What state posts the worst control cities? The best?

[Henry]

Count me in as another anti-"control state" person. As a native of Chicago, I really dislike the practices on I-80, I-90 and I-94 (plus I-294). The following should be used as control cities:

I-80: Toledo, Quad Cities (Moline, preferably)
I-90: Gary (although I do like that Rockford is already signed for WB)
I-94 and I-294: Detroit, Milwaukee (to mirror the signing of Chicago in these respective cities)

I-55 and I-57 are fine, as they show St. Louis and Memphis as their destinations. While I-88 to Aurora is also fine, I'd like to see a slightly larger destination added, like Moline where it meets I-88 on the western end.

[NWI_Irish96]

Count me in as another anti-"control state" person. As a native of Chicago, I really dislike the practices on I-80, I-90 and I-94 (plus I-294). The following should be used as control cities:

I-80: Toledo, Quad Cities (Moline, preferably)
I-90: Gary (although I do like that Rockford is already signed for WB)
I-94 and I-294: Detroit, Milwaukee (to mirror the signing of Chicago in these respective cities)

I-55 and I-57 are fine, as they show St. Louis and Memphis as their destinations. While I-88 to Aurora is also fine, I'd like to see a slightly larger destination added, like Moline where it meets I-88 on the western end.

So any way you sign control cities for I-294 south, I-94 east and I-90 east creates problems.

Traffic heading into Indiana either via the Borman or the Toll Road is going to scatter amongst I-65 south, I-94 east and the eastbound Toll Road upon reaching Gary/Lake Station, so using only Detroit on I-94 or only Toledo on I-90 as a control city is problematic.

Using Gary is the most accurate way to sign those routes since they all go there, but Gary carries such a negative connotation and most traffic is not actually going to Gary.

Using Indiana provides accuracy without the negative connotation of Gary but is of course much more vague.

Using all of Detroit/Toledo/Indianapolis would be fully informative but cumbersome.

[hobsini2]

I think that if you're going to put a city past a route's terminus as a control, it's better to use one that everyone has heard of. Another example is I-40 using Los Angeles instead of San Bernardino. Also, 240 miles isn't that far compared to some other examples. About the distance from St Louis to both Indianapolis and Kansas City on I-70, which are both control cities in the STL area.

I-40 west does sign Los Angeles from Flagstaff to the California border; but once you cross into California, Barstow becomes the control city since that's where I-40 ends at I-15.  I think CalTrans should use Los Angeles as the primary control on I-40 west because it's MUCH bigger and more well-known than Barstow (which should be used as a secondary).  I-15 should also be signed for Los Angeles instead of San Bernardino within California as well as from Las Vegas.

I don't necessarily agree with using smaller cities where the route ends as a control city when there is a much bigger and more well-known city close by on the adjacent route; the larger city should especially be signed in this case.  This is why I make the argument that El Paso should be the primary control city on I-25 south from Albuquerque, with Las Cruces being a secondary.  It is also the reason that NM 502 east from Los Alamos signs Santa Fe instead of Pojoaque.

Close by is a subjective term. To me, close by would be within 50 miles. There are places that are beyond that that do make sense because there aren't many choices. I-70 West defaulting to Las Vegas once you get into Utah for example. In the case of I-76, you have several smaller cities within Nebraska before Omaha.

[MattHanson939]

I like that solution. If I was to do the mileage signs heading east on 76, here's how I would do them.
After 470: Colo 7, Ft Morgan, Omaha
After Colo 7: Hudson, Ft Morgan, North Platte
After Colo 52: Keenesburg, Ft Morgan, Lincoln
After Roggen: Wiggins, Ft Morgan, Omaha
After Wiggins: Ft Morgan, Brush, North Platte
After Ft Morgan: Brush, Sterling, Lincoln
After Brush: Atwood, Sterling, Omaha
After Colo 63: Sterling, Julesburg, Ogallala
After US 6: Crook, Julesburg, North Platte
After Colo 55: Sedgwick, Julesburg, Lincoln
After Colo 59: Ovid, Julesburg, Omaha
After Hwy 29: Julesburg, I-80, Ogallala
After US 385: I-80, Big Spring NE, North Platte

