AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status  (Read 50479 times)

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4538
  • Last Login: Today at 03:22:28 AM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #225 on: September 05, 2022, 04:43:25 PM »

US-101 North to San Jose if you are going north on US-101 from Ventura.
Also you can argue that US-101 should have San Jose as a Control city in Downtown Los Angeles given that it is the largest city in Northern California.

US-101 North from Ventura should be Santa Barbara --- that's just my opinion.  It's currently San Francisco.

I definitely do NOT think US-101 should be signed San Jose (or SF) anywhere in Los Angeles County.  Ventura works.

I feel like San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara are both control city-worthy for US 101
Santa Barbara for sure. SLO maybe as a secondary. Salinas/Monterey is a more important area but too close to San Jose to be a primary.

In my view, San Francisco is the next major destination on the route, and it would get the nod. Ventura is essentially part of the LA area, and so I would definitely not go with that. It's not even the city's real name, although I admit that's not an important factor.

Some of this re: US 101 is a side effect of how California's control city philosophies have evolved.

When the vast majority of the LA freeway system was built out (1940s-1960s), local destinations were emphasized above all else.  This gave us things like US 101 signed for Hollywood from downtown LA, I-10 along what was the Ramona Freeway corridor being monikered for the control city of San Bernardino (which for the most part is not even directly on that trajectory), etc.

From about the 1970s on, the MUTCD emphasis on longer-distance controls has only emerged in a couple of instances here:

- the switchover of I-5 northbound control city from Bakersfield to Sacramento within Los Angeles city limits (also affecting signage on 405 and 170), even though the Golden State corridor that was US 99 and continues into modern day Route 99 still goes to Bakersfield directly

- longer-distance destinations becoming the norm in Sacramento when that city's freeway network was built (before the 1976-era cancellations), i.e. neither 99 or 5 using "Stockton" southbound, and only one reference to "Roseville" along Route 160 east and none on 80 or today's Business 80.



The Bay Area is a hybrid of this: LA serves as a the US 101 southbound control starting at Route 85 in Mountain View, and I-680 has Sacramento as a northbound control from San Jose northward (even though when 680 ends at 80 in Fairfield, one is still over 45 miles west of Sacramento).  The rest of the control destinations are very local otherwise, with 80 having no mention of Sacramento whatsoever in SF city limits.

Basically, all this is to say that while in other states, 100-300+ mile destinations would be signed both in downtown SF (i.e. LA/Sacramento/Eureka) and in downtown LA (i.e. other than Sacramento: SF, Phoenix, San Diego), in California, the local destinations will always come first in most urban areas, excluding in Sacramento itself.   101's sequence of Hollywood/Ventura/SF from I-5 to Route 126 may not be ideal by modern FHWA standards but it isn't confusing at all, though I do think Santa Barbara as a primary control from Ventura westbound is much more logical than just SF alone, and SJ not being mentioned until Salinas is an artifact of pre-1990 population measurements.
Logged
Chris Sampang

kirbykart

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 819
  • Age: 13
  • Location: The Great State of New York (NYSDOT Region 5)
  • Last Login: December 01, 2022, 04:59:48 PM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #226 on: September 19, 2022, 02:34:32 PM »

I've mentioned this in another thread, but Illinois doesn't use Bloomington-Normal on I-55. It's a tad strange, but not totally insane. Northbound, you might as well just go all the way to Chicago (which is what they do), and to the south you have Springfield (the state capital), followed by St. Louis, MO. However, Bloomington-Normal is the largest population center for at least 50 miles each direction on I-55, and marks the junctions of two other Interstates: I-74 and I-39. Take I-74 east to Champaign-Urbana and Indianapolis, or west to Peoria and Moline-Rock Island-Davenport-Bettendorf (The Quad Cities). Take I-39 north to Rockford and into wiss-KAAN-sin.
Logged
Counties
Three certainties of life: death, taxes, and MultiMillionMiler complaining about the Penna Turnpike

hobsini2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3563
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Bolingbrook, IL
  • Last Login: November 30, 2022, 08:12:30 PM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #227 on: September 25, 2022, 01:38:31 PM »

