direct motorists to Central Florida from the Miami Airport!

Worst is Memphis for I-57 in Illinois along with El Paso in the San Antonio area on I-10.  Both are 500 miles away and could use many intermediate points!

Well...technically I-57 does have Kankakee, Champaign, Effingham, and Mt. Carmel as control cities, they just aren't listed at major freeway junctions.

Illinois has that practice where local roads use next sequential cities while freeway junctions use the next major US City! The mileage signs for cities uses both next sequential and US cities after the next exit's control point>

I like the way Illinois does it-more states should do it that way. I do think using East St. Louis as an intermediate destination is a little overkill though.

Quote from: SP Cook on March 29, 2011, 06:46:56 AM
How it it signed now?  "Weston/Phillippi"  or is it "Buckhannon/Phillippi"?  I can't remember!

As far as I can remember, Philippi is only signed on I-79 on an LGS for Exit 115, via WV 20 south to WV 57 east.

You don't see it mentioned on Corridor H until US 119 splits at Buckhannon to head north toward Philippi, where it joins WV 20 to just north of Hodgesville.

Quote from: huskeroadgeek on March 30, 2011, 10:12:26 PM
I like the way Illinois does it-more states should do it that way. I do think using East St. Louis as an intermediate destination is a little overkill though.

Can using any word with "kill" in it and East St. Louis in the same sentence be considered a freudian slip?

Quote from: hbelkins on March 31, 2011, 11:50:37 AM

Can using any word with "kill" in it and East St. Louis in the same sentence be considered a freudian slip?

oddly, I've never thought of East St. Louis as being all that bad.  the last time I drove through that area, it was in the middle of the night and I drove some pretty shady streets, looking for old signs and what have you.

I did, at one point, encounter a drug dealer sitting in a lawn chair in the middle of the road, prominently advertising his wares with absolutely no fear of police action.  I also had a guy run a four-way stop doing what must've been 95mph.  He was on a beeline for that very same drug dealer, so I figured he needed his fix, and soon.

but those were both in regular St. Louis, not East.

Best:  Aiea, on westbound Interstate H-201.  Four letters, no consonants.

Quote from: oscar on March 31, 2011, 01:23:36 PM
Best:  Aiea, on westbound Interstate H-201.  Four letters, no consonants.

in that case, you should not get off on the side street from highway 104 in Croatia, at which junction there is ostensibly a sign showing the distances to Vrh and Krk.

Quote from: hbelkins on March 17, 2011, 02:47:36 PM
My newest nomination would be "Plymouth Meeting" on I-476 northbound in the Philadelphia area. Why not "Allentown?"

And what the heck kind of town name is Plymouth Meeting, anyway?

"Meeting" would refer to a Quaker meeting-house.  "Plymouth" would be the name of the township it's in.  Both of them going back to a century before Kentucky was a glimmer in Virginia's eye.  The meetinghouse may still be there.  It's not the only Quaker meetinghouse in suburban Philadelphia, but the only one I can think of that serves as a place name.

It's got an Ikea, a mall, and such, which I suppose is the rationale for it being the "control city."  That and the fact that until the mid-'90s 476 ended there (the Northeast Extension was Pa. 9).  But I've said plenty, on other threads, and presumably will again, about control city practices.

Quote from: Michael in Philly on May 11, 2011, 10:54:32 AM
It's got an Ikea, a mall, and such, which I suppose is the rationale for it being the "control city." 

that's the absolute worst rationale ever for being a "control city".  a place like that deserves the "it's the only way to be sure" treatment.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 11, 2011, 11:16:38 AM

Quote from: Michael in Philly on May 11, 2011, 10:54:32 AM
It's got an Ikea, a mall, and such, which I suppose is the rationale for it being the "control city."

that's the absolute worst rationale ever for being a "control city".  a place like that deserves the "it's the only way to be sure" treatment.

Well to be fair if the mall has a Starbucks, then it should be a Control City.  lol

Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 11, 2011, 11:16:38 AM

Quote from: Michael in Philly on May 11, 2011, 10:54:32 AM
It's got an Ikea, a mall, and such, which I suppose is the rationale for it being the "control city."

that's the absolute worst rationale ever for being a "control city".  a place like that deserves the "it's the only way to be sure" treatment.

Oh, you know what I mean:  it's a bit of what some people call an "edge city" - like King of Prussia (ten miles away from it) or Tyson's Corner (in suburban Washington).  A lot of people getting onto 476 northbound probably are actually heading there.

Disclaimer:  I am emphatically not defending the choice of Plymouth Meeting as a control city for an Interstate, even a three-digit Interstate in a metropolitan area.  American control-city practices drive me up a wall.  I was just explaining the name.  That said, the sort of people on this forum who object to "Little Rock" appearing on I-40 on the grounds that 40 misses the city limits by a whopping three miles would probably have heartily approved (before the designation 476 was extended up the Northeast Extension) of treating Plymouth Meeting as the control city for 476, since 476 actually ended there.

Quote from: Michael in Philly on May 12, 2011, 07:59:01 AM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 11, 2011, 11:16:38 AM

Quote from: Michael in Philly on May 11, 2011, 10:54:32 AM
It's got an Ikea, a mall, and such, which I suppose is the rationale for it being the "control city."

that's the absolute worst rationale ever for being a "control city".  a place like that deserves the "it's the only way to be sure" treatment.

Oh, you know what I mean:  it's a bit of what some people call an "edge city" - like King of Prussia (ten miles away from it) or Tyson's Corner (in suburban Washington).  A lot of people getting onto 476 northbound probably are actually heading there.

Disclaimer:  I am emphatically not defending the choice of Plymouth Meeting as a control city for an Interstate, even a three-digit Interstate in a metropolitan area.  American control-city practices drive me up a wall.  I was just explaining the name.  That said, the sort of people on this forum who object to "Little Rock" appearing on I-40 on the grounds that 40 misses the city limits by a whopping three miles would probably have heartily approved (before the designation 476 was extended up the Northeast Extension) of treating Plymouth Meeting as the control city for 476, since 476 actually ended there.

Don't worry about Jake (AgentSteel), all SoCals think the world revolve around them.

Quote from: Adam Smith on May 12, 2011, 05:31:36 PM

Don't worry about Jake (AgentSteel), all SoCals think the world revolve around them.

I'm not from Socal; I just happen to live here.  Socals are the sorts of people who appreciate the existence of Ikeas, malls, and such.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 12, 2011, 07:22:41 PM

Quote from: Adam Smith on May 12, 2011, 05:31:36 PM

Don't worry about Jake (AgentSteel), all SoCals think the world revolve around them.

I'm not from Socal; I just happen to live here.  Socals are the sorts of people who appreciate the existence of Ikeas, malls, and such.

There are many cool "likes" of SoCals also: Wahoo's Fish Taco, In and Out, surfing in the cold ocean, etc.

Here's my nomination for worst: "Park & Ride" on the stub ends of what were to become I-70 into Baltimore and I-95 into Washington. Why build those short parts in the first place when they had no chance of being completed at all?

Quote from: Brandon on March 21, 2011, 10:40:56 PM

Quote from: roadman65 on March 21, 2011, 09:19:05 PM
Best control city I must say is Orlando on FL 112 EB in Miami.  At least it was there in the 90s and it was to direct motorists to Central Florida from the Miami Airport!

Worst is Memphis for I-57 in Illinois along with El Paso in the San Antonio area on I-10.  Both are 500 miles away and could use many intermediate points!

Memphis is used in order to bypass St Louis.  Name a city of consequence between El Paso and San Antonio in Texas on I-10.

Ft Stockton? lol j/k

Not on a Interstate - but in WI just east of Dubuque: Weigh Station.

I just posted a pair on my facebook photos in the last two days of FL and GA going very classy with control cities for I-295 and I-75, respectively.

Quote from: Master son on May 22, 2011, 08:35:23 AM
Not on a Interstate - but in WI just east of Dubuque: Weigh Station.

even worse.  eastbound I-8 out of Yuma on a distance sign: "Inspection Station 6 1/2".  Yep, the Border Patrol!

Jake, Georgia and Florida are the two better states until you see these examples:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3247%2F5833589821_15a4c59043.jpg&hash=e7b52f540cc40859b8e84a7c6bfce846d75aaf8b) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29886127@N02/5833589821/)
057 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29886127@N02/5833589821/) by Kimmy1978 (http://www.flickr.com/people/29886127@N02/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2730%2F5833583569_63fae83bc4.jpg&hash=0e5ba2bee99b7cb4bee9d9837f25fa63ab4c2aeb) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29886127@N02/5833583569/)
055 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29886127@N02/5833583569/) by Kimmy1978 (http://www.flickr.com/people/29886127@N02/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3185%2F5833577573_3f5ee5c0b7.jpg&hash=fb00ec2b2be10d3752f9e7e9145600eb21d011c4) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29886127@N02/5833577573/)
047 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29886127@N02/5833577573/) by Kimmy1978 (http://www.flickr.com/people/29886127@N02/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2611%2F5833563309_a394e5d8f9.jpg&hash=ff9d7a1136d902bfdcb603eb89ec54d33788770f) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29886127@N02/5833563309/)
029 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29886127@N02/5833563309/) by Kimmy1978 (http://www.flickr.com/people/29886127@N02/), on Flickr

Coming down I-275 in St Petersburg last Sunday we saw a sign for I-175 with a "control city" of Tropicana Field. No picture, couldn't take my hands off the wheel due to traffic and Ms1995hoo doesn't find signs interesting and wouldn't grab her camera.

