Interstate 11

[Scott5114]

I'm not too happy about Congress mandating interstate route numbers or deciding which specific routes should get funding.  Congress should lay out overall criteria for funding and let the agencies administer them.  That's their job.

Most of the time this happens because a legislator from the affected state(s) inserts the language into the bill. I-99 is a great example: it was done by Bud Shuster, representative to the House from...Altoona, Pennsylvania. It happens because the legislator believes it's in the interest of their constituency for that project to happen, but needs federal dollars to get done. So these corridors get written into law so that funding can be diverted specifically to them. And if you're already doing that, why not mandate that it becomes an interstate, and give it a number so you can refer to it as that instead of something cheesy like "CANAMEX Corridor"?

[roadfro]

Phoenix to Las Vegas is only 285 miles and only connects two major cities.  I don't think it's long enough or important enough to use a primary interstate number.  I'd make the whole stretch I-515 (if it's worth making it an interstate route at all).

The I-11 corridor is definitely a viable candidate for a two-digit Interstate number, and traffic volumes could certainly justify full Interstate improvements to stretches not built to that standard.

By contrast, I-17 connects two major cities, is wholly in Arizona, and is only about 145 miles long. I-19 is also wholly in Arizona, connects one major city to the Mexico border, and is only about 63 miles long. At least I-11 would cross a state line...

Making it I-11 would be out of the grid.  And why is there no appropriate number within the grid available?  Because too many short routes of only regional importance have been allowed to take up primary interstate numbers.

If the long-term idea to take I-11 up the US 95 corridor north as far as Canada comes to fruition, I-11 will definitely be a good fit inside the grid.

[Interstate Trav]

I agree with renumbering I-515 as I-11 since I-11 is going to be there anyways if this gets built, and since I-515 is cosigned it's entire run.  To me it always just added confusion to the route.  The only thing I wonder is if the exit numbers would stay the same to reflect US 95 or change for I-11 to the HooverDam?  Since I-11 would be the main Interstate it should take over, but then you have all the exits south of I-15 being renumbered, and they change pretty largely at I-15 since, then US 95 takes over.

But would it be better to have exit numbers based on US 95 or I-11 through Las Vegas?

Also Sign the I-515 as I-11 then past that have it signed at Future I-11.

Right now, the exit numbering on I-515/US 93/US 95 follows mileposts for US 95. The reason for this is that US 95 is the through route (as I-515 ends at I-15 and US 93 switches freeways to follow I-15), so it made sense to keep the exit numbers with US 95 for continuity. Also, historically, as the 515/93/95 freeway was built, new mileposts used US 95 (to tie into the freeway segments of US 95 west of I-15, which came first) while the old route (now SR 582) continued to use US 93 mileposts.

If I-11 actually does move forward closer to actual reality, NDOT would renumber I-515 as I-11. I would guess that they would continue to use US 95 exit numbering due to the continuity issue, avoiding having an approximate gap of 40 in the numbering in the middle of Vegas. However, if the long term idea of extending I-11 north along US 95 through Nevada towards Canada gained any traction into reality, then renumbering all exits to follow I-11 would make much more sense.

NDOT probably isn't apt to sign "Future I-11" at all. They didn't post "future" shields for I-515, leaving it unposted until the freeway was constructed to its current limit around 1994. NDOT hasn't posted any "future I-580" shields either, despite the fact that they refer to I-580 quite frequently in press releases and project documentation.

I actually am on the fence about I-11 exit numbering, considering your point that US 95 is the primary Route, but once a two digit Interstate takes over to I-15, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have the exit numbers reflect that, considering the control point along that freeway is Phoenix, isn't it?

But I do agree that 40 mile gap in numbering would be a little confusing, but the long term plan I had heard was to extend I-11 further, but I'm sure that is not going to happen for some time.  I'm shocked that this part is actually gaining traction.

[mgk920]

How possible would it be to combine I-11 and I-19 into a single numbered route?



Also, yes, I can also easily foresee 'I-11' being extended north and northwestward to supplant I-580 and so forth, ultimately into Washington.

OTOH, I also agree that route numbering for these new 'interstate' designations should be handled in the manner that is being done with US 41 here in eastern Wisconsin - let AASHTO and the FHWA, not Congress, pick the number.

Mike

[Alps]

OTOH, I also agree that route numbering for these new 'interstate' designations should be handled in the manner that is being done with US 41 here in eastern Wisconsin - let AASHTO and the FHWA, not Congress, pick the number.

