AARoads Forum

Due to changes in the MUTCD, will all the signs west of Flagstaff have to be amended and use a more close to the route control city on all the WB Ramps to I-40?  Remember that "Los Angeles" that is connected by two other interstates has been used since conception due to the old road US 66 once going there.

It was told to me by someone at DOT there why the use of LA for the E-W interstate there, and it was because of US 66 being the original route where the modern interstate took its traffic from.

If they will someday have to change it then I suppose that Nevada will have to also, as they use Los Angeles for I-15 South of Vegas.  Most likely because the former US 91 went there, and even though unconfirmed by NVDOT, I assume their engineers thought the same way about signing their interstates by looking at the route it replaced.

What changes in the MUTCD?

Seems kind of silly to use just use Kingman, Needles and Barstow as the only control cities.  I think the majority of people heading west on I-40 out of Arizona tend to be going to one of three places; US 95 to Vegas, CA 58 to Barstow and the bulk to the Los Angeles area via I-15.  So basically things like duplicated Interstate routes are all okay but a control city not located on the Interstate at hand isn't?   :eyebrow:

A change brought in as part of the 2009 MUTCD, a state supplement, or a proposed change a new edition?  I certainly do not recall anything in the MUTCD against indirect control cities.

If there has been such a change at the national level, I certainly don't see Illinois removing Memphis on SB I-57 nor removing Chicago on EB I-80.

Or a LONG duplex of I-40.  I would think it makes more sense for 40 to go into LA than 15 anyway

Quote from: texaskdog on June 08, 2016, 10:41:31 PM
Or a LONG duplex of I-40.  I would think it makes more sense for 40 to go into LA than 15 anyway

You mean down I-15 and I-210?  Caltrans would never let a huge multiplex of I-15 happen like that nor would the AASHTO.  Besides Caltrans has designs on I-40 to Barstow in the far flung future.

Doubt ADOT would eliminate "Los Angeles" from its I-40 signs. If anything, another city would be added to some signs.

Quote from: roadman65 on June 08, 2016, 07:46:02 PM
Due to changes in the MUTCD, will all the signs west of Flagstaff have to be amended and use a more close to the route control city on all the WB Ramps to I-40?  Remember that "Los Angeles" that is connected by two other interstates has been used since conception due to the old road US 66 once going there.

It was told to me by someone at DOT there why the use of LA for the E-W interstate there, and it was because of US 66 being the original route where the modern interstate took its traffic from.

If they will someday have to change it then I suppose that Nevada will have to also, as they use Los Angeles for I-15 South of Vegas.  Most likely because the former US 91 went there, and even though unconfirmed by NVDOT, I assume their engineers thought the same way about signing their interstates by looking at the route it replaced.

As others have mentioned, I am also unaware of any 2009 MUTCD mandates on control cities. Section 2E.13 governs this. The standards only cover that destination continuity be maintained and that at no decision point shall a control city be indicated along more than one route. Support statements say that the states decide control cities. There are AASHTO guidelines for selection of supplemental signage and also a guideline list of control cities for Interstate highways. That's not a mandate.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2016, 10:56:34 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on June 08, 2016, 10:41:31 PM
Or a LONG duplex of I-40.  I would think it makes more sense for 40 to go into LA than 15 anyway

You mean down I-15 and I-210?  Caltrans would never let a huge multiplex of I-15 happen like that nor would the AASHTO.  Besides Caltrans has designs on I-40 to Barstow in the far flung future.

Do you mean Bakersfield? I-40's terminus is in Barstow. (And we've discussed elsewhere on this board that Caltrans doesn't seem to be in any hurry to expand interstate designations, despite previous interest.)

Quote from: roadfro on June 09, 2016, 02:22:07 AM

Quote from: roadman65 on June 08, 2016, 07:46:02 PM
Due to changes in the MUTCD, will all the signs west of Flagstaff have to be amended and use a more close to the route control city on all the WB Ramps to I-40?  Remember that "Los Angeles" that is connected by two other interstates has been used since conception due to the old road US 66 once going there.

It was told to me by someone at DOT there why the use of LA for the E-W interstate there, and it was because of US 66 being the original route where the modern interstate took its traffic from.

If they will someday have to change it then I suppose that Nevada will have to also, as they use Los Angeles for I-15 South of Vegas.  Most likely because the former US 91 went there, and even though unconfirmed by NVDOT, I assume their engineers thought the same way about signing their interstates by looking at the route it replaced.

As others have mentioned, I am also unaware of any 2009 MUTCD mandates on control cities. Section 2E.13 governs this. The standards only cover that destination continuity be maintained and that at no decision point shall a control city be indicated along more than one route. Support statements say that the states decide control cities. There are AASHTO guidelines for selection of supplemental signage and also a guideline list of control cities for Interstate highways. That's not a mandate.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2016, 10:56:34 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on June 08, 2016, 10:41:31 PM
Or a LONG duplex of I-40.  I would think it makes more sense for 40 to go into LA than 15 anyway

You mean down I-15 and I-210?  Caltrans would never let a huge multiplex of I-15 happen like that nor would the AASHTO.  Besides Caltrans has designs on I-40 to Barstow in the far flung future.

Do you mean Bakersfield? I-40's terminus is in Barstow. (And we've discussed elsewhere on this board that Caltrans doesn't seem to be in any hurry to expand interstate designations, despite previous interest.)

Yes Bakersfield, had a couple beers in me hence the lack of proof reading ability.  Hence the far, far, far flung future...if ever. 

Quote from: NE2 on June 08, 2016, 08:24:38 PM
What changes in the MUTCD?

Rumor has it that there was a change and the tone here and the fact you are seeing more signs list direct cities than indirect makes me wonder that if one has either already been or is about to.

I have no quarrel with LA being used by ADOT, however on I-15 in Nevada it does seem a little weird being that interstate not only does not go there, but you have San Diego where it terminates that is a major US city as well.

Quote from: roadman65 on June 09, 2016, 08:27:06 AM


I have no quarrel with LA being used by ADOT, however on I-15 in Nevada it does seem a little weird being that interstate not only does not go there, but you have San Diego where it terminates that is a major US city as well.

I-15 does go through the metropolitan LA area, depending on how you define the metropolitan area. I consider the Inland Empire, which I-15 goes through, as part of it. Someone more familiar with the area, please feel free to correct me

Quote from: roadman65 on June 09, 2016, 08:27:06 AM

Quote from: NE2 on June 08, 2016, 08:24:38 PM
What changes in the MUTCD?

Rumor has it that there was a change and the tone here and the fact you are seeing more signs list direct cities than indirect makes me wonder that if one has either already been or is about to.

I have no quarrel with LA being used by ADOT, however on I-15 in Nevada it does seem a little weird being that interstate not only does not go there, but you have San Diego where it terminates that is a major US city as well.

So you have no real source, correct?

Granted, it's a little weird using Los Angeles as a control city on I-40, because it does not go there, but it works for long-distance travelers who can then use I-15 and I-10 to get there. OTOH, on I-15, they might have to consider adding San Diego as a second control city in addition to Los Angeles, whose metro area it just passes through to the east.

Quote from: Henry on June 09, 2016, 11:15:11 AM
Granted, it's a little weird using Los Angeles as a control city on I-40, because it does not go there, but it works for long-distance travelers who can then use I-15 and I-10 to get there. OTOH, on I-15, they might have to consider adding San Diego as a second control city in addition to Los Angeles, whose metro area it just passes through to the east.

And it's not the only case. I know for a fact that on I-70 in Utah, guide signs for westbound I-70 list Las Vegas list Las Vegas as a control city (and I may have seen a couple Cedar City or St. George), where it's obvious that I-70 does not reach any of those cities.

Quote from: Henry on June 09, 2016, 11:15:11 AM
Granted, it's a little weird using Los Angeles as a control city on I-40, because it does not go there, but it works for long-distance travelers who can then use I-15 and I-10 to get there. OTOH, on I-15, they might have to consider adding San Diego as a second control city in addition to Los Angeles, whose metro area it just passes through to the east.

It's a shame that CA is so provincial with regard to control cities.  The southbound control city on I-15 in CA and westbound on I-40 should be Los Angeles.  Yet, in many places you see other cities like Barstow and San Bernardino used, 

I-15 replaced US 91 in Nevada and some of California. Originally, US 91 began/ended in Long Beach (near Los Angeles).

I-70 west of Denver was designed to link long-distance travelers from Southern California and Nevada to the Midwest and points east.

California is like some other states that prefer to sign in-state control cities. Some places there's an argument that a bigger city could be used as a control city.

Quote from: mrsman on June 09, 2016, 11:37:53 PM

Quote from: Henry on June 09, 2016, 11:15:11 AM
Granted, it's a little weird using Los Angeles as a control city on I-40, because it does not go there, but it works for long-distance travelers who can then use I-15 and I-10 to get there. OTOH, on I-15, they might have to consider adding San Diego as a second control city in addition to Los Angeles, whose metro area it just passes through to the east.

It's a shame that CA is so provincial with regard to control cities.  The southbound control city on I-15 in CA and westbound on I-40 should be Los Angeles.  Yet, in many places you see other cities like Barstow and San Bernardino used, 

FTFY

Quote from: Rover_0 on June 09, 2016, 03:50:01 PM

Quote from: Henry on June 09, 2016, 11:15:11 AM
Granted, it's a little weird using Los Angeles as a control city on I-40, because it does not go there, but it works for long-distance travelers who can then use I-15 and I-10 to get there. OTOH, on I-15, they might have to consider adding San Diego as a second control city in addition to Los Angeles, whose metro area it just passes through to the east.

And it's not the only case. I know for a fact that on I-70 in Utah, guide signs for westbound I-70 list Las Vegas list Las Vegas as a control city (and I may have seen a couple Cedar City or St. George), where it's obvious that I-70 does not reach any of those cities.

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

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

Quote from: CanesFan27 on June 09, 2016, 09:16:58 AM

Quote from: roadman65 on June 09, 2016, 08:27:06 AM

Quote from: NE2 on June 08, 2016, 08:24:38 PM
What changes in the MUTCD?

Rumor has it that there was a change and the tone here and the fact you are seeing more signs list direct cities than indirect makes me wonder that if one has either already been or is about to.

I have no quarrel with LA being used by ADOT, however on I-15 in Nevada it does seem a little weird being that interstate not only does not go there, but you have San Diego where it terminates that is a major US city as well.

So you have no real source, correct?

I do not have a source for the fact the MUTCD wants mixed case lettering, yet I believe you all here to an extent that its true.  I am not writing an article to say that MUTCD did  say no more use of indirect cities like some reporter doing an article on change in the MUTCD, I was just asking the question if there are plans for change as I seem to be under an impression that there is a change in guidelines. 

Maybe I should have written that differently, but somewhere in here there was a post where someone else said that was true.  Then of course NJDOT using direct cities on mileage signs instead of the larger cities like Ewing over Trenton on I-295 sign and the tone of all and what I have been seeing on the signs make me believe that it could be true.

My mistake in making it sound like I was reporting that fact, but still and all it is a good question to ask if such a guideline was in place or even not.

Extend I-40 to Bakersfield and use that. Much larger than Barstow.

Will that ever happen?

Quote from: roadman65 on June 10, 2016, 01:31:12 PM
I do not have a source for the fact the MUTCD wants mixed case lettering, yet I believe you all here to an extent that its true.  I am not writing an article to say that MUTCD did  say no more use of indirect cities like some reporter doing an article on change in the MUTCD, I was just asking the question if there are plans for change as I seem to be under an impression that there is a change in guidelines.

The difference here is that the 2009 MUTCD makes specific mention of lettering styles to be used on signs.

Quote from: 2009 MUTCD, Chapter 2A
Section 2A.13 Word Messages
...
Standard:
10 All sign lettering shall be in upper-case letters as provided in the "Standard Highway Signs and Markings" book (see Section 1A.11), unless otherwise provided in this Manual for a particular sign or type of message.

11 The sign lettering for names of places, streets, and highways shall be composed of a combination of lower-case letters with initial upper-case letters.

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

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

Quote from: Henry on June 10, 2016, 12:19:47 PM
I always wondered what the westbound control city on I-70 is when you leave CO. I was thinking it would be either that or Salt Lake City.

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

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

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 11, 2016, 01:44:52 AM
Will that ever happen?

Why not? Isn't Bakersfield the largest city not served by an interstate? Far more significant ending to a major interstate than Barstow. Much of CA-58 is already a freeway anyways.

Quote from: roadman65 on June 10, 2016, 01:31:12 PM

Quote from: CanesFan27 on June 09, 2016, 09:16:58 AM

Quote from: roadman65 on June 09, 2016, 08:27:06 AM

Quote from: NE2 on June 08, 2016, 08:24:38 PM
What changes in the MUTCD?

Rumor has it that there was a change and the tone here and the fact you are seeing more signs list direct cities than indirect makes me wonder that if one has either already been or is about to.

I have no quarrel with LA being used by ADOT, however on I-15 in Nevada it does seem a little weird being that interstate not only does not go there, but you have San Diego where it terminates that is a major US city as well.

So you have no real source, correct?

I do not have a source for the fact the MUTCD wants mixed case lettering, yet I believe you all here to an extent that its true.  I am not writing an article to say that MUTCD did  say no more use of indirect cities like some reporter doing an article on change in the MUTCD, I was just asking the question if there are plans for change as I seem to be under an impression that there is a change in guidelines. 

Maybe I should have written that differently, but somewhere in here there was a post where someone else said that was true.  Then of course NJDOT using direct cities on mileage signs instead of the larger cities like Ewing over Trenton on I-295 sign and the tone of all and what I have been seeing on the signs make me believe that it could be true.

My mistake in making it sound like I was reporting that fact, but still and all it is a good question to ask if such a guideline was in place or even not.

