What does the MUTCD say about this?

[roadman65]

I was curious to know what the MUTCD says about signs like these without control cities?  I know that street names and control cities are not recommended anymore.   I also am very aware that bridges and state names are taboo, even though NYC still uses them, but nonetheless its in there.  However, did they make some new rule about this one with route numbers only?

[Pete from Boston]

The new segment of I-69 in Indiana has brand new ones.

[PHLBOS]

The I-95/US 1 interchange in Milford, CT has similar type signage as well.

[roadman65]

I am not questioning the amount of places that have these, I was just curious to know if the MUTCD came up with another one of their new signing revisions such as the many we have been discussing. 

In Florida we have many of these type of signs so for sure they are not rare.

[roadman]

I am not questioning the amount of places that have these, I was just curious to know if the MUTCD came up with another one of their new signing revisions such as the many we have been discussing. 

In Florida we have many of these type of signs so for sure they are not rare.

There is no requirement in the MUTCD that signs carry both route information and destinations.

[froggie]

If there was ever a requirement for street names or control cities, it hasn't been enforced for years.  There are some states that have always allowed route numbers on guide signage with no need for a street name or control city to go with it.

[Brandon]

If there was ever a requirement for street names or control cities, it hasn't been enforced for years.  There are some states that have always allowed route numbers on guide signage with no need for a street name or control city to go with it.

Yep.  It's par for the course for ISTHA which usually prefers street names and route numbers over destinations.  If there's no commonly used street name, they usually just go with the route number.

Examples:

https://goo.gl/maps/2zrXo3YQKpH2
https://goo.gl/maps/8fN216sjDbt
https://goo.gl/maps/5KZxXhKEphz
https://goo.gl/maps/rHva1F8nMhF2
https://goo.gl/maps/wuZZ3PweUfk
https://goo.gl/maps/SF8MgahPooK2
https://goo.gl/maps/m498DpLhaGE2

IDOT even gets into the act at one interchange:

https://goo.gl/maps/Wjf8eZtFGzE2

[cl94]

There are some places where it just isn't needed. Take Ohio SR 315 in Columbus. At its southern end, it has no signed control city and it mainly services local traffic.

[odditude]

NJDOT has done it as well (on I-95M NB, although the signage at the actual exits has control cities listed).

[Pete from Boston]

NJDOT has done it as well (on I-95M NB, although the signage at the actual exits has control cities listed).

There have been instances of this type of sign around the George Washington Bridge, also.  I am sure they have all been replaced, but there were overhead and ground mounted guide signs for Routes 4 and 46 that contained no legend.

[Pink Jazz]

ADOT does not use control cities for most of its Phoenix area loops; the only signs I have seen with control cities are for Loop 101 on the Loop 202 Red Mountain Freeway eastbound (Scottsdale for North, Chandler for South).  Perhaps the reason for the control cities on those signs could be to aid travelers coming from Sky Harbor Airport.

[Scott5114]

KDOT usually leaves off any control cities for freeways that don't leave metro KC (I-435, I-635, etc.). MoDOT tries to come up with control cities for them by referencing the control cities of connecting freeways, like Wichita, Des Moines, St Louis, etc. Or else, just putting "Kansas" on there.

[vtk]

There are some places where it just isn't needed. Take Ohio SR 315 in Columbus. At its southern end, it has no signed control city and it mainly services local traffic.

There are some older signs (at entrances from streets, for example Rich/Town) that say Worthington. I wonder why the newer signs don't.

[WashuOtaku]

We have those exits in North Carolina too.  It sometimes happens because there is no road name or town located on the route, especially if it happens to connect again down the road.

[Eth]

Georgia also has a few of these. In this case, you could sign it for Cumming (via GA 9) or Johns Creek, but those are better accessed via GA 20 and GA 120, respectively. (Going southbound it's signed for Norcross, dating back to before Johns Creek became a city.)

[machias]

I-81 Exit 38 in New York has been for US 11 since the road was built in the mid 1960s. I have never been able to figure out why this interchange is here, because there's an interchange to the north and south 2 miles away that serve the intended locations, with no other towns in between.  There's nothing really to sign as control cities for this interchange.  I don't think this type of signing at an interchange is anything new.