Worst control city on an interstate in your state

[Flint1979]

I think the worst control city of them all is THRU TRAFFIC.

[ilpt4u]

They leave it up to the states to decide what the control cities are.

And states don't always agree. Look at I-24. Kentucky uses St. Louis, Paducah, and Nashville. No mention of Clarksville. Tennessee uses Nashville, Clarksville, and St. Louis. No mention of Paducah.

Yeah and Illinois uses, "Interstate 57." Those are stupid control cities. I'd love to re-control city I-24. The entire route I'd go with Chattanooga, Nashville, Clarksville, Paducah, Mt. Vernon. Nothing wrong with any of those I do not think.

I'd pick Marion over Mt Vernon for I-24. It is very close to where I-24 terminates to I-57, and is a decent sized city for Southern Illinois

[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?

That's the non-roadgeek opinion. They tend to have arbitrary rules such as a control city must be on the route. I disagree.

[hobsini2]

They leave it up to the states to decide what the control cities are.

And states don't always agree. Look at I-24. Kentucky uses St. Louis, Paducah, and Nashville. No mention of Clarksville. Tennessee uses Nashville, Clarksville, and St. Louis. No mention of Paducah.

Yeah and Illinois uses, "Interstate 57." Those are stupid control cities. I'd love to re-control city I-24. The entire route I'd go with Chattanooga, Nashville, Clarksville, Paducah, Mt. Vernon. Nothing wrong with any of those I do not think.

I'd pick Marion over Mt Vernon for I-24. It is very close to where I-24 terminates to I-57, and is a decent sized city for Southern Illinois

I would go with Carbondale over Marion only because of SIU. And if I-24 is ever extended west to St Louis, not holding my breath, it most likely would go near Carbondale.

[Declan127]

"New York" on the Thruway anywhere west of Albany, where there are several important cities en route to NYC. Same thing with I-87 north of said city.

[Scott5114]

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

If we're going to just disregard the MUTCD as a guiding document here, then all control city choice is entirely arbitrary, and there's no point in even having a thread because there's nothing that makes one control city better than another. We can start posting made-up things like "Willieville" and "Spantz" on every exit because without the MUTCD there is nothing saying what a control city should or should not be, or even the concept of a control city to begin with.

[hobsini2]

"New York" on the Thruway anywhere west of Albany, where there are several important cities en route to NYC. Same thing with I-87 north of said city.

One could argue that signing New York City even as far west as Buffalo would be fine as long as there is a second city on the sign until I-86 is completed all the way to I-84/I-87 in the New York North Suburbs.

[webny99]

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).

When webny99 says "cross country 2di", what is meant is a 2di that spans the length of the country, or very near that. I-95 goes from the Canadian border at Houlton to Fort Lauderdale, I-40 spans from I-15 near Needles to Wilmington. An example of a 2di that does not cross the country is I-79, which only spans from Erie to Charleston. Webny99 wasn't trying to use any official designation.

This is old news by now, but I don't think it was me that said anything about cross-country 2di's. I'm not in the quote string either. Maybe you just got your users mixed up? 

[Roadgeekteen]

They leave it up to the states to decide what the control cities are.

And states don't always agree. Look at I-24. Kentucky uses St. Louis, Paducah, and Nashville. No mention of Clarksville. Tennessee uses Nashville, Clarksville, and St. Louis. No mention of Paducah.

Some control cities make sense in one direction but don't in the other. Clarksville is one of those cities.

[ran4sh]

They leave it up to the states to decide what the control cities are.

And states don't always agree. Look at I-24. Kentucky uses St. Louis, Paducah, and Nashville. No mention of Clarksville. Tennessee uses Nashville, Clarksville, and St. Louis. No mention of Paducah.

Some control cities make sense in one direction but don't in the other. Clarksville is one of those cities.

Yes, this (ideally) is what happens when a city is large enough to be a control city but there is a much larger city also along the route. The direction going to the very large city "skips" the less large city in the control city sequence.

An extreme example is I-95 north skipping Philadelphia because New York is more important, although this is something some people disagree with.

[thspfc]

An extreme example is I-95 north skipping Philadelphia because New York is more important, although this is something some people disagree with.

That's a situation where there should be 2 control cities.

[hobsini2]

Cities over 1M metro should never be skipped IMO. It's when you get to the smaller metros (200k-500k) where it gets dicey largely depending on how far away it is from a bigger metro.

[thspfc]

Cities over 1M metro should never be skipped IMO. It's when you get to the smaller metros (200k-500k) where it gets dicey largely depending on how far away it is from a bigger metro.

So I-10 WB in AZ/CA should get San Bernardino rather than Los Angeles?

[ran4sh]

An extreme example is I-95 north skipping Philadelphia because New York is more important, although this is something some people disagree with.

