Most Worthless Control Cities

[JKRhodes]

I remember seeing Lordsburg listed as a control city at the junction of US 191 and US 70 as a kid, getting my license later on in life, driving out there, and thinking, "Is that all there is?" 

Of course now I understand that it's a major "halfway point" for travelers heading from Los Angeles to Houston, hence the somewhat nice hotel chains next to the interstate.

Not to mention a major detour nexus point when dust storms inevitably shut down Interstate 10 at the AZ/NM line, so frequently in fact that I-10 Detour signs were permanently installed along US 191 and US 70 in back 2017.

It makes more sense now.

[mrsman]

Los Angeles...when the said freeway/highway is within the city limits of Los Angeles.

You see that in lots of cities. A lot of times it's assumed that "Los Angeles" means "downtown Los Angeles", but nobody but the guy making the sign is going to understand that. If you mean downtown, say downtown. The control city should change to the next one at the city limits.

Completely agreed. It's even worse if the "city center" moved to a different part of the city from decades of development (and therefore is the primary destination for most visitors) and the signs for the city still points towards the old downtown (which few people go anymore).

For smaller cities, I would agree.  At city limits, the next control city should be signed.

For larger cities, especially geographically large cities, if you are still far from the central part of town, then the control city should reflect "Central LA" or "Downtown LA" or "LA Civic Center" as the case may be.  I would envision these areas to have a specific definition where one can go from one to the other.

If you are coming in from the San Joaquin Valley on I-5, you actually hit the L.A. city limits even north of the 5/14 interchange.  It would not be helpful for folks that are headed into the more central parts of L.A. to start signing a control city of Santa Ana (or San Diego) at that point, since most of L.A. and Downtown L.A. not only hasn't been reached yet, but is still quite a good drive still ahead.  Even weirder, you enter through L.A. at that point, then enter Burbank and Glendale, and then continue again through parts of L.A. before getting anywhere near Downtown.  So special controls are needed to adequately describe what is going on.

If you enter the city limits on any highway, it is wrong to use "LA" as the control.  Let's define an area to be known as Central L.A., to be the section within city limits that is roughly north of Slauson, west of La Cienega, and south of Mulholland.  As the eastern city limits are pretty close to Downtown, the eastern city limits will be the eastern limits for Central L.A.  So if you are within city limits, but outside the box of Central L.A., let Central L.A. be the control on any inbound freeway that leads to the Slauson/La Cienega/Mulholland box. 

Going further towards the center, existing road signs to distinguish between Downtown LA (skyscraper neighborhood near the 4th, 6th, and 9th exits of the 110) and L.A. Civic Center (City Hall and other government buildings near 101 between Broadway and Alameda).  So the roads that lead to the 110 [namely 110 South south of the South Pasadena/LA border, CA-2 southbound toward I-5, I-5 southbound toward CA-110 south of the Glendale/LA border, I-10 EB east of La Cienega, and I-110 NB north of Slauson] should all have a control of Downtown L.A.  The roads that lead to the 101 [namely 101 south of Barham, I-5 NB at city limits, CA-60 EB at city limits, and I-10 EB at city limits] should have a control of L.A. Civic Center.

Once you have basically reached Downtown or the Civic Center, the next control city can be signed.  So US 101 north Ventura can be signed after crossing Alameda, US 101 south to 5/10/60 Santa Ana San Bernardino can be signed at the Four Level Interchange, CA-110 south San Pedro can be signed at the Four Level Interchange, and 110 north Pasadena can be signed north of the I-10 interchange.

So while I agree that it is bad practice to sign for a control city while you are within city limits, the largest cities often need to still maintain a control of "Central LA" or "Downtown LA" in areas where the city limits are still very far from the central portions of the city.

-----

We see this in Chicago.  The I-57/I-94 interchange is well within city limits, but far from the loop.  The control for I-94 west is "Chicago Loop" not Wisconsin.

[ran4sh]

^ None of those apply to Albany and I-75.

