AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Control cities  (Read 967 times)

webny99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 62
  • Left lane is for passing, not camping.

  • Age: 18
  • Location: Rochester, NY
  • Last Login: November 24, 2017, 10:34:22 AM
Control cities
« on: September 11, 2017, 09:28:45 PM »

Topic 40 of 63 created by this user - Control Cities

This post was deemed obsolete at the user's discretion on November 9th, 2017, and is no longer available.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2017, 10:05:24 AM by webny99 »
Logged
🇺🇸 Proudly represesenting Americas most underrated - Upstate NY

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7779
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: December 16, 2017, 04:44:39 PM
Re: Control cities
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2017, 09:35:59 PM »

Not to sound insulting, but you might want to look at other forum topics.  Many address user concerns on what you mentioned here.

Also you gave a lot to figure out you said a lot in such a short time.  Yes I know you are new, but just letting you know as I fell into the trap years ago.  You get anxious to start conversations you get blinded at the same time, plus many users here are trolls and love to pick arguments as well and these kind of threads did that for me.

Good topics though and good observations.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Flint1979

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 256
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Michigan
  • Last Login: Today at 04:39:30 AM
Re: Control cities
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2017, 06:40:18 AM »

Toledo is served by I-75 as well as I-80 and I-90 on the very southern edge of the city limits.
Logged

ilpt4u

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 519
  • Location: Southern IL
  • Last Login: Today at 05:17:49 AM
Re: Control cities
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2017, 03:00:41 PM »

Should cities not directly served by a mainline interstate (Rochester NY, Rochester MN, Toledo) be used as control cities on the mainline anyways?
What, like these:
Chicago for I-80
Chicago for I-88
Chicago for I-65
Memphis for I-57
Saint Louis for I-24
Evansville for I-64

Whether they should or not, they already are.

I do think Memphis for the Southbound control of I-57 is ridiculous, especially signed up in Chicago. Hopefully it will eventually be changed to Little Rock, if/when the I-57 extension thru MO/AR ever happens. I would be OK with Sikeston, MO being used, for now

St Louis for I-24 Westbound is a bit weird as well, but not many other options -- gonna sign Marion/Carbondale as the terminating western Control? Probably not. Chicago doesn't make sense either, as 24 is running NW, and Chicago is back NE

Chicago for I-65, I-80, and I-88 doesn't bother me that much -- all 3 enter the Chicagoland Metro area, and have Freeway connections to the City itself. One could make arguments that I-65 and I-88 should be signed into the City, but that heads into Fictional territory

Evansville for I-64 could just be passed over in favor of Louisville. But again, it has a decent Freeway connection to Evansville, with I-69/former I-164
« Last Edit: September 12, 2017, 03:15:40 PM by ilpt4u »
Logged

roadman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3006
  • Age: 56
  • Location: Boston, MA
  • Last Login: December 15, 2017, 02:54:15 PM
Re: Control cities
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2017, 03:18:28 PM »

I am reminded of an AASHTO proposal in 1987 to change the easternmost control city for I-84 from Boston to Sturbridge.  Both ConnDOT and MassDPW were opposed to the idea, and managed to get it shot down.  The principal argument MassDPW used against the change was that, while I-84 didn't go to Boston, it connected directly to a primary Interstate (I-90) that did, and that a good deal of the traffic on I-84 was heading to Boston.
Logged
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

jp the roadgeek

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1864
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Outside the I-291 beltway
  • Last Login: Today at 10:43:15 AM
Re: Control cities
« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2017, 03:23:14 PM »

Should cities not directly served by a mainline interstate (Rochester NY, Rochester MN, Toledo) be used as control cities on the mainline anyways?
What, like these:
Chicago for I-80
Chicago for I-88
Chicago for I-65
Memphis for I-57
Saint Louis for I-24
Evansville for I-64

Additionally:

Boston for I-84 (as mentioned) and I-95
Buffalo on I-90
New York for I-80 (also on I-90 on LGS's in Boston and for I-84 Exit 9)
Scranton for I-80 and I-84
Cleveland for I-80
Pittsburgh for I-76 (I-70 on the PA Turnpike)
Harrisburg for I-76 and I-81
Springfield and Worcester, MA for I-90

Almost said Washington for I-95, but it enters DC for 300 feet.  Same with I-70 and Baltimore; last few hundred feet are in the Park & Ride just across the Baltimore City line.
Logged