If I did the mileage signs on New Mexico's interstates, here's how I would do them:

I-25 south from Colorado to Albuquerque
After the Colo state line: Raton, Santa Fe, Albuquerque
After Raton: Springer, Santa Fe, Albuquerque
After Springer/US 412: Las Vegas, Santa Fe, Albuquerque
After Wagon Mound: Watrous, Las Vegas, Albuquerque
After Watrous: Las Vegas, Santa Fe, Albuquerque (there is currently no distance sign after that exit)
After San Miguel County Road A6: Las Vegas, Santa Fe, Albuquerque
After Las Vegas: Jct. US 84, Santa Fe, Albuquerque
After US 84: Tecolote, Glorieta, Albuquerque
After US 285: keep Santa Fe, Bernalillo, Albuquerque
==Most of the mileage signs are fine as is between Santa Fe & Albuquerque==
However, here is what I would have on some of them -
After NM 22: San Felipe Pueblo, Bernalillo, Albuquerque
After the San Felipe Pueblo exit: keep Albuquerque, Las Cruces, El Paso =or= Algodones, Bernalillo, Albuquerque
After Algodones: Jct. US 550, Bernalillo, Albuquerque
After Bernalillo: keep Albuquerque, Las Cruces, El Paso

===Once in Albuquerque, have El Paso become the primary control city on SB 25, Las Cruces secondary===

I-25 south from Albuquerque to Las Cruces
After downtown Albuquerque: keep Belen, Las Cruces, El Paso
After Rio Bravo Blvd: Broadway (NM 47), Los Lunas, El Paso
After Exit 209: Los Lunas, Belen, El Paso
After Los Lunas: Belen, Socorro, El Paso
After Belen: keep Socorro, Las Cruces, El Paso
After Exit 163: Lemitar, Socorro, El Paso
After Exit 156: Escondida, Socorro, El Paso
After Socorro: keep San Antonio, Las Cruces, El Paso
After US 380: Truth or Consequences, Las Cruces, El Paso
After Exit 100: Truth or Consequences, Hatch, El Paso
After Exit 92: Truth or Consequences, Hatch, El Paso
After Exit 89: Elephant Butte, Las Cruces, El Paso
After Truth or Consequences: Williamsburg, Las Cruces, El Paso
After Williamsburg: keep Las Cruces, El Paso =or= Hatch, Las Cruces, El Paso
After Las Palomas: Hatch, Las Cruces, El Paso
After NM 187: Garfield, Hatch, El Paso
After NM 546: keep Hatch, Las Cruces, El Paso
After Hatch: keep Rincon, Las Cruces, El Paso
After Rincon: keep Upham, Las Cruces, El Paso
After Exit 32: Radium Springs, Las Cruces, El Paso
After Radium Springs: keep Doña Ana, Las Cruces, El Paso
After US 70: keep Mesquite, Anthony, El Paso

[hobsini2]

Maybe this should be a spinoff in the Fantasy Highway section.
"If I was to DOT, the mileage signs would read ___ for ___."

There's a number of them in my travels I would change.

[MattHanson939]

Sikeston would be a logical control, because it's a major interstate junction and the (current) terminus of I-57.

Nah...Memphis is a more logical choice because it's much bigger and more well known.  Plus, the distance between Sikeston and Memphis is much less compared to the distance from I-70's western terminus and Las Vegas.

[MattHanson939]

I love control cities on interstates that default on to other interstates.  I love El Paso for both I-20 and I-25, but I hate Weatherford for I-30.  Yes, I-20 actually takes you there, but it kind of acknowledges that I-30 is about to die.

And El Paso ought to be signed on I-25 southbound all the way from Albuquerque; I'm not particularly fond of Las Cruces being signed, though I wouldn't mind it being a secondary.

[MattHanson939]

Now back to mileage signs.

