Illogical control cities for the direction of long-distance travel

[hbelkins]

Since we've been talking about control cities recently, how about compiling a list of control cities that are used where the logical flow of long-distance traffic makes them ill-suited for posting?

Examples:

I-71 northbound approaching I-75 south, the control city is Lexington. Long-distance traffic isn't going to be using I-71 north to I-75 south to get to Lexington. Long-distance traffic is going to use I-64 east coming out of Louisville.

Similarly, I-75 southbound approaching I-64 westbound, the control is Louisville. Long-distance traffic will take I-71 south coming out of Cincinnati.

I-79 southbound at I-77 at Charleston; traffic won't use I-77 north to get to Parkersburg. It will have used US 50/Corridor D from Clarksburg. Ditto I-77 south at I-79; through long-distance traffic will use US 50 to get to Clarksburg.

[SkyPesos]

Every one of those "triangles", like what you mentioned for 64/71/75

Cincinnati for I-71 SB when heading on I-70 EB
Cincinnati for I-74 EB when heading on I-70 WB
Cincinnati for I-74 EB when heading on I-65 NB
Cincinnati for I-71 NB when heading on I-65 SB

[Dirt Roads]

I-79 southbound at I-77 at Charleston; traffic won't use I-77 north to get to Parkersburg. It will have used US 50/Corridor D from Clarksburg. Ditto I-77 south at I-79; through long-distance traffic will use US 50 to get to Clarksburg.

Using the Control Destinations for the old pre-Interstate routes, you would get:

I-77 south to I-79 north: Clendenin
I-79 south to I-77 north: Ripley (might be better as Sissonville or Pocatalico)

The tiny control destination haters would have a field day with these two.  But they do make the most sense here.

[webny99]

I'm looking for examples where the majority of traffic "defaults" onto another route leading to a large city, while the through route has a much smaller control city.

I-80 westbound in eastern PA seems like a good candidate: west of Stroudsburg, the control city is Hazleton, but Scranton (following I-380) is much larger and makes much more sense as a control city destination. I'm not sure what the traffic split is on I-80 at I-380, but I would guess it's about 50/50 or maybe slightly favoring I-380.

[jp the roadgeek]

The I-86/I-390 westbound split in NY is a good example (and a really good one for now).  I-390 traffic is bound for Rochester, while the control for I-86 is currently Jamestown (will soon be Erie, which is still smaller than Rochester)

The southern end of I-93.  Thru traffic onto I-95/MA 128 North uses Portsmouth, while the majority of traffic exits onto I-95 South bound for Providence (yes, the famous meme exit).  Going the other way, you get an illogical situation of Boston as a control for 93 North (but what else could it be?), where most traffic on 95 (128) would have either exited at US 1, I-93 in Burlington, or the Mass Pike to get to Boston (plus a multitude of other arterials). 

[jaehak]

I-70 east approaching 35 south (signed for Wichita) may be the best example of this. Depending on the distance being traveled, Wichita traffic would have been better off leaving eastbound 70 at 670, 18th Street Expressway, 635, 435, K-7, K-10, 470 in Topeka both times, US 77, and of course 135.

[kirbykart]

Some more triangle examples:
I-39 South end - Chicago is signed for I-55 North
I-155 South end - Same thing
I-86 West end - Buffalo is signed for I-90 East (and really no one is using this ramp anyways; even if they just wanted to go to North East they would have gotten off at PA 89)

[jt4]

Since we've been talking about control cities recently, how about compiling a list of control cities that are used where the logical flow of long-distance traffic makes them ill-suited for posting?

This occurs when cities A, B, and C are all connected by interstates and are big enough to be control cities in their own right. Often the city would still be the logical choice for a control city even for long-distance traffic.

For the I-71/I-75 example, what should be the control city for I-75 south? I'd have a hard time arguing against Lexington. The next control city is Knoxville, and you still would have taken I-64 from Louisville. Chattanooga isn't big enough to be a control city from Northern Kentucky, and long distance traffic from Louisville would have taken I-64/I-75 or I-65/I-24.

[kirbykart]

^The idea is that a smaller, closer town would be used.

