What interchanges have signed control cities from several different states? We could come up with three million examples of two different states, so let's focus on three or more. The state that the interchange is located in does count. My nomination is the Kennedy Interchange in Louisville, with control cities from five different states: Lexington KY (I-64 east), Indianapolis IN (I-65 north), Cincinnati OH (I-71 north), Nashville TN (I-65 south), and St. Louis MO (I-64 west).
Both I-65 and I-70 interchanges:
- Missouri (St. Louis, I-70 W)
- Ohio (Columbus, I-70 E)
- Kentucky (Louisville, I-65 S)
- Illinois (Chicago, I-65 N)
I-44/55/64 interchange:
- Oklahoma (Tulsa, I-44 W)
- Tennessee (Memphis, I-55 S)
- Illinois (Chicago, I-55 N)
- Missouri (Kansas City, I-44 E to I-70 W)
- Indiana (Indianapolis, to I-70 E)
- Kentucky (Louisville, I-64 E)
I-95/I-295/I-495 interchange in DE has 5 if you count all directions.
NJ-NY for I-295
Wilmington for I-95 North
Port of Wilmington/Philadelphia I-495
Newark/Baltimore for I-95 South.
Exit 24 on the New York Thruway has three, counting a province as a state. Heading east/southbound on the Thruway, the signs list Albany, Montreal, New York (City), and Boston.
Quote from: thspfc on February 04, 2021, 08:18:53 PM
What interchanges have signed control cities from several different states? We could come up with three million examples of two different states, so let's focus on three or more. The state that the interchange is located in does count. My nomination is the Kennedy Interchange in Louisville, with control cities from five different states: Lexington KY (I-64 east), Indianapolis IN (I-65 north), Cincinnati OH (I-71 north), Nashville TN (I-65 south), and St. Louis MO (I-64 west).
Was typing this right as you posted.
The northern I-75 & I-285 junction has 5 states, which is probably the record in GA.
I-75 N: TN (Chattanooga)
I-75 S: GA (Atlanta)
I-285 E: SC & GA (Greenville, Augusta)
I-285 S: AL & FL (Birmingham, Tampa)
I can think of one with a count of 3.
I-90 approaching I-5 in Seattle.
SB has control cities of Tacoma (WA) and Portland (OR)
NB has a control city of Vancouver (BC)
(I assumed a province would be acceptable?)
The interchange of I-15 and I-515 in Las Vegas has 4.
Phoenix (I-515 EB/ US 95 SB), Reno (US 95 NB), SLC (I-15 NB), LA (I-15 SB)
Representing 4 different states, but only 1 city (because IDOT!)
Outbound Bishop Ford Freeway/EB I-94 approaching the 80/94/294/394 interchange, has controls of:
Iowa - I-80W
Wisconsin - I-294N
Indiana - I-80/94E
Danville (IL) IL 394S
I-55 at I-240 in Memphis has 4 states: TN, MO, AR, and MS.
Jackson - I-55 S Bound.
Little Rock- I-240 N Bound
Nashville- I-240 E Bound
St. Louis- I-55 N Bound.
I-65, I-64, and I-71 in Louisville, KY has 5 at their interchange.
I-65 N Bound to Indy
I-65 S Bound to Nashville.
I-64 W Bound to St. Louis
I-64 E Bound to Lexington
I-71 N Bound to Cincinnati
Quote from: thspfc on February 04, 2021, 08:18:53 PM
What interchanges have signed control cities from several different states? We could come up with three million examples of two different states, so let's focus on three or more. The state that the interchange is located in does count. My nomination is the Kennedy Interchange in Louisville, with control cities from five different states: Lexington KY (I-64 east), Indianapolis IN (I-65 north), Cincinnati OH (I-71 north), Nashville TN (I-65 south), and St. Louis MO (I-64 west).
Quote from: roadman65 on February 04, 2021, 11:29:46 PM
I-65, I-64, and I-71 in Louisville, KY has 5 at their interchange.
I-65 N Bound to Indy
I-65 S Bound to Nashville.
I-64 W Bound to St. Louis
I-64 E Bound to Lexington
I-71 N Bound to Cincinnati
Well it didn't take long to get a repeat answer... :D
The West Mixmaster (35/80/235) in Des Moines has Minnesota (Minneapolis), Missouri (KC), and Illinois (Chicago) represented, plus Des Moines.
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 04, 2021, 08:28:51 PM
I-44/55/64 interchange:
- Oklahoma (Tulsa, I-44 W)
- Tennessee (Memphis, I-55 S)
- Illinois (Chicago, I-55 N)
- Missouri (Kansas City, I-44 E to I-70 W)
- Indiana (Indianapolis, to I-70 E)
- Kentucky (Louisville, I-64 E)
In an ideal world, but I-64 E and I-70 E are both just signed as "Illinois" in Missouri.
"Indianapolis" and "Louisville" both show up in Illinois at the 55/64/70 interchange, but then you lose Tulsa, as Illinois doesn't post I-44 trailblazers or controls.
I've been looking around my home state for a while, and I've found one qualifier: the US-61/US-151/WI-11/WI-35 interchange near the WI/IL/IA tripoint. It has Hazel Green WI for WI-11 east, Dickeyville WI for US-61/151 north, East Dubuque IL for WI-35 south, and Dubuque IA for US-61/151 south. No Interstates, no freeway to freeway, and in a rural area, but it works.
I-35 & I-90 in Albert Lea:
Minnesota (Minneapolis)
Iowa (Des Moines)
South Dakota (Sioux Falls)
Wisconsin (La Crosse)
Chris
Either I-15/80 interchange in Salt Lake City works currently:
-Utah: Salt Lake or Ogden (I-15 north)
-Nevada: Las Vegas (I-15 south), Reno (I-80 west)
-Wyoming: Cheyenne (I-80 east)
Historically, Ogden was dual signed with Pocatello or Boise in the Salt Lake City area, so the downtown interchange at one time had four different states represented. Here's a photo from CountyLemonade (believe he's CL on this forum) (https://flic.kr/p/9uvm5Q) from when that was the case.
Additionally, the ancestor of today's Spaghetti Bowl (15/80/201) once used Los Angeles as a southbound dual control with Provo, and I think Denver may have been dual signed with Cheyenne early on as well...so at one time there may have been as many as 6 states represented there.
There's also the I-20/75/85 interchange in Atlanta, which has four states represented:
-Alabama: Birmingham (20 W), Montgomery (85 S)
-Georgia: Macon (75 S), Augusta (20 E)
-South Carolina: Greenville (85 N)
-Tennessee: Chattanooga (75 N)
The northwest 75/285 interchange has all those except it substitutes Macon with Atlanta...and in some cases Tampa FL, making that a 5-state interchange.
The I-80/90/94/US 6/IN 51 interchange has:
Lake Station, IN
Detroit, MI
Chicago, IL
Des Moines, IA
Ohio
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 05, 2021, 10:25:42 AM
The I-80/90/94/US 6/IN 51 interchange has:
Lake Station, IN
Detroit, MI
Chicago, IL
Des Moines, IA
Ohio
Love how it’s just “Ohio” for the last one while the rest are cities :rofl: Does it hurt to sign Toledo instead, Ohio can mean Cincinnati too for all we know, and the turnpike doesn’t go anywhere near Cincy. I find Indiana’s control city choices to be pretty good in general, and then there’s the turnpike...
I actually think the use of states versus cities on the Chicago area BGSs makes a lot of sense. It gives you the general direction in which you are heading.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 05, 2021, 11:41:56 AM
I actually think the use of states versus cities on the Chicago area BGSs makes a lot of sense. It gives you the general direction in which you are heading.