Flint1979

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 256
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Michigan
  • Last Login: Today at 04:39:30 AM
Re: Control cities
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2017, 03:47:46 PM »

Of all the one's mentioned every Interstate at least enters that cities metro area or has another freeway connection to that city.
Logged

ilpt4u

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 519
  • Location: Southern IL
  • Last Login: Today at 05:17:49 AM
Re: Control cities
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2017, 04:18:39 PM »

A few more:
Los Angeles for I-40
New Orleans for I-55
San Francisco for I-5
Washington, DC for I-70
« Last Edit: September 12, 2017, 04:25:52 PM by ilpt4u »
Logged

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5108
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: December 15, 2017, 05:42:36 PM
Re: Control cities
« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2017, 04:25:06 PM »

Additionally:

Boston for I-84 (as mentioned) and I-95
Buffalo on I-90
New York for I-80 (also on I-90 on LGS's in Boston and for I-84 Exit 9)
Scranton for I-80 and I-84
Cleveland for I-80
Pittsburgh for I-76 (I-70 on the PA Turnpike)
Harrisburg for I-76 and I-81
Springfield and Worcester, MA for I-90

Almost said Washington for I-95, but it enters DC for 300 feet.  Same with I-70 and Baltimore; last few hundred feet are in the Park & Ride just across the Baltimore City line.
A few more:
Harrisburg for I-76
Pittsburgh for I-76 & 79
Trenton for I-95
Camden for I-95 (along NJTP corridor)
Providence for I-93
Cape Cod for I-93 (not a city but a region)
NY City (or New York City) for I-91
« Last Edit: September 13, 2017, 09:40:37 AM by PHLBOS »
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

ilpt4u

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 519
  • Location: Southern IL
  • Last Login: Today at 05:17:49 AM
Re: Control cities
« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2017, 04:43:24 PM »

How about something like Montreal for I-87 North?
And Vancouver, BC for I-5 North?

It is the same Freeway going to the Canadian cities, but it changes Number due to the International Border
Logged

1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4302
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 18
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: Today at 10:29:30 AM
    • Flickr account
Re: Control cities
« Reply #10 on: September 12, 2017, 09:22:58 PM »

That brings up another point, that random control cities such as Albert Lea on I35 and Plymouth Meeting on I476 are ridiculous. Des Moines and Scranton, respectively, would be much better.

We also have "Thru Traffic" and "other Desert Cities" (yes, lowercase) as control cities.

« Last Edit: September 12, 2017, 09:25:41 PM by 1 »
Logged
Clinched

Traveled, plus US 2, 13, 50, and several state routes

Flickr

jp the roadgeek

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1864
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Outside the I-291 beltway
  • Last Login: Today at 10:43:15 AM
Re: Control cities
« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2017, 09:55:34 PM »

I'd use Phoenix as an EB control city on I-10 from San Bernardino east (Palm Springs/Phoenix west of Palm Springs)
Logged

The Nature Boy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1351
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Alexandria, Virginia
  • Last Login: December 14, 2017, 10:42:53 PM
Re: Control cities
« Reply #12 on: September 12, 2017, 09:58:51 PM »

I'd argue that Boston could be a control city on I-89 as far north as Lebanon. Manchester/Concord are fairly close together but I would sign Manchester over Concord in that case.
Logged

Flint1979

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 256
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Michigan
  • Last Login: Today at 04:39:30 AM
Re: Control cities
« Reply #13 on: September 12, 2017, 11:06:10 PM »

I'd argue that Boston could be a control city on I-89 as far north as Lebanon. Manchester/Concord are fairly close together but I would sign Manchester over Concord in that case.
On I-91 at least a few years ago it said "Airport New Hampshire" for I-89. I would go with "Concord, NH" in the case here.
Logged

The Nature Boy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1351
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Alexandria, Virginia
  • Last Login: December 14, 2017, 10:42:53 PM
Re: Control cities
« Reply #14 on: September 12, 2017, 11:19:26 PM »

I'd argue that Boston could be a control city on I-89 as far north as Lebanon. Manchester/Concord are fairly close together but I would sign Manchester over Concord in that case.
On I-91 at least a few years ago it said "Airport New Hampshire" for I-89. I would go with "Concord, NH" in the case here.