[webny99]

The I-86/I-390 westbound split in NY is a good example (and a really good one for now).  I-390 traffic is bound for Rochester, while the control for I-86 is currently Jamestown (will soon be Erie, which is still smaller than Rochester)

Yes, I agree with this one as well. This section of I-86 is part of a significant N/S corridor connecting I-99/US 15 to I-390, so Rochester would make more sense here (and Jamestown has its own issues which have been discussed elsewhere). And the traffic split definitely favors I-390 here, so it's even better than my I-80/I-380 example.

[kirbykart]

The biggest shock to me here is that Rochester is larger than Erie. I never thought of Rochester as a particularly large city.

[GaryV]

Since we've been talking about control cities recently, how about compiling a list of control cities that are used where the logical flow of long-distance traffic makes them ill-suited for posting?

This occurs when cities A, B, and C are all connected by interstates and are big enough to be control cities in their own right. Often the city would still be the logical choice for a control city even for long-distance traffic.

For the I-71/I-75 example, what should be the control city for I-75 south? I'd have a hard time arguing against Lexington. The next control city is Knoxville, and you still would have taken I-64 from Louisville. Chattanooga isn't big enough to be a control city from Northern Kentucky, and long distance traffic from Louisville would have taken I-64/I-75 or I-65/I-24.

^The idea is that a smaller, closer town would be used.

The problem is not with the destination, but with the origination point.

An easy example in Michigan is northbound US-127 to eastbound I-96. Yes, the control city is Detroit and yes, that is where I-96 goes. And certainly if you were coming from Jackson, you'd have taken I-94 instead and never come to US-127 and I-96. But if you were starting at some point between Jackson and Lansing - say somewhere around Mason - the valid routing to Detroit would be to first go north and then go east on I-96. So Detroit would be correct for that journey.

This would happen for any such triangular configuration. And often times, the bigger the triangle, the farther apart is the "tipping point" of which way to start the journey.

[PurdueBill]

On I-76 WB in Akron, "Barberton" is used at the TOTSO western split of 76 and 77.  There has always been trouble with the signs there (I drove through it semi-frequently for years before eventually living here) with 76 playing second fiddle to "TO 277" on the BGSs (not much westbound traffic will want to go back eastbound on 277!) and the Barberton control city (the next city over, destination of the 3rd exit away staying on I-76 through two TOTSOs) doesn't help either.  Long-distance traffic on 76 largely is following it to I-71 to head toward Columbus.  They use Columbus as a control city way up at I-90 and I-271 east of Cleveland for traffic going 90-271-71 (the onetime thru route of the "second" Ohio Turnpike proposal), and as a control city from the very beginning of I-71 in Cleveland, but no mention of it at all on 76.  Using Columbus as a control city might help get people out of orbit sooner to get in the correct lane for the TOTSO. 

It is no better once you get past Barberton; they use Lodi as a control city for 76 WB all the way to its end at I-71 where then you would take US 224 to Lodi.  It is very North Carolia-esque to use small towns that happen to be at Interstate junctions as control cities vs. the destination of thru traffic.

ODOT knows better elsewhere, even on I-76...they use Youngstown as a control city eastbound from Akron eastward despite 76 bouncing onto the Turnpike and I-80 taking over the route to Youngstown.  So it can't be a set rule that the route number itself must go to the control city, or else they couldn't use Youngstown for 76 EB (or Erie PA for I-271 which they do for its entire length along with Columbus.  The control cities for 271 in both directions are cities way past the ends of 271 but serviced by other routes for long-distance traffic.  Why not something similar for 76 WB in Akron?  Hmm.

[jt4]

Since we've been talking about control cities recently, how about compiling a list of control cities that are used where the logical flow of long-distance traffic makes them ill-suited for posting?

This occurs when cities A, B, and C are all connected by interstates and are big enough to be control cities in their own right. Often the city would still be the logical choice for a control city even for long-distance traffic.

For the I-71/I-75 example, what should be the control city for I-75 south? I'd have a hard time arguing against Lexington. The next control city is Knoxville, and you still would have taken I-64 from Louisville. Chattanooga isn't big enough to be a control city from Northern Kentucky, and long distance traffic from Louisville would have taken I-64/I-75 or I-65/I-24.

^The idea is that a smaller, closer town would be used.

The problem is not with the destination, but with the origination point.

