Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Scott5114]

Also some states already follow your "super-control" idea in practice. (Oklahoma's control cities are the three largest cities in the state when the Interstates were built; no more, no less.) Others make every little podunk county seat a control. (I sure am glad it's so easy to find iconic Southwestern towns like Grants, New Mexico.) So really, I think your problem is federalism rather than the control city system.

[hobsini2]

Personally, I think the whole system of "control" cities and the signage thereof is in need of a rejig - with what we have now, we end up with a system in which long-distance interstate are signed to uberlocal control-cities that nobody outside the local area has heard of, and where mileage signs are woefully inconsistent, etc.

Control cities should be divided into 2 tiers: "control" and "super-control". "Super-Control" cities would be big places of national, strategic importance; I'm talking destinations like Boston, Chicago, New York, Phoenix and the like - these would be spread at a roughly equal distance along the route (though in really remote areas, they'll inevitably be more spread out). One would always appear on signage, and once reached, would be replaced by the next one.
"Control" cities would be other major destinations that a route passes through, or the location of a major junction.

Taking the I-10 as an example, working West, your Super-Control cities would be:
Jacksonville
Tallahassee
Mobile
New Orleans
Houston
San Antonio
El Paso
Phoenix
Los Angeles

And again using the I-10, the number of Control Cities are too many to list, but they'd include places like:
Lake City (for I-75)
Pensacola
Baton Rouge
Lafayette (for I-49)
etc, etc

Plus, you'd have any numerber of local destinations along your route .

On interchange directional signs, you'd have the following information:
- the next Super Control city
- the next Control city

So, for example, on the I-10 going west at Jacksonville, a direction sign would read "Lake City, Tallahassee".

Mileage signs would contain the following:
- the next super-control city
- the next 2 control cities
- plus one more local destination.

When you said "super control", I thought you were going to give, in your example, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Houston, San Antonio, Phoenix and Los Angeles super control status. What you did instead is define, as you see it, the primary/secondary tiers that for the most part already exist.

I do think that there should be 3 tiers, personally.
Primary for cities that have one of these 5 criteria:
1. Metro Area over 500k.
2. State Capitol or Largest City in the state.
3. City over 200k with a major university
4. City over 100k with top 50 domestic commercial airport.
5. End of the highway not at another interstate.

Secondary for cities that have one of these criteria:
1. City over 50k with a county population over 200k. Places most people have heard of.
2. Major tourist destination.
3. Junction with another primary interstate nearby and at least 3 exits serving the city.

Local for all others.

These are not hard rules but guidelines. Like everything else, there are exceptions to rules.

Primary (P), Secondary (S), Local (L)
So if I was to take I-10, I would do this going west:
Jacksonville (P)
Lake City (S)
Tallahassee (P)
Pensacola (S)
Mobile (P)
Pascagoula (L)
Biloxi (S)
Gulfport (S)
Slidell (L)
New Orleans (P)
Baton Rouge (P)
Lafayette (P)
Lake Charles (S)
Orange (L)
Beaumont (S)
Houston (P)
Columbus (L)
San Antonio (P)
Ft Stockton (L)
Van Horn (L)
El Paso (P)
Las Cruces (S)
Deming (L)
Lordsburg (L)
Willcox (L)
Benson (L)
Tucson (P)
Casa Grande (S)
Phoenix (P)
Blythe (L)
Palm Springs (S)
San Bernardino (S)
Los Angeles (P)
Santa Monica (P)

[Osthagen]

When you said "super control", I thought you were going to give, in your example, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Houston, San Antonio, Phoenix and Los Angeles super control status. What you did instead is define, as you see it, the primary/secondary tiers that for the most part already exist.

I am aware that similar tiers exist in some states, but the aim of my proposal was to provide a system that would define exactly how different tiers of control cities are signed, which would eliminate the problem of inconsistent signage and  signage on long-distance routes being uber-local.

[MattHanson939]

Are things like this due to a preference for using control cities within that state, rather than those of another state? I've seen it mentioned that CA has a strong preference for this so perhaps other states do as well. Though that only explains Trinidad and not Raton in the CO example.