I've mentioned this in another thread, but Illinois doesn't use Bloomington-Normal on I-55. It's a tad strange, but not totally insane. Northbound, you might as well just go all the way to Chicago (which is what they do), and to the south you have Springfield (the state capital), followed by St. Louis, MO. However, Bloomington-Normal is the largest population center for at least 50 miles each direction on I-55, and marks the junctions of two other Interstates: I-74 and I-39. Take I-74 east to Champaign-Urbana and Indianapolis, or west to Peoria and Moline-Rock Island-Davenport-Bettendorf (The Quad Cities). Take I-39 north to Rockford and into wiss-KAAN-sin.
Bloomington and Springfield are used as a secondary on I-55 in both directions. Bloomington-Normal is the primary for I-39 South.
Logged
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13450
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 06:14:45 PM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #228 on: September 25, 2022, 02:03:27 PM »

In Florida we have Gainesville skipped over for Lake City leaving Ocala for I-75 north.

In Georgia, though Valdosta is much larger than Tifton, heading south from Macon on I-75 south, could use Tifton instead of Valdosta.  The freeway goes practically right through the middle of the city, where in Valdosta the highway runs a few miles west of it. Remember all developments along I-75 were post freeway sprawl in Valdosta where in Tifton the developments were there preceding the interstate as most there appears suburbia and not modern. 
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

mgk920

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4635
  • Location: Appleton, WI USA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:11:19 AM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #229 on: September 26, 2022, 01:24:31 PM »

Here in Wisconsin, to this day, WisDOT has always passed over the use of 'Appleton' as a control for major roadways leading to NB I- (and before then 'US') 41 in metro Milwaukee, opting for the much smaller 'Fond du Lac', instead.  When I was a kid, this often confused my late father when we were returning from Brewers games, requiring me to set him straight.

More recently, WisDOT removed major references to 'Madison' and 'Oshkosh' from WI 26 at I-41 in Oshkosh and US 151 at Waupun, opting to direct that traffic to go via Fond du Lac, instead.

 :spin:

BTW, I do like the IDOT's use of states as controls on the expressways in Chicagoland and wish that New Jersey would use 'Pennsylvania' as a major control on WB I-80 (also I-78?).  'Del Water Gap' on I-80 confused the bejeevers out of me during a roadtrip a couple of decades ago.
Logged

US20IL64

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 247
  • Location: Elmhurst IL
  • Last Login: October 10, 2022, 03:58:08 PM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #230 on: September 26, 2022, 10:23:30 PM »

"BTW, I do like the IDOT's use of states as controls on the expressways in Chicagoland..."

Glad to find someone agreeing with me,  :cool:

"Control City Freak" goes nuts about this, but better than "Limon CO"  :poke:
Logged

hobsini2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3563
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Bolingbrook, IL
  • Last Login: November 30, 2022, 08:12:30 PM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #231 on: September 30, 2022, 06:54:34 PM »

"BTW, I do like the IDOT's use of states as controls on the expressways in Chicagoland..."

Glad to find someone agreeing with me,  :cool:

"Control City Freak" goes nuts about this, but better than "Limon CO"  :poke:

In certain situations, state controls make a ton of sense.  Using Pennsylvania on I-80 from New York is ok. I would prefer Patterson & Cleveland from New York because that would indicate a westerly city on the Great Lakes besides Buffalo. I do not like the use of Iowa on 80/294 west of I-94/IL 394. Should be Davenport (Quad Cities) or Des Moines for 80 with Milwaukee and O'Hare for 294.
Logged
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

kirbykart

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 819
  • Age: 13
  • Location: The Great State of New York (NYSDOT Region 5)
  • Last Login: December 01, 2022, 04:59:48 PM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #232 on: October 01, 2022, 11:17:40 AM »

I've mentioned this in another thread, but Illinois doesn't use Bloomington-Normal on I-55. It's a tad strange, but not totally insane. Northbound, you might as well just go all the way to Chicago (which is what they do), and to the south you have Springfield (the state capital), followed by St. Louis, MO. However, Bloomington-Normal is the largest population center for at least 50 miles each direction on I-55, and marks the junctions of two other Interstates: I-74 and I-39. Take I-74 east to Champaign-Urbana and Indianapolis, or west to Peoria and Moline-Rock Island-Davenport-Bettendorf (The Quad Cities). Take I-39 north to Rockford and into wiss-KAAN-sin.
Bloomington and Springfield are used as a secondary on I-55 in both directions. Bloomington-Normal is the primary for I-39 South.
Well that makes sense for I-39, I never said they don't use it on that road. I'd actually like to know if it even exists as a secondary on I-74.
Logged
Counties
Three certainties of life: death, taxes, and MultiMillionMiler complaining about the Penna Turnpike

hobsini2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3563
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Bolingbrook, IL
  • Last Login: November 30, 2022, 08:12:30 PM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #233 on: October 01, 2022, 12:14:39 PM »