An easy example in Michigan is northbound US-127 to eastbound I-96. Yes, the control city is Detroit and yes, that is where I-96 goes. And certainly if you were coming from Jackson, you'd have taken I-94 instead and never come to US-127 and I-96. But if you were starting at some point between Jackson and Lansing - say somewhere around Mason - the valid routing to Detroit would be to first go north and then go east on I-96. So Detroit would be correct for that journey.

This would happen for any such triangular configuration. And often times, the bigger the triangle, the farther apart is the "tipping point" of which way to start the journey.

For cities that are about 75-100 miles apart, there aren't many choices for a small town, that would be worth signing.

For the 71/75/64 triangle, the largest city, and presumably the best choice for long-term travelers, is Frankfort on 64 (good choice), Georgetown on 75 (not bad, but it's a suburb of Lexington) and ... Sparta on 71 (which is almost unheard of outside the area).

But then you run into the problem that long-distance traffic is more likely to go to larger cities than smaller ones. Choosing a control city to avoid the "triangle problem" will, IMO, more often than not result in an objectively worse choice.

[Dirt Roads]

We've got a prime example here in Hillsborough, North Carolina: 

I-40 westbound -to- I-85 northbound [eastward] has a control city of Durham.  You just came from Durham.  A better control city might be Hillsborough, but you literally just passed by the Hillsborough exit on I-40.

On the other hand, I-85 southbound [westward] -to- I-40 eastbound [southward] has a control city of Raleigh.  Folks using I-85 from Virginia and the northern tier of North Carolina would have already exited I-85 to get to Raleigh, but it is possible that I-86 southbound traffic could use I-85 to access I-40 and actually head to Raleigh.  (At certain times of the day, this would be the best route, but not always).  In either case, adding Chapel Hill to the signage would still be appropriate.

[vdeane]

The problem is not with the destination, but with the origination point.

An easy example in Michigan is northbound US-127 to eastbound I-96. Yes, the control city is Detroit and yes, that is where I-96 goes. And certainly if you were coming from Jackson, you'd have taken I-94 instead and never come to US-127 and I-96. But if you were starting at some point between Jackson and Lansing - say somewhere around Mason - the valid routing to Detroit would be to first go north and then go east on I-96. So Detroit would be correct for that journey.

This would happen for any such triangular configuration. And often times, the bigger the triangle, the farther apart is the "tipping point" of which way to start the journey.

That's basically the story of this whole thread.  Some of these triangles are enough that the only reason some of the movements would ever be used is a small town near the exit - not even significantly earlier on the same road.  I-86/I-390 is a good example - the only reason to use the I-86 east->I-390 north and I-390 south->I-86 west movements is if you're going to/from Avoca.  Then there's the I-86/I-90 interchange, where the I-86 west->I-90 east and I-90 west->I-86 east movements aren't the most efficient route on any journey and basically have little reason to exist at all.

[webny99]

The problem is not with the destination, but with the origination point.

An easy example in Michigan is northbound US-127 to eastbound I-96. Yes, the control city is Detroit and yes, that is where I-96 goes. And certainly if you were coming from Jackson, you'd have taken I-94 instead and never come to US-127 and I-96. But if you were starting at some point between Jackson and Lansing - say somewhere around Mason - the valid routing to Detroit would be to first go north and then go east on I-96. So Detroit would be correct for that journey.

This would happen for any such triangular configuration. And often times, the bigger the triangle, the farther apart is the "tipping point" of which way to start the journey.

That's basically the story of this whole thread.  Some of these triangles are enough that the only reason some of the movements would ever be used is a small town near the exit - not even significantly earlier on the same road.  I-86/I-390 is a good example - the only reason to use the I-86 east->I-390 north and I-390 south->I-86 west movements is if you're going to/from Avoca.  Then there's the I-86/I-90 interchange, where the I-86 west->I-90 east and I-90 west->I-86 east movements aren't the most efficient route on any journey and basically have little reason to exist at all.

In most of these cases, the control city is fine for the route itself and just happens to be a backtrack at a particular entrance. That's why I was trying to look at it in terms of the route that it's signed on, not what is signed on the intersecting roads.

