Most Worthless Control Cities

Started by paulthemapguy, March 13, 2016, 12:36:15 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

LM117

I've mentioned this before on another thread, but La Grange in NC being used as the westbound control city for US-70 at the US-70/US-70 Bypass split east of Goldsboro makes no sense. The split is west of La Grange and yet La Grange is used for US-70 while Goldsboro is used for US-70 Bypass, which obviously goes around Goldsboro rather than through it as US-70 does.

Basically, it encourges Goldsboro-bound traffic to bypass Goldsboro. Good job, NCDOT! :banghead:
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette


roadman

Quote from: PHLBOS on August 18, 2016, 04:21:12 PM
Quote from: roadman on August 18, 2016, 01:39:58 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 18, 2016, 01:14:09 PMSide bar question: the above doesn't explain why Lawrence was dropped from being an I-93 control city during the early 90s?  Many of the 70s era BGS'/LGS', that the ones from the early 90s replaced, included it w/the Salem, NH listing or even just listed Lawrence alone.

You can thank the FHWA regional office, which had final approval on the early 1990s sign replacements, for that one.  Or, more specifically, one particular FHWA engineer who required that a) ALL destinations on LGS and BGS signs in an Interstate highway project be approved control cities and b) insisted that all LGS signs on secondary roads (MassDPW D6/D8 panels) for the Interstate entrances have identical legends on the advance and point of turn signs - MassDPW practice for years was to provide a second destination on a point of turn D6 sign that followed an advance D8 sign.
Not quite the question I was asking (dual control city listings).  I was asking why Lawrence was removed as an approved control city of I-93?

As earlier stated, there were many BGS'/LGS' from the 70s (& 80s) that listed just Lawrence on the I-93 northbound signs.  The old early 70s vintage BGS' at the Woburn I-95/MA 128 interchange being one example out of many.

While MassDPW had used Lawrence as a destination on signs for I-93, note that it has never been (and still isn't) on the official AASHTO control cities listing.  The engineer I mentioned would not approve any sign legends for signs at Interstate entrances that were not on the official AASHTO list, despite what the MUTCD allows.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

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

PHLBOS

Quote from: roadman on August 19, 2016, 10:06:27 AMWhile MassDPW had used Lawrence as a destination on signs for I-93, note that it has never been (and still isn't) on the official AASHTO control cities listing.  The engineer I mentioned would not approve any sign legends for signs at Interstate entrances that were not on the official AASHTO list, despite what the MUTCD allows.
Yet Lawrence has been used & is still used for I-495 signage.  Sept./Oct. 2012 installations along I-93 at the I-495 interchange.

*Ugh* to the use of Series B numerals on the I-495 shields.  Should be Series C; although D would be more tolerable.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

MattHanson939

#53
New Mexico has plenty of them:

• I-40 going west of Albuquerque is Gallup.  Going east is Santa Rosa and then Tucumcari (Amarillo isn't mentioned until you get closer to the Texas state line).  But this is not the whole story.  At the Unser Blvd. exit going westbound, the overhead signs list Grants and the westbound control city.

• I-25 signs Santa Fe*, Las Vegas, Raton, and Trinidad when you head north from Albuquerque.  It lists Las Cruces† going southbound; but between Belen and Socorro, you'll see new control signs still listing Socorro going southbound.  And on Broadway Blvd. in Albuquerque, there's a new sign that still lists Belen going southbound on I-25.

• Until the reconstruction of the I-25/I-40 interchange (known as the "Big-I"), Belen used to be control city going south from Albuquerque on I-25, with Socorro becoming the next control city from Belen, then Las Cruces and then El Paso were the last two southbound control cities on I-25.

• I-10 is especially a laughing joke between Las Cruces and the Arizona state line.  Going westbound from LC, Deming is the control city, then Lordsburg, and then Tucson.  But despite that, Tucson is signed consistently as the ultimate destination on distance signs on that stretch of I-10.  Going eastbound, the control cities are Lordsburg, Deming, Las Cruces, and then El Paso.  And unlike the westbound side, distance signs don't even mention Las Cruces or El Paso until you've gone past Lordsburg (yet on the Arizona side, El Paso is listed as the ultimate destination on all mileage signs going east from Tucson, not to mention it's also the control city).

Tucson should be the westbound control city from Las Cruces, especially since El Paso is signed going eastbound; and on I-25, El Paso is the control city going south and Albuquerque going north.

