This article was prompted by a reader who wonder why the control city for I-355 from I-55 near Lemont Road is "Suburbs":
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/autocorner/chi-getting-around-14-sep14,0,3208128.column (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/autocorner/chi-getting-around-14-sep14,0,3208128.column)
I just looked at it on street view. What the hell? Isn't that violating the rules?
I like how I-DOT says that they can't use smaller cities, like Bloomington, Joliet, etc... as official control CITIES because they are too small. Yet in other states, there are towns a fraction of the size of the aforementioned cities that are control cities... :hmmm:
QuoteOK, better than just "Suburbs." But the general rule of signs on interstates is to list destination cities. Wouldn't listing New Lenox for I-355 South and perhaps Itasca or Addison for I-355 North be more instructional?
Why sure. But there is another rule. The destination cities (officially called "control cities") must be major cities, according to standards set by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and the Federal Highway Administration's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
This rule has been violated in many places. It seems that its cited only when its convenient, such as in this case for Interstate 355.
It's not really a practical rule either in most applications- especially out west and in major urban areas. I'm thinking on I-80 if Bloomington and Joliet don't qualify as big cities, than the I-80 control city for I-80 East in Salt Lake City should logically be what...Omaha? Or Denver, but that doesn't give an accurate representation of what I-80 does.
In Chicago, 95% of people don't care that the Stevenson heads to St. Louis, they're more likely to be helped by navigation by knowing it's going to Joliet, or by knowing that the East-West is heading to Naperville, not the Quad Cities. And it's certainly practical to list two cities, one local and one distant, so for I-355 it should say "Joliet-St. Louis." That way everyone wins.
Do as Seattle does and select a few reference cities and consistently use them- it's not a matter of citing every single suburb as the IDOT spokeswoman says. Seattle uses Olympia, Tacoma, Bellevue, Renton, and Everett as local control cities (while using Portland, Vancouver BC, and Spokane as distant ones) and that works perfectly.
I don't know the northern suburbs that well off the top of my head, but I know Aurora, Joliet, and Elgin are all sufficiently large to be control cities. And I don't think the people of say...Batavia are going to be offended that Aurora and Elgin are listed as control cities
That's one rule that should be immediately discarded
Chicago has some significant suburbs, I agree you can't use places like Skokie or Elmhurst, but Naperville, Aurora, Joliet or Elgin are big enough to be a control city.
The problem is none of these cities are directly on I-355.
Joliet is very, very close to I-355 and from the East-West Tollway north you could use any of Elgin, Schaumburg, or Rockford
Yeah, I think they need to sign indirect destinations (which are reached by another expressway). Like Naperville/Aurora via I-88, Chicago via I-55 and I-88, Elgin and Rockford via I-90.
That said, doesn't make it sense to extend I-355 northeast towards I-94?
Quote from: thenetwork on September 14, 2009, 09:00:41 AM
I like how I-DOT says that they can't use smaller cities, like Bloomington, Joliet, etc... as official control CITIES because they are too small. Yet in other states, there are towns a fraction of the size of the aforementioned cities that are control cities... :hmmm:
ah, good old Delaware Water Gap ;)
control cities on three-digit interstates tend to be pretty hit-or-miss. I-605 in Los Angeles doesn't have one at all: it just goes north.
Think about this ISTHA - if I-80 in the Quad Cities has Chicago as a control City - you can have Elgin or Des Plaines as a control city for I-355 :poke:
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 14, 2009, 02:26:51 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on September 14, 2009, 09:00:41 AM
I like how I-DOT says that they can't use smaller cities, like Bloomington, Joliet, etc... as official control CITIES because they are too small. Yet in other states, there are towns a fraction of the size of the aforementioned cities that are control cities... :hmmm:
ah, good old Delaware Water Gap ;)
control cities on three-digit interstates tend to be pretty hit-or-miss. I-605 in Los Angeles doesn't have one at all: it just goes north.
The residents of Thru Traffic will surely object to that statement!
So why couldn't IDOT use Indiana (as used on I-355 at I-80) and Wisconsin for controls?
