Control cities that aren’t reciprocated

[US 89]

I'll say this, "Jct I-15" is a far better control point than "Cove Fort". Even within Utah, not a lot of people know where Cove Fort is or could point to it on a map.

As a Mormon, I find a lack of awareness of Cove Fort to be a "you problem" rather than public one.

It has almost no permanent population and is a poor reference for anyone not intimately familiar with Mormon history or local geography, whether Mormon or from Utah or neither. As a non-Mormon living in Utah, the only people I ever encounter who know where Cove Fort is are big into geography or meteorology (that section of I-15 often gets quite a bit more snow than the sections to the north and south, especially in a northerly flow). If there were more gas stations or restaurants than that one Chevron off I-15, or if the historic site itself were actually visible from 15, the name might be more recognizable.

Cove Fort is fine for informational signs or novelty signs like the one in Baltimore. But for regular distance signs intended for navigational use, there is no reason to not use an equivalent destination that is more likely to be understood by the average road user. Compared to other Utah interstates, a large portion of I-70 traffic is out of state, especially the part over the Swell where it is likely a majority.

[Rothman]

I'll say this, "Jct I-15" is a far better control point than "Cove Fort". Even within Utah, not a lot of people know where Cove Fort is or could point to it on a map.

As a Mormon, I find a lack of awareness of Cove Fort to be a "you problem" rather than public one.

It has almost no permanent population and is a poor reference for anyone not intimately familiar with Mormon history or local geography, whether Mormon or from Utah or neither. As a non-Mormon living in Utah, the only people I ever encounter who know where Cove Fort is are big into geography or meteorology (that section of I-15 often gets quite a bit more snow than the sections to the north and south, especially in a northerly flow). If there were more gas stations or restaurants than that one Chevron off I-15, or if the historic site itself were actually visible from 15, the name might be more recognizable.

Cove Fort is fine for informational signs or novelty signs like the one in Baltimore. But for regular distance signs intended for navigational use, there is no reason to not use an equivalent destination that is more likely to be understood by the average road user. Compared to other Utah interstates, a large portion of I-70 traffic is out of state, especially the part over the Swell where it is likely a majority.

Lots of control cities and destination towns are out there on signs where a bunch of people have never heard of them.  Cove Fort is no different in that regard, but it is different in of its historical significance and the fact it does draw visitors.

In short, it's fine the way it is...just like 99% of the other control cities or destinations out there...

[Roadgeekteen]

Harsh but true fact: In the age of GPS, you could make the control city on the westbound Mass Pike Ludlow instead of Albany and eastbound to Natick instead of Boston and it wouldn't matter for like 95% of motorists. This is just a fun thing that roadgeeks do for fun.

[RobbieL2415]

In New London, I-95 north is Providence. Rhode Island skips right to New York. Connecticut's equivalent would be if they skipped to Boston but they don't.

But they do skip Worcester, which I've always found to be kind of silly.

[JayhawkCO]

I'll say this, "Jct I-15" is a far better control point than "Cove Fort". Even within Utah, not a lot of people know where Cove Fort is or could point to it on a map.

As a Mormon, I find a lack of awareness of Cove Fort to be a "you problem" rather than public one.

It has almost no permanent population and is a poor reference for anyone not intimately familiar with Mormon history or local geography, whether Mormon or from Utah or neither. As a non-Mormon living in Utah, the only people I ever encounter who know where Cove Fort is are big into geography or meteorology (that section of I-15 often gets quite a bit more snow than the sections to the north and south, especially in a northerly flow). If there were more gas stations or restaurants than that one Chevron off I-15, or if the historic site itself were actually visible from 15, the name might be more recognizable.

Cove Fort is fine for informational signs or novelty signs like the one in Baltimore. But for regular distance signs intended for navigational use, there is no reason to not use an equivalent destination that is more likely to be understood by the average road user. Compared to other Utah interstates, a large portion of I-70 traffic is out of state, especially the part over the Swell where it is likely a majority.

Lots of control cities and destination towns are out there on signs where a bunch of people have never heard of them.  Cove Fort is no different in that regard, but it is different in of its historical significance and the fact it does draw visitors.

In short, it's fine the way it is...just like 99% of the other control cities or destinations out there...

A place that doesn't have a single restaurant shouldn't be a control city.

[Roadgeekteen]

In New London, I-95 north is Providence. Rhode Island skips right to New York. Connecticut's equivalent would be if they skipped to Boston but they don't.

But they do skip Worcester, which I've always found to be kind of silly.

This is another example, as New London is signed on I-395 in the Worcester area.

[Rothman]

I'll say this, "Jct I-15" is a far better control point than "Cove Fort". Even within Utah, not a lot of people know where Cove Fort is or could point to it on a map.

As a Mormon, I find a lack of awareness of Cove Fort to be a "you problem" rather than public one.