Interstate 10 east in New Mexico

===Have El Paso continue being the primary control city, Las Cruces secondary===

After the Arizona border: Lordsburg, Las Cruces, El Paso
After NM 80: NM 338 south, Lordsburg, El Paso
After NM 338: Exit 15, Lordsburg, El Paso
After Exit 15: Lorsdburg, Deming, El Paso
After Lordsburg: Deming, Las Cruces, El Paso
After NM 113: Separ, Las Cruces, El Paso
After Separ: NM 146 south, Deming, Las Cruces
After NM 146: Rest Area, Exit 55, Las Cruces
After Exit 68: keep Deming, Las Cruces, El Paso
After Deming: keep Akela, Las Cruces, El Paso
After Akela: Jct. NM 549, Las Cruces, El Paso
After Exit 127: keep Airport, Las Cruces, El Paso
After Las Cruces: keep Anthony, El Paso

[SkyPesos]

I-294: Detroit, Milwaukee (to mirror the signing of Chicago in these respective cities)

Maybe it's just me, but an Indianapolis control city on I-294 SB would be nice to see, even though I-94 doesn't go there. Sort of like how the majority of I-270 NB/EB in MO is signed for Chicago.

[JayhawkCO]

I love control cities on interstates that default on to other interstates.  I love El Paso for both I-20 and I-25, but I hate Weatherford for I-30.  Yes, I-20 actually takes you there, but it kind of acknowledges that I-30 is about to die.

And El Paso ought to be signed on I-25 southbound all the way from Albuquerque; I'm not particularly fond of Las Cruces being signed, though I wouldn't mind it being a secondary.

Seems weird to diss the second largest city in the state by skipping over it, especially since it's an interstate junction.

[hobsini2]

I love control cities on interstates that default on to other interstates.  I love El Paso for both I-20 and I-25, but I hate Weatherford for I-30.  Yes, I-20 actually takes you there, but it kind of acknowledges that I-30 is about to die.

And El Paso ought to be signed on I-25 southbound all the way from Albuquerque; I'm not particularly fond of Las Cruces being signed, though I wouldn't mind it being a secondary.

Seems weird to diss the second largest city in the state by skipping over it, especially since it's an interstate junction.

Wouldn't be the first time I have come across that. Joliet is now the 3rd largest city in Illinois but some say it is too close to Chicago to get even secondary status.

[CoreySamson]

Baton Rouge is good for westbound, but east bound shouldn't be Hamond then Slidel, it should be Gulfport or Biloxi like I-10 has.  I like New Orleans for southbound on both I-59 and I-55.

Speaking of Gulfport and Biloxi, why does Mississippi like skipping them for Mobile or even Pascagoula in certain spots? I also don't really get McComb, Grenada, and Laurel as control cities.

[webny99]

Count me in as another anti-"control state" person. As a native of Chicago, I really dislike the practices on I-80, I-90 and I-94 (plus I-294). The following should be used as control cities:

I-80: Toledo, Quad Cities (Moline, preferably)
I-90: Gary (although I do like that Rockford is already signed for WB)
I-94 and I-294: Detroit, Milwaukee (to mirror the signing of Chicago in these respective cities)

I-55 and I-57 are fine, as they show St. Louis and Memphis as their destinations. While I-88 to Aurora is also fine, I'd like to see a slightly larger destination added, like Moline where it meets I-88 on the western end.

So any way you sign control cities for I-294 south, I-94 east and I-90 east creates problems.

Traffic heading into Indiana either via the Borman or the Toll Road is going to scatter amongst I-65 south, I-94 east and the eastbound Toll Road upon reaching Gary/Lake Station, so using only Detroit on I-94 or only Toledo on I-90 as a control city is problematic.

Using Gary is the most accurate way to sign those routes since they all go there, but Gary carries such a negative connotation and most traffic is not actually going to Gary.

Using Indiana provides accuracy without the negative connotation of Gary but is of course much more vague.

Using all of Detroit/Toledo/Indianapolis would be fully informative but cumbersome.

