AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?  (Read 28489 times)

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12315
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 07:15:40 AM
Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« 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.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2016, 10:08:01 AM by andy3175 »
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14292
  • fuck

  • Age: 14
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: May 21, 2022, 05:57:48 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #1 on: June 08, 2016, 08:24:38 PM »

What changes in the MUTCD?
Logged
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

I agree to indemnify Belkin against unauthorized use of its MiniVak vacuum.

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 18625
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 08:18:12 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #2 on: June 08, 2016, 10:23:10 PM »

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:
Logged

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4539
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 10:38:54 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #3 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.
Logged

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3438
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Kyle, TX
  • Last Login: May 09, 2022, 08:35:01 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #4 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
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 18625
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 08:18:12 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #5 on: June 08, 2016, 10:56:34 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.
Logged

swbrotha100

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 405
  • Last Login: October 02, 2016, 10:07:09 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #6 on: June 08, 2016, 11:59:37 PM »

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

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4463
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 11:23:54 AM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2016, 02:22:07 AM »

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.

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.)
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 18625
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 08:18:12 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #8 on: June 09, 2016, 07:10:55 AM »

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.

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. 
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12315
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 07:15:40 AM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #9 on: June 09, 2016, 08:27:06 AM »

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.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

mvak36

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1159
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 09:22:34 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #10 on: June 09, 2016, 09:16:17 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
Logged
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

CanesFan27

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1327
  • Last Login: Today at 04:49:52 AM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #11 on: June 09, 2016, 09:16:58 AM »

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?
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7053
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 10:16:49 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #12 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.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Rover_0

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 939
  • Why not?

  • Age: -64
  • Location: Utah
  • Last Login: May 22, 2022, 08:06:51 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #13 on: June 09, 2016, 03:50:01 PM »

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.
Logged
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3689
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 10:05:14 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #14 on: June 09, 2016, 11:37:53 PM »

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, 
« Last Edit: June 01, 2021, 10:46:55 AM by mrsman »
Logged

swbrotha100

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 405
  • Last Login: October 02, 2016, 10:07:09 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #15 on: June 10, 2016, 12:56:12 AM »

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.
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7053
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 10:16:49 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #16 on: June 10, 2016, 12:19:47 PM »

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

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.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12315
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 07:15:40 AM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #17 on: June 10, 2016, 01:31:12 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.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

dvferyance

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1486
  • Location: New Berlin WI
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 04:22:29 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #18 on: June 10, 2016, 10:32:49 PM »

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

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2823
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 02:06:33 AM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #19 on: June 11, 2016, 01:44:52 AM »

Will that ever happen?
Logged

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4463
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 11:23:54 AM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #20 on: June 11, 2016, 10:54:20 AM »

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.
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

US 41

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1844
  • Age: 25
  • Location: Terre Haute, IN
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 10:54:29 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #21 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).
Logged
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (47)= Only missing CA, AK, and HI
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (6)= CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SIN, TAMPS

thenetwork

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2854
  • Age: 2018
  • Location: Grand Junction, Colorado
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 11:40:56 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #22 on: June 11, 2016, 12:04:08 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.

Logged

dvferyance

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1486
  • Location: New Berlin WI
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 04:22:29 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #23 on: June 11, 2016, 05:38:06 PM »

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.
Logged

CanesFan27

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1327
  • Last Login: Today at 04:49:52 AM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #24 on: June 11, 2016, 05:49:37 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.
Logged

 


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.