Sometimes, due to the replacement of a route that once reached the destination, the current numbered route's control city will reflect that of the decomissioned route and not the actual, much nearer terminus of the current route. The two examples I can think of:
- I-205 for San Francisco (the old US 50 control city), which requires transitions to I-580 and I-80 to get to SF
- I-40 in Arizona for Los Angeles (the US 66 control city), requiring the usage of I-15 and I-10 to get to the LA city limits
However, I know of at least one example that is even more indirect, and signed as such due to proximity to another indirect connection:
- Route 120 west in Manteca is signed for San Francisco from Route 99, requiring one to also use I-5 south, I-205 west, I-580 west and I-80 west!
Any other examples out there of control cities that can only be accessed by taking at least two different numbered routes past the original highway?
If I am remembering correctly, the I-40 WB to I-44 WB ramp in OKC is signed as "Tulsa/Dallas". To get to Dallas from that point you'd have to use I-44 to I-240 to I-35 (to I-35E). Pretty pointless, considering most people heading west on 40 would have just taken I-35 SB directly, bypassing downtown.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 19, 2010, 07:01:02 PM
If I am remembering correctly, the I-40 WB to I-44 WB ramp in OKC is signed as "Tulsa/Dallas". To get to Dallas from that point you'd have to use I-44 to I-240 to I-35 (to I-35E). Pretty pointless, considering most people heading west on 40 would have just taken I-35 SB directly, bypassing downtown.
The westbound ramp is specifically signed for Lawton and Dallas:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Oklahoma+City&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=40.409448,70.576172&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Oklahoma+City,+Oklahoma&ll=35.460775,-97.571136&spn=0,0.004308&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=35.46077,-97.571243&panoid=7lqo-cO9LsrtD1QOIBAnrw&cbp=12,276.44,,0,2.2
At least the Dallas signing is continued when 240 starts (with 44 exiting the mainline, a vestige of its hodgepodge extension in 1982 when 240 used to run on the segment from 40 to here) -
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Oklahoma+City&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=40.409448,70.576172&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Oklahoma+City,+Oklahoma&ll=35.398985,-97.577262&spn=0,0.034461&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=35.398847,-97.577224&panoid=yRPansHl3rGjm2TSqQyW0A&cbp=12,170.7,,0,2.31
Eastbound on 40, the control city is pretty logical, but westbound, Lawton probably should be the only one mentioned. (i.e. I-5 north at Route 58 isn't signed for "Bakersfield" since most travelers from the south would have taken 99 by that point)
Er...yeah, Lawton, not Tulsa...
how about US-97 in Klamath Falls being signed (quite hilariously) for Weed and San Francisco.
Weed makes sense, as it is the terminus of US-97, and has been so since the beginning. San Francisco? Back in the day, you would have had to take US-99 to US-40 to get there (so three hops altogether, including US-97), and nowadays the quickest route is US-97 to I-5 to I-505 to I-80, which is four hops.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 19, 2010, 07:23:36 PM
Weed makes sense, as it is the terminus of US-97, and has been so since the beginning. San Francisco? Back in the day, you would have had to take US-99 to US-40 to get there (so three hops altogether, including US-97), and nowadays the quickest route is US-97 to I-5 to I-505 to I-80, which is four hops.
I guess the only way to rationalize it is if 5W still existed (keeping in mind I don't think any of 505 was built when the designation was switched out), thus making it a three-stepper (97, 5/5W, 80) that at least got you to Oakland at the MacArthur Maze after the second step. But still.
Amazingly, at 355 miles, this out-of-state control city distance is exactly the same as the distance from Ventura (where SF is first signed on 101 north) to SF!
Quote from: TheStranger on August 19, 2010, 07:26:30 PM
I guess the only way to rationalize it is if 5W still existed (keeping in mind I don't think any of 505 existed when the designation was switched out), thus making it a three-stepper (97, 5/5W, 80) that at least got you to Oakland at the MacArthur Maze. But still.
how long has that control city existed in Klamath Falls? Does it date back to the pre-interstate days, or did it come along when 5W was commissioned?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 19, 2010, 07:28:00 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 19, 2010, 07:26:30 PM
I guess the only way to rationalize it is if 5W still existed (keeping in mind I don't think any of 505 existed when the designation was switched out), thus making it a three-stepper (97, 5/5W, 80) that at least got you to Oakland at the MacArthur Maze. But still.
how long has that control city existed in Klamath Falls? Does it date back to the pre-interstate days, or did it come along when 5W was commissioned?
I've only been through Klamath Falls via train, ca. 1996...so I can't definitively say much on the vintage of that control city. The photos here suggest that we have a 1990s retroreflective sign:
https://www.aaroads.com/west/oregon097/us-097_sb_app_us-097b_or-039_02.jpg
https://www.aaroads.com/west/oregon097/us-097_sb_at_us-097b_or-039.jpg
Looking that, I'm honestly surprised that something a lot closer up I-5 (Redding) isn't the second control city instead.
or, Hell, Sacramento, anyone?
I could've sworn I saw a non-reflective-background sign for US-97 Weed/San Francisco in 2006. Possibly button copy. It was the overhead, not the side-of-the-road sign.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 19, 2010, 07:33:59 PM
or, Hell, Sacramento, anyone?
I guess the thinking here is, "Well, SF is only 50 miles further away than Sacramento from Klamath Falls...so might as well sign the more internationally famous city." Not that I can read the minds of whoever created this!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 19, 2010, 07:33:59 PM
I could've sworn I saw a non-reflective-background sign for US-97 Weed/San Francisco in 2006. Possibly button copy. It was the overhead, not the side-of-the-road sign.
Does ODOT offer a bridge log like CalTrans does? I'd be happy to look at that and see the vintage of the button copy sign (the photo link which I just added to the previous post)
speaking of those signs - how about Reno as a control city? That's Oregon 39, to California 139 (okay, same route, so doesn't count as a hop), to CA-36 to US-395.
Then, if you obey the billboards for "fastest route to Reno", you actually head north on 395 from Susanville, then take county route A-1 (Wendel Road) over to Nevada, and head down 445 to I-80.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 19, 2010, 07:43:30 PM
speaking of those signs - how about Reno as a control city? That's Oregon 39, to California 139 (okay, same route, so doesn't count as a hop), to CA-36 to US-395.
Then, if you obey the billboards for "fastest route to Reno", you actually head north on 395 from Susanville, then take county route A-1 (Wendel Road) over to Nevada, and head down 445 to I-80.
Some variant to get to the "fastest route to Reno" without backtracking:
39/139
299 east to Alturas
395 south to Wendel Road etc.
I guess it's only a two-hopper if one sticks to 395 (a two and a half hopper if one used the County Road A3 bypass of Susanville via Standish)...39/139 to 36 to 395 is 252 miles, while the A1/445 route is 277.
Signs on U.S. 202/206 in the Bridgewater, NJ area use New York as as the control city for U.S. 22 east. Getting to New York requires getting onto U.S. 1-9, then onto one of may routes into the city.
Quote from: TheStranger on August 19, 2010, 07:49:22 PM
I guess it's only a two-hopper if one sticks to 395 (a two and a half hopper if one used the County Road A3 bypass of Susanville via Standish)...39/139 to 36 to 395 is 252 miles, while the A1/445 route is 277.
yeah, it must be the fastest route only from north of where 395 cuts west to head south to Susanville. I can't remember where the billboard is, but it's southbound on 395.
that said, I can believe that 445 is the fastest route from a lot of places because - even if Wendel Road turns dirt at the state line - there is absolutely no one on 445 and you can set cruise control to 110.
http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/log/cities.html - every time there's a parenthesis, it indicates that you have an indirect control city in NJ.
"Chicago" for I-80 requires the driver to leave I-80 to get to Chicago whether it be by I-55, I-57, or I-94.
"Memphis" for I-57 requires the driver to go well past the south end of I-57.
"St Louis" for I-24 requires the driver to go onto I-57 then onto I-64.
Another one I don't see - how about New York for I-84 leaving the Mass Pike? Couple different ways to go from there... Then you have New York for I-95 NB south of DC - but of course, you have to leave 95 to get back to 95.
on a related note, New York via turnpikes is signed off the Ohio Turnpike, which happens to be I-80 at the time. 80 would be the quick route to New York, but the Turnpike route is a magical connection to 76, and then the New Jersey Turnpike, which either is, or is not, I-95, and then a route of your choice to get to the city itself.
There are a whole bunch of instances where reaching a control city on a route requires just one different road-like where control cities are posted on loops around major cities. Ones that require more than one different road are harder to find. I thought of one-I-55 N in Memphis has both St. Louis and Little Rock as control cities. Reaching Little Rock from I-55 requires travel on I-40 and likely either I-440, I-30, or I-430 to reach Little Rock. Along the same line-I don't know whether it's still this way, but at least as recently as the late 90s, Sam Cooper Blvd. WB in Memphis still had some "pull-through" signage for Little Rock presumably dating back to when it was part of I-40. Now, getting to Little Rock from there requires several turns just to get to I-40 WB.
I-70 E in Columbus proper is signed as Wheeling, but just east of town there are signs that add Pittsburgh, which is an I-79 to I-376 detour. I can't remember the exact mileage, but it wasn't exactly around the corner.
New Orleans is signed on I-55 southbound in Jackson, but I-55 stops just west of the Big Easy. To continue on, you must go east on I-10. Same with I-59 starting at Meridian. I-59 also stops just short of New Orleans at Slidell. One must go I-10 west to continue to New Orleans.
Then there's Los Angeles being signed on I-15 in Las Vegas, when L.A. is at least 60 miles west of I-15.
Do these instances on the Pennsylvania turnpike count?
Both Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are control cities on the turnpike. However, the turnpike skirts the edge of each metro area. Now, I-76 leaves the turnpike in Valley Forge to go to center city Philadelphia, so it is a direct control city on I-76. But, the same cannot be said of Pittsburgh as you must leave both I-76 and the turnpike to get to the city. (As most of you know, before the last part of I-80S was decommissioned, I-76 followed the current I-376 into Pittsburgh.)
IIRC Harrisburg, Allentown and Scranton are also listed as turnpike control cities. But, I consider those direct as you get sufficiently close to the cities in each case. The Northeast Extension actually goes through the city limits of Scranton but has no exits there.
_____________________________________________________________
Now, back to the I-80/I-76 switcheroo west of Youngstown. The control city for I-80 west is Cleveland, even though you must leave I-80 and the turnpike to get to the city. The control city for I-76 east is Pittsburgh. (see above) And, even the infamous I-80 East control of New York City VIA PENNA is technically not a direct control point as I-80 ends a the foot of the George Washington Bridge on the New Jersey side of the Hudson!
For some of the examples provided, a one-hop transition (i.e. Pittsburgh using I-376 from the Turnpike, Memphis from I-57 via I-55) isn't too bad really, I don't consider that too indirect, though it's one thing if you have to do that in the opposite cardinal direction, i.e. Huntsville from I-65.
Two or more hops requires that the driver has a map, or is paying close attention to the control cities at major junctions!
Pittsburgh as I-70's eastbound control city probably dates back to when 70 did run into Pittsburgh, on...that routing of 79 and 376 that is rather indirect, kinda like 75 poking into Metro Detroit instead of the Flint-Toledo beeline that is US 23.
Quote from: agentsteel53on a related note, New York via turnpikes is signed off the Ohio Turnpike, which happens to be I-80 at the time. 80 would be the quick route to New York, but the Turnpike route is a magical connection to 76, and then the New Jersey Turnpike, which either is, or is not, I-95, and then a route of your choice to get to the city itself.
While it's only a couple of mainline switches, the number switches are numerous:
80 -> 76 -> 276 -> soon-to-be-I-95
That's a three-hop movement, numerically!
Quote from: AlpsROADSAnother one I don't see - how about New York for I-84 leaving the Mass Pike? Couple different ways to go from there...
Even by the "simplest" route one can come up with - 84 -> 91 -> 95 - that's two hops. If I-84 east of Hartford was still part of Route 15, it would be a two-and-a-half-hopper even then (15 -> Hutchinson River Parkway -> 287 -> 95).
---
Forgot about another California example...
I-580 east is signed for Fresno on one sign near the MacArthur Maze, and then again at the 205/580 split. (This is despite the fact that 205-120-99 offers an all-freeway route that is almost exactly the same distance as using 580 and then using a surface road at some point to get there!)
Assuming one follows the 580 suggestion that this control city choice offers....the most direct route would be to exit I-5 at Panoche Road (Exit 368) and continue east along Panoche, West North Avenue, South Lyon Avenue, West California Avenue, and then another segment of Panoche Road that feeds seamlessly into Route 180 going east to Fresno.
Sticking to numbered routes, the minimum would be 580 -> 132 -> 99, though the more obvious route is 580 -> 5 -> 152 -> 99, a three-hop transition!
For that matter, 580's control city of Stockton from the MacArthur Maze (a vestige of US 50 going to Stockton via the former US 48) nowadays requires two hops via 205 and 5.
Chicago on I-65 in Indiana. It doesn't even go to Chicago. The road ends in Gary.
This sign comes to mind:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4100%2F4750504820_c6ee2173fa.jpg&hash=2accae138453ce4dc425e7bc2f495f13ea226183) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/usends/4750504820/) DSCF6170 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/usends/4750504820/) by usends (http://www.flickr.com/people/usends/), on Flickr
That's on I-70, heading west from Denver. If you stay on I-70, you either take US 6 to I-15 to Salt Lake, or else you take US 50 to I-15. If you take US 40, that ends shy of Salt Lake, so then you use I-80 the rest of the way. That sign is a little strange on some other levels, too... I've spent some time ruminating about it on this page:
http://usends.com/Explore/Alt-2-SLC/index.html
good to see that the new replacement sign has the state name!
Pretty sure I saw "San Diego" at the start of CA 74 in Palm Desert. Getting to SD requires taking 74 -> 371 -> 79 -> 15.
"New York" on the free portion of I-95 around Trenton. Have to take either US 1 or backtrack along 295 and 195.
"Cape Cod" for RI 138 north out of Newport. At one point, Cape Cod was even signed at the south end of the multiplex for RI 138 and US 1. Getting there uses RI 138, RI 114, RI/MA 24, I-195, MA 25 just to get to the canal.
"New York" for US 1 south from on RI 138 west....debatable whether this means 138 -> 95 or US 1 -> RI/CT 78 -> I-95.
"Boston, Ma." (with that capitalization and punctuation) for I-295 north, coming from RI 146 south. That one requires taking 295 -> 95 -> 93.
T.F. Green Airport south of Providence is signed for I-295 south from I-95 exit 4 in MA. The signs point you to RI 37 east, then presumably I-95 south one exit to the airport connector.
I-490 in Rochester uses Buffalo and Victor as control cities. It doesn't go to either.
^^^
Similarly, I-440 in Nashville uses Knoxville, Memphis and Chattanooga though you need I-40 for the first two and I-24 for the last one.
TN 840 has Knoxville for it's eastern control city and probably will have Memphis signed when it is complete.
I think that this is common for loop and bypass highways.
Quote from: mightyace on August 20, 2010, 04:30:03 PM
^^^
Similarly, I-440 in Nashville uses Knoxville, Memphis and Chattanooga though you need I-40 for the first two and I-24 for the last one.
TN 840 has Knoxville for it's eastern control city and probably will have Memphis signed when it is complete.
I think that this is common for loop and bypass highways.
IIRC, I-285's control cities are always for the routes it intersects, in similar vein. Most of these movements are one-hop transitions though, similar to the control cities for I-405 in Los Angeles:
Sacramento (reached via I-5 north)
Santa Monica (reached via I-10 west)
Long Beach (via I-710 south)
San Diego (I-5 south)
Quote from: mightyace on August 20, 2010, 04:30:03 PM
^^^
Similarly, I-440 in Nashville uses Knoxville, Memphis and Chattanooga though you need I-40 for the first two and I-24 for the last one.
TN 840 has Knoxville for it's eastern control city and probably will have Memphis signed when it is complete.
I think that this is common for loop and bypass highways.
Most control cities on loop highways around a city do this. I-435 in Missouri is signed for St. Louis, Des Moines and Wichita at various points. I-270 in Missouri is signed for Chicago, Kansas City and Memphis at various points. I-285 in Atlanta is signed for Chattanooga, Greenville, Augusta, Macon(or Tampa), Montgomery and Birmingham at various points. But all of those only require 1 change of highway. A change of 2 highways or more is much more rare, which is what the original post was about.
Driving on I-72 between Decatur and Champaign in Illinois yesterday, Indianapolis was marked on one of the mileage signs even though 72 does go there, a quick trip up 57 over to 74 however makes it possible.
One notable one from Hampton Roads: I-664 SB from I-64 EB lists Nags Head, which can be reached VIA 664 SB to 64 WB to VA 168 SB to NC 168 SB to US 158 EB.
Another California example, though it only requires one mainline switch:
238 being signed for Stockton from I-880; it requires one to change numeric designations 3 times:
238 > 580 > 205 > 5
Southbound on 880, 238 is signed for Fresno as well, which leads to either:
1. 238 > 580 > 205 > 5 > 120 > 99, for a total of 5 numeric hops! (Effectively only 1.5-2 mainline switches though)
2. 238 > 580 > 132 > 99
3. 238 > 580 > 5 > 152 > 99
Quote from: tdindy88 on August 20, 2010, 06:50:07 PM
Driving on I-72 between Decatur and Champaign in Illinois yesterday, Indianapolis was marked on one of the mileage signs even though 72 does go there, a quick trip up 57 over to 74 however makes it possible.
With the 4 laning of US 36 through Missouri, I-72 will become a useful route to Indianapolis from the west.
Kind of an obvious one is the I-70 signs headed out of Columbus showing Dayton as a control city since I-70 passes 5 miles north (They were changed due to political pressure from Dayton politicians....if you look at the older ones heading west, you can see the green strip with Dayton was applied as an after-the-fact addition....underneath is the next major city ACTUALLY on I-70....Indianapolis.....
Politicians....gotta love them.....NOT
There are plenty of examples of this.
-I-87 north of Albany has Montreal as a northbound control city, but you'd have to get onto A-15 at the Quebec border to go to Montreal
-Exit 7 off I-87/Adirondack Northway lists NY 7 to Cohoes, but you'd have to take NY 787 to get into Cohoes
-Exit 23 going southbound on I-87/NY Thruway lists Rennselaer as a control city, but you'd have to take US 9/US 20 over the Dunn Memorial Bridge to get to Rennselaer.