Very true! Especially on 94, where East = South
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 05, 2021, 11:26:50 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 05, 2021, 10:25:42 AM
The I-80/90/94/US 6/IN 51 interchange has:
Lake Station, IN
Detroit, MI
Chicago, IL
Des Moines, IA
Ohio
Love how it's just "Ohio" for the last one while the rest are cities :rofl: Does it hurt to sign Toledo instead, Ohio can mean Cincinnati too for all we know, and the turnpike doesn't go anywhere near Cincy. I find Indiana's control city choices to be pretty good in general, and then there's the turnpike...
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 05, 2021, 11:41:56 AM
I actually think the use of states versus cities on the Chicago area BGSs makes a lot of sense. It gives you the general direction in which you are heading.
I don't know. That's pretty far from Chicago proper. Also:
Hey, doesn't US-6 also go to Ohio? (https://goo.gl/maps/zCmi36QpcGKrRfQQ7)
I like the use of states in situations where there's no clear "next destination" for travelers within a reasonable range. For example, I agree with IDOT signing "Indiana" in Chicago, because there aren't really any other real options. South Bend? Nobody cares, other than Notre Dame students. Toledo? Too small considering the distance from Chicago. However, I don't agree with IDOT signing "Wisconsin" for I-90 and I-94 WB. I would do "Milwaukee" for I-94 and "Rockford" for I-90.
Quote from: thspfc on February 05, 2021, 11:53:35 AM
I like the use of states in situations where there's no clear "next destination" for travelers within a reasonable range. For example, I agree with IDOT signing "Indiana" in Chicago, because there aren't really any other real options. South Bend? Nobody cares, other than Notre Dame students. Toledo? Too small considering the distance from Chicago. However, I don't agree with IDOT signing "Wisconsin" for I-90 and I-94 WB. I would do "Milwaukee" for I-94 and "Rockford" for I-90.
I think "Indiana" is fine for Chicago, as there's multiple routes going towards the same area in Indiana, not really any large cities in IN, and Toledo isn't large enough to skip a state over. Also there's the connection to I-65 on both interstates right after crossing into IN, a lot of vehicles would turn south there and head towards Indianapolis and other parts of the state. But for Wisconsin, agree that Rockford and Milwaukee are better options. There's signage for "Iowa" on I-80 in IL too; any of the Quad Cities or Des Moines would be better there.
But Ohio at the Lake Station interchange is a stretch imo.
Nah. The population of metro Des Moines is barely bigger than that of metro Toledo, and Des Moines is 90 miles farther away from Chicago than Toledo is.
They should use Toledo.
The problem is that Toledo means nothing to most drivers in the Chicago area. If you're going to use Toledo, you might as well use Cleveland: it's much bigger, not much farther away, and a vastly higher percentage of people would know where it is (or at least be able to associate it with a general direction of travel).
Quote from: webny99 on February 05, 2021, 12:41:55 PM
The problem is that Toledo means nothing to most drivers in the Chicago area. If you're going to use Toledo, you might as well use Cleveland: it's much bigger, not much farther away, and a vastly higher percentage of people would know where it is (or at least be able to associate it with a general direction of travel).
I'm good with that.
Des Moines → Chicago and
Chicago → Cleveland are approximately the same distance, too. Better yet, just use both: Toledo/Cleveland.
I generally disagree with using entire states as control points, the routes taken to get to different parts of the same state can be very different.
Control cities should generally be known cities that much of the long-distance traffic on the route is headed for. That means, for I-90/94 east (south) in Chicago, I would attempt to determine whether most of that traffic is eventually going to I-55 (St Louis), I-57 (Memphis), I-65 (Indianapolis), I-80/90 (Cleveland), or I-94 (Detroit), and use that city. Without known traffic counts I would probably use Cleveland and Detroit as the next major destinations along the routes I-90 and I-94 themselves. The other directions are less controversial - I-94 use Milwaukee, I-90 use Madison, I-88 and I-80 use Davenport, etc.
Quote from: ran4sh on February 05, 2021, 02:20:48 PM
I generally disagree with using entire states as control points, the routes taken to get to different parts of the same state can be very different.
Control cities should generally be known cities that much of the long-distance traffic on the route is headed for. That means, for I-90/94 east (south) in Chicago, I would attempt to determine whether most of that traffic is eventually going to I-55 (St Louis), I-57 (Memphis), I-65 (Indianapolis), I-80/90 (Cleveland), or I-94 (Detroit), and use that city. Without known traffic counts I would probably use Cleveland and Detroit as the next major destinations along the routes I-90 and I-94 themselves. The other directions are less controversial - I-94 use Milwaukee, I-90 use Madison, I-88 and I-80 use Davenport, etc.
I would argue that the large amounts of variance in traffic flows and destinations is the very reason why a broad control destination makes sense. So I would continue to sign "Indiana" for I-90/94 east. I would sign Rockford instead of Madison for I-90, as Rockford is much closer, within Illinois, and not a ton smaller. I would sign Des Moines instead of the Quad Cities for I-88 and I-80 west, as Des Moines is much larger and the state capital.
In my opinion, the more specific the information, the better. That's why I think there's almost always a better option than using a state name.
In the case of "Indiana" for I-90/I-94, I would question what value that has for the average driver. All or almost all of them know that the road goes to Indiana. The more valuable information is where in Indiana does this route go, or where does it go beyond Indiana; specifically, what are the major destinations or waypoints. This road goes to Indiana is simply too vague; there are many roads that go to many different parts of Indiana. Part of the point of the control city is to make it specific to where the road itself goes (as opposed to where you might be going if you find yourself on this road) to provide the most concise information possible.
Admittedly, finding the right balance is tricky. I'd consider using Gary first (since it's the confluence of I-65, I-90, and I-94), and then start using Cleveland for I-90 once you get beyond I-65.
For I-80/94 EB, I'd use Hammond/Gary. For I-80/94 WB, I'd use Joliet, and I'd also probably thrown in a 'TO I=294'. For I-80/90 EB, I'd use South Bend.
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 05, 2021, 10:25:25 PM
For I-80/94 WB, I'd use Joliet, and I'd also probably thrown in a 'TO I=294'.
Maybe sign Joliet along with Chicago? A lot of drivers on I-65 heading to Chicago use I-80/94 WB as part of their route.
Quote from: thspfc on February 05, 2021, 08:57:06 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on February 05, 2021, 02:20:48 PM
I generally disagree with using entire states as control points, the routes taken to get to different parts of the same state can be very different.
I would argue that the large amounts of variance in traffic flows and destinations is the very reason why a broad control destination makes sense.
You're either referring to: (1) the Chicago region only, which, why should one part of the country go against what's normal nationally, especially when that city is in the middle of the country; or (2) a general idea that a state can be an appropriate control city. Which it can't, because, for example, even as far south as Georgia, the route to Buffalo NY and New York City NY are very different, and similarly for the other direction too - from as far north as New York, the route to the GA suburbs of Chattanooga, and to Savannah GA, are very different.
Either way I'm not convinced that an entire state can be an appropriate control point.
Quote from: ran4sh on February 06, 2021, 10:36:01 AM
Quote from: thspfc on February 05, 2021, 08:57:06 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on February 05, 2021, 02:20:48 PM
I generally disagree with using entire states as control points, the routes taken to get to different parts of the same state can be very different.
I would argue that the large amounts of variance in traffic flows and destinations is the very reason why a broad control destination makes sense.
You're either referring to: (1) the Chicago region only, which, why should one part of the country go against what's normal nationally, especially when that city is in the middle of the country; or (2) a general idea that a state can be an appropriate control city. Which it can't, because, for example, even as far south as Georgia, the route to Buffalo NY and New York City NY are very different, and similarly for the other direction too - from as far north as New York, the route to the GA suburbs of Chattanooga, and to Savannah GA, are very different.
Either way I'm not convinced that an entire state can be an appropriate control point.
In New York City, New Jersey is used due to many bedroom communities lie along different routes from the many crossings,
Though living in NJ for 25 years I felt kind of insulted that NYSDOT and NYCDOT don't recognize that we do have individual cities of interest too.
