Worst control city on an interstate in your state

[kphoger]

In Chicago area, ... most are not going to South Bend specifically.

Most of the traffic heading south and east out of Chicago where Indiana is the control city is going to I-65 to head toward Indy and I-94 to head toward Detroit not even reaching South Bend.

I'm skeptical that most of the traffic coming in on the Eisenhower or the Kennedy or the Stevenson is headed to Indiana at all.

Gary would be the most accurate as that's where the traffic all goes before splitting off amongst I-65, I-94 and the Toll Road, but Gary has such a poor image nobody wants that on a sign.

"Image" should not be a criterion for what destination goes on a guide sign.  Everyone in Chicago knows where Gary is, so it would work as a control city.

[mgk920]

In Chicago area, "Indiana" is perfect for points east. Also, most are not going to South Bend specifically. Once past IN border, then there are signs for I-65 to Indy and I-94 to Detroit, etc.

"...should be replaced with..." No need to spend valuable tax money for this, we are fine.

Most of the traffic heading south and east out of Chicago where Indiana is the control city is going to I-65 to head toward Indy and I-94 to head toward Detroit not even reaching South Bend.

"Indiana" as a control destination has to be one of the most-discussed ones on this board. There's no perfect answer.

Gary would be the most accurate as that's where the traffic all goes before splitting off amongst I-65, I-94 and the Toll Road, but Gary has such a poor image nobody wants that on a sign.

Signing all of Detroit, South Bend and Indianapolis is probably the most helpful but would get very cluttered.

Indiana remains the least bad option. Yes it's vague, but everybody is going to or through Indiana so it gets you there and then once to you get to Gary the signs can get more specific.

I agree, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  Same thing with using 'Iowa' and 'Wisconsin' as controls in central Chicago.

Mike

[mrsman]

In Chicago area, "Indiana" is perfect for points east. Also, most are not going to South Bend specifically. Once past IN border, then there are signs for I-65 to Indy and I-94 to Detroit, etc.

"...should be replaced with..." No need to spend valuable tax money for this, we are fine.

Most of the traffic heading south and east out of Chicago where Indiana is the control city is going to I-65 to head toward Indy and I-94 to head toward Detroit not even reaching South Bend.

"Indiana" as a control destination has to be one of the most-discussed ones on this board. There's no perfect answer.

Gary would be the most accurate as that's where the traffic all goes before splitting off amongst I-65, I-94 and the Toll Road, but Gary has such a poor image nobody wants that on a sign.

Signing all of Detroit, South Bend and Indianapolis is probably the most helpful but would get very cluttered.

Indiana remains the least bad option. Yes it's vague, but everybody is going to or through Indiana so it gets you there and then once to you get to Gary the signs can get more specific.

I agree, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  Same thing with using 'Iowa' and 'Wisconsin' as controls in central Chicago.

Mike

Of the three states, Indiana is the least likely to cause problems.  Given the geography, you basically have to pass through the NW corner to reach nearly the rest of the state, so Indiana can stay, begrudgingly.  It is equivalent to the Illinois control in St Louis which leads to the bridges over the river that can then lead to Illinois and then the three highways to Chicago, Indianapolis, or Louisville.

I have more problems with Wisconsin, since there are other ways to get to other parts of the state.  For 294, especially, the road goes to Milwaukee - you have to turn off to get to Rockford (which is Illinois) and then Madison. 

Iowa is a big problem, since the control does not stay the same going west.  Once you leave Chicagoland, you would see different controls like Davenport or Moline=Grand Island depending on the district.  Indiana uses Des Moines for some odd reason.  So it would make sense to me that the control in Indiana and all of Illinois should be Davenport, and it should be consistent.

[pianocello]

Iowa is a big problem, since the control does not stay the same going west.  Once you leave Chicagoland, you would see different controls like Davenport or Moline=Grand Island depending on the district.  Indiana uses Des Moines for some odd reason.  So it would make sense to me that the control in Indiana and all of Illinois should be Davenport, and it should be consistent.

