Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Scott5114]

Also some states already follow your "super-control" idea in practice. (Oklahoma's control cities are the three largest cities in the state when the Interstates were built; no more, no less.) Others make every little podunk county seat a control. (I sure am glad it's so easy to find iconic Southwestern towns like Grants, New Mexico.) So really, I think your problem is federalism rather than the control city system.

[hobsini2]

Personally, I think the whole system of "control" cities and the signage thereof is in need of a rejig - with what we have now, we end up with a system in which long-distance interstate are signed to uberlocal control-cities that nobody outside the local area has heard of, and where mileage signs are woefully inconsistent, etc.

Control cities should be divided into 2 tiers: "control" and "super-control". "Super-Control" cities would be big places of national, strategic importance; I'm talking destinations like Boston, Chicago, New York, Phoenix and the like - these would be spread at a roughly equal distance along the route (though in really remote areas, they'll inevitably be more spread out). One would always appear on signage, and once reached, would be replaced by the next one.
"Control" cities would be other major destinations that a route passes through, or the location of a major junction.

Taking the I-10 as an example, working West, your Super-Control cities would be:
Jacksonville
Tallahassee
Mobile
New Orleans
Houston
San Antonio
El Paso
Phoenix
Los Angeles

And again using the I-10, the number of Control Cities are too many to list, but they'd include places like:
Lake City (for I-75)
Pensacola
Baton Rouge
Lafayette (for I-49)
etc, etc

Plus, you'd have any numerber of local destinations along your route .

On interchange directional signs, you'd have the following information:
- the next Super Control city
- the next Control city

So, for example, on the I-10 going west at Jacksonville, a direction sign would read "Lake City, Tallahassee".

Mileage signs would contain the following:
- the next super-control city
- the next 2 control cities
- plus one more local destination.

When you said "super control", I thought you were going to give, in your example, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Houston, San Antonio, Phoenix and Los Angeles super control status. What you did instead is define, as you see it, the primary/secondary tiers that for the most part already exist.

I do think that there should be 3 tiers, personally.
Primary for cities that have one of these 5 criteria:
1. Metro Area over 500k.
2. State Capitol or Largest City in the state.
3. City over 200k with a major university
4. City over 100k with top 50 domestic commercial airport.
5. End of the highway not at another interstate.

Secondary for cities that have one of these criteria:
1. City over 50k with a county population over 200k. Places most people have heard of.
2. Major tourist destination.
3. Junction with another primary interstate nearby and at least 3 exits serving the city.

Local for all others.

These are not hard rules but guidelines. Like everything else, there are exceptions to rules.

Primary (P), Secondary (S), Local (L)
So if I was to take I-10, I would do this going west:
Jacksonville (P)
Lake City (S)
Tallahassee (P)
Pensacola (S)
Mobile (P)
Pascagoula (L)
Biloxi (S)
Gulfport (S)
Slidell (L)
New Orleans (P)
Baton Rouge (P)
Lafayette (P)
Lake Charles (S)
Orange (L)
Beaumont (S)
Houston (P)
Columbus (L)
San Antonio (P)
Ft Stockton (L)
Van Horn (L)
El Paso (P)
Las Cruces (S)
Deming (L)
Lordsburg (L)
Willcox (L)
Benson (L)
Tucson (P)
Casa Grande (S)
Phoenix (P)
Blythe (L)
Palm Springs (S)
San Bernardino (S)
Los Angeles (P)
Santa Monica (P)

[Osthagen]

When you said "super control", I thought you were going to give, in your example, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Houston, San Antonio, Phoenix and Los Angeles super control status. What you did instead is define, as you see it, the primary/secondary tiers that for the most part already exist.

I am aware that similar tiers exist in some states, but the aim of my proposal was to provide a system that would define exactly how different tiers of control cities are signed, which would eliminate the problem of inconsistent signage and  signage on long-distance routes being uber-local.