MR. Natsiatka:

What does different font sizes have to do with primary control cities?  I'm totally confused now.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 11, 2016, 01:44:52 AM
Will that ever happen?

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

Quote from: thenetwork on June 11, 2016, 12:04:08 PM

Quote from: Henry on June 10, 2016, 12:19:47 PM
I always wondered what the westbound control city on I-70 is when you leave CO. I was thinking it would be either that or Salt Lake City.

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

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

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

Quote from: US 41 on June 11, 2016, 11:29:07 AM
I like what New Mexico does the best. They use their cities as the control destinations. I noticed that in Albuquerque, Santa Rosa and Gallup are the control cities, rather than Amarillo and Flagstaff. Further east on I-40 Tucumcari becomes the control city. On I-25 in Amarillo, Las Cruces and Santa Fe are the control cities. Farther north on I-25, Las Vegas and eventually Raton are the control cities rather than Colorado Springs or Denver. I like when states promote their own cities rather than cities in other states.

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

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

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

Quote from: US 41 on June 11, 2016, 11:29:07 AM
I like what New Mexico does the best. They use their cities as the control destinations. I noticed that in Albuquerque, Santa Rosa and Gallup are the control cities, rather than Amarillo and Flagstaff. Further east on I-40 Tucumcari becomes the control city. On I-25 in Amarillo, Las Cruces and Santa Fe are the control cities. Farther north on I-25, Las Vegas and eventually Raton are the control cities rather than Colorado Springs or Denver. I like when states promote their own cities rather than cities in other states.

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

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

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

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

Quote from: dvferyance on June 11, 2016, 05:38:06 PM
Why not? Isn't Bakersfield the largest city not served by an interstate? Far more significant ending to a major interstate than Barstow.

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

Quote from: dvferyance on June 11, 2016, 05:38:06 PM
Much of CA-58 is already a freeway anyways.

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

Quote from: myosh_tino on June 12, 2016, 03:35:57 PM

Quote from: dvferyance on June 11, 2016, 05:38:06 PM
Why not? Isn't Bakersfield the largest city not served by an interstate? Far more significant ending to a major interstate than Barstow.

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

Quote from: dvferyance on June 11, 2016, 05:38:06 PM
Much of CA-58 is already a freeway anyways.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 13, 2016, 10:46:18 AM
As far as I-40 West of Kingman goes, I think Barstow should be the control city. Not L.A. I don't agree at all with using control cities an Interstate highway never touches. 

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

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

Quote from: US 41 on June 11, 2016, 11:29:07 AM
I like what New Mexico does the best. They use their cities as the control destinations. I noticed that in Albuquerque, Santa Rosa and Gallup are the control cities, rather than Amarillo and Flagstaff. Further east on I-40 Tucumcari becomes the control city. On I-25 in Amarillo, Las Cruces and Santa Fe are the control cities. Farther north on I-25, Las Vegas and eventually Raton are the control cities rather than Colorado Springs or Denver. I like when states promote their own cities rather than cities in other states.

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

Quote from: DJStephens on June 16, 2016, 11:45:14 PM

Quote from: US 41 on June 11, 2016, 11:29:07 AM
I like what New Mexico does the best. They use their cities as the control destinations. I noticed that in Albuquerque, Santa Rosa and Gallup are the control cities, rather than Amarillo and Flagstaff. Further east on I-40 Tucumcari becomes the control city. On I-25 in Amarillo, Las Cruces and Santa Fe are the control cities. Farther north on I-25, Las Vegas and eventually Raton are the control cities rather than Colorado Springs or Denver. I like when states promote their own cities rather than cities in other states.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I-40 to Los Angeles is very appropriate.

Quote from: mrsman on June 30, 2016, 12:24:24 AM
In my view if a road goes to Los Angeles, the road will still go to Los Angeles if it changes its route number.

So I-40 to Los Angeles is very appropriate.

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

Quote from: mwb1848 on June 12, 2016, 02:04:18 AM

Quote from: US 41 on June 11, 2016, 11:29:07 AM
I like what New Mexico does the best. They use their cities as the control destinations. I noticed that in Albuquerque, Santa Rosa and Gallup are the control cities, rather than Amarillo and Flagstaff. Further east on I-40 Tucumcari becomes the control city. On I-25 in Amarillo, Las Cruces and Santa Fe are the control cities. Farther north on I-25, Las Vegas and eventually Raton are the control cities rather than Colorado Springs or Denver. I like when states promote their own cities rather than cities in other states.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 13, 2016, 10:46:18 AM
As far as I-40 West of Kingman goes, I think Barstow should be the control city. Not L.A. I don't agree at all with using control cities an Interstate highway never touches. Barstow may not be a big city, but it is a pretty important one along the journey since it involves leaving I-40 for I-15 if you're going to San Bernadino, L.A. or San Diego. Not everyone goes that way. There is a lot of traffic heading toward Bakersfield and Northern California. Hence the justification for extending I-40 to Bakersfield and then on to I-5.

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

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

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

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

Quote from: US 41 on June 11, 2016, 11:29:07 AM
I like what New Mexico does the best. They use their cities as the control destinations. I noticed that in Albuquerque, Santa Rosa and Gallup are the control cities, rather than Amarillo and Flagstaff. Further east on I-40 Tucumcari becomes the control city. On I-25 in Amarillo, Las Cruces and Santa Fe are the control cities. Farther north on I-25, Las Vegas and eventually Raton are the control cities rather than Colorado Springs or Denver. I like when states promote their own cities rather than cities in other states.

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

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

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

Quote from: MattHanson939 on April 21, 2021, 09:59:14 PM

Quote

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

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

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

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

Agreed on Flagstaff and Amarillo though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 21, 2021, 10:24:12 PM
It will be interesting to see what they would do if I-40 got extended to Bakersfield. I-40 would bypass LA then. Would they sign Bakersfield?

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

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

Agreed on Flagstaff and Amarillo though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed on Flagstaff and Amarillo though.

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

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

Quote from: MattHanson939 on April 21, 2021, 11:58:17 PM

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

Agreed on Flagstaff and Amarillo though.

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

A bit off-topic; you're right about there being a junction with US 84/285.  However, if you're heading from Albuquerque towards Española or Los Alamos, motorists usually get off the interstate onto NM 599 (exit 276), which completely bypasses Santa Fe.

Denver should be signed at the I-40 interchange and that's it. Albuquerque should be used southbound from Pueblo.

There's really no point in trying to defend what New Mexico does with any signage.  We're lucky they manage to bolt the sign to the post, honestly.

Quote from: Revive 755 on June 08, 2016, 10:38:51 PM
A change brought in as part of the 2009 MUTCD, a state supplement, or a proposed change a new edition?  I certainly do not recall anything in the MUTCD against indirect control cities.

If there has been such a change at the national level, I certainly don't see Illinois removing Memphis on SB I-57 nor removing Chicago on EB I-80.

In that case, the interchange for I-84 on the Mass Pike can't have New York City as a control city, since it would be an indirect control city as one would have to take a combination of routes to get to NYC from the Mass Pike/I-84 interchange:  either I-84 to I-91 to I-95; or I-84 to I-684 to I-287 to I-95 (or I-87); or even I-84 to I-87.

QuoteIf you really don't want to use Santa Fe, the only other option should be Denver. Not Colorado Springs.

Now thinking about it, I guess I could see your point.  I've seen two instances of an interstate skipping over smaller to medium-sized cities  to use the largest city as a control city, not only due to it being larger but also having major interstate junctions.  This is on I-5 in Oregon.   Going northbound from Ashland, Portland is the control city (Eugene & Salem are omitted yet they're control cities going southbound).  And then Seattle becomes the northbound control city from Portland (skipping over Olympia and Tacoma).  Not only that, Olympia and Tacoma are omitted on signs leading motorists to I-5 south from I-90; but on I-5 itself, Olympia and Portland are dual control cities.

Another idea I have is I-25 using Colorado Springs and Denver as dual control cities going north from Albuquerque.  Or I-5 from Ashland using dual Eugene / Portland, then from Eugene use Salem / Portland.

However, another argument I have for why I-25 ought to use Colorado Springs as the NB control city from Albuquerque is that on I-35 in Texas, Austin is the control city from San Antonio, then Waco is the next control city.  Austin has a population of more than 900,000 yet it's only served by one interstate, but has an extensive freeway system.  Dallas isn't even mentioned until you reach Waco, but I-35 going north from Austin could use Dallas since it's bigger and is where there are major junctions with I-20 and I-30, although it splits into I-35W to go to Fort Worth and I-35E to go to Dallas (perhaps re-designate 35W as an auxiliary interstate, like I-435 or I-235, and have I-35 continue into Dallas). 

35E and 35W ought to use Austin instead of Waco as the southbound control city from Dallas and Fort Worth, respectively.

Quote from: MattHanson939 on April 21, 2021, 10:41:35 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My philosophy on control cities is that to the extent possible two control cities should be used per direction.  One is more local and one is to be more of a place of significant destination, like a major city.  So, e.g. along I-80 in PA that is known for signing relatively small town as the controls, those controls can be the minor control and the major controls should be New York and Cleveland.

Whereas most pull through signage has room for two cities, many other signs (such as those coming from on-ramps or transitioning from another freeway) only have room for one city.  The major city should be the primary control city and if there is room for only one city, the major city should be used.

With regard to the issue of using cities that are not on the route, I think one needs to apply a bit of common sense.  In most of the examples that I know of, including the examples shown above, while the freeway may not reach the destination of its control, it likely defaults onto routes that will get you to the control.  And in every respect, it is the way to get to that city.

Using I-80 eastbound again, I-80 does not go all the way to NYC - it terminates in Teaneck, NJ.  But in no way is Teaneck important enough to be used as a control.  NYC should be the primary eastbound control along the route beginning in Cleveland, even though I-80 doesn't go all the way there.  I-80 will default onto I-95 north which crosses the GWB and does head into NYC.  And similarly for CA-99, which terminates in Wheeler Ridge, CA.  That is such a small town that it is ridiculous to even consider that as a control.  CA-99 doesn't end at a brick wall in Wheeler Ridge, it defaults onto I-5 that takes you into L.A., so L.A. is an appropriate control for CA-99.

Is L.A. an appropriate control for I-40 west of Flagstaff? Absolutely.  You can follow the freeway replacements for US 66 and head right into L.A. by following the appropriate signage.  L.A. is far more important of a destination than Needles, Barstow, or Bakersfield.

Would I still agree with the above if I-40 were extended to Bakersfield?  Yes.  If one were to look at Barstow, you see that I-40 traffic that wants to continue to Bakersfield will join I-15 south for a couple of miles and then head west along CA-58.  I would imagine that any new I-40 to Bakersfield will use this routing within Barstow.  So all of I-40 traffic would default onto a joing I-15/I-40 with a trajectory to L.A., and some of that traffic could then exit onto the new I-40 west to Bakersfield.

Putting all of the above into practice, if I-40 were extended west, L.A. should be the primary control coming out of Flagstaff.  Secondary controls of Kingman, Needles, and Barstow may be appropriate.  Along I-15 SB between Las Vegas and Devore, CA, L.A. should replace San Bernardino as the control.  San Bernardino may be appropriate as a secondary control south of Barstow.

As you drive on I-40 and approach I-15, you see this sign:

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8848656,-116.9861397,3a,75y,298.68h,97.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk_DQFwGV-gdroucS2ZuJCA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I-40 defaults onto I-15 south.  To reach I-15 north, you need to exit onto Main street.  THe top part of the sign says: I-15 south to CA-58 west San Bernardino.  If I-40 were extended, the sign should instead read I-15 south I-40 west Los Angeles.  Even at this point, there is no need to mention Bakersfield, as one who keeps on driving will see the split to Bakersfield in about 3 miles.

At that point, you see this and can clearly get into the correct lane for San Bernardino (should be L.A. IMO) or Bakersfield:

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8757647,-117.0710459,3a,75y,213.26h,88.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5zXI-fYghpurhh44fNUc3g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D5zXI-fYghpurhh44fNUc3g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D176.44228%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

And one more word about San Bernardino.  Even I-15 only barely skirts its edge.  You need to take I-215 to get into San Bernardino.  If LA is a proper SB control at the Devore split for I-15, then it should also be the control for the entire section of I-15 SB going back all the way to Las Vegas.  Nevada does use L.A. as the control, CA does not.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.2360664,-117.4247172,3a,75y,166.16h,103.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sw2xd7AH-2fqR_gJA8f-1ew!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I've always found it interesting that the 3DI hits San Bernardino and not I-15.

Arizona also is a state that is long-haul thinking when it comes to their control cities.  Extremely so.  El Paso for eastbound I-10 east of Tucson, skipping New Mexico altogether (Lordsburg and Deming I agree with, but Las Cruces is an actual control city and Arizona flies right by it).  I think that is the way to do it.  I think it helps out all drivers.  The road geeks know which way I-40 goes by the EAST or WEST banner and the drivers with no clue may not know most of the towns or information on the signs, but they know what Los Angeles is and what direction that is. 

One of the suggestions about double control cities, one more local and one long distance, made me think of a scene in Independence Day.  There is a scene of the aliens blowing up Houston, and you can see an overhead BGS, one showing an exit for The University of Houston, and another for a westbound control city for I-10 being Santa Monica!

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 01, 2021, 01:35:35 PM
I've always found it interesting that the 3DI hits San Bernardino and not I-15.

Blame the Division of Highways. It was their ploy to get more $$, which they got by building a new routing and calling that I-15.

And, well, maybe it's more appropriate now. I think I-15 goes through larger population centres than I-215 in the present day. That may be because of I-15, but anyhoo.