For that one, I'd argue that Boston/Manchester both fit but Boston/Concord may also work as well. I feel like it might be helpful to let I-91 traffic know that I-89 South will take them to Boston.

I have a similar issue with I-89 North from I-91, the control cities are Barre and Montpelier. It should be Montpelier and Burlington. Barre and Montpelier are too close and Barre isn't a notable enough destination on its own.
Logged

ilpt4u

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 519
  • Location: Southern IL
  • Last Login: Today at 05:17:49 AM
Re: Control cities
« Reply #15 on: September 13, 2017, 12:08:53 AM »

We also have "Thru Traffic" and "other Desert Cities" (yes, lowercase) as control cities.
Chicago 3dis have a tendency to use *Directional* Suburbs as Control Cities ie Southwest Suburbs, West Suburbs, Northwest Suburbs. I-355 uses all 3 at points, and I-290 uses West Suburbs. I would prefer to see actual, named Suburban Cities as Controls, but IDOT and ISTHA see things differently, except they are OK with Joliet and Aurora as Controls

I-355 at one point simply was signed with a Control of "Suburbs" (since removed) from parent I-55


Soured from www.billburmaster.com/rmsandw/illinois/interstate/55.html

I think we've exhausted control cities not directly served by the route. Now how about 3dis, like I480 in Ohio, that use the controls of the parent route...That brings up another point, that random control cities such as Albert Lea on I35 and Plymouth Meeting on I476 are ridiculous.
I-355 uses St Louis as a Southbound Control near its Northern Terminus (Chicago-area Southern Control for parent I-55) and also uses Rockford as a Northbound Control at its Southern Terminus exiting off I-80, with Rockford being a Control for I-90, which is reached via I-355 North to I-290 "West" (despite being due North/South at that point) to I-90 West

Illinois also likes using State-based Control "Cities" -- with Wisconsin and Indiana appearing on I-294 and I-90/94, and Iowa and Indiana appearing on I-80.

I-294 needs its parent, I-94, to reach either Wisconsin or Indiana, and State-based Controls might be up there with "Thru Traffic" and "other Desert Cities" for ridiculousness. Personally, I have no issue with State-base Controls in these cases regarding I-90/94, I-294, and I-80, but its not consistently applied and its not very typical in other areas
« Last Edit: September 13, 2017, 12:14:03 AM by ilpt4u »
Logged

jp the roadgeek

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1864
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Outside the I-291 beltway
  • Last Login: Today at 10:43:15 AM
Re: Control cities
« Reply #16 on: September 13, 2017, 01:29:48 AM »

I'd argue that Boston could be a control city on I-89 as far north as Lebanon. Manchester/Concord are fairly close together but I would sign Manchester over Concord in that case.
On I-91 at least a few years ago it said "Airport New Hampshire" for I-89. I would go with "Concord, NH" in the case here.

For that one, I'd argue that Boston/Manchester both fit but Boston/Concord may also work as well. I feel like it might be helpful to let I-91 traffic know that I-89 South will take them to Boston.

I have a similar issue with I-89 North from I-91, the control cities are Barre and Montpelier. It should be Montpelier and Burlington. Barre and Montpelier are too close and Barre isn't a notable enough destination on its own.

Definitely agree with Montpelier/Burlington on I-89 North from I-91.  I would use Hanover NH/Concord NH for I-89 South.  I actually would use Boston on I-91 South for I-93 South (Littleton NH only NB, Littleton/Boston SB).  Another couple of interesting VT suggestions: using Montreal as a control city on I-89 (along with St. Albans) north of Burlington, and using Sherbrooke as a control city (along with Lyndonville) for I-91 North from I-93 North (since MUTCD doesn't like "Canada" as a control city).
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1102
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: Today at 02:14:52 AM
Re: Control cities
« Reply #17 on: September 13, 2017, 08:39:38 AM »

A few more:
Los Angeles for I-40

That one never made sense to me. Sure, I-40 (combined with I-15) is a way to LA, but it's often used as a bypass of the LA metro for those heading towards the SF Bay Area from the Southeast (via CA-58 from Barstow).

