Mileage signs control cities

[roadman65]

Colorado seems to prefer two-city destination signs for I-25 and three-city signs for I-76 and I-70, though there are exceptions on both. (As far as I can remember, you see nothing listed beyond Denver for EB I-70 till you get to Denver). Distance signage along I-25 has almost nothing listed for adjoining states except Cheyenne WY, as you approach Ft. Collins northbound. Southbound, I believe there are only two signs with New Mexico destinations: an errant listing for Albuquerque at Monument (between Castle Rock and Colorado Springs), and both Raton and Las Vegas as you leave Trinidad, last SB Colorado town.

On I-70 west and east of Denver, as well as EB I-76, there are out of state destinations listed numerous times on three-city destination signs.

Florida does the same.  I-10 uses 2 control destinations, so does I-95, and I-75 has both.  It uses 3 destination signing south of the Hillsborough- Pasco County Line and two north of there except in a few places around Lake City going SB.

I-4 seems to be losing mileage signs over the years as with the construction of many interchanges over time and the roadway going from rural to  either urbania or suburbia, they have no place really to put them.  In Polk County, though, three destinations are used with next exit followed by the nearest city to the exit and finally either Tampa or Orlando as final destination.  Few are left east of US 27 and all the ones in Orange County are all gone with limited signage in Seminole and Volusia Counties and thus being 2 places on them  At the western end you see both 1 and 2 mileage destination signs.

[bassoon1986]

Louisiana's definitely just a 2 city signer except for I-49 between Shreveport and Alexandria. Natchitoches is always added to the larger city plus the next exit, seeing as it's about the only exit worth getting off of for those 120 miles

[hobsini2]

On another note, I seem to remember on that stretch of I-94 between Chicago and Milwaukee that a lot of the county routes in Wisconsin are merely signed EAST-WEST as control cities.  I could be wrong, and it was 1996 the last time I rode through those parts, but I always thought that that was kind of lazy on WisDOT, as they should at least put a city on there.

WisDOT is still using EAST-WEST, and seems to be keeping it with the I-94 eight laning.

Yes and no. In the last year, WisDOT has added Mt Pleasant (Hwy KR) and Caledonia (Hwy G) as control cities to a couple of those exits along 94 in Racine County.

[codyg1985]

Alabama usually does two cities; the city at the next exit followed by the primary control city. Sometimes, especially along I-20 east of Birmingham, three control cities are used since Anniston isn't a main control city (Atlanta is).

I would prefer three control cities: the one at the next exit, largest city along that interstate in the county, and then the primary control city. 

I wouldn't also mind having mileage signs every now and then for major routes. It would be similar to what Arkansas has done along I-40 west of Little Rock, but just with routes. This would be really handy for rural interstates that don't have many large cities on them but do have major junctions. I suppose you could just use the city that the two interstates meet as the control city, but using the route itself would be clearer.

[mjb2002]

I prefer two lines max. Public Works does this as does SCDOT.

[myosh_tino]

California tends to use a mix of 2 and 3 destinations on mileage signs.  Notice I said "destinations" and not "cities".  In rural areas where there are not a whole lot of cities (mainly on I-5 through the central valley and CA-99 to a lesser extent), Caltrans uses intersecting state highways on the mileage signs.  Kind of like this...




Finally, here's a 3-city mileage sign located in an urban area...


All images are from the AARoads Gallery.

[A.J. Bertin]

When I was on my cross-country road trip back in July, I was annoyed by some of these signs and how some of them failed to mention major cities in the next state over. For instance, I remember driving on westbound I-80 in Wyoming and wondering when I would start seeing Salt Lake City mentioned on the signs. Salt Lake City is a big-enough city that it could have started to be included on signs around Cheyenne or Laramie, but I didn't start seeing it mentioned until we were in the central-western part of Wyoming.

Another example is eastbound I-44 approaching St. Louis. There could have been mention of the distance to Indianapolis and/or Chicago before crossing over into Illinois, but I don't recall seeing any until we actually got to Illinois. It seems reasonable to think that a lot of traffic on eastbound I-44 is just passing through St. Louis to head to a city like Indianapolis or Chicago.

I could probably come up with other examples, but those are the ones I can remember most.

[nwi_navigator_1181]

I also got annoyed with both WisDOT and IDiOT for there "mileage signs" on I-94 between Milwaukee and Chicago. Heading South (East 94), after Mitchell Airport Exit, there is a single line sign that shows Chicago 96. That's fine but I would also add Racine, Kenosha, Waukegan, or esp O'Hare because of how many people from SE Wisconsin fly out of both O'Hare and Mitchell. I will at least give WisDOT credit for the "Next 3 exits" signs in the median.