Quote from: slorydn1 on June 17, 2016, 01:20:02 PM
I think some people overhype the "it doesn't go there" angle if the road doesn't go within the actual city limits of the named control city.
I believe that if the road in question goes to the general metropolitan area of that city then its perfectly acceptable (Chicago on I-80, Miami on I-75-mentioned above) are a couple of examples that come to mind for me. Heck, even LA on I-15 fits that pretty well.

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

The problem with signing "Los Angeles" on I-40 is not just that I-40 doesn't go there, but I-15 which I-40 intersects doesn't even go there. One must take I-40 to I-15 to I-10 (or pick your poison) to get to LA. I am trying to come up with a rational example where a control city would be equally absurd without someone feeling compelled to say "We all knew that Mich was insane. He finally gave us the proof we required to commit him!" Got it! post "Las Vegas" on CASR-120 going out of Yosemite. CASR-120 becomes US-6 which merges with US-95 which goes right into Las Vegas. It's less of a stretch actually. You never have even to make any real deliberate turns -- Just follow the road. In fact, you have to make more turns along the way to stay on CASR-120 than to get to Las Vegas.

Maybe LA should be signed along I-40, but it should have something line "Los Angeles via I-15 and I-10" on distance signs.

Now, if I-40 were ever rationally extended along CASR-58 to Bakersfield or beyond, "Barstow" or "Bakersfield" should be controls with possibly a mention "Rancho Cucamonga (LA)" of the closest city to LA through which I-15 runs as secondary destination.

The only way the use of Los Angeles as control city on I-40 would count as absurd, is if you had a definition of control city that is inconsistent with what people expect.

Quote from: mrsman on June 01, 2021, 11:26:21 AM

My philosophy on control cities is that to the extent possible two control cities should be used per direction.  One is more local and one is to be more of a place of significant destination, like a major city.

The problem with multiple control cities is that it causes signs or gantries to have too much information on them, such that the principles of message load are violated. (MUTCD section 2E.10)

Quote from: ran4sh on June 03, 2021, 02:24:37 AM
The only way the use of Los Angeles as control city on I-40 would count as absurd, is if you had a definition of control city that is inconsistent with what people expect.

^This.

How else to get to LA when you're on I-40 WB?  Or, where else are you going, even?

Quote from: Rothman on June 03, 2021, 06:49:50 AM

Quote from: ran4sh on June 03, 2021, 02:24:37 AM
The only way the use of Los Angeles as control city on I-40 would count as absurd, is if you had a definition of control city that is inconsistent with what people expect.

^This.

How else to get to LA when you're on I-40 WB?  Or, where else are you going, even?

Bakersfield, the SR-99 corridor, the I-5 corridor, San Francisco, etc. via SR-58. But I agree, Los Angeles is the most appropriate usage here for I-40.

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 03, 2021, 06:53:29 AM

Quote from: Rothman on June 03, 2021, 06:49:50 AM

Quote from: ran4sh on June 03, 2021, 02:24:37 AM
The only way the use of Los Angeles as control city on I-40 would count as absurd, is if you had a definition of control city that is inconsistent with what people expect.

^This.

How else to get to LA when you're on I-40 WB?  Or, where else are you going, even?

Bakersfield, the SR-99 corridor, the I-5 corridor, San Francisco, etc. via SR-58. But I agree, Los Angeles is the most appropriate usage here for I-40.

This whole topic reminds me of how indirect control cities used to bother me.  Then I started to think about overall traffic habits and it started to make sense.  Like it or not, I-40 is universally known in the mid-south and southwest as one of the routes to Los Angeles.  Using it as a westbound control city shouldn't be a problem.

Second example, just east of El Paso on I-10, Dallas starts showing up as a control city.  Now you have to exit onto I-20 in about 100 miles to reach Dallas, and technically you have to exit onto I-30 just west of Ft. Worth to get to downtown Dallas, so again, a control city that take 2 other interstates to reach it.  Granted in this scenario, the interstates default onto one another as opposed to the I-40 scenario, where the middle interstate keeps going to another destination. 

Funny enough I saw this sign near Frazier Park and I-5

https://goo.gl/maps/fFQKnWPJymZKtZNH8

I'm not usually one to care all that much about control cities though this one made me scratch my head. Why not post both Bakersfield AND Sacramento?

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 07, 2021, 04:07:21 AM
Funny enough I saw this sign near Frazier Park and I-5

https://goo.gl/maps/fFQKnWPJymZKtZNH8

I'm not usually one to care all that much about control cities though this one made me scratch my head. Why not post both Bakersfield AND Sacramento?

That's a nice find, actually. I-5 was initially signed with Bakersfield as a control city before the West Side Highway alignment was completed, so you'd need to take 99 to go north instead, which of course goes to Bakersfield, it's likely that this sign is just a holdover from that era. Generally, the newer signs just list Sacramento, including the sign on the other side of that interchange, strangely enough: https://goo.gl/maps/oJ7UmGmZiGZGAz1e9

Let's be honest. The whole of the West needs a reconfiguration of control cities. Consider the 1960 population of some of the West's mid-sized cities:

El Paso: 276,000
Tucson: 212,000
Albuquerque: 201,000
Fresno: 134,000
Bakersfield: 56,000
Medford: 54,000
Boise: 34,000
Flagstaff: 18,000
Redding: 12,000
St. George: 5,100

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 08, 2021, 01:05:02 PM
Let's be honest. The whole of the West needs a reconfiguration of control cities. Consider the 1960 population of some of the West's mid-sized cities:

El Paso: 276,000
Tucson: 212,000
Albuquerque: 201,000
Fresno: 134,000
Bakersfield: 56,000
Medford: 54,000
Boise: 34,000
Flagstaff: 18,000
Redding: 12,000
St. George: 5,100

What are some examples of control cities in the west that should be changed?

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 08, 2021, 01:18:00 PM

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 08, 2021, 01:05:02 PM
Let's be honest. The whole of the West needs a reconfiguration of control cities. Consider the 1960 population of some of the West's mid-sized cities:

El Paso: 276,000
Tucson: 212,000
Albuquerque: 201,000
Fresno: 134,000
Bakersfield: 56,000
Medford: 54,000
Boise: 34,000
Flagstaff: 18,000
Redding: 12,000
St. George: 5,100

What are some examples of control cities in the west that should be changed?

US-101 North in Los Angeles should have the control city of San Jose since  San Jose is now larger than San Francisco.

Quote from: bing101 on June 08, 2021, 01:41:31 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 08, 2021, 01:18:00 PM

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 08, 2021, 01:05:02 PM
Let's be honest. The whole of the West needs a reconfiguration of control cities. Consider the 1960 population of some of the West's mid-sized cities:

El Paso: 276,000
Tucson: 212,000
Albuquerque: 201,000
Fresno: 134,000
Bakersfield: 56,000
Medford: 54,000
Boise: 34,000
Flagstaff: 18,000
Redding: 12,000
St. George: 5,100

What are some examples of control cities in the west that should be changed?

US-101 North in Los Angeles should have the control city of San Jose since  San Jose is now larger than San Francisco.

San Francisco is still more well known and is considered the premier city of the area.

Quote from: roadman65 on April 21, 2021, 11:20:43 PM
I do not like LA being used, but I am not going to worry about it as it's not that big a deal. Ditto if they do remove it, I won't worry. Just as I didn't care that St Louis got used for I-24 west out of Nashville nor do I care it got removed for Clarksville later on. I-24 also requires two other interstates to get to St Louis after it ends in rural Downstate IL just as I-40 has you transfer twice going for LA.

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

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

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

Technically the Huntsville city limits now make it all the way miles out on US 72 ALT/I-565 to I-65.

Quote from: bing101 on June 08, 2021, 01:41:31 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 08, 2021, 01:18:00 PM

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 08, 2021, 01:05:02 PM
Let's be honest. The whole of the West needs a reconfiguration of control cities. Consider the 1960 population of some of the West's mid-sized cities:

El Paso: 276,000
Tucson: 212,000
Albuquerque: 201,000
Fresno: 134,000
Bakersfield: 56,000
Medford: 54,000
Boise: 34,000
Flagstaff: 18,000
Redding: 12,000
St. George: 5,100

What are some examples of control cities in the west that should be changed?

US-101 North in Los Angeles should have the control city of San Jose since  San Jose is now larger than San Francisco.

We've been through this before. San Francisco does not make a good control city for ANY road in Los Angeles. Somewhere around Ventura (quite a bit northwest of LA), US-101 becomes a break even route to San Francisco to the alternatives. The break even for San Jose is a bit further east than Ventura, but not anywhere in LA.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 08, 2021, 01:18:00 PM

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 08, 2021, 01:05:02 PM
Let's be honest. The whole of the West needs a reconfiguration of control cities. Consider the 1960 population of some of the West's mid-sized cities:

El Paso: 276,000
Tucson: 212,000
Albuquerque: 201,000
Fresno: 134,000
Bakersfield: 56,000
Medford: 54,000
Boise: 34,000
Flagstaff: 18,000
Redding: 12,000
St. George: 5,100

What are some examples of control cities in the west that should be changed?

Fresno isn't mentioned on signs going to CA 99 north from CA 58 within Bakersfield; they only list Sacramento going north.  But yet Fresno and Sacramento are the dual control cities along CA 99 itself at other freeway junctions like at CA 198 in Visalia.  Along 99 itself, the northbound control cities are Fresno and Sacramento, 99 south is Bakersfield/Los Angeles.  But along 198 the overhead signs above the exit ramps to 99 only mention the larger cities (omitting Bakersfield and Fresno).

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 08, 2021, 01:18:00 PM

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 08, 2021, 01:05:02 PM
Let's be honest. The whole of the West needs a reconfiguration of control cities. Consider the 1960 population of some of the West's mid-sized cities:

El Paso: 276,000
Tucson: 212,000
Albuquerque: 201,000
Fresno: 134,000
Bakersfield: 56,000
Medford: 54,000
Boise: 34,000
Flagstaff: 18,000
Redding: 12,000
St. George: 5,100

What are some examples of control cities in the west that should be changed?

We're probably veering into the Land of a Different Thread but if I were a highway engineer, here's what I'd change from the AASHTO lists (additions in bold)

5N: San Diego, Santa Ana, Los Angeles, Bakersfield, San Francisco, Sacramento, Redding, Mt. Shasta City, Weed, Yreka, Ashland, Medford, Grants Pass, Roseburg, Eugene, Salem, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, B.C.
5S: Seattle, Portland, Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, Grants Pass, Medford, Ashland, Yreka, Weed, Mt. Shasta City, Redding, Sacramento, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Santa Ana, San Diego, Tijuana

8: San Diego, El Centro, Yuma, Tucson

10: Santa Monica, Los Angeles, San Bernadino, Riverside, Palm Springs, Indio, Blythe, Phoenix, Tucson, Lordsburg, Deming, Las Cruces, El Paso, Van Horn

15N: San Diego, Riverside, San Bernadino, Barstow,  Las Vegas, St. George, Salt Lake City, Ogden, Pocatello, Idaho Falls, Butte, Helena, Great Falls, Calgary

15S: Great Falls, Helena, Butte, Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Ogden, Salt Lake City, Provo, St. George, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, San Diego

25: Las Cruces, Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Las Vegas, Raton, Pueblo, Colorado Springs, Denver, Ft. Collins, Cheyenne, Casper, Sheridan

40: Barstow, Needles, Kingman, Flagstaff, Gallup, Albuquerque, Santa Rosa, Tucumcari, Amarillo

70E: Richfield, Grand Junction, Denver, Limon, Hays, Salina, Topeka, Kansas City

70W: Topeka, Salina, Hays, Limon, Denver, Grand Junction, Green River, St. George

80: San Francisco, Sacramento, Reno, Elko, Salt Lake City, Evanston, Rock Springs, Cheyenne, Sidney, North Platte

82: Seattle, Yakima, Kennewick, Pendleton, Hermiston

84E: Portland, The Dalles, Hermiston, Pendleton,  La Grande, Baker, Ontario, Boise, Twin Falls, Ogden,, Salt Lake City

84W: Ogden, Twin Falls, Boise, Ontario, Baker, La Grande, Pendleton, Hermiston, The Dalles, Portland

90: Seattle, Ellensburg, Spokane, Coeur d'Alene, Missoula, Butte, Billings, Sheridan, Gillette, Rapid City

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 09, 2021, 02:25:52 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 08, 2021, 01:18:00 PM

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 08, 2021, 01:05:02 PM
Let's be honest. The whole of the West needs a reconfiguration of control cities. Consider the 1960 population of some of the West's mid-sized cities:

El Paso: 276,000
Tucson: 212,000
Albuquerque: 201,000
Fresno: 134,000
Bakersfield: 56,000
Medford: 54,000
Boise: 34,000
Flagstaff: 18,000
Redding: 12,000
St. George: 5,100

What are some examples of control cities in the west that should be changed?

