Worst control city on an interstate in your state

[hobsini2]

Another nomination for Ohio:

I-77 South has/had used either Cambridge or Marietta as the control city between Canton and Cambridge (where I-77 meets I-70).  I would just stick with Cambridge and have the Marietta control city from I-70 southward.

Much of the Southbound traffic from Canton bails out by Dover/New Philadelphia or at I-70 anyways, so Marietta is a moot point.

So why not use Charleston or Parkersburg at I-70 for 77? That would be way better than Marietta.

[Flint1979]

Raleigh could be a control city on I-95: northbound would use Raleigh from Fayetteville to I-40, southbound would use Raleigh from Richmond/Petersburg to US 64.

Not really. Raleigh is on another cross country 2di already so using it on I-95 makes no sense. The control cities in NC on I-95 should be: Florence, SC; Fayetteville; Rocky Mount and Richmond.

[ran4sh]

There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.

[webny99]

Another nomination for Ohio:

I-77 South has/had used either Cambridge or Marietta as the control city between Canton and Cambridge (where I-77 meets I-70).  I would just stick with Cambridge and have the Marietta control city from I-70 southward.

Much of the Southbound traffic from Canton bails out by Dover/New Philadelphia or at I-70 anyways, so Marietta is a moot point.

So why not use Charleston or Parkersburg at I-70 for 77? That would be way better than Marietta.

I concur, Parkersburg would be better, but if they want to use an in-state city, they could do worse than Marietta.

[Flint1979]

There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.

Using Raleigh on I-95 makes no sense in the first place as I-95 comes nowhere near Raleigh and there are far better control cities to use on I-95 than Raleigh. Rocky Mount and Fayetteville should be the only two NC cities used on I-95.

[thspfc]

There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.

A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities.

[ran4sh]

There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.

A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities.

The interstates are a national system, not a system where "cross country" routes are one type of route and some other type of route is a different type of route.

Cross country traffic should figure in when determining control cities on *any* interstate, not just the "cross country" routes (whatever that means... FHWA makes no such distinction).

[kirbykart]

There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.

A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities.

The interstates are a national system, not a system where "cross country" routes are one type of route and some other type of route is a different type of route.

Cross country traffic should figure in when determining control cities on *any* interstate, not just the "cross country" routes (whatever that means... FHWA makes no such distinction).

When webny99 says "cross country 2di", what is meant is a 2di that spans the length of the country, or very near that. I-95 goes from the Canadian border at Houlton to Fort Lauderdale, I-40 spans from I-15 near Needles to Wilmington. An example of a 2di that does not cross the country is I-79, which only spans from Erie to Charleston. Webny99 wasn't trying to use any official designation.

[Roadgeekteen]

For I-77, I would use Charleston south of Canton. North of Charleston, I would use Cleveland. Make it simple.

[thspfc]

There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.

A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities.

The interstates are a national system, not a system where "cross country" routes are one type of route and some other type of route is a different type of route.

Cross country traffic should figure in when determining control cities on *any* interstate, not just the "cross country" routes (whatever that means... FHWA makes no such distinction).

Never said anything about cross country routes or even Interstates at all for that matter.

A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities. That means that if a route has a lot of cross country traffic, its control cities should, on average, be larger and more notable. If a route does not have a lot of cross country traffic - and many segments of Interstates don't - the control cities should, on average, be more locally rather than nationally known.

[kirbykart]

For I-77, I would use Charleston south of Canton. North of Charleston, I would use Cleveland. Make it simple.

Ehhh... Yes, but IMHO add Parkersburg.

[ran4sh]

There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.

A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities.

The interstates are a national system, not a system where "cross country" routes are one type of route and some other type of route is a different type of route.

Cross country traffic should figure in when determining control cities on *any* interstate, not just the "cross country" routes (whatever that means... FHWA makes no such distinction).

Never said anything about cross country routes or even Interstates at all for that matter.

A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities. That means that if a route has a lot of cross country traffic, its control cities should, on average, be larger and more notable. If a route does not have a lot of cross country traffic - and many segments of Interstates don't - the control cities should, on average, be more locally rather than nationally known.

Again, routes are arbitrary distinctions and all it takes is replacement of some signs to turn one segment from "non-cross country" to "cross country" or vice versa. For example, the interstates currently known as I-76 were at one point branch routes from I-80 (i.e. I-80S, etc) I-80 is clearly a cross country route, while the others are not, so just by switching signs you are saying the standards should also switch (despite being the same road). I strongly disagree, routes are arbitrary distinctions.

[Scott5114]

There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.

A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities.

The interstates are a national system, not a system where "cross country" routes are one type of route and some other type of route is a different type of route.

Cross country traffic should figure in when determining control cities on *any* interstate, not just the "cross country" routes (whatever that means... FHWA makes no such distinction).

Never said anything about cross country routes or even Interstates at all for that matter.

A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities. That means that if a route has a lot of cross country traffic, its control cities should, on average, be larger and more notable. If a route does not have a lot of cross country traffic - and many segments of Interstates don't - the control cities should, on average, be more locally rather than nationally known.