That's a situation where there should be 2 control cities.

On the mileage sign, sure.

On the other signs that use control cities, no, because of message loading concerns. If 2 cities are really needed, then what some states do is alternate the use of the two cities

[thenetwork]

"Borrowing" an idea from another thread, I'd like to nominate the LACK of a control city on I-469, both north and south.

NB I-469 is an easy fix for most of the way:  Toledo.  But past US-24 East, it gets tricky.

SB I-469 is a toss-up: Lima (US-30) or Columbus (US-33).  Past that, Indianapolis is a slam dunk the rest of the way.

[Roadgeekteen]

Cities over 1M metro should never be skipped IMO. It's when you get to the smaller metros (200k-500k) where it gets dicey largely depending on how far away it is from a bigger metro.

So I-10 WB in AZ/CA should get San Bernardino rather than Los Angeles?

I count San Bernardino as part of the greater LA area.

[ran4sh]

"Borrowing" an idea from another thread, I'd like to nominate the LACK of a control city on I-469, both north and south.

NB I-469 is an easy fix for most of the way:  Toledo.  But past US-24 East, it gets tricky.

Lansing, or whatever is actually used on I-69 north from Ft Wayne

SB I-469 is a toss-up: Lima (US-30) or Columbus (US-33).  Past that, Indianapolis is a slam dunk the rest of the way.

US 33 might go to Columbus but the last time I was in the area, my GPS routed me through Lima to get to Columbus, so it seems like that might be the better route.

So maybe use Columbus or Lima as the thru control city until US 30, use Indianapolis as the thru control city beyond that, but at the US 33 exit Columbus can be used on the exit signs.

[michravera]

Cities over 1M metro should never be skipped IMO. It's when you get to the smaller metros (200k-500k) where it gets dicey largely depending on how far away it is from a bigger metro.

So I-10 WB in AZ/CA should get San Bernardino rather than Los Angeles?

I count San Bernardino as part of the greater LA area.

If that view is to be regarded as reasonable, virtually no control cities make sense on I-80 in California west of Forest Hill (where the roadway widens to three lanes and basically remains so until well inside San Francisco), nothing would make sense on I-15 much south of the CA/NV border, nothing would make sense on I-5 south of Santa Clarita, and almost none of the 3dis in California would have controls cities that made ANY sense. If San Bernardino is part of the Greater LA area, then Tracy is part of the Greater San Jose or Oakland area and so is Stockton and probably Sacramento as well.

There are breaks in the built-up area between LA and San Bernardino. There are breaks in the built-up area even between Sacramento and Oakland. But, that aside, even in Sacramento, you need to know the difference between Roseville, Folsom, Elk Grove, and Wessac.

It is my understanding that control cities are generally to be used until they are reached. Inside built-up areas, it makes sense to have a "local" destination to get on the right freeway to a suburb or nearby city and a "distant" destination, so that people who are "just passing through" can get where they are going as well. Once out of a built-up area, the "distant" destination is fine which can be combined with a "local" destination, if a minor city pops up.

One reason for the 1960s song "Do You Know the Way to San Jose?" is that, at the time, it didn't show up as a control city until you were nearly in it!

[roadman65]

California always was inconsistent with controls just as I-95 in NC.


NYC used to be where they signed the region leaving the city, but once outside a proper city name became used.   It used to beNew England for I-95 north and then New Haven once in Westchester County.  I-87 used to use Upstate until t pit left NYC at Yonkers where Albany is then used.

The LIE has Eastern LI used EB until Nassau County where Riverhead becomes it going EB in Nassau.  People on Long Island I guess feel Riverhead is not good choice as inside NY it's used sparingly now despite the MUTCD requirements of nixing bridges and regions.


Also in NJ now I see on US 46 that Elmwood Park is used on the pull through at the NJ 20 split despite it being the very next community after the split and not of major significance.  However new guides on the Garden State Parkway Exit 156 feature Elmwood Park, so I imagine it's to follow up on that.  Though, NJDOT did remove Elmwood Park as control city from US 46 to NB CR 507, so with that Elmwood Park should be restored to Exit 157 on the Parkway as the only exit for Elmwood Park signed is now east of Exit 157.

[Flint1979]

"Borrowing" an idea from another thread, I'd like to nominate the LACK of a control city on I-469, both north and south.

NB I-469 is an easy fix for most of the way:  Toledo.  But past US-24 East, it gets tricky.

SB I-469 is a toss-up: Lima (US-30) or Columbus (US-33).  Past that, Indianapolis is a slam dunk the rest of the way.

It should be Lansing and Indianapolis on I-469.

[TheStranger]

Cities over 1M metro should never be skipped IMO. It's when you get to the smaller metros (200k-500k) where it gets dicey largely depending on how far away it is from a bigger metro.