I was referring to the suggestion made/supported by 2 separate other users for cities like Los Angeles to not be posted as a control city within the arbitrary city limit. As mrsman explained, that is not ideal in some cases. I would expand to say that it's not ideal in any case.

Control city designations, at least for directional signs (mileage/distance signs are usually omitted in urban areas when other signs are needed), should continue to a point at which most traffic using that control city will have reached their destination, such as the urbanized city center. At which point the signage should switch to the next city. Alternatively, where a Community Interchanges sign or Next X Exits sign is posted, the city can be considered reached and then the next city can be posted. Not before then, and not based on the city limit.

[ran4sh]

For I-10 in NM I would skip Lordsburg and use Tucson for WB, for EB El Paso is the next major city but if NM insists on using an in-state destination then Las Cruces would be better than Lordsburg.

[tolbs17]

I would take out Nashville and Tarboro and just have Rocky Mount and Raleigh on them. This is a lot of information on just one sign.

Rocky Mount and Raleigh make the most sense there. Tarboro maybe in place of Rocky Mount since you are pretty much already in Rocky Mount at that point.

When I-87 gets applied Raleigh will make it on I-95 guides as well as Williamston or even Norfolk.

I think Norfolk would be the best control city. It should be put on I-440 in Raleigh as well and it should be below Rocky Mount.

https://goo.gl/maps/4L6DKQLbuKaDpp1Y8

And over here they can add Raleigh below Elizabeth City. These are my suggestions. https://goo.gl/maps/JjHkgkgdQmPao6dS7

[sprjus4]

I would take out Nashville and Tarboro and just have Rocky Mount and Raleigh on them. This is a lot of information on just one sign.

Rocky Mount and Raleigh make the most sense there. Tarboro maybe in place of Rocky Mount since you are pretty much already in Rocky Mount at that point.

When I-87 gets applied Raleigh will make it on I-95 guides as well as Williamston or even Norfolk.

I think Norfolk would be the best control city. It should be put on I-440 in Raleigh as well and it should be below Rocky Mount.

https://goo.gl/maps/4L6DKQLbuKaDpp1Y8

And over here they can add Raleigh below Elizabeth City. These are my suggestions. https://goo.gl/maps/JjHkgkgdQmPao6dS7

Perhaps 20-30 years down the line, once I-87 is finally built all the way out.

[tolbs17]

I would take out Nashville and Tarboro and just have Rocky Mount and Raleigh on them. This is a lot of information on just one sign.

Rocky Mount and Raleigh make the most sense there. Tarboro maybe in place of Rocky Mount since you are pretty much already in Rocky Mount at that point.

When I-87 gets applied Raleigh will make it on I-95 guides as well as Williamston or even Norfolk.

I think Norfolk would be the best control city. It should be put on I-440 in Raleigh as well and it should be below Rocky Mount.

https://goo.gl/maps/4L6DKQLbuKaDpp1Y8

And over here they can add Raleigh below Elizabeth City. These are my suggestions. https://goo.gl/maps/JjHkgkgdQmPao6dS7

Perhaps 20-30 years down the line, once I-87 is finally built all the way out.

Yeah. The ones you can expect happening the soonest is some upgrades in Hertford, as well as US-64 west of Rocky Mount.

[sprjus4]

^ Either way, signing Norfolk or Raleigh as a control city from either end doesn't seem likely until it becomes a single route (I-87) throughout with no interruption.

[tolbs17]

^ Either way, signing Norfolk or Raleigh as a control city from either end doesn't seem likely until it becomes a single route (I-87) throughout with no interruption.

Yeah, understandable.

[SeriesE]

^ None of those apply to Albany and I-75.

I was referring to the suggestion made/supported by 2 separate other users for cities like Los Angeles to not be posted as a control city within the arbitrary city limit. As mrsman explained, that is not ideal in some cases. I would expand to say that it's not ideal in any case.

Control city designations, at least for directional signs (mileage/distance signs are usually omitted in urban areas when other signs are needed), should continue to a point at which most traffic using that control city will have reached their destination, such as the urbanized city center. At which point the signage should switch to the next city. Alternatively, where a Community Interchanges sign or Next X Exits sign is posted, the city can be considered reached and then the next city can be posted. Not before then, and not based on the city limit.

