AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?  (Read 28582 times)

Roadgeekteen

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12475
  • Interstates everywhere to everything

  • Age: 18
  • Location: Needham/Amherst
  • Last Login: May 24, 2022, 06:51:25 PM
    • old interstate plans
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #50 on: April 22, 2021, 12:06:07 AM »

Quote
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.

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.
Logged
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?mid=1SRJ5PPfTJp9aHxzFUw4IZdk5Racc8bhp&ll=41.78177440649835%2C-74.47910573821878&z=7

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 21999
  • My 2 Achilles' heels: sarcasm & snark

  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: Today at 10:20:06 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #51 on: April 22, 2021, 10:38:41 AM »

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.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. Dick
If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 819
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: Today at 05:04:31 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #52 on: April 22, 2021, 01:14:37 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.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

MattHanson939

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 45
  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: May 03, 2022, 01:02:09 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #53 on: May 03, 2021, 05:57:44 PM »

Quote
If 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.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2021, 06:27:42 PM by MattHanson939 »
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 3692
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: Today at 11:16:54 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #54 on: June 01, 2021, 11:26:21 AM »

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

Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2832
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 10:30:08 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #55 on: June 01, 2021, 01:35:35 PM »

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

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1623
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 07:10:47 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #56 on: June 01, 2021, 02:06:24 PM »

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!
Logged

ClassicHasClass

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 568
  • 0-60 in 59.999997 years

  • Location: sunny So Cal
  • Last Login: Today at 08:31:49 PM
    • Floodgap Roadgap
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #57 on: June 03, 2021, 12:50:43 AM »

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.
Logged

michravera

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 834
  • Location: Northern California
  • Last Login: May 25, 2022, 02:26:29 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #58 on: June 03, 2021, 02:09:02 AM »

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.
Logged

ran4sh

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 726
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Georgia
  • Last Login: May 24, 2022, 10:52:21 PM
    • YouTube - mostly my Cities:Skylines live streams
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #59 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.
Logged
Atlanta Braves 2021 Champions! Georgia Bulldogs 2021-22 CFP Champions!

ran4sh

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 726
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Georgia
  • Last Login: May 24, 2022, 10:52:21 PM
    • YouTube - mostly my Cities:Skylines live streams
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #60 on: June 03, 2021, 02:30:13 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)
Logged
Atlanta Braves 2021 Champions! Georgia Bulldogs 2021-22 CFP Champions!

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 9955
  • Last Login: Today at 11:16:12 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #61 on: June 03, 2021, 06:49:50 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?
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7535
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:52:23 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #62 on: June 03, 2021, 06:53:29 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.
Logged

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1623
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 07:10:47 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #63 on: June 03, 2021, 11:06:08 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. 
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2832
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 10:30:08 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #64 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?
Logged

stevashe

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 338
  • Age: 26
  • Location: Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:18:02 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #65 on: June 07, 2021, 11:20:58 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
Logged

Sub-Urbanite

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 427
  • There's at least a 60% chance I'm just trolling

  • Location: Portland, OR
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 05:37:07 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #66 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

Logged

Roadgeekteen

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12475
  • Interstates everywhere to everything

  • Age: 18
  • Location: Needham/Amherst
  • Last Login: May 24, 2022, 06:51:25 PM
    • old interstate plans
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #67 on: June 08, 2021, 01:18:00 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?
Logged
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?mid=1SRJ5PPfTJp9aHxzFUw4IZdk5Racc8bhp&ll=41.78177440649835%2C-74.47910573821878&z=7

bing101

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4241
  • Last Login: May 16, 2022, 03:28:19 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #68 on: June 08, 2021, 01:41:31 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.
Logged

Roadgeekteen

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12475
  • Interstates everywhere to everything

  • Age: 18
  • Location: Needham/Amherst
  • Last Login: May 24, 2022, 06:51:25 PM
    • old interstate plans
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #69 on: June 08, 2021, 02:13:03 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.
Logged
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?mid=1SRJ5PPfTJp9aHxzFUw4IZdk5Racc8bhp&ll=41.78177440649835%2C-74.47910573821878&z=7

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1894
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: April 15, 2022, 06:12:23 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #70 on: June 08, 2021, 02:59:50 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.
Logged

michravera

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 834
  • Location: Northern California
  • Last Login: May 25, 2022, 02:26:29 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #71 on: June 08, 2021, 10:14:50 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.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2021, 02:11:12 AM by michravera »
Logged

MattHanson939

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 45
  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: May 03, 2022, 01:02:09 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #72 on: June 09, 2021, 01:19:05 AM »

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).
Logged

Sub-Urbanite

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 427
  • There's at least a 60% chance I'm just trolling

  • Location: Portland, OR
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 05:37:07 PM
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #73 on: June 09, 2021, 02:25:52 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
Logged

Roadgeekteen

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12475
  • Interstates everywhere to everything

  • Age: 18
  • Location: Needham/Amherst
  • Last Login: May 24, 2022, 06:51:25 PM
    • old interstate plans
Re: Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?
« Reply #74 on: June 09, 2021, 02:59:20 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.
Logged
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?mid=1SRJ5PPfTJp9aHxzFUw4IZdk5Racc8bhp&ll=41.78177440649835%2C-74.47910573821878&z=7

 


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.