The Georgia examples shown above are much worse, though. At least a baseball stadium is a legitimate destination for many drivers.

Quote from: 1995hoo on June 23, 2011, 10:28:59 AM
Coming down I-275 in St Petersburg last Sunday we saw a sign for I-175 with a "control city" of Tropicana Field. No picture, couldn't take my hands off the wheel due to traffic and Ms1995hoo doesn't find signs interesting and wouldn't grab her camera.

The Georgia examples shown above are much worse, though. At least a baseball stadium is a legitimate destination for many drivers.

Well you get a baseball stadium and then an open air mall and a pier:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southeastroads.com%2Fflorida200%2Fi-275_sb_exit_023a_01.jpg&hash=bedbcc470f167aeacff15b2cd783c252c90b4b69)

Dunno what else they could have used there, perhaps their formal names of North Bay Drive and South Bay Drive. I got used to them living down there and The Pier is a decent point of interest to visit.

Since Interstate 175 is so short, Tropicana Field is the all-imposing landmark along the shoulder of this St. Petersburg expressway.

On an unrelated note, why is the "Old 10" sign over to the side of the BGS and the "Old 9" sign above the BGS? Which one is right?

My assumption - living in a state which has such things as well - is that they're showing the former exit numbers:  Exit 23A used to be Exit 10 and Exit 22 used to be Exit 9.  This would be when exits were consecutively numbered in Florida.

In Pennsylvania, they say "Old Exit X," not just "Old X."  But we have the same type of little tab.  (And they still appear most places even though the renumbering was about 2000.  Wonder when they'll come down.)

In Florida, the "Old" exit tabs were supposed to be installed for approximately a three-year period.  Hurricanes Frances, Jeanne and Wilma did a good job of tearing many of them off their posts and gantries in 2004 and 2005 and were never replaced.

There are a couple spots in Duluth that list "Wisconsin" as a control point on I-535 and on US 2 East. There is a pull-through on 535 near the south end that lists the proper "Superior" though.

I always thought using Kittery on I-95 South in Maine was pointless. Portsmouth would have been a better choice.

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on March 06, 2011, 11:43:43 PM
Worse? All the towns along I-80 in Pennsylvania.

Seconded.  That should be New York for EB traffic, and Cleveland for WB traffic, IMO.

I'll post my "best" after reading the rest of the thread.

On two-level control cities: I-270 in Columbus does this.  From the other Interstates and a few other major routes, the control cities for I-270 are Dayton (or Indianapolis), Wheeling, Cincinnati, and Cleveland -- strictly, the control city for the next outbound Interstate you'd hit going the given direction on I-270.  From most of the surface streets, the control cities for I-270 are Grove City, Dublin, Westerville, and Obetz.  And for some reason, the guide signage to enter I-270 from Roberts Rd, Cemetery Rd, and Tuttle Crossing Blvd are ridiculously substandard; using rural style LGS, giving next to no hint on which lane you need to be in, and often at the turn for the entrance ramp, there's only a destination and distance sign, without an I-270 shield or direction.

Anyway...  I think my nomination for best control cities would have to be all 5 outbound control cities from Spaghetti Junction in Louisville.  Five cities in five states from one point is just awesome: Nashville, St Louis, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Lexington.  (And you'd have to drive through a sixth state, not represented, to get to one of those...)

[edit: minor rewording for clarity]

and the sixth state is Illinois.  :clap: :)

Along US 12 in Missoula, there's an old-ish BGS with a control city of just "University" for the University of Montana:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=rattlesnake+dr+and+broadway,+missoula+mt&hl=en&ll=46.869933,-113.986845&spn=0,0.022638&oe=UTF-8&z=16&layer=c&cbll=46.869993,-113.987011&panoid=wjl-rfAs41y1lvxbOqBICw&cbp=12,304.59,,0,-3.07

There is a new pull-through sign on I-95 in Virginia at Exit 161, saw it for the first time last night but was unable to take a picture because I had just driven in from Florida and it was just before midnight and I was tired, but I thought it was pretty well-executed in terms of giving guidance to people not from Northern Virginia. The sign used to read I-95 North with a control city of Washington. Now it's a very big two-panel BGS (all in Clearview, for those who care). The left panel is the standard pull-through sign for I-95 North but lists control cities of Baltimore and New York City (top to bottom in that order). The right panel then says "Washington Follow I-395 North" and gives the distance to I-395, which is 8 or 9 miles from that sign.

Some people might object to putting New York City as a control city on a sign in Virginia–shades of the famous signs in Petersburg that list Miami and Atlanta–but I thought it wasn't a bad idea at all in terms of providing some level of clarification to people who do not go through the Springfield Interchange very often. I suppose one could quibble that New York might best be moved to an auxiliary sign with Baltimore left as the control city; I wouldn't argue on that point, but I don't mind seeing New York on there either. People getting lost at Springfield (and making U-turns at the Van Dorn Street exit near where I live) are a perpetual plague.

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 03, 2011, 10:07:30 AM
There is a new pull-through sign on I-95 in Virginia at Exit 161, saw it for the first time last night but was unable to take a picture because I had just driven in from Florida and it was just before midnight and I was tired, but I thought it was pretty well-executed in terms of giving guidance to people not from Northern Virginia. The sign used to read I-95 North with a control city of Washington. Now it's a very big two-panel BGS (all in Clearview, for those who care). The left panel is the standard pull-through sign for I-95 North but lists control cities of Baltimore and New York City (top to bottom in that order). The right panel then says "Washington Follow I-395 North" and gives the distance to I-395, which is 8 or 9 miles from that sign.

Sounds like pretty good guidance to me.

Worst - any road that uses "THRU TRAFFIC" or some variation as the control city.  Just name a place, dadgummit!!!  I would also nominate using Redlands as a control city for I-10 eastbound in parts of the Inland Empire.  Who the f*** goes to Redlands, anyway.  Just use Indio or something.

Best - I saw a control city of "Canada" north of Niagra Falls.  I think it was for I-190 west heading across the river.

Quote from: Interstate Trav on March 20, 2011, 06:25:05 PM

Quote from: roadfro on March 20, 2011, 02:39:52 PM

Quote from: Interstate Trav on March 20, 2011, 02:01:58 PM
How about in Utah there being no real control city for I-70 westbound.  It switches from small Utah town to small Utah town, or just "I-15".  Why not sign Las Vegas or Salt Lake City.  Or even Los Angeles.

I don't know if I would use control cities for another interstate on a mainline interstate. That seems a bit misleading to me.

In any event, Los Angeles wouldn't make sense cause Las Vegas is about 230 miles closer and is the next designated control city along I-15 south.

but they do that on I-20 westbound when they sign El Paso, I-20 ends a long ways before and you have to take I-10 west.  Since the majority of the traffic is headed towards I-15 south i figure sign it the same as the 15.

I do agree, don't sign Los Angeles that far away, i was mainly being metphorical in picking any city.  I think Las Vegas should be the control point.

Here's Las Vegas as an I-70 control city, but only at the on-ramp from Elsinore, Utah:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fzoza.com%2F%7Ekniwt%2F70vegas.jpg&hash=3e2f481152bc1db557103dcff035855fc31fcd8e)

Quote from: Kniwt on July 12, 2011, 04:26:51 PM
Here's Las Vegas as an I-70 control city, but only at the on-ramp from Elsinore, Utah:

[photo]

that is a very strange font to be used for the text LAS VEGAS.  Seems like DM (extra-bold D) at first glance, but even then the glyphs do not look quite right.  Maybe it's DMM?

I-64 near Williamsburg, VA has new Clearview signs for "Colonial Williamsburg/Norfolk" and later "Busch Gardens/Norfolk". Really? I realize that these are popular destinations, but so are other amusement parks/tourist destinations, and you don't see all of these being listed as control cities. Heck, Busch Gardens already had its own exit built along I-64 within the past decade! It just seems to me that in a heavy-through-traffic area with lots of choices for control cities (Newport News, Hampton, Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, Suffolk, Outer Banks, etc.) that these are poor choices.

Actually, the signs have always used those destinations, even the old Highway Gothic ones. And as a local (grew up there anyway - currently in the process of moving to MA), I like them. Just because other places don't list major amusement parks as control points doesn't mean it's a bad practice. I feel that if millions of people are trying to get to those places, why not sign them? I'm willing to bet a HUGE portion of the traffic heading east on 64 towards Williamsburg is bound for Busch Gardens. And after the Busch Gardens exit (which, if I recall correctly, has been there a lot longer than a few years, was built to carry traffic to the park more efficiently, a purpose I don't see a problem with, and serves as a connector to US 60 and the brewery as well), the Busch Gardens control point is replaced by Hampton, which is the next significant destination. Same with Colonial Williamsburg. Both draw millions of tourists every year.

As for your suggestions of other destinations, that far out from the city I am reasonably sure far more traffic is heading for Colonial Williamsburg or Busch Gardens than say, the OBX (oh and isn't this also a tourist destination? Hmm... I smell a hypocrite), Chesapeake, Suffolk, etc. If you saw how far Busch Gardens traffic backs up 64 during the summer, I'm sure you'd agree with me.

