City/Population signs

[OCGuy81]

Apologies if this should go to the Pacific Southwest section, but I figured it's more of a question that applies nationally.

Is California the only state that has city limits signs with the population AND elevation?  Been all over, and I *think* California is the only place I've seen that consistently uses elevation on their city signs.

It's fine here - renaming topic to neutralize --SSO

[hotdogPi]

I've seen Arizona use elevation signs. They were not at city limits. Instead, they said "7000 feet" and "6000 feet". (This was between Flagstaff and Sedona.)

[Big John]

and I *think* California is the only place I've seen that consistently uses elevation on their city signs.

Colorado uses elevations, but not populations on their signs.

[DTComposer]

I always thought elevations on city limit signs were a bit useless, particularly for larger cities - as an example, Los Angeles City Hall is at 300 feet or so, but the elevation within the city limits ranges from sea level to over 5,000 feet, and the city limit signs are very rarely near the city hall elevation - consider US-101 at Woodland Hills, 24 miles away from City Hall, at an actual elevation of 900 feet or so, posting an elevation of 300 feet on the sign (I actually think that particular sign lists something in the 200s - not sure where that measurement comes from).

[golden eagle]

I don't think posting populations is really necessary.

[Desert Man]

CA wanted to show travelers how "big" their cities are, CA has the most cities with over 10,000 and 100,000 people than any state. My hometown's sign for Indio shows it has 76,000 residents (as of 2010) and -14 feet (yes, below sea level) in the Salton trough (a depression extending into Mexicali on the US-Mexican border). Palm Desert's sign reads 50,000 residents and 240 feet above sea level, and Palm Springs has 50,000 as well, at 490 feet above sea level. There's two "sea level" signs on CA 111 and I-10 east on Monroe Street in Indio.

[SSOWorld]

Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois put population on their signs.  Iowa and Michigan don't.

Arizona has multiple ways of posting city limit signs (Not sure why but they have the really big one vs a smaller one - is one replacing the other?)

[ajlynch91]

Interestingly, if an area is unicorporated in Illinois, it will occasionally get a sign. The areas of Flowerfield near Lombard and Wasco near Camton Hills come to mind, although population is not posted on signs for unincorporated areas.

[Big John]

Interestingly, if an area is unicorporated in Illinois, it will occasionally get a sign. The areas of Flowerfield near Lombard and Wasco near Camton Hills come to mind, although population is not posted on signs for unincorporated areas.

In WI, it will say "UNINCORPORATED" instead of saying the population.

[SD Mapman]

Is California the only state that has city limits signs with the population AND elevation?

No. Wyoming does (don't know why).

[Kniwt]

I've seen Arizona use elevation signs. They were not at city limits. Instead, they said "7000 feet" and "6000 feet". (This was between Flagstaff and Sedona.)

Arizona is fond of including year of founding, but not population, on its signs (not my pic):

[Road Hog]

Texas is starting to phase out population on its city limit signs. The new ones I've seen put up in the last few months just has the city and CITY LIMIT.

[1995hoo]

Putting the population on the signs seems kind of silly unless you use a round number that's obviously an estimate, simply because that sort of information changes so often (unless it's to be assumed the number reflects the last census, though I'd presume most people seeing the signs don't realize that).

Virginia used to put the population on some BGSs on Interstates but stopped in part because the information wasn't useful.

A better test for whether a place is totally insignificant might be whether the town has a McDonald's! No McDonald's means utter backwater given their ubiquity.

[Beeper1]

MA and CT always put the year the city/town was established, but never the population. 

In RI it seems random if the town line gets a sign at all.

[PHLBOS]

Putting the population on the signs seems kind of silly unless you use a round number that's obviously an estimate, simply because that sort of information changes so often (unless it's to be assumed the number reflects the last census, though I'd presume most people seeing the signs don't realize that).

An old joke/cartoon would feature somebody approaching a population sign and continually crossing out and entering different population numbers while one hears a constant shooting or sees thick smoke in the background.

