Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?

[LM117]

Will that ever happen?

I hope so. I've always thought I-40 should end at I-5 near Bakersfield. It may have been rejected in the 1960's, but given the heavy truck traffic and how much bigger Bakersfield is now, I highly doubt AASHTO and FHWA would object to an I-40 extension to I-5 west of Bakersfield now, if Caltrans were to ask for it, assuming all of CA-58 between Bakersfield and Barstow gets upgraded. Almost half of CA-58 between Bakersfield and Barstow is already interstate standard and so is the recently opened section of the Westside Parkway in Bakersfield, if I'm not mistaken. Caltrans and Bakersfield should definitely push for the I-40 extension, IMO.

[The High Plains Traveler]

I always wondered what the westbound control city on I-70 is when you leave CO. I was thinking it would be either that or Salt Lake City.

Last time I have been through there, These were the westbound control cities I remember seeing along I-70 and its' on-ramps:

CO State Line/Westwater:  Thompson Springs or Green River
Green River:  Salina
Salina:  Richfield, Las Vegas or Cove Fort.

Where you get on I-70 WB from U.S. 6-50 in Grand Junction, the control destination is Utah. Used to be Green River. Distance signs along I-70 in western Colorado used to list Las Vegas in several locations, now they list "Jct I-15". But to make up for this loss, now Las Vegas is shown on I-25 SB as you leave Trinidad .

[jwolfer]

I like what New Mexico does the best. They use their cities as the control destinations. I noticed that in Albuquerque, Santa Rosa and Gallup are the control cities, rather than Amarillo and Flagstaff. Further east on I-40 Tucumcari becomes the control city. On I-25 in Amarillo, Las Cruces and Santa Fe are the control cities. Farther north on I-25, Las Vegas and eventually Raton are the control cities rather than Colorado Springs or Denver. I like when states promote their own cities rather than cities in other states.

In my opinion Arizona should at the very least use Kingman and Holbrook as control destinations on I-40. They should definitely use Kingman since eventually it will be where two interstates meet (11 and 40).

It's ok to use instate cities if they are sizable or even a junction.  But some states get crazy. Like i80 in Pennsylvania. 

I grew up in NJ and I think Camden is overused in place of Philadelphia.  It would be like using Scottsdale instead of Phoenix

[mwb1848]

I like what New Mexico does the best. They use their cities as the control destinations. I noticed that in Albuquerque, Santa Rosa and Gallup are the control cities, rather than Amarillo and Flagstaff. Further east on I-40 Tucumcari becomes the control city. On I-25 in Amarillo, Las Cruces and Santa Fe are the control cities. Farther north on I-25, Las Vegas and eventually Raton are the control cities rather than Colorado Springs or Denver. I like when states promote their own cities rather than cities in other states.

In my opinion Arizona should at the very least use Kingman and Holbrook as control destinations on I-40. They should definitely use Kingman since eventually it will be where two interstates meet (11 and 40).

It seems to me that an INTERstate highway system should focus on INTERstate travel.

I don't think many people from outside of New Mexico know where Gallup, Santa Rosa, and/or Tucumcari are in relation of Albuquerque. Yet those are the control cities. I'll give you Las Cruces for I-25 south, but I'd much rather see Colorado Springs for I-25 North, Amarillo for I-40 east, and Flagstaff for I-40 west. All cities which non-New Mexicans are significantly more likely to have heard of and which are significantly more valuable to motorists.

I grew up in Mississippi and always abhorred MDOT's use of McComb and Grenada as southbound and northbound control cities in on I-55 out of Jackson.

[myosh_tino]

Why not? Isn't Bakersfield the largest city not served by an interstate? Far more significant ending to a major interstate than Barstow.

No, that distinction goes to Fresno, CA.  Population of Bakersfield is approximately 365,000.  Fresno is almost 510,000.

Much of CA-58 is already a freeway anyways.