And I would like to point out Virginia's consistent use of non-city destinations as well. I-64 and then 564 westbound in Norfolk are signed for the Naval Base, I-264 eastbound in Virginia Beach is signed for the Oceanfront, I-664 southbound in Hampton is signed for the Outer Banks actually Nags Head, with "Outer Banks" appearing on supplemental signs, and roads up in Northern Virginia have such places as the Pentagon, Dulles Airport, etc. as their control points. Are these also poor choices of destinations?

indeed, I've always argued that the control city on I-5, if Orange County insists on something local as opposed to LA or San Diego, should be Disneyland.  nobody cares about Santa Ana.

A few things:

- I-64 in this location isn't exactly the "middle of nowhere" - it connects VA's 2nd largest metropolitan area (Hampton Roads) to its 1st and 3rd largest metropolitan areas (NOVA/Richmond). It's also a 2di, which is part of my concern. I would suspect that the through traffic thoroughly outweighs the specifically-BG or specifically-Colonial-Williamsburg traffic.
- The Busch Gardens exit opened in 2002 I believe.
- As far as Busch Gardens traffic backing up I-64, I've driven both ways through here at least 3 times just within the past month, including weekends. I've encountered backups for the HRBT (both directions), on the outskirts of Newport News (when I-64 is only 2 lanes in each direction), and...West Point? Anyone want to explain that one (off-topic I suppose)? There's backups all over the place between Richmond and Hampton Roads. I-64 probably could use a 3rd lane between Richmond and Newport News.
- Heading westbound on I-64, signing for Busch Gardens/Colonial Williamsburg on the mainline makes somewhat more sense, although I'd still just go with "Williamsburg/Richmond" heading out of Newport News and then "Richmond" past Williamsburg. There are signs far in advance of exits saying which one to use for BG/which one to use for Colonial Williamsburg.
- "Oceanfront" is only used on I-264 once you're in Virginia Beach, since the actual city limits encompass an area that's pretty far inland. I'm fine with this.
- My main concern is the use of control cities on interstate signs for through traffic/"the mainline", especially on a 2di. I have no problem with a "control city" on an EXIT sign being "Colonial Williamsburg" or "Busch Gardens" or "Pentagon" or "Dulles Airport"; however, for the MAINLINE, I feel that the control city should be a city. Sure, OBX/Chesapeake would be poor choices as well (I'd go with "Newport News/Hampton/Norfolk"); I just mentioned them to make a point that there are many popular destinations in this area.
- The only other example I can think of in Virginia where a non-city is listed on the MAINLINE interstate signs is "Naval Base" along I-64 WB heading from Virginia Beach to Norfolk (don't know how I feel about that one). Any others (on 2di mainlines or I-495/I-395) that I didn't catch?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 18, 2011, 01:09:31 PM
indeed, I've always argued that the control city on I-5, if Orange County insists on something local as opposed to LA or San Diego, should be Disneyland.  nobody cares about Santa Ana.

Actually i think i would use Anaheim since that is the city Disneyland is in and it is a major suburb of LA.  Santa Ana is probably used due to Orange Co Airport being there.

Quote from: Fleetwood Mac Attack on July 18, 2011, 01:42:42 PM
- I-64 in this location isn't exactly the "middle of nowhere" - it connects VA's 2nd largest metropolitan area (Hampton Roads) to its 1st and 3rd largest metropolitan areas (NOVA/Richmond). It's also a 2di, which is part of my concern. I would suspect that the through traffic thoroughly outweighs the specifically-BG or specifically-Colonial-Williamsburg traffic.

Who said this is the middle of nowhere? Like I said, as someone who's lived here for 18 years, I am quite familiar with this road and the suburban nature of York / James City County And if you'll re-read my previous post, you will note that I did not say that traffic bound for CW or BG outnumbered through traffic, I said it constituted a significant portion of 64's traffic. A portion significant enough to deserve some signage.

Quote- The Busch Gardens exit opened in 2002 I believe.

Do you have a source? I don't remember its construction, and everything I can find online (vahighways, Roads To The Future, AARoads, Googling) seems to indicate that it is original to the stretch of I-64 (which I doubt, even though Busch Gardens has been there long enough).

Quote- As far as Busch Gardens traffic backing up I-64, I've driven both ways through here at least 3 times just within the past month, including weekends. I've encountered backups for the HRBT (both directions), on the outskirts of Newport News (when I-64 is only 2 lanes in each direction), and...West Point? Anyone want to explain that one (off-topic I suppose)? There's backups all over the place between Richmond and Hampton Roads. I-64 probably could use a 3rd lane between Richmond and Newport News.

Typically when I go to Busch during the summer (and equally significant during Howl-O-Scream in the fall), particularly in the late mornings, traffic is barely moving from the Jefferson Ave merge (exit 255) all the way to Busch, with Busch having a direct noticeable effect for the 3-5 miles preceding the exit. And I-64 could certainly use more lanes, which is why VDOT is already pretty far along in the design stages for widening I-64 to 6 and eventually 8 lanes between Jefferson Ave and I-295.

Quote- Heading westbound on I-64, signing for Busch Gardens/Colonial Williamsburg on the mainline makes somewhat more sense, although I'd still just go with "Williamsburg/Richmond" heading out of Newport News and then "Richmond" past Williamsburg. There are signs far in advance of exits saying which one to use for BG/which one to use for Colonial Williamsburg.

The signage is for just Williamsburg / Richmond all the way through Hampton and Newport News and even into the Counties. The only sign that differentiates Colonial Williamsburg heading westbound is one pull-through at the VA 199 exit, which is because VA 199's control city is Williamsburg, and VDOT wants motorists to know that the actual non-touristy city of Williamsburg is most easily accessed using VA 199, while the tourist destinations are most easily accessed by staying on I-64 at that point.

Quote- "Oceanfront" is only used on I-264 once you're in Virginia Beach, since the actual city limits encompass an area that's pretty far inland. I'm fine with this.

Well as I just pointed out, Colonial Williamsburg is only used on I-64 once you're in the immediate Williamsburg area (I'm not sure as to the exact city limits) and have the potential to confuse signs pointing you to the modern city parts of Williamsburg and signs pointing you to Colonial Williamsburg. So I-264 in Va Beach is the same situation.

Quote- My main concern is the use of control cities on interstate signs for through traffic/"the mainline", especially on a 2di. I have no problem with a "control city" on an EXIT sign being "Colonial Williamsburg" or "Busch Gardens" or "Pentagon" or "Dulles Airport"; however, for the MAINLINE, I feel that the control city should be a city. Sure, OBX/Chesapeake would be poor choices as well (I'd go with "Newport News/Hampton/Norfolk"); I just mentioned them to make a point that there are many popular destinations in this area.

Newport News is not used as a control point on I-64 because, while it does travel for a significant distance within the city limits, it does not go anywhere near the urban part of Newport News, which is served by I-664 instead. Both Hampton and Norfolk are used though. Hampton after you pass through Williamsburg. Again, as I've already said multiple times, Colonial Williamsburg and Busch Gardens make perfect sense on this stretch of I-64 because the pull-through signs are aimed at "thru traffic" at the exits they are posted at, indicating that while this is Williamsburg, if you're bound for these destinations you shouldn't exit yet. At these exits traffic bound for these destinations IS through traffic.
Also, unless I am terribly mistaken, both Dulles Airport and the Pentagon DO appear as control points on mainline freeways.
Finally, in regards to this:

QuoteI just mentioned them to make a point that there are many popular destinations in this area.

Are Colonial Williamsburg and Busch Gardens not popular destinations in the area then?

Quote- The only other example I can think of in Virginia where a non-city is listed on the MAINLINE interstate signs is "Naval Base" along I-64 WB heading from Virginia Beach to Norfolk (don't know how I feel about that one). Any others (on 2di mainlines or I-495/I-395) that I didn't catch?

Naval Base is an excellent control point for 64 and 564 here, seeing as Naval Station Norfolk is the world's largest naval base and employs, if a recent local news story that focused on how traffic congestion impacts NS Norfolk was corrrect, approximately 300,000 people. Many of those people have to commute to work. Many of them live in Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, or other destinations that would entail commuting on I-64 west.

As for other Virginia examples of non-cities for control points on interstates, I am coming up blank, but I can give you examples of OTHER state freeways using them, including "Pentagon" on VA 27 and "Dulles Airport" on VA 267. Plus examples from D.C. and other cities.

Busch Gardens exit: saw a news article from 2002 referring to it as "new", can't find it currently but here's a different article from 2000 mentioning it being under construction: http://articles.dailypress.com/2000-10-22/news/0010220014_1_bridge-work-lane-closures-westbound-traffic. I also recently worked briefly with the I-264/Lynnhaven Parkway/London Bridge Road new interchange project, which is supposedly the first new interstate interchange in Hampton Roads since the BG exit (Hampton Roads Center Parkway is pretty new, too?).

QuoteA portion significant enough to deserve some signage.

Both Colonial Williamsburg (238) and Busch Gardens (243A) have their own signed exits! There's also quite a bit of supplementary signage prior to the Williamsburg area directing drivers to these exits for these destinations so that they don't just get off at any exit signed "Williamsburg" for the non-tourist destinations. I understand VDOT's desire to keep tourist-destination traffic on I-64 and thus their signing of I-64 with "Colonial Williamsburg" and "Busch Gardens" as control cities; as it is a 2di connecting actual major cities and as I am a road geek, I just don't like it!

QuoteTypically when I go to Busch during the summer (and equally significant during Howl-O-Scream in the fall), particularly in the late mornings, traffic is barely moving from the Jefferson Ave merge (exit 255) all the way to Busch, with Busch having a direct noticeable effect for the 3-5 miles preceding the exit.