[hbelkins]

Since we've been talking about control cities recently, how about compiling a list of control cities that are used where the logical flow of long-distance traffic makes them ill-suited for posting?

This occurs when cities A, B, and C are all connected by interstates and are big enough to be control cities in their own right. Often the city would still be the logical choice for a control city even for long-distance traffic.

For the I-71/I-75 example, what should be the control city for I-75 south? I'd have a hard time arguing against Lexington. The next control city is Knoxville, and you still would have taken I-64 from Louisville. Chattanooga isn't big enough to be a control city from Northern Kentucky, and long distance traffic from Louisville would have taken I-64/I-75 or I-65/I-24.

^The idea is that a smaller, closer town would be used.

The problem is not with the destination, but with the origination point.

An easy example in Michigan is northbound US-127 to eastbound I-96. Yes, the control city is Detroit and yes, that is where I-96 goes. And certainly if you were coming from Jackson, you'd have taken I-94 instead and never come to US-127 and I-96. But if you were starting at some point between Jackson and Lansing - say somewhere around Mason - the valid routing to Detroit would be to first go north and then go east on I-96. So Detroit would be correct for that journey.

This would happen for any such triangular configuration. And often times, the bigger the triangle, the farther apart is the "tipping point" of which way to start the journey.

For cities that are about 75-100 miles apart, there aren't many choices for a small town, that would be worth signing.

For the 71/75/64 triangle, the largest city, and presumably the best choice for long-term travelers, is Frankfort on 64 (good choice), Georgetown on 75 (not bad, but it's a suburb of Lexington) and ... Sparta on 71 (which is almost unheard of outside the area).

But then you run into the problem that long-distance traffic is more likely to go to larger cities than smaller ones. Choosing a control city to avoid the "triangle problem" will, IMO, more often than not result in an objectively worse choice.

At Lexington, secondary controls are actually used (Georgetown, Frankfort, Richmond, and Winchester) along with the long-distance ones (Cincy, Louisville, Knoxville, and Ashland.)

[amroad17]

At the I-75/I-275 interchange in Sharonville, OH, the control cities for I-275 are Columbus (EB) and Indianapolis (WB).  Going SB on I-75, these would be illogical control cities as a motorist would have used I-70 near Vandalia, OH to reach both locations.

However, many of the control cities that are posted are for local motorists.  Using HB's example of posting Lexington for I-75 SB at the I-71/I-75 split in Walton, this would come in handy for someone living in Glencoe, Warsaw, or Verona.  In the above example, those living in the West Chester or Monroe area would find the Indianapolis posting useful.  Columbus would not be overly useful since a motorist would either take I-75 NB to I-675 to I-70 EB or local roads to get to I-71 NB.  Maybe Ohio DOT should not post any control cities for I-275 on I-75 SB, just like at the I-71/I-275 interchange in Sycamore Twp, OH.  Just an I-275 EAST/WEST and a TO I-71/I-74 with it.

[wxfree]

A control city is posted to tell you where a road goes if you get on it at that point.  The sign doesn't mean "if you're a hundred miles southwest of here and want to go to Lexington, you should go this way."  It means "if you're right here, looking at this sign, and you go this way, you'll be headed toward Lexington."

In my area, I-30 in Dallas from I-35E says it goes to Fort Worth, and it does.  But if you're on I-35 either north or south and want to go to Fort Worth, then you use I-35W.  That doesn't mean that the control city in Dallas should be Grand Prairie.  Lots and lots of people go that way to Fort Worth from Dallas and nearby areas.  No one is going to see that control city posting and think "the next time I go from Phoenix to Fort Worth I should go this way."

[jp the roadgeek]

The problem is not with the destination, but with the origination point.

An easy example in Michigan is northbound US-127 to eastbound I-96. Yes, the control city is Detroit and yes, that is where I-96 goes. And certainly if you were coming from Jackson, you'd have taken I-94 instead and never come to US-127 and I-96. But if you were starting at some point between Jackson and Lansing - say somewhere around Mason - the valid routing to Detroit would be to first go north and then go east on I-96. So Detroit would be correct for that journey.

This would happen for any such triangular configuration. And often times, the bigger the triangle, the farther apart is the "tipping point" of which way to start the journey.