Only about 60% between Barstow and Bakersfield.  There are long segments of divided expressway between Mojave and Edwards AFB and between Kramer Junction and Hinkley.  While these sections may feel like freeways, there are numerous at-grade intersections.

[Max Rockatansky]

Why not? Isn't Bakersfield the largest city not served by an interstate? Far more significant ending to a major interstate than Barstow.

No, that distinction goes to Fresno, CA.  Population of Bakersfield is approximately 365,000.  Fresno is almost 510,000.

Much of CA-58 is already a freeway anyways.

Only about 60% between Barstow and Bakersfield.  There are long segments of divided expressway between Mojave and Edwards AFB and between Kramer Junction and Hinkley.  While these sections may feel like freeways, there are numerous at-grade intersections.

There a lot of roads like that out here in California that people tend to think of full freeways but are just really good expressways.  Much of US 395 north of Ridgecrest is four lane with at-grade/sometimes bridged intersections.  US 101 has no traffic lights from L.A. to San Francisco and has several really long expressway segments north of San Francisco.  Some more minor routes like 299, 198 and 65 even have isolated freeway sections...just the way things are out here.  The big barrier for a full freeway conversion is the Boron to Barstow portion; especially near Kramer Junction.  The segment from Kramer Junction to Barstow is being upgraded to expressway as we speak...but it's long way off from Interstate quality.

[Bobby5280]

As far as I-40 West of Kingman goes, I think Barstow should be the control city. Not L.A. I don't agree at all with using control cities an Interstate highway never touches. Barstow may not be a big city, but it is a pretty important one along the journey since it involves leaving I-40 for I-15 if you're going to San Bernadino, L.A. or San Diego. Not everyone goes that way. There is a lot of traffic heading toward Bakersfield and Northern California. Hence the justification for extending I-40 to Bakersfield and then on to I-5.

For long distance trips major route junctions are every bit as important for use as control cities as the final destination. IMHO San Bernadino should be used as a control city for I-15 rather than Los Angeles for traffic leaving I-40 for I-15 Southbound. South of I-10 San Diego should be used as the control city.

There are plenty of other places in the Interstate system where smaller cities and towns are used as control cities on signs rather than a much bigger city farther away, much less a city the highway never even reaches.

Only about 60% between Barstow and Bakersfield.  There are long segments of divided expressway between Mojave and Edwards AFB and between Kramer Junction and Hinkley.  While these sections may feel like freeways, there are numerous at-grade intersections.

The section of CA-58 between Bakersfield and Mojave is mostly Interstate quality. The exception is a few gravel roads that hop off it between Keene and Tehachapi, apparently for rail line service vehicle use. I think those dirt road driveways could be eliminated since there are other gravel service roads entering the area and running parallel to the rail line. The gravel roads in the hills above have access to a few different freeway style exits as well.

The section of CA-58 North of Edwards AFB is also Interstate quality. It shouldn't be difficult upgrading the expressway quality segment between the Mojave bypass and California City Blvd. Kramer Junction would either need a bypass or an elevated highway running over the existing CA-85 cutting between the truck stops and rail line. Which is cheaper to build? The rest of CA-85 running by Hinkley has a few random properties here and there sitting next to the road. I would assume it shouldn't be hard to buy up some of the adjacent homes next to the highway to make room for an upgraded freeway. It might need frontage roads going through that stretch however. Another idea is bypassing Hinkley farther to the South to get to I-15, but the Mojave river widens into a fairly big flood plain. It could be tricky engineering a proper crossing that didn't cost a fortune to build.

[roadfro]

As far as I-40 West of Kingman goes, I think Barstow should be the control city. Not L.A. I don't agree at all with using control cities an Interstate highway never touches. 

You have to remember that the original concept behind control cities is to guide motorists to major destinations. (Keeping in mind this came about before the advent of GPS, etc., where paper maps were the only navigational aid one might have.) If the route is the only way to get to a major city from a certain direction, it makes sense to include that city on the signs.