Mike

In this one case, I might be able to see why. For an Interstate to Las Vegas, your best numbering choices are 7 and 11, and your worst choice is 13.

[kkt]

Phoenix to Las Vegas is only 285 miles and only connects two major cities.  I don't think it's long enough or important enough to use a primary interstate number.  I'd make the whole stretch I-515 (if it's worth making it an interstate route at all).

The I-11 corridor is definitely a viable candidate for a two-digit Interstate number, and traffic volumes could certainly justify full Interstate improvements to stretches not built to that standard.

Traffic volumes on the less busy parts of US-93 between I-40 and Wickenburg are around 6,000 vehicles per day in both directions.  That's pretty low volume for building to interstate standards.  By comparison, the least busy part of I-19 that's not right next to the border is 16,000 per day both directions.  I-17 is even busier.

By contrast, I-17 connects two major cities, is wholly in Arizona, and is only about 145 miles long. I-19 is also wholly in Arizona, connects one major city to the Mexico border, and is only about 63 miles long. At least I-11 would cross a state line...

I agree.  If numbering those as primary interstates was being proposed now, I'd complain about them too.   

Making it I-11 would be out of the grid.  And why is there no appropriate number within the grid available?  Because too many short routes of only regional importance have been allowed to take up primary interstate numbers.

If the long-term idea to take I-11 up the US 95 corridor north as far as Canada comes to fruition, I-11 will definitely be a good fit inside the grid.

Yeah, but that's not very likely.  US-95 north of Nellis Air Force Base is a pretty lonely road.  If any north-south highway were to be developed into interstate east of the Sierra and west of I-15, it would probably be US-395 in California and Nevada or US-97 in California, Oregon, and Washington. 

[kkt]

OTOH, I also agree that route numbering for these new 'interstate' designations should be handled in the manner that is being done with US 41 here in eastern Wisconsin - let AASHTO and the FHWA, not Congress, pick the number.

In this one case, I might be able to see why. For an Interstate to Las Vegas, your best numbering choices are 7 and 11, and your worst choice is 13.

I didn't realize promoting craps was one of the criteria for interstate numbering.

[Alps]

OTOH, I also agree that route numbering for these new 'interstate' designations should be handled in the manner that is being done with US 41 here in eastern Wisconsin - let AASHTO and the FHWA, not Congress, pick the number.

In this one case, I might be able to see why. For an Interstate to Las Vegas, your best numbering choices are 7 and 11, and your worst choice is 13.

I didn't realize promoting craps was one of the criteria for interstate numbering.

Well imagine the stink that would be raised if AASHTO picked 13.

[national highway 1]

I agree with renumbering I-515 as I-11 since I-11 is going to be there anyways if this gets built, and since I-515 is cosigned it's entire run.  To me it always just added confusion to the route.  The only thing I wonder is if the exit numbers would stay the same to reflect US 95 or change for I-11 to the HooverDam?  Since I-11 would be the main Interstate it should take over, but then you have all the exits south of I-15 being renumbered, and they change pretty largely at I-15 since, then US 95 takes over.

But would it be better to have exit numbers based on US 95 or I-11 through Las Vegas?

Also Sign the I-515 as I-11 then past that have it signed at Future I-11.

Right now, the exit numbering on I-515/US 93/US 95 follows mileposts for US 95. The reason for this is that US 95 is the through route (as I-515 ends at I-15 and US 93 switches freeways to follow I-15), so it made sense to keep the exit numbers with US 95 for continuity. Also, historically, as the 515/93/95 freeway was built, new mileposts used US 95 (to tie into the freeway segments of US 95 west of I-15, which came first) while the old route (now SR 582) continued to use US 93 mileposts.

If I-11 actually does move forward closer to actual reality, NDOT would renumber I-515 as I-11. I would guess that they would continue to use US 95 exit numbering due to the continuity issue, avoiding having an approximate gap of 40 in the numbering in the middle of Vegas. However, if the long term idea of extending I-11 north along US 95 through Nevada towards Canada gained any traction into reality, then renumbering all exits to follow I-11 would make much more sense.

NDOT probably isn't apt to sign "Future I-11" at all. They didn't post "future" shields for I-515, leaving it unposted until the freeway was constructed to its current limit around 1994. NDOT hasn't posted any "future I-580" shields either, despite the fact that they refer to I-580 quite frequently in press releases and project documentation.

