Chicago Tribune article on I-355 "Suburbs" sign

[Revive 755]

True, but Toledo (or the Indiana Toll Road, for that matter) is the destination for only a fraction of the traffic.  Once in Indiana, you've got 3 Interstate choices: I-65, I-80/90 & I-94.  I don't know what the percentage is, but I gotta believe that for Eastbound I-80 traffic around the Joliet area, the percentage of traffic traveling through to the Toll Road, even to at least South Bend, is pretty low. Hence the generic Indiana moniker.  Same thing with using Wisconsin on the Tri-State -- there's a big split before the state line in which people either want to stay in Eastern Wisconsin (via I-94) or Central/Western Wisconsin (I-90).  So to avoid all the confusion, Wisconsin makes for a good destination.

But I doubt there's that many motorist on I-55 or I-57 that are going to get on I-80 and then go back south on I-65.  If one is going to start signing more possible destinations available from eastbound I-80, then either use Gary for the eastbound control city at I-55 or sign it as I-80 East to I-94 East/Toledo/Detroit (but then Detroit fails those motorist heading for Grand Rapids or Lansing  )  Better to focus on one or two cities, not to try and sign every possible option.

I also don't care for Indiana being used on I-94 before it even gets to Chicago:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=42.482257,-87.947574&spn=0.024054,0.082397&z=15&layer=c&cbll=42.481875,-87.947578&panoid=CLb7odMk1_npQa8vhnBH3A&cbp=12,177.73,,0,-5.03
just use Chicago, or maybe Chicago/O' Hare Airport.

Wisconsin is a bad choice on I-90/94 near downtown Chicago because only I-94 goes to Wisconsin right away; better to use either Milwaukee or Rockford/Milwaukee.  On the Tri-State Milwaukee would be a better choice than simply Wisconsin since most other cities are simply in the same direction as Milwaukee.

Iowa is also too vague to use on westbound I-80, as this would ignore traffic going to eventually join the CKC route around the Quad Cities - and is using I-80 over I-88 to save on tolls - and head for Kansas City.  Better to either stick with Des Moines or switch to Davenport.

The only places states should be used as controls is near river crossings, such as the use of Illinois for I-55 around downtown St. Louis.  Indiana is way to accessible to be a good control around Chicago.

[hobsini2]

That sucks. I am getting tired of these "general" control cities.  Indiana is a huge area to be used as a control city unless it is on the Tri-State.  And besides US 52, eventually, does go into Indiana but nowhere near Gary.  They (IDOT) should have kept Des Moines and Toledo as control cities at the 55/80 jct.

True, but Toledo (or the Indiana Toll Road, for that matter) is the destination for only a fraction of the traffic.  Once in Indiana, you've got 3 Interstate choices: I-65, I-80/90 & I-94.  I don't know what the percentage is, but I gotta believe that for Eastbound I-80 traffic around the Joliet area, the percentage of traffic traveling through to the Toll Road, even to at least South Bend, is pretty low. Hence the generic Indiana moniker.  Same thing with using Wisconsin on the Tri-State -- there's a big split before the state line in which people either want to stay in Eastern Wisconsin (via I-94) or Central/Western Wisconsin (I-90).  So to avoid all the confusion, Wisconsin makes for a good destination.  

Now using Iowa on the other hand for Westbound I-80 is a different story.

Then IDOT should use Gary as a main control city at 55/80 because Gary is where you make your decision of Indy, Toledo, or Detroit.  Hell, they should also use Quad Cities (or Moline-Rock Island) at 55/80 before using Des Moines.  As far as the use of Indiana and Wisconsin on the Tri-State goes, I am ok with that because it (294) is a bypass of Chicago and not a lengthy interstate.  That's my gripe.

[hobsini2]

I also don't care for Indiana being used on I-94 before it even gets to Chicago:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=42.482257,-87.947574&spn=0.024054,0.082397&z=15&layer=c&cbll=42.481875,-87.947578&panoid=CLb7odMk1_npQa8vhnBH3A&cbp=12,177.73,,0,-5.03
just use Chicago, or maybe Chicago/O' Hare Airport.

Wisconsin is a bad choice on I-90/94 near downtown Chicago because only I-94 goes to Wisconsin right away; better to use either Milwaukee or Rockford/Milwaukee.  On the Tri-State Milwaukee would be a better choice than simply Wisconsin since most other cities are simply in the same direction as Milwaukee.

When you enter Illinois from Kenosha on 94, I have no problem with Indiana being mentioned with Chicago like it currently is signed.  But I would agree that O'Hare should used too on that sign.  

As far as when you are in Downtown Chicago, the use of Wisconsin and Indiana is fine since 90/94 are cosigned together.  However, at the respective splits, IDOT does use Milwaukee for 94 and O'Hare-Rockford for 90.  There is even one sign just after the I-190 exit going west that mentions Madison but then the next mention of Madison on 90 is not until you reach I-39.
At the other end (Skyway Jct), the use of the generic Indiana for 94 East is ok but i would add South Suburbs or Kankakee or Memphis since 94 connects with I-57 6 miles later.  They already mention on the 90 East Skyway sign "to Indiana Toll Road" which is also fine.  It's just I-80 that annoys me.