For example, the vast majority of traffic on I-15 south coming out of Las Vegas is going to the LA area. That is the most direct route from Vegas to LA. It doesn't make sense to completely leave off LA from control signs because I-15 doesn't go directly to LA. You have to have some reasonable flexibility.

[DJStephens]

I like what New Mexico does the best. They use their cities as the control destinations. I noticed that in Albuquerque, Santa Rosa and Gallup are the control cities, rather than Amarillo and Flagstaff. Further east on I-40 Tucumcari becomes the control city. On I-25 in Amarillo, Las Cruces and Santa Fe are the control cities. Farther north on I-25, Las Vegas and eventually Raton are the control cities rather than Colorado Springs or Denver. I like when states promote their own cities rather than cities in other states.

Disagree.  Using "Deming" a tiny little town, on the overhead gantry at the I-10 / I-25 interchange, at all (on at least one overhead) is ridiculous.  "Tucson" makes far more sense.   

[Max Rockatansky]

I like what New Mexico does the best. They use their cities as the control destinations. I noticed that in Albuquerque, Santa Rosa and Gallup are the control cities, rather than Amarillo and Flagstaff. Further east on I-40 Tucumcari becomes the control city. On I-25 in Amarillo, Las Cruces and Santa Fe are the control cities. Farther north on I-25, Las Vegas and eventually Raton are the control cities rather than Colorado Springs or Denver. I like when states promote their own cities rather than cities in other states.

Disagree.  Using "Deming" a tiny little town, on the overhead gantry at the I-10 / I-25 interchange, at all (on at least one overhead) is ridiculous.  "Tucson" makes far more sense.

Or Lordsburg....Road Forks....or Steins...since they are closer to the state line. 

[slorydn1]

I think some people overhype the "it doesn't go there" angle if the road doesn't go within the actual city limits of the named control city.
I believe that if the road in question goes to the general metropolitan area of that city then its perfectly acceptable (Chicago on I-80, Miami on I-75-mentioned above) are a couple of examples that come to mind for me. Heck, even LA on I-15 fits that pretty well.

It does get muddier when you have an LA situation on I-40. I can see both sides of this argument as being valid, actually. I do agree with whomever mentioned it upthread about the destinations of the US routes the interstate replaced having been used first, and in many cases those control cities were never changed. Do they need to be changed now after they have been in place for 50+ years in some cases? I'm not sure I am qualified to decide that. I guess it would depend if the existing usage is causing confusion for motorists, taking them someplace they didn't want to go. If not then would the cost to change the control cities on the signs be worth it to make things more aesthetically pleasing for a few road geeks?

[swbrotha100]

I'd rather see multiple control cities listed on more signs. Maybe not every single sign, but maybe signs at major intersections. For example, instead of "I-40 West - Los Angeles" a sign could say "I-40 West - Kingman - Los Angeles." Better example on I-10 in California, replace "Indio - other desert cities" to "Indio - Phoenix".

[mrsman]

In my view if a road goes to Los Angeles, the road will still go to Los Angeles if it changes its route number.

So I-40 to Los Angeles is very appropriate.

[swbrotha100]

In my view if a road goes to Los Angeles, the road will still go to Los Angeles if it changes its route number.

So I-40 to Los Angeles is very appropriate.

The way Arizona signs control cities on its interstates, the "Los Angeles" signage isn't going to change.

[The High Plains Traveler]

I like what New Mexico does the best. They use their cities as the control destinations. I noticed that in Albuquerque, Santa Rosa and Gallup are the control cities, rather than Amarillo and Flagstaff. Further east on I-40 Tucumcari becomes the control city. On I-25 in Amarillo, Las Cruces and Santa Fe are the control cities. Farther north on I-25, Las Vegas and eventually Raton are the control cities rather than Colorado Springs or Denver. I like when states promote their own cities rather than cities in other states.

In my opinion Arizona should at the very least use Kingman and Holbrook as control destinations on I-40. They should definitely use Kingman since eventually it will be where two interstates meet (11 and 40).

It seems to me that an INTERstate highway system should focus on INTERstate travel.