Okay, I'm also complaining more as someone coming from the opposite direction heading from Richmond toward Hampton Roads. I'm sure BG has an effect on WB traffic, but there's also a lot of inland-bound traffic during the summer simply due to beach travel, and backups seem to form pretty regularly there where I-64 goes from 4 lanes to 2 lanes.

Quotewhich is why VDOT is already pretty far along in the design stages for widening I-64 to 6 and eventually 8 lanes between Jefferson Ave and I-295.

8 lanes between Newport News and I-295?! Sounds great.

QuoteWell as I just pointed out, Colonial Williamsburg is only used on I-64 once you're in the immediate Williamsburg area (I'm not sure as to the exact city limits) and have the potential to confuse signs pointing you to the modern city parts of Williamsburg and signs pointing you to Colonial Williamsburg. So I-264 in Va Beach is the same situation.

Except I-264 EB doesn't lead to any other destinations since it ends at the oceanfront. I-64 in Williamsburg does (also, it's a 2di). Hence, my beef.

QuoteAlso, unless I am terribly mistaken, both Dulles Airport and the Pentagon DO appear as control points on mainline freeways.

Dulles Airport appears on VA-267 and VA-28 but not as a control point on I-66 I believe. Pentagon may be a control point coming out of DC on I-395; heading into DC I believe the only control point is "Washington".

Edited to remove unnecessary excess blank space at the bottom - nothing else, I promise. -DTP

Gonna try and respond to these relatively quickly...

- Maybe the Busch Gardens exit is newer than I thought. I still can't find anything that confirms it.

- How many drivers do you think actually read and pay attention to supplemental ground signage (which I can't even think of any examples of for CW off the top of my head) anyway? Listing these destinations as control points is the easiest and clearest way for VDOT to get the message across.

- Yes, there is significant traffic congestion from other things too, but if you read the entirety of my previous post you will notice that I said that it is congested all the way from the Jefferson Ave merge onward, but that for the 3 to 5 miles immediately preceding the Busch Gardens exit, the traffic is clearly a result of Busch Gardens. When traffic is stopped in the right lane but moving slowly in the left, and you can follow that stopped right lane backup right into the Busch Gardens exit, after which it pretty much clears up, you know the traffic is clearly a result of Busch Gardens.

- Yes, 264 is signed as such because there is nothing else major to put besides Oceanfront, and there are other things that could be put on 64 in place of CW and BG, but my previous points still stand of them being major enough directions that it is helpful to many motorists to have it signed.

- And as for your last point, reread my ENTIRE post, not just the convenient parts you selected to quote.

I would really appreciate it if you do not selectively answer posts in ways that are convenient for you.  I've noticed several times that the point you bring up I've already addressed in a part of my post you neglected to quote.

QuoteI would really appreciate it if you do not selectively answer posts in ways that are convenient for you.  I've noticed several times that the point you bring up I've already addressed in a part of my post you neglected to quote.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this (aside from the Dulles Aiport signage - my point was about using it as a control city on an interstate). I'm reading your posts entirely and clearly; I only disagree with//want to clarify select parts. There are some parts of your posts that I'm not responding to because I agree with them!

Here's a selection that I think can basically end this "debate":

Quote...there are other things that could be put on 64 in place of CW and BG, but my previous points still stand of them being major enough directions that it is helpful to many motorists to have it signed.

What it comes down to is you feel that these "control cities" are necessary and appropriate because they guide unfamiliar tourist traffic; I recognize that but I'm not a huge fan because it's a 2di connecting major cities (basically, I'm not a fan because I'm a road nerd). Not trying to start a war here or anything.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 18, 2011, 01:09:31 PM
indeed, I've always argued that the control city on I-5, if Orange County insists on something local as opposed to LA or San Diego, should be Disneyland.  nobody cares about Santa Ana.

I think it is used because the 5 south of LA is the Santa Ana Freeway.

What I was referring to was how, for example, I said that Dulles Airport did appear as a mainline control point, even though it wasn't an interstate, to which you respond 'well it's a control point on VA 267 and VA 28 but never an interstate!' even though I had just stated that it wasn't an interstate.

As for ending this, I agree with you completely, these are our opinions. I just felt that yours was misguided, and based on the wording of your first post and parts of your subsequent posts, I thought you were being far too harsh on VDOT for trying to help the motoring public. But if you recognize that they are appropriate because they guide tourist traffic, then we're good. I recognize that they are very odd choices from a roadgeek perspective, but I feel that the point of control points is to be helpful to drivers, providing the most pertinent information regardless of what form it takes.

So, agree to have varying opinions.  :cool:

Quote from: Kniwt on July 12, 2011, 04:26:51 PM

Quote from: Interstate Trav on March 20, 2011, 06:25:05 PM

Quote from: roadfro on March 20, 2011, 02:39:52 PM

Quote from: Interstate Trav on March 20, 2011, 02:01:58 PM
How about in Utah there being no real control city for I-70 westbound.  It switches from small Utah town to small Utah town, or just "I-15".  Why not sign Las Vegas or Salt Lake City.  Or even Los Angeles.

I don't know if I would use control cities for another interstate on a mainline interstate. That seems a bit misleading to me.

In any event, Los Angeles wouldn't make sense cause Las Vegas is about 230 miles closer and is the next designated control city along I-15 south.

but they do that on I-20 westbound when they sign El Paso, I-20 ends a long ways before and you have to take I-10 west.  Since the majority of the traffic is headed towards I-15 south i figure sign it the same as the 15.

I do agree, don't sign Los Angeles that far away, i was mainly being metphorical in picking any city.  I think Las Vegas should be the control point.

Here's Las Vegas as an I-70 control city, but only at the on-ramp from Elsinore, Utah:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fzoza.com%2F%7Ekniwt%2F70vegas.jpg&hash=3e2f481152bc1db557103dcff035855fc31fcd8e)

Cool picture.  So Las Vegas does come up more often then I thought on onramps.

Well one problem with the Williamsburg signing on I-64 is that, when headed eastbound, the first Williamsburg exit you come to is Exit 227 (VA 30/to US 60/Toano/Williamsburg).  I suppose they want to differentiate traffic bound for the city/surrounding suburbs from traffic heading to a specific tourist destination (Colonial Williamsburg via Exit 238 or Busch Gardens via Exit 243 A). 

But the real question for me is...why not sign Williamsburg (the city where the real people live, not the Colonial Williamsburg village that you have to pay to get into) from Exit 242 or 238 instead of 227?  Seems somewhat illogical to me. 

Note, Exit 242 no longer uses Williamsburg, Yorktown, or Jamestown on the signs.  It now uses Humelsine Parkway and Marquis Parkway (I think).  I never objected to using Williamsburg, but Yorktown and Jamestown I'm glad to see gone...you can't get there from 199 except via Colonial Parkway, which is not open to trucks.  Think about it, you want to get to Yorktown from the west, you're in a truck, and the first (of many) Yorktown exits is 242.  If people want to get there via the Parkway, there are "Jamestown/Yorktown via Parkway" signs at Exit 238, which I believe gets you onto the Parkway much sooner than from 199. 

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 18, 2011, 06:02:58 PM
What I was referring to was how, for example, I said that Dulles Airport did appear as a mainline control point, even though it wasn't an interstate, to which you respond 'well it's a control point on VA 267 and VA 28 but never an interstate!' even though I had just stated that it wasn't an interstate.

Actually, Dulles Airport isn't really a control city for VA 267, per se, because VA 267 doesn't take you to the airport, the Dulles Airport Access Road takes you there.  That is why the guide signs have a line between the "VA 267 west, Toll Road" and the "Dulles Airport (no toll)", because they are guiding you onto two separate roads, the Toll Road and the Access Road, one which requires payment of a toll, the other which does not. 

The new signs that they just installed within the last few weeks get it right.  "VA 267 west (Toll), Reston, Herndon / Dulles Airport (no toll)".  So 267 has real control cities now, and the Access Road is still signed as Dulles Aiport/no toll.  I believe Leesburg is still listed as an auxiliary destination, or will be when the signs are done. 

Using Busch Gardens off of I-64 at Exit 243A would be like using Cedar Point off of the Ohio Turnpike at US-250 (Exit 118) and Disney World off of I-4 at US-192, Osceola Pkwy, and Epcot Center Dr (Exits 64-65-67).

Now that I think about it, some of New Jersey's interstate control cities bug me. I-78 westbound uses Clinton and then Pennsylvania. How about Allentown? Not sure what I-80 uses but if Ohio can put NYC on a sign at Youngstown, then Jersey could put Youngstown on a sign somewhere. I-287 uses some obscure towns where it intersects I-78 and I-80, I'd suggest Albany and Wilmington.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 18, 2011, 06:02:58 PM
What I was referring to was how, for example, I said that Dulles Airport did appear as a mainline control point, even though it wasn't an interstate, to which you respond 'well it's a control point on VA 267 and VA 28 but never an interstate!' even though I had just stated that it wasn't an interstate.

As for ending this, I agree with you completely, these are our opinions. I just felt that yours was misguided, and based on the wording of your first post and parts of your subsequent posts, I thought you were being far too harsh on VDOT for trying to help the motoring public. But if you recognize that they are appropriate because they guide tourist traffic, then we're good. I recognize that they are very odd choices from a roadgeek perspective, but I feel that the point of control points is to be helpful to drivers, providing the most pertinent information regardless of what form it takes.

