US 101 N Control City of Ventura

[mrsman]

101 though, being a 'long distance' route to not only San Francisco but Oregon and Washington, should be given a distant control city similar to NB 5 getting a control city of Sacramento right after entering Los Angeles. Dual control cities might not be out of the question, but replacing San Francisco from LA to Ventura with Ventura seems odd. Ventura is not a long distance city, and as this is a 2di US Highway that runs inter-state. Seems natural to give it a large city like SF.

Yes, that was exactly my thinking and the reason why I created this post. It just seemed odd to me that San Francisco wasn't signed anywhere in the Los Angeles area, even though (as mentioned elsewhere above) there are lone signs in the LA area (before the CA 170 split) listing Sacramento as a control city!

Speaking of which, I remember from my childhood drives in the early 1990s to the Bay Area that San Francisco was first given as a control city on US 101 at the CA 33 interchange in Ventura. Before that, including at the CA 126 interchange before Ventura, Ventura was still given as a control city. I seem to remember that well because the US 101 shield at the CA 33 interchange was one of the old fashioned clear ones (as opposed to the white backgrounds) and I clearly remember that "clear shield" being used on the first sign that listed San Francisco as a control city. It is no longer there and has since been replaced.

Now, however, US 101 lists "San Francisco" as a control city all the way back from the 126 interchange. I could have sworn that used to be Ventura before. Or was I not paying attention to it well enough as a kid? LOL. 

I think, as was mentioned by other people, in the early days of LA freeways US 99 was signed to Bakersfield and US 101 was signed to Ventura.  Both are relatively local and are one county over.  When I-5 started, it was first jointly signed with US 99, so Bakersfield was still appropriate.  Then, US 99 was removed from the signs after the 1964 renumbering and Bakersfield still remained on the signs.  Then, it was decided that since I-5 did not go to Bakersfiled even though the roadway led to CA-99, Bakersfield would be removed in favor of Sacramento.  But none of this had any effect on US 101.  US 101 was always signed to Ventura and continued going to Ventura through all this time.  Just because the other road was changed from Bakersfield to Sacramento does not mean that Ventura should be replaced in favor of San Francisco.

If a road is the road to City X, there is no reason why the control city should change just because the road's designation changes.  In that vein, I think it was a mistake to remove Bakersfield from LA area signs on 405, 5 and 170.  I-15 should absolutely be signed to Los Angeles from the LV area (and not San Bernardino) as it is more important.  [The older signs were for L.A. and the signs in NV are as well, the mentality that we should change the control to SB just beacuse I-15 doesn't reach LA is ludicrous, this is the road to LA.]   CA 57 north @ I-10 should be signed for Pasadena (Pasadena was the control when this was I-210).

[DTComposer]

I think it was a mistake to remove Bakersfield from LA area signs on 405, 5 and 170.

I-15 should absolutely be signed to Los Angeles from the LV area (and not San Bernardino) as it is more important.

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? Sacramento is a larger city than Bakersfield, the Sacramento metro is three times as large, and it is the state capital. I'd say that makes Sacramento "more important."

[mrsman]

I think it was a mistake to remove Bakersfield from LA area signs on 405, 5 and 170.

I-15 should absolutely be signed to Los Angeles from the LV area (and not San Bernardino) as it is more important.

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? Sacramento is a larger city than Bakersfield, the Sacramento metro is three times as large, and it is the state capital. I'd say that makes Sacramento "more important."

My point was more aimed at keeping the original control cities from the original signs, unless there is significant justification.

The original control city north of LA was Bakersfield.  It still belongs there as it is a sizable city that you would reach in that direction.  The road (GS Freeway) still gets you there, even if the number (I-5) does not.  Changing the route number doesn't change where the road goes.  This road goes to Bakersfield.  No other road out of LA has a control city as far as Sacramento--- Ventura, San Bernardino, Santa Ana.  In this context, Bakersfield fits better and it was the original control.

The original control along the road that is now I-15 had Los Angeles as its control for a very long time.  This is due largely to the fact that part of the road was part of US 66 that did in fact get to LA.  Changing the route number doesn't change where the road goes.  This road goes to Los Angeles.  Unlike the first situation of roads in Metro LA with local control cities, the roads outside of Metro LA will have control cities that are far away leading to LA.  How far is LA the control city along US 101, I-5, and I-10?  In many cases hundreds of miles.   People along I-15 from the NV border are being drawn 100's of miles to LA, not to San Bernardino. 

Yes, it may seem a little perplexing to support local controls in one context and far controls in another, but I think it relates to the sense that LA is a huge control city "magnet." In LA's sphere, the control will be to the adjoining county.  Beyond LA's sphere, LA will be the major control unless you are in the sphere of another great city.  So along the Central Coast, San Jouaquin Valley, and Mojave Desert -- the controls should be only major cities:  LA, SF, Sac, Las Vegas.

[coatimundi]

I really think it's more to do with long-distance versus regional traffic: interstates were intended to handle the former and, thus, the control cities are generally geared toward that.

For I-15, I think it would be more appropriate to use Barstow in Las Vegas because that's what's used in California. Failing that, San Bernardino. Reason being that control cities on interstates not only take regional prominence into consideration, but also major junctions. That's why, on Interstate 55 in Louisiana, you have Hammond as a control city even though Jackson, MS would be more appropriate from a significance perspective. Same reason Lake City is an I-10 control city in Florida. San Bernardino is a county seat, a regional center for the Inland, and is the control city on I-10, which makes a big difference. But, conversely, Barstow is used on I-40 within California, so it makes sense.

I do wish the surrounding states would get on board with the control cities. Arizona's use of Los Angeles for I-40 is a bit much.

[roadfro]

^ And if you go by the AASHTO control cities list, I believe I-15 would be signed Las Vegas - Barstow - Los Angeles.

[DTComposer]

My point was more aimed at keeping the original control cities from the original signs, unless there is significant justification.

Point taken. I can also see it as the difference between controls into a metro area as opposed to leaving a metro area.

The original control city north of LA was Bakersfield.  It still belongs there as it is a sizable city that you would reach in that direction.  The road (GS Freeway) still gets you there, even if the number (I-5) does not.  Changing the route number doesn't change where the road goes.  This road goes to Bakersfield.

Point also taken, although if I want to be completely pedantic...

...the road was part of US 66 that did in fact get to LA.  Changing the route number doesn't change where the road goes.  This road goes to Los Angeles.

...the road did not go to L.A. - it went to San Bernardino. You had to turn off of Cajon Boulevard/Mt. Vernon/etc. onto Foothill Boulevard to get to L.A. (and onto Figueroa, Sunset, Santa Monica, etc). So the road changed, even though the route number didn't.

All of this, however, reinforces my opinion that multiple controls are necessary on Interstate routes. IMO, I-5 north out of downtown L.A. should be Santa Clarita/Sacramento or Bakersfield/Sacramento, and I-5 south out of downtown should be Santa Ana/San Diego or Anaheim/San Diego.

[bing101]

I'm amazed that San Jose is not listed as the control city for North US-101 in Los Angeles because San Jose for the past 20 years have been mentioned as an economic powerhouse for Northern California and the largest city in the Bay Area.


However San Jose mentions LA for southbound 101.  I'm amazed that there is no consistent way to write control cities for US-101 in California in Comparison to I-5.


For I-5 in Sacramento the southbound lanes have the control city of Los Angeles. Also for I-5 north once you pass I-10 the city of Sacramento appears as the control city in Los Angeles.

[myosh_tino]

I'm amazed that San Jose is not listed as the control city for North US-101 in Los Angeles because San Jose for the past 20 years have been mentioned as an economic powerhouse for Northern California and the largest city in the Bay Area.

While that may be true, San Francisco is more well known and is the more "glamorous" destination.  There's a reason why the region is known as the San Francisco Bay Area.  I personally, don't have a problem with San Francisco being the control city for US 101 north of Los Angeles.

[coatimundi]

I'm amazed that San Jose is not listed as the control city for North US-101 in Los Angeles because San Jose for the past 20 years have been mentioned as an economic powerhouse for Northern California and the largest city in the Bay Area.

While that may be true, San Francisco is more well known and is the more "glamorous" destination.  There's a reason why the region is known as the San Francisco Bay Area.  I personally, don't have a problem with San Francisco being the control city for US 101 north of Los Angeles.

In spite of being smaller in population, San Francisco is still the principal city of the Bay Area. Aside from maybe a few civic leaders in San Jose, no one is going to argue with that. If you asked people from outside the state to point out, on a map of California, the two cities, I would really be surprised if more than a couple could correctly point to San Jose. Meanwhile, most people seem to have at least a vague idea of where San Francisco is.

[compdude787]

San Jose is BIGGER than San Fran?  Add me to the list of the many people that did not know that.

[Max Rockatansky]

San Jose is BIGGER than San Fran?  Add me to the list of the many people that did not know that.

BUT, you have to remember in terms of land area San Jose is several times larger than San Francisco.  San Francisco has 864,816 people over 46.87 square miles of land on the 2015 census while San Jose has 1,026,908 spread out over 179.97 square miles.  That means San Jose has a population density of 5,700 per square mile while San Francisco is at 18,451.  Basically that makes San Francisco the mostly densely populated major city on the West Coast by a large margin.  Sure makes it easier to understand why so many people fought the freeway movement when in terms of people living on top of each other it has a lot in common with New York.

[coatimundi]

San Jose is BIGGER than San Fran?  Add me to the list of the many people that did not know that.

And by quite a bit.
LA, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Fresno, Sacramento, Long Beach, Oakland, Bakersfield, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Riverside, Stockton, Chula Vista

That's a list, in order, of California cities over 250,000 in population. Fresno tends to surprise people, even within California.

But Max is totally right: density really dictates the feel of a city more than anything. Realize that Boston, MA has less population than El Paso, TX. However, if you ever have the misfortune of visiting El Paso, then you'll quickly realize that it is no Boston.

[DTComposer]

And by quite a bit.
LA, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Fresno, Sacramento, Long Beach, Oakland, Bakersfield, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Riverside, Stockton, Chula Vista

That's a list, in order, of California cities over 250,000 in population. Fresno tends to surprise people, even within California.

Irvine is also on that list (like Chula Vista, they have surpassed 250K since the 2010 Census).

San Jose is BIGGER than San Fran?  Add me to the list of the many people that did not know that.

BUT, you have to remember in terms of land area San Jose is several times larger than San Francisco.  San Francisco has 864,816 people over 46.87 square miles of land on the 2015 census while San Jose has 1,026,908 spread out over 179.97 square miles.  That means San Jose has a population density of 5,700 per square mile while San Francisco is at 18,451.

It should be noted that about 50 of those square miles are rural/undeveloped - wetlands on the Bay and territory in the mountains, so the actual density is closer to 7,900 per square mile - still nothing compared to SF.

It should also be noted that the official density of 5,700 per square mile places it fifth among the ten largest cities - not as dense New York/Chicago/Los Angeles/Philadelphia, but more dense than Houston/Phoenix/San Antonio/San Diego/Dallas.

All this said, San Francisco (which itself will probably pass a million people in the next ten years) is the economic, social/cultural and historical heart of the Bay Area and should absolutely be listed as a control city over San Jose.

[bing101]

And by quite a bit.
LA, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Fresno, Sacramento, Long Beach, Oakland, Bakersfield, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Riverside, Stockton, Chula Vista

That's a list, in order, of California cities over 250,000 in population. Fresno tends to surprise people, even within California.

Irvine is also on that list (like Chula Vista, they have surpassed 250K since the 2010 Census).

San Jose is BIGGER than San Fran?  Add me to the list of the many people that did not know that.

BUT, you have to remember in terms of land area San Jose is several times larger than San Francisco.  San Francisco has 864,816 people over 46.87 square miles of land on the 2015 census while San Jose has 1,026,908 spread out over 179.97 square miles.  That means San Jose has a population density of 5,700 per square mile while San Francisco is at 18,451.

It should be noted that about 50 of those square miles are rural/undeveloped - wetlands on the Bay and territory in the mountains, so the actual density is closer to 7,900 per square mile - still nothing compared to SF.

It should also be noted that the official density of 5,700 per square mile places it fifth among the ten largest cities - not as dense New York/Chicago/Los Angeles/Philadelphia, but more dense than Houston/Phoenix/San Antonio/San Diego/Dallas.

All this said, San Francisco (which itself will probably pass a million people in the next ten years) is the economic, social/cultural and historical heart of the Bay Area and should absolutely be listed as a control city over San Jose.