[roadman]

MA and CT always put the year the city/town was established, but never the population. 

In RI it seems random if the town line gets a sign at all.

Most communities in MA have both an established date (EST) and an incorporation date (INC).  Current MassDOT practice is to use the incorporation date on town line signs on secondary highways unless a community requests the established date be used for historical reasons.  However, there a number of older signs that still use the EST date.

[freebrickproductions]

Here in Alabama, I haven't seen the population nor the elevation posted on the city/town limits signs. I do believe I have seen "unincorporated" on the town limits signs for unincorporated towns.

[OCGuy81]

Putting the population on the signs seems kind of silly unless you use a round number that's obviously an estimate, simply because that sort of information changes so often (unless it's to be assumed the number reflects the last census, though I'd presume most people seeing the signs don't realize that).

Virginia used to put the population on some BGSs on Interstates but stopped in part because the information wasn't useful.

A better test for whether a place is totally insignificant might be whether the town has a McDonald's! No McDonald's means utter backwater given their ubiquity.

That part about Virginia putting population on BGS is interesting.  I've never seen that.  Do you happen to have pictures of any, 1995hoo?

[1995hoo]

Putting the population on the signs seems kind of silly unless you use a round number that's obviously an estimate, simply because that sort of information changes so often (unless it's to be assumed the number reflects the last census, though I'd presume most people seeing the signs don't realize that).

Virginia used to put the population on some BGSs on Interstates but stopped in part because the information wasn't useful.

A better test for whether a place is totally insignificant might be whether the town has a McDonald's! No McDonald's means utter backwater given their ubiquity.

That part about Virginia putting population on BGS is interesting.  I've never seen that.  Do you happen to have pictures of any, 1995hoo?

I do not but I can get one later today or tomorrow.


Edited to add: Here is one that was posted in another thread on this forum. Since it's already been posted on this site, I don't see any reason not to embed it again here. The picture is from the Capital Beltway (I-495) near Tysons Corner sometime in the 1960s. (If you want to see roughly the same location today, click here: https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/virginia495/i-495_il_exit_047_06.jpg )




You can find that photo, and a massive treasure trove of other old road sign photos from the 1960s (including other Virginia BGSs showing population), at the following link. It's a transcript of Congressional hearings from 1968 regarding how to improve road signs. Funny thing is, a lot of the same driver misbehavior goes on around here today.

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000017394611;view=1up;seq=3

[OCGuy81]

Interesting! I was unaware population ever made it to BGS.  Thanks for posting.

[1995hoo]

Interesting! I was unaware population ever made it to BGS.  Thanks for posting.

If you click the link at the end of my post and go to page 446, you'll find the congressmen very briefly discussing whether population information belongs on a BGS. They were discussing a different BGS located on the Beltway at what was then Exit 1 for US-1 to Alexandria (now Exit 177). They felt the information was unnecessary.

[jp the roadgeek]

MA and CT always put the year the city/town was established, but never the population. 

In RI it seems random if the town line gets a sign at all.

Most communities in MA have both an established date (EST) and an incorporation date (INC).  Current MassDOT practice is to use the incorporation date on town line signs on secondary highways unless a community requests the established date be used for historical reasons.  However, there a number of older signs that still use the EST date.

MA uses the white paddle sign, and even reciprocates for border towns in surrounding states.    CT uses lgs's.  On secondary roads it has 'town, year of incorporation, and town/city line".   On expressways, it will just have "town, next xx exits, town/city line"  I saw my first Clearview town line sign today on CT 64 on the Waterbury line

[cjk374]

Arkansas only shows population.  Louisiana has CORP LIMIT or COMMUNITY underneath the town name.

[cl94]

In the eastern US, you might get a "date founded", as already mentioned.

Ontario uses population signs for cities, at least along 400-series highways. Some of them have quite large populations, especially in the Golden Horseshoe.

[corco]

Wyoming!




and so forth. Unincorporated communities only show the elevation: