Thought of this from the discussion from the "What state posts the worst control cities? The best?" control cities thread. Even in the states that consistently post really good control cities overall, there's most likely one or two that have a special place in hell. Which are those for your state?
In Ohio. "Thru Traffic" on the turnpike is by far the worst, as it's as helpful as not having a control city at all. But that's maintained by the OTA and not ODOT. For an ODOT interstate, the nomination goes to "Barberton" on I-76 WB. (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0376635,-81.5654911,3a,49.1y,197.73h,88.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWXuZ5WVAWL-_4cRbe9BzAg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) It's way too close and pretty much a suburb of Akron, and it's also not far from Lodi, the western terminus of I-76 and its junction with I-71. I would rather sign "Columbus" as most intercity traffic on I-76 WB west of Akron continue on I-71 SB, but Lodi works fine as a city on I-76 and a junction point. Both are much better options than Barberton, still.
Using Ohio for the EB toll Road instead of South Bend and then Toledo is the worst abuse in Indiana.
"Other Desert Cities" in California because it isn't "other Desert Cities" like it should be anymore.
In Georgia the worst posting of a control city is Florence SC instead of just Florence.
The worst selection of control city is Valdosta but that's just my opinion. (keeping in mind that Florence is selected by SC, GA merely posts it.) If your opinion is that a control city must be along the route (and Idk why roadgeeks would believe that, they should know better) then Valdosta makes sense. But my preference is to post more prominent cities, such as Albany GA and Jacksonville FL even though those cities are not along I-75.
And furthermore, I think all secondary control cities should be removed, nationwide. In Georgia this would mean, use only one control city at a time along I-285, don't use Columbus for I-85 from Atlanta, don't use Brunswick for I-95 from Savannah, and for I-20 at the Downtown Connector (I-75/85), EB should use Greenville for NB and Macon for SB, WB should use Chattanooga for NB and Montgomery for SB.
Oklahoma doesn't have any bad control cities. The only in-state ones are Tulsa, Oklahoma City, and Lawton (which were the top three cities in the state in the 20th century), and then we use whatever the surrounding states want us to, which are all sensible choices (Wichita, Joplin, Fort Smith, Dallas, Amarillo).
I guess since the completion of I-275 never happened and now never will Flint being the control city is probably the worst. But it's not a horrible choice since you can still get to Flint via I-96 and US-23 with signs letting you know that.
My biggest head-bangers in MN:
"Forest Lake" at the interchanges on I-35W/35E on the far north side of the metro. Just put Duluth. Come on.
"Bloomington" on US 169 south of the Minnesota River, a city which 169 runs along the border with and goes nowhere near what most locals associate with Bloomington, nor is it carried over as a control city onto I-494 eastbound anyway
Maybe Tomah as the primary control for I-90 west at the 90/94 split. You're already in Tomah at that point, and certain parts of the town are more accessible via I-94. It would be better to use La Crosse and then Rochester, or just La Crosse.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 05, 2022, 06:34:05 PM
Oklahoma doesn't have any bad control cities. The only in-state ones are Tulsa, Oklahoma City, and Lawton (which were the top three cities in the state in the 20th century), and then we use whatever the surrounding states want us to, which are all sensible choices (Wichita, Joplin, Fort Smith, Dallas, Amarillo).
I think Joplin might be my only gripe–especially given St. Louis and Springfield are along the route and have much larger spheres of influence. But, I can't expect them to be perfect!
Thru Traffic (https://goo.gl/maps/NuRJCRcPrcHbd7a8A) on I-290 :sombrero:
I guess this sign assembly has Nevada's "worst". (Some arrows covered until I-580 construction is completed.)
https://goo.gl/maps/E1GqWJAf1do9GBQB8 (https://goo.gl/maps/E1GqWJAf1do9GBQB8)
In the other thread I heard the dislike for Elko. Salt Lake City is more than 500 miles distant on I-80 from this point. I prefer Elko here, with hotels, restaurants and even a Walmart, but I understand the argument.
Susanville, not on an Interstate but on US 395 North, is a dinky place 85 miles away from this point, but there's no other viable choice for the northbound US 395 signage.
Quote from: thspfc on August 05, 2022, 07:16:48 PM
Maybe Tomah as the primary control for I-90 west at the 90/94 split. You're already in Tomah at that point, and certain parts of the town are more accessible via I-94. It would be better to use La Crosse and then Rochester, or just La Crosse.
I think its the use of Fond du Lac on I-41 NB in the Milwaukee area. Should be Appleton.
CT:
Plainfield (from I-95 NB) and Providence (from CT 2) on I-395. Should be Norwich/Worcester on I-95 and Worcester on CT 2. Plainfield is insignificant, and I-395 never comes within 30 miles of Providence. At least CTDOT is correcting CT 2 with resigning.
Providence on I-384. Perhaps only a reminder of what could have been, but it's not even the best route to Providence (I-84/CT 74/US 44/CT-RI 101/US 6 is better).
Hartford as a control on I-91 North at the Charter Oak Bridge WHEN YOU'VE ALREADY CROSSED THE CITY LINE
Any mention where a bridge or highway is a control (Charter Oak Br, Wilbur Cross Pkwy).
Where do I start in Illinois? Do I start with "Interstate 57" on I-24, "Suburbs" for I-355, or Sterling-Rock Falls for I-88 east from I-80?
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 05, 2022, 08:35:18 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 05, 2022, 07:16:48 PM
Maybe Tomah as the primary control for I-90 west at the 90/94 split. You're already in Tomah at that point, and certain parts of the town are more accessible via I-94. It would be better to use La Crosse and then Rochester, or just La Crosse.
I think its the use of Fond du Lac on I-41 NB in the Milwaukee area. Should be Appleton.
The Fox Valley is tough for control cities. For I-41 NB you can make a case for FDL, Oshkosh, and Appleton, and Green Bay from US-151 northward. I think there's compelling arguments for all of them. In fact, I-41 NB at US-151 is signed for Oshkosh, Appleton, and Green Bay.
Clearly Colorado's is Thornton being signed for I-25 North from I-70 West.
For Texas it's either gotta be Cleveland on I-69 or Gainesville on I-35. Hopefully Cleveland's inclusion as a control city is temporary (maybe once I-69 is more complete it could be changed to Lufkin or Shreveport).
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 05, 2022, 10:26:45 PM
Clearly Colorado's is Thornton being signed for I-25 North from I-70 West.
Limon.
Colorado's worst control city signed on an interstate would be any interstate that is signing for LIMON!
Quote from: Brandon on August 05, 2022, 10:34:28 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 05, 2022, 10:26:45 PM
Clearly Colorado's is Thornton being signed for I-25 North from I-70 West.
Limon.
Limon is a major highway junction. Thornton is a random suburb.
I don't like using Taunton or Marlborough on I-495. I would prefer using just Cape Cod, Worcester, Lowell, and Portsmouth.
Quote from: US 89 on August 06, 2022, 12:13:54 AM
Quote from: Brandon on August 05, 2022, 10:34:28 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 05, 2022, 10:26:45 PM
Clearly Colorado's is Thornton being signed for I-25 North from I-70 West.
Limon.
Limon is a major highway junction. Thornton is a random suburb.
Clearly people didn't understand my tongueincheekedness. But I honestly think Thornton is way worse than Limon. Westminster on I-270 is pretty bad too. Should be Boulder.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 06, 2022, 12:58:28 AM
I don't like using Taunton or Marlborough on I-495. I would prefer using just Cape Cod, Worcester, Lowell, and Portsmouth.
There's also I-95 using just Attleboro for southbound on MA 2. They also use Canton and Peabody. I can understand Canton being at the southern terminus of I-93 and Peabody at the 95/128 split, but with Attleboro, you're already so close to Providence that it would be easier to just use that since it's a more significant and larger city.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 06, 2022, 08:30:58 AM
Quote from: US 89 on August 06, 2022, 12:13:54 AM
Quote from: Brandon on August 05, 2022, 10:34:28 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 05, 2022, 10:26:45 PM
Clearly Colorado's is Thornton being signed for I-25 North from I-70 West.
Limon.
Limon is a major highway junction. Thornton is a random suburb.
Clearly people didn't understand my tongueincheekedness. But I honestly think Thornton is way worse than Limon. Westminster on I-270 is pretty bad too. Should be Boulder.
At least Thornton is signed with Fort Collins (in my trip to Denver last year meant anything) and Westminster is signed with Boulder. And they're both suburbs with over 100,000 people. Which is usually a lot. Limon is posted EVERYWHERE. It's my theory that the reason people despise Limon so much is way too much overexposure on the Denver area interstates.
Quote from: webny99 on August 05, 2022, 08:16:28 PM
Thru Traffic (https://goo.gl/maps/NuRJCRcPrcHbd7a8A) on I-290 :sombrero:
This is like California on I-605 in the LA area it has Thru Traffic as a control city instead of Seal Beach or Duarte.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_605
(https://fastly.4sqi.net/img/general/600x600/1721682_z7NbKm_z1onu_8WlatI9CXkPJerJZ2tSx8DPuYhpQ-E.jpg)
Kansas City, because it's over-used. Most major highways in Kansas lead to Kansas City in the northbound/eastbound direction, so it would be more helpful if the signs told you which ones go through which municipalities first. How could this situation be improved? US 24/40 could use Bonner Springs east of Tonganoxie. US 69 could use Overland Park north of Fort Scott. I-35 could use Olathe or Lenexa once it reaches Emporia.
Adjusting the control cities on I-35 would allow removal of the dual use of Kansas City at Exit 127, where it's currently shown as the control city for both I-35 and I-335 (an MUTCD violation). It would be simpler and more elegant to sign neither road for Kansas City at that point, since probably 99% of drivers already know they can get to Kansas City either way at that point.
For an example of how this is done better elsewhere, New Jersey uses Newark on eastbound I-78, even though New York City is the official control city ( https://traffic.transportation.org/interstate-control-cities/ ). Why is it handled this way? Well, lots of major highways in the area go to New York City, so it would be silly to use that as the control city on all the ones that do. (That being said, I question the use of New York as the control city for US 22 at the interchange with I-287, but oh well.)
Quote from: Ned Weasel on August 06, 2022, 05:52:05 PM
Kansas City, because it's over-used. Most major highways in Kansas lead to Kansas City in the northbound/eastbound direction, so it would be more helpful if the signs told you which ones go through which municipalities first. How could this situation be improved? US 24/40 could use Bonner Springs east of Tonganoxie. US 69 could use Overland Park north of Fort Scott. I-35 could use Olathe or Lenexa once it reaches Emporia.
Hard disagree–practically nobody outside of Kansas or Missouri knows where Overland Park, Olathe, or Lenexa are. Signing those from as far out as you're proposing would be pure Johnson County vanity. (My wife listens to a podcast done by a couple of Arizona comedians, and they were doing an episode about something that took place in central Missouri. At one point, the subjects of the story went to Olathe for something, and not only did they seem confused as to why someone from Missouri might want to go there–they didn't seem to be aware it was in the Kansas City area–they couldn't even figure out how to pronounce Olathe correctly.)
What you're proposing would be like advocating for Oklahoma to use Broken Arrow, Catoosa, and Bixby more, rather than Tulsa.
Quote from: Ned Weasel on August 06, 2022, 05:52:05 PM
Adjusting the control cities on I-35 would allow removal of the dual use of Kansas City at Exit 127, where it's currently shown as the control city for both I-35 and I-335 (an MUTCD violation). It would be simpler and more elegant to sign neither road for Kansas City at that point, since probably 99% of drivers already know they can get to Kansas City either way at that point.
I feel like the pre-2013 signage there may have more accurately indicated the situation than the current signage (bubble shield, suspect shield ordering, bizarre abbreviation, and grubby arrows notwithstanding):
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Kta_127.jpg)
In any case, removing Kansas City here would be very clear-cut the
wrong way to do it. This interchange confuses people not from Kansas (and even people from Kansas City, as my own grandmother has missed the exit there!), as TOTSO situations like this in the middle of nowhere are not something most people encounter very often. Most people not using a sat-nav are going to have directions that say something like "follow I-35 from Wichita to Kansas City", and if they see an I-35 shield on an exit without the additional positive guidance of having a control of Kansas City, they're going to be unsure of what the correct choice is.
Basically the only reason to remove Kansas City at this interchange is if you're interested in padding KTA's revenue.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 06, 2022, 06:25:21 PM
Hard disagree–practically nobody outside of Kansas or Missouri knows where Overland Park, Olathe, or Lenexa are. Signing those from as far out as you're proposing would be pure Johnson County vanity. (My wife listens to a podcast done by a couple of Arizona comedians, and they were doing an episode about something that took place in central Missouri. At one point, the subjects of the story went to Olathe for something, and not only did they seem confused as to why someone from Missouri might want to go there–they didn't seem to be aware it was in the Kansas City area–they couldn't even figure out how to pronounce Olathe correctly.)
Overland Park is pretty well known. Aside from being the second-largest city in Kansas and often being called the economic engine in Kansas, it's repeatedly been ranked as one of the best places in the U.S. to live and/or raise a family ( https://livability.com/best-places/2021-top-100-best-places-to-live-in-america/top-100-2021-overland-park-ks/ , https://money.com/collection/best-places-to-live-2021/5746498/overland-park-kansas-2021/ , https://shawneemissionpost.com/2021/05/25/overland-park-best-of-cities-niche-122882/ , https://money.com/collection/2018-best-places-to-live/5361464/overland-park-kansas-2/ , https://www.wibw.com/2021/06/01/overland-park-named-best-city-to-raise-a-family/ , https://www.wibw.com/2022/05/31/report-finds-overland-park-second-best-place-raise-family/ ). Regardless of whether you love or hate Johnson County, the fact is that it's the location of four of Kansas's ten most populous cities, and it's the state's most populous county.
Can you tell me what makes
Hays more worthy of control city status than Overland Park? (Aside from this interchange: https://goo.gl/maps/xhnXj1Qm7PWU1R7HA , which is pretty slick, to be honest.)
Quote
What you're proposing would be like advocating for Oklahoma to use Broken Arrow, Catoosa, and Bixby more, rather than Tulsa.
I would be fine with this.
Quote
In any case, removing Kansas City here would be very clear-cut the wrong way to do it. This interchange confuses people not from Kansas (and even people from Kansas City, as my own grandmother has missed the exit there!), as TOTSO situations like this in the middle of nowhere are not something most people encounter very often. Most people not using a sat-nav are going to have directions that say something like "follow I-35 from Wichita to Kansas City", and if they see an I-35 shield on an exit without the additional positive guidance of having a control of Kansas City, they're going to be unsure of what the correct choice is.
Basically the only reason to remove Kansas City at this interchange is if you're interested in padding KTA's revenue.
I'm not really sure how to make the interchange less confusing, short of rebuilding it, which was already done recently. You could re-stripe the northbound lanes so I-35 and I-335 only get one lane each approaching the split, but then you'd be artificially introducing an inefficiency.
As for "TOTSO situations...in the middle of nowhere," Interstates 44, 49, 70, 76, 80, 90, and 95 say hello.
Quote from: thspfc on August 05, 2022, 10:19:04 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 05, 2022, 08:35:18 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 05, 2022, 07:16:48 PM
Maybe Tomah as the primary control for I-90 west at the 90/94 split. You're already in Tomah at that point, and certain parts of the town are more accessible via I-94. It would be better to use La Crosse and then Rochester, or just La Crosse.
I think its the use of Fond du Lac on I-41 NB in the Milwaukee area. Should be Appleton.
The Fox Valley is tough for control cities. For I-41 NB you can make a case for FDL, Oshkosh, and Appleton, and Green Bay from US-151 northward. I think there's compelling arguments for all of them. In fact, I-41 NB at US-151 is signed for Oshkosh, Appleton, and Green Bay.
FdL isn't in the Fox Valley. Appleton is almost twice the size - it should be the control city for I-41. Green Bay for I-43.
Quote from: Brandon on August 05, 2022, 08:58:35 PM
Where do I start in Illinois? Do I start with "Interstate 57" on I-24, "Suburbs" for I-355, or Sterling-Rock Falls for I-88 east from I-80?
At the moment I would go with "Iowa" on I-80 and I-88 (https://goo.gl/maps/DbENSYyxoVPohfPo6). Ask me some other day and I might go with "Wisconsin" on I-94 and I-90.
Quote from: Ned Weasel on August 06, 2022, 09:21:24 PM
Overland Park is pretty well known. Aside from being the second-largest city in Kansas and often being called the economic engine in Kansas, it's repeatedly been ranked as one of the best places in the U.S. to live and/or raise a family
That doesn't mean anyone outside Kansas can reliably place it on a map or have even heard of it. If so, putting it on a sign serves no navigational purpose.
People whose destination is in Overland Park will know it is near to Kansas City. People whose destination is in Kansas City or beyond will have little reason to contemplate Overland Park's existence.
Remember, road signs aren't there for the locals.
Quote from: Ned Weasel on August 06, 2022, 09:21:24 PM
Can you tell me what makes Hays more worthy of control city status than Overland Park?
Something to consider here is the prominence of a city, in the sense of topographic prominence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_prominence) as used in mountaineering. Overland Park doesn't make a good control city because it's part of a larger metropolitan area and is surrounded by cities with similar population densities; in effect, it doesn't stand out from the crowd.
The reverse of that logic is why Hays, as it is, is used as a control. Sure, it's a sort of dinky town, and if it were in eastern Kansas, no way it should be a control. But it's the biggest thing for hours in either direction.
(And it's why those of us in the central US get to have control cities at all; in some other control city thread I figured out that the state of California has 70 cities larger than Lawton, the smallest Interstate control city in Oklahoma. Most of these California cities are not used as control cities because they lack prominence.)
Quote
I'm not really sure how to make the interchange less confusing, short of rebuilding it, which was already done recently. You could re-stripe the northbound lanes so I-35 and I-335 only get one lane each approaching the split, but then you'd be artificially introducing an inefficiency.
As for "TOTSO situations...in the middle of nowhere," Interstates 44, 49, 70, 76, 80, 90, and 95 say hello.
There's also a diagrammatic (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.4067861,-96.2432859,3a,18.7y,80.2h,92.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUOi7ozQHfw_xZOknQZQhoA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) in the lead up to it clearly showing I-35 exiting and I-335 continuing on. I think that's a perfect application for a diagrammatic–it doesn't really impart any useful lane-usage meaning, but it helps underscore how the interchange works and what to do to follow your desired route.
Also, note that I said that TOTSOs in the middle of nowhere aren't something people encounter
very often. If you can think of seven other examples in the whole country, that kind of proves the point I'm making. And I'm not really sure where that happens along I-44; the I-44 TOTSOs I can think of are in Oklahoma City or metro Tulsa. TOTSOs to switch a designation from one urban freeway to another are a much more common situation.
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 06, 2022, 10:50:53 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 05, 2022, 08:58:35 PM
Where do I start in Illinois? Do I start with "Interstate 57" on I-24, "Suburbs" for I-355, or Sterling-Rock Falls for I-88 east from I-80?
At the moment I would go with "Iowa" on I-80 and I-88 (https://goo.gl/maps/DbENSYyxoVPohfPo6). Ask me some other day and I might go with "Wisconsin" on I-94 and I-90.
"Cairo" on I-57 and "East St Louis" on I-55, 64, and 70 are also horrid in IL
For Kentucky, Louisville.
Oh wait, you're talking about the city's status as a control city, not the city itself.
Kentucky's make sense with the exception of using Fulton on I-69. Dyersburg or Memphis would make more sense, and it's possible Fulton will change once I-69 is complete. I guess it was used because Fulton was listed for the Purchase Parkway.
Otherwise, Kentucky's are pretty logical.
I-24 -- St. Louis, Paducah, and Nashville
I-64 -- St. Louis, Louisville, Lexington, Ashland, and Huntington
I-65 -- Indianapolis, Louisville, and Nashville
I-71 -- Louisville and Cincinnati
I-75 -- Knoxville, Lexington, and Cincinnati
West Virginia has a number of questionable ones, but Lewisburg is probably the worst offender.
In Florida it's Naples on I-75 as it should be Fort Myers and then Miami as Naples ain't that prominent.
Lake City is horrible for I-10 at Tallahassee and at Jacksonville as the city is far off the interstate with two exits with little services at each. Should be Jacksonville from Tallahassee and Tallahassee from Jacksonville.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 06, 2022, 11:33:55 PM
In Florida it's Naples on I-75 as it should be Fort Myers and then Miami as Naples ain't that prominent.
Lake City is horrible for I-10 at Tallahassee and at Jacksonville as the city is far off the interstate with two exits with little services at each. Should be Jacksonville from Tallahassee and Tallahassee from Jacksonville.
Naples is pretty prominent and its where I-75 turns east. Good control city.
What's the best route from Tampa to Miami? If it's I-75 then Miami should be signed from Tampa and vice versa.
Quote from: ran4sh on August 06, 2022, 11:56:53 PM
What's the best route from Tampa to Miami? If it's I-75 then Miami should be signed from Tampa and vice versa.
I-75 is the fastest route.
Quote from: bing101 on August 06, 2022, 10:50:36 AM
Quote from: webny99 on August 05, 2022, 08:16:28 PM
Thru Traffic (https://goo.gl/maps/NuRJCRcPrcHbd7a8A) on I-290 :sombrero:
This is like California on I-605 in the LA area it has Thru Traffic as a control city instead of Seal Beach or Duarte.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_605
(https://fastly.4sqi.net/img/general/600x600/1721682_z7NbKm_z1onu_8WlatI9CXkPJerJZ2tSx8DPuYhpQ-E.jpg)
make
California's large number (but maybe not enough -- a different matter) of roads, large number of populous cities, and funny--bordering on weird-- geography it difficult to pick control cities that are not any of the following:
1) Too Near for those unfamiliar with the area to use to distinguish routes
2) Not well known enough except maybe by locals to use to distinguish routes. Locals don't need the control cities -- Visitors do!
3) Too far away to work out whether the road goes to the closer, more frequent destination
So, we are often stuck with things like "Other Desert Cities" to avoid using some small town in a neighboring state that few would know or giving confusing names like Palm Desert, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Springs, 29 Palms, Rancho Mirage, etc, all of which are close to each other, or "Thru Traffic" to avoid naming small towns that visitors wouldn't know so as to help decide, if you are going mostly east, mostly southwest, or mostly south.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 06, 2022, 11:36:05 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 06, 2022, 11:33:55 PM
In Florida it's Naples on I-75 as it should be Fort Myers and then Miami as Naples ain't that prominent.
Naples is pretty prominent and its where I-75 turns east. Good control city.
Didn't I-75 end at Naples at one time?
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 06, 2022, 10:08:10 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 05, 2022, 10:19:04 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 05, 2022, 08:35:18 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 05, 2022, 07:16:48 PM
Maybe Tomah as the primary control for I-90 west at the 90/94 split. You're already in Tomah at that point, and certain parts of the town are more accessible via I-94. It would be better to use La Crosse and then Rochester, or just La Crosse.
I think its the use of Fond du Lac on I-41 NB in the Milwaukee area. Should be Appleton.
The Fox Valley is tough for control cities. For I-41 NB you can make a case for FDL, Oshkosh, and Appleton, and Green Bay from US-151 northward. I think there's compelling arguments for all of them. In fact, I-41 NB at US-151 is signed for Oshkosh, Appleton, and Green Bay.
FdL isn't in the Fox Valley. Appleton is almost twice the size - it should be the control city for I-41. Green Bay for I-43.
But Oshkosh is over 50% larger than FDL also. With mileage from the Zoo Interchange:
FDL - 43k city, 100k metro; 57 miles
Oshkosh - 66k city, 160k metro; 76 miles
Appleton - 74k city, 236k metro; 95 miles
For traffic coming from Milwaukee and southward, Oshkosh probably has the most significant highway junction in US-45, leading to US-10 west to Stevens Point and I-39/US-51. US-10 is a more important road but traffic coming from Milwaukee is unlikely to use 41 to Appleton and then take US-10.
I think it's close because using one means skipping over the other two, and in any of the three cases it doesn't make much sense. But you also can't use all 3 because then it's like you wrote a paragraph on the signs which helps no one.
QuoteFdL isn't in the Fox Valley
Ok
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 06, 2022, 11:02:55 PM
There's also a diagrammatic (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.4067861,-96.2432859,3a,18.7y,80.2h,92.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUOi7ozQHfw_xZOknQZQhoA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) in the lead up to it clearly showing I-35 exiting and I-335 continuing on. I think that's a perfect application for a diagrammatic–it doesn't really impart any useful lane-usage meaning, but it helps underscore how the interchange works and what to do to follow your desired route.
I don't know, maybe the best way to get rid of the MUTCD violation would be to put up a post-mounted sign about 1.5 miles in advance of the exit, reading:
Alt Rte to Kansas City
USE
[Kansas Turnpike] [I-335]
...and then remove Kansas City from the pull-through sign and leave it on the I-35 signs. By the way, that diagrammatic sign really shouldn't show the deceleration lane, per the MUTCD.
Quote
Also, note that I said that TOTSOs in the middle of nowhere aren't something people encounter very often. If you can think of seven other examples in the whole country, that kind of proves the point I'm making. And I'm not really sure where that happens along I-44; the I-44 TOTSOs I can think of are in Oklahoma City or metro Tulsa. TOTSOs to switch a designation from one urban freeway to another are a much more common situation.
This sort of looks and feels like the middle of nowhere: https://goo.gl/maps/PQDd1eRtAq6Qsj3A7 , except it's right up against the city line, so take your pick as to how you want to define "middle of nowhere." Maybe "edge of nowhere" would be a better term for
that location.
And that example brings up another control city question! Should Oklahoma City really be the control city for the Creek Turnpike instead of I-44? Obviously, you can use the Creek Turnpike, since it connects back to I-44 on the other side of Tulsa and bypasses most of Tulsa altogether. But you don't
have to use the Creek Turnpike, and, depending on the traffic conditions at the time, I-44 might be the better route to Oklahoma City anyway, considering it's more direct. (I feel like we've talked about this one before.)
Quote from: ran4sh on August 06, 2022, 11:56:53 PM
What's the best route from Tampa to Miami? If it's I-75 then Miami should be signed from Tampa and vice versa.
No not really. This is why this debate over control cities is so maddening. Controls cities are used to give a general direction for those who are "directionally challenged" or just need a reinforcement that the exit they are taking is the right one. If you are in Sarasota, Fort Myers and Tampa make perfect sense as control cities. Miami really doesn't. It's a city on a different coast that while most definitely serviced by I-75, that's not where most of the traffic on I-75 is going. They are going up and down the Gulf coast.
Quote from: ran4sh on August 06, 2022, 11:56:53 PM
What's the best route from Tampa to Miami? If it's I-75 then Miami should be signed from Tampa and vice versa.
I-75 is also the quickest way between Sault Ste. Marie and Naples. So then sign Naples there instead?
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 09:33:04 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 06, 2022, 11:56:53 PM
What's the best route from Tampa to Miami? If it's I-75 then Miami should be signed from Tampa and vice versa.
I-75 is also the quickest way between Sault Ste. Marie and Naples. So then sign Naples there instead?
So the key differences there:
- Tampa is 83 times bigger than Sault Ste. Marie
- Miami is 19 times bigger than Naples
- Tampa and Miami are 280 miles apart
- Sault Ste. Marie and Naples are 1,650 miles apart
Since I'm originally from NC, I'd say this crap on I-587/US-264 East takes the cake there:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i795410b.jpg)
There's absolutely ZERO reason for Kenly to be a control city for I-795 South. Heading in this direction from points west of Wilson, you reach I-95 before the I-795 split. Anybody going to Kenly would simply hop on I-95 South since it's a straight shot.
I-795 is intended to be a shortcut to Wilmington, so Wilmington needs to take Kenly's spot.
Quote from: thspfc on August 07, 2022, 09:52:20 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 09:33:04 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 06, 2022, 11:56:53 PM
What's the best route from Tampa to Miami? If it's I-75 then Miami should be signed from Tampa and vice versa.
I-75 is also the quickest way between Sault Ste. Marie and Naples. So then sign Naples there instead?
So the key differences there:
- Tampa is 83 times bigger than Sault Ste. Marie
- Miami is 19 times bigger than Naples
- Tampa and Miami are 280 miles apart
- Sault Ste. Marie and Naples are 1,650 miles apart
Just making a point that you can't apply one set of rules to all situations, but you knew that.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 10:58:35 AM
Quote from: thspfc on August 07, 2022, 09:52:20 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 09:33:04 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 06, 2022, 11:56:53 PM
What's the best route from Tampa to Miami? If it's I-75 then Miami should be signed from Tampa and vice versa.
I-75 is also the quickest way between Sault Ste. Marie and Naples. So then sign Naples there instead?
So the key differences there:
- Tampa is 83 times bigger than Sault Ste. Marie
- Miami is 19 times bigger than Naples
- Tampa and Miami are 280 miles apart
- Sault Ste. Marie and Naples are 1,650 miles apart
Just making a point that you can't apply one set of rules to all situations, but you knew that.
Literally nobody said that you CAN apply that set of rules to all situations. (is this the part where I say "and you know that" ?)
The point remains that it's silly to sign a control city only for the reason that the highway in question is the quickest way between two points. If there's a prominent city in between, that should be the default.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 07, 2022, 09:15:51 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 06, 2022, 11:56:53 PM
What's the best route from Tampa to Miami? If it's I-75 then Miami should be signed from Tampa and vice versa.
No not really. This is why this debate over control cities is so maddening. Controls cities are used to give a general direction for those who are "directionally challenged" or just need a reinforcement that the exit they are taking is the right one. If you are in Sarasota, Fort Myers and Tampa make perfect sense as control cities. Miami really doesn't. It's a city on a different coast that while most definitely serviced by I-75, that's not where most of the traffic on I-75 is going. They are going up and down the Gulf coast.
It should be Fort Myers as it's one of the largest cities( much larger than Naples) on the SW Gulf. Technically Coral Springs is bigger, but I-75 don't go there and most know Fort Myers over Coral Springs anyway.
South of Fort Myers Miami does make perfect sense as many from SW are crossing the state there.
Also Lake City from Ocala is premature as Gainesville is completely overlooked along I-75.
In GA, Tipton is overlooked and skipped for Valdosta going SB staring from I-475 at Bollingboke near Macon.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:08:15 AM
The point remains that it's silly to sign a control city only for the reason that the highway in question is the quickest way between two points. If there's a prominent city in between, that should be the default.
There's nothing more prominent than Tampa or Miami in between Tampa and Miami.
Quote from: ran4sh on August 07, 2022, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:08:15 AM
The point remains that it's silly to sign a control city only for the reason that the highway in question is the quickest way between two points. If there's a prominent city in between, that should be the default.
There's nothing more prominent than Tampa or Miami in between Tampa and Miami.
There's nothing more prominent than Dallas or Atlanta in between Dallas and Atlanta.
Quote from: ran4sh on August 07, 2022, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:08:15 AM
The point remains that it's silly to sign a control city only for the reason that the highway in question is the quickest way between two points. If there's a prominent city in between, that should be the default.
There's nothing more prominent than Tampa or Miami in between Tampa and Miami.
Sigh. But to use an example like I did earlier, there's nothing more prominent in between the Bay Area and NYC on I-80 either. That's not good reasoning.
From Tampa it should be Fort Myers + Miami and then Naples + Miami. If I had to choose one it would be just Miami.
From Miami it should be Naples + Tampa and then Fort Myers + Tampa. If I had to choose one it would be just Tampa.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:30:10 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 07, 2022, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:08:15 AM
The point remains that it's silly to sign a control city only for the reason that the highway in question is the quickest way between two points. If there's a prominent city in between, that should be the default.
There's nothing more prominent than Tampa or Miami in between Tampa and Miami.
Sigh. But to use an example like I did earlier, there's nothing more prominent in between the Bay Area and NYC on I-80 either. That's not good reasoning.
I know this isn't the point of the post, but, . . . Chicago.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 06, 2022, 11:26:09 PM
Kentucky's make sense with the exception of using Fulton on I-69. Dyersburg or Memphis would make more sense, and it's possible Fulton will change once I-69 is complete. I guess it was used because Fulton was listed for the Purchase Parkway.
Otherwise, Kentucky's are pretty logical.
I may be a bit biased, but I've thought that Evansville should be used on I-69 NB instead of Henderson. Maybe they will change it when the new bridge is opened to make I-69 continuous across the state line.
Similarly, I would say one of Indiana's bad offenders is no control city on I-69 NB from Evansville northward. I get that INDOT is waiting for it to be finished before they can sign Indianapolis, but I would have thought that completing the roadway up to Bloomington is enough to update the signage.
Iowa's control cities are generally pretty good, although I think Omaha would make more sense for I-80 WB than Council Bluffs.
Quote from: michravera on August 07, 2022, 02:56:55 AM
So, [in California] we are often stuck with things like "Other Desert Cities" to avoid using some small town in a neighboring state that few would know...
I've never considered Phoenix to be a small town, but ok
Quote from: thspfc on August 07, 2022, 11:48:02 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:30:10 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 07, 2022, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:08:15 AM
The point remains that it's silly to sign a control city only for the reason that the highway in question is the quickest way between two points. If there's a prominent city in between, that should be the default.
There's nothing more prominent than Tampa or Miami in between Tampa and Miami.
Sigh. But to use an example like I did earlier, there's nothing more prominent in between the Bay Area and NYC on I-80 either. That's not good reasoning.
I know this isn't the point of the post, but, . . . Chicago.
Yeah. Good call. Brain fart.
Quote from: pianocello on August 07, 2022, 12:15:17 PM
Quote from: michravera on August 07, 2022, 02:56:55 AM
So, [in California] we are often stuck with things like "Other Desert Cities" to avoid using some small town in a neighboring state that few would know...
I've never considered Phoenix to be a small town, but ok
California *does* use Phoenix once you reach those "other desert cities" being referred to. Although some people think Phoenix should be used all the way from LA, which is reasonable to me.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 12:28:55 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 07, 2022, 11:48:02 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:30:10 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 07, 2022, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:08:15 AM
The point remains that it's silly to sign a control city only for the reason that the highway in question is the quickest way between two points. If there's a prominent city in between, that should be the default.
There's nothing more prominent than Tampa or Miami in between Tampa and Miami.
Sigh. But to use an example like I did earlier, there's nothing more prominent in between the Bay Area and NYC on I-80 either. That's not good reasoning.
I know this isn't the point of the post, but, . . . Chicago.
Yeah. Good call. Brain fart.
Unless you don't count Chicago as being "on" I-80.
Quote from: 1 on August 07, 2022, 11:26:28 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 07, 2022, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:08:15 AM
The point remains that it's silly to sign a control city only for the reason that the highway in question is the quickest way between two points. If there's a prominent city in between, that should be the default.
There's nothing more prominent than Tampa or Miami in between Tampa and Miami.
There's nothing more prominent than Dallas or Atlanta in between Dallas and Atlanta.
That's not apples-to-apples. Naples is not Birmingham, or even Shreveport. I get your point, but that's probably not the best example to argue with.
The distance is also a factor. A lot shorter from Miami to Tampa than Atlanta to Dallas.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 07, 2022, 07:58:05 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 07, 2022, 11:26:28 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 07, 2022, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:08:15 AM
The point remains that it's silly to sign a control city only for the reason that the highway in question is the quickest way between two points. If there's a prominent city in between, that should be the default.
There's nothing more prominent than Tampa or Miami in between Tampa and Miami.
There's nothing more prominent than Dallas or Atlanta in between Dallas and Atlanta.
That's not apples-to-apples. Naples is not Birmingham, or even Shreveport. I get your point, but that's probably not the best example to argue with.
The distance is also a factor. A lot shorter from Miami to Tampa than Atlanta to Dallas.
Boston to New York then?
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 08:47:49 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 07, 2022, 07:58:05 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 07, 2022, 11:26:28 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 07, 2022, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:08:15 AM
The point remains that it's silly to sign a control city only for the reason that the highway in question is the quickest way between two points. If there's a prominent city in between, that should be the default.
There's nothing more prominent than Tampa or Miami in between Tampa and Miami.
There's nothing more prominent than Dallas or Atlanta in between Dallas and Atlanta.
That's not apples-to-apples. Naples is not Birmingham, or even Shreveport. I get your point, but that's probably not the best example to argue with.
The distance is also a factor. A lot shorter from Miami to Tampa than Atlanta to Dallas.
Boston to New York then?
New York is a no-brainer for I-95 SB in Boston. And I wouldn't hate Boston for I-95 NB in NYC.
Quote from: thspfc on August 07, 2022, 09:17:49 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 08:47:49 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 07, 2022, 07:58:05 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 07, 2022, 11:26:28 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 07, 2022, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:08:15 AM
The point remains that it's silly to sign a control city only for the reason that the highway in question is the quickest way between two points. If there's a prominent city in between, that should be the default.
There's nothing more prominent than Tampa or Miami in between Tampa and Miami.
There's nothing more prominent than Dallas or Atlanta in between Dallas and Atlanta.
That's not apples-to-apples. Naples is not Birmingham, or even Shreveport. I get your point, but that's probably not the best example to argue with.
The distance is also a factor. A lot shorter from Miami to Tampa than Atlanta to Dallas.
Boston to New York then?
New York is a no-brainer for I-95 SB in Boston. And I wouldn't hate Boston for I-95 NB in NYC.
New Haven, Providence...
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 07, 2022, 09:20:16 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 07, 2022, 09:17:49 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 08:47:49 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 07, 2022, 07:58:05 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 07, 2022, 11:26:28 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 07, 2022, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:08:15 AM
The point remains that it's silly to sign a control city only for the reason that the highway in question is the quickest way between two points. If there's a prominent city in between, that should be the default.
There's nothing more prominent than Tampa or Miami in between Tampa and Miami.
There's nothing more prominent than Dallas or Atlanta in between Dallas and Atlanta.
That's not apples-to-apples. Naples is not Birmingham, or even Shreveport. I get your point, but that's probably not the best example to argue with.
The distance is also a factor. A lot shorter from Miami to Tampa than Atlanta to Dallas.
Boston to New York then?
New York is a no-brainer for I-95 SB in Boston. And I wouldn't hate Boston for I-95 NB in NYC.
New Haven, Providence...
I know.
Well, there's the issue that a lot of NYC-Boston traffic prefers I-91 north to I-84 east to I-90/Mass Pike east. If that route is indeed shorter than thru I-95, then NYC should be a control city on that route (and I-95 should probably be shifted to that route).
Than Providence would lose I-95.
They wouldn't lose the road, it would just have a different Interstate number. Such as 97, 99, or an x95.
Quote from: thspfc on August 07, 2022, 09:17:49 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 08:47:49 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 07, 2022, 07:58:05 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 07, 2022, 11:26:28 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 07, 2022, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:08:15 AM
The point remains that it's silly to sign a control city only for the reason that the highway in question is the quickest way between two points. If there's a prominent city in between, that should be the default.
There's nothing more prominent than Tampa or Miami in between Tampa and Miami.
There's nothing more prominent than Dallas or Atlanta in between Dallas and Atlanta.
That's not apples-to-apples. Naples is not Birmingham, or even Shreveport. I get your point, but that's probably not the best example to argue with.
The distance is also a factor. A lot shorter from Miami to Tampa than Atlanta to Dallas.
Boston to New York then?
New York is a no-brainer for I-95 SB in Boston. And I wouldn't hate Boston for I-95 NB in NYC.
Fine. How about NYC to DC?
Quote from: ran4sh on August 07, 2022, 09:58:02 PM
Well, there's the issue that a lot of NYC-Boston traffic prefers I-91 north to I-84 east to I-90/Mass Pike east. If that route is indeed shorter than thru I-95, then NYC should be a control city on that route (and I-95 should probably be shifted to that route).
It is in spots. NYC is a control for I-84 West at Mass Pike Exit 78. It's also a control for I-84 Exit 57 to CT 15 (though I wish they'd replace "Charter Oak Br" with "New Haven" ) and for CT 15 Exit 86 to I-91 South. Of course, it's also a control again 68 miles west of there for I-684 in Brewster. Conversely, Boston is only used at the I-91 Exit to CT 15 that connects to I-84, and is a control for mainline 84 itself (though it ends 55 miles short in Sturbridge and requires the Mass Pike, but that's fine).
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:45:39 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 07, 2022, 09:17:49 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 08:47:49 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 07, 2022, 07:58:05 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 07, 2022, 11:26:28 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 07, 2022, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:08:15 AM
The point remains that it's silly to sign a control city only for the reason that the highway in question is the quickest way between two points. If there's a prominent city in between, that should be the default.
There's nothing more prominent than Tampa or Miami in between Tampa and Miami.
There's nothing more prominent than Dallas or Atlanta in between Dallas and Atlanta.
That's not apples-to-apples. Naples is not Birmingham, or even Shreveport. I get your point, but that's probably not the best example to argue with.
The distance is also a factor. A lot shorter from Miami to Tampa than Atlanta to Dallas.
Boston to New York then?
New York is a no-brainer for I-95 SB in Boston. And I wouldn't hate Boston for I-95 NB in NYC.
Fine. How about NYC to DC?
Virginia doesn't use NYC as a control city per se, but they do have a sign for I-95 NB traffic approaching the I-495 beltway, indicating the route to NJ and NY.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:45:39 PM
Fine. How about NYC to DC?
Philadelphia needs to be a control city on I-95 in order to differentiate it from the New Jersey Turnpike south of Exit 6.
Quote from: ran4sh on August 07, 2022, 09:58:02 PM
Well, there's the issue that a lot of NYC-Boston traffic prefers I-91 north to I-84 east to I-90/Mass Pike east. If that route is indeed shorter than thru I-95, then NYC should be a control city on that route (and I-95 should probably be shifted to that route).
Neither making NYC a control city on that route or shifting the number makes any sense.
Quote from: thspfc on August 07, 2022, 09:47:14 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 07, 2022, 09:20:16 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 07, 2022, 09:17:49 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 08:47:49 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 07, 2022, 07:58:05 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 07, 2022, 11:26:28 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 07, 2022, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:08:15 AM
The point remains that it's silly to sign a control city only for the reason that the highway in question is the quickest way between two points. If there's a prominent city in between, that should be the default.
There's nothing more prominent than Tampa or Miami in between Tampa and Miami.
There's nothing more prominent than Dallas or Atlanta in between Dallas and Atlanta.
That's not apples-to-apples. Naples is not Birmingham, or even Shreveport. I get your point, but that's probably not the best example to argue with.
The distance is also a factor. A lot shorter from Miami to Tampa than Atlanta to Dallas.
Boston to New York then?
New York is a no-brainer for I-95 SB in Boston. And I wouldn't hate Boston for I-95 NB in NYC.
New Haven, Providence...
I know.
Then it's not a "no brainer."
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 08, 2022, 09:49:01 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 07, 2022, 09:58:02 PM
Well, there's the issue that a lot of NYC-Boston traffic prefers I-91 north to I-84 east to I-90/Mass Pike east. If that route is indeed shorter than thru I-95, then NYC should be a control city on that route (and I-95 should probably be shifted to that route).
Neither making NYC a control city on that route or shifting the number makes any sense.
Massachusetts signs NYC as a second control city (along with Hartford) for I-84 WB at its exit from I-90 WB already.
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 08, 2022, 10:15:29 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 08, 2022, 09:49:01 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 07, 2022, 09:58:02 PM
Well, there's the issue that a lot of NYC-Boston traffic prefers I-91 north to I-84 east to I-90/Mass Pike east. If that route is indeed shorter than thru I-95, then NYC should be a control city on that route (and I-95 should probably be shifted to that route).
Neither making NYC a control city on that route or shifting the number makes any sense.
Massachusetts signs NYC as a second control city (along with Hartford) for I-84 WB at its exit from I-90 WB already.
A secondary control city is fine.
Quote from: thspfc on August 05, 2022, 07:16:48 PM
Maybe Tomah as the primary control for I-90 west at the 90/94 split. You're already in Tomah at that point, and certain parts of the town are more accessible via I-94. It would be better to use La Crosse and then Rochester, or just La Crosse.
Wasn't Tomah at one point not too long ago (80s) just the southern part and the other part was North Tomah? I may misremember that.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 05, 2022, 08:35:18 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 05, 2022, 07:16:48 PM
Maybe Tomah as the primary control for I-90 west at the 90/94 split. You're already in Tomah at that point, and certain parts of the town are more accessible via I-94. It would be better to use La Crosse and then Rochester, or just La Crosse.
I think its the use of Fond du Lac on I-41 NB in the Milwaukee area. Should be Appleton.
Fond du Lac makes a lot of sense. It is the beginning of the Winnebago/Fox Cities. It would be better if on the mileage signs they would alternate the use of Fond du Lac, Oshkosh and Appleton from about Hwy 60 north. Green Bay shouldn't be used until you get to Fond du Lac IMO.
Quote from: pianocello on August 07, 2022, 12:15:17 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 06, 2022, 11:26:09 PM
Kentucky's make sense with the exception of using Fulton on I-69. Dyersburg or Memphis would make more sense, and it's possible Fulton will change once I-69 is complete. I guess it was used because Fulton was listed for the Purchase Parkway.
Otherwise, Kentucky's are pretty logical.
I may be a bit biased, but I've thought that Evansville should be used on I-69 NB instead of Henderson. Maybe they will change it when the new bridge is opened to make I-69 continuous across the state line.
Similarly, I would say one of Indiana's bad offenders is no control city on I-69 NB from Evansville northward. I get that INDOT is waiting for it to be finished before they can sign Indianapolis, but I would have thought that completing the roadway up to Bloomington is enough to update the signage.
Iowa's control cities are generally pretty good, although I think Omaha would make more sense for I-80 WB than Council Bluffs.
Quote from: michravera on August 07, 2022, 02:56:55 AM
So, [in California] we are often stuck with things like "Other Desert Cities" to avoid using some small town in a neighboring state that few would know...
I've never considered Phoenix to be a small town, but ok
Or you might get Henderson, then Evansville. There's precedent, with Ashland used for I-64, then Huntington.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 08, 2022, 09:49:29 AM
Then it's not a "no brainer."
Ok
To me New York is an obvious pick for I-95 SB in Boston.
Quote from: thspfc on August 07, 2022, 11:43:20 AM
From Tampa it should be Fort Myers + Miami and then Naples + Miami. If I had to choose one it would be just Miami.
From Miami it should be Naples + Tampa and then Fort Myers + Tampa. If I had to choose one it would be just Tampa.
Could also make a case for Sarasota as a secondary.
West Virginia has so many little Control Cities to pick from. How about the use of either Lewisburg (pop 3,930) or White Sulphur Springs (pop 2,231) on I-64 eastbound from Beckley? These are the carryovers from US-60, which is nowhere near the current routing of I-64 until you get close to Lewisburg. And of course, I-64 crosses US-60 at a location is the craziest of all Control Cities (warning, going off-topic) along the old Midland Trail, which is Sam Black Church (representing a small fraction of the tiny population of Smoot).
[hbelkins and I discuss Sam Black Church on another thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29860.msg2644841#msg2644841]
Quote from: thspfc on August 08, 2022, 03:09:01 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 08, 2022, 09:49:29 AM
Then it's not a "no brainer."
Ok
To me New York is an obvious pick for I-95 SB in Boston.
It's actually a terrible pick. I-90 to I-84 is faster than I-95 from downtown. I wouldn't mind it being signed south of Canton though, although Providence should still be the primary.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 08, 2022, 08:08:27 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 08, 2022, 03:09:01 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 08, 2022, 09:49:29 AM
Then it's not a "no brainer."
Ok
To me New York is an obvious pick for I-95 SB in Boston.
It's actually a terrible pick. I-90 to I-84 is faster than I-95 from downtown. I wouldn't mind it being signed south of Canton though, although Providence should still be the primary.
Per the rules of control cities, the control city used from downtown Boston must continue to be used until being reached (either the city itself or the interchange where traffic exits to a connecting route), so that rules out NYC being the I-95 south control city until at least Providence.
Quote from: ran4sh on August 08, 2022, 08:42:54 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 08, 2022, 08:08:27 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 08, 2022, 03:09:01 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 08, 2022, 09:49:29 AM
Then it's not a "no brainer."
Ok
To me New York is an obvious pick for I-95 SB in Boston.
It's actually a terrible pick. I-90 to I-84 is faster than I-95 from downtown. I wouldn't mind it being signed south of Canton though, although Providence should still be the primary.
Per the rules of control cities, the control city used from downtown Boston must continue to be used until being reached (either the city itself or the interchange where traffic exits to a connecting route), so that rules out NYC being the I-95 south control city until at least Providence.
Except when you cross a state boundary. NYC is the control for I-95 from Providence south within RI, but get to the CT border, and it becomes New London, then New Haven, before becoming NYC once again.
Quote from: ran4sh on August 08, 2022, 08:42:54 PM
Per the rules of control cities, the control city used from downtown Boston must continue to be used until being reached (either the city itself or the interchange where traffic exits to a connecting route), so that rules out NYC being the I-95 south control city until at least Providence.
Source?
Considering MoDOT with Tulsa and Kansas City on I-44 and I-70 respectively, OhioDOT with NYC on I-80, most beltways, and probably various other examples around the country, I doubt that.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 08, 2022, 08:46:45 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 08, 2022, 08:42:54 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 08, 2022, 08:08:27 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 08, 2022, 03:09:01 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 08, 2022, 09:49:29 AM
Then it's not a "no brainer."
Ok
To me New York is an obvious pick for I-95 SB in Boston.
It's actually a terrible pick. I-90 to I-84 is faster than I-95 from downtown. I wouldn't mind it being signed south of Canton though, although Providence should still be the primary.
Per the rules of control cities, the control city used from downtown Boston must continue to be used until being reached (either the city itself or the interchange where traffic exits to a connecting route), so that rules out NYC being the I-95 south control city until at least Providence.
Except when you cross a state boundary. NYC is the control for I-95 from Providence south within RI, but get to the CT border, and it becomes New London, then New Haven, before becoming NYC once again.
That's more of a technical limitation based on the fact that the states are maintaining the routes, rather than what the FHWA actually intends. It's supposed to be one network of routes that are mostly similar from state to state, and most state lines don't really have any good reason to be the cause of a control city change.
Quote from: ran4sh on August 08, 2022, 08:42:54 PM
Per the rules of control cities, the control city used from downtown Boston must continue to be used until being reached (either the city itself or the interchange where traffic exits to a connecting route), so that rules out NYC being the I-95 south control city until at least Providence.
Why would I-95 care what I-93's control cities are?
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 08, 2022, 08:54:09 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 08, 2022, 08:42:54 PM
Per the rules of control cities, the control city used from downtown Boston must continue to be used until being reached (either the city itself or the interchange where traffic exits to a connecting route), so that rules out NYC being the I-95 south control city until at least Providence.
Source?
Considering MoDOT with Tulsa and Kansas City on I-44 and I-70 respectively, OhioDOT with NYC on I-80, most beltways, and probably various other examples around the country, I doubt that.
See also my above reply to the other user.
As for a source, see MUTCD 2e.13 paragraph 1, "Successive freeway guide signs shall provide continuity in destination names and consistency with available map information." which is consistent with MUTCD 2d.41 paragraph 6, "The control city should remain the same on all successive Distance signs throughout the length of the route until that city is reached."
Quote from: 1 on August 08, 2022, 08:58:05 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 08, 2022, 08:42:54 PM
Per the rules of control cities, the control city used from downtown Boston must continue to be used until being reached (either the city itself or the interchange where traffic exits to a connecting route), so that rules out NYC being the I-95 south control city until at least Providence.
Why would I-95 care what I-93's control cities are?
I-93 is on what really should be I-95 (or I-93/95), and I-95 is on what should really be designated as a 3di. Sorry for the confusion.
Quote from: Brandon on August 05, 2022, 08:58:35 PM
Where do I start in Illinois? Do I start with "Interstate 57" on I-24, "Suburbs" for I-355, or Sterling-Rock Falls for I-88 east from I-80?
I think I hate I-355's "control cities" worst of all. "Suburbs" is such a weak excuse for a control. Just as bad is "Rockford" for I-355 along I-80.......I-355 doesn't go to Rockford.
I know it's not really an Interstate, but signing IL-394 as the way to Danville from I-80 is pretty funny to me.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 08, 2022, 09:03:11 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 05, 2022, 08:58:35 PM
Where do I start in Illinois? Do I start with "Interstate 57" on I-24, "Suburbs" for I-355, or Sterling-Rock Falls for I-88 east from I-80?
I think I hate I-355's "control cities" worst of all. "Suburbs" is such a weak excuse for a control. Just as bad is "Rockford" for I-355 along I-80.......I-355 doesn't go to Rockford.
I know it's not really an Interstate, but signing IL-394 as the way to Danville from I-80 is pretty funny to me.
All of those, and East St Louis anywhere it is used.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:30:10 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 07, 2022, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:08:15 AM
The point remains that it's silly to sign a control city only for the reason that the highway in question is the quickest way between two points. If there's a prominent city in between, that should be the default.
"What was that wide spot in the road?"
"Denver."
There's nothing more prominent than Tampa or Miami in between Tampa and Miami.
Sigh. But to use an example like I did earlier, there's nothing more prominent in between the Bay Area and NYC on I-80 either. That's not good reasoning.
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on August 09, 2022, 11:26:46 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:30:10 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 07, 2022, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:08:15 AM
The point remains that it's silly to sign a control city only for the reason that the highway in question is the quickest way between two points. If there's a prominent city in between, that should be the default.
"What was that wide spot in the road?"
"Denver."
There's nothing more prominent than Tampa or Miami in between Tampa and Miami.
Sigh. But to use an example like I did earlier, there's nothing more prominent in between the Bay Area and NYC on I-80 either. That's not good reasoning.
What are you saying? The quote is messed up.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 09, 2022, 06:26:59 PM
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on August 09, 2022, 11:26:46 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:30:10 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 07, 2022, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:08:15 AM
The point remains that it's silly to sign a control city only for the reason that the highway in question is the quickest way between two points. If there's a prominent city in between, that should be the default.
"What was that wide spot in the road?"
"Denver."
There's nothing more prominent than Tampa or Miami in between Tampa and Miami.
"What was that wide spot in the road?"
"Denver."
Sigh. But to use an example like I did earlier, there's nothing more prominent in between the Bay Area and NYC on I-80 either. That's not good reasoning.
What are you saying? The quote is messed up.
Quote from: thspfc on August 09, 2022, 06:55:23 PM
I'm surprised nobody ever screws up by putting the text up here
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 09, 2022, 06:26:59 PM
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on August 09, 2022, 11:26:46 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:30:10 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 07, 2022, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:08:15 AM
The point remains that it's silly to sign a control city only for the reason that the highway in question is the quickest way between two points. If there's a prominent city in between, that should be the default.
"What was that wide spot in the road?"
"Denver."
There's nothing more prominent than Tampa or Miami in between Tampa and Miami.
"What was that wide spot in the road?"
"Denver."
Sigh. But to use an example like I did earlier, there's nothing more prominent in between the Bay Area and NYC on I-80 either. That's not good reasoning.
What are you saying? The quote is messed up.
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on August 09, 2022, 11:26:46 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:30:10 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 07, 2022, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 07, 2022, 11:08:15 AM
The point remains that it's silly to sign a control city only for the reason that the highway in question is the quickest way between two points. If there's a prominent city in between, that should be the default.
There's nothing more prominent than Tampa or Miami in between Tampa and Miami.
Sigh. But to use an example like I did earlier, there's nothing more prominent in between the Bay Area and NYC on I-80 either. That's not good reasoning.
"What was that wide spot in the road?"
"Denver."
OK, FTFY (and everyone else...)
Quote from: LM117 on August 07, 2022, 10:24:48 AM
Since I'm originally from NC, I'd say this crap on I-587/US-264 East takes the cake there:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i795410b.jpg)
There's absolutely ZERO reason for Kenly to be a control city for I-795 South. Heading in this direction from points west of Wilson, you reach I-95 before the I-795 split. Anybody going to Kenly would simply hop on I-95 South since it's a straight shot.
I-795 is intended to be a shortcut to Wilmington, so Wilmington needs to take Kenly's spot.
IIRC isn't the I-95 South Benson Control City sign in the same area? Idk why they chose Benson as a Control City outside of maybe meeting I-40. It should be Smithfield, then Fayetteville.
Quote from: Mr. ENC on August 11, 2022, 11:23:36 PM
Quote from: LM117 on August 07, 2022, 10:24:48 AM
Since I'm originally from NC, I'd say this crap on I-587/US-264 East takes the cake there:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i795410b.jpg)
There's absolutely ZERO reason for Kenly to be a control city for I-795 South. Heading in this direction from points west of Wilson, you reach I-95 before the I-795 split. Anybody going to Kenly would simply hop on I-95 South since it's a straight shot.
I-795 is intended to be a shortcut to Wilmington, so Wilmington needs to take Kenly's spot.
IIRC isn't the I-95 South Benson Control City sign in the same area? Idk why they chose Benson as a Control City outside of maybe meeting I-40. It should be Smithfield, then Fayetteville.
The only control cities in NC on I-95 IMO should be Fayetteville and Rocky Mount (or drop Rocky Mount and use Richmond).
Raleigh could be a control city on I-95: northbound would use Raleigh from Fayetteville to I-40, southbound would use Raleigh from Richmond/Petersburg to US 64.
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 12:21:19 AM
Raleigh could be a control city on I-95: northbound would use Raleigh from Fayetteville to I-40, southbound would use Raleigh from Richmond/Petersburg to US 64.
It's a bit far off the route for me.
Another nomination for Ohio:
I-77 South has/had used either Cambridge or Marietta as the control city between Canton and Cambridge (where I-77 meets I-70). I would just stick with Cambridge and have the Marietta control city from I-70 southward.
Much of the Southbound traffic from Canton bails out by Dover/New Philadelphia or at I-70 anyways, so Marietta is a moot point.
Quote from: thenetwork on August 12, 2022, 09:34:31 AM
Another nomination for Ohio:
I-77 South has/had used either Cambridge or Marietta as the control city between Canton and Cambridge (where I-77 meets I-70). I would just stick with Cambridge and have the Marietta control city from I-70 southward.
Much of the Southbound traffic from Canton bails out by Dover/New Philadelphia or at I-70 anyways, so Marietta is a moot point.
So why not use Charleston or Parkersburg at I-70 for 77? That would be way better than Marietta.
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 12:21:19 AM
Raleigh could be a control city on I-95: northbound would use Raleigh from Fayetteville to I-40, southbound would use Raleigh from Richmond/Petersburg to US 64.
Not really. Raleigh is on another cross country 2di already so using it on I-95 makes no sense. The control cities in NC on I-95 should be: Florence, SC; Fayetteville; Rocky Mount and Richmond.
There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 12, 2022, 10:28:15 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 12, 2022, 09:34:31 AM
Another nomination for Ohio:
I-77 South has/had used either Cambridge or Marietta as the control city between Canton and Cambridge (where I-77 meets I-70). I would just stick with Cambridge and have the Marietta control city from I-70 southward.
Much of the Southbound traffic from Canton bails out by Dover/New Philadelphia or at I-70 anyways, so Marietta is a moot point.
So why not use Charleston or Parkersburg at I-70 for 77? That would be way better than Marietta.
I concur, Parkersburg would be better, but if they want to use an in-state city, they could do worse than Marietta.
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 11:47:09 AM
There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.
Using Raleigh on I-95 makes no sense in the first place as I-95 comes nowhere near Raleigh and there are far better control cities to use on I-95 than Raleigh. Rocky Mount and Fayetteville should be the only two NC cities used on I-95.
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 11:47:09 AM
There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.
A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities.
Quote from: thspfc on August 12, 2022, 02:37:03 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 11:47:09 AM
There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.
A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities.
The interstates are a national system, not a system where "cross country" routes are one type of route and some other type of route is a different type of route.
Cross country traffic should figure in when determining control cities on *any* interstate, not just the "cross country" routes (whatever that means... FHWA makes no such distinction).
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 03:13:50 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 12, 2022, 02:37:03 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 11:47:09 AM
There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.
A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities.
The interstates are a national system, not a system where "cross country" routes are one type of route and some other type of route is a different type of route.
Cross country traffic should figure in when determining control cities on *any* interstate, not just the "cross country" routes (whatever that means... FHWA makes no such distinction).
When webny99 says "cross country 2di", what is meant is a 2di that spans the length of the country, or very near that. I-95 goes from the Canadian border at Houlton to Fort Lauderdale, I-40 spans from I-15 near Needles to Wilmington. An example of a 2di that does not cross the country is I-79, which only spans from Erie to Charleston. Webny99 wasn't trying to use any official designation.
For I-77, I would use Charleston south of Canton. North of Charleston, I would use Cleveland. Make it simple.
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 03:13:50 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 12, 2022, 02:37:03 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 11:47:09 AM
There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.
A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities.
The interstates are a national system, not a system where "cross country" routes are one type of route and some other type of route is a different type of route.
Cross country traffic should figure in when determining control cities on *any* interstate, not just the "cross country" routes (whatever that means... FHWA makes no such distinction).
Never said anything about cross country routes or even Interstates at all for that matter.
A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities. That means that if a route has a lot of cross country traffic, its control cities should, on average, be larger and more notable. If a route does not have a lot of cross country traffic - and many segments of Interstates don't - the control cities should, on average, be more locally rather than nationally known.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 12, 2022, 04:46:20 PM
For I-77, I would use Charleston south of Canton. North of Charleston, I would use Cleveland. Make it simple.
Ehhh... Yes, but IMHO add Parkersburg.
Quote from: thspfc on August 12, 2022, 04:52:53 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 03:13:50 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 12, 2022, 02:37:03 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 11:47:09 AM
There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.
A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities.
The interstates are a national system, not a system where "cross country" routes are one type of route and some other type of route is a different type of route.
Cross country traffic should figure in when determining control cities on *any* interstate, not just the "cross country" routes (whatever that means... FHWA makes no such distinction).
Never said anything about cross country routes or even Interstates at all for that matter.
A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities. That means that if a route has a lot of cross country traffic, its control cities should, on average, be larger and more notable. If a route does not have a lot of cross country traffic - and many segments of Interstates don't - the control cities should, on average, be more locally rather than nationally known.
Again, routes are arbitrary distinctions and all it takes is replacement of some signs to turn one segment from "non-cross country" to "cross country" or vice versa. For example, the interstates currently known as I-76 were at one point branch routes from I-80 (i.e. I-80S, etc) I-80 is clearly a cross country route, while the others are not, so just by switching signs you are saying the standards should also switch (despite being the same road). I strongly disagree, routes are arbitrary distinctions.
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 05:16:47 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 12, 2022, 04:52:53 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 03:13:50 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 12, 2022, 02:37:03 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 11:47:09 AM
There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.
A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities.
The interstates are a national system, not a system where "cross country" routes are one type of route and some other type of route is a different type of route.
Cross country traffic should figure in when determining control cities on *any* interstate, not just the "cross country" routes (whatever that means... FHWA makes no such distinction).
Never said anything about cross country routes or even Interstates at all for that matter.
A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities. That means that if a route has a lot of cross country traffic, its control cities should, on average, be larger and more notable. If a route does not have a lot of cross country traffic - and many segments of Interstates don't - the control cities should, on average, be more locally rather than nationally known.
Again, routes are arbitrary distinctions and all it takes is replacement of some signs to turn one segment from "non-cross country" to "cross country" or vice versa. For example, the interstates currently known as I-76 were at one point branch routes from I-80 (i.e. I-80S, etc) I-80 is clearly a cross country route, while the others are not, so just by switching signs you are saying the standards should also switch (despite being the same road). I strongly disagree, routes are arbitrary distinctions.
Reread what he wrote carefully. He's saying "sections of road with lots of out-of-state traffic should have more well-known control cities". That has nothing to do with route numbers.
How about we just make all control cities NY and LA. Any heading between 169 and 349 degrees is moving closer to LA and any heading < 169 or > 349 degrees is moving closer to NY.
Would that make everybody happy?
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 12, 2022, 05:19:05 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 05:16:47 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 12, 2022, 04:52:53 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 03:13:50 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 12, 2022, 02:37:03 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 11:47:09 AM
There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.
A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities.
The interstates are a national system, not a system where "cross country" routes are one type of route and some other type of route is a different type of route.
Cross country traffic should figure in when determining control cities on *any* interstate, not just the "cross country" routes (whatever that means... FHWA makes no such distinction).
Never said anything about cross country routes or even Interstates at all for that matter.
A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities. That means that if a route has a lot of cross country traffic, its control cities should, on average, be larger and more notable. If a route does not have a lot of cross country traffic - and many segments of Interstates don't - the control cities should, on average, be more locally rather than nationally known.
Again, routes are arbitrary distinctions and all it takes is replacement of some signs to turn one segment from "non-cross country" to "cross country" or vice versa. For example, the interstates currently known as I-76 were at one point branch routes from I-80 (i.e. I-80S, etc) I-80 is clearly a cross country route, while the others are not, so just by switching signs you are saying the standards should also switch (despite being the same road). I strongly disagree, routes are arbitrary distinctions.
Reread what he wrote carefully. He's saying "sections of road with lots of out-of-state traffic should have more well-known control cities". That has nothing to do with route numbers.
Sure. But my opinion remains the same. The FHWA makes no distinction between Interstate routes with lots of out of state traffic vs routes with mostly local traffic. I agree with that and I believe Interstate routes throughout the whole system, including 3dis, should have control cities based on non-local traffic.
Quote from: kirbykart on August 12, 2022, 05:07:38 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 12, 2022, 04:46:20 PM
For I-77, I would use Charleston south of Canton. North of Charleston, I would use Cleveland. Make it simple.
Ehhh... Yes, but IMHO add Parkersburg.
I'm fine with Parkersburg northbound, southbound I would stay away from it.
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 06:38:36 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 12, 2022, 05:19:05 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 05:16:47 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 12, 2022, 04:52:53 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 03:13:50 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 12, 2022, 02:37:03 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 11:47:09 AM
There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.
A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities.
The interstates are a national system, not a system where "cross country" routes are one type of route and some other type of route is a different type of route.
Cross country traffic should figure in when determining control cities on *any* interstate, not just the "cross country" routes (whatever that means... FHWA makes no such distinction).
Never said anything about cross country routes or even Interstates at all for that matter.
A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities. That means that if a route has a lot of cross country traffic, its control cities should, on average, be larger and more notable. If a route does not have a lot of cross country traffic - and many segments of Interstates don't - the control cities should, on average, be more locally rather than nationally known.
Again, routes are arbitrary distinctions and all it takes is replacement of some signs to turn one segment from "non-cross country" to "cross country" or vice versa. For example, the interstates currently known as I-76 were at one point branch routes from I-80 (i.e. I-80S, etc) I-80 is clearly a cross country route, while the others are not, so just by switching signs you are saying the standards should also switch (despite being the same road). I strongly disagree, routes are arbitrary distinctions.
Reread what he wrote carefully. He's saying "sections of road with lots of out-of-state traffic should have more well-known control cities". That has nothing to do with route numbers.
Sure. But my opinion remains the same. The FHWA makes no distinction between Interstate routes with lots of out of state traffic vs routes with mostly local traffic. I agree with that and I believe Interstate routes throughout the whole system, including 3dis, should have control cities based on non-local traffic.
They leave it up to the states to decide what the control cities are. Like for Michigan MDOT chooses the control cities and does a pretty good job at it too. So control cities vary state by state, some do it well and some don't.
The winner for MDOT's worst control cities is a tie between Flint on I-275 and Port Huron on I-696.
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 12, 2022, 08:44:59 PM
They leave it up to the states to decide what the control cities are.
And states don't always agree. Look at I-24. Kentucky uses St. Louis, Paducah, and Nashville. No mention of Clarksville. Tennessee uses Nashville, Clarksville, and St. Louis. No mention of Paducah.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 12, 2022, 08:52:42 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 12, 2022, 08:44:59 PM
They leave it up to the states to decide what the control cities are.
And states don't always agree. Look at I-24. Kentucky uses St. Louis, Paducah, and Nashville. No mention of Clarksville. Tennessee uses Nashville, Clarksville, and St. Louis. No mention of Paducah.
Yeah and Illinois uses, "Interstate 57." Those are stupid control cities. I'd love to re-control city I-24. The entire route I'd go with Chattanooga, Nashville, Clarksville, Paducah, Mt. Vernon. Nothing wrong with any of those I do not think.
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 12, 2022, 08:44:59 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 06:38:36 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 12, 2022, 05:19:05 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 05:16:47 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 12, 2022, 04:52:53 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 03:13:50 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 12, 2022, 02:37:03 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 11:47:09 AM
There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.
A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities.
The interstates are a national system, not a system where "cross country" routes are one type of route and some other type of route is a different type of route.
Cross country traffic should figure in when determining control cities on *any* interstate, not just the "cross country" routes (whatever that means... FHWA makes no such distinction).
Never said anything about cross country routes or even Interstates at all for that matter.
A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities. That means that if a route has a lot of cross country traffic, its control cities should, on average, be larger and more notable. If a route does not have a lot of cross country traffic - and many segments of Interstates don't - the control cities should, on average, be more locally rather than nationally known.
Again, routes are arbitrary distinctions and all it takes is replacement of some signs to turn one segment from "non-cross country" to "cross country" or vice versa. For example, the interstates currently known as I-76 were at one point branch routes from I-80 (i.e. I-80S, etc) I-80 is clearly a cross country route, while the others are not, so just by switching signs you are saying the standards should also switch (despite being the same road). I strongly disagree, routes are arbitrary distinctions.
Reread what he wrote carefully. He's saying "sections of road with lots of out-of-state traffic should have more well-known control cities". That has nothing to do with route numbers.
Sure. But my opinion remains the same. The FHWA makes no distinction between Interstate routes with lots of out of state traffic vs routes with mostly local traffic. I agree with that and I believe Interstate routes throughout the whole system, including 3dis, should have control cities based on non-local traffic.
They leave it up to the states to decide what the control cities are. Like for Michigan MDOT chooses the control cities and does a pretty good job at it too. So control cities vary state by state, some do it well and some don't.
The winner for MDOT's worst control cities is a tie between Flint on I-275 and Port Huron on I-696.
That's not what the MUTCD says. The MUTCD specifically recommends continuity across state lines. It's just that it's not within the power of the federal government to force states to agree on control cities across state lines.
Quote from: kirbykart on August 12, 2022, 04:00:16 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 03:13:50 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 12, 2022, 02:37:03 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 11:47:09 AM
There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.
A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities.
The interstates are a national system, not a system where "cross country" routes are one type of route and some other type of route is a different type of route.
Cross country traffic should figure in when determining control cities on *any* interstate, not just the "cross country" routes (whatever that means... FHWA makes no such distinction).
When webny99 says "cross country 2di", what is meant is a 2di that spans the length of the country, or very near that. I-95 goes from the Canadian border at Houlton to Fort Lauderdale, I-40 spans from I-15 near Needles to Wilmington. An example of a 2di that does not cross the country is I-79, which only spans from Erie to Charleston. Webny99 wasn't trying to use any official designation.
And I said that the rules for control cities should not be different between I-79 and whatever other interstate.
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 09:13:12 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 12, 2022, 08:44:59 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 06:38:36 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 12, 2022, 05:19:05 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 05:16:47 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 12, 2022, 04:52:53 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 03:13:50 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 12, 2022, 02:37:03 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 11:47:09 AM
There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.
A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities.
The interstates are a national system, not a system where "cross country" routes are one type of route and some other type of route is a different type of route.
Cross country traffic should figure in when determining control cities on *any* interstate, not just the "cross country" routes (whatever that means... FHWA makes no such distinction).
Never said anything about cross country routes or even Interstates at all for that matter.
A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities. That means that if a route has a lot of cross country traffic, its control cities should, on average, be larger and more notable. If a route does not have a lot of cross country traffic - and many segments of Interstates don't - the control cities should, on average, be more locally rather than nationally known.
Again, routes are arbitrary distinctions and all it takes is replacement of some signs to turn one segment from "non-cross country" to "cross country" or vice versa. For example, the interstates currently known as I-76 were at one point branch routes from I-80 (i.e. I-80S, etc) I-80 is clearly a cross country route, while the others are not, so just by switching signs you are saying the standards should also switch (despite being the same road). I strongly disagree, routes are arbitrary distinctions.
Reread what he wrote carefully. He's saying "sections of road with lots of out-of-state traffic should have more well-known control cities". That has nothing to do with route numbers.
Sure. But my opinion remains the same. The FHWA makes no distinction between Interstate routes with lots of out of state traffic vs routes with mostly local traffic. I agree with that and I believe Interstate routes throughout the whole system, including 3dis, should have control cities based on non-local traffic.
They leave it up to the states to decide what the control cities are. Like for Michigan MDOT chooses the control cities and does a pretty good job at it too. So control cities vary state by state, some do it well and some don't.
The winner for MDOT's worst control cities is a tie between Flint on I-275 and Port Huron on I-696.
That's not what the MUTCD says. The MUTCD specifically recommends continuity across state lines. It's just that it's not within the power of the federal government to force states to agree on control cities across state lines.
Have you not caught on that nobody cares about what the MUTCD says?
I believe that whether there is long-distance traffic absolutely matters. Take I-495 in Massachusetts, for example. The northern half is a long-distance corridor. The southern half is not, despite having the same number.
Quote from: 1 on August 13, 2022, 08:29:46 AM
I believe that whether there is long-distance traffic absolutely matters. Take I-495 in Massachusetts, for example. The northern half is a long-distance corridor. The southern half is not, despite having the same number.
But the MCDUTCDCUTU said
Quote from: 1 on August 13, 2022, 08:29:46 AM
I believe that whether there is long-distance traffic absolutely matters. Take I-495 in Massachusetts, for example. The northern half is a long-distance corridor. The southern half is not, despite having the same number.
Your point is valid, although I'm sure the folks in SE Mass and Cape Cod would disagree, especially during the summer.
I think the worst control city of them all is THRU TRAFFIC.
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 12, 2022, 08:56:45 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 12, 2022, 08:52:42 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 12, 2022, 08:44:59 PM
They leave it up to the states to decide what the control cities are.
And states don't always agree. Look at I-24. Kentucky uses St. Louis, Paducah, and Nashville. No mention of Clarksville. Tennessee uses Nashville, Clarksville, and St. Louis. No mention of Paducah.
Yeah and Illinois uses, "Interstate 57." Those are stupid control cities. I'd love to re-control city I-24. The entire route I'd go with Chattanooga, Nashville, Clarksville, Paducah, Mt. Vernon. Nothing wrong with any of those I do not think.
I'd pick Marion over Mt Vernon for I-24. It is very close to where I-24 terminates to I-57, and is a decent sized city for Southern Illinois
Quote from: thspfc on August 13, 2022, 08:22:21 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 09:13:12 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 12, 2022, 08:44:59 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 06:38:36 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 12, 2022, 05:19:05 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 05:16:47 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 12, 2022, 04:52:53 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 03:13:50 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 12, 2022, 02:37:03 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 11:47:09 AM
There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.
A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities.
The interstates are a national system, not a system where "cross country" routes are one type of route and some other type of route is a different type of route.
Cross country traffic should figure in when determining control cities on *any* interstate, not just the "cross country" routes (whatever that means... FHWA makes no such distinction).
Never said anything about cross country routes or even Interstates at all for that matter.
A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities. That means that if a route has a lot of cross country traffic, its control cities should, on average, be larger and more notable. If a route does not have a lot of cross country traffic - and many segments of Interstates don't - the control cities should, on average, be more locally rather than nationally known.
Again, routes are arbitrary distinctions and all it takes is replacement of some signs to turn one segment from "non-cross country" to "cross country" or vice versa. For example, the interstates currently known as I-76 were at one point branch routes from I-80 (i.e. I-80S, etc) I-80 is clearly a cross country route, while the others are not, so just by switching signs you are saying the standards should also switch (despite being the same road). I strongly disagree, routes are arbitrary distinctions.
Reread what he wrote carefully. He's saying "sections of road with lots of out-of-state traffic should have more well-known control cities". That has nothing to do with route numbers.
Sure. But my opinion remains the same. The FHWA makes no distinction between Interstate routes with lots of out of state traffic vs routes with mostly local traffic. I agree with that and I believe Interstate routes throughout the whole system, including 3dis, should have control cities based on non-local traffic.
They leave it up to the states to decide what the control cities are. Like for Michigan MDOT chooses the control cities and does a pretty good job at it too. So control cities vary state by state, some do it well and some don't.
The winner for MDOT's worst control cities is a tie between Flint on I-275 and Port Huron on I-696.
That's not what the MUTCD says. The MUTCD specifically recommends continuity across state lines. It's just that it's not within the power of the federal government to force states to agree on control cities across state lines.
Have you not caught on that nobody cares about what the MUTCD says?
That's the non-roadgeek opinion. They tend to have arbitrary rules such as a control city must be on the route. I disagree.
Quote from: ilpt4u on August 13, 2022, 12:52:40 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 12, 2022, 08:56:45 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 12, 2022, 08:52:42 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 12, 2022, 08:44:59 PM
They leave it up to the states to decide what the control cities are.
And states don't always agree. Look at I-24. Kentucky uses St. Louis, Paducah, and Nashville. No mention of Clarksville. Tennessee uses Nashville, Clarksville, and St. Louis. No mention of Paducah.
Yeah and Illinois uses, "Interstate 57." Those are stupid control cities. I'd love to re-control city I-24. The entire route I'd go with Chattanooga, Nashville, Clarksville, Paducah, Mt. Vernon. Nothing wrong with any of those I do not think.
I'd pick Marion over Mt Vernon for I-24. It is very close to where I-24 terminates to I-57, and is a decent sized city for Southern Illinois
I would go with Carbondale over Marion only because of SIU. And if I-24 is ever extended west to St Louis, not holding my breath, it most likely would go near Carbondale.
"New York" on the Thruway anywhere west of Albany, where there are several important cities en route to NYC. Same thing with I-87 north of said city.
Quote from: thspfc on August 13, 2022, 08:22:21 AM
Have you not caught on that nobody cares about what the MUTCD says?
If we're going to just disregard the MUTCD as a guiding document here, then all control city choice is entirely arbitrary, and there's no point in even having a thread because there's nothing that makes one control city better than another. We can start posting made-up things like "Willieville" and "Spantz" on every exit because without the MUTCD there is nothing saying what a control city should or should not be, or even the concept of a control city to begin with.
Quote from: Declan127 on August 13, 2022, 02:35:30 PM
"New York" on the Thruway anywhere west of Albany, where there are several important cities en route to NYC. Same thing with I-87 north of said city.
One could argue that signing New York City even as far west as Buffalo would be fine as long as there is a second city on the sign until I-86 is completed all the way to I-84/I-87 in the New York North Suburbs.
Quote from: kirbykart on August 12, 2022, 04:00:16 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 03:13:50 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 12, 2022, 02:37:03 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 11:47:09 AM
There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.
A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities.
The interstates are a national system, not a system where "cross country" routes are one type of route and some other type of route is a different type of route.
Cross country traffic should figure in when determining control cities on *any* interstate, not just the "cross country" routes (whatever that means... FHWA makes no such distinction).
When webny99 says "cross country 2di", what is meant is a 2di that spans the length of the country, or very near that. I-95 goes from the Canadian border at Houlton to Fort Lauderdale, I-40 spans from I-15 near Needles to Wilmington. An example of a 2di that does not cross the country is I-79, which only spans from Erie to Charleston. Webny99 wasn't trying to use any official designation.
This is old news by now, but I don't think it was me that said anything about cross-country 2di's. I'm not in the quote string either. Maybe you just got your users mixed up? :hmmm:
Quote from: hbelkins on August 12, 2022, 08:52:42 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 12, 2022, 08:44:59 PM
They leave it up to the states to decide what the control cities are.
And states don't always agree. Look at I-24. Kentucky uses St. Louis, Paducah, and Nashville. No mention of Clarksville. Tennessee uses Nashville, Clarksville, and St. Louis. No mention of Paducah.
Some control cities make sense in one direction but don't in the other. Clarksville is one of those cities.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 13, 2022, 04:17:07 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 12, 2022, 08:52:42 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 12, 2022, 08:44:59 PM
They leave it up to the states to decide what the control cities are.
And states don't always agree. Look at I-24. Kentucky uses St. Louis, Paducah, and Nashville. No mention of Clarksville. Tennessee uses Nashville, Clarksville, and St. Louis. No mention of Paducah.
Some control cities make sense in one direction but don't in the other. Clarksville is one of those cities.
Yes, this (ideally) is what happens when a city is large enough to be a control city but there is a much larger city also along the route. The direction going to the very large city "skips" the less large city in the control city sequence.
An extreme example is I-95 north skipping Philadelphia because New York is more important, although this is something some people disagree with.
Quote from: ran4sh on August 13, 2022, 04:38:14 PM
An extreme example is I-95 north skipping Philadelphia because New York is more important, although this is something some people disagree with.
That's a situation where there should be 2 control cities.
Cities over 1M metro should never be skipped IMO. It's when you get to the smaller metros (200k-500k) where it gets dicey largely depending on how far away it is from a bigger metro.
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 13, 2022, 06:28:00 PM
Cities over 1M metro should never be skipped IMO. It's when you get to the smaller metros (200k-500k) where it gets dicey largely depending on how far away it is from a bigger metro.
So I-10 WB in AZ/CA should get San Bernardino rather than Los Angeles?
Quote from: thspfc on August 13, 2022, 05:11:08 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 13, 2022, 04:38:14 PM
An extreme example is I-95 north skipping Philadelphia because New York is more important, although this is something some people disagree with.
That's a situation where there should be 2 control cities.
On the mileage sign, sure.
On the other signs that use control cities, no, because of message loading concerns. If 2 cities are really needed, then what some states do is alternate the use of the two cities
"Borrowing" an idea from another thread, I'd like to nominate the LACK of a control city on I-469, both north and south.
NB I-469 is an easy fix for most of the way: Toledo. But past US-24 East, it gets tricky.
SB I-469 is a toss-up: Lima (US-30) or Columbus (US-33). Past that, Indianapolis is a slam dunk the rest of the way.
Quote from: thspfc on August 13, 2022, 08:59:10 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 13, 2022, 06:28:00 PM
Cities over 1M metro should never be skipped IMO. It's when you get to the smaller metros (200k-500k) where it gets dicey largely depending on how far away it is from a bigger metro.
So I-10 WB in AZ/CA should get San Bernardino rather than Los Angeles?
I count San Bernardino as part of the greater LA area.
Quote from: thenetwork on August 13, 2022, 10:28:30 PM
"Borrowing" an idea from another thread, I'd like to nominate the LACK of a control city on I-469, both north and south.
Quote from: thenetwork on August 13, 2022, 10:28:30 PM
NB I-469 is an easy fix for most of the way: Toledo. But past US-24 East, it gets tricky.
Lansing, or whatever is actually used on I-69 north from Ft Wayne
Quote from: thenetwork on August 13, 2022, 10:28:30 PM
SB I-469 is a toss-up: Lima (US-30) or Columbus (US-33). Past that, Indianapolis is a slam dunk the rest of the way.
US 33 might go to Columbus but the last time I was in the area, my GPS routed me through Lima to get to Columbus, so it seems like that might be the better route.
So maybe use Columbus or Lima as the thru control city until US 30, use Indianapolis as the thru control city beyond that, but at the US 33 exit Columbus can be used on the exit signs.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 14, 2022, 02:30:02 AM
Quote from: thspfc on August 13, 2022, 08:59:10 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 13, 2022, 06:28:00 PM
Cities over 1M metro should never be skipped IMO. It's when you get to the smaller metros (200k-500k) where it gets dicey largely depending on how far away it is from a bigger metro.
So I-10 WB in AZ/CA should get San Bernardino rather than Los Angeles?
I count San Bernardino as part of the greater LA area.
If that view is to be regarded as reasonable, virtually no control cities make sense on I-80 in California west of Forest Hill (where the roadway widens to three lanes and basically remains so until well inside San Francisco), nothing would make sense on I-15 much south of the CA/NV border, nothing would make sense on I-5 south of Santa Clarita, and almost none of the 3dis in California would have controls cities that made ANY sense. If San Bernardino is part of the Greater LA area, then Tracy is part of the Greater San Jose or Oakland area and so is Stockton and probably Sacramento as well.
There are breaks in the built-up area between LA and San Bernardino. There are breaks in the built-up area even between Sacramento and Oakland. But, that aside, even in Sacramento, you need to know the difference between Roseville, Folsom, Elk Grove, and Wessac.
It is my understanding that control cities are generally to be used until they are reached. Inside built-up areas, it makes sense to have a "local" destination to get on the right freeway to a suburb or nearby city and a "distant" destination, so that people who are "just passing through" can get where they are going as well. Once out of a built-up area, the "distant" destination is fine which can be combined with a "local" destination, if a minor city pops up.
One reason for the 1960s song "Do You Know the Way to San Jose?" is that, at the time, it didn't show up as a control city until you were nearly in it!
California always was inconsistent with controls just as I-95 in NC.
NYC used to be where they signed the region leaving the city, but once outside a proper city name became used. It used to beNew England for I-95 north and then New Haven once in Westchester County. I-87 used to use Upstate until t pit left NYC at Yonkers where Albany is then used.
The LIE has Eastern LI used EB until Nassau County where Riverhead becomes it going EB in Nassau. People on Long Island I guess feel Riverhead is not good choice as inside NY it's used sparingly now despite the MUTCD requirements of nixing bridges and regions.
Also in NJ now I see on US 46 that Elmwood Park is used on the pull through at the NJ 20 split despite it being the very next community after the split and not of major significance. However new guides on the Garden State Parkway Exit 156 feature Elmwood Park, so I imagine it's to follow up on that. Though, NJDOT did remove Elmwood Park as control city from US 46 to NB CR 507, so with that Elmwood Park should be restored to Exit 157 on the Parkway as the only exit for Elmwood Park signed is now east of Exit 157.
Quote from: thenetwork on August 13, 2022, 10:28:30 PM
"Borrowing" an idea from another thread, I'd like to nominate the LACK of a control city on I-469, both north and south.
NB I-469 is an easy fix for most of the way: Toledo. But past US-24 East, it gets tricky.
SB I-469 is a toss-up: Lima (US-30) or Columbus (US-33). Past that, Indianapolis is a slam dunk the rest of the way.
It should be Lansing and Indianapolis on I-469.
Quote from: michravera on August 14, 2022, 03:16:12 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 14, 2022, 02:30:02 AM
Quote from: thspfc on August 13, 2022, 08:59:10 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 13, 2022, 06:28:00 PM
Cities over 1M metro should never be skipped IMO. It's when you get to the smaller metros (200k-500k) where it gets dicey largely depending on how far away it is from a bigger metro.
So I-10 WB in AZ/CA should get San Bernardino rather than Los Angeles?
I count San Bernardino as part of the greater LA area.
If that view is to be regarded as reasonable, virtually no control cities make sense on I-80 in California west of Forest Hill (where the roadway widens to three lanes and basically remains so until well inside San Francisco), nothing would make sense on I-15 much south of the CA/NV border, nothing would make sense on I-5 south of Santa Clarita, and almost none of the 3dis in California would have controls cities that made ANY sense. If San Bernardino is part of the Greater LA area, then Tracy is part of the Greater San Jose or Oakland area and so is Stockton and probably Sacramento as well.
There are breaks in the built-up area between LA and San Bernardino. There are breaks in the built-up area even between Sacramento and Oakland. But, that aside, even in Sacramento, you need to know the difference between Roseville, Folsom, Elk Grove, and Wessac.
The Bay Area and Los Angeles freeway networks were much more developed by the mid-1950s compared to Sacramento's (which originally started with just US 40/99E along what is now 160 and Business 80) - I think this explains why Bay Area and LA metro control cities are locally oriented, while Sacramento's are almost all long-distance based (given that much of Sacramento's current network outside of old 40 is a product of 1960s projects).
IMO with the growth of Elk Grove, that and Stockton should be signed more out there, but I know that that wouldn't necessarily fit "control cities for long distance drivers only" philosophies mentioned elsewhere by others in this thread.
Quote from: michravera on August 14, 2022, 03:16:12 AM
It is my understanding that control cities are generally to be used until they are reached.
I agree with that, which is why LA as a control for US 101 and I-5 within LA city limits, as much as I get the logic behind it, is a bit wacky. (There's also one spot where a US 50 onramp is signed for Sacramento just a few blocks from Sacramento State University!)
Quote from: michravera on August 14, 2022, 03:16:12 AM
Inside built-up areas, it makes sense to have a "local" destination to get on the right freeway to a suburb or nearby city and a "distant" destination, so that people who are "just passing through" can get where they are going as well. Once out of a built-up area, the "distant" destination is fine which can be combined with a "local" destination, if a minor city pops up.
One reason for the 1960s song "Do You Know the Way to San Jose?" is that, at the time, it didn't show up as a control city until you were nearly in it!
Funny enough, San Jose still doesn't appear as a mainline US 101 northbound control city at all until Salinas! Southbound though it is the only control for 101 from the Van Ness Avenue/Central Freeway junction all the way to Route 85 (where it becomes San Jose/Los Angeles).
This reminds me much of how I-80 is signed for San Francisco from Sacramento west to about the Carquinez Bridge, then gets signed for Oakland and SF up to the MacArthur Maze. Eastbound, 80 is signed only for Oakland from US 101 to the Bay Bridge, then gains Sacramento as a control city in West Oakland (almost always paired with a shorter-distance control like Berkeley or Vallejo or Vacaville).
Quote from: webny99 on August 13, 2022, 03:10:20 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on August 12, 2022, 04:00:16 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 03:13:50 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 12, 2022, 02:37:03 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 11:47:09 AM
There's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.
A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities.
The interstates are a national system, not a system where "cross country" routes are one type of route and some other type of route is a different type of route.
Cross country traffic should figure in when determining control cities on *any* interstate, not just the "cross country" routes (whatever that means... FHWA makes no such distinction).
When webny99 says "cross country 2di", what is meant is a 2di that spans the length of the country, or very near that. I-95 goes from the Canadian border at Houlton to Fort Lauderdale, I-40 spans from I-15 near Needles to Wilmington. An example of a 2di that does not cross the country is I-79, which only spans from Erie to Charleston. Webny99 wasn't trying to use any official designation.
This is old news by now, but I don't think it was me that said anything about cross-country 2di's. I'm not in the quote string either. Maybe you just got your users mixed up? :hmmm:
No, you are not in this quote string, but I know you said something about a "cross-country 2di".
^^No sorry, you're right. It was Flint1979 who brought up the "cross-country 2di".
Quote from: ran4sh on August 14, 2022, 02:40:02 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 13, 2022, 10:28:30 PM
"Borrowing" an idea from another thread, I'd like to nominate the LACK of a control city on I-469, both north and south.
Quote from: thenetwork on August 13, 2022, 10:28:30 PM
NB I-469 is an easy fix for most of the way: Toledo. But past US-24 East, it gets tricky.
Lansing, or whatever is actually used on I-69 north from Ft Wayne
Quote from: thenetwork on August 13, 2022, 10:28:30 PM
SB I-469 is a toss-up: Lima (US-30) or Columbus (US-33). Past that, Indianapolis is a slam dunk the rest of the way.
US 33 might go to Columbus but the last time I was in the area, my GPS routed me through Lima to get to Columbus, so it seems like that might be the better route.
So maybe use Columbus or Lima as the thru control city until US 30, use Indianapolis as the thru control city beyond that, but at the US 33 exit Columbus can be used on the exit signs.
They use Lansing, MI north of Fort Wayne.
US-33 is the correct route to take between Fort Wayne and Columbus. There might be a way that saves you a few minutes but if it's a tad bit longer it's really not worth it to go that way.
Quote from: kirbykart on August 14, 2022, 09:50:39 AM
^^No sorry, you're right. It was Flint1979 who brought up the "cross-country 2di".
And my point was that why should Raleigh be a control city on I-95 when I-40 already goes through Raleigh. That was my point with the cross country 2di thing as in there is already a major Interstate going through there so no need to sign it as a control city on another major Interstate that doesn't go through there.
Quote from: michravera on August 14, 2022, 03:16:12 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 14, 2022, 02:30:02 AM
Quote from: thspfc on August 13, 2022, 08:59:10 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 13, 2022, 06:28:00 PM
Cities over 1M metro should never be skipped IMO. It's when you get to the smaller metros (200k-500k) where it gets dicey largely depending on how far away it is from a bigger metro.
So I-10 WB in AZ/CA should get San Bernardino rather than Los Angeles?
I count San Bernardino as part of the greater LA area.
If that view is to be regarded as reasonable, virtually no control cities make sense on I-80 in California west of Forest Hill (where the roadway widens to three lanes and basically remains so until well inside San Francisco), nothing would make sense on I-15 much south of the CA/NV border, nothing would make sense on I-5 south of Santa Clarita, and almost none of the 3dis in California would have controls cities that made ANY sense. If San Bernardino is part of the Greater LA area, then Tracy is part of the Greater San Jose or Oakland area and so is Stockton and probably Sacramento as well.
There are breaks in the built-up area between LA and San Bernardino. There are breaks in the built-up area even between Sacramento and Oakland. But, that aside, even in Sacramento, you need to know the difference between Roseville, Folsom, Elk Grove, and Wessac.
It is my understanding that control cities are generally to be used until they are reached. Inside built-up areas, it makes sense to have a "local" destination to get on the right freeway to a suburb or nearby city and a "distant" destination, so that people who are "just passing through" can get where they are going as well. Once out of a built-up area, the "distant" destination is fine which can be combined with a "local" destination, if a minor city pops up.
One reason for the 1960s song "Do You Know the Way to San Jose?" is that, at the time, it didn't show up as a control city until you were nearly in it!
I don't think a control city has to be reached before the control city is changed. There is an example in Michigan on US-127 where Clare is the control city as far south as Lansing, by the time US-127 gets to Mount Pleasant which is about 15 miles south of Clare the control city switches to Mackinac Bridge and keeps Mackinac Bridge as the control city until you get to the bridge.
Quote from: TheStranger on August 14, 2022, 09:47:48 AM
Quote from: michravera on August 14, 2022, 03:16:12 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 14, 2022, 02:30:02 AM
Quote from: thspfc on August 13, 2022, 08:59:10 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 13, 2022, 06:28:00 PM
Cities over 1M metro should never be skipped IMO. It's when you get to the smaller metros (200k-500k) where it gets dicey largely depending on how far away it is from a bigger metro.
So I-10 WB in AZ/CA should get San Bernardino rather than Los Angeles?
I count San Bernardino as part of the greater LA area.
If that view is to be regarded as reasonable, virtually no control cities make sense on I-80 in California west of Forest Hill (where the roadway widens to three lanes and basically remains so until well inside San Francisco), nothing would make sense on I-15 much south of the CA/NV border, nothing would make sense on I-5 south of Santa Clarita, and almost none of the 3dis in California would have controls cities that made ANY sense. If San Bernardino is part of the Greater LA area, then Tracy is part of the Greater San Jose or Oakland area and so is Stockton and probably Sacramento as well.
There are breaks in the built-up area between LA and San Bernardino. There are breaks in the built-up area even between Sacramento and Oakland. But, that aside, even in Sacramento, you need to know the difference between Roseville, Folsom, Elk Grove, and Wessac.
The Bay Area and Los Angeles freeway networks were much more developed by the mid-1950s compared to Sacramento's (which originally started with just US 40/99E along what is now 160 and Business 80) - I think this explains why Bay Area and LA metro control cities are locally oriented, while Sacramento's are almost all long-distance based (given that much of Sacramento's current network outside of old 40 is a product of 1960s projects).
IMO with the growth of Elk Grove, that and Stockton should be signed more out there, but I know that that wouldn't necessarily fit "control cities for long distance drivers only" philosophies mentioned elsewhere by others in this thread.
Quote from: michravera on August 14, 2022, 03:16:12 AM
It is my understanding that control cities are generally to be used until they are reached.
I agree with that, which is why LA as a control for US 101 and I-5 within LA city limits, as much as I get the logic behind it, is a bit wacky. (There's also one spot where a US 50 onramp is signed for Sacramento just a few blocks from Sacramento State University!)
Quote from: michravera on August 14, 2022, 03:16:12 AM
Inside built-up areas, it makes sense to have a "local" destination to get on the right freeway to a suburb or nearby city and a "distant" destination, so that people who are "just passing through" can get where they are going as well. Once out of a built-up area, the "distant" destination is fine which can be combined with a "local" destination, if a minor city pops up.
One reason for the 1960s song "Do You Know the Way to San Jose?" is that, at the time, it didn't show up as a control city until you were nearly in it!
Funny enough, San Jose still doesn't appear as a mainline US 101 northbound control city at all until Salinas! Southbound though it is the only control for 101 from the Van Ness Avenue/Central Freeway junction all the way to Route 85 (where it becomes San Jose/Los Angeles).
This reminds me much of how I-80 is signed for San Francisco from Sacramento west to about the Carquinez Bridge, then gets signed for Oakland and SF up to the MacArthur Maze. Eastbound, 80 is signed only for Oakland from US 101 to the Bay Bridge, then gains Sacramento as a control city in West Oakland (almost always paired with a shorter-distance control like Berkeley or Vallejo or Vacaville).
I remember this one too where a secondary control city is used on I-80 Vacaville and Fairfield. Parts of this is when Solano County was viewed as a place for Bay Area, and Sacramento to stop for gas however Solano County now has to deal with both Sacramento and Bay Area Commuter traffic because the area has more of a suburban characteristics.
I forgot another CA-99 Northbound has Marysville as a control city once you enter the Natomas area of Sacramento. This is one of the rare cases where D3 Caltrans have a nearby area.
Some of the rare cases where D3 used local control cities are US-50 west Sacramento aiming for the downtown area at I-5 interchange before the control city becomes San Francisco to connect to I-80. Also CA-160 Downtown Sacramento.
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 14, 2022, 09:54:37 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on August 14, 2022, 09:50:39 AM
^^No sorry, you're right. It was Flint1979 who brought up the "cross-country 2di".
And my point was that why should Raleigh be a control city on I-95 when I-40 already goes through Raleigh. That was my point with the cross country 2di thing as in there is already a major Interstate going through there so no need to sign it as a control city on another major Interstate that doesn't go through there.
Raleigh should not be a control on I-95. If I'm Joe Schmoe randomly driving up the east coast from Miami to NYC or whatever, and I see Raleigh signed on 95, I'm going to expect it to be on the route or at least within 5-10 miles or so. It's over 30 miles away.
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 14, 2022, 09:54:37 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on August 14, 2022, 09:50:39 AM
^^No sorry, you're right. It was Flint1979 who brought up the "cross-country 2di".
And my point was that why should Raleigh be a control city on I-95 when I-40 already goes through Raleigh. That was my point with the cross country 2di thing as in there is already a major Interstate going through there so no need to sign it as a control city on another major Interstate that doesn't go through there.
No, I agree with you 100%, and unlike some people here, I understood what you meant by a cross-country 2di. I just got you mixed up with webny99, sorry.
Quote from: kirbykart on August 14, 2022, 11:23:43 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 14, 2022, 09:54:37 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on August 14, 2022, 09:50:39 AM
^^No sorry, you're right. It was Flint1979 who brought up the "cross-country 2di".
And my point was that why should Raleigh be a control city on I-95 when I-40 already goes through Raleigh. That was my point with the cross country 2di thing as in there is already a major Interstate going through there so no need to sign it as a control city on another major Interstate that doesn't go through there.
No, I agree with you 100%, and unlike some people here, I understood what you meant by a cross-country 2di. I just got you mixed up with webny99, sorry.
Hey that's all right man no big deal.
Someone mentioned the lack of Philadelphia's use of a control city on I-95. I'm beginning to think that Maryland has something against Pennsylvania and doesn't want anyone to travel there. Keep in mind that they're trying to steer traffic onto I-68 and off the PA Turnpike as far away as the greater DC area on I-270.
Of course, Wilmington should be a control on northbound I-95 past Baltimore even before Philly or NYC.
I wonder if Maryland signs New York instead of Wilmington or Philadelphia because a direct route to New York (via the NJ Turnpike) was completed before I-95 in either of the latter two cities - indeed, before the rote for I- 95 was even finalized. Or, it could indeed be a thing against Pennsylvania.
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 14, 2022, 09:54:37 AM
And my point was that why should Raleigh be a control city on I-95 when I-40 already goes through Raleigh. That was my point with the cross country 2di thing as in there is already a major Interstate going through there so no need to sign it as a control city on another major Interstate that doesn't go through there.
Why does that matter?
Raleigh wouldn't even be my choice for I-95, but this reasoning is nonsense. Some of the control city "guidelines" seen on here are just dumbfounding.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 14, 2022, 04:26:32 PM
Someone mentioned the lack of Philadelphia's use of a control city on I-95. I'm beginning to think that Maryland has something against Pennsylvania and doesn't want anyone to travel there. Keep in mind that they're trying to steer traffic onto I-68 and off the PA Turnpike as far away as the greater DC area on I-270.
Of course, Wilmington should be a control on northbound I-95 past Baltimore even before Philly or NYC.
I remember there is post out there that Pennsylvania uses small towns along the way as control cities instead of large cities on the route. Delaware Water Gap, Clarion, Sharon were used as control cities instead of Cleveland and New York as the main control cities for I-80 in Pennsylvania. But then again posting small towns along the way may be used for gas stop reasons as the emphasis here. I know large cities should be used for references for the overall route on a 2di.
Quote from: bing101 on August 14, 2022, 05:45:16 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 14, 2022, 04:26:32 PM
Someone mentioned the lack of Philadelphia's use of a control city on I-95. I'm beginning to think that Maryland has something against Pennsylvania and doesn't want anyone to travel there. Keep in mind that they're trying to steer traffic onto I-68 and off the PA Turnpike as far away as the greater DC area on I-270.
Of course, Wilmington should be a control on northbound I-95 past Baltimore even before Philly or NYC.
I remember there is post out there that Pennsylvania uses small towns along the way as control cities instead of large cities on the route. Delaware Water Gap, Clarion, Sharon were used as control cities instead of Cleveland and New York as the main control cities for I-80 in Pennsylvania. But then again posting small towns along the way may be used for gas stop reasons as the emphasis here. I know large cities should be used for references for the overall route on a 2di.
Have both primary and secondary control cities, e.g. Clarion, New York on same sign. Short range sign for local reference, long term destination for regional reference.
Quote from: thspfc on August 14, 2022, 04:39:19 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 14, 2022, 09:54:37 AM
And my point was that why should Raleigh be a control city on I-95 when I-40 already goes through Raleigh. That was my point with the cross country 2di thing as in there is already a major Interstate going through there so no need to sign it as a control city on another major Interstate that doesn't go through there.
Why does that matter?
Raleigh wouldn't even be my choice for I-95, but this reasoning is nonsense. Some of the control city "guidelines" seen on here are just dumbfounding.
Because it's not going to take me to that city. If I was on I-95 in North Carolina and saw Raleigh as a control city I would assume I could get to Raleigh by taking I-95. I-95 crosses I-40 so it can be one on I-40, not I-95. What reasoning is nonsense?
Changing the topic...
I know some people don't like Jamestown as a control city on I-86/NY-17, but I think it's fine, maybe that's a bit of local bias.
Quote from: kirbykart on August 14, 2022, 08:29:37 PM
Changing the topic...
I know some people don't like Jamestown as a control city on I-86/NY-17, but I think it's fine, maybe that's a bit of local bias.
Heading west as late as the mid 80s, Jamestown was about the farthest the freeway ran before it was super-2ed and later finished as a full freeway toward PA.
Coming from the west, Jamestown is perfectly fine from I-90.
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 14, 2022, 09:42:44 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 13, 2022, 10:28:30 PM
"Borrowing" an idea from another thread, I'd like to nominate the LACK of a control city on I-469, both north and south.
NB I-469 is an easy fix for most of the way: Toledo. But past US-24 East, it gets tricky.
SB I-469 is a toss-up: Lima (US-30) or Columbus (US-33). Past that, Indianapolis is a slam dunk the rest of the way.
It should be Lansing and Indianapolis on I-469.
Lansing is another questionable control city for NB I-469 around the north of town...Most traffic at that point is likely westbound traffic for US 24 and US 30. It probably make more sense to use Columbia City, Valparaiso, or Chicago -- whatever the control city is for the US-30 West exit off of I-69.
Quote from: kirbykart on August 14, 2022, 08:29:37 PM
Changing the topic...
I know some people don't like Jamestown as a control city on I-86/NY-17, but I think it's fine, maybe that's a bit of local bias.
Jamestown was pretty much the de facto end of the Southern Tier expressway before PA built its part to connect to the New York dead end. One can make the argument for Erie westbound from Corning (or from Binghamton for I-99 frowners), or for Binghamton eastbound from I-90 in PA. You'd have a better case for the latter when NYSDOT finally designates the portion from the Waverly dip to I-81 as I-86.
Quote from: thenetwork on August 14, 2022, 08:57:42 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 14, 2022, 09:42:44 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 13, 2022, 10:28:30 PM
"Borrowing" an idea from another thread, I'd like to nominate the LACK of a control city on I-469, both north and south.
NB I-469 is an easy fix for most of the way: Toledo. But past US-24 East, it gets tricky.
SB I-469 is a toss-up: Lima (US-30) or Columbus (US-33). Past that, Indianapolis is a slam dunk the rest of the way.
It should be Lansing and Indianapolis on I-469.
Lansing is another questionable control city for NB I-469 around the north of town...Most traffic at that point is likely westbound traffic for US 24 and US 30. It probably make more sense to use Columbia City, Valparaiso, or Chicago -- whatever the control city is for the US-30 West exit off of I-69.
The point of NB I-469 at least IMO is that the traffic is going to reconnect to NB I-69 since it's a child of I-69. US-24 and US-30 should honestly have signs telling you to take NB I-469 to SB I-69 for WB and NB I-69 to SB I-469 for EB to stay on the route.
Quote from: thspfc on August 13, 2022, 08:59:10 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 13, 2022, 06:28:00 PM
Cities over 1M metro should never be skipped IMO. It's when you get to the smaller metros (200k-500k) where it gets dicey largely depending on how far away it is from a bigger metro.
So I-10 WB in AZ/CA should get San Bernardino rather than Los Angeles?
San Bernardino, IMO, is still part of LA Metro. Sign it LA.
Quote from: thenetwork on August 14, 2022, 08:51:43 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on August 14, 2022, 08:29:37 PM
Changing the topic...
I know some people don't like Jamestown as a control city on I-86/NY-17, but I think it's fine, maybe that's a bit of local bias.
Heading west as late as the mid 80s, Jamestown was about the farthest the freeway ran before it was super-2ed and later finished as a full freeway toward PA.
Coming from the west, Jamestown is perfectly fine from I-90.
Jamestown isn't that far from I-90 in PA. I would do Jamestown as a secondary and have Elmira, which is a bigger metro with Corning than Jamestown and has an interstate junction, as the primary if you are not going to go straight out with Binghamton.
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 15, 2022, 07:56:02 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 14, 2022, 08:51:43 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on August 14, 2022, 08:29:37 PM
Changing the topic...
I know some people don't like Jamestown as a control city on I-86/NY-17, but I think it's fine, maybe that's a bit of local bias.
Heading west as late as the mid 80s, Jamestown was about the farthest the freeway ran before it was super-2ed and later finished as a full freeway toward PA.
Coming from the west, Jamestown is perfectly fine from I-90.
Jamestown isn't that far from I-90 in PA. I would do Jamestown as a secondary and have Elmira, which is a bigger metro with Corning than Jamestown and has an interstate junction, as the primary if you are not going to go straight out with Binghamton.
Combining Corning and Elmira is a bit of a stretch. There's scattered development along the corridor, especially east of Big Flats, but it's otherwise
very rural (https://goo.gl/maps/MurqzLkxRphB7P8t9). Corning has the interstate junction and is already used on I-390, so that makes more sense IMO.
I found an interesting document from MDOT online: Guidelines for Signing on State Trunkline Highways (https://mdotjboss.state.mi.us/TSSD/getTSDocument.htm?docGuid=73e44000-f742-425f-927b-d9b3aa2cf33a&fileName=Signing%20Trunkline%20Guide.pdf) last updated in October 2020. If you turn to page 19, there's a listing of the major and minor control destinations for Michigan's freeways. (The non freeways are on the next three pages.) That list does not include "Mackinac Bridge". Instead, I-75 has Mackinaw City and St. Ignace in the minor controls list. US 127 has Grayling as its northernmost minor control.
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 14, 2022, 09:48:49 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 14, 2022, 08:57:42 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 14, 2022, 09:42:44 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 13, 2022, 10:28:30 PM
"Borrowing" an idea from another thread, I'd like to nominate the LACK of a control city on I-469, both north and south.
NB I-469 is an easy fix for most of the way: Toledo. But past US-24 East, it gets tricky.
SB I-469 is a toss-up: Lima (US-30) or Columbus (US-33). Past that, Indianapolis is a slam dunk the rest of the way.
It should be Lansing and Indianapolis on I-469.
Lansing is another questionable control city for NB I-469 around the north of town...Most traffic at that point is likely westbound traffic for US 24 and US 30. It probably make more sense to use Columbia City, Valparaiso, or Chicago -- whatever the control city is for the US-30 West exit off of I-69.
The point of NB I-469 at least IMO is that the traffic is going to reconnect to NB I-69 since it's a child of I-69. US-24 and US-30 should honestly have signs telling you to take NB I-469 to SB I-69 for WB and NB I-69 to SB I-469 for EB to stay on the route.
US-24 and US-30 are signed along the portions you described, already fulfilling this purpose. FW isn't like Indy or Lafayette where everything got truncated or an unsigned concurrency.
If I-469 had control cities, it'd be ideal to use up to 2 at any given point, for instance
(NB,SB)
0-19: New Haven/Toledo, Indianapolis/Huntington (optional)
19-21: Toledo/Chicago, Indianapolis
21-31: Chicago/Lansing, Toledo/New Haven
Quote from: bulldog1979 on August 17, 2022, 04:17:22 PM
I found an interesting document from MDOT online: Guidelines for Signing on State Trunkline Highways (https://mdotjboss.state.mi.us/TSSD/getTSDocument.htm?docGuid=73e44000-f742-425f-927b-d9b3aa2cf33a&fileName=Signing%20Trunkline%20Guide.pdf) last updated in October 2020. //
They didn't update it much. M-6 is still listed as "pending completion".
Also, on I-696 I don't think I've seen any of those minor control cities. I have seen Southfield.
Quote from: webny99 on August 15, 2022, 11:03:20 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 15, 2022, 07:56:02 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 14, 2022, 08:51:43 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on August 14, 2022, 08:29:37 PM
Changing the topic...
I know some people don't like Jamestown as a control city on I-86/NY-17, but I think it's fine, maybe that's a bit of local bias.
Heading west as late as the mid 80s, Jamestown was about the farthest the freeway ran before it was super-2ed and later finished as a full freeway toward PA.
Coming from the west, Jamestown is perfectly fine from I-90.
Jamestown isn't that far from I-90 in PA. I would do Jamestown as a secondary and have Elmira, which is a bigger metro with Corning than Jamestown and has an interstate junction, as the primary if you are not going to go straight out with Binghamton.
Combining Corning and Elmira is a bit of a stretch. There's scattered development along the corridor, especially east of Big Flats, but it's otherwise very rural (https://goo.gl/maps/MurqzLkxRphB7P8t9). Corning has the interstate junction and is already used on I-390, so that makes more sense IMO.
Corning is fine. I just think more have heard of Elmira than Corning. But I'm good with either.
Quote from: GaryV on August 17, 2022, 07:00:41 PM
Quote from: bulldog1979 on August 17, 2022, 04:17:22 PM
I found an interesting document from MDOT online: Guidelines for Signing on State Trunkline Highways (https://mdotjboss.state.mi.us/TSSD/getTSDocument.htm?docGuid=73e44000-f742-425f-927b-d9b3aa2cf33a&fileName=Signing%20Trunkline%20Guide.pdf) last updated in October 2020. //
They didn't update it much. M-6 is still listed as "pending completion".
Also, on I-696 I don't think I've seen any of those minor control cities. I have seen Southfield.
Some of those are wrong too. I noticed M-13 has Flint as a control city. That is not the case, Lansing is the control city south of Saginaw.
Quote from: GaryV on August 17, 2022, 07:00:41 PM
Quote from: bulldog1979 on August 17, 2022, 04:17:22 PM
I found an interesting document from MDOT online: Guidelines for Signing on State Trunkline Highways (https://mdotjboss.state.mi.us/TSSD/getTSDocument.htm?docGuid=73e44000-f742-425f-927b-d9b3aa2cf33a&fileName=Signing%20Trunkline%20Guide.pdf) last updated in October 2020. //
They didn't update it much. M-6 is still listed as "pending completion".
Also, on I-696 I don't think I've seen any of those minor control cities. I have seen Southfield.
Also a little below that they talk about the "SPECIFIC SERVICE (LOGO) SIGNING PROGRAM." They have Bill Knapp's as one of the Food choices at exit 104.
I think Port Matilda is the worst control city on I 99, even though it doesn't appear on overhead signs. It could be because PennDOT focuses more on local traffic like some other states like North Carolina.
At least Breezewood is an interstate junction :)
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 08, 2022, 09:03:11 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 05, 2022, 08:58:35 PM
Where do I start in Illinois? Do I start with "Interstate 57" on I-24, "Suburbs" for I-355, or Sterling-Rock Falls for I-88 east from I-80?
I think I hate I-355's "control cities" worst of all. "Suburbs" is such a weak excuse for a control. Just as bad is "Rockford" for I-355 along I-80.......I-355 doesn't go to Rockford.
I know it's not really an Interstate but signing IL-394 as the way to Danville from I-80 is pretty funny to me.
The "Suburbs" BGS on I-80, to 355 exit northbound is now "Rockford", but Aurora could be added too. And no one takes IL 394 to Danville, kind of goes nowhere actually. I don't mind "Iowa" as west I-80, since most are heading there anyway.
'Indiana' works since Gary has shrunk. Most want to know how to get to IN traveling through the region, then they can decide to go to Indy, Toledo or Detroit direction once past the border.
Quote from: Mr. ENC on August 11, 2022, 11:23:36 PM
Quote from: LM117 on August 07, 2022, 10:24:48 AM
Since I'm originally from NC, I'd say this crap on I-587/US-264 East takes the cake there:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i795410b.jpg)
There's absolutely ZERO reason for Kenly to be a control city for I-795 South. Heading in this direction from points west of Wilson, you reach I-95 before the I-795 split. Anybody going to Kenly would simply hop on I-95 South since it's a straight shot.
I-795 is intended to be a shortcut to Wilmington, so Wilmington needs to take Kenly's spot.
IIRC isn't the I-95 South Benson Control City sign in the same area? Idk why they chose Benson as a Control City outside of maybe meeting I-40. It should be Smithfield, then Fayetteville.
Yeah, I-40 is the only reason Benson is used. Before I-795 was built, I-95 to I-40 was the only decent route to Wilmington from points north of Wilson. I-795's future extension to I-40 near Faison would negate that route, and even now, continuing on US-117 after passing I-795's current endpoint isn't bad once you get past Goldsboro (Mar-Mac area is still a mess).
IMO, the only area along I-95 now that still makes sense to use Benson as a control city is between Smithfield and Fayetteville.
I was driving to KC this weekend and spotted this beauty which certainly qualifies for Missouri:
(https://i.postimg.cc/P55mnf5R/Mound-City.png)
Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 03, 2022, 01:47:54 PM
I was driving to KC this weekend and spotted this beauty which certainly qualifies for Missouri:
image removed
Are you kidding me?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mound_City,_Missouri
Even Limon, Colorado is bigger than this.
Quote from: kirbykart on October 03, 2022, 02:25:07 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 03, 2022, 01:47:54 PM
I was driving to KC this weekend and spotted this beauty which certainly qualifies for Missouri:
image removed
Are you kidding me?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mound_City,_Missouri
Even Limon, Colorado is bigger than this.
I think every other sign around there had Council Bluffs for I-29 North, but not that one. It's where US59 meets I-29 (just south of Mound City).
Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 03, 2022, 01:47:54 PM
I was driving to KC this weekend and spotted this beauty which certainly qualifies for Missouri:
(https://i.postimg.cc/P55mnf5R/Mound-City.png)
This is similar to seeing
Woodstock on some signs at the I-81 interchanges in Virginia.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 03, 2022, 01:47:54 PM
I was driving to KC this weekend and spotted this beauty which certainly qualifies for Missouri:
(https://i.postimg.cc/P55mnf5R/Mound-City.png)
And a Frankenarrow to boot!
Here's a typical IDOT I-94 Wisconsin sign.
https://goo.gl/maps/xHF664gMRHV3QXLN8
Nothing about it seems too out of the ordinary. It's a stupid choice, but typical...until you realize this is Stony Island Ave and you're still south of the Chicago Loop.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 07, 2022, 03:00:05 PM
Here's a typical IDOT I-94 Wisconsin sign.
https://goo.gl/maps/xHF664gMRHV3QXLN8
Nothing about it seems too out of the ordinary. It's a stupid choice, but typical...until you realize this is Stony Island Ave and you're still south of the Chicago Loop.
Minor details. The next 94 BGS shows Chicago Loop anyway.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 07, 2022, 03:00:05 PM
Here's a typical IDOT I-94 Wisconsin sign.
https://goo.gl/maps/xHF664gMRHV3QXLN8
Nothing about it seems too out of the ordinary. It's a stupid choice, but typical...until you realize this is Stony Island Ave and you're still south of the Chicago Loop.
Memphis and Wisconsin on the same gantry made me double take. I-57 south out of Chicago should be Champaign.
Quote from: thspfc on October 08, 2022, 04:35:23 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 07, 2022, 03:00:05 PM
Here's a typical IDOT I-94 Wisconsin sign.
https://goo.gl/maps/xHF664gMRHV3QXLN8
Nothing about it seems too out of the ordinary. It's a stupid choice, but typical...until you realize this is Stony Island Ave and you're still south of the Chicago Loop.
Memphis and Wisconsin on the same gantry made me double take. I-57 south out of Chicago should be Champaign.
I would make it Arkansas there. Keep the "state" theme
And no, Missouri wouldn't make sense. I-57 gets you to the Boot Heel, I-55 is your better path to most of the Show Me State
I would be OK with Kentucky or Tennessee, also. I-57 is a fine route to both Memphis and Nashville from Chicago. I-57 just doesn't actually go to Tennessee, Kentucky, nor Arkansas (yet). But it doesn't go to Memphis, either
Maybe once I-57 connects to Little Rock and near I-30, Texas or Dallas would be OK here
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on August 14, 2022, 04:39:07 PM
I wonder if Maryland signs New York instead of Wilmington or Philadelphia because a direct route to New York (via the NJ Turnpike) was completed before I-95 in either of the latter two cities - indeed, before the rote for I- 95 was even finalized. Or, it could indeed be a thing against Pennsylvania.
Post-2018, it's both a vestige of I-95's New Jersey gap and the fact that a lot of northbound through traffic past Baltimore going to NYC or beyond tends to use the turnpike, thus bypassing both Wilmington and Philly.
1. Trenton on the NJTP vs Philadelphia
Quote from: LM117 on August 07, 2022, 10:24:48 AM
Since I'm originally from NC, I'd say this crap on I-587/US-264 East takes the cake there:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i795410b.jpg)
There's absolutely ZERO reason for Kenly to be a control city for I-795 South. Heading in this direction from points west of Wilson, you reach I-95 before the I-795 split. Anybody going to Kenly would simply hop on I-95 South since it's a straight shot.
I-795 is intended to be a shortcut to Wilmington, so Wilmington needs to take Kenly's spot.
Except you missed something here. I-795 is the shortcut to Kenly, as [new] Exit 23 (I-587 numbering) will take you to Exit 5 (I-795 numbering) to US-301 southbound (to Kenly) faster than continuing on I-587 to [new] Exit 24A for US-301 southbound (for local traffic). So NCDOT is technically correct, as [new] Exit 23 is the Kenly exit off of I-587 (with Kenly being an exit destination rather than a control city). That would be easier to understand if the shields said "South I-795" and "To South US-301". https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wilson,+NC/@35.6749976,-77.9593967,3593m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89ac26f39c8c910d:0x43df22c9c9c44d21!8m2!3d35.7212689!4d-77.9155395
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 08, 2022, 06:55:10 PM
Quote from: thspfc on October 08, 2022, 04:35:23 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 07, 2022, 03:00:05 PM
Here's a typical IDOT I-94 Wisconsin sign.
https://goo.gl/maps/xHF664gMRHV3QXLN8
Nothing about it seems too out of the ordinary. It's a stupid choice, but typical...until you realize this is Stony Island Ave and you're still south of the Chicago Loop.
Memphis and Wisconsin on the same gantry made me double take. I-57 south out of Chicago should be Champaign.
I would make it Arkansas there. Keep the "state" theme
Apples to oranges.
1), Wisconsin is 50 miles away and borders Illinois. Arkansas is 460 miles away and does not border Illinois.
2), a far larger percentage of Chicago traffic is headed to Wisconsin than Arkansas.
3), also a big part of why IDOT goes with 'Wisconsin' is because there's two pretty much equally significant ways that traffic enters Wisconsin from Chicago (I-90 and I-94). They could sign Milwaukee but that would be unhelpful for all I-90 traffic, or they could sign Rockford but that would be unhelpful for all I-94 traffic.
I think Future 57 labeling in Chicago was discussed in the 57 designation thread. Texas makes sense when 69 is finished in Texas but for now I go with Dallas.
Quote from: LM117 on August 07, 2022, 10:24:48 AM
Since I'm originally from NC, I'd say this crap on I-587/US-264 East takes the cake there:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i795410b.jpg)
There's absolutely ZERO reason for Kenly to be a control city for I-795 South. Heading in this direction from points west of Wilson, you reach I-95 before the I-795 split. Anybody going to Kenly would simply hop on I-95 South since it's a straight shot.
I-795 is intended to be a shortcut to Wilmington, so Wilmington needs to take Kenly's spot.
I agree it's not relevant to use Kenly here. A TO US 301 SOUTH would be most appropriate here. Goldsboro should be only used here and if Kenly is to be used have it on a supplemental sign with info regarding US 301 South as well.
I'm pretty sure that I can come the conclusion that Kenly is signed because of US-301. Goldsboro is fine as I-795 looks to be a spur to Goldsboro.
It's mostly an advertisement that you can use I-795 as a shortcut to reach 301. The strange thing is it's not fulfilling the usual display of control city placement as it's directing people to a place on another road that is not that prominent and could be reached via a previous exit much easier.
Many states won't sign this that way and if you should have to go to the next exit for US 301 it's not like you're going several miles out of your way.
Fulton is obviously a remnant of when the Purchase Parkway wasn't I-69 (and the Pennyrile, too) but having Fulton posted as far away as Madisonville or Henderson is just goofy. Even though the freeway isn't complete yet, I'd be good with signing Memphis already.
Not an interstate, but the new signs for the Mountain Parkway as it exits I-64 have Campton listed. It might make sense, since Campton is the decision point for traffic continuing east on the Mountain Parkway (Salyersville/Paintsville/Prestonsburg/Pikeville) or going south on KY 15 (Jackson/Hazard/Whitesburg), but Prestonsburg would probably be a better choice.
Obligatory Del Water Gap on I-80 W here in North Jersey, but another one that particularly bothers me is on I-280 E at Exit 4 (Eisenhower Parkway), the control city is Kearny instead of the state's largest city which the highway serves before Kearny! Really need NJDOT to put a little more thought into the control cities on new signs than "municipality where highway ends".
Quote from: interstate73 on October 09, 2022, 11:56:38 PM
Obligatory Del Water Gap on I-80 W here in North Jersey, but another one that particularly bothers me is on I-280 E at Exit 4 (Eisenhower Parkway), the control city is Kearny instead of the state's largest city which the highway serves before Kearny! Really need NJDOT to put a little more thought into the control cities on new signs than "municipality where highway ends".
Is Kearny used because it's the end of the I-280?
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 10, 2022, 07:43:59 AM
Quote from: interstate73 on October 09, 2022, 11:56:38 PM
Obligatory Del Water Gap on I-80 W here in North Jersey, but another one that particularly bothers me is on I-280 E at Exit 4 (Eisenhower Parkway), the control city is Kearny instead of the state's largest city which the highway serves before Kearny! Really need NJDOT to put a little more thought into the control cities on new signs than "municipality where highway ends".
Is Kearny used because it's the end of the I-280?
Probably since that's also where it meets the Turnpike, but I don't get why they also don't use Jersey City since that's bigger even though it's beyond I-280's eastern terminus and you have to take CR 508 to get there.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 10, 2022, 07:43:59 AM
Quote from: interstate73 on October 09, 2022, 11:56:38 PM
Obligatory Del Water Gap on I-80 W here in North Jersey, but another one that particularly bothers me is on I-280 E at Exit 4 (Eisenhower Parkway), the control city is Kearny instead of the state's largest city which the highway serves before Kearny! Really need NJDOT to put a little more thought into the control cities on new signs than "municipality where highway ends".
Is Kearny used because it's the end of the I-280?
I believe so, it seems to be NJDOT standard practice for control cities now. The new BGS on NJ-10 W at I-287 uses Roxbury since that's where it terminates, even though the signs on 287 for 10 W use Dover, and Roxbury is rarely referred to in everyday conversation locally anyway (people instead refer to two constituent neighborhoods of the township, Ledgewood and Succasunna, same as Hanover with Whippany/Cedar Knolls).
Quote from: interstate73 on October 10, 2022, 12:39:58 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 10, 2022, 07:43:59 AM
Quote from: interstate73 on October 09, 2022, 11:56:38 PM
Obligatory Del Water Gap on I-80 W here in North Jersey, but another one that particularly bothers me is on I-280 E at Exit 4 (Eisenhower Parkway), the control city is Kearny instead of the state's largest city which the highway serves before Kearny! Really need NJDOT to put a little more thought into the control cities on new signs than "municipality where highway ends".
Is Kearny used because it's the end of the I-280?
I believe so, it seems to be NJDOT standard practice for control cities now. The new BGS on NJ-10 W at I-287 uses Roxbury since that's where it terminates, even though the signs on 287 for 10 W use Dover, and Roxbury is rarely referred to in everyday conversation locally anyway (people instead refer to two constituent neighborhoods of the township, Ledgewood and Succasunna, same as Hanover with Whippany/Cedar Knolls).
Mileage signs too use terminating control cities in NJ. Roxbury is the mileage control west of US 202 on NJ 10 also.
In South Jersey you have Ewing used on NB I-295 mileage signs as the final destination and neither Camden or Trenton used as well. Apparently that particular interstate don't enter neither city but serve the surrounding areas of them, but NJDOT wants direct except on I-80 that constantly uses New York ( which I-80 ends 3 miles prior to the big city).
Then on I-195 you have now TO NJ 29 or TO NJ 138 on pull throughs to accompany eitherTrenton or Belmar. NJDOT is adding the extra NJ 29 and 138 shields to state that I-195 don't go there as part of that same mentality.
NJ has gotten bad. For a while they were doing well and signing good control points on the freeway ramps as for years interstates and toll roads never used them except in a few places.
Overall the mileage signs in the Garden State have the worst places to use. Instead of directing you to prominent places they use unheard of townships. Though Bedminster is popular for AT & T, on I-78 at the Delaware River and past the US22 split they use that particular township as a destination point along the interstate. IMO the interstate junction of I-287 would work better over Bedminster as that particular junction is a key interchange for motorists.
Quote from: thspfc on October 09, 2022, 09:28:30 AM
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 08, 2022, 06:55:10 PM
Quote from: thspfc on October 08, 2022, 04:35:23 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 07, 2022, 03:00:05 PM
Here's a typical IDOT I-94 Wisconsin sign.
https://goo.gl/maps/xHF664gMRHV3QXLN8
Nothing about it seems too out of the ordinary. It's a stupid choice, but typical...until you realize this is Stony Island Ave and you're still south of the Chicago Loop.
Memphis and Wisconsin on the same gantry made me double take. I-57 south out of Chicago should be Champaign.
I would make it Arkansas there. Keep the "state" theme
Apples to oranges.
1), Wisconsin is 50 miles away and borders Illinois. Arkansas is 460 miles away and does not border Illinois.
2), a far larger percentage of Chicago traffic is headed to Wisconsin than Arkansas.
3), also a big part of why IDOT goes with 'Wisconsin' is because there's two pretty much equally significant ways that traffic enters Wisconsin from Chicago (I-90 and I-94). They could sign Milwaukee but that would be unhelpful for all I-90 traffic, or they could sign Rockford but that would be unhelpful for all I-94 traffic.
Yes, that is why. But one could argue that both Rockford and Milwaukee should be used since there are two separate interstates being carried on the route. Or better yet, let's just put "North Suburbs" on there instead because that's so useful.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 10, 2022, 03:00:17 PM
Quote from: thspfc on October 09, 2022, 09:28:30 AM
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 08, 2022, 06:55:10 PM
Quote from: thspfc on October 08, 2022, 04:35:23 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 07, 2022, 03:00:05 PM
Here's a typical IDOT I-94 Wisconsin sign.
https://goo.gl/maps/xHF664gMRHV3QXLN8
Nothing about it seems too out of the ordinary. It's a stupid choice, but typical...until you realize this is Stony Island Ave and you're still south of the Chicago Loop.
Memphis and Wisconsin on the same gantry made me double take. I-57 south out of Chicago should be Champaign.
I would make it Arkansas there. Keep the "state" theme
Apples to oranges.
1), Wisconsin is 50 miles away and borders Illinois. Arkansas is 460 miles away and does not border Illinois.
2), a far larger percentage of Chicago traffic is headed to Wisconsin than Arkansas.
3), also a big part of why IDOT goes with 'Wisconsin' is because there's two pretty much equally significant ways that traffic enters Wisconsin from Chicago (I-90 and I-94). They could sign Milwaukee but that would be unhelpful for all I-90 traffic, or they could sign Rockford but that would be unhelpful for all I-94 traffic.
Yes, that is why. But one could argue that both Rockford and Milwaukee should be used since there are two separate interstates being carried on the route. Or better yet, let's just put "North Suburbs" on there instead because that's so useful.
Careful, you might give IDOT D1 an idea...
A weird thing in NY is that I-81 at the Thruway says "Boston-Buffalo". Where'd Albany go?
Louisville
Quote from: kirbykart on October 12, 2022, 09:40:27 AM
A weird thing in NY is that I-81 at the Thruway says "Boston-Buffalo". Where'd Albany go?
Where did Syracuse go for I-81 from The Thruway? It lists Binghamton for the SB city.
Quote from: XamotCGC on October 12, 2022, 06:48:30 PM
Louisville
Wut?
Louisville is:
-Kentucky's largest city
-Central City Population of over 600k
-MSA Population of almost 1.4 million
Very good control city.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2022, 07:16:34 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 12, 2022, 09:40:27 AM
A weird thing in NY is that I-81 at the Thruway says "Boston-Buffalo". Where'd Albany go?
Where did Syracuse go for I-81 from The Thruway? It lists Binghamton for the SB city.
To be fair, you're already in Syracuse at that point (although it isn't unheard of for a city to be used on a freeway from another highway in city limits, as long as that freeway actually brings you closer to the center of the city).
While Binghamton is smaller than Syracuse, it's not by much.
Utah often uses control cities at rural interchanges that are quite a bit smaller and more local than what's on the AASHTO list. Things like Tremonton, Richfield, Cedar City, or St George (which I argue should be a national control anyway). Although some people take issue with this and only ever want big cities used, I don't mind it...except in one case: most interchanges on I-84 between I-15 and the Idaho line use Snowville as the westbound control. This is a town with two gas stations and somewhere around 170 people. I mean...come on, at least the other local controls have traffic lights.
They should use Burley on that whole section for westbound (as is already done at the Snowville interchange) or else just bite the bullet and put Twin Falls or Boise.
Quote from: US 89 on October 12, 2022, 07:50:28 PM
Utah often uses control cities at rural interchanges that are quite a bit smaller and more local than what's on the AASHTO list. Things like Tremonton, Richfield, Cedar City, or St George (which I argue should be a national control anyway). Although some people take issue with this and only ever want big cities used, I don't mind it...except in one case: most interchanges on I-84 between I-15 and the Idaho line use Snowville as the westbound control. This is a town with two gas stations and somewhere around 170 people. I mean...come on, at least the other local controls have traffic lights.
They should use Burley on that whole section for westbound (as is already done at the Snowville interchange) or else just bite the bullet and put Twin Falls or Boise.
I think the concept of using smaller places at rural, local interchanges is a good idea. Especially in states like Utah, where there is one giant population center and everything else is smaller towns. Generally, traffic at these interchanges is not taking the highway as far and doesn't need the next giant metro area 400 miles away. Snowville does seem like a dumb control though.
Kalamazoo should be removed as a control city along I-94, US-131 and anywhere else in Michigan that it appears as a control city. While it certainly has the size and location requirements for a control city, the fact that it demanded that MDOT remove all state highways from within its city limits a few years ago, requiring it to reroute state highways, change signage and reconfigure maps at taxpayer expense, it seems obvious that the Kalamazoo City Commission doesn't want people to visit their city. Now obviously changing control city signage would be a further unnecessary expense to taxpayers, so they should probably wait until it's time to replace control city signs before doing so.
Quote from: kirbykart on October 12, 2022, 07:23:15 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2022, 07:16:34 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 12, 2022, 09:40:27 AM
A weird thing in NY is that I-81 at the Thruway says "Boston-Buffalo". Where'd Albany go?
Where did Syracuse go for I-81 from The Thruway? It lists Binghamton for the SB city.
To be fair, you're already in Syracuse at that point (although it isn't unheard of for a city to be used on a freeway from another highway in city limits, as long as that freeway actually brings you closer to the center of the city).
While Binghamton is smaller than Syracuse, it's not by much.
When I-481 becomes I-81, Binghamton will then have to be switched out for Syracuse as having BL I-81 signed for that won't be right given it will have an arterial segment.
We need to update the control cities on interstate 69 in Texas.
Eliminate Victoria and Cleveland and robstown
From south to north they should be:
69w: Laredo, Houston
69c: pharr, Corpus Christi, Houston.
69e: Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Houston
69: Corpus Christi/rio grande valley, Houston, Texarkana
I-40 West in Arkansas got its freak on over the years. They now list OKC as a control city coming out of Little Rock, and Russellville became an intermediate control city from each direction. I-30 in the state still has Little Rock and Texarkana at either end. Dallas doesn't appear until you cross the Red River into Miller County.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2022, 10:34:12 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 12, 2022, 07:23:15 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2022, 07:16:34 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 12, 2022, 09:40:27 AM
A weird thing in NY is that I-81 at the Thruway says "Boston-Buffalo". Where'd Albany go?
Where did Syracuse go for I-81 from The Thruway? It lists Binghamton for the SB city.
To be fair, you're already in Syracuse at that point (although it isn't unheard of for a city to be used on a freeway from another highway in city limits, as long as that freeway actually brings you closer to the center of the city).
While Binghamton is smaller than Syracuse, it's not by much.
When I-481 becomes I-81, Binghamton will then have to be switched out for Syracuse as having BL I-81 signed for that won't be right given it will have an arterial segment.
WAIT, WHAT'S HAPPENING??!!??!?!?!?!!!!!!
This is such a ridiculously horrible idea. Is this actually going to happen or is it just a crazy idea? Because I really hope this isn't happening. Why on Earth would you
downgrade part of an expressway to an arterial? And we can't have Business Loops in New York. That's not right.
I am in utter shock. :-o :-o :-o
Quote from: kirbykart on October 13, 2022, 07:56:04 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2022, 10:34:12 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 12, 2022, 07:23:15 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2022, 07:16:34 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 12, 2022, 09:40:27 AM
A weird thing in NY is that I-81 at the Thruway says "Boston-Buffalo". Where'd Albany go?
Where did Syracuse go for I-81 from The Thruway? It lists Binghamton for the SB city.
To be fair, you're already in Syracuse at that point (although it isn't unheard of for a city to be used on a freeway from another highway in city limits, as long as that freeway actually brings you closer to the center of the city).
While Binghamton is smaller than Syracuse, it's not by much.
When I-481 becomes I-81, Binghamton will then have to be switched out for Syracuse as having BL I-81 signed for that won't be right given it will have an arterial segment.
WAIT, WHAT'S HAPPENING??!!??!?!?!?!!!!!!
This is such a ridiculously horrible idea. Is this actually going to happen or is it just a crazy idea? Because I really hope this isn't happening. Why on Earth would you downgrade part of an expressway to an arterial? And we can't have Business Loops in New York. That's not right.
I am in utter shock. :-o :-o :-o
Yes this is currently on the radar for NYSDOT. I-81 will be rerouted on the existing I-481 and they will turn the remainder in Syracuse into a business route. So this will indeed be the first business route in New York.
Quote from: kirbykart on October 13, 2022, 07:56:04 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2022, 10:34:12 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 12, 2022, 07:23:15 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2022, 07:16:34 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 12, 2022, 09:40:27 AM
A weird thing in NY is that I-81 at the Thruway says "Boston-Buffalo". Where'd Albany go?
Where did Syracuse go for I-81 from The Thruway? It lists Binghamton for the SB city.
To be fair, you're already in Syracuse at that point (although it isn't unheard of for a city to be used on a freeway from another highway in city limits, as long as that freeway actually brings you closer to the center of the city).
While Binghamton is smaller than Syracuse, it's not by much.
When I-481 becomes I-81, Binghamton will then have to be switched out for Syracuse as having BL I-81 signed for that won't be right given it will have an arterial segment.
WAIT, WHAT'S HAPPENING??!!??!?!?!?!!!!!!
This is such a ridiculously horrible idea. Is this actually going to happen or is it just a crazy idea? Because I really hope this isn't happening. Why on Earth would you downgrade part of an expressway to an arterial? And we can't have Business Loops in New York. That's not right.
I am in utter shock. :-o :-o :-o
It is, but there is nothing anybody can do about it.
This is not the first time a freeway got downgraded, especially in NY.
I-895 in The Bronx and the Inner Loop of Rochester to name two.
Quote from: kirbykart on October 13, 2022, 07:56:04 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2022, 10:34:12 PM
When I-481 becomes I-81, Binghamton will then have to be switched out for Syracuse as having BL I-81 signed for that won't be right given it will have an arterial segment.
WAIT, WHAT'S HAPPENING??!!??!?!?!?!!!!!!
This is such a ridiculously horrible idea. Is this actually going to happen or is it just a crazy idea? Because I really hope this isn't happening. Why on Earth would you downgrade part of an expressway to an arterial? And we can't have Business Loops in New York. That's not right.
I am in utter shock. :-o :-o :-o
Read about it here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18020.0) at your own risk. :crazy:
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 12, 2022, 10:08:50 PM
Kalamazoo should be removed as a control city along I-94, US-131 and anywhere else in Michigan that it appears as a control city. While it certainly has the size and location requirements for a control city, the fact that it demanded that MDOT remove all state highways from within its city limits a few years ago, requiring it to reroute state highways, change signage and reconfigure maps at taxpayer expense, it seems obvious that the Kalamazoo City Commission doesn't want people to visit their city. Now obviously changing control city signage would be a further unnecessary expense to taxpayers, so they should probably wait until it's time to replace control city signs before doing so.
And what would you replace Kalamazoo with on US-131 south of GR? Three Rivers? Constantine? White Pigeon?
Kalamazoo is already a secondary control on I-94 - Detroit and Chicago are primary.
In my state? We don't have any mind-blowing ones, and I have no problems with control regions (e.g. Cape Cod). If "To All Maine Points" is in New Hampshire and therefore not in my state (which is problematic because it's not true, not because it's nonstandard), which I believe is the case, then I would say Attleboro on I-95 toward Providence. With nothing truly bad, one has to be chosen somewhere.
For those not familiar with the area, Attleboro is the last city before the state line. It is larger than the surrounding municipalities, but not by nearly enough to sign it over Providence.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 14, 2022, 04:26:32 PM
Someone mentioned the lack of Philadelphia's use of a control city on I-95. I'm beginning to think that Maryland has something against Pennsylvania and doesn't want anyone to travel there. Keep in mind that they're trying to steer traffic onto I-68 and off the PA Turnpike as far away as the greater DC area on I-270.
Of course, Wilmington should be a control on northbound I-95 past Baltimore even before Philly or NYC.
I remember when I moved to Newark, DE in 1982, there was one sign on 695 directing I-95 north traffic to Wilmington and New York.
Quote from: kirbykart on October 12, 2022, 07:19:12 PM
Quote from: XamotCGC on October 12, 2022, 06:48:30 PM
Louisville
Wut?
Louisville is:
-Kentucky's largest city
-Central City Population of over 600k
-MSA Population of almost 1.4 million
Very good control city.
He probably dislikes that garbage heap of a city as much as I do.
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 12, 2022, 10:08:50 PM
Kalamazoo should be removed as a control city along I-94, US-131 and anywhere else in Michigan that it appears as a control city. While it certainly has the size and location requirements for a control city, the fact that it demanded that MDOT remove all state highways from within its city limits a few years ago, requiring it to reroute state highways, change signage and reconfigure maps at taxpayer expense, it seems obvious that the Kalamazoo City Commission doesn't want people to visit their city. Now obviously changing control city signage would be a further unnecessary expense to taxpayers, so they should probably wait until it's time to replace control city signs before doing so.
No, it's not that they don't want people to visit, but it's more likely that they wanted local control of the city streets rather than having MDOT control them. Does Michigan not have the ability to negotiate with cities for control of state routes within city limits the way that other states do?
Quote from: 1 on October 13, 2022, 08:25:30 AM
If "To All Maine Points" is in New Hampshire and therefore not in my state (which is problematic because it's not true, not because it's nonstandard).
Ooh yeah, I
HATE "All Maine Points" on I-95 North with a passion. I think one of the first 15 posts I made on this forum had to do with this wretched control.
I actually made two. They're not the greatest posts ever but they get the job done.
Quote from: kirbykart on July 19, 2022, 05:47:48 PM
I can't say anything about New Hampshire as a whole, but it has a NB I-95 control city that I hate, and that is "All Maine Points". I'll give you some reasons I hate it:
1) Control cities should NEVER be this vague.
2) It may be good for reaching Portland, Augusta, and Bangor, but a lot of I-95 traffic to Maine is tourists, especially in the summer.
3) Tourists to Maine don't usually want to go to Augusta, or Bangor, they want to go to the beach. I-95 is not great for reaching one of the most popular beaches in Maine, York Beach.
4) But you say, "Kirbykart, many of these tourists want to go to York and York Beach, right?" And I would say "Yes, you are right."
5) So should New Hampshire be posting "All Maine Points" as a control on NB I-95? No, they should not.
By the way, the best way to reach York Beach from the south is to get off at Exit 5 (PORTSMOUTH CIRCLE), then take US 1 BY-PASS. This might seem like a bad idea to go through Portsmouth, but it gets you away from the horrendous I-95 traffic, and that's always a plus. This is also good for getting to Kittery.
While the I-95 Piscataqua River Bridge is a really cool bridge, the drawbridge on US 1 BY-PASS is a unique and interesting experience (I mean, a modern drawbridge) Overall, you get more bang for your buck by taking US 1 BY-PASS over I-95 to York Beach.
Quote from: kirbykart on July 19, 2022, 05:54:46 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on July 19, 2022, 05:47:48 PM
I can't say anything about New Hampshire as a whole, but it has a NB I-95 control city that I hate, and that is "All Maine Points". I'll give you some reasons I hate it:
I completely forgot to talk about reaching the lakes of Western Maine, which I-95 doesn't even come remotely close to reaching. The best way for that is to get off at Exit 4
(SPAULDING TURNPIKE
US 4
NH 16
WHITE MOUNTAINS
NH LAKES)
then continue along into Northern NH, then cut over to Maine (US 2 is good for this cross-over) Then you'll be much closer to the lakes of Western Maine than I-95 could ever get you.
Quote from: kirbykart on October 13, 2022, 09:38:49 AM
Quote from: 1 on October 13, 2022, 08:25:30 AM
If "To All Maine Points" is in New Hampshire and therefore not in my state (which is problematic because it's not true, not because it's nonstandard).
Ooh yeah, I HATE "All Maine Points" on I-95 North with a passion. I think one of the first 15 posts I made on this forum had to do with this wretched control.
I'll add in my post in one minute.
New Hampshire also uses "NH Lakes" and "White Mtns" as control cities instead of something like Rochester or Conway. I also don't understand why the Portsmouth control point still has the NH abbreviation even though you're already in the state.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 13, 2022, 09:36:50 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 12, 2022, 07:19:12 PM
Quote from: XamotCGC on October 12, 2022, 06:48:30 PM
Louisville
Wut?
Louisville is:
-Kentucky's largest city
-Central City Population of over 600k
-MSA Population of almost 1.4 million
Very good control city.
He probably dislikes that garbage heap of a city as much as I do.
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 12, 2022, 10:08:50 PM
Kalamazoo should be removed as a control city along I-94, US-131 and anywhere else in Michigan that it appears as a control city. While it certainly has the size and location requirements for a control city, the fact that it demanded that MDOT remove all state highways from within its city limits a few years ago, requiring it to reroute state highways, change signage and reconfigure maps at taxpayer expense, it seems obvious that the Kalamazoo City Commission doesn't want people to visit their city. Now obviously changing control city signage would be a further unnecessary expense to taxpayers, so they should probably wait until it's time to replace control city signs before doing so.
No, it's not that they don't want people to visit, but it's more likely that they wanted local control of the city streets rather than having MDOT control them. Does Michigan not have the ability to negotiate with cities for control of state routes within city limits the way that other states do?
Well I would say they do have the ability to negotiate with cities for control of state routes within city limits because the City of Kalamazoo was able to do it. But at the same time these didn't remain state routes with control switching they eliminated the state routes through Kalamazoo. This only happened in Downtown Kalamazoo and not the entire city and the reason to give the city greater control. They converted one-way streets to two-way traffic, lowered speed limits and wanted flexibility over permits and parking.
Quote from: GaryV on October 13, 2022, 08:21:02 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 12, 2022, 10:08:50 PM
Kalamazoo should be removed as a control city along I-94, US-131 and anywhere else in Michigan that it appears as a control city. While it certainly has the size and location requirements for a control city, the fact that it demanded that MDOT remove all state highways from within its city limits a few years ago, requiring it to reroute state highways, change signage and reconfigure maps at taxpayer expense, it seems obvious that the Kalamazoo City Commission doesn't want people to visit their city. Now obviously changing control city signage would be a further unnecessary expense to taxpayers, so they should probably wait until it's time to replace control city signs before doing so.
And what would you replace Kalamazoo with on US-131 south of GR? Three Rivers? Constantine? White Pigeon?
Kalamazoo is already a secondary control on I-94 - Detroit and Chicago are primary.
How about Portage? That would really piss them off! :)
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 13, 2022, 12:18:04 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 13, 2022, 09:36:50 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 12, 2022, 07:19:12 PM
Quote from: XamotCGC on October 12, 2022, 06:48:30 PM
Louisville
Wut?
Louisville is:
-Kentucky's largest city
-Central City Population of over 600k
-MSA Population of almost 1.4 million
Very good control city.
He probably dislikes that garbage heap of a city as much as I do.
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 12, 2022, 10:08:50 PM
Kalamazoo should be removed as a control city along I-94, US-131 and anywhere else in Michigan that it appears as a control city. While it certainly has the size and location requirements for a control city, the fact that it demanded that MDOT remove all state highways from within its city limits a few years ago, requiring it to reroute state highways, change signage and reconfigure maps at taxpayer expense, it seems obvious that the Kalamazoo City Commission doesn't want people to visit their city. Now obviously changing control city signage would be a further unnecessary expense to taxpayers, so they should probably wait until it's time to replace control city signs before doing so.
No, it's not that they don't want people to visit, but it's more likely that they wanted local control of the city streets rather than having MDOT control them. Does Michigan not have the ability to negotiate with cities for control of state routes within city limits the way that other states do?
Well I would say they do have the ability to negotiate with cities for control of state routes within city limits because the City of Kalamazoo was able to do it. But at the same time these didn't remain state routes with control switching they eliminated the state routes through Kalamazoo. This only happened in Downtown Kalamazoo and not the entire city and the reason to give the city greater control. They converted one-way streets to two-way traffic, lowered speed limits and wanted flexibility over permits and parking.
No, it's the entire city. All routes stop at the city limits. Of course, after the re-routing, decommissioning and unsigning, I believe that only leaves Business US-131 which now basically ends at the end of the freeway stub, close to the city limits.
http://www.michiganhighways.org/listings/M-043.html See notes.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 13, 2022, 09:36:50 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 12, 2022, 07:19:12 PM
Quote from: XamotCGC on October 12, 2022, 06:48:30 PM
Louisville
Wut?
Louisville is:
-Kentucky's largest city
-Central City Population of over 600k
-MSA Population of almost 1.4 million
Very good control city.
He probably dislikes that garbage heap of a city as much as I do.
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 12, 2022, 10:08:50 PM
Kalamazoo should be removed as a control city along I-94, US-131 and anywhere else in Michigan that it appears as a control city. While it certainly has the size and location requirements for a control city, the fact that it demanded that MDOT remove all state highways from within its city limits a few years ago, requiring it to reroute state highways, change signage and reconfigure maps at taxpayer expense, it seems obvious that the Kalamazoo City Commission doesn't want people to visit their city. Now obviously changing control city signage would be a further unnecessary expense to taxpayers, so they should probably wait until it's time to replace control city signs before doing so.
No, it's not that they don't want people to visit, but it's more likely that they wanted local control of the city streets rather than having MDOT control them. Does Michigan not have the ability to negotiate with cities for control of state routes within city limits the way that other states do?
If they wanted people to visit then one would think that they'd allow state routes to enter the city and not demand that state highways be circumvented around the city and business routes to be cut off at the city limits.
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 12, 2022, 10:08:50 PM
Kalamazoo should be removed as a control city along I-94, US-131 and anywhere else in Michigan that it appears as a control city. While it certainly has the size and location requirements for a control city, the fact that it demanded that MDOT remove all state highways from within its city limits a few years ago, requiring it to reroute state highways, change signage and reconfigure maps at taxpayer expense, it seems obvious that the Kalamazoo City Commission doesn't want people to visit their city. Now obviously changing control city signage would be a further unnecessary expense to taxpayers, so they should probably wait until it's time to replace control city signs before doing so.
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 13, 2022, 06:32:04 PM
If they wanted people to visit then one would think that they'd allow state routes to enter the city and not demand that state highways be circumvented around the city and business routes to be cut off at the city limits.
1. I-94 and mainline US-131 still enter Kalamazoo city limits. Do you have documentation that states otherwise?
2. Even if Kalamazoo city officials wanted to discourage visitors from coming to their city, that's not really the concern of AASHTO or MDOT. No, rather their concern is ensuring that drivers get to where they're going. And, as long as people are going to Kalamazoo, or using Kalamazoo as a waypoint along a larger journey, then why would state and nationwide agencies remove Kalamazoo from their lists of control cities?
3. You're not going to go on a rant about Baltimore next, are you?
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 13, 2022, 06:25:28 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 13, 2022, 12:18:04 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 13, 2022, 09:36:50 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 12, 2022, 07:19:12 PM
Quote from: XamotCGC on October 12, 2022, 06:48:30 PM
Louisville
Wut?
Louisville is:
-Kentucky's largest city
-Central City Population of over 600k
-MSA Population of almost 1.4 million
Very good control city.
He probably dislikes that garbage heap of a city as much as I do.
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 12, 2022, 10:08:50 PM
Kalamazoo should be removed as a control city along I-94, US-131 and anywhere else in Michigan that it appears as a control city. While it certainly has the size and location requirements for a control city, the fact that it demanded that MDOT remove all state highways from within its city limits a few years ago, requiring it to reroute state highways, change signage and reconfigure maps at taxpayer expense, it seems obvious that the Kalamazoo City Commission doesn't want people to visit their city. Now obviously changing control city signage would be a further unnecessary expense to taxpayers, so they should probably wait until it's time to replace control city signs before doing so.
No, it's not that they don't want people to visit, but it's more likely that they wanted local control of the city streets rather than having MDOT control them. Does Michigan not have the ability to negotiate with cities for control of state routes within city limits the way that other states do?
Well I would say they do have the ability to negotiate with cities for control of state routes within city limits because the City of Kalamazoo was able to do it. But at the same time these didn't remain state routes with control switching they eliminated the state routes through Kalamazoo. This only happened in Downtown Kalamazoo and not the entire city and the reason to give the city greater control. They converted one-way streets to two-way traffic, lowered speed limits and wanted flexibility over permits and parking.
No, it's the entire city. All routes stop at the city limits. Of course, after the re-routing, decommissioning and unsigning, I believe that only leaves Business US-131 which now basically ends at the end of the freeway stub, close to the city limits.
http://www.michiganhighways.org/listings/M-043.html See notes.
There aren't any other state highways in the city to justify that it's the entire city. The two state highways (M-96 and M-343) both enter the city briefly before ending. This was all done for travel through downtown so it really didn't effect the rest of the city. It really doesn't matter to me though because I always thought that M-43 between South Haven and Kalamazoo should be a different route than the rest of the route, it's almost like it could be three different route numbers.
As mentioned above both I-94 and US-131 enter Kalamazoo. They might clip the city closer to the outskirts but that is still considered entering the city regardless of how you look at it. Actually Kalamazoo should probably be the primary control city going west of Detroit and east of Chicago, it's at a major junction, it's a metro area of over 325,000 people and is the halfway point between Detroit and Chicago.
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 12, 2022, 10:08:50 PM
Kalamazoo should be removed as a control city along I-94, US-131 and anywhere else in Michigan that it appears as a control city. While it certainly has the size and location requirements for a control city, the fact that it demanded that MDOT remove all state highways from within its city limits a few years ago, requiring it to reroute state highways, change signage and reconfigure maps at taxpayer expense, it seems obvious that the Kalamazoo City Commission doesn't want people to visit their city. Now obviously changing control city signage would be a further unnecessary expense to taxpayers, so they should probably wait until it's time to replace control city signs before doing so.
Bitter much?
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 13, 2022, 08:40:55 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 12, 2022, 10:08:50 PM
Kalamazoo should be removed as a control city along I-94, US-131 and anywhere else in Michigan that it appears as a control city. While it certainly has the size and location requirements for a control city, the fact that it demanded that MDOT remove all state highways from within its city limits a few years ago, requiring it to reroute state highways, change signage and reconfigure maps at taxpayer expense, it seems obvious that the Kalamazoo City Commission doesn't want people to visit their city. Now obviously changing control city signage would be a further unnecessary expense to taxpayers, so they should probably wait until it's time to replace control city signs before doing so.
Bitter much?
Good lord, people, I posted this mostly as a joke. But apparently MDOT was retaliating against Kalamazoo. It was, after all, their decision to end state routes at the Kalamazoo city limits. That being said, I think the Kalamazoo City Commission showed remarkable stupidity in this matter. It has to be far better for the city to have state routes going through it, even if they don't really care for the way they're routed, then to have all state routes end at their city limits, or be re-routed around the city. They're going to lose the business of traveler's along with state funding for these roads.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 13, 2022, 07:22:30 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 13, 2022, 06:25:28 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 13, 2022, 12:18:04 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 13, 2022, 09:36:50 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 12, 2022, 07:19:12 PM
Quote from: XamotCGC on October 12, 2022, 06:48:30 PM
Louisville
Wut?
Louisville is:
-Kentucky's largest city
-Central City Population of over 600k
-MSA Population of almost 1.4 million
Very good control city.
He probably dislikes that garbage heap of a city as much as I do.
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 12, 2022, 10:08:50 PM
Kalamazoo should be removed as a control city along I-94, US-131 and anywhere else in Michigan that it appears as a control city. While it certainly has the size and location requirements for a control city, the fact that it demanded that MDOT remove all state highways from within its city limits a few years ago, requiring it to reroute state highways, change signage and reconfigure maps at taxpayer expense, it seems obvious that the Kalamazoo City Commission doesn't want people to visit their city. Now obviously changing control city signage would be a further unnecessary expense to taxpayers, so they should probably wait until it's time to replace control city signs before doing so.
No, it's not that they don't want people to visit, but it's more likely that they wanted local control of the city streets rather than having MDOT control them. Does Michigan not have the ability to negotiate with cities for control of state routes within city limits the way that other states do?
Well I would say they do have the ability to negotiate with cities for control of state routes within city limits because the City of Kalamazoo was able to do it. But at the same time these didn't remain state routes with control switching they eliminated the state routes through Kalamazoo. This only happened in Downtown Kalamazoo and not the entire city and the reason to give the city greater control. They converted one-way streets to two-way traffic, lowered speed limits and wanted flexibility over permits and parking.
No, it's the entire city. All routes stop at the city limits. Of course, after the re-routing, decommissioning and unsigning, I believe that only leaves Business US-131 which now basically ends at the end of the freeway stub, close to the city limits.
http://www.michiganhighways.org/listings/M-043.html See notes.
There aren't any other state highways in the city to justify that it's the entire city. The two state highways (M-96 and M-343) both enter the city briefly before ending. This was all done for travel through downtown so it really didn't effect the rest of the city. It really doesn't matter to me though because I always thought that M-43 between South Haven and Kalamazoo should be a different route than the rest of the route, it's almost like it could be three different route numbers.
Once again, every state route in Kalamazoo, with the exception of I-94 and US-131, which both briefly enter the city limits, have either been re-routed or truncated at the city limits:
"In 2019, every through trunkline route in Kalamazoo–BL I-94, BUS US-131 and M-43–as well as the unsigned M-331 were all turned back to local control by MDOT after many, many years of discussion between City and MDOT planners and engineers. City staffers had long sought to eliminate what they termed as "confusing" one-way streets through the heart of downtown Kalamazoo as well as trying to limit or eliminate large trucks from traversing through the city. MDOT, on the other hand, had long stuck to its mandate to provide a smoothly-operating network of arteries, minimizing delays and congestion. The two sides could never come to a satisfactory solution so, in 2018, MDOT staff in Southwest Region finally gave up and acquiesced to the City's demands by agreeing to transfer all downtown trunkline highway routes to local control. As of January 7, 2019, the downtown trunklines became city streets. To retain "route connectivity," MDOT decided to reroute M-43 along US-131 from Kalamazoo to Plainwell, then southeasterly concurrently with M-89 to Richland where it meets back up with the existing route. Unfortunately, this left several "stub routes" terminating at random locations around the city. MDOT employed three different strategies to deal with this:
Retaining the existing route designation, which is the case for the northern "stub" of BUS US-131 from US-131 Exit 41 to the northern Kalamazoo city limit. It remains BUS US-131, but is a spur route now instead of being a complete loop route through the city.
Removing any signed designation and maintaining the route as an unsigned state trunkline, as was the case with the former BL I-94/BUS US-131 segment along Stadium Dr from US-131 at Exit 36 to Rambling Rd, and the former M-43 along W Main St from US-131 at Exit 38 easterly to Douglas St.
Assigning a new route desigation, as was done to the former segment of M-43 along Gull Rd from Richland southwesterly to Riverview Dr northeast of downtown Kalamazoo. This portion of highway was designated M-343 by MDOT Southwest Region staffers in early 2019. Also, the stub of what had been BL I-94 east of the city is redesigated as BS I-94 (Business SPUR I-94)."
http://www.michiganhighways.org/listings/M-043.html
Additionally, unsigned M-331 was decommissioned, which would certainly seem to be a retaliatory move by MDOT.
http://www.michiganhighways.org/listings/MichHwys250-696.html
Note: The language used in these documents clearly say, "state trunklines." I'm not certain of the exact definition of "state trunkline," but perhaps state trunklines exclude Interstate and US Highways, which would explain why US-131 and I-94 enter the city limits. Or perhaps they don't enter the city long enough to justify their removal. Or maybe (most likely), MDOT doesn't have the jurisdiction and/or authority to remove national route designations. Or it may be some combination of the above.
The state routes don't end right at the city limits. They do indeed enter the city limits. The city did this for downtown not for the entire city like I've already mentioned. It was done to give the city more control of the downtown streets and parking and as I have already mentioned as well there aren't any other state highways in Kalamazoo. And I-94 and US-131 most certainly do enter the city of Kalamazoo.
State trunklines are every state highway in the state of Michigan including Interstate and US highways. Every one of them is maintained by MDOT.
Circling back to the title, New Mexico has some horrible ones, like Lordsburg, Las Vegas, and Tucumcari.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 14, 2022, 08:11:16 AM
And I-94 and US-131 most certainly do enter the city of Kalamazoo.
(https://i.imgur.com/H8owet9.png)
Edit: I just realized Flint's quote says DO enter, not don't. I guess here's a map of Kalamazoo to clear the air anyways. Apologies.
In all honesty I don't think Michigan really has a bad control city. I can't think of one that is out of place at least on the interstates.
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 14, 2022, 02:03:01 AM
FYI, the site you keep citing as source material comes from a member of this forum. It'd be nice if he'd weigh in on the conversation, but unfortunately he hardly ever posts.
Quote from: kirbykart on October 14, 2022, 08:14:55 AM
Circling back to the title, New Mexico has some horrible ones, like Lordsburg, Las Vegas, and Tucumcari.
Tucumcari is not that bad as a secondary. People from outside of New Mexico have heard of it. Las Vegas is only a bad one because of the more famous one not far away. 25 should not use LV at all.
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 14, 2022, 03:34:51 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 14, 2022, 08:14:55 AM
Circling back to the title, New Mexico has some horrible ones, like Lordsburg, Las Vegas, and Tucumcari.
Tucumcari is not that bad as a secondary. People from outside of New Mexico have heard of it. Las Vegas is only a bad one because of the more famous one not far away. 25 should not use LV at all.
I'd say Santa Rosa on I-40 is right up there on the list of bad city choices, but at least it's a major-ish junction as it's where you split off if you're going down 84 towards Lubbock and beyond. Sort of a Limon type situation.
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 14, 2022, 03:34:51 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 14, 2022, 08:14:55 AM
Circling back to the title, New Mexico has some horrible ones, like Lordsburg, Las Vegas, and Tucumcari.
Tucumcari is not that bad as a secondary. People from outside of New Mexico have heard of it. Las Vegas is only a bad one because of the more famous one not far away. 25 should not use LV at all.
I would bet almost any sum of money that you'd like that if you polled 100 random non-New Mexicans or people who live in the panhandle of Texas, no more than three know which state Tucumcari is in.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 14, 2022, 07:35:19 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 14, 2022, 03:34:51 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 14, 2022, 08:14:55 AM
Circling back to the title, New Mexico has some horrible ones, like Lordsburg, Las Vegas, and Tucumcari.
Tucumcari is not that bad as a secondary. People from outside of New Mexico have heard of it. Las Vegas is only a bad one because of the more famous one not far away. 25 should not use LV at all.
I would bet almost any sum of money that you'd like that if you polled 100 random non-New Mexicans or people who live in the panhandle of Texas, no more than three know which state Tucumcari is in.
I don't think that's the case at all Jayhawk. West of Amarillo, guess what the control city is on the mileage signs.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2101834,-102.2284188,3a,15y,290.31h,89.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWPRogztlcJL4aT1MxoZxyQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 15, 2022, 01:34:00 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 14, 2022, 07:35:19 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 14, 2022, 03:34:51 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 14, 2022, 08:14:55 AM
Circling back to the title, New Mexico has some horrible ones, like Lordsburg, Las Vegas, and Tucumcari.
Tucumcari is not that bad as a secondary. People from outside of New Mexico have heard of it. Las Vegas is only a bad one because of the more famous one not far away. 25 should not use LV at all.
I would bet almost any sum of money that you'd like that if you polled 100 random non-New Mexicans or people who live in the panhandle of Texas, no more than three know which state Tucumcari is in.
I don't think that's the case at all Jayhawk. West of Amarillo, guess what the control city is on the mileage signs.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2101834,-102.2284188,3a,15y,290.31h,89.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWPRogztlcJL4aT1MxoZxyQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I'm well aware. You think someone from Boston, New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles has ever heard of it? Not a chance in hell.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 15, 2022, 04:39:27 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 15, 2022, 01:34:00 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 14, 2022, 07:35:19 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 14, 2022, 03:34:51 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 14, 2022, 08:14:55 AM
Circling back to the title, New Mexico has some horrible ones, like Lordsburg, Las Vegas, and Tucumcari.
Tucumcari is not that bad as a secondary. People from outside of New Mexico have heard of it. Las Vegas is only a bad one because of the more famous one not far away. 25 should not use LV at all.
I would bet almost any sum of money that you'd like that if you polled 100 random non-New Mexicans or people who live in the panhandle of Texas, no more than three know which state Tucumcari is in.
I don't think that's the case at all Jayhawk. West of Amarillo, guess what the control city is on the mileage signs.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2101834,-102.2284188,3a,15y,290.31h,89.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWPRogztlcJL4aT1MxoZxyQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I'm well aware. You think someone from Boston, New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles has ever heard of it? Not a chance in hell.
Sometimes I'm tempted to run a survey (outside the forum) to find out how many people actually know these towns that roadgeeks think are well known. Tucumcari. Fort Stockton. Green River. Winnemucca. (Limon.) I would guess that at least 75% of Americans couldn't tell you where
any of those towns are, or what highways go through them. Far less than 1% would know all five.
Quote from: thspfc on October 15, 2022, 04:59:54 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 15, 2022, 04:39:27 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 15, 2022, 01:34:00 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 14, 2022, 07:35:19 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 14, 2022, 03:34:51 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 14, 2022, 08:14:55 AM
Circling back to the title, New Mexico has some horrible ones, like Lordsburg, Las Vegas, and Tucumcari.
Tucumcari is not that bad as a secondary. People from outside of New Mexico have heard of it. Las Vegas is only a bad one because of the more famous one not far away. 25 should not use LV at all.
I would bet almost any sum of money that you'd like that if you polled 100 random non-New Mexicans or people who live in the panhandle of Texas, no more than three know which state Tucumcari is in.
I don't think that's the case at all Jayhawk. West of Amarillo, guess what the control city is on the mileage signs.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2101834,-102.2284188,3a,15y,290.31h,89.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWPRogztlcJL4aT1MxoZxyQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I'm well aware. You think someone from Boston, New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles has ever heard of it? Not a chance in hell.
Sometimes I'm tempted to run a survey (outside the forum) to find out how many people actually know these towns that roadgeeks think are well known. Tucumcari. Fort Stockton. Green River. Winnemucca. (Limon.) I would guess that at least 75% of Americans couldn't tell you where any of those towns are, or what highways go through them. Far less than 1% would know all five.
First off, in my experience, most Americans don't know how to get anywhere that's more than 100 miles away if that. I know people who have lived in DuPage County their whole lives and they are clueless how to get to say Rockford. That being said, there are some places that stand out more than others regardless of population. Take Wisconsin Dells or Vail or Pigeon Forge. None of those are towns that are any bigger than Tucumcari. But they are know as tourist places. But if you do any traveling in the west or southwest, you do notice towns like Tucumcari as halfway points between the bigger cities.
Anyway, my point was that Jayhawk said that he thinks most people even in the panhandle would not know it. I think that's greatly exaggerated considering it's on the first mileage sign out of Amarillo. Not saying it should be a primary but it's a legit enough secondary for I-40.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 14, 2022, 08:11:16 AM
The state routes don't end right at the city limits. They do indeed enter the city limits. The city did this for downtown not for the entire city like I've already mentioned. It was done to give the city more control of the downtown streets and parking and as I have already mentioned as well there aren't any other state highways in Kalamazoo. And I-94 and US-131 most certainly do enter the city of Kalamazoo.
Do you have documentation on this, because what I posted clearly says otherwise and comes from a pretty impeccable source.
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 16, 2022, 10:14:36 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 14, 2022, 08:11:16 AM
The state routes don't end right at the city limits. They do indeed enter the city limits. The city did this for downtown not for the entire city like I've already mentioned. It was done to give the city more control of the downtown streets and parking and as I have already mentioned as well there aren't any other state highways in Kalamazoo. And I-94 and US-131 most certainly do enter the city of Kalamazoo.
Do you have documentation on this, because what I posted clearly says otherwise and comes from a pretty impeccable source.
After re-reading everything and studying a few maps, it appears as if BS I-94 and M-343 do enter the city limits very briefly. M-96 may also enter the city limits, but that's a very close call. But it's not just the downtown areas that were truncated. BS I-94 had about 8 miles lopped off from former BL I-94. I would still say that for all practical purposes, the routes end at the city limits.
Quote from: thspfc on October 15, 2022, 04:59:54 PM
Sometimes I'm tempted to run a survey (outside the forum) to find out how many people actually know these towns that roadgeeks think are well known. Tucumcari. Fort Stockton. Green River. Winnemucca. (Limon.) I would guess that at least 75% of Americans couldn't tell you where any of those towns are, or what highways go through them. Far less than 1% would know all five.
Interestingly, I had personally driven through Fort Stockton, Green River, and Limon all before I'd even graduated high school. So, even though I grew up 710 miles, 565 miles, and 170 miles away (respectively) from them, my dad and I certainly knew where they were.
And I certainly knew as a kid what state Winnemucca was in, just from paging through an atlas. It's a "big dot" town on I-80 in an otherwise barren part of the state, and it has an interesting name. You might be underestimating the number of people who enjoy casually flipping through their Rand McNally once in a while. I certainly know a few non-roadgeeks who do.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 14, 2022, 07:35:19 PM
... if you polled 100 random non-New Mexicans or people who live in the panhandle of Texas ...
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 15, 2022, 05:15:19 PM
Jayhawk said that he thinks most people even in the panhandle would not know it.
That's not how I read his post. I parsed it like this:
if you polled 100 random non -{
New Mexicans}
or -{
people who live in the panhandle of Texas}
That is to say, the
non- part applies to both sets.
Quote from: kphoger on October 17, 2022, 10:03:01 AM
Quote from: thspfc on October 15, 2022, 04:59:54 PM
Sometimes I'm tempted to run a survey (outside the forum) to find out how many people actually know these towns that roadgeeks think are well known. Tucumcari. Fort Stockton. Green River. Winnemucca. (Limon.) I would guess that at least 75% of Americans couldn't tell you where any of those towns are, or what highways go through them. Far less than 1% would know all five.
Interestingly, I had personally driven through Fort Stockton, Green River, and Limon all before I'd even graduated high school. So, even though I grew up 710 miles, 565 miles, and 170 miles away (respectively) from them, my dad and I certainly knew where they were.
And I certainly knew as a kid what state Winnemucca was in, just from paging through an atlas. It's a "big dot" town on I-80 in an otherwise barren part of the state, and it has an interesting name. You might be underestimating the number of people who enjoy casually flipping through their Rand McNally once in a while. I certainly know a few non-roadgeeks who do.
People have changed over time. I knew of people I worked with in Orlando who had no idea where Winter Park was despite it being a suburb to the north directly bordering Orlando. Then I’ve heard one person who never heard of Altamonte Springs, a popular retail destination in Central Florida part of the Orlando area. This was pre GPS and cell phone era.
Add the GPS to it and it makes more ignorance to anything else the GPS tell you. Remember most people wait for either the verbal or screen instructions for instructions on where to drive to. Details around you, are not even comprehended. I worked at the Beeline West in Orlando ( toll plaza at MM 8 on FL 528) and people arriving from nearby Orlando Airport are asking me “where are the nearest restaurants cause I just got off the plane and I’m starving?” Considering the north exit from the airport to FL 528 is located at a strip of every chain restaurant imaginable well seen from the cone a view of a driver heading into the 528 ramps, their minds are focused on the instructions that the GPS is giving and worrying about the cars around them. They won’t see even a large billboard attracting attention, let alone the road ahead with food establishments they’re looking for.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 17, 2022, 10:41:01 AM
People have changed over time. I knew of people I worked with in Orlando who had no idea where Winter Park was despite it being a suburb to the north directly bordering Orlando. Then I've heard one person who never heard of Altamonte Springs, a popular retail destination in Central Florida part of the Orlando area. This was pre GPS and cell phone era.
People living in big cities are different. When you never have any need to drive any farther than thirty miles for any reason, then your knowledge of the outside world can be very limited in scope. In contrast, people who do actually drive for travel tend to have a wider knowledge of the outside world.
Beyond that, as I said, there is a decent number of people who enjoy some casual atlas-flipping, planning an armchair road trip, from time to time.
(I remember telling someone in Kansas City that we were from western Kansas. Their answer was "you mean, like, Salina?" No, we said, Salina isn't in western Kansas. They then looked at us with an uncomprehending blank stare. Contrast that with the people I grew up around in western Kansas, most of whom could tell you multiple routes for driving to each of Denver, Wichita, Lincoln, etc.)
Quote from: kphoger on October 17, 2022, 10:53:57 AM
(I remember telling someone in Kansas City that we were from western Kansas. Their answer was "you mean, like, Salina?" No, we said, Salina isn't in western Kansas. They then looked at us with an uncomprehending blank stare. Contrast that with the people I grew up around in western Kansas, most of whom could tell you multiple routes for driving to each of Denver, Wichita, Lincoln, etc.)
Sounds like Bostonians calling Worcester "western Massachusetts" .
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 15, 2022, 05:15:19 PM
First off, in my experience, most Americans don't know how to get anywhere that's more than 100 miles away if that. I know people who have lived in DuPage County their whole lives and they are clueless how to get to say Rockford. That being said, there are some places that stand out more than others regardless of population. Take Wisconsin Dells or Vail or Pigeon Forge. None of those are towns that are any bigger than Tucumcari. But they are know as tourist places. But if you do any traveling in the west or southwest, you do notice towns like Tucumcari as halfway points between the bigger cities.
Back in high school, there was a Costco that we would get lunch from sometimes that was about half a mile away from the school how the crow flies. Some of my friends couldn't even figure out how to get there from the school. It was two left turns. It's embarrassing how people can't navigate themselves these days.
The roadgeek in me knew how to direct people to places when I was around 6 or 7. Not that I expect every 6-year-old to have that capability. :-P
Quote from: kphoger on October 17, 2022, 10:07:11 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 14, 2022, 07:35:19 PM
... if you polled 100 random non-New Mexicans or people who live in the panhandle of Texas ...
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 15, 2022, 05:15:19 PM
Jayhawk said that he thinks most people even in the panhandle would not know it.
That's not how I read his post. I parsed it like this:
if you polled 100 random non -{New Mexicans} or -{people who live in the panhandle of Texas}
That is to say, the non- part applies to both sets.
That's indeed how I meant it. Sorry for the lack of clarity.
Quote from: kphoger on October 17, 2022, 10:53:57 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 17, 2022, 10:41:01 AM
People have changed over time. I knew of people I worked with in Orlando who had no idea where Winter Park was despite it being a suburb to the north directly bordering Orlando. Then I've heard one person who never heard of Altamonte Springs, a popular retail destination in Central Florida part of the Orlando area. This was pre GPS and cell phone era.
People living in big cities are different. When you never have any need to drive any farther than thirty miles for any reason, then your knowledge of the outside world can be very limited in scope. In contrast, people who do actually drive for travel tend to have a wider knowledge of the outside world.
Beyond that, as I said, there is a decent number of people who enjoy some casual atlas-flipping, planning an armchair road trip, from time to time.
(I remember telling someone in Kansas City that we were from western Kansas. Their answer was "you mean, like, Salina?" No, we said, Salina isn't in western Kansas. They then looked at us with an uncomprehending blank stare. Contrast that with the people I grew up around in western Kansas, most of whom could tell you multiple routes for driving to each of Denver, Wichita, Lincoln, etc.)
It's kind of like the phenomenon here with people in Chicagoland. Unless you are a roadgeek or from downstate, to most people from here, anything south of I-80 in a lot of peoples minds is "Downstate" when in a geographical sense, Downstate doesn't start in reality until you are south of the Springfield-Champaign corridor.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 17, 2022, 02:48:36 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 17, 2022, 10:07:11 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 14, 2022, 07:35:19 PM
... if you polled 100 random non-New Mexicans or people who live in the panhandle of Texas ...
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 15, 2022, 05:15:19 PM
Jayhawk said that he thinks most people even in the panhandle would not know it.
That's not how I read his post. I parsed it like this:
if you polled 100 random non -{New Mexicans} or -{people who live in the panhandle of Texas}
That is to say, the non- part applies to both sets.
That's indeed how I meant it. Sorry for the lack of clarity.
My apologizes Jayhawk.
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 18, 2022, 09:24:26 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 17, 2022, 02:48:36 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 17, 2022, 10:07:11 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 14, 2022, 07:35:19 PM
... if you polled 100 random non-New Mexicans or people who live in the panhandle of Texas ...
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 15, 2022, 05:15:19 PM
Jayhawk said that he thinks most people even in the panhandle would not know it.
That's not how I read his post. I parsed it like this:
if you polled 100 random non -{New Mexicans} or -{people who live in the panhandle of Texas}
That is to say, the non- part applies to both sets.
That's indeed how I meant it. Sorry for the lack of clarity.
My apologizes Jayhawk.
Zero offense taken.
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 18, 2022, 09:23:26 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 17, 2022, 10:53:57 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 17, 2022, 10:41:01 AM
People have changed over time. I knew of people I worked with in Orlando who had no idea where Winter Park was despite it being a suburb to the north directly bordering Orlando. Then I’ve heard one person who never heard of Altamonte Springs, a popular retail destination in Central Florida part of the Orlando area. This was pre GPS and cell phone era.
People living in big cities are different. When you never have any need to drive any farther than thirty miles for any reason, then your knowledge of the outside world can be very limited in scope. In contrast, people who do actually drive for travel tend to have a wider knowledge of the outside world.
Beyond that, as I said, there is a decent number of people who enjoy some casual atlas-flipping, planning an armchair road trip, from time to time.
(I remember telling someone in Kansas City that we were from western Kansas. Their answer was "you mean, like, Salina?" No, we said, Salina isn't in western Kansas. They then looked at us with an uncomprehending blank stare. Contrast that with the people I grew up around in western Kansas, most of whom could tell you multiple routes for driving to each of Denver, Wichita, Lincoln, etc.)
It's kind of like the phenomenon here with people in Chicagoland. Unless you are a roadgeek or from downstate, to most people from here, anything south of I-80 in a lot of peoples minds is "Downstate" when in a geographical sense, Downstate doesn't start in reality until you are south of the Springfield-Champaign corridor.
But "Downstate" is really more of a political and cultural term than a geographical one. Technically, south of I-80 is "downstate" of Chicago. Even some consider Galena as "downstate". It's a similar debate for "Up North" in Michigan.
We have a thread on what constitutes "upstate New York," which I was reminded of yesterday watching a "Law & Order" rerun.
Van Buren referred to Nyack as being "upstate," and I yelled at the TV, "Nyack's not upstate! It's in the metro area!"
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 19, 2022, 10:21:30 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 18, 2022, 09:23:26 PM
It's kind of like the phenomenon here with people in Chicagoland. Unless you are a roadgeek or from downstate, to most people from here, anything south of I-80 in a lot of peoples minds is "Downstate" when in a geographical sense, Downstate doesn't start in reality until you are south of the Springfield-Champaign corridor.
But "Downstate" is really more of a political and cultural term than a geographical one. Technically, south of I-80 is "downstate" of Chicago. Even some consider Galena as "downstate". It's a similar debate for "Up North" in Michigan.
Geographically speaking, wouldn't "downstate" be underground?
I'll show myself out.
Quote from: kphoger on October 17, 2022, 10:03:01 AM
Quote from: thspfc on October 15, 2022, 04:59:54 PM
Sometimes I'm tempted to run a survey (outside the forum) to find out how many people actually know these towns that roadgeeks think are well known. Tucumcari. Fort Stockton. Green River. Winnemucca. (Limon.) I would guess that at least 75% of Americans couldn't tell you where any of those towns are, or what highways go through them. Far less than 1% would know all five.
Interestingly, I had personally driven through Fort Stockton, Green River, and Limon all before I'd even graduated high school. So, even though I grew up 710 miles, 565 miles, and 170 miles away (respectively) from them, my dad and I certainly knew where they were.
And I certainly knew as a kid what state Winnemucca was in, just from paging through an atlas. It's a "big dot" town on I-80 in an otherwise barren part of the state, and it has an interesting name. You might be underestimating the number of people who enjoy casually flipping through their Rand McNally once in a while. I certainly know a few non-roadgeeks who do.
Yeah, I also think a good chunk of people could tell you at least what state Winnemucca is in. I'm sure many know Ely and Tonopah as well.
Limon and Tucumcari, on the other hand... Never heard of either before joining this forum. Same for Green River, UT, and I've never even heard of this "Fort Stockton" place. (Just Googled... Wow, it's in west Texas! Would have guessed Colorado or Wyoming. Is this actually used as a control? [OTOH, there's basically nothing else between El Paso and San Antonio, which I understand to be an extremely long distance {over 500 miles}]).
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on October 19, 2022, 02:52:13 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 19, 2022, 10:21:30 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 18, 2022, 09:23:26 PM
It's kind of like the phenomenon here with people in Chicagoland. Unless you are a roadgeek or from downstate, to most people from here, anything south of I-80 in a lot of peoples minds is "Downstate" when in a geographical sense, Downstate doesn't start in reality until you are south of the Springfield-Champaign corridor.
But "Downstate" is really more of a political and cultural term than a geographical one. Technically, south of I-80 is "downstate" of Chicago. Even some consider Galena as "downstate". It's a similar debate for "Up North" in Michigan.
Geographically speaking, wouldn't "downstate" be underground?
I'll show myself out.
Actually, this is down State (https://goo.gl/maps/XuJLCtUQqSUnJSme8).
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 19, 2022, 10:21:30 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 18, 2022, 09:23:26 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 17, 2022, 10:53:57 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 17, 2022, 10:41:01 AM
People have changed over time. I knew of people I worked with in Orlando who had no idea where Winter Park was despite it being a suburb to the north directly bordering Orlando. Then I've heard one person who never heard of Altamonte Springs, a popular retail destination in Central Florida part of the Orlando area. This was pre GPS and cell phone era.
People living in big cities are different. When you never have any need to drive any farther than thirty miles for any reason, then your knowledge of the outside world can be very limited in scope. In contrast, people who do actually drive for travel tend to have a wider knowledge of the outside world.
Beyond that, as I said, there is a decent number of people who enjoy some casual atlas-flipping, planning an armchair road trip, from time to time.
(I remember telling someone in Kansas City that we were from western Kansas. Their answer was "you mean, like, Salina?" No, we said, Salina isn't in western Kansas. They then looked at us with an uncomprehending blank stare. Contrast that with the people I grew up around in western Kansas, most of whom could tell you multiple routes for driving to each of Denver, Wichita, Lincoln, etc.)
It's kind of like the phenomenon here with people in Chicagoland. Unless you are a roadgeek or from downstate, to most people from here, anything south of I-80 in a lot of peoples minds is "Downstate" when in a geographical sense, Downstate doesn't start in reality until you are south of the Springfield-Champaign corridor.
But "Downstate" is really more of a political and cultural term than a geographical one. Technically, south of I-80 is "downstate" of Chicago. Even some consider Galena as "downstate". It's a similar debate for "Up North" in Michigan.
I'm OK with the liberal definition of "downstate" in Illinois. But people in Chicago also tend to think it's synonymous with "southern Illinois", such that Springfield is in southern Illinois. It isn't.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 19, 2022, 10:21:30 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 18, 2022, 09:23:26 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 17, 2022, 10:53:57 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 17, 2022, 10:41:01 AM
People have changed over time. I knew of people I worked with in Orlando who had no idea where Winter Park was despite it being a suburb to the north directly bordering Orlando. Then I've heard one person who never heard of Altamonte Springs, a popular retail destination in Central Florida part of the Orlando area. This was pre GPS and cell phone era.
People living in big cities are different. When you never have any need to drive any farther than thirty miles for any reason, then your knowledge of the outside world can be very limited in scope. In contrast, people who do actually drive for travel tend to have a wider knowledge of the outside world.
Beyond that, as I said, there is a decent number of people who enjoy some casual atlas-flipping, planning an armchair road trip, from time to time.
(I remember telling someone in Kansas City that we were from western Kansas. Their answer was "you mean, like, Salina?" No, we said, Salina isn't in western Kansas. They then looked at us with an uncomprehending blank stare. Contrast that with the people I grew up around in western Kansas, most of whom could tell you multiple routes for driving to each of Denver, Wichita, Lincoln, etc.)
It's kind of like the phenomenon here with people in Chicagoland. Unless you are a roadgeek or from downstate, to most people from here, anything south of I-80 in a lot of peoples minds is "Downstate" when in a geographical sense, Downstate doesn't start in reality until you are south of the Springfield-Champaign corridor.
But "Downstate" is really more of a political and cultural term than a geographical one. Technically, south of I-80 is "downstate" of Chicago. Even some consider Galena as "downstate". It's a similar debate for "Up North" in Michigan.
I saw someone awhile back that was from Wayne, Michigan (a suburb of Detroit) and this was in St. Charles in the middle of Saginaw County. He said this is up north to him I said heck you aren't even up north yet you still have probably an hour to go. It all depends on who you ask though to some people it's the Zilwaukee Bridge, US-10, M-55, West Branch, Standish, Clare, Ludington and so on. It's probably close to M-46 though but on the eastern side of the state you certainly don't feel up north when your in Saginaw.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on October 19, 2022, 02:52:13 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 19, 2022, 10:21:30 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 18, 2022, 09:23:26 PM
It's kind of like the phenomenon here with people in Chicagoland. Unless you are a roadgeek or from downstate, to most people from here, anything south of I-80 in a lot of peoples minds is "Downstate" when in a geographical sense, Downstate doesn't start in reality until you are south of the Springfield-Champaign corridor.
But "Downstate" is really more of a political and cultural term than a geographical one. Technically, south of I-80 is "downstate" of Chicago. Even some consider Galena as "downstate". It's a similar debate for "Up North" in Michigan.
Geographically speaking, wouldn't "downstate" be underground?
I'll show myself out.
No, it would be in the depths of the valleys in non-flat Illinois.
ba-dum boom
Quote from: kphoger on October 19, 2022, 04:19:52 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 19, 2022, 10:21:30 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 18, 2022, 09:23:26 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 17, 2022, 10:53:57 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 17, 2022, 10:41:01 AM
People have changed over time. I knew of people I worked with in Orlando who had no idea where Winter Park was despite it being a suburb to the north directly bordering Orlando. Then I've heard one person who never heard of Altamonte Springs, a popular retail destination in Central Florida part of the Orlando area. This was pre GPS and cell phone era.
People living in big cities are different. When you never have any need to drive any farther than thirty miles for any reason, then your knowledge of the outside world can be very limited in scope. In contrast, people who do actually drive for travel tend to have a wider knowledge of the outside world.
Beyond that, as I said, there is a decent number of people who enjoy some casual atlas-flipping, planning an armchair road trip, from time to time.
(I remember telling someone in Kansas City that we were from western Kansas. Their answer was "you mean, like, Salina?" No, we said, Salina isn't in western Kansas. They then looked at us with an uncomprehending blank stare. Contrast that with the people I grew up around in western Kansas, most of whom could tell you multiple routes for driving to each of Denver, Wichita, Lincoln, etc.)
It's kind of like the phenomenon here with people in Chicagoland. Unless you are a roadgeek or from downstate, to most people from here, anything south of I-80 in a lot of peoples minds is "Downstate" when in a geographical sense, Downstate doesn't start in reality until you are south of the Springfield-Champaign corridor.
But "Downstate" is really more of a political and cultural term than a geographical one. Technically, south of I-80 is "downstate" of Chicago. Even some consider Galena as "downstate". It's a similar debate for "Up North" in Michigan.
I'm OK with the liberal definition of "downstate" in Illinois. But people in Chicago also tend to think it's synonymous with "southern Illinois", such that Springfield is in southern Illinois. It isn't.
I don't necessarily agree with this. I think most people from Chicago have a good understanding where Springfield is.
Wisconsin doesn't really have any bad ones. Except for Hudson which is occasionally used on I-94 WB. For many years I didn't care for Tomah but I get it now it's a place where both interstates go. I really don't get why control city freak only gave Wisconsin a C I think it deserved a better grade at least a B.
^Wisconsin is pretty weird though. Fond du Lac isn't great
QuoteTomah
Where? I'm not a huge fan of using junction towns as primary controls (maybe as secondaries). I don't like La Crosse too much either.
Then there's Wausau on I-39
Quote from: kirbykart on October 24, 2022, 08:13:40 AM
^Wisconsin is pretty weird though. Fond du Lac isn't great
QuoteTomah
Where? I'm not a huge fan of using junction towns as primary controls (maybe as secondaries). I don't like La Crosse too much either.
Then there's Wausau on I-39
All those control cities are fine there is nothing wrong with any of them. Almost all these cities are decent sized cities in Wisconsin. Like what's wrong with La Crosse? It's the largest city on the western border of Wisconsin, it's a college town with over 20,000 students and is a transportation hub.
What I get is the fact that some cities pick and choose cities either the old US routes it replaced to use on interstates or a once former terminus of the freeway. However, New York finally realized that Scranton for I-84 West is best interest for motorists in Orange County over previous Port Jervis used because I-84 finally made it in PA later on in the game.
It's about time NJ DOT does for I-78 replacing the former US 22 places with Allentown heading west from Newark. Ditto for LaDOTD using Bay St. Louis on I-10 at Slidell and now use Mobile as that is the next major city. Heck even Gulfport is better than what is there now.
Quote from: kirbykart on October 24, 2022, 08:13:40 AM
^Wisconsin is pretty weird though. Fond du Lac isn't great
QuoteTomah
Where? I'm not a huge fan of using junction towns as primary controls (maybe as secondaries). I don't like La Crosse too much either.
Then there's Wausau on I-39
Well, going northwestward from Wisconsin Dells, WI, it would otherwise be a choice between La Crosse or Eau Claire. OTOH, most people there already know where 'Tomah' is and of its importance to the transport network in the state. It is sort of similar to the importance of 'Cove Fort' (a real 'blip on the map' if there ever was one) to points west of the Rockies on I-70.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on October 24, 2022, 10:55:26 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 24, 2022, 08:13:40 AM
^Wisconsin is pretty weird though. Fond du Lac isn't great
QuoteTomah
Where? I'm not a huge fan of using junction towns as primary controls (maybe as secondaries). I don't like La Crosse too much either.
Then there's Wausau on I-39
Well, going northwestward from Wisconsin Dells, WI, it would otherwise be a choice between La Crosse or Eau Claire. OTOH, most people there already know where 'Tomah' is and of its importance to the transport network in the state. It is sort of similar to the importance of 'Cove Fort' (a real 'blip on the map' if there ever was one) to points west of the Rockies on I-70.
Mike
Until recently I felt the same way. But I get it now. The problem is if you use either La Crosse or Eau Claire you are alienating the other interstate it doesn't go to. It's not like Tomah is ever used going EB.
https://goo.gl/maps/gqLbki3PJUJBFvTt6
This guide sign takes the cake.
Port Jervis is actually ahead on on straight through US 6 & 209, not onto the freeway. Though the freeway here does connect again later to US 6 to return to Port Jervis, why direct someone past the said city to loop back to it.
Newburgh needs to be posted here instead.
^Classic PennDOT :-D
In response to Wisconsin controls, Tomah is bad and should not be used. Use Eau Claire, it's not as if I-90 goes anywhere of greater significance. In fact, at the 90/94 split I'd go with Eau Claire and Minneapolis for I-94 West, and La Crosse (annoying, but there's nothing else of consequence) and then, Rochester or Austin MN? Neither are super large, and both have larger cities of the same name in other parts of the country. And Sioux Falls SD is too far away, so honestly I'm stumped. I take back my criticisms of La Crosse.
Quote from: kirbykart on October 14, 2022, 08:14:55 AM
Circling back to the title, New Mexico has some horrible ones, like Lordsburg, Las Vegas, and Tucumcari.
I grew up in Safford and remember seeing Lordsburg listed as a control city as I rode through the junction of 191 and US 70. When I was old enough to drive my own car, I drove to Lordsburg and was sorely disappointed by the size and condition of the town. :-/ :-D
To be fair, I believe its status as a control city is a holdover from the 70s and 80s when the town was more vibrant, and also currently justified by its junction with the last surface leg of US 70 which is utilized several times per year as a detour route for I-10 traffic when the interstate gets closed due to dust storms, crashes and such.
Similarly, Tucumcari as a control city makes sense being a nexus point for US 54
As for Las Vegas... I honestly feel bad for anyone who follows those signs expecting the more famous and fun version.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 24, 2022, 09:07:38 AM
What I get is the fact that some cities pick and choose cities either the old US routes it replaced to use on interstates or a once former terminus of the freeway.
I wonder if that's why I-76 WB west of Akron uses Barberton and Lodi, as those are ok choices as control cities for US 224, but pretty bad for I-76.
Quote from: kirbykart on October 24, 2022, 08:13:40 AM
^Wisconsin is pretty weird though. Fond du Lac isn't great
Fond du Lac isn't great, but it's not terrible either. Appleton or Oshkosh would be better.
I-90/94 WB should be dual-signed for La Crosse and Minneapolis. I-39/90/94 could even be triple-signed for Wausau, La Crosse, and Minneapolis. I don't think one Interstate should be ignored just because it's concurrent with another one.
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 18, 2022, 09:23:26 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 17, 2022, 10:53:57 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 17, 2022, 10:41:01 AM
People have changed over time. I knew of people I worked with in Orlando who had no idea where Winter Park was despite it being a suburb to the north directly bordering Orlando. Then I've heard one person who never heard of Altamonte Springs, a popular retail destination in Central Florida part of the Orlando area. This was pre GPS and cell phone era.
People living in big cities are different. When you never have any need to drive any farther than thirty miles for any reason, then your knowledge of the outside world can be very limited in scope. In contrast, people who do actually drive for travel tend to have a wider knowledge of the outside world.
Beyond that, as I said, there is a decent number of people who enjoy some casual atlas-flipping, planning an armchair road trip, from time to time.
(I remember telling someone in Kansas City that we were from western Kansas. Their answer was "you mean, like, Salina?" No, we said, Salina isn't in western Kansas. They then looked at us with an uncomprehending blank stare. Contrast that with the people I grew up around in western Kansas, most of whom could tell you multiple routes for driving to each of Denver, Wichita, Lincoln, etc.)
It's kind of like the phenomenon here with people in Chicagoland. Unless you are a roadgeek or from downstate, to most people from here, anything south of I-80 in a lot of peoples minds is "Downstate" when in a geographical sense, Downstate doesn't start in reality until you are south of the Springfield-Champaign corridor.
New York is the same way. People from New Jersey, New York City, and Nassau and Suffolk Counties refer to anything above the Bronx- Westchester Border as Upstate NY. People from Westchester and Rockland Counties of New York seem to refer to further north in the state as Upstate.
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2022, 02:27:48 PM
I-90/94 WB should be dual-signed for La Crosse and Minneapolis. I-39/90/94 could even be triple-signed for Wausau, La Crosse, and Minneapolis. I don't think one Interstate should be ignored just because it's concurrent with another one.
FYI, The primary for 94 WB is actually St Paul and not Minneapolis.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.9799671,-90.4250996,3a,75y,298.74h,120.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skIZqiXddUMiKhgCAhJK1_A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
And for the record, I think this is good.
Ah, forgot it was St Paul rather than Minneapolis. I'm fine with that, as it's the closer of the two.
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 24, 2022, 01:58:54 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 24, 2022, 09:07:38 AM
What I get is the fact that some cities pick and choose cities either the old US routes it replaced to use on interstates or a once former terminus of the freeway.
I wonder if that's why I-76 WB west of Akron uses Barberton and Lodi, as those are ok choices as control cities for US 224, but pretty bad for I-76.
Very plausible. A noticeable part of the 76/224 freeway between Akron and Lodi was originally signed as only US-224 -- this was even before I-80S was duplexed with US-224.
In fact, part of the new highway in the late 50s/early 60s was briefly listed on state maps as a Super-2 through Medina County, and did not get the I-80S designation until it was twinned to interstate standards.
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 24, 2022, 01:58:54 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 24, 2022, 09:07:38 AM
What I get is the fact that some cities pick and choose cities either the old US routes it replaced to use on interstates or a once former terminus of the freeway.
I wonder if that's why I-76 WB west of Akron uses Barberton and Lodi, as those are ok choices as control cities for US 224, but pretty bad for I-76.
One could argue that the control cities should be Lodi (for US-224) and Columbus (for I-76).
Quote from: wanderer2575 on October 24, 2022, 11:44:15 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 24, 2022, 01:58:54 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 24, 2022, 09:07:38 AM
What I get is the fact that some cities pick and choose cities either the old US routes it replaced to use on interstates or a once former terminus of the freeway.
I wonder if that's why I-76 WB west of Akron uses Barberton and Lodi, as those are ok choices as control cities for US 224, but pretty bad for I-76.
One could argue that the control cities should be Lodi (for US-224) and Columbus (for I-76).
OhioDOT normally doesn't use secondary control cities and just primaries, but yea, I would definitely go with Columbus on I-76 WB west of Akron, as most long-distance traffic past that point will continue on I-71 SB past I-76's terminus, which heads towards Columbus. Personally, idrc if Lodi is signed or not, as long as Columbus is included.
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 24, 2022, 01:58:54 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 24, 2022, 09:07:38 AM
What I get is the fact that some cities pick and choose cities either the old US routes it replaced to use on interstates or a once former terminus of the freeway.
I wonder if that's why I-76 WB west of Akron uses Barberton and Lodi, as those are ok choices as control cities for US 224, but pretty bad for I-76.
I-76 doesn't continue west of there and US-224 does so I assume that using a control city on US-224 is fine since it continues. I don't know about Barberton other than maybe it's because I-76 turns to the south to go toward Barberton and ODOT couldn't think of a better choice. I-76 does briefly go through Barberton but I have always considered a suburb of Akron and I'm not too fond of using random suburbs for control cities which is one reason why I don't argue against using Port Huron on I-696 EB in Michigan because if Port Huron wasn't used than it would probably be Warren or Roseville (Warren I could see because it isn't just some random suburb it's the third largest city in Michigan).
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2022, 02:27:48 PM
I-90/94 WB should be dual-signed for La Crosse and Minneapolis. I-39/90/94 could even be triple-signed for Wausau, La Crosse, and Minneapolis. I don't think one Interstate should be ignored just because it's concurrent with another one.
Nah, ignore Wausau and La Crosse. The largest metro area by far is the Twin Cities and I-90 can just have La Crosse where it splits off. And I-39 North should be Stevens Point IMO, not Wausau.
A little off topic, but why is the I-71/I-76/US-224 intersection such a mess? Was it intended for there to be toll booths?
Quote from: kirbykart on October 24, 2022, 01:34:38 PM
^Classic PennDOT :-D
In response to Wisconsin controls, Tomah is bad and should not be used.
Tomah makes perfect sense when you have Madison in the other direction.
^What are you trying to say? Madison is a very large city and Wisconsin's capital. Tomah is neither.
Quote from: kirbykart on October 25, 2022, 09:52:21 AM
^What are you trying to say? Madison is a very large city and Wisconsin's capital. Tomah is neither.
Tomah is a well-known major highway junction in the state and a good stopping off point during a family vacation roadtrip. If you don't like it, set the time machine back 75-80 years and have what became the I-90/94 split moved to a different location.
Mike
Tomah is an okay control. It could be much worse. But posting La Crosse and Eau Claire would be more helpful for long-distance drivers.
Quote from: mgk920 on October 25, 2022, 10:48:31 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 25, 2022, 09:52:21 AM
^What are you trying to say? Madison is a very large city and Wisconsin's capital. Tomah is neither.
Tomah is a well-known major highway junction in the state and a good stopping off point during a family vacation roadtrip. If you don't like it, set the time machine back 75-80 years and have what became the I-90/94 split moved to a different location.
Exactly. People WAY overthink control cities and their purpose.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 25, 2022, 10:52:16 AM
Tomah is an okay control. It could be much worse. But posting La Crosse and Eau Claire would be more helpful for long-distance drivers.
Or they could look at a map. Long distance drivers aren't going to know where Eau Claire or LaCrosse are either.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 25, 2022, 10:57:20 AM
Or they could look at a map. Long distance drivers aren't going to know where Eau Claire or LaCrosse are either.
I've heard of both Eau Claire and La Crosse but not Tomah. This is from someone well away from Wisconsin.
Quote from: 1 on October 25, 2022, 11:00:34 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 25, 2022, 10:57:20 AM
Or they could look at a map. Long distance drivers aren't going to know where Eau Claire or LaCrosse are either.
I've heard of both Eau Claire and La Crosse but not Tomah. This is from someone well away from Wisconsin.
Tomah is probably used because it is a major Interstate junction (I-90 and I-94). But what about Rochester? That is the third largest city in Minnesota and it is growing fairly rapidly. If anything, I'd rather see signs use "La Crosse, Rochester" .
Quote from: 1 on October 25, 2022, 11:00:34 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 25, 2022, 10:57:20 AM
Or they could look at a map. Long distance drivers aren't going to know where Eau Claire or LaCrosse are either.
I've heard of both Eau Claire and La Crosse but not Tomah. This is from someone well away from Wisconsin.
I first heard to Tomah when I took the Empire Builder to Portland. I remember there was a stop there.
Quote from: GaryV on October 25, 2022, 08:47:33 AM
A little off topic, but why is the I-71/I-76/US-224 intersection such a mess? Was it intended for there to be toll booths?
It is pretty weird looking at Google Maps, but deceptive in real life. I went through that interchange once just straight through on I-71, and I thought it was a normal cloverleaf interchange!
Quote from: kirbykart on October 25, 2022, 02:51:51 PM
Quote from: GaryV on October 25, 2022, 08:47:33 AM
A little off topic, but why is the I-71/I-76/US-224 intersection such a mess? Was it intended for there to be toll booths?
It is pretty weird looking at Google Maps, but deceptive in real life. I went through that interchange once just straight through on I-71, and I thought it was a normal cloverleaf interchange!
We recently drove I-71 sb to US-224 wb and had to take the strange loop ramp.
Quote from: 1 on October 25, 2022, 11:00:34 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 25, 2022, 10:57:20 AM
Or they could look at a map. Long distance drivers aren't going to know where Eau Claire or LaCrosse are either.
I've heard of both Eau Claire and La Crosse but not Tomah. This is from someone well away from Wisconsin.
Well, since YOU have there isn't really a problem! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Regardless, "hearing" of something doesn't mean you can place it on a map.
Quote from: kirbykart on October 25, 2022, 08:33:11 AM
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2022, 02:27:48 PM
I-90/94 WB should be dual-signed for La Crosse and Minneapolis. I-39/90/94 could even be triple-signed for Wausau, La Crosse, and Minneapolis. I don't think one Interstate should be ignored just because it's concurrent with another one.
Nah, ignore Wausau and La Crosse. The largest metro area by far is the Twin Cities and I-90 can just have La Crosse where it splits off. And I-39 North should be Stevens Point IMO, not Wausau.
I-39 should definitely be Wausau, it's a major crossroads in northern Wisconsin.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 25, 2022, 05:30:56 PM
Regardless, "hearing" of something doesn't mean you can place it on a map.
Not necessarily, no. But
not having heard of a place pretty much
guarantees you can't place it on a map.
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on October 25, 2022, 11:08:34 AM
Quote from: 1 on October 25, 2022, 11:00:34 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 25, 2022, 10:57:20 AM
Or they could look at a map. Long distance drivers aren't going to know where Eau Claire or LaCrosse are either.
I've heard of both Eau Claire and La Crosse but not Tomah. This is from someone well away from Wisconsin.
Tomah is probably used because it is a major Interstate junction (I-90 and I-94). But what about Rochester? That is the third largest city in Minnesota and it is growing fairly rapidly. If anything, I'd rather see signs use "La Crosse, Rochester" .
Rochester and La Crosse at the split is fine.
Quote from: kirbykart on October 25, 2022, 08:33:11 AM
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2022, 02:27:48 PM
I-90/94 WB should be dual-signed for La Crosse and Minneapolis. I-39/90/94 could even be triple-signed for Wausau, La Crosse, and Minneapolis. I don't think one Interstate should be ignored just because it's concurrent with another one.
Nah, ignore Wausau and La Crosse. The largest metro area by far is the Twin Cities and I-90 can just have La Crosse where it splits off. And I-39 North should be Stevens Point IMO, not Wausau.
Yeah but control cities aren't selected based on city size.
^Yes they are, by city size, recognition, and relative importance. If your state doesn't select control cities this way, they're doing it wrong.
Quote from: kirbykart on October 26, 2022, 10:42:30 AM
^Yes they are, by city size, recognition, and relative importance. If your state doesn't select control cities this way, they're doing it wrong.
While those are all factors for a control city, being a place with a major crossroads is as important. Granted, most of us think Limon and Cove Fort are terrible as controls but they still serve a purpose. Tomah, by the way, is a secondary control city. La Crosse and Eau Claire are the primaries. As for Stevens Point, it does have a similar size to Wausau, has a major crossroad (US 10) and has a UW campus. I would say it qualifies well even by your standard Kirby.
Quote from: kirbykart on October 26, 2022, 10:42:30 AM
^Yes they are, by city size, recognition, and relative importance. If your state doesn't select control cities this way, they're doing it wrong.
No they are not. Also if a state doesn't do it the way you think that doesn't mean they are doing it wrong. The Mackinac Bridge isn't a city at all and is the control city on NB I-75 north of Saginaw, think you could do better there? I doubt it.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 25, 2022, 08:48:05 PM
Yeah but control cities aren't selected based on city size.
Quote from: kirbykart on October 26, 2022, 10:42:30 AM
^Yes they are, by city size, recognition, and relative importance. If your state doesn't select control cities this way, they're doing it wrong.
As I said once before...
Quote from: kphoger on December 28, 2017, 05:27:01 PM
Things every roadgeek should know:
The way it's done in your district/state/country isn't necessarily the way it's done elsewhere, and that doesn't make everyone else "wrong".
For some specific examples of this general rule, related to the topic at hand:
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 18, 2022, 01:38:11 AM
Some states, such as Arizona, use a control point map, while others, such as Kansas, have criteria for choosing them. I don't know that one approach is better than the other, though the latter affords more flexibility.
These are Kansas' criteria for choosing control points off the Interstate system (listed in priority order):
* County seat within 100 miles.
* Incorporated city within 100 miles having population greater than 1000.
* Major highway route.
* Incorporated city with population less than 1000.
* Unincorporated community.
Internationally, there are more elaborate versions of these two basic approaches. Britain, for example, has a hierarchy of primary destinations that appear on signs for the motorways (blue background) and primary routes (green background--"major A roads" is a loose term for this network). The tiers are primary (Oxford, Southampton), super-primary (London, Leeds), and regional (The NORTH, The NORTH WEST, SCOTLAND). Designers can choose which to put on signs, but there is an expectation that continuity in signing will be maintained (i.e., once you see a destination on a sign, you should be able to follow subsequent mentions of it on signs until you reach it). France, on the other hand, has the concept of a signing map (schéma-directeur de signalisation) that shows a network and lists all of the destinations to be signed at each intersection. Central government (i.e., the folks in Paris) must approve the map that covers the réseau vert ("green network," basically the equivalent of the primary-route network in the UK).
These are Michigan's control cities on Interstate's. I think MDOT did a good job choosing the control cities.
I-75: Sault Ste. Marie, St. Ignace, Mackinac Bridge, Saginaw, Flint, Detroit, Toledo.
I-94: Port Huron, Detroit, Chicago. Ann Arbor, Jackson, Marshall, Battle Creek and Kalamazoo are all secondary control cities.
I-96: Muskegon, Grand Rapids, Lansing, Detroit.
I-69: Port Huron, Flint, Lansing, Fort Wayne.
I-675: DOWNTOWN Saginaw
I-475: DOWNTOWN Flint, Detroit and Saginaw.
I-375: DOWNTOWN.
I-275: Flint, Toledo (Flint could be the worst one considering I-275 was never finished but if it had been finished Flint would be fine). There however is a sign telling you to follow I-96 west for Flint then US-23 north. So at least MDOT tells you how to get to Flint instead of signing it as a control city and you never getting there thinking wtf?
I-194: DOWNTOWN Battle Creek.
I-496: DOWNTOWN Lansing, Jackson, Detroit.
I-196: Grand Rapids, Holland, Chicago.
Now here is a strange one, not an Interstate but US-127 in Lansing has Flint as a control city along with East Lansing. Now to get to Flint you'd take US-127 to I-69 but why would you have Flint as a control city there when this interchange isn't really that close to I-69?
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 26, 2022, 05:56:12 PM
Now here is a strange one, not an Interstate but US-127 in Lansing has Flint as a control city along with East Lansing. Now to get to Flint you'd take US-127 to I-69 but why would you have Flint as a control city there when this interchange isn't really that close to I-69?
Left over (from nearly 40 years ago) from when I-69 on the west and north sides of Lansing wasn't complete? From Marshall, you followed I-69, Temp 69, I-96 (east), I-127 (north), and another Temp 69 which actually headed to Flint?
Quote from: GaryV on October 26, 2022, 06:23:53 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 26, 2022, 05:56:12 PM
Now here is a strange one, not an Interstate but US-127 in Lansing has Flint as a control city along with East Lansing. Now to get to Flint you'd take US-127 to I-69 but why would you have Flint as a control city there when this interchange isn't really that close to I-69?
Left over (from nearly 40 years ago) from when I-69 on the west and north sides of Lansing wasn't complete? From Marshall, you followed I-69, Temp 69, I-96 (east), I-127 (north), and another Temp 69 which actually headed to Flint?
I'm surprised you didn't notice that I forgot I-696.
I-696: Lansing, Port Huron.
Anyway regarding your reply, before I-69 the route between Lansing and Flint was M-78. I guess MDOT should update the sign and change it to Clare instead of Flint. The Temp I-69 that headed to Flint probably was M-78. M-78 now of course is only a fraction of it's former self running between I-69 and M-66 north of I-94.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 26, 2022, 06:32:18 PM
Quote from: GaryV on October 26, 2022, 06:23:53 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 26, 2022, 05:56:12 PM
Now here is a strange one, not an Interstate but US-127 in Lansing has Flint as a control city along with East Lansing. Now to get to Flint you'd take US-127 to I-69 but why would you have Flint as a control city there when this interchange isn't really that close to I-69?
Left over (from nearly 40 years ago) from when I-69 on the west and north sides of Lansing wasn't complete? From Marshall, you followed I-69, Temp 69, I-96 (east), I-127 (north), and another Temp 69 which actually headed to Flint?
I'm surprised you didn't notice that I forgot I-696.
I-696: Lansing, Port Huron.
Anyway regarding your reply, before I-69 the route between Lansing and Flint was M-78. I guess MDOT should update the sign and change it to Clare instead of Flint. The Temp I-69 that headed to Flint probably was M-78. M-78 now of course is only a fraction of it's former self running between I-69 and M-66 north of I-94.
I think this sign predates the freeway being extended to the north of I-69 and US-27 being decommissioned. US-127 basically ended at I-69, and the only freeway route available was I-69. Since Flint is closer than Grand Rapids, and fewer people going to Grand Rapids would be likely to be using NB US-127 at that point, they decided to use Flint.
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 27, 2022, 01:20:11 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 26, 2022, 06:32:18 PM
Quote from: GaryV on October 26, 2022, 06:23:53 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 26, 2022, 05:56:12 PM
Now here is a strange one, not an Interstate but US-127 in Lansing has Flint as a control city along with East Lansing. Now to get to Flint you'd take US-127 to I-69 but why would you have Flint as a control city there when this interchange isn't really that close to I-69?
Left over (from nearly 40 years ago) from when I-69 on the west and north sides of Lansing wasn't complete? From Marshall, you followed I-69, Temp 69, I-96 (east), I-127 (north), and another Temp 69 which actually headed to Flint?
I'm surprised you didn't notice that I forgot I-696.
I-696: Lansing, Port Huron.
Anyway regarding your reply, before I-69 the route between Lansing and Flint was M-78. I guess MDOT should update the sign and change it to Clare instead of Flint. The Temp I-69 that headed to Flint probably was M-78. M-78 now of course is only a fraction of it's former self running between I-69 and M-66 north of I-94.
I think this sign predates the freeway being extended to the north of I-69 and US-27 being decommissioned. US-127 basically ended at I-69, and the only freeway route available was I-69. Since Flint is closer than Grand Rapids, and fewer people going to Grand Rapids would be likely to be using NB US-127 at that point, they decided to use Flint.
It probably does but at this point I think it would have been updated. Not sure what they could update I-275 to since it'd just be a random Detroit suburb like Livonia or Novi or Farmington Hills. Grand Rapids wouldn't even be in consideration for control city there since you are going north. Clare is the control city north of Lansing on 127 but I think it should be Mount Pleasant. Clare is the control city only because it's the junction of US-127 and US-10.
Quote from: kirbykart on October 26, 2022, 10:42:30 AM
^Yes they are, by city size, recognition, and relative importance. If your state doesn't select control cities this way, they're doing it wrong.
I'd also like to tell you something else. Mount Pleasant is the largest city on US-127 north of Lansing, it is not the control city. Clare is the control city because it's at the junction of two US highways. That is how control cities are determined not by city size and beside the point the states choose the control cities.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 26, 2022, 04:37:52 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 26, 2022, 10:42:30 AM
^Yes they are, by city size, recognition, and relative importance. If your state doesn't select control cities this way, they're doing it wrong.
No they are not. Also if a state doesn't do it the way you think that doesn't mean they are doing it wrong. The Mackinac Bridge isn't a city at all and is the control city on NB I-75 north of Saginaw, think you could do better there? I doubt it.
I could do better. St. Ignace (which is already used in some places). Mackinac Bridge is not a control city.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 27, 2022, 07:24:13 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 26, 2022, 10:42:30 AM
^Yes they are, by city size, recognition, and relative importance. If your state doesn't select control cities this way, they're doing it wrong.
I'd also like to tell you something else. Mount Pleasant is the largest city on US-127 north of Lansing, it is not the control city. Clare is the control city because it's at the junction of two US highways. That is how control cities are determined not by city size and beside the point the states choose the control cities.
The point of control cities is to help people who are not from the area navigate more easily. Therefore, larger and more recognizable cities should be chosen.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 27, 2022, 07:24:13 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 26, 2022, 10:42:30 AM
^Yes they are, by city size, recognition, and relative importance. If your state doesn't select control cities this way, they're doing it wrong.
I'd also like to tell you something else. Mount Pleasant is the largest city on US-127 north of Lansing, it is not the control city. Clare is the control city because it's at the junction of two US highways. That is how control cities are determined not by city size and beside the point the states choose the control cities.
Mt. Pleasant should definitely be the control city since it has a major university and one of the biggest casinos in North America, not to mention 2 Indian tribes, in addition to being the largest city north of Lansing.
Quote from: kirbykart on October 27, 2022, 08:30:38 AM
The point of control cities is to help people who are not from the area navigate more easily. Therefore, larger and more recognizable cities should be chosen.
I mostly agree with the first part, but the second part is more debatable. A town at a major highway junction might be a more useful navigation point to out-of-area travelers than a town that just happens to have more people living in it.
Quote from: kphoger on October 27, 2022, 10:27:02 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 27, 2022, 08:30:38 AM
The point of control cities is to help people who are not from the area navigate more easily. Therefore, larger and more recognizable cities should be chosen.
I mostly agree with the first part, but the second part is more debatable. A town at a major highway junction might be a more useful navigation point to out-of-area travelers than a town that just happens to have more people living in it.
Exactly. And let's not forget that it's not just cross country traffic that uses the interstate/freeway system. That's why smaller cities are ok for control cities. That's also why I favor having a primary control and a secondary control on the BGS.
Quote from: kirbykart on October 27, 2022, 08:30:38 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 26, 2022, 04:37:52 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 26, 2022, 10:42:30 AM
^Yes they are, by city size, recognition, and relative importance. If your state doesn't select control cities this way, they're doing it wrong.
No they are not. Also if a state doesn't do it the way you think that doesn't mean they are doing it wrong. The Mackinac Bridge isn't a city at all and is the control city on NB I-75 north of Saginaw, think you could do better there? I doubt it.
I could do better. St. Ignace (which is already used in some places). Mackinac Bridge is not a control city. Quote from: Flint1979 on October 27, 2022, 07:24:13 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 26, 2022, 10:42:30 AM
^Yes they are, by city size, recognition, and relative importance. If your state doesn't select control cities this way, they're doing it wrong.
I'd also like to tell you something else. Mount Pleasant is the largest city on US-127 north of Lansing, it is not the control city. Clare is the control city because it's at the junction of two US highways. That is how control cities are determined not by city size and beside the point the states choose the control cities.
The point of control cities is to help people who are not from the area navigate more easily. Therefore, larger and more recognizable cities should be chosen.
The point of control cities is to indicate destinations along the route. And btw, Mackinac Bridge most certainly is a control city.
I really don't have to go too far to show where Mackinac Bridge is indeed a control city.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4259605,-83.8906179,3a,25.6y,338.88h,113.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4qxW7-ulwSxF1xM_hIsA0g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7390363,-84.0142302,3a,15y,61.26h,90.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skZbIU1Rf3LHeNJzdWBbMfA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 27, 2022, 03:37:35 PM
I really don't have to go too far to show where Mackinac Bridge is indeed a control city.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4259605,-83.8906179,3a,25.6y,338.88h,113.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4qxW7-ulwSxF1xM_hIsA0g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7390363,-84.0142302,3a,15y,61.26h,90.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skZbIU1Rf3LHeNJzdWBbMfA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Unfortunately...
Quote from: AASHTO – Committee on Traffic Engineering
Interstate Control Cities
75
Miami, Naples, Tampa, Lake City, Valdosta, Macon, Atlanta, Marietta, Chattanooga, Knoxville, Lexington, Cincinnati, Dayton, Toledo, Detroit, Flint, Saginaw, Sault Ste Marie
Quote from: kphoger on October 27, 2022, 03:44:02 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 27, 2022, 03:37:35 PM
I really don't have to go too far to show where Mackinac Bridge is indeed a control city.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4259605,-83.8906179,3a,25.6y,338.88h,113.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4qxW7-ulwSxF1xM_hIsA0g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7390363,-84.0142302,3a,15y,61.26h,90.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skZbIU1Rf3LHeNJzdWBbMfA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Unfortunately...
Quote from: AASHTO – Committee on Traffic Engineering
Interstate Control Cities
75
Miami, Naples, Tampa, Lake City, Valdosta, Macon, Atlanta, Marietta, Chattanooga, Knoxville, Lexington, Cincinnati, Dayton, Toledo, Detroit, Flint, Saginaw, Sault Ste Marie
Yeah well Mackinac Bridge is what's used north of Saginaw until you get across it, then Sault Ste. Marie is used.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 27, 2022, 03:52:30 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 27, 2022, 03:44:02 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 27, 2022, 03:37:35 PM
I really don't have to go too far to show where Mackinac Bridge is indeed a control city.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4259605,-83.8906179,3a,25.6y,338.88h,113.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4qxW7-ulwSxF1xM_hIsA0g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7390363,-84.0142302,3a,15y,61.26h,90.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skZbIU1Rf3LHeNJzdWBbMfA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Unfortunately...
Quote from: AASHTO – Committee on Traffic Engineering
Interstate Control Cities
75
Miami, Naples, Tampa, Lake City, Valdosta, Macon, Atlanta, Marietta, Chattanooga, Knoxville, Lexington, Cincinnati, Dayton, Toledo, Detroit, Flint, Saginaw, Sault Ste Marie
Yeah well Mackinac Bridge is what's used north of Saginaw until you get across it, then Sault Ste. Marie is used.
Case in point.
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.1347733,-84.1289949,3a,75y,218.91h,71.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk8NOvR1x9SfwFtgM27ZDOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 27, 2022, 03:58:00 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 27, 2022, 03:52:30 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 27, 2022, 03:44:02 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 27, 2022, 03:37:35 PM
I really don't have to go too far to show where Mackinac Bridge is indeed a control city.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4259605,-83.8906179,3a,25.6y,338.88h,113.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4qxW7-ulwSxF1xM_hIsA0g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7390363,-84.0142302,3a,15y,61.26h,90.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skZbIU1Rf3LHeNJzdWBbMfA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Unfortunately...
Quote from: AASHTO – Committee on Traffic Engineering
Interstate Control Cities
75
Miami, Naples, Tampa, Lake City, Valdosta, Macon, Atlanta, Marietta, Chattanooga, Knoxville, Lexington, Cincinnati, Dayton, Toledo, Detroit, Flint, Saginaw, Sault Ste Marie
Yeah well Mackinac Bridge is what's used north of Saginaw until you get across it, then Sault Ste. Marie is used.
Case in point.
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.1347733,-84.1289949,3a,75y,218.91h,71.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk8NOvR1x9SfwFtgM27ZDOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Ahhh the south end of M-33 I just passed through there like two days ago. Exit 202 is pretty much where Up North Michigan begins on I-75.
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.8570045,-84.7323209,3a,18.8y,80.16h,97.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxOc7UZIu_4-YLsGq1YXVwQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 27, 2022, 03:52:30 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 27, 2022, 03:44:02 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 27, 2022, 03:37:35 PM
I really don't have to go too far to show where Mackinac Bridge is indeed a control city.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4259605,-83.8906179,3a,25.6y,338.88h,113.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4qxW7-ulwSxF1xM_hIsA0g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7390363,-84.0142302,3a,15y,61.26h,90.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skZbIU1Rf3LHeNJzdWBbMfA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Unfortunately...
Quote from: AASHTO – Committee on Traffic Engineering
Interstate Control Cities
75
Miami, Naples, Tampa, Lake City, Valdosta, Macon, Atlanta, Marietta, Chattanooga, Knoxville, Lexington, Cincinnati, Dayton, Toledo, Detroit, Flint, Saginaw, Sault Ste Marie
Yeah well Mackinac Bridge is what's used north of Saginaw until you get across it, then Sault Ste. Marie is used.
It's the only crossing connecting both Michigan peninsulas. It's worth noting. Just like the Delaware Memorial Bridge in NJ on I-295.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 27, 2022, 05:50:09 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 27, 2022, 03:52:30 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 27, 2022, 03:44:02 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 27, 2022, 03:37:35 PM
I really don't have to go too far to show where Mackinac Bridge is indeed a control city.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4259605,-83.8906179,3a,25.6y,338.88h,113.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4qxW7-ulwSxF1xM_hIsA0g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7390363,-84.0142302,3a,15y,61.26h,90.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skZbIU1Rf3LHeNJzdWBbMfA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Unfortunately...
Quote from: AASHTO – Committee on Traffic Engineering
Interstate Control Cities
75
Miami, Naples, Tampa, Lake City, Valdosta, Macon, Atlanta, Marietta, Chattanooga, Knoxville, Lexington, Cincinnati, Dayton, Toledo, Detroit, Flint, Saginaw, Sault Ste Marie
Yeah well Mackinac Bridge is what's used north of Saginaw until you get across it, then Sault Ste. Marie is used.
It's the only crossing connecting both Michigan peninsulas. It's worth noting. Just like the Delaware Memorial Bridge in NJ on I-295.
I agree it's a pretty good control city (that's what we have to call it since that is what we are talking about and it is listed just like a control city). If you are in the Lower Peninsula heading north of Saginaw and you see Mackinac Bridge you will automatically know what direction you are headed in, same with Saginaw as it is the first major city you come to along I-75. Saginaw isn't really a major city on a national level but in Michigan it's pretty well known. Bay City even sneaks in on one sign at the Zilwaukee exit.
My point is only that "Mackinac Br" is not on the AASHTO list of control cities.
Quote from: kphoger on October 27, 2022, 06:31:49 PM
My point is only that "Mackinac Br" is not on the AASHTO list of control cities.
Then they need to update their list.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 27, 2022, 03:35:02 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 27, 2022, 08:30:38 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 26, 2022, 04:37:52 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 26, 2022, 10:42:30 AM
^Yes they are, by city size, recognition, and relative importance. If your state doesn't select control cities this way, they're doing it wrong.
No they are not. Also if a state doesn't do it the way you think that doesn't mean they are doing it wrong. The Mackinac Bridge isn't a city at all and is the control city on NB I-75 north of Saginaw, think you could do better there? I doubt it.
I could do better. St. Ignace (which is already used in some places). Mackinac Bridge is not a control city. Quote from: Flint1979 on October 27, 2022, 07:24:13 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 26, 2022, 10:42:30 AM
^Yes they are, by city size, recognition, and relative importance. If your state doesn't select control cities this way, they're doing it wrong.
I'd also like to tell you something else. Mount Pleasant is the largest city on US-127 north of Lansing, it is not the control city. Clare is the control city because it's at the junction of two US highways. That is how control cities are determined not by city size and beside the point the states choose the control cities.
The point of control cities is to help people who are not from the area navigate more easily. Therefore, larger and more recognizable cities should be chosen.
The point of control cities is to indicate destinations along the route. And btw, Mackinac Bridge most certainly is a control city.
Mackinac Bridge may be a control point used on signs, I never denied that. I only said that it is not a city.
Quote from: kirbykart on October 27, 2022, 06:44:20 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 27, 2022, 03:35:02 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 27, 2022, 08:30:38 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 26, 2022, 04:37:52 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 26, 2022, 10:42:30 AM
^Yes they are, by city size, recognition, and relative importance. If your state doesn't select control cities this way, they're doing it wrong.
No they are not. Also if a state doesn't do it the way you think that doesn't mean they are doing it wrong. The Mackinac Bridge isn't a city at all and is the control city on NB I-75 north of Saginaw, think you could do better there? I doubt it.
I could do better. St. Ignace (which is already used in some places). Mackinac Bridge is not a control city. Quote from: Flint1979 on October 27, 2022, 07:24:13 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 26, 2022, 10:42:30 AM
^Yes they are, by city size, recognition, and relative importance. If your state doesn't select control cities this way, they're doing it wrong.
I'd also like to tell you something else. Mount Pleasant is the largest city on US-127 north of Lansing, it is not the control city. Clare is the control city because it's at the junction of two US highways. That is how control cities are determined not by city size and beside the point the states choose the control cities.
The point of control cities is to help people who are not from the area navigate more easily. Therefore, larger and more recognizable cities should be chosen.
The point of control cities is to indicate destinations along the route. And btw, Mackinac Bridge most certainly is a control city.
Mackinac Bridge may be a control point used on signs, I never denied that. I only said that it is not a city.
The Mackinac Bridge isn't a city? Thanks for clearing that up because no one said it was a city. I said that it is a control city which is what they are called.
If it is not a city then it would be incorrect to call it a control city, wouldn't it? I call it a control point.
Quote from: kirbykart on October 27, 2022, 06:56:53 PM
If it is not a city then it would be incorrect to call it a control city, wouldn't it? I call it a control point.
No I don't think it's incorrect at all to call to control city.
^Then we'll have to agree to disagree. :D
Quote from: kirbykart on October 27, 2022, 06:56:53 PM
If it is not a city then it would be incorrect to call it a control city, wouldn't it? I call it a control point.
The official AASHTO list of control cities includes "1- 15" (which I assume is supposed to be "I-15") for I-70, "Canada" for I-81, and "IH 84" for I-86.
So I'm just wondering, did they miss Mackinac Bridge? I'm not understanding why it's skipped in the log. I mean honestly Sault Ste. Marie isn't a bad choice for the control city as far south as Saginaw, everyone pretty much knows where it is but if we are going by cities near US highway interchanges then going north of Saginaw it would go Bay City (which is really close to Saginaw and both are part of the Tri-Cities) at US-10, Grayling at US-127, Mackinaw City at US-23 and 31, St. Ignace at US-2, Sault Ste. Marie at the end of the route. MDOT didn't choose them this way so it's Mackinac Bridge and Sault Ste. Marie going north of Saginaw.
Quote from: kphoger on October 27, 2022, 08:02:24 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 27, 2022, 06:56:53 PM
If it is not a city then it would be incorrect to call it a control city, wouldn't it? I call it a control point.
The official AASHTO list of control cities includes "1- 15" (which I assume is supposed to be "I-15") for I-70, "Canada" for I-81, and "IH 84" for I-86.
It doesn't include Interstate 57 for I-24 in Illinois. Honestly I wouldn't be against using Sault Ste. Marie as a control city as far south as Saginaw btw.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 27, 2022, 03:37:35 PM
I really don't have to go too far to show where Mackinac Bridge is indeed a control city.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4259605,-83.8906179,3a,25.6y,338.88h,113.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4qxW7-ulwSxF1xM_hIsA0g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7390363,-84.0142302,3a,15y,61.26h,90.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skZbIU1Rf3LHeNJzdWBbMfA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I miss the old Mackinac Bridge control city sign just south of the Zilwaukee Bridge that fooled some people, including one of my nephew's, into thinking that the Zilwaukee Bridge was the Mackinac Bridge! :)
Quote from: kirbykart on October 27, 2022, 06:56:53 PM
If it is not a city then it would be incorrect to call it a control city, wouldn't it? I call it a control point.
Word of God–the MUTCD–calls it a "control city".
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 27, 2022, 05:45:59 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.8570045,-84.7323209,3a,18.8y,80.16h,97.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxOc7UZIu_4-YLsGq1YXVwQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
St. Ignace has a downtown? :)
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 28, 2022, 12:56:31 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 27, 2022, 06:56:53 PM
If it is not a city then it would be incorrect to call it a control city, wouldn't it? I call it a control point.
Word of God–the MUTCD–calls it a "control city".
Could MUTCD and AASHTO have different definitions of "Control City"?
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 28, 2022, 02:24:07 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 28, 2022, 12:56:31 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 27, 2022, 06:56:53 PM
If it is not a city then it would be incorrect to call it a control city, wouldn't it? I call it a control point.
Word of God–the MUTCD–calls it a "control city".
Could MUTCD and AASHTO have different definitions of "Control City"?
No. It's the MUTCD's world, AASHTO is just living in it.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 28, 2022, 02:24:54 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 28, 2022, 02:24:07 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 28, 2022, 12:56:31 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 27, 2022, 06:56:53 PM
If it is not a city then it would be incorrect to call it a control city, wouldn't it? I call it a control point.
Word of God–the MUTCD–calls it a "control city".
Could MUTCD and AASHTO have different definitions of "Control City"?
No. It's the MUTCD's world, AASHTO is just living in it.
Right, but if AASHTO doesn't have it listed, could it be because they don't consider a non-city to be a "Control City"?
Ashland Kentucky on I-64. Should be Huntington WV.
SM-G996U
Clinton and Newark in NJ are not on the list last time I checked, but NJDOT uses them on I-78 in NJ..
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 28, 2022, 02:33:50 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 28, 2022, 02:24:54 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 28, 2022, 02:24:07 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 28, 2022, 12:56:31 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 27, 2022, 06:56:53 PM
If it is not a city then it would be incorrect to call it a control city, wouldn't it? I call it a control point.
Word of God–the MUTCD–calls it a "control city".
Could MUTCD and AASHTO have different definitions of "Control City"?
No. It's the MUTCD's world, AASHTO is just living in it.
Right, but if AASHTO doesn't have it listed, could it be because they don't consider a non-city to be a "Control City"?
They have I-15 listed for I-70 and we all know that I-15 isn't a city.
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 28, 2022, 02:16:31 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 27, 2022, 05:45:59 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.8570045,-84.7323209,3a,18.8y,80.16h,97.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxOc7UZIu_4-YLsGq1YXVwQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
St. Ignace has a downtown? :)
They are probably referring to State Street along the lakefront.
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 27, 2022, 09:35:46 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 27, 2022, 03:37:35 PM
I really don't have to go too far to show where Mackinac Bridge is indeed a control city.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4259605,-83.8906179,3a,25.6y,338.88h,113.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4qxW7-ulwSxF1xM_hIsA0g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7390363,-84.0142302,3a,15y,61.26h,90.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skZbIU1Rf3LHeNJzdWBbMfA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I miss the old Mackinac Bridge control city sign just south of the Zilwaukee Bridge that fooled some people, including one of my nephew's, into thinking that the Zilwaukee Bridge was the Mackinac Bridge! :)
Oh wow those two bridges look nothing alike. Mackinac Bridge is still the control city for NB I-75 starting at MM 149. I remember back in the day at the US-10 and I-75 interchange they had Standish for NB I-75 and Flint and Detroit for SB I-75, it was switched probably 20 years ago to Mackinac Bridge for NB and Saginaw for SB.
Quote from: ibthebigd on October 28, 2022, 05:02:51 AM
Ashland Kentucky on I-64. Should be Huntington WV.
SM-G996U
Yuck. Reminds me of awful ones like Marietta, Ohio (where?) and Mount Airy, North Carolina. The Appalachian-Ohio Valley region in general has some awful controls.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 28, 2022, 02:24:54 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 28, 2022, 02:24:07 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 28, 2022, 12:56:31 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on October 27, 2022, 06:56:53 PM
If it is not a city then it would be incorrect to call it a control city, wouldn't it? I call it a control point.
Word of God–the MUTCD–calls it a "control city".
Could MUTCD and AASHTO have different definitions of "Control City"?
No. It's the MUTCD's world, AASHTO is just living in it.
Is there a readily available online version of the
List of Control Cities for Use in Guide Signs on Interstate Highways?
For what it's worth, the MUTCD states...
Quote from: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices – 2009 Edition
Chapter 2E – Guide Signs – Freeways and Expressways
§2E.13 – Designation of Destinations
Support:
04 – ... Control cities on freeway guide signs are selected by the States ...
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 28, 2022, 02:16:31 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 27, 2022, 05:45:59 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.8570045,-84.7323209,3a,18.8y,80.16h,97.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxOc7UZIu_4-YLsGq1YXVwQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
St. Ignace has a downtown? :)
Yes, a fairly nice one for an Up North town. And since you've just entered the St Ignace limits at that sign, Downtown makes sense.
Mackinaw City actually has a nice downtown too.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 28, 2022, 09:01:47 PM
Mackinaw City actually has a nice downtown too.
Yes it does. But here's something weird. Mackinaw City, despite its name, is not a city at all. It's a village. So, anyone arguing that Mackinaw City should be used as a control city instead of Mackinaw Bridge because Mackinaw City is actually a city, clearly doesn't know what they're talking about. In a related, but slightly off topic matter, there is no creek named Battle Creek in Battle Creek, but there is a Battle Creek River. Who decides these things?
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 31, 2022, 12:41:18 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 28, 2022, 09:01:47 PM
Mackinaw City actually has a nice downtown too.
Yes it does. But here's something weird. Mackinaw City, despite its name, is not a city at all. It's a village. So, anyone arguing that Mackinaw City should be used as a control city instead of Mackinaw Bridge because Mackinaw City is actually a city, clearly doesn't know what they're talking about. In a related, but slightly off topic matter, there is no creek named Battle Creek in Battle Creek, but there is a Battle Creek River. Who decides these things?
There are a lot of villages like that where they are called City but really a village. Like I know Minden City in the thumb is a village, same with Cass City but then like Bay City and Brown City are actually cities. Honestly Brown City is so small it probably feels more like a village. Mackinaw City is an actual place rather than a bridge so using it for a control city wouldn't be a horrible idea but Mackinac Bridge works better, actually like I said earlier you could probably use Sault Ste. Marie as far south as Saginaw.
I-255 south at I-64 signs Memphis and Tulsa. I got a bit confused by Tulsa for a minute but then remembered I-44.
However, when you get across the river into Missouri to the interchange with I-55, I-55 south is signed for Memphis, I-270 for Kansas City, and no mention of Tulsa. Someone who didn't know that you needed to continue up to I-44 for Tulsa might be inclined to follow I-55 toward Memphis since those two cities were signed together over in Illinois.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 31, 2022, 08:02:47 AM
I-255 south at I-64 signs Memphis and Tulsa. I got a bit confused by Tulsa for a minute but then remembered I-44.
However, when you get across the river into Missouri to the interchange with I-55, I-55 south is signed for Memphis, I-270 for Kansas City, and no mention of Tulsa. Someone who didn't know that you needed to continue up to I-44 for Tulsa might be inclined to follow I-55 toward Memphis since those two cities were signed together over in Illinois.
That’s what happens when you have two state’s DOTs running things. Different ideals.
Heck even same state agencies like NYSDOT verses NYTA. You have Rochester signed for I-290 east from I-190 near Grand Island, NY. Travel I-290 east to its end and Albany and Erie are mentioned for I-90, but no follow up to Rochester. Someone going there will get confused because one agency doesn’t know what the other agency has done.
^ I-190 is actually owned/maintained by the Thruway south of Niagara Falls, but even looking at mainline... here's Rochester (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8706509,-78.7901582,3a,30y,12.33h,92.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1PBupnskBs2pw1A0b7EQNQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). Plus Rochester is on the mileage signs at least, and at exits 47-45. Not much in the way of overhead signs east of I-290 in any case.
Then it's worse that the Thruway signs one at one interchange and another at a turning point exchange.
Quote from: vdeane on October 31, 2022, 12:38:03 PM
^ I-190 is actually owned/maintained by the Thruway south of Niagara Falls, but even looking at mainline... here's Rochester (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8706509,-78.7901582,3a,30y,12.33h,92.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1PBupnskBs2pw1A0b7EQNQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). Plus Rochester is on the mileage signs at least, and at exits 47-45. Not much in the way of overhead signs east of I-290 in any case.
I find it equally odd that Rochester is used on the Thruway at I-190, but not at I-290. It's similar to Rochester being used on I-190 at I-290, but then not on I-290 at the Thruway. Signing Rochester on both approaches to I-90/I-290 would solve everything.
Illinois is notorious for bad controls, but this is ridiculous: https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96 (https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96)
Hartsburg, Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartsburg,_Illinois)
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 08:29:20 AM
Illinois is notorious for bad controls, but this is ridiculous: https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96 (https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96)
Hartsburg, Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartsburg,_Illinois)
I wouldn't call that a control city, it's more of a local exit destination. It's basically saying "use this exit to get to Hartsburg", because normally you'd expect to have access to Hartsburg from I-55, but there's no exit at Old Route 121, so you have to use I-155 to get to Hartsburg instead.
And yes, Hartsburg might seem small to put on any sort of signage, but it is quite common for towns of this size to appear on interstate signage as local exit destinations in the Midwest and West. I-29 in North Dakota has many that are smaller than this, sometimes
much smaller, like
Ardoch (https://goo.gl/maps/xQ5YdjqHQQs4eoDe8) (pop. 31) and
Bathgate (https://goo.gl/maps/LYAoWkGh5347hazLA) (pop. 47).
^OK, never thought about it quite like that.
And local exit destinations can be tiny as you want. How about Steamburg and Onoville from Exit 17 of Route 17?
Quote from: webny99 on November 03, 2022, 08:55:46 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 08:29:20 AM
Illinois is notorious for bad controls, but this is ridiculous: https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96 (https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96)
Hartsburg, Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartsburg,_Illinois)
I wouldn't call that a control city, it's more of a local exit destination. It's basically saying "use this exit to get to Hartsburg", because normally you'd expect to have access to Hartsburg from I-55, but there's no exit at Old Route 121, so you have to use I-155 to get to Hartsburg instead.
And yes, Hartsburg might seem small to put on any sort of signage, but it is quite common for towns of this size to appear on interstate signage as local exit destinations in the Midwest and West. I-29 in North Dakota has many that are smaller than this, sometimes much smaller, like Ardoch (https://goo.gl/maps/xQ5YdjqHQQs4eoDe8) (pop. 31) and Bathgate (https://goo.gl/maps/LYAoWkGh5347hazLA) (pop. 47).
That's what those smaller signs on the side of the road are for, to indicate local destinations.
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 09:32:55 AM
And local exit destinations can be tiny as you want. How about Steamburg and Onoville from Exit 17 of Route 17?
How about Newkirk, NM, population 7, at I-40 exit 300?
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 03, 2022, 01:46:59 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 09:32:55 AM
And local exit destinations can be tiny as you want. How about Steamburg and Onoville from Exit 17 of Route 17?
How about Newkirk, NM, population 7, at I-40 exit 300?
I think that's still bigger than Glenrio, which famously has its own
non-looping Interstate Business Loop (https://goo.gl/maps/CDfZ6onBtnjq4yV68).
I think it's also bigger than Cisco, which is still signed from
eastbound I-70 (https://goo.gl/maps/SqZajactAEMby2zdA).
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on November 03, 2022, 09:43:43 AM
Quote from: webny99 on November 03, 2022, 08:55:46 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 08:29:20 AM
Illinois is notorious for bad controls, but this is ridiculous: https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96 (https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96)
Hartsburg, Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartsburg,_Illinois)
I wouldn't call that a control city, it's more of a local exit destination. It's basically saying "use this exit to get to Hartsburg", because normally you'd expect to have access to Hartsburg from I-55, but there's no exit at Old Route 121, so you have to use I-155 to get to Hartsburg instead.
And yes, Hartsburg might seem small to put on any sort of signage, but it is quite common for towns of this size to appear on interstate signage as local exit destinations in the Midwest and West. I-29 in North Dakota has many that are smaller than this, sometimes much smaller, like Ardoch (https://goo.gl/maps/xQ5YdjqHQQs4eoDe8) (pop. 31) and Bathgate (https://goo.gl/maps/LYAoWkGh5347hazLA) (pop. 47).
That's what those smaller signs on the side of the road are for, to indicate local destinations.
What do you call the destinations on the main signage, then?
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 08:29:20 AM
Illinois is notorious for bad controls, but this is ridiculous: https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96 (https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96)
Hartsburg, Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartsburg,_Illinois)
I'd like to know why I-155 has an odd number.
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 03, 2022, 05:35:55 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 08:29:20 AM
Illinois is notorious for bad controls, but this is ridiculous: https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96 (https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96)
Hartsburg, Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartsburg,_Illinois)
I'd like to know why I-155 has an odd number.
From the FHWA website:
QuoteConnecting Interstate routes and full or partial circumferential beltways around or within urban areas carry a three-digit number.
QuoteSupplemental radial and spur routes, connecting with the main route at one end, also carry a three-digit number, using the number of the main route with an odd-number prefix.
I-155 is really both a connecting and a spur route, so by definition it could be either odd or even. Ultimately, probably < 1% of drivers know the even/odd rule and would be surprised to find another interstate at the north end of I-155.
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 08:29:20 AM
Illinois is notorious for bad controls, but this is ridiculous: https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96 (https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96)
Hartsburg, Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartsburg,_Illinois)
At least it's only a secondary and Peoria is still signed. I think the southbound I-155 exit at I-74 is worse. No mention of Springfield or St Louis.
^Really it varies, not even by state but on a case-by-case basis. I-691 in Connecticut is an example of an Interstate similar to I-155, but has an even first digit.
Then you have Pennsylvania. A spur route from I-79 that connects to I-376 in Downtown Pittsburgh has an even first digit, but a spur from I-80 that connects to I-84 near Scranton has an odd first digit.
Quote from: SkyPesos on November 03, 2022, 06:15:49 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 08:29:20 AM
Illinois is notorious for bad controls, but this is ridiculous: https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96 (https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96)
Hartsburg, Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartsburg,_Illinois)
At least it's only a secondary and Peoria is still signed. I think the southbound I-155 exit at I-74 is worse. No mention of Springfield or St Louis.
I agree on this one. Who is going to Lincoln, (https://goo.gl/maps/RSQ1vb25dx3dyMJz6) IDOT?
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on November 03, 2022, 06:00:10 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 03, 2022, 05:35:55 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 08:29:20 AM
Illinois is notorious for bad controls, but this is ridiculous: https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96 (https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96)
Hartsburg, Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartsburg,_Illinois)
I'd like to know why I-155 has an odd number.
From the FHWA website:
QuoteConnecting Interstate routes and full or partial circumferential beltways around or within urban areas carry a three-digit number.
QuoteSupplemental radial and spur routes, connecting with the main route at one end, also carry a three-digit number, using the number of the main route with an odd-number prefix.
I-155 is really both a connecting and a spur route, so by definition it could be either odd or even. Ultimately, probably < 1% of drivers know the even/odd rule and would be surprised to find another interstate at the north end of I-155.
Likewise I-135 and I-335 in Kansas, each of which connects its parent to another Interstate. And I-355, also in Illinois. And plenty of others.
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 03, 2022, 05:35:55 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 08:29:20 AM
Illinois is notorious for bad controls, but this is ridiculous: https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96 (https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96)
Hartsburg, Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartsburg,_Illinois)
I'd like to know why I-155 has an odd number.
Because it's a north-south spur that provides an Interstate connection between Peoria and Lincoln.
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 03, 2022, 05:35:55 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 08:29:20 AM
Illinois is notorious for bad controls, but this is ridiculous: https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96 (https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96)
Hartsburg, Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartsburg,_Illinois)
I'd like to know why I-155 has an odd number.
What about I-376 in PA? That one is the one that shouldn't have an odd number the way it runs. Then I-495 in New York is one that deserves an odd number prefix. Plus all the x78's that do not even meet its parents.
Bottom line, nothing is perfect.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 03, 2022, 07:18:20 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 03, 2022, 05:35:55 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 08:29:20 AM
Illinois is notorious for bad controls, but this is ridiculous: https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96 (https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96)
Hartsburg, Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartsburg,_Illinois)
I'd like to know why I-155 has an odd number.
Because it's a north-south spur that provides an Interstate connection between Peoria and Lincoln.
^Again, standards vary by state. Most states would give I-155 an even first digit, but as Illinois and Kansas have shown, not everyone thinks that is best practice. Pennsylvania does a bit of both, and I honestly can't explain I-495 in New York.
I couldn't decide whether to respond to roadman or Flint, so I quoted Flint's post and added an arrow to show I was talking to roadman.
Quote from: webny99 on November 03, 2022, 08:55:46 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 08:29:20 AM
Illinois is notorious for bad controls, but this is ridiculous: https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96 (https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96)
Hartsburg, Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartsburg,_Illinois)
I wouldn't call that a control city, it's more of a local exit destination. It's basically saying "use this exit to get to Hartsburg", because normally you'd expect to have access to Hartsburg from I-55, but there's no exit at Old Route 121, so you have to use I-155 to get to Hartsburg instead.
And yes, Hartsburg might seem small to put on any sort of signage, but it is quite common for towns of this size to appear on interstate signage as local exit destinations in the Midwest and West. I-29 in North Dakota has many that are smaller than this, sometimes much smaller, like Ardoch (https://goo.gl/maps/xQ5YdjqHQQs4eoDe8) (pop. 31) and Bathgate (https://goo.gl/maps/LYAoWkGh5347hazLA) (pop. 47).
A bit of historical context for you Kirby. I-155 was, prior to being an interstate, the freeway bypass numbered Illinois 121. And if you look on a current map of the area, you will see the old road is still marked as Old 121 into Hartsburg.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.202455,-89.3979121,13.01z
When the 121 freeway was completed between Lincoln and Morton, it then became I-155 in about 1991.
Quote from: webny99 on November 03, 2022, 08:55:46 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 08:29:20 AM
Illinois is notorious for bad controls, but this is ridiculous: https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96 (https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96)
Hartsburg, Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartsburg,_Illinois)
I wouldn't call that a control city, it's more of a local exit destination. It's basically saying "use this exit to get to Hartsburg", because normally you'd expect to have access to Hartsburg from I-55, but there's no exit at Old Route 121, so you have to use I-155 to get to Hartsburg instead.
And yes, Hartsburg might seem small to put on any sort of signage, but it is quite common for towns of this size to appear on interstate signage as local exit destinations in the Midwest and West. I-29 in North Dakota has many that are smaller than this, sometimes much smaller, like Ardoch (https://goo.gl/maps/xQ5YdjqHQQs4eoDe8) (pop. 31) and Bathgate (https://goo.gl/maps/LYAoWkGh5347hazLA) (pop. 47).
It's the first town on I-155, seems fairly logical to me.
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 06:23:46 PM
^Really it varies, not even by state but on a case-by-case basis. I-691 in Connecticut is an example of an Interstate similar to I-155, but has an even first digit.
Then you have Pennsylvania. A spur route from I-79 that connects to I-376 in Downtown Pittsburgh has an even first digit, but a spur from I-80 that connects to I-84 near Scranton has an odd first digit.
Quote from: SkyPesos on November 03, 2022, 06:15:49 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 08:29:20 AM
Illinois is notorious for bad controls, but this is ridiculous: https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96 (https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96)
Hartsburg, Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartsburg,_Illinois)
At least it's only a secondary and Peoria is still signed. I think the southbound I-155 exit at I-74 is worse. No mention of Springfield or St Louis.
I agree on this one. Who is going to Lincoln, (https://goo.gl/maps/RSQ1vb25dx3dyMJz6) IDOT?