I actually am on the fence about I-11 exit numbering, considering your point that US 95 is the primary Route, but once a two digit Interstate takes over to I-15, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have the exit numbers reflect that, considering the control point along that freeway is Phoenix, isn't it?

But I do agree that 40 mile gap in numbering would be a little confusing, but the long term plan I had heard was to extend I-11 further, but I'm sure that is not going to happen for some time.  I'm shocked that this part is actually gaining traction.

I reckon once the Boulder City bypass is complete and I-11 is eventually signed, let US 95's exit numbers continue off I-11's exit numbers north of I-15 as if I-11 were to be extended up US 95. Not really much confusion unless US 95 between Needles and Henderson is upgraded to a freeway.

[kkt]

Well imagine the stink that would be raised if AASHTO picked 13.

It's a number.  It comes after 12.

-- Jim Lovell, Apollo 13 commander

[Interstate Trav]

I agree with renumbering I-515 as I-11 since I-11 is going to be there anyways if this gets built, and since I-515 is cosigned it's entire run.  To me it always just added confusion to the route.  The only thing I wonder is if the exit numbers would stay the same to reflect US 95 or change for I-11 to the HooverDam?  Since I-11 would be the main Interstate it should take over, but then you have all the exits south of I-15 being renumbered, and they change pretty largely at I-15 since, then US 95 takes over.

But would it be better to have exit numbers based on US 95 or I-11 through Las Vegas?

Also Sign the I-515 as I-11 then past that have it signed at Future I-11.

Right now, the exit numbering on I-515/US 93/US 95 follows mileposts for US 95. The reason for this is that US 95 is the through route (as I-515 ends at I-15 and US 93 switches freeways to follow I-15), so it made sense to keep the exit numbers with US 95 for continuity. Also, historically, as the 515/93/95 freeway was built, new mileposts used US 95 (to tie into the freeway segments of US 95 west of I-15, which came first) while the old route (now SR 582) continued to use US 93 mileposts.

If I-11 actually does move forward closer to actual reality, NDOT would renumber I-515 as I-11. I would guess that they would continue to use US 95 exit numbering due to the continuity issue, avoiding having an approximate gap of 40 in the numbering in the middle of Vegas. However, if the long term idea of extending I-11 north along US 95 through Nevada towards Canada gained any traction into reality, then renumbering all exits to follow I-11 would make much more sense.

NDOT probably isn't apt to sign "Future I-11" at all. They didn't post "future" shields for I-515, leaving it unposted until the freeway was constructed to its current limit around 1994. NDOT hasn't posted any "future I-580" shields either, despite the fact that they refer to I-580 quite frequently in press releases and project documentation.

I actually am on the fence about I-11 exit numbering, considering your point that US 95 is the primary Route, but once a two digit Interstate takes over to I-15, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have the exit numbers reflect that, considering the control point along that freeway is Phoenix, isn't it?

But I do agree that 40 mile gap in numbering would be a little confusing, but the long term plan I had heard was to extend I-11 further, but I'm sure that is not going to happen for some time.  I'm shocked that this part is actually gaining traction.

I reckon once the Boulder City bypass is complete and I-11 is eventually signed, let US 95's exit numbers continue off I-11's exit numbers north of I-15 as if I-11 were to be extended up US 95. Not really much confusion unless US 95 between Needles and Henderson is upgraded to a freeway.

Even if US 95 is upgraded to a freeway, it still isn't a mainline Interstate, and it doesn't connect any heavily populated areas.  Just Needles, Blythe, Yuma, and indirectly Laughlin.  I doubt it would ever get an Interstate Number. 

I agree with having I-11 exit numbers take over, as most of the tourist traffic will seem to most likely be on I-11 headed Back to Arizona, similair to I-15 heading back to California, and someone mentioned a good idea of having I-11 extend along US 95 further to future I-215  current CC 215.  Then you could have all the exit numbers follow I-11.

[Interstate Trav]

One thing I was wondering is why was I-515 even signed to begin with, it is always multiplexed, and the same goes for futre I-580 in Reno.  Is it only for the Interstate funding?  It seems like it just adds another route number.

[myosh_tino]

I read somewhere that Carson City is the only state capitol not connected to the Interstate system.  I-580 would finally do that.