[hobsini2]

I don't know why my post attributed my comment to the quote but this is the correction.

When you enter Illinois from Kenosha on 94, I have no problem with Indiana being mentioned with Chicago like it currently is signed.  But I would agree that O'Hare should used too on that sign. 

As far as when you are in Downtown Chicago, the use of Wisconsin and Indiana is fine since 90/94 are cosigned together.  However, at the respective splits, IDOT does use Milwaukee for 94 and O'Hare-Rockford for 90.  There is even one sign just after the I-190 exit going west that mentions Madison but then the next mention of Madison on 90 is not until you reach I-39.
At the other end (Skyway Jct), the use of the generic Indiana for 94 East is ok but i would add South Suburbs or Kankakee or Memphis since 94 connects with I-57 6 miles later.  They already mention on the 90 East Skyway sign "to Indiana Toll Road" which is also fine.  It's just I-80 that annoys me.

[Revive 755]

Then IDOT should use Gary as a main control city at 55/80 because Gary is where you make your decision of Indy, Toledo, or Detroit.  Hell, they should also use Quad Cities (or Moline-Rock Island) at 55/80 before using Des Moines.  As far as the use of Indiana and Wisconsin on the Tri-State goes, I am ok with that because it (294) is a bypass of Chicago and not a lengthy interstate.  That's my gripe.

But if a DOT should start using control cities where a driver has to start choosing between routes, it starts becoming annoying like I-80 through Pennsylvania where instead of a major city being used a bunch of smaller cities than an out of stater might never have heard of are used.  Some possibilities if the control city where the route splits are used:

Illinois - May not be the best choice for an example since Illinois is good at providing secondary control cities
I-55
* Troy - Split with I-70 to Indianapolis; some of the signs along the I-55/70 multiplex just use Chicago
* Springfield (used on some signs now; split with I-72 to Decatur
* Lincoln - Split with I-155 to Peoria
* Bloomington/Normal - Split with I-39
* Joliet -Access to I-80

I-64
* Nashville (IL) - intersection with IL 127 (future expressway down to Murphysboro and Carbondale)
* Mount Vernon - Split with traffic heading south on I-57 to Marion and traffic heading to I-24

Missouri
I-44
* Gray Summit - Somewhat major split with westbound MO 100 (signalized expressway) taking traffic to Washington, eastbound MO 100 (was a future expressway) taking traffic to some of the western St. Louis suburbs.
* Union (westbound) - Split with US 50 (future expressway)
* St. Clair - Intersection with MO 47, MO 30.  MO 30 is a decently used alternative to I-44
* Rolla - Intersection with US 63 (65 mph highway, future expressway)
* Lebanon (eastbound) - Intersection with MO 5, (future expressway), major route to Lake of the Ozarks
* Springfield - Intersections with US 65 and US 60 expressways
* Fidelity (eastbound) - Intersection with US 71/Future I-49 north to Kansas City
* Joplin - Intersection with US 71/Future I-49 south to Bentonville and Fort Smith
* Loma Linda (westbound) - Split with US 400, a somewhat expressway route into Kansas

I-55
* Festus or Crystal City - Since the US 67 expressway takes a great amount of traffic, possible a major route in the future to Little Rock

When you enter Illinois from Kenosha on 94, I have no problem with Indiana being mentioned with Chicago like it currently is signed.  But I would agree that O'Hare should used too on that sign.

But not all traffic may be destined for Indiana; there could be some heading for I-55 and/or I-57, so Indiana should not be listed.  If Indiana is listed why not Missouri or even Kentucky (via I-24)? 

As far as when you are in Downtown Chicago, the use of Wisconsin and Indiana is fine since 90/94 are cosigned together.  However, at the respective splits, IDOT does use Milwaukee for 94 and O'Hare-Rockford for 90.  There is even one sign just after the I-190 exit going west that mentions Madison but then the next mention of Madison on 90 is not until you reach I-39.
At the other end (Skyway Jct), the use of the generic Indiana for 94 East is ok but i would add South Suburbs or Kankakee or Memphis since 94 connects with I-57 6 miles later.  They already mention on the 90 East Skyway sign "to Indiana Toll Road" which is also fine.  It's just I-80 that annoys me.
[/quote]

[hobsini2]

But if a DOT should start using control cities where a driver has to start choosing between routes, it starts becoming annoying like I-80 through Pennsylvania where instead of a major city being used a bunch of smaller cities than an out of stater might never have heard of are used.  Some possibilities if the control city where the route splits are used:

Illinois - May not be the best choice for an example since Illinois is good at providing secondary control cities
I-55
* Troy - Split with I-70 to Indianapolis; some of the signs along the I-55/70 multiplex just use Chicago
* Springfield (used on some signs now; split with I-72 to Decatur
* Lincoln - Split with I-155 to Peoria
* Bloomington/Normal - Split with I-39
* Joliet -Access to I-80