You guys are speaking without context. When this was Route 121, Lincoln is where the road made switch to head southeast to Decatur. It wasn't until the freeway was built that this became a shortcut for Springfield traffic. The old direct route between Springfield and Peoria was Route 29 which you can still take today. Lincoln (13k) is fine. Should Springfield be on the sign too? Sure.
^That's what is was. But times change, and control cities should change with them. Jacksonville should not be used on I-72. And although I like it, Jamestown probably shouldn't be used on Route 17.
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 07:46:10 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 03, 2022, 07:18:20 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 03, 2022, 05:35:55 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 08:29:20 AM
Illinois is notorious for bad controls, but this is ridiculous: https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96 (https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96)
Hartsburg, Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartsburg,_Illinois)
I'd like to know why I-155 has an odd number.
Because it's a north-south spur that provides an Interstate connection between Peoria and Lincoln.
^Again, standards vary by state. Most states would give I-155 an even first digit, but as Illinois and Kansas have shown, not everyone thinks that is best practice. Pennsylvania does a bit of both, and I honestly can't explain I-495 in New York.
I couldn't decide whether to respond to roadman or Flint, so I quoted Flint's post and added an arrow to show I was talking to roadman.
It's a spur route to Peoria off I-55 so I don't think that most states would be giving that highway an even number.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 04, 2022, 08:46:09 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 07:46:10 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 03, 2022, 07:18:20 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 03, 2022, 05:35:55 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 08:29:20 AM
Illinois is notorious for bad controls, but this is ridiculous: https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96 (https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96)
Hartsburg, Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartsburg,_Illinois)
I'd like to know why I-155 has an odd number.
Because it's a north-south spur that provides an Interstate connection between Peoria and Lincoln.
^Again, standards vary by state. Most states would give I-155 an even first digit, but as Illinois and Kansas have shown, not everyone thinks that is best practice. Pennsylvania does a bit of both, and I honestly can't explain I-495 in New York.
I couldn't decide whether to respond to roadman or Flint, so I quoted Flint's post and added an arrow to show I was talking to roadman.
It's a spur route to Peoria off I-55 so I don't think that most states would be giving that highway an even number.
I-270 in Maryland uses an even number and it functions more like a spur towards the DC suburbs.
Quote from: kirbykart on November 04, 2022, 08:32:19 AM
^That's what is was. But times change, and control cities should change with them. Jacksonville should not be used on I-72. And although I like it, Jamestown probably shouldn't be used on Route 17.
There was a time when Olean and Elmira were used. I-86 changed the latter to Corning. Don't know why Olean became Jamestown though.
I think I've mentioned this before but back in the day the control cities at the eastern end of US-10 in Bay City had the following control cities:
I-75 NB: Standish
I-75 SB: Flint/Detroit
Now about 20 years ago this was changed to what it is today and has the following control cities:
I-75 NB: Mackinac Bridge
I-75 SB: Saginaw
The second one is what it should be considering those are the two control cities in that area.
Now Standish is a small city of about 1,500 people, it is however where US-23 and I-75 split after having a 73 mile concurrency. Standish is the seat of Arenac County a rather small county for Michigan standards at only 363 square miles and 15,000 people.
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on November 04, 2022, 08:49:35 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 04, 2022, 08:46:09 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 07:46:10 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 03, 2022, 07:18:20 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 03, 2022, 05:35:55 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 08:29:20 AM
Illinois is notorious for bad controls, but this is ridiculous: https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96 (https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96)
Hartsburg, Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartsburg,_Illinois)
I'd like to know why I-155 has an odd number.
Because it's a north-south spur that provides an Interstate connection between Peoria and Lincoln.
^Again, standards vary by state. Most states would give I-155 an even first digit, but as Illinois and Kansas have shown, not everyone thinks that is best practice. Pennsylvania does a bit of both, and I honestly can't explain I-495 in New York.
I couldn't decide whether to respond to roadman or Flint, so I quoted Flint's post and added an arrow to show I was talking to roadman.
It's a spur route to Peoria off I-55 so I don't think that most states would be giving that highway an even number.
I-270 in Maryland uses an even number and it functions more like a spur towards the DC suburbs.
I-270 ends at I-495, a circle route. It don't go to Downtown Washington.
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on November 04, 2022, 08:49:35 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 04, 2022, 08:46:09 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 07:46:10 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 03, 2022, 07:18:20 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 03, 2022, 05:35:55 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 08:29:20 AM
Illinois is notorious for bad controls, but this is ridiculous: https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96 (https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96)
Hartsburg, Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartsburg,_Illinois)
I'd like to know why I-155 has an odd number.
Because it's a north-south spur that provides an Interstate connection between Peoria and Lincoln.
^Again, standards vary by state. Most states would give I-155 an even first digit, but as Illinois and Kansas have shown, not everyone thinks that is best practice. Pennsylvania does a bit of both, and I honestly can't explain I-495 in New York.
I couldn't decide whether to respond to roadman or Flint, so I quoted Flint's post and added an arrow to show I was talking to roadman.
It's a spur route to Peoria off I-55 so I don't think that most states would be giving that highway an even number.
I-270 in Maryland uses an even number and it functions more like a spur towards the DC suburbs.
I think it depends on what the state decides. I-696 in Michigan has both ends at an Interstate (not the same Interstate though) it's western end is at I-96 and I-275 and the eastern end is at I-94. Now I-196 also in Michigan has both ends at an Interstate also not the same Interstate, the northern end is at I-96 and the southern end is at I-94.
The reason I-196 is numbered the way it is was because it originally was supposed to go to Muskegon and I-96 was supposed to be the highway to follow the current I-196 back to I-94. The highways got flipped and I-96 went to Muskegon and I-196 went to I-94 near Benton Harbor.
Quote from: kirbykart on November 04, 2022, 08:32:19 AM
^That's what is was. But times change, and control cities should change with them. Jacksonville should not be used on I-72. And although I like it, Jamestown probably shouldn't be used on Route 17.
Why should control cities change when nothing else has really changed?
270 should have an odd first digit. It clearly goes inward/outward from Washington.
155 is correct as is. It's not a loop of anything.
Keep in mind I-196 is N-S where it’s parent is E-W. Plus I-196 acts as a de facto spur of I-94 anyway.
Quote from: 1 on November 04, 2022, 08:57:12 AM
270 should have an odd first digit. It clearly goes inward/outward from Washington.
155 is correct as is. It's not a loop of anything.
It ends at I-495, it’s not a spur.
Now enough, as the thread is to be about bad choice of control cities, not the validity of the three digit interstates.
Quote from: hobsini2 on November 03, 2022, 09:07:53 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 06:23:46 PM
^Really it varies, not even by state but on a case-by-case basis. I-691 in Connecticut is an example of an Interstate similar to I-155, but has an even first digit.
Then you have Pennsylvania. A spur route from I-79 that connects to I-376 in Downtown Pittsburgh has an even first digit, but a spur from I-80 that connects to I-84 near Scranton has an odd first digit.
Quote from: SkyPesos on November 03, 2022, 06:15:49 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 08:29:20 AM
Illinois is notorious for bad controls, but this is ridiculous: https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96 (https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96)
Hartsburg, Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartsburg,_Illinois)
At least it's only a secondary and Peoria is still signed. I think the southbound I-155 exit at I-74 is worse. No mention of Springfield or St Louis.
I agree on this one. Who is going to Lincoln, (https://goo.gl/maps/RSQ1vb25dx3dyMJz6) IDOT?
You guys are speaking without context. When this was Route 121, Lincoln is where the road made switch to head southeast to Decatur. It wasn't until the freeway was built that this became a shortcut for Springfield traffic. The old direct route between Springfield and Peoria was Route 29 which you can still take today. Lincoln (13k) is fine. Should Springfield be on the sign too? Sure.
It's actually about a mile or so shorter to take IL-29 instead of the Interstate's but adds about 25 more minutes to the trip.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 04, 2022, 09:04:14 AM
Keep in mind I-196 is N-S where it's parent is E-W. Plus I-196 acts as a de facto spur of I-94 anyway.
Quote from: 1 on November 04, 2022, 08:57:12 AM
270 should have an odd first digit. It clearly goes inward/outward from Washington.
155 is correct as is. It's not a loop of anything.
It ends at I-495, it's not a spur.
Now enough, as the thread is to be about bad choice of control cities, not the validity of the three digit interstates.
I-196 like I have already mentioned was a spur to Muskegon not no spur to I-94. Then the highways got flipped and we have what we have today.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 04, 2022, 08:46:09 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 07:46:10 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 03, 2022, 07:18:20 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 03, 2022, 05:35:55 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 08:29:20 AM
Illinois is notorious for bad controls, but this is ridiculous: https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96 (https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96)
Hartsburg, Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartsburg,_Illinois)
I'd like to know why I-155 has an odd number.
Because it's a north-south spur that provides an Interstate connection between Peoria and Lincoln.
^Again, standards vary by state. Most states would give I-155 an even first digit, but as Illinois and Kansas have shown, not everyone thinks that is best practice. Pennsylvania does a bit of both, and I honestly can't explain I-495 in New York.
I couldn't decide whether to respond to roadman or Flint, so I quoted Flint's post and added an arrow to show I was talking to roadman.
It's a spur route to Peoria off I-55 so I don't think that most states would be giving that highway an even number.
No, I think Illinois is just choosing its interpretation of "connecting routes". Most states would give it an even number regardless of whether you think it's a spur.
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 08:29:20 AM
Illinois is notorious for bad controls, but this is ridiculous: https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96 (https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96)
Hartsburg, Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartsburg,_Illinois)
I think what bothers me more about this setup is the way that Springfield, a secondary control, was placed below St. Louis, the primary control.
Hartsburg makes sense here as a destination. The only thing arguably more logical would be to have no control at all.
While there's no rule about it and it's just an observation I've noticed, medium-distance connectors (I'm calling them medium and not long because long = 2di) are often 1xx, such as I-135 in Kansas, the I-155 this discussion is about, I-195 in Rhode Island and Massachusetts (any first digit would work here, actually – it's a spur from Providence but also part of Boston's third beltway), I-195 in New Jersey, I-395 in Massachusetts and Connecticut because the number 195 was already taken, and I-196 in Michigan.
Also, I-190 (27 miles) and I-390 (76 miles). They're both what I would consider medium-distance connectors, and are by far the longest two odd-digit 3di's in New York.
Quote from: kirbykart on November 04, 2022, 09:35:02 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 04, 2022, 08:46:09 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 07:46:10 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 03, 2022, 07:18:20 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 03, 2022, 05:35:55 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 08:29:20 AM
Illinois is notorious for bad controls, but this is ridiculous: https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96 (https://goo.gl/maps/KihGvxzLYQPDK3w96)
Hartsburg, Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartsburg,_Illinois)
I'd like to know why I-155 has an odd number.
Because it's a north-south spur that provides an Interstate connection between Peoria and Lincoln.
^Again, standards vary by state. Most states would give I-155 an even first digit, but as Illinois and Kansas have shown, not everyone thinks that is best practice. Pennsylvania does a bit of both, and I honestly can't explain I-495 in New York.
I couldn't decide whether to respond to roadman or Flint, so I quoted Flint's post and added an arrow to show I was talking to roadman.
It's a spur route to Peoria off I-55 so I don't think that most states would be giving that highway an even number.
No, I think Illinois is just choosing its interpretation of "connecting routes". Most states would give it an even number regardless of whether you think it's a spur.
It is a spur, it's not that I think it is, it is one.
Quote from: 1 on November 04, 2022, 09:39:09 AM
While there's no rule about it and it's just an observation I've noticed, medium-distance connectors (I'm calling them medium and not long because long = 2di) are often 1xx, such as I-135 in Kansas, the I-155 this discussion is about, I-195 in Rhode Island and Massachusetts (any first digit would work here, actually – it's a spur from Providence but also part of Boston's third beltway), I-195 in New Jersey, I-395 in Massachusetts and Connecticut because the number 195 was already taken, and I-196 in Michigan.
Unfortunately, I-190 in Illinois is definitely not a medium-distance connector. I like the idea of I-1xx being reserved for that medium-distance purpose though.
Quote from: kphoger on November 04, 2022, 01:01:07 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 04, 2022, 09:04:14 AM
Keep in mind I-196 is N-S where it's parent is E-W.
So?
I-196 is E/W in Grand Rapids and Ottawa County. It becomes N/S south of Holland to the end at I-94.
https://goo.gl/maps/eDAYYWtQbzRJYinN7
This here using Camden as a control city at Exit 1A is totally ridiculous. Traffic here reading this sign just originated there.
Plus when exiting you get this: https://goo.gl/maps/gxbAaeSUpm2BFZth7 where your led back onto I-676 in a reverse direction.
I think the engineer who wanted this sign was fulfilling a destination for US 130 along with Trenton and forgot the road merges into the traffic heading from Philadelphia who need to use I-676 north.
Fix is to replace Camden with Audubon so that both US 130 and NJ 168 have control cities.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on November 04, 2022, 11:21:13 AM
Quote from: 1 on November 04, 2022, 09:39:09 AM
While there's no rule about it and it's just an observation I've noticed, medium-distance connectors (I'm calling them medium and not long because long = 2di) are often 1xx, such as I-135 in Kansas, the I-155 this discussion is about, I-195 in Rhode Island and Massachusetts (any first digit would work here, actually – it's a spur from Providence but also part of Boston's third beltway), I-195 in New Jersey, I-395 in Massachusetts and Connecticut because the number 195 was already taken, and I-196 in Michigan.
Unfortunately, I-190 in Illinois is definitely not a medium-distance connector. I like the idea of I-1xx being reserved for that medium-distance purpose though.
Probably because it's the only odd digit spur route off I-90 in Illinois.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 04, 2022, 09:07:45 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 04, 2022, 09:04:14 AM
Keep in mind I-196 is N-S where it's parent is E-W. Plus I-196 acts as a de facto spur of I-94 anyway.
Quote from: 1 on November 04, 2022, 08:57:12 AM
270 should have an odd first digit. It clearly goes inward/outward from Washington.
155 is correct as is. It's not a loop of anything.
It ends at I-495, it's not a spur.
Now enough, as the thread is to be about bad choice of control cities, not the validity of the three digit interstates.
I-196 like I have already mentioned was a spur to Muskegon not no spur to I-94. Then the highways got flipped and we have what we have today.
Also, when present day I-196 was opened to traffic it was for all practical purposes a 2-segment spur. There was a spur off from I-96 into Grand Rapids, Wyoming and Grandville and another spur heading north off from I-94 near Benton Harbor to just south of Holland. It remained like this for about a dozen years, and we were kept in the dark for a long time about whether the middle section between Grandville and Holland would ever be completed.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 04, 2022, 09:07:45 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 04, 2022, 09:04:14 AM
Keep in mind I-196 is N-S where it's parent is E-W. Plus I-196 acts as a de facto spur of I-94 anyway.
Quote from: 1 on November 04, 2022, 08:57:12 AM
270 should have an odd first digit. It clearly goes inward/outward from Washington.
155 is correct as is. It's not a loop of anything.
It ends at I-495, it's not a spur.
Now enough, as the thread is to be about bad choice of control cities, not the validity of the three digit interstates.
I-196 like I have already mentioned was a spur to Muskegon not no spur to I-94. Then the highways got flipped and we have what we have today.
Another weird thing about I-196 is that if it's supposed to be a spur off from I-96, why do the mile markers and exit numbering begin at I-94 and end at I-96?
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 06, 2022, 12:52:17 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 04, 2022, 09:07:45 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 04, 2022, 09:04:14 AM
Keep in mind I-196 is N-S where it's parent is E-W. Plus I-196 acts as a de facto spur of I-94 anyway.
Quote from: 1 on November 04, 2022, 08:57:12 AM
270 should have an odd first digit. It clearly goes inward/outward from Washington.
155 is correct as is. It's not a loop of anything.
It ends at I-495, it's not a spur.
Now enough, as the thread is to be about bad choice of control cities, not the validity of the three digit interstates.
I-196 like I have already mentioned was a spur to Muskegon not no spur to I-94. Then the highways got flipped and we have what we have today.
Another weird thing about I-196 is that if it's supposed to be a spur off from I-96, why do the mile markers and exit numbering begin at I-94 and end at I-96?
The mile markers start at a highways southern or western terminus.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 06, 2022, 01:12:44 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 06, 2022, 12:52:17 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 04, 2022, 09:07:45 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 04, 2022, 09:04:14 AM
Keep in mind I-196 is N-S where it's parent is E-W. Plus I-196 acts as a de facto spur of I-94 anyway.
Quote from: 1 on November 04, 2022, 08:57:12 AM
270 should have an odd first digit. It clearly goes inward/outward from Washington.
155 is correct as is. It's not a loop of anything.
It ends at I-495, it's not a spur.
Now enough, as the thread is to be about bad choice of control cities, not the validity of the three digit interstates.
I-196 like I have already mentioned was a spur to Muskegon not no spur to I-94. Then the highways got flipped and we have what we have today.
Another weird thing about I-196 is that if it's supposed to be a spur off from I-96, why do the mile markers and exit numbering begin at I-94 and end at I-96?
The mile markers start at a highways southern or western terminus.
They do for single or 2 digits, but they usually start at where they leave the parent route for a 3 digit. Or so I thought.
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 06, 2022, 04:13:45 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 06, 2022, 01:12:44 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 06, 2022, 12:52:17 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 04, 2022, 09:07:45 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 04, 2022, 09:04:14 AM
Keep in mind I-196 is N-S where it's parent is E-W. Plus I-196 acts as a de facto spur of I-94 anyway.
Quote from: 1 on November 04, 2022, 08:57:12 AM
270 should have an odd first digit. It clearly goes inward/outward from Washington.
155 is correct as is. It's not a loop of anything.
It ends at I-495, it's not a spur.
Now enough, as the thread is to be about bad choice of control cities, not the validity of the three digit interstates.
I-196 like I have already mentioned was a spur to Muskegon not no spur to I-94. Then the highways got flipped and we have what we have today.
Another weird thing about I-196 is that if it's supposed to be a spur off from I-96, why do the mile markers and exit numbering begin at I-94 and end at I-96?
The mile markers start at a highways southern or western terminus.
They do for single or 2 digits, but they usually start at where they leave the parent route for a 3 digit. Or so I thought.
I think it's still applies with 3dis too.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 06, 2022, 07:33:30 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 06, 2022, 04:13:45 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 06, 2022, 01:12:44 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 06, 2022, 12:52:17 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 04, 2022, 09:07:45 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 04, 2022, 09:04:14 AM
Keep in mind I-196 is N-S where it's parent is E-W. Plus I-196 acts as a de facto spur of I-94 anyway.
Quote from: 1 on November 04, 2022, 08:57:12 AM
270 should have an odd first digit. It clearly goes inward/outward from Washington.
155 is correct as is. It's not a loop of anything.
It ends at I-495, it's not a spur.
Now enough, as the thread is to be about bad choice of control cities, not the validity of the three digit interstates.
I-196 like I have already mentioned was a spur to Muskegon not no spur to I-94. Then the highways got flipped and we have what we have today.
Another weird thing about I-196 is that if it's supposed to be a spur off from I-96, why do the mile markers and exit numbering begin at I-94 and end at I-96?
The mile markers start at a highways southern or western terminus.
They do for single or 2 digits, but they usually start at where they leave the parent route for a 3 digit. Or so I thought.
I think it's still applies with 3dis too.
At any rate, if the numbering starts at I-94, you'd think it would be an I-x94 child route.
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 07, 2022, 01:01:08 AM
At any rate, if the numbering starts at I-94, you'd think it would be an I-x94 child route.
No, I wouldn't.
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2022, 10:42:25 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 07, 2022, 01:01:08 AM
At any rate, if the numbering starts at I-94, you'd think it would be an I-x94 child route.
No, I wouldn't.
That would make much more sense. Especially after MDOT removed signage on I-296 because they said having multiple I-x96 routes in the same area is too confusing to us stupid people in West Michigan.
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 07, 2022, 10:51:00 AM
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2022, 10:42:25 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 07, 2022, 01:01:08 AM
At any rate, if the numbering starts at I-94, you'd think it would be an I-x94 child route.
No, I wouldn't.
That would make much more sense. Especially after MDOT removed signage on I-296 because they said having multiple I-x96 routes in the same area is too confusing to us stupid people in West Michigan.
No, it would make less sense to have some northbound/eastbound highways count up and other northbound/eastbound highways count down. Consistency makes much more sense than that.
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 06, 2022, 04:13:45 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 06, 2022, 01:12:44 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 06, 2022, 12:52:17 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 04, 2022, 09:07:45 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 04, 2022, 09:04:14 AM
Keep in mind I-196 is N-S where it's parent is E-W. Plus I-196 acts as a de facto spur of I-94 anyway.
Quote from: 1 on November 04, 2022, 08:57:12 AM
270 should have an odd first digit. It clearly goes inward/outward from Washington.
155 is correct as is. It's not a loop of anything.
It ends at I-495, it's not a spur.
Now enough, as the thread is to be about bad choice of control cities, not the validity of the three digit interstates.
I-196 like I have already mentioned was a spur to Muskegon not no spur to I-94. Then the highways got flipped and we have what we have today.
Another weird thing about I-196 is that if it's supposed to be a spur off from I-96, why do the mile markers and exit numbering begin at I-94 and end at I-96?
The mile markers start at a highways southern or western terminus.
They do for single or 2 digits, but they usually start at where they leave the parent route for a 3 digit. Or so I thought.
Nope, quite wrong in fact. I-290 in Buffalo, or how about I-279 in Pittsburgh?
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2022, 10:42:25 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 07, 2022, 01:01:08 AM
At any rate, if the numbering starts at I-94, you'd think it would be an I-x94 child route.
No, I wouldn't.
I had to look this up in Google Maps, and, this is interesting. It sort of acts as a spur into Downtown Grand Rapids for I-96, but also as a spur from I-94 along the SW coast of Michigan up to Grand Rapids.
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 07, 2022, 01:01:08 AM
At any rate, if the numbering starts at I-94, you'd think it would be an I-x94 child route.
I-170 (MO) says hello.
So does I-376.
Quote from: kirbykart on November 07, 2022, 12:24:53 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 06, 2022, 04:13:45 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 06, 2022, 01:12:44 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 06, 2022, 12:52:17 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 04, 2022, 09:07:45 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 04, 2022, 09:04:14 AM
Keep in mind I-196 is N-S where it's parent is E-W. Plus I-196 acts as a de facto spur of I-94 anyway.
Quote from: 1 on November 04, 2022, 08:57:12 AM
270 should have an odd first digit. It clearly goes inward/outward from Washington.
155 is correct as is. It's not a loop of anything.
It ends at I-495, it's not a spur.
Now enough, as the thread is to be about bad choice of control cities, not the validity of the three digit interstates.
I-196 like I have already mentioned was a spur to Muskegon not no spur to I-94. Then the highways got flipped and we have what we have today.
Another weird thing about I-196 is that if it's supposed to be a spur off from I-96, why do the mile markers and exit numbering begin at I-94 and end at I-96?
The mile markers start at a highways southern or western terminus.
They do for single or 2 digits, but they usually start at where they leave the parent route for a 3 digit. Or so I thought.
Nope, quite wrong in fact. I-290 in Buffalo, or how about I-279 in Pittsburgh?
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2022, 10:42:25 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 07, 2022, 01:01:08 AM
At any rate, if the numbering starts at I-94, you'd think it would be an I-x94 child route.
No, I wouldn't.
I had to look this up in Google Maps, and, this is interesting. It sort of acts as a spur into Downtown Grand Rapids for I-96, but also as a spur from I-94 along the SW coast of Michigan up to Grand Rapids.
It's never been a spur to Grand Rapids. It was originally a spur to Muskegon before it got switched with it's parent route.
'Trenton' on the NJTP, when 'Trenton' is not a major city, is not a DMA, is not on the route, and 'Philadelphia' is.
Also, 'New York' in MD, skipping over 'Wilmington' and 'Philadelphia'.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 07, 2022, 02:54:59 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 07, 2022, 12:24:53 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 06, 2022, 04:13:45 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 06, 2022, 01:12:44 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 06, 2022, 12:52:17 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 04, 2022, 09:07:45 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 04, 2022, 09:04:14 AM
Keep in mind I-196 is N-S where it's parent is E-W. Plus I-196 acts as a de facto spur of I-94 anyway.
Quote from: 1 on November 04, 2022, 08:57:12 AM
270 should have an odd first digit. It clearly goes inward/outward from Washington.
155 is correct as is. It's not a loop of anything.
It ends at I-495, it's not a spur.
Now enough, as the thread is to be about bad choice of control cities, not the validity of the three digit interstates.
I-196 like I have already mentioned was a spur to Muskegon not no spur to I-94. Then the highways got flipped and we have what we have today.
Another weird thing about I-196 is that if it's supposed to be a spur off from I-96, why do the mile markers and exit numbering begin at I-94 and end at I-96?
The mile markers start at a highways southern or western terminus.
They do for single or 2 digits, but they usually start at where they leave the parent route for a 3 digit. Or so I thought.
Nope, quite wrong in fact. I-290 in Buffalo, or how about I-279 in Pittsburgh?
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2022, 10:42:25 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 07, 2022, 01:01:08 AM
At any rate, if the numbering starts at I-94, you'd think it would be an I-x94 child route.
No, I wouldn't.
I had to look this up in Google Maps, and, this is interesting. It sort of acts as a spur into Downtown Grand Rapids for I-96, but also as a spur from I-94 along the SW coast of Michigan up to Grand Rapids.
It's never been a spur to Grand Rapids. It was originally a spur to Muskegon before it got switched with it's parent route.
After it got switched it was indeed a spur into Grand Rapids, Wyoming and Grandville, where it ended. This was the case for about a dozen years. There was another I-196 spur routed along the freeway portion of US-31 between Benton Harbor and Holland. There was no freeway segment in between these 2. Thru traffic had to use M-21 (now M-121, which really makes no sense). It was like this from 1964-1976.
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2022, 11:29:59 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 07, 2022, 10:51:00 AM
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2022, 10:42:25 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 07, 2022, 01:01:08 AM
At any rate, if the numbering starts at I-94, you'd think it would be an I-x94 child route.
No, I wouldn't.
That would make much more sense. Especially after MDOT removed signage on I-296 because they said having multiple I-x96 routes in the same area is too confusing to us stupid people in West Michigan.
No, it would make less sense to have some northbound/eastbound highways count up and other northbound/eastbound highways count down. Consistency makes much more sense than that.
Then why not have it be an I-x94 route since the route starts at I-94?
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 07, 2022, 05:27:18 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2022, 11:29:59 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 07, 2022, 10:51:00 AM
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2022, 10:42:25 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 07, 2022, 01:01:08 AM
At any rate, if the numbering starts at I-94, you'd think it would be an I-x94 child route.
No, I wouldn't.
That would make much more sense. Especially after MDOT removed signage on I-296 because they said having multiple I-x96 routes in the same area is too confusing to us stupid people in West Michigan.
No, it would make less sense to have some northbound/eastbound highways count up and other northbound/eastbound highways count down. Consistency makes much more sense than that.
Then why not have it be an I-x94 route since the route starts at I-94?
The highway doesn't "start" anywhere. Rather, it has two endpoints–one at I-94 and the other at I-96. Neither one is its "beginning" or "ending" point.
When an Interstate first appeared as a dashed line on the map, I-94 had already been completed in Michigan–the major Chicago—Detroit corridor–and had been for a few years already. The more northerly, secondary Chicago—Detroit corridor (which would split off at Benton Harbor) was still being built in stages: the Grand Rapids—Lansing portion was already completed, but not east of Lansing, nor southwest of Grand Rapids. That whole secondary corridor was to become I-96. Unless I have my timeline wrong, a spur route from Grand Rapids to Muskegon had already been completed.
Thus, when the number I-196 was first introduced, the highway with that number was indeed to be a spur route from I-96, with no connection to any other Interstate.
The numbers were flipped before all of the Benton Harbor—Grand Rapids section of (formerly) I-96 had even been opened as an Interstate. That is to say, not all of current I-196 ever existed as anything else.
Now, you can look at the map and say that current I-196 is a spur route from the main Chicago—Detroit corridor up to Grand Rapids. But I can just as easily look at the same map and say that it's a spur route down from the Detroit—Grand Rapids corridor down to Benton Harbor. And we'd both be right.
You know, the more I look at this, the more I think they should have just left the numbers the way they were on the 1962 map:
(https://www.interstate-guide.com/wp-content/uploads/maps/michigan-south-1962.jpg)
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2022, 06:42:47 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 07, 2022, 05:27:18 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2022, 11:29:59 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 07, 2022, 10:51:00 AM
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2022, 10:42:25 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 07, 2022, 01:01:08 AM
At any rate, if the numbering starts at I-94, you'd think it would be an I-x94 child route.
No, I wouldn't.
That would make much more sense. Especially after MDOT removed signage on I-296 because they said having multiple I-x96 routes in the same area is too confusing to us stupid people in West Michigan.
No, it would make less sense to have some northbound/eastbound highways count up and other northbound/eastbound highways count down. Consistency makes much more sense than that.
Then why not have it be an I-x94 route since the route starts at I-94?
The highway doesn't "start" anywhere. Rather, it has two endpoints–one at I-94 and the other at I-96. Neither one is its "beginning" or "ending" point.
When an Interstate first appeared as a dashed line on the map, I-94 had already been completed in Michigan–the major Chicago—Detroit corridor–and had been for a few years already. The more northerly, secondary Chicago—Detroit corridor (which would split off at Benton Harbor) was still being built in stages: the Grand Rapids—Lansing portion was already completed, but not east of Lansing, nor southwest of Grand Rapids. That whole secondary corridor was to become I-96. Unless I have my timeline wrong, a spur route from Grand Rapids to Muskegon had already been completed.
Thus, when the number I-196 was first introduced, the highway with that number was indeed to be a spur route from I-96, with no connection to any other Interstate.
The numbers were flipped before all of the Benton Harbor—Grand Rapids section of (formerly) I-96 had even been opened as an Interstate. That is to say, not all of current I-196 ever existed as anything else.
Now, you can look at the map and say that current I-196 is a spur route from the main Chicago—Detroit corridor up to Grand Rapids. But I can just as easily look at the same map and say that it's a spur route down from the Detroit—Grand Rapids corridor down to Benton Harbor. And we'd both be right.
You know, the more I look at this, the more I think they should have just left the numbers the way they were on the 1962 map:
(https://www.interstate-guide.com/wp-content/uploads/maps/michigan-south-1962.jpg)
Well, yes it does start and end somewhere. As a matter of fact, until the recent interchange update between I-96 and I-196, there was a sign at the end of I-196 where it joined I-96 stating: End I-196 Begin I-96. No such sign existed where I-196 joins I-94.
And yes, they did change the I-196 designation from 1 route to another. All that means is that a poor job was done in numbering these highways in the first place. Both freeways should have been renumbered. The original plans did call for I-96 to leave I-94 at Benton Harbor and circle back to I-94 in Detroit. But that makes no sense for a 2-digit interstate, and nobody would use such a long route to get to Detroit. A long, even numbered, 3-digit interstate would make more sense. Or possibly I-94N, which wouldn't be a valid designation now, but was used somewhat in the early 60's.
And once again, when the I-196 designation was moved to present day I-196, it existed as 2 discontinuous spur segments for about a dozen years. At that time, the I-196 segment through Grand Rapids made sense in that it was indeed a spur off from I-96 that ended in Grandville at M-21 (present day M-121). But most of us here in the Grand Rapids area weren't even aware that US-31 between Holland and Benton Harbor had also been designated as I-196 (information was slow and hard to come by in those days). I remember taking a trip to Chicago as a kid, traveling on I-196 to where it ended at M-21, continuing down M-21 to US-31, and being very surprised to see I-196 signs along US-31. We didn't know when or if that gap was going to be completed, but for a dozen or so years there was no reason to believe that MDOT was ever going to fill that gap.
BTW, that's a nice map!
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 07, 2022, 02:54:59 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 07, 2022, 12:24:53 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 06, 2022, 04:13:45 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 06, 2022, 01:12:44 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 06, 2022, 12:52:17 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 04, 2022, 09:07:45 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 04, 2022, 09:04:14 AM
Keep in mind I-196 is N-S where it's parent is E-W. Plus I-196 acts as a de facto spur of I-94 anyway.
Quote from: 1 on November 04, 2022, 08:57:12 AM
270 should have an odd first digit. It clearly goes inward/outward from Washington.
155 is correct as is. It's not a loop of anything.
It ends at I-495, it's not a spur.
Now enough, as the thread is to be about bad choice of control cities, not the validity of the three digit interstates.
I-196 like I have already mentioned was a spur to Muskegon not no spur to I-94. Then the highways got flipped and we have what we have today.
Another weird thing about I-196 is that if it's supposed to be a spur off from I-96, why do the mile markers and exit numbering begin at I-94 and end at I-96?
The mile markers start at a highways southern or western terminus.
They do for single or 2 digits, but they usually start at where they leave the parent route for a 3 digit. Or so I thought.
Nope, quite wrong in fact. I-290 in Buffalo, or how about I-279 in Pittsburgh?
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2022, 10:42:25 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 07, 2022, 01:01:08 AM
At any rate, if the numbering starts at I-94, you'd think it would be an I-x94 child route.
No, I wouldn't.
I had to look this up in Google Maps, and, this is interesting. It sort of acts as a spur into Downtown Grand Rapids for I-96, but also as a spur from I-94 along the SW coast of Michigan up to Grand Rapids.
It's never been a spur to Grand Rapids. It was originally a spur to Muskegon before it got switched with it's parent route.
It should have stayed that way. Grand Rapids is the larger city and deserves to have the 2di running through it.
Quote from: kirbykart on November 08, 2022, 08:08:24 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 07, 2022, 02:54:59 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 07, 2022, 12:24:53 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 06, 2022, 04:13:45 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 06, 2022, 01:12:44 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 06, 2022, 12:52:17 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 04, 2022, 09:07:45 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 04, 2022, 09:04:14 AM
Keep in mind I-196 is N-S where it's parent is E-W. Plus I-196 acts as a de facto spur of I-94 anyway.
Quote from: 1 on November 04, 2022, 08:57:12 AM
270 should have an odd first digit. It clearly goes inward/outward from Washington.
155 is correct as is. It's not a loop of anything.
It ends at I-495, it's not a spur.
Now enough, as the thread is to be about bad choice of control cities, not the validity of the three digit interstates.
I-196 like I have already mentioned was a spur to Muskegon not no spur to I-94. Then the highways got flipped and we have what we have today.
Another weird thing about I-196 is that if it's supposed to be a spur off from I-96, why do the mile markers and exit numbering begin at I-94 and end at I-96?
The mile markers start at a highways southern or western terminus.
They do for single or 2 digits, but they usually start at where they leave the parent route for a 3 digit. Or so I thought.
Nope, quite wrong in fact. I-290 in Buffalo, or how about I-279 in Pittsburgh?
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2022, 10:42:25 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 07, 2022, 01:01:08 AM
At any rate, if the numbering starts at I-94, you'd think it would be an I-x94 child route.
No, I wouldn't.
I had to look this up in Google Maps, and, this is interesting. It sort of acts as a spur into Downtown Grand Rapids for I-96, but also as a spur from I-94 along the SW coast of Michigan up to Grand Rapids.
It's never been a spur to Grand Rapids. It was originally a spur to Muskegon before it got switched with it's parent route.
It should have stayed that way. Grand Rapids is the larger city and deserves to have the 2di running through it.
Grand Rapids already has a 2di running through it. Besides the size of a city doesn't necessarily determine where a 2di goes.
Quote from: bluecountry on November 07, 2022, 03:22:02 PM
'Trenton' on the NJTP, when 'Trenton' is not a major city, is not a DMA, is not on the route, and 'Philadelphia' is.
Also, 'New York' in MD, skipping over 'Wilmington' and 'Philadelphia'.
Whether a city has a TV market should be irrelevant for signage. What matters is where traffic is going. Also, the NJTP doesn't go to Philadelphia either. That said, southbound NJTP should be Trenton/Philadelphia until I-195, then Philadelphia/Wilmington until I-95 leaves.
Here's my idea: I propose I-196 be renumbered I-438.
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 08, 2022, 12:23:09 AM
Well, yes it does start and end somewhere. As a matter of fact, until the recent interchange update between I-96 and I-196, there was a sign at the end of I-196 where it joined I-96 stating: End I-196 Begin I-96. No such sign existed where I-196 joins I-94.
That's a ridiculous argument. It's a missing sign, not an determination of which end is the "beginning".
Also,
there is an END sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1402314,-86.3685437,3a,75y,191.36h,92.14t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2_FWyU_JkhDTVvh85qBZnA!2e0!5s20161001T000000!7i13312!8i6656) at the I-94 junction anyway.
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 08, 2022, 12:23:09 AM
At that time, the I-196 segment through Grand Rapids made sense in that it was indeed a spur off from I-96 ...
That's really all the argument I need. It made sense then, and there's no convincing need for it to have changed.
Quote from: kphoger on November 08, 2022, 10:52:18 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 08, 2022, 12:23:09 AM
At that time, the I-196 segment through Grand Rapids made sense in that it was indeed a spur off from I-96 ...
That's really all the argument I need. It made sense then, and there's no convincing need for it to have changed.
Please note that before the switch of the freeway numbers west and south of Grand Rapids, there was some signing in the field:
- The portion from Grand Rapids to Muskegon was signed as I-196.
- A small section north of I-94 near Benton Harbor was signed as I-96.
When it was decided that what is now I-196 would not be completed for many years, they recognized that there was a meaningless change of numbers on the east side of Grand Rapids. So the Muskegon portion was renumbered as I-96, and they reused the I-196 number for the route that has it now. If they had wanted to follow convention and consider assigning it as an even first digit, it would have had to be I-896, since 2, 4, and 6 were already in use or planned.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on November 08, 2022, 10:26:51 AM
Here's my idea: I propose I-196 be renumbered I-438.
Nah, it would have been I-121, a spur from M-21. Or maybe, I-137, a spur off of M-37. I-150 anyone? (M-50 used to be routed on what is now M-45.)
Quote from: JoePCool14 on November 08, 2022, 10:26:51 AM
Here's my idea: I propose I-196 be renumbered I-438.
The difference with I-238 is that it was numbered as a continuation of a state highway with the same number.
I-69M
Quote from: jt4 on November 08, 2022, 08:20:31 AMAlso, the NJTP doesn't go to Philadelphia either.
Neither does I-40 to LA, I-65 to Chicago, I-80 to NYC, or I-70 to Baltimore. :-D
Quote from: hbelkins on November 08, 2022, 02:56:47 PM
Quote from: jt4 on November 08, 2022, 08:20:31 AMAlso, the NJTP doesn't go to Philadelphia either.
Neither does I-40 to LA, I-65 to Chicago, I-80 to NYC, or I-70 to Baltimore. :-D
Neither does I-76 to Lodi (https://goo.gl/maps/XSsvkSayGJjAtjxf8), I-495(MA) to Worcester (https://goo.gl/maps/MowMjkqwKdhsptY16), I-86 to Erie (https://goo.gl/maps/433KACCbXrTMuNp7A), I-86 to Twin Falls (https://goo.gl/maps/8ECB2kRJZv8oeSvK8), etc. The examples are not countless, but are numerous.
Quote from: kirbykart on November 08, 2022, 03:58:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 08, 2022, 02:56:47 PM
Quote from: jt4 on November 08, 2022, 08:20:31 AM
Also, the NJTP doesn't go to Philadelphia either.
Neither does I-40 to LA, I-65 to Chicago, I-80 to NYC, or I-70 to Baltimore. :-D
Neither does I-76 to Lodi (https://goo.gl/maps/XSsvkSayGJjAtjxf8), I-495(MA) to Worcester (https://goo.gl/maps/MowMjkqwKdhsptY16), I-86 to Erie (https://goo.gl/maps/433KACCbXrTMuNp7A), I-86 to Twin Falls (https://goo.gl/maps/8ECB2kRJZv8oeSvK8), etc. The examples are not countless, but are numerous.
Nor does I-15 go to
Lethbridge (https://goo.gl/maps/qaaprCRJsHSDyxzJA). :-P
Quote from: kphoger on November 08, 2022, 04:05:21 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 08, 2022, 03:58:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 08, 2022, 02:56:47 PM
Quote from: jt4 on November 08, 2022, 08:20:31 AM
Also, the NJTP doesn't go to Philadelphia either.
Neither does I-40 to LA, I-65 to Chicago, I-80 to NYC, or I-70 to Baltimore. :-D
Neither does I-76 to Lodi (https://goo.gl/maps/XSsvkSayGJjAtjxf8), I-495(MA) to Worcester (https://goo.gl/maps/MowMjkqwKdhsptY16), I-86 to Erie (https://goo.gl/maps/433KACCbXrTMuNp7A), I-86 to Twin Falls (https://goo.gl/maps/8ECB2kRJZv8oeSvK8), etc. The examples are not countless, but are numerous.
Nor does I-15 go to Lethbridge (https://goo.gl/maps/qaaprCRJsHSDyxzJA). :-P
That seriously might be one of the dumbest control cities around, I did say one of them.
Quote from: kphoger on November 08, 2022, 04:05:21 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 08, 2022, 03:58:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 08, 2022, 02:56:47 PM
Quote from: jt4 on November 08, 2022, 08:20:31 AM
Also, the NJTP doesn't go to Philadelphia either.
Neither does I-40 to LA, I-65 to Chicago, I-80 to NYC, or I-70 to Baltimore. :-D
Neither does I-76 to Lodi (https://goo.gl/maps/XSsvkSayGJjAtjxf8), I-495(MA) to Worcester (https://goo.gl/maps/MowMjkqwKdhsptY16), I-86 to Erie (https://goo.gl/maps/433KACCbXrTMuNp7A), I-86 to Twin Falls (https://goo.gl/maps/8ECB2kRJZv8oeSvK8), etc. The examples are not countless, but are numerous.
Nor does I-15 go to Lethbridge (https://goo.gl/maps/qaaprCRJsHSDyxzJA). :-P
Your first example might not be as valid as you'd think since US-224 is also on the sign and does go to Lodi.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2022, 04:58:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 08, 2022, 04:05:21 PM
Nor does I-15 go to Lethbridge (https://goo.gl/maps/qaaprCRJsHSDyxzJA). :-P
That seriously might be one of the dumbest control cities around, I did say one of them.
*shrug* It's got a population of 100k, so why not?
I quoted the wrong person above, I meant to quote kirbykart.
Quote from: kphoger on November 08, 2022, 05:02:23 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2022, 04:58:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 08, 2022, 04:05:21 PM
Nor does I-15 go to Lethbridge (https://goo.gl/maps/qaaprCRJsHSDyxzJA). :-P
That seriously might be one of the dumbest control cities around, I did say one of them.
*shrug* It's got a population of 100k, so why not?
It's in Alberta on the other side of the International border. I think just using Sweet Grass would be fine since there is no limit on how small a place has to be. Sweet Grass is at the International border and the northern terminus of I-15 despite it being very small I'm sure it's somewhat known in that area.
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 08, 2022, 12:23:09 AM
At that time, the I-196 segment through Grand Rapids made sense in that it was indeed a spur off from I-96 ...
The I-96 and I-196 designations were flipped west of Grand Rapids in 1963. At the time of the change, you had the situation where there was a continuous freeway from Muskegon through Grand Rapids and continuing toward Lansing along the US 16 corridor. At the point where the current I-96/I-196 interchange sits, that freeway changed from I-196/US 16 to I-96/US 16 without visible reason; the I-96 freeway segment into downtown Grand Rapids hadn't been built yet, so there was no interchange. John C. Mackie was the State Highway Commissioner and involved with AASHO's committee at the time. He thought that the abrupt change in Interstate designation at a then-arbitrary point made little sense and petitioned to have the US 16 corridor unified under a single Interstate designation in 1963. A segment of then I-96/US 31 from Benton Harbor to South Haven was already open to traffic and had to be renumbered I-196/US 31 while then I-196/US 16 became I-96/US 16 from Grand Rapids to Muskegon.
Had they waited a year, the I-196/M-21 freeway from Grandville to Grand Rapids opened in 1964, and the reasoning for the number change along US 16 would have made some sense. Yes, it took until 1974 to finish the freeway from Holland to Grandville, connecting freeway sections opened in 1963 and 1964, but that's not why the numbers were flipped.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2022, 05:05:25 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 08, 2022, 05:02:23 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2022, 04:58:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 08, 2022, 04:05:21 PM
Nor does I-15 go to Lethbridge (https://goo.gl/maps/qaaprCRJsHSDyxzJA). :-P
That seriously might be one of the dumbest control cities around, I did say one of them.
*shrug* It's got a population of 100k, so why not?
It's in Alberta on the other side of the International border. I think just using Sweet Grass would be fine since there is no limit on how small a place has to be. Sweet Grass is at the International border and the northern terminus of I-15 despite it being very small I'm sure it's somewhat known in that area.
Would you also replace Montreal with Champlain
on I-87 (https://goo.gl/maps/Xtzq5gMSgcX6KGTc9)?
(also... nifty trailblazer in that GSV shot)
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2022, 05:03:07 PM
I quoted the wrong person above, I meant to quote kirbykart.
Kirbykart listed a bunch of cities - which one?
Quote from: kphoger on November 08, 2022, 05:53:58 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2022, 05:05:25 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 08, 2022, 05:02:23 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2022, 04:58:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 08, 2022, 04:05:21 PM
Nor does I-15 go to Lethbridge (https://goo.gl/maps/qaaprCRJsHSDyxzJA). :-P
That seriously might be one of the dumbest control cities around, I did say one of them.
*shrug* It's got a population of 100k, so why not?
It's in Alberta on the other side of the International border. I think just using Sweet Grass would be fine since there is no limit on how small a place has to be. Sweet Grass is at the International border and the northern terminus of I-15 despite it being very small I'm sure it's somewhat known in that area.
Would you also replace Montreal with Champlain on I-87 (https://goo.gl/maps/Xtzq5gMSgcX6KGTc9)?
(also... nifty trailblazer in that GSV shot)
I'm sure Surrey is better than Vancouver too. :)
Quote from: bulldog1979 on November 08, 2022, 05:15:07 PM
The I-96 and I-196 designations were flipped west of Grand Rapids in 1963. At the time of the change, you had the situation where there was a continuous freeway from Muskegon through Grand Rapids and continuing toward Lansing along the US 16 corridor. At the point where the current I-96/I-196 interchange sits, that freeway changed from I-196/US 16 to I-96/US 16 without visible reason; ...
FYI, US-16 was approved for deletion in Michigan on 29-SEP-1961, and it was decommissioned in 1962.
Quote from: kphoger on November 08, 2022, 05:53:58 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2022, 05:05:25 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 08, 2022, 05:02:23 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2022, 04:58:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 08, 2022, 04:05:21 PM
Nor does I-15 go to Lethbridge (https://goo.gl/maps/qaaprCRJsHSDyxzJA). :-P
That seriously might be one of the dumbest control cities around, I did say one of them.
*shrug* It's got a population of 100k, so why not?
It's in Alberta on the other side of the International border. I think just using Sweet Grass would be fine since there is no limit on how small a place has to be. Sweet Grass is at the International border and the northern terminus of I-15 despite it being very small I'm sure it's somewhat known in that area.
Would you also replace Montreal with Champlain on I-87 (https://goo.gl/maps/Xtzq5gMSgcX6KGTc9)?
(also... nifty trailblazer in that GSV shot)
Yep
Quote from: webny99 on November 08, 2022, 06:00:29 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2022, 05:03:07 PM
I quoted the wrong person above, I meant to quote kirbykart.
Kirbykart listed a bunch of cities - which one?
My post #430 was supposed to be a reply to his post #427.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2022, 05:05:25 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 08, 2022, 05:02:23 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2022, 04:58:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 08, 2022, 04:05:21 PM
Nor does I-15 go to Lethbridge (https://goo.gl/maps/qaaprCRJsHSDyxzJA). :-P
That seriously might be one of the dumbest control cities around, I did say one of them.
*shrug* It's got a population of 100k, so why not?
It's in Alberta on the other side of the International border. I think just using Sweet Grass would be fine since there is no limit on how small a place has to be. Sweet Grass is at the International border and the northern terminus of I-15 despite it being very small I'm sure it's somewhat known in that area.
Sweet Grass has 65 people and is not a major junction of any sort. You might as well just put Canada.
When I was going through that area last summer with friends, we actually didn't know where Lethbridge was, but knew enough to know it wasn't in Montana. That's a connection most people would probably make. Sweet Grass would be anyone's guess.
Quote from: US 89 on November 08, 2022, 06:50:57 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2022, 05:05:25 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 08, 2022, 05:02:23 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2022, 04:58:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 08, 2022, 04:05:21 PM
Nor does I-15 go to Lethbridge (https://goo.gl/maps/qaaprCRJsHSDyxzJA). :-P
That seriously might be one of the dumbest control cities around, I did say one of them.
*shrug* It's got a population of 100k, so why not?
It's in Alberta on the other side of the International border. I think just using Sweet Grass would be fine since there is no limit on how small a place has to be. Sweet Grass is at the International border and the northern terminus of I-15 despite it being very small I'm sure it's somewhat known in that area.
Sweet Grass has 65 people and is not a major junction of any sort. You might as well just put Canada.
When I was going through that area last summer with friends, we actually didn't know where Lethbridge was, but knew enough to know it wasn't in Montana. That's a connection most people would probably make. Sweet Grass would be anyone's guess.
It's better than Lethbridge. The way they sign it you would think that Lethbridge was in Montana.
Quote from: US 89 on November 08, 2022, 06:50:57 PM
we actually didn't know where Lethbridge was, but knew enough to know it wasn't in Montana
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2022, 07:02:59 PM
The way they sign it you would think that Lethbridge was in Montana.
Apparently that's not true.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2022, 06:32:32 PM
Quote from: webny99 on November 08, 2022, 06:00:29 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2022, 05:03:07 PM
I quoted the wrong person above, I meant to quote kirbykart.
Kirbykart listed a bunch of cities - which one?
My post #430 was supposed to be a reply to his post #427.
Yes, but I listed multiple cities in that post. If I had to guess, I'd say you're talking about Lodi, but I can't know for sure.
Quote from: kirbykart on November 08, 2022, 07:49:56 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2022, 06:32:32 PM
Quote from: webny99 on November 08, 2022, 06:00:29 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2022, 05:03:07 PM
I quoted the wrong person above, I meant to quote kirbykart.
Kirbykart listed a bunch of cities - which one?
My post #430 was supposed to be a reply to his post #427.
Yes, but I listed multiple cities in that post. If I had to guess, I'd say you're talking about Lodi, but I can't know for sure.
Yes Lodi. I said in my reply, your first example.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2022, 07:02:59 PM
Quote from: US 89 on November 08, 2022, 06:50:57 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2022, 05:05:25 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 08, 2022, 05:02:23 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2022, 04:58:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 08, 2022, 04:05:21 PM
Nor does I-15 go to Lethbridge (https://goo.gl/maps/qaaprCRJsHSDyxzJA). :-P
That seriously might be one of the dumbest control cities around, I did say one of them.
*shrug* It's got a population of 100k, so why not?
It's in Alberta on the other side of the International border. I think just using Sweet Grass would be fine since there is no limit on how small a place has to be. Sweet Grass is at the International border and the northern terminus of I-15 despite it being very small I'm sure it's somewhat known in that area.
Sweet Grass has 65 people and is not a major junction of any sort. You might as well just put Canada.
When I was going through that area last summer with friends, we actually didn't know where Lethbridge was, but knew enough to know it wasn't in Montana. That's a connection most people would probably make. Sweet Grass would be anyone's guess.
It's better than Lethbridge. The way they sign it you would think that Lethbridge was in Montana.
South of US 2, isn't Shelby the control city? It's hardly a major city; I was very surprised at how small it is given it's at one of the major entrances to Glacier NP.
Few states sign other states on control city signage along the interstates. West Virginia is a noted exception. Isn't the control city on I-70 west in Kansas just "Limon" and not "Limon, Colo.?"
If that's really a problem, you can just put "Lethbridge AB" or "Lethbridge, Can." or "Lethbridge 🇨🇦" or something like that.
Honestly, little flag icons next to control cities would be pretty cool. "Tucumcari (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Flag_of_New_Mexico.svg/25px-Flag_of_New_Mexico.svg.png)", perhaps?
("But what about all those state flags that look the same because they're just a state seal on a blue background?" you ask. Well, those flags should be replaced on the grounds that they suck, irrespective of any highway sign usage. Kansas, I love you, but your flag is lame as hell.)
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 09, 2022, 02:38:38 PM
If that's really a problem, you can just put "Lethbridge AB" or "Lethbridge, Can." or "Lethbridge 🇨🇦" or something like that.
Honestly, little flag icons next to control cities would be pretty cool. "Tucumcari (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Flag_of_New_Mexico.svg/25px-Flag_of_New_Mexico.svg.png)", perhaps?
New Mexico's symbol is pretty recognizable, but most people wouldn't recognize most states. I wouldn't even recognize New Hampshire's despite living less than 5 miles from it.
Quote from: 1 on November 09, 2022, 02:40:11 PM
New Mexico's symbol is pretty recognizable, but most people wouldn't recognize most states.
Edited my post above to address this, but also...which are people more likely to know, the flag of a state (which most people have at least
seen before even if they didn't retain that information) or the existence of Sharon, PA?
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 09, 2022, 02:42:55 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 09, 2022, 02:40:11 PM
New Mexico's symbol is pretty recognizable, but most people wouldn't recognize most states.
Edited my post above to address this, but also...which are people more likely to know, the flag of a state (which most people have at least seen before even if they didn't retain that information) or the existence of Sharon, PA?
Well you could just not be stupid like PennDOT and instead sign Youngstown, OH.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 09, 2022, 02:38:38 PM
If that's really a problem, you can just put "Lethbridge AB" or "Lethbridge, Can." or "Lethbridge 🇨🇦" or something like that.
Honestly, little flag icons next to control cities would be pretty cool. "Tucumcari (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Flag_of_New_Mexico.svg/25px-Flag_of_New_Mexico.svg.png)", perhaps?
How about both because some motorists are
really stupid? /s
(https://i.imgur.com/TPQZ89O.jpg)
My guess is that, if you're in Shelby or farther north, then you do know where Lethbridge is anyway.
By the way, I got curious. Here's the sign in Lethbridge (https://goo.gl/maps/UsXiGs5J1K7bUGKX7).
Quote from: kphoger on November 09, 2022, 03:50:22 PM
Here's the sign in Lethbridge (https://goo.gl/maps/UsXiGs5J1K7bUGKX7).
Ow, my eyes!
Quote from: hbelkins on November 09, 2022, 02:23:00 PM
South of US 2, isn't Shelby the control city? It's hardly a major city; I was very surprised at how small it is given it's at one of the major entrances to Glacier NP.
Yes, it is between US 2 and Great Falls: https://goo.gl/maps/SsnjATAYG9ykmB5c9 (Driven past this sign many times. Never noticed until now that they don't sign the US 89 S and MT 200 E duplex on I-15 S)
Shelby is a very small town, but it's a regional center by Montana standards.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 09, 2022, 04:43:36 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 09, 2022, 03:50:22 PM
Here's the sign in Lethbridge (https://goo.gl/maps/UsXiGs5J1K7bUGKX7).
Ow, my eyes!
Yeah, gee, for some reason those arrows made me think of you.
Quote from: kphoger on November 08, 2022, 10:52:18 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 08, 2022, 12:23:09 AM
Well, yes it does start and end somewhere. As a matter of fact, until the recent interchange update between I-96 and I-196, there was a sign at the end of I-196 where it joined I-96 stating: End I-196 Begin I-96. No such sign existed where I-196 joins I-94.
Hmmm. Never noticd that sign before.
That's a ridiculous argument. It's a missing sign, not an determination of which end is the "beginning".
Also, there is an END sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1402314,-86.3685437,3a,75y,191.36h,92.14t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2_FWyU_JkhDTVvh85qBZnA!2e0!5s20161001T000000!7i13312!8i6656) at the I-94 junction anyway.
Quote from: Terry Shea on November 08, 2022, 12:23:09 AM
At that time, the I-196 segment through Grand Rapids made sense in that it was indeed a spur off from I-96 ...
That's really all the argument I need. It made sense then, and there's no convincing need for it to have changed.
Hmmm. Never noticed that sign before.
Quote from: FrCorySticha on November 09, 2022, 05:10:22 PM
Shelby is a very small town, but it's a regional center by Montana standards.
It's bigger than Limon, CO...
Quote from: kphoger on November 09, 2022, 05:11:48 PM
Quote from: FrCorySticha on November 09, 2022, 05:10:22 PM
Shelby is a very small town, but it's a regional center by Montana standards.
It's bigger than Limon, CO...
Well, then it's perfect for a control city. :D
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 09, 2022, 02:38:38 PM
If that's really a problem, you can just put "Lethbridge AB" or "Lethbridge, Can." or "Lethbridge 🇨🇦" or something like that.
Honestly, little flag icons next to control cities would be pretty cool. "Tucumcari (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Flag_of_New_Mexico.svg/25px-Flag_of_New_Mexico.svg.png)", perhaps?
("But what about all those state flags that look the same because they're just a state seal on a blue background?" you ask. Well, those flags should be replaced on the grounds that they suck, irrespective of any highway sign usage. Kansas, I love you, but your flag is lame as hell.)
About 30-40 years ago, Wisconsin added "WISCONSIN" and 1848" in white letters and numbers above and below the state seal on its otherwise solid dark blue banner, likely to better differentiate it from those of other nearby states.
Mike
Now that I-69 is through Houston, I would say the worst control city on an interstate is "Cleveland" on I-69 North.
Quote from: jgb191 on November 09, 2022, 11:40:39 PM
Now that I-69 is through Houston, I would say the worst control city on an interstate is "Cleveland" on I-69 North.
If you continue Northeast on I-69 from Houston to its (hypothetical) route into KY, and continue in the NE direction while I-69 itself pulls off to go due north, you'll eventually end up on I-71, which goes to the
other Cleveland :-D
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2022, 04:58:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 08, 2022, 04:05:21 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 08, 2022, 03:58:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 08, 2022, 02:56:47 PM
Quote from: jt4 on November 08, 2022, 08:20:31 AM
Also, the NJTP doesn't go to Philadelphia either.
Neither does I-40 to LA, I-65 to Chicago, I-80 to NYC, or I-70 to Baltimore. :-D
Neither does I-76 to Lodi (https://goo.gl/maps/XSsvkSayGJjAtjxf8), I-495(MA) to Worcester (https://goo.gl/maps/MowMjkqwKdhsptY16), I-86 to Erie (https://goo.gl/maps/433KACCbXrTMuNp7A), I-86 to Twin Falls (https://goo.gl/maps/8ECB2kRJZv8oeSvK8), etc. The examples are not countless, but are numerous.
Nor does I-15 go to Lethbridge (https://goo.gl/maps/qaaprCRJsHSDyxzJA). :-P
That seriously might be one of the dumbest control cities around, I did say one of them.
We can sign Calgary on I-15 NB then. Requires 2 turns onto different routes, but everyone would heard of the 5th largest city in Canada, I think?
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 09, 2022, 02:38:38 PM
If that's really a problem, you can just put "Lethbridge AB" or "Lethbridge, Can." or "Lethbridge " or something like that.
Honestly, little flag icons next to control cities would be pretty cool. "Tucumcari (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Flag_of_New_Mexico.svg/25px-Flag_of_New_Mexico.svg.png)", perhaps?
("But what about all those state flags that look the same because they're just a state seal on a blue background?" you ask. Well, those flags should be replaced on the grounds that they suck, irrespective of any highway sign usage. Kansas, I love you, but your flag is lame as hell.)
Speaking of garbage flags and New Mexico, I feel like more people need to know about New Mexico's unofficial flag in the 1910s:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Flag_of_New_Mexico_%281912-1925%29.svg/640px-Flag_of_New_Mexico_%281912-1925%29.svg.png)
As for my answer... maybe Montréal/Québec on A-40 when Trois-Rivières exists between the two? Sure, A-40 does lead to Montréal and Québec City, but Trois-Rivières should be the primary control city from Québec City on A-40 WB/from Montréal on A-40 EB.
Quote from: mgk920 on November 09, 2022, 11:03:34 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 09, 2022, 02:38:38 PM
If that's really a problem, you can just put "Lethbridge AB" or "Lethbridge, Can." or "Lethbridge 🇨🇦" or something like that.
Honestly, little flag icons next to control cities would be pretty cool. "Tucumcari (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Flag_of_New_Mexico.svg/25px-Flag_of_New_Mexico.svg.png)", perhaps?
("But what about all those state flags that look the same because they're just a state seal on a blue background?" you ask. Well, those flags should be replaced on the grounds that they suck, irrespective of any highway sign usage. Kansas, I love you, but your flag is lame as hell.)
About 30-40 years ago, Wisconsin added "WISCONSIN" and 1848" in white letters and numbers above and below the state seal on its otherwise solid dark blue banner, likely to better differentiate it from those of other nearby states.
Mike
If you have to label your flag with text, it's failed as a flag. The whole point of a flag is to make soldiers fighting under it easily identifiable. If you have to squint through the binoculars to try to read a little line of text to see if the people with the flag are friend or foe, it's not doing its job. And good luck trying to accurately recreate all the fiddly details of a state seal when you need to put together a flag in a hurry in the field.
There's been a wave of municipal flag redesigns over the last decade or so to make them better designed and better suited to the job of doing a flag. In Oklahoma, both Norman and Tulsa have gotten fine new flags. Oklahoma's flag isn't bad, but including the unnecessary word "OKLAHOMA" kind of detracts from it. It'd be perfectly identifiable without it.
Quote from: jgb191 on November 09, 2022, 11:40:39 PM
Now that I-69 is through Houston, I would say the worst control city on an interstate is "Cleveland" on I-69 North.
How well known should a control city be to use on the sign if there's a more famous city with the same name? The Columbias and Portlands are far enough away that it probably wouldn't present an issue. I think it's the same with Cleveland, TX. But not bring from Texas, I don't know if there's a better choice for I-69 as currently designated.
Las Vegas on I-25 is a worse problem. Columbus, IN would be a problem on I-65 if it got big enough to overtake Louisville (maybe less so now that the I-70 control city is Dayton instead of Columbus, OH).