[roadfro]

I actually am on the fence about I-11 exit numbering, considering your point that US 95 is the primary Route, but once a two digit Interstate takes over to I-15, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have the exit numbers reflect that, considering the control point along that freeway is Phoenix, isn't it?

The control city is indeed Phoenix, but that has no bearing on the mileage or exit numbering.

Another point to consider is whether it's really necessary to renumber exits in Las Vegas just because the route number has changed...is it worth the cost and confusion when some of these exit numbers have been in place for nearly 30 years.

I agree with having I-11 exit numbers take over, <...> and someone mentioned a good idea of having I-11 extend along US 95 further to future I-215  current CC 215.  Then you could have all the exit numbers follow I-11.

If I-11 were to extend to the northern 215 interchange, that would still pose a gap in exit numbering for the three or four exits north of the beltway on US 95...the gap would just affect fewer interchanges...

[roadfro]

How possible would it be to combine I-11 and I-19 into a single numbered route?

Also, yes, I can also easily foresee 'I-11' being extended north and northwestward to supplant I-580 and so forth, ultimately into Washington.

This boarders on "fictional highways" territory, but... It would be much more feasible to combine I-19 with I-17.

Phoenix to Las Vegas is only 285 miles and only connects two major cities.  I don't think it's long enough or important enough to use a primary interstate number.  I'd make the whole stretch I-515 (if it's worth making it an interstate route at all).

The I-11 corridor is definitely a viable candidate for a two-digit Interstate number, and traffic volumes could certainly justify full Interstate improvements to stretches not built to that standard.

Traffic volumes on the less busy parts of US-93 between I-40 and Wickenburg are around 6,000 vehicles per day in both directions.  That's pretty low volume for building to interstate standards.  By comparison, the least busy part of I-19 that's not right next to the border is 16,000 per day both directions.  I-17 is even busier.

By contrast, I-17 connects two major cities, is wholly in Arizona, and is only about 145 miles long. I-19 is also wholly in Arizona, connects one major city to the Mexico border, and is only about 63 miles long. At least I-11 would cross a state line...

I agree.  If numbering those as primary interstates was being proposed now, I'd complain about them too.   

Making it I-11 would be out of the grid.  And why is there no appropriate number within the grid available?  Because too many short routes of only regional importance have been allowed to take up primary interstate numbers.

If the long-term idea to take I-11 up the US 95 corridor north as far as Canada comes to fruition, I-11 will definitely be a good fit inside the grid.

Yeah, but that's not very likely.  US-95 north of Nellis Air Force Base is a pretty lonely road.  If any north-south highway were to be developed into interstate east of the Sierra and west of I-15, it would probably be US-395 in California and Nevada or US-97 in California, Oregon, and Washington. 

US 95 doesn't go north of Nellis AFB...it swings far west of it. Unless you're talking about the test range way northwest of Vegas, which has lands under a jurisdiction by a combination of AFB, Dept. of Energy, Area 51, and other assorted government agencies.

Talking strictly about US 95, and without looking at any NDOT traffic counts, I would hazard a guess that US 95 constitutes some of the more regularly traveled two-lane US highway in the state. Certainly nothing that would warrant going out an building a freeway tomorrow, though.

One thing I was wondering is why was I-515 even signed to begin with, it is always multiplexed, and the same goes for futre I-580 in Reno.  Is it only for the Interstate funding?  It seems like it just adds another route number.

I read somewhere that Carson City is the only state capitol not connected to the Interstate system.  I-580 would finally do that.

Funding certainly plays a part, although the highway can still be designated and funded without being signed (see I-305 in CA).

I don't know the rationale for signing I-515 to be honest--I believe it was technically on the books for some time while being constructed throughout the 80s and early 90s, but it wasn't actually signed until the freeway was completed to its current extent in late 1994/early 1995.

But for I-580, having the "prestige" of an I-shield to connect Carson City to the Interstate system has been a desire for quite some time, and part of the draw for building it in the first place.


Carson City is not the only state capital without an Interstate highway. The four other capitals Juneau, Alaska; Dover, Delaware; Jefferson City, Missouri and Pierre, South Dakota. (Of the other four, it appears all but the Alaska one could be fairly easily connected to the system with the establishment of a spur route.)

[Interstate Trav]

I read somewhere that Carson City is the only state capitol not connected to the Interstate system.  I-580 would finally do that.

I guess I could understand that, but aren't the locals still going to refer to I-580/US 395 as "the 395"?  I just always found it to be a pointless multiplex, to a certain extent.

