Changing Control Cities

[Roadgeekteen]

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.

What would you sign instead?

[jmacswimmer]

This is not about a "technicality"

highlighting the incomplete nature of I-70 and forcing the signage to reflect that.

technicality
1: something technical
especially : a detail meaningful only to a specialist highway enthusiast

[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.

What would you sign instead?

I would say "Baltimore Beltway" or something to that effect, since that is really what the road dead ends to. That makes clear that you will get to the Baltimore area, but you cannot go directly to Baltimore proper using that highway.

Similarly, I think I-95 needs to be de-signed from I-495 around Washington DC and the signage changed to "Washington Beltway" instead, for the same reason.

[HighwayStar]

This is not about a "technicality"

highlighting the incomplete nature of I-70 and forcing the signage to reflect that.

technicality
1: something technical
especially : a detail meaningful only to a specialist highway enthusiast

Anyone who has tried to drive into Baltimore going East or out of it West would not consider that a detail only meaningful to an enthusiast. The same with DC.

[Roadgeekteen]

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.

What would you sign instead?

I would say "Baltimore Beltway" or something to that effect, since that is really what the road dead ends to. That makes clear that you will get to the Baltimore area, but you cannot go directly to Baltimore proper using that highway.

Similarly, I think I-95 needs to be de-signed from I-495 around Washington DC and the signage changed to "Washington Beltway" instead, for the same reason.

That means I-95 would have a gap.

[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.

What would you sign instead?

I would say "Baltimore Beltway" or something to that effect, since that is really what the road dead ends to. That makes clear that you will get to the Baltimore area, but you cannot go directly to Baltimore proper using that highway.

Similarly, I think I-95 needs to be de-signed from I-495 around Washington DC and the signage changed to "Washington Beltway" instead, for the same reason.

That means I-95 would have a gap.

You are correct, although I would argue it already does, since there is no I-95 through Washington as there should be, and it exists only as signs on the beltway. This would merely be calling it for what it is.

[Roadgeekteen]

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.

What would you sign instead?

I would say "Baltimore Beltway" or something to that effect, since that is really what the road dead ends to. That makes clear that you will get to the Baltimore area, but you cannot go directly to Baltimore proper using that highway.

Similarly, I think I-95 needs to be de-signed from I-495 around Washington DC and the signage changed to "Washington Beltway" instead, for the same reason.

That means I-95 would have a gap.

You are correct, although I would argue it already does, since there is no I-95 through Washington as there should be, and it exists only as signs on the beltway. This would merely be calling it for what it is.

That would be really confusing if you live in Richmond and you want to go to Baltimore, and you know to follow I-95 and it vanishes on the Capital beltway.

[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.

What would you sign instead?

I would say "Baltimore Beltway" or something to that effect, since that is really what the road dead ends to. That makes clear that you will get to the Baltimore area, but you cannot go directly to Baltimore proper using that highway.

Similarly, I think I-95 needs to be de-signed from I-495 around Washington DC and the signage changed to "Washington Beltway" instead, for the same reason.

That means I-95 would have a gap.

You are correct, although I would argue it already does, since there is no I-95 through Washington as there should be, and it exists only as signs on the beltway. This would merely be calling it for what it is.

That would be really confusing if you live in Richmond and you want to go to Baltimore, and you know to follow I-95 and it vanishes on the Capital beltway.

Yes it would be, might make you more apt to write your congressmen and demand the finish the damn road too.

[Roadgeekteen]

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.

What would you sign instead?

I would say "Baltimore Beltway" or something to that effect, since that is really what the road dead ends to. That makes clear that you will get to the Baltimore area, but you cannot go directly to Baltimore proper using that highway.

Similarly, I think I-95 needs to be de-signed from I-495 around Washington DC and the signage changed to "Washington Beltway" instead, for the same reason.

That means I-95 would have a gap.

You are correct, although I would argue it already does, since there is no I-95 through Washington as there should be, and it exists only as signs on the beltway. This would merely be calling it for what it is.

That would be really confusing if you live in Richmond and you want to go to Baltimore, and you know to follow I-95 and it vanishes on the Capital beltway.

Yes it would be, might make you more apt to write your congressmen and demand the finish the damn road too.

I-95 through DC IS NEVER GETTING BUILT AND NOTHING YOU DO WILL CHANGE THAT! DO YOU WANT THE INTERSTATE TO HAVE A GAP FOREVER?

[jmacswimmer]

Anyone who has tried to drive into Baltimore going East or out of it West would not consider that a detail only meaningful to an enthusiast. The same with DC.

I sincerely doubt that anyone outside this forum is losing any sleep over I-70 not "functionally serving" Baltimore (most of us on the forum certainly aren't) - they just hop on I-695 to I-95 (or maybe I-83 if their destination is in the northern part of the city) and don't think twice about it.

(Veering into sarcasm, but your wording makes it sound like everyone's innocently driving on I-70, pass right by I-695, and upon reaching the Park & Ride suddenly panic that they can't get into the city, and thus turn around and go home unsuccessful.  Gosh darn, maybe things will be different tomorrow!)

Yes it would be, might make you more apt to write your congressmen and demand the finish the damn road too.

The irony in this statement is that one of the main activists who worked to stop I-70 (and I-83, for that matter) went on to be a U.S. Senator representing Maryland up until a few years ago.

[Roadgeekteen]

Control cities sometimes don't directly serve the city of note. This isn't new.

[SkyPesos]

How about we remove control cities altogether? Everyone follows their GPS now.

[sprjus4]

Fun fact - in North Carolina, I-95 only touches the edge of Wilson, Rocky Mount, and Fayetteville, it doesn't directly serve them. And by the looks of it, those seem like annexations so the city would have I-95, it likely wasn't originally that way at all.