This. However, I'm willing to give the Illinois portion the benefit of some doubt because it's maintained by ISTHA (the Toll Authority) and not by IDOT. WisDOT, however, has no excuse. You have Kenosha and Racine within line of sight of I-94 and could use mention on some of the distance signage.

The reason I give IDOT a pass on this subject? Look at I-80 eastbound, for example. IDOT stays pretty committed to the "three lines" system, and the crew could have easily phoned it in east of Joliet. However, one sign goes as far to mention a control city that's TWO states over (Toledo, OH), and another sign mentions major junctions and points of reference (I-94, Indiana [State], and I-65). I personally like the creativity done there. I would like to have an idea of what's ahead if I am close to leaving a state, as is the case with the examples above.

Indiana's technique is another one I like (control city of next exit, secondary city along the Interstate (with possible multiple exits), and Primary control city). Kentucky could use some work; for the uninhibited, it can be a bit weird that a long distance city is mentioned, then disappears in between (Nashville, in this case. Tennessee's capital city is mentioned when you leave Louisville, then disappears from guidance between Elizabethtown and Bowling Green).

[A.J. Bertin]

do you prefer mileage to the city centers or to the entry point?

I think mileage to the city centers makes the most sense. However, I've often wondered if, for big cities, it would be practical for the DOTs to give a mileage range instead of a precise number on those signs. Something like this (using eastbound I-96 in Michigan as an example):

Portland       10
Lansing        23-37
Detroit         112-128

I'm sure this is not terribly practical, but I think it would be kinda neat.    

[roadman65]

It might work giving ranges out.  NYC, LA, and Chicago would be wide ranges though.

[Special K]

do you prefer mileage to the city centers or to the entry point?

I think mileage to the city centers makes the most sense. However, I've often wondered if, for big cities, it would be practical for the DOTs to give a mileage range instead of a precise number on those signs. Something like this (using eastbound I-96 in Michigan as an example):

Portland       10
Lansing        23-37
Detroit         112-128

I'm sure this is not terribly practical, but I think it would be kinda neat.

If a DOT wanted to look incompetent and stupid in the public eye, this would be the way.

[A.J. Bertin]

I think mileage to the city centers makes the most sense. However, I've often wondered if, for big cities, it would be practical for the DOTs to give a mileage range instead of a precise number on those signs. Something like this (using eastbound I-96 in Michigan as an example):

Portland       10
Lansing        23-37
Detroit         112-128

I'm sure this is not terribly practical, but I think it would be kinda neat.

If a DOT wanted to look incompetent and stupid in the public eye, this would be the way.

I don't agree with that. Most motorists are smart enough to know that big cities are many miles wide (or long), so they should understand the logic of providing a range. In my example, they'll just know that the mileage to the city depends on which part of the city they are going to. Here's another option:

Portland                       10
Lansing (city center)     27
Detroit (city center)      126

This way the motorist knows exactly which part of the city the distance is based on.

[brownpelican]

Along the Mississippi Gulf Coast, I-10 has three cities listed between Exits 2 and 68 eastbound and Exits 2 and 75 westbound.

There used to be a sign with three cities listed on I-55 South below the Byram exit, but that has disappeared. There was another one listed with three signs southbound below the NORTH Crystal Springs exit, but I didn't see it as of this past weekend. There are many three-city signs on I-55 between Jackson and Memphis.

[roadman65]

Louisiana's definitely just a 2 city signer except for I-49 between Shreveport and Alexandria. Natchitoches is always added to the larger city plus the next exit, seeing as it's about the only exit worth getting off of for those 120 miles

You hit the nail on the head on that one.  I drove it just last week and there is total nothing from Opelousas to Shreveport.  Only Alexandria and the one Natchitoches exit have anything as the other interchanges are quite barrant. 

I seen a sign say that next services are 34 miles at one point, but I did not see them at all after the said mileage.  Basically from Natchitoches to Shreveport there is not even a gas station along that long stretch.  Makes me wonder if when I-49 is completed from Shreveport to Texarkana is going to be the same.  Or even from I-30 to Fort Smith when or if Arkansas gets it built from those two points.

[Road Hog]

Louisiana's definitely just a 2 city signer except for I-49 between Shreveport and Alexandria. Natchitoches is always added to the larger city plus the next exit, seeing as it's about the only exit worth getting off of for those 120 miles

You hit the nail on the head on that one.  I drove it just last week and there is total nothing from Opelousas to Shreveport.  Only Alexandria and the one Natchitoches exit have anything as the other interchanges are quite barrant. 