So, agree to have varying opinions.  :cool:

Shhh...don't tell anyone...I work for VDOT...

As a traffic engineer, I agree with your logic. Just don't like it as a road nerd!

Oh, another one that I'm reminded of that I don't like but I suppose I can see the rationale for: Maryland signing I-95 NB north of Baltimore as heading toward "New York". No mention of Philadelphia (the nation's 5th largest city I believe) or even Wilmington (my stomping grounds), the next actual city that you come to along I-95 north. I say it's a case of Philly-hate.

Quote from: Kniwt on July 12, 2011, 04:26:51 PM
Here's Las Vegas as an I-70 control city, but only at the on-ramp from Elsinore, Utah:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fzoza.com%2F%7Ekniwt%2F70vegas.jpg&hash=3e2f481152bc1db557103dcff035855fc31fcd8e)

That might now be the most easternmost point on I-70 listing Las Vegas.  Within the last month, C-DOT has been replacing just about every (perfectly good) BGS on the mainline.  Green River, UT as a control city is on the verge of extinction -- all replacement BGSs I have seen now use Utah -- and the mileage signs that once listed Las Vegas just outside of Grand Junction have now been replaced by "Jct. I-15".

Unfortunately, the latter makes sense as I-70 doesn't go to Vegas.

Quote from: Fleetwood Mac Attack on July 18, 2011, 11:20:05 PM
Shhh...don't tell anyone...I work for VDOT...

As a traffic engineer, I agree with your logic. Just don't like it as a road nerd!

Oh, how, erm, ironic.  :sombrero:

QuoteOh, another one that I'm reminded of that I don't like but I suppose I can see the rationale for: Maryland signing I-95 NB north of Baltimore as heading toward "New York". No mention of Philadelphia (the nation's 5th largest city I believe) or even Wilmington (my stomping grounds), the next actual city that you come to along I-95 north. I say it's a case of Philly-hate.

You probably are already well aware of this but I hear Virginia is signing New York for northbound 95 at the Springfield Interchange now too, accompanied by Baltimore, but also blowing off Philly.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 19, 2011, 12:27:54 AM
....

You probably are already well aware of this but I hear Virginia is signing New York for northbound 95 at the Springfield Interchange now too, accompanied by Baltimore, but also blowing off Philly.

I drive through Springfield regularly and haven't seen New York signed there. I have seen a very new pull-through sign at the US-1 interchange in Woodbridge, though, over the northbound carriageway. The old sign there simply said I-95 North to Washington. The new sign is a two-panel sign; the left-hand panel is the pull-through for I-95 North and lists Baltimore and New York City (they included the word "City") and the right-hand panel says that traffic for Washington should follow I-395 North. I do not recall whether it lists the mileage to the I-395 split because I saw the sign one time about two weeks ago and it was around midnight when I went through there (in the express lanes). For years there's been another sign north of there, roughly at the Pohick Road overpass, that says "NY – NJ Follow I-95 North," but that sign was off to one side of the road and wasn't in the nature of an overhead pull-through sign. The new one in Woodbridge struck me as being a lot clearer for long-distance traffic than the old sign was.

The signs at Springfield must still be unclear to some segment of the population, though, because we live in Kingstowne and whenever we drive up Van Dorn Street we see people coming off the Beltway and immediately making U-turns to get back on, which suggests to me that they missed their ramps. I have no idea where all the U-turners are coming from or going to, but there are a lot of them!

What I'm waiting to see with respect to Springfield is what VDOT does in regard to the signage for the new HOV ramps now under construction. For years the signs for the Shirley Highway HOV facility have been a real mish-mash of stuff thrown together over the years with little consistency, and none of the signs posted prior to entry into the express lanes list any destinations. While I understand that with an HOV facility there's a bit of an assumption that the driver is somewhat familiar with the road, I've always thought VDOT could make the signs immensely clearer (and that's without considering the horrible condition of many of the VMS portions of those signs).

Speaking of confusing signage (hope this isn't too off-topic), I was wondering about some outsiders' thoughts on I-95 NB signage in Delaware. Once you cross through the tolls at the MD state line, I believe you're finally introduced (albeit through some supplementary signage) that this freeway does actually take you to Philly if you stay on it. However, IMO there isn't a whole lot of warning about the highway dividing, at least in terms of distances. There's one or two signs I believe (one at the DE-273 exit) stating how many miles ahead the "exits" for I-295 and I-495 are. Past Christiana Mall/DE-1, signs simply direct drivers to either the left lanes (I-95/I-495 Wilmington/Philadelphia) or the right lanes (I-295/NJ Turnpike NJ-NY) without stating how far ahead the highway divides! Anybody think a "Freeway divides _ miles" sign might be useful here?

Quoteand none of the signs posted prior to entry into the express lanes list any destinations.

Not entirely true.  Most of the entrances don't post destinations beforehand, but the initial entrance south of Dumfries/234 does.

IIRC, Busch Gardens interchange on I-64 opened late '02 or early '03.  I'd have to dig back through photos to find out for sure.

Quote from: froggie on July 19, 2011, 10:14:53 AM

Quoteand none of the signs posted prior to entry into the express lanes list any destinations.

Not entirely true.  Most of the entrances don't post destinations beforehand, but the initial entrance south of Dumfries/234 does.

.....

I can't picture the sign. The only such sign I can picture down there shows up after you enter the express lanes and there's a sign on the right that says "Exits from Restricted Lanes" giving distances to Springfield, the Pentagon, and DC. (I suppose I go that way less often than I used to–we used to go that way all the time coming back from UVA football games, but we dropped our season tickets last year–so it's entirely possible there's either a new sign or a relocated sign.)

Either way, I'm still interested in seeing what they do at the Beltway. The current MUTCD standards for HOV lane signs are quite different from any of the signs Virginia now has posted.

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 19, 2011, 10:35:11 AM
Either way, I'm still interested in seeing what they do at the Beltway. The current MUTCD standards for HOV lane signs are quite different from any of the signs Virginia now has posted.

Don't get your hopes up too high (I have a portion of the sign plan sitting on my desk). 

Two things to keep in mind.
1) The 2009 MUTCD and the new Virginia Supplement to the MUTCD are not yet in effect in Virginia.  When the Commonwealth Transportation Board adopts them, they will be in effect for projects advertised after January 1, 2012.  The HOT Lanes project was advertised well before that date. 
2) The MUTCD is all about trying to encourage consistency.  FHWA can override the MUTCD if there is a good reason...such as being "consistently wrong" to avoid calling a set of lanes by two different names. 

By the way, if you want to see signs for HOV lanes that are far worse than anything in NoVA, take a look at I-84's "Restricted Lane" east of Hartford.  Very limited entry and exit points, no signs telling you where they go, and if you're on a side road, all you get is an HOV diamond with an arrow underneath.  But, like the I-95/I-395 lanes, they are designed for routine commuter use, and if you don't know where they go or are unsure if you can use them, then stick with the mainline lanes clearly labeled "84 east - Boston" or "84 west - Hartford",adn you'll be guaranteed of reaching your destination. 

(mtantillo's posted not quoted since I'm posting by phone and it makes it hard to edit)

True about MUTCD effective date, though that doesn't necessarily mean they couldn't follow some of the more intelligent guidance, such as putting I-95 or I-395 on the off-Interstate guide signs for the HOV facility (something they don't usually do now).

Yes.  But, the sign plans for the HOT lanes actually pre-date the release of the 2009 MUTCD to the public.  So it would have been a risky move to choose something from the Notice of Proposed Amendments that ultimatly didn't get accepted into the 2009 MUTCD. 

I understand your point, but there are other concerns in play as well, including fiscal concerns, keeping the signs consistent with what's already there (even if its an old standard), and information overload (trying to sign every exit point at the entrance ramp from the Pentagon going south is way too much information). 

The I-95/I-395 signs I have mixed feelings on.  I agree more signs are needed telling drivers where the lanes go.  But they should be limited to 3 destinations only, like a standard guide sign or mileage sign (such as the Dumfries on). 

Northbound, I think you really only need to sign for the limited exit points: I-95/I-495/Springfield, Pentagon, Washington.  If you aren't going to one of those three places, don't get in the lanes!  I think the signs in Dumfries are a good start...they make it quite clear that when you get in the lanes, the exits are few and far between.  I think some added information about being able to access I-95 and I-495 in Springfield is warranted (but not until the new interchange is finished....as of right now, we don't need to encourage I-95 thru traffic to take the HOV lanes where capacity at that crossover back to the main lanes is limited).  But saying I-395 is kind of misleading, since most of the I-395 exits are not accessible from the HOV lanes.  You don't want to encourage people who want an exit on I-395 to get into the HOV and then not be able to get to their exit. 

Going south, I think I-95/I-495 should be added as a "destination" along with Shirlington and Seminary Road, the only two exit points prior to the flyover that takes you to the Beltway.  If you want Shirlington, Seminary Road, or the Beltway, you can take the lanes.  Anything south of there, you don't really need to sign individual exits since you can get to every exit on I-95 from the HOV lanes somehow.  So the entrance ramps in Springfield, I have no problem signing those as "I-95 south - Restricted Lanes". 

I didn't intend to imply that they need to post notice, before entering the lanes, of EVERY exit point. That's impractical, especially going southbound as you say. The one at the southern end (which I'm certain I have a mental picture of as being within the express lanes just to the north of the VA-234 overpass, but which froggie says is further south) does a pretty good job, I think, of listing the three exit points, and I think the idea of adding the Beltway to it when the new ramps are done makes some sense.