We're probably veering into the Land of a Different Thread but if I were a highway engineer, here's what I'd change from the AASHTO lists (additions in bold)

5N: San Diego, Santa Ana, Los Angeles, Bakersfield, San Francisco, Sacramento, Redding, Mt. Shasta City, Weed, Yreka, Ashland, Medford, Grants Pass, Roseburg, Eugene, Salem, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, B.C.
5S: Seattle, Portland, Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, Grants Pass, Medford, Ashland, Yreka, Weed, Mt. Shasta City, Redding, Sacramento, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Santa Ana, San Diego, Tijuana

8: San Diego, El Centro, Yuma, Tucson

10: Santa Monica, Los Angeles, San Bernadino, Riverside, Palm Springs, Indio, Blythe, Phoenix, Tucson, Lordsburg, Deming, Las Cruces, El Paso, Van Horn

15N: San Diego, Riverside, San Bernadino, Barstow,  Las Vegas, St. George, Salt Lake City, Ogden, Pocatello, Idaho Falls, Butte, Helena, Great Falls, Calgary

15S: Great Falls, Helena, Butte, Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Ogden, Salt Lake City, Provo, St. George, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, San Diego

25: Las Cruces, Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Las Vegas, Raton, Pueblo, Colorado Springs, Denver, Ft. Collins, Cheyenne, Casper, Sheridan

40: Barstow, Needles, Kingman, Flagstaff, Gallup, Albuquerque, Santa Rosa, Tucumcari, Amarillo

70E: Richfield, Grand Junction, Denver, Limon, Hays, Salina, Topeka, Kansas City

70W: Topeka, Salina, Hays, Limon, Denver, Grand Junction, Green River, St. George

80: San Francisco, Sacramento, Reno, Elko, Salt Lake City, Evanston, Rock Springs, Cheyenne, Sidney, North Platte

82: Seattle, Yakima, Kennewick, Pendleton, Hermiston

84E: Portland, The Dalles, Hermiston, Pendleton,  La Grande, Baker, Ontario, Boise, Twin Falls, Ogden,, Salt Lake City

84W: Ogden, Twin Falls, Boise, Ontario, Baker, La Grande, Pendleton, Hermiston, The Dalles, Portland

90: Seattle, Ellensburg, Spokane, Coeur d'Alene, Missoula, Butte, Billings, Sheridan, Gillette, Rapid City

Hermiston is not needed. Sign Portland west of Boise.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 09, 2021, 02:59:20 PM

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 09, 2021, 02:25:52 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 08, 2021, 01:18:00 PM

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 08, 2021, 01:05:02 PM
Let's be honest. The whole of the West needs a reconfiguration of control cities. Consider the 1960 population of some of the West's mid-sized cities:

El Paso: 276,000
Tucson: 212,000
Albuquerque: 201,000
Fresno: 134,000
Bakersfield: 56,000
Medford: 54,000
Boise: 34,000
Flagstaff: 18,000
Redding: 12,000
St. George: 5,100

What are some examples of control cities in the west that should be changed?

We're probably veering into the Land of a Different Thread but if I were a highway engineer, here's what I'd change from the AASHTO lists (additions in bold)

84E: Portland, The Dalles, Hermiston, Pendleton,  La Grande, Baker, Ontario, Boise, Twin Falls, Ogden,, Salt Lake City

84W: Ogden, Twin Falls, Boise, Ontario, Baker, La Grande, Pendleton, Hermiston, The Dalles, Portland

Hermiston is not needed. Sign Portland west of Boise.

I struggled with this one, but the interchange with I-82 pushed me over the edge to include Hermiston.

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 09, 2021, 03:09:33 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 09, 2021, 02:59:20 PM

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 09, 2021, 02:25:52 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 08, 2021, 01:18:00 PM

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 08, 2021, 01:05:02 PM
Let's be honest. The whole of the West needs a reconfiguration of control cities. Consider the 1960 population of some of the West's mid-sized cities:

El Paso: 276,000
Tucson: 212,000
Albuquerque: 201,000
Fresno: 134,000
Bakersfield: 56,000
Medford: 54,000
Boise: 34,000
Flagstaff: 18,000
Redding: 12,000
St. George: 5,100

What are some examples of control cities in the west that should be changed?

We're probably veering into the Land of a Different Thread but if I were a highway engineer, here's what I'd change from the AASHTO lists (additions in bold)

84E: Portland, The Dalles, Hermiston, Pendleton,  La Grande, Baker, Ontario, Boise, Twin Falls, Ogden,, Salt Lake City

84W: Ogden, Twin Falls, Boise, Ontario, Baker, La Grande, Pendleton, Hermiston, The Dalles, Portland

Hermiston is not needed. Sign Portland west of Boise.

I struggled with this one, but the interchange with I-82 pushed me over the edge to include Hermiston.

Sign Portland/Seattle as dual control cities.

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 09, 2021, 02:25:52 PM
25: Las Cruces, Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Las Vegas, Raton, Pueblo, Colorado Springs, Denver, Ft. Collins, Cheyenne, Casper, Sheridan

This is how I would sign this as well.

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 09, 2021, 02:25:52 PM
70E: Richfield, Grand Junction, Denver, Limon, Hays, Salina, Topeka, Kansas City

70W: Topeka, Salina, Hays, Limon, Denver, Grand Junction, Green River, St. George

I think you need something between Denver and Topeka.  I think Salina is a good breaking point.  I don't think you need any of the cities in Utah on there other than St. George.

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 09, 2021, 02:25:52 PM80: San Francisco, Sacramento, Reno, Elko, Salt Lake City, Evanston, Rock Springs, Cheyenne, Sidney, North Platte

I'd leave Rock Springs.  As much as it isn't well known throughout the country, it's a pretty important stop for Wyoming with all of the oil business around there.

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 09, 2021, 02:25:52 PM82: Seattle, Yakima, Kennewick, Pendleton, Hermiston

I'd substitute Kennewick for Tri-Cities and ditch Hermiston for Boise.

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 09, 2021, 02:25:52 PM84E: Portland, The Dalles, Hermiston, Pendleton,  La Grande, Baker, Ontario, Boise, Twin Falls, Ogden,, Salt Lake City

84W: Ogden, Twin Falls, Boise, Ontario, Baker, La Grande, Pendleton, Hermiston, The Dalles, Portland

I would also ditch Hermiston here.

Chris

QuoteWhat are some examples of control cities in the west that should be changed?

25S: Casper, Cheyenne, Ft. Collins, Denver, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, Walsenburg, Trinidad, Raton, Las Vegas, Santa Fe, Albuquerque, Las Cruces, El Paso

10W: El Paso, Las Cruces, Albuquerque, Deming, Lordsburg, Tucson, Phoenix, Blythe, Indio, Palm Springs, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Santa Monica

How is Albuquerque at all appropriate for I-10 - especially west of Las Cruces?

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=23745.msg2610861#msg2610861

This discussion should be moved to this thread

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 09, 2021, 04:30:26 PM
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=23745.msg2610861#msg2610861

This discussion should be moved to this thread

That would mess up the flow of conversation unless the timestamps are changed first.

Quote

84E: Portland, The Dalles, Hermiston, Pendleton,  La Grande, Baker, Ontario, Boise, Twin Falls, Ogden,, Salt Lake City

I would omit Salt Lake City as a control city on I-84 (except at the junction w/ I-15), and after Ogden, sign Cheyenne as the eastbound control city on 84E.

Quote from: 1 on June 09, 2021, 04:31:47 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 09, 2021, 04:30:26 PM
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=23745.msg2610861#msg2610861

This discussion should be moved to this thread

That would mess up the flow of conversation unless the timestamps are changed first.

Only the recent posts on what we would sign on interstates.

Quote from: US 89 on June 09, 2021, 04:30:06 PM
How is Albuquerque at all appropriate for I-10 - especially west of Las Cruces?

I would only use it along the stretch between El Paso and the junction with I-25 to aid motorists who are headed to Albuquerque.

Quote from: MattHanson939 on June 09, 2021, 04:40:37 PM

Quote from: US 89 on June 09, 2021, 04:30:06 PM
How is Albuquerque at all appropriate for I-10 - especially west of Las Cruces?

I would only use it along the stretch between El Paso and the junction with I-25 to aid motorists who are headed to Albuquerque.

Maybe on supplemental signage. Las Cruces is big enough for a control city.

Quote from: MattHanson939 on June 09, 2021, 04:40:37 PM

Quote from: US 89 on June 09, 2021, 04:30:06 PM
How is Albuquerque at all appropriate for I-10 - especially west of Las Cruces?

I would only use it along the stretch between El Paso and the junction with I-25 to aid motorists who are headed to Albuquerque.

I don't mind the "indirect" control city ideas like St. George or Vegas for I-70 west, but that doesn't include a 90° turn with a majorish city at that point.  Since ABQ is 200 or whatever miles away, I don't think it should be on any signs on I-10.  Maaaaaaaybe more justified as a control city on I-10 WB between El Paso and Las Cruces.

Chris

Updated list.  I put cities in italics that I think ought to be secondaries.

25S: Casper, Cheyenne, Ft. Collins, Denver, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, Walsenburg, Trinidad, Raton, Las Vegas, Santa Fe, Albuquerque, Belen, Socorro, Las Cruces, El Paso

10W: El Paso, Las Cruces*, Deming, Lordsburg, Tucson, Phoenix, Blythe, Indio, Palm Springs, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Santa Monica

*Perhaps sign both Las Cruces & Tucson on I-10 west in El Paso

10E: Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Palm Springs, Indio, Blythe, Phoenix, Tucson, Lordsburg, Deming, Las Cruces, El Paso, Van Horn, San Antonio

40E: Barstow, Needles, Kingman, Flagstaff, Gallup, Grants, Albuquerque, Santa Rosa, Tucumcari, Amarillo

40W: Albuquerque, Grants, Gallup, Flagstaff, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Barstow

Quote from: MattHanson939 on June 09, 2021, 05:21:49 PM
Updated list.  I put cities in italics that I think ought to be secondaries.

25S: Casper, Cheyenne, Ft. Collins, Denver, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, Walsenburg, Trinidad, Raton, Las Vegas, Santa Fe, Albuquerque, Belen, Socorro, Las Cruces, El Paso

10W: El Paso, Las Cruces*, Deming, Lordsburg, Tucson, Phoenix, Blythe, Indio, Palm Springs, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Santa Monica

*Perhaps sign both Las Cruces & Tucson on I-10 west in El Paso

10E: Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Palm Springs, Indio, Blythe, Phoenix, Tucson, Lordsburg, Deming, Las Cruces, El Paso, Van Horn, San Antonio

40E: Barstow, Needles, Kingman, Flagstaff, Gallup, Grants, Albuquerque, Santa Rosa, Tucumcari, Amarillo

40W: Albuquerque, Grants, Gallup, Flagstaff, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Barstow

I would agree with you on I-10 eastbound in Texas, but actually the smaller cities (Kent, Sierra Blanca, Van Horn, Balmoreah, Ft. Stockton, Ozona, Sonora, Junction, Kerrville) actually help give a sense of location when driving such a vast area with a lot of nothing.  They for the most part are minor control cities with San Antonio taking the control city status.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 09, 2021, 06:10:50 PM

Quote from: MattHanson939 on June 09, 2021, 05:21:49 PM
Updated list.  I put cities in italics that I think ought to be secondaries.

25S: Casper, Cheyenne, Ft. Collins, Denver, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, Walsenburg, Trinidad, Raton, Las Vegas, Santa Fe, Albuquerque, Belen, Socorro, Las Cruces, El Paso

10W: El Paso, Las Cruces*, Deming, Lordsburg, Tucson, Phoenix, Blythe, Indio, Palm Springs, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Santa Monica

*Perhaps sign both Las Cruces & Tucson on I-10 west in El Paso

10E: Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Palm Springs, Indio, Blythe, Phoenix, Tucson, Lordsburg, Deming, Las Cruces, El Paso, Van Horn, San Antonio

40E: Barstow, Needles, Kingman, Flagstaff, Gallup, Grants, Albuquerque, Santa Rosa, Tucumcari, Amarillo

40W: Albuquerque, Grants, Gallup, Flagstaff, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Barstow

I would agree with you on I-10 eastbound in Texas, but actually the smaller cities (Kent, Sierra Blanca, Van Horn, Balmoreah, Ft. Stockton, Ozona, Sonora, Junction, Kerrville) actually help give a sense of location when driving such a vast area with a lot of nothing.  They for the most part are minor control cities with San Antonio taking the control city status.

Signing El Paso and San Antonio only tells the driver that there is nothing out there, which is accurate. The smaller cities can be on distance signs.

Quote from: US 89 on April 21, 2021, 10:34:47 PM
Meh, I'm fine with Las Cruces. I realize El Paso is bigger, but Las Cruces is the second largest city in New Mexico and it does have an interstate junction going for it. Santa Fe is fine by me too since it's the state capital and is a fairly significant road junction, with US 84/285 heading north out of it to Española and Los Alamos. If you really don't want to use Santa Fe, the only other option should be Denver. Not Colorado Springs.

Agreed on Flagstaff and Amarillo though.

I wouldn't mind using Las Cruces and Santa Fe as secondaries going southbound and northbound respectively, but I would rather have the primary control cities in Albuquerque be Denver for I-25 north and El Paso for I-25 south.

Quote from: michravera on June 08, 2021, 10:14:50 PM

Quote from: bing101 on June 08, 2021, 01:41:31 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 08, 2021, 01:18:00 PM

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 08, 2021, 01:05:02 PM
Let's be honest. The whole of the West needs a reconfiguration of control cities. Consider the 1960 population of some of the West's mid-sized cities:

El Paso: 276,000
Tucson: 212,000
Albuquerque: 201,000
Fresno: 134,000
Bakersfield: 56,000
Medford: 54,000
Boise: 34,000
Flagstaff: 18,000
Redding: 12,000
St. George: 5,100

What are some examples of control cities in the west that should be changed?

US-101 North in Los Angeles should have the control city of San Jose since  San Jose is now larger than San Francisco.

We've been through this before. San Francisco does not make a good control city for ANY road in Los Angeles. Somewhere around Ventura (quite a bit northwest of LA), US-101 becomes a break even route to San Francisco to the alternatives. The break even for San Jose is a bit further east than Ventura, but not anywhere in LA.

This is why SF is not signed as a control any where in LA proper.  The northern control for 101 in LA is Ventura.  The southern control for 101 in SF is San Jose.  Only between San Jose and Ventura do you see the LA/SF as being the main controls here.

The central coast stretch of 101 is a perfect example of using dual controls.  SF and LA are the primary controls but occasionally some smaller cities (Santa Barbara, SLO, Monterey) will also be mentioned as a secondary control.

