Mileage to Cities that the Highway Doesn't Go To

[freebrickproductions]

AL 67 has a bit of an interesting case, as you go south out of Somerville. Just past AL 36, the highway only uses Oneonta as the control city, listing the mileage to the city as 50 miles:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.4455068,-86.7553349,3a,15y,142.86h,84.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGlZdkhe2MO6LbRiFYGf-Pg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D5.189779076469463%26panoid%3DGlZdkhe2MO6LbRiFYGf-Pg%26yaw%3D142.85678415649616!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDExMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Then, after intersecting AL 69 on the edge of Baileyton, the highway's control city changes to Gadsden and lists the mileage as 43 miles, with no mention of Oneonta:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.281709,-86.584362,3a,15y,180.76h,85.83t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sbJWskCvZqI17gYECRYn4tA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D4.172758056972654%26panoid%3DbJWskCvZqI17gYECRYn4tA%26yaw%3D180.75790675059156!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDExMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

I'm not sure why the control city randomly changes from Oneonta to Gadsden, but I assume it's because the south end of AL 67 is at US 231 in rural northern Blount County, not getting close to either Oneonta or Gadsden, and presumably traffic heading south on that part of AL 67 is heading for one city or the other, as where AL 67 intersects US 231 is just north of where US 231 and US 278 intersect. Not sure why ALDOT didn't just list both control cities on both of those mileage signs, however.

[Revive 755]

Yes.  If you're going from Carbondale to Belleville, then Route 13, or some combination that eventually gets you to Route 13, is the way to go.  But, if you're headed to the west side of St Louis or even headed down I-44 eventually, then Route 3 is a good choice.

In the latter case, I've also crossed over at Chester and made my way to I-55, but that's actually probably slower;  I just wanted to avoid as much of the Saint Louis metro as possible that day.

Considering crossing at Chester only leaves one slow spot in St. Mary versus slows spots on IL 3 in Ruma and Red Bud, plus the number of stoplights in Waterloo and Columbia it may be a wash.  Probably depends on how many slow drivers on gets behind on Routes H and Z and how bad traffic is on I-55 north of US 67.  The better scenery on the Missouri side (once out of the Mississippi floodplain) also makes that option more appealing.

[kphoger]

Yes.  If you're going from Carbondale to Belleville, then Route 13, or some combination that eventually gets you to Route 13, is the way to go.  But, if you're headed to the west side of St Louis or even headed down I-44 eventually, then Route 3 is a good choice.

In the latter case, I've also crossed over at Chester and made my way to I-55, but that's actually probably slower;  I just wanted to avoid as much of the Saint Louis metro as possible that day.

Considering crossing at Chester only leaves one slow spot in St. Mary versus slows spots on IL 3 in Ruma and Red Bud, plus the number of stoplights in Waterloo and Columbia it may be a wash.  Probably depends on how many slow drivers on gets behind on Routes H and Z and how bad traffic is on I-55 north of US 67.  The better scenery on the Missouri side (once out of the Mississippi floodplain) also makes that option more appealing.

In my case, I was heading to I-44 West by way of Barnhart → SSR-M → SSR-MM → SSR-W → MO-109 → Eureka.  So, for me, the real slowdown was SSR-W, which was slow and choked with traffic.  Well, that and getting pulled over for speeding on SSR-M.

[JustDrive]

If DOTs were going to make sense, this would be a good practice. It would make equal sense to put "Via" and the route that actually goes there. In the I-5 San Francisco case, it would be "San Francisco via I-580" (The "I-580" would be a red, white, and blue Interstate sign.). This is one reason that US-101 doesn't sign Los Angeles until south of the CASR-25 Junction. You can get there on US-101, but the "normal" way is to take CASR-152, -156, or -25 over to I-5 and go from there.

The first US 101 southbound sign for LA is in Mountain View actually:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mountain+View,+CA/@37.4110794,-122.0764275,3a,75y,131.95h,95.38t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s6e5wT6i4PqcTqp4YQVtNYQ!2e0!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-5.3757940950359995%26panoid%3D6e5wT6i4PqcTqp4YQVtNYQ%26yaw%3D131.95465295061518!7i13312!8i6656!4m6!3m5!1s0x808fb7495bec0189:0x7c17d44a466baf9b!8m2!3d37.3900264!4d-122.0812304!16zL20vMHI2YzQ?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTIwOS4wIKXMDSoKLDEwMDc5MjA2OUgBUAM%3D