But I stand by my point that the signs guiding people from other roads TO the express lanes (say, from the Fairfax County Parkway to there) ought to have the I-95 shield somewhere–right now they do not!–and I think this might be all the more important on the Beltway with the coming HOT lanes in order to make certain that the sign clarifies WHICH set of "restricted lanes" they're referring to. In other words, if you're going to have a set of lanes on the Beltway that can be called "restricted" (or what the MUTCD calls "managed lanes"), and you also have an exit ramp leading to another set of lanes that can be called "restricted," I think it's utterly obvious to include the shield on the sign for the exit ramp. Even if the sign otherwise looks largely identical to the signs they have up now, the idea of adding the shield costs next to nothing and doesn't take up too much space. It sounds like we concur on this point, based on your comment about "I-95 South–Restricted Lanes" in your final sentence (although, for obvious reasons when you're referring to a reversible facility, it might be necessary to omit the direction.)

I've occasionally thought that it wouldn't be a bad idea for the exit sign at the Franconia—Springfield Parkway (or at the Beltway when the new ramps are finished) to have a "Next Exit XX miles" notation, or even "No Exit Until Pentagon"–similar in concept to "Last Exit Before Toll" (or "Bridge" on eastbound I-278 on Staten Island).

I suppose to some degree I should be happy with vague signs on there that discourage out-of-area drivers from using them, as it keeps the lanes open for those of us who know where we're going. But I can't help but be bugged by what I've always felt comes across as a half-arsed signage scheme.

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 20, 2011, 09:34:16 AM
I didn't intend to imply that they need to post notice, before entering the lanes, of EVERY exit point. That's impractical, especially going southbound as you say. The one at the southern end (which I'm certain I have a mental picture of as being within the express lanes just to the north of the VA-234 overpass, but which froggie says is further south) does a pretty good job, I think, of listing the three exit points, and I think the idea of adding the Beltway to it when the new ramps are done makes some sense.

But I stand by my point that the signs guiding people from other roads TO the express lanes (say, from the Fairfax County Parkway to there) ought to have the I-95 shield somewhere—right now they do not!—and I think this might be all the more important on the Beltway with the coming HOT lanes in order to make certain that the sign clarifies WHICH set of "restricted lanes" they're referring to. In other words, if you're going to have a set of lanes on the Beltway that can be called "restricted" (or what the MUTCD calls "managed lanes"), and you also have an exit ramp leading to another set of lanes that can be called "restricted," I think it's utterly obvious to include the shield on the sign for the exit ramp. Even if the sign otherwise looks largely identical to the signs they have up now, the idea of adding the shield costs next to nothing and doesn't take up too much space. It sounds like we concur on this point, based on your comment about "I-95 South—Restricted Lanes" in your final sentence (although, for obvious reasons when you're referring to a reversible facility, it might be necessary to omit the direction.)

I've occasionally thought that it wouldn't be a bad idea for the exit sign at the Franconia–Springfield Parkway (or at the Beltway when the new ramps are finished) to have a "Next Exit XX miles" notation, or even "No Exit Until Pentagon"—similar in concept to "Last Exit Before Toll" (or "Bridge" on eastbound I-278 on Staten Island).

I suppose to some degree I should be happy with vague signs on there that discourage out-of-area drivers from using them, as it keeps the lanes open for those of us who know where we're going. But I can't help but be bugged by what I've always felt comes across as a half-arsed signage scheme.

Agree on all points.  But just because I-95/I-395 have always been called "Restricted Lanes" doesn't mean that the Beltway's will be called that.  Luckily the I-495 HOT lanes will not actually intersect the I-95/I-395 HOV, so the signs on the HOV can simply say "I-95 north/I-495", and then once you get onto I-495 north, you'll see signs for the HOT lanes.  Likewise, you won't really see any signs guiding you to the "Restricted Lanes" on I-95/I-395 until you pass the last entry point to the Beltway HOT lanes.  So luckily there won't be too much intermingling of the signs. 

But if the "I-95 south - Richmond" and "I-395 north - Washington" signs in the HOV lanes at Springfield are any indication, I'd say that there will be signs showing the interstate designations.  Though they might not be on permanent signs, they might be on the VMS part, I'm not sure. 

I like the idea of "next exit XX miles"...that is a sign already in the MUTCD that can be applied. I think they  already try to do that at Franconia-Springfield Parkway, where just before the exit, there is a "Exits From Restricted Lanes" sign with mileage to Pentagon and Washington.  Unfortunately, it is poorly placed.  It should be a 3-destination sign with Franconia Springfield Parkway, Pentagon, and Washington, and placed prior to the crossover to the mainline currently used by I-95 through traffic.  This way, someone wanting an intermediate exit on I-395 can cross over.  Now, by the time they see that sign, they either have to pass their exit and turn around at the Pentagon, or they have to exit onto Franconia-Springfield Parkway and navigate that mess to get back to I-395 from Old Keene Mill Road. 

Has anyone mentioned East I-580 Stockton?

Because if it isn't the worst, it's pretty damn awful. It's two I-routes away from actually going to Stockton, and as you get closer the control city disappears from the signs.

(And yes, nobody cares about an old circuitous US50 routing that's been irrelevant since the 1920s.)

Quote from: flowmotion on July 24, 2011, 12:28:06 AM
Has anyone mentioned East I-580 Stockton?

Because if it isn't the worst, it's pretty damn awful. It's two I-routes away from actually going to Stockton, and as you get closer the control city disappears from the signs.

(And yes, nobody cares about an old circuitous US50 routing that's been irrelevant since the 1920s.)

Doesn't I-580 East Also Mention Fresno?  If it does then that's even worse, thats a 4 highway transition.

Quote from: Interstate Trav on July 24, 2011, 03:20:15 PM
Doesn't I-580 East Also Mention Fresno?  If it does then that's even worse, thats a 4 highway transition.

The control city for I-238 is Fresno, too, since the ramp pictured at the link doesn't even really go directly to I-580:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=i-238+at+i-880,+oakland+ca&hl=en&ll=37.694671,-122.143958&spn=0.013549,0.020235&client=safari&oe=UTF-8&z=16&layer=c&cbll=37.694477,-122.143773&panoid=3hOwGQmogAWZnqZQWOkfNQ&cbp=12,122.59,,0,7.83

Quote from: Kniwt on July 24, 2011, 09:09:29 PM

Quote from: Interstate Trav on July 24, 2011, 03:20:15 PM
Doesn't I-580 East Also Mention Fresno?  If it does then that's even worse, thats a 4 highway transition.

The control city for I-238 is Fresno, too, since the ramp pictured at the link doesn't even really go directly to I-580:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=i-238+at+i-880,+oakland+ca&hl=en&ll=37.694671,-122.143958&spn=0.013549,0.020235&client=safari&oe=UTF-8&z=16&layer=c&cbll=37.694477,-122.143773&panoid=3hOwGQmogAWZnqZQWOkfNQ&cbp=12,122.59,,0,7.83

Wow seems like Fresno wins for most indirect Control City.   

Quote from: Interstate Trav on July 24, 2011, 09:13:02 PM

Quote from: Kniwt on July 24, 2011, 09:09:29 PM

Quote from: Interstate Trav on July 24, 2011, 03:20:15 PM
Doesn't I-580 East Also Mention Fresno?  If it does then that's even worse, thats a 4 highway transition.

The control city for I-238 is Fresno, too, since the ramp pictured at the link doesn't even really go directly to I-580:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=i-238+at+i-880,+oakland+ca&hl=en&ll=37.694671,-122.143958&spn=0.013549,0.020235&client=safari&oe=UTF-8&z=16&layer=c&cbll=37.694477,-122.143773&panoid=3hOwGQmogAWZnqZQWOkfNQ&cbp=12,122.59,,0,7.83

Wow seems like Fresno wins for most indirect Control City.   

Fresno requires a two-highway transfer: 580-132-99

120 west to San Francisco is worse (even if it makes sense to have it as a control city) - 5 south, 205 west, 580 west, 80 west makes that a four-highway switchup!

Quote from: TheStranger on July 25, 2011, 12:18:15 PM
Fresno requires a two-highway transfer: 580-132-99

120 west to San Francisco is worse (even if it makes sense to have it as a control city) - 5 south, 205 west, 580 west, 80 west makes that a four-highway switchup!

CA-120 West is at least largely a straight-shot towards San Francisco despite all the route changes. I-238 East to Fresno is more like vaguely waving "go thata way".

CA-120 is also the road from Yosemite national park, so SF does make sense as a destination.

Quote from: flowmotion on August 04, 2011, 03:08:52 AM
CA-120 West is at least largely a straight-shot towards San Francisco despite all the route changes. I-238 East to Fresno is more like vaguely waving "go thata way".

CA-120 is also the road from Yosemite national park, so SF does make sense as a destination.

Not disagreeing at all, so much as noting that in both cases, you still have to switch alignments at some point and go in a somewhat different cardinal direction (north-northwest on 580 for those heading to SF via west 120/205, south on 99 after 580/132 eastward) to get to either destination.

US 50 west for instance is never signed for San Francisco outside of its concurrency with Business 80 and the first couple of exits east of Business 80 - I could see that being logically mentioned as early as Rancho Cordova for comparison!