Quote from: MattHanson939 on June 09, 2021, 01:19:05 AM

Fresno isn't mentioned on signs going to CA 99 north from CA 58 within Bakersfield; they only list Sacramento going north.  But yet Fresno and Sacramento are the dual control cities along CA 99 itself at other freeway junctions like at CA 198 in Visalia.  Along 99 itself, the northbound control cities are Fresno and Sacramento, 99 south is Bakersfield/Los Angeles.  But along 198 the overhead signs above the exit ramps to 99 only mention the larger cities (omitting Bakersfield and Fresno).

Yup.  For 99, LA and Sacramento are the primary controls.  Bakersfield, Fresno, and some smaller SJ valley cities are used as secondary controls.  The only time you tend to not see LA or Sacramento as the controls on 99 is when you are close enough to I-5 that it becomes the main way of guiding to LA or Sac.  So in metro Sac, the SB control of the signs is only Fresno, but it quickly changes to LA, once you leave metro-Sac. 

Here's a sign for LA in Lodi:

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.1162438,-121.2585619,3a,75y,79.29h,79.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5lBiJhzpuequz5Q7dgSrOA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I really wonder about some of the history of I-5's northern control out of LA.  I know that it started as Bakersfield when the road was US 99.  Bakersfield is a fine control and large enough city that would merit being the primary control, even today.  I guess when they decided that I-5 would be routed on the West Side Fwy, since I-5 doesn't go to Bakersfield anymore - the signs should no longer say Bakersfield any more.  I reject the notion, since I-5 is still the way to Bakersfield between LA and Wheeler Ridge.  The number of the road changed, the road itself did not change and the road still goes to Bakersfield.  It is kind of anomalous as no other freeway in the LA area uses a control city that is so far away - even the long distance routes tend to use the county seat of the next county like Ventura, Santa Ana, or San Bernardino which are all within the greater LA area, unlike Sac which is 400 miles away.

So once Caltrans decided to remove Bakersfield, why did they choose Sacramento and not San Francisco?  Using SF as I-5's control would have been a truly "baller" move to just highlight that if you want to get to the Bay Area quickly, you bypass the coast and travel through the valley.  Of course, both SF and Sac are controls along the central valley stretch of I-5, and the mileages for both cities are used and they are only 1 mile different.  My only theory is perhaps the central coast towns were concerned that if SF were signed on I-5 within LA county, they would lose business from travelers who would be driving along the scenic coast.  I'm sure there are many travelers who see a map and see that both SF and LA are on 101, so 101 is the most direct way of going between the two cities.  But it's not true.  Not only is I-5 to I-580 a lot faster as it skips all of those central coast towns, it is actually less mileage as well.

Quote from: mrsman on June 11, 2021, 12:14:03 PM

Quote from: michravera on June 08, 2021, 10:14:50 PM

Quote from: bing101 on June 08, 2021, 01:41:31 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 08, 2021, 01:18:00 PM

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 08, 2021, 01:05:02 PM
Let's be honest. The whole of the West needs a reconfiguration of control cities. Consider the 1960 population of some of the West's mid-sized cities:

El Paso: 276,000
Tucson: 212,000
Albuquerque: 201,000
Fresno: 134,000
Bakersfield: 56,000
Medford: 54,000
Boise: 34,000
Flagstaff: 18,000
Redding: 12,000
St. George: 5,100

What are some examples of control cities in the west that should be changed?

US-101 North in Los Angeles should have the control city of San Jose since  San Jose is now larger than San Francisco.

We've been through this before. San Francisco does not make a good control city for ANY road in Los Angeles. Somewhere around Ventura (quite a bit northwest of LA), US-101 becomes a break even route to San Francisco to the alternatives. The break even for San Jose is a bit further east than Ventura, but not anywhere in LA.

This is why SF is not signed as a control any where in LA proper.  The northern control for 101 in LA is Ventura.  The southern control for 101 in SF is San Jose.  Only between San Jose and Ventura do you see the LA/SF as being the main controls here.

The central coast stretch of 101 is a perfect example of using dual controls.  SF and LA are the primary controls but occasionally some smaller cities (Santa Barbara, SLO, Monterey) will also be mentioned as a secondary control.

Quote from: MattHanson939 on June 09, 2021, 01:19:05 AM

Fresno isn't mentioned on signs going to CA 99 north from CA 58 within Bakersfield; they only list Sacramento going north.  But yet Fresno and Sacramento are the dual control cities along CA 99 itself at other freeway junctions like at CA 198 in Visalia.  Along 99 itself, the northbound control cities are Fresno and Sacramento, 99 south is Bakersfield/Los Angeles.  But along 198 the overhead signs above the exit ramps to 99 only mention the larger cities (omitting Bakersfield and Fresno).

Yup.  For 99, LA and Sacramento are the primary controls.  Bakersfield, Fresno, and some smaller SJ valley cities are used as secondary controls.  The only time you tend to not see LA or Sacramento as the controls on 99 is when you are close enough to I-5 that it becomes the main way of guiding to LA or Sac.  So in metro Sac, the SB control of the signs is only Fresno, but it quickly changes to LA, once you leave metro-Sac. 

Here's a sign for LA in Lodi:

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.1162438,-121.2585619,3a,75y,79.29h,79.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5lBiJhzpuequz5Q7dgSrOA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I really wonder about some of the history of I-5's northern control out of LA.  I know that it started as Bakersfield when the road was US 99.  Bakersfield is a fine control and large enough city that would merit being the primary control, even today.  I guess when they decided that I-5 would be routed on the West Side Fwy, since I-5 doesn't go to Bakersfield anymore - the signs should no longer say Bakersfield any more.  I reject the notion, since I-5 is still the way to Bakersfield between LA and Wheeler Ridge.  The number of the road changed, the road itself did not change and the road still goes to Bakersfield.  It is kind of anomalous as no other freeway in the LA area uses a control city that is so far away - even the long distance routes tend to use the county seat of the next county like Ventura, Santa Ana, or San Bernardino which are all within the greater LA area, unlike Sac which is 400 miles away.

So once Caltrans decided to remove Bakersfield, why did they choose Sacramento and not San Francisco?  Using SF as I-5's control would have been a truly "baller" move to just highlight that if you want to get to the Bay Area quickly, you bypass the coast and travel through the valley.  Of course, both SF and Sac are controls along the central valley stretch of I-5, and the mileages for both cities are used and they are only 1 mile different.  My only theory is perhaps the central coast towns were concerned that if SF were signed on I-5 within LA county, they would lose business from travelers who would be driving along the scenic coast.  I'm sure there are many travelers who see a map and see that both SF and LA are on 101, so 101 is the most direct way of going between the two cities.  But it's not true.  Not only is I-5 to I-580 a lot faster as it skips all of those central coast towns, it is actually less mileage as well.

To me it's pretty simple:
1) Bakersfield isn't on I-5 anymore
2) You don't want to sign "San Francisco" because basically *ALL* roads lead to San Francisco
3) The next major city on I-5 is Stockton, and you don't want to sign a smaller control city past the interchange that would lead to San Francisco
4) Sacramento *IS* on I-5 and one might reasonably know that Sacramento is in the right general direction of San Francisco
5) There frequently isn't room for "Bakersfield/Fresno/Sacramento/San Francisco" on most of the signs. You'd like to say all four of them.
6) CalTrans HQ is located in Sacramento

So, if you have to pick *JUST ONE*, which one wins?

Quote from: michravera on June 11, 2021, 06:21:20 PM

Quote from: mrsman on June 11, 2021, 12:14:03 PM

Quote from: michravera on June 08, 2021, 10:14:50 PM

Quote from: bing101 on June 08, 2021, 01:41:31 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 08, 2021, 01:18:00 PM

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 08, 2021, 01:05:02 PM
Let's be honest. The whole of the West needs a reconfiguration of control cities. Consider the 1960 population of some of the West's mid-sized cities:

El Paso: 276,000
Tucson: 212,000
Albuquerque: 201,000
Fresno: 134,000
Bakersfield: 56,000
Medford: 54,000
Boise: 34,000
Flagstaff: 18,000
Redding: 12,000
St. George: 5,100

What are some examples of control cities in the west that should be changed?

US-101 North in Los Angeles should have the control city of San Jose since  San Jose is now larger than San Francisco.

We've been through this before. San Francisco does not make a good control city for ANY road in Los Angeles. Somewhere around Ventura (quite a bit northwest of LA), US-101 becomes a break even route to San Francisco to the alternatives. The break even for San Jose is a bit further east than Ventura, but not anywhere in LA.

This is why SF is not signed as a control any where in LA proper.  The northern control for 101 in LA is Ventura.  The southern control for 101 in SF is San Jose.  Only between San Jose and Ventura do you see the LA/SF as being the main controls here.

The central coast stretch of 101 is a perfect example of using dual controls.  SF and LA are the primary controls but occasionally some smaller cities (Santa Barbara, SLO, Monterey) will also be mentioned as a secondary control.

Quote from: MattHanson939 on June 09, 2021, 01:19:05 AM

Fresno isn't mentioned on signs going to CA 99 north from CA 58 within Bakersfield; they only list Sacramento going north.  But yet Fresno and Sacramento are the dual control cities along CA 99 itself at other freeway junctions like at CA 198 in Visalia.  Along 99 itself, the northbound control cities are Fresno and Sacramento, 99 south is Bakersfield/Los Angeles.  But along 198 the overhead signs above the exit ramps to 99 only mention the larger cities (omitting Bakersfield and Fresno).

Yup.  For 99, LA and Sacramento are the primary controls.  Bakersfield, Fresno, and some smaller SJ valley cities are used as secondary controls.  The only time you tend to not see LA or Sacramento as the controls on 99 is when you are close enough to I-5 that it becomes the main way of guiding to LA or Sac.  So in metro Sac, the SB control of the signs is only Fresno, but it quickly changes to LA, once you leave metro-Sac. 

Here's a sign for LA in Lodi:

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.1162438,-121.2585619,3a,75y,79.29h,79.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5lBiJhzpuequz5Q7dgSrOA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I really wonder about some of the history of I-5's northern control out of LA.  I know that it started as Bakersfield when the road was US 99.  Bakersfield is a fine control and large enough city that would merit being the primary control, even today.  I guess when they decided that I-5 would be routed on the West Side Fwy, since I-5 doesn't go to Bakersfield anymore - the signs should no longer say Bakersfield any more.  I reject the notion, since I-5 is still the way to Bakersfield between LA and Wheeler Ridge.  The number of the road changed, the road itself did not change and the road still goes to Bakersfield.  It is kind of anomalous as no other freeway in the LA area uses a control city that is so far away - even the long distance routes tend to use the county seat of the next county like Ventura, Santa Ana, or San Bernardino which are all within the greater LA area, unlike Sac which is 400 miles away.

So once Caltrans decided to remove Bakersfield, why did they choose Sacramento and not San Francisco?  Using SF as I-5's control would have been a truly "baller" move to just highlight that if you want to get to the Bay Area quickly, you bypass the coast and travel through the valley.  Of course, both SF and Sac are controls along the central valley stretch of I-5, and the mileages for both cities are used and they are only 1 mile different.  My only theory is perhaps the central coast towns were concerned that if SF were signed on I-5 within LA county, they would lose business from travelers who would be driving along the scenic coast.  I'm sure there are many travelers who see a map and see that both SF and LA are on 101, so 101 is the most direct way of going between the two cities.  But it's not true.  Not only is I-5 to I-580 a lot faster as it skips all of those central coast towns, it is actually less mileage as well.

To me it's pretty simple:
1) Bakersfield isn't on I-5 anymore
2) You don't want to sign "San Francisco" because basically *ALL* roads lead to San Francisco
3) The next major city on I-5 is Stockton, and you don't want to sign a smaller control city past the interchange that would lead to San Francisco
4) Sacramento *IS* on I-5 and one might reasonably know that Sacramento is in the right general direction of San Francisco
5) There frequently isn't room for "Bakersfield/Fresno/Sacramento/San Francisco" on most of the signs. You'd like to say all four of them.
6) CalTrans HQ is located in Sacramento

So, if you have to pick *JUST ONE*, which one wins?

Sacramento with Bakersfield, San Francisco, and Stockton as secondaries.

Quote from: MattHanson939 on June 09, 2021, 05:21:49 PM
Updated list.  I put cities in italics that I think ought to be secondaries.

10W: El Paso, Las Cruces*, Deming, Lordsburg, Tucson, Phoenix, Blythe, Indio, Palm Springs, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Santa Monica

10E: Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Palm Springs, Indio, Blythe, Phoenix, Tucson, Lordsburg, Deming, Las Cruces, El Paso, Van Horn, San Antonio

I would argue for leaving Palm Springs (or Indio, not both). That urban area (including Rancho Mirage, Cathedral City, Coachella, etc.) is over 350,000 people, and is a world-famous resort area.

I prefer other desert cities. I like that and beach cities. It's unique and quirky.

It was even quirkier when it was "other Desert Cities" with a lower-case O.  :pan:

Quote from: michravera on June 11, 2021, 06:21:20 PM
To me it's pretty simple:
1) Bakersfield isn't on I-5 anymore

While that is true (and I don't disagree on certain levels)...Caltrans itself has maintained vestigal control cities along routes that replaced previous ones that went to the destination in particular:

I-580 east for Stockton (US 50 reached Stockton, today one needs to use 2 different numbered roads to get there, via 205 and 5, and also requires a directional change to northbound).