I noticed on the local news here in the bay area the reporters here say "Oakland is the arts and culture section of the Bay Area"  and this is coming out as soon as the Oakland Police and Oakland Fire Crews are digging for bodies at the warehouse on fire. I didn't know that even though I used to live in the Bay Area. Growing up there I always thought San Francisco was the cultural center of the Bay Area and back then the artists in the 1990's lived in warehouses but they got demolished as soon as AT&T park came to that district of San Francisco near the North end of i-280

[DTComposer]

I noticed on the local news here in the bay area the reporters here say "Oakland is the arts and culture section of the Bay Area"  and this is coming out as soon as the Oakland Police and Oakland Fire Crews are digging for bodies at the warehouse on fire. I didn't know that even though I used to live in the Bay Area. Growing up there I always thought San Francisco was the cultural center of the Bay Area and back then the artists in the 1990's lived in warehouses but they got demolished as soon as AT&T park came to that district of San Francisco near the North end of i-280

Claiming Oakland as the arts/culture center of the Bay Area is subjective at best, and really just media hyperbole to play on this tragic story. As you said, a bunch of visual artists got displaced from SoMa/China Basin as AT&T Park revitalized that neighborhood, and many of them went over to Oakland/Berkeley/Emeryville. That area is a bustling center for independent visual artists and some musicians, and perhaps more so in those genres than SF, but SF remains a significant center for those groups.

When you actually look at arts and culture as a whole, SF rises well above the rest of the Bay Area. SF Symphony, Opera, Ballet all are world-class companies. Oakland and San Jose have respectable regional companies in those areas, but there's no comparison. National tours of live theater play SF, and sometimes SJ, but Oakland doesn't have the facility to bring those shows in. Local professional theater? SF by a long shot (led by A.C.T.) with some strong presence in Berkeley and San Jose - both more so than Oakland. Museums? Again, SJ and Oakland have respectable regional museums, but nothing compared to the DeYoung or the Palace of the Legion of Honor. Live music? Oakland/Berkeley probably have the edge in jazz, but not by much. The major rock tours play the San Jose Arena more often than SF or Oakland (but this will change once the new arena in SF is built).

TL;DR: Oakland is a bustling center for independent visual artists and musicians, but can't hold a candle to SF as the overall arts and culture center of the Bay Area.

[michravera]

Thanks for your reply, Coatimundi! Interesting!

That's a very good point you bring up about Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, Salinas, and San Jose being used (along with San Francisco) as you continue heading up US 101. Now that you mention it, I do recall seeing those used as control cities as you get closer to each of those areas, although, San Francisco is almost always listed alongside them.

Interesting that you bring up I-5. In the LA area, San Francisco is never used as a control city on I-5, even though most motorists prefer I-5 when traveling to the Bay Area. I have seen San Francisco used as a control city on I-5 where CA 99 splits off after the Grapevine, though, but never in the LA area. In fact, I can't think of a single instance on any interstate or highway in LA where San Francisco is used as a control city (Sacramento is for I-5, and Ventura for US 101) although I do think LA is used as a control city on US 101 in the Bay Area in quite a few places.

I wonder if it's because LA, being a larger city, is seen as a more 'principal' destination and is thus given top billing on US 101 even as far away as the Bay Area, while more local destinations are touted on the opposite journey north?

One reason not to use San Francisco as a control city on ANY sign in the LA area is that, in effect, almost all northbound and many westbound routes will eventually get you to San Francisco. Saying that a given freeway will get you to San Francisco just isn't helpful. It is almost like saying "Not Las Vegas or San Diego" or "Other California Cities". Ventura is WEST and Sacramento is NORTH. Everyone to whom a control city of ANY kind with a destination not in the LA area would be helpful will know this. In fact, from Ventura, CASR-126 might even be a BETTER route (depending upon traffic so far away from that location that you can't even make a reasonable guess at the time that you would have to choose) to San Francisco than US-101, so "San Francisco" would be either confusing or misleading or, at best, unhelpful. US-101 is, however, the definitive route to Santa Barbara then San Luis Obispo then Salinas then San Jose THEN San Francisco.

[Hiroshi66]

Thanks for your reply, Coatimundi! Interesting!

That's a very good point you bring up about Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, Salinas, and San Jose being used (along with San Francisco) as you continue heading up US 101. Now that you mention it, I do recall seeing those used as control cities as you get closer to each of those areas, although, San Francisco is almost always listed alongside them.

Interesting that you bring up I-5. In the LA area, San Francisco is never used as a control city on I-5, even though most motorists prefer I-5 when traveling to the Bay Area. I have seen San Francisco used as a control city on I-5 where CA 99 splits off after the Grapevine, though, but never in the LA area. In fact, I can't think of a single instance on any interstate or highway in LA where San Francisco is used as a control city (Sacramento is for I-5, and Ventura for US 101) although I do think LA is used as a control city on US 101 in the Bay Area in quite a few places.

I wonder if it's because LA, being a larger city, is seen as a more 'principal' destination and is thus given top billing on US 101 even as far away as the Bay Area, while more local destinations are touted on the opposite journey north?

One reason not to use San Francisco as a control city on ANY sign in the LA area is that, in effect, almost all northbound and many westbound routes will eventually get you to San Francisco. Saying that a given freeway will get you to San Francisco just isn't helpful. It is almost like saying "Not Las Vegas or San Diego" or "Other California Cities". Ventura is WEST and Sacramento is NORTH. Everyone to whom a control city of ANY kind with a destination not in the LA area would be helpful will know this. In fact, from Ventura, CASR-126 might even be a BETTER route (depending upon traffic so far away from that location that you can't even make a reasonable guess at the time that you would have to choose) to San Francisco than US-101, so "San Francisco" would be either confusing or misleading or, at best, unhelpful. US-101 is, however, the definitive route to Santa Barbara then San Luis Obispo then Salinas then San Jose THEN San Francisco.

Your point is well-taken! Thank you. I guess that explains why US 101 has started adopting the format of 2 control cities through the Central Coast - the top one being the next major city and the bottom one being San Francisco. Kill two birds with one stone, I suppose.

It is definitely preferable to the bizarre "THRU TRAFFIC" control city that exists on I-605 NB (and SB, for that matter). I'll never understand that. I-605 NB should have "Pasadena" as a control city, and as for I-605 SB, perhaps "Huntington Beach" might be a good one.

[mrsman]

San Jose is BIGGER than San Fran?  Add me to the list of the many people that did not know that.

BUT, you have to remember in terms of land area San Jose is several times larger than San Francisco.  San Francisco has 864,816 people over 46.87 square miles of land on the 2015 census while San Jose has 1,026,908 spread out over 179.97 square miles.  That means San Jose has a population density of 5,700 per square mile while San Francisco is at 18,451.  Basically that makes San Francisco the mostly densely populated major city on the West Coast by a large margin.  Sure makes it easier to understand why so many people fought the freeway movement when in terms of people living on top of each other it has a lot in common with New York.

A very apt description.  When describing San Fran to people here on the east coast, I mentioned that it was like NYC, except with more hills and better weather.  But seriously, the core of the downtown has a feel like Manhattan, and many neighborhoods on the west side have a feel like Brooklyn.  SF is so much more dense than many other CA cities.  More transit use as well.

[Hiroshi66]

Speaking of San Francisco, there is a street there right by the water called "Great Highway." I'm curious about the origin of this street name - was it the original routing of CA 1 or something? It's the street right by the water where all of SF's major streets terminate.

[Max Rockatansky]

Speaking of San Francisco, there is a street there right by the water called "Great Highway." I'm curious about the origin of this street name - was it the original routing of CA 1 or something? It's the street right by the water where all of SF's major streets terminate.

Doesn't look like it was ever part of CA 1 or CA 5, had a flip through maps back to 1938 and 5 was always on Skyline while 1 dipped inland.  Cahighways has both located in the same place back in 1934:

http://www.cahighways.org/001-008.html

[Hiroshi66]

That's interesting. This street eventually breaks off into Skyline Blvd south of the city, so I wonder if CA 5 continued on Great Highway after Skyline ended. The naming of that street always surprised me.

[Max Rockatansky]

That's interesting. This street eventually breaks off into Skyline Blvd south of the city, so I wonder if CA 5 continued on Great Highway after Skyline ended. The naming of that street always surprised me.