I don't think many people from outside of New Mexico know where Gallup, Santa Rosa, and/or Tucumcari are in relation of Albuquerque. Yet those are the control cities. I'll give you Las Cruces for I-25 south, but I'd much rather see Colorado Springs for I-25 North, Amarillo for I-40 east, and Flagstaff for I-40 west. All cities which non-New Mexicans are significantly more likely to have heard of and which are significantly more valuable to motorists.

You're suggesting that Santa Fe is not a suitable control city for I-25 at Albuquerque? It's the state capital and the third or fourth (depending on the current population of Rio Rancho) largest city in New Mexico. Not to mention, a historic city that is a major tourist destination.

For your reference, the Colorado control cities for I-25 northbound are Trinidad, Pueblo, Colorado Springs, Denver, and Fort Collins. Colorado Springs isn't even mentioned on New Mexico distance signs, whereas Trinidad, Pueblo, and Denver are. I wouldn't quibble with substituting Amarillo or at least Tucumcari for I-40 east.

[Exit58]

As far as I-40 West of Kingman goes, I think Barstow should be the control city. Not L.A. I don't agree at all with using control cities an Interstate highway never touches. Barstow may not be a big city, but it is a pretty important one along the journey since it involves leaving I-40 for I-15 if you're going to San Bernadino, L.A. or San Diego. Not everyone goes that way. There is a lot of traffic heading toward Bakersfield and Northern California. Hence the justification for extending I-40 to Bakersfield and then on to I-5.

For long distance trips major route junctions are every bit as important for use as control cities as the final destination. IMHO San Bernadino should be used as a control city for I-15 rather than Los Angeles for traffic leaving I-40 for I-15 Southbound. South of I-10 San Diego should be used as the control city.

Where the road ends, IMO, it not as important as where it leads to. I-15's control city of LA makes sense as most traffic taking the route through the desert are probably heading from Vegas back to LA Metro area. Currently living in the LA area (a soon to be AZ transplant) the general consensus is that as long as it says Los Angeles, it's taking you home. And technically I-15 no longer reaches San Bernardino either - that's it's bypass route, I-215 nowadays.

Technically speaking, San Bernardino or even Riverside would be acceptable as a bypass does head into them, however if we're keeping cities only reach specifically by this one Interstate, then your control city would most likely be given as Ontario, Corona, or San Diego. Signing it for San Diego seems a little far fetched. Even though that is where the road ends, we're talking about having an interstate that's going through not only one of the most populous states in the country, but having it go through one of the largest metro areas, and giving it a control city that is in a completely different metro area simply because the former is not located directly along it's route. I guess signing it as 'Inland Empire' would also be acceptable, but that name is mostly known by locals and defeats the purpose.

Maybe take a page out of Caltrans' book on I-10 and sign it as 'Other Los Angeles Metro Area Cities' and call it a day.

[MattHanson939]

I like what New Mexico does the best. They use their cities as the control destinations. I noticed that in Albuquerque, Santa Rosa and Gallup are the control cities, rather than Amarillo and Flagstaff. Further east on I-40 Tucumcari becomes the control city. On I-25 in Amarillo, Las Cruces and Santa Fe are the control cities. Farther north on I-25, Las Vegas and eventually Raton are the control cities rather than Colorado Springs or Denver. I like when states promote their own cities rather than cities in other states.

In my opinion Arizona should at the very least use Kingman and Holbrook as control destinations on I-40. They should definitely use Kingman since eventually it will be where two interstates meet (11 and 40).

FYI, a couple of the control cities from Albuquerque were different before the I-25/I-40 interchange (nicknamed the "Big-I") was rebuilt in the early 2000s.  On I-40, the westbound control city used to be Grants; and Belen was the southbound control city on I-25.

By the time I-11 is completed, I highly doubt AZDOT will use Kingman as the control city from Phoenix, given that Arizona is a "big city" state, and I-11 won't be an intrastate interstate highway unlike I-17 and I-19 (in my opinion those ought to be re-designated as auxiliary interstates, which I will mention in more detail in another thread).  So I am 100% certain that Las Vegas will be the northbound control city on I-11 from Phoenix. 

Similarly, I-25 & I-10 meet in Las Cruces, New Mexico; but El Paso is the eastbound control city on I-10 from Tucson.  Even though there's no major interstate junction in El Paso (I-10 being virtually the only interstate despite the city having a fairly extensive freeway system — US 54, Spur 601, and parts of Loop 375), it's a lot bigger than Las Cruces.

[MattHanson939]

It seems to me that an INTERstate highway system should focus on INTERstate travel.

I don't think many people from outside of New Mexico know where Gallup, Santa Rosa, and/or Tucumcari are in relation of Albuquerque. Yet those are the control cities. I'll give you Las Cruces for I-25 south, but I'd much rather see Colorado Springs for I-25 North, Amarillo for I-40 east, and Flagstaff for I-40 west. All cities which non-New Mexicans are significantly more likely to have heard of and which are significantly more valuable to motorists.

In Albuquerque, I'd rather see Colorado Springs for I-25 north, El Paso for I-25 south, Flagstaff for I-40 west, and Amarillo for I-40 east.  I-25 doesn't reach El Paso but runs pretty close.  And El Paso is a straight shot from Albuquerque, which is why it's mentioned on a lot of distance signs on southbound I-25.

[Roadgeekteen]

It will be interesting to see what they would do if I-40 got extended to Bakersfield. I-40 would bypass LA then. Would they sign Bakersfield?

[US 89]

It seems to me that an INTERstate highway system should focus on INTERstate travel.

I don't think many people from outside of New Mexico know where Gallup, Santa Rosa, and/or Tucumcari are in relation of Albuquerque. Yet those are the control cities. I'll give you Las Cruces for I-25 south, but I'd much rather see Colorado Springs for I-25 North, Amarillo for I-40 east, and Flagstaff for I-40 west. All cities which non-New Mexicans are significantly more likely to have heard of and which are significantly more valuable to motorists.

In Albuquerque, I'd rather see Colorado Springs for I-25 north, El Paso for I-25 south, Flagstaff for I-40 west, and Amarillo for I-40 east.  I-25 doesn't reach El Paso but runs pretty close.  And El Paso is a straight shot from Albuquerque, which is why it's mentioned on a lot of distance signs on southbound I-25.

Meh, I'm fine with Las Cruces. I realize El Paso is bigger, but Las Cruces is the second largest city in New Mexico and it does have an interstate junction going for it. Santa Fe is fine by me too since it's the state capital and is a fairly significant road junction, with US 84/285 heading north out of it to Española and Los Alamos. If you really don't want to use Santa Fe, the only other option should be Denver. Not Colorado Springs.

Agreed on Flagstaff and Amarillo though.

[MattHanson939]

The eastern half of the country has a few examples of this too; think Memphis for I-57, Chicago for I-65, Miami for I-75 and New York for I-80. None of these Interstates actually reach their respective cities, but (with the exception of I-57) they come pretty close.

I've also seen a few examples of this in the western states, but only Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and California.  I won't include I-40 using Los Angeles from Flagstaff.  And there's one example I know of where it's a state highway using a town or city not along the route as a control city.

- Tucson for I-8*
- El Paso for I-25
- Los Angeles for CA-99" 
- El Paso for I-20
- Tucson for I-17

I'm from New Mexico myself (Los Alamos to be exact); are you ready for this?

On NM 502, Santa Fe is the eastbound control city from Los Alamos, but the route's eastern terminus is at US 84/285 in Pojoaque.  However, the use of Santa Fe as a control city on NM 502 makes sense because traffic using that highway (usually originating in Los Alamos) typically turns onto the on-ramp for southbound US 84/285, which does reach Santa Fe.

