News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Control cities

Started by ParrDa, September 11, 2017, 09:28:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

webny99

What are your thoughts about the way control cities are signed and handled on the interstate system?
What could be done differently?

Should cities not directly served by a mainline interstate (Rochester NY, Rochester MN, Toledo) be used as control cities on the mainline anyways?


roadman65

Not to sound insulting, but you might want to look at other forum topics.  Many address user concerns on what you mentioned here.

Also you gave a lot to figure out you said a lot in such a short time.  Yes I know you are new, but just letting you know as I fell into the trap years ago.  You get anxious to start conversations you get blinded at the same time, plus many users here are trolls and love to pick arguments as well and these kind of threads did that for me.

Good topics though and good observations.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Flint1979

Toledo is served by I-75 as well as I-80 and I-90 on the very southern edge of the city limits.

ilpt4u

#3
Quote from: ParrDa on September 11, 2017, 09:28:45 PM
Should cities not directly served by a mainline interstate (Rochester NY, Rochester MN, Toledo) be used as control cities on the mainline anyways?
What, like these:
Chicago for I-80
Chicago for I-88
Chicago for I-65
Memphis for I-57
Saint Louis for I-24
Evansville for I-64

Whether they should or not, they already are.

I do think Memphis for the Southbound control of I-57 is ridiculous, especially signed up in Chicago. Hopefully it will eventually be changed to Little Rock, if/when the I-57 extension thru MO/AR ever happens. I would be OK with Sikeston, MO being used, for now

St Louis for I-24 Westbound is a bit weird as well, but not many other options -- gonna sign Marion/Carbondale as the terminating western Control? Probably not. Chicago doesn't make sense either, as 24 is running NW, and Chicago is back NE

Chicago for I-65, I-80, and I-88 doesn't bother me that much -- all 3 enter the Chicagoland Metro area, and have Freeway connections to the City itself. One could make arguments that I-65 and I-88 should be signed into the City, but that heads into Fictional territory

Evansville for I-64 could just be passed over in favor of Louisville. But again, it has a decent Freeway connection to Evansville, with I-69/former I-164

roadman

I am reminded of an AASHTO proposal in 1987 to change the easternmost control city for I-84 from Boston to Sturbridge.  Both ConnDOT and MassDPW were opposed to the idea, and managed to get it shot down.  The principal argument MassDPW used against the change was that, while I-84 didn't go to Boston, it connected directly to a primary Interstate (I-90) that did, and that a good deal of the traffic on I-84 was heading to Boston.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

jp the roadgeek

Quote from: ilpt4u on September 12, 2017, 03:00:41 PM
Quote from: ParrDa on September 11, 2017, 09:28:45 PM
Should cities not directly served by a mainline interstate (Rochester NY, Rochester MN, Toledo) be used as control cities on the mainline anyways?
What, like these:
Chicago for I-80
Chicago for I-88
Chicago for I-65
Memphis for I-57
Saint Louis for I-24
Evansville for I-64

Additionally:

Boston for I-84 (as mentioned) and I-95
Buffalo on I-90
New York for I-80 (also on I-90 on LGS's in Boston and for I-84 Exit 9)
Scranton for I-80 and I-84
Cleveland for I-80
Pittsburgh for I-76 (I-70 on the PA Turnpike)
Harrisburg for I-76 and I-81
Springfield and Worcester, MA for I-90

Almost said Washington for I-95, but it enters DC for 300 feet.  Same with I-70 and Baltimore; last few hundred feet are in the Park & Ride just across the Baltimore City line.
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

Flint1979

Of all the one's mentioned every Interstate at least enters that cities metro area or has another freeway connection to that city.

ilpt4u

#7
A few more:
Los Angeles for I-40
New Orleans for I-55
San Francisco for I-5
Washington, DC for I-70

PHLBOS

#8
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 12, 2017, 03:23:14 PMAdditionally:

Boston for I-84 (as mentioned) and I-95
Buffalo on I-90
New York for I-80 (also on I-90 on LGS's in Boston and for I-84 Exit 9)
Scranton for I-80 and I-84
Cleveland for I-80
Pittsburgh for I-76 (I-70 on the PA Turnpike)
Harrisburg for I-76 and I-81
Springfield and Worcester, MA for I-90

Almost said Washington for I-95, but it enters DC for 300 feet.  Same with I-70 and Baltimore; last few hundred feet are in the Park & Ride just across the Baltimore City line.
A few more:
Harrisburg for I-76
Pittsburgh for I-76 & 79
Trenton for I-95
Camden for I-95 (along NJTP corridor)
Providence for I-93
Cape Cod for I-93 (not a city but a region)
NY City (or New York City) for I-91
GPS does NOT equal GOD

ilpt4u

How about something like Montreal for I-87 North?
And Vancouver, BC for I-5 North?

