Changing Control Cities

[jmacswimmer]

Well, NJ continues to sign Trenton and Camden as controls on the NJTP although it requires a 7 mile jog west on I-195 and NJ 29 to get to.  Plus, it still uses Camden south of 7A despite the fact I-95 passes Camden on the other side of a major river and in another state.

Similarly, you technically have to use another road to reach any of the PATP's control cities:

-Ohio (Cleveland or Youngstown in a few isolated instances): OHTP (and I-480 or I-680, respectively)
-Pittsburgh: I-376, I-79/I-279, PA 28
-Harrisburg: I-81, US 15, I-83, I-283
-Philadelphia: I-76, I-476, PA 309, PA 611, US 1, I-95
-New Jersey: NJTP Pearl Harbor Extension

If you actually want to get to Baltimore you have to use another road.

You mean like:

-I-695 SB from I-70
-Then, I-95 NB after a couple miles
-And finally, the glorified ramp that is I-395!!! (And I-95 promptly changes to its next control city)

So it's not as though they leave you hanging (in terms of control cities) on how to get into Baltimore from the west upon reaching I-695.

[NWI_Irish96]

Baltimore is a major city in the United States and the city that I-70 is heading toward. It makes perfect sense to use Baltimore as a control city on I-70.

No, because the highway does not actually serve Baltimore as intended, this needs to be reflected in the designation of control city. If they want it designated as such they need to actually finish the road (60+ years after the fact)

Just like you had for most of I-70's journey across the country US-40 serves Baltimore as well as I-70 serving Baltimore. The bottom line is that I-70 takes you to a point where you can get to Baltimore, it doesn't go any further east.

Yes but taking you to a point where you can get somewhere is not the same as going to that somewhere. It needs to say Baltimore Beltway, which is what it is.

It's okay to be wrong.

Sure, but I am not. I-70 was designed to go into Baltimore to provide the intended level of service. It never did. So until they get out the shovels and finish the job it cannot be properly said to go to Baltimore.

You have a different idea for the purpose of a control city than pretty much everybody else. Your idea of a control city is where the road you are on physically goes. The consensus is that a control city is where the largest number of people on the road are headed.

I-65 north in Indiana goes to Gary. The problem is that very few of the people using I-65 are going to Gary. Letting people know that I-65 goes to Gary is accurate but not helpful. Letting people know that hopping on I-65 north is the best way to get to Chicago is much more helpful. This of course requires getting on another road, and as such needs to have that other road using Chicago as a control city so that people know when to get off I-65, but it's still a far more useful system than limiting control cities to places that the roads themselves go.

[sprjus4]

Baltimore is a major city in the United States and the city that I-70 is heading toward. It makes perfect sense to use Baltimore as a control city on I-70.

No, because the highway does not actually serve Baltimore as intended, this needs to be reflected in the designation of control city. If they want it designated as such they need to actually finish the road (60+ years after the fact)

Just like you had for most of I-70's journey across the country US-40 serves Baltimore as well as I-70 serving Baltimore. The bottom line is that I-70 takes you to a point where you can get to Baltimore, it doesn't go any further east.

Yes but taking you to a point where you can get somewhere is not the same as going to that somewhere. It needs to say Baltimore Beltway, which is what it is.

It's okay to be wrong.

[JayhawkCO]

Baltimore is a major city in the United States and the city that I-70 is heading toward. It makes perfect sense to use Baltimore as a control city on I-70.

No, because the highway does not actually serve Baltimore as intended, this needs to be reflected in the designation of control city. If they want it designated as such they need to actually finish the road (60+ years after the fact)

Just like you had for most of I-70's journey across the country US-40 serves Baltimore as well as I-70 serving Baltimore. The bottom line is that I-70 takes you to a point where you can get to Baltimore, it doesn't go any further east.

Yes but taking you to a point where you can get somewhere is not the same as going to that somewhere. It needs to say Baltimore Beltway, which is what it is.