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 05, 2021, 10:25:25 PM
For I-80/94 EB, I'd use Hammond/Gary. For I-80/94 WB, I'd use Joliet, and I'd also probably thrown in a 'TO I=294'. For I-80/90 EB, I'd use South Bend.
There are so many options for 80/94 EB and none of them fit perfectly: Gary, South Bend, Grand Rapids, Detroit, Toledo, and Cleveland. AFAIK, all except Cleveland do mention Chicago in the opposite direction.
Gary was used in Joliet for I-80 EB in 1987. I thought Toledo was only on the signs at I-57 as Gary and Moline-Rock Island were the local ramps then.
Quote from: ftballfan on February 06, 2021, 11:37:43 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 05, 2021, 10:25:25 PM
For I-80/94 EB, I'd use Hammond/Gary. For I-80/94 WB, I'd use Joliet, and I'd also probably thrown in a 'TO I=294'. For I-80/90 EB, I'd use South Bend.
There are so many options for 80/94 EB and none of them fit perfectly: Gary, South Bend, Grand Rapids, Detroit, Toledo, and Cleveland. AFAIK, all except Cleveland do mention Chicago in the opposite direction.
Gary is a dying pit of rubble that some might still consider a city. South Bend is too small and not significant enough. No idea why Grand Rapids is mentioned, it would make no sense. Detroit is getting somewhere but again, the vast majority of travelers are not going there. Toledo is pretty small and far away. Cleveland is too specific as many travelers will transition to I-80 or I-76 before Cleveland. Somebody brought up the Buffalo vs NYC comparison, which is irrelavant because unless you're going to a tiny cornfield town in a small area of Indiana, you're going to take I-90 or 94 into the state.
Quote from: thspfc on February 06, 2021, 12:59:01 PM
Toledo is pretty small and far away.
2010 Census:
Toledo Population - 287,208
Madison Population - 233,209
Toledo Metro Area Population - 651,419
Madison Metro Area Population - 605,435
::shrug::
Chris
Quote from: jayhawkco on February 06, 2021, 01:10:40 PM
Quote from: thspfc on February 06, 2021, 12:59:01 PM
Toledo is pretty small and far away.
2010 Census:
Toledo Population - 287,208
Madison Population - 233,209
Toledo Metro Area Population - 651,419
Madison Metro Area Population - 605,435
::shrug::
Chris
Madison is significantly closer than Toledo.
Quote from: 1 on February 06, 2021, 01:12:23 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on February 06, 2021, 01:10:40 PM
Quote from: thspfc on February 06, 2021, 12:59:01 PM
Toledo is pretty small and far away.
2010 Census:
Toledo Population - 287,208
Madison Population - 233,209
Toledo Metro Area Population - 651,419
Madison Metro Area Population - 605,435
::shrug::
Chris
Madison is significantly closer than Toledo.
I mean, I understand that. I just think there's a certain idea out there that Toledo is a small town. It's not. From Chicago, I personally would use South Bend. Not as big as Toledo, but it's closer and the metro area is still 300K+ people.
Chris
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 05, 2021, 02:04:01 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 04, 2021, 08:28:51 PM
I-44/55/64 interchange:
- Oklahoma (Tulsa, I-44 W)
- Tennessee (Memphis, I-55 S)
- Illinois (Chicago, I-55 N)
- Missouri (Kansas City, I-44 E to I-70 W)
- Indiana (Indianapolis, to I-70 E)
- Kentucky (Louisville, I-64 E)
In an ideal world, but I-64 E and I-70 E are both just signed as "Illinois" in Missouri.
Kingshighway at US 40 (https://goo.gl/maps/2SUosKcVPU7k6ypF8)
On the eastern double deck section of US 40 (https://goo.gl/maps/r3iDJtvRmC4afQfSA)
I-70 EB at I-44 (https://goo.gl/maps/nwoAmanD8B8fwpZt8)
Quote from: roadman65 on February 06, 2021, 12:27:23 PM
Gary was used in Joliet for I-80 EB in 1987. I thought Toledo was only on the signs at I-57 as Gary and Moline-Rock Island were the local ramps then.
I recall Des Moines and Toledo being used for I-80 on I-55.
Given the use of Rockford, I don't see why using South Bend would be an issue.
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 06, 2021, 01:18:33 PM
Given the use of Rockford, I don't see why using South Bend would be an issue.
Agreed.
2010 Census:
Rockford Metro Area - 349,431
South Bend Metro Area - 319,224
Not that far off.
If these cities are too small to be control cities, then from Denver, you get:
I-25 North - Does not exist
I-25 South - Colorado Springs
I-70 West - Does not exist
I-70 East - Kansas City
I-76 East - Does not exist
Chris
Quote from: jayhawkco on February 06, 2021, 01:26:42 PM
If these cities are too small to be control cities, then from Denver, you get:
I-25 North - Does not exist
Salt Lake City [via I-80], or Seattle [via I-90]
Quote from: jayhawkco on February 06, 2021, 01:26:42 PM
I-70 West - Does not exist
Las Vegas
Quote from: jayhawkco on February 06, 2021, 01:26:42 PM
I-76 East - Does not exist
Minneapolis or Chicago
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 05, 2021, 10:34:11 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 05, 2021, 10:25:25 PM
For I-80/94 WB, I'd use Joliet, and I'd also probably thrown in a 'TO I=294'.
Maybe sign Joliet along with Chicago? A lot of drivers on I-65 heading to Chicago use I-80/94 WB as part of their route.
This. I-65 north from Indianapolis uses Chicago, so at the end of I-65 there should be a posted route to Chicago. Control cities are supposed to be used all the way to the indicated city.
Quote from: ran4sh on February 06, 2021, 01:46:34 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on February 06, 2021, 01:26:42 PM
If these cities are too small to be control cities, then from Denver, you get:
I-25 North - Does not exist
Salt Lake City [via I-80], or Seattle [via I-90]
Quote from: jayhawkco on February 06, 2021, 01:26:42 PM
I-70 West - Does not exist
Las Vegas
Quote from: jayhawkco on February 06, 2021, 01:26:42 PM
I-76 East - Does not exist
Minneapolis or Chicago
Verrrrry optimistic. I mean, we debate the merits of Memphis from Chicago. Denver to Seattle is 20 hours of driving.
Chris
In general, I am not a fan of using control cities beyond the end of the route. I-76 East from Denver might be an exception, though.
You could make a case for any of Ogallala, North Platte, Lincoln, or Omaha.
Quote from: thspfc on February 06, 2021, 12:59:01 PM
Gary is a dying pit of rubble that some might still consider a city.
That it may be, but the reason it would be used as a control city isn't because it's a destination: It's because it's the confluence of I-65, I-80, I-90, and I-94. One thing almost all traffic heading east out of Chicago has in common is that they're heading towards Gary. Then from there, they'll split in many directions, at which point different controls can be used. But between Chicago and Gary, I think Gary is as good as you're going to get. It's specific to the route you're on, it's close enough to be relevant, and it's applicable to almost everyone on the road.
Beyond Gary, I'd use Indy for I-65, Cleveland for I-80/I-90, and Detroit for I-94.
Quote from: thspfc on February 05, 2021, 11:53:35 AM
For example, I agree with IDOT signing "Indiana" in Chicago, because there aren't really any other real options. South Bend? Nobody cares, other than Notre Dame students the Secretary of Transportation.
FTFY :P
Quote from: webny99 on February 06, 2021, 06:22:29 PM
In general, I am not a fan of using control cities beyond the end of the route. I-76 East from Denver might be an exception, though.
You could make a case for any of Ogallala, North Platte, Lincoln, or Omaha.