Quote from: SkyPesos on November 10, 2022, 12:19:48 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2022, 04:58:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 08, 2022, 04:05:21 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 08, 2022, 03:58:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 08, 2022, 02:56:47 PM
Quote from: jt4 on November 08, 2022, 08:20:31 AM
Also, the NJTP doesn't go to Philadelphia either.
Neither does I-40 to LA, I-65 to Chicago, I-80 to NYC, or I-70 to Baltimore. :-D
Neither does I-76 to Lodi (https://goo.gl/maps/XSsvkSayGJjAtjxf8), I-495(MA) to Worcester (https://goo.gl/maps/MowMjkqwKdhsptY16), I-86 to Erie (https://goo.gl/maps/433KACCbXrTMuNp7A), I-86 to Twin Falls (https://goo.gl/maps/8ECB2kRJZv8oeSvK8), etc. The examples are not countless, but are numerous.
Nor does I-15 go to Lethbridge (https://goo.gl/maps/qaaprCRJsHSDyxzJA). :-P
That seriously might be one of the dumbest control cities around, I did say one of them.
We can sign Calgary on I-15 NB then. Requires 2 turns onto different routes, but everyone would heard of the 5th largest city in Canada, I think?
Calgary might be ok. At least I know where that is.
Quote from: SkyPesos on November 10, 2022, 12:15:14 AM
Quote from: jgb191 on November 09, 2022, 11:40:39 PM
Now that I-69 is through Houston, I would say the worst control city on an interstate is "Cleveland" on I-69 North.
If you continue Northeast on I-69 from Houston to its (hypothetical) route into KY, and continue in the NE direction while I-69 itself pulls off to go due north, you'll eventually end up on I-71, which goes to the other Cleveland :-D
Fictional-land, but one can come up with an I-71 KY extension, via the Parkways, to meet I-69 directly in Hopkins County. Kinda surprising KY politicians haven't asked for it
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 10, 2022, 03:56:13 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 09, 2022, 11:03:34 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 09, 2022, 02:38:38 PM
If that's really a problem, you can just put "Lethbridge AB" or "Lethbridge, Can." or "Lethbridge 🇨🇦" or something like that.
Honestly, little flag icons next to control cities would be pretty cool. "Tucumcari (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Flag_of_New_Mexico.svg/25px-Flag_of_New_Mexico.svg.png)", perhaps?
("But what about all those state flags that look the same because they're just a state seal on a blue background?" you ask. Well, those flags should be replaced on the grounds that they suck, irrespective of any highway sign usage. Kansas, I love you, but your flag is lame as hell.)
About 30-40 years ago, Wisconsin added "WISCONSIN" and 1848" in white letters and numbers above and below the state seal on its otherwise solid dark blue banner, likely to better differentiate it from those of other nearby states.
Mike
If you have to label your flag with text, it's failed as a flag. The whole point of a flag is to make soldiers fighting under it easily identifiable. If you have to squint through the binoculars to try to read a little line of text to see if the people with the flag are friend or foe, it's not doing its job. And good luck trying to accurately recreate all the fiddly details of a state seal when you need to put together a flag in a hurry in the field.
There's been a wave of municipal flag redesigns over the last decade or so to make them better designed and better suited to the job of doing a flag. In Oklahoma, both Norman and Tulsa have gotten fine new flags. Oklahoma's flag isn't bad, but including the unnecessary word "OKLAHOMA" kind of detracts from it. It'd be perfectly identifiable without it.
Wisconsin's flag is terrible. Milwaukee's is worse.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Flag_of_Milwaukee%2C_Wisconsin.svg/220px-Flag_of_Milwaukee%2C_Wisconsin.svg.png)
Of course the contest to design a new flag came up with something absolutely awesome, but it was never officially adopted - mostly because people hate change. So now it's the underground "people's flag."
(https://shepherdexpress.com/downloads/41473/download/milwaukee-peoplesflag.jpg?cb=7dba8de81c6128d56f55fa6af7d28a24&w=600)
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 10, 2022, 03:56:13 AM
The whole point of a flag is to make soldiers fighting under it easily identifiable.
I don't know if that's true, even if it may have been what they were first created for.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 10, 2022, 03:56:13 AM
The whole point of a flag is to make soldiers fighting under it easily identifiable. If you have to squint through the binoculars to try to read a little line of text to see if the people with the flag are friend or foe, it's not doing its job.
Well, I guess, if New Hampshire and Nebraska ever go to war with each other, then it might be a problem. But, otherwise...
Quote from: ilpt4u on November 10, 2022, 08:29:49 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on November 10, 2022, 12:15:14 AM
Quote from: jgb191 on November 09, 2022, 11:40:39 PM
Now that I-69 is through Houston, I would say the worst control city on an interstate is "Cleveland" on I-69 North.
If you continue Northeast on I-69 from Houston to its (hypothetical) route into KY, and continue in the NE direction while I-69 itself pulls off to go due north, you'll eventually end up on I-71, which goes to the other Cleveland :-D
Fictional-land, but one can come up with an I-71 KY extension, via the Parkways, to meet I-69 directly in Hopkins County. Kinda surprising KY politicians haven't asked for it
They'll ask for an x65 or x69.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on November 10, 2022, 09:13:06 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 10, 2022, 03:56:13 AM
The whole point of a flag is to make soldiers fighting under it easily identifiable.
I don't know if that's true, even if it may have been what they were first created for.
I mean, if you don't believe me, go ask the flaggeeks (https://nava.org/)...
Quote from: kphoger on November 10, 2022, 11:48:58 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 10, 2022, 03:56:13 AM
The whole point of a flag is to make soldiers fighting under it easily identifiable. If you have to squint through the binoculars to try to read a little line of text to see if the people with the flag are friend or foe, it's not doing its job.
Well, I guess, if New Hampshire and Nebraska ever go to war with each other, then it might be a problem. But, otherwise...
It's the 21st century. Best to be prepared...
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 10, 2022, 02:30:47 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 10, 2022, 11:48:58 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 10, 2022, 03:56:13 AM
The whole point of a flag is to make soldiers fighting under it easily identifiable. If you have to squint through the binoculars to try to read a little line of text to see if the people with the flag are friend or foe, it's not doing its job.
Well, I guess, if New Hampshire and Nebraska ever go to war with each other, then it might be a problem. But, otherwise...
It's the 21st century. Best to be prepared...
Easily solved (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_flag).
Quote from: kphoger on November 10, 2022, 02:37:48 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 10, 2022, 02:30:47 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 10, 2022, 11:48:58 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 10, 2022, 03:56:13 AM
The whole point of a flag is to make soldiers fighting under it easily identifiable. If you have to squint through the binoculars to try to read a little line of text to see if the people with the flag are friend or foe, it's not doing its job.
Well, I guess, if New Hampshire and Nebraska ever go to war with each other, then it might be a problem. But, otherwise...
It's the 21st century. Best to be prepared...
Easily solved (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_flag).
Someone doesn't wanna admit their state flag sucks. :D
Nope, I agree that most state flags suck. I'm just saying it doesn't matter that they suck.
Quote from: kphoger on November 10, 2022, 02:53:08 PM
Nope, I agree that most state flags suck. I'm just saying it doesn't matter that they suck.
It may not matter that they suck, but having a flag that doesn't suck can certainly spark civic pride and serve as a symbol of the region. Since Tulsa replaced their flag, you see it all over now, whereas the old one basically only appeared in front of municipal buildings. Imagine all the places you've seen the Texas flag...now imagine the Kansas flag subbed in there, and it feels faintly ridiculous.
Honestly, it'd be really easy to make a nice Kansas flag. Just keep the blue background and stick a yellow K shield (with no number) in the middle of it. Done.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 10, 2022, 03:02:23 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 10, 2022, 02:53:08 PM
Nope, I agree that most state flags suck. I'm just saying it doesn't matter that they suck.
It may not matter that they suck, but having a flag that doesn't suck can certainly spark civic pride and serve as a symbol of the region. Since Tulsa replaced their flag, you see it all over now, whereas the old one basically only appeared in front of municipal buildings. Imagine all the places you've seen the Texas flag...now imagine the Kansas flag subbed in there, and it feels faintly ridiculous.
Honestly, it'd be really easy to make a nice Kansas flag. Just keep the blue background and stick a yellow K shield (with no number) in the middle of it. Done.
Have you seen the Wichita city flag? One of the best, IMHO.
Quote from: kphoger on November 10, 2022, 03:04:31 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 10, 2022, 03:02:23 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 10, 2022, 02:53:08 PM
Nope, I agree that most state flags suck. I'm just saying it doesn't matter that they suck.
It may not matter that they suck, but having a flag that doesn't suck can certainly spark civic pride and serve as a symbol of the region. Since Tulsa replaced their flag, you see it all over now, whereas the old one basically only appeared in front of municipal buildings. Imagine all the places you've seen the Texas flag...now imagine the Kansas flag subbed in there, and it feels faintly ridiculous.
Honestly, it'd be really easy to make a nice Kansas flag. Just keep the blue background and stick a yellow K shield (with no number) in the middle of it. Done.
Have you seen the Wichita city flag? One of the best, IMHO.
It's a lovely flag. It is simple and easy to identify.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Flag_of_Wichita%2C_Kansas.svg/640px-Flag_of_Wichita%2C_Kansas.svg.png)
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 10, 2022, 09:00:21 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 10, 2022, 03:56:13 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 09, 2022, 11:03:34 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 09, 2022, 02:38:38 PM
If that's really a problem, you can just put "Lethbridge AB" or "Lethbridge, Can." or "Lethbridge 🇨🇦" or something like that.
Honestly, little flag icons next to control cities would be pretty cool. "Tucumcari (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Flag_of_New_Mexico.svg/25px-Flag_of_New_Mexico.svg.png)", perhaps?
("But what about all those state flags that look the same because they're just a state seal on a blue background?" you ask. Well, those flags should be replaced on the grounds that they suck, irrespective of any highway sign usage. Kansas, I love you, but your flag is lame as hell.)
About 30-40 years ago, Wisconsin added "WISCONSIN" and 1848" in white letters and numbers above and below the state seal on its otherwise solid dark blue banner, likely to better differentiate it from those of other nearby states.
Mike
If you have to label your flag with text, it's failed as a flag. The whole point of a flag is to make soldiers fighting under it easily identifiable. If you have to squint through the binoculars to try to read a little line of text to see if the people with the flag are friend or foe, it's not doing its job. And good luck trying to accurately recreate all the fiddly details of a state seal when you need to put together a flag in a hurry in the field.
There's been a wave of municipal flag redesigns over the last decade or so to make them better designed and better suited to the job of doing a flag. In Oklahoma, both Norman and Tulsa have gotten fine new flags. Oklahoma's flag isn't bad, but including the unnecessary word "OKLAHOMA" kind of detracts from it. It'd be perfectly identifiable without it.
Wisconsin's flag is terrible. Milwaukee's is worse.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Flag_of_Milwaukee%2C_Wisconsin.svg/220px-Flag_of_Milwaukee%2C_Wisconsin.svg.png)
Of course the contest to design a new flag came up with something absolutely awesome, but it was never officially adopted - mostly because people hate change. So now it's the underground "people's flag."
(https://shepherdexpress.com/downloads/41473/download/milwaukee-peoplesflag.jpg?cb=7dba8de81c6128d56f55fa6af7d28a24&w=600)
I do very much like that proposed Milwaukee city 'peoples flag' and would love to see it be essentially adopted through acclimation - just start using it. Yes, even by suburbanites.
BTW, I do not like that above suggested New Mexico flag at all, it reminds be too much of something from pre-WWII era Germany.
You want a really KEWL city flag? See: City of Chicago, IL.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on November 11, 2022, 02:27:33 AM
BTW, I do not like that above suggested New Mexico flag at all, it reminds be too much of something from pre-WWII era Germany.
That's because it's from pre-WWI New Mexico. It was replaced by the current NM flag.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on November 10, 2022, 12:42:06 AM
Speaking of garbage flags and New Mexico, I feel like more people need to know about New Mexico's unofficial flag in the 1910s:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Flag_of_New_Mexico_%281912-1925%29.svg/640px-Flag_of_New_Mexico_%281912-1925%29.svg.png)
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 11, 2022, 02:34:53 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 11, 2022, 02:27:33 AM
BTW, I do not like that above suggested New Mexico flag at all, it reminds be too much of something from pre-WWII era Germany.
That's because it's from pre-WWI New Mexico. It was replaced by the current NM flag.
It also wasn't "suggested". Rather, it was called a "garbage flag" by the person who posted it.
Quote from: thspfc on August 13, 2022, 05:11:08 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 13, 2022, 04:38:14 PM
An extreme example is I-95 north skipping Philadelphia because New York is more important, although this is something some people disagree with.
That's a situation where there should be 2 control cities.
I'm in favor of using two control cities in that case, as well as cases where the next major metropolitan area is several hundred miles away.
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 13, 2022, 06:28:00 PM
Cities over 1M metro should never be skipped IMO. It's when you get to the smaller metros (200k-500k) where it gets dicey largely depending on how far away it is from a bigger metro.
I'd say no metropolitan area with at least 500,000 population should be skipped.
Quote from: I-55 on August 14, 2022, 07:12:01 PM
Have both primary and secondary control cities, e.g. Clarion, New York on same sign. Short range sign for local reference, long term destination for regional reference.
Regarding I-80 in Pennsylvania:
1. Sharon, Clarion, DuBois, Bloomsburg, and other small towns at U.S. route junctions should not be control cities, but should get priority on mileage signs, since they are crossroads of federal routes. To account for this, list three destinations on I-80 mileage signs instead of two. For example, the first mileage sign on I-80 eastbound past the junction of I-79 can read, Clarion 44 | DuBois 79 | State College 155. Also, the first mileage sign on I-80 westbound past the junction of I-81 can read, Berwick 13 | Bloomsburg 26 | State College 115.
2. On I-80 eastbound from the Ohio state line to I-99, use State College as the control city. There's no need to mention New York City except at the junctions of I-376 and I-79. At those two junctions, pair it with State College on pull-through signs, and give it special, stand-alone mileage signs that are one mile past each junction. Use State College as the only control city when accessing I-80 eastbound from all 26 interchanges between the Ohio state line and I-99, including from I-79 and I-376. It's a major destination, being home to a major state university.
3. On I-80 westbound from I-99 to the Ohio state line, use Youngstown as the control city. There's no need to mention Cleveland except for pairing it with Youngstown on pull-through signs at the junctions of I-79 and I-376, and listing it as the third destination on mileage signs west of I-79. Use Youngstown as the only control city when accessing I-80 westbound from all 26 interchanges between the Ohio state line and I-99, including from I-79 and I-376. Youngstown is a metropolitan area with more than 500,000 population, so it's important enough to be a control city.
4. On I-80 eastbound at the west junction of the future I-99 concurrency, pair New York City with Williamsport on the pull-through sign. Use Williamsport as the only control city when accessing I-80 eastbound from both interchanges on the concurrency. At the east junction of the I-99 concurrency and the junction of I-180, pair New York City with Hazleton on the pull-through signs, and give it a special, stand-alone mileage sign one mile past I-99. Use Hazleton as the only control city when accessing I-80 eastbound from all four interchanges between I-99 and I-180.
5. On I-80 eastbound from the junction of I-180 to the junction of I-81, pair New York City with Hazleton on every pull-through sign, and when accessing I-80 eastbound from every interchange.
6. On I-80 westbound from the junction of I-81 to the west junction of the future I-99 concurrency, use State College as the control city.
7. On I-80 eastbound from the junction of I-81 to the New Jersey State line, use New York City as the control city.
IMHO, the worst control city on a Wisconsin interstate is 'Fond du Lac' for NB I-41 on the approach to the Zoo interchange in Milwaukee on I-94. It should be 'Appleton' or 'Oshkosh'.
Mike
95 in Rhode Island mostly has good control cities, but sometimes they sign smaller towns on regular interchanges (I think so, I saw one on google maps) instead of long-distance cities (also, when I was younger, before I knew that control cities should be faraway destinations, I thought that 195 signing NYC for 95 south was a bit strange)
Pennsylvania's drive me up a wall. The most obscene, although this is a high bar, is probably Port Matilda on I-99.
If I had my way, it would go like this:
I-70 (west portion) - EB: Pittsburgh, Greensburg/Harrisburg. WB: Washington/Columbus, Wheeling/Columbus
I-70 (east portion) - EB: Hagerstown/Washington. WB: Pittsburgh
I-76 - EB: Pittsburgh, Harrisburg/Washington, Harrisburg, Philadelphia/NYC, Philadelphia, Atlantic City. WB: Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, Cleveland
(I-176 - NB: Reading, SB: Philadelphia)
(I-276 - EB: NYC, WB: Harrisburg)
(I-376 - EB: Pittsburgh, Downtown/Altoona, Altoona. WB: Pittsburgh, Downtown/Youngstown, Youngstown, New Castle, Sharon)
(I-476 - NB: Allentown, Scranton, Syracuse. SB: Allentown/Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Wilmington/Washington)
I-78- EB: Allentown/NYC, NYC. WB: Allentown, Harrisburg
I-80 - EB: State College/NYC, Williamsport/NYC, Scranton/NYC, NYC. WB: Scranton/Pittsburgh, State College/Pittsburgh, Youngstown/Cleveland
(I-180 - EB: Harrisburg/NYC. WB: Williamsport)
(I-380 - NB: Scranton. SB: NYC)
I-84 - EB: Port Jervis/Hartford, Newburgh/Hartford. WB: Scranton
I-86 - EB: Binghamton. WB: Erie
I-90 - EB: Erie/Buffalo, Buffalo. WB: Erie/Cleveland, Cleveland
I-79 - NB: Pittsburgh, Erie. SB: Pittsburgh, Morgantown
(I-279 - NB: North Hills, Erie, SB: Pittsburgh, Downtown)
(I-579 - NB: North Hills/Erie, SB: South Hills/Altoona)
I-81 - NB: Harrisburg, Scranton/NYC, Scranton, Binghamton/Syracuse. SB: Scranton/NYC, Harrisburg, Hagerstown
I-83 - NB: Harrisburg, Scranton/NYC. SB: Baltimore
(I-283 - NB: Harrisburg, SB: Philadelphia)
I-95 - NB: Philadelphia, Trenton/NYC, NYC. SB: Philadelphia, Wilmington/Washington
(I-295 - NB: Trenton, SB: Philadelphia)
I-99 - NB: Altoona, State College/NYC, Williamsport/NYC. SB: State College/Pittsburgh, Altoona/Pittsburgh, Bedford
Quote from: TheRhodeGeek on September 01, 2023, 04:21:32 PM
95 in Rhode Island mostly has good control cities, but sometimes they sign smaller towns on regular interchanges (I think so, I saw one on google maps) instead of long-distance cities (also, when I was younger, before I knew that control cities should be faraway destinations, I thought that 195 signing NYC for 95 south was a bit strange)
If I ran a state DOT, I would use the following formula for signing control cities:
<Local City>
<Distant Destination City>
I am flexible for defining the "Distant Destination City" but I would personally use the next major hub.
Here are a couple of examples:
If you're crossing the international border onto I-89 South in Vermont then your control cities would be Burlington and Boston. If you're leaving Boston on I-93 North then your control cities should be Manchester, NH and Montreal. If you're crossing the international border on I-91 South in Vermont, your control cities are White River Junction and New York City. At I-91's start in New Haven, I would sign Springfield and Montreal. I would even sign Boston as far north as the beginning of I-95 in northern Maine. The harder thing is what to sign as the distant control city on I-95 north of Portland, Maine.
On the other end of the BosWash corridor, you could clean up a lot of NCDOT's mess. South of Richmond, Fayetteville is the local control city while Miami is the distant control city. South of Fayetteville, it switches to Savannah. South of Savannah, it switches to Jacksonville...you get the point.
Interesting that you think Florence should be skipped.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 10, 2022, 03:02:23 PM
Honestly, it'd be really easy to make a nice Kansas flag. Just keep the blue background and stick a yellow K shield (with no number) in the middle of it. Done.
I don't know. It looks kind of like the Ukrainian version of the Japanese flag.
(https://i.imgur.com/Ti65wtO.png)
And all that work, just to do a little bit of research and see that Kansas has a state banner, which may or may not be an official alternative to the flag, I'm getting opposing claims. But I'm too hot to care too much right now due to my broken air conditioning, the technician for which is currently about an hour late.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Flag_of_Kansas_%281925%E2%80%931927%29.svg)
That second one is perfect.
If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.
Quote from: ran4sh on September 02, 2023, 11:14:56 PM
Interesting that you think Florence should be skipped.
It's probably the only notable point in SC directly along I-95 but it's a small city with 40,000. There's a good argument for signing Charleston though until the I-26 interchange since it's a notable point (for both economic and historical reasons). But that opens a can of worms as to whether or not an interstate should reach a city for it to reach control city status.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 24, 2023, 11:39:34 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on September 02, 2023, 11:14:56 PM
Interesting that you think Florence should be skipped.
It's probably the only notable point in SC directly along I-95 but it's a small city with 40,000. There's a good argument for signing Charleston though until the I-26 interchange since it's a notable point (for both economic and historical reasons). But that opens a can of worms as to whether or not an interstate should reach a city for it to reach control city status.
I mean, Huntsville's the control city for I-65 when going south from Nashville or north from Birmingham, and this city doesn't, at least in any meaningful capacity*, exist on I-65 itself, but rather on I-565.
(*the city limits technically extend across I-65 at two different points (https://maps.huntsvilleal.gov/citylimits/), thanks to all kinds of land the city's been annexing out in Limestone County, but you wouldn't really know that you're within the Huntsville city limits at either point. Plus, I ain't sure that Huntsville's city limits even reached I-65 when this city became a control city for I-65, though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that)
I'm not a fan of Lake City in Florida, especially for I-10. I know it's an interstate junction, but putting Jacksonville on an eastbound sign in Tallahassee is not going to confuse the driver who's ultimately heading for Tampa or Orlando. Likewise, putting Tallahassee on a westbound sign in Jacksonville shouldn't be confusing to people who plan to exit on I-75 up into Georgia.
Quote from: mgk920 on September 01, 2023, 01:56:30 PM
IMHO, the worst control city on a Wisconsin interstate is 'Fond du Lac' for NB I-41 on the approach to the Zoo interchange in Milwaukee on I-94. It should be 'Appleton' or 'Oshkosh'.
Mike
I am curious as to why you think FDL is not a good control. It's at the start of the inland Fox Valley cities (I include it because Lake Winnebago is an inlet of the Fox). While I think Oshkosh or Appleton would look great as opposed to FDL, I don't think it is a bad control.
Quote from: hobsini2 on September 30, 2023, 03:36:02 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 01, 2023, 01:56:30 PM
IMHO, the worst control city on a Wisconsin interstate is 'Fond du Lac' for NB I-41 on the approach to the Zoo interchange in Milwaukee on I-94. It should be 'Appleton' or 'Oshkosh'.
Mike
I am curious as to why you think FDL is not a good control. It's at the start of the inland Fox Valley cities (I include it because Lake Winnebago is an inlet of the Fox). While I think Oshkosh or Appleton would look great as opposed to FDL, I don't think it is a bad control.
Colloquially FdL is not considered part of the Fox Valley regardless of the geography. But you are right - it is absolutely fine as a control city since the purpose of control cities to indicate the right direction at an interchange. And it certainly is well known enough to serve that purpose.
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2023, 06:29:55 PM
If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.
What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?
Quote from: cwf1701 on October 01, 2023, 10:00:21 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2023, 06:29:55 PM
If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.
What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?
It's 50/50. It does take you to the Ambassador Bridge that leads you into Canada but at the same time it is misleading because if you see Canada you would assume that it takes you to the border with no other option to remain in the USA like in Port Huron and Sault Ste. Marie but those signs are at the last exit before the border. In this case the control city should be Toledo because EB I-96 just empties into SB I-75 which has the control city of Toledo, it could also still say DOWNTOWN Detroit like at the Southfield Freeway interchange.
Quote from: cwf1701 on October 01, 2023, 10:00:21 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2023, 06:29:55 PM
If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.
What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?
For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe. Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge). They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.
For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing. Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead? Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor. This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing. These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.
After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented. I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls are posted and motorists can decide on their options there. Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option? It more than likely would help, I believe.
Quote from: amroad17 on October 01, 2023, 10:52:30 PM
Quote from: cwf1701 on October 01, 2023, 10:00:21 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2023, 06:29:55 PM
If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.
What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?
For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe. Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge). They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.
For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing. Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead? Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor. This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing. These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.
After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented. I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls are posted and motorists can decide on their options there. Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option? It more than likely would help, I believe.
Since the Mackinac Bridge connects both peninsulas you are automatically going to know what direction you are heading if you see Mackinac Bridge. Saginaw which is where I live is the first significant city along I-75 going south so that is why it's signed so far north.
We know why Canada is used on I-96 but it doesn't matter that it leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing, there are exits before you get to the border that do not lead to Canada, using Canada there tells you that the route takes you to Canada with no option to remain in the USA. Within the city of Detroit the control city is DOWNTOWN Detroit like at the Southfield interchange and that would be fine as I-75 north would indeed take you to DOWNTOWN Detroit.
Using TO I-75 for WB I-94 doesn't make that much sense considering that I-94 has already had it's interchange with I-75 at that point. Maybe a TO South I-75 sign would make more sense. Still though Toledo should really be the control city there. They use Bridge to Canada on the signs leading up to the interchange then just Canada at the interchange.
Quote from: amroad17 on October 01, 2023, 10:52:30 PM
Quote from: cwf1701 on October 01, 2023, 10:00:21 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2023, 06:29:55 PM
If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.
What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?
For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe. Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge). They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.
For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing. Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead? Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor. This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing. These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.
After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented. I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls are posted and motorists can decide on their options there. Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option? It more than likely would help, I believe.
I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 01, 2023, 11:18:29 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on October 01, 2023, 10:52:30 PM
Quote from: cwf1701 on October 01, 2023, 10:00:21 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2023, 06:29:55 PM
If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.
What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?
For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe. Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge). They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.
For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing. Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead? Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor. This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing. These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.
After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented. I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls are posted and motorists can decide on their options there. Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option? It more than likely would help, I believe.
I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.
At the I-87/A-15 and the I-89/QC 133 (Future A-35) crossings, Montreal is the correct control city to sign as both A-15 and QC 133 (along with the completed portion of A-35) provide a direct route from the USA to Montreal. There is not a direct route to Toronto or Ottawa from any of the major crossings in Detroit, Port Huron, Buffalo, Niagara Falls, or Thousand Islands. Connections between routes have to be made to get to Toronto or Ottawa, save the future Gordie Howe Bridge crossing which would be a direct route to Toronto from I-75 in Detroit.
It does not appear that Canada signs any particular USA 🇺🇸 control cities either. Usually the signs read "Bridge to USA" or a plain "USA", except for one on the QEW that is signed "Buffalo" (top line) "USA" (bottom line).
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52020193680_b8decf24a6_c.jpg)
Located on I-40 WB in Benson, NC.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52020193680_b8decf24a6_c.jpg (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52020193680_b8decf24a6_c.jpg)https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52020193680_b8decf24a6_c.jpg
These should be Fayetteville and Wilson ( or Rocky Mount). Benson is the place this intersection is located and Smithfield is the county seat of Johnston County where this junction is located.
This is how you sign a local highway from an interstate. Not a long distance interstate like I-95.
Assuming that it really is the westbound (and not eastbound) sign, it would be mostly local traffic exiting to I-95 at this point anyway. Traffic from, say, Wilmington, if they were going north on I-95, would have used I-795, and if going south on I-95, would have used US 74.
But I agree that those are not good choices for control cities.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/UJR4MAHZBP557dL17
EB even uses Benson, which was surpassed by the previous exit. However Rocky Mount is used here instead of Smithfield. Here you get a lot heading south along I-95, so Fayetteville is more suitable.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 01, 2023, 11:18:29 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on October 01, 2023, 10:52:30 PM
Quote from: cwf1701 on October 01, 2023, 10:00:21 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2023, 06:29:55 PM
If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.
What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?
For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe. Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge). They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.
For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing. Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead? Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor. This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing. These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.
After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented. I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls are posted and motorists can decide on their options there. Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option? It more than likely would help, I believe.
I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.
I don't think I'd want to see Toronto there. Most of the traffic there is heading toward the bridge so Canada works fine but if a city should be used it should be Toledo. Like I said before using Canada makes you think that you are heading to the border without a chance to remain in the USA. They do have signs in yellow and black lettering that says NO REENTRY TO USA.
Quote from: amroad17 on October 02, 2023, 01:01:36 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 01, 2023, 11:18:29 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on October 01, 2023, 10:52:30 PM
Quote from: cwf1701 on October 01, 2023, 10:00:21 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2023, 06:29:55 PM
If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.
What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?
For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe. Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge). They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.
For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing. Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead? Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor. This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing. These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.
After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented. I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls are posted and motorists can decide on their options there. Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option? It more than likely would help, I believe.
I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.
At the I-87/A-15 and the I-89/QC 133 (Future A-35) crossings, Montreal is the correct control city to sign as both A-15 and QC 133 (along with the completed portion of A-35) provide a direct route from the USA to Montreal. There is not a direct route to Toronto or Ottawa from any of the major crossings in Detroit, Port Huron, Buffalo, Niagara Falls, or Thousand Islands. Connections between routes have to be made to get to Toronto or Ottawa, save the future Gordie Howe Bridge crossing which would be a direct route to Toronto from I-75 in Detroit.
It does not appear that Canada signs any particular USA 🇺🇸 control cities either. Usually the signs read "Bridge to USA" or a plain "USA", except for one on the QEW that is signed "Buffalo" (top line) "USA" (bottom line).
Once you get across the border and into Windsor you take 401 to Toronto so it's not as out of the way to get to that highway as you would think. But yes once the GHB is opened it will be a direct connection without having to travel through city streets in Windsor to get to 401 which is how you currently have to do it with the Ambassador Bridge.
In Canada's case at least going into Michigan they have larger cities at the border crossings such as Windsor, Sarnia and Sault Ste. Marie so using those cities makes sense for them. But yeah Bridge to USA is used or Tunnel to USA in the case of the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel.
They use Bridge to Canada on the signs leading up to the I-96 interchange on I-94 but once your at the interchange it's shortened to just Canada.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 02, 2023, 02:28:10 AM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52020193680_b8decf24a6_c.jpg)
Located on I-40 WB in Benson, NC.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52020193680_b8decf24a6_c.jpg (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52020193680_b8decf24a6_c.jpg)https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52020193680_b8decf24a6_c.jpg
These should be Fayetteville and Wilson ( or Rocky Mount). Benson is the place this intersection is located and Smithfield is the county seat of Johnston County where this junction is located.
This is how you sign a local highway from an interstate. Not a long distance interstate like I-95.
IMO it should be Fayetteville for SB and Richmond, VA for NB.
Quote from: amroad17 on October 02, 2023, 01:01:36 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 01, 2023, 11:18:29 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on October 01, 2023, 10:52:30 PM
Quote from: cwf1701 on October 01, 2023, 10:00:21 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2023, 06:29:55 PM
If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.
What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?
For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe. Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge). They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.
For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing. Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead? Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor. This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing. These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.
After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented. I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls are posted and motorists can decide on their options there. Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option? It more than likely would help, I believe.
I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.
At the I-87/A-15 and the I-89/QC 133 (Future A-35) crossings, Montreal is the correct control city to sign as both A-15 and QC 133 (along with the completed portion of A-35) provide a direct route from the USA to Montreal. There is not a direct route to Toronto or Ottawa from any of the major crossings in Detroit, Port Huron, Buffalo, Niagara Falls, or Thousand Islands. Connections between routes have to be made to get to Toronto or Ottawa, save the future Gordie Howe Bridge crossing which would be a direct route to Toronto from I-75 in Detroit.
It does not appear that Canada signs any particular USA 🇺🇸 control cities either. Usually the signs read "Bridge to USA" or a plain "USA", except for one on the QEW that is signed "Buffalo" (top line) "USA" (bottom line).
It wouldn't be the first control city to not have a direct route. I-84 doesn't go to Boston, I-80 doesn't go to NYC, and I-40 and I-15 don't go to Los Angeles but if you're a driver who needs to know how to get somewhere, those signs are helpful for getting you there.
Detroit to Toronto/Montreal is as direct as any of the routes I mentioned above, it's a straight drive up Highway 401 (which you pickup just south of Windsor).
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 02, 2023, 08:03:24 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on October 02, 2023, 01:01:36 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 01, 2023, 11:18:29 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on October 01, 2023, 10:52:30 PM
Quote from: cwf1701 on October 01, 2023, 10:00:21 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2023, 06:29:55 PM
If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.
What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?
For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe. Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge). They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.
For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing. Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead? Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor. This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing. These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.
After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented. I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls are posted and motorists can decide on their options there. Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option? It more than likely would help, I believe.
I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.
At the I-87/A-15 and the I-89/QC 133 (Future A-35) crossings, Montreal is the correct control city to sign as both A-15 and QC 133 (along with the completed portion of A-35) provide a direct route from the USA to Montreal. There is not a direct route to Toronto or Ottawa from any of the major crossings in Detroit, Port Huron, Buffalo, Niagara Falls, or Thousand Islands. Connections between routes have to be made to get to Toronto or Ottawa, save the future Gordie Howe Bridge crossing which would be a direct route to Toronto from I-75 in Detroit.
It does not appear that Canada signs any particular USA 🇺🇸 control cities either. Usually the signs read "Bridge to USA" or a plain "USA", except for one on the QEW that is signed "Buffalo" (top line) "USA" (bottom line).
Once you get across the border and into Windsor you take 401 to Toronto so it's not as out of the way to get to that highway as you would think. But yes once the GHB is opened it will be a direct connection without having to travel through city streets in Windsor to get to 401 which is how you currently have to do it with the Ambassador Bridge.
In Canada's case at least going into Michigan they have larger cities at the border crossings such as Windsor, Sarnia and Sault Ste. Marie so using those cities makes sense for them. But yeah Bridge to USA is used or Tunnel to USA in the case of the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel.
They use Bridge to Canada on the signs leading up to the I-96 interchange on I-94 but once your at the interchange it's shortened to just Canada.
Washington signs I-5 North as "Vancouver B.C", and last time I was in BC, BC-99 South was signed "USA Border" and/or "Peace Arch". I always thought that "Toronto, ON" would have been a great Control City for all 3 Interstates that head to Ontario, rather than just "Canada". Perhaps with the New Bridge being directly connect to KH-401, which is a direct shot to Toronto, MDOT might consider signing the connections to it as "Toronto, ON".
Howabout something in the Detroit area being signed with 'Windsor/Toronto' as the control?
Mike
In my drives around the international border (Detroiit, Buffalo, and many places east of the Great Lakes, "Canada" by itself did not make me think I was going to Canada wo any other option --- it was more like "Canada ONLY".
Likewise in places in Quebec north of the border but close to it, I remember seeing local intersections where "USA" was used as a control point, but going that way did not mean you were exclusively going to USA. If "ONLY" was added, that was a different story.
OTOH, I remember the signage on US 11 north of US 2 north of Rouses Point NY not being very clear on this. When I went that way, I almost immediately passed a building on the left (which apparently was US Customs but I did not think that). I very suddenly entered Canada (I remember there was an at-grade RR crossing there) and made a U-turn just north of the border (wo going to Canadian Customs), and then when I came back south, had to explain to the US Customs people what I had done. This was 1994 (pre-9/11 obviuosly) but it took about 15 minutes of explaining before they believed me.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 02, 2023, 07:57:16 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 01, 2023, 11:18:29 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on October 01, 2023, 10:52:30 PM
Quote from: cwf1701 on October 01, 2023, 10:00:21 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2023, 06:29:55 PM
If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.
What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?
For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe. Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge). They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.
For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing. Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead? Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor. This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing. These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.
After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented. I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls are posted and motorists can decide on their options there. Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option? It more than likely would help, I believe.
I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.
I don't think I'd want to see Toronto there. Most of the traffic there is heading toward the bridge so Canada works fine but if a city should be used it should be Toledo. Like I said before using Canada makes you think that you are heading to the border without a chance to remain in the USA. They do have signs in yellow and black lettering that says NO REENTRY TO USA.
When people north of Saginaw see the control "city" of Mackinac Bridge, do they similarly assume that there's no exit between where they are and the Bridge?
The I-94 exit to I-96 shouldn't use "DOWNTOWN" as a control city because it doesn't go to downtown. If you were traveling EB on I-94, it would make more sense to stay on 94 and then take the Lodge to downtown - because even if you took I-96 eb to I-75 nb, you'd still have to get onto the Lodge to go downtown. If you were WB, you already passed downtown.
EDIT: As far as signing it for Toledo, if you're coming wb on I-94 you'd have already taken I-75. If you were coming eb on I-94, it probably would have made more sense to go the opposite way to the Southfield or to I-275 - not heading further into Detroit before heading back sw to Toledo.
Quote from: TEG24601 on October 02, 2023, 11:07:43 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 02, 2023, 08:03:24 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on October 02, 2023, 01:01:36 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 01, 2023, 11:18:29 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on October 01, 2023, 10:52:30 PM
Quote from: cwf1701 on October 01, 2023, 10:00:21 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2023, 06:29:55 PM
If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.
What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?
For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe. Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge). They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.
For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing. Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead? Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor. This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing. These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.
After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented. I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls are posted and motorists can decide on their options there. Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option? It more than likely would help, I believe.
I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.
At the I-87/A-15 and the I-89/QC 133 (Future A-35) crossings, Montreal is the correct control city to sign as both A-15 and QC 133 (along with the completed portion of A-35) provide a direct route from the USA to Montreal. There is not a direct route to Toronto or Ottawa from any of the major crossings in Detroit, Port Huron, Buffalo, Niagara Falls, or Thousand Islands. Connections between routes have to be made to get to Toronto or Ottawa, save the future Gordie Howe Bridge crossing which would be a direct route to Toronto from I-75 in Detroit.
It does not appear that Canada signs any particular USA 🇺🇸 control cities either. Usually the signs read "Bridge to USA" or a plain "USA", except for one on the QEW that is signed "Buffalo" (top line) "USA" (bottom line).
Once you get across the border and into Windsor you take 401 to Toronto so it's not as out of the way to get to that highway as you would think. But yes once the GHB is opened it will be a direct connection without having to travel through city streets in Windsor to get to 401 which is how you currently have to do it with the Ambassador Bridge.
In Canada's case at least going into Michigan they have larger cities at the border crossings such as Windsor, Sarnia and Sault Ste. Marie so using those cities makes sense for them. But yeah Bridge to USA is used or Tunnel to USA in the case of the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel.
They use Bridge to Canada on the signs leading up to the I-96 interchange on I-94 but once your at the interchange it's shortened to just Canada.
Washington signs I-5 North as "Vancouver B.C", and last time I was in BC, BC-99 South was signed "USA Border" and/or "Peace Arch". I always thought that "Toronto, ON" would have been a great Control City for all 3 Interstates that head to Ontario, rather than just "Canada". Perhaps with the New Bridge being directly connect to KH-401, which is a direct shot to Toronto, MDOT might consider signing the connections to it as "Toronto, ON".
MDOT will just use Bridge to Canada like they always have.
Quote from: GaryV on October 02, 2023, 03:00:03 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 02, 2023, 07:57:16 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 01, 2023, 11:18:29 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on October 01, 2023, 10:52:30 PM
Quote from: cwf1701 on October 01, 2023, 10:00:21 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2023, 06:29:55 PM
If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.
What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?
For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe. Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge). They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.
For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing. Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead? Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor. This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing. These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.
After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented. I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls are posted and motorists can decide on their options there. Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option? It more than likely would help, I believe.
I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.
I don't think I'd want to see Toronto there. Most of the traffic there is heading toward the bridge so Canada works fine but if a city should be used it should be Toledo. Like I said before using Canada makes you think that you are heading to the border without a chance to remain in the USA. They do have signs in yellow and black lettering that says NO REENTRY TO USA.
When people north of Saginaw see the control "city" of Mackinac Bridge, do they similarly assume that there's no exit between where they are and the Bridge?
The I-94 exit to I-96 shouldn't use "DOWNTOWN" as a control city because it doesn't go to downtown. If you were traveling EB on I-94, it would make more sense to stay on 94 and then take the Lodge to downtown - because even if you took I-96 eb to I-75 nb, you'd still have to get onto the Lodge to go downtown. If you were WB, you already passed downtown.
EDIT: As far as signing it for Toledo, if you're coming wb on I-94 you'd have already taken I-75. If you were coming eb on I-94, it probably would have made more sense to go the opposite way to the Southfield or to I-275 - not heading further into Detroit before heading back sw to Toledo.
No, why would they? Crossing the Mackinac Bridge by mistake is a lot different than crossing the Ambassador Bridge by mistake.
It doesn't matter what freeway you use to get downtown. Downtown Detroit is a control city on I-96 already so using that does make sense.
You don't necessarily have to use I-75 to get to the freeway that takes you to Toledo even with that freeway being I-75, you could use the Lodge to get to the Fisher south, you could also use the Jeffries and I-275, you could even use US-23 if you wanted to.
The control city on NB I-75 north of Saginaw should be Sault Ste. Marie screw it I made up my mind and think that should be the control city instead of Mackinac Bridge and Saginaw should be the control city starting in Sault Ste. Marie.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 02, 2023, 08:05:51 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 02, 2023, 02:28:10 AM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52020193680_b8decf24a6_c.jpg)
Located on I-40 WB in Benson, NC.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52020193680_b8decf24a6_c.jpg (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52020193680_b8decf24a6_c.jpg)https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52020193680_b8decf24a6_c.jpg
These should be Fayetteville and Wilson ( or Rocky Mount). Benson is the place this intersection is located and Smithfield is the county seat of Johnston County where this junction is located.
This is how you sign a local highway from an interstate. Not a long distance interstate like I-95.
IMO it should be Fayetteville for SB and Richmond, VA for NB.
I'd rather use Petersburg instead of Richmond at that point since it's the next major interstate-to-interstate junction on I-95. Southbound should be Fayetteville since you're basically already IN Benson at this point.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 01, 2023, 11:18:29 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on October 01, 2023, 10:52:30 PM
Quote from: cwf1701 on October 01, 2023, 10:00:21 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2023, 06:29:55 PM
If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.
What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?
For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe. Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge). They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.
For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing. Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead? Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor. This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing. These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.
After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented. I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls are posted and motorists can decide on their options there. Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option? It more than likely would help, I believe.
I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.
It just seems too far away to sign Toronto (and definitely too far for Montreal). I think Canada or Ontario is more appropriate, even if long distance traffic is headed to Toronto.
After driving to Sault Ste. Marie today I figure that Saginaw to Sault Ste. Marie is quite a distance between two control cities. If you wanted to use a control city on I-75 in the northern lower peinisula Gaylord would probably be the best choice but that city is pretty small, exit 282 is a major interchange on I-75 though but still Mackinac Bridge works fine here. I just think that an actual city should be used more often when you can use one. One control city I hate is Delaware Water Gap on I-80 in PA.
Quote from: jt4 on October 03, 2023, 04:10:23 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 01, 2023, 11:18:29 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on October 01, 2023, 10:52:30 PM
Quote from: cwf1701 on October 01, 2023, 10:00:21 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2023, 06:29:55 PM
If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.
What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?
For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe. Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge). They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.
For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing. Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead? Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor. This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing. These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.
After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented. I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls are posted and motorists can decide on their options there. Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option? It more than likely would help, I believe.
I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.
It just seems too far away to sign Toronto (and definitely too far for Montreal). I think Canada or Ontario is more appropriate, even if long distance traffic is headed to Toronto.
Detroit to Toronto is only 230 miles, which is only ~10 miles farther apart than Albany and Montreal. 230 miles seems the right distance to be helpful to long distance traffic.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 04, 2023, 12:29:15 AM
Quote from: jt4 on October 03, 2023, 04:10:23 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 01, 2023, 11:18:29 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on October 01, 2023, 10:52:30 PM
Quote from: cwf1701 on October 01, 2023, 10:00:21 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2023, 06:29:55 PM
If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.
What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?
For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe. Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge). They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.
For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing. Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead? Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor. This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing. These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.
After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented. I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls are posted and motorists can decide on their options there. Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option? It more than likely would help, I believe.
I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.
It just seems too far away to sign Toronto (and definitely too far for Montreal). I think Canada or Ontario is more appropriate, even if long distance traffic is headed to Toronto.
Detroit to Toronto is only 230 miles, which is only ~10 miles farther apart than Albany and Montreal. 230 miles seems the right distance to be helpful to long distance traffic.
Why would MDOT use Toronto when Ontario doesn't even use Toronto once you are in Canada until you get to London? London is the control city on 401 going east of Windsor. Also NYSDOT and MDOT are two different agencies in two different states.
How does anyone here know exactly how much traffic crossing the border in Detroit and Port Huron are actually headed to Toronto? You don't think that some of that traffic has stops before Toronto and isn't heading to Toronto? Or how about traffic with enhanced drivers licenses crossing the border to take a short cut to get to Buffalo? Yes Toronto is the largest city in Canada and yes some of that traffic is heading there but not all of it.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 04, 2023, 11:49:51 AM
How does anyone here know exactly how much traffic crossing the border in Detroit and Port Huron are actually headed to Toronto? You don't think that some of that traffic has stops before Toronto and isn't heading to Toronto? Or how about traffic with enhanced drivers licenses crossing the border to take a short cut to get to Buffalo? Yes Toronto is the largest city in Canada and yes some of that traffic is heading there but not all of it.
Isn't that not all traffic on a road is heading to the control city common though? Like I-55 NB from Memphis is signed for St Louis (50 miles longer than Detroit to Toronto), but a good portion of long distance traffic leave I-55 to get on I-57 well before St Louis. Same with I-55 NB signing Chicago from St Louis; I-39 is a common veer-off mid-way. So in that case, signing Toronto from Detroit isn't too out of the ordinary.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 03, 2023, 09:12:39 PM
I just think that an actual city should be used more often when you can use one. One control city I hate is Delaware Water Gap on I-80 in PA.
To be clear, Delaware Water Gap is the name of a actual small town, it's the last town in PA as you go east. PA 611 goes through it. When you are there you are looking down at the I-80 bridge over the Delaware River.
The juxtaposition of the two sentences in what I quoted above --- makes me unsure if DWG is being viewed here as "just" a natural feature (which it also is) and not also a town, or if the problem is that it is not a big city (true). Or is the problem really that the control city isn't "New York City" to tie into a lot of other posts I have seen in these forums.
Quote from: tmoore952 on October 04, 2023, 02:44:05 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 03, 2023, 09:12:39 PM
I just think that an actual city should be used more often when you can use one. One control city I hate is Delaware Water Gap on I-80 in PA.
To be clear, Delaware Water Gap is the name of a actual small town, it's the last town in PA as you go east. PA 611 goes through it. When you are there you are looking down at the I-80 bridge over the Delaware River.
The juxtaposition of the two sentences in what I quoted above --- makes me unsure if DWG is being viewed here as "just" a natural feature (which it also is) and not also a town, or if the problem is that it is not a big city (true). Or is the problem really that the control city isn't "New York City" to tie into a lot of other posts I have seen in these forums.
They are obviously not referring to the small town on the river when they use that they are referring to the actual water gap where I-80 goes into New Jersey.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 04, 2023, 03:16:53 PM
Quote from: tmoore952 on October 04, 2023, 02:44:05 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 03, 2023, 09:12:39 PM
I just think that an actual city should be used more often when you can use one. One control city I hate is Delaware Water Gap on I-80 in PA.
To be clear, Delaware Water Gap is the name of a actual small town, it's the last town in PA as you go east. PA 611 goes through it. When you are there you are looking down at the I-80 bridge over the Delaware River.
The juxtaposition of the two sentences in what I quoted above --- makes me unsure if DWG is being viewed here as "just" a natural feature (which it also is) and not also a town, or if the problem is that it is not a big city (true). Or is the problem really that the control city isn't "New York City" to tie into a lot of other posts I have seen in these forums.
They are obviously not referring to the small town on the river when they use that they are referring to the actual water gap where I-80 goes into New Jersey.
Not according to the mileage sign ( yes there is one on I-80 near Hope, as NJ don't like usually don't like to erect them) where it reads Columbia 7 and Delaware Water Gap 11. If it were the natural cut in the Kinatiny Mountain the difference between the two would be of 3 miles.
FYI, both Columbia and the Village of Delaware Water Gap are 4 miles apart.
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 04, 2023, 12:49:54 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 04, 2023, 11:49:51 AM
How does anyone here know exactly how much traffic crossing the border in Detroit and Port Huron are actually headed to Toronto? You don't think that some of that traffic has stops before Toronto and isn't heading to Toronto? Or how about traffic with enhanced drivers licenses crossing the border to take a short cut to get to Buffalo? Yes Toronto is the largest city in Canada and yes some of that traffic is heading there but not all of it.
Isn't that not all traffic on a road is heading to the control city common though? Like I-55 NB from Memphis is signed for St Louis (50 miles longer than Detroit to Toronto), but a good portion of long distance traffic leave I-55 to get on I-57 well before St Louis. Same with I-55 NB signing Chicago from St Louis; I-39 is a common veer-off mid-way. So in that case, signing Toronto from Detroit isn't too out of the ordinary.
The problem here is that Toronto is in another country and just using the country is fine because there are only 4 (about to be 5) crossings to get to Canada from Michigan. EB I-96 funnels into SB I-75 though so using Toledo wouldn't hurt anything.
In the example you used, St. Louis is the next logical choice on NB I-55, some of that traffic is headed for St. Louis too but yes I-57 gets the Chicago bound traffic well before I-55 gets to St. Louis. I think New York would probably sign Toronto but I know Michigan well and know that they do a pretty good job with control cities so it's not a big deal that they use Canada, if it was the last exit before you got to the border there would be a black on yellow sign letting you know that it's the last exit before fare. And like I said earlier Ontario doesn't even use Toronto between Windsor and London, they use London.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 04, 2023, 03:22:46 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 04, 2023, 03:16:53 PM
Quote from: tmoore952 on October 04, 2023, 02:44:05 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 03, 2023, 09:12:39 PM
I just think that an actual city should be used more often when you can use one. One control city I hate is Delaware Water Gap on I-80 in PA.
To be clear, Delaware Water Gap is the name of a actual small town, it's the last town in PA as you go east. PA 611 goes through it. When you are there you are looking down at the I-80 bridge over the Delaware River.
The juxtaposition of the two sentences in what I quoted above --- makes me unsure if DWG is being viewed here as "just" a natural feature (which it also is) and not also a town, or if the problem is that it is not a big city (true). Or is the problem really that the control city isn't "New York City" to tie into a lot of other posts I have seen in these forums.
They are obviously not referring to the small town on the river when they use that they are referring to the actual water gap where I-80 goes into New Jersey.
Not according to the mileage sign ( yes there is one on I-80 near Hope, as NJ don't like usually don't like to erect them) where it reads Columbia 7 and Delaware Water Gap 11. If it were the natural cut in the Kinatiny Mountain the difference between the two would be of 3 miles.
FYI, both Columbia and the Village of Delaware Water Gap are 4 miles apart.
Yep right here. https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9291999,-74.9716601,3a,15y,303.51h,91.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siCDiXfCXIKruaXnFfngcqw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
While I was looking for it I passed mile marker 11.4 and this sign is about a tenth of a mile past that Columbia is 4.6 miles to the bridge which is exactly what they are referring to when they say Delaware Water Gap, the gap is the Delaware River.
In Hackettstown there is a mileage sign on US 46 that lists Delaware Water Gap as 25 miles out prior to NJ 182. Yet in Vienna it's 23 miles out on another sign.
The NJ 182 junction and Vienna are far more than 2 miles apart. So one must be for the natural phenomenon and the other for the town.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 04, 2023, 03:32:18 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 04, 2023, 03:22:46 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 04, 2023, 03:16:53 PM
Quote from: tmoore952 on October 04, 2023, 02:44:05 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 03, 2023, 09:12:39 PM
I just think that an actual city should be used more often when you can use one. One control city I hate is Delaware Water Gap on I-80 in PA.
To be clear, Delaware Water Gap is the name of a actual small town, it's the last town in PA as you go east. PA 611 goes through it. When you are there you are looking down at the I-80 bridge over the Delaware River.
The juxtaposition of the two sentences in what I quoted above --- makes me unsure if DWG is being viewed here as "just" a natural feature (which it also is) and not also a town, or if the problem is that it is not a big city (true). Or is the problem really that the control city isn't "New York City" to tie into a lot of other posts I have seen in these forums.
They are obviously not referring to the small town on the river when they use that they are referring to the actual water gap where I-80 goes into New Jersey.
Not according to the mileage sign ( yes there is one on I-80 near Hope, as NJ don't like usually don't like to erect them) where it reads Columbia 7 and Delaware Water Gap 11. If it were the natural cut in the Kinatiny Mountain the difference between the two would be of 3 miles.
FYI, both Columbia and the Village of Delaware Water Gap are 4 miles apart.
Yep right here. https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9291999,-74.9716601,3a,15y,303.51h,91.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siCDiXfCXIKruaXnFfngcqw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
While I was looking for it I passed mile marker 11.4 and this sign is about a tenth of a mile past that Columbia is 4.6 miles to the bridge which is exactly what they are referring to when they say Delaware Water Gap, the gap is the Delaware River.
Well I just got finished saying in my earlier post that the town of Delaware Water Gap is right above where the bridge goes into NJ (when coming from PA side) or into PA (when coming from NJ side). They are close enough that I would bet you could get from one to the other and still be within the mileage stated by the sign.
How can you say "they are obviously...." or "they are not obviously" referring to the town or the "natural feature"? It isn't obvious (or not obvious) to me at all, given how close these two locations are. It seems a little ambiguous without some official documentation.
Another thing that bothers me here is that "Delaware Water Gap" as signed in NJ on I-80 might be for the bridge and/or the natural feature (or maybe the parking area along I-80 that I used to park at to start hikes), and may not necessarily be the same as "Delaware Water Gap" as signed in PA on I-80, which could be for either the town or the bridge (I doubt it is for anything in NJ). There have been tons of discussions here about how PA signs "in-state" for control locations on I-80, and there IS a town there. Why would NJ sign for a small PA town? (to be honest with you, I thought about this when I would drive up there in the 1980s (from Trenton area) to hike and/or visit my then-girlfriend who went to East Stroudsburg University).
Also, in the post I responded to, it says "One control city I hate is Delaware Water Gap on I-80 in PA". So I talked about this from a PA perspective. And then the mileage sign that is put up is from the NJ side. See the preceding paragraph.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 04, 2023, 03:16:53 PM
They are obviously not referring to the small town on the river when they use that they are referring to the actual water gap where I-80 goes into New Jersey.
Quote from: tmoore952 on October 04, 2023, 05:43:28 PM
It isn't obvious (or not obvious) to me at all, given how close these two locations are. It seems a little ambiguous without some official documentation.
It's bad either way. Should be Stroudsburg. In Stroudsburg, it should just be NYC. Drop the Gap entirely.
Quote from: kphoger on October 05, 2023, 09:54:33 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 04, 2023, 03:16:53 PM
They are obviously not referring to the small town on the river when they use that they are referring to the actual water gap where I-80 goes into New Jersey.
Quote from: tmoore952 on October 04, 2023, 05:43:28 PM
It isn't obvious (or not obvious) to me at all, given how close these two locations are. It seems a little ambiguous without some official documentation.
It's bad either way. Should be Stroudsburg. In Stroudsburg, it should just be NYC. Drop the Gap entirely.
I've mentioned in here many times before that during a roadtrip a couple of decades ago I was totally flummoxed by New jersey's use of 'Del Water Gap' as the control for WB I-80. At the time, I thought that a much better control would be 'Pennsylvania'.
Mike
Quote from: kphoger on October 05, 2023, 09:54:33 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 04, 2023, 03:16:53 PM
They are obviously not referring to the small town on the river when they use that they are referring to the actual water gap where I-80 goes into New Jersey.
Quote from: tmoore952 on October 04, 2023, 05:43:28 PM
It isn't obvious (or not obvious) to me at all, given how close these two locations are. It seems a little ambiguous without some official documentation.
It's bad either way. Should be Stroudsburg. In Stroudsburg, it should just be NYC. Drop the Gap entirely.
Exactly I agree with this 100%. Stroudsburg is right there and NYC is about an hour and a half away away so that makes sense. Stroudsburg is better than some control cities PA uses. IMO it should be Stroudsburg and Sharon throughout the state, they don't have any cities along I-80 in between worthy of control city status. After Stroudsburg like you said should be NYC.
And to be a bit off subject and not really directed at you but what's with the Begin I-95 signs at the end of I-80 in New Jersey? I-95 doesn't begin there. Should just be an I-80 ends sign and signs to north and south I-95.
Quote from: mgk920 on October 05, 2023, 11:06:00 AM
Quote from: kphoger on October 05, 2023, 09:54:33 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 04, 2023, 03:16:53 PM
They are obviously not referring to the small town on the river when they use that they are referring to the actual water gap where I-80 goes into New Jersey.
Quote from: tmoore952 on October 04, 2023, 05:43:28 PM
It isn't obvious (or not obvious) to me at all, given how close these two locations are. It seems a little ambiguous without some official documentation.
It's bad either way. Should be Stroudsburg. In Stroudsburg, it should just be NYC. Drop the Gap entirely.
I've mentioned in here many times before that during a roadtrip a couple of decades ago I was totally flummoxed by New jersey's use of 'Del Water Gap' as the control for WB I-80. At the time, I thought that a much better control would be 'Pennsylvania'.
Mike
In New Jersey I think it should be Stroudsburg, PA and New York City for I-80.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 05, 2023, 11:45:27 AM
And to be a bit off subject and not really directed at you but what's with the Begin I-95 signs at the end of I-80 in New Jersey? I-95 doesn't begin there. Should just be an I-80 ends sign and signs to north and south I-95.
I always viewed this as a clunky (or maybe sign-space effective?) way to say to the eastbound driver that you are now on I-95 and no longer on I-80.
Perhaps also it is worded that way to avoid some directional confusion since you change from "I-80 East" to "I-95 North" without turning your steering wheel. I know us road geeks know the difference.
Thought I recently saw a similar clunkily worded Chicago-area sign in one of the sign threads (sign referenced I-80 and I-294).
There is a mileage sign now listing Stroudsburg as the primary control on the I-80 Westbound Express Lanes just after they split off of I-95 SB. So it looks like some engineer thought that signing the Gap has no merit like some of you all think so.
I believe it's a NJTA install and since the Turnpike has been installing signs with mileages on them, they seem to use larger cities over small places. Plus NJDOT, if they do use them on freeways, uses townships or boroughs along the way just as they do with off freeway routes.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/mt7zhLNMMAnAmVcG6
As a relatively new poster here, I am surprised at the focus on control cities.
It has never bothered me, for instance, that PA signs "in-state" control locations on I-80 eastbound rather than New York City, or Illinois signs Memphis for I-57 southbound, or I-70 eastbound is signed for Baltimore but doesn't actually get there (at least for that there are reasons), wheras it seems to REALLY bother others.
But then, I have spent enough hours over many years looking at maps, and have an internal knowledge of what roads generally go where (at least for interstates and US routes, and state routes for my state, and the parts of other states that are near me), such that I don't really look at the control cities/locations (and haven't for several decades) --- I just need to know what direction such-and-such a ramp is taking. And I have always looked at a map before leaving on a trip so that I would know what directions I need to go on what roads.
The smaller control cities for me have always been more like teaching points -- oh there is a town called DuBois, I wonder what is there --- rather than essential guideposts. But I am aware I am different than most that way (or at least I think I am). I really couldn't tell you how many people actually rely on those control location designations.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 04, 2023, 11:44:12 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 04, 2023, 12:29:15 AM
Quote from: jt4 on October 03, 2023, 04:10:23 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 01, 2023, 11:18:29 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on October 01, 2023, 10:52:30 PM
Quote from: cwf1701 on October 01, 2023, 10:00:21 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2023, 06:29:55 PM
If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.
What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?
For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe. Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge). They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.
For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing. Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead? Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor. This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing. These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.
After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented. I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls are posted and motorists can decide on their options there. Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option? It more than likely would help, I believe.
I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.
It just seems too far away to sign Toronto (and definitely too far for Montreal). I think Canada or Ontario is more appropriate, even if long distance traffic is headed to Toronto.
Detroit to Toronto is only 230 miles, which is only ~10 miles farther apart than Albany and Montreal. 230 miles seems the right distance to be helpful to long distance traffic.
Why would MDOT use Toronto when Ontario doesn't even use Toronto once you are in Canada until you get to London? London is the control city on 401 going east of Windsor. Also NYSDOT and MDOT are two different agencies in two different states.
Wouldn't be the first time that two DOTs don't align on control cities. I-80 in OH uses NYC as a control city, a practice that doesn't carry into Pennsylvania. Michigan and Ontario's DOTs not aligning would be par for the course.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 07, 2023, 12:38:36 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 04, 2023, 11:44:12 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 04, 2023, 12:29:15 AM
Quote from: jt4 on October 03, 2023, 04:10:23 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 01, 2023, 11:18:29 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on October 01, 2023, 10:52:30 PM
Quote from: cwf1701 on October 01, 2023, 10:00:21 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2023, 06:29:55 PM
If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.
What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?
For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe. Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge). They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.
For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing. Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead? Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor. This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing. These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.
After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented. I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls are posted and motorists can decide on their options there. Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option? It more than likely would help, I believe.
I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.
It just seems too far away to sign Toronto (and definitely too far for Montreal). I think Canada or Ontario is more appropriate, even if long distance traffic is headed to Toronto.
Detroit to Toronto is only 230 miles, which is only ~10 miles farther apart than Albany and Montreal. 230 miles seems the right distance to be helpful to long distance traffic.
Why would MDOT use Toronto when Ontario doesn't even use Toronto once you are in Canada until you get to London? London is the control city on 401 going east of Windsor. Also NYSDOT and MDOT are two different agencies in two different states.
Wouldn't be the first time that two DOTs don't align on control cities. I-80 in OH uses NYC as a control city, a practice that doesn't carry into Pennsylvania. Michigan and Ontario's DOTs not aligning would be par for the course.