From Flagstaff, I'd use Kingman and Barstow as the control cities for I-40 West. Kingman is a major junction for those heading to Las Vegas on US-93 and Barstow since it's a major junction for those heading towards LA on I-15 or those heading towards I-5 or CA-99 near Bakersfield from CA-58 in Barstow.
Logged
"You forget a thousand things everyday. How about you make sure this is one of them?"--Michael De Santa, GTA V

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5108
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: December 15, 2017, 05:42:36 PM
Re: Control cities
« Reply #18 on: September 13, 2017, 08:54:16 AM »

I am reminded of an AASHTO proposal in 1987 to change the easternmost control city for I-84 from Boston to Sturbridge.  Both ConnDOT and MassDPW were opposed to the idea, and managed to get it shot down.  The principal argument MassDPW used against the change was that, while I-84 didn't go to Boston, it connected directly to a primary Interstate (I-90) that did, and that a good deal of the traffic on I-84 was heading to Boston.
It's proposals like these that make me ask what were those AASHTO officials were smoking at the time this was pondered.
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5108
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: December 15, 2017, 05:42:36 PM
Re: Control cities
« Reply #19 on: September 13, 2017, 09:07:05 AM »

I'd argue that Boston could be a control city on I-89 as far north as Lebanon. Manchester/Concord are fairly close together but I would sign Manchester over Concord in that case.
On I-91 at least a few years ago it said "Airport New Hampshire" for I-89. I would go with "Concord, NH" in the case here.

For that one, I'd argue that Boston/Manchester both fit but Boston/Concord may also work as well. I feel like it might be helpful to let I-91 traffic know that I-89 South will take them to Boston.
A supplemental BGS that reads Boston USE 89 SOUTH or Boston USE EXIT 10S would suffice IMHO.

While thumbing through GSV the other day along the southern leg of I-89 in NH; I noticed that only Concord is used as a destination.  The nearest exit adjacent to the I-93 junction only has signs that read SOUTH 89 TO 93 on them.  For those interchanges nearest to Concord, I would use Manchester as an additional southbound 89 control city since most of the traffic off 89 South will be getting on & continuing along 93 South beyond Concord.  Note: since Boston is already used on the main signage for I-93 South (along with Manchester); a supplemental BGS that I suggested along I-91 for the I-89 interchange in White River Junction is not needed.
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

The Nature Boy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1351
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Alexandria, Virginia
  • Last Login: December 14, 2017, 10:42:53 PM
Re: Control cities
« Reply #20 on: September 13, 2017, 09:13:11 AM »

I'd argue that Boston could be a control city on I-89 as far north as Lebanon. Manchester/Concord are fairly close together but I would sign Manchester over Concord in that case.
On I-91 at least a few years ago it said "Airport New Hampshire" for I-89. I would go with "Concord, NH" in the case here.

For that one, I'd argue that Boston/Manchester both fit but Boston/Concord may also work as well. I feel like it might be helpful to let I-91 traffic know that I-89 South will take them to Boston.

I have a similar issue with I-89 North from I-91, the control cities are Barre and Montpelier. It should be Montpelier and Burlington. Barre and Montpelier are too close and Barre isn't a notable enough destination on its own.

Definitely agree with Montpelier/Burlington on I-89 North from I-91.  I would use Hanover NH/Concord NH for I-89 South.  I actually would use Boston on I-91 South for I-93 South (Littleton NH only NB, Littleton/Boston SB).  Another couple of interesting VT suggestions: using Montreal as a control city on I-89 (along with St. Albans) north of Burlington, and using Sherbrooke as a control city (along with Lyndonville) for I-91 North from I-93 North (since MUTCD doesn't like "Canada" as a control city).

I wouldn't use Hanover, NH for I-89 South simply because I-89 is not the fastest way to Hanover from that point. The fastest way is to keep north on I-91 to Exit 13 (Vermont 10A) in Norwich and just cross the Connecticut River into Hanover. I-91 comes closer to Hanover than I-89 does.
Logged

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5108
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: December 15, 2017, 05:42:36 PM
Re: Control cities
« Reply #21 on: September 13, 2017, 09:36:17 AM »

That brings up another point, that random control cities such as Albert Lea on I35 and Plymouth Meeting on I476 are ridiculous. Des Moines and Scranton, respectively, would be much better.

We also have "Thru Traffic" and "other Desert Cities" (yes, lowercase) as control cities.
I'd argue that, while also ridiculous, those arent really control cities per se. I can't see the image (:confused:) but IMO a true control destination would be posted both at entrances and on mileage signs.
For I-476, Plymouth Meeting is indeed a control point (Plymouth Meeting is actually a part of or most of Plymouth Township) for that route; mainly because it's the northern terminus of the 'free' section (aka the Blue Route) and was once the northern terminus of I-476 prior to 1996.