[Interstate Trav]

I actually am on the fence about I-11 exit numbering, considering your point that US 95 is the primary Route, but once a two digit Interstate takes over to I-15, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have the exit numbers reflect that, considering the control point along that freeway is Phoenix, isn't it?

The control city is indeed Phoenix, but that has no bearing on the mileage or exit numbering.

Another point to consider is whether it's really necessary to renumber exits in Las Vegas just because the route number has changed...is it worth the cost and confusion when some of these exit numbers have been in place for nearly 30 years.

I agree with having I-11 exit numbers take over, <...> and someone mentioned a good idea of having I-11 extend along US 95 further to future I-215  current CC 215.  Then you could have all the exit numbers follow I-11.

If I-11 were to extend to the northern 215 interchange, that would still pose a gap in exit numbering for the three or four exits north of the beltway on US 95...the gap would just affect fewer interchanges...

I was also thinking that if it is numbered primarily as I-11 wouldn't NDOT sign Phoenix on mileage signs leaving Las Vegas?  Also since that is the main control point from Las Vegas, from torusim and trucking route, it seems that it would make sense to change the numbers to reflect that.  If most traffic is staying on I-11 and headed for Phoenix or other parts of Arizona.

I also just realised that continuing I-11 to Future I-215, would probably add confusion, in the sense that US 95 is Signed for Reno, and if I-11 is signed for Reno, I wonder if that would make people unfamiliar with the area think of that as a new freeway to Reno, and when I-11 signs dissapear, be kinda confusing.

[kkt]

US 95 doesn't go north of Nellis AFB...it swings far west of it. Unless you're talking about the test range way northwest of Vegas, which has lands under a jurisdiction by a combination of AFB, Dept. of Energy, Area 51, and other assorted government agencies.

Several of the smaller airfields of Nellis AFB are along 95, northwest of Las Vegas.  They generate some traffic, but once you're past them there's very little traffic until you get to Fallon.

[swbrotha100]

I read somewhere that Carson City is the only state capitol not connected to the Interstate system.  I-580 would finally do that.

Don't forget Dover (DE), Jefferson City (MO), Juneau (AK), and Pierre (SD).

[brad2971]

How possible would it be to combine I-11 and I-19 into a single numbered route?

Also, yes, I can also easily foresee 'I-11' being extended north and northwestward to supplant I-580 and so forth, ultimately into Washington.

This boarders on "fictional highways" territory, but... It would be much more feasible to combine I-19 with I-17.

Phoenix to Las Vegas is only 285 miles and only connects two major cities.  I don't think it's long enough or important enough to use a primary interstate number.  I'd make the whole stretch I-515 (if it's worth making it an interstate route at all).

The I-11 corridor is definitely a viable candidate for a two-digit Interstate number, and traffic volumes could certainly justify full Interstate improvements to stretches not built to that standard.

Traffic volumes on the less busy parts of US-93 between I-40 and Wickenburg are around 6,000 vehicles per day in both directions.  That's pretty low volume for building to interstate standards.  By comparison, the least busy part of I-19 that's not right next to the border is 16,000 per day both directions.  I-17 is even busier.

By contrast, I-17 connects two major cities, is wholly in Arizona, and is only about 145 miles long. I-19 is also wholly in Arizona, connects one major city to the Mexico border, and is only about 63 miles long. At least I-11 would cross a state line...

I agree.  If numbering those as primary interstates was being proposed now, I'd complain about them too.   

Making it I-11 would be out of the grid.  And why is there no appropriate number within the grid available?  Because too many short routes of only regional importance have been allowed to take up primary interstate numbers.

If the long-term idea to take I-11 up the US 95 corridor north as far as Canada comes to fruition, I-11 will definitely be a good fit inside the grid.

Yeah, but that's not very likely.  US-95 north of Nellis Air Force Base is a pretty lonely road.  If any north-south highway were to be developed into interstate east of the Sierra and west of I-15, it would probably be US-395 in California and Nevada or US-97 in California, Oregon, and Washington. 

US 95 doesn't go north of Nellis AFB...it swings far west of it. Unless you're talking about the test range way northwest of Vegas, which has lands under a jurisdiction by a combination of AFB, Dept. of Energy, Area 51, and other assorted government agencies.