I-40 for Los Angeles, the one that started this thread (US 66 reached LA, but to get to downtown LA from Barstow now one has to take 15 and then either 10 west or something much closer to the old 66 routing, 210 to 110)

Route 91 west near Anaheim for Los Angeles (US 91 ended in Long Beach, but used to have a wrong-way concurrency on the Santa Ana Freeway heading northwest)

In addition, I-680 has always had Sacramento as a northbound control despite ending over 45-50 miles southwest of there. (Not sure if Route 21 south of Benicia had Sacramento as a northbound control historically)

Quote from: mrsman
I really wonder about some of the history of I-5's northern control out of LA.  I know that it started as Bakersfield when the road was US 99.  Bakersfield is a fine control and large enough city that would merit being the primary control, even today.  I guess when they decided that I-5 would be routed on the West Side Fwy, since I-5 doesn't go to Bakersfield anymore - the signs should no longer say Bakersfield any more.  I reject the notion, since I-5 is still the way to Bakersfield between LA and Wheeler Ridge.

IIRC, Bakersfield was replaced as a northbound control city for I-5 in the 1980s, with 405 following suit and 170 too.  (I don't know if that US 101 NORTH - Sacramento sign along surface streets near Universal City existed before this changeover, or was specifically added when 170 got Sacramento as a northbound control)

---

My personal preference:

I-5 north Bakersfield/Sacramento between US 101 and Route 99, then Sacramento/SF after Wheeler Ridge.  It's a good parallel to the fact 99 has LA as a control city from about Lodi onwards - https://www.google.com/maps/@38.1162545,-121.2590455,3a,19.2y,97.06h,91.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siyPw_p68XRYixiOZn_wDCw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192.

US 101 maybe getting one of those touristy distance signs (i.e. US 50 for Ocean City out in West Sacramento) to measure SF, Eureka, and Olympia just past the East Los Angeles Interchange.  Then SF becoming a northbound control with Ventura at Route 23, as anything west/north of there would not be viable to double back towards I-5.

Right now, the first northbound US 101 mention for San Jose is Salinas.  While the city is large enough (1 million) to note more mention beyond there, message loading becomes an issue given the length of text of San Francisco.  At the same time, past San Luis Obispo, is there any destination worth mentioning more important than the Bay Area cities?   I'm doing a quick look through the AAroads galleries and there's no mainline pullthrough signage from Atascadero all the way to Exit 282A in King City!  So maybe the run from King City to Salinas could be Salinas on the top line, then San Jose - San Francisco? 

---

One wacky realization that does create its own subset of effects on East LA control cities:

I-10 was named the San Bernardino Freeway (after being the Ramona Parkway pre-1950s) even though the closest it passes to the city of San Bernardino is Colton, where the SB name then was assumed by what was originally I-15 (now I-215).  (Not that the public calls that portion of I-215 the "San Bernardino Freeway")

Yet I-10 actually passes through more of Pomona than the actual Pomona Freeway does!

I have no problem with the control cities the way they area, but if one were to change them, 10 east for Ontario would be a tad more accurate (and is the junction with I-15) and  60 east could be signed for Riverside already. 

---

What's interesting is that compared to the East LA usage of mostly local control cities (except the switch from Bakersfield to Sacramento for I-5 north in the 1980s), Sacramento's freeway junctions mostly focus on longer distance controls: 80 West to SF, 5 north to Redding, 5 south to LA, 99 south to Fresno, 80 east to Reno, 50 east to South Lake Tahoe - an approach similar to other states. If that was how things were done at East LA:

10 west Santa Monica remains
10 east would be signed for Phoenix
60 east would be signed for Riverside
101 north would be signed for Ventura/Santa Barbara as opposed to LA Civic Center (or Hollywood)
5 north retains the current Sacramento control
5 south would be signed for San Diego

Quote from: TheStranger on June 12, 2021, 02:55:53 PM

Quote from: michravera on June 11, 2021, 06:21:20 PM
To me it's pretty simple:
1) Bakersfield isn't on I-5 anymore

While that is true (and I don't disagree on certain levels)...Caltrans itself has maintained vestigal control cities along routes that replaced previous ones that went to the destination in particular:

I-580 east for Stockton (US 50 reached Stockton, today one needs to use 2 different numbered roads to get there, via 205 and 5, and also requires a directional change to northbound).

I-40 for Los Angeles, the one that started this thread (US 66 reached LA, but to get to downtown LA from Barstow now one has to take 15 and then either 10 west or something much closer to the old 66 routing, 210 to 110)

Route 91 west near Anaheim for Los Angeles (US 91 ended in Long Beach, but used to have a wrong-way concurrency on the Santa Ana Freeway heading northwest)

In addition, I-680 has always had Sacramento as a northbound control despite ending over 45-50 miles southwest of there. (Not sure if Route 21 south of Benicia had Sacramento as a northbound control historically)

Here's another one, that may be slightly more relevant.  I-15's control SB from Nevada is San Bernardino.  While it does head there, you really have to then take I-215 (old days I-15E) into San Bernardino proper.  Similarly, I-15 NB out of the San Diego/Escondido area uses Riverside.  I-15 does not go to Riverside, you must take I-215 to get there.  Until about 25 years ago, 215 between Temecula and Riverside wasn't even a full freeway.  It is so similar to the 5/99 situation in that the main trajectory of travel leads to Riverside (or Bakersfield) but the better road bypasses the town completely.  The new number follows the newer road, yet the control for I-15 uses the old road, but not the control for I-5.

It is one thing if Sac were the control on the Golden State Fwy in LA county from the get-go, but Caltrans spent big money on changing the city name once 5 replaced 99.  Wasted money IMO.  And likewise, even though there are good arguments for a Bakersfield control [since all other controls in LA use more nearby cities or the next county seat], it doesn't merit the cost of changing all of those signs.  So we are stuck with Sac.

Quote from: TheStranger on June 12, 2021, 02:55:53 PM

Quote from: mrsman
I really wonder about some of the history of I-5's northern control out of LA.  I know that it started as Bakersfield when the road was US 99.  Bakersfield is a fine control and large enough city that would merit being the primary control, even today.  I guess when they decided that I-5 would be routed on the West Side Fwy, since I-5 doesn't go to Bakersfield anymore - the signs should no longer say Bakersfield any more.  I reject the notion, since I-5 is still the way to Bakersfield between LA and Wheeler Ridge.

IIRC, Bakersfield was replaced as a northbound control city for I-5 in the 1980s, with 405 following suit and 170 too.  (I don't know if that US 101 NORTH - Sacramento sign along surface streets near Universal City existed before this changeover, or was specifically added when 170 got Sacramento as a northbound control)

I believe the change was earlier as i grew up in LA and don't remember the Bakersfield signage.  Oddly, I believe an old map version of ACSC's guide to the LA freeway system that had an exit list chart on the back listed 5 and 405 as headed to Sac, but 170 as headed to Bakersfield. Weird.

The very end of 210 also had a Sacramento control for a long time.  As 210 is newer than 405 or 170, I don't believe they ever used Bakersfield as a control there.  Now, in a misreading of the MUTCD control city guidance, they no longer sign San fernando as i-210's control west of Pasadena, but begin to sign Sacramento even from Pasadena.  Extra weird.

The use of the control of Sacramento in Cauhenga Pass is interesting.  There may be a purpose to this since Highland Ave is (was?) signed as 170.  In some sense there is a silent 101/170 multiplex between Highland and the North Hollywood interchange.  For those in the know, the Highland Ave ramps put you on the left side of the freeway, perfect for the left exit for the 170 freeway 5 miles north.  Trucks were recommended to use the Caughenga Blvd E ramps near Ford Ampitheater which put you in on the right. 

You passed this sign which is an excellent example of using 2 controls, and they used the proper two controls Sac and Ventura:

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1156091,-118.3363534,3a,15y,339.89h,90.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sr7vjo2_tQJWmJzgbZedG0Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[It seems like this was replaced with just Ventura.  bummer.]



There was also this mistaken sign on Alvarado, that has since been replaced with a Ventura control.  Sacramento in this area was just simply a mistake and the sign was properly changed to Ventura.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0724819,-118.2667757,3a,75y,192.7h,92.18t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s6EvtDoiQ7DcWO2FEmMNexA!2e0!5s20150801T000000!7i13312!8i6656

---

Quote from: TheStranger on June 12, 2021, 02:55:53 PM

One wacky realization that does create its own subset of effects on East LA control cities:

I-10 was named the San Bernardino Freeway (after being the Ramona Parkway pre-1950s) even though the closest it passes to the city of San Bernardino is Colton, where the SB name then was assumed by what was originally I-15 (now I-215).  (Not that the public calls that portion of I-215 the "San Bernardino Freeway")

Yet I-10 actually passes through more of Pomona than the actual Pomona Freeway does!

I have no problem with the control cities the way they area, but if one were to change them, 10 east for Ontario would be a tad more accurate (and is the junction with I-15) and  60 east could be signed for Riverside already. 

There is definitely a lot to be said about finding better names for the freeways.  To keep this point brief, I agree with you.  CA-60 barely skirts Pomona, I-10 passes more Pomona exits, goes closer to Downtown Pomona and is far closer to Pomona's main attraction - the county fairgrounds.  Where one has a choice between 10 and 60, you'd normally choose 10 to Pomona.  [This is still far better than the atrocity of signing 55 north to Anaheim at I-5, taking people away from Disneyland.  sheesh.]

Unfotunately, 210's eastern extension was so recent.  If it happened back in the 1960's, I believe that 210 would use San Bernardino, and 10 would not use San Bernardino.  Whether a good control would be picked instead, is anybody's guess,, but I do like Ontario.

Quote from: TheStranger on June 12, 2021, 02:55:53 PM

What's interesting is that compared to the East LA usage of mostly local control cities (except the switch from Bakersfield to Sacramento for I-5 north in the 1980s), Sacramento's freeway junctions mostly focus on longer distance controls: 80 West to SF, 5 north to Redding, 5 south to LA, 99 south to Fresno, 80 east to Reno, 50 east to South Lake Tahoe - an approach similar to other states. If that was how things were done at East LA:

10 west Santa Monica remains
10 east would be signed for Phoenix
60 east would be signed for Riverside
101 north would be signed for Ventura/Santa Barbara as opposed to LA Civic Center (or Hollywood)
5 north retains the current Sacramento control
5 south would be signed for San Diego

Yes. yes. yes.  Overall, my philosophy on control cities is to use long distance well known controls to the extent possible, especially on 2di.  Similar to how it is generally done in Arizona (to get this close to topic).

101 north should still be signed for LA.  At the East LA interchange, you are still far enough from the civic center so guidance is needed to get you there.  A control of LA Civic Center, until the Alameda St - Union Station exit, and then you can see Ventua/Santa Barbara.

If we are signing for long distance traffic, and knowing that a significant amount of long distance traffic are large trucks, it would make sense to not specifically encourage trucks thru the Downtown slot.  The freeway can take it (unlike CA-110), but if you are coming from East LA interchange, you are probably better off taking 5 north to 134 if you are headed to Ventura or the central coast.  Once you are in Downtown LA, then certainly continue up 101 to reach Ventura.

Quote from: mrsman on June 14, 2021, 03:44:36 PM

There was also this mistaken sign on Alvarado, that has since been replaced with a Ventura control.  Sacramento in this area was just simply a mistake and the sign was properly changed to Ventura.

That example actually highlights one of the specific issues in LA-area control city choices: "Los Angeles" as US 101 and I-5 southbound controls (and northbound on the US 101 Santa Ana Freeway segment) when one is completely already in city limits!  I think 10 east too does this as well past Santa Monica.  That's a separate topic - how far into a city should the city iteslf remain a control destination, as opposed to something more specific like "Downtown"?

---
Taking this back on topic: I-40 west IMO past Albuquerque should be signed for Gallup (state line almost), Flagstaff (I-17 junction), Kingman (US 93/future I-11 junction), then Barstow.  I get though that Los Angeles is a "major destination" beyond all those, just that it is so far off the road's trajectory.

Quote from: TheStranger on June 14, 2021, 03:56:37 PM

Quote from: mrsman on June 14, 2021, 03:44:36 PM

There was also this mistaken sign on Alvarado, that has since been replaced with a Ventura control.  Sacramento in this area was just simply a mistake and the sign was properly changed to Ventura.

That example actually highlights one of the specific issues in LA-area control city choices: "Los Angeles" as US 101 and I-5 southbound controls (and northbound on the US 101 Santa Ana Freeway segment) when one is completely already in city limits!  I think 10 east too does this as well past Santa Monica.  That's a separate topic - how far into a city should the city iteslf remain a control destination, as opposed to something more specific like "Downtown"?

---
Taking this back on topic: I-40 west IMO past Albuquerque should be signed for Gallup (state line almost), Flagstaff (I-17 junction), Kingman (US 93/future I-11 junction), then Barstow.  I get though that Los Angeles is a "major destination" beyond all those, just that it is so far off the road's trajectory.

Gallup, Kingman, and Barstow are way too small. Most of I-40's traffic isn't going to these places.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 14, 2021, 04:34:41 PMGallup, Kingman, and Barstow are way too small. Most of I-40's traffic isn't going to these places.

Using that logic, should Caltrans not use Needles as the eastbound control then?  They've had it used since the 1960s when that road uses to be US 66/I-40 just east of Barstow.

Flagstaff at least works as an analogue for Grand Canyon access.



SM-G973U1

Quote from: TheStranger on June 14, 2021, 04:39:59 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 14, 2021, 04:34:41 PMGallup, Kingman, and Barstow are way too small. Most of I-40's traffic isn't going to these places.

Using that logic, should Caltrans not use Needles as the eastbound control then?  They've had it used since the 1960s when that road uses to be US 66/I-40 just east of Barstow.

Flagstaff at least works as an analogue for Grand Canyon access.



SM-G973U1

Don't forget Winona. 

Quote from: TheStranger on June 14, 2021, 04:39:59 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 14, 2021, 04:34:41 PMGallup, Kingman, and Barstow are way too small. Most of I-40's traffic isn't going to these places.

Using that logic, should Caltrans not use Needles as the eastbound control then?  They've had it used since the 1960s when that road uses to be US 66/I-40 just east of Barstow.

Flagstaff at least works as an analogue for Grand Canyon access.