[MattHanson939]

Are things like this due to a preference for using control cities within that state, rather than those of another state? I've seen it mentioned that CA has a strong preference for this so perhaps other states do as well. Though that only explains Trinidad and not Raton in the CO example.

California signs mostly in-state control cities I think in big part because it's a large state to begin with.  Most of the controls on I-5 are good choices.  It's only I-8, I-10 and I-40 that need help.  And despite CA's preference to post in-state control cities, they're still reluctant to sign Los Angeles as the westbound control on I-40 west (especially since it's signed within Arizona from Flagstaff).  Barstow ought to be a secondary control point though.

[Roadgeekteen]

Are things like this due to a preference for using control cities within that state, rather than those of another state? I've seen it mentioned that CA has a strong preference for this so perhaps other states do as well. Though that only explains Trinidad and not Raton in the CO example.

California signs mostly in-state control cities I think in big part because it's a large state to begin with.  Most of the controls on I-5 are good choices.  It's only I-8, I-10 and I-40 that need help.  And despite CA's preference to post in-state control cities, they're still reluctant to sign Los Angeles as the westbound control on I-40 west (especially since it's signed within Arizona from Flagstaff).  Barstow ought to be a secondary control point though.

I-15 isn't great either, as they use Barstow instead of Las Vegas. Barstow is fine as a secondary but Las Vegas is where most people are going.

[US 89]

Are things like this due to a preference for using control cities within that state, rather than those of another state? I've seen it mentioned that CA has a strong preference for this so perhaps other states do as well. Though that only explains Trinidad and not Raton in the CO example.

California signs mostly in-state control cities I think in big part because it's a large state to begin with.  Most of the controls on I-5 are good choices.  It's only I-8, I-10 and I-40 that need help.  And despite CA's preference to post in-state control cities, they're still reluctant to sign Los Angeles as the westbound control on I-40 west (especially since it's signed within Arizona from Flagstaff).  Barstow ought to be a secondary control point though.

I-15 isn't great either, as they use Barstow instead of Las Vegas. Barstow is fine as a secondary but Las Vegas is where most people are going.

But a pretty good proportion of the long-distance traffic heading out of the LA metro on I-15 is going to go east on I-40, which doesn't go to Las Vegas. Seems totally fine to me.

[MattHanson939]

Just discovered that on US 550 in New Mexico, Albuquerque is the primary control city going south from Bloomfield.  US 550's southern terminus is in Bernalillo; but most traffic will just continue onto I-25 south, and Albuquerque is only around 15-20 minutes away.  Or if you're headed to the west side (e.g. to Cottonwood Mall), you would just take NM 528 south through Rio Rancho, which becomes the Coors Bypass as 528 exits to Alameda Blvd; and not far after the 528/45 junction, you reach Cottonwood Mall.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.711111,-107.9860214,3a,75y,84.05h,95.66t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sbYWCiWBGDGffImuGoyn6Bw!2e0!5s20220601T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DbYWCiWBGDGffImuGoyn6Bw%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D38.462906%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Farmington is the northbound control city on US 550 from Bernalillo; Bloomfield isn't.  Why they decided to sign Farmington?  It's much bigger than Bloomfield, and it's only 20 minutes going west on US 64.  An interesting fact is 550's southern terminus used to be Farmington, and it went in a diagonal to the town of Aztec before turning north towards Durango, Colorado.  At the time, the stretch from Bloomfield to Bernalillo was NM 44.

[MattHanson939]

But a pretty good proportion of the long-distance traffic heading out of the LA metro on I-15 is going to go east on I-40, which doesn't go to Las Vegas. Seems totally fine to me.

The least CalTrans ought to do is dual sign Barstow / Las Vegas, as seen on one of the overheads at the I-10 interchange. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0671801,-117.552936,3a,75y,110.96h,95.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shH6yvc3WkCaRoMpfHL9pQg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192