Of course it doesn't carry into Pennsylvania because Pennsylvania chooses small cities to be control cities along I-80. I agree that the control city there should be New York City and the Youngstown, OH going west. They shouldn't be using any PA cities that is just dumb. Michigan does a good job of choosing control cities so why would we want to change that? Putting Toronto on I-96 is misleading at it's finest. If anything Toledo should be the control city by that point and Ontario is in another country as well. The control city there really is the bridge even though at the interchange it just says Canada.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 07, 2023, 08:26:55 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 07, 2023, 12:38:36 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 04, 2023, 11:44:12 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 04, 2023, 12:29:15 AM
Quote from: jt4 on October 03, 2023, 04:10:23 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 01, 2023, 11:18:29 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on October 01, 2023, 10:52:30 PM
Quote from: cwf1701 on October 01, 2023, 10:00:21 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2023, 06:29:55 PM
If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.
What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?
For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe. Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge). They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.
For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing. Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead? Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor. This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing. These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.
After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented. I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls are posted and motorists can decide on their options there. Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option? It more than likely would help, I believe.
I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.
It just seems too far away to sign Toronto (and definitely too far for Montreal). I think Canada or Ontario is more appropriate, even if long distance traffic is headed to Toronto.
Detroit to Toronto is only 230 miles, which is only ~10 miles farther apart than Albany and Montreal. 230 miles seems the right distance to be helpful to long distance traffic.
Why would MDOT use Toronto when Ontario doesn't even use Toronto once you are in Canada until you get to London? London is the control city on 401 going east of Windsor. Also NYSDOT and MDOT are two different agencies in two different states.
Wouldn't be the first time that two DOTs don't align on control cities. I-80 in OH uses NYC as a control city, a practice that doesn't carry into Pennsylvania. Michigan and Ontario's DOTs not aligning would be par for the course.
Of course it doesn't carry into Pennsylvania because Pennsylvania chooses small cities to be control cities along I-80. I agree that the control city there should be New York City and the Youngstown, OH going west. They shouldn't be using any PA cities that is just dumb. Michigan does a good job of choosing control cities so why would we want to change that? Putting Toronto on I-96 is misleading at it's finest. If anything Toledo should be the control city by that point and Ontario is in another country as well. The control city there really is the bridge even though at the interchange it just says Canada.
In Buffalo, signs for the Peace Bridge list "Ft. Erie Can" as a control city.
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on October 07, 2023, 01:54:38 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 07, 2023, 08:26:55 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 07, 2023, 12:38:36 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 04, 2023, 11:44:12 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 04, 2023, 12:29:15 AM
Quote from: jt4 on October 03, 2023, 04:10:23 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 01, 2023, 11:18:29 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on October 01, 2023, 10:52:30 PM
Quote from: cwf1701 on October 01, 2023, 10:00:21 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2023, 06:29:55 PM
If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.
What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?
For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe. Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge). They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.
For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada [emoji1063] is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing. Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead? Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor. This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing. These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada [emoji1063] as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.
After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented. I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls are posted and motorists can decide on their options there. Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option? It more than likely would help, I believe.
I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.
It just seems too far away to sign Toronto (and definitely too far for Montreal). I think Canada or Ontario is more appropriate, even if long distance traffic is headed to Toronto.
Detroit to Toronto is only 230 miles, which is only ~10 miles farther apart than Albany and Montreal. 230 miles seems the right distance to be helpful to long distance traffic.
Why would MDOT use Toronto when Ontario doesn't even use Toronto once you are in Canada until you get to London? London is the control city on 401 going east of Windsor. Also NYSDOT and MDOT are two different agencies in two different states.
Wouldn't be the first time that two DOTs don't align on control cities. I-80 in OH uses NYC as a control city, a practice that doesn't carry into Pennsylvania. Michigan and Ontario's DOTs not aligning would be par for the course.
Of course it doesn't carry into Pennsylvania because Pennsylvania chooses small cities to be control cities along I-80. I agree that the control city there should be New York City and the Youngstown, OH going west. They shouldn't be using any PA cities that is just dumb. Michigan does a good job of choosing control cities so why would we want to change that? Putting Toronto on I-96 is misleading at it's finest. If anything Toledo should be the control city by that point and Ontario is in another country as well. The control city there really is the bridge even though at the interchange it just says Canada.
In Buffalo, signs for the Peace Bridge list "Ft. Erie Can" as a control city.
There is no rule against it.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 07, 2023, 08:26:55 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 07, 2023, 12:38:36 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 04, 2023, 11:44:12 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 04, 2023, 12:29:15 AM
Quote from: jt4 on October 03, 2023, 04:10:23 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 01, 2023, 11:18:29 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on October 01, 2023, 10:52:30 PM
Quote from: cwf1701 on October 01, 2023, 10:00:21 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2023, 06:29:55 PM
If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.
What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?
For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe. Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge). They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.
For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing. Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead? Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor. This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing. These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.
After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented. I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls are posted and motorists can decide on their options there. Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option? It more than likely would help, I believe.
I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.
It just seems too far away to sign Toronto (and definitely too far for Montreal). I think Canada or Ontario is more appropriate, even if long distance traffic is headed to Toronto.
Detroit to Toronto is only 230 miles, which is only ~10 miles farther apart than Albany and Montreal. 230 miles seems the right distance to be helpful to long distance traffic.
Why would MDOT use Toronto when Ontario doesn't even use Toronto once you are in Canada until you get to London? London is the control city on 401 going east of Windsor. Also NYSDOT and MDOT are two different agencies in two different states.
Wouldn't be the first time that two DOTs don't align on control cities. I-80 in OH uses NYC as a control city, a practice that doesn't carry into Pennsylvania. Michigan and Ontario's DOTs not aligning would be par for the course.
Of course it doesn't carry into Pennsylvania because Pennsylvania chooses small cities to be control cities along I-80. I agree that the control city there should be New York City and the Youngstown, OH going west. They shouldn't be using any PA cities that is just dumb. Michigan does a good job of choosing control cities so why would we want to change that? Putting Toronto on I-96 is misleading at it's finest. If anything Toledo should be the control city by that point and Ontario is in another country as well. The control city there really is the bridge even though at the interchange it just says Canada.
I disagree.
MDOT already signs Chicago as the I-94 West control city at the interchange with I-69 so there is a precedent at that very intersection for a long distance control city. Also "Bridge to Canada" is imprecise for people coming at the I-69/I-94 interchange from eastbound I-94 (which uses Port Huron as a control city, which is also where a "bridge to Canada" is located). Knowing WHERE in Canada you would end up is more helpful to the traveler.
Michigan does a better job than most with control cities, but I'm not a fan of state or country control cities. Canada being another country is semantics here, people still deserve to know where they're going and control cities are designed to help facilitate that process. I-69 and I-94 both directly lead to Canada.
My mistake in my initial analysis was using NYSDOT to persuade you regarding signing Toronto in Detroit. I haven't been to Detroit in years so I forgot that Chicago was signed that far east. Chicago is farther from Detroit than Toronto. I don't really care if you sign Toronto (Windsor or London would do the trick, though Windsor is too close to be helpful to long distance travelers) but acting like it's against MDOT protocol to sign a long distance city in another jurisdiction is a bit misleading. I just think the signage could be improved and would be more helpful if it were more specific.
There's also an argument for signing "Buffalo NY" for I-96 eastbound as well. Maybe "London ON" with a secondary control city of "Buffalo NY" would be better than Toronto?
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 08, 2023, 02:22:49 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 07, 2023, 08:26:55 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 07, 2023, 12:38:36 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 04, 2023, 11:44:12 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 04, 2023, 12:29:15 AM
Quote from: jt4 on October 03, 2023, 04:10:23 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 01, 2023, 11:18:29 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on October 01, 2023, 10:52:30 PM
Quote from: cwf1701 on October 01, 2023, 10:00:21 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2023, 06:29:55 PM
If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.
What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?
For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe. Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge). They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.
For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing. Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead? Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor. This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing. These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.
After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented. I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls are posted and motorists can decide on their options there. Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option? It more than likely would help, I believe.
I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.
It just seems too far away to sign Toronto (and definitely too far for Montreal). I think Canada or Ontario is more appropriate, even if long distance traffic is headed to Toronto.
Detroit to Toronto is only 230 miles, which is only ~10 miles farther apart than Albany and Montreal. 230 miles seems the right distance to be helpful to long distance traffic.
Why would MDOT use Toronto when Ontario doesn't even use Toronto once you are in Canada until you get to London? London is the control city on 401 going east of Windsor. Also NYSDOT and MDOT are two different agencies in two different states.
Wouldn't be the first time that two DOTs don't align on control cities. I-80 in OH uses NYC as a control city, a practice that doesn't carry into Pennsylvania. Michigan and Ontario's DOTs not aligning would be par for the course.
Of course it doesn't carry into Pennsylvania because Pennsylvania chooses small cities to be control cities along I-80. I agree that the control city there should be New York City and the Youngstown, OH going west. They shouldn't be using any PA cities that is just dumb. Michigan does a good job of choosing control cities so why would we want to change that? Putting Toronto on I-96 is misleading at it's finest. If anything Toledo should be the control city by that point and Ontario is in another country as well. The control city there really is the bridge even though at the interchange it just says Canada.
I disagree.
MDOT already signs Chicago as the I-94 West control city at the interchange with I-69 so there is a precedent at that very intersection for a long distance control city. Also "Bridge to Canada" is imprecise for people coming at the I-69/I-94 interchange from eastbound I-94 (which uses Port Huron as a control city, which is also where a "bridge to Canada" is located). Knowing WHERE in Canada you would end up is more helpful to the traveler.
Michigan does a better job than most with control cities, but I'm not a fan of state or country control cities. Canada being another country is semantics here, people still deserve to know where they're going and control cities are designed to help facilitate that process. I-69 and I-94 both directly lead to Canada.
My mistake in my initial analysis was using NYSDOT to persuade you regarding signing Toronto in Detroit. I haven't been to Detroit in years so I forgot that Chicago was signed that far east. Chicago is farther from Detroit than Toronto. I don't really care if you sign Toronto (Windsor or London would do the trick, though Windsor is too close to be helpful to long distance travelers) but acting like it's against MDOT protocol to sign a long distance city in another jurisdiction is a bit misleading. I just think the signage could be improved and would be more helpful if it were more specific.
There's also an argument for signing "Buffalo NY" for I-96 eastbound as well. Maybe "London ON" with a secondary control city of "Buffalo NY" would be better than Toronto?
MDOT starts using Chicago as a control city on WB I-94 in Detroit and what's the problem with that one? Chicago is the third largest city in the United States and is within the same country. Using Bridge to Canada in Detroit which is what they do isn't going to confuse someone between the Ambassador Bridge and the Blue Water Bridge. Port Huron is 60 miles from Detroit no one is confusing the bridges. Using Canada at that point isn't confusing anyone they are telling you that I-96 takes you to the bridge. Detroit being closer to Toronto has nothing to do with MDOT choosing Chicago as the control city, it's the primary control city and isn't used at every interchange. None of the Canada cities you mentioned as well as Buffalo, NY make any sense as a control city in Michigan. Canada is fine here but it really should be Toledo as I-96 empties into I-75 SB. If I was going WB on I-94 I would use EB I-96 at exit 213 to get to SB I-75 instead of taking the SB I-75 exit at exit 216, that bypasses downtown and the 25 mph curve where I-75 exits to itself.
On I-94 the control cities for the I-75 exit should be Flint and DOWNTOWN. I-96 should be Lansing and Toledo. At the Lodge they should be DOWNTOWN and Southfield which is what they are.
Talking about Michigan treating all of Canada as the same. PennDOT does that here with New Jersey.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/gQmZRTabHdY97nDRA
Funny thing is when I-78 first opened in 1989 or 1990, the pull through used Allentown instead of New Jersey. They should have kept that or just use New York City being only 80 miles out from the big global empire.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 09, 2023, 06:57:41 AM
Talking about Michigan treating all of Canada as the same. PennDOT does that here with New Jersey.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/gQmZRTabHdY97nDRA
Funny thing is when I-78 first opened in 1989 or 1990, the pull through used Allentown instead of New Jersey. They should have kept that or just use New York City being only 80 miles out from the big global empire.
It's about 2 miles to the border from the Jeffries/Ford interchange. People know that Detroit is on the International border so no one is getting confused as to what bridge or to what part of Canada they are headed to.
And once you get on the Jeffries you can see the bridge, https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3462079,-83.096888,3a,15y,151.33h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFkoFL1VHeDl-FR1FwhFr1Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DFkoFL1VHeDl-FR1FwhFr1Q%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D162.8896%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
New future contender for CT: East Hartford for I-384 west. Yes, it's accurate, but is traffic on I-384 specifically headed there and not the current control of Hartford? Of course (and a lot more than eastbound traffic headed for Providence, which I-384 gets nowhere near, but I digress).
So does anyone want to continue to think that Canada should be the control city on the Ford going to the EB Jeffries? Once you get on you have this collection of signs. So can anyone actually sit here and say that Canada should be the control city over Toledo?
I-75 North - control city is Flint.
M-10 - control city is DOWNTOWN.
I-75 South with a I-96 shield - control city is Toledo.
Exit 191 MLK Jr Blvd. US-12 Michigan Ave.
There aren't anymore signs saying Canada and the exit for the bridge is after you have already got on I-75. The control city should be Toledo. I have no idea why anyone would disagree with that.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3433152,-83.0951574,3a,53y,142.24h,100.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sScq6N6i0HWOk1VNBwHeYpA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3364055,-83.0908862,3a,75y,153.46h,104.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sczU7IuWqwjBk9jTpBKcwqg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 09, 2023, 11:50:32 AM
So does anyone want to continue to think that Canada should be the control city on the Ford going to the EB Jeffries? Once you get on you have this collection of signs. So can anyone actually sit here and say that Canada should be the control city over Toledo?
I-75 North - control city is Flint.
M-10 - control city is DOWNTOWN.
I-75 South with a I-96 shield - control city is Toledo.
Exit 191 MLK Jr Blvd. US-12 Michigan Ave.
There aren't anymore signs saying Canada and the exit for the bridge is after you have already got on I-75. The control city should be Toledo. I have no idea why anyone would disagree with that.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3433152,-83.0951574,3a,53y,142.24h,100.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sScq6N6i0HWOk1VNBwHeYpA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3364055,-83.0908862,3a,75y,153.46h,104.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sczU7IuWqwjBk9jTpBKcwqg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
I-75 South should have two control cities: Canada and Toledo.
And another thing, I don't see anything wrong with using countries or states for control cities. A little common sense comes into play here, when a state is used like in the Chicago area with Indiana and Wisconsin being used as control cities why would anyone think that they mean anything other than where that highway enters the state at? Your on I-94 heading to Indiana and you have trouble figuring out what they mean by Indiana, very obviously it's where I-94 enters Indiana at is where they are leading you. It makes sense.
But as in the case with Canada being used for a control city on the Jeffries Freeway in Detroit it shouldn't be used, there are no signs telling you which highway to stay on or get on to get to Canada. Like I said in my last post, the control cities are Flint, DOWNTOWN and Toledo. Take your pick, not Canada.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 09, 2023, 11:54:20 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 09, 2023, 11:50:32 AM
So does anyone want to continue to think that Canada should be the control city on the Ford going to the EB Jeffries? Once you get on you have this collection of signs. So can anyone actually sit here and say that Canada should be the control city over Toledo?
I-75 North - control city is Flint.
M-10 - control city is DOWNTOWN.
I-75 South with a I-96 shield - control city is Toledo.
Exit 191 MLK Jr Blvd. US-12 Michigan Ave.
There aren't anymore signs saying Canada and the exit for the bridge is after you have already got on I-75. The control city should be Toledo. I have no idea why anyone would disagree with that.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3433152,-83.0951574,3a,53y,142.24h,100.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sScq6N6i0HWOk1VNBwHeYpA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3364055,-83.0908862,3a,75y,153.46h,104.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sczU7IuWqwjBk9jTpBKcwqg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
I-75 South should have two control cities: Canada and Toledo.
I-75 South should not have Canada as a control city, it doesn't take you there, the bridge does.
I liked it years ago when they changed the control cities at the M-25/US-10 and I-75 interchange. They used to have Standish as the NB control city and Flint-Detroit as the SB control city, now they have the control cities to match the rest of that area of I-75 with Mackinac Bridge as the NB control city and Saginaw as the SB control city which is what it should be.
^^^^^^But you have to go south on I-75 one exit to get there.
Considering Canada is used on I-96 to this point, you need it to follow through.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 09, 2023, 11:58:56 AM
^^^^^^But you have to go south on I-75 one exit to get there.
Considering Canada is used on I-96 to this point, you need it to follow through.
So what? I-75 is a through route it goes south into Ohio, it doesn't take you to Canada and neither does I-96. Just because you have an exit for the bridge off I-75 doesn't make Canada a legit control city. Canada is only used once on I-96 and it shouldn't be used at all. EB I-96 ends right into SB I-75 so it should have SB I-75's control city at that point as well.
However people coming off of I-96 May be going to Canada. Having both covers all bases. You still get your Toledo and you get your I-96 for Canada.
True I-96 ends at I-75, but for practical purposes it's better to let people think it ends at the Ambassador for continuity sake.
The control city all the way from Lansing is Detroit then changes to DOWNTOWN Detroit once you enter the city so it should continue to use DOWNTOWN Detroit at that point. Using another country or a state when there is a logical choice to use another control city that is actually a city doesn't make much sense. And actually the control city for NB I-75 should be DOWNTOWN and the control city on the Lodge should be Huntington Place.
It does follow through with DOWNTOWN though, you take the Lodge. They could have a sign before the interchange saying Bridge to Canada Exit 213 and that would be fine or Bridge to Canada follow I-96 East.
Whatever you say. You're the expert there.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 09, 2023, 12:28:14 PM
Whatever you say. You're the expert there.
I'm not trying to argue about it just having a discussion. I can see where you are coming from on your side as well but knowing the area it seems strange to change it to Canada. You are right that if you are headed to Canada from I-94 that would be the exit you would use to get to Windsor. It kind of is misleading though I think a little bit because I-94 ends at the Blue Water Bridge with I-69 and seeing Bridge to Canada twice might confuse some people. It wouldn't me but I can see where some people would be confused. I just think using another country there is a bit misleading is all when you have a US city you can use. MDOT isn't going to change the control city at least not right now so it's going to stay Canada.
Actually the signs before the interchange say Bridge to Canada and when you get to the actually interchange it just says Canada. It probably should be on the sign with I-75 South and I-96 Toledo-Bridge to Canada.
I'll wait for the Gordie Howe Bridge signage before taking a position here. Maybe both could be signed as "Bridge to Canada" as it is in MDOT fashion, but the Gordie Howe Bridge get a "TO ON-401" signage as well, to differentiate them as favor the new bridge for through traffic?
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 09, 2023, 12:59:03 PM
I'll wait for the Gordie Howe Bridge signage before taking a position here. Maybe both could be signed as "Bridge to Canada" as it is in MDOT fashion, but the Gordie Howe Bridge get a "TO ON-401" signage as well, to differentiate them as favor the new bridge for through traffic?
Not sure there. I've never seen MDOT use a sign telling you which highway is on the other side of the border. Using Bridge to Canada pretty much tells you all you need to know I think.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 09, 2023, 01:01:48 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 09, 2023, 12:59:03 PM
I'll wait for the Gordie Howe Bridge signage before taking a position here. Maybe both could be signed as "Bridge to Canada" as it is in MDOT fashion, but the Gordie Howe Bridge get a "TO ON-401" signage as well, to differentiate them as favor the new bridge for through traffic?
Not sure there. I've never seen MDOT use a sign telling you which highway is on the other side of the border. Using Bridge to Canada pretty much tells you all you need to know I think.
Plus, as I said on the Gordie Howe Bridge thread, the Detroit International Bridge Company has engaged MDOT in litigation before and I've no doubt would do so again if they think anything MDOT does could be construed as promoting the Gordie Howe Bridge over the Ambassador Bridge.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 07, 2023, 08:26:55 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 07, 2023, 12:38:36 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 04, 2023, 11:44:12 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 04, 2023, 12:29:15 AM
Quote from: jt4 on October 03, 2023, 04:10:23 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 01, 2023, 11:18:29 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on October 01, 2023, 10:52:30 PM
Quote from: cwf1701 on October 01, 2023, 10:00:21 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2023, 06:29:55 PM
If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.
What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?
For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe. Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge). They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.
For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing. Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead? Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor. This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing. These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.
After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented. I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls are posted and motorists can decide on their options there. Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option? It more than likely would help, I believe.
I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.
It just seems too far away to sign Toronto (and definitely too far for Montreal). I think Canada or Ontario is more appropriate, even if long distance traffic is headed to Toronto.
Detroit to Toronto is only 230 miles, which is only ~10 miles farther apart than Albany and Montreal. 230 miles seems the right distance to be helpful to long distance traffic.
Why would MDOT use Toronto when Ontario doesn't even use Toronto once you are in Canada until you get to London? London is the control city on 401 going east of Windsor. Also NYSDOT and MDOT are two different agencies in two different states.
Wouldn't be the first time that two DOTs don't align on control cities. I-80 in OH uses NYC as a control city, a practice that doesn't carry into Pennsylvania. Michigan and Ontario's DOTs not aligning would be par for the course.
Of course it doesn't carry into Pennsylvania because Pennsylvania chooses small cities to be control cities along I-80. I agree that the control city there should be New York City and the Youngstown, OH going west. They shouldn't be using any PA cities that is just dumb. Michigan does a good job of choosing control cities so why would we want to change that? Putting Toronto on I-96 is misleading at it's finest. If anything Toledo should be the control city by that point and Ontario is in another country as well. The control city there really is the bridge even though at the interchange it just says Canada.
You could make a case for State College for I-80 but that's it.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 09, 2023, 01:01:48 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 09, 2023, 12:59:03 PM
I'll wait for the Gordie Howe Bridge signage before taking a position here. Maybe both could be signed as "Bridge to Canada" as it is in MDOT fashion, but the Gordie Howe Bridge get a "TO ON-401" signage as well, to differentiate them as favor the new bridge for through traffic?
Not sure there. I've never seen MDOT use a sign telling you which highway is on the other side of the border. Using Bridge to Canada pretty much tells you all you need to know I think.
There usually isn't much point as the one current bridge in Detroit will get you across the border, as will the Blue Water Bridge and the International Bridge. All three are at different points (Detroit, Port Huron, Sault Sainte Marie). The Gordie Howe Bridge will be different as this, the Ambassador Bridge, and the Tunnel all get you across the border, but to different points in Detroit and Windsor. Right now, Bridge and Tunnel tell you what you need to know. With two bridges, MDOT will need to differentiate between the bridges.
Quote from: Brandon on October 09, 2023, 09:43:18 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 09, 2023, 01:01:48 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 09, 2023, 12:59:03 PM
I'll wait for the Gordie Howe Bridge signage before taking a position here. Maybe both could be signed as "Bridge to Canada" as it is in MDOT fashion, but the Gordie Howe Bridge get a "TO ON-401" signage as well, to differentiate them as favor the new bridge for through traffic?
Not sure there. I've never seen MDOT use a sign telling you which highway is on the other side of the border. Using Bridge to Canada pretty much tells you all you need to know I think.
There usually isn't much point as the one current bridge in Detroit will get you across the border, as will the Blue Water Bridge and the International Bridge. All three are at different points (Detroit, Port Huron, Sault Sainte Marie). The Gordie Howe Bridge will be different as this, the Ambassador Bridge, and the Tunnel all get you across the border, but to different points in Detroit and Windsor. Right now, Bridge and Tunnel tell you what you need to know. With two bridges, MDOT will need to differentiate between the bridges.
I expect the only differentiation, if any, will be to include the bridge names on signs. No Canadian control cities or TO Canadian routes.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on October 09, 2023, 02:01:10 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 09, 2023, 01:01:48 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 09, 2023, 12:59:03 PM
I'll wait for the Gordie Howe Bridge signage before taking a position here. Maybe both could be signed as "Bridge to Canada" as it is in MDOT fashion, but the Gordie Howe Bridge get a "TO ON-401" signage as well, to differentiate them as favor the new bridge for through traffic?
Not sure there. I've never seen MDOT use a sign telling you which highway is on the other side of the border. Using Bridge to Canada pretty much tells you all you need to know I think.
Plus, as I said on the Gordie Howe Bridge thread, the Detroit International Bridge Company has engaged MDOT in litigation before and I've no doubt would do so again if they think anything MDOT does could be construed as promoting the Gordie Howe Bridge over the Ambassador Bridge.
Honestly unless you want to be on city streets in Windsor when the GHB opens I would suggest using it and not using the Ambassador Bridge or the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel. That was always the problem with the Ambassador Bridge with it dumping you into city streets on the Windsor side.
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 09, 2023, 02:48:41 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 07, 2023, 08:26:55 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 07, 2023, 12:38:36 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 04, 2023, 11:44:12 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 04, 2023, 12:29:15 AM
Quote from: jt4 on October 03, 2023, 04:10:23 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 01, 2023, 11:18:29 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on October 01, 2023, 10:52:30 PM
Quote from: cwf1701 on October 01, 2023, 10:00:21 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2023, 06:29:55 PM
If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.
What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?
For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe. Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge). They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.
For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing. Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead? Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor. This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing. These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.
After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented. I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls are posted and motorists can decide on their options there. Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option? It more than likely would help, I believe.
I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.
It just seems too far away to sign Toronto (and definitely too far for Montreal). I think Canada or Ontario is more appropriate, even if long distance traffic is headed to Toronto.
Detroit to Toronto is only 230 miles, which is only ~10 miles farther apart than Albany and Montreal. 230 miles seems the right distance to be helpful to long distance traffic.
Why would MDOT use Toronto when Ontario doesn't even use Toronto once you are in Canada until you get to London? London is the control city on 401 going east of Windsor. Also NYSDOT and MDOT are two different agencies in two different states.
Wouldn't be the first time that two DOTs don't align on control cities. I-80 in OH uses NYC as a control city, a practice that doesn't carry into Pennsylvania. Michigan and Ontario's DOTs not aligning would be par for the course.
Of course it doesn't carry into Pennsylvania because Pennsylvania chooses small cities to be control cities along I-80. I agree that the control city there should be New York City and the Youngstown, OH going west. They shouldn't be using any PA cities that is just dumb. Michigan does a good job of choosing control cities so why would we want to change that? Putting Toronto on I-96 is misleading at it's finest. If anything Toledo should be the control city by that point and Ontario is in another country as well. The control city there really is the bridge even though at the interchange it just says Canada.
You could make a case for State College for I-80 but that's it.
Yeah that wouldn't be bad.
Quote from: Brandon on October 09, 2023, 09:43:18 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 09, 2023, 01:01:48 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 09, 2023, 12:59:03 PM
I'll wait for the Gordie Howe Bridge signage before taking a position here. Maybe both could be signed as "Bridge to Canada" as it is in MDOT fashion, but the Gordie Howe Bridge get a "TO ON-401" signage as well, to differentiate them as favor the new bridge for through traffic?
Not sure there. I've never seen MDOT use a sign telling you which highway is on the other side of the border. Using Bridge to Canada pretty much tells you all you need to know I think.
There usually isn't much point as the one current bridge in Detroit will get you across the border, as will the Blue Water Bridge and the International Bridge. All three are at different points (Detroit, Port Huron, Sault Sainte Marie). The Gordie Howe Bridge will be different as this, the Ambassador Bridge, and the Tunnel all get you across the border, but to different points in Detroit and Windsor. Right now, Bridge and Tunnel tell you what you need to know. With two bridges, MDOT will need to differentiate between the bridges.
Yeah it'll probably tell you the crossing on signs. I've been over every International crossing in Michigan and MDOT does the same thing each time. But Detroit is the only one with multiple crossings.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 09, 2023, 10:20:22 PM
That was always the problem with the Ambassador Bridge with it dumping you into city streets on the Windsor side.
But it was useful if you needed to exchange money, because you could just poke around for an ATM on those city streets.
Quote from: kphoger on October 10, 2023, 09:36:42 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 09, 2023, 10:20:22 PM
That was always the problem with the Ambassador Bridge with it dumping you into city streets on the Windsor side.
But it was useful if you needed to exchange money, because you could just poke around for an ATM on those city streets.
If I remember right (it's been 21 years since I've been across the border) you could exchange your currency at the border.
I actually went through the Ford-Jeffries interchange twice today and used it once. I was coming from EB I-94 to EB I-96 to NB I-75 to the Grand River exit to get downtown.
I noticed today too that the signs on the Chrysler approaching the Ford that they still have Ford Fwy on the signs. I don't notice this with any other Detroit freeway.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 10, 2023, 08:28:21 PM
I actually went through the Ford-Jeffries interchange twice today and used it once. I was coming from EB I-94 to EB I-96 to NB I-75 to the Grand River exit to get downtown.
I noticed today too that the signs on the Chrysler approaching the Ford that they still have Ford Fwy on the signs. I don't notice this with any other Detroit freeway.
At the other extreme, signs for the Davison (M-8) and Southfield (M-39) freeways show only the freeway names and no control cities.
(https://i.imgur.com/Yh2CUNM.jpg)
Once the Gordie opens up, signs at I-94 to I-96 should just say:
I-96 EAST TO I-75 SOUTH
Bridges To Canada
Toledo
I'm still confused as to why naming a specific Canadian city is sacrilege. More information is always helpful to a motorist. The two countries are separated by the Detroit River, handwaving Canadian control cities because it's a "different country" is provincial to the point of being unhelpful. This thread is supposed to involve critiquing control cities, not defending your state DOT like they can do no wrong.
I can understand a state being a control city. I don't agree with it but I can understand it, especially if it's a small state or that road is truly the only way into that state from a given point (rarely true but I guess possible). Using one of the largest countries (by land mass) in the entire world as a control point just defeats the purpose of having control points.
Canadian and Mexican cities should be signed as control cities. Who cares if it's a "different country?" People still drive there.
Quote from: thenetwork on October 11, 2023, 10:23:43 PM
Once the Gordie opens up, signs at I-94 to I-96 should just say:
I-96 EAST TO I-75 SOUTH
Bridges To Canada
Toledo
That would work.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on October 10, 2023, 08:45:19 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 10, 2023, 08:28:21 PM
I actually went through the Ford-Jeffries interchange twice today and used it once. I was coming from EB I-94 to EB I-96 to NB I-75 to the Grand River exit to get downtown.
I noticed today too that the signs on the Chrysler approaching the Ford that they still have Ford Fwy on the signs. I don't notice this with any other Detroit freeway.
At the other extreme, signs for the Davison (M-8) and Southfield (M-39) freeways show only the freeway names and no control cities.
(https://i.imgur.com/Yh2CUNM.jpg)
The one on I-75 shows Ford Fwy right next to the I-94 shield and then Port Huron-Chicago under it.
I don't think using Canada there is wrong or it should really be something else. There are only two crossings to get into Canada from Detroit, three once the GHB opens. Also there is a sign telling you which exit to get off at to get to the bridge and the tunnel. Once you get on I-96 EB you have I-75 Flint, M-10 DOWNTOWN and I-75 South I-96 Toledo signs. The Bridge to Canada is the last exit on I-96 before you dump into I-75 South.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 11, 2023, 11:35:06 PM
I'm still confused as to why naming a specific Canadian city is sacrilege. More information is always helpful to a motorist. The two countries are separated by the Detroit River, handwaving Canadian control cities because it's a "different country" is provincial to the point of being unhelpful.
//snip//
Canadian and Mexican cities should be signed as control cities. Who cares if it's a "different country?" People still drive there.
Part of the problem is the woeful lack of geographical knowledge. Many people would not recognize Windsor, Sarnia or London as being cities in Ontario, Canada; maybe not even for Toronto. Giving Canada as the control, these people hopefully would be reminded that they are going toward another country. I'm not familiar enough with the Mexican border to know if that's the same situation there.
Another example: The Mackinac Bridge has a sign at the northern end, "Welcome to Michigan's Upper Peninsula". Surprisingly, a number of people didn't know they were staying in Michigan, and some even expected to have to go through customs.
The control city for southbound I-69 in Kentucky is Fulton. It's a small town whose claim to fame is being located on the state border and is formerly where US 45 split into its east and west branches until that split was relocated to south of the state line. Fulton gets used as far north as Henderson.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 12, 2023, 12:29:23 PM
The control city for southbound I-69 in Kentucky is Fulton. It's a small town whose claim to fame is being located on the state border and is formerly where US 45 split into its east and west branches until that split was relocated to south of the state line. Fulton gets used as far north as Henderson.
What should it be instead, do you think?
Quote from: kphoger on October 12, 2023, 12:35:10 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 12, 2023, 12:29:23 PM
The control city for southbound I-69 in Kentucky is Fulton. It's a small town whose claim to fame is being located on the state border and is formerly where US 45 split into its east and west branches until that split was relocated to south of the state line. Fulton gets used as far north as Henderson.
What should it be instead, do you think?
From Henderson, there's not a lot of good options.
Nashville? That's the closest major city and it's in the direction that many people are going, but you have to get on two other Interstates.
Memphis? It's a big enough city on the right route, but it's pretty far from Henderson, and the road isn't finished for the foreseeable future.
Paducah? Again, you have to get off of I-69 to get there (or more realistically, you have to not get off of I-24 at the interchange with I-69 south).
IMO, they've done the best they can, just using the network of small cities at junctions (Madisonville, Nortonville, etc.) until Tennessee builds it out to Memphis.
Quote from: GaryV on October 12, 2023, 07:58:15 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 11, 2023, 11:35:06 PM
I'm still confused as to why naming a specific Canadian city is sacrilege. More information is always helpful to a motorist. The two countries are separated by the Detroit River, handwaving Canadian control cities because it's a "different country" is provincial to the point of being unhelpful.
//snip//
Canadian and Mexican cities should be signed as control cities. Who cares if it's a "different country?" People still drive there.
Part of the problem is the woeful lack of geographical knowledge. Many people would not recognize Windsor, Sarnia or London as being cities in Ontario, Canada; maybe not even for Toronto. Giving Canada as the control, these people hopefully would be reminded that they are going toward another country. I'm not familiar enough with the Mexican border to know if that's the same situation there.
Another example: The Mackinac Bridge has a sign at the northern end, "Welcome to Michigan's Upper Peninsula". Surprisingly, a number of people didn't know they were staying in Michigan, and some even expected to have to go through customs.
This is a problem in different states though, which I think is (well solved) by putting the state abbreviation at the end. I guess I can see people not knowing that "ON" stands for Ontario, which kind of makes me sad honestly.
My general rule on control cities is that they should be helpful to the long distance traveler, which is why I hate NCDOT's method of control city signage.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 13, 2023, 12:09:08 AM
Quote from: GaryV on October 12, 2023, 07:58:15 AM
Part of the problem is the woeful lack of geographical knowledge. Many people would not recognize Windsor, Sarnia or London as being cities in Ontario, Canada; maybe not even for Toronto. Giving Canada as the control, these people hopefully would be reminded that they are going toward another country. I'm not familiar enough with the Mexican border to know if that's the same situation there.
Another example: The Mackinac Bridge has a sign at the northern end, "Welcome to Michigan's Upper Peninsula". Surprisingly, a number of people didn't know they were staying in Michigan, and some even expected to have to go through customs.
This is a problem in different states though, which I think is (well solved) by putting the state abbreviation at the end. I guess I can see people not knowing that "ON" stands for Ontario, which kind of makes me sad honestly.
But if you put "Windsor CAN" or "Windsor, Can.", then I bet a lot more people would correctly understand that to be a city in Canada.
Quote from: kphoger on October 13, 2023, 10:55:02 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 13, 2023, 12:09:08 AM
Quote from: GaryV on October 12, 2023, 07:58:15 AM
Part of the problem is the woeful lack of geographical knowledge. Many people would not recognize Windsor, Sarnia or London as being cities in Ontario, Canada; maybe not even for Toronto. Giving Canada as the control, these people hopefully would be reminded that they are going toward another country. I'm not familiar enough with the Mexican border to know if that's the same situation there.
Another example: The Mackinac Bridge has a sign at the northern end, "Welcome to Michigan's Upper Peninsula". Surprisingly, a number of people didn't know they were staying in Michigan, and some even expected to have to go through customs.
This is a problem in different states though, which I think is (well solved) by putting the state abbreviation at the end. I guess I can see people not knowing that "ON" stands for Ontario, which kind of makes me sad honestly.
But if you put "Windsor CAN" or "Windsor, Can.", then I bet a lot more people would correctly understand that to be a city in Canada.
Or 'Windsor [CDN flag]'?
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on October 13, 2023, 12:56:02 PM
'Windsor [CDN flag]'
Would that run afoul of any MUTCD prohibitions? I'm not aware of any.
Quote from: pianocello on October 12, 2023, 08:33:21 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 12, 2023, 12:35:10 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 12, 2023, 12:29:23 PM
The control city for southbound I-69 in Kentucky is Fulton. It's a small town whose claim to fame is being located on the state border and is formerly where US 45 split into its east and west branches until that split was relocated to south of the state line. Fulton gets used as far north as Henderson.
What should it be instead, do you think?
From Henderson, there's not a lot of good options.
Nashville? That's the closest major city and it's in the direction that many people are going, but you have to get on two other Interstates.
Memphis? It's a big enough city on the right route, but it's pretty far from Henderson, and the road isn't finished for the foreseeable future.
Paducah? Again, you have to get off of I-69 to get there (or more realistically, you have to not get off of I-24 at the interchange with I-69 south).
IMO, they've done the best they can, just using the network of small cities at junctions (Madisonville, Nortonville, etc.) until Tennessee builds it out to Memphis.
Union City (biggest town along the route between the I-24 split and Dyersburg) or Dyersburg.
Actually, I'd prefer Memphis. Memphis is a lot closer to Henderson than it is to Chicago.
Quote from: kphoger on October 13, 2023, 01:19:08 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 13, 2023, 12:56:02 PM
'Windsor [CDN flag]'
Would that run afoul of any MUTCD prohibitions? I'm not aware of any.
If they can do "🇨🇦 Bridge to Canada" I'm sure they can do "Windsor 🇨🇦" ... although I worry that some people won't recognize the flag.
Quote from: mgk920 on October 13, 2023, 12:56:02 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 13, 2023, 10:55:02 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 13, 2023, 12:09:08 AM
Quote from: GaryV on October 12, 2023, 07:58:15 AM
Part of the problem is the woeful lack of geographical knowledge. Many people would not recognize Windsor, Sarnia or London as being cities in Ontario, Canada; maybe not even for Toronto. Giving Canada as the control, these people hopefully would be reminded that they are going toward another country. I'm not familiar enough with the Mexican border to know if that's the same situation there.
Another example: The Mackinac Bridge has a sign at the northern end, "Welcome to Michigan's Upper Peninsula". Surprisingly, a number of people didn't know they were staying in Michigan, and some even expected to have to go through customs.
This is a problem in different states though, which I think is (well solved) by putting the state abbreviation at the end. I guess I can see people not knowing that "ON" stands for Ontario, which kind of makes me sad honestly.
But if you put "Windsor CAN" or "Windsor, Can.", then I bet a lot more people would correctly understand that to be a city in Canada.
Or 'Windsor [CDN flag]'?
Mike
There already is a Canadian flag on the exit 192 sign.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3250198,-83.0844345,3a,26.5y,172.76h,110.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssdqkKl7COS2I1Oevz6C26A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Quote from: hbelkins on October 13, 2023, 05:41:26 PM
Quote from: pianocello on October 12, 2023, 08:33:21 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 12, 2023, 12:35:10 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 12, 2023, 12:29:23 PM
The control city for southbound I-69 in Kentucky is Fulton. It's a small town whose claim to fame is being located on the state border and is formerly where US 45 split into its east and west branches until that split was relocated to south of the state line. Fulton gets used as far north as Henderson.
What should it be instead, do you think?
From Henderson, there's not a lot of good options.
Nashville? That's the closest major city and it's in the direction that many people are going, but you have to get on two other Interstates.
Memphis? It's a big enough city on the right route, but it's pretty far from Henderson, and the road isn't finished for the foreseeable future.
Paducah? Again, you have to get off of I-69 to get there (or more realistically, you have to not get off of I-24 at the interchange with I-69 south).
IMO, they've done the best they can, just using the network of small cities at junctions (Madisonville, Nortonville, etc.) until Tennessee builds it out to Memphis.
Union City (biggest town along the route between the I-24 split and Dyersburg) or Dyersburg.
Actually, I'd prefer Memphis. Memphis is a lot closer to Henderson than it is to Chicago.
I think this is a case where having 2 control cities does make sense. I would use Hopkinsville (31k) and Memphis from Henderson until the W Ky Pkwy. Then use Paducah (27k) and Memphis. Both are great secondary cities. When you get to the W Ky Pkwy, then use Hopkinsville and Nashville for the remainder of the Pennyrile Pkwy. Fulton should not be mentioned really until I-69 South splits off I-24.
Regarding Canada being used around Detroit:
There is a context thing here. Yes, Canada is one of the largest countries in the world etc.
But in the Detroit area it is also "the destination across the river", similar to what New Jersey is for New York City.
I don't ever remember "Newark" or "East Rutherford" or "Fort Lee" being used on signs in NYC.
Quote from: tmoore952 on October 16, 2023, 03:02:53 PM
Regarding Canada being used around Detroit:
There is a context thing here. Yes, Canada is one of the largest countries in the world etc.
But in the Detroit area it is also "the destination across the river", similar to what New Jersey is for New York City.
I don't ever remember "Newark" or "East Rutherford" or "Fort Lee" being used on signs in NYC.
I feel like I've seen Newark signed in NYC but my memory could be conflating with what is signed across the GW Bridge. It has been a while since I've driven to NYC. I do know there was movement away from signing "New England" as a control city in favor of "New Haven," though I think there's still one sign that has New England as a control city.
Quote from: tmoore952 on October 16, 2023, 03:02:53 PM
Regarding Canada being used around Detroit:
There is a context thing here. Yes, Canada is one of the largest countries in the world etc.
But in the Detroit area it is also "the destination across the river", similar to what New Jersey is for New York City.
I don't ever remember "Newark" or "East Rutherford" or "Fort Lee" being used on signs in NYC.
Canada is only used once in Detroit. It's used for Jeffries at the Ford interchange.
I'm a little behind on reading this thread, so over the last few days, I absolutely got a lot of control city overload!
So my thoughts about control cities, generally, before responding to a lot of the discussion above.
I like my control cities to be cities. Not states, countries, or bridges.
I like my control cities for 2dis to be relatively well-known. Generally, the top three cities of any state or a state capital. Cities that are nationally known are best, if practical (and in many cases they are).
I also prefer that for 3dis that lead to 2dis also use the well-known cities, as opposed to suburbs where practical. But obviously, there is a need to take a case by case approach for these. US routes and state routes are likely to use more local cities, but depending on the location could also use the larger cities as well, especially if they are essntially in place of interstates for a corridor.
I know that many states want to use their own cities even if they do not fit with the above, so I am also in favor of signing two control cities where practical. Obviously, there will be some signs where if every direction has two controls there would be some information overload, but I think generally the occasional pull-through with two controls would be good.
Control cities should be signed and not changed until you reach that control city. If the control city is relatively small, you can begin signing the next control at the city limits, but for larger cites, you should guide people downtown before guiding people to the next control city. [In many of our larger cities, especially those on rivers, downtown is right at the city limit coming from one direction, so this wouldn't apply in that direction.]
So how do I apply this to some of the recent discussions?
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 08, 2023, 08:51:42 AM
On I-94 the control cities for the I-75 exit should be Flint and DOWNTOWN. I-96 should be Lansing and Toledo. At the Lodge they should be DOWNTOWN and Southfield which is what they are.
Absolutely. Detroit has been a big topic of discussion here, so I believe this is the right approach. Flint traffic should be guided to use I-94 to I-96 to avoid going through Downtown. I-75 SB (and any signs leading to it) should not have a Toledo control until the 75/375 interchange. Appropriate guidance to the bridges and tunnels to Canada should be on supplemental signage.
Michigan seems to be pretty good about its controls, so any comments here are just minor quibbles. As 275 NB does not go all the way to I-75, Flint is not a good control. I'd prefer Lansing/Fort Huron, since 275 does default onto 96 towards Lansing and Fort Huron would help cement the idea that the 275 and 696 combo is Detroit's beltway.
Canada alone should not be used, but a city is great. So Sarnia, Can. and Windsor, Can. should be used instead. For I-75, there is no city that it leads to other than Canada's Sault Sainte Marie, so I'd leave it alone as a Canada control within the SSM, Mich. city limits.
Mackinaw City, while small, is well-known as the place where the Mackinac Bridge is at. Its a fine replacement for using a bridge.
Chicagoland and its state controls. SIGH. Any sign with Ohio or Indiana as the control should be replaced with South Bend or South Bend / Detroit as appropriate. Iowa should be replaced with Des Moines. Wisconsin should be replaced with Rockford/Milwaukee on 90/94 and with Milwaukee on 294. Yes, South Bend is a big enough city to be an eastbound control for 80 and 90 and it is in Indiana. i would say that Joliet can be used as a secondary control for I-80 in many places.
I-80 between Cleveland and NYC, let's get rid of most of those small towns. One poster here had a very good discussion of what to do.
EB: Youngstown/NYC, State College/NYC, Williamsport/NYC, Hazleton/NYC, Stroudsburg/NYC, NYC
WB: Paterson/Cleveland, Scranton/Cleveland, Hazleton/Cleveland, State College/Cleveland, Youngstown/Cleveland, Cleveland
Maryland, please replace your "New York" control on I-95 with "Wilmington" or "Philadelphia." Pretty please???
95's SB control beginning at the Bruckner interchange should be Newark instead of Trenton. After crossing the GW bridge, the signage for Paterson and Hackensack is confusing that it only lists 80 controls before the 80/95 split, so Newark should be attached there as well. Once on the NJTP, the controls should be: Newark/Philadelphia (until US 1/9), Trenton/Philadelphia (until I-195), Philadelphia/Wilmington (until exit 6), and then Wilmington/Baltimore south of there.
Quote from: mrsman on November 10, 2023, 07:34:38 AM
Chicagoland and its state controls. SIGH. Any sign with Ohio or Indiana as the control should be replaced with South Bend or South Bend / Detroit as appropriate. Iowa should be replaced with Des Moines. Wisconsin should be replaced with Rockford/Milwaukee on 90/94 and with Milwaukee on 294. Yes, South Bend is a big enough city to be an eastbound control for 80 and 90 and it is in Indiana. i would say that Joliet can be used as a secondary control for I-80 in many places.
Absolutely not. The state controls make perfect sense regardless of how you "like your control cities."
I like Chicago's state controls. 90 and 94 enter Indiana and Wisconsin at different points, so it's less clutter on the signs than signing two cities for each direction. Also one of the highways enter each state at a corner, so using it is the best way to basically all points in both states.
I don't like the Indiana Toll Road using "Ohio" eastbound though. Traffic going from Chicago to two of Ohio's 3 largest cities would've left the Toll Road somewhere in NWI (Cincinnati traffic at I-65, Columbus traffic at I-65 or IN 49 to US 30), so you only have Cleveland left of the 3 major cities to represent "Ohio" on the Turnpike. I would definitely go with either South Bend or Toledo there after I-90 enters Indiana.
Iowa is fine for I-80 WB I guess, All of the major cities in Iowa except Dubuque involve some portion of I-80 to get there. This is also where I would go with Control City Freak's suggestion to use "Kansas" instead of Limon on I-70 EB out of Denver.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 10, 2023, 09:28:06 AM
Quote from: mrsman on November 10, 2023, 07:34:38 AM
Chicagoland and its state controls. SIGH. Any sign with Ohio or Indiana as the control should be replaced with South Bend or South Bend / Detroit as appropriate. Iowa should be replaced with Des Moines. Wisconsin should be replaced with Rockford/Milwaukee on 90/94 and with Milwaukee on 294. Yes, South Bend is a big enough city to be an eastbound control for 80 and 90 and it is in Indiana. i would say that Joliet can be used as a secondary control for I-80 in many places.
Absolutely not. The state controls make perfect sense regardless of how you "like your control cities."
I could agree that state controls there make perfect sense, but I don't think they make
more sense than using proper cities would.
Quote from: GaryV on October 12, 2023, 07:58:15 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 11, 2023, 11:35:06 PM
I'm still confused as to why naming a specific Canadian city is sacrilege. More information is always helpful to a motorist. The two countries are separated by the Detroit River, handwaving Canadian control cities because it's a "different country" is provincial to the point of being unhelpful.
//snip//
Canadian and Mexican cities should be signed as control cities. Who cares if it's a "different country?" People still drive there.
Part of the problem is the woeful lack of geographical knowledge. Many people would not recognize Windsor, Sarnia or London as being cities in Ontario, Canada; maybe not even for Toronto. Giving Canada as the control, these people hopefully would be reminded that they are going toward another country. I'm not familiar enough with the Mexican border to know if that's the same situation there.
Another example: The Mackinac Bridge has a sign at the northern end, "Welcome to Michigan's Upper Peninsula". Surprisingly, a number of people didn't know they were staying in Michigan, and some even expected to have to go through customs.
There was a time when I'd scoff at this comment as being elitism. After all, people can't possibly be
that effing stupid can they? Well, yes they can...
and are. One great example is everyone complaining about how it's getting dark so damn early "because of daylight savings time". NO, it's standard time - idiots! I've even seen the media post this error. Come on, we all knew this one in 1975.
As a culture and as a nation, we're growing dumber by the day.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on November 10, 2023, 12:56:18 PM
Quote from: GaryV on October 12, 2023, 07:58:15 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on October 11, 2023, 11:35:06 PM
I'm still confused as to why naming a specific Canadian city is sacrilege. More information is always helpful to a motorist. The two countries are separated by the Detroit River, handwaving Canadian control cities because it's a "different country" is provincial to the point of being unhelpful.
//snip//
Canadian and Mexican cities should be signed as control cities. Who cares if it's a "different country?" People still drive there.
Part of the problem is the woeful lack of geographical knowledge. Many people would not recognize Windsor, Sarnia or London as being cities in Ontario, Canada; maybe not even for Toronto. Giving Canada as the control, these people hopefully would be reminded that they are going toward another country. I'm not familiar enough with the Mexican border to know if that's the same situation there.
Another example: The Mackinac Bridge has a sign at the northern end, "Welcome to Michigan's Upper Peninsula". Surprisingly, a number of people didn't know they were staying in Michigan, and some even expected to have to go through customs.
There was a time when I'd scoff at this comment as being elitism. After all, people can't possibly be that effing stupid can they? Well, yes they can...and are. One great example is everyone complaining about how it's getting dark so damn early "because of daylight savings time". NO, it's standard time - idiots! I've even seen the media post this error. Come on, we all knew this one in 1975.
As a culture and as a nation, we're growing dumber by the day.
Ditto the highway guys and gals in New Mexico having to put 'USA' on their license plates to assure some people that that car IS registered in the USA.
Mike
Quote from: mrsman on November 10, 2023, 07:34:38 AM
I like my control cities to be cities. Not states, countries, or bridges.
I like my control cities for 2dis to be relatively well-known. Generally, the top three cities of any state or a state capital. Cities that are nationally known are best, if practical (and in many cases they are).
I also prefer that for 3dis that lead to 2dis also use the well-known cities, as opposed to suburbs where practical. But obviously, there is a need to take a case by case approach for these. US routes and state routes are likely to use more local cities, but depending on the location could also use the larger cities as well, especially if they are essntially in place of interstates for a corridor.
I know that many states want to use their own cities even if they do not fit with the above, so I am also in favor of signing two control cities where practical. Obviously, there will be some signs where if every direction has two controls there would be some information overload, but I think generally the occasional pull-through with two controls would be good.
Control cities should be signed and not changed until you reach that control city. If the control city is relatively small, you can begin signing the next control at the city limits, but for larger cites, you should guide people downtown before guiding people to the next control city. [In many of our larger cities, especially those on rivers, downtown is right at the city limit coming from one direction, so this wouldn't apply in that direction.]
So how do I apply this to some of the recent discussions?
I think in general, using 3 cities and the state capital is a good start. However, I think that it would greatly depend on the state. For instance, there's no reason why Rhode Island needs another in state control but Providence vs a state like Montana should have Billings, Butte, Missoula, Helena and Great Falls used. Maybe Bozeman. Maybe a good reference point would be something like the US map used at the beginning of the RMcN Atlas? Although no one in their right mind would use "Sunbury, PA" which is used but State College and Williamsport are not.
The status between primary and secondary would vary per highway. Also, when there are no real legitimately acceptable controls after the last city, use a major city in the next state. Maybe a tiered approach should be used.
In Chicago area, "Indiana" is perfect for points east. Also, most are not going to South Bend specifically. Once past IN border, then there are signs for I-65 to Indy and I-94 to Detroit, etc.
"...should be replaced with..." No need to spend valuable tax money for this, we are fine.
Most of the traffic heading south and east out of Chicago where Indiana is the control city is going to I-65 to head toward Indy and I-94 to head toward Detroit not even reaching South Bend.
Quote from: US20IL64 on November 11, 2023, 10:55:10 PM
In Chicago area, "Indiana" is perfect for points east. Also, most are not going to South Bend specifically. Once past IN border, then there are signs for I-65 to Indy and I-94 to Detroit, etc.
"...should be replaced with..." No need to spend valuable tax money for this, we are fine.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 12, 2023, 02:29:40 PM
Most of the traffic heading south and east out of Chicago where Indiana is the control city is going to I-65 to head toward Indy and I-94 to head toward Detroit not even reaching South Bend.
"Indiana" as a control destination has to be one of the most-discussed ones on this board. There's no perfect answer.
Gary would be the most accurate as that's where the traffic all goes before splitting off amongst I-65, I-94 and the Toll Road, but Gary has such a poor image nobody wants that on a sign.
Signing all of Detroit, South Bend and Indianapolis is probably the most helpful but would get very cluttered.
Indiana remains the least bad option. Yes it's vague, but everybody is going to or through Indiana so it gets you there and then once to you get to Gary the signs can get more specific.
Quote from: US20IL64 on November 11, 2023, 10:55:10 PM
In Chicago area, ... most are not going to South Bend specifically.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 12, 2023, 02:29:40 PM
Most of the traffic heading south and east out of Chicago where Indiana is the control city is going to I-65 to head toward Indy and I-94 to head toward Detroit not even reaching South Bend.
I'm skeptical that most of the traffic coming in on the Eisenhower or the Kennedy or the Stevenson is headed to Indiana
at all.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on November 12, 2023, 02:55:21 PM
Gary would be the most accurate as that's where the traffic all goes before splitting off amongst I-65, I-94 and the Toll Road, but Gary has such a poor image nobody wants that on a sign.
"Image" should not be a criterion for what destination goes on a guide sign. Everyone in Chicago knows where Gary is, so it would work as a control city.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on November 12, 2023, 02:55:21 PM
Quote from: US20IL64 on November 11, 2023, 10:55:10 PM
In Chicago area, "Indiana" is perfect for points east. Also, most are not going to South Bend specifically. Once past IN border, then there are signs for I-65 to Indy and I-94 to Detroit, etc.
"...should be replaced with..." No need to spend valuable tax money for this, we are fine.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 12, 2023, 02:29:40 PM
Most of the traffic heading south and east out of Chicago where Indiana is the control city is going to I-65 to head toward Indy and I-94 to head toward Detroit not even reaching South Bend.
"Indiana" as a control destination has to be one of the most-discussed ones on this board. There's no perfect answer.
Gary would be the most accurate as that's where the traffic all goes before splitting off amongst I-65, I-94 and the Toll Road, but Gary has such a poor image nobody wants that on a sign.
Signing all of Detroit, South Bend and Indianapolis is probably the most helpful but would get very cluttered.
Indiana remains the least bad option. Yes it's vague, but everybody is going to or through Indiana so it gets you there and then once to you get to Gary the signs can get more specific.
I agree, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Same thing with using 'Iowa' and 'Wisconsin' as controls in central Chicago.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on November 13, 2023, 12:12:47 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on November 12, 2023, 02:55:21 PM
Quote from: US20IL64 on November 11, 2023, 10:55:10 PM
In Chicago area, "Indiana" is perfect for points east. Also, most are not going to South Bend specifically. Once past IN border, then there are signs for I-65 to Indy and I-94 to Detroit, etc.
"...should be replaced with..." No need to spend valuable tax money for this, we are fine.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 12, 2023, 02:29:40 PM
Most of the traffic heading south and east out of Chicago where Indiana is the control city is going to I-65 to head toward Indy and I-94 to head toward Detroit not even reaching South Bend.
"Indiana" as a control destination has to be one of the most-discussed ones on this board. There's no perfect answer.
Gary would be the most accurate as that's where the traffic all goes before splitting off amongst I-65, I-94 and the Toll Road, but Gary has such a poor image nobody wants that on a sign.
Signing all of Detroit, South Bend and Indianapolis is probably the most helpful but would get very cluttered.
Indiana remains the least bad option. Yes it's vague, but everybody is going to or through Indiana so it gets you there and then once to you get to Gary the signs can get more specific.
I agree, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Same thing with using 'Iowa' and 'Wisconsin' as controls in central Chicago.
Mike
Of the three states, Indiana is the least likely to cause problems. Given the geography, you basically have to pass through the NW corner to reach nearly the rest of the state, so Indiana can stay, begrudgingly. It is equivalent to the Illinois control in St Louis which leads to the bridges over the river that can then lead to Illinois and then the three highways to Chicago, Indianapolis, or Louisville.
I have more problems with Wisconsin, since there are other ways to get to other parts of the state. For 294, especially, the road goes to Milwaukee - you have to turn off to get to Rockford (which is Illinois) and then Madison.
Iowa is a big problem, since the control does not stay the same going west. Once you leave Chicagoland, you would see different controls like Davenport or Moline=Grand Island depending on the district. Indiana uses Des Moines for some odd reason. So it would make sense to me that the control in Indiana and all of Illinois should be Davenport, and it should be consistent.
Quote from: mrsman on November 15, 2023, 04:11:25 PM
Iowa is a big problem, since the control does not stay the same going west. Once you leave Chicagoland, you would see different controls like Davenport or Moline=Grand Island depending on the district. Indiana uses Des Moines for some odd reason. So it would make sense to me that the control in Indiana and all of Illinois should be Davenport, and it should be consistent.
Disagree that it's a big problem. I think it's a fair assumption that most non-suburban traffic have destinations in or beyond Iowa, and as much as I hate to say it, Des Moines and Iowa City are more notable destinations than Davenport, Moline, and Rock Island.
FWIW, I've always thought the Iowa shout-out was cool, but I wouldn't be mad if it was changed to Joliet (for I-80) and Aurora (for I-88), and then Des Moines past those cities.
For the rest of your point, I'm not sure signage is as inconsistent as you're outlining. I don't recall seeing Des Moines as a control city in Indiana, unless there's a mileage sign I haven't paid attention to (WB traffic is signed for Chicago). Also, AFAIK the only mention of Davenport outside the Quad Cities themselves is at the north end of I-180. The rest of it's mainly just Moline-Rock Island, which is consistent with IDOT's system of secondary control cities (see also: East St. Louis, Effingham, Mt. Vernon, etc.)
Quote from: pianocello on November 15, 2023, 09:54:00 PM
I don't recall seeing Des Moines as a control city in Indiana, unless there's a mileage sign I haven't paid attention to (WB traffic is signed for Chicago).
Des Moines does make an appearance on the Indiana Toll Road.
Example 1 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/QYWdqE8FYhYxgPzs5)
Example 2 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/opuJ8ACyYxDydsc97)
Using Des Moines in Indiana is stupid. That is easily the worst control city in Indiana.
Didn't Illinois use to use one of the Quad Cities on I-80? I have an early childhood memory of seeing a guide sign for one of them at the I-55 interchange, and I think it was Rock Island.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 16, 2023, 08:04:20 AM
Using Des Moines in Indiana is stupid. That is easily the worst control city in Indiana.
I still think "Ohio" is a bit worse, for this reason I mentioned upthread:
Quote from: SkyPesos on November 10, 2023, 09:54:18 AM
I don't like the Indiana Toll Road using "Ohio" eastbound though. Traffic going from Chicago to two of Ohio's 3 largest cities would've left the Toll Road somewhere in NWI (Cincinnati traffic at I-65, Columbus traffic at I-65 or IN 49 to US 30), so you only have Cleveland left of the 3 major cities to represent "Ohio" on the Turnpike. I would definitely go with either South Bend or Toledo there after I-90 enters Indiana.
Quote from: kphoger on November 16, 2023, 01:43:41 PM
Didn't Illinois use to use one of the Quad Cities on I-80? I have an early childhood memory of seeing a guide sign for one of them at the I-55 interchange, and I think it was Rock Island.
From what I remember from browsing GSV, it's "Moline - Rock Island"
Quote from: kphoger on November 16, 2023, 01:43:41 PM
Didn't Illinois use to use one of the Quad Cities on I-80? I have an early childhood memory of seeing a guide sign for one of them at the I-55 interchange, and I think it was Rock Island.
As you might already know, Illinois uses two different sets of control cities. Moline-Rock Island is used as the local control city on the minor street. Des Moines is the major city for westbound I-80. I pass this sign leaving work most days.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/32719701977_7dd124b52c_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/RRk2sH)
IL-I-80X134SN (https://flic.kr/p/RRk2sH) by Paul Across America (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
The use of Utah for I-70 from Grand Junction west is most logical as most traffic either heads to Moab (US-191 South), Salt Lake City (US-6) or Richfield (I-70) not many other towns in-between worth mentioning.
Although Green River would qualify as the Limon of Utah...
Quote from: thenetwork on November 16, 2023, 09:52:00 PM
Although Green River would qualify as the Limon of Utah...
It would? Limon is about three times the size of Green River.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 17, 2023, 06:27:22 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on November 16, 2023, 09:52:00 PM
Although Green River would qualify as the Limon of Utah...
It would? Limon is about three times the size of Green River.
Yes. It's the jumping-off point for WB traffic headed to Salt Lake City. Its use as a control city functions much as Limon does farther east.
Quote from: kphoger on November 22, 2023, 12:53:20 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 17, 2023, 06:27:22 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on November 16, 2023, 09:52:00 PM
Although Green River would qualify as the Limon of Utah...