SM-G973U1

Caltrans should not use Needles. They should use Flagstaff. The only reason I know Needles exists is that Spike lived there in the Peanuts comics.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 14, 2021, 04:34:41 PM
Gallup, Kingman, and Barstow are way too small. Most of I-40's traffic isn't going to these places.

Gallup is a dump, but is where a lot of people stop for the night.  Kingman is a medium-sized city (approx. 50,000 people in the area) is where traffic going to Vegas from NM and points east access US 93, and will eventually connect to I-11.  Barstow is I-40's end point at I-15.

Quote from: KeithE4Phx on June 14, 2021, 05:50:21 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 14, 2021, 04:34:41 PM
Gallup, Kingman, and Barstow are way too small. Most of I-40's traffic isn't going to these places.

Gallup is a dump, but is where a lot of people stop for the night.  Kingman is a medium-sized city (approx. 50,000 people in the area) is where traffic going to Vegas from NM and points east access US 93, and will eventually connect to I-11.  Barstow is I-40's end point at I-15.

To each their own but I find a small bit of charm in Gallup. I love the El Rancho Motel and their downtown though could definitely use an improvement has a couple good joints. Gallup needs to promote itself more and shoot for becoming more like Williams.

Quote from: KeithE4Phx on June 14, 2021, 05:50:21 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 14, 2021, 04:34:41 PM
Gallup, Kingman, and Barstow are way too small. Most of I-40's traffic isn't going to these places.

Gallup is a dump, but is where a lot of people stop for the night.  Kingman is a medium-sized city (approx. 50,000 people in the area) is where traffic going to Vegas from NM and points east access US 93, and will eventually connect to I-11.  Barstow is I-40's end point at I-15.

The only one of those 3 that I would consider using is Kingman.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 14, 2021, 06:15:49 PM

Quote from: KeithE4Phx on June 14, 2021, 05:50:21 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 14, 2021, 04:34:41 PM
Gallup, Kingman, and Barstow are way too small. Most of I-40's traffic isn't going to these places.

Gallup is a dump, but is where a lot of people stop for the night.  Kingman is a medium-sized city (approx. 50,000 people in the area) is where traffic going to Vegas from NM and points east access US 93, and will eventually connect to I-11.  Barstow is I-40's end point at I-15.

The only one of those 3 that I would consider using is Kingman.

Kingman seems like a contender for becoming a much larger city in the future than it is provided the water shortage issue is worked out.

Quote from: KeithE4Phx on June 14, 2021, 05:50:21 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 14, 2021, 04:34:41 PM
Gallup, Kingman, and Barstow are way too small. Most of I-40's traffic isn't going to these places.

Gallup is a dump, but is where a lot of people stop for the night.  Kingman is a medium-sized city (approx. 50,000 people in the area) is where traffic going to Vegas from NM and points east access US 93, and will eventually connect to I-11.  Barstow is I-40's end point at I-15.

From I-40 East, Gallup is a turning off point for longer-distance travelers wishing to head to Salt Lake City and points north and west of there.  A lot of semi traffic runs along US-491 and US-191.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 14, 2021, 04:42:11 PM

Quote from: TheStranger on June 14, 2021, 04:39:59 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 14, 2021, 04:34:41 PMGallup, Kingman, and Barstow are way too small. Most of I-40's traffic isn't going to these places.

Using that logic, should Caltrans not use Needles as the eastbound control then?  They've had it used since the 1960s when that road uses to be US 66/I-40 just east of Barstow.

Flagstaff at least works as an analogue for Grand Canyon access.



SM-G973U1

Caltrans should not use Needles. They should use Flagstaff. The only reason I know Needles exists is that Spike lived there in the Peanuts comics.

I think this is exactly the point.  If you are signing based on using large well known cities, you will only have ABQ-Flagstaff-LA.  Without any apologies.  Are you skipping some decent mid-sized towns like Gallup and Kingman? Yes.  But those aren't likely destinations for a lot of the traffic.  ABQ and LA are large cities, Flagstaff is representative of the whole Grand Canyon region.  LA is also representative of all of Southern CA.  Most of the WB i-40 traffic within CA is probably heading to the LA area, even if the trjectory of the road is headed to Bakersfield.  As stated a little while ago, Caltrans doesn't give Bakersfield its due as it replaced all those signs on I-5 in the LA area in favor of Sac.  I-40 is absolutely a major truck route from the LA ports to the northern South (northern parts of AZ, NM into TN, KY, VA), even though the road does not go to LA directly.

Let's look at it a different way.  If you were in Flagstaff, ABQ, OKC or Memphis, how would you drive to LA?  Would you take the N-S interstate to 10 (or 20) and then head west, or would you take 40 to 15?  40 to 15 is shorter and faster as it goes through smaller cities (avoiding Dallas, Houston, Phoenix).  It is simply the way to LA, and as there is no sizable city west of Flagstaff, despite some important junctions in Kingman and Barstow, it should be the control city.

Quote from: mrsman on June 15, 2021, 07:22:24 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 14, 2021, 04:42:11 PM

Quote from: TheStranger on June 14, 2021, 04:39:59 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 14, 2021, 04:34:41 PMGallup, Kingman, and Barstow are way too small. Most of I-40's traffic isn't going to these places.

Using that logic, should Caltrans not use Needles as the eastbound control then?  They've had it used since the 1960s when that road uses to be US 66/I-40 just east of Barstow.

Flagstaff at least works as an analogue for Grand Canyon access.



SM-G973U1

Caltrans should not use Needles. They should use Flagstaff. The only reason I know Needles exists is that Spike lived there in the Peanuts comics.

I think this is exactly the point.  If you are signing based on using large well known cities, you will only have ABQ-Flagstaff-LA.  Without any apologies.  Are you skipping some decent mid-sized towns like Gallup and Kingman? Yes.  But those aren't likely destinations for a lot of the traffic.  ABQ and LA are large cities, Flagstaff is representative of the whole Grand Canyon region.  LA is also representative of all of Southern CA.  Most of the WB i-40 traffic within CA is probably heading to the LA area, even if the trjectory of the road is headed to Bakersfield.  As stated a little while ago, Caltrans doesn't give Bakersfield its due as it replaced all those signs on I-5 in the LA area in favor of Sac.  I-40 is absolutely a major truck route from the LA ports to the northern South (northern parts of AZ, NM into TN, KY, VA), even though the road does not go to LA directly.

Let's look at it a different way.  If you were in Flagstaff, ABQ, OKC or Memphis, how would you drive to LA?  Would you take the N-S interstate to 10 (or 20) and then head west, or would you take 40 to 15?  40 to 15 is shorter and faster as it goes through smaller cities (avoiding Dallas, Houston, Phoenix).  It is simply the way to LA, and as there is no sizable city west of Flagstaff, despite some important junctions in Kingman and Barstow, it should be the control city.

If I were in Memphis, I would go I-40, 30, 20, 10 to get to Los Angeles.  I honestly don't know which way is faster, but the way I mentioned seems straighter, except the Tucson to Phoenix part.  Now, yes, points west of Little Rock on I-40, the no brainer to get to LA is on I-40. 

The aforementioned southern route (I-40, I-30, I-20, I-10) adds almost 2 hours and 100 miles compared to taking I-40.

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 16, 2021, 10:48:12 AM
The aforementioned southern route (I-40, I-30, I-20, I-10) adds almost 2 hours and 100 miles compared to taking I-40.

I just meant that would be my preference.  I like that route better.  I didn't say it was faster.  I did however say It felt straighter to me for some reason. 

My point was if you were in Memphis, you have options to get to Los Angeles and neither option involve a trip down an odd interstate. 

Quote from: michravera on June 11, 2021, 06:21:20 PM

Quote from: mrsman on June 11, 2021, 12:14:03 PM

Quote from: michravera on June 08, 2021, 10:14:50 PM

Quote from: bing101 on June 08, 2021, 01:41:31 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 08, 2021, 01:18:00 PM

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 08, 2021, 01:05:02 PM
Let's be honest. The whole of the West needs a reconfiguration of control cities. Consider the 1960 population of some of the West's mid-sized cities:

El Paso: 276,000
Tucson: 212,000
Albuquerque: 201,000
Fresno: 134,000
Bakersfield: 56,000
Medford: 54,000
Boise: 34,000
Flagstaff: 18,000
Redding: 12,000
St. George: 5,100

What are some examples of control cities in the west that should be changed?

US-101 North in Los Angeles should have the control city of San Jose since  San Jose is now larger than San Francisco.

We've been through this before. San Francisco does not make a good control city for ANY road in Los Angeles. Somewhere around Ventura (quite a bit northwest of LA), US-101 becomes a break even route to San Francisco to the alternatives. The break even for San Jose is a bit further east than Ventura, but not anywhere in LA.

This is why SF is not signed as a control any where in LA proper.  The northern control for 101 in LA is Ventura.  The southern control for 101 in SF is San Jose.  Only between San Jose and Ventura do you see the LA/SF as being the main controls here.

The central coast stretch of 101 is a perfect example of using dual controls.  SF and LA are the primary controls but occasionally some smaller cities (Santa Barbara, SLO, Monterey) will also be mentioned as a secondary control.

Quote from: MattHanson939 on June 09, 2021, 01:19:05 AM

Fresno isn't mentioned on signs going to CA 99 north from CA 58 within Bakersfield; they only list Sacramento going north.  But yet Fresno and Sacramento are the dual control cities along CA 99 itself at other freeway junctions like at CA 198 in Visalia.  Along 99 itself, the northbound control cities are Fresno and Sacramento, 99 south is Bakersfield/Los Angeles.  But along 198 the overhead signs above the exit ramps to 99 only mention the larger cities (omitting Bakersfield and Fresno).

Yup.  For 99, LA and Sacramento are the primary controls.  Bakersfield, Fresno, and some smaller SJ valley cities are used as secondary controls.  The only time you tend to not see LA or Sacramento as the controls on 99 is when you are close enough to I-5 that it becomes the main way of guiding to LA or Sac.  So in metro Sac, the SB control of the signs is only Fresno, but it quickly changes to LA, once you leave metro-Sac. 

Here's a sign for LA in Lodi:

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.1162438,-121.2585619,3a,75y,79.29h,79.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5lBiJhzpuequz5Q7dgSrOA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.1162438,-121.2585619,3a,75y,79.29h,79.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5lBiJhzpuequz5Q7dgSrOA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

I really wonder about some of the history of I-5's northern control out of LA.  I know that it started as Bakersfield when the road was US 99.  Bakersfield is a fine control and large enough city that would merit being the primary control, even today.  I guess when they decided that I-5 would be routed on the West Side Fwy, since I-5 doesn't go to Bakersfield anymore - the signs should no longer say Bakersfield any more.  I reject the notion, since I-5 is still the way to Bakersfield between LA and Wheeler Ridge.  The number of the road changed, the road itself did not change and the road still goes to Bakersfield.  It is kind of anomalous as no other freeway in the LA area uses a control city that is so far away - even the long distance routes tend to use the county seat of the next county like Ventura, Santa Ana, or San Bernardino which are all within the greater LA area, unlike Sac which is 400 miles away.

So once Caltrans decided to remove Bakersfield, why did they choose Sacramento and not San Francisco?  Using SF as I-5's control would have been a truly "baller" move to just highlight that if you want to get to the Bay Area quickly, you bypass the coast and travel through the valley.  Of course, both SF and Sac are controls along the central valley stretch of I-5, and the mileages for both cities are used and they are only 1 mile different.  My only theory is perhaps the central coast towns were concerned that if SF were signed on I-5 within LA county, they would lose business from travelers who would be driving along the scenic coast.  I'm sure there are many travelers who see a map and see that both SF and LA are on 101, so 101 is the most direct way of going between the two cities.  But it's not true.  Not only is I-5 to I-580 a lot faster as it skips all of those central coast towns, it is actually less mileage as well.

To me it's pretty simple:
1) Bakersfield isn't on I-5 anymore
2) You don't want to sign "San Francisco" because basically *ALL* roads lead to San Francisco
3) The next major city on I-5 is Stockton, and you don't want to sign a smaller control city past the interchange that would lead to San Francisco
4) Sacramento *IS* on I-5 and one might reasonably know that Sacramento is in the right general direction of San Francisco
5) There frequently isn't room for "Bakersfield/Fresno/Sacramento/San Francisco" on most of the signs. You'd like to say all four of them.
6) CalTrans HQ is located in Sacramento

So, if you have to pick *JUST ONE*, which one wins?

Sacramento because its the State Capital city wins.

Quote from: thenetwork on June 15, 2021, 10:39:28 AM

Quote from: KeithE4Phx on June 14, 2021, 05:50:21 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 14, 2021, 04:34:41 PM
Gallup, Kingman, and Barstow are way too small. Most of I-40's traffic isn't going to these places.

Gallup is a dump, but is where a lot of people stop for the night.  Kingman is a medium-sized city (approx. 50,000 people in the area) is where traffic going to Vegas from NM and points east access US 93, and will eventually connect to I-11.  Barstow is I-40's end point at I-15.

From I-40 East, Gallup is a turning off point for longer-distance travelers wishing to head to Salt Lake City and points north and west of there.  A lot of semi traffic runs along US-491 and US-191.

Phoenix to Salt Lake traffic?

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 16, 2021, 12:38:48 PM

Quote from: thenetwork on June 15, 2021, 10:39:28 AM

Quote from: KeithE4Phx on June 14, 2021, 05:50:21 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 14, 2021, 04:34:41 PM
Gallup, Kingman, and Barstow are way too small. Most of I-40's traffic isn't going to these places.

Gallup is a dump, but is where a lot of people stop for the night.  Kingman is a medium-sized city (approx. 50,000 people in the area) is where traffic going to Vegas from NM and points east access US 93, and will eventually connect to I-11.  Barstow is I-40's end point at I-15.