How about Boston from Hartford on I-84 or Providence for I-384? The former doesn't come within 50 miles but is freeway connected (via the Mass Pike), while the latter doesn't come within 80 miles, is not freeway connected, and isn't even the best route.
OK back to Chicago area. I 355 once used Suburbs for control cities because it passes through so many they all would have demanded their name.
IDOT must have thought the same and went with states. The tollway was first 88 mileage signs outside the built up area says Dekalb and Iowa.
And yes 80 was Des Moines and Toledo. Joliet was used inn the Quad Cities Now it's Chicago. I assume Rockford because both 90 and 94 and up in Wisconsin they highlight the Illinois destination. Then there is the whole Quad Cities naming and numbering mess.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 06, 2021, 06:42:49 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 06, 2021, 06:22:29 PM
In general, I am not a fan of using control cities beyond the end of the route. I-76 East from Denver might be an exception, though.
...
How about Boston from Hartford on I-84 or Providence for I-384? The former doesn't come within 50 miles but is freeway connected (via the Mass Pike), while the latter doesn't come within 80 miles, is not freeway connected, and isn't even the best route.
Boston for I-84, sure. It is effectively going to Boston since I-84 ends at I-90.
Providence for I-384 is a bit more complicated. It makes sense in theory, and I'm OK with the transfer to US 6, but my issue would be that it's not the fastest route (CT 74/US 44/CT 101 is presumably the route most people would use). There's not much point in signing Providence as the control city unless it's the route most people, including locals, would know and use. My pie-in-the-sky solution would be to make spot improvements on US 6 to shave a few minutes off (and thus becoming the fastest route), and then sign it as "I-384
TO US 6 / Providence"
Quote from: thspfc on February 05, 2021, 11:53:35 AM
I like the use of states in situations where there's no clear "next destination" for travelers within a reasonable range. For example, I agree with IDOT signing "Indiana" in Chicago, because there aren't really any other real options. South Bend? Nobody cares, other than Notre Dame students. Toledo? Too small considering the distance from Chicago. However, I don't agree with IDOT signing "Wisconsin" for I-90 and I-94 WB. I would do "Milwaukee" for I-94 and "Rockford" for I-90.
At the Edens Junction, IDOT does use Milwaukee and Rockford/O'Hare. The first mention of any of that is where the reversible express lanes have an exit to the locals before Addison St. I actually find it more amazing that neither O'Hare or Midway are mentioned either at the Byrne Circle or the Ohio St Feeder onto 90/94.
Quote from: kphoger on February 05, 2021, 12:33:21 PM
Nah. The population of metro Des Moines is barely bigger than that of metro Toledo, and Des Moines is 90 miles farther away from Chicago than Toledo is.
They should use Toledo.
I-80 used to use Toledo EB beginning at I-55. https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billburmaster.com%2Frmsandw%2Fillinois%2Finterstate%2F80.html&psig=AOvVaw25pBlvyxLKOYlcMyDn96CK&ust=1612762042125000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCOikivqE1-4CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD
And Des Moines WB used to be used. Now it's just Indiana and Iowa.
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billburmaster.com%2Frmsandw%2Fillinois%2Fimages%2Fnb55at80_082606b.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billburmaster.com%2Frmsandw%2Fillinois%2Finterstate%2F55.html&tbnid=ra5jkhyx1ecGaM&vet=12ahUKEwjSoYmKhdfuAhUKTa0KHT7HBd4QMygMegUIARCOAQ..i&docid=OFFEWLiuq4VuIM&w=521&h=342&q=I-80%20des%20moines%20joliet%20signs&ved=2ahUKEwjSoYmKhdfuAhUKTa0KHT7HBd4QMygMegUIARCOAQ
Quote from: jayhawkco on February 06, 2021, 01:26:42 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 06, 2021, 01:18:33 PM
Given the use of Rockford, I don't see why using South Bend would be an issue.
Agreed.
2010 Census:
Rockford Metro Area - 349,431
South Bend Metro Area - 319,224
Not that far off.
If these cities are too small to be control cities, then from Denver, you get:
I-25 North - Does not exist
I-25 South - Colorado Springs
I-70 West - Does not exist
I-70 East - Kansas City
I-76 East - Does not exist
Chris
Chris has no clue what in heck he's talking about. Madison's metro is bigger than Toledo by over 20k per the 2019 estimate. And Madison is also growing by nearly 10% while Toledo is shrinking. Again, it's not that they're too small. Stop acting like this is a one-size-fits-all thing. Travelers on I-90 and I-94 don't care about South Bend. Some probably don't even know where it is. Comparisons to Rockford are not relevant because Rockford is within Illinois and is a well-known, relevant city within that metro area. As for Madison and Toledo, Madison is:
- Closer
- A state capital
So what's the issue?
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 05, 2021, 10:25:42 AM
The I-80/90/94/US 6/IN 51 interchange has:
Lake Station, IN
Detroit, MI
Chicago, IL
Des Moines, IA
Ohio
What gets me is that it's signed as Des Moines skipping over an entire state and several other cities that come well before Des Moines such as any of the Joliet, any of the Quad Cities, even Iowa City. I'm surprised it doesn't just say Iowa.
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 05, 2021, 11:26:50 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 05, 2021, 10:25:42 AM
The I-80/90/94/US 6/IN 51 interchange has:
Lake Station, IN
Detroit, MI
Chicago, IL
Des Moines, IA
Ohio
Love how it's just "Ohio" for the last one while the rest are cities :rofl: Does it hurt to sign Toledo instead, Ohio can mean Cincinnati too for all we know, and the turnpike doesn't go anywhere near Cincy. I find Indiana's control city choices to be pretty good in general, and then there's the turnpike...
It should be South Bend but they mean it's just going in the direction of Ohio basically.
I-94 and I-96 in Detroit has the following:
WB I-96: Lansing
EB I-96: Canada
WB I-94: Chicago
EB I-94: Port Huron
Quote from: thspfc on February 07, 2021, 09:08:45 AM
Chris has no clue what in heck he’s talking about. Madison’s metro is bigger than Toledo by over 20k per the 2019 estimate. And Madison is also growing by nearly 10% while Toledo is shrinking. Again, it’s not that they’re too small. Stop acting like this is a one-size-fits-all thing. Travelers on I-90 and I-94 don’t care about South Bend. Some probably don’t even know where it is. Comparisons to Rockford are not relevant because Rockford is within Illinois and is a well-known, relevant city within that metro area. As for Madison and Toledo, Madison is:
- Closer
- A state capital
So what’s the issue?
I think you and I just have different definitions of what a control city is. In my opinion, a control city is the next reasonably major destination when following a highway. There are plenty of towns that are control cities that no one cares about, but nonetheless, they are the next semi-major stop on the highway. If I get on I-70 east from my house, do I care about Limon? Of course not. I'm probably heading back to KC to visit friends and family. But that doesn't mean that Limon, Hays, Salina, and Topeka shouldn't be control cities along the way.
I just don't like the use of states as control cities because it defies the convention. You obviously want people to know generally where those places are so they know which direction to go. I think most Chicagoans know that South Bend is in Indiana and that Indiana is east of Chicago, which fulfills the point of having a control city in the first place. People that don't know that South Bend in an hour and a half away probably also don't know that Rockford is an hour and a half away. I would also argue strongly that nationally, South Bend is far more well known than Rockford.
What I find strange about your opinion, is that you argue for proximity in the Madison vs. Toledo example that I brought up (since they're close enough to the same size), but then dismiss it when comparing Rockford and South Bend (which are also close enough to the same size). I think consistency (hence my dislike for using states) matters.
Either way, COYS.