Here's the west end of the I-10 business loop in Lordsburg, NM.  Tucson is the control city going west, but at least use Las Cruces going eastbound, or better, use El Paso.
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.3548375,-108.7389497,3a,75y,247.5h,74.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skSNoatRqmJtIH-DB8SgjWg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

And here's the east end of the business loop; Lordsburg is the WB control city.  Again, I would use Tucson going west and either Las Cruces or El Paso going east.
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.3427366,-108.6802967,3a,75y,123.23h,80.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbMsVRM2FwPZA9RtbfmqAqw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Arizona signs big cities as control cities on its interstates, and I think New Mexico ought to do the same.

*Santa Fe isn't nearly as worthless since it's the state capital of New Mexico; the fourth largest city in the state after Albuquerque, Las Cruces, and Rio Rancho; and a major tourist destination.  But I would rather use Colorado Springs or Denver as the control city going north from Albuquerque.

†Compared to Belen and Socorro, Las Cruces isn't that worthless a control city, especially since it's a college town (New Mexico State University is located there).  However, I would be better off if El Paso was the southbound control city from Albuquerque on I-25.  El Paso is a straight shot from Albuquerque, which is why it's mentioned on many distance signs between Albuquerque and Las Cruces on SB 25; and it also becomes the control city in Las Cruces beginning at the US-70 interchange (exit 6).

dvferyance

Quote from: Brian556 on March 13, 2016, 07:44:57 PM
In Florida, Lake City. It is so small that I had no idea where the hell it was the first time I drove down there. On I-10, JCT I-75 would be a better control point. Once you get on I-75 South, FDOT understands this concept and has mileage signs for JCT TURNPIKE and JCT I-275.

I think mileage to the next Interstate highway junction should be included on mileage signs. It is needed info, and is muck more useful than small control cities. Also, mileages to state lines would be useful as well.
I stayed in Lake City it's a nice little town. Then you could also make the case for Albert Lea MN. It's even smaller and only used for the same reason it's at a major interstate junction. Statesville NC would be another example.

Roadgeekteen

Quote from: MattHanson939 on May 14, 2021, 02:01:24 PM
New Mexico has plenty of them:

- I-40 going west of Albuquerque is Gallup.  Going east is Santa Rosa and then Tucumcari (Amarillo isn't mentioned until you get closer to the Texas state line).  But this is not the whole story.  At the Unser Blvd. exit going westbound, the overhead signs list Grants and the westbound control city.

- I-25 signs Santa Fe*, Las Vegas, Raton, and Trinidad when you head north from Albuquerque.  It lists Las Cruces"  going southbound; but between Belen and Socorro, you'll see new control signs still listing Socorro going southbound.  And on Broadway Blvd. in Albuquerque, there's a new sign that still lists Belen going southbound on I-25.

- Until the reconstruction of the I-25/I-40 interchange (known as the "Big-I"), Belen used to be control city going south from Albuquerque on I-25, with Socorro becoming the next control city from Belen, then Las Cruces and then El Paso were the last two southbound control cities on I-25.

- I-10 is especially a laughing joke between Las Cruces and the Arizona state line.  Going westbound from LC, Deming is the control city, then Lordsburg, and then Tucson.  But despite that, Tucson is signed consistently as the ultimate destination on distance signs on that stretch of I-10.  Going eastbound, the control cities are Lordsburg, Deming, Las Cruces, and then El Paso.  And unlike the westbound side, distance signs don't even mention Las Cruces or El Paso until you've gone past Lordsburg (yet on the Arizona side, El Paso is listed as the ultimate destination on all mileage signs going east from Tucson, not to mention it's also the control city).

Tucson should be the westbound control city from Las Cruces, especially since El Paso is signed going eastbound; and on I-25, El Paso is the control city going south and Albuquerque going north.

Here's the west end of the I-10 business loop in Lordsburg, NM.  Tucson is the control city going west, but at least use Las Cruces going eastbound, or better, use El Paso.
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.3548375,-108.7389497,3a,75y,247.5h,74.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skSNoatRqmJtIH-DB8SgjWg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

And here's the east end of the business loop; Lordsburg is the WB control city.  Again, I would use Tucson going west and either Las Cruces or El Paso going east.
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.3427366,-108.6802967,3a,75y,123.23h,80.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbMsVRM2FwPZA9RtbfmqAqw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Arizona signs big cities as control cities on its interstates, and I think New Mexico ought to do the same.