Talking strictly about US 95, and without looking at any NDOT traffic counts, I would hazard a guess that US 95 constitutes some of the more regularly traveled two-lane US highway in the state. Certainly nothing that would warrant going out an building a freeway tomorrow, though.

One thing I was wondering is why was I-515 even signed to begin with, it is always multiplexed, and the same goes for futre I-580 in Reno.  Is it only for the Interstate funding?  It seems like it just adds another route number.

I read somewhere that Carson City is the only state capitol not connected to the Interstate system.  I-580 would finally do that.

Funding certainly plays a part, although the highway can still be designated and funded without being signed (see I-305 in CA).

I don't know the rationale for signing I-515 to be honest--I believe it was technically on the books for some time while being constructed throughout the 80s and early 90s, but it wasn't actually signed until the freeway was completed to its current extent in late 1994/early 1995.

But for I-580, having the "prestige" of an I-shield to connect Carson City to the Interstate system has been a desire for quite some time, and part of the draw for building it in the first place.


Carson City is not the only state capital without an Interstate highway. The four other capitals Juneau, Alaska; Dover, Delaware; Jefferson City, Missouri and Pierre, South Dakota. (Of the other four, it appears all but the Alaska one could be fairly easily connected to the system with the establishment of a spur route.)

And of those remaining four, South Dakota DOT could barely justify building the second set of two lanes on US83 to Pierre, much less make an interstate spur of it. And the DE 1 toll road could easily be, say, I-795, if DelDOT was intersted in pursuing such a thing.

Which brings us to Jefferson City. It's highly doubtful MoDOT is going to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars it would cost to build up the last couple mile of US54 at the service-heavy I-70 interchange.

So Carson City may be, effectively, the last state capital to be connected to the Interstate highway system.

[Scott5114]

Well imagine the stink that would be raised if AASHTO picked 13.

It's a number.  It comes after 12.

-- Jim Lovell, Apollo 13 commander

That is a logical point of view that would be entirely, utterly lost on 80% of casino patrons. Not that that matters to AASHTO, of course, but you can bet it matters to the City of Las Vegas, who knows where its money comes from, and they could certainly put pressure up the chain to NDOT and AASHTO.

(I-21 would also be an acceptable, in-grid number, at least for the parts southeast of Las Vegas. But 11 works.)

[roadfro]

I also just realised that continuing I-11 to Future I-215, would probably add confusion, in the sense that US 95 is Signed for Reno, and if I-11 is signed for Reno, I wonder if that would make people unfamiliar with the area think of that as a new freeway to Reno, and when I-11 signs dissapear, be kinda confusing.

Dwelling on what the control cities are used on the highway isn't really a valid point with this. Not all control cities on signs are actually on the route they are signed on.

Case in point: US 95 north is signed for Reno leaving Las Vegas, despite the fact that the closest it gets to Reno is Fallon, nearly 60 miles east. Similarly, I-15 south leaving Vegas is signed southbound for Los Angeles, and it never gets to LA either.

[agentsteel53]

I think Interstate Trav may be referring more to the idea that if a freeway has control city X, you can take all freeways to get to X.

for example, I-15 does not make it to LA, but you can get on a freeway that does, and the signage continues.  In this case, it's I-10.

US-95 is a good example heading out of Vegas - except there really are no other cities along the freeway... so you may as well sign the historic control city.

a problematic application of this is I-710 with a Pasadena control city!  good luck getting there without using some very unintuitive surface streets.

[NE2]

I think Interstate Trav may be referring more to the idea that if a freeway has control city X, you can take all freeways to get to X.

Much more interesting than "my god, this control city isn't on the numbered route, so let's use BFE instead".

[Interstate Trav]

I think Interstate Trav may be referring more to the idea that if a freeway has control city X, you can take all freeways to get to X.

for example, I-15 does not make it to LA, but you can get on a freeway that does, and the signage continues.  In this case, it's I-10.

US-95 is a good example heading out of Vegas - except there really are no other cities along the freeway... so you may as well sign the historic control city.

a problematic application of this is I-710 with a Pasadena control city!  good luck getting there without using some very unintuitive surface streets.

That's actually exactly what I meant,  yeah Los Angeles is signed on I-15 and I-15 doesn't enter Los Angeles, but there is overhead signage on I-15 all the way to I-10 in Ontario, and then you take I-10 west to Los Angeles.  You can keep on the main freeways basically.

Also good point about I710, but I think it's because  Caltrans still plans to finish I-710.