California signs mostly in-state control cities I think in big part because it's a large state to begin with.  Most of the controls on I-5 are good choices.  It's only I-8, I-10 and I-40 that need help.  And despite CA's preference to post in-state control cities, they're still reluctant to sign Los Angeles as the westbound control on I-40 west (especially since it's signed within Arizona from Flagstaff).  Barstow ought to be a secondary control point though.

[Roadgeekteen]

Are things like this due to a preference for using control cities within that state, rather than those of another state? I've seen it mentioned that CA has a strong preference for this so perhaps other states do as well. Though that only explains Trinidad and not Raton in the CO example.

California signs mostly in-state control cities I think in big part because it's a large state to begin with.  Most of the controls on I-5 are good choices.  It's only I-8, I-10 and I-40 that need help.  And despite CA's preference to post in-state control cities, they're still reluctant to sign Los Angeles as the westbound control on I-40 west (especially since it's signed within Arizona from Flagstaff).  Barstow ought to be a secondary control point though.

I-15 isn't great either, as they use Barstow instead of Las Vegas. Barstow is fine as a secondary but Las Vegas is where most people are going.

[US 89]

Are things like this due to a preference for using control cities within that state, rather than those of another state? I've seen it mentioned that CA has a strong preference for this so perhaps other states do as well. Though that only explains Trinidad and not Raton in the CO example.

California signs mostly in-state control cities I think in big part because it's a large state to begin with.  Most of the controls on I-5 are good choices.  It's only I-8, I-10 and I-40 that need help.  And despite CA's preference to post in-state control cities, they're still reluctant to sign Los Angeles as the westbound control on I-40 west (especially since it's signed within Arizona from Flagstaff).  Barstow ought to be a secondary control point though.

I-15 isn't great either, as they use Barstow instead of Las Vegas. Barstow is fine as a secondary but Las Vegas is where most people are going.

But a pretty good proportion of the long-distance traffic heading out of the LA metro on I-15 is going to go east on I-40, which doesn't go to Las Vegas. Seems totally fine to me.

[MattHanson939]

Just discovered that on US 550 in New Mexico, Albuquerque is the primary control city going south from Bloomfield.  US 550's southern terminus is in Bernalillo; but most traffic will just continue onto I-25 south, and Albuquerque is only around 15-20 minutes away.  Or if you're headed to the west side (e.g. to Cottonwood Mall), you would just take NM 528 south through Rio Rancho, which becomes the Coors Bypass as 528 exits to Alameda Blvd; and not far after the 528/45 junction, you reach Cottonwood Mall.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.711111,-107.9860214,3a,75y,84.05h,95.66t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sbYWCiWBGDGffImuGoyn6Bw!2e0!5s20220601T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DbYWCiWBGDGffImuGoyn6Bw%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D38.462906%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Farmington is the northbound control city on US 550 from Bernalillo; Bloomfield isn't.  Why they decided to sign Farmington?  It's much bigger than Bloomfield, and it's only 20 minutes going west on US 64.  An interesting fact is 550's southern terminus used to be Farmington, and it went in a diagonal to the town of Aztec before turning north towards Durango, Colorado.  At the time, the stretch from Bloomfield to Bernalillo was NM 44.

[MattHanson939]

But a pretty good proportion of the long-distance traffic heading out of the LA metro on I-15 is going to go east on I-40, which doesn't go to Las Vegas. Seems totally fine to me.

The least CalTrans ought to do is dual sign Barstow / Las Vegas, as seen on one of the overheads at the I-10 interchange. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0671801,-117.552936,3a,75y,110.96h,95.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shH6yvc3WkCaRoMpfHL9pQg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[ethanhopkin14]

But a pretty good proportion of the long-distance traffic heading out of the LA metro on I-15 is going to go east on I-40, which doesn't go to Las Vegas. Seems totally fine to me.

The least CalTrans ought to do is dual sign Barstow / Las Vegas, as seen on one of the overheads at the I-10 interchange. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0671801,-117.552936,3a,75y,110.96h,95.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shH6yvc3WkCaRoMpfHL9pQg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Beautiful signs, although no cardinal direction for I-10.

[SEWIGuy]

But a pretty good proportion of the long-distance traffic heading out of the LA metro on I-15 is going to go east on I-40, which doesn't go to Las Vegas. Seems totally fine to me.