I seen a sign say that next services are 34 miles at one point, but I did not see them at all after the said mileage.  Basically from Natchitoches to Shreveport there is not even a gas station along that long stretch.  Makes me wonder if when I-49 is completed from Shreveport to Texarkana is going to be the same.  Or even from I-30 to Fort Smith when or if Arkansas gets it built from those two points.

I-49 from Texarkana to Fort Smith will be even more deserted, but at least it will be scenic.

[roadman65]

Louisiana's definitely just a 2 city signer except for I-49 between Shreveport and Alexandria. Natchitoches is always added to the larger city plus the next exit, seeing as it's about the only exit worth getting off of for those 120 miles

You hit the nail on the head on that one.  I drove it just last week and there is total nothing from Opelousas to Shreveport.  Only Alexandria and the one Natchitoches exit have anything as the other interchanges are quite barrant. 

I seen a sign say that next services are 34 miles at one point, but I did not see them at all after the said mileage.  Basically from Natchitoches to Shreveport there is not even a gas station along that long stretch.  Makes me wonder if when I-49 is completed from Shreveport to Texarkana is going to be the same.  Or even from I-30 to Fort Smith when or if Arkansas gets it built from those two points.

I-49 from Texarkana to Fort Smith will be even more deserted, but at least it will be scenic.

Wawa needs to expand their market to all of I-49.

[roadman65]

I believe that there is a mileage sign on the Delaware side of the Cape May Ferry that has over 5 destinations.  I cannot be sure, though, cause the google car did a lousy job in capturing the sign.  If you virtually follow US 9 WB past the sign it zooms past it and you cannot see the details of the sign.

If it is a mileage sign, it would be the largest as far as destinations go.

[machias]

NYSDOT uses mostly two-line mileage signs, next town / next major city. There is a paragraph in the 2009 NYSDOT supplement to the MUTCD where these signs should not appear more than every 10 miles, though that isn't strictly adhered to. 

The Thruway authority uses three lines (for the most part) New York to Rochester and then two lines Rochester to the Pa. Line.  Eastbound the Thruway uses three lines and then southbound one-line to Exit 17, where they use two lines.

Personally, I like this approach:
Control City at Next Exit
Next Control City
Furthest Control City in the state

ie
Pulaski           5
Syracuse       40
Binghamton 117

When the furthest control city becomes the next control city, then the control city after that in the next state becomes the bottom line destination.

Whitney Point  3
Binghamton   25
Scranton Pa   68

I think that the Thruway southbound between Albany and New York misses the boat and should be showing destinations such as Poughkeepsie, Interstate 84 and NY Route 17 (Interstate 86).

[Interstatefan78]

Here in PA on I-79 north towards Erie there are two mileage signs that say "Mercer," but the first one points to the exit and says 26 miles and the second one a few miles later points to the town and says 33.  To me that's very annoying and confusing! One or the other may have since been replaced.  I don't pay attention too much anymore because the dry boring ride on 79 north gets to you after a while...

NJ had two along US 22 in the same manner.  It has a "NEWARK 12" sign east of Mountain Avenue in Watchung, NJ that denotes mileage to the city border just east of North Broad Street in Hillside.  Then you have (or had) another one a few miles east in Mountainside, NJ that denoted mileage to Downtown Newark (I do not recall the distance).  The former was erected as part of a statewide mileage sign campaign in 1998 that changed criteria to municipal boundaries rather than city or town centers  The latter was the original NJ mileage signs that have been in place for decades and used different guidelines then.  Nonetheless, the numbers did not jive with each other.

In Florida, you have the same on FL 50 where numbers do not match.  You have a sign on EB FL 50 showing that Titusville is 35 miles east of US 441.  Then in Titusville at FL 50's eastern terminus you have a sign on the beginning of FL 50 Westbound showing that Orlando is 39 miles.  If you examine it closely you will find that both Downtown Orlando and its eastern city limit on FL 50 are both east of US 441!  Then Downtown Titusville is located three miles north of FL 50 on US 1.  The numbers as they be do not compute either way you look at them.

Then elsewhere on FL 50 you have two signs, one freeway style large and the other a small one both showing that:
Winter Garden 12
Brookesville 49

The large one is located at the intersection of Tampa Avenue and small one is just west of John Young Parkway.  How can both be the same distance apart from both Winter Garden and Brookesville when the signs are more than a half a mile apart?  One should be 11 miles and 48 miles or the other should be 13 and 50.   Then why is a large BGS located on an urban street in a residential area, especially when the next one is located in front of a McDonalds where there is more right away to have a larger sign?  Why not remove the first and just leave the second one and serve both needs?