Disagree that it's a big problem. I think it's a fair assumption that most non-suburban traffic have destinations in or beyond Iowa, and as much as I hate to say it, Des Moines and Iowa City are more notable destinations than Davenport, Moline, and Rock Island.

FWIW, I've always thought the Iowa shout-out was cool, but I wouldn't be mad if it was changed to Joliet (for I-80) and Aurora (for I-88), and then Des Moines past those cities.

For the rest of your point, I'm not sure signage is as inconsistent as you're outlining. I don't recall seeing Des Moines as a control city in Indiana, unless there's a mileage sign I haven't paid attention to (WB traffic is signed for Chicago). Also, AFAIK the only mention of Davenport outside the Quad Cities themselves is at the north end of I-180. The rest of it's mainly just Moline-Rock Island, which is consistent with IDOT's system of secondary control cities (see also: East St. Louis, Effingham, Mt. Vernon, etc.)

[Revive 755]

I don't recall seeing Des Moines as a control city in Indiana, unless there's a mileage sign I haven't paid attention to (WB traffic is signed for Chicago).

Des Moines does make an appearance on the Indiana Toll Road.
Example 1
Example 2

[Flint1979]

Using Des Moines in Indiana is stupid. That is easily the worst control city in Indiana.

[kphoger]

Didn't Illinois use to use one of the Quad Cities on I-80?  I have an early childhood memory of seeing a guide sign for one of them at the I-55 interchange, and I think it was Rock Island.

[SkyPesos]

Using Des Moines in Indiana is stupid. That is easily the worst control city in Indiana.

I still think "Ohio" is a bit worse, for this reason I mentioned upthread:

I don't like the Indiana Toll Road using "Ohio" eastbound though. Traffic going from Chicago to two of Ohio's 3 largest cities would've left the Toll Road somewhere in NWI (Cincinnati traffic at I-65, Columbus traffic at I-65 or IN 49 to US 30), so you only have Cleveland left of the 3 major cities to represent "Ohio" on the Turnpike. I would definitely go with either South Bend or Toledo there after I-90 enters Indiana.

Didn't Illinois use to use one of the Quad Cities on I-80?  I have an early childhood memory of seeing a guide sign for one of them at the I-55 interchange, and I think it was Rock Island.

From what I remember from browsing GSV, it's "Moline - Rock Island"

[paulthemapguy]

Didn't Illinois use to use one of the Quad Cities on I-80?  I have an early childhood memory of seeing a guide sign for one of them at the I-55 interchange, and I think it was Rock Island.

As you might already know, Illinois uses two different sets of control cities.  Moline-Rock Island is used as the local control city on the minor street. Des Moines is the major city for westbound I-80. I pass this sign leaving work most days.


IL-I-80X134SN by Paul Across America, on Flickr

[thenetwork]

The use of Utah for I-70 from Grand Junction west is most logical as most traffic either heads to Moab (US-191 South), Salt Lake City (US-6) or Richfield (I-70) not many other towns in-between worth mentioning.

Although Green River would qualify as the Limon of Utah...

[Flint1979]

Although Green River would qualify as the Limon of Utah...

It would? Limon is about three times the size of Green River.

[kphoger]

Although Green River would qualify as the Limon of Utah...

It would? Limon is about three times the size of Green River.

Yes.  It's the jumping-off point for WB traffic headed to Salt Lake City.  Its use as a control city functions much as Limon does farther east.

[mgk920]

Although Green River would qualify as the Limon of Utah...

It would? Limon is about three times the size of Green River.

Yes.  It's the jumping-off point for WB traffic headed to Salt Lake City.  Its use as a control city functions much as Limon does farther east.

Or Tomah, WI, for to its major interstate highway interchange (I-90/94 split).

Mike

[thenetwork]

Although Green River would qualify as the Limon of Utah...