-The Everett Turnpike in New Hampshire lists Concord as a northbound control city, but you'd have to take I-93 to get to Concord.
-I-89 at its south end at I-93 list NH Seacoast as a northbound I-93 city and I-393 has Portsmouth as an eastbound control city, but you'd have to take I-393 to US 4 to the Spaulding Turnpike to get to the Seacoast and Portsmouth.
-I-495 south of I-290 in Massachusetts lists Cape Cod as a southbound control city, but you'd have to take MA 25 at the south end of I-495 to get to the Cape.
I-310 has Houma as a control city. However. 310 ends at U.S. 90 at Boutte. Even then, you still have to turn off U.S. 90 to get to Houma proper.
MN 210 has Duluth signed going east out of Brainerd, even though you have to use (primarily) I-35 or (alternatively) MN 23 to go the rest of the way to Duluth. I vaguely remember MN 200 having signs for Duluth too even though that route ends at US 2 which you must take to finish the trip.
MN 610 has Minneapolis signed on it coming off of US 10 in Coon Rapids, but from there you have to take MN 252 to I-94 to finish the trip to Minneapolis.
US 212 has Minneapolis signed even as far east as the Flying Cloud Drive exit, even though 212 ends at MN 62 and traffic from there must take either US 169 or MN 100 north to I-394 or follow 62 to I-35W to get to Minneapolis.
MN 7 East used to have a sign for Minneapolis at the I-494 interchange. Not sure if the sign predated MN 7's truncation from Minneapolis back to MN 100 in St. Louis Park, but either way the sign was taken down when the MN 7/I-494 interchange was reconstructed.
Quote from: ctsignguy on August 21, 2010, 02:26:38 PM
Kind of an obvious one is the I-70 signs headed out of Columbus showing Dayton as a control city since I-70 passes 5 miles north (They were changed due to political pressure from Dayton politicians....if you look at the older ones heading west, you can see the green strip with Dayton was applied as an after-the-fact addition....underneath is the next major city ACTUALLY on I-70....Indianapolis.....
Politicians....gotta love them.....NOT
That's fine, Indy changed most of their signs (with the exception of a few around Downtown) from Columbus to Dayton. At least I-70 goes through the Dayton METRO area, better than nothing. Speaking of indirect control cities, Huntsville, Alabama being mentioned on I-65 between Nashville and Birmingham despite being what looks like at least 10 miles east of the actual highway, I wonder if it was the same thing as the Dayton case.
Oh yeah. I was trying hard to think of an example in Utah and here it is: at I-215 eastbound at I-15 in Murray, the pull-through sign reads Cheyenne. Of course, to go to Cheyenne one must ultimately connect to I-80.
Quote from: ctsignguy on August 21, 2010, 02:26:38 PM
Kind of an obvious one is the I-70 signs headed out of Columbus showing Dayton as a control city since I-70 passes 5 miles north (They were changed due to political pressure from Dayton politicians....if you look at the older ones heading west, you can see the green strip with Dayton was applied as an after-the-fact addition....underneath is the next major city ACTUALLY on I-70....Indianapolis.....
Politicians....gotta love them.....NOT
Portage, WI pulled off that shit with I-39 north on I-90-94 (which used Wausau and Merrimac (for WIS 78 south)) all they got was a piece on sign bridges leading to the exit which led to the stem of the arrow pointing down to the lane being erased (idiots). They also got an extra sign and Stevens Point as a partner saying use exit 108 otherwise. I-39 goes around Portage to the west and north.
The only things I can think of for indirects are the ones on I-894, using Chicago (SB) and Fond du Lac (NB - why not Appleton - it's more important :P ) The former is reached by I-94, the latter by US-45 to US 41. I-43 SB from The Hale Interchange (Milwaukee) could qualify for using Beloit - but it reaches the metro area.
I-480 in Ohio uses Toledo and (I believe) Youngstown, though in both cases travelers have to take I-80 to get to either city.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 22, 2010, 02:13:20 PM
I-480 in Ohio uses Toledo and (I believe) Youngstown, though in both cases travelers have to take I-80 to get to either city.
I-80 does pass through the Toledo city limits near Exit 59, but to my recollection, I-80 completely skirts around Youngstown. You would have to add I-680 to reach Y-Town.
This is more playing technicalities, but I-35E and I-35W in Minnesota use Albert Lea as a southbound control city and Duluth as a northbound control city. I say "technically" since both routes have their own end signage when they rejoin as I-35, so "technically" they end long before they reach either Duluth or Albert Lea. :sombrero: :colorful: :pan: :spin:
Quote from: tdindy88 on August 22, 2010, 12:43:33 AM
Quote from: ctsignguy on August 21, 2010, 02:26:38 PM
Kind of an obvious one is the I-70 signs headed out of Columbus showing Dayton as a control city since I-70 passes 5 miles north (They were changed due to political pressure from Dayton politicians....if you look at the older ones heading west, you can see the green strip with Dayton was applied as an after-the-fact addition....underneath is the next major city ACTUALLY on I-70....Indianapolis.....
Politicians....gotta love them.....NOT
That's fine, Indy changed most of their signs (with the exception of a few around Downtown) from Columbus to Dayton. At least I-70 goes through the Dayton METRO area, better than nothing. Speaking of indirect control cities, Huntsville, Alabama being mentioned on I-65 between Nashville and Birmingham despite being what looks like at least 10 miles east of the actual highway, I wonder if it was the same thing as the Dayton case.
However, once one gets to Cullman, the control cities switches inconsistently between Huntsville and Nashville. I-65 does clip the city limits of Huntsville at the I-565 interchange.
^^^
Huntsville city limits actually go that far west? WOW! :wow:
-A few signs at a few exits along US 30/Coatsville-Downingtown By-Pass have King of Prussia as an eastbound control city, but you'd have to merge onto US 202 northbound in Malvern to get to King of Prussia.
-In New Jersey, On I-76, the eastbound control city lists Atlantic City, but you'd have to take NJ 42 southbound to the Atlantic City Expressway eastbound to get to Atlantic City.
-A few signs along the New Jersey Turnpike list Camden as a control city, yet you'd have to take either exits 4 or 3 to get to Camden.
-Along the NY Thruway at exit 18, it says NY 299 goes to Poughkeepsie, but you'd have to go to US 9W to US 44/NY 55 over the Mid Hudson Bridge to get to Poughkeepsie.
-I-84 in both Pennsylvania and New York list Scranton as a westbound control city, but you'd have to get onto I-81 southbound first before you get into the limits of Scranton.
Here's one that I went through tonight that's existed since the 1970s, yet I had never realized how indirect it was until now:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4122%2F4896914150_9bfab28acf_z.jpg&hash=bb7447b604c6bbc8cb8729c6ec58bbf430a99d86)
With the cancellation of the 280 connector right to I-80 in the 1980s, what was planned to be a one-hop movement now requires two movements to get from Daly City to the Bay Bridge:
280 > 101 > 80
Wow I guess we're pretty organized here in Texas, compared to elsewhere outside our state, as far as signs guiding us to exactly where we are going. Of our 80,000 miles of highways, I can't think of any indirections except one or maybe two minor off-bases (as far as major routes go).
The one and probably only (albeit really minor) instance is in Victoria, Texas, while traveling southbound on US 59, when you get to the interchange junction with US 77. When the southbound roads split up, the US 59 South sign is right on the money with Laredo being the next control city, however US 77 South sign reads Corpus Christi, which is technically incorrect, as US 77 does clip the corner of the Corpus Christi metro area, it passes a good 14 miles west of the actual city, so I can understand why that was signed as the control city.
Going back to the southbound US 77 & US 59 signs, they originally had it correct with Brownsville being the true control city for US 77 South back in the 1980's, but for some reason changed it in the 1990's to Corpus Christi which you miss by miles before continuing. But yet, in the ensuing mileage sign on 77 south, they still kept the original mileage sign with Brownsville listed (at 224 miles), which is still there today. The Brownsville control sign later appears when you get to the junction at I-37.
-----------------------------
Despite being practically spotless of indirect control cities, a pet peeve of mine, if anything, is that many instances we're too specifically direct in listing the next small town as the control city instead of the next actual city.
Real Examples (just to name a few):
-- US 59 North through Houston lists the town of Cleveland (less than an hour north of city's downtown); better choice cities would be Lufkin or Longview.
-- US 183 South in Austin lists Lockhart which is the next town only 18 miles away, while the highway ultimately leads you close to Corpus Christi, which could have been listed.
-- US 287 North in Fort Worth lists the town of Decatur instead of the more reasonable city of Wichita Falls (or Amarillo).
-- US 281 South, upon splitting from its multiplex with I-37 South, lists the nearby town of Three Rivers as the control city which is just three miles ahead!! They couldn't list McAllen or Brownsville since those are more recognizable names???
All those examples mentioned are major four-lane highways mind you, they directly serve those cities, but don't mention them even from a reasonable distance away.
In downtown Boston, the on ramps for the Mass Pike read "I-90 New York". Not only does I-90 not go to New York, getting on the Turnpike is not even necessarially the best route to I-95, which does.
Kentucky is insistant on using "Ashland" as the last control city on I-64, and WV (which used to use "Lexington") followed suit in a resigning project in the early 90s. Ashland is at least a 5 mile detour off I-64. Huntington - Lexington would be appropriate.
On I-70 as one heads west is to most confusing sign I can think of. It read "I-68, Alternate (it used to say "New") Route to Ohio and the West". First, of course, I-68 goes not where near Ohio. It ends not 100 miles from that sign in Morgantown, WV, where a motorist would have to go north on I-79 back to I-70 in Washington PA, which (leaving out the toll issues) would be stupid; or south on 79 to US 50, rejoining I-70 in Columbus, which is not a bad alternate, but certainly not shorter. Second, "the West" ????? What is "the West" to the Maryland DOT? Indiana? When I think of "the West" I think Wyoming. Third, why does Maryland care? I-68 (nee ARC Corridor E) was something of a boondoggle, paralleling the long existing I-70 not 40 miles south of it, through an unpopulated mountain area, but Maryland is trying to drum up traffic on it or something?
Quote from: SP Cook on August 23, 2010, 07:31:56 AM
In downtown Boston, the on ramps for the Mass Pike read "I-90 New York". Not only does I-90 not go to New York, getting on the Turnpike is not even necessarially the best route to I-95, which does.
Do they mean New York City or New York State? If they mean the state, the signs are perfectly accurate.
I think MA means the state. They do like to sign states as controls. 495 northbound (clockwise) has "N.H.-Maine" as its control city.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 23, 2010, 10:05:34 AM
I think MA means the state. They do like to sign states as controls. 495 northbound (clockwise) has "N.H.-Maine" as its control city.
Plus, at the I-84 exit on the Mass Pike, they specifically spell out "New York City":
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fsigns%2F20060107%2Fexit9wb2miles.jpg&hash=0225f9ff1f0cf825753ea0802387caf04bdbf652)
Here are some examples in Oklahoma. These photos have been posted here before.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4063%2F4220110721_48991611b9.jpg&hash=387d4124ac94370565c36c42bc4f2ca1d6be3f1c)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4050%2F4672240036_d9de6ccd4b.jpg&hash=66cd48ea3fd91837c9f77c846b63f5fb6861aad2)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4035%2F4220151787_2c680a8a0c.jpg&hash=a15641be57149ac5dbcf9b25ae61fe61e0a3be57)
Quote from: Jim on August 23, 2010, 10:25:30 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 23, 2010, 10:05:34 AM
I think MA means the state. They do like to sign states as controls. 495 northbound (clockwise) has "N.H.-Maine" as its control city.
Plus, at the I-84 exit on the Mass Pike, they specifically spell out "New York City":
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fsigns%2F20060107%2Fexit9wb2miles.jpg&hash=0225f9ff1f0cf825753ea0802387caf04bdbf652)
and yet I-84 never reaches NYC. You'd have a choice of routes: I-91 to the Merritt or I-95, One of the NY Parkways (Taconic, Saw Mill River, etc) into the Bronx, or the Thruway.
I-5 in Seattle from I-90: Vancouver B.C. - (they forgot via BC 99)
Quote from: PennDOTFan on August 21, 2010, 06:36:13 PM
-The Everett Turnpike in New Hampshire lists Concord as a northbound control city, but you'd have to take I-93 to get to Concord.
At that point I-93 is routed on the Everett Turnpike, which terminates in Concord.
Similar to the Maine Turnpike transitioning seamlessly into free I-95 in Augusta.
Quote-I-89 at its south end at I-93 list NH Seacoast as a northbound I-93 city and I-393 has Portsmouth as an eastbound control city, but you'd have to take I-393 to US 4 to the Spaulding Turnpike to get to the Seacoast and Portsmouth.
And here, I-393 and the Spaulding Turnpike are part of US4. So in fact you'd follow one route number, US4, all the way to Portsmouth.
I-84 to New York City, as has been mentioned -- and to Boston in the other direction.
Oh, and I like how CT15 goes to N Y City (http://maps.google.com/?q=hartford&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Hartford,+Connecticut&ll=41.766202,-72.624108&spn=0.002229,0.004136&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.766173,-72.624432&panoid=X9ESOysY6ykPKtSs58YKTA&cbp=12,237.78,,0,-5) as well!
Quote from: yakra on August 23, 2010, 11:15:14 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on August 21, 2010, 06:36:13 PM
-The Everett Turnpike in New Hampshire lists Concord as a northbound control city, but you'd have to take I-93 to get to Concord.
At that point I-93 is routed on the Everett Turnpike, which terminates in Concord.
Similar to the Maine Turnpike transitioning seamlessly into free I-95 in Augusta.
Quote-I-89 at its south end at I-93 list NH Seacoast as a northbound I-93 city and I-393 has Portsmouth as an eastbound control city, but you'd have to take I-393 to US 4 to the Spaulding Turnpike to get to the Seacoast and Portsmouth.
And here, I-393 and the Spaulding Turnpike are part of US4. So in fact you'd follow one route number, US4, all the way to Portsmouth.
:banghead: D'oh! I forgot that I-393 and US 4 as well as I-93 and the Everett are multiplexed.
Quote from: yakra on August 23, 2010, 11:18:08 PM
I-84 to New York City, as has been mentioned -- and to Boston in the other direction.
Oh, and I like how CT15 goes to N Y City (http://maps.google.com/?q=hartford&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Hartford,+Connecticut&ll=41.766202,-72.624108&spn=0.002229,0.004136&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.766173,-72.624432&panoid=X9ESOysY6ykPKtSs58YKTA&cbp=12,237.78,,0,-5) as well!
It does - same road becomes the Hutch, which makes it all the way to the Bronx and, via the Whitestone Bridge, Queens. Can hardly blame NY for assigning a different route number, can'tcha?
Quote from: AlpsROADS on August 23, 2010, 11:38:26 PM
Quote from: yakra on August 23, 2010, 11:18:08 PM
I-84 to New York City, as has been mentioned -- and to Boston in the other direction.
Oh, and I like how CT15 goes to N Y City (http://maps.google.com/?q=hartford&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Hartford,+Connecticut&ll=41.766202,-72.624108&spn=0.002229,0.004136&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.766173,-72.624432&panoid=X9ESOysY6ykPKtSs58YKTA&cbp=12,237.78,,0,-5) as well!
It does - same road becomes the Hutch, which makes it all the way to the Bronx and, via the Whitestone Bridge, Queens. Can hardly blame NY for assigning a different route number, can'tcha?
my turn now: :banghead:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3227%2F2824022354_32cfb4bc99_z_d.jpg&hash=3852197c01dbd6b5cfd8aeb56583025bdcb0564f)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3043%2F2945057927_9b3c125b4e_z_d.jpg&hash=9de8bbb7543dc1c84ab275e6437c12e2f6ded856)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3035%2F2919427100_3f1bdb3aea_z_d.jpg&hash=bc92efcca98c813597c7abb261451015e5454d0d)
Two of I-40's control cities in Arkansas are Little Rock and Ft Smith. I-40 goes through neither city.
Quote from: US71 on August 24, 2010, 05:04:12 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3227%2F2824022354_32cfb4bc99_z_d.jpg&hash=3852197c01dbd6b5cfd8aeb56583025bdcb0564f)
Save time? As opposed to what, taking SH-66 the whole way? OTA, ladies and gentlemen.
Here is an example in Aberdeen, WA. US-12 does not pass through Olympia, however US-12 drops off the mainline which becomes SR-8 and later US-101 to Olympia.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4054%2F4419124540_41d89842d7.jpg&hash=982965194b7e40ca65f7e038526c9dce442fd3eb) (http://washingtonhighways.blogspot.com/2010/04/washington-state-route-101.html)
Saw one in Sonoma today:
Route 12 east signed for "San Francisco" and "Petaluma" at the town square -
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Sonoma,+CA&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Sonoma,+California&ll=38.291962,-122.458353&spn=0.001122,0.001725&z=19&layer=c&cbll=38.291976,-122.458493&panoid=trZz5692xGKl4kk0AiGugw&cbp=12,121.31,,2,2.25
To get to Petaluma, one would need to take 12 east, 121 south (briefly), and 116 west, while to get to San Francisco, one has to take 121 south (37 south prior to 1964), 37 west, and then 101 south.
121 south is signed for San Francisco (as opposed to the closer Sears Point or Novato) as well as a result:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4080%2F4941214538_d70f915ea5_z.jpg&hash=64662a4b213b8016d6efc1c36cc24131168f9067)
Another California example just came to mind:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raymondyue/5014428403/
This sign for Route 92 east at Foster City Boulevard has Stockton as a control city...to get to Stockton from here, one would have to take the following:
92 east to Hayward
880 north to 238
238 east to 580
580 east to 205
205 east to 5 north
Quote from: bugo on August 25, 2010, 02:49:06 AM
Two of I-40's control cities in Arkansas are Little Rock and Ft Smith. I-40 goes through neither city.
Well, it goes close enough, doesn't it? Through suburbs? If you're in Memphis, I think "Little Rock" is a reasonable descriptor of where 40 west goes. (And probably matches what most people are doing.) American control-city practices are pretty weird and inconsistent. In France, for example, if you're heading toward Paris, even if the road you're on will end 200 km out of Paris and dump you onto another road to continue that direction, you'll get "Paris" among a generous list of destinations. (The criticism I'd have there is that they often give too many destinations to read.)