*Santa Fe isn't nearly as worthless since it's the state capital of New Mexico; the fourth largest city in the state after Albuquerque, Las Cruces, and Rio Rancho; and a major tourist destination.  But I would rather use Colorado Springs or Denver as the control city going north from Albuquerque.

" Compared to Belen and Socorro, Las Cruces isn't that worthless a control city, especially since it's a college town (New Mexico State University is located there).  However, I would be better off if El Paso was the southbound control city from Albuquerque on I-25.  El Paso is a straight shot from Albuquerque, which is why it's mentioned on many distance signs between Albuquerque and Las Cruces on SB 25; and it also becomes the control city in Las Cruces beginning at the US-70 interchange (exit 6).
I would use Santa Fe, and then use Denver north of it.
God-emperor of Alanland, king of all the goats and goat-like creatures

Current Interstate map I am making:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1PEDVyNb1skhnkPkgXi8JMaaudM2zI-Y&ll=29.05778059819179%2C-82.48856825&z=5

jbnv

Quote from: Brian556 on March 13, 2016, 07:44:57 PM
I think mileage to the next Interstate highway junction should be included on mileage signs. It is needed info, and is muck more useful than small control cities.

I mostly agree. There are some examples where as US highway is more helpful than an interstate, particularly if the interstate is a 3dI.

A good example is US 49 in Gulfport. Makes more sense to make US 49 the control point on I-10 east from Slidell than I-110 to Biloxi.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

MattHanson939

#57
QuoteI would use Santa Fe, and then use Denver north of it.

Or better, use dual Santa Fe/Denver from Albuquerque, and then just use Denver going from Santa Fe. 

But why omit Colorado Springs when it's the next major city after Albuquerque going north on I-25?  And it's similar to Tucson in terms of the size and population.  Yes, it only has one interstate going for it, but due to its size & population, I would see no problems with using Colorado Springs as a control city from New Mexico.  And if it surpasses Denver as the largest city in Colorado (i.e. if you're referring to the city proper), then it would have to be northbound control city, and then from C. Springs use Denver.

If Colorado began to use big cities as the control cities on its interstates, it would make sense to use Colorado Springs going south on I-25 from Denver and not use Albuquerque until the interstate reaches the C. Springs city limits.  Keep Fort Collins as the NB control city from Denver.  But on I-70, use Utah as the WB control point from Denver, and use Topeka going east.  I-76 would then use Omaha going east as it takes motorists to I-80 just after crossing into Nebraska.

Cheyenne used to be the northbound control city from Denver on I-25 due to the junction of I-25 and I-80, but nowadays Fort Collins is the control city because it's bigger than Cheyenne.

Roadgeekteen

Quote from: MattHanson939 on May 14, 2021, 10:14:27 PM
QuoteI would use Santa Fe, and then use Denver north of it.

Or better, use dual Santa Fe/Denver from Albuquerque, and then just use Denver going from Santa Fe. 

But why omit Colorado Springs when it's the next major city after Albuquerque going north on I-25?  And it's similar to Tucson in terms of the size and population.  Yes, it only has one interstate going for it, but due to its size & population, I would see no problems with using Colorado Springs as a control city from New Mexico.  And if it surpasses Denver as the largest city in Colorado (i.e. if you're referring to the city proper), then it would have to be northbound control city, and then from C. Springs use Denver.

Cheyenne used to be the northbound control city from Denver on I-25 due to the junction of I-25 and I-80, but nowadays Fort Collins is the control city because it's bigger than Cheyenne.
Use Colorado Springs as a secondary north of Raton. I would sign Raton/Denver north of Santa Fe.
God-emperor of Alanland, king of all the goats and goat-like creatures

Current Interstate map I am making:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1PEDVyNb1skhnkPkgXi8JMaaudM2zI-Y&ll=29.05778059819179%2C-82.48856825&z=5

MattHanson939

#59
Quote

Use Colorado Springs as a secondary north of Raton. I would sign Raton/Denver north of Santa Fe.

IMO, signing Raton/Denver north of Santa Fe would be in a way like I-10 using Lordsburg/Phoenix from Las Cruces and using Tucson as a secondary west of Lordsburg.

