Best and worst Control City

[1995hoo]

(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).

[mtantillo]

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". 

[1995hoo]

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.

[mtantillo]

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. 

[flowmotion]

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.)

[Interstate Trav]

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.

[Kniwt]

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

[Interstate Trav]

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.   

[TheStranger]

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!

[flowmotion]

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.

[TheStranger]

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!

[bassoon1986]

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?)

[TheStranger]

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. 

[Interstate Trav]

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.

[TheStranger]

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).

[vtk]

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!

[Lightning Strike]

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.

[SSOWorld]

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

[thenetwork]

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

...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. 

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

[ftballfan]

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

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

[tdindy88]

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

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.

[mukade]

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

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.

[InterstateNG]

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

[ftballfan]

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

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

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.

[mukade]

I-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.