That's basically the story of this whole thread.  Some of these triangles are enough that the only reason some of the movements would ever be used is a small town near the exit - not even significantly earlier on the same road.  I-86/I-390 is a good example - the only reason to use the I-86 east->I-390 north and I-390 south->I-86 west movements is if you're going to/from Avoca.  Then there's the I-86/I-90 interchange, where the I-86 west->I-90 east and I-90 west->I-86 east movements aren't the most efficient route on any journey and basically have little reason to exist at all.

The most ridiculous one I can think of is why I-90 East to I-84 West uses the same controls as I-90 West to I-84 West.  I'm fine with Hartford being a control for the movement, but no one in their right mind is going to NYC getting off heading eastbound on 90 when they're only 55 miles from Boston.  There were numerous previous opportunities to leave I-90 to go to NYC; some signed, some not.  Staying on the Ohio Turnpike and I-80; I-86 just east of Erie; staying on the mainline Thruway at Exit 24, and the exit to the Berkshire Spur westbound at the end of Free 90.  The exit should be either Sturbridge/Hartford, or just Hartford. 

[KCRoadFan]

I-70 east approaching 35 south (signed for Wichita) may be the best example of this. Depending on the distance being traveled, Wichita traffic would have been better off leaving eastbound 70 at 670, 18th Street Expressway, 635, 435, K-7, K-10, 470 in Topeka both times, US 77, and of course 135.

If not Wichita, what would you sign 35 South for? Overland Park?

Or maybe take a page from the Chicago playbook and sign "Southwest Suburbs" or just "Kansas". What do you think would be best?

[kphoger]

I-70 east approaching 35 south (signed for Wichita) may be the best example of this. Depending on the distance being traveled, Wichita traffic would have been better off leaving eastbound 70 at 670, 18th Street Expressway, 635, 435, K-7, K-10, 470 in Topeka both times, US 77, and of course 135.

If not Wichita, what would you sign 35 South for? Overland Park?

Or maybe take a page from the Chicago playbook and sign "Southwest Suburbs" or just "Kansas". What do you think would be best?

Also, EB I-70 → SB I-35 is how you'd get from downtown KCK to Wichita.  Minnesota Avenue transitions onto I-70.  Beyond that point, the very next exit is for I-35 to Wichita.

[lstone19]

Since we've been talking about control cities recently, how about compiling a list of control cities that are used where the logical flow of long-distance traffic makes them ill-suited for posting?

Examples:

I-71 northbound approaching I-75 south, the control city is Lexington. Long-distance traffic isn't going to be using I-71 north to I-75 south to get to Lexington. Long-distance traffic is going to use I-64 east coming out of Louisville.

Long distance traffic won't go that way but the person who lives five miles west of the junction wanting to go towards Lexington will. And if they're the type who can't keep north and south (and east and west straight), having Lexington as the southbound control city will help them.

[jmacswimmer]

The most ridiculous one I can think of is why I-90 East to I-84 West uses the same controls as I-90 West to I-84 West.  I'm fine with Hartford being a control for the movement, but no one in their right mind is going to NYC getting off heading eastbound on 90 when they're only 55 miles from Boston.  There were numerous previous opportunities to leave I-90 to go to NYC; some signed, some not.  Staying on the Ohio Turnpike and I-80; I-86 just east of Erie; staying on the mainline Thruway at Exit 24, and the exit to the Berkshire Spur westbound at the end of Free 90.  The exit should be either Sturbridge/Hartford, or just Hartford.

A similar example that, like above, only came about because of recent sign replacements:

The PA Turnpike westbound at Breezewood now uses Baltimore to match eastbound, when it previously used Hancock MD (which I always thought made sense in that direction, given I-70's north-south orientation between Breezewood & Hancock).  I can't think of any scenario where long-distance traffic would exit the Turnpike westbound at Breezewood & ultimately head to Baltimore, as Harrisburg-area traffic would use I-83 & Philly-area traffic would use I-95.  And just out of curiosity to cover local traffic, when I dropped a pin on US 522 next to the Fort Littleton interchange and did directions to Baltimore it routed onto the Turnpike east to I-83.

Another interesting tidbit is that when the eastbound signage was replaced at the same time, Washington DC was dropped from the main signage & relegated to one auxiliary sign.