I don't have a problem with using Gary. The negative connotation can't be helped, and control cities aren't meant to be where most traffic on the route is going, they're meant to be the next logical waypoint, which Gary is for those routes. Then you can sign Indy, Toledo, and Detroit on their respective routes from there.

[hobsini2]

Baton Rouge is good for westbound, but east bound shouldn't be Hamond then Slidel, it should be Gulfport or Biloxi like I-10 has.  I like New Orleans for southbound on both I-59 and I-55.

Speaking of Gulfport and Biloxi, why does Mississippi like skipping them for Mobile or even Pascagoula in certain spots? I also don't really get McComb, Grenada, and Laurel as control cities.

Mobile is much bigger and not that far from Biloxi. Biloxi as a secondary is good.
As for McComb and Grenada, those are not even good secondary cities.

[SkyPesos]

Wouldn't be the first time I have come across that. Joliet is now the 3rd largest city in Illinois but some say it is too close to Chicago to get even secondary status.

Otoh, you have East St Louis with secondary status even though it's a smaller place than Joliet, right across the river from St Louis, and have a bad reputation (worse than Gary that was mentioned earlier).

[ilpt4u]

Wouldn't be the first time I have come across that. Joliet is now the 3rd largest city in Illinois but some say it is too close to Chicago to get even secondary status.

Otoh, you have East St Louis with secondary status even though it's a smaller place than Joliet, right across the river from St Louis, and have a bad reputation (worse than Gary that was mentioned earlier).

Cairo has Secondary status from Marion on south for 57 in Southern IL. Cairo is almost a ghost town

[ran4sh]

Count me in as another anti-"control state" person. As a native of Chicago, I really dislike the practices on I-80, I-90 and I-94 (plus I-294). The following should be used as control cities:

I-80: Toledo, Quad Cities (Moline, preferably)
I-90: Gary (although I do like that Rockford is already signed for WB)
I-94 and I-294: Detroit, Milwaukee (to mirror the signing of Chicago in these respective cities)

I-55 and I-57 are fine, as they show St. Louis and Memphis as their destinations. While I-88 to Aurora is also fine, I'd like to see a slightly larger destination added, like Moline where it meets I-88 on the western end.

So any way you sign control cities for I-294 south, I-94 east and I-90 east creates problems.

Traffic heading into Indiana either via the Borman or the Toll Road is going to scatter amongst I-65 south, I-94 east and the eastbound Toll Road upon reaching Gary/Lake Station, so using only Detroit on I-94 or only Toledo on I-90 as a control city is problematic.

Using Gary is the most accurate way to sign those routes since they all go there, but Gary carries such a negative connotation and most traffic is not actually going to Gary.

Using Indiana provides accuracy without the negative connotation of Gary but is of course much more vague.

Using all of Detroit/Toledo/Indianapolis would be fully informative but cumbersome.

I don't have a problem with using Gary. The negative connotation can't be helped, and control cities aren't meant to be where most traffic on the route is going, they're meant to be the next logical waypoint, which Gary is for those routes. Then you can sign Indy, Toledo, and Detroit on their respective routes from there.

Actually yes they are meant to be where most traffic is going, or at least that should be one of the major considerations when selecting control cities


iPhone

[dvferyance]

I-294: Detroit, Milwaukee (to mirror the signing of Chicago in these respective cities)

Maybe it's just me, but an Indianapolis control city on I-294 SB would be nice to see, even though I-94 doesn't go there. Sort of like how the majority of I-270 NB/EB in MO is signed for Chicago.

Wisconsin is fine for I-294 NB before O Hare because I-90 goes there as well. However north of O Hare it should be all Milwaukee from there.

[hobsini2]

I-294: Detroit, Milwaukee (to mirror the signing of Chicago in these respective cities)

Maybe it's just me, but an Indianapolis control city on I-294 SB would be nice to see, even though I-94 doesn't go there. Sort of like how the majority of I-270 NB/EB in MO is signed for Chicago.

Wisconsin is fine for I-294 NB before O Hare because I-90 goes there as well. However north of O Hare it should be all Milwaukee from there.