I-64
* Nashville (IL) - intersection with IL 127 (future expressway down to Murphysboro and Carbondale)
* Mount Vernon - Split with traffic heading south on I-57 to Marion and traffic heading to I-24

Missouri
I-44
* Gray Summit - Somewhat major split with westbound MO 100 (signalized expressway) taking traffic to Washington, eastbound MO 100 (was a future expressway) taking traffic to some of the western St. Louis suburbs.
* Union (westbound) - Split with US 50 (future expressway)
* St. Clair - Intersection with MO 47, MO 30.  MO 30 is a decently used alternative to I-44
* Rolla - Intersection with US 63 (65 mph highway, future expressway)
* Lebanon (eastbound) - Intersection with MO 5, (future expressway), major route to Lake of the Ozarks
* Springfield - Intersections with US 65 and US 60 expressways
* Fidelity (eastbound) - Intersection with US 71/Future I-49 north to Kansas City
* Joplin - Intersection with US 71/Future I-49 south to Bentonville and Fort Smith
* Loma Linda (westbound) - Split with US 400, a somewhat expressway route into Kansas

I-55
* Festus or Crystal City - Since the US 67 expressway takes a great amount of traffic, possible a major route in the future to Little Rock

When you enter Illinois from Kenosha on 94, I have no problem with Indiana being mentioned with Chicago like it currently is signed.  But I would agree that O'Hare should used too on that sign.

But not all traffic may be destined for Indiana; there could be some heading for I-55 and/or I-57, so Indiana should not be listed.  If Indiana is listed why not Missouri or even Kentucky (via I-24)? 

You're missing my point.  With I-80, since it skirts the Chicago metro area, Gary would make sense to use much like Aurora is used for WB I-88 and Rockford for WB I-90.  Once you get upto the 80/65/90/94 jcts, use the major cities such as Indianapolis, Toledo, and Detroit.  Not all interstate jcts need to be using the specific town the jct is in.  But Gary for one is a major enough city, like Springfield, that it can be justified to use.
Whereas when you are in Downtown Chicago (which to me is from the Stevenson Expy up to the Ohio St ramps), using Indiana as opposed to Missouri makes sense.  I-55 leaving Downtown Chicago uses St Louis. I-57 uses Memphis and Kankakee (depending on the age of the sign).
And do you really believe that the majority of traffic going south on the Ryan from I-290 would not be going toward Indiana?  That's why both 55 and 57 say specific cities.

[rmsandw]

Chicago isn't the only area you get states as control cities.  At St. Louis, for example, EB 64/40, EB 70, NB 55 has control cities of "Illinois".  This pic from I-44 is one that makes me laugh a bit.


It reads, atleast to me, "Downtown Illinois"...even though they mean Downtown Stl & Illinois
Here SB I-55 gets Memphis, and NB which one would argue, Chicago...gets a local destination.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

^That's a dinky sign for I-55 SB Memphis (in comparison) on that sign bridge.

[Revive 755]

^ It's been replaced with a bigger sign.  Most recent photo I can find online (only change should be removal of the exit only tab under the Jefferson Avenue sign):
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.613853,-90.223911&spn=0.012675,0.041199&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.613864,-90.224195&panoid=JiVLteCaV_eVZr0pOhFtKQ&cbp=12,97.73,,0,-3.34

An older version of the sign for I-55 North only listed Illinois but also had I-70 East.

[MDOTFanFB]

The Midwest isn't the only area where states are used as control cities. There was the control city of "New Jersey" on SB I-95 in NYC before it was changed to "Trenton".

[Brandon]

It reads, atleast to me, "Downtown Illinois"...even though they mean Downtown Stl & Illinois
Here SB I-55 gets Memphis, and NB which one would argue, Chicago...gets a local destination.

Wouldn't "Downtown Illinois" be Chicago anyway?  

[hobsini2]

"Downtown Illinois" is just MDOT being lazy.  I would have the sign say "Downtown St.L." with a line under it then "Illinois" or even "Chicago" since it is just I-55 at that point.  On I-43/I-94 in Milwaukee, there are signs for I-794 East that say "Port of Milw." so it would not be a first for abbreviating a city within that city.

[Revive 755]

Wouldn't "Downtown Illinois" be Chicago anyway?   

In the older days it could have been a reference to downtown East St. Louis  .

Maybe it should just be signed "Poplar Street Bridge; using Chicago could always be interpreted as not having access to I-64 and I-70 via I-55  .

[rmsandw]

There are BGS that either MoDOT or the City of StL have put up years ago that say "Poplar Street Bridge"

[hobsini2]

But you got to think like someone from out of town for a control city.  Locals and Roadgeeks would know the I-55/64/70 bridge is the Poplar St Bridge but not a novice.  But you are correct about people may get confused by using Chicago that the road also connects with I-64/70.  Maybe it should say East St Louis after all but I would still put Downtown St.L. too.