Worst:  I also dislike Opelousas for I-49 between Alexandria and Lafayette. I understand why, since 49 was originally only about 20 miles from Laffy to Opelousas, but now just sign for Lafayette or Alex. Maybe they also kept it since it's shorter for southbound traffic to get to Baton Rouge on US 190 east from Opelousas.

Also, the Bay St Louis signs when you leave Louisiana for Mississippi on I-10 or Pascagoula when you leave Mobile west on I-10. Once again, history, I know, for when I-10 wasn't completed and forced travelers off to US 90, but keep the signs updated. Those towns are small and way off the interstate. Use a combination of Gulfport/Biloxi and Mobile.

Best: I like the signs for Canada that were mentioned. Are there any signs for Mexico in the Southern US interstates?

On the 3di discussion, I think for the majority of the time it should reflect the big picture destination. My hometown is Shreveport and the 220 loop makes sense to sign Dallas when going west or Monroe to the east because you're about to get dropped off on I-20 anyways. I never really liked how Mississippi puts North Jackson or West Jackson on its 220. Neither of those are cities. Just put Memphis or Vicksburg. (Does anybody remember if its doubled there?  North Jackson + Grenada?)

Quote from: bassoon1986 on August 04, 2011, 04:11:48 PM
On the 3di discussion, I think for the majority of the time it should reflect the big picture destination. My hometown is Shreveport and the 220 loop makes sense to sign Dallas when going west or Monroe to the east because you're about to get dropped off on I-20 anyways. I never really liked how Mississippi puts North Jackson or West Jackson on its 220. Neither of those are cities. Just put Memphis or Vicksburg. (Does anybody remember if its doubled there?  North Jackson + Grenada?)

I'm intrigued by how some states are very consistent about this, while others do both.

Caltrans signs 405 north of Santa Monica - and all of 170 north - as "Sacramento" (due to I-5), yet in comparison 210 is signed eastbound only for "San Bernardino" and "Redlands" with not a single mention of Phoenix. 

Quote from: TheStranger on August 04, 2011, 04:35:35 PM

Quote from: bassoon1986 on August 04, 2011, 04:11:48 PM
On the 3di discussion, I think for the majority of the time it should reflect the big picture destination. My hometown is Shreveport and the 220 loop makes sense to sign Dallas when going west or Monroe to the east because you're about to get dropped off on I-20 anyways. I never really liked how Mississippi puts North Jackson or West Jackson on its 220. Neither of those are cities. Just put Memphis or Vicksburg. (Does anybody remember if its doubled there?  North Jackson + Grenada?)

I'm intrigued by how some states are very consistent about this, while others do both.

Caltrans signs 405 north of Santa Monica - and all of 170 north - as "Sacramento" (due to I-5), yet in comparison 210 is signed eastbound only for "San Bernardino" and "Redlands" with not a single mention of Phoenix. 

I agree 210 should be signed for the next city on 10 East.  But shouldn't it be Palm Springs or Redlands, since thats what 10 east is signed for?
210 west ends up being signed for Sacramento for I-5 North.

Quote from: Interstate Trav on August 04, 2011, 05:46:50 PM

Quote from: TheStranger on August 04, 2011, 04:35:35 PM

Quote from: bassoon1986 on August 04, 2011, 04:11:48 PM
On the 3di discussion, I think for the majority of the time it should reflect the big picture destination. My hometown is Shreveport and the 220 loop makes sense to sign Dallas when going west or Monroe to the east because you're about to get dropped off on I-20 anyways. I never really liked how Mississippi puts North Jackson or West Jackson on its 220. Neither of those are cities. Just put Memphis or Vicksburg. (Does anybody remember if its doubled there?  North Jackson + Grenada?)

I'm intrigued by how some states are very consistent about this, while others do both.

Caltrans signs 405 north of Santa Monica - and all of 170 north - as "Sacramento" (due to I-5), yet in comparison 210 is signed eastbound only for "San Bernardino" and "Redlands" with not a single mention of Phoenix. 

I agree 210 should be signed for the next city on 10 East.  But shouldn't it be Palm Springs or Redlands, since thats what 10 east is signed for?

It's Redlands...only past I-215.  "San Bernardino" from Route 134 to I-215.  I do understand the logic, though.

It does seem that within downtown Los Angeles and the immediate area, the ONLY long-distance control is Sacramento, and even that has only been the case for three decades (prior to that, it was Bakersfield).

A fairly bad control city I've recently become aware of:  Belpre, for US 50 east out of Athens, OH.  Parkersburg, WV is considerably larger, right across the river from Belpre, and besides US 50 doesn't even actually go to Belpre anymore!

I don't think I have worst control city sign....yet, but my favorite that I always got a kick out of when I went to college in Indiana was the Valparaiso interchange. Eastbound 80 says Ohio and Westbound says Chicago. Pretty much the same once on the highway, there aren't any control cities used for 80 on the Indiana Tollroad for Indiana itself.

Indiana probably thinks "anybody on the Indiana Toll Road doesn't want to be in this f'n state". :-D

Quote from: Master son on August 17, 2011, 08:48:41 AM
Indiana probably thinks "anybody on the Indiana Toll Road doesn't want to be in this f'n state". :-D

...Unless it's a Saturday in the fall and there is a football game in South Bend, then they think EVERYBODY is coming to pay homage to a certain team there.  :sleep:

(Can you tell I am not a fan of college football, and especially not a fan of that "holier than thou" team??)  :biggrin:

Quote from: Master son on August 17, 2011, 08:48:41 AM
Indiana probably thinks "anybody on the Indiana Toll Road doesn't want to be in this f'n state". :-D

Most states would use South Bend and Gary, along with Toledo (OH), as control cities.

Quote from: ftballfan on August 17, 2011, 03:28:33 PM

Quote from: Master son on August 17, 2011, 08:48:41 AM
Indiana probably thinks "anybody on the Indiana Toll Road doesn't want to be in this f'n state". :-D

Most states would use South Bend and Gary, along with Toledo (OH), as control cities.

I always thought that INDOT simply had a policy of not using control cities that have less than 200,000. I have nothing to back this up of course and in truth I doubt this is really a policy that states this, but it would explain why places like Chicago, Toledo (in spots) and Detroit get mentioned, as well as Fort Wayne on I-69, but not South Bend. This would apply to interstates only as US 31 and US 20 do have South Bend as a control city.

Quote from: tdindy88 on August 17, 2011, 07:17:46 PM

Quote from: ftballfan on August 17, 2011, 03:28:33 PM

Quote from: Master son on August 17, 2011, 08:48:41 AM
Indiana probably thinks "anybody on the Indiana Toll Road doesn't want to be in this f'n state". :-D

Most states would use South Bend and Gary, along with Toledo (OH), as control cities.

I always thought that INDOT simply had a policy of not using control cities that have less than 200,000. I have nothing to back this up of course and in truth I doubt this is really a policy that states this, but it would explain why places like Chicago, Toledo (in spots) and Detroit get mentioned, as well as Fort Wayne on I-69, but not South Bend. This would apply to interstates only as US 31 and US 20 do have South Bend as a control city.

Of course, I-74's Ronald Reagan Pkwy exit has Crawfordsville as a control city. Evansville (not Memphis) is the control city on the I-69 SR 68 interchange, and Evansville metro is a lot smaller than South Bend/Elkhart so maybe INDOT is starting something similar to what Illinois does.

Is most of the Toll Road traffic is through traffic to Chicago or Ohio?  That would explain the signs.

Quote from: InterstateNG on August 17, 2011, 09:04:42 PM
Is most of the Toll Road traffic is through traffic to Chicago or Ohio?  That would explain the signs.

Likely, but dual control cities would work here, like in Eastern Indiana (east of IN-933).
WB Toll Road: South Bend/Chicago
EB Toll Road: Toledo/Cleveland
In Western Indiana (between I-94 and IN-933):
WB Toll Road: Gary/Chicago
EB Toll Road: South Bend/Cleveland

Quote from: mukade on August 17, 2011, 07:33:45 PM

Quote from: tdindy88 on August 17, 2011, 07:17:46 PM

Quote from: ftballfan on August 17, 2011, 03:28:33 PM

Quote from: Master son on August 17, 2011, 08:48:41 AM
Indiana probably thinks "anybody on the Indiana Toll Road doesn't want to be in this f'n state". :-D

Most states would use South Bend and Gary, along with Toledo (OH), as control cities.

I always thought that INDOT simply had a policy of not using control cities that have less than 200,000. I have nothing to back this up of course and in truth I doubt this is really a policy that states this, but it would explain why places like Chicago, Toledo (in spots) and Detroit get mentioned, as well as Fort Wayne on I-69, but not South Bend. This would apply to interstates only as US 31 and US 20 do have South Bend as a control city.

Of course, I-74's Ronald Reagan Pkwy exit has Crawfordsville as a control city. Evansville (not Memphis) is the control city on the I-69 SR 68 interchange, and Evansville metro is a lot smaller than South Bend/Elkhart so maybe INDOT is starting something similar to what Illinois does.

I-69 does not go to Memphis currently, but it is supposed to in the not too distant future.

QuoteI-69 does not go to Memphis currently, but it is supposed to in the not too distant future.

Yes, but neither does I-65 go to Chicago (and numerous other similar examples). Most of the I-69 routing from the southern Indiana section to Memphis currently exists - I-164 in Indiana, the parkways and I-24 in Kentucky, and sections of US 51 and I-155 in Tennessee. Even if not all Interstate quality, there is a clear route there.