Quote from: Michael in Philly on September 29, 2010, 04:25:33 PM
Quote from: bugo on August 25, 2010, 02:49:06 AM
Two of I-40's control cities in Arkansas are Little Rock and Ft Smith. I-40 goes through neither city.
Well, it goes close enough, doesn't it? Through suburbs? If you're in Memphis, I think "Little Rock" is a reasonable descriptor of where 40 west goes. (And probably matches what most people are doing.) American control-city practices are pretty weird and inconsistent. In France, for example, if you're heading toward Paris, even if the road you're on will end 200 km out of Paris and dump you onto another road to continue that direction, you'll get "Paris" among a generous list of destinations. (The criticism I'd have there is that they often give too many destinations to read.)
For the French example you gave, it isn't that much different than many examples in the US. It's like Memphis being signed on I-57 in Illinois despite the fact it ends long before it reaches Memphis. Or New York being signed on I-80 even though I-80 ends just before it reaches New York. I guess I don't see that American control city practices are that weird and inconsistent.
Quote from: deanej on August 23, 2010, 09:13:36 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 23, 2010, 07:31:56 AM
In downtown Boston, the on ramps for the Mass Pike read "I-90 New York". Not only does I-90 not go to New York, getting on the Turnpike is not even necessarially the best route to I-95, which does.
Do they mean New York City or New York State? If they mean the state, the signs are perfectly accurate.
I actually think it means the city. While I-95 is the highway that actually connects Boston and New York, I think the consensus is that the best route is I-90 to I-84 to ???? (depending on exactly where in NYC you want to go). I'm pretty sure that a sign in Boston that says "I-90 New York" is trying to direct people along this route.
Quote from: yakra on August 24, 2010, 03:33:02 AM
Quote from: AlpsROADS on August 23, 2010, 11:38:26 PM
Quote from: yakra on August 23, 2010, 11:18:08 PM
I-84 to New York City, as has been mentioned -- and to Boston in the other direction.
Oh, and I like how CT15 goes to N Y City (http://maps.google.com/?q=hartford&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Hartford,+Connecticut&ll=41.766202,-72.624108&spn=0.002229,0.004136&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.766173,-72.624432&panoid=X9ESOysY6ykPKtSs58YKTA&cbp=12,237.78,,0,-5) as well!
It does - same road becomes the Hutch, which makes it all the way to the Bronx and, via the Whitestone Bridge, Queens. Can hardly blame NY for assigning a different route number, can'tcha?
my turn now: :banghead:
Quote from: Master son on August 23, 2010, 02:27:37 PM
I-5 in Seattle from I-90: Vancouver B.C. - (they forgot via BC 99)
Same logic applies to I-5/Vancouver as to the Merritt/NYC. It's the same highway, different number. I think that's a slightly different animal than most of the other examples here.
have we mentioned I-40 in Flagstaff being signed for Los Angeles? Shades of old US-66...
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 29, 2010, 06:35:00 PM
have we mentioned I-40 in Flagstaff being signed for Los Angeles? Shades of old US-66...
Likewise,
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Stockton,+CA&sll=34.18692,-118.176799&sspn=0.009816,0.016823&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Stockton,+San+Joaquin,+California&ll=37.951896,-121.291884&spn=0,0.008411&z=17&layer=c&cbll=37.950088,-121.290888&panoid=zZyI__wS3_WRGNHQne3T9g&cbp=12,265.18,,0,7.87
I-5 south in Stockton signed for San Francisco - shades of old US 50!
We have this quite a bit in the UK
For instance, this sign has two - neither road reaches there control destinations. The A404 does go to London, though it's not signed that way (as it's longer and a nasty drive through urban area for most of it).
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.663945,-0.604334&spn=0,0.01929&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.663933,-0.604153&panoid=r-yDBRGE5FTT5N5Euywk7Q&cbp=12,56.75,,0,-7.61
SCOTLAND on the M6 is quite a funny indirect control city - it ends just 0.2 miles short of the border. Many motorways have destinations you can't get to on just that road signed as control destinations.
Quote from: huskeroadgeek on September 29, 2010, 06:26:00 PM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on September 29, 2010, 04:25:33 PM
Quote from: bugo on August 25, 2010, 02:49:06 AM
Two of I-40's control cities in Arkansas are Little Rock and Ft Smith. I-40 goes through neither city.
Well, it goes close enough, doesn't it? Through suburbs? If you're in Memphis, I think "Little Rock" is a reasonable descriptor of where 40 west goes. (And probably matches what most people are doing.) American control-city practices are pretty weird and inconsistent. In France, for example, if you're heading toward Paris, even if the road you're on will end 200 km out of Paris and dump you onto another road to continue that direction, you'll get "Paris" among a generous list of destinations. (The criticism I'd have there is that they often give too many destinations to read.)
For the French example you gave, it isn't that much different than many examples in the US. It's like Memphis being signed on I-57 in Illinois despite the fact it ends long before it reaches Memphis. Or New York being signed on I-80 even though I-80 ends just before it reaches New York. I guess I don't see that American control cit"y practices are that weird and inconsistent.
New Jersey will choose small, in-state points rather than larger cities out of state (For I-78 west, from Newark, it used to be...drum roll..."Clinton." Now it's Phillipsburg or "Easton Pa") In Pennsylvania, you don't in fact see New York" for I-80 east, but a succession of fairly small in-state places. Hence my use of the word "weird." Maryland gives "New York" for I-95 north, then you cross into Delaware and "New York" disappears in favor of "Wilmington, Philadelphia." Hence my use of the word "inconsistent." And how 'bout "Philadelphia, New York"? Philadelphia's actually quite a large city....
I'm aware that Illinois (and lots of non-East-Coast states) goes to the other extreme. Hence, again, "inconsistency." If we could get into the habit of showing two or three destinations for every direction on an Interstate, perhaps a small but local place, and a major city or two that are farther down....
A French example: http://franceautoroutes.free.fr/photospoint.php?route=a6&pos=69 (http://franceautoroutes.free.fr/photospoint.php?route=a6&pos=69) (top photo)
This would be about here, if the link works right (computer's giving me trouble), heading southeast. Zoom out to see where the cities are.... http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=47.037608,4.85424&spn=0.052295,0.109692&z=13 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=47.037608,4.85424&spn=0.052295,0.109692&z=13)
EDIT: Check out the same interchange from the other direction, although this borders on being an example of "too much" http://franceautoroutes.free.fr/photospoint.php?route=a6&pos=70 (http://franceautoroutes.free.fr/photospoint.php?route=a6&pos=70) (bottom photo) Lille in particular is about 400 miles from there, using a sequence of about 4 different numbered "autoroutes" (A31, A5, A26, A1 is the best route I can think of from that point. On reflection, I think the reason they've got Lille - the largest city in northern France, north of Paris - on that sign is to say "for Lille (and thus the north), go this way rather than through the Paris area.")
Quote from: SP Cook on August 23, 2010, 07:31:56 AM
In downtown Boston, the on ramps for the Mass Pike read "I-90 New York". Not only does I-90 not go to New York, getting on the Turnpike is not even necessarially the best route to I-95, which does.
That sign that says I-90 WEST/NEW YORK I think is more the exception than the norm. The new control city posted along I-93 for I-90 is "WORCESTER".
But I think the biggest indirect control city in that area is I-95 / BOSTON. I-95 NB motorists have to switch to I-93 NB in Dedham, while I-95 SB motorists switch to US 1 in Peabody.
Quote from: Michael in Philly on September 29, 2010, 07:44:45 PM
Quote from: huskeroadgeek on September 29, 2010, 06:26:00 PM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on September 29, 2010, 04:25:33 PM
Quote from: bugo on August 25, 2010, 02:49:06 AM
Two of I-40's control cities in Arkansas are Little Rock and Ft Smith. I-40 goes through neither city.
Well, it goes close enough, doesn't it? Through suburbs? If you're in Memphis, I think "Little Rock" is a reasonable descriptor of where 40 west goes. (And probably matches what most people are doing.) American control-city practices are pretty weird and inconsistent. In France, for example, if you're heading toward Paris, even if the road you're on will end 200 km out of Paris and dump you onto another road to continue that direction, you'll get "Paris" among a generous list of destinations. (The criticism I'd have there is that they often give too many destinations to read.)
For the French example you gave, it isn't that much different than many examples in the US. It's like Memphis being signed on I-57 in Illinois despite the fact it ends long before it reaches Memphis. Or New York being signed on I-80 even though I-80 ends just before it reaches New York. I guess I don't see that American control cit"y practices are that weird and inconsistent.
New Jersey will choose small, in-state points rather than larger cities out of state (For I-78 west, from Newark, it used to be...drum roll..."Clinton." Now it's Phillipsburg or "Easton Pa") In Pennsylvania, you don't in fact see New York" for I-80 east, but a succession of fairly small in-state places. Hence my use of the word "weird." Maryland gives "New York" for I-95 north, then you cross into Delaware and "New York" disappears in favor of "Wilmington, Philadelphia." Hence my use of the word "inconsistent." And how 'bout "Philadelphia, New York"? Philadelphia's actually quite a large city....
I'm aware that Illinois (and lots of non-East-Coast states) goes to the other extreme. Hence, again, "inconsistency." If we could get into the habit of showing two or three destinations for every direction on an Interstate, perhaps a small but local place, and a major city or two that are farther down....
A French example: http://franceautoroutes.free.fr/photospoint.php?route=a6&pos=69 (http://franceautoroutes.free.fr/photospoint.php?route=a6&pos=69) (top photo)
This would be about here, if the link works right (computer's giving me trouble), heading southeast. Zoom out to see where the cities are.... http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=47.037608,4.85424&spn=0.052295,0.109692&z=13 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=47.037608,4.85424&spn=0.052295,0.109692&z=13)
EDIT: Check out the same interchange from the other direction, although this borders on being an example of "too much" http://franceautoroutes.free.fr/photospoint.php?route=a6&pos=70 (http://franceautoroutes.free.fr/photospoint.php?route=a6&pos=70) (bottom photo) Lille in particular is about 400 miles from there, using a sequence of about 4 different numbered "autoroutes" (A31, A5, A26, A1 is the best route I can think of from that point. On reflection, I think the reason they've got Lille - the largest city in northern France, north of Paris - on that sign is to say "for Lille (and thus the north), go this way rather than through the Paris area.")
I do see what you mean about inconsistencies because each state chooses its own way to sign control cities whether smaller, nearby cities or larger more distant cities. Personally though, I prefer less cities than more on signs. There may be some exceptions where 3 makes sense, but in most cases I don't see a need for any more than two control cities on any one sign. 4 just seems like information overload.
Quote from: shadyjay on September 29, 2010, 08:14:55 PM
But I think the biggest indirect control city in that area is I-95 / BOSTON. I-95 NB motorists have to switch to I-93 NB in Dedham, while I-95 SB motorists switch to US 1 in Peabody.
Both are still only one-route switches so they are not overly indirect; 95 after all was intended to go through town until the 1970s. (Same deal for 95 being signed for Washington DC)
in that area, the most oddly indirect control city is "NH-Maine" on I-495. 495 goes to neither, and of course two states don't make a city. I think they expect you to return to I-95 and head north.
I-395 in Bangor, ME, is signed as its secondary control cities "Bar Harbor Region" and "Calais"
US 1, the coastal highway, doesn't go to Bar Harbor. ME 3 from Ellsworth does.
Also, in Raleigh, I-40 is signed as going to Wilmington, but I-40 ends just northwest of Wrightsville Beach, not quite Wilmington.
Also, I remember at one time I-85 in Durham was signed for "Richmond," which is not even close. Downtown Richmond is almost 25 miles from Capitol Heights/Petersburg, I-85's northern terminus. I think now it's signed as Petersburg.
I-385 is signed south from I-85 in Greenville as "Columbia," but I-385 ends in Clinton, almost 50 miles north. You take I-26 from Clinton to Columbia.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 30, 2010, 12:55:45 AM
in that area, the most oddly indirect control city is "NH-Maine" on I-495. 495 goes to neither, and of course two states don't make a city. I think they expect you to return to I-95 and head north.
Yeah, I think it's the long-range bypass control city philosophy, which IIRC I-285 in Atlanta and I-294 in Chicagoland tend to copy (the latter more strongly, as states tend to be used as control destinations more often there).
If California used that system more often, I-210 would be signed for Phoenix! However, I CAN think of three examples where this is followed:
I-405 for Sacramento and San Diego
I-805 for Los Angeles (which is interesting as Santa Ana is the primary control city on 5 north for a few miles, too)
former I-880 in Sacramento, now I-80, for Reno and San Francisco
If CalTrans used this more often, I-210 would have the control cities of Ventura and Phoenix!
Quote from: TheStranger on September 30, 2010, 01:33:31 AM
If California used that system more often, I-210 would be signed for Phoenix!
you mean "other desert cities" ;)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 30, 2010, 01:48:33 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on September 30, 2010, 01:33:31 AM
If California used that system more often, I-210 would be signed for Phoenix!
you mean "other desert cities" ;)
True. After San Bernardino, Redlands is the control city, right? (I've driven old 66 in that area, but not new 210)
Wouldn't 210 be signed for the next 10 east control point, 'Indio' or 'Palm Springs'?
Quote from: ausinterkid on September 30, 2010, 02:22:55 AM
Wouldn't 210 be signed for the next 10 east control point, 'Indio' or 'Palm Springs'?
It isn't:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=San+Bernardino,+CA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.368578,55.898438&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=San+Bernardino,+California&ll=34.137987,-117.326088&spn=0.00468,0.006824&t=k&z=17&layer=c&cbll=34.137559,-117.326594&panoid=HnBPtMskDl12cYnQrlz9NA&cbp=12,51.12,,0,6.27 "Redlands/Mountain Resorts" at I-215
"Redlands" at Route 330 (don't know if this section of freeway has received 210 signs now though) -
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=San+Bernardino,+CA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.368578,55.898438&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=San+Bernardino,+California&ll=34.131558,-117.209573&spn=0.00936,0.013647&z=16&layer=c&cbll=34.131593,-117.209779&panoid=x5x-6H7-fhBJKK3SKA1mjg&cbp=12,101.08,,2,-9.97
Westbound, 210 doesn't receive signage for I-5 control cities until after Route 118.
"San Fernando" at the 210/134 split:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Pasadena,+CA&sll=34.131593,-117.209787&sspn=0.00936,0.013647&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Pasadena,+Los+Angeles,+California&ll=34.152008,-118.142928&spn=0.004644,0.006824&t=k&z=17&layer=c&cbll=34.152011,-118.143059&panoid=rlz_cpp7QNTB08eYD-oHew&cbp=12,262.44,,0,-5.8
"San Fernando" again at Route 2:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Pasadena,+CA&sll=34.131593,-117.209787&sspn=0.00936,0.013647&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Pasadena,+Los+Angeles,+California&ll=34.205343,-118.213105&spn=0.018704,0.027294&z=15&layer=c&cbll=34.207092,-118.208525&panoid=ETdykFh0tbkp0Ub0u6-UEQ&cbp=12,288.69,,0,6.13
And at Route 118, still "San Fernando" even though that interchange is practically there!
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Pasadena,+CA&sll=34.131593,-117.209787&sspn=0.00936,0.013647&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Pasadena,+Los+Angeles,+California&ll=34.282379,-118.401332&spn=0.009344,0.013647&z=16&layer=c&cbll=34.282488,-118.401455&panoid=LP62-5fQrGmWNGoiDBMP3g&cbp=12,332.94,,0,6.56
Well I-55 and I-59 are both signed to New Orleans, but both require you to utilize the I-10 to actually get there. New Orleans is also known for have many indirect street exits, requiring you to turn onto 1 or more surface streets after you exit before you actually get to the street signed at the exit.
Seen in Albuquerque on I-25, control city south is listed as El Paso, which is 44 miles south of Las Cruces , where I-25 terminates. Although, I -25 multiplexed with I -10 into El Paso .many,many moons ago.
really?? I never knew that. So there was once such a thing as Texas I-25?
here I had thought that one of the design goals of the interstate system was to avoid precisely those sorts of multiplexes, as they were deemed a confusing aspect of the US route system.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 30, 2010, 03:35:06 PM
really?? I never knew that. So there was once such a thing as Texas I-25?
here I had thought that one of the design goals of the interstate system was to avoid precisely those sorts of multiplexes, as they were deemed a confusing aspect of the US route system.
The post above yours is the very first time I've seen any mention of this, ever.
Now, we DO know US 85 was concurrent down to El Paso, of course New Mexico no longer acknowledges that highway, but Texas still does...
Quote from: sandiaman on September 30, 2010, 03:22:37 PM
Seen in Albuquerque on I-25, control city south is listed as El Paso, which is 44 miles south of Las Cruces , where I-25 terminates. Although, I -25 multiplexed with I -10 into El Paso .many,many moons ago.
Have they changed that recently? Last I knew, I-25 South in Albuquerque was signed for Las Cruces.
On one of the old H.M. Gousha maps from the early 1960s, I-25 is multiplexed with I-10 between Las Cruces and El Paso, which would have been technically Texas I-25. I have never seen it anywhere else, and I think it would have been redundant. It could be a mistake also.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was just a Gousha error - they inferred a 10/25 multiplex from the existence of 80/85.
Of course, the only justification I can think of for a TX I-25 is if I-25 had crossed into Jaurez on what is now I-110...
Hmm. Is there a version of the Yellow Book with route numbers included? They might well have had such a setup very early on in planning before saying "Wait, no, that's stupid. Make it 110 instead".
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 01, 2010, 05:12:48 PM
Hmm. Is there a version of the Yellow Book with route numbers included? They might well have had such a setup very early on in planning before saying "Wait, no, that's stupid. Make it 110 instead".
I actually wouldn't think so - prior to 1957, California's Division of Highways had some very strange route numbering proposals that in no way resemble the use of 3dis/Interstate grid today, i.e. 2di numbers for short routes in metro LA, and IIRC I-110 for what became the Embarcadero Freeway.
Closest thing I can think of would be that route numbering map proposal from 1956 or so, but that was well after the Yellow book.
Right, and that wouldn't show the detail that once would need for this...
* US 67 uses St. Louis in southern Missouri, but access to St. Louis requires getting on I-55 first:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=36.841816,-90.50138&spn=0.012982,0.041199&z=16&layer=c&cbll=36.841759,-90.500852&panoid=8EsHzlp15hV1afMVwrNv-Q&cbp=12,59.62,,0,-42.34 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=36.841816,-90.50138&spn=0.012982,0.041199&z=16&layer=c&cbll=36.841759,-90.500852&panoid=8EsHzlp15hV1afMVwrNv-Q&cbp=12,59.62,,0,-42.34)
* US 67 in Alton, IL also uses St. Louis, even entering the city requires using MO 367:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.888152,-90.173528&spn=0.006347,0.020599&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.888166,-90.173608&panoid=Xqb1Yc0Y-rfXpmNupHJphQ&cbp=12,90.86,,0,-5.83 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.888152,-90.173528&spn=0.006347,0.020599&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.888166,-90.173608&panoid=Xqb1Yc0Y-rfXpmNupHJphQ&cbp=12,90.86,,0,-5.83)
It almost better to stay on the IL side here and access St. Louis via IL 143 and the IL 3/McKinley Bridge corridor - signalized expressways, but much better than the petering out the MO 367 corridor does south of I-270.
* The MO 21 Blood Alley Replacement Freeway uses St. Louis also, but MO 21 never enters the city. Accessing St. Louis requires either somehow accessing I-55 or continuing in on MO 30
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.22473,-90.580022&spn=0.012811,0.041199&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.224581,-90.580589&panoid=DWJonP2KebFwJlJz4CTwaA&cbp=12,74.17,,0,6.17 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.22473,-90.580022&spn=0.012811,0.041199&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.224581,-90.580589&panoid=DWJonP2KebFwJlJz4CTwaA&cbp=12,74.17,,0,6.17)
* MO 364 uses St. Louis as a control city, but accessing St. Louis requires uses Route D (granted the latter could easily be renumbered to fix this)
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.707113,-90.502195&spn=0.012726,0.041199&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.707281,-90.50217&panoid=R7--XcKtNjOIG07WMCfkyQ&cbp=12,202.33,,0,7.2 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.707113,-90.502195&spn=0.012726,0.041199&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.707281,-90.50217&panoid=R7--XcKtNjOIG07WMCfkyQ&cbp=12,202.33,,0,7.2)
* MO 370 occasionally uses St. Louis as a control city, but it is not even a semi-direct route into the city:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.790911,-90.45367&spn=0.012711,0.041199&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.790911,-90.45367&panoid=Dweo9YSHKW5ESO03z_SXPg&cbp=12,94.24,,0,5.19 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.790911,-90.45367&spn=0.012711,0.041199&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.790911,-90.45367&panoid=Dweo9YSHKW5ESO03z_SXPg&cbp=12,94.24,,0,5.19)
Really should use "To I-270" here or or use another indirect choice like "Indianapolis" to indicate the bypass function of MO 370
Just north of OK-74B, OK-74 has a mileage sign listing the distance to Norman and Oklahoma City. Since 1967, OK-74 has been split in two and ends at I-35. The route picks up again on the north side of Oklahoma City, but to reach either Norman or OKC from the sign, I-35 must be used.
Lansing, MI, on I-69 and I-96, you have to take I-496 to enter the city limits of that city.
Grand Rapids, MI, on I-96, you have to take I-196 or U.S. 131 for that.
Muskegon, MI on I-96, that city is well past the western terminus of I-96.
MI I-275's only control cities are Flint and Toledo, OH, you have to take I-75 to reach either city.
I-696's only contol cities are Lansing and Port Huron. For Lansing, see above, for Port Huron, you must take I-94.
Flint, MI, on I-75, must take I-475 or I-69 to be in the limits of that city.
I'd say this qualifies:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Grande+Prairie,+Alberta,+Canada&aq=0&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=49.043149,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Grande+Prairie,+Division+No.+19,+Alberta,+Canada&ll=55.171571,-118.820668&spn=0.00435,0.009645&z=17&layer=c&cbll=55.171915,-118.820688&panoid=vc6Bvee0rUByvASRiHh6Rw&cbp=12,174.74,,0,-0.51
Quote from: MDOTFanFB on January 01, 2011, 01:27:06 PM
Lansing, MI, on I-69 and I-96, you have to take I-496 to enter the city limits of that city.
Grand Rapids, MI, on I-96, you have to take I-196 or U.S. 131 for that.
Muskegon, MI on I-96, that city is well past the western terminus of I-96.
MI I-275's only control cities are Flint and Toledo, OH, you have to take I-75 to reach either city.
I-696's only contol cities are Lansing and Port Huron. For Lansing, see above, for Port Huron, you must take I-94.
Flint, MI, on I-75, must take I-475 or I-69 to be in the limits of that city.
Checking a map, I saw that I-96 does go into the boudaries of Grand Rapids, for a very short distance, but still, in the case of Grand Rapids, I-69 and 96 in Lansing, and I-75 with Flint, the fact that those highways do go into the main metro area of those cities should be good enough, missing the city's corporation limit by a mile or so shouldn't be condition on determining control cities (or else INDOT should just put Flint up on signs north of Ft. Wayne). Now, the I-275 example is more what I think of when I think of this topic, or any of the 3-dis in Ohio, but that's just my opinion.
I-96 does traverse a section of Lansing's south side.
One of I-390's control cities at it's southern terminus with I-86 is Buffalo, even though it doesn't go there. And there are quite a few signs for Rochester on I-86 even though it doesn't go there (although I do count it as a direct connection since you actually keep going straight in order to get on I-390).
Quote from: deanej on August 20, 2010, 04:25:00 PM
I-490 in Rochester uses Buffalo and Victor as control cities. It doesn't go to either.
I could've sworn it's eastern terminus with I-90 was in Victor... :confused:
I'm new to this forum so if i'm replying in to the wrong folder I apologize.
I'm replying to a couple of things, one
"Other Desert Cities"
I was wondering , am I the only one that likes that sign. I live very close to that interchange, and I have to say because of the population of the Coachella Valley, and the connection to the 86 to El Centro and 62 to 29 Palms, Joshua Tree, Amboy, Needles, that that particular signage, kinda fits. I like that Blythe or Phoenix don't show up until Indio.
Also the 210 eastbound Control city,
I think it should be Indio and/or Palm Springs after the 215 jct. True it is San Fernando on 210 west, but on other transtions like from the 118 and even the 2 I think it says Sacramento, not to mention the mileage signs list Sacramento as the Control city. I think the same should be for eastbound, Indio should show up right around the 215 jct. Just my opinion though.
Also I'm a big freeway enthusiast myself and this is a cool forum, so hope to be getting to talk with everyone in the future.
Quote from: Interstate Trav on February 09, 2011, 11:12:17 PM
I'm new to this forum so if i'm replying in to the wrong folder I apologize.
Have you read the Forum Guidelines in the Welcome forum yet? Take your time and look around, get settled, see what other people are doing. (For example, it's OK to bring back threads that haven't been active in months, but don't make too much of a habit of it.)
~One of your sometimes friendly mods
On I-90-94, Wisconsin Dells is used as a control city however the official sign for the city of Wis Dells on WI 13 is at the Wisconsin River (1 mile east). BUT, it still makes sense to use it.
I am also surprised no one mentioned I-88 going to Chicago. 88 stops short of the city by 6 miles. You have to use I-290 East to get into the city limits. BUT again this makes sense.
I-80 also goes near Cleveland but not in it.
I-80 also uses Moline-Rock Island as a secondary control city on the IL side but misses both by 3 miles.
I-85 used to go into Greensboro, but no longer does, thanks to the Urban Loop.
I-77 near its southern terminus is signed for Charleston, and you must continue onto I-26 to actually reach it.
I-70 is signed for Baltimore, but stops at a Park & Ride just short of the city line (or at I-695, depends on who you ask).
I-270 is signed for Washington, but ends at the Capital Beltway.
I-82 is signed for Seattle, and you must continue onto I-90 to actually reach it.
I-84 is signed for Boise, and I-184 spurs into it.
I-80 is signed for Cheyenne, and I-180 spurs into it.
Too lazy to go back and look, but I-24 west of Paducah (and at one time, in all of Kentucky) was signed for St. Louis, which actually requires driving on two other interstates (I-57 and I-64) to get there.
US 31 north of Muskegon is signed for Ludington, even though it didn't enter Ludington before the freeway was extended to US 10.
US 127 north of Mt. Pleasant is signed for Mackinac Bridge, even though the bridge is 90 miles north of US 127's merge onto I-75.
St. Louis was once the control city for I-24 west of Nashville in the early 90's. Its since been changed to Clarksville and previously you had to take I-24 to I-57 NB and then I-64 WB.
How about Woodbury for Exit 3 on the NJ Turnpike? There is no direct road between the interchange and it. I-295 is close to it, but it opened long after the Turnpike did!
Long ago Singac was used as a control city for NB I- 287 on CR 511 in Parsippany, NJ. That city is actually a hamlet in Little Falls, NJ not located anywhere near where I- 287 is now and no other road connects it directly from anywhere on I- 287. This was before this interstate was continued past Montville to I-87 in New York and now NJ 23 does from its interchange in Riverdale, but its miles in the wrong direction where other NJ towns along the way would have been more suited. Bottom line is Singac now or never had any interest, nor is at at any major route junction or stand larger than those other corporations around it! So a big mistake was made here, but now corrected since. The last street view I saw of this showed no control cities for I-287 at this location.
Sorry to bring up an old thread, but on a visit to Sonoma Wine Country last weekend, I noticed that SB Arnold Road at CA 116 is signed eastbound for San Francisco. To get to SF, one needs to go EB on 116, SB on 121, WB on 37, and SB on 101, for a total of four routes.
Cities in MI were mentioned above, but ...
I-275 (Toledo and Flint) and I-696 (Lansing and Port Huron) around Detroit are signed with control cities far beyond their ends. OK, on I-696 you can get to Lansing or Port Huron by simply merging onto I-96 or I-94, respectively. And SB I-275 merges onto I-75 to get to Toledo. But to get from NB I-275 to Flint requires first going west on I-96 - signed toward Lansing - and then NB on US-23. Without knowing where you were going, you wouldn't be able to find Flint from the signage.
Granted, if I-275 had been continued to its originally intended endpoint with I-75 somewhere near Clarkston, Flint would make sense.
At the eastern interchange of I-80 and I-680 near Neola, IA, Sioux City is listed as one of the destinations for I-680 westbound. While I-680 goes nowhere near Sioux City, it connects I-80 to a highway that does go through there, I-29.
I-5 North in Grapevine gets San Francisco as a control city.
I 680, CA 170, I 405, I 210, get Sacramento even though these freeways don't go to that city.
I saw Tulsa listed as a destination via US 50 on I-255 in Illinois, but US 50 does not go to Tulsa.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 19, 2010, 07:23:36 PM
how about US-97 in Klamath Falls being signed (quite hilariously) for Weed and San Francisco.
Weed makes sense, as it is the terminus of US-97, and has been so since the beginning. San Francisco? Back in the day, you would have had to take US-99 to US-40 to get there (so three hops altogether, including US-97), and nowadays the quickest route is US-97 to I-5 to I-505 to I-80, which is four hops.
Redding probably would have made more sense as a second control city (ignoring insignificant towns like Dorris), but realistically, a significant portion of people travelling south on 97 there are heading to San Francisco or somewhere in the bay area.
EDIT: Just realized I replied to an almost 4 year old post. The thread was bumped though, so whatever.
EDIT2:
Quote from: Henry on February 18, 2011, 03:51:02 PM
I-84 is signed for Boise, and I-184 spurs into it.
I-184 spurs into the city center, but I-84 is still well within the city limits (or, at the very least, right at the edge of the city limits), with 5 more Boise exits, as well as serving the airport.
I-5 and Eugene is a similar example, because Eugene is accessed from I-5 primarily via the Beltline (OR-569) and I-105, and you can throw in 30th Ave and OR-99 (northbound only) too. I-5 just straddles the line between Eugene and Springfield, and doesn't do much in the way of direct access, other than the Gateway mall area and the outer areas like Glenwood and Lane Community College. Obviously though, Eugene is a very logical control city for I-5, I'm not arguing against that, just pointing it out.
Quote from: iowahighways on August 02, 2014, 10:26:23 AM
At the eastern interchange of I-80 and I-680 near Neola, IA, Sioux City is listed as one of the destinations for I-680 westbound. While I-680 goes nowhere near Sioux City, it connects I-80 to a highway that does go through there, I-29.
And going eastbound on I-680 from Omaha eastward has Des Moines as the control city even though at the end of I-680, you're at least 100 miles from Des Moines. Of course, I could be an ass and say I-80 doesn't go to Des Moines, either (only I-235 goes there), but that's just pure technicality. I suppose the same for that account holds for I-35 as well.
Quote from: GaryV on August 01, 2014, 10:44:46 PM
Cities in MI were mentioned above, but ...
I-275 (Toledo and Flint) and I-696 (Lansing and Port Huron) around Detroit are signed with control cities far beyond their ends. OK, on I-696 you can get to Lansing or Port Huron by simply merging onto I-96 or I-94, respectively. And SB I-275 merges onto I-75 to get to Toledo. But to get from NB I-275 to Flint requires first going west on I-96 - signed toward Lansing - and then NB on US-23. Without knowing where you were going, you wouldn't be able to find Flint from the signage.
As a comparison point:
Right now in Southern California, with the 710 gap between Pasadena and Alhambra not complete, while 710 north is primarily signed for "Pasadena", at the interchange with 10, the eastbound 10 ramp is then also signed for "Pasadena" to provide a continuation. On 275 north, is the ramp for 96 west signed for Flint at all?
Quote from: bing101I-5 North in Grapevine gets San Francisco as a control city.
This is not as indirect as one would think: 580 west of Vernalis was either signed or proposed as I-5W in the 1960s, and the 5-580 route is shorter than 101.
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 23, 2010, 02:27:37 PM
Quote from: Jim on August 23, 2010, 10:25:30 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 23, 2010, 10:05:34 AM
I think MA means the state. They do like to sign states as controls. 495 northbound (clockwise) has "N.H.-Maine" as its control city.
Plus, at the I-84 exit on the Mass Pike, they specifically spell out "New York City":
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fsigns%2F20060107%2Fexit9wb2miles.jpg&hash=0225f9ff1f0cf825753ea0802387caf04bdbf652)
and yet I-84 never reaches NYC. You'd have a choice of routes: I-91 to the Merritt or I-95, One of the NY Parkways (Taconic, Saw Mill River, etc) into the Bronx, or the Thruway.
Of course, US 20 doesn't go to either Hartford or New York City. That's the real error on these signs.
Quote from: roadman on August 04, 2014, 12:33:05 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 23, 2010, 02:27:37 PM
Quote from: Jim on August 23, 2010, 10:25:30 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 23, 2010, 10:05:34 AM
I think MA means the state. They do like to sign states as controls. 495 northbound (clockwise) has "N.H.-Maine" as its control city.
Plus, at the I-84 exit on the Mass Pike, they specifically spell out "New York City":
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fsigns%2F20060107%2Fexit9wb2miles.jpg&hash=0225f9ff1f0cf825753ea0802387caf04bdbf652)
and yet I-84 never reaches NYC. You'd have a choice of routes: I-91 to the Merritt or I-95, One of the NY Parkways (Taconic, Saw Mill River, etc) into the Bronx, or the Thruway.
Of course, US 20 doesn't go to either Hartford or New York City. That's the real error on these signs.
To be fair, if there wasn't a
TO next to that US 20 shield; then you would be correct regarding that BGS would be in error with respect to both destinations for US 20.
However, the I-90 interchange
is with I-84 and
not US 20 (which has an interchange w/I-84 just below the toll booths). The only reason that US 20 shield is even on the main BGS panel dates back to when the previous-generation BGS' once had MA 15 shields (Roadman, I believe that you were the one that mentioned such). The DPW decided in 1980(?) to drop the MA 15 designation and replace the MA 15 shields w/the current
TO 20 reference. The current BGS' simply matched the old ones in terms of content & information.
Nonetheless, in this particular case; it's a reasonable assumption that the listed destinations are directly & indirectly
intended for
I-84 westbounders. Similar could be said for the
TO 20 being a reference/destination for I-84 westbounders.
Quote from: TheStranger on August 04, 2014, 12:07:17 PM
Quote from: GaryV on August 01, 2014, 10:44:46 PM
Cities in MI were mentioned above, but ...
I-275 (Toledo and Flint) and I-696 (Lansing and Port Huron) around Detroit are signed with control cities far beyond their ends. OK, on I-696 you can get to Lansing or Port Huron by simply merging onto I-96 or I-94, respectively. And SB I-275 merges onto I-75 to get to Toledo. But to get from NB I-275 to Flint requires first going west on I-96 - signed toward Lansing - and then NB on US-23. Without knowing where you were going, you wouldn't be able to find Flint from the signage.
As a comparison point:
Right now in Southern California, with the 710 gap between Pasadena and Alhambra not complete, while 710 north is primarily signed for "Pasadena", at the interchange with 10, the eastbound 10 ramp is then also signed for "Pasadena" to provide a continuation. On 275 north, is the ramp for 96 west signed for Flint at all?
Nope, just signed for Lansing.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 04, 2014, 03:24:04 PM
Quote from: roadman on August 04, 2014, 12:33:05 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 23, 2010, 02:27:37 PM
Quote from: Jim on August 23, 2010, 10:25:30 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 23, 2010, 10:05:34 AM
I think MA means the state. They do like to sign states as controls. 495 northbound (clockwise) has "N.H.-Maine" as its control city.
Plus, at the I-84 exit on the Mass Pike, they specifically spell out "New York City":
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fsigns%2F20060107%2Fexit9wb2miles.jpg&hash=0225f9ff1f0cf825753ea0802387caf04bdbf652)
and yet I-84 never reaches NYC. You'd have a choice of routes: I-91 to the Merritt or I-95, One of the NY Parkways (Taconic, Saw Mill River, etc) into the Bronx, or the Thruway.
Of course, US 20 doesn't go to either Hartford or New York City. That's the real error on these signs.
To be fair, if there wasn't a TO next to that US 20 shield; then you would be correct regarding that BGS would be in error with respect to both destinations for US 20.
However, the I-90 interchange is with I-84 and not US 20 (which has an interchange w/I-84 just below the toll booths). The only reason that US 20 shield is even on the main BGS panel dates back to when the previous-generation BGS' once had MA 15 shields (Roadman, I believe that you were the one that mentioned such). The DPW decided in 1980(?) to drop the MA 15 designation and replace the MA 15 shields w/the current TO 20 reference. The current BGS' simply matched the old ones in terms of content & information.