All the maps show it looping back to 1 on Sloat.  I'm not as familiar with the Bay area as others on this board but isn't Great Highway still have issues with sand closures?

[coatimundi]

That's interesting. This street eventually breaks off into Skyline Blvd south of the city, so I wonder if CA 5 continued on Great Highway after Skyline ended. The naming of that street always surprised me.

All the maps show it looping back to 1 on Sloat.  I'm not as familiar with the Bay area as others on this board but isn't Great Highway still have issues with sand closures?

Absolutely. The city makes an annual event of closing Great Highway in Ocean Beach so that they can try to push the dunes back over the curb. It closes after big storms too.

SR 5 started at SR 1 and went west on Sloat to reach Skyline. California really doesn't seem to like ending state routes at non-numbered routes, so it would have to curve back to 1 on either Geary or Lincoln, and I don't see that having ever happened the way those streets look today. That also would not have provided any benefit to the state highway system.

[sparker]

It is definitely preferable to the bizarre "THRU TRAFFIC" control city that exists on I-605 NB (and SB, for that matter). I'll never understand that. I-605 NB should have "Pasadena" as a control city, and as for I-605 SB, perhaps "Huntington Beach" might be a good one.

Actually, Pasadena access from NB I-605 requires a westerly turn on I-210 at rather an oblique angle; a more appropriate city would be one lying east of the 210/605 junction (Azusa would be the most likely candidate).  And, at the other end of 605, Huntington Beach is a bit of a stretch; one needs to traverse other major cities (Garden Grove, et. al.) to get to that city.  I think Caltrans simply decided that I-605 didn't directly serve any major cities -- at least any cited in the control city compendium -- so they simply gave up (why they didn't consider Long Beach as a southern terminus reference -- given its proximity to that terminus -- is perplexing).  IMHO, north of I-10 the pull-through BGS should read "I-605 TO I-210" (also to be reflected on the I-10 ramps to NB I-605); similarly, I-605 south of CA 91 would read "I-605 TO I-405".  In this way, the crossing routes at the termini, well-known as they are,  would provide any required reference.

[mrsman]

It is definitely preferable to the bizarre "THRU TRAFFIC" control city that exists on I-605 NB (and SB, for that matter). I'll never understand that. I-605 NB should have "Pasadena" as a control city, and as for I-605 SB, perhaps "Huntington Beach" might be a good one.

Actually, Pasadena access from NB I-605 requires a westerly turn on I-210 at rather an oblique angle; a more appropriate city would be one lying east of the 210/605 junction (Azusa would be the most likely candidate).  And, at the other end of 605, Huntington Beach is a bit of a stretch; one needs to traverse other major cities (Garden Grove, et. al.) to get to that city.  I think Caltrans simply decided that I-605 didn't directly serve any major cities -- at least any cited in the control city compendium -- so they simply gave up (why they didn't consider Long Beach as a southern terminus reference -- given its proximity to that terminus -- is perplexing).  IMHO, north of I-10 the pull-through BGS should read "I-605 TO I-210" (also to be reflected on the I-10 ramps to NB I-605); similarly, I-605 south of CA 91 would read "I-605 TO I-405".  In this way, the crossing routes at the termini, well-known as they are,  would provide any required reference.

I think you are correct that the lack of control cities on 605 is because it starts at ends at very low population suburbs.  Yet, IMO a small city is better than no city at all.

The northern end of 605 is Irwindale - which nobody has ever heard of*.  Nearby is Azusa or Duarte either of which would be fine control cities.  I personally prefer Duarte because it serves a major desination (City of HOpe HOspital).

I feel that Seal Beach would be a good southern control city.  The problem with using Long Beach is that 605 is too far from the key destinations in Long Beach (Downtown, Harbor, Queen Mary) that we don't want traffic to those destinations to take 605 and then clog up surface streets.  If you are on 10, 60, or 91 coming from the east and you see Long Beach, you will take that freeway south.   But it would generally be better if that traffic stayed on their freeway and take the 710 instead.  (From the 210, you could take 605 and then take one of the east-west freeways to the 710, but we still shouldn't put Long Beach as a control because many people may not make the next transfer that they need to.)


* About 30 years ago there was a plan to build a stadium for the Raiders there.  If that were built, Irwindale would be an appropriate control city because it serves a major destination.