Again, routes are arbitrary distinctions and all it takes is replacement of some signs to turn one segment from "non-cross country" to "cross country" or vice versa. For example, the interstates currently known as I-76 were at one point branch routes from I-80 (i.e. I-80S, etc) I-80 is clearly a cross country route, while the others are not, so just by switching signs you are saying the standards should also switch (despite being the same road). I strongly disagree, routes are arbitrary distinctions.

Reread what he wrote carefully. He's saying "sections of road with lots of out-of-state traffic should have more well-known control cities". That has nothing to do with route numbers.

[NWI_Irish96]

How about we just make all control cities NY and LA. Any heading between 169 and 349 degrees is moving closer to LA and any heading < 169 or > 349 degrees is moving closer to NY.

Would that make everybody happy?

[ran4sh]

There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.

A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities.

The interstates are a national system, not a system where "cross country" routes are one type of route and some other type of route is a different type of route.

Cross country traffic should figure in when determining control cities on *any* interstate, not just the "cross country" routes (whatever that means... FHWA makes no such distinction).

Never said anything about cross country routes or even Interstates at all for that matter.

A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities. That means that if a route has a lot of cross country traffic, its control cities should, on average, be larger and more notable. If a route does not have a lot of cross country traffic - and many segments of Interstates don't - the control cities should, on average, be more locally rather than nationally known.

Again, routes are arbitrary distinctions and all it takes is replacement of some signs to turn one segment from "non-cross country" to "cross country" or vice versa. For example, the interstates currently known as I-76 were at one point branch routes from I-80 (i.e. I-80S, etc) I-80 is clearly a cross country route, while the others are not, so just by switching signs you are saying the standards should also switch (despite being the same road). I strongly disagree, routes are arbitrary distinctions.

Reread what he wrote carefully. He's saying "sections of road with lots of out-of-state traffic should have more well-known control cities". That has nothing to do with route numbers.

Sure. But my opinion remains the same. The FHWA makes no distinction between Interstate routes with lots of out of state traffic vs routes with mostly local traffic. I agree with that and I believe Interstate routes throughout the whole system, including 3dis, should have control cities based on non-local traffic.

[Roadgeekteen]

For I-77, I would use Charleston south of Canton. North of Charleston, I would use Cleveland. Make it simple.

Ehhh... Yes, but IMHO add Parkersburg.

I'm fine with Parkersburg northbound, southbound I would stay away from it.

[Flint1979]

There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.

A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities.

The interstates are a national system, not a system where "cross country" routes are one type of route and some other type of route is a different type of route.

Cross country traffic should figure in when determining control cities on *any* interstate, not just the "cross country" routes (whatever that means... FHWA makes no such distinction).

Never said anything about cross country routes or even Interstates at all for that matter.

A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities. That means that if a route has a lot of cross country traffic, its control cities should, on average, be larger and more notable. If a route does not have a lot of cross country traffic - and many segments of Interstates don't - the control cities should, on average, be more locally rather than nationally known.

Again, routes are arbitrary distinctions and all it takes is replacement of some signs to turn one segment from "non-cross country" to "cross country" or vice versa. For example, the interstates currently known as I-76 were at one point branch routes from I-80 (i.e. I-80S, etc) I-80 is clearly a cross country route, while the others are not, so just by switching signs you are saying the standards should also switch (despite being the same road). I strongly disagree, routes are arbitrary distinctions.

Reread what he wrote carefully. He's saying "sections of road with lots of out-of-state traffic should have more well-known control cities". That has nothing to do with route numbers.

Sure. But my opinion remains the same. The FHWA makes no distinction between Interstate routes with lots of out of state traffic vs routes with mostly local traffic. I agree with that and I believe Interstate routes throughout the whole system, including 3dis, should have control cities based on non-local traffic.

They leave it up to the states to decide what the control cities are. Like for Michigan MDOT chooses the control cities and does a pretty good job at it too. So control cities vary state by state, some do it well and some don't.

The winner for MDOT's worst control cities is a tie between Flint on I-275 and Port Huron on I-696.

[hbelkins]

They leave it up to the states to decide what the control cities are.

And states don't always agree. Look at I-24. Kentucky uses St. Louis, Paducah, and Nashville. No mention of Clarksville. Tennessee uses Nashville, Clarksville, and St. Louis. No mention of Paducah.

[Flint1979]

They leave it up to the states to decide what the control cities are.

And states don't always agree. Look at I-24. Kentucky uses St. Louis, Paducah, and Nashville. No mention of Clarksville. Tennessee uses Nashville, Clarksville, and St. Louis. No mention of Paducah.

Yeah and Illinois uses, "Interstate 57." Those are stupid control cities. I'd love to re-control city I-24. The entire route I'd go with Chattanooga, Nashville, Clarksville, Paducah, Mt. Vernon. Nothing wrong with any of those I do not think.

[ran4sh]

There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.

A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities.