Nonetheless, in this particular case; it's a reasonable assumption that the listed destinations are directly & indirectly intended for I-84 westbounders. Similar could be said for the TO 20 being a reference/destination for I-84 westbounders.
When signs are eventually replaced on the Mass Pike, I would guess that the BGS for Exit 9 will only show I-84 and likely retain those destinations, with "TO 20" banished to a supplemental sign with Sturbridge as a destination.
Quote from: spooky on August 05, 2014, 07:30:39 AMWhen signs are eventually replaced on the Mass Pike, I would guess that the BGS for Exit 9 will only show I-84 and likely retain those destinations, with "TO 20" banished to a supplemental sign with Sturbridge as a destination.
Roadman would have to confirm such. IMHO, the
TO 20 references on the Exit 9 BGS' are fine and not misleading in any way, shape, or form even w/the fore-mentioned destinations.
As previously stated, the I-84/US 20 interchange is located just southwest of the toll plaza and many motorists use the parallel US 20 as an alternate to the Pike when it gets hopelessly jammed at times between Exits 9 & 10.
Quote from: tidecat on August 03, 2014, 06:23:43 PM
I saw Tulsa listed as a destination via US 50 on I-255 in Illinois, but US 50 does not go to Tulsa.
That's part of the controls for the entire I-255/270 loop: Kansas City (I-70), Chicago (I-55), Indianapolis (I-70), and Tulsa (I-44). Funny enough, Louisville (I-64) is not used on the loop. I-170 has the local control of Clayton (which is direct) to the south and nothing to the north.
How about Los Angeles for I-15 in Las Vegas? Either its because many people travel between the two cities frequently it is signed SB from all Vegas points or carbon copied from the US 91 days just like US 66 was copied over to I-40 in Arizona.
Then in New Jersey on the local level NJ 17 has Newark used on NJ 17 SB starting from after it diverges from I-287 when NJ 17 does not go there. You have to exit onto NJ 3 WB and then SB on NJ 21.
Then once again in the Garden State Trenton was used from Seaside Heights on NJ 37 WB but NJ 37 does not go anywhere near Trenton. It ends at Lakehurst and you have to use many other roads to reach it from its termination. I think NJDOT since removed it from signs as I did see it disappear from the mileage sign on the Tonney Bridge approach that claimed it was 47 miles away. I believe at one time NJ 37 did go across the state and end at the Whitehorse Circle along US 206 in Hamilton using NJ 70, CR 539, and CR 524 which is why that was used on signs along NJ 35 and the former mileage sign that now reads Lakehurst 13.
I-95 in NYC (new signs) are marked with Trenton
So now they plan to "close the gap"?
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 06, 2014, 09:32:18 PM
I-95 in NYC (new signs) are marked with Trenton
So now they plan to "close the gap"?
I thought they were transitioning to Newark.
Signing Trenton in the Bronx was just silly. It felt like they were kidding.
I-580 east near the Bay Bridge in Oakland has Stockton as a control city even though I 205 to I 5 north do go to Stockton. Also there is I 780 east to San Jose and I 780 to Sacramento even though I 680 has a direct route to San Jose.
I 505 in Vacaville has the control city of Redding to I 5 North to avoid Downtown Sacramento Traffic.
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 06, 2014, 09:32:18 PM
I-95 in NYC (new signs) are marked with Trenton
So now they plan to "close the gap"?
That's just silly. Signing Newark makes a lot more sense than Trenton from NYC, mainly because the Turnpike actually enter Newark's city limits, whereas Trenton has NO Interstates that enter it's city limits (the closest it gets is I-195, but it ends in Hamilton Twp rather than Trenton itself before turning into NJ 29). Sometimes I wonder when "Trenton" refers to the Trenton area, rather than the capital city itself. Of course, on I-95 and I-295 in the Trenton area, every exit will take you towards Trenton if you head either west or south.
Quote from: bing101 on August 07, 2014, 11:29:39 AM
Also there is I 780 east to San Jose and I 780 to Sacramento even though I 680 has a direct route to San Jose.
From the Benicia area, one would indeed take 780 to reach 680 south. (For that matter, 780 was the original 680 from the late 1950s to 1976.)
In the southwestern Riverside County city of Temecula, CA-79 overlaps with I-15 for a few miles. CA-79 South has Indio as a control city.
Quote from: bing101 on August 07, 2014, 11:29:39 AM
I-580 east near the Bay Bridge in Oakland has Stockton as a control city even though I 205 to I 5 north do go to Stockton.
The Stockton designation may have carried over from when I-580 was signed as US 50.
Quote from: bing101 on August 07, 2014, 11:29:39 AM
Also there is I 780 east to San Jose and I 780 to Sacramento even though I 680 has a direct route to San Jose.
As TheStranger has already noted, San Jose makes sense because I-780 was originally signed as I-680.
Quote from: bing101 on August 07, 2014, 11:29:39 AM
I 505 in Vacaville has the control city of Redding to I 5 North to avoid Downtown Sacramento Traffic.
Like the first two, I-505 was originally signed as I-5W making Redding an appropriate control city.
The 405 has all indirect Control Cities.
Southbound Santa Monica- Via 10 west Long Beach -Via 710 South San Diego - Via 5 South
NorthBound Long Beach -Via 22 west Santa Monica Via 10 west Sacramento Via 5 North
I think a couple of signs list LAX but since that isn't a city, I don't think Id count it
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 08, 2014, 12:00:00 PM
Quote from: bing101 on August 07, 2014, 11:29:39 AM
I-580 east near the Bay Bridge in Oakland has Stockton as a control city even though I 205 to I 5 north do go to Stockton.
The Stockton designation may have carried over from when I-580 was signed as US 50.
I think this is even more understandable when considering the route was cosigned at times as I-5W/US 50 and I-580/US 50. It also provides a segment of the only all-freeway route to Stockton from the Bay Area (as long as Route 4 remains surface road from Brentwood east to Stockton).
Might've mentioned it eariler in the thread, but Route 92 east right before the San Mateo Bridge DOES use Stockton as a control city! THAT is a very indirect situation - 92 to 880 north to 238 east to 580 east to 205 east to 5 north!
Quote from: Interstate Trav on August 08, 2014, 02:08:41 PM
The 405 has all indirect Control Cities.
Southbound Santa Monica- Via 10 west Long Beach -Via 710 South San Diego - Via 5 South
NorthBound Long Beach -Via 22 west Santa Monica Via 10 west Sacramento Via 5 North
I think a couple of signs list LAX but since that isn't a city, I don't think Id count it
The 405 does go through the Long Beach city limits, though.
Also, 37 east in Novato is signed for Napa and Vallejo, and the highway only goes to Vallejo. 116 east in Petaluma is signed for Sonoma and Napa, and it goes to neither city.
Not freeway to freeway, but there was recently a control city change on I-93 southbound at Exit 35 in Stoneham (MA). Until the recent sign update was completed, the exit was signed as "Winchester Highlands" (part of Winchester, and not a separate community). However, the street directly connecting the exit from I-93 to Winchester Highlands had been closed, and mostly removed, in the early 1970s. While there is another way to get into Winchester Highlands from I-93, it is very circuitous and involves traversing multiple narrow residential streets. Further, once you got onto the local street network, there were no signs marking the route whatsoever.
Since the replacement overhead BGSes for this section of I-93 were installed in late 2012, this exit is now signed "Park Street Melrose Stoneham", and "Winchester Highlands" has been relegated to a ground-mounted supplemental sign. One of the more interesting aspects of this change I've noticed is how quickly Boston traffic reporters (who are usually very reluctant to changes in local nomenclature) picked up on this and have been incorporating it into their reports since.
How about Keene on I-89 North? That seems pretty out of the way.
Rochester on I-290 at I-190 in New York. Requires one to not only get onto I-90 East (where the city is not signed), but exit onto I-490 ~45 miles east of where I-290 ends. More appropriate would be Williamsville/Amherst (eastern terminus, large municipality), Airport, or Albany (I-90 control city).
On the Merritt Parkway/CT 15, at Exit 54 I-95's control city is "New London" instead of New Haven. Yes, I-95 does go through New London but it makes so much more sense to sign "New Haven", a much larger and more recognizable city IMO, then New London which is far off from this part of Connecticut.
Also, ConnDOT seems to have a habit of signing cities that aren't even close to the highways they are signed on. For example, I-384's eastbound control city is "Providence". In order to get to Providence, you must get onto US 6 or US 44 to get there. A more reasonable control city would be "Manchester" which is off of I-384 and a smaller ground level sign for travelers heading towards Providence.
How About I-580 East at I-205 Interchange. East 580 starts to use Fresno as a control city yet its CA-132 to CA-99 South to reach Fresno.
Or CA-85 South at US-101 Interchange in Menlo Park they use Santa Cruz as a control city but I'm not sure how thats done. CA-152 @ I-5 CA-152 Uses San Jose as a Control city.
and CA-37 East in Marin County uses Sacramento even though I-80 in Vallejo has direct access to Sacramento.
Sacramento is only mentioned at the Ignacio Blvd overpass. 37 eastbound is still signed as Napa/Vallejo.
85 south of 280 is signed for Gilroy, even though it ends about 20 miles north of the city.
https://www.aaroads.com/california/images880/i-880_sb_exit_031_04.jpg
I-238 has Fresno as a Control city for I-580 East.
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on August 09, 2014, 02:13:53 PM
On the Merritt Parkway/CT 15, at Exit 54 I-95's control city is "New London" instead of New Haven. Yes, I-95 does go through New London but it makes so much more sense to sign "New Haven", a much larger and more recognizable city IMO, then New London which is far off from this part of Connecticut.
Maybe they figure someone bound for New Haven is going to stay on the Merritt/Wilbur Cross, and someone going to I-95 is more likely to be bypassing New Haven.
QuoteAlso, ConnDOT seems to have a habit of signing cities that aren't even close to the highways they are signed on. For example, I-384's eastbound control city is "Providence". In order to get to Providence, you must get onto US 6 or US 44 to get there. A more reasonable control city would be "Manchester" which is off of I-384 and a smaller ground level sign for travelers heading towards Providence.
Isn't the I-84/I-384 "split"
in Manchester?
Quote from: roadman on August 08, 2014, 05:23:04 PM
Not freeway to freeway, but there was recently a control city change on I-93 southbound at Exit 35 in Stoneham (MA). Until the recent sign update was completed, the exit was signed as "Winchester Highlands" (part of Winchester, and not a separate community). However, the street directly connecting the exit from I-93 to Winchester Highlands had been closed, and mostly removed, in the early 1970s. While there is another way to get into Winchester Highlands from I-93, it is very circuitous and involves traversing multiple narrow residential streets. Further, once you got onto the local street network, there were no signs marking the route whatsoever.
Since the replacement overhead BGSes for this section of I-93 were installed in late 2012, this exit is now signed "Park Street Melrose Stoneham", and "Winchester Highlands" has been relegated to a ground-mounted supplemental sign. One of the more interesting aspects of this change I've noticed is how quickly Boston traffic reporters (who are usually very reluctant to changes in local nomenclature) picked up on this and have been incorporating it into their reports since.
I didn't know a) where Winchester Highlands is or b) that there was a road removed. What/where was the road?
Quote from: bing101 on August 09, 2014, 07:32:38 PM
Or CA-85 South at US-101 Interchange in Menlo Park they use Santa Cruz as a control city but I'm not sure how thats done. CA-152 @ I-5 CA-152 Uses San Jose as a Control city.
That signage is designed to encourage southbound drivers from Mountain View to use 85 to get to 17 south, instead of going all the way to the congested cloverleaf at 101/880.
Quote from: bing101 on August 09, 2014, 07:32:38 PM
and CA-37 East in Marin County uses Sacramento even though I-80 in Vallejo has direct access to Sacramento.
To follow up on what JustDrive noted, it seems to me "Sacramento" is chosen to let Marin County drivers know that 37 is the easiest (toll-free) route to get to 80 east.
Quote from: JustDriveAlso, 37 east in Novato is signed for Napa and Vallejo, and the highway only goes to Vallejo.
This is a vestige of when 37 did indeed go to Napa along what is now Route 121.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 11, 2014, 11:11:32 AM
Quote from: roadman on August 08, 2014, 05:23:04 PM
Not freeway to freeway, but there was recently a control city change on I-93 southbound at Exit 35 in Stoneham (MA). Until the recent sign update was completed, the exit was signed as "Winchester Highlands" (part of Winchester, and not a separate community). However, the street directly connecting the exit from I-93 to Winchester Highlands had been closed, and mostly removed, in the early 1970s. While there is another way to get into Winchester Highlands from I-93, it is very circuitous and involves traversing multiple narrow residential streets. Further, once you got onto the local street network, there were no signs marking the route whatsoever.
Since the replacement overhead BGSes for this section of I-93 were installed in late 2012, this exit is now signed "Park Street Melrose Stoneham", and "Winchester Highlands" has been relegated to a ground-mounted supplemental sign. One of the more interesting aspects of this change I've noticed is how quickly Boston traffic reporters (who are usually very reluctant to changes in local nomenclature) picked up on this and have been incorporating it into their reports since.
I didn't know a) where Winchester Highlands is or b) that there was a road removed. What/where was the road?
A fun game would be to take that exit and try to find Winchester Highlands using only signage.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 11, 2014, 11:11:32 AMI didn't know a) where Winchester Highlands is or b) that there was a road removed. What/where was the road?
It's the portion of Winchester that abuts I-93 and the southern end of Stoneham, but is not officially a separate jurisdiction. In fact, the old "Winchester Highlands" control city used to share an older version of the signage at that exit with "So. Stoneham," another place that doesn't officially exist.
The road that was abandoned and later blocked off (Fallon Road) was to the right of the end of the exit ramp. Now it extends only a short distance through an industrial park and dead-ends. It probably, at one time, connected with Forest Street in Winchester, but its path to Forest Street is now blocked by a subdivision, so there's nowhere else for it to go.
The exit is actually signed incompletely. If you exit, turn left to go back under I-93, turning left from there gets you onto Park Street and taking the next left after that gets you onto Forest Street heading into Winchester Highlands. Turning right gets you onto North Border Road (the state's name)/South Street (Stoneham's name). And BTW, using only signage, you'd never find Winchester Highlands. I've lived in Stoneham almost all my life, so that's the only way I know about it.
I-505 southbound, when splitting from I-5, has Winters and San Francisco as control cities. SF is accessible only after getting on I-80 for a long stretch.
Quote from: spooky on August 11, 2014, 07:01:32 AM
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on August 09, 2014, 02:13:53 PM
On the Merritt Parkway/CT 15, at Exit 54 I-95's control city is "New London" instead of New Haven. Yes, I-95 does go through New London but it makes so much more sense to sign "New Haven", a much larger and more recognizable city IMO, then New London which is far off from this part of Connecticut.
Maybe they figure someone bound for New Haven is going to stay on the Merritt/Wilbur Cross, and someone going to I-95 is more likely to be bypassing New Haven.
The thing is, CT 15's northbound control city at this interchange is Hartford. Most guide signs on the Merritt list New Haven so it can get confusing. Plus, CT 15 barely touches New Haven and I-95 has more of a direct connection.
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on August 09, 2014, 02:13:53 PMAlso, ConnDOT seems to have a habit of signing cities that aren't even close to the highways they are signed on. For example, I-384's eastbound control city is "Providence". In order to get to Providence, you must get onto US 6 or US 44 to get there.
The placement of the
Providence on those BGS dates back to when I-384 was originally I-84 and plans
were indeed in place to extend it to I-295 in RI. The US 6 highway from I-295 to I-95 in Providence was also originally planned to be I-84.
Many of those button-copy BGS were likely
designed either prior to or just after the original I-84 extension plans were killed off. While the shields were changed (to I-384) prior to fabrication; ConnDOT probably decided to leave Providence as a destination.
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on August 09, 2014, 02:13:53 PMA more reasonable control city would be "Manchester" which is off of I-384 and a smaller ground level sign for travelers heading towards Providence.
Quote from: spooky on August 11, 2014, 07:01:32 AMIsn't the I-84/I-384 "split" in Manchester?
It is.
Williamantic would be a suitable direct/local destination for I-384 East.
You know what used to be an indirect control city, is on NJ 35 before the I-195 was completed across the state, the current signs for NJ 138 was empty. It was just green and the signage for NJ 138 was on lgses on the ground. What was most interesting is the control city for NJ 138 was "The Amboys" which was so bizarre at the time.
Event though both NJ 34 and the GSP led there from the end, both NJ 138 and NJ 34 or GSP both are totally different directions. Plus NJ 35 itself goes through both Amboys if you head north of that particular interchange. It was just as strange as "Singac" being used on CR 511 in Parsippany, NJ for the I-287 ramp going NB years ago.
Too bad Steve they updated the signs before you became interested in roads in both your own backyard and down the shore as you would have loved exploiting those bad practices. However, there is still the one in Oxford Valley, PA with "Trenton"being used to this day for I-95 N Bound from US 1 that many of us still have in that part of the country to be amused by being only a few miles from Downtown Trenton via US 1 itself which is now all freeway.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 28, 2014, 12:05:49 AM
Too bad Steve they updated the signs before you became interested in roads in both your own backyard and down the shore as you would have loved exploiting those bad practices. However, there is still the one in Oxford Valley, PA with "Trenton"being used to this day for I-95 N Bound from US 1 that many of us still have in that part of the country to be amused by being only a few miles from Downtown Trenton via US 1 itself which is now all freeway.
Found the sign! Here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.191051,-74.887951,3a,41.8y,61.77h,88.79t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s9LpXWoPQ9fHNu8FlThOXKA!2e0) it is. Interestingly, I thought that it signing Trenton for 95 North was because of the toll into Trenton - but I remembered that it seems that people coming
from New Jersey have to pay the tolls, while people coming from Pennsylvania don't. Of course, what else do you sign 95 North here as? I guess you
could do New York City, but that damn gap makes it so tricky to navigate if you have no idea what you are doing. Theoretically, Trenton has zero Interstates that enter it's city limits, with the only freeways being US 1 and NJ 29 (which is only part freeway), as I-195 and I-295 both stay east enough to qualify them in Hamilton Township. I-95 I believe only enters Ewing in terms of the Trenton suburbs.
at that point, US 1 North's control city is Morrisville, not Trenton.
for the record, other signs for I-95 N in that area vary between Trenton and Princeton as the control city.