The least CalTrans ought to do is dual sign Barstow / Las Vegas, as seen on one of the overheads at the I-10 interchange. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0671801,-117.552936,3a,75y,110.96h,95.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shH6yvc3WkCaRoMpfHL9pQg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Beautiful signs, although no cardinal direction for I-10.

Does there need to be?

[Roadgeekteen]

But a pretty good proportion of the long-distance traffic heading out of the LA metro on I-15 is going to go east on I-40, which doesn't go to Las Vegas. Seems totally fine to me.

The least CalTrans ought to do is dual sign Barstow / Las Vegas, as seen on one of the overheads at the I-10 interchange. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0671801,-117.552936,3a,75y,110.96h,95.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shH6yvc3WkCaRoMpfHL9pQg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I would put Phoenix instead of Indio on that sign.

[hobsini2]

But a pretty good proportion of the long-distance traffic heading out of the LA metro on I-15 is going to go east on I-40, which doesn't go to Las Vegas. Seems totally fine to me.

The least CalTrans ought to do is dual sign Barstow / Las Vegas, as seen on one of the overheads at the I-10 interchange. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0671801,-117.552936,3a,75y,110.96h,95.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shH6yvc3WkCaRoMpfHL9pQg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I would put Phoenix instead of Indio on that sign.

Agreed. I think Palm Springs is better than Indio because it is more of a tourist destination.
From I-5, I would sign San Bernardino/Phoenix. I-15 would be Palm Springs/Phoenix.

[Roadgeekteen]

But a pretty good proportion of the long-distance traffic heading out of the LA metro on I-15 is going to go east on I-40, which doesn't go to Las Vegas. Seems totally fine to me.

The least CalTrans ought to do is dual sign Barstow / Las Vegas, as seen on one of the overheads at the I-10 interchange. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0671801,-117.552936,3a,75y,110.96h,95.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shH6yvc3WkCaRoMpfHL9pQg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I would put Phoenix instead of Indio on that sign.

Agreed. I think Palm Springs is better than Indio because it is more of a tourist destination.
From I-5, I would sign San Bernardino/Phoenix. I-15 would be Palm Springs/Phoenix.

Well from I-15 you still aren't to San Bernardino yet so they still sign it on I-10 east.

[hobsini2]

But a pretty good proportion of the long-distance traffic heading out of the LA metro on I-15 is going to go east on I-40, which doesn't go to Las Vegas. Seems totally fine to me.

The least CalTrans ought to do is dual sign Barstow / Las Vegas, as seen on one of the overheads at the I-10 interchange. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0671801,-117.552936,3a,75y,110.96h,95.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shH6yvc3WkCaRoMpfHL9pQg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I would put Phoenix instead of Indio on that sign.

Agreed. I think Palm Springs is better than Indio because it is more of a tourist destination.
From I-5, I would sign San Bernardino/Phoenix. I-15 would be Palm Springs/Phoenix.

Well from I-15 you still aren't to San Bernardino yet so they still sign it on I-10 east.

But when you get to I-15, there are San Bernardino exits north on 15 as well as east on 10.

[ethanhopkin14]

But a pretty good proportion of the long-distance traffic heading out of the LA metro on I-15 is going to go east on I-40, which doesn't go to Las Vegas. Seems totally fine to me.

The least CalTrans ought to do is dual sign Barstow / Las Vegas, as seen on one of the overheads at the I-10 interchange. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0671801,-117.552936,3a,75y,110.96h,95.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shH6yvc3WkCaRoMpfHL9pQg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Beautiful signs, although no cardinal direction for I-10.

Does there need to be?

Always.

[sprjus4]

I’ve noticed a number of times in both Virginia and North Carolina, at least, they will sometimes omit the cardinal direction on the through signage. I’m not sure why…

Here’s an example: https://maps.app.goo.gl/scsN5CYUBRLbbpmd8?g_st=ic

[MattHanson939]

When you said "super control", I thought you were going to give, in your example, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Houston, San Antonio, Phoenix and Los Angeles super control status. What you did instead is define, as you see it, the primary/secondary tiers that for the most part already exist.

I do think that there should be 3 tiers, personally.
Primary for cities that have one of these 5 criteria:
1. Metro Area over 500k.
2. State Capitol or Largest City in the state.
3. City over 200k with a major university
4. City over 100k with top 50 domestic commercial airport.
5. End of the highway not at another interstate.