It is the same Freeway going to the Canadian cities, but it changes Number due to the International Border

hotdogPi

#10
Quote from: ParrDa on September 12, 2017, 09:12:42 PM
That brings up another point, that random control cities such as Albert Lea on I35 and Plymouth Meeting on I476 are ridiculous. Des Moines and Scranton, respectively, would be much better.

We also have "Thru Traffic" and "other Desert Cities" (yes, lowercase) as control cities.

Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

jp the roadgeek

I'd use Phoenix as an EB control city on I-10 from San Bernardino east (Palm Springs/Phoenix west of Palm Springs)
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

The Nature Boy

I'd argue that Boston could be a control city on I-89 as far north as Lebanon. Manchester/Concord are fairly close together but I would sign Manchester over Concord in that case.

Flint1979

Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 12, 2017, 09:58:51 PM
I'd argue that Boston could be a control city on I-89 as far north as Lebanon. Manchester/Concord are fairly close together but I would sign Manchester over Concord in that case.
On I-91 at least a few years ago it said "Airport New Hampshire" for I-89. I would go with "Concord, NH" in the case here.

The Nature Boy

Quote from: Flint1979 on September 12, 2017, 11:06:10 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 12, 2017, 09:58:51 PM
I'd argue that Boston could be a control city on I-89 as far north as Lebanon. Manchester/Concord are fairly close together but I would sign Manchester over Concord in that case.
On I-91 at least a few years ago it said "Airport New Hampshire" for I-89. I would go with "Concord, NH" in the case here.

For that one, I'd argue that Boston/Manchester both fit but Boston/Concord may also work as well. I feel like it might be helpful to let I-91 traffic know that I-89 South will take them to Boston.

I have a similar issue with I-89 North from I-91, the control cities are Barre and Montpelier. It should be Montpelier and Burlington. Barre and Montpelier are too close and Barre isn't a notable enough destination on its own.

ilpt4u

#15
Quote from: 1 on September 12, 2017, 09:22:58 PM
We also have "Thru Traffic" and "other Desert Cities" (yes, lowercase) as control cities.
Chicago 3dis have a tendency to use *Directional* Suburbs as Control Cities ie Southwest Suburbs, West Suburbs, Northwest Suburbs. I-355 uses all 3 at points, and I-290 uses West Suburbs. I would prefer to see actual, named Suburban Cities as Controls, but IDOT and ISTHA see things differently, except they are OK with Joliet and Aurora as Controls

I-355 at one point simply was signed with a Control of "Suburbs" (since removed) from parent I-55


Soured from www.billburmaster.com/rmsandw/illinois/interstate/55.html

Quote from: ParrDa on September 12, 2017, 09:12:42 PM
I think we've exhausted control cities not directly served by the route. Now how about 3dis, like I480 in Ohio, that use the controls of the parent route...That brings up another point, that random control cities such as Albert Lea on I35 and Plymouth Meeting on I476 are ridiculous.
I-355 uses St Louis as a Southbound Control near its Northern Terminus (Chicago-area Southern Control for parent I-55) and also uses Rockford as a Northbound Control at its Southern Terminus exiting off I-80, with Rockford being a Control for I-90, which is reached via I-355 North to I-290 "West" (despite being due North/South at that point) to I-90 West

Illinois also likes using State-based Control "Cities" -- with Wisconsin and Indiana appearing on I-294 and I-90/94, and Iowa and Indiana appearing on I-80.

I-294 needs its parent, I-94, to reach either Wisconsin or Indiana, and State-based Controls might be up there with "Thru Traffic" and "other Desert Cities" for ridiculousness. Personally, I have no issue with State-base Controls in these cases regarding I-90/94, I-294, and I-80, but its not consistently applied and its not very typical in other areas

jp the roadgeek

Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 12, 2017, 11:19:26 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 12, 2017, 11:06:10 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 12, 2017, 09:58:51 PM
I'd argue that Boston could be a control city on I-89 as far north as Lebanon. Manchester/Concord are fairly close together but I would sign Manchester over Concord in that case.
On I-91 at least a few years ago it said "Airport New Hampshire" for I-89. I would go with "Concord, NH" in the case here.

For that one, I'd argue that Boston/Manchester both fit but Boston/Concord may also work as well. I feel like it might be helpful to let I-91 traffic know that I-89 South will take them to Boston.

I have a similar issue with I-89 North from I-91, the control cities are Barre and Montpelier. It should be Montpelier and Burlington. Barre and Montpelier are too close and Barre isn't a notable enough destination on its own.

