Will AZ have to give up using Los Angeles on I-40?

[Sub-Urbanite]

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.

[Roadgeekteen]

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.

[JayhawkCO]

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.

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.

80: 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.

82: Seattle, Yakima, Kennewick, Pendleton, Hermiston

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

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

I would also ditch Hermiston here.

Chris

[MattHanson939]

What 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

[US 89]

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

[Roadgeekteen]

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

This discussion should be moved to this thread

[hotdogPi]

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.

[MattHanson939]

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.

[Roadgeekteen]

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.

[MattHanson939]

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.

[Roadgeekteen]

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.

[JayhawkCO]

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

[MattHanson939]

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

[ethanhopkin14]

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.

[Roadgeekteen]

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.

[MattHanson939]

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.

[mrsman]

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.

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.

[michravera]

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.

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?

[Roadgeekteen]

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.

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.

[DTComposer]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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

[ClassicHasClass]

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

[TheStranger]

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)

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

[mrsman]

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.

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

---

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.

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.

[TheStranger]

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.