Chris
Quote from: jayhawkco on February 07, 2021, 11:22:05 AM
Quote from: thspfc on February 07, 2021, 09:08:45 AM
Chris has no clue what in heck he's talking about. Madison's metro is bigger than Toledo by over 20k per the 2019 estimate. And Madison is also growing by nearly 10% while Toledo is shrinking. Again, it's not that they're too small. Stop acting like this is a one-size-fits-all thing. Travelers on I-90 and I-94 don't care about South Bend. Some probably don't even know where it is. Comparisons to Rockford are not relevant because Rockford is within Illinois and is a well-known, relevant city within that metro area. As for Madison and Toledo, Madison is:
- Closer
- A state capital
So what's the issue?
I think you and I just have different definitions of what a control city is. In my opinion, a control city is the next reasonably major destination when following a highway. There are plenty of towns that are control cities that no one cares about, but nonetheless, they are the next semi-major stop on the highway. If I get on I-70 east from my house, do I care about Limon? Of course not. I'm probably heading back to KC to visit friends and family. But that doesn't mean that Limon, Hays, Salina, and Topeka shouldn't be control cities along the way.
I just don't like the use of states as control cities because it defies the convention. You obviously want people to know generally where those places are so they know which direction to go. I think most Chicagoans know that South Bend is in Indiana and that Indiana is east of Chicago, which fulfills the point of having a control city in the first place. People that don't know that South Bend in an hour and a half away probably also don't know that Rockford is an hour and a half away. I would also argue strongly that nationally, South Bend is far more well known than Rockford.
What I find strange about your opinion, is that you argue for proximity in the Madison vs. Toledo example that I brought up (since they're close enough to the same size), but then dismiss it when comparing Rockford and South Bend (which are also close enough to the same size). I think consistency (hence my dislike for using states) matters.
Either way, COYS.
Chris
I guess we do have different ideas of what control cities should be. To me, it's a very dynamic concept that takes into account the type of highway and traffic patterns on that highway. A far-off, small town that 99% of travelers have no reason to stop in is not helpful on a major cross-country Interstate like I-90, 80, or 70. Once again going back to the "Indiana" debate: the biggest reason why "Indiana" is helpful for me is that while it's not a city, it is a well-known landmark or waypoint. When people are planning a road trip through many states, they look at major points (i.e. state borders or big cities, like Chicago). If I'm planning a trip between Madison and Cleveland, I look at Chicago as a significant point. I look at the state borders as significant points. South Bend not so much. And it's also relative to distance. Toledo is a fairly significant point, but it's too far from Chicago to be relevant to the
local traveler there. Indiana, therefore, is relevant to both the long distance and local traveler in the Chicago area. You need to find a balance between the two. Which is why it's a very slippery slope to make apples-to-apples comparisons.
One of the few cases I've seen where a control state makes sense is on I-70 in Grand Junction, where the westbound control point is "Utah" (https://goo.gl/maps/aJGe2YSFU9dvMFb9A).
Mostly because there aren't really any other good options. After leaving the Grand Junction area, the next settlement of note you'll come to is Green River, Utah...with a three-digit population. Richfield is a little bigger, but also has the disadvantage that over half of I-70's westbound traffic load exits onto US 6 just west of Green River. St George and Las Vegas are still bigger, but those still have the US 6 problem and also may confuse drivers heading to the Wasatch Front, where Vegas is the I-15 southbound control.
If you go back and look at historic street view, you'll notice it used to be Green River (https://goo.gl/maps/ZYUHC1jQ7NbZMrxv5). But seeing as Green River is not going to be anyone's destination, and I-70 is pretty much the only road from here to anywhere in Utah, a state name control point seems appropriate.
Quote from: US 89 on February 07, 2021, 02:31:16 PM
One of the few cases I've seen where a control state makes sense is on I-70 in Grand Junction, where the westbound control point is "Utah" (https://goo.gl/maps/aJGe2YSFU9dvMFb9A).
Mostly because there aren't really any other good options. After leaving the Grand Junction area, the next settlement of note you'll come to is Green River, Utah...with a three-digit population.
Yeah, I don't have a major problem with that one... although I would also be fine with Green River until US 6 and then either St. George or Las Vegas beyond there.
Quote from: thspfc on February 07, 2021, 02:16:01 PM
If I'm planning a trip between Madison and Cleveland, I look at Chicago as a significant point. I look at the state borders as significant points. South Bend not so much. And it's also relative to distance. Toledo is a fairly significant point, but it's too far from Chicago to be relevant to the local traveler there. Indiana, therefore, is relevant to both the long distance and local traveler in the Chicago area. You need to find a balance between the two. Which is why it's a very slippery slope to make apples-to-apples comparisons.
As for finding balance, what's wrong with my suggestion upthread (see below)? Just use Gary, since almost everyone is going that far, and then use the longer-distance controls once you get past Gary.
Quote from: webny99 on February 06, 2021, 06:33:35 PM
Quote from: thspfc on February 06, 2021, 12:59:01 PM
Gary is a dying pit of rubble that some might still consider a city.
That it may be, but the reason it would be used as a control city isn't because it's a destination: It's because it's the confluence of I-65, I-80, I-90, and I-94. One thing almost all traffic heading east out of Chicago has in common is that they're heading towards Gary. Then from there, they'll split in many directions, at which point different controls can be used. But between Chicago and Gary, I think Gary is as good as you're going to get. It's specific to the route you're on, it's close enough to be relevant, and it's applicable to almost everyone on the road.
Beyond Gary, I'd use Indy for I-65, Cleveland for I-80/I-90, and Detroit for I-94.
Quote from: webny99 on February 07, 2021, 03:03:43 PM
Quote from: US 89 on February 07, 2021, 02:31:16 PM
One of the few cases I've seen where a control state makes sense is on I-70 in Grand Junction, where the westbound control point is "Utah" (https://goo.gl/maps/aJGe2YSFU9dvMFb9A).
Mostly because there aren't really any other good options. After leaving the Grand Junction area, the next settlement of note you'll come to is Green River, Utah...with a three-digit population.
Yeah, I don't have a major problem with that one... although I would also be fine with Green River until US 6 and then either St. George or Las Vegas beyond there.
Las Vegas on WB I-70 is one of the post terminus control cities that I like. SB I-15 past I-70’s terminus in a way act as a continuation of the I-70 corridor to Vegas and SoCal, so it makes sense. Others include Los Angeles on WB I-40 and El Paso on WB I-20.
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 07, 2021, 04:42:00 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 07, 2021, 03:03:43 PM
Quote from: US 89 on February 07, 2021, 02:31:16 PM
One of the few cases I've seen where a control state makes sense is on I-70 in Grand Junction, where the westbound control point is "Utah" (https://goo.gl/maps/aJGe2YSFU9dvMFb9A).
Mostly because there aren't really any other good options. After leaving the Grand Junction area, the next settlement of note you'll come to is Green River, Utah...with a three-digit population.
Yeah, I don't have a major problem with that one... although I would also be fine with Green River until US 6 and then either St. George or Las Vegas beyond there.
Las Vegas on WB I-70 is one of the post terminus control cities that I like. SB I-15 past I-70's terminus in a way act as a continuation of the I-70 corridor to Vegas and SoCal, so it makes sense. Others include Los Angeles on WB I-40 and El Paso on WB I-20.
I personally like the usage of Utah. Westbound I-70 traffic is pretty evenly split between continuing to Vegas on I-15 and exiting at US-6 to go to SLC. Using Green River would be ridiculous, it's way too small for a cross-country Interstate. We on this forum are very familiar with the country compared to most other Americans, so it should be telling that the only reason we ever think about Green River is the I-70/US-6 junction. It's just too insignificant. So I would sign Utah. I would tolerate Vegas and maybe even SLC, but Green River would be laughable.