From 280 south at the 101/680/280 junction, LA is listed as 101's only southbound control there:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/San+Jose,+CA/@37.3362405,-121.857213,3a,75y,53.76h,90.74t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s8FHtLGNfSP6y6O0DWN1HGA!2e0!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-0.742278000499482%26panoid%3D8FHtLGNfSP6y6O0DWN1HGA%26yaw%3D53.75646011206589!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x808fcae48af93ff5:0xb99d8c0aca9f717b!8m2!3d37.33874!4d-121.8852525!16zL20vMGYwNHY?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTIwOS4wIKXMDSoKLDEwMDc5MjA2OUgBUAM%3D

LA as a CONTROL city: yes. LA on distance sign: NO. Showing LA as US-101 south from Mountain View and from I-280/680 as a control city makes perfect sense. US-101 is the way to LA whether you use I-5 or stay on US-101 all of the way. But, it's misleading to put up a DISTANCE sign to LA (without a "via") to LA until you've committed to US-101 south of CASR-25. CalTrans doesn't (at least that I've seen).

There's a mileage sign pointing to Los Angeles on 101 immediately south of the southern 85 junction. And before 101 was widened in Mountain View, there used to be a "Los Angeles 404" sign at the San Antonio Road interchange

[paulthemapguy]

I think it's pretty wild that "Winnemucca NV" appears on this sign for Oregon 78 eastbound out of Burns, Oregon.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/EqBfkAzjSZLR3yn37

[El-Caz]

I think it's pretty wild that "Winnemucca NV" appears on this sign for Oregon 78 eastbound out of Burns, Oregon.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/EqBfkAzjSZLR3yn37

Why?

[gonealookin]

I think it's pretty wild that "Winnemucca NV" appears on this sign for Oregon 78 eastbound out of Burns, Oregon.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/EqBfkAzjSZLR3yn37

There's nothing else to put on that sign.  If you were leaving Burns and heading in the direction of Boise, you'd be on US 20 rather than OR 78.  McDermitt, NV is a state line town that has the inevitable small casino, a gas station/C-store and maybe a Subway sandwich place, and that's the only other even modestly logical option.

(Also, OR 78 ends at US 95, which goes directly to Winnemucca, so that sign doesn't qualify for the thread.)

[El-Caz]

I think it's pretty wild that "Winnemucca NV" appears on this sign for Oregon 78 eastbound out of Burns, Oregon.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/EqBfkAzjSZLR3yn37

There's nothing else to put on that sign.  If you were leaving Burns and heading in the direction of Boise, you'd be on US 20 rather than OR 78.  McDermitt, NV is a state line town that has the inevitable small casino, a gas station/C-store and maybe a Subway sandwich place, and that's the only other even modestly logical option.

(Also, OR 78 ends at US 95, which goes directly to Winnemucca, so that sign doesn't qualify for the thread.)

In fact, it's quicker by almost thirty minutes to take OR-78, US-95, and I-80 to get to Reno from Burns than it is to stay on US-395, so, if it were up to me, I'd put Reno on that sign as a bottom line alongside Winnemucca as a secondary. Frankly, Las Vegas could probably work, too, if you really wanted to go all out.

[dmuzika]

British Columbia will add additional cities on route even if the said highway doesn't serve that city. Some notable examples:

* BC 97 south of Prince George uses Vancouver; however, BC 97 passes through Kamloops and Kelowna enroute to US 97. It's based on continuing south on TCH 1 from Cache Creek, over 200 mi from Vancouver. TCH 1 east/north between Hope and Cache Creek will use Prince George.

* BC 97C west of Kelowna uses Vancouver; however, BC 97C continues west and north to Cache Creek. Based on following BC 5 and TCH 1 from Merritt. The physical roadways making the connection are all freeway/expressway.

* Technically this violates the OP, but BC 5 north of Kamloops uses Prince George. BC 5 ends at TCH 16, and TCH 16 goes to Prince George, but the junction is 170 mi east of PG. Most travelers using BC 5 would go to Jasper (which is also included) and Edmonton via TCH 16 east. Also, the most direct route between Kamloops and Prince George is BC 97, being 50 mi shorter.

[jay8g]

I-5 doesn't go to Point Roberts, obviously, but it appears on I-5's northernmost mileage sign. In fact, no highway goes to Point Roberts (so this definitely passes the test from the original post).

In terms of distance it's not too far, but depending on the exchange rate between USD and CAD, it can sometimes take hours to get from the endpoint of I-5 to Point Roberts

[kphoger]

In fact, no highway goes to Point Roberts (so this definitely passes the test from the original post

Yeah, that's a really trippy one!