Though I'd rather see the Chicago drop the use of control states and have I-355 use Toledo and Rockford, with the later changing to Milwaukee if the IL 53 tollway connection to I-94 ever gets built.
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 15, 2009, 12:35:12 AM
So why couldn't IDOT use Indiana (as used on I-355 at I-80) and Wisconsin for controls?
Though I'd rather see the Chicago drop the use of control states and have I-355 use Toledo and Rockford, with the later changing to Milwaukee if the IL 53 tollway connection to I-94 ever gets built.
You mean Joliet instead of Toledo?
Quote from: Master sonYou mean Joliet instead of Toledo?
No, Toledo. I'm near 100% sure Toledo was a control city for EB I-80 at I-55 in the old days. Though if there was more left there, I could see using Gary over Toledo.
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 15, 2009, 08:22:14 PM
No, Toledo. I'm near 100% sure Toledo was a control city for EB I-80 at I-55 in the old days. Though if there was more left there, I could see using Gary over Toledo.
Actually, while the primary control city for I-80 east of I-55 is Toledo, the secondary one used at all I-80 junctions up to I-57, is Gary, Indiana.
Also, if you are traveling west on I-88 from I-290/294, the control city IS Aurora then DeKalb once you reach Eola Road. Not Quad Cities.
fixed yer quote. -Ed.
Quote from: hobsini2 on February 17, 2011, 11:52:35 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 15, 2009, 08:22:14 PM
No, Toledo. I'm near 100% sure Toledo was a control city for EB I-80 at I-55 in the old days. Though if there was more left there, I could see using Gary over Toledo.
Actually, while the primary control city for I-80 east of I-55 is Toledo, the secondary one used at all I-80 junctions up to I-57, is Gary, Indiana.
Also, if you are traveling west on I-88 from I-290/294, the control city IS Aurora then DeKalb once you reach Eola Road. Not Quad Cities.
fixed yer quote. -Ed.
However, newer signs just say "Indiana" for I-80 east. No mention of Gary or Toledo.
Quote from: corco on September 14, 2009, 11:10:48 AM
And it's certainly practical to list two cities, one local and one distant, so for I-355 it should say "Joliet-St. Louis."
North of I-88, the southbound controls on I-355 are "Joliet - St Louis" on the tollway itself. South of I-88 to Boughton Rd, and for all entry points, it's just "Joliet". Oddly, it's "Southwest Suburbs" at the entries from Boughton to 159th St (which are all clearly
in the southwest suburbs), then "To {80}" for Southwest Hwy (US-6).
Plans on the IDOT website for widening I-80 have I-355 using a control city of Rockford:
http://eplan.dot.il.gov/desenv/012111/60I47-105/PLANS/012111-60I47-105-278-099-11x17.pdf (http://eplan.dot.il.gov/desenv/012111/60I47-105/PLANS/012111-60I47-105-278-099-11x17.pdf)
Driving down the Stevenson last December around the place mentioned at the beginning of this post I thought that I saw that the sign just said I-355, without the "Suburbs," is this the way its been or is that new. I know that it does list N.W. and S.W. Suburbs when you get right to the exit, but is there a reason the signs further up the road are just blank?
When the southern extention was open the signs without a control city on SB I-55, mostly, one I think on NB I-55 were marked "Suburbs". About a month after the extention opened the Chicago Tribune had an article about the general control cities. The ISTHA then removed them.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billburmaster.com%2Frmsandw%2Fillinois%2Fimages%2Fs55at355_1107.jpg&hash=b43d72cbf61a79f476a6dfaf0eee39ae0febb25e)
After it opened I went and took photos of the new signs at the I-55/355 interchange.
http://www.billburmaster.com/rmsandw/illinois/interstate/55.html (http://www.billburmaster.com/rmsandw/illinois/interstate/55.html)
Quote from: thenetwork on September 14, 2009, 09:00:41 AM
I like how I-DOT says that they can't use smaller cities, like Bloomington, Joliet, etc... as official control CITIES because they are too small. Yet in other states, there are towns a fraction of the size of the aforementioned cities that are control cities... :hmmm:
Same with Indiana.
Quote from: Brandon on February 17, 2011, 02:02:57 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on February 17, 2011, 11:52:35 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 15, 2009, 08:22:14 PM
No, Toledo. I'm near 100% sure Toledo was a control city for EB I-80 at I-55 in the old days. Though if there was more left there, I could see using Gary over Toledo.
Actually, while the primary control city for I-80 east of I-55 is Toledo, the secondary one used at all I-80 junctions up to I-57, is Gary, Indiana.
Also, if you are traveling west on I-88 from I-290/294, the control city IS Aurora then DeKalb once you reach Eola Road. Not Quad Cities.
fixed yer quote. -Ed.
However, newer signs just say "Indiana" for I-80 east. No mention of Gary or Toledo.
The mention of "Gary, Indiana" is still on the entrance ramps to I-80 especially around the Joliet exits.
Quote from: hobsini2 on February 25, 2011, 07:46:04 AM
Quote from: Brandon on February 17, 2011, 02:02:57 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on February 17, 2011, 11:52:35 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 15, 2009, 08:22:14 PM
No, Toledo. I'm near 100% sure Toledo was a control city for EB I-80 at I-55 in the old days. Though if there was more left there, I could see using Gary over Toledo.
Actually, while the primary control city for I-80 east of I-55 is Toledo, the secondary one used at all I-80 junctions up to I-57, is Gary, Indiana.
Also, if you are traveling west on I-88 from I-290/294, the control city IS Aurora then DeKalb once you reach Eola Road. Not Quad Cities.
fixed yer quote. -Ed.
However, newer signs just say "Indiana" for I-80 east. No mention of Gary or Toledo.
The mention of "Gary, Indiana" is still on the entrance ramps to I-80 especially around the Joliet exits.
It's been removed at Larkin and Houbolt, and still exists only at Maple (US-30), Briggs, Richards, and Chicago. IIRC, Center's been replaced with just "Indiana". I suspect as these interchanges are rebuilt, these will also be replaced.
Quote from: Brandon on February 25, 2011, 09:15:27 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on February 25, 2011, 07:46:04 AM
Quote from: Brandon on February 17, 2011, 02:02:57 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on February 17, 2011, 11:52:35 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 15, 2009, 08:22:14 PM
No, Toledo. I'm near 100% sure Toledo was a control city for EB I-80 at I-55 in the old days. Though if there was more left there, I could see using Gary over Toledo.
Actually, while the primary control city for I-80 east of I-55 is Toledo, the secondary one used at all I-80 junctions up to I-57, is Gary, Indiana.
Also, if you are traveling west on I-88 from I-290/294, the control city IS Aurora then DeKalb once you reach Eola Road. Not Quad Cities.
fixed yer quote. -Ed.
However, newer signs just say "Indiana" for I-80 east. No mention of Gary or Toledo.
The mention of "Gary, Indiana" is still on the entrance ramps to I-80 especially around the Joliet exits.
It's been removed at Larkin and Houbolt, and still exists only at Maple (US-30), Briggs, Richards, and Chicago. IIRC, Center's been replaced with just "Indiana". I suspect as these interchanges are rebuilt, these will also be replaced.
That sucks. I am getting tired of these "general" control cities. Indiana is a huge area to be used as a control city unless it is on the Tri-State. And besides US 52, eventually, does go into Indiana but nowhere near Gary. They (IDOT) should have kept Des Moines and Toledo as control cities at the 55/80 jct.
Quote from: hobsini2 on February 26, 2011, 04:17:52 AM
That sucks. I am getting tired of these "general" control cities. Indiana is a huge area to be used as a control city unless it is on the Tri-State. And besides US 52, eventually, does go into Indiana but nowhere near Gary. They (IDOT) should have kept Des Moines and Toledo as control cities at the 55/80 jct.
True, but Toledo (or the Indiana Toll Road, for that matter) is the destination for only a fraction of the traffic. Once in Indiana, you've got 3 Interstate choices: I-65, I-80/90 & I-94. I don't know what the percentage is, but I gotta believe that for Eastbound I-80 traffic around the Joliet area, the percentage of traffic traveling through to the Toll Road, even to at least South Bend, is pretty low. Hence the generic Indiana moniker. Same thing with using Wisconsin on the Tri-State -- there's a big split before the state line in which people either want to stay in Eastern Wisconsin (via I-94) or Central/Western Wisconsin (I-90). So to avoid all the confusion, Wisconsin makes for a good destination.
Now using Iowa on the other hand for Westbound I-80 is a different story.
Quote from: thenetwork on February 27, 2011, 11:03:00 AM
True, but Toledo (or the Indiana Toll Road, for that matter) is the destination for only a fraction of the traffic. Once in Indiana, you've got 3 Interstate choices: I-65, I-80/90 & I-94. I don't know what the percentage is, but I gotta believe that for Eastbound I-80 traffic around the Joliet area, the percentage of traffic traveling through to the Toll Road, even to at least South Bend, is pretty low. Hence the generic Indiana moniker. Same thing with using Wisconsin on the Tri-State -- there's a big split before the state line in which people either want to stay in Eastern Wisconsin (via I-94) or Central/Western Wisconsin (I-90). So to avoid all the confusion, Wisconsin makes for a good destination.
But I doubt there's that many motorist on I-55 or I-57 that are going to get on I-80 and then go back south on I-65. If one is going to start signing more possible destinations available from eastbound I-80, then either use Gary for the eastbound control city at I-55 or sign it as I-80 East to I-94 East/Toledo/Detroit (but then Detroit fails those motorist heading for Grand Rapids or Lansing :spin:) Better to focus on one or two cities, not to try and sign every possible option.
I also don't care for Indiana being used on I-94 before it even gets to Chicago:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=42.482257,-87.947574&spn=0.024054,0.082397&z=15&layer=c&cbll=42.481875,-87.947578&panoid=CLb7odMk1_npQa8vhnBH3A&cbp=12,177.73,,0,-5.03 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=42.482257,-87.947574&spn=0.024054,0.082397&z=15&layer=c&cbll=42.481875,-87.947578&panoid=CLb7odMk1_npQa8vhnBH3A&cbp=12,177.73,,0,-5.03)
just use Chicago, or maybe Chicago/O' Hare Airport.
Wisconsin is a bad choice on I-90/94 near downtown Chicago because only I-94 goes to Wisconsin right away; better to use either Milwaukee or Rockford/Milwaukee. On the Tri-State Milwaukee would be a better choice than simply Wisconsin since most other cities are simply in the same direction as Milwaukee.
Iowa is also too vague to use on westbound I-80, as this would ignore traffic going to eventually join the CKC route around the Quad Cities - and is using I-80 over I-88 to save on tolls - and head for Kansas City. Better to either stick with Des Moines or switch to Davenport.
The only places states should be used as controls is near river crossings, such as the use of Illinois for I-55 around downtown St. Louis. Indiana is way to accessible to be a good control around Chicago.
Quote from: thenetwork on February 27, 2011, 11:03:00 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on February 26, 2011, 04:17:52 AM
That sucks. I am getting tired of these "general" control cities. Indiana is a huge area to be used as a control city unless it is on the Tri-State. And besides US 52, eventually, does go into Indiana but nowhere near Gary. They (IDOT) should have kept Des Moines and Toledo as control cities at the 55/80 jct.
True, but Toledo (or the Indiana Toll Road, for that matter) is the destination for only a fraction of the traffic. Once in Indiana, you've got 3 Interstate choices: I-65, I-80/90 & I-94. I don't know what the percentage is, but I gotta believe that for Eastbound I-80 traffic around the Joliet area, the percentage of traffic traveling through to the Toll Road, even to at least South Bend, is pretty low. Hence the generic Indiana moniker. Same thing with using Wisconsin on the Tri-State -- there's a big split before the state line in which people either want to stay in Eastern Wisconsin (via I-94) or Central/Western Wisconsin (I-90). So to avoid all the confusion, Wisconsin makes for a good destination.
Now using Iowa on the other hand for Westbound I-80 is a different story.
Then IDOT should use Gary as a main control city at 55/80 because Gary is where you make your decision of Indy, Toledo, or Detroit. Hell, they should also use Quad Cities (or Moline-Rock Island) at 55/80 before using Des Moines. As far as the use of Indiana and Wisconsin on the Tri-State goes, I am ok with that because it (294) is a bypass of Chicago and not a lengthy interstate. That's my gripe.
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 27, 2011, 12:52:26 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on February 27, 2011, 11:03:00 AM
I also don't care for Indiana being used on I-94 before it even gets to Chicago:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=42.482257,-87.947574&spn=0.024054,0.082397&z=15&layer=c&cbll=42.481875,-87.947578&panoid=CLb7odMk1_npQa8vhnBH3A&cbp=12,177.73,,0,-5.03 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=42.482257,-87.947574&spn=0.024054,0.082397&z=15&layer=c&cbll=42.481875,-87.947578&panoid=CLb7odMk1_npQa8vhnBH3A&cbp=12,177.73,,0,-5.03)
just use Chicago, or maybe Chicago/O' Hare Airport.
Wisconsin is a bad choice on I-90/94 near downtown Chicago because only I-94 goes to Wisconsin right away; better to use either Milwaukee or Rockford/Milwaukee. On the Tri-State Milwaukee would be a better choice than simply Wisconsin since most other cities are simply in the same direction as Milwaukee.
When you enter Illinois from Kenosha on 94, I have no problem with Indiana being mentioned with Chicago like it currently is signed. But I would agree that O'Hare should used too on that sign.
As far as when you are in Downtown Chicago, the use of Wisconsin and Indiana is fine since 90/94 are cosigned together. However, at the respective splits, IDOT does use Milwaukee for 94 and O'Hare-Rockford for 90. There is even one sign just after the I-190 exit going west that mentions Madison but then the next mention of Madison on 90 is not until you reach I-39.
At the other end (Skyway Jct), the use of the generic Indiana for 94 East is ok but i would add South Suburbs or Kankakee or Memphis since 94 connects with I-57 6 miles later. They already mention on the 90 East Skyway sign "to Indiana Toll Road" which is also fine. It's just I-80 that annoys me.
I don't know why my post attributed my comment to the quote but this is the correction.
When you enter Illinois from Kenosha on 94, I have no problem with Indiana being mentioned with Chicago like it currently is signed. But I would agree that O'Hare should used too on that sign.
As far as when you are in Downtown Chicago, the use of Wisconsin and Indiana is fine since 90/94 are cosigned together. However, at the respective splits, IDOT does use Milwaukee for 94 and O'Hare-Rockford for 90. There is even one sign just after the I-190 exit going west that mentions Madison but then the next mention of Madison on 90 is not until you reach I-39.
At the other end (Skyway Jct), the use of the generic Indiana for 94 East is ok but i would add South Suburbs or Kankakee or Memphis since 94 connects with I-57 6 miles later. They already mention on the 90 East Skyway sign "to Indiana Toll Road" which is also fine. It's just I-80 that annoys me.
Quote from: hobsini2 on February 27, 2011, 12:53:10 PM
Then IDOT should use Gary as a main control city at 55/80 because Gary is where you make your decision of Indy, Toledo, or Detroit. Hell, they should also use Quad Cities (or Moline-Rock Island) at 55/80 before using Des Moines. As far as the use of Indiana and Wisconsin on the Tri-State goes, I am ok with that because it (294) is a bypass of Chicago and not a lengthy interstate. That's my gripe.
But if a DOT should start using control cities where a driver has to start choosing between routes, it starts becoming annoying like I-80 through Pennsylvania where instead of a major city being used a bunch of smaller cities than an out of stater might never have heard of are used. Some possibilities if the control city where the route splits are used:
Illinois - May not be the best choice for an example since Illinois is good at providing secondary control cities
I-55* Troy - Split with I-70 to Indianapolis; some of the signs along the I-55/70 multiplex just use Chicago
* Springfield (used on some signs now; split with I-72 to Decatur
* Lincoln - Split with I-155 to Peoria
* Bloomington/Normal - Split with I-39
* Joliet -Access to I-80
I-64* Nashville (IL) - intersection with IL 127 (future expressway down to Murphysboro and Carbondale)
* Mount Vernon - Split with traffic heading south on I-57 to Marion and traffic heading to I-24
MissouriI-44* Gray Summit - Somewhat major split with westbound MO 100 (signalized expressway) taking traffic to Washington, eastbound MO 100 (was a future expressway) taking traffic to some of the western St. Louis suburbs.
* Union (westbound) - Split with US 50 (future expressway)
* St. Clair - Intersection with MO 47, MO 30. MO 30 is a decently used alternative to I-44
* Rolla - Intersection with US 63 (65 mph highway, future expressway)
* Lebanon (eastbound) - Intersection with MO 5, (future expressway), major route to Lake of the Ozarks
* Springfield - Intersections with US 65 and US 60 expressways
* Fidelity (eastbound) - Intersection with US 71/Future I-49 north to Kansas City
* Joplin - Intersection with US 71/Future I-49 south to Bentonville and Fort Smith
* Loma Linda (westbound) - Split with US 400, a somewhat expressway route into Kansas
I-55* Festus or Crystal City - Since the US 67 expressway takes a great amount of traffic, possible a major route in the future to Little Rock
Quote from: hobsini2 on February 27, 2011, 01:08:20 PM
When you enter Illinois from Kenosha on 94, I have no problem with Indiana being mentioned with Chicago like it currently is signed. But I would agree that O'Hare should used too on that sign.
But not all traffic may be destined for Indiana; there could be some heading for I-55 and/or I-57, so Indiana should not be listed. If Indiana is listed why not Missouri or even Kentucky (via I-24)?
As far as when you are in Downtown Chicago, the use of Wisconsin and Indiana is fine since 90/94 are cosigned together. However, at the respective splits, IDOT does use Milwaukee for 94 and O'Hare-Rockford for 90. There is even one sign just after the I-190 exit going west that mentions Madison but then the next mention of Madison on 90 is not until you reach I-39.
At the other end (Skyway Jct), the use of the generic Indiana for 94 East is ok but i would add South Suburbs or Kankakee or Memphis since 94 connects with I-57 6 miles later. They already mention on the 90 East Skyway sign "to Indiana Toll Road" which is also fine. It's just I-80 that annoys me.
[/quote]
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 27, 2011, 02:49:26 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on February 27, 2011, 12:53:10 PM
But if a DOT should start using control cities where a driver has to start choosing between routes, it starts becoming annoying like I-80 through Pennsylvania where instead of a major city being used a bunch of smaller cities than an out of stater might never have heard of are used. Some possibilities if the control city where the route splits are used:
Illinois - May not be the best choice for an example since Illinois is good at providing secondary control cities
I-55
* Troy - Split with I-70 to Indianapolis; some of the signs along the I-55/70 multiplex just use Chicago
* Springfield (used on some signs now; split with I-72 to Decatur
* Lincoln - Split with I-155 to Peoria
* Bloomington/Normal - Split with I-39
* Joliet -Access to I-80
I-64
* Nashville (IL) - intersection with IL 127 (future expressway down to Murphysboro and Carbondale)
* Mount Vernon - Split with traffic heading south on I-57 to Marion and traffic heading to I-24
Missouri
I-44
* Gray Summit - Somewhat major split with westbound MO 100 (signalized expressway) taking traffic to Washington, eastbound MO 100 (was a future expressway) taking traffic to some of the western St. Louis suburbs.
* Union (westbound) - Split with US 50 (future expressway)
* St. Clair - Intersection with MO 47, MO 30. MO 30 is a decently used alternative to I-44
* Rolla - Intersection with US 63 (65 mph highway, future expressway)
* Lebanon (eastbound) - Intersection with MO 5, (future expressway), major route to Lake of the Ozarks
* Springfield - Intersections with US 65 and US 60 expressways
* Fidelity (eastbound) - Intersection with US 71/Future I-49 north to Kansas City
* Joplin - Intersection with US 71/Future I-49 south to Bentonville and Fort Smith
* Loma Linda (westbound) - Split with US 400, a somewhat expressway route into Kansas
I-55
* Festus or Crystal City - Since the US 67 expressway takes a great amount of traffic, possible a major route in the future to Little Rock
Quote from: hobsini2 on February 27, 2011, 01:08:20 PM
When you enter Illinois from Kenosha on 94, I have no problem with Indiana being mentioned with Chicago like it currently is signed. But I would agree that O'Hare should used too on that sign.