Also, I'm not a fan of using podunk small towns as control cities on interstates.  And Raton is smaller than Las Vegas; so maybe just use Denver going from Santa Fe.

MattHanson939

QuoteI would use Santa Fe, and then use Denver north of it.
Going south of Albuquerque, perhaps use Las Cruces/El Paso, and once the freeway reaches the LC city limits, just use El Paso.

Roadgeekteen

Quote from: MattHanson939 on May 14, 2021, 10:24:36 PM
Quote

Use Colorado Springs as a secondary north of Raton. I would sign Raton/Denver north of Santa Fe.

IMO, signing Raton/Denver north of Santa Fe would be in a way like I-10 using Lordsburg/Phoenix from Las Cruces and using Tucson as a secondary west of Lordsburg.

Also, I'm not a fan of using podunk small towns as control cities on interstates.  And Raton is smaller than Las Vegas; so maybe just use Denver going from Santa Fe.
I normally like to use 2 control cities on signs.
God-emperor of Alanland, king of all the goats and goat-like creatures

Current Interstate map I am making:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1PEDVyNb1skhnkPkgXi8JMaaudM2zI-Y&ll=29.05778059819179%2C-82.48856825&z=5

ilpt4u

#62
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 17, 2016, 09:44:04 AM
A couple more dumb ones in Illinois:

From I-80/94/294, the exit to IL-394 is signed as "Danville."  Danville is like 2.5 hours away down IL-1.  NOBODY is taking that exit so they can get all the way to Danville.  Labeling a town on IL-1 is fine since IL-394 connects to IL-1, but at least understand it's being used locally for towns like Crete and Beecher.  Not Danville Lol.

North of I-55/70 in Illinois, I-255 is signed as toward "Interstate 270."  They used Interstate 270 as a control city.
Perhaps sign this as toward Alton/Godfrey or even just Bethalto or Roxana.  But it'd be nice if we used an actual town!
The issue might be that I-255 and IL-255 are two different routes, so they don't want to put a control city on the sign unless it's actually on I-255.  But maybe we could change I-255 north of I-55 into a new numbered route like I-755 (and extend it to include IL-255).  Why hasn't IL-255 been upgraded to an Interstate, anyway?
I love quoting a 5 year old post...

But gotta give IDOT some more heat on this

Add I-24 WB using "Interstate 57"  as its Control. The perfectly-good WB Control of St Louis, which Kentucky signs for I-24 WB in Paducah, pretty much disappears as one travels closer to St Louis and enters Southern Illinois

Why IDOT doesn't follow its standard protocol and use a Secondary City to the next Interstate junction (Marion, possibly Goreville - no one is gonna call that area Pulley's Mill) for Entrance Controls from Local Exits, and have Marion/Goreville and St Louis on Mileage signs

There is literally a mileage sign for Rend Lake on I-24 WB, but not one for either Marion/Goreville nor St Louis, in Illinois. Interstate 57 is the common, reoccuring mileage sign along 24 WB

And for the record, I have taken the IL-394 exit from the end of the Tri-State to get to IL 1 and then ultimately, Danville

MASTERNC

Sharon, PA on I-80 is barely a blip.  Should really be Youngstown, OH

TheHighwayMan3561

I think Albert Lea is low-key worthless coming out of Minneapolis. Sure it's a sacred cow interstate junction, but very few people from MSP are going to be using I-35 to get somewhere along I-90 - they're going to be using US 169/MN 60 to the west, US 52 to the east, or for Austin US 218.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

Roadgeekteen

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 19, 2021, 06:06:48 PM
I think Albert Lea is low-key worthless coming out of Minneapolis. Sure it's a sacred cow interstate junction, but very few people from MSP are going to be using I-35 to get somewhere along I-90 - they're going to be using US 169/MN 60 to the west, US 52 to the east, or for Austin US 218.
I agree, should be Des Moines.
God-emperor of Alanland, king of all the goats and goat-like creatures

Current Interstate map I am making:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1PEDVyNb1skhnkPkgXi8JMaaudM2zI-Y&ll=29.05778059819179%2C-82.48856825&z=5

roadman65

Limon used by KDOT going west from Hays, KS.  Considering you have Denver, or Burlington across the state line from Kanorado, that is off  kilt for a city going west from anywhere in Kansas, especially from Hays. 