For Los Angeles, the current signing practice is contributing to the problem that some people don't think the San Fernando Valley neighborhoods are part of Los Angeles, even though around half of the city's population live there. Downtown LA is no longer the primary destination for many people based on commute patterns and traffic maps either; West LA is.


So I agree with mrsman's comment about switching to Downtown xxxx for cities too large to simply switch to the next control city without confusing people.

[Scott5114]

Los Angeles...when the said freeway/highway is within the city limits of Los Angeles.

You see that in lots of cities. A lot of times it's assumed that "Los Angeles" means "downtown Los Angeles", but nobody but the guy making the sign is going to understand that. If you mean downtown, say downtown. The control city should change to the next one at the city limits.

Completely agreed. It's even worse if the "city center" moved to a different part of the city from decades of development (and therefore is the primary destination for most visitors) and the signs for the city still points towards the old downtown (which few people go anymore).

For smaller cities, I would agree.  At city limits, the next control city should be signed.

For larger cities, especially geographically large cities, if you are still far from the central part of town, then the control city should reflect "Central LA" or "Downtown LA" or "LA Civic Center" as the case may be.  I would envision these areas to have a specific definition where one can go from one to the other.

I think it should be both. For example, on northbound I-35, when you cross into the OKC city limits at SE 89th Street, you're still about six miles from downtown. So at that point I think the northbound control city should change from "Okla. City" to "Downtown/Wichita". Then once you get past downtown, just "Wichita".

[SkyPesos]

I think it should be both. For example, on northbound I-35, when you cross into the OKC city limits at SE 89th Street, you're still about six miles from downtown. So at that point I think the northbound control city should change from "Okla. City" to "Downtown/Wichita". Then once you get past downtown, just "Wichita".

Since control cities are stacked on top of each other, can't that be easily mistakenly interpreted as "Downtown Wichita" instead of Downtown OKC and Wichita?

[Scott5114]

Well, you can either have the nearer destination first (Downtown/Wichita) or you can have the further one first and make it less ambiguous (Wichita/Downtown). Or you can do something like "Downtown Okla City" (long, clunky) or "Downtown OKC" (only works for cities that have recognizable abbreviations). Or you could include a technically unnecessary comma ("Downtown,/Wichita").

[ran4sh]

^ None of those apply to Albany and I-75.

I was referring to the suggestion made/supported by 2 separate other users for cities like Los Angeles to not be posted as a control city within the arbitrary city limit. As mrsman explained, that is not ideal in some cases. I would expand to say that it's not ideal in any case.

Control city designations, at least for directional signs (mileage/distance signs are usually omitted in urban areas when other signs are needed), should continue to a point at which most traffic using that control city will have reached their destination, such as the urbanized city center. At which point the signage should switch to the next city. Alternatively, where a Community Interchanges sign or Next X Exits sign is posted, the city can be considered reached and then the next city can be posted. Not before then, and not based on the city limit.

For Los Angeles, the current signing practice is contributing to the problem that some people don't think the San Fernando Valley neighborhoods are part of Los Angeles, even though around half of the city's population live there. Downtown LA is no longer the primary destination for many people based on commute patterns and traffic maps either; West LA is.


So I agree with mrsman's comment about switching to Downtown xxxx for cities too large to simply switch to the next control city without confusing people.

That's not a signage problem, that's a problem with people who, for whatever reason, can't or won't determine the actual city limit from a map. Road signage is for drivers, it's not a general reference to determine which points are in what place.

[tolbs17]

Don't know why Washington is on this but I do get that it is but taking that route vs US 64 and NC 171 (or NC 32) is much quicker.

US-64
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Gp2Rbaf3KvNWvKhz5

Also, is Kenly really needed on this sign?

I-795
https://maps.app.goo.gl/pvv7cdc1CpDfSuz96

It definitely goes in an awkward position imo.

[US20IL64]

Just saw this last week in Phoenix, and sign looks new to me.