It would? Limon is about three times the size of Green River.
Yes. It's the jumping-off point for WB traffic headed to Salt Lake City. Its use as a control city functions much as Limon does farther east.
Or Tomah, WI, for to its major interstate highway interchange (I-90/94 split).
Mike
Quote from: kphoger on November 22, 2023, 12:53:20 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 17, 2023, 06:27:22 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on November 16, 2023, 09:52:00 PM
Although Green River would qualify as the Limon of Utah...
It would? Limon is about three times the size of Green River.
Yes. It's the jumping-off point for WB traffic headed to Salt Lake City. Its use as a control city functions much as Limon does farther east.
Exactly. The stretch of I-70 in which US-491 duplexes for a few exits between Crescent Jct
and Green River Is where most traffic switches route numbers to access different points in Utah, much in the same vein that traffic changes routes in Limon.
I would say that the percentage of traffic that stays on I-70 BOTH before and after this stretch is much lower than those who only enter and/or exit I-70 here.
Quote from: thspfc on August 13, 2022, 08:22:21 AMQuote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 09:13:12 PMQuote from: Flint1979 on August 12, 2022, 08:44:59 PMQuote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 06:38:36 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on August 12, 2022, 05:19:05 PMQuote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 05:16:47 PMQuote from: thspfc on August 12, 2022, 04:52:53 PMQuote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 03:13:50 PMQuote from: thspfc on August 12, 2022, 02:37:03 PMQuote from: ran4sh on August 12, 2022, 11:47:09 AMThere's no rule that says "cross country 2di" have different control city standards than whatever other types of 2di you believe exist.
A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities.
The interstates are a national system, not a system where "cross country" routes are one type of route and some other type of route is a different type of route.
Cross country traffic should figure in when determining control cities on *any* interstate, not just the "cross country" routes (whatever that means... FHWA makes no such distinction).
Never said anything about cross country routes or even Interstates at all for that matter.
A large amount of cross country traffic should factor in when choosing control cities. That means that if a route has a lot of cross country traffic, its control cities should, on average, be larger and more notable. If a route does not have a lot of cross country traffic - and many segments of Interstates don't - the control cities should, on average, be more locally rather than nationally known.
Again, routes are arbitrary distinctions and all it takes is replacement of some signs to turn one segment from "non-cross country" to "cross country" or vice versa. For example, the interstates currently known as I-76 were at one point branch routes from I-80 (i.e. I-80S, etc) I-80 is clearly a cross country route, while the others are not, so just by switching signs you are saying the standards should also switch (despite being the same road). I strongly disagree, routes are arbitrary distinctions.
Reread what he wrote carefully. He's saying "sections of road with lots of out-of-state traffic should have more well-known control cities". That has nothing to do with route numbers.
Sure. But my opinion remains the same. The FHWA makes no distinction between Interstate routes with lots of out of state traffic vs routes with mostly local traffic. I agree with that and I believe Interstate routes throughout the whole system, including 3dis, should have control cities based on non-local traffic.
They leave it up to the states to decide what the control cities are. Like for Michigan MDOT chooses the control cities and does a pretty good job at it too. So control cities vary state by state, some do it well and some don't.
The winner for MDOT's worst control cities is a tie between Flint on I-275 and Port Huron on I-696.
That's not what the MUTCD says. The MUTCD specifically recommends continuity across state lines. It's just that it's not within the power of the federal government to force states to agree on control cities across state lines.
Have you not caught on that nobody cares about what the MUTCD says?
No because in this case, whoever is disagreeing with the MUTCD is wrong.
Oregon has a lot of bad ones, they can get provincial at times and they for some reason hate signing anything in California and Idaho.
Though in my opinion, Yreka is the worst. They could sign Sacramento or Redding here, but they instead sign a small town just south of the border. Why do they do this? I don't know, I think Oregon just hates signing any large city outside of its borders besides Seattle.
Umatilla and Ontario are close seconds, Ontario is one of the largest cities in Eastern Oregon and is the last city in Oregon so it's kinda passable. Umatilla just makes zero sense to me, they could sign Kennewick, Spokane, or Seattle. But no.
Ontario looks ridiculous when Boise is 20 times its size and not even 50 miles down the road.
Quote from: US 89 on November 04, 2024, 04:03:08 AMOntario looks ridiculous when Boise is 20 times its size and not even 50 miles down the road.
Yes! Just because Oregon has to sign SOMETHING in their state borders before we get to Idaho. It doesn't even have an important junction besides maybe OR 201, which combined with US 20/26 is a cut over to US 95 but it's faster to just take I-84 to get to 95. Makes no sense. Not that big of a place either with a population of just 11,000.
But I think it's just as bad when Idaho signs it west out of Boise. No need, though Portland is quite a distance away so I understand if they want to sign something out of state that isn't Portland, though if they were willing to go that route then they might as well just sign Pendleton out of Boise.
I don't think it's on any milage signs, but this still seems unnecessary: https://maps.app.goo.gl/NjqUd2dsv3BbsHfNA
I think I would rather them sign the name of the road than whatever Fishtrap is for a minor junction like this. The exit is named the same thing westbound. There isn't even a Wikipedia article for it, because whether a city, town, UIC, or CDP, Google Maps will say something along the lines of "X is a small CDP in X County," which isn't the case here.
Quote from: kphoger on November 13, 2023, 10:10:58 AMQuote from: US20IL64 on November 11, 2023, 10:55:10 PMIn Chicago area, ... most are not going to South Bend specifically.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 12, 2023, 02:29:40 PMMost of the traffic heading south and east out of Chicago where Indiana is the control city is going to I-65 to head toward Indy and I-94 to head toward Detroit not even reaching South Bend.
I'm skeptical that most of the traffic coming in on the Eisenhower or the Kennedy or the Stevenson is headed to Indiana at all.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on November 12, 2023, 02:55:21 PMGary would be the most accurate as that's where the traffic all goes before splitting off amongst I-65, I-94 and the Toll Road, but Gary has such a poor image nobody wants that on a sign.
"Image" should not be a criterion for what destination goes on a guide sign. Everyone in Chicago knows where Gary is, so it would work as a control city.
I mean yeah Flint is a control city on US-23, I-69, I-75 and I-275 and has just as bad of an image as Gary does.
Quote from: Amaury on November 09, 2024, 04:57:40 PMI don't think it's on any milage signs, but this still seems unnecessary: https://maps.app.goo.gl/NjqUd2dsv3BbsHfNA
I think I would rather them sign the name of the road than whatever Fishtrap is for a minor junction like this. The exit is named the same thing westbound. There isn't even a Wikipedia article for it, because whether a city, town, UIC, or CDP, Google Maps will say something along the lines of "X is a small CDP in X County," which isn't the case here.
Is this worse than that one Ritzville sign on 90 west near the Spokane Airport?
Quote from: PNWRoadgeek on November 09, 2024, 08:43:57 PMQuote from: Amaury on November 09, 2024, 04:57:40 PMI don't think it's on any milage signs, but this still seems unnecessary: https://maps.app.goo.gl/NjqUd2dsv3BbsHfNA
I think I would rather them sign the name of the road than whatever Fishtrap is for a minor junction like this. The exit is named the same thing westbound. There isn't even a Wikipedia article for it, because whether a city, town, UIC, or CDP, Google Maps will say something along the lines of "X is a small CDP in X County," which isn't the case here.
Is this worse than that one Ritzville sign on 90 west near the Spokane Airport?
I saw one on US-2, the rest of the signs in the area have Seattle as the control city so that one is a mystery.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 10, 2024, 08:12:15 AMQuote from: PNWRoadgeek on November 09, 2024, 08:43:57 PMQuote from: Amaury on November 09, 2024, 04:57:40 PMI don't think it's on any milage signs, but this still seems unnecessary: https://maps.app.goo.gl/NjqUd2dsv3BbsHfNA
I think I would rather them sign the name of the road than whatever Fishtrap is for a minor junction like this. The exit is named the same thing westbound. There isn't even a Wikipedia article for it, because whether a city, town, UIC, or CDP, Google Maps will say something along the lines of "X is a small CDP in X County," which isn't the case here.
Is this worse than that one Ritzville sign on 90 west near the Spokane Airport?
I saw one on US-2, the rest of the signs in the area have Seattle as the control city so that one is a mystery.
That's what I meant. Couldn't remember where exactly it was, but I knew there was a sign in Spokane that did list Ritzville.
I believe it's this one: https://maps.app.goo.gl/kDv1gAeCn6rMd6Lv6
I don't really see an issue with it there or on milage signs since it is a city and it's where the junctions with US 395 and SR 261 are, the former leaving its concurrency with I-90.
Quote from: Amaury on November 10, 2024, 01:47:42 PMI believe it's this one: https://maps.app.goo.gl/kDv1gAeCn6rMd6Lv6
I don't really see an issue with it there or on milage signs since it is a city and it's where the junctions with US 395 and SR 261 are, the former leaving its concurrency with I-90.
I think Ritzville/Seattle is the way to go there, just Ritzville is definitely a problem as the only thing it really draws in traffic for is the US 395 junction. Though Spokane to Ellensburg is a relatively unpopulated stretch of I-90, so I get why they would sign something from over there, especially something with an important junction.
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but I-91 upon entering Vermont from Canada uses Newport, which is the next town over. Why not St. Johnsbury or even Springfield? I get there's not much in Vermont but still.
Quote from: MATraveler128 on November 10, 2024, 10:29:17 PMNot sure if it's been mentioned, but I-91 upon entering Vermont from Canada uses Newport, which is the next town over. Why not St. Johnsbury or even Springfield? I get there's not much in Vermont but still.
That's standard Vermont signage for you. The standard VTrans sequence of signs after each exit is a reassurance shield, a speed limit sign, and a mileage sign with two destinations: the next exit and the next "major" control city.
Quote from: PNWRoadgeek on November 09, 2024, 03:19:10 PMQuote from: US 89 on November 04, 2024, 04:03:08 AMOntario looks ridiculous when Boise is 20 times its size and not even 50 miles down the road.
Yes! Just because Oregon has to sign SOMETHING in their state borders before we get to Idaho. It doesn't even have an important junction besides maybe OR 201, which combined with US 20/26 is a cut over to US 95 but it's faster to just take I-84 to get to 95. Makes no sense. Not that big of a place either with a population of just 11,000.
But I think it's just as bad when Idaho signs it west out of Boise. No need, though Portland is quite a distance away so I understand if they want to sign something out of state that isn't Portland, though if they were willing to go that route then they might as well just sign Pendleton out of Boise.
For your westbound suggestion, Pendleton isn't that much bigger than Ontario really. 11,000 vs 17,000 (and Ontario has "suburbs" if you want to call them that, in Fruitland and Payette). If you're going to sign a smaller cities (which I do think might be appropriate in this part of the country), might as well do the first one you get to, Ontario. From Boise/Nampa/Caldwell, a lot more of the traffic is heading to Ontario than to Pendleton. And a decent chunk will leave on OR-201 and US-20 towards Bend. I would still probably just sign Portland though, or sign both.
Eastbound I can't really excuse that though. Especially once you're beyond La Grande (and you could argue Pendleton or I-82), every sign should say Boise. Not sure if Boise needs to be signed all the way back into Portland though. The Dalles like it is now is a good enough proxy for "the gorge", and Pendleton and Hermiston both work as an "Eastern OR/I-82 split" proxy. I've seen both used as control cities, not sure which I'd prefer they stick with (Pendleton is actually directly on I-84, but Hermiston is right next to the I-82 split).
Eastern Oregon/the Columbia Gorge is weird. There are a bunch of cities all with a population between 10,000 and 20,000. Big enough to be regionally significant, but not really big enough to justify being control cities on an Interstate: The Dalles, Hermiston, Pendleton, La Grande, Baker City, and Ontario are all in that population range (and Hood River just below at 8,000).
All that said, Yreka on I-5 and Hermiston/Umatilla on I-82 are still worse than anything on I-84.
Quote from: doorknob60 on November 11, 2024, 04:30:08 PMQuote from: PNWRoadgeek on November 09, 2024, 03:19:10 PMQuote from: US 89 on November 04, 2024, 04:03:08 AMOntario looks ridiculous when Boise is 20 times its size and not even 50 miles down the road.
Yes! Just because Oregon has to sign SOMETHING in their state borders before we get to Idaho. It doesn't even have an important junction besides maybe OR 201, which combined with US 20/26 is a cut over to US 95 but it's faster to just take I-84 to get to 95. Makes no sense. Not that big of a place either with a population of just 11,000.
But I think it's just as bad when Idaho signs it west out of Boise. No need, though Portland is quite a distance away so I understand if they want to sign something out of state that isn't Portland, though if they were willing to go that route then they might as well just sign Pendleton out of Boise.
For your westbound suggestion, Pendleton isn't that much bigger than Ontario really. 11,000 vs 17,000 (and Ontario has "suburbs" if you want to call them that, in Fruitland and Payette). If you're going to sign a smaller cities (which I do think might be appropriate in this part of the country), might as well do the first one you get to, Ontario. From Boise/Nampa/Caldwell, a lot more of the traffic is heading to Ontario than to Pendleton. And a decent chunk will leave on OR-201 and US-20 towards Bend. I would still probably just sign Portland though, or sign both.
Eastbound I can't really excuse that though. Especially once you're beyond La Grande (and you could argue Pendleton or I-82), every sign should say Boise. Not sure if Boise needs to be signed all the way back into Portland though. The Dalles like it is now is a good enough proxy for "the gorge", and Pendleton and Hermiston both work as an "Eastern OR/I-82 split" proxy. I've seen both used as control cities, not sure which I'd prefer they stick with (Pendleton is actually directly on I-84, but Hermiston is right next to the I-82 split).
Eastern Oregon/the Columbia Gorge is weird. There are a bunch of cities all with a population between 10,000 and 20,000. Big enough to be regionally significant, but not really big enough to justify being control cities on an Interstate: The Dalles, Hermiston, Pendleton, La Grande, Baker City, and Ontario are all in that population range (and Hood River just below at 8,000).
All that said, Yreka on I-5 and Hermiston/Umatilla on I-82 are still worse than anything on I-84.
Pendleton has an important junction with US 395 and is also a tourist draw with Wildhorse Resort & Casino and the Pendleton Round-up. Though I feel like Portland is the way to go on I-84 out of Boise, even when you consider that OR 201 to US 20 is the fastest route to Bend.
Agree with you on Eastbound though. The Dalles is fine, because it does a good job of representing the Gorge as a whole. Though I think Boise should be the bottom line on all mileage signs out of The Dalles, with Hermiston and Pendleton being signed on the interchanges and pull-through signs. Should be all Boise after Pendleton though, Ontario is just awful, La Grande only has the junction with OR 82 and Eastern Oregon University going for it, and Baker City has basically one interchange on I-84.
The limited topography of Eastern Oregon plus the frantic NIMBYism that goes on there(and in Oregon in general) really limits growth over there, and it's probably the reason why we have these small cities signed on I-84. Though Yreka is just abysmal, no purpose for its use as a control city out of Ashland. Hermiston/Umatilla could also be changed outright easily to Kennewick/Seattle westbound or Kennewick/Spokane eastbound.
New Jersey here, so either Shore Points on I-195 or Netcong on I-80. You could argue Delaware Water Gap, but it's enough of a destination to argue in favor of its value.
I don't know if I've mentioned it but I was watching the control City freak guys video yesterday on the worst control cities in each state and for Michigan it was Saint Ignace. I might agree with this one because in the lower peninsula approaching the Mackinac bridge 180 miles south of it in Saginaw that's the control City then in the up it's St Ignace until you get to the US 2 interchange and it quickly changes to the Mackinac bridge for a minute and then to Saginaw on the lower peninsula.
Also in the lower peninsula Bay City is the control City at one interchange. The exit at the north end of the zilwaukee bridge has Bay City as the control City instead of the Mackinac bridge.
Quote from: boilerup25 on November 18, 2024, 04:13:37 PMNew Jersey here, so either Shore Points on I-195 or Netcong on I-80. You could argue Delaware Water Gap, but it's enough of a destination to argue in favor of its value.
On I-78, Easton should no longer be used. It was originally used back when I-78 ended at Still Valley and US 22 continued the traffic, but now Allentown should really be used as it's a bigger city and the fact I-78 bypasses Easton.
In addition, Kearney should not be used on I-280 at Eisenhower Parkway in Roseland especially being Newark, the state's largest city is right before it.
Quote from: boilerup25 on November 18, 2024, 04:13:37 PMNew Jersey here, so either Shore Points on I-195 or Netcong on I-80. You could argue Delaware Water Gap, but it's enough of a destination to argue in favor of its value.
I have mentioned this in here many times before, I was totally flummoxed by 'Del Water Gap' for WB I-80 in New Jersey when I was raodtripping around there a couple of decades ago. I went home firmly believing then (as I still very much am now) that 'Pennsylvania' would be far more accurate and better.
Mike (Appleton, WI)
Quote from: mgk920 on November 19, 2024, 09:43:19 AMQuote from: boilerup25 on November 18, 2024, 04:13:37 PMNew Jersey here, so either Shore Points on I-195 or Netcong on I-80. You could argue Delaware Water Gap, but it's enough of a destination to argue in favor of its value.
I have mentioned this in here many times before, I was totally flummoxed by 'Del Water Gap' for WB I-80 in New Jersey when I was raodtripping around there a couple of decades ago. I went home firmly believing then (as I still very much am now) that 'Pennsylvania' would be far more accurate and better.
Mike (Appleton, WI)
Honestly, I would like to see Cleveland straight from the G Washington Bridge with secondaries of Patterson, The Poconos, State College, & Youngstown.
Quote from: hobsini2 on November 19, 2024, 09:50:45 AMQuote from: mgk920 on November 19, 2024, 09:43:19 AMQuote from: boilerup25 on November 18, 2024, 04:13:37 PMNew Jersey here, so either Shore Points on I-195 or Netcong on I-80. You could argue Delaware Water Gap, but it's enough of a destination to argue in favor of its value.
I have mentioned this in here many times before, I was totally flummoxed by 'Del Water Gap' for WB I-80 in New Jersey when I was raodtripping around there a couple of decades ago. I went home firmly believing then (as I still very much am now) that 'Pennsylvania' would be far more accurate and better.
Mike (Appleton, WI)
Honestly, I would like to see Cleveland straight from the G Washington Bridge with secondaries of Patterson, The Poconos, State College, & Youngstown.
'Chicago' and 'Cleveland' would be good as secondary controls at I-80's beginning, but the others would be good local controls once on is in and boyond Pennsylvania.
Mike
Quote from: hobsini2 on November 19, 2024, 09:50:45 AMQuote from: mgk920 on November 19, 2024, 09:43:19 AMQuote from: boilerup25 on November 18, 2024, 04:13:37 PMNew Jersey here, so either Shore Points on I-195 or Netcong on I-80. You could argue Delaware Water Gap, but it's enough of a destination to argue in favor of its value.
I have mentioned this in here many times before, I was totally flummoxed by 'Del Water Gap' for WB I-80 in New Jersey when I was raodtripping around there a couple of decades ago. I went home firmly believing then (as I still very much am now) that 'Pennsylvania' would be far more accurate and better.
Mike (Appleton, WI)
Honestly, I would like to see Cleveland straight from the G Washington Bridge with secondaries of Patterson, The Poconos, State College, & Youngstown.
I remember watching Control City Freak's I-80 west video and he had Scranton listed as the westbound from Paterson. I actually think Scranton makes sense because it connects to I-380 which goes to Scranton. I'd personally use
Scranton ----> State College ----> then right to Cleveland since it's much bigger than Youngstown is and he had Youngstown as the control west from State College.
Quote from: MATraveler128 on November 19, 2024, 10:05:04 AMQuote from: hobsini2 on November 19, 2024, 09:50:45 AMQuote from: mgk920 on November 19, 2024, 09:43:19 AMQuote from: boilerup25 on November 18, 2024, 04:13:37 PMNew Jersey here, so either Shore Points on I-195 or Netcong on I-80. You could argue Delaware Water Gap, but it's enough of a destination to argue in favor of its value.
I have mentioned this in here many times before, I was totally flummoxed by 'Del Water Gap' for WB I-80 in New Jersey when I was raodtripping around there a couple of decades ago. I went home firmly believing then (as I still very much am now) that 'Pennsylvania' would be far more accurate and better.
Mike (Appleton, WI)
Honestly, I would like to see Cleveland straight from the G Washington Bridge with secondaries of Patterson, The Poconos, State College, & Youngstown.
I remember watching Control City Freak's I-80 west video and he had Scranton listed as the westbound from Paterson. I actually think Scranton makes sense because it connects to I-380 which goes to Scranton. I'd personally use
Scranton ----> State College ----> then right to Cleveland since it's much bigger than Youngstown is and he had Youngstown as the control west from State College.
Those make sense as control cities though on mileage signs I'd have Cleveland as the bottom line since New Jersey.
Quote from: mgk920 on November 19, 2024, 10:02:03 AMQuote from: hobsini2 on November 19, 2024, 09:50:45 AMQuote from: mgk920 on November 19, 2024, 09:43:19 AMQuote from: boilerup25 on November 18, 2024, 04:13:37 PMNew Jersey here, so either Shore Points on I-195 or Netcong on I-80. You could argue Delaware Water Gap, but it's enough of a destination to argue in favor of its value.
I have mentioned this in here many times before, I was totally flummoxed by 'Del Water Gap' for WB I-80 in New Jersey when I was raodtripping around there a couple of decades ago. I went home firmly believing then (as I still very much am now) that 'Pennsylvania' would be far more accurate and better.
Mike (Appleton, WI)
Honestly, I would like to see Cleveland straight from the G Washington Bridge with secondaries of Patterson, The Poconos, State College, & Youngstown.
'Chicago' and 'Cleveland' would be good as secondary controls at I-80's beginning, but the others would be good local controls once on is in and boyond Pennsylvania.
Mike
Pennsylvania should be Youngstown and New York City. There is nothing significant enough along I-80 in Pennsylvania to sign anything else.
New Jersey has no urge to go to far beyond the border to look for controls. Plus no desire to use mileage signs especially along I-80, a cross country interstate. The NJTA had to add one of their own at I-80 because they won't. In fact I don't think you see any mileage signs WB other than that until you get to PA.
Why Cleveland on I-80 westbound in New Jersey? Is it because I-80 doesn't directly serve Scranton/Wilkes-Barre or State College? Well, it doesn't directly serve Cleveland either. Furthermore, if Scranton/Wilkes-Barre and Youngstown are too small to be control cities, then why is Harrisburg a control city? Why not sign Pittsburgh on the Pennsylvania Turnpike from Philadelphia, or on I-79 all the way north through West Virginia? Both of those Interstates pass closer to downtown Pittsburgh than I-80 does to downtown Cleveland.
Quite frankly, using Cleveland and New York City as control cities all the way across Pennsylvania is just as dumb as using Clarion, DuBois, Bloomsburg, etc. New York City should not be used consistently until the eastern end of the I-99 concurrency, and Cleveland should not be used at all until the western end of the concurrency.
I-80 EB: State College/New York City once at the I-80/Ohio Turnpike junction, then State College to U.S. 322 near Clearfield, then Williamsport to the I-99 south junction, then Williamsport/New York City on the future I-80/I-99 concurrency, then Hazleton/New York City to I-81, then New York City past I-81.
I-80 WB: Delaware Water Gap/Scranton past I-287 to the Delaware River, then Scranton/Wilkes-Barre from the Delaware River to I-380, then Wilkes-Barre/Hazleton to PA 115, then Hazleton to I-81, then State College to the I-99 south junction, then Youngstown/Cleveland once at the I-99 south junction, then Youngstown past the I-99 south junction, then Youngstown/Cleveland once again at the I-79 junction, then Youngstown to OH 11, then Cleveland past OH 11.
Problem solved.
Quote from: Gnutella on June 05, 2025, 03:53:33 AMWhy Cleveland on I-80 westbound in New Jersey? Is it because I-80 doesn't directly serve Scranton/Wilkes-Barre or State College? Well, it doesn't directly serve Cleveland either. Furthermore, if Scranton/Wilkes-Barre and Youngstown are too small to be control cities, then why is Harrisburg a control city? Why not sign Pittsburgh on the Pennsylvania Turnpike from Philadelphia, or on I-79 all the way north through West Virginia? Both of those Interstates pass closer to downtown Pittsburgh than I-80 does to downtown Cleveland.
Quite frankly, using Cleveland and New York City as control cities all the way across Pennsylvania is just as dumb as using Clarion, DuBois, Bloomsburg, etc. New York City should not be used consistently until the eastern end of the I-99 concurrency, and Cleveland should not be used at all until the western end of the concurrency.
I-80 EB: State College/New York City once at the I-80/Ohio Turnpike junction, then State College to U.S. 322 near Clearfield, then Williamsport to the I-99 south junction, then Williamsport/New York City on the future I-80/I-99 concurrency, then Hazleton/New York City to I-81, then New York City past I-81.
I-80 WB: Delaware Water Gap/Scranton past I-287 to the Delaware River, then Scranton/Wilkes-Barre from the Delaware River to I-380, then Wilkes-Barre/Hazleton to PA 115, then Hazleton to I-81, then State College to the I-99 south junction, then Youngstown/Cleveland once at the I-99 south junction, then Youngstown past the I-99 south junction, then Youngstown/Cleveland once again at the I-79 junction, then Youngstown to OH 11, then Cleveland past OH 11.
Problem solved.
Control cities are supposed to give you a general direction in which to head for those who aren't great with cardinal directions. That is why Cleveland and NYC are just fine. As are Wisconsin and Indiana on the Tri State Tollway near Chicago. There is no reason to overthink these things.
Quote from: Gnutella on June 05, 2025, 03:53:33 AMWhy Cleveland on I-80 westbound in New Jersey? Is it because I-80 doesn't directly serve Scranton/Wilkes-Barre or State College? Well, it doesn't directly serve Cleveland either. Furthermore, if Scranton/Wilkes-Barre and Youngstown are too small to be control cities, then why is Harrisburg a control city? Why not sign Pittsburgh on the Pennsylvania Turnpike from Philadelphia, or on I-79 all the way north through West Virginia? Both of those Interstates pass closer to downtown Pittsburgh than I-80 does to downtown Cleveland.
Quite frankly, using Cleveland and New York City as control cities all the way across Pennsylvania is just as dumb as using Clarion, DuBois, Bloomsburg, etc. New York City should not be used consistently until the eastern end of the I-99 concurrency, and Cleveland should not be used at all until the western end of the concurrency.
I-80 EB: State College/New York City once at the I-80/Ohio Turnpike junction, then State College to U.S. 322 near Clearfield, then Williamsport to the I-99 south junction, then Williamsport/New York City on the future I-80/I-99 concurrency, then Hazleton/New York City to I-81, then New York City past I-81.
I-80 WB: Delaware Water Gap/Scranton past I-287 to the Delaware River, then Scranton/Wilkes-Barre from the Delaware River to I-380, then Wilkes-Barre/Hazleton to PA 115, then Hazleton to I-81, then State College to the I-99 south junction, then Youngstown/Cleveland once at the I-99 south junction, then Youngstown past the I-99 south junction, then Youngstown/Cleveland once again at the I-79 junction, then Youngstown to OH 11, then Cleveland past OH 11.
Problem solved.
I like using secondaries a lot. I am of the belief that secondaries are needed for the local traffic. However, as much as I see value in secondaries, If I am in NYC on the GWB, what is likely going to be a bigger draw for everyone? Scranton and State College or Cleveland? Believe it or not, there are people who have never heard of State College or Scranton. People at least have heard of Cleveland.
So as I said I would do I-80 WEST as:
Patterson/Cleveland from GWB to NJ 20
The Poconos/Cleveland from NJ 20 to PA 33 (the first of the Pocono exits)
State College/Cleveland from PA 33 to I-99 South
Youngstown/Cleveland from I-99 South to OH 11
Akron/Cleveland from OH 11 to I-76
Cleveland/Toledo from I-76 to I-480
Toledo/Chicago from I-480 to I-280
South Bend/Chicago from I-280 to IN 23
Chicago from IN 23 to I-94 West/IL 394
Iowa/Wisconsin on the cosigned section of I-294
Joliet/Des Moines from I-294 to US 30
Moline/Des Moines from US 30 to I-74/280 EAST JCT
Davenport/Des Moines from I-74/280 to I-74 WEST JCT
Iowa City/Des Moines from I-74 WEST JCT to IA 1
Des Moines from IA 1 to US 6 EXIT 142 at Altoona
Omaha/Kansas City from US 6 EXIT 142 to I-35/235 WEST JCT
Council Bluffs/Omaha from I-35/235 SOUTH JCT to US 6 EXIT 8
Omaha from US 6 EXIT 8 to I-29 SOUTH
Omaha/Sioux City on the cosigned section of I-29
Omaha/Lincoln from I-29 NORTH to 13th St
Lincoln from 13th St to US 6 EXIT 409
Grand Island/North Platte from US 6 EXIT 409 to NE 2 EXIT 319 (an occasional mention of Denver on the mileage signs)
Kearney/North Platte from NE 2 EXIT 319 to NE 10 EXIT 275 (an occasional mention of Denver on the mileage signs)
North Platte/Denver from NE 10 EXIT 275 to NE 56G Link
Denver/Cheyenne from NE 56G Link to I-76
Sidney/Cheyenne from I-76 to US 385 NORTH
Cheyenne from US 385 NORTH to US 30 EXIT 370
Laramie/Salt Lake City from US 30 EXIT 370 to US 30/Bus I-80 EXIT 316
Rawlins/Salt Lake City from US 30/Bus I-80 EXIT 316 to US 287 NORTH/Bus I-80
Rock Springs/Salt Lake City from US 287 NORTH/Bus I-80 to Bus I-80/Bus US 30 EXIT 107
Green River/Salt Lake City from Bus I-80/Bus US 30 EXIT 107 to Bus I-80/Bus US 30 EXIT 91
Evanston/Salt Lake City from Bus I-80/Bus US 30 EXIT 91 to Bus I-80/Bus US 189 EXIT 6
Boise/Salt Lake City from Bus I-80/Bus US 189 EXIT 6 to I-84
Salt Lake City from I-84 to I-215 EAST JCT
Reno from I-215 EAST JCT to I-15 SOUTH
Ogden/Reno for the cosigned section with I-15
Reno/San Francisco from I-15 NORTH to UT 201
Elko/Reno from UT 201 to Bus I-80 EXIT 303
Winnemucca/Reno from Bus I-80 EXIT 303 to NV 794
Reno from NV 794 to US 95 NORTH
Fallon/Reno from US 95 NORTH to US 95 SOUTH
Sparks/Reno from US 95 SOUTH to Greg St/Vista Blvd EXIT 21
Reno from Greg St/Vista Blvd EXIT 21 to I-580
Sacramento from I-580 to Bus I-80 EXIT 95
San Francisco from Bus I-80 EXIT 95 to end
Not my state, but California's "Beach Cities" on CA-91 is groan-inducing. Am I supposed to know which of the ten trillion cities in Orange County have beaches and which don't?
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 05, 2025, 01:57:56 PMQuote from: Gnutella on June 05, 2025, 03:53:33 AMWhy Cleveland on I-80 westbound in New Jersey? Is it because I-80 doesn't directly serve Scranton/Wilkes-Barre or State College? Well, it doesn't directly serve Cleveland either. Furthermore, if Scranton/Wilkes-Barre and Youngstown are too small to be control cities, then why is Harrisburg a control city? Why not sign Pittsburgh on the Pennsylvania Turnpike from Philadelphia, or on I-79 all the way north through West Virginia? Both of those Interstates pass closer to downtown Pittsburgh than I-80 does to downtown Cleveland.
Quite frankly, using Cleveland and New York City as control cities all the way across Pennsylvania is just as dumb as using Clarion, DuBois, Bloomsburg, etc. New York City should not be used consistently until the eastern end of the I-99 concurrency, and Cleveland should not be used at all until the western end of the concurrency.
I-80 EB: State College/New York City once at the I-80/Ohio Turnpike junction, then State College to U.S. 322 near Clearfield, then Williamsport to the I-99 south junction, then Williamsport/New York City on the future I-80/I-99 concurrency, then Hazleton/New York City to I-81, then New York City past I-81.
I-80 WB: Delaware Water Gap/Scranton past I-287 to the Delaware River, then Scranton/Wilkes-Barre from the Delaware River to I-380, then Wilkes-Barre/Hazleton to PA 115, then Hazleton to I-81, then State College to the I-99 south junction, then Youngstown/Cleveland once at the I-99 south junction, then Youngstown past the I-99 south junction, then Youngstown/Cleveland once again at the I-79 junction, then Youngstown to OH 11, then Cleveland past OH 11.
Problem solved.
I like using secondaries a lot. I am of the belief that secondaries are needed for the local traffic. However, as much as I see value in secondaries, If I am in NYC on the GWB, what is likely going to be a bigger draw for everyone? Scranton and State College or Cleveland? Believe it or not, there are people who have never heard of State College or Scranton. People at least have heard of Cleveland.
First of all, I never said anything about signing State College in New York City. Second of all, people have heard of Scranton, thanks to Joe Biden and The Office. Lastly, if somebody is driving on the George Washington Bridge, are they more likely driving to Scranton or Cleveland?
Having heard of Cleveland doesn't do anything to help me know if I'm taking the right highway or not—unless I already know what highway goes to Cleveland.
Let's face it, the only reason the majority of the driving public cares about control cities on signs is so they can follow the Google Lady's direction, "Take Exit ## toward WhateverTown."
Quote from: kphoger on June 06, 2025, 09:18:20 AMHaving heard of Cleveland doesn't do anything to help me know if I'm taking the right highway or not—unless I already know what highway goes to Cleveland.
And unfortunately geography in this country is poorly taught. But that's a whole different topic.
I've never been to the area but, for what it's worth, I'd be fine with Cleveland as the control city west of Stroudsburg. If any need to be in between, then DuBois and Youngstown.
Louisiana's worst one is Bay St Louis on I-10 towards Mississippi. Yes it's a leftover from the days when the freeway ended and defaulted you onto local roads. But why was it never updated? Gulfport or Mobile would be much better.
I'm used to some of Louisiana's smaller cities at junctions but I would be fine with losing certain ones in favor of larger cities. Hammond, Slidell, and Opelousas could all go. Sign Jackson for I-55 north of I-10. Sign Baton Rouge and either Gulfport or Mobile along I-12. And leave Alexandria to Lafayette along I-49
Quote from: bassoon1986 on June 06, 2025, 03:04:54 PMLouisiana's worst one is Bay St Louis on I-10 towards Mississippi. Yes it's a leftover from the days when the freeway ended and defaulted you onto local roads. But why was it never updated? Gulfport or Mobile would be much better.
I'm used to some of Louisiana's smaller cities at junctions but I would be fine with losing certain ones in favor of larger cities. Hammond, Slidell, and Opelousas could all go. Sign Jackson for I-55 north of I-10. Sign Baton Rouge and either Gulfport or Mobile along I-12. And leave Alexandria to Lafayette along I-49
At the very least, there should be a sign on I-10 saying Shreveport & Alexandria, use I-49 NORTH. Opelousas is terrible.
I'm sure Illinois has been done, but Cairo and East St. Louis are pretty horrible control cities. Cairo has fewer than 2,000 people, and the ratio of St. Louis to East St. Louis traffic is probably something like 95:1.
Quote from: Mav94 on June 10, 2025, 03:15:55 PMI'm sure Illinois has been done, but Cairo and East St. Louis are pretty horrible control cities. Cairo has fewer than 2,000 people, and the ratio of St. Louis to East St. Louis traffic is probably something like 95:1.
Both are secondary controls. Cairo used to be over 15k back in 1950. East St Louis used to be over 85k back in 1950 as well. Even as recent as the 1990 census, it was just under 41K. So as secondary controls, they aren't so bad when you realize the history. Now you could say that East St Louis is being very provincial. But not so much in the case of Cairo.
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 11, 2025, 10:34:02 AMNow you could say that East St Louis is being very provincial.
Back when I lived in southern Illinois and drove a delivery route out of Herrin, we had maybe four or five customers in East Saint Louis and zero on the Missouri side. (Plus several others in Belleville, Caseyville, Collinsville, Edwardsville, Madison, Roxana, and Alton.) The only time I ever had to cross the river was to do a pick-up, and I always hated how much of a time sink that was.
The reason that East St. Louis is a dumb control city is not because it's provincial or because of the size of the city. It's dumb because it's five characters longer than "St. Louis" but manages to convey barely any extra information that "St. Louis" wouldn't.
It'd be like if I-15 south had a control city of "North Las Vegas". Yeah, it technically hits NLV limits before it does Las Vegas. Is that going to actually help anyone any more than "Las Vegas" would, though?
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 13, 2025, 01:22:31 AMThe reason that East St. Louis is a dumb control city is not because it's provincial or because of the size of the city. It's dumb because it's five characters longer than "St. Louis" but manages to convey barely any extra information that "St. Louis" wouldn't.
It'd be like if I-15 south had a control city of "North Las Vegas". Yeah, it technically hits NLV limits before it does Las Vegas. Is that going to actually help anyone any more than "Las Vegas" would, though?
On which highways does East St Louis appear as a control point for the junction?
I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this question: does it appear at the junction for any highway that actually crosses the state line in to Saint Louis?
Not on an interstate, but on a state-signed freeway junction with an interstate.
CA 134, approaching its junction with I-210 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/ktZ5MxQkeqA9e5sg7).
CA 134 ends here, and the mainline is signed for "East I-210 Pasadena".
The issue? Not only are you already well within the city limits of Pasadena, but the exit for the center of Pasadena is the very next exit (Fair Oaks Ave), about a half-mile ahead.
Other references to I-210 East at this junction are signed for San Bernardino. I hope when this sign is replaced (which it badly needs) SB will be used, but Caltrans has a history of replacing old button-copy signs with nearly identical reflective replacements.
Quote from: kphoger on June 13, 2025, 09:39:06 AMQuote from: Scott5114 on June 13, 2025, 01:22:31 AMThe reason that East St. Louis is a dumb control city is not because it's provincial or because of the size of the city. It's dumb because it's five characters longer than "St. Louis" but manages to convey barely any extra information that "St. Louis" wouldn't.
It'd be like if I-15 south had a control city of "North Las Vegas". Yeah, it technically hits NLV limits before it does Las Vegas. Is that going to actually help anyone any more than "Las Vegas" would, though?
On which highways does East St Louis appear as a control point for the junction?
I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this question: does it appear at the junction for any highway that actually crosses the state line in to Saint Louis?
I don't have much experience with I-70 or I-55 in Illinois, but from my memory, ESL appears only on surface routes that intersect I-64 west of Mt. Vernon. At I-57, "East" is omitted and the control city is St. Louis. Similarly, Mt. Vernon appears on signage at intersecting routes between Mt. Vernon and the state line. I can't remember if the signs for eastbound I-64 bear Evansville or Louisville.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 13, 2025, 01:58:38 PMI don't have much experience with I-70 or I-55 in Illinois, but from my memory, ESL appears only on surface routes that intersect I-64 west of Mt. Vernon.
Ah, thank you. Yes, it's the surface roads that bear 'East St Louis' on them, not the Interstates themselves. So this is a debate about secondary control cities.
Yes, considering Illinois uses such out-of-state control cities as Paducah (I-24) and Evansville (I-64) and Terre Haute (I-70) instead of Metropolis/Brookport and Grayville and Marshall in similar locations, East Saint Louis does seem to be a strange choice.
Quote from: kphoger on June 13, 2025, 03:18:39 PMQuote from: hbelkins on June 13, 2025, 01:58:38 PMI don't have much experience with I-70 or I-55 in Illinois, but from my memory, ESL appears only on surface routes that intersect I-64 west of Mt. Vernon.
Ah, thank you. Yes, it's the surface roads that bear 'East St Louis' on them, not the Interstates themselves. So this is a debate about secondary control cities.
Yes, considering Illinois uses such out-of-state control cities as Paducah (I-24) and Evansville (I-64) and Terre Haute (I-70) instead of Metropolis/Brookport and Grayville and Marshall in similar locations, East Saint Louis does seem to be a strange choice.
Could it be a left-over from when the Interstates were first being built, especially if the rural parts of the highways through there were built before the bridges over the Mississippi were? I know the mileage signs in southern Tennessee on I-65 southbound still primarily list Birmingham as the (only) city on them, and I think some of the signage for the surface roads at interchanges with I-65 on the south side of Nashville still use Birmingham has the control for I-65 southbound.
Quote from: kphoger on June 06, 2025, 09:18:20 AMHaving heard of Cleveland doesn't do anything to help me know if I'm taking the right highway or not—unless I already know what highway goes to Cleveland.
And using Cleveland as a control city from the George Washington Bridge, or even from Stroudsburg, doesn't do anything to help me know if I'm taking the right highway or not if my destination is in Pennsylvania, which is a much more likely destination than Cleveland if I'm crossing the George Washington Bridge. AADT on I-80 in Pennsylvania drops from 38,000 east of I-380 to 16,000 west of PA 115.
"East St. Louis" on I-55 (south) entrance signs is remnant of the 1956 Interstate plan, when ESTL was larger. Used to go to STL on family trips and would 'countdown' the IL cities. Joliet, Bloomington, Lincon, Springfield and ESTL. But it is outdated, so just take the 'East' off the signs. :poke:
I-57 famously has Memphis on Chicago area signs but used to say Kankakee or Champaign. I-80 west used to have Moline, and the highway in southwest suburbs was first called "Moline Expressway".
There is an overhead pull-thru BGS on WB 64 near Scott AFB/Exit 19 that lists "East St Louis" as the 64/50 WB Control
https://maps.app.goo.gl/QCAX2HRtUE8NgQSt7
EB 64 at Exit 19 uses Mt Vernon, so IDOT went with Secondary Controls on the pull-thrus here
As mentioned earlier, East St Louis does nothing better than just using St Louis between Mt Vernon and the Mississippi River. E STL is a bad Control choice. If IDOT really wants a Secondary between Mt Vernon and the Metro East it should be Fairview Heights or Belleville, or take a cue from D1 and simply sign "Metro East" as the Control a la "(directional) Suburbs" in Chicagoland
Once in the Metro East, if IDOT still really wants a Secondary instead of just St Louis, then take a NY/NJ cue and sign "Poplar Street Bridge"
Quote from: Gnutella on June 13, 2025, 07:40:30 PMQuote from: kphoger on June 06, 2025, 09:18:20 AMHaving heard of Cleveland doesn't do anything to help me know if I'm taking the right highway or not—unless I already know what highway goes to Cleveland.
And using Cleveland as a control city from the George Washington Bridge, or even from Stroudsburg, doesn't do anything to help me know if I'm taking the right highway or not if my destination is in Pennsylvania, which is a much more likely destination than Cleveland if I'm crossing the George Washington Bridge. AADT on I-80 in Pennsylvania drops from 38,000 east of I-380 to 16,000 west of PA 115.
Hence why I like using secondaries with a primary on the interstate itself at major interchanges. Use Scranton and State College as secondaries for I-80.
Though NOT a bona-fide interstate, but could easily become one, WB US-24 in Napoleon, Ohio has en exit for US-6/Chicago.
I don't of anybody in the last several decades who would follow US-6 *exclusively* through all of Indiana and into extreme eastern Illinois to Chicago's southern suburbs...even if to shunpike.
A more logical control city would be for Shipshewana, IN, which is a major tourist area in the middle of Indiana Amish country along US-6.
Quote from: thenetwork on June 14, 2025, 03:24:55 PMThough NOT a bona-fide interstate, but could easily become one, WB US-24 in Napoleon, Ohio has en exit for US-6/Chicago.
I don't of anybody in the last several decades who would follow US-6 *exclusively* through all of Indiana and into extreme eastern Illinois to Chicago's southern suburbs...even if to shunpike.
A more logical control city would be for Shipshewana, IN, which is a major tourist area in the middle of Indiana Amish country along US-6.
Shipshewana is nowhere near US 6. Unless you were meaning Nappanee. In any case I'm surprised Kendalville is even mentioned at all, let alone Chicago. I would probably rather it just list some Ohio town and then Kendallville if nothing else.
Quote from: tdindy88 on June 14, 2025, 06:43:59 PMQuote from: thenetwork on June 14, 2025, 03:24:55 PMThough NOT a bona-fide interstate, but could easily become one, WB US-24 in Napoleon, Ohio has en exit for US-6/Chicago.
I don't of anybody in the last several decades who would follow US-6 *exclusively* through all of Indiana and into extreme eastern Illinois to Chicago's southern suburbs...even if to shunpike.
A more logical control city would be for Shipshewana, IN, which is a major tourist area in the middle of Indiana Amish country along US-6.
Shipshewana is nowhere near US 6. Unless you were meaning Nappanee. In any case I'm surprised Kendalville is even mentioned at all, let alone Chicago. I would probably rather it just list some Ohio town and then Kendallville if nothing else.
US 6 doesn't even enter Chicago. Kendallville is the largest town on US 6 before you get into Chicagoland.
If you were heading west from Toledo, US 20 would be a much faster route to Shipshewana than US 6.
At that point I think I'd take US-24 to Fort Wayne and then US-30 the rest of the way across Indiana rather than take US-6.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on June 14, 2025, 08:36:55 PMQuote from: tdindy88 on June 14, 2025, 06:43:59 PMQuote from: thenetwork on June 14, 2025, 03:24:55 PMThough NOT a bona-fide interstate, but could easily become one, WB US-24 in Napoleon, Ohio has en exit for US-6/Chicago.
I don't of anybody in the last several decades who would follow US-6 *exclusively* through all of Indiana and into extreme eastern Illinois to Chicago's southern suburbs...even if to shunpike.
A more logical control city would be for Shipshewana, IN, which is a major tourist area in the middle of Indiana Amish country along US-6.
Shipshewana is nowhere near US 6. Unless you were meaning Nappanee. In any case I'm surprised Kendalville is even mentioned at all, let alone Chicago. I would probably rather it just list some Ohio town and then Kendallville if nothing else.
US 6 doesn't even enter Chicago. Kendallville is the largest town on US 6 before you get into Chicagoland.
If you were heading west from Toledo, US 20 would be a much faster route to Shipshewana than US 6.
Looking at the map, I would think Bryan and Kendallville would be good enough to use for US 6 at the junction. And according to Google maps, US 6 does reach the city limits for Kendallville.
Quote from: thenetwork on June 14, 2025, 03:24:55 PMThough NOT a bona-fide interstate, but could easily become one, WB US-24 in Napoleon, Ohio has en exit for US-6/Chicago.
I don't of anybody in the last several decades who would follow US-6 *exclusively* through all of Indiana and into extreme eastern Illinois to Chicago's southern suburbs...even if to shunpike.
A more logical control city would be for Shipshewana, IN, which is a major tourist area in the middle of Indiana Amish country along US-6.
Reminds me, US 24's control cities in that section aren't that great. The exit for WB 24 at I-475 signs it for Napoleon when for a expressway that's part of a handful of long-distance routes, Fort Wayne would be better.
Same on the other end; Sign EB US 24 for Toledo at I-469.
(https://supposeudrive.com/wp-content/uploads/I-5_South_Sign_San_Diego-1110x577.jpg)Here is one I-5 San Diego it's simply says south once one drives south of Downtown on I-5. It does not include Tijuana as a control city.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on June 13, 2025, 06:17:14 PMQuote from: kphoger on June 13, 2025, 03:18:39 PMQuote from: hbelkins on June 13, 2025, 01:58:38 PMI don't have much experience with I-70 or I-55 in Illinois, but from my memory, ESL appears only on surface routes that intersect I-64 west of Mt. Vernon.
Ah, thank you. Yes, it's the surface roads that bear 'East St Louis' on them, not the Interstates themselves. So this is a debate about secondary control cities.
Yes, considering Illinois uses such out-of-state control cities as Paducah (I-24) and Evansville (I-64) and Terre Haute (I-70) instead of Metropolis/Brookport and Grayville and Marshall in similar locations, East Saint Louis does seem to be a strange choice.
Could it be a left-over from when the Interstates were first being built, especially if the rural parts of the highways through there were built before the bridges over the Mississippi were? I know the mileage signs in southern Tennessee on I-65 southbound still primarily list Birmingham as the (only) city on them, and I think some of the signage for the surface roads at interchanges with I-65 on the south side of Nashville still use Birmingham has the control for I-65 southbound.
I'm pretty sure all TN signage at interchanges has been updated to Huntsville, but you'll still see Birmingham on most mainline I-65 mileage signs, which always seem to be lacking both in quantity and quality (wish they listed next exit in addition to secondary control and primary control).
TN changed the controls in the early 90's around the time that I-565 was fully completed to I-65, and the City of Huntsville annexed a little bit of I-65 near the I-565 interchange.
Quote from: wriddle082 on June 15, 2025, 04:03:28 PMQuote from: freebrickproductions on June 13, 2025, 06:17:14 PMQuote from: kphoger on June 13, 2025, 03:18:39 PMQuote from: hbelkins on June 13, 2025, 01:58:38 PMI don't have much experience with I-70 or I-55 in Illinois, but from my memory, ESL appears only on surface routes that intersect I-64 west of Mt. Vernon.
Ah, thank you. Yes, it's the surface roads that bear 'East St Louis' on them, not the Interstates themselves. So this is a debate about secondary control cities.
Yes, considering Illinois uses such out-of-state control cities as Paducah (I-24) and Evansville (I-64) and Terre Haute (I-70) instead of Metropolis/Brookport and Grayville and Marshall in similar locations, East Saint Louis does seem to be a strange choice.
Could it be a left-over from when the Interstates were first being built, especially if the rural parts of the highways through there were built before the bridges over the Mississippi were? I know the mileage signs in southern Tennessee on I-65 southbound still primarily list Birmingham as the (only) city on them, and I think some of the signage for the surface roads at interchanges with I-65 on the south side of Nashville still use Birmingham has the control for I-65 southbound.
I'm pretty sure all TN signage at interchanges has been updated to Huntsville, but you'll still see Birmingham on most mainline I-65 mileage signs, which always seem to be lacking both in quantity and quality (wish they listed next exit in addition to secondary control and primary control).
TN changed the controls in the early 90's around the time that I-565 was fully completed to I-65, and the City of Huntsville annexed a little bit of I-65 near the I-565 interchange.
Looks like they finally got rid of the last examples on the side roads. I remember this one in Franklin still said Birmingham as late as last year, but it appears it was finally replaced with one that says Huntsville:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9148563,-86.8271574,3a,15y,146.18h,88.84t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sT7v0pJmetcw21L0cvCQDOg!2e0!5s20230301T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D1.1576812952632025%26panoid%3DT7v0pJmetcw21L0cvCQDOg%26yaw%3D146.17747581390302!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
This one also still said Birmingham until sometime within the past few years:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9978371,-86.7982197,3a,15y,312.19h,90.58t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sTMS_JbqjMeb20qrjrQVBYA!2e0!5s20230401T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-0.5835775319605432%26panoid%3DTMS_JbqjMeb20qrjrQVBYA%26yaw%3D312.1862238236027!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Quote from: bing101 on June 15, 2025, 03:28:01 PM(https://supposeudrive.com/wp-content/uploads/I-5_South_Sign_San_Diego-1110x577.jpg)Here is one I-5 San Diego it's simply says south once one drives south of Downtown on I-5. It does not include Tijuana as a control city.
It looks like the current signage at that location now includes Chula Vista as a control city.
Quote from: US20IL64 on June 14, 2025, 02:31:33 AMI-80 west used to have Moline
I have an early childhood memory of that, from the 80/55 interchange, in the mid- to late-1980s. But for some reason I was thinking the signs said Rock Island instead.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 05, 2025, 09:26:26 PMNot my state, but California's "Beach Cities" on CA-91 is groan-inducing. Am I supposed to know which of the ten trillion cities in Orange County have beaches and which don't?
IIRC, the mileage sign (which I think is gone) just past CA-71 listed Beach Cities at 43 miles - meaning the Beach Cities wasn't even referring to Orange County, but to Manhattan Beach/Redondo Beach/Hermosa Beach at the historical end of CA-91 (at CA-1).
All the recent re-signing projects have doubled down on Beach Cities - not sure why Anaheim isn't an acceptable control for CA-91 westbound.
Quote from: DTComposer on June 16, 2025, 11:54:31 AMQuote from: Scott5114 on June 05, 2025, 09:26:26 PMNot my state, but California's "Beach Cities" on CA-91 is groan-inducing. Am I supposed to know which of the ten trillion cities in Orange County have beaches and which don't?
IIRC, the mileage sign (which I think is gone) just past CA-71 listed Beach Cities at 43 miles - meaning the Beach Cities wasn't even referring to Orange County, but to Manhattan Beach/Redondo Beach/Hermosa Beach at the historical end of CA-91 (at CA-1).
All the recent re-signing projects have doubled down on Beach Cities - not sure why Anaheim isn't an acceptable control for CA-91 westbound.
That's like 'Shore Points' on EB I-195 in New Jersey.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on June 16, 2025, 12:09:58 PMQuote from: DTComposer on June 16, 2025, 11:54:31 AMQuote from: Scott5114 on June 05, 2025, 09:26:26 PMNot my state, but California's "Beach Cities" on CA-91 is groan-inducing. Am I supposed to know which of the ten trillion cities in Orange County have beaches and which don't?
IIRC, the mileage sign (which I think is gone) just past CA-71 listed Beach Cities at 43 miles - meaning the Beach Cities wasn't even referring to Orange County, but to Manhattan Beach/Redondo Beach/Hermosa Beach at the historical end of CA-91 (at CA-1).
All the recent re-signing projects have doubled down on Beach Cities - not sure why Anaheim isn't an acceptable control for CA-91 westbound.
That's like 'Shore Points' on EB I-195 in New Jersey.
Mike
And of course, "Other Desert Cities" on I-10.
What really bothers me about that is not just that vagueness, but that it's co-signed with Indio - so it ignores that one of those "other" cities is Palm Springs - an internationally-known destination.
It wasn't a population thing, since Palm Springs was larger than Indio when those signs were put up (and was larger until the mid-'90s). It wasn't a direct connection thing, since Palm Springs is just a few miles down CA-111 or Indian Canyon Road from I-10, and Caltrans uses non-direct destinations all the time (San Francisco on I-5, for example). Signing I-10 as Palm Springs/Indio just makes sense to me.
Quote from: kphoger on June 16, 2025, 09:43:57 AMQuote from: US20IL64 on June 14, 2025, 02:31:33 AMI-80 west used to have Moline
I have an early childhood memory of that, from the 80/55 interchange, in the mid- to late-1980s. But for some reason I was thinking the signs said Rock Island instead.
The I-80/55 Interchange used to say Des Moines and Toledo in the 1980s. Moline/Rock Island along with Gary, Indiana was only used at smaller interchanges starting at US 30 Maple St.
Streetview in 2019:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.520737,-87.9958213,3a,15y,126.87h,91.39t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sqyTWFWp9tc9M8wV93xNPsQ!2e0!5s20190901T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-1.3863218745748895%26panoid%3DqyTWFWp9tc9M8wV93xNPsQ%26yaw%3D126.87071376307884!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
When IDOT reconstructed the 30 interchange in 2021, the sign changed to Iowa and Indiana.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5206797,-87.9957522,3a,75y,124.82h,96.3t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sjvocErq50ElVP5gD_7qehQ!2e0!5s20221101T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-6.298654863004444%26panoid%3DjvocErq50ElVP5gD_7qehQ%26yaw%3D124.82390835123319!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
You can still find a few Gary, Indiana relics in Joliet (Briggs St, Richards St, 52/53 Chicago St and Center St) but not for long.
Quote from: US20IL64 on June 14, 2025, 02:31:33 AMI-80 west used to have Moline
Quote from: kphoger on June 16, 2025, 09:43:57 AMI have an early childhood memory of that, from the 80/55 interchange, in the mid- to late-1980s. But for some reason I was thinking the signs said Rock Island instead.
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 16, 2025, 04:11:05 PMThe I-80/55 Interchange used to say Des Moines and Toledo in the 1980s. Moline/Rock Island along with Gary, Indiana was only used at smaller interchanges starting at US 30 Maple St.
It must just be a false memory, then, because I'm certain my memory is of the 80/55 interchange. I specifically remember it because, just west of the interchange, were the first hitchhikers I ever remember seeing as a kid—a family with suitcases hitching from the shoulder. I grew up in New Lenox through third grade, so we drove through that interchange whenever we went south or west.
I remember wondering as a young child where there was an island anywhere nearby in Illinois, but I suppose maybe I'm conflating two different memories: one of I-80 at I-55, the other from somewhere else.
Quote from: kphoger on June 16, 2025, 04:19:18 PMQuote from: US20IL64 on June 14, 2025, 02:31:33 AMI-80 west used to have Moline
Quote from: kphoger on June 16, 2025, 09:43:57 AMI have an early childhood memory of that, from the 80/55 interchange, in the mid- to late-1980s. But for some reason I was thinking the signs said Rock Island instead.
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 16, 2025, 04:11:05 PMThe I-80/55 Interchange used to say Des Moines and Toledo in the 1980s. Moline/Rock Island along with Gary, Indiana was only used at smaller interchanges starting at US 30 Maple St.
It must just be a false memory, then, because I'm certain my memory is of the 80/55 interchange. I specifically remember it because, just west of the interchange, were the first hitchhikers I ever remember seeing as a kid—a family with suitcases hitching from the shoulder. I grew up in New Lenox through third grade, so we drove through that interchange whenever we went south or west.
I remember wondering as a young child where there was an island anywhere nearby in Illinois, but I suppose maybe I'm conflating two different memories: one of I-80 at I-55, the other from somewhere else.
Back when Toledo and Moline were listed on the overheads at the 80/55 interchange, you could still make out the "shadows" of the US-66 shields that were scraped off after 66 was decommissioned.
Quote from: DTComposer on June 16, 2025, 01:22:47 PMQuote from: mgk920 on June 16, 2025, 12:09:58 PMQuote from: DTComposer on June 16, 2025, 11:54:31 AMQuote from: Scott5114 on June 05, 2025, 09:26:26 PMNot my state, but California's "Beach Cities" on CA-91 is groan-inducing. Am I supposed to know which of the ten trillion cities in Orange County have beaches and which don't?
IIRC, the mileage sign (which I think is gone) just past CA-71 listed Beach Cities at 43 miles - meaning the Beach Cities wasn't even referring to Orange County, but to Manhattan Beach/Redondo Beach/Hermosa Beach at the historical end of CA-91 (at CA-1).
All the recent re-signing projects have doubled down on Beach Cities - not sure why Anaheim isn't an acceptable control for CA-91 westbound.
That's like 'Shore Points' on EB I-195 in New Jersey.
Mike
And of course, "Other Desert Cities" on I-10.
What really bothers me about that is not just that vagueness, but that it's co-signed with Indio - so it ignores that one of those "other" cities is Palm Springs - an internationally-known destination.
It wasn't a population thing, since Palm Springs was larger than Indio when those signs were put up (and was larger until the mid-'90s). It wasn't a direct connection thing, since Palm Springs is just a few miles down CA-111 or Indian Canyon Road from I-10, and Caltrans uses non-direct destinations all the time (San Francisco on I-5, for example). Signing I-10 as Palm Springs/Indio just makes sense to me.
I agree with Anaheim as a better control for CA-91 than Beach Cities. I always assumed Beach Cities referred to the OC beaches since they are closer to Inland Empire, more of a connection between OC and IE than between southern LA county and IE **, and it always seemed like a good corollary to 55 north that had Riverside as its control (until more recently where they have inexplicably added Anaheim/Riverside, even at the junction of I-5).* 55 north heads to Riverside if you continue on the trajectory of the roadway and make the turn onto 91, and in reverse 55 south is a left exit off the 91 and the first major interchange west of the Santa Ana Canyon that existed, prior to the toll road construction. Given that the controls were 55 south to Newport Beach and 91 west to Los Angeles, it would seem that Newport Beach (and some of the other nearby OC beaches) were contemplated by Beach Cities. But obviously, if you found a mileage sign that disputes that, great.
Indio, while lesser known than Palm Springs, was historically the main highway junction in the area as US 60-70-99 split into 99 heading to El Centro and 60-70 heading to Arizona. We still have the CA-86 freeway junction there today. Given that "Other Desert Cities" was usually below Indio, and CA practice usually put the closer city first on the BGS, I assume that other desert cities meant the small towns further east from Indio (or further south along CA-86). Blythe is very small. IMO, no good reason that Phoenix should not be signed in place of "Other Desert Cities". But Caltrans seems to just copy the old signage when replacing, even when there are actual issues with the messaging on the signs.
* Yes to Anaheim as a control for 91 west in Riverside County. No to Anaheim as a control for 55 north, when following it will take you away from Disneyland, Downtown Anaheim, and Anaheim Stadium. "Anaheim Hills", "East Anaheim" or "Yorba Linda" would be better for 55. I understand Caltrans wants to distinguish the controls on 55 from those on 241, and if you are in southern OC, it makes no sense to take 55 to Riverside instead of 241, even with the toll, but the controls should make sense. Like most Caltrans practice, the sign should lead towards the center of Anaheim if they use Anaheim as a control.
** Connections between OC and IE. First, IE is closer to OC than to LA's South Bay. Second a lot more IE people who commute via 91 are going to OC area, not LA county. Even for those who work in the South Bay or LAX areas, I assume that more would commute using 60-605-105 than 91 as 91 has historically been a much busier corridor, whereas traffic on 60 is better since the traffic load can be shared with 10 and 210. Third, during the period from 1951 all the way to the mid-1980s, all of Greater Los Angeles was in two area codes: 213 and 714. 714 incorporated some of the very eastern parts of LA county like Pomona, but it was mostly OC, SB, and Riverside Counties, while most of LA county (including the San Gabriel Valley) was 213. Most of OC and most of IE shared an area code (714) all the way to 1992 when 909 was created. Fourth, given the geography and everything else, a lot of sports allegiances meant that IE, especially the Riverside County portion, favored Angels, Ducks, and Rams (when they played in Anaheim) over Dodgers, Kings, and Raiders (when they played at the Coliseum). Just a long way of saying that if a person in western Riverside county were headed to "the beach" they were far more likely heading to Huntington/Newport/Laguna over Redondo/Hermosa/Manhattan.
Geez, they put Beach Cities on a freakin' mileage sign? Wonder if that was ever the case with other Desert Cities...