It has almost no permanent population and is a poor reference for anyone not intimately familiar with Mormon history or local geography, whether Mormon or from Utah or neither. As a non-Mormon living in Utah, the only people I ever encounter who know where Cove Fort is are big into geography or meteorology (that section of I-15 often gets quite a bit more snow than the sections to the north and south, especially in a northerly flow). If there were more gas stations or restaurants than that one Chevron off I-15, or if the historic site itself were actually visible from 15, the name might be more recognizable.

Cove Fort is fine for informational signs or novelty signs like the one in Baltimore. But for regular distance signs intended for navigational use, there is no reason to not use an equivalent destination that is more likely to be understood by the average road user. Compared to other Utah interstates, a large portion of I-70 traffic is out of state, especially the part over the Swell where it is likely a majority.

Lots of control cities and destination towns are out there on signs where a bunch of people have never heard of them.  Cove Fort is no different in that regard, but it is different in of its historical significance and the fact it does draw visitors.

In short, it's fine the way it is...just like 99% of the other control cities or destinations out there...

A place that doesn't have a single restaurant shouldn't be a control city.

That policy would certainly trigger lots of revisions countrywide.

[JayhawkCO]

I'll say this, "Jct I-15" is a far better control point than "Cove Fort". Even within Utah, not a lot of people know where Cove Fort is or could point to it on a map.

As a Mormon, I find a lack of awareness of Cove Fort to be a "you problem" rather than public one.

It has almost no permanent population and is a poor reference for anyone not intimately familiar with Mormon history or local geography, whether Mormon or from Utah or neither. As a non-Mormon living in Utah, the only people I ever encounter who know where Cove Fort is are big into geography or meteorology (that section of I-15 often gets quite a bit more snow than the sections to the north and south, especially in a northerly flow). If there were more gas stations or restaurants than that one Chevron off I-15, or if the historic site itself were actually visible from 15, the name might be more recognizable.

Cove Fort is fine for informational signs or novelty signs like the one in Baltimore. But for regular distance signs intended for navigational use, there is no reason to not use an equivalent destination that is more likely to be understood by the average road user. Compared to other Utah interstates, a large portion of I-70 traffic is out of state, especially the part over the Swell where it is likely a majority.

Lots of control cities and destination towns are out there on signs where a bunch of people have never heard of them.  Cove Fort is no different in that regard, but it is different in of its historical significance and the fact it does draw visitors.

In short, it's fine the way it is...just like 99% of the other control cities or destinations out there...

A place that doesn't have a single restaurant shouldn't be a control city.

That policy would certainly trigger lots of revisions countrywide.

Let me clarify. Interstate control city.

[Rothman]

I'll say this, "Jct I-15" is a far better control point than "Cove Fort". Even within Utah, not a lot of people know where Cove Fort is or could point to it on a map.

As a Mormon, I find a lack of awareness of Cove Fort to be a "you problem" rather than public one.

It has almost no permanent population and is a poor reference for anyone not intimately familiar with Mormon history or local geography, whether Mormon or from Utah or neither. As a non-Mormon living in Utah, the only people I ever encounter who know where Cove Fort is are big into geography or meteorology (that section of I-15 often gets quite a bit more snow than the sections to the north and south, especially in a northerly flow). If there were more gas stations or restaurants than that one Chevron off I-15, or if the historic site itself were actually visible from 15, the name might be more recognizable.

Cove Fort is fine for informational signs or novelty signs like the one in Baltimore. But for regular distance signs intended for navigational use, there is no reason to not use an equivalent destination that is more likely to be understood by the average road user. Compared to other Utah interstates, a large portion of I-70 traffic is out of state, especially the part over the Swell where it is likely a majority.

Lots of control cities and destination towns are out there on signs where a bunch of people have never heard of them.  Cove Fort is no different in that regard, but it is different in of its historical significance and the fact it does draw visitors.

In short, it's fine the way it is...just like 99% of the other control cities or destinations out there...

A place that doesn't have a single restaurant shouldn't be a control city.

That policy would certainly trigger lots of revisions countrywide.

Let me clarify. Interstate control city.

Clarification disapproved.

[GaryV]

I'll say this, "Jct I-15" is a far better control point than "Cove Fort". Even within Utah, not a lot of people know where Cove Fort is or could point to it on a map.

As a Mormon, I find a lack of awareness of Cove Fort to be a "you problem" rather than public one.

It has almost no permanent population and is a poor reference for anyone not intimately familiar with Mormon history or local geography, whether Mormon or from Utah or neither. As a non-Mormon living in Utah, the only people I ever encounter who know where Cove Fort is are big into geography or meteorology (that section of I-15 often gets quite a bit more snow than the sections to the north and south, especially in a northerly flow). If there were more gas stations or restaurants than that one Chevron off I-15, or if the historic site itself were actually visible from 15, the name might be more recognizable.

Cove Fort is fine for informational signs or novelty signs like the one in Baltimore. But for regular distance signs intended for navigational use, there is no reason to not use an equivalent destination that is more likely to be understood by the average road user. Compared to other Utah interstates, a large portion of I-70 traffic is out of state, especially the part over the Swell where it is likely a majority.

Lots of control cities and destination towns are out there on signs where a bunch of people have never heard of them.  Cove Fort is no different in that regard, but it is different in of its historical significance and the fact it does draw visitors.