Of course, I-74's Ronald Reagan Pkwy exit has Crawfordsville as a control city. Evansville (not Memphis) is the control city on the I-69 SR 68 interchange, and Evansville metro is a lot smaller than South Bend/Elkhart so maybe INDOT is starting something similar to what Illinois does.
[/quote]

I think the Ronald Reagan Parkway example is more of a fluke than anything else, likely the work of the contractor on the project, even the signs have a slightly different font from any other off the highway. All other exits on 74 West have Peoria and Indianapolis as control cities, and unless INDOT starts changing all of them to mention Crawfordsville I will continue to regard the Reagan Pkwy exit as an exception more than a rule. As for I-69, I will be looking to see what control cities are used once larger portions of the highway are opened. I would assume that Evansville will be signed as the southbound control city throughout the state, with Memphis being signed south of there. My question would be what control city would be signed to the north. I would doubt that Petersburg will stay as a control, which then would leave the question: will it be Washington, Crane, Bloomington, or Indianapolis. Will there be a day when I see Evansville signed in Marion County and Indianapolis in Vanderburgh? Though this thought is probably for another day and thread.

Quote from: tdindy88 on August 17, 2011, 10:00:01 PM
I think the Ronald Reagan Parkway example is more of a fluke than anything else, likely the work of the contractor on the project, even the signs have a slightly different font from any other off the highway. All other exits on 74 West have Peoria and Indianapolis as control cities, and unless INDOT starts changing all of them to mention Crawfordsville I will continue to regard the Reagan Pkwy exit as an exception more than a rule. As for I-69, I will be looking to see what control cities are used once larger portions of the highway are opened. I would assume that Evansville will be signed as the southbound control city throughout the state, with Memphis being signed south of there. My question would be what control city would be signed to the north. I would doubt that Petersburg will stay as a control, which then would leave the question: will it be Washington, Crane, Bloomington, or Indianapolis. Will there be a day when I see Evansville signed in Marion County and Indianapolis in Vanderburgh? Though this thought is probably for another day and thread.

I agree Evansville will and should be the control city from I-64 to Indy, but South Bend should be the control city on I-80/I-90 because it is a bigger metro area (third biggest in state, I believe).

As for the I-74 sign, the state has pretty detailed project plans that you can view online. That leads me to believe that city came directly from INDOT plans. I have viewed some of the online signage for the projects underway. Because some are a lot different than normal (US 31 Kokomo, for example), maybe the contracted engineering firms are responsible for the differences.

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 03, 2011, 10:07:30 AM
There is a new pull-through sign on I-95 in Virginia at Exit 161, saw it for the first time last night but was unable to take a picture because I had just driven in from Florida and it was just before midnight and I was tired, but I thought it was pretty well-executed in terms of giving guidance to people not from Northern Virginia. The sign used to read I-95 North with a control city of Washington. Now it's a very big two-panel BGS (all in Clearview, for those who care). The left panel is the standard pull-through sign for I-95 North but lists control cities of Baltimore and New York City (top to bottom in that order). The right panel then says "Washington Follow I-395 North" and gives the distance to I-395, which is 8 or 9 miles from that sign.

Some people might object to putting New York City as a control city on a sign in Virginia–shades of the famous signs in Petersburg that list Miami and Atlanta–but I thought it wasn't a bad idea at all in terms of providing some level of clarification to people who do not go through the Springfield Interchange very often. I suppose one could quibble that New York might best be moved to an auxiliary sign with Baltimore left as the control city; I wouldn't argue on that point, but I don't mind seeing New York on there either. People getting lost at Springfield (and making U-turns at the Van Dorn Street exit near where I live) are a perpetual plague.

Exhuming this discussion because yesterday I finally got a picture of the sign described in my prior post quoted above. We went down to Woodbridge to play golf, then put gas in the car because it's 20¢ a gallon cheaper there and hit Wegmans, and on the way home I took the opportunity to get a picture of the sign. To me this is an example of where a re-thought sign makes the information a lot more useful to people who don't drive the road on a regular basis.

First, the old sign (obviously courtesy of Google Street View):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F4a1b47e3.jpg&hash=d06df53667cd1461054f13c6092afcec4cac3d65)


Next, the new one, which went up sometime earlier this year:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Fa9251f60.jpg&hash=27a50098e9fd459b4fc1c2cb46d31e7d94771836)


I find it interesting that the new sign says "New York City" rather than just "New York," as the latter is the more common usage along I-95 from what I've observed over the years. (I suppose "New York" might be seen as ambiguous as to city versus state, although in my mind since the city is part of the state, it would be equally accurate.)

The new sign looks awful on so many levels. I loved how the old sign reminded me that "Washington"  not "Washington, D.C," is how the city should be referred to, just like all other cities.

New York shouldn't have "City", because that is practically slang. It's New York, NY, without any mention of "City".

I like the concept of the sign, although I don't think it's necessary to show diverging control cities 8 miles prior to the junction. Maybe 2-3 miles ahead. Otherwise, "I-95 North / Washington / Baltimore" would have been fine in this location.

The thing I don't like is that the word "Use" is in the small caps–compare it to the word "North" on the other side of the I-395 shield. The "Use" is in what would be lower-case letters if the small caps were converted to standard type. To me that looks wrong.

I'm not sure I follow architect77's point about "Washington" versus "DC" on the old sign. The new sign doesn't use "DC" anywhere either. (In terms of how the city is referred to, the majority of people who live around here call it "DC" and seldom say "Washington" in any form, although certainly on highway signs "DC" alone would never work. I'd support adding the "DC" on the signs if I thought there was an ambiguity, but the State of Washington is a long way away and the town of Washington, VA, commonly called "Little Washington" after the famous Inn located there, is nowhere near I-95.)

I'm guessing–and this is just a guess–that one reason for the 8-mile advance notice is that it's in advance of the Springfield Interchange, a major divergence point as you head up I-95 in this area, and so they want people to start paying attention to the signage in advance. Obeying the signage for the proper lane is probably more important there than in just about any other interchange I've ever used because if you make a mistake, you can't easily fix it without driving three to five miles to the next exit to turn around. There is another sign a few miles to the north that says "I-95 North/NJ–NY/4 Miles/Use Left Lanes." (I'd normally prefer "Keep Left" over "Use Left Lanes" because we have too many left-lane hogs as it is, but in this case using the two left lanes at the split is very important so the wording makes sense.)

Disagree with the equally accurate statement...if your destination in New York State is anything west of I-81, you would definitely be going the wrong way by stayin on I-95 north in Springfield.  Its not like I-90 west (Mass Pike) out of Boston where New York works fine, since you can get to the entire state by either going west on I-84 or staying on I-90. 

Quote from: 1995hoo on September 07, 2011, 10:00:48 AM
The thing I don't like is that the word "Use" is in the small caps–compare it to the word "North" on the other side of the I-395 shield. The "Use" is in what would be lower-case letters if the small caps were converted to standard type. To me that looks wrong.

Your interpretation is not quite correct.  Technically, the direction word isn't "North" formatted with small-caps type; it's actually "NORTH" with a larger first letter.  In that light, "USE" is formatted exactly the same, except it wasn't given a larger first letter because the MUTCD doesn't call for it. 

Quote from: mtantillo on September 07, 2011, 11:18:28 AM
Disagree with the equally accurate statement...if your destination in New York State is anything west of I-81, you would definitely be going the wrong way by stayin on I-95 north in Springfield.  Its not like I-90 west (Mass Pike) out of Boston where New York works fine, since you can get to the entire state by either going west on I-84 or staying on I-90.  

I think you misunderstood. I didn't mean "equally accurate" as in "best way to any destination in New York State." That would be absurd. What I meant was that a sign saying just "New York" would be equally accurate regardless of whether you interpreted it as meaning the city or the state because the city is part of the state. That is, I-95 takes you to New York State. It also takes you to New York City. Therefore, either interpretation is "equally accurate."

Quote from: vtk on September 07, 2011, 12:19:27 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on September 07, 2011, 10:00:48 AM
The thing I don't like is that the word "Use" is in the small caps–compare it to the word "North" on the other side of the I-395 shield. The "Use" is in what would be lower-case letters if the small caps were converted to standard type. To me that looks wrong.

Your interpretation is not quite correct.  Technically, the direction word isn't "North" formatted with small-caps type; it's actually "NORTH" with a larger first letter.  In that light, "USE" is formatted exactly the same, except it wasn't given a larger first letter because the MUTCD doesn't call for it.  

Either way, it's an example of blind obedience to the book looking dumb. I like the sign as a whole, but not that one aspect of it.

Quote from: 1995hoo on September 07, 2011, 12:40:31 PM

Quote from: vtk on September 07, 2011, 12:19:27 PM
Your interpretation is not quite correct.  Technically, the direction word isn't "North" formatted with small-caps type; it's actually "NORTH" with a larger first letter.  In that light, "USE" is formatted exactly the same, except it wasn't given a larger first letter because the MUTCD doesn't call for it. 

Either way, it's an example of blind obedience to the book looking dumb. I like the sign as a whole, but not that one aspect of it.

I wouldn't say it looks "dumb".  I might have a slight preference for not making the N bigger, but then again I think I have a slight preference to put that whole line in D-modified button copy.  But as far as shiny new Clearview signs go, I think that sign is about as close to perfect as I can imagine.  We'll just have to recognize our differing tastes, I suppose.

Yeah, if the only complaint is that one letter is a different size, that's a really minor gripe!