Secondary for cities that have one of these criteria:
1. City over 50k with a county population over 200k. Places most people have heard of.
2. Major tourist destination.
3. Junction with another primary interstate nearby and at least 3 exits serving the city.

Local for all others.

These are not hard rules but guidelines. Like everything else, there are exceptions to rules.

Primary (P), Secondary (S), Local (L)
So if I was to take I-10, I would do this going west:
Jacksonville (P)
Lake City (S)
Tallahassee (P)
Pensacola (S)
Mobile (P)
Pascagoula (L)
Biloxi (S)
Gulfport (S)
Slidell (L)
New Orleans (P)
Baton Rouge (P)
Lafayette (P)
Lake Charles (S)
Orange (L)
Beaumont (S)
Houston (P)
Columbus (L)
San Antonio (P)
Ft Stockton (L)
Van Horn (L)
El Paso (P)
Las Cruces (S)
Deming (L)
Lordsburg (L)
Willcox (L)
Benson (L)
Tucson (P)
Casa Grande (S)
Phoenix (P)
Blythe (L)
Palm Springs (S)
San Bernardino (S)
Los Angeles (P)
Santa Monica (P)

For I-25 south:

Casper (S)
Cheyenne (P)
Ft. Collins (S)
Denver (P)
Colorado Springs (P)
Pueblo (S)
Trinidad (L)
Raton (L)
Las Vegas (L)
Santa Fe (S)
Albuquerque (P)
Los Lunas (L)
Belen (L)
Socorro (L)
Truth or Consequences (L)
Las Cruces (S)
El Paso (P)

I-40 west from Little Rock to western terminus (you can mention control cities to use as primaries or secondaries for Wilmington to Little Rock):

Fort Smith (P - dual signed with Oklahoma City)
Oklahoma City (P)
Amarillo (P)
Tucumcari (L)
Santa Rosa (L)
Albuquerque (P)
Grants (L)
Gallup (S)
Holbrook (L)
Winslow (L)
Flagstaff (P)
Williams (L)
Seligman (L)
Kingman (S)
Needles (L)
Barstow (S)
Los Angeles (P)

[hobsini2]

When you said "super control", I thought you were going to give, in your example, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Houston, San Antonio, Phoenix and Los Angeles super control status. What you did instead is define, as you see it, the primary/secondary tiers that for the most part already exist.

I do think that there should be 3 tiers, personally.
Primary for cities that have one of these 5 criteria:
1. Metro Area over 500k.
2. State Capitol or Largest City in the state.
3. City over 200k with a major university
4. City over 100k with top 50 domestic commercial airport.
5. End of the highway not at another interstate.

Secondary for cities that have one of these criteria:
1. City over 50k with a county population over 200k. Places most people have heard of.
2. Major tourist destination.
3. Junction with another primary interstate nearby and at least 3 exits serving the city.

Local for all others.

These are not hard rules but guidelines. Like everything else, there are exceptions to rules.

Primary (P), Secondary (S), Local (L)
So if I was to take I-10, I would do this going west:
Jacksonville (P)
Lake City (S)
Tallahassee (P)
Pensacola (S)
Mobile (P)
Pascagoula (L)
Biloxi (S)
Gulfport (S)
Slidell (L)
New Orleans (P)
Baton Rouge (P)
Lafayette (P)
Lake Charles (S)
Orange (L)
Beaumont (S)
Houston (P)
Columbus (L)
San Antonio (P)
Ft Stockton (L)
Van Horn (L)
El Paso (P)
Las Cruces (S)
Deming (L)
Lordsburg (L)
Willcox (L)
Benson (L)
Tucson (P)
Casa Grande (S)
Phoenix (P)
Blythe (L)
Palm Springs (S)
San Bernardino (S)
Los Angeles (P)
Santa Monica (P)

For I-25 south:

Casper (S)
Cheyenne (P)
Ft. Collins (S)
Denver (P)
Colorado Springs (P)
Pueblo (S)
Trinidad (L)
Raton (L)
Las Vegas (L)
Santa Fe (S)
Albuquerque (P)
Los Lunas (L)
Belen (L)
Socorro (L)
Truth or Consequences (L)
Las Cruces (S)
El Paso (P)