Definitely agree with Montpelier/Burlington on I-89 North from I-91.  I would use Hanover NH/Concord NH for I-89 South.  I actually would use Boston on I-91 South for I-93 South (Littleton NH only NB, Littleton/Boston SB).  Another couple of interesting VT suggestions: using Montreal as a control city on I-89 (along with St. Albans) north of Burlington, and using Sherbrooke as a control city (along with Lyndonville) for I-91 North from I-93 North (since MUTCD doesn't like "Canada" as a control city).
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

LM117

Quote from: ilpt4u on September 12, 2017, 04:18:39 PM
A few more:
Los Angeles for I-40

That one never made sense to me. Sure, I-40 (combined with I-15) is a way to LA, but it's often used as a bypass of the LA metro for those heading towards the SF Bay Area from the Southeast (via CA-58 from Barstow).

From Flagstaff, I'd use Kingman and Barstow as the control cities for I-40 West. Kingman is a major junction for those heading to Las Vegas on US-93 and Barstow since it's a major junction for those heading towards LA on I-15 or those heading towards I-5 or CA-99 near Bakersfield from CA-58 in Barstow.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

PHLBOS

Quote from: roadman on September 12, 2017, 03:18:28 PM
I am reminded of an AASHTO proposal in 1987 to change the easternmost control city for I-84 from Boston to Sturbridge.  Both ConnDOT and MassDPW were opposed to the idea, and managed to get it shot down.  The principal argument MassDPW used against the change was that, while I-84 didn't go to Boston, it connected directly to a primary Interstate (I-90) that did, and that a good deal of the traffic on I-84 was heading to Boston.
It's proposals like these that make me ask what were those AASHTO officials were smoking at the time this was pondered.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

PHLBOS

Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 12, 2017, 11:19:26 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 12, 2017, 11:06:10 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 12, 2017, 09:58:51 PM
I'd argue that Boston could be a control city on I-89 as far north as Lebanon. Manchester/Concord are fairly close together but I would sign Manchester over Concord in that case.
On I-91 at least a few years ago it said "Airport New Hampshire" for I-89. I would go with "Concord, NH" in the case here.

For that one, I'd argue that Boston/Manchester both fit but Boston/Concord may also work as well. I feel like it might be helpful to let I-91 traffic know that I-89 South will take them to Boston.
A supplemental BGS that reads Boston USE 89 SOUTH or Boston USE EXIT 10S would suffice IMHO.

While thumbing through GSV the other day along the southern leg of I-89 in NH; I noticed that only Concord is used as a destination.  The nearest exit adjacent to the I-93 junction only has signs that read SOUTH 89 TO 93 on them.  For those interchanges nearest to Concord, I would use Manchester as an additional southbound 89 control city since most of the traffic off 89 South will be getting on & continuing along 93 South beyond Concord.  Note: since Boston is already used on the main signage for I-93 South (along with Manchester); a supplemental BGS that I suggested along I-91 for the I-89 interchange in White River Junction is not needed.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

The Nature Boy

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 13, 2017, 01:29:48 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 12, 2017, 11:19:26 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 12, 2017, 11:06:10 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 12, 2017, 09:58:51 PM
I'd argue that Boston could be a control city on I-89 as far north as Lebanon. Manchester/Concord are fairly close together but I would sign Manchester over Concord in that case.
On I-91 at least a few years ago it said "Airport New Hampshire" for I-89. I would go with "Concord, NH" in the case here.

For that one, I'd argue that Boston/Manchester both fit but Boston/Concord may also work as well. I feel like it might be helpful to let I-91 traffic know that I-89 South will take them to Boston.

I have a similar issue with I-89 North from I-91, the control cities are Barre and Montpelier. It should be Montpelier and Burlington. Barre and Montpelier are too close and Barre isn't a notable enough destination on its own.

Definitely agree with Montpelier/Burlington on I-89 North from I-91.  I would use Hanover NH/Concord NH for I-89 South.  I actually would use Boston on I-91 South for I-93 South (Littleton NH only NB, Littleton/Boston SB).  Another couple of interesting VT suggestions: using Montreal as a control city on I-89 (along with St. Albans) north of Burlington, and using Sherbrooke as a control city (along with Lyndonville) for I-91 North from I-93 North (since MUTCD doesn't like "Canada" as a control city).

I wouldn't use Hanover, NH for I-89 South simply because I-89 is not the fastest way to Hanover from that point. The fastest way is to keep north on I-91 to Exit 13 (Vermont 10A) in Norwich and just cross the Connecticut River into Hanover. I-91 comes closer to Hanover than I-89 does.

PHLBOS

#21
Quote from: ParrDa on September 12, 2017, 10:10:09 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 12, 2017, 09:22:58 PM
Quote from: ParrDa on September 12, 2017, 09:12:42 PM
That brings up another point, that random control cities such as Albert Lea on I35 and Plymouth Meeting on I476 are ridiculous. Des Moines and Scranton, respectively, would be much better.