It would? Limon is about three times the size of Green River.

Yes.  It's the jumping-off point for WB traffic headed to Salt Lake City.  Its use as a control city functions much as Limon does farther east.

Exactly. The stretch of I-70 in which US-491 duplexes for a few exits between Crescent Jct
and Green River Is where most traffic switches route numbers to access different points in Utah, much in the same vein that traffic changes routes in Limon.

I would say that the percentage of traffic that stays on I-70 BOTH before and after this stretch is much lower than those who only enter and/or exit I-70 here.

[ran4sh]

There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.

A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities.

The interstates are a national system, not a system where "cross country" routes are one type of route and some other type of route is a different type of route.

Cross country traffic should figure in when determining control cities on *any* interstate, not just the "cross country" routes (whatever that means... FHWA makes no such distinction).

Never said anything about cross country routes or even Interstates at all for that matter.

A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities. That means that if a route has a lot of cross country traffic, its control cities should, on average, be larger and more notable. If a route does not have a lot of cross country traffic - and many segments of Interstates don't - the control cities should, on average, be more locally rather than nationally known.

Again, routes are arbitrary distinctions and all it takes is replacement of some signs to turn one segment from "non-cross country" to "cross country" or vice versa. For example, the interstates currently known as I-76 were at one point branch routes from I-80 (i.e. I-80S, etc) I-80 is clearly a cross country route, while the others are not, so just by switching signs you are saying the standards should also switch (despite being the same road). I strongly disagree, routes are arbitrary distinctions.

Reread what he wrote carefully. He's saying "sections of road with lots of out-of-state traffic should have more well-known control cities". That has nothing to do with route numbers.

Sure. But my opinion remains the same. The FHWA makes no distinction between Interstate routes with lots of out of state traffic vs routes with mostly local traffic. I agree with that and I believe Interstate routes throughout the whole system, including 3dis, should have control cities based on non-local traffic.

They leave it up to the states to decide what the control cities are. Like for Michigan MDOT chooses the control cities and does a pretty good job at it too. So control cities vary state by state, some do it well and some don't.

The winner for MDOT's worst control cities is a tie between Flint on I-275 and Port Huron on I-696.

That's not what the MUTCD says. The MUTCD specifically recommends continuity across state lines. It's just that it's not within the power of the federal government to force states to agree on control cities across state lines.

Have you not caught on that nobody cares about what the MUTCD says?

No because in this case, whoever is disagreeing with the MUTCD is wrong.

[PNWRoadgeek]

Oregon has a lot of bad ones, they can get provincial at times and they for some reason hate signing anything in California and Idaho.

Though in my opinion, Yreka is the worst. They could sign Sacramento or Redding here, but they instead sign a small town just south of the border. Why do they do this? I don't know, I think Oregon just hates signing any large city outside of its borders besides Seattle.

Umatilla and Ontario are close seconds, Ontario is one of the largest cities in Eastern Oregon and is the last city in Oregon so it's kinda passable. Umatilla just makes zero sense to me, they could sign Kennewick, Spokane, or Seattle. But no.

[US 89]

Ontario looks ridiculous when Boise is 20 times its size and not even 50 miles down the road.

[PNWRoadgeek]

Ontario looks ridiculous when Boise is 20 times its size and not even 50 miles down the road.

Yes! Just because Oregon has to sign SOMETHING in their state borders before we get to Idaho. It doesn't even have an important junction besides maybe OR 201, which combined with US 20/26 is a cut over to US 95 but it's faster to just take I-84 to get to 95. Makes no sense. Not that big of a place either with a population of just 11,000.

But I think it's just as bad when Idaho signs it west out of Boise. No need, though Portland is quite a distance away so I understand if they want to sign something out of state that isn't Portland, though if they were willing to go that route then they might as well just sign Pendleton out of Boise.