*Between Yuma and Gila Bend, I-8 uses Tucson and Phoenix as dual control cities going eastbound.  But in my opinion, I don't think Phoenix should be mentioned until exit 115, leaving only Tucson as the sole control city since I-8 does not even run close to Phoenix.

" CA-99 is a state route but much of it is built to freeway standards.  LA is the southbound control city from Visalia and Bakersfield.

[MattHanson939]

It will be interesting to see what they would do if I-40 got extended to Bakersfield. I-40 would bypass LA then. Would they sign Bakersfield?

If I-40 ever got extended to Bakersfield, then no doubt it would be the control city from Flagstaff.

[MattHanson939]

I'm fine with Las Cruces. I realize El Paso is bigger, but Las Cruces is the second largest city in New Mexico and it does have an interstate junction going for it. Santa Fe is fine by me too since it's the state capital and is a fairly significant road junction, with US 84/285 heading north out of it to Española and Los Alamos. If you really don't want to use Santa Fe, the only other option should be Denver. Not Colorado Springs.

Agreed on Flagstaff and Amarillo though.

- Las Cruces could be a secondary on I-25 south from Albuquerque, with El Paso being the primary control city. 

But in Arizona, only El Paso is signed on I-10 going east from Tucson and omits Las Cruces, yet I-40 is Flagstaff going east from Kingman and west from New Mexico.  In the case with I-40, there aren't any cities within Arizona that are at least 200,000 which is partly why Flagstaff is a control city (it's also I-17's northern terminus @ I-40 and is also on the way to the Grand Canyon).

- I think using Denver as the northbound control city on I-25 from Albuquerque in a way would be like I-10 in El Paso using Phoenix as the westbound control city, and omitting Tucson, if you didn't want to use Las Cruces.  If you think about it, Colorado Springs is quite similar to Tucson in size and even has a population of about 478,000 habitants.  The only difference is that Tucson is served by I-10 and I-19, whereas Colorado Springs only has one freeway.  In my opinion, I-19 ought to be re-designated as an auxiliary interstate as it's basically a spur going towards Mexico.  But going back to topic, Colorado Springs has reasonable-sized population such that it could be used as a control city from New Mexico, despite not having a major interstate junction; and it's the next major city after Albuquerque on I-25 north.  So I would not see why you would want to omit it if you're considering using the next major city as the control city on interstates in New Mexico.  Plus, I-25 has a junction with US 24 in Colorado Springs.

[roadman65]

I do not like LA being used, but I am not going to worry about it as it's not that big a deal. Ditto if they do remove it, I won't worry. Just as I didn't care that St Louis got used for I-24 west out of Nashville nor do I care it got removed for Clarksville later on. I-24 also requires two other interstates to get to St Louis after it ends in rural Downstate IL just as I-40 has you transfer twice going for LA.

Even Birmingham traded off for Huntsville  on I-65 from Nashville where one must exit I-65 and go several miles east I don't care either nor Ashland, KY out of Lexington, KY for I-64 that has you trek several miles off the freeway to reach it when nearby Huntington in WV is directly on I-64 and would seem a better reference point for eastbound travelers on I-64.

Then you also have Trenton and Wilmington for I-95 in NJ that everyone thinks Baltimore should be used for the same reason LA should not be used here. To me I am fine with both as I grew up in NJ, I can see the reasoning.

If non road geeks don't complain about it than it's not a big deal then.

[MattHanson939]

Santa Fe is fine by me too since it's the state capital and is a fairly significant road junction, with US 84/285 heading north out of it to Española and Los Alamos. If you really don't want to use Santa Fe, the only other option should be Denver. Not Colorado Springs.

Agreed on Flagstaff and Amarillo though.

Or going northbound from Albuquerque, maybe use Santa Fe / Denver dual control cities, and going southbound from the Colorado state line use dual Santa Fe & Albuquerque.

A bit off-topic; you're right about the junction with US 84/285.  However, if you're heading from Albuquerque towards Española or Los Alamos, motorists usually get off the interstate at exit 276 and use NM 599 to get to US 84/285, completely bypassing Santa Fe.