I've mentioned this in another thread, but Illinois doesn't use Bloomington-Normal on I-55. It's a tad strange, but not totally insane. Northbound, you might as well just go all the way to Chicago (which is what they do), and to the south you have Springfield (the state capital), followed by St. Louis, MO. However, Bloomington-Normal is the largest population center for at least 50 miles each direction on I-55, and marks the junctions of two other Interstates: I-74 and I-39. Take I-74 east to Champaign-Urbana and Indianapolis, or west to Peoria and Moline-Rock Island-Davenport-Bettendorf (The Quad Cities). Take I-39 north to Rockford and into wiss-KAAN-sin.
Bloomington and Springfield are used as a secondary on I-55 in both directions. Bloomington-Normal is the primary for I-39 South.
Well that makes sense for I-39, I never said they don't use it on that road. I'd actually like to know if it even exists as a secondary on I-74.
Yes I-74 uses Bloomington as a secondary.
Logged
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1837
  • Age: 27
  • Last Login: Today at 06:29:41 PM
    • Instagram
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #234 on: October 01, 2022, 03:56:20 PM »

Here in Wisconsin, to this day, WisDOT has always passed over the use of 'Appleton' as a control for major roadways leading to NB I- (and before then 'US') 41 in metro Milwaukee, opting for the much smaller 'Fond du Lac', instead.  When I was a kid, this often confused my late father when we were returning from Brewers games, requiring me to set him straight.
I mean, itís literally called the Fond du Lac Freeway, so that could just be the DOT complying with a local association without doing the logical thing (putting the freeway name on the BGS).
Logged

epzik8

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1444
  • Clincher of roadways

  • Age: 27
  • Location: Maryland, USA
  • Last Login: December 01, 2022, 06:47:16 AM
    • The Epzik8 Webpage
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #235 on: October 01, 2022, 04:57:54 PM »

Is this where I mention Maryland skips Wilmington and Philly on 95 north due to the New Jersey Turnpike?
Logged
From the land of red, white, yellow and black.
____________________________

My clinched highways: http://tm.teresco.org/user/?u=epzik8
My clinched counties: http://mob-rule.com/user-gifs/USA/epzik8.gif

ozarkman417

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1651
  • The "Living, breathing GPS".

  • Age: 19
  • Location: Birthplace of Route 66
  • Last Login: Today at 10:19:27 AM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #236 on: October 01, 2022, 05:38:58 PM »

I find it strange that on I-49 south in Missouri, the bigger Fayetteville is passed over in favor of the smaller Fort Smith.

Fort Smith -- now a major interstate junction.

Fayetteville -- not a major interstate junction.
I realize that but the NWA metro area is bigger than the Fort Smith metro area, Fayetteville has a major university, and it has walmart. What does Fort Smith have besides the I-40 junction?
Fayetteville does not have Walmart, Bentonville does. Similarily, Lowell has J.B Hunt, and Springdale has Tyson. Your mistake actually makes a good point for why Fayetteville is not used as a control city (at least by Missouri.. Arkansas uses Fayetteville as a northbound control city, because it wouldn't make sense to have Joplin as a control city instead). While Fayetteville is the largest of the NWA cities (by a narrow margin), the fact that the Northwest Arkansas metro is not centered on one city is what makes it difficult to have any of them as a control city.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2022, 05:43:22 PM by ozarkman417 »
Logged

mgk920

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4635
  • Location: Appleton, WI USA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:11:19 AM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #237 on: October 01, 2022, 08:03:33 PM »

Here in Wisconsin, to this day, WisDOT has always passed over the use of 'Appleton' as a control for major roadways leading to NB I- (and before then 'US') 41 in metro Milwaukee, opting for the much smaller 'Fond du Lac', instead.  When I was a kid, this often confused my late father when we were returning from Brewers games, requiring me to set him straight.
I mean, itís literally called the Fond du Lac Freeway, so that could just be the DOT complying with a local association without doing the logical thing (putting the freeway name on the BGS).

It was called that because it was built along side of and, in truncated form, feeds into Fond du Lac Ave.  Farther in, it was to become the Park West Freeway.

Mike
Logged

 


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.