It's okay to be wrong.

About SUVs too. 

Chris

[Flint1979]

Baltimore is a major city in the United States and the city that I-70 is heading toward. It makes perfect sense to use Baltimore as a control city on I-70.

No, because the highway does not actually serve Baltimore as intended, this needs to be reflected in the designation of control city. If they want it designated as such they need to actually finish the road (60+ years after the fact)

Just like you had for most of I-70's journey across the country US-40 serves Baltimore as well as I-70 serving Baltimore. The bottom line is that I-70 takes you to a point where you can get to Baltimore, it doesn't go any further east.

Yes but taking you to a point where you can get somewhere is not the same as going to that somewhere. It needs to say Baltimore Beltway, which is what it is.

It's okay to be wrong.

Sure, but I am not. I-70 was designed to go into Baltimore to provide the intended level of service. It never did. So until they get out the shovels and finish the job it cannot be properly said to go to Baltimore.

You have a different idea for the purpose of a control city than pretty much everybody else. Your idea of a control city is where the road you are on physically goes. The consensus is that a control city is where the largest number of people on the road are headed.

I-65 north in Indiana goes to Gary. The problem is that very few of the people using I-65 are going to Gary. Letting people know that I-65 goes to Gary is accurate but not helpful. Letting people know that hopping on I-65 north is the best way to get to Chicago is much more helpful. This of course requires getting on another road, and as such needs to have that other road using Chicago as a control city so that people know when to get off I-65, but it's still a far more useful system than limiting control cities to places that the roads themselves go.

Right. I wonder what he thinks of IN-63. I remember a discussion we had last summer involving Chicago as the control city on NB IN-63 and I couldn't figure out why and that was simply because at the time I saw it I didn't know where IN-63 actually ended but then I saw it ended at US-41 which does take you to Chicago. It was NB IN-63 at the interchange with US-36. I saw it when I went to clinch Parke County.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7936658,-87.4091543,3a,24.2y,94.27h,115.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLaU3UjkwUefz03Vnh1OgGg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664

[jmacswimmer]

Right. I wonder what he thinks of IN-63. I remember a discussion we had last summer involving Chicago as the control city on NB IN-63 and I couldn't figure out why and that was simply because at the time I saw it I didn't know where IN-63 actually ended but then I saw it ended at US-41 which does take you to Chicago. It was NB IN-63 at the interchange with US-36. I saw it when I went to clinch Parke County.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7936658,-87.4091543,3a,24.2y,94.27h,115.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLaU3UjkwUefz03Vnh1OgGg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664

At this point, you can expand this to any bypass route using a control city well beyond the point of the bypass ending and returning to the main route...another that comes to mind is I-295 VA, which uses Rocky Mount & Washington for I-95, and Charlottesville & Williamsburg/Norfolk/Virginia Beach for I-64.

[kphoger]

The endpoint of I-70 is within Baltimore city limits, right?  That should be good enough.

And it's more than can be said for I-795, which is also signed for Baltimore.  Or I-97, which is also signed for Baltimore.

[jmacswimmer]

The endpoint of I-70 is within Baltimore city limits, right?  That should be good enough.

Just barely, but yes.

And it's more than can be said for I-795, which is also signed for Baltimore. Or I-97, which is also signed for Baltimore.

And, for that matter, signing Annapolis in the opposite direction of I-97.

[webny99]

Right. I wonder what he thinks of IN-63. I remember a discussion we had last summer involving Chicago as the control city on NB IN-63 and I couldn't figure out why and that was simply because at the time I saw it I didn't know where IN-63 actually ended but then I saw it ended at US-41 which does take you to Chicago. It was NB IN-63 at the interchange with US-36. I saw it when I went to clinch Parke County.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7936658,-87.4091543,3a,24.2y,94.27h,115.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLaU3UjkwUefz03Vnh1OgGg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664

At this point, you can expand this to any bypass route using a control city well beyond the point of the bypass ending and returning to the main route...another that comes to mind is I-295 VA, which uses Rocky Mount & Washington for I-95, and Charlottesville & Williamsburg/Norfolk/Virginia Beach for I-64.