On I-10 eastbound, going towards downtown Phoenix, at the new(er) Loop 202 interchange, for I-10 east, it has Tucson. Really? Most of the traffic is going to Central PHX or somewhere else in the area.

I think Loop 202 exit going SE should say Tucson and Downtown Phoenix for 10. Maybe some will complain enough?

[nexus73]

"Other Desert Cities" on I-10 in SoCal would look better to me with Palm Springs and Phoenix as the control cities. 

"Oregon Coast" at the US 101/US 199 partial interchange could be Brookings and Coos Bay.

Rick

[mrsman]

Just saw this last week in Phoenix, and sign looks new to me.

On I-10 eastbound, going towards downtown Phoenix, at the new(er) Loop 202 interchange, for I-10 east, it has Tucson. Really? Most of the traffic is going to Central PHX or somewhere else in the area.

I think Loop 202 exit going SE should say Tucson and Downtown Phoenix for 10. Maybe some will complain enough?

You are right.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4625811,-112.195476,3a,75y,108.71h,93.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjFiuMvhpQO1b0Vi-N3G4aA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

However, the signs from 202 at that interchange have "Phoenix" as the eastbound control.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4552473,-112.1853666,3a,75y,8.69h,86.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbxW-CiXdFNFacXg0gQtg3Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

It seems though to be consistent with how that stretch is signed by ADOT (or city), Tucson would be the better control.  The side street entrances in that area have Tucson as the control.  While the PHX city limits zig and zag a bit, the western city limit on I-10 is at 83rd Ave.  If you are at 83rd Ave or further west, Phoenix is the eastern control.  If you are east of 83rd Ave, i.e. already within Phoenix city limits, then Tucson is the control.

And they are all signed very well and clear with BGS on the side street to guide people to eastbound and westbound on-ramps.  I wish more of the country would sign on-ramps and destinations from side streets as clearly.   [All the nearby sidestreets have a similar design, based on GSV].

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4611668,-112.2032491,3a,37.5y,0.46h,92.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5BX0l4EB61e5WPc89_cbfA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

So it is really the sign on 202 that is in error, at least based on what most of the other area signs as placed by ADOT seems to say.  "Tucson" is the appropriate control because you are already within the city limits of Phoenix.

And just like the other threads, I believe it would make more sense to have "Downtown Phoenix" as the control  for all places that are technically within city limits but are still pretty far from the central city.  In my view, every eastbound entrance to I-10 within Phoenix city limits, but west of I-17 should have a "Downtown Phoenix" control instead of "Tucson."  In my view, the I-10, and I-17 loop defines Central Phoenix and only once you cross that loop should the next control city (Tucson, Los Angeles, or Flagstaff) be signed.  It is too weird to sign beyond Phoenix when you are still in a very suburban part of town.

[tolbs17]

Some of this makes little to no sense at all.

For this sign I don't know why Burlington is used on it instead of Greensboro, that's silly IMO: https://goo.gl/maps/hDLUjxXj2PWhJwt6A

Also don't understand this one. It should say Durham/Raleigh, because they are two big cities. Kind of childish to just say Durham imo. : https://goo.gl/maps/P23rjSv7QtPbD1d58

Over here has both of them though! https://goo.gl/maps/sRo43y5weLZEhZw48

Edit: funny thing is that when looking at these signs, they say Burlington. https://goo.gl/maps/g7gEmtSnes8waMx78

But when looking at the new signage plans, they will change to Greensboro. Good move. Can't pinpoint why they couldn't do it to the other interchange. Funny to have two different control cities when heading in the same direction.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/03-16-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Alamance%20I-5711%2050401.3.GV1%20C204603/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf

[Scott5114]

Also don't understand this one. It should say Durham/Raleigh, because they are two big cities. Kind of childish to just say Durham imo. : https://goo.gl/maps/P23rjSv7QtPbD1d58

Yeah, every time I'm around a child, all I hear out of them is nothing but "Durham! Durham! Durham!", as children are well-known to do.