Quote from: thspfc on February 07, 2021, 02:16:01 PM
I guess we do have different ideas of what control cities should be. To me, it's a very dynamic concept that takes into account the type of highway and traffic patterns on that highway. A far-off, small town that 99% of travelers have no reason to stop in is not helpful on a major cross-country Interstate like I-90, 80, or 70. Once again going back to the "Indiana" debate: the biggest reason why "Indiana" is helpful for me is that while it's not a city, it is a well-known landmark or waypoint. When people are planning a road trip through many states, they look at major points (i.e. state borders or big cities, like Chicago). If I'm planning a trip between Madison and Cleveland, I look at Chicago as a significant point. I look at the state borders as significant points. South Bend not so much. And it's also relative to distance. Toledo is a fairly significant point, but it's too far from Chicago to be relevant to the local traveler there. Indiana, therefore, is relevant to both the long distance and local traveler in the Chicago area. You need to find a balance between the two. Which is why it's a very slippery slope to make apples-to-apples comparisons.
So, do you use the control cities as a shorthand for the direction, i.e. you look at "Indiana" before you look at the word "East"? I guess I grew up in Minnesota where the interstate junctions don't even use control cities, so maybe I'm more acclimated to just looking at it differently. Same goes for when I'm in a new state that I'm not that familiar with. I-76 West to Lodi doesn't do too much for me, but I don't need it if I know I'm heading west.
Chris
Quote from: thspfc on February 07, 2021, 02:16:01 PM
I guess we do have different ideas of what control cities should be. To me, it's a very dynamic concept that takes into account the type of highway and traffic patterns on that highway. A far-off, small town that 99% of travelers have no reason to stop in is not helpful on a major cross-country Interstate like I-90, 80, or 70. Once again going back to the "Indiana" debate: the biggest reason why "Indiana" is helpful for me is that while it's not a city, it is a well-known landmark or waypoint. When people are planning a road trip through many states, they look at major points (i.e. state borders or big cities, like Chicago). If I'm planning a trip between Madison and Cleveland, I look at Chicago as a significant point. I look at the state borders as significant points. South Bend not so much. And it's also relative to distance. Toledo is a fairly significant point, but it's too far from Chicago to be relevant to the local traveler there. Indiana, therefore, is relevant to both the long distance and local traveler in the Chicago area. You need to find a balance between the two. Which is why it's a very slippery slope to make apples-to-apples comparisons.
Focusing on the "local traveler" points. The MUTCD disagrees with you, it actually specifies that the signage is more important for non-local travelers. See, in the 2009 edition, 2E.02 paragraph 1:
The development of a signing system for freeways and expressways is approached on the premise that the signing is primarily for the benefit and direction of road users who are not familiar with the route or area.For local travelers, they can follow route numbers instead of expecting the destinations on Interstate signs to cater to them.
You can put me in the camp of people who are fine with state names as big green sign destinations.
When I navigate, at least, I focus on route numbers and directions, with the destination as a back-up or confirmation, that is, a way of verifying that I didn't confuse north with south and east with west, as happens to me every now and again. From that perspective, then, the destination doesn't have to be all that specific. So, if I'm coming up on an interchange with I-90/94, and I want to go west, but I find myself under the sign that says "Indiana," I can say to myself, "Wait a minute, I didn't want to that way." It's not so much, then, that that Indiana is vague or imprecise or that there are other roads that go to the same place, but rather that, at the decision point, Indiana and Wisconsin are stark opposites navigationwise.
The same thing goes with the minor destinations that get put forth as control cities. In my view, smaller cities are pretty much useless for wayfinding since I don't really know where they are (there are admittedly exceptions, mostly in the west), and larger cities, even if distant, are better then in that respect. For that reason, I think that the use of Los Angeles on I-40 West in New Mexico, for example, is a good way to sign things.
I recognize that this isn't how the MUTCD looks at things, but perhaps that should be reconsidered.
There's nothing in the MUTCD that would say that Los Angeles is not a valid control city for I-40 west (in AZ and maybe NM). I agree with that point.
When I'm traveling and looking for an exit I'm focusing on the exit number not the route or the control city.
The I-30/I-49 interchange in Texarkana has these control cities:
I-30 West: Dallas
I-30 East: Hope, Little Rock
I-49 North: Ashdown, Fort Smith
I-49 South: Houston, Shreveport
So, 3 states. Not that much, but probably the best you'd get with Texas in the name. On a related note, I really like the use of control cities at that interchange. The main sign at the gore uses primary control cities, but on the C/D lanes they use smaller controls plus the large ones. That, IMO, should be the universal standard.
Quote from: thspfc on February 07, 2021, 04:53:42 PM
I would tolerate Vegas and maybe even SLC, but Green River would be laughable.
The point of using Green River would not be because it's a major destination. It's because it's where traffic bound for SLC would turn off. Therefore, Green River is the last common point for the majority of traffic on I-70. Using a control city that is further away could confuse motorists heading in a different direction.
Quote from: webny99 on February 07, 2021, 09:46:53 PM
Quote from: thspfc on February 07, 2021, 04:53:42 PM
I would tolerate Vegas and maybe even SLC, but Green River would be laughable.
The point of using Green River would not be because it's a major destination. It's because it's where traffic bound for SLC would turn off. Therefore, Green River is the last common point for the majority of traffic on I-70. Using a control city that is further away could confuse motorists heading in a different direction.
I see Green River and think Wyoming, not Utah.
Control cities are supposed to be where traffic is going, not merely turn-off points. So assuming the above is true about the majority of I-70 West traffic exiting to use US 6 to Salt Lake City, then the appropriate control city for I-70 leading up to that junction is Salt Lake City rather than Green River.
Why are there so many roadgeeks who think that there is a rule that a route has to actually reach its control city? That rule is absolute non-sense, and would prohibit logical control cities for beltways, for example.
It is a highway system and not merely a collection of different routes.
Quote from: ran4sh on February 07, 2021, 09:55:23 PM
Why are there so many roadgeeks who think that there is a rule that a route has to actually reach its control city? That rule is absolute non-sense, and would prohibit logical control cities for beltways, for example.
Generally I am OK with a route not reaching its control city in the following circumstances:
(1) If the route ends before it reaches that city.
(2) If a 3di route, such as a beltway, reaches its parent before it reaches that city.
The issue with using Salt Lake City for I-70 is that I-70 doesn't even come near SLC, but instead continues to other places that are beyond the logical route to SLC. That has the potential to create confusion. It would be better to use St. George or Las Vegas - both beyond the end of I-70 - instead.
Quote from: webny99 on February 07, 2021, 10:22:08 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on February 07, 2021, 09:55:23 PM
Why are there so many roadgeeks who think that there is a rule that a route has to actually reach its control city? That rule is absolute non-sense, and would prohibit logical control cities for beltways, for example.
Generally I am OK with a route not reaching its control city in the following circumstances:
(1) If the route ends before it reaches that city.
(2) If a 3di route, such as a beltway, reaches its parent before it reaches that city.
The issue with using Salt Lake City for I-70 is that I-70 doesn't even come near SLC, but instead continues to other places that are beyond the logical route to SLC. That has the potential to create confusion. It would be better to use St. George or Las Vegas - both beyond the end of I-70 - instead.
Besides, if you were looking for the fastest route to SLC from Denver, you would be exiting off on US 6 in Green River. Vegas would be a better control city.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on February 07, 2021, 06:28:55 PM
You can put me in the camp of people who are fine with state names as big green sign destinations.
When I navigate, at least, I focus on route numbers and directions, with the destination as a back-up or confirmation, that is, a way of verifying that I didn't confuse north with south and east with west, as happens to me every now and again. From that perspective, then, the destination doesn't have to be all that specific. So, if I'm coming up on an interchange with I-90/94, and I want to go west, but I find myself under the sign that says "Indiana," I can say to myself, "Wait a minute, I didn't want to that way." It's not so much, then, that that Indiana is vague or imprecise or that there are other roads that go to the same place, but rather that, at the decision point, Indiana and Wisconsin are stark opposites navigationwise.