Yeah, those could probably even be their own thread. There's a lot: Salem and Seattle being used on I-205 in Portland, Toledo and Youngstown being used on I-480 in Cleveland, etc. etc.

[ilpt4u]

Under this Control City theory, I-57 should use Sikeston for SB, not Memphis

When the Little Rock Extenstion is complete and signed, Little Rock then, maybe, someday

The STL Beltway of 255 and 270 need to remove their Chicago, Indianapolis, Memphis, and Tulsa controls, also

[kphoger]

Under this Control City theory, I-57 should use Sikeston for SB, not Memphis

When the Little Rock Extenstion is complete and signed, Little Rock then, maybe, someday

The STL Beltway of 255 and 270 need to remove their Chicago, Indianapolis, Memphis, and Tulsa controls, also

Actually, his beef seems only to be that I-70 was intended to go farther than it actually does.  It it had never been planned to go farther east, then I suspect he'd have no problem with it.

[roadman65]

The Garden State Parkway needs to remove Springfield for I-78 and install either Clinton or Easton like the rest of the ramps for I-78 west have.  The city (actually a township) was used when I-78 ended at NJ 24 before the controversial segment between Springfield and Watchung got built and opened to traffic in 1986 and never updated.

In actuality IMO Allentown needs to be used as Easton was also used when I-78 stopped at Still Valley until 1989 which had traffic default into US 22 for Phillipsburg and Easton.

[sprjus4]

When the Little Rock Extenstion is complete and signed, Little Rock then, maybe, someday

Actually, no, because I-57 would not actually reach the city limits of Little Rock. That is not allowed under HighwayStar's rules.

[I-55]

When the Little Rock Extenstion is complete and signed, Little Rock then, maybe, someday

Actually, no, because I-57 would not actually reach the city limits of Little Rock. That is not allowed under HighwayStar's rules.

So we'll say North Little Rock since it does include that city and it's easy to relate to Little Rock.

[hbelkins]

The endpoint of I-70 is within Baltimore city limits, right?  That should be good enough.

Just barely, but yes.

I came here to point that out.

https://goo.gl/maps/dYbKRgVaiJMD6s5V6

And it definitely serves Baltimore COUNTY. https://goo.gl/maps/7sN15teMzmBAcKfy9

[hotdogPi]

And it definitely serves Baltimore COUNTY. https://goo.gl/maps/7sN15teMzmBAcKfy9

MA 2 serves Worcester County and very clearly shouldn't be signed for Worcester.

[roadman65]

If a road ends outside a city limit or in a metro area and the city is large enough, it shouldn't create a problem.   With the reasoning behind that no wonder why NJDOT uses Ewing over Trenton on mileage signs for I-295. The engineer who erected those signs thinks like some on here.

Then under the same logic let's change I-80's eastbound control city in Ohio and NJ to Teaneck.

[Rothman]

And it definitely serves Baltimore COUNTY. https://goo.gl/maps/7sN15teMzmBAcKfy9

MA 2 serves Worcester County and very clearly shouldn't be signed for Worcester.

How do I get from Gardner to Worcester?

[Flint1979]

Cleveland being used on I-280 in Toledo is bad too right?

[Roadgeekteen]

Baltimore is a major city in the United States and the city that I-70 is heading toward. It makes perfect sense to use Baltimore as a control city on I-70.

No, because the highway does not actually serve Baltimore as intended, this needs to be reflected in the designation of control city. If they want it designated as such they need to actually finish the road (60+ years after the fact)

Let's sign Waltham on I-95 north in Providence. Sturbridge would be good on I-84 in Connecticut. MA 24 north should be signed for Milton. MA 3 north should be Braintree. I-95 should skip DC and sign Baltimore in Virginia. The PA turnpike should use Valley Forge instead of Philly...