The interstates are a national system, not a system where "cross country" routes are one type of route and some other type of route is a different type of route.

Cross country traffic should figure in when determining control cities on *any* interstate, not just the "cross country" routes (whatever that means... FHWA makes no such distinction).

Never said anything about cross country routes or even Interstates at all for that matter.

A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities. That means that if a route has a lot of cross country traffic, its control cities should, on average, be larger and more notable. If a route does not have a lot of cross country traffic - and many segments of Interstates don't - the control cities should, on average, be more locally rather than nationally known.

Again, routes are arbitrary distinctions and all it takes is replacement of some signs to turn one segment from "non-cross country" to "cross country" or vice versa. For example, the interstates currently known as I-76 were at one point branch routes from I-80 (i.e. I-80S, etc) I-80 is clearly a cross country route, while the others are not, so just by switching signs you are saying the standards should also switch (despite being the same road). I strongly disagree, routes are arbitrary distinctions.

Reread what he wrote carefully. He's saying "sections of road with lots of out-of-state traffic should have more well-known control cities". That has nothing to do with route numbers.

Sure. But my opinion remains the same. The FHWA makes no distinction between Interstate routes with lots of out of state traffic vs routes with mostly local traffic. I agree with that and I believe Interstate routes throughout the whole system, including 3dis, should have control cities based on non-local traffic.

They leave it up to the states to decide what the control cities are. Like for Michigan MDOT chooses the control cities and does a pretty good job at it too. So control cities vary state by state, some do it well and some don't.

The winner for MDOT's worst control cities is a tie between Flint on I-275 and Port Huron on I-696.

That's not what the MUTCD says. The MUTCD specifically recommends continuity across state lines. It's just that it's not within the power of the federal government to force states to agree on control cities across state lines.

[ran4sh]

There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.

A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities.

The interstates are a national system, not a system where "cross country" routes are one type of route and some other type of route is a different type of route.

Cross country traffic should figure in when determining control cities on *any* interstate, not just the "cross country" routes (whatever that means... FHWA makes no such distinction).

When webny99 says "cross country 2di", what is meant is a 2di that spans the length of the country, or very near that. I-95 goes from the Canadian border at Houlton to Fort Lauderdale, I-40 spans from I-15 near Needles to Wilmington. An example of a 2di that does not cross the country is I-79, which only spans from Erie to Charleston. Webny99 wasn't trying to use any official designation.

And I said that the rules for control cities should not be different between I-79 and whatever other interstate.

[thspfc]

There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.

A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities.

The interstates are a national system, not a system where "cross country" routes are one type of route and some other type of route is a different type of route.

Cross country traffic should figure in when determining control cities on *any* interstate, not just the "cross country" routes (whatever that means... FHWA makes no such distinction).

Never said anything about cross country routes or even Interstates at all for that matter.

A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities. That means that if a route has a lot of cross country traffic, its control cities should, on average, be larger and more notable. If a route does not have a lot of cross country traffic - and many segments of Interstates don't - the control cities should, on average, be more locally rather than nationally known.

Again, routes are arbitrary distinctions and all it takes is replacement of some signs to turn one segment from "non-cross country" to "cross country" or vice versa. For example, the interstates currently known as I-76 were at one point branch routes from I-80 (i.e. I-80S, etc) I-80 is clearly a cross country route, while the others are not, so just by switching signs you are saying the standards should also switch (despite being the same road). I strongly disagree, routes are arbitrary distinctions.

Reread what he wrote carefully. He's saying "sections of road with lots of out-of-state traffic should have more well-known control cities". That has nothing to do with route numbers.

Sure. But my opinion remains the same. The FHWA makes no distinction between Interstate routes with lots of out of state traffic vs routes with mostly local traffic. I agree with that and I believe Interstate routes throughout the whole system, including 3dis, should have control cities based on non-local traffic.

They leave it up to the states to decide what the control cities are. Like for Michigan MDOT chooses the control cities and does a pretty good job at it too. So control cities vary state by state, some do it well and some don't.

The winner for MDOT's worst control cities is a tie between Flint on I-275 and Port Huron on I-696.

That's not what the MUTCD says. The MUTCD specifically recommends continuity across state lines. It's just that it's not within the power of the federal government to force states to agree on control cities across state lines.

Have you not caught on that nobody cares about what the MUTCD says?

[hotdogPi]

I believe that whether there is long-distance traffic absolutely matters. Take I-495 in Massachusetts, for example. The northern half is a long-distance corridor. The southern half is not, despite having the same number.

[thspfc]

I believe that whether there is long-distance traffic absolutely matters. Take I-495 in Massachusetts, for example. The northern half is a long-distance corridor. The southern half is not, despite having the same number.

But the MCDUTCDCUTU said

[Ted$8roadFan]

I believe that whether there is long-distance traffic absolutely matters. Take I-495 in Massachusetts, for example. The northern half is a long-distance corridor. The southern half is not, despite having the same number.

Your point is valid, although I'm sure the folks in SE Mass and Cape Cod would disagree, especially during the summer.