Original button-copy signage had Allentown listed on one or two I-476 northbound signs at the I-76/PA 23 interchange but such was removed (& replaced with Plymouth Mtg.), ironically, when the southern portion (south of I-76) of the highway opened in Dec. 1991.

Personally, I would've kept & used Allentown for a northbound I-476 control city along the Blue Route; especially after the Northeast Extension of the PA Turnpike was redesignated as I-476 (from PA 9) circa 1996.

On I-91 at least a few years ago it said "Airport New Hampshire" for I-89. I would go with "Concord, NH" in the case here.
GSV from Nov. 2015 still shows the Airport-New Hampshire combo for I-89 South signage off I-91.  I agree that Concord, NH would be a more appropriate; such would make for a smaller sign board as well.  Supplemental signage for Lebanon Municipal Airport is sufficient enough; especially since the only scheduled commercial service out of that airport is Cape Air.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2017, 09:52:05 AM by PHLBOS »
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

JasonOfORoads

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 177
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Portland, OR
  • Last Login: December 15, 2017, 07:30:39 PM
    • ORoads: The Roads of Oregon
Re: Control cities
« Reply #22 on: September 13, 2017, 03:00:45 PM »

What are your thoughts about the way control cities are signed and handled on the interstate system?
What could be done differently?

To return back to the original question, I think that we should do something like how the UK handles destinations that aren't on the mainline by putting them in parentheses. So I-5 North from LA could list both "Sacramento" and "(Bakersfield)" as control cities. I could also see "Bakersfield VIA CA-99" as an alternative.
Logged
Borderline addicted to roadgeeking since ~1989.

jp the roadgeek

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1864
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Outside the I-291 beltway
  • Last Login: Today at 10:43:15 AM
Re: Control cities
« Reply #23 on: September 13, 2017, 03:50:20 PM »

I'd argue that Boston could be a control city on I-89 as far north as Lebanon. Manchester/Concord are fairly close together but I would sign Manchester over Concord in that case.
On I-91 at least a few years ago it said "Airport New Hampshire" for I-89. I would go with "Concord, NH" in the case here.

For that one, I'd argue that Boston/Manchester both fit but Boston/Concord may also work as well. I feel like it might be helpful to let I-91 traffic know that I-89 South will take them to Boston.

I have a similar issue with I-89 North from I-91, the control cities are Barre and Montpelier. It should be Montpelier and Burlington. Barre and Montpelier are too close and Barre isn't a notable enough destination on its own.

Definitely agree with Montpelier/Burlington on I-89 North from I-91.  I would use Hanover NH/Concord NH for I-89 South.  I actually would use Boston on I-91 South for I-93 South (Littleton NH only NB, Littleton/Boston SB).  Another couple of interesting VT suggestions: using Montreal as a control city on I-89 (along with St. Albans) north of Burlington, and using Sherbrooke as a control city (along with Lyndonville) for I-91 North from I-93 North (since MUTCD doesn't like "Canada" as a control city).

I wouldn't use Hanover, NH for I-89 South simply because I-89 is not the fastest way to Hanover from that point. The fastest way is to keep north on I-91 to Exit 13 (Vermont 10A) in Norwich and just cross the Connecticut River into Hanover. I-91 comes closer to Hanover than I-89 does.

I meant Lebanon.  Stoopid me :crazy:
Logged

bing101

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1521
  • Location: Vacaville
  • Last Login: December 15, 2017, 05:21:57 PM
Re: Control cities
« Reply #24 on: September 14, 2017, 12:41:46 PM »

Sacramento, CA the control city that gets lots of control cities attention in California

In the Los Angeles area its freeways north of I-10 that get the Sacramento control city they are CA-170, I-405, I-210, I-5.
In the San Francisco area its I-680 north, CA-37 east, US-101 approaching CA-37.
I-580 west approaching I-80 east plus I-780 to either I-680 and I-80 on both ends.


What are your thoughts about the way control cities are signed and handled on the interstate system?
What could be done differently?

To return back to the original question, I think that we should do something like how the UK handles destinations that aren't on the mainline by putting them in parentheses. So I-5 North from LA could list both "Sacramento" and "(Bakersfield)" as control cities. I could also see "Bakersfield VIA CA-99" as an alternative.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.