I-78 East at the NJ/PA state line has a sign that reads 17 Clinton, 36 Bedminster and 58 Newark, but US-22 East in Pburg,NJ  has 17 Clinton, 34 Somerville, and 58 Newark, but NJDOT needs to sign New York on US-22 and I-78 East out of Phillipsburg, NJ

[topay]

Pulaski           5
Syracuse       40
Binghamton 117

When the furthest control city becomes the next control city, then the control city after that in the next state becomes the bottom line destination.

Whitney Point  3
Binghamton   25
Scranton Pa   68

I like this, and Virginia does it for the most part.  Approaching Richmond, I-95 South begins showing distances to Petersburg.  Similarly, I-64 West shows distances to Charlottesville well before Williamsburg, much less Richmond. 

I-81 does this NB, showing Winchester well before Roanoke...and Martinsburg well before Winchester.  I-81 SB shows Bristol before reaching Roanoke...and Knoxville before reaching Bristol.

However, I-64 EB doesn't show distances to Norfolk until after passing through Richmond, nor does I-95 show distances to Baltimore until after making its way onto the Beltway. 

So the "show the next control city once the current one gets close" method isn't quite done everywhere, but when it is done, I know that this "new" city I'm being guided to has already been alluded to on my current travel route.

[dmuzika]

The three Canadian western provinces (BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan) usually use three line distance signs, with some two liners sprinked in.  Alberta seems to be a little more unique in their distance signs in that they put the unit of measurement (i.e "km") after the numbers, for example:

Leduc        14 km
Red Deer  137 km
Calgary    275 km

Alberta also will use four line distance signs for some longer distance routes like Hwy 43 outside of Edmonton, http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Onoway,+AB&hl=en&ll=53.716012,-114.242663&spn=0.000051,0.045276&sll=53.731197,-114.348578&sspn=0.01607,0.045276&oq=Onow&hnear=Onoway,+Division+No.+13,+Alberta&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=53.716024,-114.251074&panoid=mO5Niipi-ww1nHtoo9oEmw&cbp=12,270,,0,0:

Gunn                 7 km
Whitecourt      105 km
Valleyview       265 km
Grande Prairie  387 km

They have also used a five line sign (Hwy 1A west of Calgary), however it's excesive and busy, http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Cochrane,+AB&hl=en&ll=51.224733,-114.601479&spn=0.00043,0.362206&sll=53.395178,-113.510399&sspn=0.016199,0.045276&oq=cochrane&gl=ca&hnear=Cochrane,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta&t=m&z=12&layer=c&cbll=51.224776,-114.667058&panoid=Ldfeq8kg7UVDwnG8rMJ4BQ&cbp=12,315,,0,0

Morley     15 km
Seebe      37 km
Exshaw    45 km
Canmore  64 km
Banff      101 km

Realistically it could be reduced to a three line sign with Morley, Canmore, and Banff as most of those places are very sparsly populated.

BC has the odd four line signs (I've seen one when you enter the province along Hwy 3 from Alberta), but they are much less frequent than Alberta.

[agentsteel53]

When I was on my cross-country road trip back in July, I was annoyed by some of these signs and how some of them failed to mention major cities in the next state over.

California is usually good about this.  they will even sign Salt Lake City on I-15, which is three states away. 

the only thing they will never, ever, ever do is sign Tijuana. 

there is one guide sign which mentions San Felipe on CA-86 (old US-99) and one which mentions Ensenada on I-805... but I have not seen a sign of more recent vintage than the 1930s which mentions Tijuana.

[cpzilliacus]

The three Canadian western provinces (BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan) usually use three line distance signs, with some two liners sprinked in.  Alberta seems to be a little more unique in their distance signs in that they put the unit of measurement (i.e "km") after the numbers, for example:

Leduc        14 km
Red Deer  137 km
Calgary    275 km

Virginia DOT, on its non-Interstate/non-freeway network, likes to post similar signs in U.S. customary (e.g. obsolete) units (example below), with reassurance route marker(s) over it. 

I don't always agree with everything that VDOT does, but  this is a practice (which goes back many decades) that I find especially driver-friendly, and I wish more states would emulate Virginia (though it would be nice to scrap the obsolete units of measurement).

[deathtopumpkins]

I wish more states would not just do the mileage signs, but also the reassurance shields over them. That is one of the few VDOT practices I miss from when I lived there.

However, miles aren't quite obsolete yet. You can't call something that's still used by millions of people obsolete, no matter how cumbersome and outdated it is.

[Special K]

customary (e.g. obsolete)

i.e.