[Chrysler375Freeway]

I-94 in Michigan west of Detroit completely ignores smaller major Michigan municipalities or those with major junctions (ignored both east and west of Detroit, i.e. I-196 in Benton Harbor, I-69 in Marshall, I-696 in Roseville-St. Clair Shores, etc.) it passes through or near on guide signs at major junctions (i.e. Ann Arbor, Kalamazoo, etc.) instead opting for either Detroit or Chicago.

Actually, signage at most I-94 interchanges between Marshall and Ann Arbor shows Marshall, Jackson, and Ann Arbor as control cities.


Jackson Road, near Chelsea -- this sign has since been replaced but the control cities have not changed.

Marshall and Ann Arbor are omitted on 94 guide signs at Highway 127 Exit 40 and 43. Jackson is omitted on guide signs for I-94 along US 23. Along I-194/M-66 in Battle Creek, Marshall is omitted for I-94 eastbound. At I-69's first junction with I-94, Jackson is omitted for eastbound I-94.

I said at most interchanges.  Great job missing my point.

Well, I did recently take a trip to Illinois along 94, and exiting off, and the signage at most interchanges I exited off at along the way to make stops at did follow what you said. Driving to the Jersey Shore from Michigan wasn't the same story because different routes along the way, and thus, differing control cities. However, along the way, I did go out of my way a bit and went down the open section of the Southern Beltway in the Pittsburgh area, but that is a topic for another forum.

[tolbs17]

Wouldn't have put Winston-Salem on the right sign since it goes directly through Greensboro. If I was the person deciding the signing plans I would have just put Greensboro on it.

https://goo.gl/maps/Pjs4d9wBv9g5PKfn7

Although there is a ALT sign to go there which I would have always done Imo. More mileage yes but it's exclusively 70 mph.

https://goo.gl/maps/pVjRdicLZWAbwQ1QA

Like there is no Raleigh on the right sign

https://goo.gl/maps/uEaSowh2Ta7kM5Rq5

[Flint1979]

It isn't a secret that Michigan alternates control cities on I-94 to more local cities when they can and I think it's fine. Chicago does make sense in Detroit because of the volume of Detroit-Chicago traffic. I would say use Ann Arbor and Kalamazoo then Chicago.

[Chrysler375Freeway]

It isn't a secret that Michigan alternates control cities on I-94 to more local cities when they can and I think it's fine. Chicago does make sense in Detroit because of the volume of Detroit-Chicago traffic. I would say use Ann Arbor and Kalamazoo then Chicago.

I noticed this one on I-70 in Indiana: it completely ignores Terre Haute on westbound guide signs in Indianapolis, instead choosing to list St. Louis, even though I-70 passes through extreme southwestern Terre Haute, as well as skipping Dayton on eastbound signs at the split with I-65, instead listing Columbus, even though it skips Indianapolis westbound while in Columbus and between the Dayton area and Columbus. I-70 in Illinois also completely ignores Effingham between there and St. Louis eastbound, instead listing Indianapolis, in spite of I-70's intersection with I-57 in Effingham, and even shares the same roadway as I-57.

[roadman65]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52020193680/in/dateposted-public/

The cities here are not so much worthless as  that they really could use more prominent places.

Benson is not needed on the main exit sign, but as discussed in another thread it should have a Benson Next 2 Exits sign approaching this exchange being that the next exit beyond I-95 is for the city grid of Benson anyway.  Fayetteville, is more useful to drivers here as its the next big city of size along the route. 

Smithfield, although the county seat of the county the interchange lies within and is of decent size, should be on an supplemental sign and either Rocky Mount or Richmond be used instead being those are the next cities of interest heading north on I-95.

Though most people on here digress the fact Benson is used at all on both interstates as a control city in signage, thus including me.  I am sure that we all feel that Fayetteville should be I-95 South's control interest from Rocky Mount southward and from Fayetteville northward on I-95 it should be Rocky Mount, Wilson, or Richmond due to the motorists that use the busy interstate.  On I-40 it should be Raleigh from Wilmington westward and Wilmington eastward from the I-440 Cliff Benson Beltline.