We also have "Thru Traffic" and "other Desert Cities" (yes, lowercase) as control cities.
I'd argue that, while also ridiculous, those arent really control cities per se. I can't see the image (:confused:) but IMO a true control destination would be posted both at entrances and on mileage signs.
For I-476, Plymouth Meeting is indeed a control point (Plymouth Meeting is actually a part of or most of Plymouth Township) for that route; mainly because it's the northern terminus of the 'free' section (aka the Blue Route) and was once the northern terminus of I-476 prior to 1996.

Original button-copy signage had Allentown listed on one or two I-476 northbound signs at the I-76/PA 23 interchange but such was removed (& replaced with Plymouth Mtg.), ironically, when the southern portion (south of I-76) of the highway opened in Dec. 1991.

Personally, I would've kept & used Allentown for a northbound I-476 control city along the Blue Route; especially after the Northeast Extension of the PA Turnpike was redesignated as I-476 (from PA 9) circa 1996.

Quote from: Flint1979 on September 12, 2017, 11:06:10 PMOn I-91 at least a few years ago it said "Airport New Hampshire" for I-89. I would go with "Concord, NH" in the case here.
GSV from Nov. 2015 still shows the Airport-New Hampshire combo for I-89 South signage off I-91.  I agree that Concord, NH would be a more appropriate; such would make for a smaller sign board as well.  Supplemental signage for Lebanon Municipal Airport is sufficient enough; especially since the only scheduled commercial service out of that airport is Cape Air.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

JasonOfORoads

Quote from: ParrDa on September 11, 2017, 09:28:45 PM
What are your thoughts about the way control cities are signed and handled on the interstate system?
What could be done differently?

To return back to the original question, I think that we should do something like how the UK handles destinations that aren't on the mainline by putting them in parentheses. So I-5 North from LA could list both "Sacramento" and "(Bakersfield)" as control cities. I could also see "Bakersfield VIA CA-99" as an alternative.
Borderline addicted to roadgeeking since ~1989.

jp the roadgeek

Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 13, 2017, 09:13:11 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 13, 2017, 01:29:48 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 12, 2017, 11:19:26 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 12, 2017, 11:06:10 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 12, 2017, 09:58:51 PM
I'd argue that Boston could be a control city on I-89 as far north as Lebanon. Manchester/Concord are fairly close together but I would sign Manchester over Concord in that case.
On I-91 at least a few years ago it said "Airport New Hampshire" for I-89. I would go with "Concord, NH" in the case here.

For that one, I'd argue that Boston/Manchester both fit but Boston/Concord may also work as well. I feel like it might be helpful to let I-91 traffic know that I-89 South will take them to Boston.

I have a similar issue with I-89 North from I-91, the control cities are Barre and Montpelier. It should be Montpelier and Burlington. Barre and Montpelier are too close and Barre isn't a notable enough destination on its own.

Definitely agree with Montpelier/Burlington on I-89 North from I-91.  I would use Hanover NH/Concord NH for I-89 South.  I actually would use Boston on I-91 South for I-93 South (Littleton NH only NB, Littleton/Boston SB).  Another couple of interesting VT suggestions: using Montreal as a control city on I-89 (along with St. Albans) north of Burlington, and using Sherbrooke as a control city (along with Lyndonville) for I-91 North from I-93 North (since MUTCD doesn't like "Canada" as a control city).

I wouldn't use Hanover, NH for I-89 South simply because I-89 is not the fastest way to Hanover from that point. The fastest way is to keep north on I-91 to Exit 13 (Vermont 10A) in Norwich and just cross the Connecticut River into Hanover. I-91 comes closer to Hanover than I-89 does.

I meant Lebanon.  Stoopid me :crazy:
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

bing101

Sacramento, CA the control city that gets lots of control cities attention in California

In the Los Angeles area its freeways north of I-10 that get the Sacramento control city they are CA-170, I-405, I-210, I-5.
In the San Francisco area its I-680 north, CA-37 east, US-101 approaching CA-37.
I-580 west approaching I-80 east plus I-780 to either I-680 and I-80 on both ends.


Quote from: JasonOfORoads on September 13, 2017, 03:00:45 PM
Quote from: ParrDa on September 11, 2017, 09:28:45 PM
What are your thoughts about the way control cities are signed and handled on the interstate system?
What could be done differently?

To return back to the original question, I think that we should do something like how the UK handles destinations that aren't on the mainline by putting them in parentheses. So I-5 North from LA could list both "Sacramento" and "(Bakersfield)" as control cities. I could also see "Bakersfield VIA CA-99" as an alternative.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.