294 NB is signed for Milwaukee starting at 290.

[hbelkins]

Sikeston would be a logical control, because it's a major interstate junction and the (current) terminus of I-57.

Nah...Memphis is a more logical choice because it's much bigger and more well known.  Plus, the distance between Sikeston and Memphis is much less compared to the distance from I-70's western terminus and Las Vegas.

When I-57 is completed to Little Rock, then do you remove Memphis in favor of LR?

[hobsini2]

Sikeston would be a logical control, because it's a major interstate junction and the (current) terminus of I-57.

Nah...Memphis is a more logical choice because it's much bigger and more well known.  Plus, the distance between Sikeston and Memphis is much less compared to the distance from I-70's western terminus and Las Vegas.

When I-57 is completed to Little Rock, then do you remove Memphis in favor of LR?

Good question. I would say it remains Memphis until I-55 and then becomes Little Rock. Think of it kind of the same way the relationship between I-80 and Chicago is. Yes it's a bit further in distance but same concept.

[amroad17]

Baton Rouge is good for westbound, but east bound shouldn't be Hamond then Slidel, it should be Gulfport or Biloxi like I-10 has.  I like New Orleans for southbound on both I-59 and I-55.

Speaking of Gulfport and Biloxi, why does Mississippi like skipping them for Mobile or even Pascagoula in certain spots? I also don't really get McComb, Grenada, and Laurel as control cities.

Mobile is much bigger and not that far from Biloxi. Biloxi as a secondary is good.
As for McComb and Grenada, those are not even good secondary cities.

And since we are discussing control cities along I-10 between New Orleans and Mobile, how about the Louisiana DOT replace Bay St. Louis with Gulfport (or Biloxi) as well as ALDOT replace Pascagoula with Gulfport (or Biloxi).  I know these have been carbon copied since the 1970's because I-10 transitioned into US 90 right at the AL/MS line near Pascagoula and I-10 ended at the first interchange in Mississippi (current MS 607 which leads to US 90 near Bay St. Louis) after leaving Louisiana.  There is such a thing as updating these control points instead of using outdated control points.

What is a bit amusing is that Mississippi uses New Orleans and Mobile as their control cities at most every I-10 interchange.

[RobbieL2415]

I'm not a fan of how MA uses states and geographical locations as control points; NH-Maine, Cape Cod, and the most egregious, The Islands.

[MATraveler128]

I'm not a fan of how MA uses states and geographical locations as control points; NH-Maine, Cape Cod, and the most egregious, The Islands.

There was also a sign on I-90 eastbound at Exit 123 (then Exit 14) that read "South Shore"  in addition to NH-Maine. Obviously the signs were replaced and now say Portsmouth NH/Providence RI.

In New Hampshire on I-95 north at Exit 4, signs use NH Lakes/White Mtns. And I-89 north at Exit 17 uses just "Vermont"  instead of either White River Jct or Montpelier.

[MattHanson939]

Seems weird to diss the second largest city in the state by skipping over it, especially since it's an interstate junction.

I get that Las Cruces is the second biggest city in New Mexico and has an interstate junction.  But the reason for El Paso being the most logical choice to use as the primary control city on I-25 south from Albuquerque is that El Paso is MUCH bigger and more well-known (especially to out-of-state drivers) than Las Cruces, and it's only 45 miles from LC.  What I mean about Las Cruces being the secondary control city on I-25 south is having it signed at smaller interchanges or dual signing Las Cruces / El Paso on some overheads in Albuquerque.  But I would definitely sign El Paso at the Big-I.  Using a smaller city as a secondary doesn't mean skipping over it completely.  As far as secondary controls, I would not sign Belen or Socorro (those can go on distance signs only).

It is also the reason I-10 in Arizona signs El Paso instead of Las Cruces going east out of Tucson; and Tucson is at a farther distance from El Paso than Albuquerque is.  Arizona doesn't even sign secondary controls; only the big cities are mentioned, even at smaller interchanges.