So I-10 WB in AZ/CA should get San Bernardino rather than Los Angeles?

I count San Bernardino as part of the greater LA area.

If that view is to be regarded as reasonable, virtually no control cities make sense on I-80 in California west of Forest Hill (where the roadway widens to three lanes and basically remains so until well inside San Francisco), nothing would make sense on I-15 much south of the CA/NV border, nothing would make sense on I-5 south of Santa Clarita, and almost none of the 3dis in California would have controls cities that made ANY sense. If San Bernardino is part of the Greater LA area, then Tracy is part of the Greater San Jose or Oakland area and so is Stockton and probably Sacramento as well.

There are breaks in the built-up area between LA and San Bernardino. There are breaks in the built-up area even between Sacramento and Oakland. But, that aside, even in Sacramento, you need to know the difference between Roseville, Folsom, Elk Grove, and Wessac.

The Bay Area and Los Angeles freeway networks were much more developed by the mid-1950s compared to Sacramento's (which originally started with just US 40/99E along what is now 160 and Business 80) - I think this explains why Bay Area and LA metro control cities are locally oriented, while Sacramento's are almost all long-distance based (given that much of Sacramento's current network outside of old 40 is a product of 1960s projects).

IMO with the growth of Elk Grove, that and Stockton should be signed more out there, but I know that that wouldn't necessarily fit "control cities for long distance drivers only" philosophies mentioned elsewhere by others in this thread.

It is my understanding that control cities are generally to be used until they are reached.

I agree with that, which is why LA as a control for US 101 and I-5 within LA city limits, as much as I get the logic behind it, is a bit wacky.  (There's also one spot where a US 50 onramp is signed for Sacramento just a few blocks from Sacramento State University!)

Inside built-up areas, it makes sense to have a "local" destination to get on the right freeway to a suburb or nearby city and a "distant" destination, so that people who are "just passing through" can get where they are going as well. Once out of a built-up area, the "distant" destination is fine which can be combined with a "local" destination, if a minor city pops up.

One reason for the 1960s song "Do You Know the Way to San Jose?" is that, at the time, it didn't show up as a control city until you were nearly in it!

Funny enough, San Jose still doesn't appear as a mainline US 101 northbound control city at all until Salinas!  Southbound though it is the only control for 101 from the Van Ness Avenue/Central Freeway junction all the way to Route 85 (where it becomes San Jose/Los Angeles).

This reminds me much of how I-80 is signed for San Francisco from Sacramento west to about the Carquinez Bridge, then gets signed for Oakland and SF up to the MacArthur Maze.  Eastbound, 80 is signed only for Oakland from US 101 to the Bay Bridge, then gains Sacramento as a control city in West Oakland (almost always paired with a shorter-distance control like Berkeley or Vallejo or Vacaville).

[kirbykart]

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).

When webny99 says "cross country 2di", what is meant is a 2di that spans the length of the country, or very near that. I-95 goes from the Canadian border at Houlton to Fort Lauderdale, I-40 spans from I-15 near Needles to Wilmington. An example of a 2di that does not cross the country is I-79, which only spans from Erie to Charleston. Webny99 wasn't trying to use any official designation.

This is old news by now, but I don't think it was me that said anything about cross-country 2di's. I'm not in the quote string either. Maybe you just got your users mixed up? 

No, you are not in this quote string, but I know you said something about a "cross-country 2di".

[kirbykart]

^^No sorry, you're right. It was Flint1979 who brought up the "cross-country 2di".

[Flint1979]

"Borrowing" an idea from another thread, I'd like to nominate the LACK of a control city on I-469, both north and south.

NB I-469 is an easy fix for most of the way:  Toledo.  But past US-24 East, it gets tricky.

Lansing, or whatever is actually used on I-69 north from Ft Wayne

SB I-469 is a toss-up: Lima (US-30) or Columbus (US-33).  Past that, Indianapolis is a slam dunk the rest of the way.

US 33 might go to Columbus but the last time I was in the area, my GPS routed me through Lima to get to Columbus, so it seems like that might be the better route.

So maybe use Columbus or Lima as the thru control city until US 30, use Indianapolis as the thru control city beyond that, but at the US 33 exit Columbus can be used on the exit signs.

They use Lansing, MI north of Fort Wayne.

US-33 is the correct route to take between Fort Wayne and Columbus. There might be a way that saves you a few minutes but if it's a tad bit longer it's really not worth it to go that way.

[Flint1979]

^^No sorry, you're right. It was Flint1979 who brought up the "cross-country 2di".

And my point was that why should Raleigh be a control city on I-95 when I-40 already goes through Raleigh. That was my point with the cross country 2di thing as in there is already a major Interstate going through there so no need to sign it as a control city on another major Interstate that doesn't go through there.