[Amaury]

I don't think it's on any milage signs, but this still seems unnecessary: https://maps.app.goo.gl/NjqUd2dsv3BbsHfNA

I think I would rather them sign the name of the road than whatever Fishtrap is for a minor junction like this. The exit is named the same thing westbound. There isn't even a Wikipedia article for it, because whether a city, town, UIC, or CDP, Google Maps will say something along the lines of "X is a small CDP in X County," which isn't the case here.

[Flint1979]

In Chicago area, ... most are not going to South Bend specifically.

Most of the traffic heading south and east out of Chicago where Indiana is the control city is going to I-65 to head toward Indy and I-94 to head toward Detroit not even reaching South Bend.

I'm skeptical that most of the traffic coming in on the Eisenhower or the Kennedy or the Stevenson is headed to Indiana at all.

Gary would be the most accurate as that's where the traffic all goes before splitting off amongst I-65, I-94 and the Toll Road, but Gary has such a poor image nobody wants that on a sign.

"Image" should not be a criterion for what destination goes on a guide sign.  Everyone in Chicago knows where Gary is, so it would work as a control city.

I mean yeah Flint is a control city on US-23, I-69, I-75 and I-275 and has just as bad of an image as Gary does.

[PNWRoadgeek]

I don't think it's on any milage signs, but this still seems unnecessary: https://maps.app.goo.gl/NjqUd2dsv3BbsHfNA

I think I would rather them sign the name of the road than whatever Fishtrap is for a minor junction like this. The exit is named the same thing westbound. There isn't even a Wikipedia article for it, because whether a city, town, UIC, or CDP, Google Maps will say something along the lines of "X is a small CDP in X County," which isn't the case here.

Is this worse than that one Ritzville sign on 90 west near the Spokane Airport?

[Flint1979]

I don't think it's on any milage signs, but this still seems unnecessary: https://maps.app.goo.gl/NjqUd2dsv3BbsHfNA

I think I would rather them sign the name of the road than whatever Fishtrap is for a minor junction like this. The exit is named the same thing westbound. There isn't even a Wikipedia article for it, because whether a city, town, UIC, or CDP, Google Maps will say something along the lines of "X is a small CDP in X County," which isn't the case here.

Is this worse than that one Ritzville sign on 90 west near the Spokane Airport?

I saw one on US-2, the rest of the signs in the area have Seattle as the control city so that one is a mystery.

[PNWRoadgeek]

I don't think it's on any milage signs, but this still seems unnecessary: https://maps.app.goo.gl/NjqUd2dsv3BbsHfNA

I think I would rather them sign the name of the road than whatever Fishtrap is for a minor junction like this. The exit is named the same thing westbound. There isn't even a Wikipedia article for it, because whether a city, town, UIC, or CDP, Google Maps will say something along the lines of "X is a small CDP in X County," which isn't the case here.

Is this worse than that one Ritzville sign on 90 west near the Spokane Airport?

I saw one on US-2, the rest of the signs in the area have Seattle as the control city so that one is a mystery.

That's what I meant. Couldn't remember where exactly it was, but I knew there was a sign in Spokane that did list Ritzville.

[Amaury]

I believe it's this one: https://maps.app.goo.gl/kDv1gAeCn6rMd6Lv6

I don't really see an issue with it there or on milage signs since it is a city and it's where the junctions with US 395 and SR 261 are, the former leaving its concurrency with I-90.

[PNWRoadgeek]

I believe it's this one: https://maps.app.goo.gl/kDv1gAeCn6rMd6Lv6

I don't really see an issue with it there or on milage signs since it is a city and it's where the junctions with US 395 and SR 261 are, the former leaving its concurrency with I-90.

I think Ritzville/Seattle is the way to go there, just Ritzville is definitely a problem as the only thing it really draws in traffic for is the US 395 junction. Though Spokane to Ellensburg is a relatively unpopulated stretch of I-90, so I get why they would sign something from over there, especially something with an important junction.