Quote from: Zeffy on August 28, 2014, 10:36:18 AMFound the sign! Here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.191051,-74.887951,3a,41.8y,61.77h,88.79t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s9LpXWoPQ9fHNu8FlThOXKA!2e0) it is. Interestingly, I thought that it signing Trenton for 95 North was because of the toll into Trenton - but I remembered that it seems that people coming from New Jersey have to pay the tolls, while people coming from Pennsylvania don't. Of course, what else do you sign 95 North here as? I guess you could do New York City, but that damn gap makes it so tricky to navigate if you have no idea what you are doing. Theoretically, Trenton has zero Interstates that enter it's city limits, with the only freeways being US 1 and NJ 29 (which is only part freeway), as I-195 and I-295 both stay east enough to qualify them in Hamilton Township. I-95 I believe only enters Ewing in terms of the Trenton suburbs.
One-way tolls (exiting NJ) for the Delaware River crossings didn't take effect until the early-to-mid 1990s. Those particular BGS' were erected (late 80s(?)) prior to one-way tolls being implemented.
Until recently, PennDOT used Trenton as a northbound 95 control city all the way up to the state line. The first exit that's marked for Trenton even today is NJ 29 (Exit 1) just after the Scudder Falls Bridge & I-95 North is signed for New York there. The change to Princeton from Exits 44 northward on newer signs have only been recent. The pull-through approach-BGS' for I-95 North at Exit 40 (but not the one at the actual ramp-split) list both Trenton & Princeton destinations.
The recent adoption of Princeton as an I-95 North destination IMHO should've been implemented north of the US 1 (Exits 46A-B) interchange from the get-go... Somerset Expressway or no Somerset Expressway.
Actually before the modern sign assemblies were erected in 1990, Yardley was used north of present day US 1 Business near Langhorne. The control cities for when US 1 Business was US 1 mainline was "Pendell & Trenton" with "Trenton" being on a removable tab on top as PennDOT knew that the current US 1 freeway would eventually be opened at a later date.
The thing is when the US 1 Freeway was completed east of Oxford Valley, PennDOT did not change the signs along I-95 to reflect the realignment until 3 years later when the overhead signs with consistent exit numbers were assigned. From 1987 to 1990, US 1 Business was I-95 Northbound's first Trenton exit instead of NJ 29 several miles later. When the signs were modernized, PennDOT was following MUTCD guidelines while forgetting their surroundings. The same for I-81 N Bound from US 11 & 15 in Enola where "Harrisburg" is used for the ramp entrance signing there at that location. It might as well be Hazleton as US 11 & 15 run to the west of Harrisburg a few miles to the south of that said interchange. Anyone along US 11 & 15 heading for Harrisburg would simply cross the Susquehana River at Wormleysburg to go there. Having Harrisburg at the I-81 and US 11 & 15 interchange does follow MUTCD guidelines correctly to the "T", but it is irrelevant to US 11 & 15 drivers do to its relationship between the points.
Actually, IMO I think that once close enough to a city the next control point should be used. However not like Kansas with Des Moines being used for I-35 N Bound ramps starting at Olathe, which is still several miles from Kansas City which has not yet been reached. In I-81 to Harrisburg all places north of PA 581 should be signed as Hazleton as it mainly serves the northern suburbs of Harrisburg between PA 581 and the Susquehana River north of there and many motorists entering I-81at Wertzville and Enola I am sure know where Harrisburg is. Hazleton would be better at all of those. Also, PA 581 should be signed for Harrisburg coming from the south which it is not. Only Front Street and Cameron Street exits are signed for Harrisburg coming N Bound from Carlisle at the moment.
I-65 North of Indianapolis says "Chicago" which requires no less than two other freeways to accomplish.
I always liked the fact that the George Washington Bridge is used as a control point on the Cross County Parkway from the SB Hutch near New Rochelle, NY. Not at all direct, plus I am curious to know how they route you to the GWB once your are on it.
I am guessing that NYSDOT did that one because even thought staying on the Hutch to its end ( or prior to it) to use I-95 SB to it is much more easier, they did it because of the massive traffic snarls on the Cross Bronx Expressway that happen all too often.
In Chattanooga, TN, on I-75, I-24 is signed for Nashville and Birmingham, and to get to Birmingham to you have to get on I-24 then I-59. It's a short distance from the I-75/I-24 interchange to I-59 but still, indirect control city.
Quote from: TEG24601 on August 29, 2014, 10:08:42 PM
I-65 North of Indianapolis says "Chicago" which requires no less than two other freeways to accomplish.
It ends at I-90, and intersects I-94, both of which serve Chicago directly. How do you get no less than two?
Quote from: Kacie Jane on August 30, 2014, 07:36:21 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on August 29, 2014, 10:08:42 PM
I-65 North of Indianapolis says "Chicago" which requires no less than two other freeways to accomplish.
It ends at I-90, and intersects I-94, both of which serve Chicago directly. How do you get no less than two?
From I-65 to the Circle, you'd either have to take the Toll Road/Skyway to the Dan Ryan or the Borman to the Bishop Ford to the Dan Ryan. While this only involves turning onto one interstate, it uses at least two different freeways.
I feel like most traffic on I-65 north of Indy goes past Gary into Chicago. If they don't, they at least make it to Chicagoland, so the control city makes sense.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on August 30, 2014, 07:36:21 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on August 29, 2014, 10:08:42 PM
I-65 North of Indianapolis says "Chicago" which requires no less than two other freeways to accomplish.
It ends at I-90, and intersects I-94, both of which serve Chicago directly. How do you get no less than two?
Because you forgot 80. If you take 94, you are also on 80, then have to exit off of 80 to get to Chicago proper. Then there is the fiasco with the Skyway.
I can forgive I-65 since it terminates in the Indiana portion of Chicagoland. It touches the suburbs of Chicago and there's precedent for other interstates to use a control city whose metro area it touches. I-95 has "Boston" as a control city but it never actually goes inside of the city limits.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on August 31, 2014, 06:48:43 PM
I-95 has "Boston" as a control city but it never actually goes inside of the city limits.
Same with Trenton, despite I-95 going for all intents and purposes nowhere near the actual city of Trenton.
Quote from: pianocello on August 30, 2014, 10:09:05 PM
From I-65 to the Circle, you'd either have to take the Toll Road/Skyway to the Dan Ryan or the Borman to the Bishop Ford to the Dan Ryan. While this only involves turning onto one interstate, it uses at least two different freeways.
I feel like most traffic on I-65 north of Indy goes past Gary into Chicago. If they don't, they at least make it to Chicagoland, so the control city makes sense.
Quote from: TEG24601 on August 31, 2014, 01:52:34 PM
Because you forgot 80. If you take 94, you are also on 80, then have to exit off of 80 to get to Chicago proper. Then there is the fiasco with the Skyway.
I can sort of see the point with I-94. Sort of, but not really. Surely you're not arguing that it's indirect to sign I-94 as Chicago just because you have to turn off I-80/I-94 to stay on I-94?
But with I-90, regardless of how many names the freeway has, there aren't any TOTSO situations. You exit I-65 onto I-90 west and *poof* you're there (after however many hours of sitting in traffic). Direct as can be.
Not sure if this is been said before but driving to NY via 95 I noticed it's very rare to see Philadelphia used as a control city. Always Baltimore/New York or just New York
iPhone
Quote from: Arkansastravelguy on August 31, 2014, 11:34:54 PM
Not sure if this is been said before but driving to NY via 95 I noticed it's very rare to see Philadelphia used as a control city. Always Baltimore/New York or just New York
MdTA has no love for Philly. Bastards. :p
Quote from: Zeffy on August 31, 2014, 07:12:34 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on August 31, 2014, 06:48:43 PM
I-95 has "Boston" as a control city but it never actually goes inside of the city limits.
Same with Trenton, despite I-95 going for all intents and purposes nowhere near the actual city of Trenton.
Fayetteville, NC is the same way. Yet you have Lumberton, NC that I-95 goes through and is not used as control points anywhere. Also Lumberton is now the junction of another interstate so it should be more important than Fayetteville.
Back on topic in Westfield, NJ you have "Shore Points" used on NJ 28 at CR 613. CR 613 does not go there nor run in the direction of NJ's shore region. It connects via the Garden State Parkway which incidentally has no signs for it as the GSP does not like to assign control points at all of its ramps.
In my view, it is better to have an indirect major control city than to have a minor control city that most drivers have never heard of.
So it's completely appropriate to sign I-80 eastbound to NYC, or I-15 southbound (from Las Vegas) into Los Angeles.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 02, 2014, 09:15:27 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on August 31, 2014, 07:12:34 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on August 31, 2014, 06:48:43 PM
I-95 has "Boston" as a control city but it never actually goes inside of the city limits.
Same with Trenton, despite I-95 going for all intents and purposes nowhere near the actual city of Trenton.
Fayetteville, NC is the same way. Yet you have Lumberton, NC that I-95 goes through and is not used as control points anywhere. Also Lumberton is now the junction of another interstate so it should be more important than Fayetteville.
Back on topic in Westfield, NJ you have "Shore Points" used on NJ 28 at CR 613. CR 613 does not go there nor run in the direction of NJ's shore region. It connects via the Garden State Parkway which incidentally has no signs for it as the GSP does not like to assign control points at all of its ramps.
I-95 goes inside of Fayetteville VERY briefly so it technically enters the city limits. There's a business loop that spurs off of I-95 that takes you to downtown. Fayetteville is not a good example to use here.
Lumberton falls victim to North Carolina using EVERY hole in the wall small city as a control city. Lumberton is a control city for I-95 between Benson and its actual location but not before. The South Carolina DOT using Fayetteville as their NC based control city on I-95 North between Florence and the border is more problematic.
Quote from: Zeffy on August 31, 2014, 07:12:34 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on August 31, 2014, 06:48:43 PM
I-95 has "Boston" as a control city but it never actually goes inside of the city limits.
Same with Trenton, despite I-95 going for all intents and purposes nowhere near the actual city of Trenton.
But there's a historical difference between the two. I-95
was originally supposed to go through Boston whereas the final agreed-upon alignment of I-95 in the Trenton area
even with the originally-planned Somerset Freeway never touches Trenton.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 08, 2014, 06:27:23 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on August 31, 2014, 07:12:34 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on August 31, 2014, 06:48:43 PM
I-95 has "Boston" as a control city but it never actually goes inside of the city limits.
Same with Trenton, despite I-95 going for all intents and purposes nowhere near the actual city of Trenton.
But there's a historical difference between the two. I-95 was originally supposed to go through Boston whereas the final agreed-upon alignment of I-95 in the Trenton area even with the originally-planned Somerset Freeway never touches Trenton.
95M serves Trenton in the same way that I-76 serves Harrisburg. It's a primary method of getting there, even if it never enters the city limits,
Ft. Smith signed on the Muskogee Turnpike East:
https://maps.google.com/?q=muskogee&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Muskogee,+Muskogee+County,+Oklahoma&ll=35.607068,-95.045471&spn=0.386317,1.234589&t=m&z=10&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=35.727588,-95.310519&panoid=GQEtjACFD3qHLuc2ya4KWA&cbp=11,184.64,,0,-2.6
Quote from: Zeffy on August 31, 2014, 07:12:34 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on August 31, 2014, 06:48:43 PM
I-95 has "Boston" as a control city but it never actually goes inside of the city limits.
Same with Trenton, despite I-95 going for all intents and purposes nowhere near the actual city of Trenton.
That's nothing. Going east from Hartford, 84 uses "Boston," despite ending 50 miles short of that city.
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but on I-85 north in North Carolina past Durham, Richmond appears as a control city even though you have to get on I-95 to get there. Actually, the control cities keep jumping around here (Richmond, Petersburg, Henderson, Oxford).
US 321 south uses Savannah as a control city, but the road ends before it even reaches the city limits. You have to take I-95 south and I-16 east to get there.
EDIT: Actually US 321 ends before it even crosses the Georgia state line!
I-40 uses Los Angeles but ends about 115 miles away.
Boston is mentioned as a control city on I-84 as early as Hartford...despite the fact said interstate ends a good 55 miles west of it.
Quote from: mrsman on September 05, 2014, 11:00:08 AM
In my view, it is better to have an indirect major control city than to have a minor control city that most drivers have never heard of.
So it's completely appropriate to sign I-80 eastbound to NYC, or I-15 southbound (from Las Vegas) into Los Angeles.
Like Pemberton being used for the Garden State Parkway at Exit 63A instead of Camden which was always used up until the current signs were erected as part of the 63 to 80 widening project.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 12, 2014, 10:12:12 AM
Quote from: mrsman on September 05, 2014, 11:00:08 AM
In my view, it is better to have an indirect major control city than to have a minor control city that most drivers have never heard of.
So it's completely appropriate to sign I-80 eastbound to NYC, or I-15 southbound (from Las Vegas) into Los Angeles.
Like Pemberton being used for the Garden State Parkway at Exit 63A instead of Camden which was always used up until the current signs were erected as part of the 63 to 80 widening project.
Is it appropriate sign NYC as far west as Ohio though?
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 12, 2014, 09:51:33 AM
Boston is mentioned as a control city on I-84 as early as Hartford...despite the fact said interstate ends a good 55 miles west of it.
In the late 1980s, when AASHTO was considering revisions to their control city list, somebody in the organization suggested changing the eastbound control city on I-84 from Boston to Sturbridge, mainly because Boston was not the easterly terminus of I-84.
Both ConnDOT and MassDPW strongly objected to the revision (mostly ConnDOT, because of the large number of signs that would have had to be changed). The argument the agencies put forth to AASHTO was basically that, although I-84 didn't go into Boston itself, it connected to I-90 which does, and that, because I-84 and I-90 are both eastbound roads, the use of Boston is consistent with MUTCD and AASHTO policy. It was also pointed out that, if you eliminated Boston, the eastbound control city for I-84 would actually have to be I-90/Mass. Pike (the true terminus of the road) - and not just Sturbridge.
The suggested change was not adopted, and the easterly control city for I-84 remains Boston to this day.
"Sturbridge" wouldn't be a help to anybody who wasn't from Sturbridge.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 12, 2014, 01:18:31 PM
Is it appropriate sign NYC as far west as Ohio though?
According to A0042069Blarg (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=12650), we should sign New York City halfway across the country. Personally, I'm surprised he didn't suggest to sign New York in San Francisco at the US 101 / I-80 interchange.
QuoteFor people heading from New England NY, to LA southern California aria I think St Louis is the mid point, for many drivers especially for snowbirds
I suggest for snowbirds (just like I-95 nb before Washington DC)on the side on I-44 northbound a few Exits before I-55 (New York, New England use I-55 north I-70 East).
Memphis is signed as far north as Chicago, which is further away from the Windy City than Youngstown, OH is to NYC.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 12, 2014, 02:13:56 PM
Memphis is signed as far north as Chicago, which is further away from the Windy City than Youngstown, OH is to NYC.
True, but both I-55 and I-57 will take you from Chicago to Memphis without having to switch roads if you wanted.
Yes I know that, but I was pointing out that to who object to having NYC used in Ohio that this is not the farthest point a city is used.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 12, 2014, 03:23:24 PM
Yes I know that, but I was pointing out that to who object to having NYC used in Ohio that this is not the farthest point a city is used.
It just always seemed weird to me when I'd travel I-80 in that direction. But of course, I-80 across PA has nothing of real note on it so I don't know what other city you could use.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 12, 2014, 09:51:33 AM
Boston is mentioned as a control city on I-84 as early as Hartford...despite the fact said interstate ends a good 55 miles west of it.
You don't say.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 12, 2014, 07:19:04 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 12, 2014, 03:23:24 PM
Yes I know that, but I was pointing out that to who object to having NYC used in Ohio that this is not the farthest point a city is used.
It just always seemed weird to me when I'd travel I-80 in that direction. But of course, I-80 across PA has nothing of real note on it so I don't know what other city you could use.
Is our friend (sockpuppet?) with the neverending campaign to sign the way to New York at every highway junction within 400 miles still around?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 12, 2014, 11:00:28 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 12, 2014, 09:51:33 AM
Boston is mentioned as a control city on I-84 as early as Hartford...despite the fact said interstate ends a good 55 miles west of it.
You don't say.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 12, 2014, 07:19:04 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 12, 2014, 03:23:24 PM
Yes I know that, but I was pointing out that to who object to having NYC used in Ohio that this is not the farthest point a city is used.
It just always seemed weird to me when I'd travel I-80 in that direction. But of course, I-80 across PA has nothing of real note on it so I don't know what other city you could use.
Is our friend (sockpuppet?) with the neverending campaign to sign the way to New York at every highway junction within 400 miles still around?
Didn't he want New York signed on every highway that came remotely close to the metro area? I imagine that he'd go so far as to sign I-84 as "New York" since you could use I-684 to get to Westchester.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 12, 2014, 11:11:15 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 12, 2014, 11:00:28 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 12, 2014, 09:51:33 AM
Boston is mentioned as a control city on I-84 as early as Hartford...despite the fact said interstate ends a good 55 miles west of it.
You don't say.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 12, 2014, 07:19:04 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 12, 2014, 03:23:24 PM
Yes I know that, but I was pointing out that to who object to having NYC used in Ohio that this is not the farthest point a city is used.
It just always seemed weird to me when I'd travel I-80 in that direction. But of course, I-80 across PA has nothing of real note on it so I don't know what other city you could use.
Is our friend (sockpuppet?) with the neverending campaign to sign the way to New York at every highway junction within 400 miles still around?
Didn't he want New York signed on every highway that came remotely close to the metro area? I imagine that he'd go so far as to sign I-84 as "New York" since you could use I-684 to get to Westchester.
I think part of the consideration when using indirect control cities is to determine the dominant direction of traffic and to see if a major destination is reached, or at the very least that the road points you in that direction.
I-80 ends in Teaneck, NJ, but if you continue heading compass east, you will be driving on I-95 north to the GWB and into Manhattan. So NYC is a proper control city for I-80. (And by that logic NJ 3 and NJ 4 as well).