I-40 west from Little Rock to western terminus (you can mention control cities to use as primaries or secondaries for Wilmington to Little Rock):

Fort Smith (P - dual signed with Oklahoma City)
Oklahoma City (P)
Amarillo (P)
Tucumcari (L)
Santa Rosa (L)
Albuquerque (P)
Grants (L)
Gallup (S)
Holbrook (L)
Winslow (L)
Flagstaff (P)
Williams (L)
Seligman (L)
Kingman (S)
Needles (L)
Barstow (S)
Los Angeles (P)

Santa Fe would qualify as a primary under the state capitol rule.

[OCGuy81]

Oregon doesn't really like to use any control cities outside her borders until it's absolutely necessary.

I-5 SB, they won't even mention Yreka, Redding, or Sacramento until you're in the last city in Oregon, Ashland.

I-84, at the junction with I-82.  There's no mention of using I-82 for any cities in Washington.  Just Hermiston and Umatilla.  At the same junction, the control cities for I-84 are Pendleton and Ontario.  No mention of Boise.

I think Sacramento or even Redding would be a good control city once you get to the Medford area.

And on I-82, maybe mention the Tri-Cities in Washington? Or Yakima?

[JayhawkCO]

For I-25 south:

Casper (S)
Cheyenne (P)
Ft. Collins (S)
Denver (P)
Colorado Springs (P)
Pueblo (S)
Trinidad (L)
Raton (L)
Las Vegas (L)
Santa Fe (S)
Albuquerque (P)
Los Lunas (L)
Belen (L)
Socorro (L)
Truth or Consequences (L)
Las Cruces (S)
El Paso (P)

Bolding mine. Why? Belen is currently signed (and bad), but adding another town barely over 10K people that's only 10 miles away from ABQ? Seems unnecessary. If you include that for the general Albuquerque area, why wouldn't you sign Frederick (a town no one has heard of outside of Colorado) near Denver?

[MisterWong]

Okay, I am a long-time lurker but a first-time poster. Let me try using hobsini2's 'tier list' for I-95 (closest primary interstate to me) and using the AASHTO control city list. In addition, I'll post my own opinion at the end (not sure what other thread or forum to):

-AASHTO List-
Miami (P)
West Palm Beach (S)
Daytona Beach (S)
Jacksonville (P)
Savannah (S)
Florence (S)
Fayetteville (S)
Benson (L)
Rocky Mount (L or S, due to the city straddling two counties)
Petersburg (L)
Richmond (P)
Washington, DC (P)
Baltimore (P)
Wilmington (S)
Chester (S)
Philidelphia (P)
Trenton (P)
New York City (P)
New Haven (P)
New London (S)
Providence (P)
Boston (P)
Portsmouth (S)
Kittery (S)
Portland, ME (P)
Augusta (P)
Bangor (L)
Houlton (S)

Personally, I think that this is a rather bad list, especially in the Carolinas, where the counties are large and yet the cities really are not that important for navigation purposes. Similarly, Portsmouth and Kittery are far too small to be signed between Portland and Boston and only get secondary status due to being in large counties. Here's my list assuming mostly long-distance traffic unfamiliar with the route. This has some rather wild picks, and it uses two control cities for much of the route. I'm pretty sure that this would disqualify me from working in a Chamber of Commerce anywhere between Richmond and Savannah, but further ado:

-Northbound-
West Palm Beach
Jacksonville
Savannah
Florence/Washington, DC
Fayetteville/Washington, DC
Richmond/Washington, DC
Washington, DC
Baltimore
Philidelpha
New York City
New Haven
Providence
Boston
Peabody
Portland, ME
Augusta
Bangor
Houlton

-Southbound-
Bangor
Augusta
Portland, ME
Boston
Canton
Providence
New Haven/New York City
New York City
Philidelphia
Baltimore/Washington, DC
Washington, DC
Richmond
Fayetteville/Florida
Florence/Florida
Savannah/Florida
Jacksonville
Orlando/Miami
Miami

You will notice that I do not have much affection for the Carolinas, and I put a lot of emphasis on Maine. In both cases, there really isn't much to sign. In the case of the Carolinas, I felt that that since it was mostly tourists along that stretch of road, I should put their likely destination going southbound and a large city that they passed going southbound going northbound. This is also why I mentioned Orlando out of Jacksonville. As for Maine there really isn't anything noteworthy to sign in that state so I had to let in some smaller places. Thoughts?