The same thing goes with the minor destinations that get put forth as control cities. In my view, smaller cities are pretty much useless for wayfinding since I don't really know where they are (there are admittedly exceptions, mostly in the west), and larger cities, even if distant, are better then in that respect. For that reason, I think that the use of Los Angeles on I-40 West in New Mexico, for example, is a good way to sign things.
I recognize that this isn't how the MUTCD looks at things, but perhaps that should be reconsidered.
If you saw a BGS that said South Bend or Flagstaff though, wouldn't it also make you think "Wait a minute. I didn't want to go that way" too?
Chris
Quote from: webny99 on February 07, 2021, 09:46:53 PM
Quote from: thspfc on February 07, 2021, 04:53:42 PM
I would tolerate Vegas and maybe even SLC, but Green River would be laughable.
The point of using Green River would not be because it's a major destination. It's because it's where traffic bound for SLC would turn off. Therefore, Green River is the last common point for the majority of traffic on I-70. Using a control city that is further away could confuse motorists heading in a different direction.
Nobody cares about or knows the name of the tiny town where they exited I-70 in the middle of nowhere.
This forum has always had an odd attraction to off-the-wall tiny irrelavant control cities, like Green River UT or Fort Stockton TX. It makes zero sense.
Quote from: CoreySamson on February 07, 2021, 10:42:41 PM
Besides, if you were looking for the fastest route to SLC from Denver, you would be using I-25 to I-80. Vegas would be a better control city.
ftfy, at least for downtown to downtown. I-70/US 6/I-15 may be faster for Denver to some of the southern SLC suburbs or Provo.
Quote from: thspfc on February 07, 2021, 11:15:13 PM
This forum has always had an odd attraction to off-the-wall tiny irrelavant control cities, like Green River UT or Fort Stockton TX. It makes zero sense.
New Mexico is way worse than us at that :D
@ webny99, CoreySamson, etc
But no one is saying Salt Lake City is an appropriate control city for the section of I-70 west of US 6. In that type of situation the Salt Lake City signage would follow US 6 and I-70 would change to a different city such as Las Vegas.
Quote from: thspfc on February 07, 2021, 11:12:04 PM
Nobody cares about or knows the name of the tiny town where they exited I-70 in the middle of nowhere.
In this case that's not really true. While Green River is not big, it is very well known among the general public because it's the only town within a 50+ mile radius. Just about everyone in the Salt Lake area - even non-road enthusiasts - knows where it is, and most people have probably stopped there at one time or another for gas or food. Same deal as Limon, Colorado.
As far as the Grand Jct control signage goes, as far as I'm concerned you need to do one of 3 things. In order of preference, those are
1) Utah
2) Green River
3) dual sign Las Vegas and Salt Lake City
Quote from: ran4sh on February 08, 2021, 12:19:18 AM
@ webny99, CoreySamson, etc
But no one is saying Salt Lake City is an appropriate control city for the section of I-70 west of US 6. In that type of situation the Salt Lake City signage would follow US 6 and I-70 would change to a different city such as Las Vegas.
That is very true, good point.
Of course, for the specific example of I-70 leaving Denver to the west, Salt Lake City cannot be used because the best route would be I-25 north to I-80 west. Which means, if I-70 west from Denver is signed for Las Vegas, then Salt Lake City cannot even be used further on because control cities are supposed to remain signed until reaching the city. So the only reason to even have Salt Lake City on I-70 would be if the control city from Denver were an in-state city, and then it changed to Salt Lake once that in-state city is reached.
Quote from: webny99 on February 07, 2021, 10:22:08 PM
(2) If a 3di route, such as a beltway, reaches its parent before it reaches that city.
Then you'd hate the control cities for metro Detroit.
I-696 - Lansing (OK per your rule) and Port Huron (minor fail per your rule - I-696 ends at I-94 which you then take to Port Huron)
I-275 - Toledo (OK) and Flint (fails your rule - you have to use I-96 to US-23 before reaching I-75, when you are already to Flint)
If it's signed as Green River, it needs to be signed as Green River UT. It's an ambiguous city name in the area, and the one in southwestern Wyoming has a 5-digit population, not a 3-digit population.
Quote from: webny99 on February 05, 2021, 10:09:52 PM
In the case of "Indiana" for I-90/I-94, I would question what value that has for the average driver. All or almost all of them know that the road goes to Indiana. The more valuable information is where in Indiana does this route go, or where does it go beyond Indiana; specifically, what are the major destinations or waypoints. This road goes to Indiana is simply too vague; there are many roads that go to many different parts of Indiana. Part of the point of the control city is to make it specific to where the road itself goes (as opposed to where you might be going if you find yourself on this road) to provide the most concise information possible.
Admittedly, finding the right balance is tricky. I'd consider using Gary first (since it's the confluence of I-65, I-90, and I-94), and then start using Cleveland for I-90 once you get beyond I-65.
Quote from: webny99 on February 06, 2021, 06:33:35 PM
Quote from: thspfc on February 06, 2021, 12:59:01 PM
Gary is a dying pit of rubble that some might still consider a city.
That it may be, but the reason it would be used as a control city isn't because it's a destination: It's because it's the confluence of I-65, I-80, I-90, and I-94. One thing almost all traffic heading east out of Chicago has in common is that they're heading towards Gary. Then from there, they'll split in many directions, at which point different controls can be used. But between Chicago and Gary, I think Gary is as good as you're going to get. It's specific to the route you're on, it's close enough to be relevant, and it's applicable to almost everyone on the road.
Beyond Gary, I'd use Indy for I-65, Cleveland for I-80/I-90, and Detroit for I-94.
I agree with using Gary.
It may be a dying pit of rubble, but
everyone knows where it is. Everyone knows that, to get from Chicago to Indianapolis/Detroit/Toledo/Cleveland, or even just to pop over to the Indiana dunes or Notre Dame, you gotta go through Gary first.
If you want to add a second control city for the sake of faraway out-of-towners unfamiliar with Gary, then go with Toledo or Cleveland or whatever, but Gary should be on there first.
Quote from: ran4sh on February 08, 2021, 12:19:18 AM
@ webny99, CoreySamson, etc
But no one is saying Salt Lake City is an appropriate control city for the section of I-70 west of US 6. In that type of situation the Salt Lake City signage would follow US 6 and I-70 would change to a different city such as Las Vegas.
Yeah, I get that. I was referring only to the sections east of US 6.
Quote from: US 89 on February 08, 2021, 12:48:44 AM
As far as the Grand Jct control signage goes, as far as I'm concerned you need to do one of 3 things. In order of preference, those are
1) Utah
2) Green River
3) dual sign Las Vegas and Salt Lake City
I concur. The only thing I would note is that while you can make a decent case for using Utah between Grand Junction and the Utah line, what about once you get past the Utah line? Green River might end up being the best option between there and US 6 anyways, so it might be simpler to just use Green River the whole way.
Quote from: 1 on February 08, 2021, 07:53:11 AM
If it's signed as Green River, it needs to be signed as Green River UT. It's an ambiguous city name in the area, and the one in southwestern Wyoming has a 5-digit population, not a 3-digit population.
I have no problem with that.
I feel about Green River the same way I feel about Gary: everyone going that way knows where Green River, everyone going that way has to go through it to get where they're going, and a second control city could be added for faraway long-distance travelers unfamiliar with it.
Quote from: GaryV on February 08, 2021, 07:50:18 AM
Quote from: webny99 on February 07, 2021, 10:22:08 PM
(2) If a 3di route, such as a beltway, reaches its parent before it reaches that city.
Then you'd hate the control cities for metro Detroit.
I-696 - Lansing (OK per your rule) and Port Huron (minor fail per your rule - I-696 ends at I-94 which you then take to Port Huron)
I-275 - Toledo (OK) and Flint (fails your rule - you have to use I-96 to US-23 before reaching I-75, when you are already to Flint)
I kind of figured something like your Port Huron example would come up. I guess I would amend my rule to say that it's fine if it reaches
any 2di, not just its parent.