But not all traffic may be destined for Indiana; there could be some heading for I-55 and/or I-57, so Indiana should not be listed. If Indiana is listed why not Missouri or even Kentucky (via I-24)?
You're missing my point. With I-80, since it skirts the Chicago metro area, Gary would make sense to use much like Aurora is used for WB I-88 and Rockford for WB I-90. Once you get upto the 80/65/90/94 jcts, use the major cities such as Indianapolis, Toledo, and Detroit. Not all interstate jcts need to be using the specific town the jct is in. But Gary for one is a major enough city, like Springfield, that it can be justified to use.
Whereas when you are in Downtown Chicago (which to me is from the Stevenson Expy up to the Ohio St ramps), using Indiana as opposed to Missouri makes sense. I-55 leaving Downtown Chicago uses St Louis. I-57 uses Memphis and Kankakee (depending on the age of the sign).
And do you really believe that the majority of traffic going south on the Ryan from I-290 would not be going toward Indiana? That's why both 55 and 57 say specific cities.
Chicago isn't the only area you get states as control cities. At St. Louis, for example, EB 64/40, EB 70, NB 55 has control cities of "Illinois". This pic from I-44 is one that makes me laugh a bit.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billburmaster.com%2Frmsandw%2Fmissouri%2Fimages%2Feb44at55b.jpg&hash=0008b2bc8d4d30636a2696708922ede7c369f0db)
It reads, atleast to me, "Downtown Illinois"...even though they mean Downtown Stl & Illinois
Here SB I-55 gets Memphis, and NB which one would argue, Chicago...gets a local destination.
^That's a dinky sign for I-55 SB Memphis (in comparison) on that sign bridge.
^ It's been replaced with a bigger sign. Most recent photo I can find online (only change should be removal of the exit only tab under the Jefferson Avenue sign):
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.613853,-90.223911&spn=0.012675,0.041199&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.613864,-90.224195&panoid=JiVLteCaV_eVZr0pOhFtKQ&cbp=12,97.73,,0,-3.34 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.613853,-90.223911&spn=0.012675,0.041199&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.613864,-90.224195&panoid=JiVLteCaV_eVZr0pOhFtKQ&cbp=12,97.73,,0,-3.34)
An older version of the sign for I-55 North only listed Illinois but also had I-70 East.
The Midwest isn't the only area where states are used as control cities. There was the control city of "New Jersey" on SB I-95 in NYC before it was changed to "Trenton".
Quote from: rmsandw on February 27, 2011, 05:00:13 PM
It reads, atleast to me, "Downtown Illinois"...even though they mean Downtown Stl & Illinois
Here SB I-55 gets Memphis, and NB which one would argue, Chicago...gets a local destination.
Wouldn't "Downtown Illinois" be Chicago anyway? :spin:
"Downtown Illinois" is just MDOT being lazy. I would have the sign say "Downtown St.L." with a line under it then "Illinois" or even "Chicago" since it is just I-55 at that point. On I-43/I-94 in Milwaukee, there are signs for I-794 East that say "Port of Milw." so it would not be a first for abbreviating a city within that city.
Quote from: Brandon on March 01, 2011, 09:02:07 PM
Wouldn't "Downtown Illinois" be Chicago anyway? :spin:
In the older days it could have been a reference to downtown East St. Louis :sombrero:.
Maybe it should just be signed "Poplar Street Bridge; using Chicago could always be interpreted as not having access to I-64 and I-70 via I-55 :).
There are BGS that either MoDOT or the City of StL have put up years ago that say "Poplar Street Bridge"
But you got to think like someone from out of town for a control city. Locals and Roadgeeks would know the I-55/64/70 bridge is the Poplar St Bridge but not a novice. But you are correct about people may get confused by using Chicago that the road also connects with I-64/70. Maybe it should say East St Louis after all but I would still put Downtown St.L. too.