Another good example of an indirect control city is Dayton, OH. Originally, the control cities for I-70 were Indianapolis and Columbus. In between, I-70 passes about 10 miles north of Downtown Dayton, outside of the city limits, but well within the Dayton metropolitan area. Dayton was added as a control city on I-70 since it passes close enough, even though it is technically an indirect control city. Dayton proper can be reached from I-70 by using I-75 or I-675. Dayton is a proper control city for I-70, because it is large enough to be well known in the Midwest.
It is similar to Huntsville being used for I-65 now between Birmingham and Nashville. For decades Nashville was used on I-65 North from Birmingham to I-565 as well as north of that interchange. Now Huntsville is used where that particular city is 22 miles east of I-565 more than Dayton is off of I-70.
The same for SB I-65 from Nashville south uses Huntsville and no longer Birmingham as was used for many years prior.
With all of these examples like I-40 west and I-57 south stopping short of large cities I keep forgetting about one right where I live.
Alexandria, LA is a major criss-crossing of highways. Pretty much every major city in Louisiana is named as a control city from somewhere in town, and especially at the traffic circle. (Except Lafayette, the closest one!! Don't get me started on that one...) When US 71 and US 165 cross the Red River southbound into Alexandria, there are 2 major BGSs that show Baton Rouge and Lake Charles respectively for those 2 highways. US 71 ends at US 190 near Krotz Springs, which is about 40 miles west of Baton Rouge. It's very likely this stemmed from the time when US 71 piggybacked US 190 to reach Baton Rouge, although there really isn't any better city of decent size other than Bunkie.
I'm not sure when but I'm guessing when I-49 was completed in Alexandria in the 1990's, but the signs on the south traffic circle do not show Baton Rouge for US 71 anymore to complete the journey from the other signs. It now shows South US 71 TO US 167 Opelousas. I think that it is matching the South I-49 control city that follows in about 3 miles. Seeing that US 71 is the highway there, and not 167, I wish the control city were a city on 71. It's very interesting though...just past the circle on 71 south, there is a mileage sign for Baton Rouge and New Orleans! None of the highways on this stretch of road or of upcoming junctions take you directly there (US 71, US 167, US 190, or I-49). The best option that I use is US 71 south to I-49, US 190 east to Port Allen, LA 415, I-10. I think it's neat to see New Orleans that far north in Louisiana and also when it takes multiple highways to get there.
US 93 at AZ 71 is signed towards Los Angeles. 71 ends at US 60, which now ends at I-10, which goes to L.A.
I just thought of one that I used to see constantly and is most likely still there to this day. I-280 Westbound at Exit 10 for Northfield Avenue in West Orange, NJ has South Orange as one of its control cities that is very indirect from the interchange location to the said Village's location.
To get to South Orange as the exit guide for Exit 10 says you must turn right (EB) on Northfield Avenue, and turn right (SB) on Valley Road.
If you want to get technical you can say everything about the sign other than West Orange is indirect. Montclair is even more indirect as you must use Northfield Avenue to Main Street. Then Main Street to Harrison Avenue which becomes Orange Road. Then Orange Road to Bloomfield Avenue. Also CR 508, the exits route number, is indirect as you must use Northfield Avenue Westbound to reach CR 508 WB and Northfield Avenue EB to Valley Road SB to reach CR 508 EB.
Plus no follow up signs to guide you to any of these routes once you exit to make it most indirect.
If you're familiar at all with the area south of Seattle (or the first six or so posts in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5754.0)), you may recall SR 167's unique east-west portion (still signed north/south even though if you're driving "north", you're actually headed slightly southeast) from Tacoma to Puyallup. When it was first numbered, SR 167 went south along its current route to Auburn, then followed what is now SR 164 to Enumclaw. The section from Auburn to Puyallup was a separate highway, and the section from Tacoma to Puyallup was part of SR 410, and before that US 410.
Sorry, that got rambly.
Point of the matter, east...er...northbound on 167 about halfway between Tacoma and Puyallup, there's a mileage sign listing the distances to Puyallup, Enumclaw, and Yakima. Only Puyallup is on 167, the other two are on 410... except not, since 410 ends at US 12 about 30 miles short of Yakima.
(Also, at the freeway junction in Puyallup, Seattle is used as 167's northbound control city, when it hasn't gotten that far since 1992. 512's control city is Olympia, it's never gone that far, but it's used as a connector to I-5 and points south.)
Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 27, 2014, 01:39:22 PM
Sorry, that got rambly.
I do not think you have anything to worry about LOL!
Quote from: TheStranger on August 19, 2010, 06:50:16 PM
Sometimes, due to the replacement of a route that once reached the destination, the current numbered route's control city will reflect that of the decomissioned route and not the actual, much nearer terminus of the current route. The two examples I can think of:
- I-205 for San Francisco (the old US 50 control city), which requires transitions to I-580 and I-80 to get to SF
- I-40 in Arizona for Los Angeles (the US 66 control city), requiring the usage of I-15 and I-10 to get to the LA city limits
However, I know of at least one example that is even more indirect, and signed as such due to proximity to another indirect connection:
- Route 120 west in Manteca is signed for San Francisco from Route 99, requiring one to also use I-5 south, I-205 west, I-580 west and I-80 west!
Any other examples out there of control cities that can only be accessed by taking at least two different numbered routes past the original highway?
I can think of several examples of control cities that can be accessed by only having to take one route past the original highway's terminus; and it appears most cases for signing indirect control cities is done this way.
- I-25 south for El Paso only requires you to take I-10 to get to the city; and El Paso is only 45 miles from I-25's southern terminus. In fact, traffic on SB I-25 south defaults onto EB I-10 (which actually runs north-south between EP and Las Cruces) when you're headed in that direction.
- NM 502 east is signed for Santa Fe, and you only have to take US 84/285 south to get there.
- I-8 east in Arizona is signed for Tucson. You only have to use I-10, especially considering the fact that traffic from I-8 east defaults onto I-10 east.
- US 550 south from Bloomfield signs Albuquerque, and you only have to take I-25 south.
- I-15 south from Las Vegas is signed for Los Angeles; you only have to take I-10.
- CA 99 uses Los Angeles as the southbound control city; you only need to go on I-5 south (especially since traffic defaults onto SB 5).
But here are other examples of control cities that have to be accessed by taking two or more routes beyond the original's terminus.
- I-24 west is signed for St. Louis, and you have to take I-57 north and then I-64 west to reach the city.
- I-8 east in Arizona from Yuma to Gila Bend is dual-signed for Tucson and Phoenix. To get to PHX, one has to go north on AZ 85 and then I-10 east.
Quote from: MattHanson939 on April 27, 2023, 02:09:22 PM
But here are other examples of control cities that have to be accessed by taking two or more routes beyond the original's terminus.
I-24 west is signed for St. Louis, and you have to take I-57 north and then I-64 west to reach the city.
In fairness, I believe AASHTO doesn't even list a control city
at all for I-24 west of Paducah. If that's correct, then signing it for St Louis sounds like more of an
ad hoc decision by Kentucky.
Quote from: kphoger on April 27, 2023, 02:19:31 PM
Quote from: MattHanson939 on April 27, 2023, 02:09:22 PM
But here are other examples of control cities that have to be accessed by taking two or more routes beyond the original's terminus.
I-24 west is signed for St. Louis, and you have to take I-57 north and then I-64 west to reach the city.
In fairness, I believe AASHTO doesn't even list a control city at all for I-24 west of Paducah. If that's correct, then signing it for St Louis sounds like more of an ad hoc decision by Kentucky.
Yep one thing I remember when I was in that area is that the control city in Illinois is Interstate 57.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 27, 2023, 09:45:50 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 27, 2023, 02:19:31 PM
Quote from: MattHanson939 on April 27, 2023, 02:09:22 PM
But here are other examples of control cities that have to be accessed by taking two or more routes beyond the original's terminus.
I-24 west is signed for St. Louis, and you have to take I-57 north and then I-64 west to reach the city.
In fairness, I believe AASHTO doesn't even list a control city at all for I-24 west of Paducah. If that's correct, then signing it for St Louis sounds like more of an ad hoc decision by Kentucky.
Yep one thing I remember when I was in that area is that the control city in Illinois is Interstate 57.
St Louis is on the destination/mileage signs in Kentucky along 24, but not in Illinois. St Louis is acknowledged by IDOT at 24's western (northern) terminus, tho, as a BGS with instructions To St Louis Follow 57 North 1 mile before the 57 interchange, and then a BGS on 57 as 24 traffic merges on noting "To St Louis use 64 West 51 Miles"
I-68 east of Cumberland is posted for all three control cities: Hancock, Hagerstown and Baltimore. Of course, Hagerstown and Baltimore are well beyond I-68.
Quote from: ilpt4u on April 28, 2023, 01:20:09 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 27, 2023, 09:45:50 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 27, 2023, 02:19:31 PM
Quote from: MattHanson939 on April 27, 2023, 02:09:22 PM
But here are other examples of control cities that have to be accessed by taking two or more routes beyond the original's terminus.
I-24 west is signed for St. Louis, and you have to take I-57 north and then I-64 west to reach the city.
In fairness, I believe AASHTO doesn't even list a control city at all for I-24 west of Paducah. If that's correct, then signing it for St Louis sounds like more of an ad hoc decision by Kentucky.
Yep one thing I remember when I was in that area is that the control city in Illinois is Interstate 57.
St Louis is on the destination/mileage signs in Kentucky along 24, but not in Illinois. St Louis is acknowledged by IDOT at 24's western (northern) terminus, tho, as a BGS with instructions To St Louis Follow 57 North 1 mile before the 57 interchange, and then a BGS on 57 as 24 traffic merges on noting "To St Louis use 64 West 51 Miles"
Yeah I remember St. Louis being used in Kentucky too.
St Louis is only used as a control city in Kentucky. Illinois doesn't. As I said, AASHTO seems to have left it an unanswered question.
In Alabama between Birmingham and Chattanooga, the Control cities on I-59 is Gadsden and Chattanooga, neither is on I-59 proper. For Gadsden, one must exit US-431 to get into Gadsden, while I-59 ends at I-24 and requires one to exit onto I-24 East/
Quote from: cwf1701 on April 28, 2023, 08:32:22 PM
In Alabama between Birmingham and Chattanooga, the Control cities on I-59 is Gadsden and Chattanooga, neither is on I-59 proper. For Gadsden, one must exit US-431 to get into Gadsden, while I-59 ends at I-24 and requires one to exit onto I-24 East/
I'd file those under the "close enough" category. You know, like Chicago for I-80 or Miami for I-75.
A-20 EB from Montréal and WB from at least Rivière-du-Loup is signed for Québec City, but one has to use A-73 NB to get into the city proper.
Quote from: pianocello on April 29, 2023, 09:45:07 AM
I'd file those under the "close enough" category. You know, like Chicago for I-80 or Miami for I-75.
Or the infamous Baltimore for I-70. Or, well, the example I just posted.
Quote from: kphoger on April 28, 2023, 03:47:33 PM
St Louis is only used as a control city in Kentucky. Illinois doesn't. As I said, AASHTO seems to have left it an unanswered question.
Yep Illinois uses the great control city of Interstate 57.
I-30 west of Fort Worth has Weatherford and Abilene signed as control cities. Now, to get to both cities, you have to continue on I-20 West. Speaking of I-20, the control city west of Abilene is El Paso. But, like I-30 to I-20, to get to El Paso you have to continue on I-10 west.
Quote from: cwf1701 on April 28, 2023, 08:32:22 PM
In Alabama between Birmingham and Chattanooga, the Control cities on I-59 is Gadsden and Chattanooga, neither is on I-59 proper. For Gadsden, one must exit US-431 to get into Gadsden, while I-59 ends at I-24 and requires one to exit onto I-24 East/
If someone asked me if Gadsden is on I-59, I would say it is. In fact, according to Google maps, the city limit does touch I-59 on the northeast side and at I-759.
Quote from: Some one on April 29, 2023, 07:17:07 PM
I-30 west of Fort Worth has Weatherford and Abilene signed as control cities. Now, to get to both cities, you have to continue on I-20 West. Speaking of I-20, the control city west of Abilene is El Paso. But, like I-30 to I-20, to get to El Paso you have to continue on I-10 west.
Both examples are great because they are the result of designation changes that made them indirect:
US 80 was the road that basically followed I-20 west of Dallas, and I-10 west to El Paso and beyond.
I-20 also used to run on what is now I-30 along the old Dallas-Fort Worth Turnpike before 20 was moved to the south half of the 820 and 635 beltways.
In California, this basically was the case for the Bakersfield control city in LA when 99 was cut back and downgraded from US route to state route.
There is no rule that a control city has to be reached before the control city is changed.
Surprised no one mentioned I-70 WB for Las Vegas yet. Personally, I like this one when it's signed west of Green River, as some traffic leave I-70 there onto US 6 to Salt Lake City. But west of that point, the natural movement of long-distance traffic is to continue onto I-15 SB.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 30, 2023, 09:14:59 AM
There is no rule that a control city has to be reached before the control city is changed.
Yep, lots of examples of a larger city signed from further away then changing to a smaller city before the first city is reached. I-44 WB for Tulsa in the St Louis area (switches to Rolla, Springfield and Joplin west of STL), I-77 NB for Cleveland in southern Ohio (switches to Akron at Canton) and I-80 EB being signed for NYC in Youngstown before PennDOT does their thing comes to mind.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 30, 2023, 09:14:59 AM
There is no rule that a control city has to be reached before the control city is changed.
Yes there is. Unless you support leaving motorists confused as to whether they are on the correct route or not.
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 30, 2023, 11:32:21 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 30, 2023, 09:14:59 AM
There is no rule that a control city has to be reached before the control city is changed.
Yep, lots of examples of a larger city signed from further away then changing to a smaller city before the first city is reached. I-44 WB for Tulsa in the St Louis area (switches to Rolla, Springfield and Joplin west of STL), I-77 NB for Cleveland in southern Ohio (switches to Akron at Canton) and I-80 EB being signed for NYC in Youngstown before PennDOT does their thing comes to mind.
Those would be considered violations of the rule, or otherwise of good signage practice.
Quote from: ran4sh on April 30, 2023, 01:03:47 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 30, 2023, 11:32:21 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 30, 2023, 09:14:59 AM
There is no rule that a control city has to be reached before the control city is changed.
Yep, lots of examples of a larger city signed from further away then changing to a smaller city before the first city is reached. I-44 WB for Tulsa in the St Louis area (switches to Rolla, Springfield and Joplin west of STL), I-77 NB for Cleveland in southern Ohio (switches to Akron at Canton) and I-80 EB being signed for NYC in Youngstown before PennDOT does their thing comes to mind.
Those would be considered violations of the rule, or otherwise of good signage practice.
Link me a source on that please. The whole practice of signing secondary control cities at minor interchanges would be violations then, and there's a lot more examples than the 3 I listed; I'm barely scratching the surface. Would it be a rule if at least half of the states are going against it in some form?
Quote from: ran4sh on April 30, 2023, 01:03:15 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 30, 2023, 09:14:59 AM
There is no rule that a control city has to be reached before the control city is changed.
Yes there is. Unless you support leaving motorists confused as to whether they are on the correct route or not.
Nope there isn't. I hate to cite wikipedia but it does say what I said in the article, I even corrected an error about I-75 using the Mackinac Bridge as a control city as far north as Sault Ste. Marie when it should have said St. Ignace and I corrected that while I was there. But anyway it does state that there is no rule that a control city has to be reached before the control city is changed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_city#United_States
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 30, 2023, 11:32:21 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 30, 2023, 09:14:59 AM
There is no rule that a control city has to be reached before the control city is changed.
Yep, lots of examples of a larger city signed from further away then changing to a smaller city before the first city is reached. I-44 WB for Tulsa in the St Louis area (switches to Rolla, Springfield and Joplin west of STL), I-77 NB for Cleveland in southern Ohio (switches to Akron at Canton) and I-80 EB being signed for NYC in Youngstown before PennDOT does their thing comes to mind.
Honestly for the one in Ohio that has NYC I would have just gone with Sharon.
Each state chooses the control cities that they use so they can use anything they want in reality.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 30, 2023, 02:27:21 PM
Each state chooses the control cities that they use so they can use anything they want in reality.
Once again, that is a bug, not a feature.
And I will stop here because certain forum users are wrong but I would rather not get banned. Makes no sense to continuously see signs for X, then reach a point where you no longer see X on the sign, but have obviously not reached X yet.
Quote from: ran4sh on April 30, 2023, 02:40:03 PM
And I will stop here because certain forum users are wrong but I would rather not get banned. Makes no sense to continuously see signs for X, then reach a point where you no longer see X on the sign, but have obviously not reached X yet.
Weren't you the one arguing for cities not on the route, such as Albany GA for I-75? If that was signed as you want it, it is impossible to reach Albany before the control city changes.
Quote from: 1 on April 30, 2023, 02:42:21 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on April 30, 2023, 02:40:03 PM
And I will stop here because certain forum users are wrong but I would rather not get banned. Makes no sense to continuously see signs for X, then reach a point where you no longer see X on the sign, but have obviously not reached X yet.
Weren't you the one arguing for cities not on the route, such as Albany GA for I-75? If that was signed as you want it, it is impossible to reach Albany before the control city changes.
In that case you would see Albany on US 82, or GA 300. Duh.
---
My signature is now reflected to update, what need to be the 2 most important rules of control cities regardless:
"Control cities CAN be off the route!
Control cities make NO sense if signs end before the city is reached!"
In any case, the forum users that disagree with me are hypocrites if they support the use of St Louis for I-24.
Quote from: ran4sh on April 30, 2023, 01:03:15 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 30, 2023, 09:14:59 AM
There is no rule that a control city has to be reached before the control city is changed.
Yes there is. Unless you support leaving motorists confused as to whether they are on the correct route or not.
Quote from: ran4sh on April 30, 2023, 02:40:03 PM
And I will stop here because certain forum users are wrong but I would rather not get banned. Makes no sense to continuously see signs for X, then reach a point where you no longer see X on the sign, but have obviously not reached X yet.
No one is gonna ban you for this. But at the same time, the MUTCD doesn't support your argument. Per the MUTCD:
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2e.htm
QuoteSupport:
01 The development of a signing system for freeways and expressways is approached on the premise that the signing is primarily for the benefit and direction of road users who are not familiar with the route or area. The signing furnishes road users with clear instructions for orderly progress to their destinations.
Note that it says *orderly progress* (emphasis mine), not absolute termination.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 30, 2023, 02:27:21 PM
Each state chooses the control cities that they use so they can use anything they want in reality.