I can see it being used out of Denver going eastward, due to no real good places in Eastern Colorado and Topeka and Kansas City are way too far away at that point. Being it's the first place going east, it seems appropriate in that usage, but west of Hays you even have Goodland, Oakley, and even Colby which have just as much significance as Limon.  Plus its not even a major freeway junction like Benson is in NC, or even two major N-S meeting the interstate, so what significance is Limon to someone heading west across the Plains?
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

LilianaUwU

While not really worthless, I find it odd how Montréal is the primary control city on A-40 WB as far as Québec City when Trois-Rivières is between the two.
"Volcano with no fire... Not volcano... Just mountain."
—Mr. Thwomp

My pronouns are she/her. Also, I'm an admin on the AARoads Wiki.

jp the roadgeek

Quote from: MASTERNC on May 19, 2021, 05:46:06 PM
Sharon, PA on I-80 is barely a blip.  Should really be Youngstown, OH

Pretty much all of I-80 east of Youngstown is full of useless controls.  Dubois, Bloomsburg, Stroudsburg, Delaware Water Gap, and Netcong come to mind. Hazleton would be too if it weren't for the 81 junction.
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

roadman65

I never liked the fact that the same PennDOT also uses Carlisle going NB from Chambersburg, PA on I-81.  Considering that is near Harrisburg, the state capital and primary city of the area, why not use that instead.

Easton, now on I-78 is the same.  Considering it was used before I-78 was completed across the Delaware River when US 22 was the route connecting the two state's segment it made sense as it went through the Downtown of Easton and is at the state line.  Now Easton is off to the side and for I-78 is a blip.  Allentown is more useful as the freeway passes right through a good part of the suburban areas of the city's area. Plus its PA's third largest city and much more larger than Easton.

In Kentucky, you have Ashland used on I-64 with that city not even along its route.  Why not use Huntington, WV which is directly on I-64 just east of where Ashland connects to the interstate via US 23.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

bing101

Quote from: rschen7754 on March 14, 2016, 01:54:38 AM
Surprised "Other Desert Cities" hasn't been mentioned yet.


Also Beach Cities and Thru Traffic too.

bing101

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 13, 2016, 12:13:34 PM
Well, what the hell is a Philadelphia, or what is a Chicago?

Honestly, most people driving aren't going long distances.  In general, most people travel no more than about 17 minutes to get to a business, which is about 15 miles top in rural areas that requires highway driving. Along 80 in PA, Bloomsburg is probably a big destination. The vast majority of the travelers aren't going anywhere near New York, and probably aren't even leaving PA.  Thus, New York would be the useless control city.


True but isn't most long distance control cities really meant for Truckers. I know Redding, Reno, South Lake Tahoe, San Francisco and Los Angeles are used as control cities in Sacramento.

ran4sh

There is no reason a trucker should be depending on the control city shown on a sign when determining their route. They should already have a route planned and should have knowledge of which route systems trucks are allowed on.
Control cities CAN be off the route! Control cities make NO sense if signs end before the city is reached!

Travel Mapping - Most Traveled: I-40, 20, 10, 5, 95 - Longest Clinched: I-20, 85, 24, 16, NJ Tpk mainline
Champions - UGA FB '21 '22 - Atlanta Braves '95 '21 - Atlanta MLS '18

Chrysler375Freeway

On I-275 in Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky are used as control cities instead of the cities along 71 and 75 (Dayton and Columbus north, Louisville and Lexington south). I don't get why they don't just use Louisville and/or Lexington for the southbound control cities, and Dayton and/or Columbus for northbound. 275's split from 74 west also uses Kentucky instead of Louisville and/or Lexington, but it uses Dayton at the split from 74 east, however, they could add Columbus for I-71 traffic.

SkyPesos

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on November 11, 2021, 11:18:37 PM
On I-275 in Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky are used as control cities instead of the cities along 71 and 75 (Dayton and Columbus north, Louisville and Lexington south). I don't get why they don't just use Louisville and/or Lexington for the southbound control cities, and Dayton and/or Columbus for northbound. 275's split from 74 west also uses Kentucky instead of Louisville and/or Lexington, but it uses Dayton at the split from 74 east, however, they could add Columbus for I-71 traffic.
Because I-275 is a terrible bypass for the city. I prefer how they do it now, with control routes. Like "275 east to OH 32", and "275 west to I-75" at the I-71 interchange, and the mention for the airport in the KY side.



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