[rlb2024]

Oregon doesn't really like to use any control cities outside her borders until it's absolutely necessary.

I-5 SB, they won't even mention Yreka, Redding, or Sacramento until you're in the last city in Oregon, Ashland.

I-84, at the junction with I-82.  There's no mention of using I-82 for any cities in Washington.  Just Hermiston and Umatilla.  At the same junction, the control cities for I-84 are Pendleton and Ontario.  No mention of Boise.

I think Sacramento or even Redding would be a good control city once you get to the Medford area.

And on I-82, maybe mention the Tri-Cities in Washington? Or Yakima?

Looks like they now mention Kennewick at the I-84/I-82 interchange . . .

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.7940138,-119.3845995,3a,75y,275.69h,102.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sh8ifObRFIpGzYOmL95pCZQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[OCGuy81]

Oregon doesn't really like to use any control cities outside her borders until it's absolutely necessary.

I-5 SB, they won't even mention Yreka, Redding, or Sacramento until you're in the last city in Oregon, Ashland.

I-84, at the junction with I-82.  There's no mention of using I-82 for any cities in Washington.  Just Hermiston and Umatilla.  At the same junction, the control cities for I-84 are Pendleton and Ontario.  No mention of Boise.

I think Sacramento or even Redding would be a good control city once you get to the Medford area.

And on I-82, maybe mention the Tri-Cities in Washington? Or Yakima?

Looks like they now mention Kennewick at the I-84/I-82 interchange . . .

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.7940138,-119.3845995,3a,75y,275.69h,102.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sh8ifObRFIpGzYOmL95pCZQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Oh wow, that's an update.  Last time I drove that, I remember it being Hermiston and Umatilla, even though Kennewick is much larger than both.

[Roadgeekteen]

Oregon doesn't really like to use any control cities outside her borders until it's absolutely necessary.

I-5 SB, they won't even mention Yreka, Redding, or Sacramento until you're in the last city in Oregon, Ashland.

I-84, at the junction with I-82.  There's no mention of using I-82 for any cities in Washington.  Just Hermiston and Umatilla.  At the same junction, the control cities for I-84 are Pendleton and Ontario.  No mention of Boise.

I think Sacramento or even Redding would be a good control city once you get to the Medford area.

And on I-82, maybe mention the Tri-Cities in Washington? Or Yakima?

Looks like they now mention Kennewick at the I-84/I-82 interchange . . .

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.7940138,-119.3845995,3a,75y,275.69h,102.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sh8ifObRFIpGzYOmL95pCZQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Oh wow, that's an update.  Last time I drove that, I remember it being Hermiston and Umatilla, even though Kennewick is much larger than both.

I would get rid of Hermiston and replace it with Seattle. I believe that the Hermiston/ Umatilla is going eastbound on I-84.

[hobsini2]

Oregon doesn't really like to use any control cities outside her borders until it's absolutely necessary.

I-5 SB, they won't even mention Yreka, Redding, or Sacramento until you're in the last city in Oregon, Ashland.

I-84, at the junction with I-82.  There's no mention of using I-82 for any cities in Washington.  Just Hermiston and Umatilla.  At the same junction, the control cities for I-84 are Pendleton and Ontario.  No mention of Boise.

I think Sacramento or even Redding would be a good control city once you get to the Medford area.

And on I-82, maybe mention the Tri-Cities in Washington? Or Yakima?

Looks like they now mention Kennewick at the I-84/I-82 interchange . . .

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.7940138,-119.3845995,3a,75y,275.69h,102.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sh8ifObRFIpGzYOmL95pCZQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Oh wow, that's an update.  Last time I drove that, I remember it being Hermiston and Umatilla, even though Kennewick is much larger than both.

I would get rid of Hermiston and replace it with Seattle. I believe that the Hermiston/ Umatilla is going eastbound on I-84.

There is an aux sign before the interchange that says "Yakima, Spokane NEXT RIGHT". No mention of Seattle though.