From I-40 East, Gallup is a turning off point for longer-distance travelers wishing to head to Salt Lake City and points north and west of there.  A lot of semi traffic runs along US-491 and US-191.

Phoenix to Salt Lake traffic?

I would guess that most semitruck traffic from Phoenix to SLC would be via I-17 to Flagstaff, or US 60 to Wickenburg and US 93 to I-40 east of Kingman.  Then (in both cases), I-40 to Kingman, US 93/I-11 to Vegas, then I-15 to SLC. 

US 89 north of Flagstaff is more direct, but having never driven on it, I don't know how well it supports heavy trucks.

Quote from: KeithE4Phx on June 16, 2021, 11:18:43 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 16, 2021, 12:38:48 PM

Quote from: thenetwork on June 15, 2021, 10:39:28 AM

Quote from: KeithE4Phx on June 14, 2021, 05:50:21 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 14, 2021, 04:34:41 PM
Gallup, Kingman, and Barstow are way too small. Most of I-40's traffic isn't going to these places.

Gallup is a dump, but is where a lot of people stop for the night.  Kingman is a medium-sized city (approx. 50,000 people in the area) is where traffic going to Vegas from NM and points east access US 93, and will eventually connect to I-11.  Barstow is I-40's end point at I-15.

From I-40 East, Gallup is a turning off point for longer-distance travelers wishing to head to Salt Lake City and points north and west of there.  A lot of semi traffic runs along US-491 and US-191.

Phoenix to Salt Lake traffic?

I would guess that most semitruck traffic from Phoenix to SLC would be via I-17 to Flagstaff, or US 60 to Wickenburg and US 93 to I-40 east of Kingman.  Then (in both cases), I-40 to Kingman, US 93/I-11 to Vegas, then I-15 to SLC. 

US 89 north of Flagstaff is more direct, but having never driven on it, I don't know how well it supports heavy trucks.

US 491 probably sees exactly zero truck traffic going from Phoenix to Salt Lake. US 89 is fine for trucks, but it is largely two lanes without a whole lot of passing lanes and also goes a few thousand feet higher than anything on I-15, which makes it a bit more susceptible to winter weather. For that reason I'd imagine most PHX-SLC truck traffic follows the 60/93/11/15 route via Wickenburg, Kingman, and Vegas. Given that US 93 is almost all four lanes now and significantly more direct, it seems silly to go through Kingman via Flagstaff. In a passenger car US 89 is fine and would be my route of choice, though 93 is only 20 minutes longer.

491 does indeed have a lot of trucks, but that's because of its location on a main NW-SE corridor from the Pacific Northwest and Salt Lake towards Albuquerque and Texas. US 550 is more direct, but you also have to slow down for more towns and it's just about the cheapest possible 4-lane you can imagine. 491 to I-40 is only 10-15 minutes longer than 550 and is almost certainly a safer drive overall.

QuoteWhile it does head there, you really have to then take I-215 (old days I-15E) into San Bernardino proper.

Remember, though, that the original routing of I-15 ended in San Bernardino at I-10 (what is now the I-215/I-10 junction), prior to I-15E. See the signage: http://www.floodgap.com/roadgap/395/old/u17/

Quote from: US 89 on June 16, 2021, 11:49:56 PM

Quote from: KeithE4Phx on June 16, 2021, 11:18:43 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 16, 2021, 12:38:48 PM

Quote from: thenetwork on June 15, 2021, 10:39:28 AM

Quote from: KeithE4Phx on June 14, 2021, 05:50:21 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 14, 2021, 04:34:41 PM
Gallup, Kingman, and Barstow are way too small. Most of I-40's traffic isn't going to these places.

Gallup is a dump, but is where a lot of people stop for the night.  Kingman is a medium-sized city (approx. 50,000 people in the area) is where traffic going to Vegas from NM and points east access US 93, and will eventually connect to I-11.  Barstow is I-40's end point at I-15.

From I-40 East, Gallup is a turning off point for longer-distance travelers wishing to head to Salt Lake City and points north and west of there.  A lot of semi traffic runs along US-491 and US-191.

Phoenix to Salt Lake traffic?

I would guess that most semitruck traffic from Phoenix to SLC would be via I-17 to Flagstaff, or US 60 to Wickenburg and US 93 to I-40 east of Kingman.  Then (in both cases), I-40 to Kingman, US 93/I-11 to Vegas, then I-15 to SLC. 

US 89 north of Flagstaff is more direct, but having never driven on it, I don't know how well it supports heavy trucks.

US 491 probably sees exactly zero truck traffic going from Phoenix to Salt Lake. US 89 is fine for trucks, but it is largely two lanes without a whole lot of passing lanes and also goes a few thousand feet higher than anything on I-15, which makes it a bit more susceptible to winter weather. For that reason I'd imagine most PHX-SLC truck traffic follows the 60/93/11/15 route via Wickenburg, Kingman, and Vegas. Given that US 93 is almost all four lanes now and significantly more direct, it seems silly to go through Kingman via Flagstaff. In a passenger car US 89 is fine and would be my route of choice, though 93 is only 20 minutes longer.

491 does indeed have a lot of trucks, but that's because of its location on a main NW-SE corridor from the Pacific Northwest and Salt Lake towards Albuquerque and Texas. US 550 is more direct, but you also have to slow down for more towns and it's just about the cheapest possible 4-lane you can imagine. 491 to I-40 is only 10-15 minutes longer than 550 and is almost certainly a safer drive overall.

I don't think there's a lot of truck traffic that goes between Phoenix and Salt Lake via Flagstaff for a couple reasons:

• The US 93 / I-15 combination is 50 miles longer, and probably about the same time-wise
• "But those 50 miles matter to truckers!" Yes, but so does climbing the 6000' to Flagstaff on I-17.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Phoenix,+AZ/Denver,+CO/@36.4898268,-110.7801777,7z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x872b12ed50a179cb:0x8c69c7f8354a1bac!2m2!1d-112.0740373!2d33.4483771!1m5!1m1!1s0x876b80aa231f17cf:0x118ef4f8278a36d6!2m2!1d-104.990251!2d39.7392358!3e0

US 191 could be used for Phoenix to Denver

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 16, 2021, 12:38:48 PM

Quote from: thenetwork on June 15, 2021, 10:39:28 AM

Quote from: KeithE4Phx on June 14, 2021, 05:50:21 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 14, 2021, 04:34:41 PM
Gallup, Kingman, and Barstow are way too small. Most of I-40's traffic isn't going to these places.

Gallup is a dump, but is where a lot of people stop for the night.  Kingman is a medium-sized city (approx. 50,000 people in the area) is where traffic going to Vegas from NM and points east access US 93, and will eventually connect to I-11.  Barstow is I-40's end point at I-15.

From I-40 East, Gallup is a turning off point for longer-distance travelers wishing to head to Salt Lake City and points north and west of there.  A lot of semi traffic runs along US-491 and US-191.

Phoenix to Salt Lake traffic?

I meant to say I-40 from the east of Gallup, coming from ABQ and points south and east.

Quote from: DTComposer on June 11, 2021, 11:16:33 PM

Quote from: MattHanson939 on June 09, 2021, 05:21:49 PM
Updated list.  I put cities in italics that I think ought to be secondaries.

10W: El Paso, Las Cruces*, Deming, Lordsburg, Tucson, Phoenix, Blythe, Indio, Palm Springs, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Santa Monica

10E: Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Palm Springs, Indio, Blythe, Phoenix, Tucson, Lordsburg, Deming, Las Cruces, El Paso, Van Horn, San Antonio

I would argue for leaving Palm Springs (or Indio, not both). That urban area (including Rancho Mirage, Cathedral City, Coachella, etc.) is over 350,000 people, and is a world-famous resort area.

Since Sacramento is the primary control on I-5 north from Los Angeles, to make things more consistent, San Diego should be the southbound control city with Santa Ana as a secondary.  And on I-10 east, the primary control city should be Phoenix with San Bernardino & Palm Springs as secondaries.  There's no reason that Phoenix & San Diego can't be control cities from Los Angeles since they're both bigger than Sacramento, and they're closer to LA than Sacramento is.

QuoteGallup, Kingman, and Barstow are way too small. Most of I-40's traffic isn't going to these places.

They're much bigger compared Santa Rosa & Tucumcari, which are the small towns along I-40 between Albuquerque & Amarillo.  I get that there are highway junctions in both New Mexico towns (Santa Rosa — US 84 & US 54 junctions; Tucumcari — US 54 splits from I-40).  But they are ESPECIALLY way too small; and thus, only Amarillo should be the control city going eastbound on that stretch of I-40.  Within Amarillo, Tucumcari used to be the westbound control city on I-40, but shortly after TxDOT switched to the Clearview font, the control city on I-40 west from Amarillo was changed to Albuquerque.

With Gallup's population of 21K, I wouldn't see a problem using it as a secondary with Flagstaff being the primary control city going west from Albuquerque.  Then from Flagstaff to Barstow, I'd keep Los Angeles as the primary control within Arizona; Kingman could be a secondary because of the junction w/ US 93, the town's 31K population, and it's the last notable town on I-40 west before leaving Arizona.  Once I-40 crosses into California, change the primary control city to Los Angeles, with Barstow & San Bernardino being secondaries.

Quote from: MattHanson939 on June 30, 2021, 03:58:45 PM

QuoteGallup, Kingman, and Barstow are way too small. Most of I-40's traffic isn't going to these places.

They're much bigger compared Santa Rosa & Tucumcari, which are the small towns along I-40 between Albuquerque & Amarillo.  I get that there are highway junctions in both New Mexico towns (Santa Rosa — US 84 & US 54 junctions; Tucumcari — US 54 splits from I-40).  But they are ESPECIALLY way too small; and thus, only Amarillo should be the control city going eastbound on that stretch of I-40.  Within Amarillo, Tucumcari used to be the westbound control city on I-40, but shortly after TxDOT switched to the Clearview font, the control city on I-40 west from Amarillo was changed to Albuquerque.

With Gallup's population of 21K, I wouldn't see a problem using it as a secondary with Flagstaff being the primary control city going west from Albuquerque.  Then from Flagstaff to Barstow, I'd keep Los Angeles as the primary control within Arizona; Kingman could be a secondary because of the junction w/ US 93, the town's 31K population, and it's the last notable town on I-40 west before leaving Arizona.  Once I-40 crosses into California, change the primary control city to Los Angeles, with Barstow & San Bernardino being secondaries.

Yes, secondary controls here are a good idea.

Quote from: RoadgeekteenYes, secondary controls here are a good idea.

Within New Mexico, I-25 has junctions with US 64 & US 87 in Raton, a junction with US 84 near Las Vegas, US 84/285 in Santa Fe, I-40 in Albuquerque, US 60 & US 380 near Socorro, and US 70 & I-10 in Las Cruces.  However, like Santa Rosa & Tucumcari, most of the highway junctions on I-25 are located in or near towns that are too small; and I don't think they should even be used as secondary controls. 

On I-25 north from Albuquerque, Denver should be the primary control city with Santa Fe, Pueblo, and Colorado Springs as secondaries; omit Las Vegas and Raton.  Then on I-25 south, Albuquerque should be the primary control from the Colorado state line, but Santa Fe can be used as a secondary on that stretch.  And from Albuquerque on I-25 south, the primary control city should be El Paso (w/ Las Cruces as a secondary) until I-25 defaults onto I-10 just outside of Las Cruces.

Within Colorado on I-25, C. Springs or Denver should be the primary control city from the NM state line, Pueblo secondary (or both Pueblo & C. Springs secondaries if Denver is the primary).  Going south from C. Springs on I-25, make Albuquerque the main control point, Pueblo secondary; omit Walsenburg, Trinidad, and Raton.

Quote from: mrsman on June 15, 2021, 07:22:24 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 14, 2021, 04:42:11 PM

Quote from: TheStranger on June 14, 2021, 04:39:59 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 14, 2021, 04:34:41 PMGallup, Kingman, and Barstow are way too small. Most of I-40's traffic isn't going to these places.

Using that logic, should Caltrans not use Needles as the eastbound control then?  They've had it used since the 1960s when that road uses to be US 66/I-40 just east of Barstow.

Flagstaff at least works as an analogue for Grand Canyon access.



SM-G973U1

Caltrans should not use Needles. They should use Flagstaff. The only reason I know Needles exists is that Spike lived there in the Peanuts comics.

I think this is exactly the point.  If you are signing based on using large well known cities, you will only have ABQ-Flagstaff-LA.  Without any apologies.  Are you skipping some decent mid-sized towns like Gallup and Kingman? Yes.  But those aren't likely destinations for a lot of the traffic.  ABQ and LA are large cities, Flagstaff is representative of the whole Grand Canyon region.  LA is also representative of all of Southern CA.  Most of the WB i-40 traffic within CA is probably heading to the LA area, even if the trjectory of the road is headed to Bakersfield.  As stated a little while ago, Caltrans doesn't give Bakersfield its due as it replaced all those signs on I-5 in the LA area in favor of Sac.  I-40 is absolutely a major truck route from the LA ports to the northern South (northern parts of AZ, NM into TN, KY, VA), even though the road does not go to LA directly.

Let's look at it a different way.  If you were in Flagstaff, ABQ, OKC or Memphis, how would you drive to LA?  Would you take the N-S interstate to 10 (or 20) and then head west, or would you take 40 to 15?  40 to 15 is shorter and faster as it goes through smaller cities (avoiding Dallas, Houston, Phoenix).  It is simply the way to LA, and as there is no sizable city west of Flagstaff, despite some important junctions in Kingman and Barstow, it should be the control city.

Depends on the season.  From OKC to Barstow to LA is way better. IN the winter, you might be better off to go I44/US277/I20/I10 to avoid the snows around Flagstaff.