In short, it's fine the way it is...just like 99% of the other control cities or destinations out there...

A place that doesn't have a single restaurant shouldn't be a control city.

That policy would certainly trigger lots of revisions countrywide.

Let me clarify. Interstate control city.

Still eliminates "Mackinac Bridge".

[TheCatalyst31]

I'll say this, "Jct I-15" is a far better control point than "Cove Fort". Even within Utah, not a lot of people know where Cove Fort is or could point to it on a map.

As a Mormon, I find a lack of awareness of Cove Fort to be a "you problem" rather than public one.

It has almost no permanent population and is a poor reference for anyone not intimately familiar with Mormon history or local geography, whether Mormon or from Utah or neither. As a non-Mormon living in Utah, the only people I ever encounter who know where Cove Fort is are big into geography or meteorology (that section of I-15 often gets quite a bit more snow than the sections to the north and south, especially in a northerly flow). If there were more gas stations or restaurants than that one Chevron off I-15, or if the historic site itself were actually visible from 15, the name might be more recognizable.

Cove Fort is fine for informational signs or novelty signs like the one in Baltimore. But for regular distance signs intended for navigational use, there is no reason to not use an equivalent destination that is more likely to be understood by the average road user. Compared to other Utah interstates, a large portion of I-70 traffic is out of state, especially the part over the Swell where it is likely a majority.

Lots of control cities and destination towns are out there on signs where a bunch of people have never heard of them.  Cove Fort is no different in that regard, but it is different in of its historical significance and the fact it does draw visitors.

In short, it's fine the way it is...just like 99% of the other control cities or destinations out there...

A place that doesn't have a single restaurant shouldn't be a control city.

That policy would certainly trigger lots of revisions countrywide.

Let me clarify. Interstate control city.

Still eliminates "Mackinac Bridge".

Delaware Water Gap is still safe, though. With two restaurants and one bar according to Google Maps, I wonder if it's the control point with the smallest nonzero number of restaurants.

[bulldog1979]

Still eliminates "Mackinac Bridge".

Going forward, MDOT has dropped "Mackinac Bridge" from their list of control cities in their "Guidelines for Signing on State Trunkline Highways".

[GaryV]

Still eliminates "Mackinac Bridge".

Going forward, MDOT has dropped "Mackinac Bridge" from their list of control cities in their "Guidelines for Signing on State Trunkline Highways".

Wonder how many decades it will take to replace all those signs?

Ehh, they'll probably make it a priority. Why fix potholes when you can resign control cities?

[Flint1979]

Still eliminates "Mackinac Bridge".

Going forward, MDOT has dropped "Mackinac Bridge" from their list of control cities in their "Guidelines for Signing on State Trunkline Highways".

Or the fact that they totally missed it. I highly doubt they are going to be replacing any of the Mackinac Bridge signs along I-75 or US-127. Then they say St. Ignace is a minor control city despite it being the control city between Sault Ste. Marie and the bridge. Ann Arbor is a minor control city along US-23? That is wrong, Brighton is never used. Flint is never a control city on M-13, in fact Lansing is all the way back in Saginaw and neither is Pinconning as Standish is the control city north of Bay City. And all these control cities that have highway numbers as the control city, never seen any of that in Michigan either. Wondering why it says pending completion for M-6.

[GaryV]

Or the fact that they totally missed it. I highly doubt they are going to be replacing any of the Mackinac Bridge signs along I-75 or US-127. Then they say St. Ignace is a minor control city despite it being the control city between Sault Ste. Marie and the bridge. Ann Arbor is a minor control city along US-23? That is wrong, Brighton is never used. Flint is never a control city on M-13, in fact Lansing is all the way back in Saginaw and neither is Pinconning as Standish is the control city north of Bay City. And all these control cities that have highway numbers as the control city, never seen any of that in Michigan either. Wondering why it says pending completion for M-6.

The doc may say revised 2023, but I don't think they did enough revisions. Probably a lot of old text remains.

[Flint1979]

Or the fact that they totally missed it. I highly doubt they are going to be replacing any of the Mackinac Bridge signs along I-75 or US-127. Then they say St. Ignace is a minor control city despite it being the control city between Sault Ste. Marie and the bridge. Ann Arbor is a minor control city along US-23? That is wrong, Brighton is never used. Flint is never a control city on M-13, in fact Lansing is all the way back in Saginaw and neither is Pinconning as Standish is the control city north of Bay City. And all these control cities that have highway numbers as the control city, never seen any of that in Michigan either. Wondering why it says pending completion for M-6.

The doc may say revised 2023, but I don't think they did enough revisions. Probably a lot of old text remains.

I think we do fine with the control cities in Michigan. It pretty simply tells you where you are going. I know someone would probably ask why Lansing is the control city on M-13 in Saginaw and I can reason with that. The reason would be is because that is where most of any longer distance traffic is going and is the shortest and quickest way between Saginaw and Lansing. Now you won't see Saginaw as a control city in Lansing though.