[StogieGuy7]

This is getting to be a ridiculous argument that highlights classic "over thinking" of the entire subject.  For example, "I-70 doesn't really go to Baltimore"; while that's true, if you're in Frederick or Cumberland or even Breezewood and you are going to Baltimore - I-70 is the way there. And, actually, if you're in Breezewood you need I-70 to get to DC too, even though it ultimately doesn't even come close to it.  If you're in Toledo, I-80/90 is the route you need to take if you're going to Chicago.  At least until you get close to it. If you're in Needles, you take I-40 to get to Los Angeles - even though it ends long before getting there (in Barstow).

These petty semantics miss the point and are borderline absurd.  Just my 0.02 that nobody asked for (but it's a forum, so I can).

[sprjus4]

This is getting to be a ridiculous argument that highlights classic "over thinking" of the entire subject.  For example, "I-70 doesn't really go to Baltimore"; while that's true, if you're in Frederick or Cumberland or even Breezewood and you are going to Baltimore - I-70 is the way there. And, actually, if you're in Breezewood you need I-70 to get to DC too, even though it ultimately doesn't even come close to it.  If you're in Toledo, I-80/90 is the route you need to take if you're going to Chicago.  At least until you get close to it. If you're in Needles, you take I-40 to get to Los Angeles - even though it ends long before getting there (in Barstow).

These petty semantics miss the point and are borderline absurd.  Just my 0.02 that nobody asked for (but it's a forum, so I can).

Agreed 100%, it's the technicalities that some people on this forum focus so hard on that it takes away from simple reality. It's stupid IMO.

[hbelkins]

I remember a long time ago, possibly on MTR, there was a discussion about some use of Cleveland on I-76 in the Pittsburgh area. I don't know what prompted it, possibly a discussion between a Browns and Steelers fan and some meme, but during the discussion, someone was adamant about saying "I-76 DOESN'T GO TO CLEVELAND!!!!"

[HighwayStar]

This is getting to be a ridiculous argument that highlights classic "over thinking" of the entire subject.  For example, "I-70 doesn't really go to Baltimore"; while that's true, if you're in Frederick or Cumberland or even Breezewood and you are going to Baltimore - I-70 is the way there. And, actually, if you're in Breezewood you need I-70 to get to DC too, even though it ultimately doesn't even come close to it.  If you're in Toledo, I-80/90 is the route you need to take if you're going to Chicago.  At least until you get close to it. If you're in Needles, you take I-40 to get to Los Angeles - even though it ends long before getting there (in Barstow).

These petty semantics miss the point and are borderline absurd.  Just my 0.02 that nobody asked for (but it's a forum, so I can).

Agreed 100%, it's the technicalities that some people on this forum focus so hard on that it takes away from simple reality. It's stupid IMO.

This is not about a "technicality" so much is it is about highlighting the incomplete nature of I-70 and forcing the signage to reflect that.

[sprjus4]

This is getting to be a ridiculous argument that highlights classic "over thinking" of the entire subject.  For example, "I-70 doesn't really go to Baltimore"; while that's true, if you're in Frederick or Cumberland or even Breezewood and you are going to Baltimore - I-70 is the way there. And, actually, if you're in Breezewood you need I-70 to get to DC too, even though it ultimately doesn't even come close to it.  If you're in Toledo, I-80/90 is the route you need to take if you're going to Chicago.  At least until you get close to it. If you're in Needles, you take I-40 to get to Los Angeles - even though it ends long before getting there (in Barstow).

These petty semantics miss the point and are borderline absurd.  Just my 0.02 that nobody asked for (but it's a forum, so I can).

Agreed 100%, it's the technicalities that some people on this forum focus so hard on that it takes away from simple reality. It's stupid IMO.

This is not about a "technicality" so much is it is about highlighting the incomplete nature of I-70 and forcing the signage to reflect that.

I-70 takes traffic towards Baltimore. It's adequate. It's not changing.