Yet they are still control cities. I don't agree with Rocky Mount or Wilson, but not because of the city limit thing, merely they are not big enough to warrant it. But Fayetteville is fine, even if I-95 doesn't directly serve it.

[Roadgeekteen]

How about we remove control cities altogether? Everyone follows their GPS now.

They are a nice confirmation that you are going the right way.

[hotdogPi]

Yes, control cities are useful.

In the fall of 2012 the interchange at the end of I-94/I-69 in Port Huron, Michigan was reconfigured. Previously, traffic in the left lane of the two-lane freeway stayed in the U.S.; traffic in the right lane followed the Blue Water Bridge into Canada. Now, the freeway has been widened to four lanes; the two right lanes stay in the U.S. and the two left lanes go to Canada. Despite many signs with legends like "Follow signs, ignore GPS" many drivers still blindly obey their un-updated GPS units and inadvertendly end up in Canada. They then have to clear Canadian customs before returning and clearing American customs. If they have contraband they then get into big trouble.

http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-63670_63671-305368--,00.html [dead link]

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/42056-drug-dogs-at-blue-water-bridge-port-huron/

[Roadgeekteen]

Yes, control cities are useful.

In the fall of 2012 the interchange at the end of I-94/I-69 in Port Huron, Michigan was reconfigured. Previously, traffic in the left lane of the two-lane freeway stayed in the U.S.; traffic in the right lane followed the Blue Water Bridge into Canada. Now, the freeway has been widened to four lanes; the two right lanes stay in the U.S. and the two left lanes go to Canada. Despite many signs with legends like "Follow signs, ignore GPS" many drivers still blindly obey their un-updated GPS units and inadvertendly end up in Canada. They then have to clear Canadian customs before returning and clearing American customs. If they have contraband they then get into big trouble.

http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-63670_63671-305368--,00.html [dead link]

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/42056-drug-dogs-at-blue-water-bridge-port-huron/

The GPS called exit 35A in Needham exit 19A.

[HighwayStar]

How about we remove control cities altogether? Everyone follows their GPS now.

They are a nice confirmation that you are going the right way.

I never use GPS.

[kphoger]

highlighting the incomplete nature of I-70

make you more apt to write your congressmen

These are not the purpose of control cities.  Control cities exist to help people get to where they're going.

Signing Baltimore on I-70 helps people get to Baltimore.

Anyone who has tried to drive into Baltimore going East or out of it West would not consider that a detail only meaningful to an enthusiast. The same with DC.

I'd be willing to bet money that, if 100 such people were polled, the majority of them wouldn't even have thought of it before, and fewer than eight would actually consider it something 'meaningful'.

[sprjus4]

and fewer than eight would actually consider it something 'meaningful'.

Even that is a stretch.

[Roadgeekteen]

How about we remove control cities altogether? Everyone follows their GPS now.

They are a nice confirmation that you are going the right way.

I never use GPS.

If you were trying to find Baltimore, how would you find it without a GPS if there is no sign towards it?

[hotdogPi]

How about we remove control cities altogether? Everyone follows their GPS now.

They are a nice confirmation that you are going the right way.

I never use GPS.

If you were trying to find Baltimore, how would you find it without a GPS if there is no sign towards it?

(using his words) If it's signed as Baltimore Beltway, it's clear that it will get you somewhat close. Further signs will direct you once you get on the beltway, or you can take US 40 to certain parts of the city.

I am not defending his position.

[Roadgeekteen]

How about we remove control cities altogether? Everyone follows their GPS now.

They are a nice confirmation that you are going the right way.

I never use GPS.

If you were trying to find Baltimore, how would you find it without a GPS if there is no sign towards it?

(using his words) If it's signed as Baltimore Beltway, it's clear that it will get you somewhat close. Further signs will direct you once you get on the beltway, or you can take US 40 to certain parts of the city.

I am not defending his position.

I guess, but what would he sign on I-95 north in Massachusetts? To 128?

[kphoger]

'Baltimore Beltway' is not a good control destination.

Let's say my family decides to go on a road trip to Baltimore.  (Actually, now that I think about it, I once considered a family road trip that would have taken us on I-70 to Baltimore.)  Dude, I'm from Wichita.  I've never driven anywhere near there before.  I don't know what this "Baltimore Beltway" thing is (well, I didn't before this thread).  Am I on the right highway if I want to get to Baltimore?  It kind of makes it sound like I'm not.

[Rothman]

Egads.  This is still a discussion?  Pretty well-established now that Baltimore is appropriate, Don Quixotes aside.

[Flint1979]

Yes, control cities are useful.

In the fall of 2012 the interchange at the end of I-94/I-69 in Port Huron, Michigan was reconfigured. Previously, traffic in the left lane of the two-lane freeway stayed in the U.S.; traffic in the right lane followed the Blue Water Bridge into Canada. Now, the freeway has been widened to four lanes; the two right lanes stay in the U.S. and the two left lanes go to Canada. Despite many signs with legends like "Follow signs, ignore GPS" many drivers still blindly obey their un-updated GPS units and inadvertendly end up in Canada. They then have to clear Canadian customs before returning and clearing American customs. If they have contraband they then get into big trouble.

http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-63670_63671-305368--,00.html [dead link]

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/42056-drug-dogs-at-blue-water-bridge-port-huron/

They even have the country flags up there on the signs.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.990583,-82.4549403,3a,24.7y,66.32h,96.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVb4TRpPKiiX6lS5qyPW-Ig!2e0!7i13312!8i6656