The states should really work more in harmony with this, and the numerous federal agencies and transportation planning commissions are supposed to aid in this. But they all tend to leave a "hands-off" approach to it and let the states decide what to do, and we wind up with a discontinuous mess of signage that doesn't allow for the continuity that the MUTCD tries to, well, make uniform.
Quote from: ran4sh on April 30, 2023, 02:40:03 PM
And I will stop here because certain forum users are wrong but I would rather not get banned. Makes no sense to continuously see signs for X, then reach a point where you no longer see X on the sign, but have obviously not reached X yet.
We're not wrong though.
Quote from: 1 on April 30, 2023, 02:42:21 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on April 30, 2023, 02:40:03 PM
And I will stop here because certain forum users are wrong but I would rather not get banned. Makes no sense to continuously see signs for X, then reach a point where you no longer see X on the sign, but have obviously not reached X yet.
Weren't you the one arguing for cities not on the route, such as Albany GA for I-75? If that was signed as you want it, it is impossible to reach Albany before the control city changes.
I remember that.
Quote from: ran4sh on April 30, 2023, 02:46:57 PM
Quote from: 1 on April 30, 2023, 02:42:21 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on April 30, 2023, 02:40:03 PM
And I will stop here because certain forum users are wrong but I would rather not get banned. Makes no sense to continuously see signs for X, then reach a point where you no longer see X on the sign, but have obviously not reached X yet.
Weren't you the one arguing for cities not on the route, such as Albany GA for I-75? If that was signed as you want it, it is impossible to reach Albany before the control city changes.
In that case you would see Albany on US 82, or GA 300. Duh.
---
My signature is now reflected to update, what need to be the 2 most important rules of control cities regardless:
"Control cities CAN be off the route!
Control cities make NO sense if signs end before the city is reached!"
But the signs are for I-75 traffic not US-82 or GA-300 traffic so using Albany would make no sense at all. Albany can be signed on US-82 and GA-300 but not I-75 because I-75 doesn't go to or through Albany. Albany is not that big of a city and is more than 30 miles away from I-75.
Quote from: ran4sh on April 30, 2023, 02:48:27 PM
In any case, the forum users that disagree with me are hypocrites if they support the use of St Louis for I-24.
Who supports the use of St. Louis on I-24? Certainly not me. All that was mentioned was that Kentucky uses St. Louis and Illinois uses Interstate 57. Even in that case anyway more traffic is going to St. Louis and you are actually headed toward St. Louis.
Honestly if I had to make control cities I think I would use cities with a population of over 50,000. If a route doesn't have anymore cities with a population over 50,000 like I-75 north of Saginaw even though Saginaw's city population is now under 50,000 the urban population of Saginaw is about 125,000 and the metro population which consists of the county is 190,000. If it's a principal city in an area and it doesn't have 50,000 but the area does have over 50,000 I'd accept that.
I've already explained this in several other posts. The Interstate routes were designated more than 50 years ago. Population patterns, as well as travel patterns, have changed over that time. Cities that made sense back then, don't necessarily make sense to be control cities now. Cities that have grown, but never got an Interstate, may still receive a lot of traffic, so traffic should be directed to them, via being listed as a control city despite being off route.
Also the Interstates (and other major national routes) are a network, not isolated routes
https://goo.gl/maps/cXnmkDJ2WeLMSBDF9
Hillside here is indirect.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 30, 2023, 02:25:42 PM
Honestly for the one in Ohio that has NYC I would have just gone with Sharon.
Personally I think ODOT made the right choice signing NYC since there's nothing significant in PA. Sharon, Clarion, Bloomsburg, etc could be secondary control cities at minor interchanges if PA want to go provincial.
Quote from: ran4sh on April 30, 2023, 03:51:53 PM
I've already explained this in several other posts. The Interstate routes were designated more than 50 years ago. Population patterns, as well as travel patterns, have changed over that time. Cities that made sense back then, don't necessarily make sense to be control cities now. Cities that have grown, but never got an Interstate, may still receive a lot of traffic, so traffic should be directed to them, via being listed as a control city despite being off route.
Also the Interstates (and other major national routes) are a network, not isolated routes
You are directed to Albany from I-75. Like I already said Albany is not that big of a city, certainly not big enough to warrant control city status on an Interstate highway that doesn't come within 30 miles of the city especially when there are better choices along that Interstate.
SB @ Exit 99
https://www.google.com/maps/@31.9385675,-83.7482528,3a,15y,182.07h,96.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPRoENO7Lbwl3bFHPxvQE2A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
NB @ Exit 62
https://www.google.com/maps/@31.4453497,-83.5293417,3a,19y,352.6h,106.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szTTWVL-gB9FWHYdz9zGENg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 30, 2023, 06:08:52 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 30, 2023, 02:25:42 PM
Honestly for the one in Ohio that has NYC I would have just gone with Sharon.
Personally I think ODOT made the right choice signing NYC since there's nothing significant in PA. Sharon, Clarion, Bloomsburg, etc could be secondary control cities at minor interchanges if PA want to go provincial.
Plus the easiest routes to Sharon, PA are via exits in Ohio (SR-11 north to SR-82 east or US-62 from I-80), and Sharon is signed as a supplemental sign at the I-680/SR-11 interchange). IMO, ODOT treats Sharon like a suburb of Youngstown which, for all intents and purposes, is.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 30, 2023, 03:00:21 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on April 30, 2023, 02:48:27 PM
In any case, the forum users that disagree with me are hypocrites if they support the use of St Louis for I-24.
Who supports the use of St. Louis on I-24? Certainly not me. All that was mentioned was that Kentucky uses St. Louis and Illinois uses Interstate 57. Even in that case anyway more traffic is going to St. Louis and you are actually headed toward St. Louis.
Simple solution: rebuild IL 13 as far as Freeburg, and IL 15 to the I-55/64 junction as Interstate standard, and extend I-24 along it. That would still have the I-70 in Baltimore issue, but at least it would reach the StL Metro East. </sarcasm>
I've made the I-24/I-57/I-64 drive from KY to StL a number of times. IMO, using StL as the control city on I-24 west of Paducah makes a lot of sense to me. Other than something like Chicago via I-57, Mt. Vernon is probably the only other option.
Using StL as the control city from Nashville makes the most sense to me
Quote from: ran4sh on April 30, 2023, 10:02:03 PM
Using StL as the control city from Nashville makes the most sense to me
With the idea that control cities can have regional importance, I don't have too much problem with Clarksville, TN and Paducah, KY. Both are fairly well known within the region, and there really isn't another major city along that corridor until StL, which is 300 miles away.
There's a huge difference between using a city as a control that the highway heads towards and using a city as a control that you need to make 60 degree or more angle to get to it indirectly.
St Louis on 24 West of Nashville makes a ton of sense. Atlanta on 16 West of Savannah makes sense. Albany on 75 South of Macon not so much because 75 is heading south-southeast. That would be like using Tallahassee. You "can" reach Tallahassee using US 319 from 75. But no one in their right mind would say 75 is the way to get to Tallahassee.
Again it depends on what level of "major" you think a city needs to be to be a control city. If Atlanta is appropriate for I-16 west from Savannah then I-75 south from Atlanta should be Tampa. (I.e. if you want about 30-40 cities to qualify for control city status.) Those who want a more precise level of control cities would want at least 150-200 cities that qualify for control city status, in which case I-16 west from Savannah should use Macon instead of skipping to Atlanta.
Everyone on here seems to have the idea that the highway comes first. I.e. a highway user decides to use the highway, *then* decides where to go. But in reality the opposite is true. A destination ("city", etc) is selected, then highways to get to that city are selected (often by GPS but sometimes without it). When you think of the highway system from that perspective, it makes sense to focus on having signage for major and regionally-major cities even when they are off the Interstate.
Control cities are 'regions' or Metro areas [which can be in millions of population] that route is heading. NW Indiana is part of the Chicago area market, and same with the 'Metro East' area of IL is in STL market.
I-57 heads to the Memphis region, and just take a turn at 55. ;-)
When US 220 west joins I-80 near Mackeyville, PA, its destination is signed as Milesburg, PA. However, 220 hasn't traveled to Milesburg since the section of I-99 north of State College opened in 2003 (at which point US 220 was rerouted along I-99).
Quote from: US20IL64 on May 09, 2023, 10:35:19 PM
Control cities are 'regions' or Metro areas [which can be in millions of population] that route is heading. NW Indiana is part of the Chicago area market, and same with the 'Metro East' area of IL is in STL market.
I-57 heads to the Memphis region, and just take a turn at 55. ;-)
Not according to Highwaystar. :bigass:
He thinks Baltimore should not be used on I-70 east of Frederick, MD because it fails to enter the city limits.
Quote from: ran4sh on May 09, 2023, 07:20:53 PM
Again it depends on what level of "major" you think a city needs to be to be a control city. If Atlanta is appropriate for I-16 west from Savannah then I-75 south from Atlanta should be Tampa. (I.e. if you want about 30-40 cities to qualify for control city status.) Those who want a more precise level of control cities would want at least 150-200 cities that qualify for control city status, in which case I-16 west from Savannah should use Macon instead of skipping to Atlanta.
Everyone on here seems to have the idea that the highway comes first. I.e. a highway user decides to use the highway, *then* decides where to go. But in reality the opposite is true. A destination ("city", etc) is selected, then highways to get to that city are selected (often by GPS but sometimes without it). When you think of the highway system from that perspective, it makes sense to focus on having signage for major and regionally-major cities even when they are off the Interstate.
Atlanta isn't the control city on I-16 west of Savannah, Macon is and Macon should be. And I-75 south from Atlanta should be Macon, Valdosta, Lake City, Gainesville, Ocala, then Tampa. The highway should come first, you're on that highway and the highway is heading toward a certain city why should a city that's 30 miles off the highway and not even that big of a city be a control city? You won't get to Albany if you are on I-75 so why should it be a control city? I-75 already goes through plenty of major cities that it can use the cities that it actually passes through as control cities and doesn't need no city 30 miles away from the highway as a control city, makes no sense at all.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 10, 2023, 01:11:55 AM
Quote from: US20IL64 on May 09, 2023, 10:35:19 PM
Control cities are 'regions' or Metro areas [which can be in millions of population] that route is heading. NW Indiana is part of the Chicago area market, and same with the 'Metro East' area of IL is in STL market.
I-57 heads to the Memphis region, and just take a turn at 55. ;-)
Not according to Highwaystar. :bigass:
He thinks Baltimore should not be used on I-70 east of Frederick, MD because it fails to enter the city limits.
More like his whole grudge is that I-70 wasn't complete in Baltimore like originally planned and doesn't end at I-95. He's fine with I-80 using NYC as a control city even though it doesn't enter NYC, as its intended eastern terminus is at I-95, where it ends today.
Quote from: SkyPesos on May 10, 2023, 09:20:03 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 10, 2023, 01:11:55 AM
Quote from: US20IL64 on May 09, 2023, 10:35:19 PM
Control cities are 'regions' or Metro areas [which can be in millions of population] that route is heading. NW Indiana is part of the Chicago area market, and same with the 'Metro East' area of IL is in STL market.
I-57 heads to the Memphis region, and just take a turn at 55. ;-)
Not according to Highwaystar. :bigass:
He thinks Baltimore should not be used on I-70 east of Frederick, MD because it fails to enter the city limits.
More like his whole grudge is that I-70 wasn't complete in Baltimore like originally planned and doesn't end at I-95. He's fine with I-80 using NYC as a control city even though it doesn't enter NYC, as its intended eastern terminus is at I-95, where it ends today.
Baltimore should be the control city on I-70 no matter what Highwaystar says. I'm sure you're supporting the argument that it should be the control city too though.
I-70 should really swap with I-270 east of Frederick, since Washington is the more important destination
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 10, 2023, 09:17:16 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on May 09, 2023, 07:20:53 PM
Again it depends on what level of "major" you think a city needs to be to be a control city. If Atlanta is appropriate for I-16 west from Savannah then I-75 south from Atlanta should be Tampa. (I.e. if you want about 30-40 cities to qualify for control city status.) Those who want a more precise level of control cities would want at least 150-200 cities that qualify for control city status, in which case I-16 west from Savannah should use Macon instead of skipping to Atlanta.
Everyone on here seems to have the idea that the highway comes first. I.e. a highway user decides to use the highway, *then* decides where to go. But in reality the opposite is true. A destination ("city", etc) is selected, then highways to get to that city are selected (often by GPS but sometimes without it). When you think of the highway system from that perspective, it makes sense to focus on having signage for major and regionally-major cities even when they are off the Interstate.
Atlanta isn't the control city on I-16 west of Savannah, Macon is and Macon should be. And I-75 south from Atlanta should be Macon, Valdosta, Lake City, Gainesville, Ocala, then Tampa. The highway should come first, you're on that highway and the highway is heading toward a certain city why should a city that's 30 miles off the highway and not even that big of a city be a control city? You won't get to Albany if you are on I-75 so why should it be a control city? I-75 already goes through plenty of major cities that it can use the cities that it actually passes through as control cities and doesn't need no city 30 miles away from the highway as a control city, makes no sense at all.
You should try quoting the full context next time
Also thank you for stating your position that highways come first before cities, despite highways only being invented because of cities. I have an opinion as to whether that position is sensible, but I don't think I need to keep saying it.
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 10, 2023, 09:17:16 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on May 09, 2023, 07:20:53 PM
Again it depends on what level of "major" you think a city needs to be to be a control city. If Atlanta is appropriate for I-16 west from Savannah then I-75 south from Atlanta should be Tampa. (I.e. if you want about 30-40 cities to qualify for control city status.) Those who want a more precise level of control cities would want at least 150-200 cities that qualify for control city status, in which case I-16 west from Savannah should use Macon instead of skipping to Atlanta.
Everyone on here seems to have the idea that the highway comes first. I.e. a highway user decides to use the highway, *then* decides where to go. But in reality the opposite is true. A destination ("city", etc) is selected, then highways to get to that city are selected (often by GPS but sometimes without it). When you think of the highway system from that perspective, it makes sense to focus on having signage for major and regionally-major cities even when they are off the Interstate.
Atlanta isn't the control city on I-16 west of Savannah, Macon is and Macon should be. And I-75 south from Atlanta should be Macon, Valdosta, Lake City, Gainesville, Ocala, then Tampa. The highway should come first, you're on that highway and the highway is heading toward a certain city why should a city that's 30 miles off the highway and not even that big of a city be a control city? You won't get to Albany if you are on I-75 so why should it be a control city? I-75 already goes through plenty of major cities that it can use the cities that it actually passes through as control cities and doesn't need no city 30 miles away from the highway as a control city, makes no sense at all.
Then Dayton should not be used on I-70 in IN and OH.
Huntsville shouldn't be used on I-65 in AL and TN.
Both cities only got applied in the 90s as the true next cities got used on both routes before those two.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 10, 2023, 04:57:14 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 10, 2023, 09:17:16 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on May 09, 2023, 07:20:53 PM
Again it depends on what level of "major" you think a city needs to be to be a control city. If Atlanta is appropriate for I-16 west from Savannah then I-75 south from Atlanta should be Tampa. (I.e. if you want about 30-40 cities to qualify for control city status.) Those who want a more precise level of control cities would want at least 150-200 cities that qualify for control city status, in which case I-16 west from Savannah should use Macon instead of skipping to Atlanta.
Everyone on here seems to have the idea that the highway comes first. I.e. a highway user decides to use the highway, *then* decides where to go. But in reality the opposite is true. A destination ("city", etc) is selected, then highways to get to that city are selected (often by GPS but sometimes without it). When you think of the highway system from that perspective, it makes sense to focus on having signage for major and regionally-major cities even when they are off the Interstate.
Atlanta isn't the control city on I-16 west of Savannah, Macon is and Macon should be. And I-75 south from Atlanta should be Macon, Valdosta, Lake City, Gainesville, Ocala, then Tampa. The highway should come first, you're on that highway and the highway is heading toward a certain city why should a city that's 30 miles off the highway and not even that big of a city be a control city? You won't get to Albany if you are on I-75 so why should it be a control city? I-75 already goes through plenty of major cities that it can use the cities that it actually passes through as control cities and doesn't need no city 30 miles away from the highway as a control city, makes no sense at all.
Then Dayton should not be used on I-70 in IN and OH.
Huntsville shouldn't be used on I-65 in AL and TN.
Both cities only got applied in the 90s as the true next cities got used on both routes before those two.
Dayton isn't 30 miles off I-70, it actually enters Dayton's metro area and Dayton's airport is near the I-75 and I-70 interchange. It's 7 miles from downtown Dayton to I-70. Also I-70 just misses entering Dayton's city limits by less than a mile.
Quote from: ran4sh on May 10, 2023, 04:24:13 PM
I-70 should really swap with I-270 east of Frederick, since Washington is the more important destination
True, unfortunately, that Washington is the more important destination. Alternately, run I-68 to DC as it's the "National Freeway" west of I-70.
Saginaw should be a control city on I-69. It's 30 miles off it so it makes sense right?
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 11, 2023, 05:45:50 PM
Saginaw should be a control city on I-69. It's 30 miles off it so it makes sense right?
Let's not get carried away Flint. :)
My only point in bringing up Atlanta for I-16 was that if you continue in that same trajectory, Atlanta does make sense as a control for I-16. I do believe Macon should also remain since it is a legit city and at a major junction.
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 11, 2023, 07:18:11 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 11, 2023, 05:45:50 PM
Saginaw should be a control city on I-69. It's 30 miles off it so it makes sense right?
Let's not get carried away Flint. :)
My only point in bringing up Atlanta for I-16 was that if you continue in that same trajectory, Atlanta does make sense as a control for I-16. I do believe Macon should also remain since it is a legit city and at a major junction.
This was a knock on having Albany, Georgia as a control city on I-75.
Quote from: ran4sh on May 10, 2023, 04:24:13 PM
I-70 should really swap with I-270 east of Frederick, since Washington is the more important destination
Initially, both DC and Baltimore got a suffix of I-70 (I-70N for Baltimore and I-70S for DC). Imo one of the suffixed splits that actually make sense, as they're in the same urban area and both major cities. Eventually, the suffixes had to be dropped because I-70 isn't I-35, and Baltimore got mainline I-70 as they were still planning their section to I-95 then while DC's was canceled already.