I do disagree with use of Flint on I-275. Flint makes sense in a world where I-275 is complete all the way to I-75, but sadly, that's not the world we live in. I'd probably use Novi for I-275 NB... or perhaps Lansing if you wanted to get really creative.
Quote from: kphoger on February 08, 2021, 11:32:09 AM
I feel about Green River the same way I feel about Gary: everyone going that way knows where Green River, everyone going that way has to go through it to get where they're going, and a second control city could be added for faraway long-distance travelers unfamiliar with it.
Do what NJ does now on I-195. Sign as I-70 WEST TO I-15 Las Vegasas NJ signs I-195 East to NJ 138/ Belmar.
Quote from: jayhawkco on February 07, 2021, 10:58:33 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on February 07, 2021, 06:28:55 PM
You can put me in the camp of people who are fine with state names as big green sign destinations.
When I navigate, at least, I focus on route numbers and directions, with the destination as a back-up or confirmation, that is, a way of verifying that I didn't confuse north with south and east with west, as happens to me every now and again. From that perspective, then, the destination doesn't have to be all that specific. So, if I'm coming up on an interchange with I-90/94, and I want to go west, but I find myself under the sign that says "Indiana," I can say to myself, "Wait a minute, I didn't want to that way." It's not so much, then, that that Indiana is vague or imprecise or that there are other roads that go to the same place, but rather that, at the decision point, Indiana and Wisconsin are stark opposites navigationwise.
The same thing goes with the minor destinations that get put forth as control cities. In my view, smaller cities are pretty much useless for wayfinding since I don't really know where they are (there are admittedly exceptions, mostly in the west), and larger cities, even if distant, are better then in that respect. For that reason, I think that the use of Los Angeles on I-40 West in New Mexico, for example, is a good way to sign things.
I recognize that this isn't how the MUTCD looks at things, but perhaps that should be reconsidered.
If you saw a BGS that said South Bend or Flagstaff though, wouldn't it also make you think "Wait a minute. I didn't want to go that way" too?
Chris
Flagstaff is an appropriate one to use because it's at a major interstate intersection. Same with Washington, Pa.; Cambridge, Ohio; Wytheville, Va.; Beckley, WV; and a number of others. It's interesting how some states use smaller ones and others don't -- in Wytheville's case, it's used on one of the intersecting routes (I-77) but not the other (I-81.)
Quote from: kphoger on February 08, 2021, 11:32:09 AM
I feel about Green River the same way I feel about Gary: everyone going that way knows where Green River, everyone going that way has to go through it to get where they're going, and a second control city could be added for faraway long-distance travelers unfamiliar with it.
I like this idea a lot. I think it should be the standard everywhere. For example, on I-69 north in Houston, I believe that the control city is Cleveland, TX., but it would make even more sense for long-distance travelers if Shreveport or Lufkin was put on the sign beneath Cleveland.
Quote from: jayhawkco on February 07, 2021, 10:58:33 PM
If you saw a BGS that said South Bend or Flagstaff though, wouldn't it also make you think "Wait a minute. I didn't want to go that way" too?
Chris
South Bend, maybe. Flagstaff, maybe not. Because I've spent a lot of time in the Chicago area, and less so in the Southwest. And, so I think that the best thing to do is to go with places that more people are likely to be familiar with, and if that means using larger cities or states, then so be it.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 08, 2021, 04:02:53 PM
Flagstaff is an appropriate one to use because it's at a major interstate intersection. Same with Washington, Pa.; Cambridge, Ohio; Wytheville, Va.; Beckley, WV; and a number of others. It's interesting how some states use smaller ones and others don't -- in Wytheville's case, it's used on one of the intersecting routes (I-77) but not the other (I-81.)
I can't say I agree. I currently live (more or less) where I-26 and I-81 meet, and so I'm somewhat familiar with the region, and I think all of these cities are useless for wayfinding.
Quote from: kphoger on February 08, 2021, 11:32:09 AM
I feel about Green River the same way I feel about Gary
Oddly enough, I do too. :)
Quote from: webny99 on February 08, 2021, 11:27:39 AM
I concur. The only thing I would note is that while you can make a decent case for using Utah between Grand Junction and the Utah line, what about once you get past the Utah line? Green River might end up being the best option between there and US 6 anyways, so it might be simpler to just use Green River the whole way.
Once you get past the Utah line, the interchanges are all so small and in in the middle of nowhere that smaller, more local control cities are acceptable anyway - and that is what Utah does. Utah's control points for I-70 are generally Jct I-15, Richfield, Salina, Green River, and Grand Junction - with a couple Denvers, Las Vegases, and Crescent Junctions thrown in for good measure.
Quote from: 1 on February 08, 2021, 07:53:11 AM
If it's signed as Green River, it needs to be signed as Green River UT. It's an ambiguous city name in the area, and the one in southwestern Wyoming has a 5-digit population, not a 3-digit population.
Disagree. No one on I-70 at that point is going to think they're heading to the one in Wyoming. It might seem ambiguous from afar, but nobody in GJ or eastern Utah talking about Green River means the Wyoming one.
Sure, the one in Wyoming is quite a bit bigger, but in terms of navigational landmarks... as someone who's driven through these areas several times I'd say they are probably of equal importance. Green River WY is somewhat overshadowed by Rock Springs anyway.
Quote from: kphoger on February 05, 2021, 01:46:56 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 05, 2021, 12:41:55 PM
The problem is that Toledo means nothing to most drivers in the Chicago area. If you're going to use Toledo, you might as well use Cleveland: it's much bigger, not much farther away, and a vastly higher percentage of people would know where it is (or at least be able to associate it with a general direction of travel).
I'm good with that.
Des Moines → Chicago and Chicago → Cleveland are approximately the same distance, too. Better yet, just use both: Toledo/Cleveland.
I'm in favor of using multiple control cities at times as well.
Quote from: jayhawkco on February 07, 2021, 11:22:05 AM
Quote from: thspfc on February 07, 2021, 09:08:45 AM
Chris has no clue what in heck he's talking about. Madison's metro is bigger than Toledo by over 20k per the 2019 estimate. And Madison is also growing by nearly 10% while Toledo is shrinking. Again, it's not that they're too small. Stop acting like this is a one-size-fits-all thing. Travelers on I-90 and I-94 don't care about South Bend. Some probably don't even know where it is. Comparisons to Rockford are not relevant because Rockford is within Illinois and is a well-known, relevant city within that metro area. As for Madison and Toledo, Madison is:
- Closer
- A state capital
So what's the issue?
I think you and I just have different definitions of what a control city is. In my opinion, a control city is the next reasonably major destination when following a highway. There are plenty of towns that are control cities that no one cares about, but nonetheless, they are the next semi-major stop on the highway. If I get on I-70 east from my house, do I care about Limon? Of course not. I'm probably heading back to KC to visit friends and family. But that doesn't mean that Limon, Hays, Salina, and Topeka shouldn't be control cities along the way.
I just don't like the use of states as control cities because it defies the convention. You obviously want people to know generally where those places are so they know which direction to go. I think most Chicagoans know that South Bend is in Indiana and that Indiana is east of Chicago, which fulfills the point of having a control city in the first place. People that don't know that South Bend in an hour and a half away probably also don't know that Rockford is an hour and a half away. I would also argue strongly that nationally, South Bend is far more well known than Rockford.
What I find strange about your opinion, is that you argue for proximity in the Madison vs. Toledo example that I brought up (since they're close enough to the same size), but then dismiss it when comparing Rockford and South Bend (which are also close enough to the same size). I think consistency (hence my dislike for using states) matters.
Either way, COYS.
Chris
Situations like you describe, and also the two major east/west highways in Pennsylvania, are why I think multiple control cities are a good idea at times.